Thread: Eccles: Who kisses the Gospel? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000702
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
During the celebration of the Eucharist, the Deacon is ordinarily charged with reading the Gospel. During a service with a Deacon, the Deacon would return the Gospel to the celebrating Priest who would kiss it before closing it.
In a service without a Deacon, in which a priest other than the Presider, reads the Gospel, is it alright if that priest kisses the Gospel? Or is it the Celebrant who must kiss the Gospel?
Please answer this liturgical inquiry.
[ 29. August 2009, 11:14: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
The deacon/priest reading it would always kiss it apart from when the Bishop is celebrating.
Thurible
Posted by Swick (# 8773) on
:
I've observed that deacons don't usually kiss the gospel book, while about half of the priests doing the reading do so; as far as which priest does the kissing, it's whoever does the reading.
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on
:
I'd say," You go ahead, kiss it as much as you feel like !"
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Point 175:
quote:
When the reading is concluded, [the deacon] 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.
Thurible
[ 01. July 2009, 15:15: Message edited by: Thurible ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Surely a priest reading the Gospel is functioning in his or her diaconal orders at that time?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
What?
The GIRM does not operate according to that kind of logic. You do liturgically that which is proper to your order. When a deacon is ordained priest, he doesn't sometimes do diaconal things, just for the sake of showing he was ordained a deacon.
And a priest never fulfills the role of a deacon when following the GIRM. It may well happen in the old rite, but not in the new.
I know many Anglicans hold on to these notions, but the Roman Rite does not.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
How very odd. The liturgical deacon at my shack is always a priest. All priests have diaconal orders, why shouldn't they act diaconally when there is a need? It makes infinitely more sense than having a small battalion of assisting priests. How it boils down at ASMS:
1 priest (this used to happen frequently but hasn't since a second curate was added: the celebrant reads the gospel and kisses it.
2 priests: the priest acting as deacon reads the gospel and kisses it.
3 priests: no change from the above, the third priest sits in the quire and performs not liturgical function, as the subdeacon is always a layperson.
I'm pretty sure Fortescue calls for the gospel book to be open when kissed, but it's invariably closed. We're a very modern parish, even if we don't buy into the bizarrely convoluted rules of GIRM. Actually, the Gospel procession has always struck me as the most farcical part of the modern Roman rite: the Gospel is invariably read from an ambo within or directly in front of the chancel, meaning that the procession is seldom more than a few meters long. For Anglicans, accustomed to having the Gospel read or chanted in the midst of the people (and, thus, in the middle of the nave), this doesn't look like much of a procession at all, more like that funny little dance the Lord Chancellor used to do when he wanted to speak in the Lords.
I can just imagine this dialogue:
Deacon: It's time for the gospel procession!
Naďve altar boy: Wither shall we proceed?
Deacon: thither! points to ambo
All shuffle three steps to the side.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
What about Cardinal deacons and in particular those who assist the pope at solemn ceremonies ?
Aren't those deacons usually also bishops ?
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
In our Anglo-Catholic parish, I made a point of watching for this one Sunday at Solemn Mass, as for some reason I had this same question on my mind. The deacon of the Mass is always a priest unless we've got a seminarian who has been ordained to the diaconate. Typically the priest serving as deacon finishes the Gospel, and during the "Praise to you, Lord Christ" response, he steps to his right and faces the center of the aisle, clearing the way for the subdeacon to take the book to the celebrant; the subdeacon points to the beginning of the Gospel of the day and holds the book up for the celebrant to kiss. Then the subdeacon closes the book and latches it, and the MC comes to take it away to the credence table.
So our deacon-of-the-Mass doesn't kiss it, but the celebrant does.
At sung Mass, the celebrant reads the Gospel at the ambo and kisses the book afterward.
Posted by Swick (# 8773) on
:
As I understand it, a priest does the work of a deacon if there is no deacon serving at the altar. He (or she) however is not somehow functioning in their diaconal order, he is no longer a deacon, he's a priest. There is confusion over this, with some priests wearing their stoles diagonally when functioning as a deacon for another priest--just ask a vocational deacon what she or he thinks of this. There have been proposals for direct ordination to the priesthood (skipping the diaconal period), but the current practice seems pretty well entrenched.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
There is confusion over this, with some priests wearing their stoles diagonally when functioning as a deacon for another priest--just ask a vocational deacon what she or he thinks of this.
Some priests do this in places where an older ceremonial is followed (Tridentine or Anglo-Catholic) and are doing it because that's what the customary says to do (wear the stole diagonally, and wear a dalmatic) when serving as deacon of the Mass. No offense to vocational deacons is meant.
Posted by Swick (# 8773) on
:
Oh I'm certain that priests wearing stoles diagonally mean no offense, this pratice has a certain logic: since the priest is functioning as a deacon, wearing the stole as a deacon makes sense; this was the practice in my church for years until we had a vocational deacon who beat us with his maniple until we stopped!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
What about Cardinal deacons and in particular those who assist the pope at solemn ceremonies ?
Aren't those deacons usually also bishops ?
They don't do the liturgical function of deacons, though. In the sense that they are acting as deacons, they are deacons at the throne. In other words, assistants to the pope. Since Cardinal deacons are always heads of Roman dicasteries, this is rather apt. For the liturgy, however, you will always find actual deacons doing the liturgical diaconal functions.
It always strikes me as rather odd how some Anglo-Catholics, whose ceremonial is derived not from the Book of Common Prayer but from former editions of the Roman Missal, now canonise those Roman Missals and then carp from their trenches at how shocking the Roman Rite has become. Very odd indeed.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I kiss the book.
Taking it back to the celebrant is pre-Vatican 2.
Mind you, we could recover out Jewish roots by carrying it round the church for EVERYONE to kiss it.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Unless the celebrant is a bishop.
But then again, it's definitely NOT pre-Vatican II for a layman not to read the Gospel. So I guess you could make up the other rules as well, if you wished.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
The Gospel Book is venerated at a number of points in the Byzatine Rite. The people all venerate it after the Resurrection Gospel at Matins.
During the Divine Liturgy, the Gospel book is venerated by the deacon just before they set off for the Lesser Entrance, while the priest venerates the Holy Table; (in the absence of a deacon, the priest venerates both). Then, immediately prior to the Lesser Entrance itself, if there is a deacon, he takes it to the priest at this point to venerate it. If the bishop is serving, he also kisses it at this point and then bows down before it at the "O Come, let us worship and fall down before Christ", before he blesses the people in the four directions, as may be seen here.
I don't recall there being any veneration of the Gospel Book at the reading of the Gospel itself, although I may be misremembering.
I agree with Triple Tiara about liturgical functions. The order to which somebody is ordained is manifest most of all in the Eucharistic assembly of the people of God. For him to lay that aside in order to do pretend to be something else is an overturning of his order within the life of the Body of Christ. It doesn't make sense.
The diaconate is one degree of priesthood, as are the presbyterate, the subdiaconate, and so forth, and the fullness thereof lies in the episcopate, but the orders are complementary and disctinct. When a priest reads the Gospel, he does it from the Royal Doors, (with all that this signifies), and faces the people, blessing them with the Book afterwards. The deacon, by contrast, does so facing within the altar, often from the midst of the people, and does not bless. These differences have meaning that stems from the order of the one proclaiming. A priest proclaims the Gospel as a priest and is not pretending to be anything else.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Taking it back to the celebrant is pre-Vatican 2.
Not realizing that, I kissed my prayer book when I read the Gospel from the front pew at a Low Mass.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Taking it back to the celebrant is pre-Vatican 2.
Not realizing that, I kissed my prayer book when I read the Gospel from the front pew at a Low Mass.
You prayer book society folks have an unhealthy obsession with the 1662...
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Not here! We're a mostly Anglo-Catholic bunch who lobby for the continued use of the Canadian 1962 prayer book.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
The difference, Cyprian, is that you are talking about a different tradition, whilst our Papist friend with the jeweled hat is talking about vain things fondly invented and, furthermore, adopting his characteristically superior tone to question why others do not join him in doing things his vain way.
