Subdeacons: Latin rite, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[bpaynter]

A Latin Rite Catholic converts to Orthodoxy. His bishop ordains him to the subdiaconate. Eventually he returns to the Catholic Church. There is no longer an order of subdeacons in the Latin Church , but presumably there are still subdeacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The question is: would the Orthodox ordination be accepted in any or all of the Eastern Churches?

 

[Aramis]

A Latin Rite Catholic converts to Orthodoxy. His bishop ordains him to the subdiaconate. Eventually he returns to the Catholic Church. There is no longer an order of subdeacons in the Latin Church , but presumably there are still subdeacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The question is: would the Orthodox ordination be accepted in any or all of the Eastern Churches?

Even in the Roman… A subdeacon is a subdeacon. His role, in the Roman church, if accepted by the bishop, would be that of both instituted acolyte and instituted lector.

In the Byzantine Churches, he’d be received by vesting, as with any other cleric, after making his promises of orthodoxy, obedience, and acceptance of the Catholic Teaching.

But without dismissorial letters, he’ll have a hard time being accepted.

 

[twf]

Actually, the order of subdeacon does still exist in the Latin Church - it is just very rare. The FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), in full communion with Rome, and very much a part of the Latin Church, ordains subdeacons. I see no reason why his subdiaconate ministry couldn’t be accepted in any Latin diocese.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, the order of subdeacon does still exist in the Latin Church - it is just very rare. The FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), in full communion with Rome, and very much a part of the Latin Church, ordains subdeacons. I see no reason why his subdiaconate ministry couldn’t be accepted in any Latin diocese.

The FSSP and SSPX continue to do so in violation of the council instructions to the contrary.

They were officially abolished by the Second Vatican Council within the Roman church; there are instructions that preextant subdeacons and eastern subdeacons serve as acolytes and lectors when functioning in a Roman parish. (Which said, the Lector and Acolyte minor orders still exist in the Roman Church… almost exclusively as transitional orders toward the deaconate.)

Further, the instructions of the indult permit instituted acolytes to serve as the subdeacon for EF liturgies.

 

[Brendan]

The FSSP and SSPX continue to do so in violation of the council instructions to the contrary.

They were officially abolished by the Second Vatican Council within the Roman church; .

Huh? The Council surpressed the subdiaconate at all. If you think it did, I would like to see your reference.

Pope Paul VI suppressed the order in an Apostolic Letter (Ministeria Quaedam) in 1972.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM

The FSSP petitioned Pope John Paul to allow them to ordain men to the Sub Deaconate, and His Holiness gave permission.

No Concilliar instructions were involved one way or the other. Pope Paul surpressed the order within the Latin Rite under his own (Papal) authority, and Pope John Paul II allowed it under the same authority, not only to the FSSP, but other ‘traditional’ orders as well.

 

[Aramis]

Lumen Gentium affirms the councils view of the hierarchy by delineation; It declines to mention minor orders, including the subdiaconate, and further, explicitly lists only bishops, and their assistants priests and deacons, as holding sacred ministry. (Item 20)

Further Lumen Gentium, in 1964, orders the restoration of the permanent deaconate and permits admission of married men, citing the council’s decisions. It is signed by “+PERICLE FELICI, Titular Archbishop of Samosata, Secretary General of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council”

It’s not crystal clear, but it does affirm only the eastern concept of major orders, which is also the modern concept in the Roman church… and it does not include the minor orders as part of deaconal formation.

Prior roman delineations (Pius IX, for example) list subdeacons with the deacons and priests as assistants to the bishops. Therefore, this represents a state change. The bishops I’ve seen write of it understood it to be because of a flawed Roman theologumenion of subdeacons as major orders… clearly not the belief of the early church, nor of the Catholic East, nor their Orthodox brethren.

His Holiness Paul VI, in promulgating his moto proprio, is NOT advocating on his own (he cites lumen gentium) in restoring the permanent deaconate. He merely restates Lumen Gentium and makes it clear it will happen because it is moto proprio… “to move properly.”

There are other post-conciliar documents from concila estabished by the council which are relevant, but not online; I don’t have my text copies to hand.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html

 

[bpaynter]

Thanks to all posters. I think I should rephrase my original enquiry.
Should a Catholic returning to the Church from a sojourn in Orthodoxy as a subdeacon be regarded still as a subdeacon, or as a layman?
He has no intention of foisting himself onto the Latin church as something which no longer exists.
It might help if I quote this person’s conversation with an Orthodox priest: “you will be judged as a subdeacon”

 

[Formosus]

Lumen gentiums lack of mention for the sub diaconate hardly means that he council fathers intended or were seeking to supres that order. The sub diaconate is a venerable ofice of both east and west. IMO it should recieve full restoration.

