B
benedictgal
Guest
Excellent post!
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is the ideal, absolutely! God bless you!
Your ID should be checked, though. Consider showing it without being asked, and encouraging those you serve under to ask to see it from others who serve so generously as you do. Surely no one will find this offensive, not since we know who is out there. Predators are extremely rare, but they include some of the most facile and brazen liars that ever walked the earth. These are wolves that would enter the fold to slaughter young faith and young lives, given the least chance. It is up to us to deny them that chance, whenever it is humanly possible. Given the stakes, this can hardly be over-emphasized.
I’m sure you know some of the obstacles that prevent more younger men from presenting themselves as candidates for the diaconate. IMHO, one of the things we have to do as a Church, if we ever hope to eliminate the need for EMsHC in most parishes at most Masses, is to fund substantial scholarships for those in formation in the diaconate.
Another thing preventing young men from presenting themselves as candidates is that no one has ever encouraged them to consider it. When we see a man we think might make a good deacon, we ought to tell him that. Those who are humble enough to be great deacons are sometimes too humble to put themselves forward without the encouragement of a second opinion.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, for starters, the OP did not specify whether this was a one-time incident or a continuing issue ( I looked through all his posts and only post 33 seems to allude that this might be a continuing issue - but that post is not clear that is is). If it is a continuing issue, then the answers seem appropriate, but we are all assuming that the deacon always, or mostly always sits with his family.
As to the Pharisees, I, too can read Scripture, and I beg to differ with you that Christ had it out with them only about imposing priestly practices on the faithful; He took them to task for any number of issues, including their pride at following the Law. It is particulary an American attitude that makes law into absolutes. Some are absolutes, some are not. Puzzleannie seems to get it, you seem to not get it.
I agree with you that generally, the clergy should assume what is rightfully theirs; I have no objection to that. However a) in part you come across as an absolutist (with the exception above, granted), and b) the OP himself did not make clear whether this was a one time, ocassional, or constant issue.
If the deacon is sitting on his duff every Sunday with family and making no effort at any other Masses to participate, I certainly would agree with you. But you seemed to be making no concessions that there may be a valid reason for what occured.
I really appreciate your ability to pull out the correct documents; I am not for a laissez faire attirude toward the rules, but I agree with Puzzleannie in this one - you were coming on a tad bit strong.
And I don’t think it is so hard to understand.
J
Joannm
Guest
In order to assist at the Vatican at a Mass you have to basically have an invite or a pass. I know this from a friend of mine who was studying in Rome. They gave each of the houses a certain number of “tickets” for priests to assist at Mass. Those who didn’t have one sat in the assembly.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Yes and no, my brother Deacon. The U.S.C.C.B. Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People stipulates that: “Dioceses/eparchies are to evaluate the background of all incardinated and non-incardinated priests and deacons who are engaged in ecclesiastical ministry in the diocese/eparchy . . . .” To comply with this, (arch) dioceses in this nation commonly require a document that certifies the suitability for ministry of any visiting priest or deacon who provides any ecclesiastical ministry or pastoral service within them (such as weddings, funerals, baptisms, reconciliation, parish renewal mission, teaching a course, Mass coverage, vacation replacement, etc.).
If serving in another diocese for an extended period, it would be necessary, I would think, to receive canonical assignment from the bishop of the host diocese.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is my understanding of it. If you had read the documents and consider the damage done to one woman who was confronted by the sight of the man who had victimized her acting in persona Christi, a man whom she had been assured she would never see in a chasuble again, it is easy to understand why it is important not to make any exceptions. And that is the thing: when an abuser is seen in a ministerial capacity by his victim, even by chance, the victimization takes place all over again. It is truly devastating.
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
Deacon Cameron, could you, in all your knowledge, comment on benedictgal’s “must” assertion above? It’s left the impression that it’s a sin against Church precepts for a deacon to attend Mass with his family if he just sits in the pew with them - even if they’re just on vacation together.
B
benedictgal
Guest
I never said that it was a sin. Please do not put words into my post. Diaconia pretty much backed up what I said. Redemptionis Sacramentum and the GIRM clearly state that clergy should be assuming their proper liturgical roles. Why people cannot seem to accept this is beyond me.
D
Diaconia
Guest
John:
I didn’t mean a deacon serving for an extended period of time, I meant there is no counterpart for a *celebret *for a deacon. I’ve never spent an extended period of time away from my archdiocese.
And on every occasion where I’ve assisted at Mass or presided at a wedding I’ve never been asked for credentials. Our archdiocese doesn’t issue them as a rule, but when I was ordained I asked the moderator for one, as I was very young (35) and people constantly mistake me for a transitional deacon. I always carry it, but it’s never been out of my wallet.
