Diaconate in Christ

Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17 Commentary Part III

By: Protodeacon David Kennedy

 

(2) Synod of Neocaesarea, canon 12, AD 314-325                                                                            

"If any one be baptized when he is ill, forasmuch as his [profession of] faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. though fear of death] he cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men."

 

 

(Archdeacon Andrei Mazur reading the diptychs at the Great Praises during Pontifical Divine Liturgy.  This occurs just before the diaconal ecphoneis unto ages of ages, prior to Holy God.)

 

It is somewhat puzzling that this canon that makes no direct reference to the diaconate or deacons, appears in the footnotes.  Why is it there, and how is it related to the matter at hand?  The canon addresses the situation in which one enters life in Christ by baptism when ill out of fear of death.  During this time period, it was not uncommon for many to postpone baptism for years, as baptism required a radical change in life style. It required death to the old Adam in order to live in Christ, the new Adam. Many where not willing to commit to a life of non-violence, chastity, humility, meekness; a life of death in Christ in order to rise with Christ.  Many where not willing to have an identity that says, I have been crucified with Christ; it is not I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20) Unwilling to make these words of the Apostle their own, they postponed baptism till late in life and death-bed baptisms were not unknown.

This canon promotes prudence in choosing the presbyters of the Church.  No one should be ‘promoted’ to the presbyterate unless he has demonstrated his faith.  Something much more is required than baptism out of fear of death.  One must have a true and genuine desire to live life in Christ.  One must come to Christ freely.  Repentance should not be born out of fear but out of an authentic desire to live in Christ. Thus, it is also necessary to be seen to live a virtuous life and to avoid all vices.  Time tests the believer. 

Possibly, those who added this footnote to Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum thought that nothing less should be required of candidates for the diaconate than for those for the presbyterate.  It should be noted that in the early 4^th century the diaconate had not yet become a testing ground for the presbyterate.  The diaconate was a permanent order.  There was no need to progress through the diaconate to the presbyterate.  Direct ordination to the presbyterate was the normal practice.

 

Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17. Commentary Part II

By: Protodeacon David Kennedy

 

(The Little Entrance, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY.  Source: Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR)

         The primary rational that Orientalium ecclesiarum gives for the restoration of the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches is “in order that the ancient legislation (discipline) concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force.”  It is here that an examination of footnote no. 21 of the text needs to take place in order to gain an understanding of the phrase ‘ancient legislation’.

         We will begin with Canon 18 of Nicaea (AD 325) that reads:

“It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer.  Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops.  All these practices must be suppressed.  Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters.  Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter.  Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank.  If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.”

         According to Canon 18, the following practices must be addressed and corrected:

1. Deacons distributing communion to presbyters. (It mentions nothing of deacons distributing communion to bishops, although it seems that this would also be prohibited.)
2. Deacons receiving communion before bishops. (It corrects this abuse by stating that deacons are to receive communion after the presbyters.)
3. Deacons sitting among presbyters.  (It is not explicitly clear if this is only a prohibition in liturgical assemblies or in all circumstances but given that the rest of the canon focuses on ‘communion’, it might be presumed that the context is liturgical.)

 

The rational for correcting these liturgical abuses are:

1. Deacons do not ‘offer’ the body of Christ.  There is to be found in this canon a distinction in liturgical function or role between the deacon and the presbyter.  Although the canon does not explicitly tell us what the deacon’s liturgical function is, (more about that below from G. Dix) it tells us that the function of the presbyter is to ‘offer’.  There is a distinction between offering and receiving; and between offering and distributing. 

This distinction can be found in the writings of St. Justin the Martyr, Apologia I (lxv): “When the president has given thanks and all the people have assented, those whom we call deacons give a portion of the bread over which thanksgiving has been offered, and of the wine and water, to each of those who are present; and they carry them away to those who are absent.”  At the time of Justin did the deacons distribute the eucharist not only to the laity but also to the ‘president’ of the assembly?  If so, is Nicaea prohibiting an early practice? 

Robert Taft in his essay Receiving Communion – A Forgotten Symbol? draws our attention to the East-Syrian practice in the canonical collection of Gabriel of Basra near the end of the 9^th century:

Question 19: When there is only one priest and one deacon, what should they do, for in one canon it prescribes that the deacon should not give communion to the priest?

