''It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing. Nor is it in accordance with the tradition of the Roman rite to add useless ornamental attendance.'' (Adrian Fortescue, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, Burns Oates, 1943).
Something important has been grating on my nerves for a few days. Can anybody furnish me with a theological argument as to why I, as a young layman, cannot substitute for a Subdeacon at High Mass in the absence of a tonsured cleric whereas it's perfectly all right for 8 and 9 year old boys to substitute for the Acolytes? The liturgical books suppose that the servers and members of the liturgical choir be at least tonsured clerics. Acolytes are supposed to have been so ordained, in the same way that the Celebrant of Mass is to be an ordained Priest, the Deacon of the Mass to be an ordained Deacon. According to the Ceremonial of Bishops the Master of Ceremonies is to be an ordained priest too (or at least be in Holy Orders)! What of the Subdeacon though? The Subdiaconate is not now nor has it ever been part of the threefold Major Orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon instituted by God and the Roman Church is ancestrally wrong to have supposed this (though it can be argued that the Subdiaconate has not been treated consistently as a Major Order in the West). In which case I see no lawful impediment as to why, on great feasts, I cannot be Subdeacon - if it is lawful for children to be Acolytes.
I was venting my frustration upon a good friend of mine, who says that the reason Traddies don't think it is ''appropriate'' for laymen to be Subdeacon is because they cannot stand the sight of laymen wearing vestments - in order to be Subdeacon you have to be Fr So-and-so, who in actual fact was probably never ordained Subdeacon in the first place! I think quite the opposite. It is highly inappropriate for a Priest to be Subdeacon. Plus I don't see why spending any amount of time in seminary makes me more ''qualified'' to wear a Tunicle...and are not the cassock and surplice ecclesiastical vestments!? It's things like this which make me go elsewhither for better Liturgy.
I sometimes think that I am wasting my time writing these posts though...
I was tagged in this photo on Facebook the other day. It shows us all lined during the singing of Adeste Fidelis after Midnight Mass. Note all the lace and the surplus children (also the '62 Missal on the Altar - used purely because it contained the notation for the Tonus Solemnior of the Preface). Two hours before Mass started I was informed that one of the Ministers couldn't make it, so I offered my services as either Subdeacon, or if not as Tunicled Crucifer. Both were rejected and I, with two others, formed the liturgical choir - alongside a Deacon. Everyone except me seemed to think that the Mass was ''beautiful.'' That's not exactly the word I'd pick. ''Sweet'', perhaps, if you come to Liturgy at Christmas expecting a child's Nativity play, where they all get to dress up in their lace cottas, look pretty and each hold a candle. I don't. I come expecting something solemn and decorous, not puerile.
I often had the joy of acting as tunicled crucifer when an Anglican. Alas, this does not occur in the Roman Church - perhaps those Anglicans "coming home" en masse might insist on bringing such traditions back to Mother Church with them...si Deus voluerit (et certus sum facit).
ReplyDeleteIf you care to scroll down to the last photograph here you will see two little lads in albs, apparelled amices and tunicles assisting the late Fr. Quentin Montgommery-Wright at Chamblanc. There also appear to be tunicled acolytes and a tunicled crucifer.
ReplyDeleteThere are more photographs somewhere - Fr. Chadwick may have some - and some appear in a magazine called 'The Old Believer' from twenty years ago. On high days Fr. Quentin had acolytes in tunicles, lots of coped cantors and other vested laymen - demned good, to coin a phrase, it looked too!
I have certainly heard stories from the pre-Vatican II days of religious (professed students from clerical institutes and, in one case, a Marist Brother) wearing the tunicle and performing some of the functions of the subdeacon in the absence of a cleric in major orders, although I haven't heard of laymen doing so in our part of the world. However, you can see tunicled altar servers from the Philippines here.
ReplyDeletePatricius, does Fr. Finigan celebrate by the book according to the 1962 Missal, or does he include pre-1962 rubrics?
ReplyDeleteI was at midnight Mass celebrated by Fr. Zuhlsdorf (wdtprs.com) last week, and I was surprised to see the Second Confiteor *sung* by the deacon.
