Permanent diaconate east vs. west

[FrDavid96]

Not in the Syro Malabar Church. Of course, it would be nice to see a deacon, much less an archdeacon.

In the ceremony for the installation (or ordination, “chirotony”) of an arch-deacon, he is given the Book of Gospels. In contrast, the deacon is given the Epistles.

 

[twf]

If the epistle is sung by the Deacon, in the East Syriac tradition, what role if any does a sub-Deacon have during the liturgy of the word?

 

[malphono]

If the epistle is sung by the Deacon, in the East Syriac tradition, what role if any does a sub-Deacon have during the liturgy of the word?

AFAIK, in practice it’s actually the sub-deacon who reads the Epistle. Albeit that it’s not formally proper, I’ve seen the deacon read the Gospel in translation, but it’s the celebrant who normally sings it in Chaldean.

The celebrant in the West Syriac & Armenian Churches usually does the Gospel as well. Of course the Maronites, (in yet another clear Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization), have adopted the current Roman fashion where a deacon, if present, does it. The epistle is normally read by a lay person, again according to current Roman fashion.

In the West Syriac Churches, a deacon is subtitled “mshamshono d’egartho” (deacon of the epistle), and I think (but wil not swear) that the same applies to the East Syriac Churches.

True archdeacons (as opposed to proto-deacons) are a rarity, to the point that I don’t believe even one exists in the Maronite Church. Whether or not the SCC has them I’m not sure, but they’re not all that common even in the SOC. I have no knowledge about archdeacons in the East Syriac or Armenian Churches or, for that matter, among the Alexandrenes either.

 

[FrDavid96]

AFAIK, in practice it’s actually the sub-deacon who reads the Epistle. Albeit that it’s not formally proper, I’ve seen the deacon read the Gospel in translation, but it’s the celebrant who normally sings it in Chaldean.

The celebrant in the West Syriac & Armenian Churches usually does the Gospel as well. Of course the Maronites, (in yet another clear Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization), have adopted the current Roman fashion where a deacon, if present, does it. The epistle is normally read by a lay person, again according to current Roman fashion.

In the West Syriac Churches, a deacon is subtitled “mshamshono d’egartho” (deacon of the epistle), and I think (but wil not swear) that the same applies to the East Syriac Churches.

True archdeacons (as opposed to proto-deacons) are a rarity, to the point that I don’t believe even one exists in the Maronite Church. Whether or not the SCC has them I’m not sure, but they’re not all that common even in the SOC. I have no knowledge about archdeacons in the East Syriac or Armenian Churches or, for that matter, among the Alexandrenes either.

The Maronites in the U.S. do have archdeacons.

I don’t know if any have been made in recent years, but the late Archbishop Z. installed quite a few. There are many whom he installed who are still serving, although he retired nearly 20 years ago.

Yes, in practice, the US Maronite deacons do proclaim the Gospel, but as you said, that’s a Latinization.

 

[twf]

AFAIK, in practice it’s actually the sub-deacon who reads the Epistle. Albeit that it’s not formally proper, I’ve seen the deacon read the Gospel in translation, but it’s the celebrant who normally sings it in Chaldean.

The celebrant in the West Syriac & Armenian Churches usually does the Gospel as well. Of course the Maronites, (in yet another clear Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization), have adopted the current Roman fashion where a deacon, if present, does it. The epistle is normally read by a lay person, again according to current Roman fashion.

In the West Syriac Churches, a deacon is subtitled “mshamshono d’egartho” (deacon of the epistle), and I think (but wil not swear) that the same applies to the East Syriac Churches.

True archdeacons (as opposed to proto-deacons) are a rarity, to the point that I don’t believe even one exists in the Maronite Church. Whether or not the SCC has them I’m not sure, but they’re not all that common even in the SOC. I have no knowledge about archdeacons in the East Syriac or Armenian Churches or, for that matter, among the Alexandrenes either.

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Regarding the Deacon chanting the Gospel- I am not sure if I would characterize it as a Novus Ordo thing. Is it not the norm in the Roman Rite EF - and Byzantine rite for that matter? Of course most EF masses before and since the Council are celebrated by a single priest who also chants the Gospel, but at a solemn high mass it is proper for the Deacon to fulfill that role.