Answer: In this matter the Catholicos Iso’yahb has determined as follows.  It is not allowed that the deacon give communion to the priest, who is distinguished from the deacon by his higher rank.  So if no other priest is there to give communion, but only a deacon, the situation should be handled according to a fine custom, namely: the priest takes the ‘coal’ [=consecrated particle] from the altar and put it in the hands of the deacon.  Then he bows before the altar, takes the ‘coal’ from the deacon’s hands with the fingers of the right hand, places it on the tips of the two fingers of the left hand, and brings it back to his right palm.  The deacon says only: ‘The Body of our Lord.’  Likewise the chalice: he gives it into the hands of the deacon, and after he has prostrated himself and bowed, he rises and takes the chalice with both hands, while the deacon holds the foot of the chalice with one hand.  When the priest receives the deacon says: ‘The Blood of our Lord.’  Then the deacon puts the chalice on the altar…” (Beyond East and West. Washington: Pastoral Press. 1984. 105-106.)

 

Possibly, Gregory Dix can shed further light on Canon 18 in regards to the term ‘offer’. 

“The Greek terminology concerning the oblation (prosphora) is through the pre-Nicene period quite clear, and does not (as a rule) vary from one writer to another.  The communicant ‘brings’ (prosenegkein) the prosphora; the deacon ‘presents it or ‘brings it up’ (anapherein); the bishop ‘offers’ (prospherein) it. (Cf. Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Council of Ancyra, c. AD 314).  The prosphora itself is at all points ‘the gifts of Thy holy church’, but the ‘liturgies’ of each order in connection with it are proper to each order and not interchangeable.  It is the special eucharistic ‘liturgy’ of each order which distinguishes it and constitutes it a separate ‘order’ in the organic Body of Christ.” (The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press. 1970. 111-112.)

 

1. Each ‘order’ has its limits and it appears that deacons have assumed a ‘liturgy’ which is not their own, according to the canons or custom.  Nicaea reflects an understanding of liturgy and orders that is organic and corporate.  There is one body of the Church and it has a diversity of orders within it.  Each order has its own functions and those functions are not to be assumed by another order.
2. Very importantly and something that can easily be missed in Canon 18 is that deacons are in a relationship to the bishop as his ministers.  The principle is clear: one cannot be a deacon without being a deacon to someone, and in the Church one is a deacon because one is a diakonos (minister) of one’s bishop.  But this is not the relationship that presbyters have to the bishop for the diakonoi are subject to the presbyters.  Clearly Nicaea does not hold to the concept that presbyters are also deacons.
3. Where and with whom one sits sheds light upon one’s order in the Church.  The presbyters form a college about the bishop, with the bishop as the head of that college.  The bishop’s cathedra (chair of teaching) is to be found either in the eastern apse facing the assembly or on the solea in the nave facing the east.  From here the bishop presides not only over the entire assembly of the Church but is seen physically as the head of the presbyteral college.  The presbyters sit to the left and right of the bishop forming either a ‘U’ or semi-circle about him.  The deacons stand, for by taking this posture, they can more easily fulfill their liturgical duties either as assistants to the bishop or keeping order in the liturgical assembly.  The diakonoi relate to the bishop not as a college but individually, each one acting as designated by the bishop as an agent, intermediary, courier or assistant who gets something done at the command of the bishop.
4. Those deacons who will not conform to Canon 18 will be punished by suspension from the diaconate.

Orientalium ecclesiarum No 17 Commentary Part I

By: Protodeacon David Kennedy

Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum, (November 21, 1964) can be outlined in the following manner:

1. There is a “desire or a wish” on the part of the holy council/synod that the permanent diaconate be restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
2. The reason for this restoration is that the “ancient discipline/legislation concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force/flourish once more”.
3. There is a recognition that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse”.