Fr. PF,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing those splendid photographs. I recall Mr. Palad posted something similar on Rorate Caeli some time ago.
In my part of the world the various Synods of Westminster made it quite clear that vicars choral, servers and the like who wore the cassock were to be treated as honorary clergy. This is interesting as our Byzantine brethren would blanch at the thought of a layman wearing a cassock - a sticharion (=tunicle) no problem, but a cassock anathema sit. Dr. Wickham-Legg wrote about the praxis of laymen wearing the surplice over their ordinary clothing but without the cassock - not a problem of course with a proper length surplice.
The photographs from the Philippines are interesting in showing a fringe to the tunicles' sleeves. Fringes on dalmatics (=sakkos) seem to be a pontifical custom - both Western and Eastern.
James C, I'm not sure that that little secret is supposed to be let out of the bag, for fear of the '62 police (I could potentially be a member of the '62 police - you just have to piss me off enough) - Fr Finigan implementing Summorum Pontificum and all. Suffice to say, though, that since I have taken an oath never to attend, support or ratify any celebration of the Liturgy according to the liturgical books of 1962 I wouldn't still be going there if that were the case.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that Trads like Fr Z always seem to conveniently forget the rules regarding the Confiteor before Holy Communion and bows to the Altar cross etc? I repudiate such mingling of the Rites, which angers me.
http://www.traditionalcatholic.org.uk/PaschalVigil2008MaidenLane/Introduction.html
ReplyDeletePaschal Vigil
at Corpus Christi, Maiden Lane
22nd March 2008
Celebrant: Fr. Andrew Southwell
Deacon: Fr. Patrick Hayward
Subdeacon: Mr. Gordon Dimon
Bryan, I have a soft spot for Gordon Dimon; during my own time at Maiden Lane (just shy of five years), he was always very kind to me and patient with my views, even asking me once what I actually believed! Unfortunately my efforts at persuading him to include extra Collects, Confiteors etc were futile.
ReplyDeleteWe both share a rather dim view of clerical competence in matters liturgical - all the more reason to have lay Subdeacons!
Thanks for the info. I'm moving to your side of the pond this spring, and I have been looking forward to seeing the parish of the famous Fr. Finigan for myself.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Fr. Z, he did tell me over cheese and Chianti after Mass last week that he is not a big fan of the '62 Missal, that if he had his way, he would have set things back to before the Pian reforms of 1955.
Bl**dy Hell!
ReplyDeleteJames C - you have made my day! So why keep going on about it if he is not a big fan...
The sung Confiteor properly belongs to a Pontifical celebration but has long been part of non-Pontifical praxis. Such a lovely tone with those Bb's - Farm Street use it in their celebration of the NOM.
Bryan - thanks for that. I concurr with Patricius: I have known Mr. Dimon for twenty years, he is one of the kindest, most Christian and the very best of men.
"The Subdiaconate is not now nor has it ever been part of the threefold Major Orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon instituted by God and the Roman Church is ancestrally wrong to have supposed this (though it can be argued that the Subdiaconate has not been treated consistently as a Major Order in the West)."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what "Major Order" means in the West, though, traditionally. "Major Order" was not about which orders were Sacraments properly so-called and which were "merely" sacramentals. It was a merely canonical distinction regarding who was bound to celibacy, the Office, etc. It was considered "sacred" not because it was a Sacrament but because it was "proximate to the sacred species" or something like that.
Of course, medieval theologians seemed to think ALL the orders were Sacraments. Their division into Major and Minor was unrelated to that question.
Also, the orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon which ARE Sacraments would more properly be called bishop, PRESBYTER, and deacon. The three Sacrament orders are different than the seven LITURGICAL orders (which designate liturgical roles).
In the liturgical order, there is not a separate role for bishop and priest. When a bishop celebrates Mass, he IS the Priest, just as when a presbyter celebrates.
"In which case I see no lawful impediment as to why, on great feasts, I cannot be Subdeacon - if it is lawful for children to be Acolytes."
Look up the concept of the "straw subdeacon" (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/04/quaeritur-substituting-for-a-subdeacon/) This can and does happen.
