Sacred Ministers in Traditional Mass

[Matthew_Holford]

Because the major order of Sub-deacon no longer exists, who carries out the functions of the Sub-deacon in a celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII, 1962? Does it have to be a sacred minister or can the functions of the Sub-deacon be carried out by an instituted Acolyte?

I am assuming that the functions of the Deacon are carried out by a Deacon. However, if a Deacon is not available is it proper for a Priest to carry out the functions of Deacon?

As a slight digression: I know that the Sub-deacon and Deacon are not called for at Low Mass but at High Mass; are they required for a Missa Cantata?

 

[Chatter163]

Because the major order of Sub-deacon no longer exists, who carries out the functions of the Sub-deacon in a celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII, 1962? Does it have to be a sacred minister or can the functions of the Sub-deacon be carried out by an instituted Acolyte?

I am assuming that the functions of the Deacon are carried out by a Deacon. However, if a Deacon is not available is it proper for a Priest to carry out the functions of Deacon?

As a slight digression: I know that the Sub-deacon and Deacon are not called for at Low Mass but at High Mass; are they required for a Missa Cantata?

Priests typically serve as deacon and subdeacon at Solemn Mass, as they did before Vatican II. If there are any deacons or subdeacons available (the FSSP and ICRSS do ordain subdeacons), then they may serve in these roles. However, more often than not, at least one, if not both, are served by priests. This was the norm in the EF, so it is neither new nor unusual. A Missa Cantata does not involve sacred ministers other than the celebrant.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Priests typically serve as deacon and subdeacon at Solemn Mass, as they did before Vatican II. If there are any deacons or subdeacons available (the FSSP and ICRSS do ordain subdeacons), then they may serve in these roles. However, more often than not, at least one, if not both, are served by priests. This was the norm in the EF, so it is neither new nor unusual. A Missa Cantata does not involve sacred ministers other than the celebrant.

Thanks very much for that information.

I assume, then, based on what you have said, that Solemn Mass can/could only be celebrated if there was at least one priest; a second priest or deacon; and a third priest, second deacon, or sub-deacon available. I know parishes used to have more priests than they tend to have now. As a child I remember our parish having two priests. Would most parishes pre-Vatican II not have had Solemn Mass regularly due to a lack of the appropriate sacred ministers? While it may have happened, I can’t begin to imagine a parish with three priests.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Thanks very much for that information.

I assume, then, based on what you have said, that Solemn Mass can/could only be celebrated if there was at least one priest; a second priest or deacon; and a third priest, second deacon, or sub-deacon available. I know parishes used to have more priests than they tend to have now. As a child I remember our parish having two priests. Would most parishes pre-Vatican II not have had Solemn Mass regularly due to a lack of the appropriate sacred ministers? While it may have happened, I can’t begin to imagine a parish with three priests.

Pre-Vatican II, in my experience, Solemn High Masses were very rare and reserved to very special occasions. Aside from the Easter vigil, the only one I remember in the late 50’s and early 60’s at our parish or any other for that matter was a very high profile funeral.

We also never had Low (public) Masses but rather had a Missa Cantata where the priest chanted all of the Common Prayers but the propers were not chanted. We also did not use an MC or Thurifer in the sung Mass except for weddings and funerals.

Masses prior to 1955 are a bit before my time so I don’t know if the abbreviated Missa Cantata was a result of the shortening of the Mass and Breviary that Pius XII instituted or whether this was in practice locally or otherwise before that.

 

[Chatter163]

It really depended on where one was, but Solemn Masses were not the norm, even though they were on paper. Well-staffed parishes that had a reputation for a high caliber of liturgy and music might have one Solemn Mass each Sunday and holy day, but most had Sung Masses for their High Masses, with Solemn Masses for special occasions.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It really depended on where one was, but Solemn Masses were not the norm, even though they were on paper. Well-staffed parishes that had a reputation for a high caliber of liturgy and music might have one Solemn Mass each Sunday and holy day, but most had Sung Masses for their High Masses, with Solemn Masses for special occasions.

I think what you say clears something up for me. I was never sure whether the terms Solemn and High Mass were synonymous and interchangeable or if they referred to alternative forms of celebration. From what you have said “High” Mass seems to cover Solemn Mass and Sung Mass.

 

[Mark1970]

I may be able to offer further information on this. I have a copy of the book “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described”, which gives detailed descriptions of the ceremonies of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. It was (and still is) considered an authority on the TLM. It has recently been updated, and gives information on “Substitute for Subdeacon” (page 133). The text says that “a cleric” who hasn’t yet been ordained a subdeacon may act as one but doesn’t do some of the things a subdeacon would normally do, such as purify the chalice.

