Passion Narrative

[benedictgal]

In the OF, there is little reason, however, to do so, except for a desire to participate in the proclamation of the the PN. The OF allows for priestly concelebration as normative where sufficient priests are present; the GIRM for the US seems to imply strongly that a priest is to vest as a priest-concelebrant, not as a deacon, even when he fills the deaconal role in the absence of a deacon. (USCCB, GIRM for the US II Concelebrated Mass, ¶208)

1. If a deacon is not present, his proper duties are to be carried out by some of the concelebrants.

In the absence also of other ministers, their proper parts may be entrusted to other suitable members of the faithful; otherwise, they are carried out by some of the concelebrants.

Further, the dalmatic is forbidden by the GIRM to be worn at mass over the cassock, or even the cassock and surplice; it is to be worn over alb, amice, cincture and stole. Likewise, the chasuble must be worn over the alb. (GIRM, 336) It is permitted to wear the cassock under the alb, but I’ve known few priests who do so, as it tends towards uncomfortable warmth.

The EF, except for when the celebrant is a bishop, forbids concelebration; the only form of concelebration permitted outside the “pontifical mass” was for the second priest to vest as and serve as a deacon, and the third as subdeacon. This, more than anything else, seems to be behind the loss of the diaconate and subdiaconate as anything other than transitional roles.

Aramis, what about when the Cardinal Deacons assist the Holy Father? Surely they would be wearing their cassock, alb, stole and dalmatic. What about the Holy Father when he wore the dalmatic during the Mandatum?

By the way, my parochial vicar wears his cassock beneath the alb. The Holy Father also wears his cassock beneath the alb. My bishop does not.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis, what about when the Cardinal Deacons assist the Holy Father? Surely they would be wearing their cassock, alb, stole and dalmatic. What about the Holy Father when he wore the dalmatic during the Mandatum?

Not covered in the US GIRM. Might be covered in the Pontifical. Don’t have one handy to check; Dad’s got two, but the older one is 26 years out of date… (ABp Hurey gave him one after Dad’s ordination… ABp Schweitz gave him a current one upon enthronement.)

But the implications in the US GIRM are clear, tho not overtly forceful: Priests are in fact called to vest and function as priests. Unlike the older instructions, which specifically mentioned down-vesting of priests as deacons and subdeacons, the current instructions usually mention priests first, then deacons.

As for the Cardinal Deacons, the rubrics in the Roman Pontifical in approved text should be the consulted place.

By the way, my parochial vicar wears his cassock beneath the alb. The Holy Father also wears his cassock beneath the alb. My bishop does not.

Good for them. The rule is that the alb is required for the mass. The exception is lay ministers filling in for acolytes, lectors, and as EMHCs, in that the bishop may choose other vestments for them.

 

[Deacon2006]

But the implications in the US GIRM are clear, tho not overtly forceful: Priests are in fact called to vest and function as priests. Unlike the older instructions, which specifically mentioned down-vesting of priests as deacons and subdeacons, the current instructions usually mention priests first, then deacons.
.

I just got a note that says in CB that priests can do diaconal functions but are not permitted to wear the deacons vestments yet they can wear sacerdotal paraments because they are entitled to to diaconal functions (1991).

I guess only tin EF do they were deacons vestements but cannot be certain especially as it relates to the old rules and the new CB

I really got to get me one of these CB books:blush:

PAX

 

[Aramis]

I just got a note that says in CB that priests can do diaconal functions but are not permitted to wear the deacons vestments yet they can wear sacerdotal paraments because they are entitled to to diaconal functions (1991).

I guess only tin EF do they were deacons vestements but cannot be certain especially as it relates to the old rules and the new CB

I really got to get me one of these CB books:blush:

PAX

CB? very vague reference, could be taken to mean any of a half dozen books…

It reinforces the changes in the Roman church post VII.

Oh, and the emphasis on concelebration and conelebrants performing deaconal functions in the absence of a deacon is a clear byzantification of the Latin church; that’s been in the Byzantine praxis for centuries.

 

[Deacon2006]

CB Ceremonial Of Bishops

There is no doubt that the deacon holds the prime place in the PN and rightly reads the part of Jesus.The Passion Narrative is the highlight of the Deacon’s ministry to the proclaim the Gospel

There is no doubt that lectors legitimately fulfil their ministry by reading the other parts of the PN

There is no doubt that concelebrants and celebrants should leave there presidential roles when there are not sufficient ministers of a lower rank to carry out the duties of reading the PN.