The answer, of course, is that others, not coming from his own tradition, do not feel bound by GIRM, which is has all the aesthetic appeal of a interoffice memo. For those of us not bound by the rulings of the Roman Pontiff, there is no reason to adopt the whims of that document, which is uninspired even in prose style and which advances no arguments, historical, theological or aesthetic in favour of its own existence but commands all to follow it unquestioningly. It is, thus, a document of stupefying boredom and recourse to it makes for equally dull discussions. It is only ever pulled out by the sort of pharisaical Roman Catholic who is convinced that members of other 'ecclesial communities' are damned and reprobate. Why such Roman Catholics, secure in their own sanctimony, should endanger their souls by engaging in intercourse with the faithless remains a great mystery.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
The difference, Cyprian, is that you are talking about a different tradition, whilst our Papist friend with the jeweled hat is talking about vain things fondly invented and, furthermore, adopting his characteristically superior tone to question why others do not join him in doing things his vain way.
No - Triple Tiara is a Catholic, he isn't talking about vain things fondly invented, he's talking about Catholic Ritual.
I think you'll find that you are talking about vain things fondly invented!
If you want to call Vatican II styles of worship vain and fondly invented then you my friend are in a another league. Percy Dearmer sat down one day with a nice spliff and imagined what it could be like to worship in pre-reformation times and then scrawled all over a handkerchief what he imagined medieval worship would look like, implemented it in his own parish, became some Monsignor (or whatever the Protestant equivalent is) and passed it off as medieval worship. Want to see what medieval worship really looked like? Go to Corpus Christi Maiden Lane for a Low Mass one evening.
Max.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Hell hath no fury like a teenager scorned.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
That was crossposted with Max
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Hell hath no fury like a teenager scorned.
Triple Tiara is also greatly advanced in age (he's at least twice as old as me) than both of us.
He knows more than you Patrick.
Max.
This was crossposted with Triple-the-age-of-Max Tiara ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 01. July 2009, 23:22: Message edited by: Max. ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
You never listen to me though.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You never listen to me though.
Or do I?
Just because I argue with you in real life doesn't mean I don't blurt your arguments out in later conversations in other places simply to make myself sound cleverer than I actually am!
I was "middle ground" in my Liturgy class, there were people crazier than me on both sides.
Max.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I refuse to take credit for anything you say in Heythrop liturgy classes. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I refuse to take credit for anything you say in Heythrop liturgy classes.
And that's why it's not plagiarism
Max.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
The difference, Cyprian, is that you are talking about a different tradition, whilst our Papist friend with the jeweled hat is talking about vain things fondly invented and, furthermore, adopting his characteristically superior tone to question why others do not join him in doing things his vain way.
No - Triple Tiara is a Catholic, he isn't talking about vain things fondly invented, he's talking about Catholic Ritual.
I think you'll find that you are talking about vain things fondly invented!
If you want to call Vatican II styles of worship vain and fondly invented then you my friend are in a another league. Percy Dearmer sat down one day with a nice spliff and imagined what it could be like to worship in pre-reformation times and then scrawled all over a handkerchief what he imagined medieval worship would look like, implemented it in his own parish, became some Monsignor (or whatever the Protestant equivalent is) and passed it off as medieval worship.
You've just made that up.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
Go away.
It's just as much bollocks as "Blessed" Percy's descriptions of medieval worship.
There is not historical evidence for any of them.
All Saint's York Street does not portray what the average pre-reformation worship would've looked like.
The Tridentine Mass does.
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
Max.
[ 02. July 2009, 00:17: Message edited by: Max. ]
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Go away.
It's just as much bollocks as "Blessed" Percy's descriptions of medieval worship.
There is not historical evidence for any of them.
All Saint's York Street does not portray what the average pre-reformation worship would've looked like.
The Tridentine Mass does.
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
Max.
You've missed the point. Restoring mediaeval worship was never what he was about. Your protrayal of his intention as such is misrepresentation, hence my earlier post.
ETA that I don't know what ASNS has to do with anything. They also don't claim mkediaeval worship. Perhaps you're confused because it's a mediaeval building. Their services are English Missal text with local ceremonial. Nothing Dearmerite about it.
[ 02. July 2009, 00:35: Message edited by: Cyprian ]
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
You say that as though it's a good thing. Perhaps you think it is, and that's fine.
my personal view is that it is important for Christians to worship in a form that carries elements of the life of the Church from earliest times up until the present day, and not something that is representative of a snapshot of any one particular moment in time. The church is not stagnant and its worship should not be stagnant. There should certainly not be an attempt to throw away what we have learnt over the past 2000 years so that we can return to a time in the past. That doesn't sit well with me.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Want to see what medieval worship really looked like? Go to Corpus Christi Maiden Lane for a Low Mass one evening.
Point of Order? For those of us in the Colonies what is Corpus Christi Maiden Lane and what is their Low Mass in an evening like?
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
Firstly, of course, Dr Dearmer did not make up the contents of the Parson's Handbook. He built it upon the research of the finest English liturgists of the era. If anything was made up (a possibility of which he was acutely aware), it was by them, not him.
Secondly, there is a world of difference between having liturgical opinions based on liturgy, theology and aesthetics and having liturgical opinions based on authority and getting indignant when other people don't submit to that authority. I would have more respect, infinitely more respect, for the acolytes of GIRM if they defended their sacred text for its merits, rather than merely saying that it what they have been ordered to use. The former is a thinking man's response, the latter is not.
And, incidentally, there is no Protestant, or, indeed, Anglican, equivalent of a monsignor. Dr Dearmer was a canon of Westminster Abbey.
[ 02. July 2009, 03:07: Message edited by: Patrick the less saintly ]
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
Max.
And you know this, how?
Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on
:
Who kisses the Gospel?
I do. Nearly every Matins service.
And at home every time I pick up or put down my Bible, nearly.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
It seems to me a bit odd to describe the GIRM more or less as 'vain imaginings'.The worship style of ASMS owes much to the earlier rubrics of the Roman Missal and many anglo catholics would say that their worship most approximates to that of the Universal church when it mirrors that of the Roman Missal.
The present GIRM is just as much as the Missal of Pius V the work of the Catholic church as a whole.Whilst one may disagree with certain of its conclusions and even hope to change them,the GIRM has to be recognized as a work of many people who are not only of but also in the Catholic church and represents a sincere attempt at 'aggiornamento' of the 16th Century rite.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
places where an older ceremonial is followed (Tridentine or Anglo-Catholic)
There's no such thing as older Anglo-Catholic ceremonial, since it's all a late 19thC innovation dreamed up by a bunch of the sort of chaps about whom we're supposed to limit our comments to Dead Horses.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
It is only ever pulled out by the sort of pharisaical Roman Catholic who is convinced that members of other 'ecclesial communities' are damned and reprobate.
I'm not a Catholic and I don't think you're necessarily damned.
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
places where an older ceremonial is followed (Tridentine or Anglo-Catholic)
There's no such thing as older Anglo-Catholic ceremonial, since it's all a late 19thC innovation dreamed up by a bunch of the sort of chaps about whom we're supposed to limit our comments to Dead Horses.
Abortionists?
Thurible
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Don't be silly, Thurible. Praise & Worship music leaders, obviously.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
Do you not sleep?
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
The Open Brethren, of blessčd (to me) memory, claimed much the same thing, but with more convincing NT testimony.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
Secondly, there is a world of difference between having liturgical opinions based on liturgy, theology and aesthetics and having liturgical opinions based on authority and getting indignant when other people don't submit to that authority. I would have more respect, infinitely more respect, for the acolytes of GIRM if they defended their sacred text for its merits, rather than merely saying that it what they have been ordered to use. The former is a thinking man's response, the latter is not.
And there in one (wordy) paragraph is the difference between protestant and Catholic understanding of liturgy. Far from being blind followers of liturgical fascism, or fashion, those who are Catholic want to do as the Church does. Protestants want to make it up for themselves, so they can do whatever they wish, and then describe it as theological, aesthetical and liturgical. And award themselves the acolade of being thinking men.
Ah! The perdition in the Scriptures reserved for those who think themselves wise and learned (otherwise known as "thinking men").
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
Yeah, and who gets to say what the church does.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
Don't be ridiculous, it's what a handful of Italians sprinkled with the (very) odd German or African do, it has nothing in common with anything resembling an apostolic faith or way of worship. There is no reliable early church handbook for liturgy, so everything on which apparatchiks rely is post big-headed Ignatius or later.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
FD, sometimes you make me laugh (I assume this is your intention). Sometimes you're just boring. Today falls into the latter category, I'm afraid.