Not that it probably matters to most reading this thread, but, If I’m not mistaken, the Charter does not have the force of law. Priests requiring a celebret is a matter of canon law (c. 903). I know in the Diocese of Lincoln Bishop Bruskewitz refused to sign the charter, for example.
Anyway, my point was that deacons do not have the equivalent of a celebret, and that assisting at Mass on a given occasion doesn’t require faculties from the local bishop.
God bless,
D
Diaconia
Guest
This is a good point to remember. Many people misunderstand the Pharisees and why they were at odds with Jesus many times.
Ironically, even though the Pharisees were obsessed with rituals, (including priestly ones) the movement was mostly made up of laymen, not priests.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, were a priestly movement.
God bless,
B
benedictgal
Guest
My parochial vicar was the one who explained the whole issue about the pharisees to us during the Bible study classes that I took under him (for diocesan certification). In fact, he made mention of this issue in today’s homily. He said that we tend to lump all of the Pharisees together in one group, forgetting that some of the early Jewish converts to Christianity were Pharisees (including one Saul of Tarsus, St. Paul).
What folks may not realize is that the Pharisees came into being during the Babylonian exile, There was no Temple and Jerusalem was in ruins. Ancient Israel realized that it had sinned against God and needed to make things right. The Pharisaical movement came about as a result of this. This movement sought to restore the law, only, in their zealous to make things right, they put a hedge around the Law and decided that extra measures needed to be taken so as to keep from sinning. This is how the priestly practices started getting incorporated and applied to the faithful (which was never the original intent of the Law as dictated directly by God to Moses). That is why Jesus accused the Pharisees of imposing things on the faithful that did not need to be imposed.
Now, regarding the issue that Easter Joy brought up, when my beloved paternal grandma died, I wanted my parochial vicar to celebrate the funeral Mass in her old Austin parish. Even though he has his credentials, we still had a letter from our chancellor sent to the Austin chancery as a precautionary measure. For weddings, there is something called a prior delegation that is often handled between the pastor and the visiting clergy (whether they are priests or deacons).
E
EasterJoy
Guest
There are two things I wish could change in modern rhetorical habits. One is the habit of using the term “Pharisee” when one really wants to accuse someone of being overly rule-obsessed or a hypocrite. The other, which is worse, is calling someone a “Nazi” when one means the person acts like a tyrant or a government-sponsored terrorist. Not every tyrant is a Nazi. More to your point, Benedictgal, to reduce the Pharisees to rule-obsessed hypocrites is a caricature that I have yet to see improve a discussion. (I don’t think I need to say what it does to a discussion to call your opponent a “Nazi”.)
That is not to say that it is never appropriate to bring up conversations Jesus had with the Pharisees, only that running across a person who is more worried than you are about rules doesn’t make you right or them wrong. It is better to keep the conversation on how a particular rule may be lived in the light of the whole Gospel than to yell “Pharisee!” anytime anyone objects that a rule violation may be taking place. So yes, people: quote the Gospels, but no, please don’t make any thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks on those who interpret the rules and the need for them more strictly than you do. Remember, too: Jesus ate with the tax collectors and prostitutes, but he ate in the homes of the Pharisees, too.
That’s my little soapbox.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Thank you for the clarification. You would, however, be asked if seeking to assist at a wedding in our diocese. Others are similar.
On another topic, my old Hebrew instructor wrote a book titled *Faith without Prejudice *some years ago. It has an interesting discussion on how the pharisees themselves distinguished among seven kinds of pharisees and who was the ideal model for the pharisee.
It’s also refreshing to see someone else has read the Pirkei Avot!
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
I will begin by looking at the text and context.
The parts of the Institutio Generalis, already cited in English translation in this thread, are numbers 116 and 171. The relevant statements read: “116. In qualibet Missae celebratione si adest diaconus, hic suo munere fungatur.” and “171. Quando celebrationi eucharisticae interest, diaconus, sacris vestibus indutus, suo ministerio fungatur.”
Juridic norms are expressed in a variey of ways. In these texts, “fungatur” is the word which has been rendered as”should exercise” in the translation cited for this discussion. This is a deponent verb in the present (jussive) subjunctive, 3rd person singular. The jussive subjunctive is used to convey general rules which admit to reasonable exceptions. Such norms are of lesser weight than present indicatives, which indicate that something must be done, or gerundive constructions which indicate necessity or specific obligation. Had the authority intended to indicate those heavier weights, we would have expected the present indicative or a gerundive construction.
It might also be noted that GIRM 116 is located within Chapter IV which regards the various forms of celebrating Mass. a the context of another issue. While Mass may be celebrated according to n. 115 without singing and with only one minister, n. 116 then proceeds to qualify that statement by adding other ministers, including the deacon. This context broadens how we should understand it. In part, it is an assertion of the desirability of these other ministers.
