Deacons in liturgy

[shepgard]

Yes, as Benadictgal posted…sorry

 

[eucharisteo]

I read this in wonder since our diocese has no deacons whatsoever. Nary a one. In fact, there is nary a deacon in the any of the dioceses in our archdiocese.

The restoration of the permanent diaconate was a good thing in my opinion and the break in it proposes to be a problem in my opinion because many Catholics still think of them as glorified altar servers, not clergy. I feel sad for you not to have permanent deacons. Another option that I thought about later would be acolytes or sub-deacons that would take care of thing that the sacristans do. My issue is that I’m not used to women and girls serving. It doesn’t seem right. But I’m getting a bit used to it still. Who knows, maybe one day it’ll take…

 

[EasterJoy]

Thus, insofar as the Mass is concerned, the priest is pretty much never off-duty.

This strays a bit from the OPs point, since presumably the deacon is known in the parish, but I would argue that since the enactment of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, a grave and just reason has been shown to exist that prevents clergy from just showing up anywhere and engaging in public ministry.

Also, although the duty to perform tirelessly is unquestionably part of the office of the clergy, that duty is not therefore a duty to never get tired. No such duty can possibly exist.

 

[benedictgal]

This strays a bit from the OPs point, since presumably the deacon is known in the parish, but I would argue that since the enactment of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, a grave and just reason has been shown to exist that prevents clergy from just showing up anywhere and engaging in public ministry.

Also, although the duty to perform tirelessly is unquestionably part of the office of the clergy, that duty is not therefore a duty to never get tired. No such duty can possibly exist.

However, a priest who is suspended under the Protection of Children and Younger People probably has no business being in the church anyway. Furthermore, once a man has been ordained a deacon and/or a priest, he is not part of the assembly. He needs to fulfill the role that is assigned to him by virture of his ordination. If he is tired, he should probably not be there in the first place.

 

[puzzleannie]

This
Even priests cannot assist at Mass as though they were laity. Inasmuch as the deacon may have a wife and family, when it comes to the Mass, these ministerial duties should come first before his sitting with them at church.

every one of the 5-6 weekend Masses, plus the 2-3 in the missions?

 

[benedictgal]

every one of the 5-6 weekend Masses, plus the 2-3 in the missions?

With all due respect, puzzleannie, I hope you are not being facetious. Do you really think that after all of those Masses a priest will be in church once more if he is not the celebrant? By virtue of his ordination, a priest cannot simply sit in the pews and participate as though he were one of the lay faithful. He needs to assume his office.

This is the section of the GIRM referenced in RS:

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. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.

So, even if they are there, they should not act as though they were laymen. Even the prelates at the Vatican who are not functioning as concelebrants, sit apart from the faithful and are in choir dress.

 

[Frosty]

So, even if they are there, they should not act as though they were laymen. Even the prelates at the Vatican who are not functioning as concelebrants, sit apart from the faithful and are in choir dress.

The documents are the ones that state this, specifically Redemptionis Sacramentum. And, actually, St. Peter’s in Rome welcomes the help, as the ones who are distribution Holy Communion for the most part, are priests. And yes, every priest is duty bound to assist at Mass in his appropriate role.

I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Is it your contention that every time a priest attends a Mass outside his own parish or diocese for whatever reason, he must always sit in the sanctuary [or other place set aside for large numbers of priests] in choir dress? I do agree that a priest who is attached to a parish should always sit apart in the sanctuary in choir dress and also should a priest who is visiting and has made himself known to the local pastor. However, I do not believe that the document you quoted means that a priest must always do so whenever and wherever he might attend Mass outside his own competence. I don’t think it is as cut and dried as you appear to think it is.
Over the years I have attended dozens of Masses at St. Peter’s Basilica. At each and every one of those Masses there have been literally hundreds of priests sitting with the rest of the congregation wearing either a clerical suit or a cassock. I would suspect that most of those priests were in Rome on pilgrimmage, on business, vacation or from a neighbouring Roman parish. An uncle of mine, after his ordination, studied at the Gregorian in Rome back in the 1960’s and was never asked to attend in choir at any of the pontifical basilicas but always sat with the faithful during Mass. Even during the many years afterwards when he served as secretary to one of our Cardinals he was not always expected to sit in the sanctuary in choir dress. I know many priests who while they are on vacation or business out of town will help out at the parish where they attend Sunday Mass but only if the pastor wishes them to. Some prefer not to make their presence known and attend Mass as a private person. Somehow I doubt that the Vatican would deny them that option!

 

[puzzleannie]

With all due respect, puzzleannie, I hope you are not being facetious. ss.

