Deacons and intinction

[benedictgal]

I was in agreement with your last statement, mostly I guess because it is something that is raley used. But I believe I am starting to see more the way that Deacon Fab thinks is the correct way to think. Especially after reading the words of the cardinal.

Sorry Gal, you don’t make a good case by saying, “because I said so”, while continuing to ignore the points made by others simply because you feel you are the authority.

Cardinal Arinze was speaking off the cuff. If there had been a document with a protocol number, that would be different.

I have not attacked you at all in this thread, but, you, FAB, El Toro and others have seen fit to do so to me. This is uncharitable and not at all welcome. You accuse me of arrogance and other things and yet, neither you nor FAB nor anyone else has been able to offer authoritative, documented proof to contradict what I have posted.

 

[benedictgal]

However, bear in mind that Cardinal Arinze was not speaking in an official capacity. Furthermore, as I said earlier, the comments came before the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

I challenge you to come up with documented (as in citing the official documents and posting them here) evidence that shows something to the contrary of what I have posted. I would even challenge you to also post the original Latin citations.

 

[Brendan]

Deacon, I would disagree. Even though I disagree with BG, I have not found the tone to be disagreeable. In fact, quite the opposite, she is a courteous debater.

 

[FAB]

I’m not surprised.

What about the point I made about after the doxology? If the priest drops dead, God forbid, at the exact moment after the doxology, can the mass be completed in it’s entirety by the by Deacon Fab and Deacon Lapey who were assisting the late Father so and so? Who will perform the fraction rite, or communicate the deacons and EMHC if any are used?

No because the consecration is outside of the deacons facility. Remember, the GIRM is not the only document that covers the diaconate

 

[Brendan]

However, Brendan, this was done off the cuff and before the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was published in 2004. RS reiterated that it was the priest.

The interpretation that the CDWDS gave me was that the document specifically states “priest”. Since there seems to be so much opposition about this interpretation, maybe I should go ahead and request this in writing even though, at the time of my conversation, I was told by the official that even though they would respond with the same information given to me, it was already stated in the rubrics.

One other point of consideration.

Three years ago, Cardinal Arnize was the keynote speaker at our parish’s Lenten Retreat ( next year is Cardinal Burke )

During the opening Mass, Cardinal Arinze was flanked by two of our Deacons ( One was a Seminarian, the other our parish Deacon) acting as Deacons of the Throne.

The Deacons also flanked Cardinal Arinze during the distrubution of Holy Communion. As I mentioned, the Eucharist is offered by intinction in our parish, including by Deacons (but not by our Chaldean SubDeacon).

The Cardinal made no comment on that to our pastor, in fact complemented him on the quality of the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

One other point of consideration.

Three years ago, Cardinal Arnize was the keynote speaker at our parish’s Lenten Retreat ( next year is Cardinal Burke )

During the opening Mass, Cardinal Arinze was flanked by two of our Deacons ( One was a Seminarian, the other our parish Deacon) acting as Deacons of the Throne.

The Deacons also flanked Cardinal Arinze during the distrubution of Holy Communion. As I mentioned, the Eucharist is offered by intinction in our parish, including by Deacons (but not by our Chaldean SubDeacon).

The Cardinal made no comment on that to our pastor, in fact complemented him on the quality of the liturgy.

As soon as audit is finished (we are being audited by the State this week), I will submit my formal letter to the CDWDS. Once I receive a response, I will post it here for all to see. I will float in and out right now, but, I am pressed for time. The fate of the program is contingent on our passing the audit.

 

[Lapey]

Cardinal Arinze was speaking off the cuff. If there had been a document with a protocol number, that would be different.

I have not attacked you at all in this thread, but, you, FAB, El Toro and others have seen fit to do so to me. This is uncharitable and not at all welcome. You accuse me of arrogance and other things and yet, neither you nor FAB nor anyone else has been able to offer authoritative, documented proof to contradict what I have posted.

We have not attacked you, simply continuously point out that you ignore points, because it is contrary to your interpretation, that in itself is disingenuous.

I too believe this thread has been mostly of good will. I do admit debating with you Gal, is a chore that five years ago I would not have survived. I still tend to get a little agitated, and I apologize for letting it show.

I just love how you dismiss anything that is contrary to your opinion, it just baffles me.

I have submitted a very lengthy email, including the GIRM sections concerning this discussion topic to my diocese’s office of worship. I’m sure Fr. G will respond soon, he normally does. Although, this one may cause him more research as I presented him Deacon Fab’s argument and Gal’s arguments, and my arguments as to if Gal is right, why. Is it a presidential action, or a discipline that the local ordinary controls the norm, or the USCCB committee on divine worship, or is it only the Holy See alone through his committee who can change that norm. So hopefully he can help us.

Gal I must ask you, how do you submit a question to the USCCB committee on divine worship? Can I simply send an email to this committee? Does it have to be in writing and mailed in? Just curious.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was staying out of this and I must say that I find the arguments by the deacons present to be most compelling.

