Instituted Acolytes May Vest as Subdeacons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spiller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spiller

Guest
Is there any truth to this tidbit that I found on the web?

“May I point out that Paul VI’s instructions accompanying his suspension of the minor orders specifically states that anyone who receives the lay ministry of Acolyte has the right to vest as a Subdeacon. This document was written 4 years after the promulgation of the new Mass, so is part of the rules for that Mass. Thus not only can anyone with that ministry wear a maniple they can also wear a tunicle.”

It sounds like malarkey to me, but if it’s real, I would like to understand the supporting documentation. Thanks.
 
Depends on which Form of the Mass you are referring to.

In the EF, an instituted Acolyte is permitted to exercise the role of subdeacon. He wears the tunic, but does not wear the maniple. There are also some things that an ordained subdeacon would do, but are done by the deacon instead.

In the OF, the short answer is no, but arguments can be made to support the practice, at least for the tunic. The question of the maniple in the OF even for sacred ministers is a debated point. (If I ever receive a reply to the dubium I submitted, I’ll let you know).

I have been waiting to outline this argument for a while.

First of all the Order of Subdeacon did survive into the OF, if you looks at the GIRM prior to the merging of the subdeacon with the ministry of Acolyte you will see what a subdeacon would do at the OF. Like the deacon, who would wear the dalmatic, the subdeacon could wear the tunic. However, out of a desire for less solemnity, both the deacon and subdeacon could omit the wearing of their traditional outer vestment. This would leave the deacon wearing a transverse stole over the alb and the subdeacon wearing only the alb. With the resulting Ministry of Acolyte in 1972, the vestment proper to this Ministry is now the alb (which is the vestment also common to Institured Lectors). Any mention of the Tunic has now disappeared from the documents in relation to the OF since 1972, just as any mention of the maniple has not been seen since 1967. This would seem to spell the end of the Tunic for an Instituted Acolyte in the OF, but liturgical law is very intersting.

It is interesting to look at the mind of the Church in regards to the Ministry of Acolyte, does it not have any of the character of the subdeacon? In the apostolic letter Ministeria quædam, we find the following provision. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of lector and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the lector and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops. There seems to be some connection in the mind of the Church.

Building on this we find in the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 65:

"The vestment common to ministers of every rank is the alb, tied at the waist with the cincture, unless it is made to fit without a cincture. An amice should be be put on first if the alb does not completely cover the minister’s street clothing at the neck. A surplice may not be substituted for the alb when the chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when a stole is used instead of the chasuble or dalmatic. When a surplice is worn, it must be worn with the cassock.

Acolytes, readers, and other ministers may wear other lawfully approved vesture in place of the vestments already mentioned."

The last provision is very interesting. It if for the Bishop to approve other vesture. Other vesture has often come to mean, street clothes, but this need not be limited to it. Could not the Bishop approve the use of a Tunic for an Institued Acolyte?

In EF a tonsured minister could wear it. The PCED has authorized it use when an Instituted Acolyte acts as a subdeacon in the EF. The Church certainly sees that the Acolyte has much in common with the subdeacon, going so far as to allow for the Acolyte to be called a subdeacon. Finally the Church allows Bishop to regulate the vestment worn by instituted ministers in his diocese. It seems at least a possibility.

As a matter of record, in some places Instituted Acolytes do wear the Tunic in Solemn Masses in the OF.
 
Spiller said:
Is there any truth to this tidbit that I found on the web?

"May I point out that Paul VI’s instructions accompanying his suspension of the minor orders specifically states that anyone who receives the lay ministry of Acolyte has the right to vest as a Subdeacon. This document was written 4 years after the promulgation of the new Mass, so is part of the rules for that Mass. Thus not only can anyone with that ministry wear a maniple they can also wear a tunicle."

It sounds like malarkey to me, but if it’s real, I would like to understand the supporting documentation. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I think the document being referred to is the 1972 Motu Proprio MINISTERIA QUAEDAM. An English translation of this is at ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM .

The part I think being referred to is from the paragraph after footnote 4:
“It is fitting to preserve and adapt these in such a way, that from this time on there will be two offices: that of reader and that of acolyte, which will include the functions of the subdiaconate.”

I am not sure what the functions of the subdiactonate are. But the person quoted seems to think they include wearing a maniple and tunicle.

The Latin version is at vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19720815_ministeria-quaedam_lt.html and includes the subtitle for the document: “Disciplina circa Primam Tonsuram, Ordines Minores et Subdiaconatus in Ecclesia Latina innovatur.” This subheading is translated as “By which the discipline of first tonsure, minor orders, and subdiaconate in the Latin Church is reformed.” (The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 98.)

The 1981 Introduction to the Lectionary includes:
“54. During the celebration of Mass with a congregation a second priest, a deacon, and an instituted reader must wear the distinctive vestment of their office when they go to the lectern to read the word of God.Those who carry out the ministry of reader just for the occasion or even regularly but without institution may go to the lectern in ordinary attire that is in keeping with local custom.”

It indicates that there is a distinctive vestment for instituted lectors. But nothing is explicitly stated about this in the 1972 Motu Proprio MINISTERIA QUAEDAM.

The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/09111a.htm has:

“The lector is still mentioned twice in the Roman Missal. In the rubrics at the beginning it is said that if Mass be sung without deacon and subdeacon a lector wearing a surplice may sing the Epistle in the usual place; but at the end he does not kiss the celebrant’s hand (Ritus celebr. Missam”, vi, 8)."

Perhaps more can be found at this site about the vestments of subdeacons.
 
Another document of 3 December 1972 introduced changes to the Roman Missal because of the Motu Proprio MINISTERIA QUEADAM.

