Why can't Priests vest as Deacons?

[KnightOfSPUD]

Or function like Deacons.
I am speaking of the Ordinary Form context. Are there any Instructions, Decrees, Norms or any of the sort preventing them from doing so.
I know that all Priests are Deacons but I feel that allowing Priests to vest and function as Deacons would help to emphasize their membership in the Diaconate.
In my country, we have very few Deacons. 1-5 per Diocese and/or Congregation and most of the time these Deacons are Transitionals, so normally, lay Filipinos are wondering “why Father has an assistant who is older than the Altar Boys and dresses differently”.

PS
I am aware that in the EF the Priests could function and vest like Deacons and Subdeacons

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Or function like Deacons.
I am speaking of the Ordinary Form context. Are there any Instructions, Decrees, Norms or any of the sort preventing them from doing so.
I know that all Priests are Deacons but I feel that allowing Priests to vest and function as Deacons would help to emphasize their membership in the Diaconate.
In my country, we have very few Deacons. 1-5 per Diocese and/or Congregation and most of the time these Deacons are Transitionals, so normally, lay Filipinos are wondering “why Father has an assistant who is older than the Altar Boys and dresses differently”.

PS
I am aware that in the EF the Priests could function and vest like Deacons and Subdeacons

The ontological character of Holy Order is ineffaceable, once validly received. Thus, every priest retains the character of the diaconate even if priesthood has been superimposed upon it.

In the vetus ordo, the reality that a priest still retained the diaconal character, combined with the reality that transitional deacons were relatively scarce and that concelebration had not been restored, meant that priests would assume liturgical roles that were proper to a previous condition out of necessity to the prescriptions of the rite.

With the reform the liturgy, there was the restoration of the permanent diaconate, which increased the presence of deacons throughout the Church if not yet successfully in each individual diocese.

Moreover, the norm was made very explicit that all who were participating in the liturgy were to exercise their proper office while not taking the office proper to another. Thus, if a deacon is present, he should fulfill what is prescribed to be done by the deacon at the liturgy and no priest who is present should usurp that. Any priest who is present, all else being equal, should concelebrate the liturgy with his brother priest(s). In the absence of a deacon, for example, then a concelebrant could read the gospel…but he is doing so as a concelebrating priest.

This is articulated in *Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.*

Thus, it would wholly inappropriate for a priest to vest so as to fulfill the liturgical role of the deacon just as it would be wrong for a bishop to act in the liturgy as though he were a mere priest and not one who possessed the fullness of the priesthood through episcopal ordination.

 

[TimothyH]

The Pastor of my parish told me that when he proclaims the Gospel he is fulfilling the ministry he received when he became a deacon.

-Tim-

 

[phil19034]

The only thing I can see happening (which personally, I wish we saw more of) is another parish priests sitting in choir at Mass and perhaps assisting as an acolyte or master of ceremonies.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The only thing I can see happening (which personally, I wish we saw more of) is another parish priests sitting in choir at Mass and perhaps assisting as an acolyte or master of ceremonies.

May I ask…if I, as a priest, have had to preside at 3, 4 or even 5 Masses on a Sunday, why do you think it would be a good thing for me then to sit in choir at a Mass that has a priest to preside? Yes, if it is my brother priest celebrating his golden jubilee or his sibling’s funeral but…

And why would you think it is a good thing for me, when I have presided at more than the limit of Masses imposed by canon law, should then serve another priest’s Mass as an acolyte and displace someone else from fulfilling that function either because they have it as a stable ministry or as temporary deputation? That violates the norm of the liturgy, when done deliberately.

Although I was a master of ceremonies to my bishop, your other suggestions make no sense to me.

 

[phil19034]

May I ask…if I, as a priest, have had to preside at 3, 4 or even 5 Masses on a Sunday, why do you think it would be a good thing for me then to sit in choir at a Mass that has a priest to preside? Yes, if it is my brother priest celebrating his golden jubilee or his sibling’s funeral but…

And why would you think it is a good thing for me, when I have presided at more than the limit of Masses imposed by canon law, should then serve another priest’s Mass as an acolyte and displace someone else from fulfilling that function either because they have it as a stable ministry or as temporary deputation? That violates the norm of the liturgy, when done deliberately.

Although I was a master of ceremonies to my bishop, your other suggestions make no sense to me.

Obviously no, a priest shouldn’t have to attend 3-5 masses each Sunday.

I just think it’s nice when we see several priests attending every once in a while, esp in the parishes where each priest only celebrates once.

I know of a parish where the priests come out at communion time and assist the celebrant and help with communion, and then leave again. It’s nice, but it would also be nice to see them all together once in a while.

I just think it adds to the solemnity from time to time when we see everyone outside of Holy Thursday, Good Friday & Easter Vigil

But I also understand that it’s most likely too difficult outside of the Cathedral.

God Bless and thank you for your priesthood