A footnote says thast the Ecclesia Dei commission has allowed instituted acolytes to act as subdeacon, as long as they are prepared, and a layman may do so if necessary without using the biretta.

If anybody’s interested I can give them the full quite from the book but I’m not sure what forum rules are for posting text from boots.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I may be able to offer further information on this. I have a copy of the book “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described”, which gives detailed descriptions of the ceremonies of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. It was (and still is) considered an authority on the TLM. It has recently been updated, and gives information on “Substitute for Subdeacon” (page 133). The text says that “a cleric” who hasn’t yet been ordained a subdeacon may act as one but doesn’t do some of the things a subdeacon would normally do, such as purify the chalice.

A footnote says thast the Ecclesia Dei commission has allowed instituted acolytes to act as subdeacon, as long as they are prepared, and a layman may do so if necessary without using the biretta.

If anybody’s interested I can give them the full quite from the book but I’m not sure what forum rules are for posting text from boots.

You can quote from books; however, you must give a citation for your quote.

The standard method would be as follows: name(s) of author(s) (year of publication in brackets) title of book and edition number if not the first edition in bold. Place where published: name of publisher, e.g. Smith, J. (2010) The Mass 3rd Ed. London: Book Publishing Company Ltd.

If you are quoting, rather than paraphrasing, put the quote in quotation marks and give the page number(s) from whence the quote came.

It’s also useful to give the book’s ISBN. If you know the book is out-of-print it’s useful to know that too.

Please forgive me if I’m teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

I for one would be interested to know the details of the book.

Matthew

 

[Mark1970]

You can quote from books; however, you must give a citation for your quote.

The standard method would be as follows: name(s) of author(s) (year of publication in brackets) title of book and edition number if not the first edition in bold. Place where published: name of publisher, e.g. Smith, J. (2010) The Mass 3rd Ed. London: Book Publishing Company Ltd.

If you are quoting, rather than paraphrasing, put the quote in quotation marks and give the page number(s) from whence the quote came.

It’s also useful to give the book’s ISBN. If you know the book is out-of-print it’s useful to know that too.

Please forgive me if I’m teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

I for one would be interested to know the details of the book.

Matthew

The full citation is: Fortesque, A.; O’Connell, J.B., Reid, A OSB (2003) “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described”, Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, Farnborough ISBM 0-907077-41-2. This is an older edition as there was a new edition published after Summorum Pontificum was published.

The test from page 133 reads:

“For a reasonable cause the place of the subdeacon may be taken by a cleric in minor orders, or by one who is at least tonsured. In this case he does not wear the maniple; he may not wipe the chalice nor pour the water into it at the offertory, but leaves this to the deacon; after he has brought the chalice to the altar at the offertory he does not touch it, nor dows he cover or uncover it. He does not clean the chalice or any ciboria after the ablutions; this is done by the celebrant. The cleric does, however, arrange the chalice, veil it and carry it back to the credence. Otherwise he fulfills all the office of subdeacon.”

The footnote reads; The Pontifical Commission *Ecclesia Dei *has confirmed that the practice of instituted acolyte acting as subdeacon may be tolerated (7 June 1993, Prot. 24/92). It is essential that the substitute be adequately prepared. A layman acting thus does not wear the brietta.

So with reference to the initial discussion it does seem that someone who is of a lesser rank than subdeacon can act as one with the modifications described in the book. Hope this helps.

 

[Pregustator]

Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described is a classic…an absolute must have for anyone involved in presenting pre-Vatican II ceremonies, or for any MC, or for anyone interested in the history of the liturgy at all. I also recommend it for persons who suffer from insomnia.

Hysterically, the introduction of the most recent edition–the 14th Revised Edition, 2003–shares with us the improbable thoughts of Adrian Fortescue, himself, concerning his celebrated (and reviled) book:

Try to imagine for one solid year of my life…I spent all day comparing Merati & Martinucci & LeVavasseur, to find out where the thurifer ought to stand before the Magnificat, who takes off the bishop’s left glove, and what sort of bow you should make at the Asperges. I had to look serious, and discuss the arguments for a ductus duplex, or the other thing, whatever it is called, at each candlestick, when you incense the altar.

