Deacons May Raise the Chalice

[surritter]

At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest says or sings “Through Him, with Him, in Him…” I believe this is called the Doxology.

However, the Church allows a deacon who is at the altar to raise the chalice during the Doxology (while the priest raises the host/paten).

It seems very strange that the deacon would be allowed to do this, during what seems to be an integral part of the Eucharistic Prayer, which has always been reserved exclusively to the priest.

In the past, some fuss was made about the role of deacons at the altar, in order to avoid role confusion (not to mention correct theology). So I’m wondering why the deacon is still permitted to raise the chalice. He’s not the one offering the Sacrifice to the Father. Thoughts?

 

[Brendan]

‘Allows’ would not be the correct term. The Deacon is required to raise the chalice (assuming he is physically able).

This is because the Deacon is the Minister of the Chalice, and always has been. When the priest raises the chalice for the doxology, he does so in his diaconate capacity (in much the same way that we the priest reads the Gospel, he does so a Deacon.

And, no he is not offering the Sacrifice to the Father, that has already been done by the priest prior to the doxology

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing +

EP-I

 

[surritter]

That makes sense. So I to presume that the Doxology is not an integral part of the actual offering of the Sacrifice. Perhaps we can see it as a kind of a transition from the “offering” aspect to the “administering” aspect?

 

[Brendan]

So I am to presume that the Doxology is not an integral part of the actual offering of the Sacrifice?

That would be correct, the doxology occurs after both the Offering and the Anamnesis.

 

[Digitonomy]

This is because the Deacon is the Minister of the Chalice, and always has been.

Always is a long time, especially considering there were no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church. What is our earliest record of deacons performing this role?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

There were deacons in the Acts of the Apostles, so there have always been deacons.

 

[zab]

Always is a long time, especially considering there were no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church. What is our earliest record of deacons performing this role?

St. Stephen was one of the first deacons of the church martyred in the year 35 AD

 

[Brendan]

Always is a long time, especially considering there were no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church. What is our earliest record of deacons performing this role?

Justin Martyr - First Apology

CHAPTER 65 – Administration of the Sacraments

… There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

The Deacon, not the priest was the original Minister of Holy Communion. Nicea did declare later that the priest should recieve the chalice on his own, and not have the Deacon administer the Sacraments to him.

Since those times, at a EF High Mass, where a Deacon is thus present, the Deacon supports the foot of the chalice or supports the priest arm. He does not do this for the paten, but only as the chalice

 

[Digitonomy]

There were deacons in the Acts of the Apostles, so there have always been deacons.

Yes, but I don’t think any were recognized as deacons prior to Stephen. So the practice of having a deacon hold the chalice was not something the Apostles would have conceived of, since they presumably didn’t realize they were themselves deacons besides being priests and bishops.

Brendan - thanks for the cite.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Yes, but** I don’t think any were recognized as deacons prior to Stephen**. So the practice of having a deacon hold the chalice was not something the Apostles would have conceived of, since** they presumably didn’t realize they were themselves deacons besides being priests and bishops.**

Brendan - thanks for the cite.

What do you mean? Of course deacons were recognized as deacons prior to Stephen. In Acts we see that they were appointed to free up the apostles to preach. Stephen was one of the deacons but not the only one.

The apostles were not deacons, they were apostles, which today we would call bishops. At least, the bishops are the successors to the office of the apostles. The apostles were also priests in the sense that they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. They were not deacons; the office of deacon was not in existence until the apostles later appointed them.

Why would you say that the apostles would not have had a deacon hold the chalice? Obviously they did hold the chalice when they gave out communion.

BTW, the deacons weren’t the original ministers of Holy Communion, although their use as ministers of Holy Communion does go back to apostolic time. Before the office of deacon was invented, the apostles were the original ministers.

 

[surritter]

Well, I think the last paragraph in the previous post attests that deacons weren’t ALWAYS around, since the Apostles were the first that all other ordained ministers derived their orders from.

But it’s been established that deacons were certainly around from the very early days of the Church, which I think was Mrs. Sally’s main point.

 

[Digitonomy]

What do you mean? Of course deacons were recognized as deacons prior to Stephen. In Acts we see that they were appointed to free up the apostles to preach. Stephen was one of the deacons but not the only one.

My understanding is that he was the first - in other words there weren’t any prior to him.
Claire from DE:

The apostles were not deacons, they were apostles, which today we would call bishops. At least, the bishops are the successors to the office of the apostles. The apostles were also priests in the sense that they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. They were not deacons; the office of deacon was not in existence until the apostles later appointed them.

The diaconate is more than just an office, it is a Holy Order. Since the Apostles possessed the fullness of Orders, they received the character of deacon, even though no such office had been established.
Claire from DE:

Why would you say that the apostles would not have had a deacon hold the chalice? Obviously they did hold the chalice when they gave out communion.

I wasn’t clear that I meant the Apostles would not have conceived of a deacon holding the chalice prior to the establishment of that office, since they presumably wouldn’t have known what a deacon was or would be.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The minor elevation in which (in the Pauline Rite) the Deacon assists by elevating the Chalice has a corresponding Byzantine practice.

As the Priest says, “Your own of Your own we offer unto You in behalf of all and for all”, the Priest steps back and raises his hands in the orans posture, as the Deaon crosses his arms to take the Diskos in his right hand and Chalice in his left as he elevates the Gifts.

The Priest performs this elevation himself if he has no Deacon.

The institution of the Diaconate, as we see in Acts, happened very early in the Church, and after filling the empty place by St. Matthias, was the first act of ordaining the Apostles did.

Note carefully that Presbyters (Priests) came considerably later!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

My understanding is that he was the first - in other words there weren’t any prior to him.
Stephen was one of the first 7 deacons. See Acts 6:5 ‘The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.’