After some thought I must comment on using what the East does as proof that it is only a matter of discipline.

While the East does allow the deacon to give communion by intinction (after all that is the norm if not the only way communion is distributed in the East (at least in the Byzantine rite)) I do not find the argument that because we do it a certain way is proof of it only being a discipline in the West.

I do see this argument going along with the use of leavened or unleavened bread but what about the Sacrament of Marriage. In the West it is the couple who confers the sacrament with the deacon, priest, or bishop (or someone else delegated by the bishop) as witness for the Church. In the East the blessing of the priest or bishop is required for validity.

So this shows that the different functions of the deacon between East and West is more than just a matter of discipline.

 

[Digitonomy]

Again, it matters not to me if both of you disregard what I have to say. What is sad is when even the opinion of the CDWDS is thrown out.

That would be sad if the considered opinion of the CDWDS were thrown out. However, what is in doubt is the statement of whatever official in Italy was closest to the phone on a topic about which he was speaking off the cuff, as reported by some internet poster.

I recall a similar situation a few years ago where the topic of discussion was what masses could one attend that could count toward one’s obligation on a Holy Day. The very dubious assertion made then, supported by a phone call to an unknown official at the USCCB’s CDW again speaking off the cuff, was “in order to satisfy the obligation… the Mass at which one assists must have the prayers and readings proper to the Holy Day.”

The topics are obviously different here, but the support for the argument is the same - some official with the Catholic Church speaking off the cuff, over the phone, providing a quick reply and interpretation of the rules, at odds with the view of members here who have been considering and discussing the issue at length. The moral of the story: quick phone calls to busy Church officials are not the best way to resolve questions about the interpretation of Church law. I look forward to their reply to your letter.

 

[malphono]

I’ll echo ByzCath here in saying that I’ve stayed out of this discussion, and while I’m not jumping into the fray or looking for an argument, at this point I thought I’d toss in my :twocents:

It seems to me that the matter of deacons and intinction in the Latin Church is one of discipline and one that doesn’t appear to be particularly logical. To my eye, it’s strange to restrict a deacon from ministering the Eucharist by intinction. To restrict a deacon in that way renders the deacon equal (in practical terms) to an EMHC, and we know that is not the case. A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion (in both East and West), and it is within his duties to minister both Species. Taken from a purely practical point of view, it would make more sense for a deacon to distribute Communion by intinction rather than employ unnecessary EMHCs. IOW, one deacon does the job of two EMHCs. It makes more sense to me to have a deacon distributing by intinction rather than use EMHCs.

I’ve seen some mention in this thread that the Commingling is restricted to a priest (or bishop), but that doesn’t really bear on the issue: the Commingling of the Species is a part of Mass that is a duty of the celebrant, and has already been accomplished by the celebrant well before the distribution of communion.

But of course Redemptionis Sacramentum says what it says, and until such time as it is clarified, it would seem that the discipline of the Latin Church remains status quo.

I was staying out of this and I must say that I find the arguments by the deacons present to be most compelling.

After some thought I must comment on using what the East does as proof that it is only a matter of discipline.

While the East does allow the deacon to give communion by intinction (after all that is the norm if not the only way communion is distributed in the East (at least in the Byzantine rite)) I do not find the argument that because we do it a certain way is proof of it only being a discipline in the West.

I do see this argument going along with the use of leavened or unleavened bread but what about the Sacrament of Marriage. In the West it is the couple who confers the sacrament with the deacon, priest, or bishop (or someone else delegated by the bishop) as witness for the Church. In the East the blessing of the priest or bishop is required for validity.

So this shows that the different functions of the deacon between East and West is more than just a matter of discipline.

I’m not sure that the function of a deacon in Matrimony is a valid parallel, and I say that precisely because there is a difference between East/Orient and West in the theology and conferral of that sacrament.

Whether leavened or unleavened bread is used seems to me to be inconsequential. The Maronites and Chaldeans, for example, use unleavened bread, yet intinction is the normal mode of communion for both, and both definitely employ deacons for the purpose.

 

[Digitonomy]

Taken from a purely practical point of view, it would make more sense for a deacon to distribute Communion by intinction rather than employ unnecessary EMHCs. IOW, one deacon does the job of two EMHCs. It makes more sense to me to have a deacon distributing by intinction rather than use EMHCs.

I have observed exactly this at a cathedral I visit on occasion. There are no EMHCs; the priest celebrant distributes communion via intinction, as does the deacon. I have not felt the need to complain to the bishop about this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not sure that the function of a deacon in Matrimony is a valid parallel, and I say that precisely because there is a difference between East/Orient and West in the theology and conferral of that sacrament.

My main goal in bringing this up was to point out that there are differences between East and West that go beyond discipline.

