Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Complications of 2 Forms in 1 Rite
ROME, SEPT. 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Pursuant to our reply on the difficulties of combining both ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite (see Sept. 9), we received some very interesting comments and clarifications.
First of all, several readers, using different sources, confirmed that it is legitimate for an instituted acolyte to fulfill the duties of the subdeacon. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei officially confirmed this disposition in Protocol 24/92 published on June 7, 1993.
Several sources pointed out that even before the reform the subdeacon could be substituted with a seminarian who had received first tonsure (admission as candidate or religious profession in the present system), if there were insufficient ministers present for a solemn high Mass.
This substitute subdeacon does not wear the biretta or maniple. Nor is he allowed to perform those functions that involve touching or purifying the chalice.
A Belgian reader questioned the practice of using priests to serve as other ministers. He writes: "In your discussion in your column dated Sept. 9 you refer to a practice in the Roman rite which has persisted for several centuries -- and even in some places till today. That is, having men ordained as priests (or even bishops) dressing and acting in a liturgical celebration as if they were in a 'lower order.' This seems to be, despite the constant usage in some places and circumstances, a serious abuse of the sacrament of orders.
"To use an example, to ask a priest to act and dress as a deacon and/or a subdeacon is like asking a butterfly to act as a caterpillar or even as a chrysalis. It is obvious that there is a certain continuity in the individual butterfly from one stage to another 'more-developed' stage -- but to 'go backward' is impossible. I am well aware of the arguments which are used in the Roman rite to justify the usage, but it still seems to be 'stretching the theology' of the sacrament, practically, beyond recognition of the true separation of the orders. It should be added that this practice is unknown in our sister Churches in the Eastern half of Christianity.
"My question beyond stating the 'facts on the ground' is: Why is this (seemingly abusive) practice still permitted, and even encouraged in some quarters, within the Roman rite?"
This is a very interesting question. I would be very hesitant to use the term "abuse" for a custom that was and is still practiced in the extraordinary form.
Its use in the ordinary form is for all practical purposes limited to the occasional use of two cardinal deacons serving the pope in some solemn ceremonies.
Otherwise, a priest, even if he sometimes substitutes a deacon, never wears a dalmatic. A bishop sometimes wears a dalmatic under the chasuble as a sign of the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
I would suggest that the use of priests to undertake the other clerical roles in a solemn Mass arose historically as a practical solution to a real difficulty.
Unlike the Eastern Churches, the diaconate and subdiaconate disappeared as permanent ministries in the Latin Church after a few centuries and were imparted only to candidates for the priesthood who exercised the office for only brief periods of time.
Nevertheless, the liturgical functions performed by these orders were considered as necessary to the solemn celebration of Mass.
If we keep in mind that concelebrations had also become practically extinct in the Latin rite, then the combination of a lack of available deacons and subdeacons, together with a surplus of non-celebrating priests, led quite naturally to the priest's taking up the role of these ministers.
At the beginning having priests fulfill these roles was probably not seen as adding solemnity to the rite, but as the practice grew it quite likely came to be seen in this light. In some cases, such as papal and episcopal Masses, serving as deacon and subdeacon even became something of a privilege reserved to high-ranking prelates.
Among arguments that could justify the custom would be the principle that he who can do more can also do the less. The butterfly analogy is not entirely adequate for although there is continuity between the different stages, the break is not quite as radical as when the butterfly leaves the chrysalis behind.
Thus even though the deacon has his proper place in the hierarchy and represents, among other elements, the gift of service in the Church, this aspect is not extinguished if the deacon later becomes a priest; rather, it is assumed in his new role.
That said, however, our reader has a genuine ecclesiological point. In the liturgy it is best that each order fulfill its proper liturgical role whenever possible as this best reflects the Church as an assembly in hierarchical communion. This is probably one reason why the fact that the ministries of deacon and subdeacon were habitually carried out by priests is almost never formally acknowledged in the Roman Missal. At best we can find an occasional, indirect recognition of the situation on the ground in some norms and decrees from the Congregation of Rites. For example, there is the norm that says if one of the ministers is a priest and the other a deacon, then the deacon fulfills the office of deacon and the priest that of subdeacon (1886 Ceremonial of Bishops 1, XXVI; Decree 668 of the recompilation "Decreta Authentica" of the Sacred Congregation of Rites). This norm also serves to show the importance of each minister carrying out his proper role.
The practical difficulty of the unavailability of specific ministers persists in the extraordinary form and it is probably necessary to continue using priests as ministers if solemn Mass in the extraordinary form is ever to be celebrated outside of monasteries and seminaries. A permanent solution to this difficulty would probably require some fairly major changes such as instituting the permanent diaconate for this form also.
Any such proposal would be premature at present but might not be excluded in the long term. It is to be hoped that the habitual presence of both forms will eventually bring out the best in both of them.
