A Maronite Diaconal Ordination in Rome

This past Sunday, Michael Shami, a Maronite seminarian, was ordained to the diaconate in the chapel of the North American College in Rome, where he is studying; the ordaining bishop was H.E. Elias Zaidan, bishop of the Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles. Our thanks to Deacon Shami for sharing these pictures of the ceremony with us, which show some of the interesting features of the Maronite Rite. We congratulate him, his family and friends, and his church - ad multos annos!

The bishop incensed at the beginning of the liturgy by an assistant priest, who covers his mouth as he does this; apparently, the reason for this custom is unknown.

 The reading of the Epistle.

 The reading of the Gospel.

 The incensation of the gifts.

The bishop gives the peace to the ordinand; this takes place right before the Preface dialogue.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Byzantine Diaconal Ordination in Sicily

St Demetrius the Great Martyr, whose feast day we noted yesterday, is also the titular Saint of the Byzantine Catholic cathedral of Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily. The Byzantine churches in southern Italy descend partly from the Greek communities which were formerly very numerous in that region, and partly from Albanians who fled from the Turkish invasion of their lands into Italy in the 15th century. (Hence the distinction “degli Albanesi - of the Albanians”; Albano and Albanese are both fairly common last names in Italy.) Their liturgy is therefore celebrated in a mix of Greek and Arberesh, a literary form of Albanian from about 400 years ago.

Their patronal feast yesterday was also the occasion of a diaconal ordination; congratulations to the new deacon, Giuseppe Miceli. (From the Facebook page of the Friends of the Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi.)

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Pope Appoints Commission to Study Matter Exhaustively Studied by Earlier Papal Commission

I suspect most of our readers have already seen elsewhere that the Holy See has announced the formation of a commission to study the question of women deacons. A member of Fr Zuhlsdorf’s commentariat has very cleverly pointed out a statement by the Holy Father himself to the effect that the surest way to make sure a question remains unresolved is to appoint a commission.

I noticed while Googling the matter that almost all of what is available on the internet about this matter relates either to the Pope’s original statement back in May that he would consider appointing such a commission (in the statement linked above), or to today’s announcement. Very few results come back with any reference to the International Theological Commission’s study of women deacons, which examined the question during the papacy of St John Paul II. Their report was published in 2002 after four years of work, “approved in forma specifica by unanimous vote of the Commission on 30th September 2002. It was then submitted to its President, Card. J. Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, who authorised its publication.” It is available here in English from the Vatican’s official website.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html

Including the titles, foreword, introduction and footnotes, it clocks in at a bit over 42,000 words; this works out to about 85 single-spaced pages in the standard layout (Times New Roman, 12-point). The members of the new commission probably don’t have to worry about whether they can keep their day jobs, since a very large portion of their work has already been done for them. It is difficult to imagine that any significant historical documents or liturgical texts referring to women deacons in the ancient Church have been discovered since 2002.

I make bold to suggest to any fellow bloggers or Catholic journalists who may read this article that the existence of this earlier study really is essential information on the topic, and should be included in any future articles regarding what the Pope has done today and the work of the commission.

On the Participation of the Clergy in a Non-Concelebrated Mass

Some time ago, a reader and I corresponded about a question that may be of interest to NLM readers more generally. The reader was a priest who had recently learned to offer Mass in the Extraordinary Form and who, seeing more clearly that “the priest is ordained to offer sacrifice,” had arrived at a more critical position regarding concelebration. He wrote to me (and I quote with his permission):

In light of my preparation for the Traditional Latin Mass and in light of Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis, my attitude toward concelebration has shifted. Any Ordinary Form Mass with a bishop as celebrant is an appropriate time for concelebration because of the unique theological relationship priests have with their bishops. In addition, in parishes with more than one priest, the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the Easter Vigil, primary Mass on Christmas, parish feast day, etc. could be concelebrated. Also for funerals. But not as a matter of course, like the daily community Mass in a monastery or seminary.
          I truly appreciated my week at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. There the FSSP priests hammered home that “the priest is ordained to offer sacrifice.” Upon arrival, each of us student priests received a schedule for the daily private Mass, with time, altar, and seminarian server lined out for the entire week. (They have the Novus Ordo books on hand, and the server knows he will be serving Mass in the OF.) What was great was actually saying Mass each day. What a joy, too! I was not in front of hundreds “wowing” them with my eloquent homily; I was being genuinely and deeply priestly, and letting the floodgates of Divine Mercy flow upon myself, anyone living and deceased I included in the intentions, and any that the server had, and any that the Father in Heaven desired for the sake of His Son’s sorrowful passion as He “received the sacrifice at [my] hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.”

