The Future of the Subdeaconate

  • Thread starter Thread starter NicPais83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NicPais83

Guest
Does anyone have any thoughts about the future of the subdeaconate in light of the increase in use of the Extraordinary Form? I’ve noticed that the Papal Masses (OF), for instance, uses what I assume are two deacons, or priests/bishops vested as deacons. I would not think that the subdeaconate would necessarily be reinstated outside of certain communities such as the FSSP, but it seems to me that we live in a time where the beauty of the EF is being rediscovered and is enriching the beauty of the OF.
 
The men vested who serve at the altar with the Pope are permanent deacons…not subdeacons. That is only one of their roles in assisting at liturgy…their larger role is the care of the poor. And the permanent diaconate has been reinstated since Vatican II.
usccb.org/deacon/pd.shtml Here are the most current stats regarding deacons in the US.
 
stbruno said:
The men vested who serve at the altar with the Pope are permanent deacons…not subdeacons. That is only one of their roles in assisting at liturgy…their larger role is the care of the poor. And the permanent diaconate has been reinstated since Vatican II.
usccb.org/deacon/pd.shtml Here are the most current stats regarding deacons in the US.
Click to expand...
I know that they are not subdeacons, and I know that the deaconate was re-instated…my father is a Permanent Deacon. I’m not asking, however, about the deaconate, but I am curious about the subdeaconate in light of the increased use of the EF, especially after its suppression by Pope Paul VI. I am in no way questioning validity of the deaconate, as I love the deaconate.
 
I know that they are not subdeacons, and I know that the deaconate was re-instated

**The diaconate was never lost or suppressed, hence it was never reinstated. All priests have always had to spend SOME time as deacons.

Furthermore, the Eastern Church in communion with Rome continue to have subdeacons, even though Paul VI suppressed them in the Latin Church (a bad idea, if you ask me).**
 
We have a sub-deacon at our parish. He was ordained in the Chaldean Church when he lived in Iraq, but now attends our Latin parish.

He functions as an Acolyte or Reader at Mass.
 
My son was a subdeacon at the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest before he was ordained a deacon.
 
jeanannemarie said:
My son was a subdeacon at the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest before he was ordained a deacon.
Click to expand...
Is it still standard practice for all clergy to go through the subdiaconate while at seminary, or is the Institute unusual in that respect?
 
As I understand it, the Institute of Christ the King follows the way in which things used to be done (with the Pope’s blessing,) because they follow the methods used for the old Latin Mass, which is what they are trying to preserve.
 
I would think that it would be necessary to envision a specific ministerial role - just as the word / worship / service role exists for deacons - for the subdiaconate beyond standing on the bottom step during a Solemn High EF. I believe Maronites have subdeacons – does anyone know how their subdiaconal ministry differs from (or compliments) their diaconal ministry?
 
The position of “Subdeacon” was dissolved on December 31, 1972 in the Latin Rite Church.

The roles previously filled by them was replaced by Lectors (reading the non-Gospel readings) and Acolytes, who can be somewhat involved in prepping the Altar-I think they can even pour the wine (it would still be wine) if there isn’t a deacon.

But, at any rate, there are no more subdeacons in the Latin Rite of the Church. However, it’s not unheard of for seminarians to be informally referred to as a “subdeacon,” and Pope Paul VI did not object to that.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM

Back in the day, full priests would assume the deacon’s and/or subdeacon’s roles at a High Mass, if there were no actual deacons or subdeacons.

I’m just guessing, but I assume if there was an OF Mass, and they had three priests, the same thing would happen.
 
Digitonomy said:
Is it still standard practice for all clergy to go through the subdiaconate while at seminary, or is the Institute unusual in that respect?
Click to expand...
Vatican II’s post concilliar process rendered a decision that the Latin Rite should no longer ordain subdeacons as a major order, as the subdeaconate was not instituted by Christ nor is it scriptural. The pope later ised letters to enact that decision.

(The Deaconate, however, is. It’s in Acts.)

Roman Church (Latin Rite) Priests outside the traditionalist seminaries are seldom ordained to the subdeaconate, instead being instituted as acolytes and readers, and then ordained directly to the deaconate in 3rd year.

The existence of a practical deaconate in the Roman Church was negligible; outside seminaries, deacons were rare pre-V.II; most permanent deacons either didn’t complete seminary, or were in monastic orders, or both.

It is only post V.II that permanent deacons were intentionally trained outside monastic or friary orders in any real numbers.

Note also: The eastern churches’ synods may keep or suppress the subdeaconate as they see fit; in the east, it’s traditionally a minor order, anyway, unlike the west.