Conceive a man, said to be made in the image of God, spending his time over that kind of thing. Even now that the burden is over it fills me with rage to recall those days. I could have learned a new language in that time. I could have gone every day to the cinema. I could have read the complete works of Maria Corelli. My cat was spending his time in sane and reasonable pursuits, chasing birds in the garden, climbing trees, or sleeping in his basket, while I was describing the conduct of the second MC at pontifical Vespers not at the throne. And they affect to believe that we lead a nobler life than the beasts…

My dreadful ceremonies book. Does it really want more revision? I had so hoped that I had done with that filthy job forever. However, if there are still corrections to be made in it (and I have no doubt there are), I suppose I must make them. You cannot conceive how I loathe the idea of going into all that horrid business of the minutiae of tomfool modern ceremonies once again. I do not think there is any possible subject that seems to me more utterly devoid of interest or of any scientific attraction. It is always, of course, merely a matter of seeing what some footling Congregation of incompetent idiots at Rome has said we are to do. Not one halfpenny’s worth of principle or historic research is affected by the question of whether the thurifer should stand on the left or on the right at any given moment. I would just as soon spend hours verifying the times at which trains start on some railway line that I shall never use.

Marvelous. I nearly shed tears while reading this.

 

[VetA]

Because the major order of Sub-deacon no longer exists, who carries out the functions of the Sub-deacon in a celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII, 1962? Does it have to be a sacred minister or can the functions of the Sub-deacon be carried out by an instituted Acolyte?

I am assuming that the functions of the Deacon are carried out by a Deacon. However, if a Deacon is not available is it proper for a Priest to carry out the functions of Deacon?

As a slight digression: I know that the Sub-deacon and Deacon are not called for at Low Mass but at High Mass; are they required for a Missa Cantata?

there are a few possibilities: the celebrant (of course) would be a priest, the person acting as the deacon could be a priest, the person acting as subdeacon could be a priest. then it could go priest priest deacon. priest deacon deacon, the priest deacon acolyte. known for fact because that is what is done in my EF parish and i dont think ANYONE would accuse fr Klores of unorthodoxy lol

 

[malphono]

The footnote reads; The Pontifical Commission *Ecclesia Dei *has confirmed that the practice of instituted acolyte acting as subdeacon may be tolerated (7 June 1993, Prot. 24/92). It is essential that the substitute be adequately prepared. A layman acting thus does not wear the brietta.

So with reference to the initial discussion it does seem that someone who is of a lesser rank than subdeacon can act as one with the modifications described in the book. Hope this helps.

Yes quite so. I have to add that the possibility of a layman assuming the role of subdeacon in case of necessity is actually quite an old practice. Albeit that it was rarely used, it long predates that Ecclesia Dei protocol.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The footnote reads; The Pontifical Commission *Ecclesia Dei *has confirmed that the practice of instituted acolyte acting as subdeacon may be tolerated (7 June 1993, Prot. 24/92). It is essential that the substitute be adequately prepared. A layman acting thus does not wear the brietta.

I know that when Paul VI established the ministry of Acolyte he said that individual episcopal conferences could choose to call them Sub-deacons. I do not know if he intended them to used as Sub-deacons when Mass was celebrated according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal. In those days I was quite a young child so I don’t know if it was anticipated then that Mass would no longer be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.

 

[Mark1970]

I know that when Paul VI established the ministry of Acolyte he said that individual episcopal conferences could choose to call them Sub-deacons. I do not know if he intended them to used as Sub-deacons when Mass was celebrated according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal. In those days I was quite a young child so I don’t know if it was anticipated then that Mass would no longer be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.

I think that Pope Paul VI established the ministry of Acolyte in 1972, after the Ordinary Form had been implemented. In 1972, Paul VI decided that the traditional four minor orders of porter, acolyte, exorcist and lector were no longer to be used and the subdiaconat abolished. They were replaced by the ministries of Lector and Acolyte, which were to be compulsory for candidates for the priesthood and also abailavle to the laity. I could be wrong on this, but I think that if a man was made both Lector and Acolyte, it was considered the nearest you could get to the subdiaconate without actually having it - meaning that if a layman was institutes as both, he was close to being a subdeacon. I think this may explain the ruling of the Ecclesia Dei commission.

 

[Mark1970]

Sorry for the typing errors in my last post. My fingers go in knots when I’m typing in a hurry.

 

[Mark1970]

Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described is a classic…an absolute must have for anyone involved in presenting pre-Vatican II ceremonies, or for any MC, or for anyone interested in the history of the liturgy at all. I also recommend it for persons who suffer from insomnia.

Hysterically, the introduction of the most recent edition–the 14th Revised Edition, 2003–shares with us the improbable thoughts of Adrian Fortescue, himself, concerning his celebrated (and reviled) book:

Marvelous. I nearly shed tears while reading this.

I believe there has also been a post-*Summorum Pontificum *15th edition of this book, although I’m not 100% sure of this - it may be worth checking traditionalist booksellers to make sure. I’ve a vague memory that this edition caused some controversy regarding the writer’s interpretation of the clause in *Summorum Pontificum *referring to the readings in the vernacular, but that’s the subject of another thread and I’m not sure what was said in the first place.