Thurible
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Don't be ridiculous, it's what a handful of Italians sprinkled with the (very) odd German or African do, it has nothing in common with anything resembling an apostolic faith or way of worship. There is no reliable early church handbook for liturgy, so everything on which apparatchiks rely is post big-headed Ignatius or later.
Well there is actually. It's called "Worship" and it's by Keith Pecklers.
Jungmann shouldn't be ignored either.
Oh yes, the Bible is quite a good resource for tracing back what early Church worship was like, it's a good read when you read it along side Pecklers and Jungmann. Everything kind of just "fits" into place.
Max.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
it's by Keith Pecklers.
I hadn't realised people were called Keith in the first and second centuries...
Thurible
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Want to see what medieval worship really looked like? Go to Corpus Christi Maiden Lane for a Low Mass one evening.
Point of Order? For those of us in the Colonies what is Corpus Christi Maiden Lane and what is their Low Mass in an evening like?
Corpus Christi Maiden lane is what EWTN should be. It's a church which represents the entire spectrum of Catholicism, not a tiny minority of it.
They do a wonderful Ordinary Form mass in English, with good old fashioned hymn singing and intelligent preaching (often drawing from sources such as Eastenders and Doctor who) and they also do a very friendly Tridentine Mass in which all feel welcome (unlike the oratory where one is likely to get shouted at by a crazy person for not standing/sitting/kneeling/making the sign of the cross in the correct place).
Their low mass is extraordinary form but often with some hymns out of Hymns Old and New.
Max.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
it's by Keith Pecklers.
I hadn't realised people were called Keith in the first and second centuries...
Thurible
If one of Jesus's best friends was called Rufus then I'm sure there were guys called "Keith" in those days too!
Max.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Yeah, and who gets to say what the church does.
Why, the Church of course.
If you want to argue about what that means, it's an ecclesiological and theological point not a liturgical one.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
I though it was about why we do particular things in the liturgy!
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
It might be ecclesiological, but there's nary a sliver of theology in the nonsense.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
When I actually hear some theology from you, instead of trite shite, I will take your word about what is or is not theological.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
ahhh... theology rather than circular arguments?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I see what you are saying to me. I should have been clearer - my post above is condescending and sidestepping as it stands. Indeed, circular.
I was intending to indicate the place the argument belongs (Purgatory rather than Eccles), so as to avoid some huge derailment here by the time-honoured spat about what the Church is.
I knew in my head what I was saying, honest!
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Indeed TT - please keep personal accusations about people only ever posting 'trite shite' to where they belong. And, I know I've been on me hols, but please resist the temptation to Junior Host... thanks!
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Corpus Christi Maiden lane is what EWTN should be. It's a church which represents the entire spectrum of Catholicism, not a tiny minority of it.
They do a wonderful Ordinary Form mass in English, with good old fashioned hymn singing and intelligent preaching . . . .
The Parish Priest is an ex Anglican, so it's only to be expected . . .
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Corpus Christi Maiden lane is what EWTN should be. It's a church which represents the entire spectrum of Catholicism, not a tiny minority of it.
They do a wonderful Ordinary Form mass in English, with good old fashioned hymn singing and intelligent preaching . . . .
The Parish Priest is an ex Anglican, so it's only to be expected . . .
Indeed he is. The best ones always are
Max.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
Am I the only one who can't get this site to do anything?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
What are you trying to make it do?
Thurible
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
Am I the only one who can't get this site to do anything?
Damnit. I have the same problem.
Max.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What are you trying to make it do?
Work.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
Yum
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Want to see what medieval worship really looked like? Go to Corpus Christi Maiden Lane for a Low Mass one evening.
Point of Order? For those of us in the Colonies what is Corpus Christi Maiden Lane and what is their Low Mass in an evening like?
Corpus Christi Maiden lane is what EWTN should be. It's a church which represents the entire spectrum of Catholicism, not a tiny minority of it.
They do a wonderful Ordinary Form mass in English, with good old fashioned hymn singing and intelligent preaching (often drawing from sources such as Eastenders and Doctor who) and they also do a very friendly Tridentine Mass in which all feel welcome (unlike the oratory where one is likely to get shouted at by a crazy person for not standing/sitting/kneeling/making the sign of the cross in the correct place).
Their low mass is extraordinary form but often with some hymns out of Hymns Old and New.
Max.
Sorry to continue the tangent, but how does this differ from EWTN? I suppose I would have to assist with Mass there for awhile before seeing the differences?
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
OP - I agree with Triple Tiara's comments way back.
Furthermore, there is something missing when there is no deacon at the mass and this should be apparent. The seat to the president's immediate left should be vacant although an assisting priest, of course, does the deacon's jobs. A presbyter is no longer a deacon, except in the general sense of service, because order is order.
A further point about opening hands at the apostolic greeting ("The Lord be with you"). This is a presidential gesture not a priestly gesture. Only the president should do this. This means that whenever he presides at a liturgy, the deacon should do this.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
sorry above - "seat to the right " as we know - I always have trouble with that.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
Secondly, there is a world of difference between having liturgical opinions based on liturgy, theology and aesthetics and having liturgical opinions based on authority and getting indignant when other people don't submit to that authority. I would have more respect, infinitely more respect, for the acolytes of GIRM if they defended their sacred text for its merits, rather than merely saying that it what they have been ordered to use. The former is a thinking man's response, the latter is not.
And there in one (wordy) paragraph is the difference between protestant and Catholic understanding of liturgy. Far from being blind followers of liturgical fascism, or fashion, those who are Catholic want to do as the Church does. Protestants want to make it up for themselves, so they can do whatever they wish, and then describe it as theological, aesthetical and liturgical.
Damn. I had hoped Max was going to make this point, as he purports to be an admired of Hans Küng, who argues that authority is not enough, whether it is the authority ascribed to the Bible by Protestants, the authority ascribed to tradition by the Eastern Orthodox or the authority ascribed to the Magisterium by Roman Catholics, with the last, unsurprisingly, being his particular bugbear. He doesn't mention the peculiarly Anglican tripos of scripture, tradition and reason.
That point is a little less effective now, as I suppose you probably sided with the Vatican thought police against Fr Küng.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What are you trying to make it do?
Work.
Right. It's working fine for me in IE.
Thurible
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What are you trying to make it do?
Work.
Right. It's working fine for me in IE.
I've tried in IE and Firefox and can only get the home page. They must have an Orthodox filter on their site.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
A presbyter is no longer a deacon, except in the general sense of service, because order is order.
So has the theology, along with the practice, of a bishop wearing dalmatic under his chasuble been abrogated? Tatty as it looks, it does make that point of 'once a deacon, always a deacon'. And I thought the Pope was 'servant of the servants of God'.
Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
And modern Catholic Worship is the closest we have to early Christian Worship.
Max.
And you know this, how?
He sat down one day with a nice spliff (or was it a large gin and bitter lemon) and imagined what it could be like to worship in early Christian times and then scrawled all over a handkerchief what he imagined early Christian worship would look like, got a post as a worship leader, and passed it off as early Christian worship.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Yes, but a bishop always wears a chasuble over the dalmatic. The point is the next order supercedes and subsumes the lower order. The bishop does not appear wearing just a dalmatic.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What are you trying to make it do?
Work.
Right. It's working fine for me in IE.
I've tried in IE and Firefox and can only get the home page. They must have an Orthodox filter on their site.
I think it's more likely it's a Mac filter*, stop the guys at the seminary and at Heythrop being able to see what's on their website
*It's a well known fact that academics use Apple Macs, whilst the great unwashed use PeeCees
Max.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
Am I the only one who can't get this site to do anything?
Damnit. I have the same problem.
Max.
Works for my PC in Chrome and Firefox...
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
A presbyter is no longer a deacon, except in the general sense of service, because order is order.
So has the theology, along with the practice, of a bishop wearing dalmatic under his chasuble been abrogated? Tatty as it looks, it does make that point of 'once a deacon, always a deacon'. And I thought the Pope was 'servant of the servants of God'.
Thanks, Triple T replies for me above.
Anglicans get very confused about the nature of the nature of order because we are obsessed with the "threefold character" to the detriment of other ways of understanding. Order and ministry are different things. Of course a bishop is servant but he no longer of the order of deacons nor of presbyters. Looking at it the other way, he now holds the fullness of priesthood, which he shares in part with his presbyterate.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
A presbyter is no longer a deacon, except in the general sense of service, because order is order.