In one of the commentaries I saw an interesting note that, although the deacons were to do the administrative work so the apostles could use their energies for preaching the gospel, Stephen and one or two others were also noted for preaching. I notice that today preaching is one of the faculties granted to the deacons by the bishop, not immediately upon being ordained (in my diocese) but later, after they have gone through some additional training and practice.

The diaconate is more than just an office, it is a Holy Order.
True.

Since the Apostles possessed the fullness of Orders, they received the character of deacon, even though no such office had been established.

I think my issue with that is the phrase ‘they were themselves deacons’. That would be like saying my pastor is a priest and is also a deacon. And my bishop is a deacon and is a priest and is a bishop. No, he is only a bishop, which means he has the fullness of Orders (which contains the call to serve, to offer sacrifice, and to be chief shepherd). This is probably more an issue of language. Or, if we were to envision the ‘character’ as a mark on the soul, he doesn’t have 3 ‘characters’ but only one, that of bishop. Which was the case with the apostles, in so far as we would explain it using today’s terminology. And in their case there appears to have been only one ‘ordination’ rather than 3 successive ones.

I wasn’t clear that I meant the Apostles would not have conceived of a deacon holding the chalice prior to the establishment of that office, since they presumably wouldn’t have known what a deacon was or would be.
Sorry, I thought you meant they wouldn’t have approved of it.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

The minor elevation in which (in the Pauline Rite) the Deacon assists by elevating the Chalice has a corresponding Byzantine practice.

As the Priest says, “Your own of Your own we offer unto You in behalf of all and for all”, the Priest steps back and raises his hands in the orans posture, as the Deaon crosses his arms to take the Diskos in his right hand and Chalice in his left as he elevates the Gifts.

The Priest performs this elevation himself if he has no Deacon.

The institution of the Diaconate, as we see in Acts, happened very early in the Church, and after filling the empty place by St. Matthias, was the first act of ordaining the Apostles did.

Note carefully that Presbyters (Priests) came considerably later!

That’s an interesting fact about the Divine Liturgy.

I note that last sentence. Could it be that you are a deacon? Just curious.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Always is a long time, especially considering there were no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church. What is our earliest record of deacons performing this role?

Note carefully that Presbyters (Priests) came considerably later!

That was my thought exactly.

That deacons predate presbyters. Presbyters were made when the Bishop could no longer assist his community because it had grown so large that he needed priests to help out.

 

[bpbasilphx]

That’s an interesting fact about the Divine Liturgy.

I note that last sentence. Could it be that you are a deacon? Just curious.

What do you think the bp in my screen name means?

I might as well mention here that the Diaconate was instituted within months, if not weeks, after the Birthday of the Church at Pentecost, so one cannot say there were “no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church.”

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

Since the Apostles possessed the fullness of Orders, they received the character of deacon, even though no such office had been established.

I think my issue with that is the phrase ‘they were themselves deacons’. That would be like saying my pastor is a priest and is also a deacon. And my bishop is a deacon and is a priest and is a bishop. No, he is only a bishop, which means he has the fullness of Orders (which contains the call to serve, to offer sacrifice, and to be chief shepherd). This is probably more an issue of language.

I agree we are mostly splitting hairs about how we describe it. I would say yes he is a bishop - enough said. But because of that he is also priest and deacon, so he probably performs those roles regularly as well. The problem I see with saying that the diaconate was not established until later is that it suggests this level of Holy Orders was established by the Church, not by Christ. So I think it is more consistent to say the diaconate was established by Christ when he established Holy Orders - even if the office itself wasn’t created until later.
Claire from DE:

Or, if we were to envision the ‘character’ as a mark on the soul, he doesn’t have 3 ‘characters’ but only one, that of bishop. Which was the case with the apostles, in so far as we would explain it using today’s terminology. And in their case there appears to have been only one ‘ordination’ rather than 3 successive ones.

That is true. It hasn’t ever been definitively declared that at the ordination to priesthood or bishop a separate or different mark on the soul occurs than what is first received when one becomes a deacon. One minority theory (that I happen to like) is that a deacon has the same mark, and thus the same potential for fullness of orders, as a bishop. However, it takes the action of the Church to unlock this potential when one becomes a priest or bishop.

 

[Digitonomy]

I might as well mention here that the Diaconate was instituted within months, if not weeks, after the Birthday of the Church at Pentecost, so one cannot say there were “no recognized deacons in the earliest years of the Church.”

Hmmm… I don’t recall the exact chronology, and don’t have time to look it up right now, but if I recall the deacons were first appointed to reassure people as to fair collection or distribution of alms among the Greeks and Jews - I simply assumed it probably took a couple years before the number of Greeks in the Church was large enough for this to be a problem.

So assuming you’re right, I will correct myself to say there were no recognized deacons in part of the earliest year of the Church.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I agree we are mostly splitting hairs about how we describe it. I would say yes he is a bishop - enough said. But because of that he is also priest and deacon, so he probably performs those roles regularly as well. The problem I see with saying that the diaconate was not established until later is that it suggests this level of Holy Orders was established by the Church, not by Christ. So I think it is more consistent to say the diaconate was established by Christ when he established Holy Orders - even if the office itself wasn’t created until later.That is true. It hasn’t ever been definitively declared that at the ordination to priesthood or bishop a separate or different mark on the soul occurs than what is first received when one becomes a deacon. ** One minority theory (that I happen to like) is that a deacon has the same mark, and thus the same potential for fullness of orders, as a bishop. However, it takes the action of the Church to unlock this potential when one becomes a priest or bishop**.

I’ve never thought of it quite that way before but I like it too. Thanks for the insight. I’ll go with that unless/until the church should define it differently. I’ll have to share this with my deacon friend.