The role of the deacon is one such thing as the deacon in the East can not perform a marriage, baptize, nor can he give a blessing.

The deacon in the West can do all of these things.

But I agree with you and the three deacons posting on this issue, a deacon is an ordinary of communion in both the East and the West so it does not seem correct that he can perform one function in the East while he can not in the West unless it is a matter of discipline.

 

[Brendan]

The role of the deacon is one such thing as the deacon in the East can not perform a marriage, baptize, nor can he give a blessing.

The deacon in the West can do all of these things…

In the West, a Deacon cannot do what the bishop or his synod do not give him permission to do.

Likewise in the East. Neither the Synod, nor the bishop give the Deacon permission to witness Marriage, baptize outside of emergencies nor give blessings.

There is nothing that distingishes, ontologically, an Eastern Deacon from a Latin one.

Likewise, an Eastern Patriarch and Synod might legitimately decide that, out of pastoral ekonomia, deacons might be allowed to Baptize.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In the West, a Deacon cannot do what the bishop or his synod do not give him permission to do.

Likewise in the East. Neither the Synod, nor the bishop give the Deacon permission to witness Marriage, baptize outside of emergencies nor give blessings.

There is nothing that distingishes, ontologically, an Eastern Deacon from a Latin one.

Likewise, an Eastern Patriarch and Synod might legitimately decide that, out of pastoral ekonomia, deacons might be allowed to Baptize.

I can see what you are saying except for witnessing marriage.

In the East a marriage is invalid without the priest or bishops blessing. No Synod can change that.

But, again, the point I am trying to make is that the diaconate is different between the East and the West so one can not assume that they are just disciplinary in nature.

But I will agree that this is more about the nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony than it is about the ontological nature of the deacon.

 

[Brendan]

I can see what you are saying except for witnessing marriage.

In the East a marriage is invalid without the priest or bishops blessing. No Synod can change that…

Sort of…

It is invalid as it is a violation of Form.

If a Latin couple changed sui juris Church to Ruthenian, would the synod, bishop or pastor require them to be Crowned as part of the transfer?? Would they consider them to not have recieved the Mystery?

The Eastern Churches recognize Marriages of Latins when witnessed by a Deacon to be Sacramentally valid, and therefore recognize the Sacramental theology, at a minimal extent.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sort of…

It is invalid as it is a violation of Form.

If a Latin couple changed sui juris Church to Ruthenian, would the synod, bishop or pastor require them to be Crowned as part of the transfer?? Would they consider them to not have recieved the Mystery?

The Eastern Churches recognize Marriages of Latins when witnessed by a Deacon to be Sacramentally valid, and therefore recognize the Sacramental theology, at a minimal extent.

I have spoken with professors of theology and they seem to disagree with you that this is a matter of form. They state that it is the actual conferral of the Sacrament. In the Eastern Theology it is the priestly blessing that confers it, in the West it is the vows between the couple. This is also shown by the very fact that the Eastern Sacrament of Matrimony does not contain vows.

But having said that (as it is all of the target of my point and fodder for its own thread)…

:banghead:I see that the point I am trying to express is being lost in the minutiae used to try and express it.:banghead:

Ironically not much different than the issues ConstantineTG had at the beginning of this thread.

I give up. I am back to lurking.

 

[Brendan]

:banghead:I see that the point I am trying to express is being lost in the minutiae used to try and express it.:banghead:

Ironically not much different than the issues ConstantineTG had at the beginning of this thread.

I give up. I am back to lurking.

Sorry I’d didn’t mean to upset

 

[ElToro]

We have not attacked you, simply continuously point out that you ignore points, because it is contrary to your interpretation, that in itself is disingenuous.

I too believe this thread has been mostly of good will. I do admit debating with you Gal, is a chore that five years ago I would not have survived. I still tend to get a little agitated, and I apologize for letting it show.

I just love how you dismiss anything that is contrary to your opinion, it just baffles me.

I have submitted a very lengthy email, including the GIRM sections concerning this discussion topic to my diocese’s office of worship. I’m sure Fr. G will respond soon, he normally does. Although, this one may cause him more research as I presented him Deacon Fab’s argument and Gal’s arguments, and my arguments as to if Gal is right, why. Is it a presidential action, or a discipline that the local ordinary controls the norm, or the USCCB committee on divine worship, or is it only the Holy See alone through his committee who can change that norm. So hopefully he can help us.

Gal I must ask you, how do you submit a question to the USCCB committee on divine worship? Can I simply send an email to this committee? Does it have to be in writing and mailed in? Just curious.

With all due respect I very much agree, Lapey.

 

[ElToro]

Any bishop, priest, deacon or instituted/commissioned layperson is allowed to distribute Holy Communion via intinction. There is simply nothing that prevents it. If there is any question they should seek the guidance of their local ordinaries. Some of the interpretations of Church documents (by those with no authority in the Church) are simply not accurate.