So has the theology, along with the practice, of a bishop wearing dalmatic under his chasuble been abrogated? Tatty as it looks, it does make that point of 'once a deacon, always a deacon'. And I thought the Pope was 'servant of the servants of God'.
Thanks, Triple T replies for me above.
Anglicans get very confused about the nature of the nature of order because we are obsessed with the "threefold character" to the detriment of other ways of understanding. Order and ministry are different things. Of course a bishop is servant but he no longer of the order of deacons nor of presbyters. Looking at it the other way, he now holds the fullness of priesthood, which he shares in part with his presbyterate.
That makes sense. In that case, your earlier comment is misleading. A presbyter might be no longer 'only' a deacon; but the presbyterate includes the diaconate. It's not as if the priest hands back his/her deacon's letters of orders a year later.
But this is off-topic and purgatorial.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Unless the celebrant is a bishop.
But then again, it's definitely NOT pre-Vatican II for a layman not to read the Gospel. So I guess you could make up the other rules as well, if you wished.
I don't make up the rules - my bishop does and my license allows me to read/sing the Gospel, as does Common Worship.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
But then what you are doing is playing Common Worship for one thing and "Vatican II" for another. I think it is a much greater infringement of liturgical order and principle for a layman to read the Gospel than it is for the celebrant to kiss the Gospel.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Unless the celebrant is a bishop.
But then again, it's definitely NOT pre-Vatican II for a layman not to read the Gospel. So I guess you could make up the other rules as well, if you wished.
I don't make up the rules - my bishop does and my license allows me to read/sing the Gospel, as does Common Worship.
I guess "what is a Reader?" belongs elsewhere - and Leo might not be a Reader - but Leo's bishop is effectively ordering deacons without laying on hands, is he not? What's the difference?
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
Am I the only one who can't get this site to do anything?
Damnit. I have the same problem.
Max.
Works for my PC in Chrome and Firefox...
Are you able to click on icons?
Max.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The bishop does not appear wearing just a dalmatic.
Indeed. And so you will never see a bishop wearing just the dalmatic. Oh wait...
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
One very rarely sees the Cardinal Deacons wearing the chasuble, at least in my experience.
Of course one could say that the issue of the Cardinal Deacons is an exception to a more general rule, and it is. But it nicely illustrates that the theological principles that we are told undergird modern liturgical thinking are not sacrosanct, as some seem to imply.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Well, this is attempting to use a particular, specific and peculiar occurrence within the papal liturgy to a general use. It doesn't work. The issue of Cardinal Deacons is a specific. It occurs nowhere else. No other bishop ever has episcopal deacons, be he Patriarch, Archbishop or Papal Legate.
As to things being sacrosanct - what could ever be said to be sacrosanct? Some used to think the maniple was sacrosanct. But as the principles develop, there should at least be an attempt to carry them through logically.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
In Eastern rites, if I am correct (and if not, please correct me), it has to be the priest who proclaims the gospel at the liturgy.
I appreciate the highly appropriate (IMHO) custom in both East and West that the gospel reading gets special hono(u)rs.
At the same time these are customs and I don't think what particular readings an ordained minister may or may not read is absolutely essential to the character of the ordained ministry, be it the diaconate or the presbyterate. So if the CoE wants to let licensed Readers read the Gospel, i don't see where that signifies a crumbling of the integrity of said ordained ministries. (Leaving aside for the moment the arguments of those who say that the CoE has no ordained ministries.)
85 posts on the topic "Who kisses the Gospel"! Only in Ecclesiantics!!
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Unless the celebrant is a bishop.
But then again, it's definitely NOT pre-Vatican II for a layman not to read the Gospel. So I guess you could make up the other rules as well, if you wished.
I don't make up the rules - my bishop does and my license allows me to read/sing the Gospel, as does Common Worship.
I guess "what is a Reader?" belongs elsewhere - and Leo might not be a Reader - but Leo's bishop is effectively ordering deacons without laying on hands, is he not? What's the difference?
The Anglican Church has proper deacons, readers are not some for of quasi-deacon. If anything, they represent an attempt to revive all the minor orders into one job. As much as it astonishes me to say this, I agree with Triple Tiara. The practice of having a layperson read the gospel is very much a vain thing fondly invented. It's unheard of in the ECUSA and, I suspect, in most other provinces. It's also not something seen in those parishes of the CofE that have a reputation for doing thinks properly, at least liturgically.
The more appropriate role for a reader would be for Morning and Evening Prayer, where he or she could most certainly read any or all of the lessons, lead the prayers and also preach (I am inclined to agree with the Roman Catholic instruction that, whilst anyone may be called to preach, the homily, as part of the Mass, should be reserved for a cleric).
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Unless the celebrant is a bishop.
But then again, it's definitely NOT pre-Vatican II for a layman not to read the Gospel. So I guess you could make up the other rules as well, if you wished.
I don't make up the rules - my bishop does and my license allows me to read/sing the Gospel, as does Common Worship.
I guess "what is a Reader?" belongs elsewhere - and Leo might not be a Reader - but Leo's bishop is effectively ordering deacons without laying on hands, is he not? What's the difference?
It's got nothing to do with Leo's bishop - it's there in the Readers' licence along with all the other duties that Readers are entitled to carry out.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
In Eastern rites, if I am correct (and if not, please correct me), it has to be the priest who proclaims the gospel at the liturgy.
It depends.
In the Antiochene family of rites, the Liturgy of St James does stipulate that it is the priest who reads the Gospel at the Liturgy.
The Byzantine Rite is more complicated. At the Liturgy, it is the deacon who reads the Gospel; or the priest, if there is no deacon; or the bishop if he is present and so chooses, regardless of whether there is a deacon serving. At other services, it varies. Some specify the priest while others the deacon. However, the default seems to be that the deacon reads the Gospel. In the services where the priest reads the Gospel, such as at stations at outdoor processions, an examination of the rubrics usually shows that the deacon is fairly busy at this point, so it may just be a practical thing to have the priest do it.
quote:
I appreciate the highly appropriate (IMHO) custom in both East and West that the gospel reading gets special hono(u)rs.
So do I, and if anybody wnats to donate a pair of fans to my parish for the purpose, you are more than welcome to do so.
quote:
85 posts on the topic "Who kisses the Gospel"! Only in Ecclesiantics!!
We've done ourselves proud.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
Presumably another example of the evangelicals highjacking the CofE and attempting to pull it further from it historically Anglican identity, in this case by devaluing the threefold ministry which is at the core of Anglican ecclesiology. Why evangelical Anglicans don't leave the CofE and join with evangelical Protestants in a happy little fellowship of naff praise choruses and (under the leadership of the newly appointed Chief Executive Pastor Michael Nazir-Ali) Islamaphobia.
God, I'm in a bitter mood today.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It doesn't work.
In terms of refuting the assertion that it is A VERY BAD THING for anyone who is not a deacon to wear the dalmatic as an outer vestment, I should think that it works very well indeed.
This, of course, says nothing about whether the practice is permitted in the context of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I think that most rubricists would say that it isn't. My point, however, is that it's not permitted because it's not permitted, and not because it violates some important and inviolable principle of liturgical theology.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
Presumably another example of the evangelicals highjacking the CofE and attempting to pull it further from it historically Anglican identity, in this case by devaluing the threefold ministry which is at the core of Anglican ecclesiology. Why evangelical Anglicans don't leave the CofE and join with evangelical Protestants in a happy little fellowship of naff praise choruses and (under the leadership of the newly appointed Chief Executive Pastor Michael Nazir-Ali) Islamaphobia.
God, I'm in a bitter mood today.
Like it or not, but Evangelical Protestants make up a very large majority of the Anglican Communion. I'm sure they would ask you why don't you just leave the CofE and join with the continuing Anglicans in a happy little fellowship of boring hymn singing, Merbecke and (under the leadership of newly appointed Sovereign Grand Inspector General and Bishop Gene Robinson) Liberalism.
God, I'm an irritable little shit today.
Max.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Well, who has asserted it's a bad thing for anyone other than a deacon to wear a dalmatic? That's not the issue (tat's not the issue).
The issue is people performing roles not proper to their order. Cardinal deacons are acting as deacons of a very specific type - assistants to the pope. That's why the use of the dalmatic as symbolic vesture works. But they do not then go on to act as deacons of the liturgy - they are there purely as attendants on the Pontiff.