For example, frater Alban of the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem (VERY medieval in their liturgical aesthetic, by the way) served as subdeacon at their anniversary Mass even though he didn't receive clerical (as opposed to religious) tonsure and the orders of porter and lector till over a year later:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/06/anniversary-mass-of-canons-regular-of.html
I don't agree with you or the Orthodox that "dressing down" is wrong for priests to play the roles of other orders (because liturgical order and sacramental order are different, though ideally they'd correspond) but then, usually, neither is "dressing up"
Of course in the Byzantine rite there is some degree of 'dressing up' and 'dressing down'. Bishops when celebrating non-pontifically may wear the phelon.
ReplyDeleteLooking through the photographs of a celebration in the West Country with a friend who is a reader in the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh we noted two other readers who were vested as subdeacons, with a blessing to do so and contrawise two ordained subdeacons who were vested as readers!
Personally I think the concept of priest not dressing as deacons, or worse subdeacons, was one of the better things to come out of the SVC.
I don't understand, my understanding of Roman Liturgical law is that it is perfectly acceptable to have a layman act as Subdeacon - otherwise, why would there be such explicit rules about what a layman-Subdeacon may and may not do?
ReplyDeleteTraddies seem to love a "tidy" aesthetic of three priests in vestments and a million kids in cottas. One only need spend time at a Coptic monastery and see a monk select as many Subdeacons as he sees fit from lay pilgrims to serve his liturgy. They wear the alb, but sometimes a priest serves the liturgy in alb only without the batrasheel/stole.
Ex Fide, the whole point of this post was exactly what you have just said: if young boys can be Acolytes then I can be Subdeacon. It's that simple!
ReplyDeleteOf course I wouldn't exclude boys from the Sacred Liturgy - there is a famous Scripture for the exclusion of children: ''Suffer the little children to come unto me and hinder them not; for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'' But I would not have 8 year old Thurifers and Acolytes on Sundays and Feasts. Children should do their training during the weekday liturgies. There is nothing more unedifying than the spectacle of a Thurifer carrying a thurible clearly too big for him, or Acolytes spilling candle wax into their hair, or dropping the Altar Missal because it's too heavy...it just looks awful.
The principle serving roles should be done by those with more experience, so that the children can look up to them and emulate them, and the Acolytes of the Mass are supposed to inspire reverence and devotion; not some quasi-endearing response from elderly women in the congregation...
ReplyDeleteWith Ex Fide I share the advantages (and disadvantages) of trying to live as a catholic within Anglicanism. One of these is that I have no motivation to toe the party line with regard to matters liturgical. Which is a very good thing, since, while I may not be as outspoken as our good host, I probably would be utterly incapable of believing six impossible things before breakfast, as some well-known 'bloggers apparently feel it necessary to do, frequently tying themselves up in knots in order to do so. What is allowed to pass as "traditional" amongst Roman Catholics these days is simply terrifying, although I tend to attribute this to gross ignorance rather than any sort of malice. Even so, I could hardly bring myself to cheer it on uncritically, which has made me largely a persona non grata in all of the usual places especially for the past three years.
ReplyDeleteAs regards specifics, my parish is generally free of the bad Hiberno-American praxis which dominates the English-speaking "traditionalist" world today. So, almost all of our severs are adult men. The biretta is used when reciting the Divine Office. (For the life of me, I cannot see permitting the use of the surplice but not the biretta, but this is often regarded fetishistically in my experience!) The subdeacons are all laymen, although some are in minor or major orders from some or another ecclesiastical career. Too, the assistants at Solemn Vespers are laymen, who wear the cope as prescribed by the rubrics.
I find all of this to be quite satisfactory, although it is not perfection by any stretch of the imagination, and there is much room for improvement. But I vastly prefer it to anything available locally in juridical communion with the Supreme Roman Pontiff, even if things are far better on that account than they were five years ago.
Paul Goings, thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, for my part, that I too struggle to live as a Catholic - but in the Roman Church. If by the last three years, and toeing the party line, you mean Summorum Pontificum, I can well understand. The two main difficulties I have with it are that '62 is an abberation, demonstrably so, and that the Holy Father, by designating 1962, has reached out to the wrong people. I want no communion with the SSPX, who to me sum up everything wrong with 20th century Catholicism. Nor do I want communion with other Trad groups, whether dissident or ''obedient'' (insofar as obedience suits their purposes with the Church at the moment that is).