I was not speaking facetiously, I was speaking, as I said earlier of a deacon over retirement age (as most are in this diocese until the new class is ordained), and battling several disabilities at that, who is not on salary but serves when and as he can, on a stipend (as is the case with most deacons in this diocese) who has already put in a 40 hour week, including serving several Masses, and for one Mass does not serve but sits with his family. Do recall also, OP and others who criticize, that the pastor assigns the duties to the deacons and other ministers, and at least admit the possibility that he was “off” for the Mass you observed. Please I do not for the life of me understand the eagerness to imply either the deacon or the priest is failing in his duty.

if the ruling you cite predates V2 then it is not referring to permanent deacons.

I suggest OP simply ask the pastor why the deacon does not distribute communion when he is present, and then OP will get the answer to his specific question, which is impossible to ascertain here.

 

[benedictgal]

I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Is it your contention that every time a priest attends a Mass outside his own parish or diocese for whatever reason, he must always sit in the sanctuary [or other place set aside for large numbers of priests] in choir dress? I do agree that a priest who is attached to a parish should always sit apart in the sanctuary in choir dress and also should a priest who is visiting and has made himself known to the local pastor. However, I do not believe that the document you quoted means that a priest must always do so whenever and wherever he might attend Mass outside his own competence. I don’t think it is as cut and dried as you appear to think it is.
Over the years I have attended dozens of Masses at St. Peter’s Basilica. At each and every one of those Masses there have been literally hundreds of priests sitting with the rest of the congregation wearing either a clerical suit or a cassock. I would suspect that most of those priests were in Rome on pilgrimmage, on business, vacation or from a neighbouring Roman parish. An uncle of mine, after his ordination, studied at the Gregorian in Rome back in the 1960’s and was never asked to attend in choir at any of the pontifical basilicas but always sat with the faithful during Mass. Even during the many years afterwards when he served as secretary to one of our Cardinals he was not always expected to sit in the sanctuary in choir dress. I know many priests who while they are on vacation or business out of town will help out at the parish where they attend Sunday Mass but only if the pastor wishes them to. Some prefer not to make their presence known and attend Mass as a private person. Somehow I doubt that the Vatican would deny them that option!

By virtue of their ordination, a priest and deacon cannot simply be"private citizens" at the Mass. Each must exercise the role proper to him. The documents are clear about that. Furthermore, how do you know that the ones dressed in cassocks are not priests? Seminarians also wear clerical garb as well.

Just because something was done in the 1960s, that does not legitimize the practice. Redemptionis Sacramentum, promulgated in 2004, has already addressed that matter.

 

[benedictgal]

I was not speaking facetiously, I was speaking, as I said earlier of a deacon over retirement age (as most are in this diocese until the new class is ordained), and battling several disabilities at that, who is not on salary but serves when and as he can, on a stipend (as is the case with most deacons in this diocese) who has already put in a 40 hour week, including serving several Masses, and for one Mass does not serve but sits with his family. Do recall also, OP and others who criticize, that the pastor assigns the duties to the deacons and other ministers, and at least admit the possibility that he was “off” for the Mass you observed. Please I do not for the life of me understand the eagerness to imply either the deacon or the priest is failing in his duty.

if the ruling you cite predates V2 then it is not referring to permanent deacons.

I suggest OP simply ask the pastor why the deacon does not distribute communion when he is present, and then OP will get the answer to his specific question, which is impossible to ascertain here.

What I cited comes from Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was promulgated in 2004.

Now, again, in regards to your statement about my implying “either the deacon or the priest is failing in his duty”, please note that Redemptionis Sacramentum also states that:

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

Thus, even if the deacon is “off-duty” and is at Mass, he is the one who is to assist at the distribution of Holy Communion, not the EMHC.

 

[EasterJoy]

However, a priest who is suspended under the Protection of Children and Younger People probably has no business being in the church anyway. Furthermore, once a man has been ordained a deacon and/or a priest, he is not part of the assembly. He needs to fulfill the role that is assigned to him by virture of his ordination. If he is tired, he should probably not be there in the first place.

One of the few good things that have come out of the abuse scandals are the realizations that a) the duty of denying predators access to the faithful lies with the bishop and those priests to whom he has granted faculties, not with the predators and b) this is going to mean refusing public ministry to all of those who have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local ordinary that they have no prior record posing a threat to the faithful. The bishops have stepped up and taken this responsibility, and rightly so. Their duty to protect the faithful is easily of sufficient gravity to take priority over the possibility of having an EMHC when an ordinary minister might have been available, every single time. There must be NO opportunities for prior offenders to slip in to the public ministry of the Church, and so there must be NO exceptions made. Period.

In our own archdiocese, there was an offender in the priesthood who was not relieved of his faculties entirely, but who was forbidden to celebrate Mass publicly without the express permission of the vicar of clergy for every single celebration. This priest “forgot” about his situation. One of his victims happened to be present at a Mass being publicly celebrated by this priest, a priest whom she had been assured she would never see in a chasuble again. It goes without saying that she was devastated.

