EF Permanent Deaconate?

[JeraldW]

Hello all

I think I remember reading that before VII, the the deaconate was only found in the transitional form, in where seminarians would be ordained deacons on their way to the priesthood, where they could assist father in celebrating Mass (incensing, reading the Gospel, distributing Holy Communion, etc.) I curious if now if EF societies (such as the FSSP and Insitute of Christ the King now are having ordained permanent, married deacons. I know the restoration of the perm. deacon is a fruit of VII, so I dont know how friendly it would be accepted by the more traditional side of our Church. Thanks much if anyone has any (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Just to be clear, a permanent deacon doesn’t necessarily have to be married. In fact, once they are ordained they are not allowed to get married.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Hello all

I think I remember reading that before VII, the the deaconate was only found in the transitional form, in where seminarians would be ordained deacons on their way to the priesthood, where they could assist father in celebrating Mass (incensing, reading the Gospel, distributing Holy Communion, etc.) I curious if now if EF societies (such as the FSSP and Insitute of Christ the King now are having ordained permanent, married deacons. I know the restoration of the perm. deacon is a fruit of VII, so I dont know how friendly it would be accepted by the more traditional side of our Church. Thanks much if anyone has any (name removed by moderator)ut!

As far as I know it groups like the FSSP and Christ the King will not welcome married deacons as a norm. I don’t even know if they would allow someone with a dispensation to enter their fraternity. They are very protective of the Church’s teaching on priestly celibacy according to the Roman Rite and frankly I find that very refreshing.

 

[James_Trevor]

There were permanent deacons before. I’m not sure when married men were allowed to be ordained to the diaconate, but the current rule is that they must remain continent and never remarry if their wife dies. I think I would trust the Institute and the Fraternity on doing whatever is traditional though.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

There were permanent deacons before. I’m not sure when married men were allowed to be ordained to the diaconate, but the current rule is that they must remain continent and never remarry if their wife dies. I think I would trust the Institute and the Fraternity on doing whatever is traditional though.

I bolded (is that a word?) the part I want to comment on. From what I’ve read there seems to be support in the letter of the Code of Canon Law for the assertion that deacons of any sort are required to be continent (meaning they are not to have sexual relations with their wives if they are married), but this is not how the law has generally been interpreted and applied.

In light of that consider the following canons (not sure if all appy or not):

Can. 14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law. When there is a doubt about a fact, however, ordinaries can dispense from laws provided that, if it concerns a reserved dispensation, the authority to whom it is reserved usually grants it.

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

§3. An interpretation in the form of a judicial sentence or of an administrative act in a particular matter, however, does not have the force of law and only binds the persons for whom and affects the matters for which it was given.

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM

 

[Aelred_Minor]

By the way the part of the CIC dealing with clerical continence and celibacy says:

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

Right now I can’t find where permanent deacons are exempted from clerical celibacy (I’ve searched for over 20 minutes and don’t have the commitment to keep going), but apparently, so the argument goes, they are exempted from this but not from clerical continence, which is a different and more foundational thing, and therefore permanent deacons may be married but may not have relations with their wives.

It’s my hope that the Vatican will issue a clarification on this matter, since there seems to be a good deal of confusion about it.

 

[FAB]

Hello all

I think I remember reading that before VII, the the deaconate was only found in the transitional form, in where seminarians would be ordained deacons on their way to the priesthood, where they could assist father in celebrating Mass (incensing, reading the Gospel, distributing Holy Communion, etc.) I curious if now if EF societies (such as the FSSP and Insitute of Christ the King now are having ordained permanent, married deacons. I know the restoration of the perm. deacon is a fruit of VII, so I dont know how friendly it would be accepted by the more traditional side of our Church. Thanks much if anyone has any (name removed by moderator)ut!