 

[SyroMalankara]

In the Malankara Syriac practice, it is as Malphono stated. I believe it is only allowed for the full Deacon to read the Gospel and give a homily on one day, the Commemoration of St. Stephen the Protomartyr. The priest will do the normal sign of the Cross blessings, deacon reads, priest again does the blessing.

I’m not sure if this is a local practice, a Malankara usage, for the Churches that are derived from Syriac Orthodox or for all West Syriac Churches

 

[malphono]

The Maronites in the U.S. do have archdeacons.

I don’t know if any have been made in recent years, but the late Archbishop Z. installed quite a few. There are many whom he installed who are still serving, although he retired nearly 20 years ago.

Post-conciliar times saw the revival of “permanent” subdeacons in the Maronite Church, and many were ordained by the late Archbishop, Eventually, a number of them were ordained “permanent” deacons. This is an ongoing thing.

Now, Archdeacon is one of the 3 “median orders” (the others being Periodute and Chor Episcopus) of the West Syriac Churches. Nomination for elevation to the Median Orders is normally reserved to the Patriarch, and I really don’t recall a Maronite deacon ever having been elevated to that rank. But if you have any identifying details, please feel free to PM me.

That said, there was at least one bi-ritual (Latin) priest ordained as a Maronite “archpriest” (sometime in the early 1980s, IIRC), using the rite of ordination for archdeacon. This was done without Patriarchal approbation.

 

[malphono]

Regarding the Deacon chanting the Gospel- I am not sure if I would characterize it as a Novus Ordo thing. Is it not the norm in the Roman Rite EF - and Byzantine rite for that matter? Of course most EF masses before and since the Council are celebrated by a single priest who also chants the Gospel, but at a solemn high mass it is proper for the Deacon to fulfill that role.

You’re right, of course, about Byzantine and Latin deacons, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I used “Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization” only in the context of the Maronite Church, since the practice was imported concurrently with the revival of the “permanent” diaconate in the Latin Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

… I really don’t recall a Maronite deacon ever having been elevated to that rank. But if you have any identifying details, please feel free to PM me.

That said, there was at least one bi-ritual (Latin) priest ordained as a Maronite “archpriest” (sometime in the early 1980s, IIRC), using the rite of ordination for archdeacon. This was done without Patriarchal approbation.

Yes. I do recall.

I was present at some of those ordinations (although I was not yet a priest for any of them). I can say with absolute certainty that they happened.

At the time, before the new Eastern Code was promulgated, Patriarchal permission was not needed because that archbishop had a rather unique status in that he answered directly to Rome. His appointment had some unusual wording that made his status different from other Eastern bishops in the U.S. at the time, and different from what would later become the practice (therefore different from the Syriac bishops of today, even his own successors).

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Regarding the Deacon chanting the Gospel- I am not sure if I would characterize it as a Novus Ordo thing. Is it not the norm in the Roman Rite EF - and Byzantine rite for that matter? Of course most EF masses before and since the Council are celebrated by a single priest who also chants the Gospel, but at a solemn high mass it is proper for the Deacon to fulfill that role.

In the Maronite traditional use, it’s not a simple matter of dividing the readings into either “Gospel” or “other.”

Each Order has its own section of Scripture to proclaim: Psalms, prophets, epistles, etc.

If the traditional form were to be followed, in the course of an entire day (including the Hours), about 5 (maybe even 6) different clerics would be needed, each of a different Order.

The practice of dividing the readings into only 2 categories; those being “the Gospel” and “all the other readings” actually is a Latinization.

Having wrote that, I don’t know how far back one would have to go to see the practice strictly followed. In one sense, we know this only because the different rites of ordination specify which book is handed to the newly-ordained. How strictly that was followed in actual practice is really an open question because that sort of information tends not to be recorded for history. The ordination texts exist, but in this regard, they may express more of an “ideal” than an actual practice.

 

[malphono]

Yes. I do recall.

I was present at some of those ordinations (although I was not yet a priest for any of them). I can say with absolute certainty that they happened.