It included: “… Accordingly, the order of subdiaconate will no longer exist in the Latin Church. A reader or acolyte, even one not formally instituted, will perform the subdeacon’s functions. … The function of the subdeacon, then, is completely suppressed. …
In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, therefore, everything about the subdeacon has to be deleted and the text in certain parts amplified or emended to correspond to the new discipline.”
(Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, pages 463-464)

This presentation concludes that it was approved by Pope Paul VI on 22 December 1972.

A change in the Roman Missal, is in n. 301:
1970 GIRM: “301. The subdeacon wears the tunic, which is put on over the alb.”
Variation of 1972: Deleted 301.
1975 GIRM: “301. Ministers below the order of deacon may wear the alb or other vestment that is lawfully approved in each region.”
(Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 524).

Has the tunic been “lawfully approved” anywhere? Not to my knowledge.

The Instuction on Certain Questions … at vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html includes in Article 6 §2:
“In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.”

Can a tunic be distinguished from a dalmatic? It sounds difficult, according to the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/15087a.htm :
“… By tunic (tunicella) is understood in liturgical language that sacerdotal upper vestment of the subdeacon which corresponds to the dalmatic of the deacon. According to present usage the dalmatic and tunic are alike both as regards form and ornamentation. They also agree in the manner of use as well as in the fact that the tunic, like the dalmatic, is one of the essential vestments worn at the pontifical Mass by the bishop. It is unneccesary here to go into full details, but it will suffice in regard to form, ornamentation, and use to refer to what is said under dalmatic. As regards the form, according to the directions of the “Cæremoniale Episcoporum”, the tunic should be distinguished from the dalmatic by narrower sleeves, but this is hardly observed even in the pontifical tunic, which is worn under the dalmatic. …”.
 
I don’t know if it has ever been lawfully approved. I mention it as a possibility and that current liturgical law could allow for it. Some might argue for its continuation on the basis of custom, but then we are getting into territory that is less clear.

The Tunic was never a vestment only reserved to the ordained. There are cases where laymen served as subdeacons.

The Church has treated the Tunic and Dalmatic as different vestments, even if their outward apperance fails to demonstrate that.
 
All I know is that when the altar boys failed to appear for mass one summer’s day, I volunteered to fill in. Father looked at my shorts and sandals and motioned me into the sacristy where he handed me an alb and cincture. He didn’t think my spindly legs were conducive to the solemnity of the occasion.

Matthew
 
I remember a posting somewhere maybe on CAF, or maybe somewhere else where a subdeacon from one of the Eastern churches attended a Latin Rite parish. Supposedly he vested in an alb, tunicle and maniple when he did the duties of an acolyte/server and that always struck me as being odd.
 
jbebeau said:
I don’t know if it has ever been lawfully approved. I mention it as a possibility and that current liturgical law could allow for it. Some might argue for its continuation on the basis of custom, but then we are getting into territory that is less clear.

The Tunic was never a vestment only reserved to the ordained. There are cases where laymen served as subdeacons.

The Church has treated the Tunic and Dalmatic as different vestments, even if their outward apperance fails to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t a “tunic” be more analogous to an alb than a tunicle?
 
jbebeau said:
First of all the Order of Subdeacon did survive into the OF, if you looks at the GIRM prior to the merging of the subdeacon with the ministry of Acolyte you will see what a subdeacon would do at the OF. Like the deacon, who would wear the dalmatic, the subdeacon could wear the tunic. However, out of a desire for less solemnity, both the deacon and subdeacon could omit the wearing of their traditional outer vestment.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us or link to something that shows what an OF subdeacon would do? I’m very curious…
 
The subdeacon continued to read the epistle until 1972.

He could carry the book for the gospel procession.

He assisted at the altar by pouring water into the chalice at the offertory. (He did NOT continue to hold the paten in a humeral veil, as that was discontinued in 1965.)

He cleansed the vesels after communion and put them away.
 
Spiller said:
I remember a posting somewhere maybe on CAF, or maybe somewhere else where a subdeacon from one of the Eastern churches attended a Latin Rite parish. Supposedly he vested in an alb, tunicle and maniple when he did the duties of an acolyte/server and that always struck me as being odd.
Click to expand...
We have a Chaldean Subdeacon who attends our Latin Rite parish. He wears a Cassock (with Roman collar, as he is a cleric) and surplice when we serves. He usually serves more in his capacity as an Ordained Reader in reading the Readings.

If necessary, he will also be an EMHC, on those rare occasions our parish will use an EMHC.
 
Here is a link to the PCED clarification continuing the toleration of acolytes acting as subdeacons for the EF.
saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

The part about Ministeria Quaedam saying any acolyte could vest as a subdeacon is malarkey, but the possibility of its happening in the EF is not. In the OF, on the other hand, we’ve seen an argument for its theoretical possibility, but never received any official clarification like we have for the EF.
 
I’ve asked this question in the past, but never received a clear answer: What should an instituted acolyte wear when he is acting as Master of Ceremonies. Since he is filling the place of a cleric and since Ministeria Quaedam introduces the possibility of the acolyte vesting as a subdeacon would, would he wear the roman collar with the cassock during mass?

I know the Diocese of Lincoln institutes acolytes who do not have intention of continuing on to Holy Orders. Does anyone know what they do?
 
NetNuncio said:
I’ve asked this question in the past, but never received a clear answer: What should an instituted acolyte wear when he is acting as Master of Ceremonies. Since he is filling the place of a cleric and since Ministeria Quaedam introduces the possibility of the acolyte vesting as a subdeacon would, would he wear the roman collar with the cassock during mass?

I know the Diocese of Lincoln institutes acolytes who do not have intention of continuing on to Holy Orders. Does anyone know what they do?
Click to expand...
It would always be proper to wear a black cassock sans collar and a white surplice…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top