Instead of automatically concelebrating at a clergy gathering, he went on to say, he now prefers to attend in choro or in the nave, while making time elsewhere in the day for offering a private Mass. This, I gather, is the thinking and praxis prevailing among many of the clergy, especially the younger set, as they come to see the fallacious historical research and the superficial theology on which the “revival” of concelebration was based, and as they experience in their own lives the abuses to which concelebration so often leads as well as the spiritual fruits of individual daily celebration.[1] My correspondent continued:

What I am now moved to explore is the phenomenon of the non-celebrant priest present at Mass. Since with the priesthood of the baptized, every baptized person present at Mass offers, in a way, the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as well as the sacrifice of oneself with Christ to the Father, does concelebration make any difference for ordained priests who are present at Masses they are not offering as celebrants? To rephrase the question, does a priest concelebrating at a Mass in the Ordinary Form exercise a higher level of efficacy or enjoy a greater access to sacramental graces than a priest assisting at a Mass in either form in the pew, in choir, or serving (in the EF) as deacon, subdeacon, assistant priest, master of ceremonies, etc.? The question amounts to this: Does a priest who merely attends a Mass rather than celebrating it participate in a qualitatively different way than a layman does?

I answered along the following lines.

It seems to me true that a priest is called to the altar of God every day, if possible, to represent and act on behalf of Christ the High Priest, and to offer the holy sacrifice for himself and for the people. Obviously, concelebration is not wrong in itself, and there are times when it seems to be called for, but to make it into a general or normative practice is certainly a deviation from the organic development of the Roman Church, and I am glad that so many are rethinking it and rediscovering how a priest may fruitfully pray “in choir” (though not in substitution for his daily Mass).

Concelebration is an exercise of the ministerial priesthood in a way that praying “in choir” is not, since the latter participation in the sacrifice is not essentially different from the way in which a layman participates—namely, by uniting himself spiritually with the priest who is actually offering at the altar, and in that way, uniting himself with Christ. The priest is ordained to offer sacrifice in persona Christi, but when he assists at Mass not as the offerer, he is not exercising this specific power, which is manifested and actualized in the consecration.

Serving as a deacon, on the other hand, is a distinctive way of participating in the liturgy which can neither simply be reduced to a layman’s participation nor made equivalent to a priest’s. The subdeacon presents a special case, because a layman can, in a pinch, serve as a “straw” subdeacon,[2] and also because the status of the subdiaconate is somewhat perplexing in these days when we are suspended between the OF world (where the ministry no longer exists) and the EF world (where it definitely exists). It is one among many questions for which a future solution will need to be found.

So, in short, I would say:

1. The priest offering Mass (whether celebrating or concelebrating) is doing something unique, to which no other ministry can compare.
2. The priest assisting at Mass as a deacon or subdeacon, or the deacon or subdeacon in their respective capacities, is participating in a manner subordinate to that of the priest but still with an exercise of major or minor orders that is distinctive to him and in which the laity do not share.
3. The priest assisting at Mass “in choro” is participating in the Mass as the laity do, but with external marks of honor, such as cassock, surplice, and stole, to convey his difference in identity and his proper place in the hierarchical communion of the Church.

That is what I feel able to say, but it is a question with many interesting ramifications and implications to it. I would certainly value comments from any readers who have light to shed or further speculations on any aspect of the matter.

Hierarchical participation in the one Sacrifice

NOTES

[1] For more on the entirely non-Roman novelty of modern concelebration, see here; for more on how it differs from the Byzantine practice to which it is erroneously compared, see here; for more on its spiritual disadvantages, see here.

[2] Contrary to some reports, there is no definitive judgment from the PCED that the long-standing custom of the “straw subdeacon” may never be followed. It happens regularly in Ecclesia Dei communities and shows no signs of abating. It could have been officially stopped if that was thought to be necessary or important.

On the Vesture of Deacon and Subdeacon in the Dominican Rite

A comment on a very old post and some discussion of Dominican traditions with brothers in our Western Dominican Province House of Studies as to vesting of the deacon, have prompted this overview of deacons and subdeacons and their vesture in the traditional Dominican Rite.