So, I suspect that, if reinstituted in the west, it will be a minor order, and primarily be transitional for the deaconate and presbyterate, with a few washouts and others having a permanent stay in a transitional station.
 
Karl_M said:
The position of “Subdeacon” was dissolved on December 31, 1972 in the Latin Rite Church.

The roles previously filled by them was replaced by Lectors (reading the non-Gospel readings) and Acolytes, who can be somewhat involved in prepping the Altar-I think they can even pour the wine (it would still be wine) if there isn’t a deacon.

But, at any rate, there are no more subdeacons in the Latin Rite of the Church. However, it’s not unheard of for seminarians to be informally referred to as a “subdeacon,” and Pope Paul VI did not object to that.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM

Back in the day, full priests would assume the deacon’s and/or subdeacon’s roles at a High Mass, if there were no actual deacons or subdeacons.

I’m just guessing, but I assume if there was an OF Mass, and they had three priests, the same thing would happen.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. There are subdeacons in the Latin Rite today. The FSSP, The Institute, and all religious orders who are geared toward the extraordinary form have subdeacons and all other abolished orders.
 
DeusVult_90 said:
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. There are subdeacons in the Latin Rite today. The FSSP, The Institute, and all religious orders who are geared toward the extraordinary form have subdeacons and all other abolished orders.
Click to expand...
So far in the EF Masses on EWTN, priests have performed the functions of the deacon and sub-deacon.

As to the questions about the Papal Masses, it depends. Most Papal Masses have actual deacons. I have seen a couple on EWTN from Rome where there were cardinals vested as deacons. You can tell because they are wearing simplex mitres with their red skull caps underneath and dalmatics.

A questions:
When a priest vests as a deacon, does he wear a priests stole under the dalmatic or does he wear the stole the way deacons?
 
When a priest acts as a deacon in the EF, he wears the stole as a deacon does. When he acts as a subdeacon, he wears no stole, as that order does not wear a stole. It is actually more common to see priests act as deacon and subdeacon at Mass than it is those actually in these orders. It was the same in the pre-V2 days, as there were/are simply more priests than deacons and subdeacons.

There are, canonically speaking, no subdeacons in the western Church. The traditional orders, including FSSP, ICR, etc. still ordain seminarians in minor orders to the subdiaconate before the diaconate, and as subdeacons, they are styled “The Rev. Mr. ___.” This is, of course, completely permitted by the Holy See as part of the formation process. However, there is no canonical effect of the subdiaconal ordination; in other words, they are not recognized under canon law as clergy until they are deacons.
 
Chatter163 said:
When a priest acts as a deacon in the EF, he wears the stole as a deacon does. When he acts as a subdeacon, he wears no stole, as that order does not wear a stole. .
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in a previous post, we have a Chaldean sub-deacon in our (Latin) parish.

The sub-deacons in the Chaldean Church DO have stoles, they are wrapped around the neck and fall to the front and back on the left side of the body.

Our sub-deacon wears his when he acts as an EMHC ( on the rare occasions our parish uses EMHC’s)
 
That’s fine, but I believe that the OP was speaking about the EF and the Western Church.
 
Chatter163 said:
That’s fine, but I believe that the OP was speaking about the EF and the Western Church.
Click to expand...
Brendan is in the Roman Church.

In the pre-V2 liturgical vestment, the subdeacon wore the tunicle and maniple; the deacon wore dalmatic, stole, and maniple, and the priest stole, chasuble and maniple; all three wore alb, cincture, and amice as well.

At present, any subdeacon you see is likely either Eastern Catholic, FSSP, or ICRS.

An eastern Catholic minor cleric is still obligated by his vows to serve the liturgy, even when his civil employment takes him where the Church Sui Iuris of his ordination/installation has no parishes.

As an aside:
When concelebrating without a deacon, Byzantine Catholic priests divide the duties, with one reciting the deacon’s litanies and instructions. Both vest as priests.

Yet another difference between east and west.
 
NicPais83 said:
Does anyone have any thoughts about the future of the subdeaconate in light of the increase in use of the Extraordinary Form? I’ve noticed that the Papal Masses (OF), for instance, uses what I assume are two deacons, or priests/bishops vested as deacons. I would not think that the subdeaconate would necessarily be reinstated outside of certain communities such as the FSSP, but it seems to me that we live in a time where the beauty of the EF is being rediscovered and is enriching the beauty of the OF.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a bad idea for clerics of one order to function as though of another - & I can’t see the point of subdeacons, at all. :cool:​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top