What is the role of the Deacon in sacrament of marriage

[NicPais83]

I’ll be getting married here in the states myself in October, in a Nuptual Mass. We’re going to have one priest and two deacons. One of the deacons is my dad, so it’s important to me to have him receive the vows, as he married my sister, and baptized her children. Since the couple themselves are the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage (in the Latin Church), there generally is no reason a deacon cannot act in this capacity. There aren’t very many Sacraments the deacon can actually perform, namely Baptism and Marriage, but in certain and extremely rare circumstances, these I believe can also be performed by laity.

You should understand that the deaconate is not in anyway new to the Latin (“Roman Catholic”) Church. The permanent deaconate kinda died out centuries ago, and the deaconate became a stepping-stone towards the priesthood. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, you will see a deacon, but most of the time this was a priest vesting as a deacon.

There tends to be a bit of an idea that the deaconate is the equivalent of a married priest, or that a deacon is the samething as a priest. These are wrong, as the deaconate and priesthood, while both clergy, serve two very different, but equally vital roles. The deacon is answerable to the bishop. He cannot Consecrate, but he has some vital functions to perform during the Consecration, especially in reference to the Chalice. It’s the deacon’s job, therefore to read the Gospel, to care for the Chalice, and the deacon should give out Communion with the priest, before considering EMHC’s.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

If a Deacon is present, then the requirement is that the Deacon must read the Gospel. The priest doesn’t have a choice in the matter - this is Church law.

You said it, so show me where.

 

[palmas85]

If a Deacon is present, then the requirement is that the Deacon must read the Gospel. The priest doesn’t have a choice in the matter - this is Church law.

Are you sure on this? I know that it is preferable for the Deacon to proclaim the Gospel, but I didn’t know that it was a hard and fast rule that he had to do so. Could you provide a reference in either Canon Law or the GIRM that mandates the use of the Seacon in this position?.

 

[Phemie]

Are you sure on this? I know that it is preferable for the Deacon to proclaim the Gospel, but I didn’t know that it was a hard and fast rule that he had to do so. Could you provide a reference in either Canon Law or the GIRM that mandates the use of the Seacon in this position?.

GIRM: emphasis mine

1. The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, namely, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop. It therefore pertains to the whole Body of the Church, manifests it, and has its effect upon it. It also affects the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their different orders, offices, and actual participation.75 In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,” expresses its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering.76 All, therefore, whether they are ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their office or their duty should carry out solely but completely that which pertains to them.77

1. After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. For the sacred Order of the diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the time of the Apostles.82 **At Mass the deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, **in preaching God’s word from time to time, in announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful, in ministering to the priest, in preparing the altar and serving the celebration of the Sacrifice, in distributing the Eucharist to the faithful, especially under the species of wine, and sometimes in giving directions regarding the people’s gestures and posture.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

It just said the deacon has his own part, not that he must.

 

[palmas85]

It just said the deacon has his own part, not that he must.

I agree. It doesn’t say that he has to do it.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

It just said the deacon has his own part, not that he must.

That’s because this part was omitted:

1. If incense is used, the deacon assists the priest when he puts incense in the thurible during the singing of the Alleluia or other chant. Then he makes a profound bow before the priest and asks for the blessing, saying in a low voice, Iube, domine, benedicere (Father, give me your blessing). The priest blesses him, saying, Dominus sit in corde tuo (The Lord be in your heart). The deacon signs himself with the Sign of the Cross and responds, Amen. Having bowed to the altar, he then takes up the Book of the Gospels which was placed upon it. He proceeds to the ambo, carrying the book slightly elevated. He is preceded by a thurifer, carrying a thurible with smoking incense, and by servers with lighted candles. **There the deacon, with hands joined, greets the people, saying, Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you). Then, at the words Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), he signs the book with his thumb and, afterwards, himself on his forehead, mouth, and breast. He incenses the book and proclaims the Gospel reading. **When the reading is concluded, he says the acclamation Verbum Domini (The gospel of the Lord), and all respond, Laus tibi, Christe (Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ). He then venerates the book with a kiss, saying privately, Per evangelica dicta (May the words of the gospel), and returns to the priest’s side.

When the deacon is assisting the Bishop, he carries the book to him to be kissed, or else kisses it himself, saying quietly, Per evangelica dicta dicta (May the words of the gospel). In more solemn celebrations, as the occasion suggests, a Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the Book of the Gospels.

Lastly, the deacon may carry the Book of the Gospels to the credence table or to another appropriate and dignified place.

Phemie was right. When the deacon is present it is his job to read the gospel. The priest does it only in the absence of a deacon.

 

[Brendan]

Phemie was right. When the deacon is present it is his job to read the gospel. The priest does it only in the absence of a deacon.

That is correct.

The Chapter IV of the GIRM has seperate sets of rubrics for a Mass with a Deacon, and for one without. (Chap IV, Sec 1.A and Sec 1.B )

The instructions for a Mass with a Deacon present state, as you have pointed out, that the Deacon reads the Gospel.

 

[Phemie]

It just said the deacon has his own part, not that he must.

Did you miss this part:

All, therefore, whether they are ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their office or their duty should carry out solely but completely that which pertains to them.

Reading the Gospel belongs to the Deacon. That’s part of carrying out ‘completely that which pertains to him’.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes what? That does not answer my question.

~Liza

The priest or even the persons own pastor may not have any jurisdiction in the place where the Marriage is taking place and so can only attend as an observer.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

SuspiceMeDomine cleared it up. If I am ever asked by priests who like to yank the Gospel Book out of the hands of deacons, I shall tell them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

in this country most weddings are witnessed by deacons unless the couple specifically requests a full nuptial Mass.

It’s a big country. In Indiana, the SOP is for a nuptial Mass.

If there is a priest present, is it not appropriate that HE is the one to marry the couple, and not the deacon? It seems that it would not be appropriate to have a priest standing there and the deacon conducting the ceremony? If there is no Mass, then what is the role of the priest at all in this situation?

The basic principle of law regarding these sorts of things is that if there is something that various grades of orders can all do (and that same task is not proper to one in particular, like the Gospel for deacons), then the cleric who holds the highest degree of orders should perform it. So, for instance, say you are requesting a blessing that everyone from a deacon on up can confer. If only a deacon is present, it is perfectly alright for him to confer it - that’s his job. If, however, both a deacon and a priest are present, the deacon defers to the priest, who ought to confer the blessing. If a deacon, priest, and bishop are all present, the job goes to the bishop.

I’ll be getting married here in the states myself in October, in a Nuptual Mass. We’re going to have one priest and two deacons. One of the deacons is my dad, so it’s important to me to have him receive the vows, as he married my sister, and baptized her children. Since the couple themselves are the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage (in the Latin Church), there generally is no reason a deacon cannot act in this capacity.

As you can see above, this situation is irregular. While it has become common practice in our country, because a) we have most of the world’s permanent deacons and b) we play fast and loose with the liturgy, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s completely proper. Now, I don’t know just how hard and fast the above-mentioned rule is: I’m not sure if it’s a definitive rubric or if there is wiggle room for a “just cause.” I just remember that in my canon law class we were taught that it was actually improper for deacons to witness marriages within Mass.