|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Who kisses the Gospel?
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
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?).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
cross-posted with everyone. That was in reply to Angloid of course.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) 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 ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
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 ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) .
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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 .
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
There's hope for you yet, Bro Thurible.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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;'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
OK I now have to ask the obvious question, so why are they called deacons ? Rather than, say, Cardinal Acolytes - the terminology is confusing.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