ON VESTMENTS OF THE DEACON AND SUBDEACON

1. In the traditional Dominican Rite, what are the proper vestments for a deacon and subdeacon?

Like the priest, the deacon and subdeacon wear the amice, alb, cinture, and maniple. On certain occasions, they also wear the dalmatic. The Dominican Rite does not follow the Roman Rite practice of distinguishing the dalmatic (worn by the deacon) from the tunicle (worn by the subdeacon), in which the dalmatic has two bars between the claves (vertical stripes) and the tunicle one. Although this distinction is sometimes seen at Dominican Masses (vestments with Roman decorations are more commonly available), properly, there is no distinction in style or name between the deacon's and subdeacon’s dalmatics. You can see, to the right, a photo of the deacon and subdeacon at the Gospel during an Easter Mass in the mid-1950s at St. Albert the Great Priory in Oakland CA. Both dalmatics are identical (and lacking the traditional claves).

2. On what days do the deacon and subdeacon wear the dalmatic at Mass?

The deacon and subdeacon wear dalmatics, according to the Caeremoniale S.O.P. (1869), n. 548-50:

a. On all Sundays
b. On all Feasts of Three Lessons and above (which after the 1960 calendar Reform means all IIId Class feasts and above).
c. For any Votive Mass when the calendar feast of that day is of IIId Class or above.
d. On weekdays of Octaves when the Mass of the day is proper to the octave (after 1960, these were only the Octaves of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost).
e. At Requiem Masses on the day of death, burial, anniversary, or (pro causa sollemnitatis) when said for a public figure. Otherwise, if the Requiem replaces the Conventual Mass, then the dalmatic is used only if the proper Mass of the Day would have required it. Otherwise not.
e. Before 1923, dalmatics were also worn at the Order’s special Votive Masses that replaced ferials of week. The calendar reforms of St. Pius X abolished these special Votive Masses so as to restore the celebration of ferials.

Otherwise, the deacon and subdeacon wear only the amice, alb, cinture, maniple, and (for the deacon) the stole. Priests, of course, always wear the chasuble at Mass. So, the dalmatic is not worn on: ferials not part of an octave, true vigils (i.e., NOT the anticipated Mass of a Sunday or Feastday--rather, the at the Mass of the day before the Ascension, Pentecost, St. John the Baptist, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Lawrence, Assumption, and Christmas), and Ember Days. Nor do our deacons and subdeacons wear dalmatics or folded chasubles on Good Friday: on that day they wear only the amice, alb, cinture, maniple, and (for the deacon) the stole, even though the prior (or priest) celebrating the service wears a cope (Caermon. (1869), n. 1483).

3. At what other times is the dalmatic worn?

According to the Caeremoniale (1869), n. 551:

a. At processions when the priest wears a cope.
b. When singing the Genealogy and the Last Discourse of Jesus.
c. When assisting a priest wearing a cope at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

One should note that, in the Dominican Rite, the priest does NOT wear the cope for the Asperges unless a procession of the brethren precedes (the entrance of the ministers at Mass is NOT such a procession). At the Asperges, all three ministers do, however, wear the maniple. Note that this is different from Roman practice. I have included a photo of the Dominican major minsters at the Asperges (sorry about the quality) to illustrate our practice. Note also that these ministers are wearing apparelled albs, another Dominican tradition. It might also be added that the Dominican practice is to wear the maniple when preaching. Although it was very common in the Western Province for the priest to remove the chasuble and place it on the altar before preaching. I suspect that this was because Dominicans usually pin the maniple on the sleeve of the alb and this makes it hard to remove; thus the chasuble was removed instead. Current practice, however, in the Western Province is to remove neither when preaching at Dominican Rite Masses.

4. What would this mean for Dominicans who celebrate the modern Roman Rite?

Strictly speaking, nothing is required by these older norms. But the new Roman liturgical books leave a lot of leeway for the vesting of the deacon. Although the proper vestments of the deacon in the new rite include the dalmatic, it is not required (unlike the chasuble for priest celebrants). So it is possible to adopt some of the older Dominican practice.

Using the principle of progressive solemnity, it would be possible, or even preferable, for Dominican deacons to leave aside the dalmatic on ferials. This was, in fact, the practice when I was a student in the 1970s and 1980s at our House of Studies in Oakland CA. But if, in clear violation of the rubrics, deacons do not wear an amice, alb, and cinture but only their white habit (a practice that seems to be dying out in the Western Province but is often seen elsewhere), then, by all means, they should wear the dalmatic on ferials to make their infraction less visible to the congregation.


ON SUBDEACONS

The revival of the traditional Dominican Rite in some provinces since Summorum Pontificum, along with its long-continued, and now expanding use, in our Western Dominican Province, raises some new questions on the office and function of the subdeacon. I will attempt to answer these.