From the SSPX

Here is an excerpt where they assign all married men ordained to the Order of Deacon to the state of having excommunicated ourselves:

“Sacrilege

“These deacons, of course, are in good faith.2 They do not know that by an imprescriptible law, they have incurred the penalty of major excommunication, from which they cannot be delivered until they either abandon their wives, or agree to be reduced to the lay state. Moreover, they live in the lay state, in a state of ambiguity which allows clerics to cast off the outward sign of their consecration the very day they have solemnly put it on. The new priests have taught the new deacons that it is normal to lay away in the closet, as a symbol too embarrassing to be worn, the sacred garment that separates its wearer from the world. Yet the Councils of Agde (France), in 506 AD, and of Constantinople (Quinisext), in 692 AD, voted a decree of excommunication (which seems never to have been abrogated), against clerics in major orders who fail to wear clerical garb. This rule has been so universally recognized that even Pope Paul VI felt it necessary to remind them of this obligation.”

“The Catholic bishops, moreover, are practicing a deliberate deception in the rite of ordination they use for married clerics, for they follow the solemn ceremony reserved to clerics who bind themselves to celibacy.”

More at the link where they even refuse to send materials to permanent deacons:

sspx.org/for_the_clergy.htm

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Now I’m really confused. I realize the issue of permanent married deacons being able to continue relations with their wives has been discussed before, and that there is a prominent Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters, who holds that Canon Law is clear that permanent married deacons must refrain from sex with their wives.

If that interpretation is true, a married deacon who is not celibate would presumably be in at least mortal sin? And if the SSPX interpretation is correct, such a deacon is also excommunicated?

Do either of these interpretations mean that, at a minimum, people should refrain from receiving Communion from the hands of a married deacon because of his potentially “irregular” status?

 

[Brendan]

Hello all

I think I remember reading that before VII, the the deaconate was only found in the transitional form, …

Not true. "permanent’ deacons certainly existed in the Latin Rite, but not as diocesan deacons. Religious orders ordained men to the diaconate alone.

St. Francis, for example, was a Deacon.

 

[Brendan]

Now I’m really confused. I realize the issue of permanent married deacons being able to continue relations with their wives has been discussed before, and that there is a prominent Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters, who holds that Canon Law is clear that permanent married deacons must refrain from sex with their wives.

Sort of.

Dr. Peters was my Canon Law professor.

What he stated was that the most correct reading of the Canon was that it would apply to married deacons. He also noted that this was something that a diocesan bishop could legitmately dispense from.

 

[Brendan]

As far as I know it groups like the FSSP and Christ the King will not welcome married deacons as a norm. I don’t even know if they would allow someone with a dispensation to enter their fraternity. They are very protective of the Church’s teaching on priestly celibacy according to the Roman Rite and frankly I find that very refreshing.

Married deacons are not permitted to enter either order, but I know of two FSSP parishes where permanent diocesan deacons assist at the EF Mass.

 

[TrueLight]

If that interpretation is true, a married deacon who is not celibate would presumably be in at least mortal sin? And if the SSPX interpretation is correct, such a deacon is also excommunicated?

That cannot be true.

 

[FAB]

Now I’m really confused. I realize the issue of permanent married deacons being able to continue relations with their wives has been discussed before, and that there is a prominent Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters, who holds that Canon Law is clear that permanent married deacons must refrain from sex with their wives.

If that interpretation is true, a married deacon who is not celibate would presumably be in at least mortal sin? And if the SSPX interpretation is correct, such a deacon is also excommunicated?

Do either of these interpretations mean that, at a minimum, people should refrain from receiving Communion from the hands of a married deacon because of his potentially “irregular” status?

Both are wrong. Dr Peters ignors other documents which spell out the permenant deaconate. SSPX is wrong because thay are jsut wrong since they reject the Second Vatican Council.

A Permenant is an Ordained Minister with all the facilities that are spelled out with his office. He is not call to be celebate and he is not in any “irregular” status and people should not refrain from recieving the Euchaist from him.