No, he didn’t abolish them; he suppressed the role, and there is a difference. There may be ordained subdeacons, although as @twf states, it’s not a sacramental ordination the same as deacon/priest/bishop. Suppression in simple terms meaning that there is no role for them to exercise, but the Extraordinary Form of the Mass provides that role otherwise gone.
Yes, but the functions are fulfilled by the acolyte and the reader, and the acolyte can be called a subdeacon if the episcopal conference wants to. Even before this change, subdeacons did not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.
But officially, weren’t deacons actually “Ordinary Ministers of Communion” even before V2? Unsure about subdeacons.
No, deacons were extraordinary ministers prior to the restoration of the permanent diaconate. Remember, there were only transitional deacons prior to V2, so one didn’t see a deacon very often.OldCAFMember:
But officially, weren’t deacons actually “Ordinary Ministers of Communion” even before V2? Unsure about subdeacons.
When “Extraordinary Ministers” were created, I don’t recall any announcement that deacons were only now considered “Ordinary”. They likely were all along.
Do FSSP and ICKSP allow transitional deacons or subdeacons to bring Holy Communion to people who are homebound, or in hospitals?
Were they considered clerics before 1983? What about someone ordained subdeacon in the 1970s - would he be considered clergy in 2020?
Word “Cleric” is quite confusing. Historically, any university student was considered Cleric and as such they would be able to request Church Tribunal instead of State Tribunal (which was done so much that it was effectively viewed as abuse by nobles).
In my parish, we have a man who has been a subdeacon for decades, but like you say, other people are a subdeacon for ~30 minutes before they are ordained to deacon
How can this be justified if both men have received the sacrament of Holy Orders?
It’s their practice. It doesn’t have to be justified.OldCAFMember:
How can this be justified if both men have received the sacrament of Holy Orders?
The subdiaconate was supressed in 1972, and basically all subdeacons were nearing ordination to the diaconate and priesthood, so the few subdeacons that there were at the time of suppression were immediately ordained as deacons, then as priests the following year. There were next to none who weren’t soon ordained, and the very few that weren’t ordained remained canonically in the clerical state, essentially in the category of a laicized cleric, practically speaking. I actually knew one in his later years–he passed away a few years back–and he never married, and just remained as a layman, though he had been ordained a subdeacon.OldCAFMember:
Were they considered clerics before 1983? What about someone ordained subdeacon in the 1970s - would he be considered clergy in 2020?
I would actually like to see a revival of the subdiaconate in the EC (and probably EO, but I don’t get an opinion thereIn my parish, we have a man who has been a subdeacon for decades, but like you say, other people are a subdeacon for ~30 minutes before they are ordained to deacon
).
)I think the subdiaconate in the EO is doing alright; we have two subdeacons at our church even. There are other subdeacons in the area too, so the role doesn’t seem too in danger. What about in the EC?
Did you mean to say chastity perhaps? You’re right that after subdeacon ordination, an unmarried man is not allowed to marry, so only married men (“chaste unto their wives”) would be able to take the position…