For a layman to dress up in a stole and dalmatic and act as a deacon is a very grievous mistake. For a priest to dress down in a dalmatic is equally wrong.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, who has asserted it's a bad thing for anyone other than a deacon to wear a dalmatic?
For a layman to dress up in a stole and dalmatic and act as a deacon is a very grievous mistake. For a priest to dress down in a dalmatic is equally wrong.
Has the principle of non-contradiction been repealed?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
You miss the point again - the dressing up or down signifies the role they are to play, and it is that role which is important. So let me just take the tat out of it, so you can see the issue clearly.
For a layman to perform the role of a deacon is a grievous mistake. For a priest to do so is equally a mistake.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
God, I'm in a bitter mood today.
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
God, I'm an irritable little shit today.
It's the weather! Who in their right mind would want to wear a dalmatic in this heat? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Post Vatican II - all Cardinals must be bishops. The majority are Cardinal Priests, a small number are Cardinal Deacons or Bishops, but these are honorary grades of the office, nothing more.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
God, I'm in a bitter mood today.
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
God, I'm an irritable little shit today.
It's the weather! Who in their right mind would want to wear a dalmatic in this heat?
Or indeed clothes at all!
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
[/Qb]It's got nothing to do with Leo's bishop - it's there in the Readers' licence along with all the other duties that Readers are entitled to carry out. [/QB]
Yeah, my point is the same - it's a licence to be a deacon without the laying on of hands, so what's going on with it?
[Edit: quote code]
[ 02. July 2009, 22:01: Message edited by: Hart ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Not quite.
As a general principle these days:
Cardinal Deacons head Roman curial dicasteries
Cardinal Priests head dioceses
Cardinal Bishops are the more senior and long-serving Cardinals, who are awarded the suburbicarian sees as an honour.
And when they retire, they retire with that rank.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You miss the point again - the dressing up or down signifies the role they are to play, and it is that role which is important. So let me just take the tat out of it, so you can see the issue clearly.
For a layman to perform the role of a deacon is a grievous mistake. For a priest to do so is equally a mistake.
But the latter didn't used to be a mistake, and still isn't, AFAIK, in the Extraordinary Form.
So your statement isn't a matter of principle, just one way of looking at things. The Anglican (as in Common Worship) POV as outlined by Leo is another such way.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Protestants want to make it up for themselves,
Did the GIRM make itself up? Why are things made up by protestants 'made up' but things made up by catholics not 'made up'?
There is the difference between Protestants and Catholics: the Protestant acknowledges what is made up as expedient for him, the Catholic denies what the Church made up is made up -- but insists on its expediency all the same!
Back to the OP. There is no kissing in my BCP.
Stop it, it's gross.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
The ministry of distinctive deacons was lost in the West - it is now recovered - so what's the problem with having got it a bit wrong and now putting it right?
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You miss the point again - the dressing up or down signifies the role they are to play, and it is that role which is important. So let me just take the tat out of it, so you can see the issue clearly.
For a layman to perform the role of a deacon is a grievous mistake. For a priest to do so is equally a mistake.
But there are priests performing the role of the deacon at Mass all of the time, reading the gospel, etc. Nothing is seen as being wrong with this; indeed there is no alternative in the absence of an actual deacon. The only difference is that--according to the legislation currently in force--the use of the deacon's customary vesture is forbidden. So it is, in fact, about vestments, and not about a role being performed.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You miss the point again - the dressing up or down signifies the role they are to play, and it is that role which is important. So let me just take the tat out of it, so you can see the issue clearly.
For a layman to perform the role of a deacon is a grievous mistake. For a priest to do so is equally a mistake.
Neato! The 1662 BCP and the modern GIRM are in accord (although no doubt the BCP must be deficient since, by virtue of being Protestant, it is made up).
The BCP gives 'authority to read the Gospel' to the deacon, but assigns this reading to the Priest in the Holy Communion. The priest is not pretending to be a deacon -- and the BCP obviously assumes the normative reader of the Gospel is the celebrant.
Who knew paying attention to the old BCP would put us in the good graces of the GIRM (maybe to answer TT's other question, that is why some Anglo Catholics are so wedded to the old Catholic uses?).
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Which is why I spoke about being careful about things being sacrosanct. The development of the Roman Rite in recent years managed to iron out many of these oddities. The re-emergence of the EF has muddied the waters again.
As to leo and his practices, the point I am trying to direct at him is that he must beware of throwing about aspersions about things being pre-Vatican II. I am quite happy for the CofE to order itself whichever way it wishes. But one should not appeal to "Vatican II" over minor things and then ignore it over rather more important things. In other words, hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes. I stand by my assertion that it is far more out of step with "Vatican II" for a layman to read the Gospel than it is for the celebrant to kiss the Gospel. It was leo who described this latter custom as "pre-Vatican II".
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
The proper role for a Priest to be playing at the Celebration of the Eucharist is of a Priest. Either celebrating or concelebrating.
A Priest ordinarily should never dress up as a Deacon and function as a deacon.
We got rid of all that a long time ago.
A layperson should never dress up as a deacon and function as a deacon either.
That's just... weird.
Max.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Like it or not, but Evangelical Protestants make up a very large majority of the Anglican Communion.
Yes, but on the issue of threefold ministry, precedent is clearly not on their side. Unless they can find a significant reason to abolish it in scripture or through reason, then they have no leg to stand on.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For a layman to dress up in a stole and dalmatic and act as a deacon is a very grievous mistake. For a priest to dress down in a dalmatic is equally wrong.
I'm not even remotely convinced about the latter assertion. It is one of the roles of the deacon to read the gospel. Since no one, not even you, denies that all priests have valid deacon's orders, there is no objection to a priest reading the gospel, at least in the absence of a deacon. When there is no deacon, but there are two priests, then it seems meet and right that one should act as deacon, as he (or, for Anglicans, she) would be serving the need of the congregation. When serving in the role of deacon, he or she naturally vests accordingly. This does not deny his or her priestly orders, but merely represents that he or she is acting in a diaconal capacity. A priest who acts as a deacon will, presumably, say Mass at some point on the same day, thus acting in a priestly capacity.
Not only is this logical, but it has a rather substantial precedent.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
cross-posted with everyone. That was in reply to Angloid of course.
My word but this is an active thread. Even this clarification managed to be cross-posted!
[ 02. July 2009, 17:53: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Hooker's Trick - I'm a little awed by your presence, but isn't it the case that catholics understand the liturgy as having revelatory character, as a significant part of the deposit of faith? Similar to the Scriptures, and to a degree predating?
Hence, "made up" yes but in the same sense that the Scriptures are made up. Isn't the liturgy an instrumental aspect of the Church's spiritual life?
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I stand by my assertion that it is far more out of step with "Vatican II" for a layman to read the Gospel than it is for the celebrant to kiss the Gospel.
The hit parade keeps coming! The BCP and 'Vatican II' agree again.
If this keeps happening, people are going to start thinking Vatican II was made up.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
A Priest ordinarily should never dress up as a Deacon and function as a deacon.
We got rid of all that a long time ago.
Well, no, you didn't, at least not everywhere.
But, more importantly, if a priest shouldn't function as a deacon, then, when you don't have a deacon, are the reading of the gospel and the dismissal omitted?
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Protestants want to make it up for themselves,
Did the GIRM make itself up? Why are things made up by protestants 'made up' but things made up by catholics not 'made up'?
Crusty old bugger .
Inasmuch as you follow the rules of your own church's official liturgy, you are exhibiting quite a Catholic mindset: you are doing that which binds you together. In other words the "we" figures quite large.
The protestant mindset, by contrast, sees no need for a "we". Private judgement rules the day.
So you tend to be quite Catholic in your approach to liturgy, HT, even though your tastes and conclusions, being BCP, are appallingly wrong .
As to priests doing those things in the liturgy which pertain to a deacon, they do them in the absence of a deacon. If they are in the sanctuary in coro then they would not do them. If they are there as concelebrants, they would. But as concelebrants they are there fulfilling the office of the presbyterate. They continue to do all those things pertaining to the presbyterate. They don't limit themselves to diaconal functions.
This has all been fun, and has managed to get my arteries unblocked. But sadly I must leave it there since I am off to Poland in a few minutes, so you'll have to carry on without me.
Goodbyyyyyyyyeeeeee.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Which is why I spoke about being careful about things being sacrosanct. The development of the Roman Rite in recent years managed to iron out many of these oddities. The re-emergence of the EF has muddied the waters again.