Pursuant to our reply on the difficulties of combining both ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite (see Sept. 9), we received some very interesting comments and clarifications.
First of all, several readers, using different sources, confirmed that it is legitimate for an instituted acolyte to fulfill the duties of the subdeacon. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei officially confirmed this disposition in Protocol 24/92 published on June 7, 1993.
Several sources pointed out that even before the reform the subdeacon could be substituted with a seminarian who had received first tonsure (admission as candidate or religious profession in the present system), if there were insufficient ministers present for a solemn high Mass.
This substitute subdeacon does not wear the biretta or maniple. Nor is he allowed to perform those functions that involve touching or purifying the chalice.
A Belgian reader questioned the practice of using priests to serve as other ministers. He writes: "In your discussion in your column dated Sept. 9 you refer to a practice in the Roman rite which has persisted for several centuries -- and even in some places till today. That is, having men ordained as priests (or even bishops) dressing and acting in a liturgical celebration as if they were in a 'lower order.' This seems to be, despite the constant usage in some places and circumstances, a serious abuse of the sacrament of orders.
"To use an example, to ask a priest to act and dress as a deacon and/or a subdeacon is like asking a butterfly to act as a caterpillar or even as a chrysalis. It is obvious that there is a certain continuity in the individual butterfly from one stage to another 'more-developed' stage -- but to 'go backward' is impossible. I am well aware of the arguments which are used in the Roman rite to justify the usage, but it still seems to be 'stretching the theology' of the sacrament, practically, beyond recognition of the true separation of the orders. It should be added that this practice is unknown in our sister Churches in the Eastern half of Christianity.
"My question beyond stating the 'facts on the ground' is: Why is this (seemingly abusive) practice still permitted, and even encouraged in some quarters, within the Roman rite?"
This is a very interesting question. I would be very hesitant to use the term "abuse" for a custom that was and is still practiced in the extraordinary form.
Its use in the ordinary form is for all practical purposes limited to the occasional use of two cardinal deacons serving the pope in some solemn ceremonies.
Otherwise, a priest, even if he sometimes substitutes a deacon, never wears a dalmatic. A bishop sometimes wears a dalmatic under the chasuble as a sign of the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
I would suggest that the use of priests to undertake the other clerical roles in a solemn Mass arose historically as a practical solution to a real difficulty.
Unlike the Eastern Churches, the diaconate and subdiaconate disappeared as permanent ministries in the Latin Church after a few centuries and were imparted only to candidates for the priesthood who exercised the office for only brief periods of time.
Nevertheless, the liturgical functions performed by these orders were considered as necessary to the solemn celebration of Mass.
If we keep in mind that concelebrations had also become practically extinct in the Latin rite, then the combination of a lack of available deacons and subdeacons, together with a surplus of non-celebrating priests, led quite naturally to the priest's taking up the role of these ministers.
At the beginning having priests fulfill these roles was probably not seen as adding solemnity to the rite, but as the practice grew it quite likely came to be seen in this light. In some cases, such as papal and episcopal Masses, serving as deacon and subdeacon even became something of a privilege reserved to high-ranking prelates.
Among arguments that could justify the custom would be the principle that he who can do more can also do the less. The butterfly analogy is not entirely adequate for although there is continuity between the different stages, the break is not quite as radical as when the butterfly leaves the chrysalis behind.
Thus even though the deacon has his proper place in the hierarchy and represents, among other elements, the gift of service in the Church, this aspect is not extinguished if the deacon later becomes a priest; rather, it is assumed in his new role.
That said, however, our reader has a genuine ecclesiological point. In the liturgy it is best that each order fulfill its proper liturgical role whenever possible as this best reflects the Church as an assembly in hierarchical communion. This is probably one reason why the fact that the ministries of deacon and subdeacon were habitually carried out by priests is almost never formally acknowledged in the Roman Missal. At best we can find an occasional, indirect recognition of the situation on the ground in some norms and decrees from the Congregation of Rites. For example, there is the norm that says if one of the ministers is a priest and the other a deacon, then the deacon fulfills the office of deacon and the priest that of subdeacon (1886 Ceremonial of Bishops 1, XXVI; Decree 668 of the recompilation "Decreta Authentica" of the Sacred Congregation of Rites). This norm also serves to show the importance of each minister carrying out his proper role.
The practical difficulty of the unavailability of specific ministers persists in the extraordinary form and it is probably necessary to continue using priests as ministers if solemn Mass in the extraordinary form is ever to be celebrated outside of monasteries and seminaries. A permanent solution to this difficulty would probably require some fairly major changes such as instituting the permanent diaconate for this form also.
Any such proposal would be premature at present but might not be excluded in the long term. It is to be hoped that the habitual presence of both forms will eventually bring out the best in both of them.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
1:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home