There is no doubt that the principle of subsidiarity applies in the liturgy especially in the readings. The GIRM etc even requires it. When the primary minister is absent we go to the lower rank and legitimate minister first that can perform the task, and then if there are none present we go higher to the celebrants.

Applying this principle and GRIM to the SP we clearly have this hierarchy of priority:

1. 
   *]If there are three deacons to read the PN then no other ministers are required
   *]If there are one or two deacons then one or two lectors are required for the other parts (not Jesus)
   *]If there are no deacons then the priest steps down to read Jesus and if there are not enough lectors/cantor/choir for the other parts then other priests could read those parts.
   
   This hierarchy of readers does not violate any stated directive or liturgical law and appears to be the position of Bishop Elliott. This is what is expected in the instruction from the PN approved by the CCCB in the stand alone Passion Books we have been using for years. In the US, A the deacon reads Jesus and B the priest reads Jesus assisted by lectors
   
   Father McNamara comes up with this configuration.
   1. 
      ]If there are three deacons to read the PN then no other ministers are required (deacons are always to proclaim the gospel before any other legitimate minster)
      ]If there are one or two deacons then three priests will leave their places presumably as concelebrants and celebrants and* replace*** these deacons (apparent violation of the GIRM that require a deacon to always proclaim the gospel in priority to any other minister)
      *]If there is only one or two priests then one or two deacons would assist the priest(s)and the priest should read Jesus(as seen above there is no reason for a priest to read the PN when legitimate ministers of a lower rank can perform that task)
      *]If there is only one or two priests and not enough deacons then lectors can fill the remaining roles and only the priest would read Jesus(as seen above there is no reason for a priest to read the PN when legitimate ministers of a lower rank can perform that task)
      *]If there is only one or two priests and no deacons then lectors can fill the remaining roles and the priest reads Jesus(yes of course, this is the way it happens at the vast majority of services and this is the instruction of the SP in ensuring the role of Jesus is read by the priest)
      
      Fathers position appears to ignore the GIRM and can not be substantiated in logic from the limited instruction given in the SP alone. Instead of finding a minster of subsidiarity he goes upward first to find replacements. To come to the conclusion that three deacons are first requires well established principles and practises to exist beyond the instruction. When we come to the second conclusion these principles seem to be rejected along with the GIRM, SP etc especially when the deacons are prevented from fulfilling their ministry in proclaiming the Gospel in favour of the uniformity of three priests that is not in any liturgical book I have ever seen.
      
      In his Article it seems to say that he is just offering a considered opinion and does not cite any textual support for the three priest thesis. I will accept that at face value since he must clearly know if a document exists that supports his position.
      
      I can’t be sure about the specific justifications of Father McNamara position, they just are not cited or apparent, but the motivations are clear based on his conclusion to the question posed which is to have the priest read Jesus when less than three deacons are present. The problem is that conclusion is not stated or logically arrived at from the instructions found within the SP or GIRM. Priests and deacons should not be reading together if there are lectors present since those ministers represent the legitimate and subsidiarity minister of the the other parts after the deacon.
      
      PAX

 

[Aramis]

I suspect the errors of Rev. Fr. McNamara might spring from the admixture of EF and OF rubrics.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I just got a note that says in CB that priests can do diaconal functions but are not permitted to wear the deacons vestments yet they can wear sacerdotal paraments because they are entitled to to diaconal functions (1991). …

Here is what it has: “22 Presbyters taking part in a liturgy with the bishop should do only what belongs to the order of presbyter; [footnote 28: See Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 28] in the absence of deacons they may perform some of the ministries proper to the deacon, but should never wear diaconal vestments.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 23).

The footnoted Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium has: “28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.”

I agree with the importance of the deacon reading the Gospel at Mass. Unfortunately there is a widespread lack of respect for the role of the Instituted Lector to proclaim the First Reading. From the 2002 GIRM: “101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.”