Your point about ignorance as opposed to malice is very cogent. I have once again been linked to on Fisheaters (a Trad online forum), and the rabble there clearly don't understand my objection either to 1962 or Pius XII (today it seems to be Signum Magnum/Gaudeamus). To them, deluded by lies and propaganda, everything prior to the Council was pristine, traditional and idylic - with the 1962 Missal being the yardstick of liturgical orthopraxis, being the last approved ''Tridentine'' Missal. Any revisions, they argue, or changes were purely to make clearer the rubrics or bring the texts into line with approved ones or whatever (comparatively trivial to what came in the wake of the Council). I don't blame them for their ignorance. I expect that the vast majority of Traditionalists are good natured people, just deluded. When I was 15 I converted to the Traditionalist cause, and knew the 1955 Holy Week reforms as a rumour of rather trivial pre-Conciliar authentic revision of the rubrics. It was not until later that I discovered the truth, and not by the instruction of anybody in the Latin Mass Society or the Society of Pius X I assure you!
A while ago I said that I liked to think I went to Mass in a church where Liturgy is done properly. In reality I don't, nor do I think that anymore (and I think I am not alone). Now I just think that if you want something done properly you have to do it yourself.
I have said this a thousand times: go to any Catholic church at random for Sunday Liturgy and the likelihood is you will have left in complete disgust less than half-way through. Are these the marks of the True Church? I think not.
The Subdiaconate was part of the Major Orders because the Church said so. Whether the East does or does not do that, that is another matter. The Roman Church has never been governed by the practices or discipline of the East.
ReplyDeletePeople like you guys, who think that everything Eastern is better because it "seems" older is the type of garbage that serve as "excuses" for leaving the Church and looking for something "better" in other places, which in reality, are not better, older, nor more correct. Usually, then end up becoming Orthodox or Anglican -- both heretical groups, except that the first one has valid Orders and the other one does not.
@ Patricius - The Church has always preferred not to let laymen substitute as Subdeacons so as not to make it seem as if she lets just "anyone" do the part that is reserved to a Minister who is bound to recite the Divine Office and to be Celibate.
The Church was even strict when it came to letting "tonsured" clerics act as straw-Subdeacon and She only allowed it in cases of need.
True, I've heard that even before Vat II there were cases in which older servers (laymen) ended up acting as straw-Subdeacon. In these days, when laymen know more than Priests when it comes to the traditional Liturgy, it would seem a bit more tolerable to let laymen who are well-versed in the traditional Rubrics to act as Subdeacon. However, it is still not the ideal way of doing it and it should not become a custom. In my experience, when I have witnessed this, it has been because a third Priest or Deacon or even a seminarian was not available to help.
Additionally, the person who gets to act as straw-Subdeacon should be someone who, publicly, has nothing shameful or embarrassing or controversial to defend or hide.
Excuse me for being harsh, but reading your posts (especially the ones on the latest Dogmas and on Pius XII) you are ipso facto disqualified, in my view and probably in those of many others, to act even as a server in a Roman Catholic Church. Your views are so close to the line of heresy and lack of Charity that it seems reasonable that people deny you the opportunity to act as Subdeacon (even if you claim to know how to do it perfectly).
@ James - I have met Fr. Z as well and spoken to him about the changes in the Liturgy. He has expressed some reservations about some of the changes, but he has never seem completely unhappy about all the changes of 1962.
There are many churches where they have the habit of doing pre-1962 things and visiting priests are expected to respect that. In Fr. Z's case and in the case of many others, they usually just follow what's expected (as long as it is not completely controversial, like the pre-1955 Holy Week) in order to avoid difficulties or disturb what the congregation is already used to.
@ Patricius (again@) - if you are not happy with the Liturgy anywhere (Catholic place) you go, you are welcome to start your own church. Just know that since you are not God, that church of yours will not go anywhere, even if you claim to provide people with the best Liturgy ever. You, my friend, need help ... and not only Liturgical or spiritual!