I’m not so sure, but I’d still very much appreciate some supporting details by PM. I may know the cases.

At the time, before the new Eastern Code was promulgated, Patriarchal permission was not needed because that archbishop had a rather unique status in that he answered directly to Rome. His appointment had some unusual wording that made his status different from other Eastern bishops in the U.S. at the time, and different from what would later become the practice (therefore different from the Syriac bishops of today, even his own successors).

Yes, I know the situation with Abp Zayek in the pre-CCEO days all too well. That “special” situation with Rome notwithstanding, he was a member of the Synod, and trust me when I say those unilateral ordinations to the Median Orders were not very well received by the Patriarch or the Synod. They in fact ceased well before the promulgation of the CCEO.

 

[malphono]

In the Maronite traditional use, it’s not a simple matter of dividing the readings into either “Gospel” or “other.”

Each Order has its own section of Scripture to proclaim: Psalms, prophets, epistles, etc.

If the traditional form were to be followed, in the course of an entire day (including the Hours), about 5 (maybe even 6) different clerics would be needed, each of a different Order.

The practice of dividing the readings into only 2 categories; those being “the Gospel” and “all the other readings” actually is a Latinization.

Having wrote that, I don’t know how far back one would have to go to see the practice strictly followed. In one sense, we know this only because the different rites of ordination specify which book is handed to the newly-ordained. How strictly that was followed in actual practice is really an open question because that sort of information tends not to be recorded for history. The ordination texts exist, but in this regard, they may express more of an “ideal” than an actual practice.

In the West Syriac Churches there are a total of nine orders (which are sometimes paralled to the nine choirs of Angels). Three are Minor Orders: mzamrono (cantor), quroyo (reader), and aphudiyakono (sub-deacon). Three are Major Orders: mshamshono (deacon), kohno (priest) and episkopho (bishop). The remaining three are the Median Orders: rish-mshamshono (arch-deacon), bardiyout (periodute), and chor-episkopus (chor-bishop). Whereas the Minor and Major Orders to, the Median Orders do not depend one upon the other.

In most cases, a candidate receives only 4 or 5 of them, depending on whether one is ordained to the priesthood.

 

[Thomas48]

Not in the Syro Malabar Church. Of course, it would be nice to see a deacon, much less an archdeacon.

You are right on this matter. There are no permanent deacons in the Syro Malabar Church. The position is only transitional during the steps of ordination for priests. During a regular Syro Malabar Qurbana there is only the celebrant and altar servers, who are both youth and adults. It can seem confusing because (depending on the diocese/parish) the altar servers vest in the Zunara, which is indeed a liturgical vestment. The sub-deacon will where the Urara (stole) slung around the neck and the transitional deacon will where it on the left shoulder as pictured.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not so sure, but I’d still very much appreciate some supporting details by PM. I may know the cases.

I do not care if you are sure or not.

I was actually present and participated (on more than one occasion).

Yes, I know the situation with Abp Zayek in the pre-CCEO days all too well. That “special” situation with Rome notwithstanding, he was a member of the Synod, and trust me when I say those unilateral ordinations to the Median Orders were not very well received by the Patriarch or the Synod. They in fact ceased well before the promulgation of the CCEO.

Regardless of whether they were “well received” or not, they happened.

 

[malphono]

I do not care if you are sure or not.

I was actually present and participated (on more than one occasion).

Not to be argumentative, Father, and with due respect, but that would say there should be no problem in sharing some details. FWIW, I’ve met more than a few deacons ordained in the 1970s and 1980s, and I’m not the only Maronite who is unaware of an archdiaconal ordination ever having occurred in the US.

Regardless of whether they were “well received” or not, they happened.

Yes quite. I know more than one of the ordinands personally. But such ordinations stopped very abruptly in the wake of the “cease and desist” order.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I wouldn’t call that “more autonomy”

Deacons can only perform two sacraments: Baptism and Holy Matrimony, and that is ONLY when those two sacraments are performed outside of Mass. These are the same two sacraments which are valid (though not always licit) to be performed by lay people (which is why the Church accepts the Baptisms and Marriages of non-Catholics).