As to leo and his practices, the point I am trying to direct at him is that he must beware of throwing about aspersions about things being pre-Vatican II. I am quite happy for the CofE to order itself whichever way it wishes. But one should not appeal to "Vatican II" over minor things and then ignore it over rather more important things. In other words, hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes. I stand by my assertion that it is far more out of step with "Vatican II" for a layman to read the Gospel than it is for the celebrant to kiss the Gospel. It was leo who described this latter custom as "pre-Vatican II".
That's a fair point. And would be well-aimed at some of those Anglicans who believe they are duty bound to obey Vatican rules (not just GIRM) except when they don't suit them. However, one can believe that the GIRM expresses a generally-acceptable liturgical theology while disagreeing with it in some points. The nature of the liturgical 'deacon' is obviously one of those points of difference. We can agree on general principles while disagreeing on details.
I'm pretty sure that the good St Percy, were he updating the Parson's Handbook today, would find much common-sense and good practice in the present Catholic church. But he would base his guidelines on current Anglican texts and rubrics. We Anglicans (most of us at any rate) are using a different rite from the Catholic church, however much there is in common between them, and our practice is bound to differ from time to time. But convergence in the basic principles is worth encouraging and there's no point in being different just for the sake of it.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Hooker's Trick - I'm a little awed by your presence,
Gosh. I'm sure I've never awed anyone before.
quote:
but isn't it the case that catholics understand the liturgy as having revelatory character, as a significant part of the deposit of faith? Similar to the Scriptures, and to a degree predating?
Hence, "made up" yes but in the same sense that the Scriptures are made up. Isn't the liturgy an instrumental aspect of the Church's spiritual life?
Surely the Church of England takes the same view. Does not the BCP (I refer you to 'Concerning the Service of the Church' and 'Of Ceremonies') describe the Divine Service as contributing to the advancement of godliness, wholesome Doctrine, and the Truth.
The BCP goes on to affirm that Christ's Religion is
quote:
content only with those Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and godly discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified
Which sounds revelatory to me.
(I am most disappointed that Triple T has departed for the east and will no longer play with us).
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I do hope that Triple T's absence is but a temporary condition!
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As to priests doing those things in the liturgy which pertain to a deacon, they do them in the absence of a deacon. If they are in the sanctuary in coro then they would not do them. If they are there as concelebrants, they would. But as concelebrants they are there fulfilling the office of the presbyterate. They continue to do all those things pertaining to the presbyterate. They don't limit themselves to diaconal functions.
I think TT has hit the nail on the head with this. Presbyters appear to be "playing deacon" when they vest as deacons and refrain from fulfilling a presbyteral function in the liturgy.
Of course I suppose the presbyter who attends Mass in his jeans and polo shirt while on vacation might be accused of "playing layman" (as might I, when I sit in the congregation with my family on those Sundays when I am not serving as deacon). But somehow that seems different. Perhaps because priests and deacons do not cease being members of the laos of God by virtue of their ordination.
As to the idea that priests are "still deacons". . . I'm not sure that is really a very helpful way of thinking about the matter. Orders are not like merit badges that one collects. I would be more inclined to say that when a deacon is ordained to the presbyterate, he ceases to be a deacon and begins to be a presbyter. I think it is nice for him to remember his time in the diaconate, and of course never to forget that all Christians are called to a life of diakonia, but I'm not convinced that he retains the ecclesial role of being a sacramental icon of Christ in his servant ministry. This is why the restoration of the permanent diaconate dignum et justum est. The sacramental character of Holy Orders in indelible, but I'm not sure that the identity of a particular order is.
[ 03. July 2009, 00:00: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
So priests and deacons "playing layman" is acceptable because priests and deacons do remain members of the lay order, but a priest "playing deacon" is not acceptable because priests do not remain members of the diaconal order? And this understanding is of very recent provenance, having rubrical force (perhaps) only since 1970? But it still allows for bishops to "play deacon" at papal Masses, and that's entirely different?
Sorry, but it sounds completely arbitrary to me.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
FCB: with all due respect, I find your reasoning nonsensical. A layman is ordained a deacon and ever remains a deacon, even though he is subsequently ordained a priest and ever remains a priest, even if later said priest is consecrated a bishop. One order of ministry doesn't undo another order, just as the fact that you are first a baptised and chrismated part of the Christian laos isn't erased by ordination to the Sacred Ministry.
Sheesh!
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
The problem with that is that there are only seven sacraments -- you would seem to be making there out to be nine. Orders are indelible but when a deacon is ordained priest (or a priest bishop) his ontology as 'ordained' perdures, but is there a special 'deacon' ontology that perdures, or is that better thought of as the way in which his 'ordained' ontology was expressed prior to the priestly ordination?
The analogy you try to draw with "the fact that you are first a baptised and chrismated part of the Christian laos isn't erased by ordination to the Sacred Ministry" doesn't work because baptism, confirmation and ordination really are three different sacraments, whereas diaconal, sacerdotal and episcopal ordination aren't.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
The Church has always taught that all priests were maintained ontologically deacons, whilst also being fully priests. Whatever GIRM says now, the traditions of the Western Church are with Anglo-Catholics on this one.
Interestingly enough, in the Anglican Church, a layperson can perform the functions of a subdeacon without being ontologically a subdeacon, which is handy, seeing as there are no ontological Anglican subdeacons. One is a subdeacon only when performing in that capacity and not at any other time.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
So the Pope shouldn't celebrate Mass anymore because he is a Bishop, and not a priest? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
From my understanding, a priest remains ontologically a deacon. Being ordained priest doesn't erase his ordination as a deacon. Therefore when a priest reads the gospel, he is acting as a deacon.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I would be more inclined to say that when a deacon is ordained to the presbyterate, he ceases to be a deacon and begins to be a presbyter.
Maybe it would be better to rephrase that. When a man is ordained to the presbyterate his diaconal order simply becomes a foundation stone to his presbyteral ministry in the Church. Being a deacon becomes a part of being ordained a priest, but the part that is kept is that of service, but the liturgical and sacramental role ceases to be because he is now ordained a priest and therefore ministers as a priest in the Church.
It's important maybe for us to all remember that the primary role of a deacon is not liturgical. It's not a nice role for retired old men to do because they want to dress up in different robes at mass and read the gospel. It's one of wiping bums and blowing noses in the community.
The part of the ministry does not cease once a man is ordained to the priesthood, that bit stays because it's important. Dressing up and doing deacon things at the altar on the other hand, is not.
Max.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So the Pope shouldn't celebrate Mass anymore because he is a Bishop, and not a priest?
That doesn't make sense.
The celebrating of the mass is an episcopal function which is one of the extensions to the charism of the presbyterate. It is not primarily a presbyteral function.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So the Pope shouldn't celebrate Mass anymore because he is a Bishop, and not a priest?
That's like saying a Priest may not read the Gospel! You're just being silly now.
Max.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So the Pope shouldn't celebrate Mass anymore because he is a Bishop, and not a priest?
That's like saying a Priest may not read the Gospel! You're just being silly now.
Max.
If reading the Gospel is a liturgical function of a deacon, and a deacon ceases to be a deacon when ordained to the presbyterate, then this would seem to be entirely consistent.
Although, as it turns out, a priest is also allowed to perform the deacon's role at Mass, provided he doesn't dress accordingly. Unless he's a bishop, in which case he wears the deacon's vesture as well as everything else.
Sorry, but this is just daft.
What you said about the role of a deacon not being primarily liturgical at all though, although the things you mention are the duty of all the baptised of course...
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So the Pope shouldn't celebrate Mass anymore because he is a Bishop, and not a priest?
From my understanding, a priest remains ontologically a deacon. Being ordained priest doesn't erase his ordination as a deacon. Therefore when a priest reads the gospel, he is acting as a deacon.
What are you talking about - read all the stuff above. The Bishop holds the fulness of priesthood, he shares this to a functional degree with some of his deacons because he can't be everywhere at once. We call this sharing ordination; those deacons so ordered are now called presbyters .
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Unless he's a bishop, in which case he wears the deacon's vesture as well as everything else.
Though not the deacon's stole, of course.
Personally, I'm one of those brain-dead types who thinks that if GIRM says it, one does it - whether or not one likes it.