You should start by not posting about every single thing that comes to your head!
The Subdiaconate was part of the Major Orders because the Church said so. Whether the East does or does not do that, that is another matter. The Roman Church has never been governed by the practices or discipline of the East.
ReplyDeletePeople like you guys, who think that everything Eastern is better because it "seems" older is the type of garbage that serve as "excuses" for leaving the Church and looking for something "better" in other places, which in reality, are not better, older, nor more correct. Usually, they end up becoming Orthodox or Anglican -- both heretical groups, except that the first one has valid Orders and the other one does not.
@ Patricius - The Church has always preferred not to let laymen substitute as Subdeacons so as not to make it seem as if She lets just "anyone" do the part that is reserved to a Minister who is bound to recite the Divine Office and to be Celibate.
The Church was even strict when it came to letting "tonsured" clerics act as straw-Subdeacon and She only allowed it in cases of need.
True, I've heard that even before Vat II there were cases in which older servers (laymen) ended up acting as straw-Subdeacon. In these days, when laymen know more than Priests when it comes to the traditional Liturgy, it would seem a bit more tolerable to let laymen who are well-versed in the traditional Rubrics to act as Subdeacon. However, it is still not the ideal way of doing it and it should not become a custom. In my experience, when I have witnessed this, it has been because a third Priest or Deacon or even a seminarian was not available to help.
Additionally, the person who gets to act as straw-Subdeacon should be someone who, publicly, has nothing shameful or embarrassing or controversial to defend or hide.
Excuse me for being harsh, but reading your posts (especially the ones on the latest Dogmas and on Pius XII) you are ipso facto disqualified, in my view and probably in those of many others, to act even as a server in a Roman Catholic Church. Your views are so close to the line of heresy and lack of Charity that it seems reasonable that people deny you the opportunity to act as Subdeacon (even if you claim to know how to do it perfectly).
@ James - I have met Fr. Z as well and spoken to him about the changes in the Liturgy. He has expressed some reservations about some of the changes, but he has never seemed completely unhappy about all the changes of 1962.
There are many churches where they have the habit of doing pre-1962 things and visiting priests are expected to respect that. In Fr. Z's case and in the case of many others, they usually just follow what's expected (as long as it is not completely controversial, like the pre-1955 Holy Week) in order to avoid difficulties or disturb what the congregation is already used to.
Also, there's nothing with having a Priest act as a Subdeacon. As a Priest, he has received all the Orders (whether he received each one separately or not).
@ Patricius (again@) - if you are not happy with the Liturgy anywhere (Catholic place) you go, you are welcome to start your own church. Just know that since you are not God, that church of yours will not go anywhere, even if you claim to provide people with the best Liturgy ever. You, my friend, need help ... and not only Liturgical or spiritual!
You should start by not posting about every single thing that comes to your head!
'Latinmass1983' - pray calm down! Your blood pressure must be soaring, not good for your health. Why such aggression? 1962 people are so nasty, IMHO, something about that pernicious, filthy, pseudo-rite seems to bring to the worst out in people.
ReplyDeleteYou rightly admit that there have been lay 'subdeacons'. Subdeacons have only been considered as major orders in some of the Latin rites of the Catholic Church. Ukranian Catholics would not consider subdeacons in major orders so you are hardly correct with your assertion that "the Church said so" - are you claiming that Eastern Catholics are not part of the Church?
I would have thought that if 'straw' subdeacons had to be people without scandal that would rule out a high percentage of modern Roman clergy - but let that one pass.
Are you American? It may surprise you to learn that some of us in Her Majesty's Realm don't take '"Fr" "Z"' too seriously - what is he, a sort an icon for gay people in the States? I do not understand, we Brits find it hard enough to understand our European neighbours the French yet alone our various descendants across 'The Pond'. I think we saw something similar with another gay icon, Diana, Princess of Wales. Of course, that late Lady had her good (and bad) points but whatever her faults she was stratospherically above certain blabber-mouths. Indeed, quite (several) classes apart.
I for one hope that 2011 sees a long-hoped for crushing of the "liturgical" books of 1962.
Rubricarius, well I don't personally idolize him...
ReplyDelete