In regards to baptism: Deacons only baptize when the pastor asks/assigns them to do so (except in the case of an emergency baptism, which is the case for everyone).

Holy Matrimony can be performed by a Deacon only when there isn’t a nuptial mass. This usually only happens in mixed marriages or when a large portion of the people attending the Mass are not Catholic. Typically, this only happens when the Deacon is specifically requested, since most people want their priest to marry them.

So I would argue that Latin Deacon is still an “extraordinary minister” of Baptism and Holy Matrimony (even though a Deacon might do a lot of Baptisms).

God Bless

Strange I get nearly 100% of the marriage requests at my parish. I almost always try to get the couple to have a Mass. About half the time we “settle” ( at my begging) with a nuptial Mass but in all cases they still have wanted me to witness their marriage and preach. My parish priest is completely OK with this as I am almost always at his side assisting at Mass.

 

[5Loaves]

Strange I get nearly 100% of the marriage requests at my parish. I almost always try to get the couple to have a Mass. About half the time we “settle” ( at my begging) with a nuptial Mass but in all cases they still have wanted me to witness their marriage and preach. My parish priest is completely OK with this as I am almost always at his side assisting at Mass.

It’s good you know for their marriage to be valid the necessity then of having the baptismal records of bride and groom to be certain neither is Eastern Catholic and has just never known they are, or has forgotten it.

 

[AXO]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Regarding the Deacon chanting the Gospel- I am not sure if I would characterize it as a Novus Ordo thing. Is it not the norm in the Roman Rite EF - and Byzantine rite for that matter? Of course most EF masses before and since the Council are celebrated by a single priest who also chants the Gospel, but at a solemn high mass it is proper for the Deacon to fulfill that role.

In the Maronite traditional use, it’s not a simple matter of dividing the readings into either “Gospel” or “other.”

Each Order has its own section of Scripture to proclaim: Psalms, prophets, epistles, etc.

The practice of dividing the readings into only 2 categories; those being “the Gospel” and “all the other readings” actually is a Latinization.

Indeed it seems that that division only into two categories comes from the influence of the Roman rite, where there would be (in the Vetus Ordo) the Lectio and the Evangelium. It seems to me however that with the reformed Mass the differences between parts of the lessons of the Scripture have been enhanced, but the “all-embracing” ministry of the reader in the Roman rite has made the two groups to stay.

Anyway, East Syriac Churches don’t organise them like that. At least in the Syro-Malabar (correct me if I’m wrong), there are the Qeryane (Old Testament: Law and Prophets), read by the Qaroya/reader; the Engartha (Epistles), read by the deacon; and the Evangalion (Gospel), proclaimed by the celebrant.

 

[malphono]

Anyway, East Syriac Churches don’t organise them like that. At least in the Syro-Malabar (correct me if I’m wrong), there are the Qeryane (Old Testament: Law and Prophets), read by the Qaroya/reader; the Engartha (Epistles), read by the deacon; and the Evangalion (Gospel), proclaimed by the celebrant.

In theory, at least, the traditional (read: old) usage is basically the same in the West Syriac Churches as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

… At least in the Syro-Malabar (correct me if I’m wrong), there are the Qeryane (Old Testament: Law and Prophets), read by the Qaroya/reader; the Engartha (Epistles), read by the deacon; and the Evangalion (Gospel), proclaimed by the celebrant.

When we add that the Psalms are done by the Cantor (an ordained Order) it shows that there’s more of a difference—meaning specific parts of Scripture are proper to different Orders, just as you’ve illustrated above.

In contrast, in the Latin rite, the Psalm (usually the responsorial Psalm) is also read by whoever reads the first reading (and 2nd if applicable). Yes, if there’s an actual cantor, he might do the Psalm, but the majority* of times the Psalm is not sung/chanted.

It still comes down to the Western/Latin practice of “Gospel” or “everything else” which is not the proper Syriac tradition.

---

If one were to actually count them, there are more daily Masses than Sunday ones, and most parishes have at least 1 Sunday Mass where they’re not sung even if they do sing the Psalms at one or another Sunday Mass.