(Deacons in the Moscow Patriarchate before the iconostasis.Photo: partriarchia.ru) 

Let us parse each of these points in order to obtain a clear understanding of the context of section 17.  Point 3 is where this commentary will begin.  When the council mentions that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse” what is it referring to?  While in the Western Catholic Church it was not possible canonically to serve in the diaconate without the explicit intention of receiving ordination to the presbyterate, thus there was only a transitional diaconate, such was not the case in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  The canonical tradition had not eradicated the diaconate as a permanent order in the East as it had in the West. One of the Titles of Eastern Catholic canonical legislation, namely, Cleri sanctitati, which governed the Eastern Catholic Churches until the promulgation of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, in Canons 60-77 sets forth explicitly the obligations of clerics, which includes reference to deacons who will remain in the diaconate for their life.  Thus, at least in theory the diaconate remained a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as it also has with the Orthodox.

It can also be noted that the Latin word sacerdos found in these canons refers to all three degrees of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, namely episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate.  This is certainly not the current language of the West where the diaconate is not considered part of the priesthood, yet the Orthodox Church still sees it as such. (Cf. John Chryssavgis. Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia: The Diaconate Yesterday and Today. Brookline: Massachusetts. Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 2009; Boris Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Church: A Course in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Translated by Michael Breck. Yonkers: New York. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 2012. 213-216.) 

The liturgical tradition in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church bears witness to this understanding also for we read in the Order for Setting Apart of a Reader or Cantor, “Son, the first degree of the priesthood is that of reader.” (Archieratikon, Rome. 1974. 229.) Thus, this is another interesting difference in the theology and practice of the Eastern Churches, and the current Roman Catholic understanding of the diaconate. 

Robert Clément, S.J. writing in 1966 shortly after the promulgation of Orientalium ecclesiarum addresses the situation of the diaconate in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. (Cf. “Situation Présente du Diaconate en Orient” in P Winninger et Y. Congar. Le Diacre Dans L’Eglise et Le Monde D’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1966. 63-70.)  He states that among the Chaldean Catholics there are 5 deacons and 3 for the Syrians. He mentions that among the Maronites deacons can be found in the monasteries but he gives no numbers.  He mentions that in the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1914 there were 15,210 deacons, 50,150 presbyters and 149 bishops for 100 million faithful in 67 dioceses. Yet in the Orthodox Church in Greece, Clément tells us that it is rare to find deacons who will serve permanently in that order.  There, deacons are awaiting ordination to the presbyterate or are found on the staff of bishops where they frequently go on to the episcopate itself; sometimes only a day or two after presbyteral ordination.  We can easily see that among the Eastern Catholics and among some of the Orthodox that the diaconate as a permanent order “had fallen into disuse”.

 

(Polyeleos on the Feast of St. Sergius at the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. Photo: patriarchia.ru)

         Why was this the case?  There seems to be a number of reasons.

1. When there is no remuneration for deacons as there is for presbyters, the diaconate as a permanent rank declines.  The Russian Orthodox Church paid the deacons not only for their liturgical services but also had them employed as teachers of religion in the schools. In the Eastern Catholic Churches as in the Orthodox Church in Greece it was often difficult to find funding for priests let alone deacons.
2. The Eastern Catholic Churches adopted an educational paradigm for their clergy that was closely modeled after the Post-Tridentine practice as found in the Latin West. In this case the minor orders and the diaconate were conceived of and practiced solely as transitional steps to the real goal of the presbyterate. 
3. Why be a deacon if you can be a priest? This mindset develops from number 2 above.  The minor orders and the diaconate are seen as only canonical requirements for ordination to the presbyterate, and the canonical practice is no longer reflecting a period when the cursus honorum meant a real training period of many years in each of the minor orders and the diaconate.  For example a man was not to be ordained a deacon before 25 years of age and not a presbyter before 30 years of age.  Therefore, he would have at least 5 years of real diaconal service and training before ordination to the presbyterate. The cursus honorum existed as a functional training ground for clergy before the seminary system that followed the Council of Trent.  But following Trent the training was shifted to the seminary and the cursus honorum lost its original raison d’être.  This being the case, a man often spent very little time in the diaconate or any of the minor orders.  The requirements became little more than legalistic that had little to do with real ecclesial life.
4. Number 3 above leads to a mindset of “he who can do more can do less”.  Thus, the priest can do everything a deacon can do and more.  When there is no deacon present at liturgical services, the diaconal functions are assumed either by the priest or lay servers, or lay readers.  At more solemn services among the Eastern Catholics it was not uncommon for a priest to vest as a deacon and serve as such.  This was the common practice in the Latin West also, for there is an understanding in Western theology that the priest is still a deacon after ordination to the presbyterate. (This matter is still to be addressed fully in Catholic theology and liturgical practice.  This is not only a sacramental matter but also one that goes to the heart of the apostolic ministerial practice, pneumatology and ecclesiology.)