A norm similar to n. 171 found in n. 114 sheds added light: “Praestat enim presbyteros, qui celebrationi eucharisticae intersunt, nisi iusta causa excusentur, munus proprii ordinis de more exercere et proinde uti concelebrantes participare, sacris vestibus indutos.” (“114 For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments.”) On the basis of canon 17, which can be looked up, the notion of a just excusing cause can be applied, and would enter the discussion. A just cause is less than a grave cause. At the least it cannot be unjust or frivolous.
In light of this, I think that the diocesan bishop is competent to determine reasonable exceptions, the “iuxta causa” mentioned above, and is to be consulted on the matter, likely through his office of deacons. Many bishops have provided for deacons to participate at Mass on occasion with their families, and found a just basis for this in the witness value that it provides from time to time.
There are a couple of other mildly interesting points, but I do not think they contribute too much more to understanding those norms. In n. 116, “qualibet” can mean any or all. The text reads “in qualibet Missae celebratione.” with “celebratione” being singular and indicating “any celebration” rather than “celebrationes” which would be more agreeable to a reading of “all celebrations.” In n. 171, “quando” has been rendered as “when.” When the law wishes to intensify the weight of a norm to which a necessary obligation or course of action is attached, “quoties” or “whenever" is normally used. It has more of a universal scope, than “quando.” The distinction between all cases and most all cases comes to mind.
Somethings to think about in the interpretation of the text then.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Thank you, that was very helpful! (And it makes me glad all over again that I had even that one year of Latin.)
S
shepgard
Guest
Thank you, Deacon. Thank you for your service to Holy Mother Church also.
B
benedictgal
Guest
While you are addressing the GIRM, what about Redemptions Sacramentum, specifically the references that I quoted in my previous post?
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
The question was whether there may be a just cause for a deacon in a particular circumstance to refrain from exercising the role of assisting at the Mass.
It is clear that no one would accept such refraining as a habitual rather than a limited practice since that would obviously be offensive to the identity and function of the deacon as a sacred minister of the Church. I will add, it is the only point I address. I do not remark on the issue of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and when they may be lawfully used. That by itself, while associated with the question above, is another topic, an expansive topic, and a well discussed topic.
The question is sufficiently answered in the Institutio Generalis, which presents liturgical law in the nature of praenotanda. The Institutio is part of the “third typical edition” of the Roman Missal, approved by Pope John Paul (2000). This is where we would find theological principles and major disciplinary law on the matter. They would possess the same weight for the Latin Church as the canons, unless there is a conflict and then canon 2 would apply.
Once the points presented above regarding the Institutio have been considered, only then it would become appropriate to consider those elements of Redemptionis sacramentum.
This is true because Redemptionis sacramentum is an instruction. It is of lesser weight than the laws in the Roman Missal. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that the laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws.(c. 34 §1). However, it must be recalled that the ordinances (ordinationes) of instructions do not derogate from laws. If these ordinances cannot be reconciled with the prescripts of laws, they lack all force (c. 34 §2).
As well, I would also look at the conclusion of the instruction. Although prepared by papal mandate, it was approved, but not in forma specifica by which it would have acquired canonical force as a papal act. As it is, it is a step lower than the Roman Missal. It would need to have been issued in forma specifica to have derogated from the liturgical law of the Institutio.
Because of this, I would think that the Institutio of the Roman Missal would the basis for looking into Redemptionis sacramentum, and one ought to begin there. Whether one agrees or disagrees with my opinion about how the text of the Institutio reads in context (and I am always open to reasoned correction), I do not think that its weight allows it to be sidestepped.
As post 37 remarks, “However, generally, clergy should assume what is rightfully theirs.” There is no disagreement here. The question regards the matter of what specific circumstance might qualify that in a particular case of a deacon according to a proper understanding of the law of the Church based on correct norms of interpretation of law.
To follow up from a thought in Pirkei Avot (brought to mind by Deacon Chris’ quote of Hillel) Any controversy waged for heaven’s sake shall in the end be of lasting worth, but any that is not for heaven’s sake shall not lead to permanent result (5:20).
S
Spirithound
Guest
St. Peter’s Basilica is a massive (
) church, but even its sanctuary is not big enough to hold all of the priests who attend Mass there. Given what has been said on this thread, it seems that priests should, in general, offer to help distribute Holy Communion, but that in the case of St. Peter’s, only a certain number of Ministers of Holy Communion are needed, so a certain number of the priests present will not be distributing. I would imagine that each of them would be concelebrating, in the sense that they would say the Words of Institution.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Annie, why would a deacon who is battling several disabilities attend 9 Masses in one weekend?
- Status