 

[EasterJoy]

I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Is it your contention that every time a priest attends a Mass outside his own parish or diocese for whatever reason, he must always sit in the sanctuary [or other place set aside for large numbers of priests] in choir dress? I do agree that a priest who is attached to a parish should always sit apart in the sanctuary in choir dress and also should a priest who is visiting and has made himself known to the local pastor. However, I do not believe that the document you quoted means that a priest must always do so whenever and wherever he might attend Mass outside his own competence. I don’t think it is as cut and dried as you appear to think it is.
Over the years I have attended dozens of Masses at St. Peter’s Basilica. At each and every one of those Masses there have been literally hundreds of priests sitting with the rest of the congregation wearing either a clerical suit or a cassock. I would suspect that most of those priests were in Rome on pilgrimmage, on business, vacation or from a neighbouring Roman parish. An uncle of mine, after his ordination, studied at the Gregorian in Rome back in the 1960’s and was never asked to attend in choir at any of the pontifical basilicas but always sat with the faithful during Mass. Even during the many years afterwards when he served as secretary to one of our Cardinals he was not always expected to sit in the sanctuary in choir dress. I know many priests who while they are on vacation or business out of town will help out at the parish where they attend Sunday Mass but only if the pastor wishes them to. Some prefer not to make their presence known and attend Mass as a private person. Somehow I doubt that the Vatican would deny them that option!

Thank you. I think that if the Pope can keep people in shorts out of St. Peter’s, the Pope could make certain that every priest walking into a Mass at St. Peter’s was either issued choir dress or required to leave until he could come back with his own. There wouldn’t be any “sneaking in” in cassocks and Roman collars.

I think that the requirement that priests unable to speak the Eucharistic Prayer in the local language must wear choir dress, and not chasubles, does not imply that a priest may not attend Mass unless he’s wearing at least choir dress. I don’t believe such a rule exists. It is one thing to say that priests who are in choir dress or vestments must not voluntarily sit while laypeople serve as EMsHC. It is another to say that every priest is forbidden from attend any Mass without making himself available as an ordinary minister. That does not even make sense, especially considering the lengths required to make sure that a priest never ever gets to exercise public ministry after offending.

 

[shepgard]

OK… I would like to thank you all for your most valuable opinions and quotes of documents. I have come to the conclusion that our Deacon should not sit idle as a non-ordained perform his duty of the attendent of the Most Precious Blood. Thank you again, Terry

 

[EasterJoy]

OK… I would like to thank you all for your most valuable opinions and quotes of documents. I have come to the conclusion that our Deacon should not sit idle as a non-ordained perform his duty of the attendent of the Most Precious Blood. Thank you again, Terry

Theoretical discussions and learning about the theoretical framework within which a question might be answered are one thing. That is Catholic education. Coming to conclusion about a particular human being in a particular situation of which you quite possibly do not have full knowledge is a bit of another. Proceed carefully, particularly when your conclusions concern a person over whom you have no authority. I don’t mean don’t proceed at all, but I do mean to proceed carefully.

Your chancery office undoubtedly has an office for the diaconate. Before coming to your final conclusion, you might just ask them what your bishop requires of the deacons in *your *diocese. If your bishop is telling his permanent deacons that they do not have to act in their clerical office at every Mass they attend, provided that they exhibit a certain expected level of generosity in discharging their duties, you might consider that deacons who are doing everything that your bishop requires do not deserve any blame.

Also consider how fruitful it is likely to be if you try to tell a deacon (or his pastor) that the deacon is not doing his duty when his bishop is telling the deacon that he is. If you have no intention of doing any such thing, consider that if you are not doing anything to right the situation, it probably does very little good (and may even harm your soul) to waste time having an opinion about it.

Please let us know what the policy is in your diocese. I’d be curious to know, at least.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

By virtue of their ordination, a priest and deacon cannot simply be"private citizens" at the Mass. Each must exercise the role proper to him. The documents are clear about that. Furthermore, how do you know that the ones dressed in cassocks are not priests? Seminarians also wear clerical garb as well.

Just because something was done in the 1960s, that does not legitimize the practice. Redemptionis Sacramentum, promulgated in 2004, has already addressed that matter.

“Must” doesn’t leave any wiggle room. So a deacon on vacation with his family - say, in a different state or even country - cannot attend Mass with them in the congregation? He has to present himself to the priest, claim he’s a deacon (do deacons carry credentials from their diocese?), travel with his alb and stole (not all parishes have deacons so not all will have the proper diaconal stole or necessarily an alb that fits) and basically talk his way onto the altar in a church that doesn’t know him? And if the priest doesn’t (a) believe him; or, (b) want to disturb what may be assigned EMHC’s for that Mass . . . . .???