 

Thus, we can see that a number of diverse factors and historical contingencies led to the reality of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some of the Orthodox Churches being little more than a vestige.  What was established by the Apostles as part of the apostolic ministry had atrophied in most local Churches into little more than a transitional period for the purpose of fulfilling a canonical obligation.  The liturgical tradition as exemplified in the texts bore witness to an active diaconate but the reality was something quite different.  This certainly raises serious questions about the self-consciousness of the Church.  It seems that the bishops of Vatican II were acutely aware of the need to address this matter and as we will see their reasons were rooted in the patristic witness to the apostolic Church.

 

Diaconal ecclesiastical dress:West & East

By:Protodeacon David Kennedy

Since there is often considerable confusion in regards to what diaconal ecclesiastical dress is to be, especially in regards to "permanent" deacons, the following is offered as a clerification from a canonical perspective.

 

(Vespers: St. Elias, Brampton. Photo: M.L. Turi) 

The Code of Canon Law in Can. 284 reads: Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Bishops’ Conference and legitimate local custom.

 

Are deacons clerics?  Yes.  Ordination to the diaconate in the Latin Church enrolls one as a cleric. 

Are deacons to wear “suitable ecclesiastical dress”?  Yes but see below for the exemption.

Who determines the “suitable ecclesiastical dress”? The particular Bishop’s Conference. 

Is there a universal law that imposes a uniform ecclesiastical dress?  No.

 

What are the norms established by the NCCB?

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (US) in its norms for implementing the Code of Canon Law states: Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and Roman collar are the usual attire for priests.  The use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric. 

http://www.usccb.org/norms

 

Must permanent deacons wear “suitable ecclesiastical dress”? No.

Can. 288 reads: Permanent deacons are not bound by the provisions of cann. 284, 285 §§ 3 and 4, 286, 287 §2, unless particular law states otherwise.

May permanent deacons wear “suitable ecclesiastical dress”?  Yes.

 

Can the general law or the particular law, prohibit permanent deacons from wearing “suitable ecclesiastical dress”?  Not at present.  If a cleric is prohibited from wearing ecclesiastical dress such a prohibition is to be interpreted as a penalty.  

 

What Can. 288 does is give a general dispensation from ecclesiastical dress to permanent deacons unless the particular law removes the dispensation and requires permanent deacons to wear ecclesiastical dress.

 

Neither the NCCB nor the local bishop has authority in law to prohibit a permanent deacon from wearing suitable ecclesiastical dress.  Universal law imposes the obligation to wear such dress.  The NCCB and the local bishop can determine the type of ecclesiastical dress, which the NCCB has done.  They can give dispensations but they cannot overthrow the general law.  This is a basic principal in law: the laws at a higher level bind a lawmaker; general laws supersede particular law. 

 

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in Can. 387 reads: Particular law is to be observed in regard to the attire of clerics.

 

(His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow on the left, His Beatitude Jerome, Archbishop of Athens and all Greece on the right, behind and between them Archdeacon Epiphanius Arvanitis.  This photo is a good exhibit of current ecclesiastical dress or attire in the Byzantine tradition. Photo: partriarchia.ru)

 

There is no dispensation for permanent deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches from ecclesiastical dress at a general level as there is for Roman Catholic permanent deacons.  No such dispensation exists at present in the particular law of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.  The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, No. 66 reads in part: As for the non-liturgical dress of the clergy, it is appropriate that the individual Churches sui iuris return to the style of the traditional Eastern usage.  In this author’s opinion No. 66 implies that permanent deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches should wear the ecclesiastical dress of their Orthodox brethren.