Maronite Deacons

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Maronites seem to be the theme around here lately.

I was wondering if anyone could explain what has happened to the diaconal petitions during the Eucharistic half of the Qurbono. The new “Book of Offering” gives no indication that a deacon is even supposed to be present at the Liturgy, or what his role should be when he is there. Are we still permitted to use the diaconal petitions from the earlier (1980s) translation of the Qurbono, or have they been discarded completely?

 

[malphono]

Interesting question. Before I make a comment, let me ask which “diaconal petitions” do you mean?

 

[MorEphrem]

As admitted by the Patriarchal Liturgical Commission, they have not produced a deaconal book “yet” even though its been 9 years since the liturgy’s promulgation. I would say that’s one of the reasons why I think its been invalidly [or at least improperly] promulgated, along with the fact it does not have the full text if you wanted to say it in our liturgical language and it also “negates” all former versions (it doesn’t proclaim them illicit but actually claims their efficaciousness has been withdrawn seemingly from the intro to the missal…).

Anyway, the deaconal proclamations have always been contained in the Ktobo damshamshone (Book of Deacons) and without it our liturgy basically makes less sense.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Interesting question. Before I make a comment, let me ask which “diaconal petitions” do you mean?

I’m referring primarily to the proclamations contained in the 1982 books, The Maronite Liturgical Year. They are in the second appendix and are labeled “First/Simple,” “Second/Median,” and “Third/Broodikee.”

It seems to me that the “flow” of the current form of the Maronite Qurbono would make much more sense with these proclamations (and whatever other diaconal proclamations may not currently be represented). But perhaps that is the Byzantine influence in me coming out.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As admitted by the Patriarchal Liturgical Commission, they have not produced a deaconal book “yet” even though its been 9 years since the liturgy’s promulgation. I would say that’s one of the reasons why I think its been invalidly [or at least improperly] promulgated, along with the fact it does not have the full text if you wanted to say it in our liturgical language and it also “negates” all former versions (it doesn’t proclaim them illicit but actually claims their efficaciousness has been withdrawn seemingly from the intro to the missal…).

Anyway, the deaconal proclamations have always been contained in the Ktobo damshamshone (Book of Deacons) and without it our liturgy basically makes less sense.

Would it not be permissible, then, for a deacon to use the translations that we currently have available to us?

 

[malphono]

Phillip, you’ve touched on one of my pet peeves. First of all, no, it’s not “Byzantine influence” that prompts you to wonder. The fact is that the deacon also has a sizable role in Syriac liturgies. For many years, the Maronites had few, if any, non-trasitional deacons (there were one or two left at the beginning of the 20th Century then none until the post-conciliar era), so absent deacons, the diaconal proclamations and exhortations were shifted to the cantor or, in some cases, the sub-deacon (of which there were also a few, mainly in the more remote villages).

There are several problems now, however. One is that with the post-conciliar revival of the non-trasnitional diaconate (and sub-diaconate) there has not been a corresponding revival of the deacon’s liturgical role. It’s quite the opposite. A deacon essentially does nothing except maybe read the Gospel and assist with communion. Whether a deacon or sub-deacon is present, the proclamations etc are still mainly done by a lay person. This really makes no sense to me, but it is what it is.

Another issue is that the bulk of those diaconal proclamations etc have been abolished. One can clearly see that by comparing the 1992 version (which itself negated a number of them) with the 2005 version (which took care of most of what remained). IIRC, (and I don’t have the books at hand), the appendix in the 1992 version was there as an option. Those proclamations were rarely used. The lag in producing a diaconal book seems to say that the so-called “liturgical commission” isn’t particularly interested.

 

[MorEphrem]

Would it not be permissible, then, for a deacon to use the translations that we currently have available to us?

From previous versions of the liturgy? No, because those liturgies are now “null and void” (whatever that means) says our Patriarch. The other difficulties are covered by malphono.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

From previous versions of the liturgy? No, because those liturgies are now “null and void” (whatever that means) says our Patriarch. The other difficulties are covered by malphono.

If, however, the diaconal proclamations actually come from a different liturgical book, and since that book hasn’t been “officially” promulgated yet, then wouldn’t one be able to insert whatever translation of those proclamations one has available into the Liturgy?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Phillip, you’ve touched on one of my pet peeves. First of all, no, it’s not “Byzantine influence” that prompts you to wonder. The fact is that the deacon also has a sizable role in Syriac liturgies. For many years, the Maronites had few, if any, non-trasitional deacons (there were one or two left at the beginning of the 20th Century then none until the post-conciliar era), so absent deacons, the diaconal proclamations and exhortations were shifted to the cantor or, in some cases, the sub-deacon (of which there were also a few, mainly in the more remote villages).

There are several problems now, however. One is that with the post-conciliar revival of the non-trasnitional diaconate (and sub-diaconate) there has not been a corresponding revival of the deacon’s liturgical role. It’s quite the opposite. A deacon essentially does nothing except maybe read the Gospel and assist with communion. Whether a deacon or sub-deacon is present, the proclamations etc are still mainly done by a lay person. This really makes no sense to me, but it is what it is.

Another issue is that the bulk of those diaconal proclamations etc have been abolished. One can clearly see that by comparing the 1992 version (which itself negated a number of them) with the 2005 version (which took care of most of what remained). IIRC, (and I don’t have the books at hand), the appendix in the 1992 version was there as an option. Those proclamations were rarely used. The lag in producing a diaconal book seems to say that the so-called “liturgical commission” isn’t particularly interested.

I don’t see how it’s possible to revive the permanent diaconate without also reviving their liturgical role. Everything else that they do flows from their liturgical role, no?

Perhaps the liturgical commission has put the diaconal book on the back burner for now given the unrest and violence currently taking place in and around their homeland. It would be nice, however, to see the deacon’s liturgical role fully revived. I know that the sub-deacon at our parish does quite a bit of what, I think, would be typically allocated to the deacon. But it seems obvious to me that there is something else there that is missing.

 

[malphono]

I don’t see how it’s possible to revive the permanent diaconate without also reviving their liturgical role. Everything else that they do flows from their liturgical role, no?

But that’s exactly what was done. And it started out that way in the early 1970s.

Perhaps the liturgical commission has put the diaconal book on the back burner for now given the unrest and violence currently taking place in and around their homeland. It would be nice, however, to see the deacon’s liturgical role fully revived. I know that the sub-deacon at our parish does quite a bit of what, I think, would be typically allocated to the deacon. But it seems obvious to me that there is something else there that is missing.

No, political turmoil, etc, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Reference to the various diaconal proclamations etc are contained in the Missal and most, as I said earlier, have been totally and completely eliminated.

 

[Rafkqa]

Can I ask if the English translation is somewhere online?

 

[MorEphrem]

Can I ask if the English translation is somewhere online?

No. I forget in which letter, it might’ve even still been under Sfeir, the patriarch said that there was a need for a translation of the deaconal book [from Syriac] but it was not done with the liturgy. Because there was never any Arabic text prepared, an English text was never prepared from the Arabic. It seems pretty purposeful, nonetheless, that there hasn’t been one prepared in the last decade - or, as it should have been, with the liturgical text itself.

 

[Rafkqa]

Thanks so much for your reply.
It is such shame that these texts have not at very least been translated for intellectual purposes - let alone liturgical ones. They would hold a wealth of knowledge… But probably not to many people would be interested…