 

[Joannm]

I have been thinking about what is being said in this thread…and I have come to the conclusion that the “primary” part in the proclamation of the Passion Narrative is the role of the Narrator since it is in the narration that we are hearing the story. It is the longest part and the other parts are simply dialogue within the narrative. Therefore, the deacon IS proclaming the primary part. He announces the Gospel and concludes it as well. Therefore it is right, if only in this sense (but theologically as well) for the priest to read the part of Jesus.

 

[Deacon2006]

Good point but by that logic the cantor would be the most important minister at the mass.

:extrahappy:Shout out for all the sacred musicians:extrahappy:

PAX

 

[Joannm]

Good point but by that logic the cantor would be the most important minister at the mass.

:extrahappy:Shout out for all the sacred musicians:extrahappy:

PAX

I don’t get it? The cantor does not read the Gospel.

 

[Deacon2006]

A little attempt at humour based on who gets to do the most talking/singing at the mass.

PAX

 

[Deacon2006]

Okay I once again I made another overstatement about Father McNamara’s article this time concerning the point of three priests. My apologies. Thank you for sending me the notes.

The central questions moving forward are, do deacons or priests mean deacons ***or/and *** priests in the Paschale Solemnitatis. Secondly does the subsidiarity demand that a lector be called forward before a priest to assist when there are not three deacons, since the lector is a legitimate minister of the PN and the lower rank. And third does the traditional way also mean that the diaconal character of the Gospel and passion narrative must be maintained which is functionally impaired if not destroyed if the celebrant takes up the role of Christ when a deacon is present but is clearly only minimally affected when lectors assist a deacon especially so if the deacon reads the role of Jesus.

PAX

 

[Phemie]

Deacon2006, I just checked the “Notes for Passion Readers” in “Passion Narratives for Holy Week” published by the CCCB.

You’re right. It does say that the part of Jesus is read by a deacon.

Jesus: One person reads the words of the Lord Jesus, marked with J. The text is printed in boldface italics. In a liturgical celebration, it is traditional for a deacon – or a priest where no deacon is available – to take this part where possible.

I’ve got to admit that I’ve never heard that anywhere else. It would still seem to me that in parishes with only one deacon, he would be the narrator, not Jesus. It will be interesting to see what CCCB does with the Passion Narratives now that the official Lectionary has the Passion broken only into 3 parts and not into 5 as was the case until now.

 

[Aramis]

As was explained by Rev. John Fearon, OP, DD, etc., of eternal memory, The deacon reads the Gospels because his special ministry is the proclamation of the words and deeds of Christ.

This is also why laymen may NOT proclaim* the Gospels in the liturgy; only the ordained may act* in persona Christi* in the public liturgies; the deacon only in words; the priest in re-presenting the sacrifice of Calvary; the bishop in the commissioning of others to go forth and build the church; the Pope in uniting the apostles heirs.

Quite simply put, speaking the Gospel of Christ the deacon’s primary ministry, and the one faculty shared in all the churches in union. The Roman Church grants many other faculties, but still ordains deacons to preach the Gospel. And in proclaiming the Gospel, their role specifically includes speaking the words of Christ, every time they read the Gospel.

 

[paperwight]

As was explained by Rev. John Fearon, OP, DD, etc., of eternal memory, The deacon reads the Gospels because his special ministry is the proclamation of the words and deeds of Christ.

This is also why laymen may NOT proclaim* the Gospels in the liturgy; only the ordained may act* in persona Christi* in the public liturgies; the deacon only in words; the priest in re-presenting the sacrifice of Calvary; the bishop in the commissioning of others to go forth and build the church; the Pope in uniting the apostles heirs.

To clarify - are you saying that lay persons can’t read the Gospel at services of Holy Communion without a priest? What happens in missionary countries?

 

[Aramis]

To clarify - are you saying that lay persons can’t read the Gospel at services of Holy Communion without a priest? What happens in missionary countries?

If there is a deacon, or an instituted reader or instituted acolyte, or eastern catholic minor cleric, no, a layman may not read the Gospel.

In all public acts of worship, the proclamation of the Gospel is a clerical function, specific to major orders, and in the absence of those in major orders, falling to minor orders (now called instituted ministry in the Roman Church), and only in the absence of all of these, to a layperson.

 

[Deacon2006]

I’ve got to admit that I’ve never heard that anywhere else. It would still seem to me that in parishes with only one deacon, he would be the narrator, not Jesus. It will be interesting to see what CCCB does with the Passion Narratives now that the official Lectionary has the Passion broken only into 3 parts and not into 5 as was the case until now.