1. Who was able to serve as subdeacon in the Traditional Dominican Rite before Vatican II?

Obviously, before reform of the ordination rites, any friars having been ordained to the subdeaconate could serve; as well as priests and deacons, who were always previously ordained subdeacons. Now, the Caeremoniale S.O.P. (1869), n. 864, is very explicit, and quotes the General Chapter of Bologna (1564), on this: “No one may wear liturgical vestments and solemnly chant the Epistle if he has not, at least, been promoted the rank of subdeacon.” As, at a Missa Cantata, the Epistle could always have been sung "by any cleric” (Bonniwell, Ceremonial, p. 141) — which today would mean any clerical brother, as the tonsure is no longer given, this legislation refers only to the Epistle at the Solemn Mass. So what was and is commonly called a “straw subdeacon” (i.e., a man, normally a cleric, who vested as a subdeacon and performed that role) was clearly forbidden. Although the Caeremoniale calls the practice an "abuse," it was not uncommon, in the Order before Vatican II, for lay brothers to serve as "subdeacons" at Solemn Masses. In fact, an elderly cooperator (lay) brother told me that he regularly functioned as a subdeacon in the missions and in parishes when no priest was available. Since, in the Pre-Vatican-II church, “straw subdeacons” were tolerated in the Roman Rite, this use seems to have been generally adopted by Dominicans too.

2. Who may serve as a subdeacon today in the traditional Dominican Rite?

When the Dominican Rite Solemn Mass is celebrated today, a deacon or priest would be able to function as a subdeacon as they are both clerics (from their deacon ordination) and have been ordained to a rank above subdeacon (see above General Chapter norm). This is the common practice in our Western Province. What is to be done, if no priest or deacon is available, or those priests and deacons present cannot, for one reason or another, perform the duties of the subdeacon? Today, the only ministries given to Dominican priests before ordination to the deaconate are those of lector and the acolyte (which may be called a “subdeacon,” if the bishop’s conference wishes). Neither are canonically “clerics” because the clerical state now begins with the deaconate (even if one has received tonsure in a religious institute for whom the rites are performed using the old books).

As before Vatican II, when a problem presents itself on which our books are silent, one must turn to the practice of the Roman Rite as the mother rite. For the Roman Rite in the extraordinary form, a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (Prot. No. 24/92, 7 June, 1993) provided that an installed acolyte (that is, an acolyte installed using the new Roman Roman Rite) may serve as subdeacon, but he is not to wear the maniple. The justification given for this decision is that, previously, one who had received the minor order of acolyte was permitted to serve, without the maniple, as in the liturgical role of subdeacon when that was needed. I myself am not sure that this restriction on using the maniple was correct, but that is another matter. This letter represents the current liturgical law for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

There were, in the old days, two other restrictions on what such men serving as subdeacons could not do, beyond not wearing the maniple. They could not put water in the chalice and they could not dry the vessels. The deacon had to do those things. Ecclesia Dei omitted those restrictions. Was it an oversight? Probably not. Since a modern installed acolyte can purify the vessels (GIRM #279), he certainly can dry them. And today, when there are many extra chalices for concelebrants, they may be prepared with water and wine even by a sacristan before Mass — the current practice at St. Peters in Rome (“On Multiple Calices,” Zenit.org, Oct. 9, 2007). In addition, the legal dictum “silence gives consent” leads to the conclusion that when Ecclesia Dei choose to list only one restriction on an acolyte acting as subdeacon, it implied that any other older restrictions were no longer binding. With good reason!

Can a friar who has not received either the ministries of acolyte and lector, or has only received the ministry of lector, or, for that matter, can a simple layman, function as a subdeacon at Dominican Rite Solemn Mass? I would say no, even if lay brothers did this before Vatican II. The responsum from Ecclesia Dei cited above allows to function as subdeacon, only to those men who have, for one reason or another, been formally installed in the modern ministry of acolyte. I do not think I have to tell our readers that this does not mean installation as an Extraordinary Minister of Communion or being commissioned as an altar boy in a parish. I would add that the formal installation of lectors and acolytes in the new rite is permanent: it does not “go away” if the seminarian or friar who received it leaves the seminary or the order before making final vows.

Let us hope that along with the Missae Cantatae sung weekly, monthly, or annually, in our Western Dominican Parishes, that the full Solemn Mass become a more regular event.

This posting originally appeared on Dominican Liturgy where comments have already been started.