 

[Aramis]

Lumen gentiums lack of mention for the sub diaconate hardly means that he council fathers intended or were seeking to supres that order. The sub diaconate is a venerable ofice of both east and west. IMO it should recieve full restoration.

That they did not, unlike the prior popes, list the subdeacons as part of the hierarchy of the church IS a change. A profound one, really, and the culmination of nearly a century of theological discussions. And the Roman understanding of the Subdeaconate WAS in error. The council did find the subdeaconate as it existed in the Roman church to be in error… and the following Popes agreed.

And canon law since 84 specifically states only two minor and three major orders exist in the Roman Church… Instituted Lectors and Instituted Acolytes for minor, but they remain laymen; Deacon, Priest, & Bishop for major, and they are not.

 

[Brendan]

Lumen Gentium affirms the councils view of the hierarchy by delineation; It declines to mention minor orders, including the subdiaconate, and further, explicitly lists only bishops, and their assistants priests and deacons, as holding sacred ministry. (Item 20)

Which is correct, as only those offices participate in Holy Orders.

Prior roman delineations (Pius IX, for example) list subdeacons with the deacons and priests as assistants to the bishops. Therefore, this represents a state change. The bishops I’ve seen write of it understood it to be because of a flawed Roman theologumenion of subdeacons as major orders… clearly not the belief of the early church, nor of the Catholic East, nor their Orthodox brethren.

Major Orders yes, Holy Orders No. The two words are not synomous.

The Latin Church recognized that the subdiaconate was not in the same classification as that of Holy Orders, (and hence used different terms) but rather included the subdiaconate in the vows of the higher ranking clergy ( remain celibate, though married subdeacons were permitted (Trent), the requirement to say the Divine Office on a daily basis).

The term used to describe men in such a state was “Major Orders”

But unlike a Deacon, Priest or Bishop, there was a recognition that a Subdeacon could be returned to the lay state ( no character of ordination rested upon him)

His Holiness Paul VI, in promulgating his moto proprio, is NOT advocating on his own (he cites lumen gentium) in restoring the permanent deaconate. He merely restates Lumen Gentium and makes it clear it will happen because it is moto proprio… “to move properly.”

There are other post-conciliar documents from concila estabished by the council which are relevant, but not online; I don’t have my text copies to hand.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html

So your general claim is that because L.G. did not list subdeacons as an assistant to the bishop, that was tantamount to a suppression of the Subdeaconate.

What I would be interested in knowing is that do you then consider L.G. ( and thus it’s supression of the subdiaconate) as binding in anyway on the Eastern Churches.

In other words, is the supression you references an infallibale anathema, and is thus binding on all Catholics for all time; or a discipline outlined for each Church Synod, in conjunction with the Patriarch of each sui juris Church, to apply or not apply at their\his discretion.

 

[Aramis]

The east never claimed it to be a major order, brendan. And generally, the Roman Subdeacon does the liturgical job that a Byzantine Deacon would do.

It was the Roman Church that was in error. ANd it isnt just LG. The Vatican II post conciliar documents have some other discussion on the suppression of the Roman subdeaconate, which was considered to be a Holy Order.

For proof of the latter, see Subdeacon in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, “The subdiaconate is the lowest of the sacred or major orders in the Latin Church.” That article also goes on to state that there is much theological discussion on the matter, and that some are certain it is merely a sacramental, not a sacrament (a distinction not made in most Byzantine theology).

There is also that the roman subdeacon does part of the deacon’s job as defined by the early church. The Roman Subdeacon was half-a-deacon. The Byzantine subdeacon is a distinct role, never has been claimed to be a major order, and has the character of minor orders.

 

[twf]

Aramis:

You haven’t addressed the fact that Pope John Paul II of blessed memory granted permission to the FSSP (and other similar groups) to ordain subdeacons. The SSPX are operating outside of the canonical norms - it is insulting to group the FSSP in the same category. You may believe that Vatican II rendered the ordination of Latin subdeacons impossible, but the Holy Father obviously thought otherwise. There are those who also believed that the Tridentine Roman Rite could never again be universally celebrated (that is, without an indult), but Pope Benedict has demonstrated that their interpretation of the Council and post-counciliar decrees was incorrect. Pope Paul VI did not have the authority to bind his sucessors on a disciplinary matter such as this.

 

[ciero]

Thanks to all posters. I think I should rephrase my original enquiry.
Should a Catholic returning to the Church from a sojourn in Orthodoxy as a subdeacon be regarded still as a subdeacon, or as a layman?
He has no intention of foisting himself onto the Latin church as something which no longer exists.
It might help if I quote this person’s conversation with an Orthodox priest: “you will be judged as a subdeacon”

In MOST cases the Latin church will receive a person back from the Orthodox church in the state they were in when they left. To many men have "become " Orthodox, got ordained then wanted to return as priests. Although Rome will sometimes allow this, most often one returns in the state in which he left.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In MOST cases the Latin church will receive a person back from the Orthodox church in the state they were in when they left. To many men have "become " Orthodox, got ordained then wanted to return as priests. Although Rome will sometimes allow this, most often one returns in the state in which he left.