The problem with that, of course, is that, at S. Hugo's of Ye Olde Englishe, we have High Mass most weeks with priests dressed as deacons and, indeed, subdeacons. So I'm getting used to such perversions.
Thurible
Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on
:
There's hope for you yet, Bro Thurible.
Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on
:
quote:
I'm getting used to such perversions.
Thurible
Many do get used to them ...
Is kissing the Gospel a good idea with swine flu around?
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laetare:
Is kissing the Gospel a good idea with swine flu around?
Typically, one person picks the book up, processes it, reads, and kisses it. So there's little opportunity for transmission. I doubt that the virus survives more than twenty minutes or so on the surface, so there would be much bigger worries.
Besides which, the Church survived this custom when genuinely deadly stuff like bubonic plague was circulating. Given that historically priests have not been decimated by every epidemic around, liturgical practice doesn't seem like it's a major spreader of disease.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
The Church has always taught that all priests were maintained ontologically deacons, whilst also being fully priests.
I'd like to see some authoritative teaching that says this. Off-hand, I can't think of any. If you can produce something more authoritative than "this is what my parish priest told me" I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
I think Hart has sufficiently defended the point I was making.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I'd like to see some authoritative teaching that says this. Off-hand, I can't think of any. If you can produce something more authoritative than "this is what my parish priest told me" I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
As would I. I was more thinking out loud than defending a position I'm particularly attached to.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
The Church has always taught that all priests were maintained ontologically deacons, whilst also being fully priests.
I'd like to see some authoritative teaching that says this. Off-hand, I can't think of any. If you can produce something more authoritative than "this is what my parish priest told me" I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
I think Hart has sufficiently defended the point I was making.
Okay, I'm now genuinely confused on this point. In the past, it would never have occurred to me that deacons remained deacons when priested, but it has been stated so many times in Eccles, probably by RCs a lot of the time, that I'd come to believe it must be so.
Is this not, in fact, the case?
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In the past, it would never have occurred to me that deacons remained deacons when priested, but it has been stated so many times in Eccles, probably by RCs a lot of the time, that I'd come to believe it must be so.
Funny, I associate this claim primarily with Anglicans, not RCs. Oh well. Like Hart, I too was mainly musing aloud, though I tend to think my musings were more right than wrong.
This is probably getting too purgatorial for Ecclesiantics. I think the real question is what a deacon is, what a priest is, what a bishop is. There is no doubt that at various times and places priests have donned Deacon's vestments and fulfilled diaconal functions in the liturgy. Is the practice a legitimate one? I think so. Is it the best practice? I think not. But the question of whether a priest remains "ontologically" a deacon is a distinct question and I am inclined to account for the allowability of the practice of vesting as a deacon in a different way.
Perhaps Cyprian could tell us if, in the Eastern Rites, presbyters, when fulfilling diaconal functions, ever vest as a deacon. My impression is that they do not.
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Perhaps Cyprian could tell us if, in the Eastern Rites, presbyters, when fulfilling diaconal functions, ever vest as a deacon. My impression is that they do not.
Your impression would indeed be quite correct, FCB.
I am currently in the process of putting together a new altar book for use when my parish moves into its new church in a fortnight's time. These things do exist but creating a home-produced one allows me to tailor the rubrics and translation to our use and also to consolidate the rubrics which only exists in bits and pieces in most of the published books.
The thing that I am finding most difficult is trying to lay out alongside the standard Liturgy, in a full but uncomplicated way, the variations on the Liturgy for occasions when there is no deacon. There are some things that are normally part of the deacon's role that are taken on by the priest, such as the litanies, the carrying and reading of the Gospel and so forth. However, a considerable part of the deacon's spoken and ceremonial portions of the Liturgy are simply omitted. Those parts that are performed by a priest are done by him as a priest: vested as a priest and not a deacon, following the ceremonies proper to a priest and not a deacon, and so forth. We never have a priest vesting as a deacon, or a deacon as a subdeacon, or a subdeacon as a reader.
The nearest we ever get to this is in cases where a bishop may choose not to serve the full hierarchical Liturgy but a simplified form, closer to when a priest serves. This is usually only if he is visiting a parish or mission that simply does not have the resources or space to make an hierarchical Liturgy feasible. In those cases, he may vest in the phelonion (chasuble) rather than the sakkos. Even then, this is the more ancient vesture of bishops anyway, and is still used as standard at the St James Liturgy. He still wears the mitre, pectoral icon, and may still bless with the trikiri and dikiri instead of his hand. Although the books call it "serving as a priest", in reality it is much more a case of simplifying the bishop's Liturgy out of necessity. It is still clearly a bishop's service and he is still clearly functioning as a bishop.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As to leo and his practices, the point I am trying to direct at him is that he must beware of throwing about aspersions about things being pre-Vatican II. I am quite happy for the CofE to order itself whichever way it wishes. But one should not appeal to "Vatican II" over minor things and then ignore it over rather more important things.
I have been thinking about this. Vatican 2 was part of a much wider liturgical renewal, associated with people like Buoyer, Dix et al. With it became mass facing the people, modern language, more use of scripture and rites almost identical if order and wording across denominations from RC to Methodist.
So my use of 'Vatican 2', in part a rallying cry within that ghetto which is 'modern anglo-catholicism' could be seen as shorthand for 'liturgical renewal;'
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
Don't be silly Leo, the Liturgical renewal was happening well before the Second Vatican Council in the Protestant Churches.
Turn your eyes towards Keith F. Pecklers. Worship - A Primer in Christian Ritual top of the page. 106:
quote:
In the same period, other Christian churches were experiencing their own liturgical renewal. The movement within the American Episcopal Church began in 1946 with the Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission, founded by John Patterson (+1988)....
U.S. Lutherans launched their own liturgical changes in the 1950s as they turned altars around to face the congregation and advocated greater lay involvement in the liturgical action. Similar developments can be noted in the reformed churches. Even greater strides in ecumenical liturgical renewal would be witnessed with the advent of Vatican II
If I remember rightly, some German Catholic Chaplaincy had made changes to their worship space in the late 1930s by replacing the altar with a small wooden table, replacing pews with simple benches which was in a circle around the altar and by installing an ambo in which the word of God was read by lay people in the vernacular at the Mass simultaneously to the text being read quietly in Latin by the Presider.
Max.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Don't be silly Leo, the Liturgical renewal was happening well before the Second Vatican Council in the Protestant Churches.
Turn your eyes towards Keith F. Pecklers. Worship - A Primer in Christian Ritual top of the page. 106:
quote:
In the same period, other Christian churches were experiencing their own liturgical renewal. The movement within the American Episcopal Church began in 1946 with the Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission, founded by John Patterson (+1988)....
U.S. Lutherans launched their own liturgical changes in the 1950s as they turned altars around to face the congregation and advocated greater lay involvement in the liturgical action. Similar developments can be noted in the reformed churches. Even greater strides in ecumenical liturgical renewal would be witnessed with the advent of Vatican II
If I remember rightly, some German Catholic Chaplaincy had made changes to their worship space in the late 1930s by replacing the altar with a small wooden table, replacing pews with simple benches which was in a circle around the altar and by installing an ambo in which the word of God was read by lay people in the vernacular at the Mass simultaneously to the text being read quietly in Latin by the Presider.
Max.
Yes - I know all that. Vatican 2 was the culmination of various strands of liturgical renewal - BUT because it imposed change on all RC churches, many protestant and reformed churches followed suit - before Vatican 2 it had been small pockets of experimentation.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I do hope that Triple T's absence is but a temporary condition!
Very short-term; 'twas but a little work related excursion.
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
So priests and deacons "playing layman" is acceptable because priests and deacons do remain members of the lay order, but a priest "playing deacon" is not acceptable because priests do not remain members of the diaconal order? And this understanding is of very recent provenance, having rubrical force (perhaps) only since 1970? But it still allows for bishops to "play deacon" at papal Masses, and that's entirely different?
Sorry, but it sounds completely arbitrary to me.
I know the argument has now died down, but I really don't know why you persist with this thing about the deacons at a papal Mass. How many different ways can I say that the Cardinal deacons do not act as deacons at a papal Mass? They assist the pope at the throne, and vest in a dalmatic. They do not act as deacons of the Mass.