There is another place that you can find it Right in the article from Father McNamara in the third last paragraph. If there are one or two deacons, the indication that the deacon asks for a blessing would suggest that the priest may remain at the chair while the deacon proclaims the Passion narrative along with one or two lay readers.

The use of the word may is not what is mentioned in the documents they are more definitive when it comes to where the celbrant stands.

The problem only emerges with the last two paragraphs when he starts to give opinion not cited with positive evidence but on the principle of not being prohibited. I wonder what then is the point about being congruent since it obviously is not to the time immemorial tradition of the deacon proclaiming the gospel and reading the part of Jesus.

The document speaks of deacons or priests and makes no mention of a priest reading with one or two deacons. I believe, however, that because these two days are somewhat out of the ordinary, this situation cannot be excluded a priori and is not prohibited by the norms. In some cases it might even be necessary. If this situation were to arise, it would be congruous to reserve the part of Christ to the priest.

Why would it make mention to this situation if the gospel minister is present and the priest is to impart his blessing? But I can see it being necessary when the the deacon is too old to stand and read the whole passion narrative.

 

[benedictgal]

There is another place that you can find it Right in the article from Father McNamara in the third last paragraph. If there are one or two deacons, the indication that the deacon asks for a blessing would suggest that the priest may remain at the chair while the deacon proclaims the Passion narrative along with one or two lay readers.

The use of the word may is not what is mentioned in the documents they are more definitive when it comes to where the celbrant stands.

The problem only emerges with the last two paragraphs when he starts to give opinion not cited with positive evidence but on the principle of not being prohibited. I wonder what then is the point about being congruent since it obviously is not to the time immemorial tradition of the deacon proclaiming the gospel and reading the part of Jesus.

The document speaks of deacons or priests and makes no mention of a priest reading with one or two deacons. I believe, however, that because these two days are somewhat out of the ordinary, this situation cannot be excluded a priori and is not prohibited by the norms. In some cases it might even be necessary. If this situation were to arise, it would be congruous to reserve the part of Christ to the priest.

Why would it make mention to this situation if the gospel minister is present and the priest is to impart his blessing? But I can see it being necessary when the the deacon is too old to stand and read the whole passion narrative.

However, what are the sources that Fr. McNamara is using? Paschale Solemnitatis notes that the part of Christ is reserved to the priest. As a previous poster noted, since the deacon is charged with proclaiming the Gospel, he could very well read the part of the narrator, the other deacon could read the speaker other than Christ and the priest would then read the part of Christ. Since there are three members of the clergy, there is no need to have a lay reader.

 

[FrDavid96]

However, what are the sources that Fr. McNamara is using? Paschale Solemnitatis notes that the part of Christ is reserved to the priest. As a previous poster noted, since the deacon is charged with proclaiming the Gospel, he could very well read the part of the narrator, the other deacon could read the speaker other than Christ and the priest would then read the part of Christ. Since there are three members of the clergy, there is no need to have a lay reader.

That’s what Fr McNamara is saying. He’s explaining in his article what P.S. requires.

 

[Deacon2006]

Excuse me

The part of Jesus is reserved to both, the deacon in the first instance of priority, and then to the priest in the second instance.This is mandated by the nature of their sacramental ordinations and is the same priority of any other Gospel reading. The phrase is “deacons or priests,” and not “deacons and priests,”. The coma after this phrase is very important because once you have a deacon then the “or” cannot properly be understood to be “and”. If there are not enough deacons then we look to the additional readers contained in the second part of th sentence which are lay readers. This is not a novel reading of the instruction based on the traditional methods of proclaiming the passion narrative, the considered opinion of Father McNamara accepts it, and the GIRM is also very clear and forceful in that a priest will not read the Gospel when a deacon is present. As such in the second instance when only priests (because if there were deacons there would be no priests reading) and lectors are present then the role of Jesus is reserved to the the priest.

Priests are not instructed to read the passion narrative when a deacon is present and do so on there own initiative. This is not an outrageous conclusion and is also the consider opinion of Father McNamara. This potential liturgical abuse effects the nature of the mass and the functions of its ordained ministers.

Pax