 

[otjm]

The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. Voltaire…

Some people are rigorists. It is well and good to follow the law. It is also well and good to remember that the Pharisees were rigorists.

It is entirely possible that the deacon was not physically well, and sat with his family rather than distribute the Cup. It is also possible that the deacon, who answers to his bishop first, and then only to a pastor if he is so assigned, may not have been assigned as one might presume. There could be any number of issues that would allow him to sit with his family members at a Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. Voltaire…

Some people are rigorists. It is well and good to follow the law. It is also well and good to remember that the Pharisees were rigorists.

It is entirely possible that the deacon was not physically well, and sat with his family rather than distribute the Cup. It is also possible that the deacon, who answers to his bishop first, and then only to a pastor if he is so assigned, may not have been assigned as one might presume. There could be any number of issues that would allow him to sit with his family members at a Mass.

First of all, it is grossly common for people to throw around the term Pharisaical without bothering to understand the context under which Jesus got after the group. The Pharisees were imposing priestly practices on the faithful. This had nothing to do with Temple sacrificial worship, none at all.

Second, deacons are clergy. The documents clearly state that during the liturgy, they should assume the role proper to them, as should the priests. Granted, there are times when one is ill. However, generally, clergy should assume what is rightfully theirs.

What is so hard for people to understand?

 

[Diaconia]

I am a deacon myself, (ordained 5 1/2 years) and for what it’s worth here are my thoughts:

• I do not sit with my wife at Mass - I always assist at Mass
• When we travel on vacation, I always contact the priest ahead of time and ask to serve as a deacon (I’ve **ALWAYS **been welcomed, and many times asked to preach as well – even in dioceses that do not have diaconate programs)
• I DO carry a photo ID identifying me as a Catholic deacon, but no one has ever asked to see it
• Even if a deacon was at a Mass with his family, he should assist with distributing Holy Communion – if an extraordinary AND an ordinary minister are both present at Mass, obviously the ordinary minister should distribute
• When there are a number of priests and deacons serving all day (e.g. for imposition of ashes or blessing of throats) if I am not serving as the deacon at Mass I vest and approach the Altar during the Sign of Peace to distribute Holy Communion at all the Masses.
• Someone mentioned something about needing faculties to serve elsewhere. Their point wasn’t exactly right. You don’t need “faculties” to serve as a deacon at another diocese. Canon law gives deacons the faculty to *preach *anywhere in the world, unless that faculty is restricted by particular (local diocesan) law (it RARELY is). But deacons don’t need faculties to simply serve as a deacon in the way that priests need a *celebret *if they are going to be serving in another diocese for an extended period of time.

Sometimes I think we need to recall that the diaconate is not a ministry, it is a sacrament. Holy Orders ontologically changes a man forever. Not because he is worthy, but rather because our Lord Jesus has set him aside for sacred purpose. It’s not something that we “do” on Sundays, it’s something that we “are.” Not ten hours a week, not when it’s convenient.

If a man wants to serve the Church once in a while, or once a week, he should continue as a lector or EMHC or catechist, or the like. The diaconate is for those called to give himself completely to the Lord Jesus, whether convenient or inconvenient. To pray the Divine Office for the people of God every day for the rest of his life. To embrace a life of celibacy if his wife should pre-decease him. To be consumed for souls 7 x 24, and so on.

As an aside, I wonder if the Church should focus a bit more on fostering diaconal vocations of younger men. Instead of preparing sacred ministers that are in their 50s or 60s by the time they are ordained, maybe the goal should be candidates that are in their 30s and 40s at ordination. Men who have more energy and more time to serve Holy Mother Church.

God bless,

 

[puzzleannie]

OK… I would like to thank you all for your most valuable opinions and quotes of documents. I have come to the conclusion that our Deacon should not sit idle as a non-ordained perform his duty of the attendent of the Most Precious Blood. Thank you again, Terry

have you yet asked your pastor why this happened in the first place and are you assured beyond doubt there was not a good reason?

 

[puzzleannie]

I am a As an aside, I wonder if the Church should focus a bit more on fostering diaconal vocations of younger men. Instead of preparing sacred ministers that are in their 50s or 60s by the time they are ordained, maybe the goal should be candidates that are in their 30s and 40s at ordination. Men who have more energy and more time to serve Holy Mother Church.

God bless,

like so many other ministries in the Church, this will happen when Catholics tithe and embrace stewardship spirituality, so that parishes and institutions can pay deacons a living wage so they can support their younger families including CAtholic school tuition. Catholics can have the Church they want any time they are willing to give back of their treasure time and talent to make it happen.