Let me repeat that: they do NOT act as deacons of the Mass. They do NOT do any of the things pertaining to the diaconal liturgical role. They do NOT perform as deacons.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
OK I now have to ask the obvious question, so why are they called deacons ? Rather than, say, Cardinal Acolytes - the terminology is confusing.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
All Cardinals have to be in bishop's orders in the post Vatican II world - the 3 grades of Cardinals are purely to do with local custom in Rome.
You could compare the distinctions to Hon Canons, Residentiary Canons, Canons Emeritii, etc.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
All Cardinals have to be in bishop's orders in the post Vatican II world ...
There are exceptions such as Cardinal Dulles.
[Sorry for the odd post above.]
[Edit: errant post deleted.]
[ 08. July 2009, 20:08: Message edited by: Hart ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Just read Dulles' entry on Wikipedia - seems he applied for a dispensation from episcopal consecration owing to his advanced age. So, the post-Vatican II rule stands.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
All Cardinals have to be in bishop's orders in the post Vatican II world - the 3 grades of Cardinals are purely to do with local custom in Rome.
You could compare the distinctions to Hon Canons, Residentiary Canons, Canons Emeritii, etc.
erm, no. I corrected this little misconception earlier. Perhaps you missed it?
Originally the Cardinals were simply the clergy incardinated in the Diocese of Rome: the deacons and priests and the bishops of the suburbicarian sees in the ecclesiastical Province of Rome.
Over the centuries this evolved, beginning with the corrupt practice of granting people the rights and privileges of parishes even though they were never going to be the actual working priests of the parish. They nevertheless received the income from the parishes - so some of these appointments were quite lucrative. This evolved into the system of titular churches, without the income. Which is what we have now.
The ranking remains. Cardinal Deacons are usually those who do adminsitrative jobs in the Curia, or others honoured by the pope.
Cardinal Priests are usually those who are Archbishops of major cities. Some curial officials are also Cardinal Priests - often because they have come from being bishops of sees.
Cardinal Bishops are usually senior Cardinals - such as the Secretary of State, or long-serving Cardinals such as Cardinal Arinze.
It is true that these days the usual requirement is that someone named as a Cardinal needs to be ordained as a bishop. But as with all requirements, this can be dispensed.
It's not all a purely irrelevant, symbolic ranking. The Dean of the College of Cardinals, for example, is always elected only by the Cardinal Bishops, from among their number.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Thanks TT - don't dispute any of that. My point was that grades of Cardinal, jobs of Cardinal, etc, are ecclesiastical constructs.
They are not essential to the authentic character of Holy Ordering as deacon, presbyter and bishop. I suspect some are confused about this.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
So priests and deacons "playing layman" is acceptable because priests and deacons do remain members of the lay order, but a priest "playing deacon" is not acceptable because priests do not remain members of the diaconal order? And this understanding is of very recent provenance, having rubrical force (perhaps) only since 1970? But it still allows for bishops to "play deacon" at papal Masses, and that's entirely different?
Sorry, but it sounds completely arbitrary to me.
I know the argument has now died down, but I really don't know why you persist with this thing about the deacons at a papal Mass. How many different ways can I say that the Cardinal deacons do not act as deacons at a papal Mass? They assist the pope at the throne, and vest in a dalmatic. They do not act as deacons of the Mass.
Let me repeat that: they do NOT act as deacons of the Mass. They do NOT do any of the things pertaining to the diaconal liturgical role. They do NOT perform as deacons. [/QB]
They don't read the Gospel or assist at the altar, but they are referred to as Cardinal Deacons and they do wear the dalmatic as their outer vestment. If you wish to insist that the only correct interpretation of this is that they aren't functioning as deacons in any way then it seems unlikely that I have any chance of persuading you otherwise. But it is visual evidence that the current legislation (applicable only to the Ordinary Form) which appears to forbid priests from vesting (and acting) as deacons is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
They don't read the Gospel or assist at the altar, but they are referred to as Cardinal Deacons and they do wear the dalmatic as their outer vestment.
You do realise, don't you, that historically, the damlatic/tunicle (which is the same vestment) has not been the exclusive vestment of deacons. Various liturgical rites and uses have seen them worn by different people: deacons, subdeacons, crucifers, and thurifers have all worn them liturgically. When deacon and subdeacon wear them together as part of a high mass set, the deacon's is usually (but not always!) more ornate and so a distinction is drawn between tunicle and dalmatic but there have been times when both have been referred to as tunicles, so it isn't a firm distinction. It doesn't seem to me to be without the realms of possibility that the modern Roman Rite has retained this use of the dalmatic/tunicle for people other than deacons, albeit not to the extent that it once did.
My point is that wearing a tunicle/dalmatic is not necessarily and indication of fulfilling a deacon's role and it is no basis for the argument that you are making.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
The "deacon" in "cardinal deacon" has as much to do with genu-wine deacons as the "cat" in "cattle" has to do with felines.
Well, not quite, but kind of, IYSWIM.
Have I just confused the matter further?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
Various liturgical rites and uses have seen them worn by different people: deacons, subdeacons, crucifers, and thurifers have all worn them liturgically.
Somewhere I have a photo of a very fetching thurifer in a lovely tunicle.
( ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
)
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The "deacon" in "cardinal deacon" has as much to do with genu-wine deacons as the "cat" in "cattle" has to do with felines.
Well, not quite, but kind of, IYSWIM.
Anymore, that is the case, but historically weren't they really, truly deacons of the Diocese of Rome?
The use of dalmatics on Cardinal-Deacons (who are nowadays upper-echelon titular archbishops) is just one of those quaint little RC practices that makes RCism ever so charming. Another one I love is when a priest makes fanciful "dove wings" with his hands when he is praying the epiclesis. (They don't all do this; one must watch closely.) I have yet to see a priest flap those wings into place above the sacred elements, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happens somewhere in the world.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
the current legislation (applicable only to the Ordinary Form) which appears to forbid priests from vesting (and acting) as deacons is arbitrary and inconsistent.
So?
Catholics are bound by their rules, arbitrary or not.
Anglicans need not be bound by these rules, but are of coure free to adapt them insofar as they are not incompatible with their own rites (and of course some Anglicans discard even that caveat. Talk about arbitrary).
I've never understood why Anglo-Catholics either rigidly adhere to rules not their own (see 'we don't do that after Vat II' above) or else carp on about how the rules they are not bound to are uncongenial.
It might remind us of the wisdom of the Prayer Book
quote:
Yet, because there is no remedy, but that of necessity there must be some Rules; therefore certain Rules are here set forth; which, as they are few in number, so they are plain and easy to be understood.
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:
Various liturgical rites and uses have seen them worn by different people: deacons, subdeacons, crucifers, and thurifers have all worn them liturgically.
Somewhere I have a photo of a very fetching thurifer in a lovely tunicle.
( )
Bl Percy writes that, in cathedrals and large parish churches, it is 'probably' not without precedent for all servers to wear tunicles. This is so obviously an aside, though, that I don't think it can be taken as a recommendation.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Ah - that explains why S. Mary Magdalen, Coventry have such a practice. I'd not come across that line! (Not that they're particularly large.)
Thurible
Posted by Mountain Man (# 5115) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Ah - that explains why S. Mary Magdalen, Coventry have such a practice. I'd not come across that line!
Only on major festivals.
quote:
(Not that they're particularly large.
Not particularly!
Interestingly the servers at Coventry Cathedral also wear tunicles.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Right. I'd forgotten about Coventry's tunicles. Is that all the time or just on festivals?
Also, to keep this in Coventry for the moment (the birthplace of many fine censers...), is the Sunday Eucharist a three sacred minister jobby? If so, what do they wear? (To keep it on track, is the Gospel always read by an ordained person and do they kiss it?)
Thurible
Posted by Mountain Man (# 5115) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Right. I'd forgotten about Coventry's tunicles. Is that all the time or just on festivals?
All the time
quote:
Also, to keep this in Coventry for the moment (the birthplace of many fine censers...), is the Sunday Eucharist a three sacred minister jobby?
It is indeed.
quote:
If so, what do they wear?
Chasuble, Dalmaltic and Tunicle. The deacon and subdeacon (if ordained) wear the stoles deaconwise.
quote:
(To keep it on track, is the Gospel always read by an ordained person and do they kiss it?)
Most of the time it is read by someone ordained, but on occasion lay people have read it. Most people don't kiss it, but I would not be surprised the the Precentor did. I have never noticed!
[ 10. July 2009, 18:08: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
The only priest at our place who kisses the Book used to be Catholic.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0