Though the Church recognizes the ordination they do not allow them to practice it.

They do not really say that you left as a lay person so you are still a lay person.

They just suspend the man as a priest and do not allow him to work as one though in emergencies as laid out in canon law he can perform certain sacraments in cases of emergency (such as imminent death).

The Church does so because of the suspicion that the man actually left to get ordained, that is he thought the Church would not ordain him so he left to get that ordination.

Sort of the same reason that many Eastern bishops won’t consider a Latin Catholic who switched to an Eastern Church then married as a candidate for the priesthood.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis:

You haven’t addressed the fact that Pope John Paul II of blessed memory granted permission to the FSSP (and other similar groups) to ordain subdeacons. The SSPX are operating outside of the canonical norms - it is insulting to group the FSSP in the same category. You may believe that Vatican II rendered the ordination of Latin subdeacons impossible, but the Holy Father obviously thought otherwise. There are those who also believed that the Tridentine Roman Rite could never again be universally celebrated (that is, without an indult), but Pope Benedict has demonstrated that their interpretation of the Council and post-counciliar decrees was incorrect. Pope Paul VI did not have the authority to bind his sucessors on a disciplinary matter such as this.

That the role liturgically is done legitimately by Acolytes renders the issue moot. Functionally, these men are instituted acolytes and instituted lectors. Which said, the institution follows closely the form of the minor orders ordination; such ordination includes the still valid institution to Lector and Acolyte.

 

[Hesychios]

Though the Church recognizes the ordination they do not allow them to practice it.

They do not really say that you left as a lay person so you are still a lay person.

They just suspend the man as a priest and do not allow him to work as one though in emergencies as laid out in canon law he can perform certain sacraments in cases of emergency (such as imminent death).

The Church does so because of the suspicion that the man actually left to get ordained, that is he thought the Church would not ordain him so he left to get that ordination.

Sort of the same reason that many Eastern bishops won’t consider a Latin Catholic who switched to an Eastern Church then married as a candidate for the priesthood.

I think perhaps you are right, but the church is then all too suspicious by nature.

I true spiritual journey can take people places they had never even dreamed. For a man who wants to be a ‘Catholic priest’ the thought that he would calculate a risk going into formal schism (and possibly dying in that state) just to skirt a disciplinary canon is too much even for me to believe, and I am quite the cynic myself.

A truly sincere uncalculated spiritual journey can take one into those places, and perhaps back around again.

 

[Formosus]

That they did not, unlike the prior popes, list the subdeacons as part of the hierarchy of the church IS a change. A profound one, really, and the culmination of nearly a century of theological discussions. And the Roman understanding of the Subdeaconate WAS in error. The council did find the subdeaconate as it existed in the Roman church to be in error… and the following Popes agreed.

And canon law since 84 specifically states only two minor and three major orders exist in the Roman Church… Instituted Lectors and Instituted Acolytes for minor, but they remain laymen; Deacon, Priest, & Bishop for major, and they are not.

Irrelevant as to whether the Roman church was wrong in calling a major order, that doesn’t justify its suppression. It has been a while since I have read the document where Paul VI supressed the subdiaconate, but that same document also abolished the minor orders in the latin church. It seems like a situation where the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. Rather then attempt to restore the subdiaconate to a more patristic understanding, the Roman Church simply got rid of if and replaced it with new lay ministries based on the traditional minor orders. You keep calling them minor orders but Paul VI was pretty clear that these are not minor orders. Further the functionality of the instituted lectors and acolytes are almost identical to the old subdeacon in the negative sense. In that they are merely stepping stones for Latin seminarians when moving towards the priesthood, rather then real stand alone ministries. A better solution would have been to clarify that the Sub-deacon is a minor order, and to abolish the minor orders of porter and exoricst. Then the remaining three minor orders (lector, acolyte, and sub-deacon) could have been given similar treatment as the “permanent” diaconate.

 

[rome1453]

So, I wanted to know:

If an Eastern Orthodox subdeacon converts to the Latin Rite (skipping over Eastern Rite), could the bishop allow him to be an instituted acolyte?

John

 

[countertenor]

He would automatically belong to an Eastern Catholic Church. He would have to request a formal transfer into the Latin Church, in which case the Bishop could probably do whatever he wants in regard to instituting him as an acolyte.

 

[rome1453]

True. I read that the convert can request at time of reception to join the Latin Rite instead of the Eastern Rite.