Has the Permanent Diaconate Increased Vocations to the Priesthood or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_B

Guest
I am curious to see what the evaluation of the restored permanent diaconate in the Western Church is after 30 or so years. Has it been beneficial to the mother church? Does the frequent presence of deacons diminish the role of the priest in your average liturgy?

I personally believe that it has been a wonderful blessing to the church to have adult men in this capacity, being able to witness marriages, officiate at baptisms, and lead weekday communion services on the priest’s day off (I prefer the Holy Mass infinitely but I’d rather have a man sharing Christ’s ordination than a wannabe female priest…I only mention that since I’ve seen it before).
 
David B:
I am curious to see what the evaluation of the restored permanent diaconate in the Western Church is after 30 or so years. Has it been beneficial to the mother church? Does the frequent presence of deacons diminish the role of the priest in your average liturgy?

I personally believe that it has been a wonderful blessing to the church to have adult men in this capacity, being able to witness marriages, officiate at baptisms, and lead weekday communion services on the priest’s day off (I prefer the Holy Mass infinitely but I’d rather have a man sharing Christ’s ordination than a wannabe female priest…I only mention that since I’ve seen it before).
I do not see the diaconate as diminishing the role of the priest in the liturgy at all, as the role of the deacon in the Mass is very minimal. The deacon serves a much greater role in the Divine Liturgy but the roles of priest and deacon make sense within the Liturgy.

The diaconate is a totally separate vocation.

The restoration of the diaconate was not done to increase the number of vocations to the priesthood nor would it decrease the number as they are different vocations mainly aimed at different groups of men.

I agree with you that it is a good thing but I am a Byzantine so the view of the deacon is a bit different.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
The diaconate is a totally separate vocation.

Have you been to a Mass with a deacon? Their role is minimal.

The restoration of the diaconate was not done to increase the number of vocations to the priesthood nor would it decrease the number as they are different vocations mainly aimed at different groups of men.
I agree with you 100% that it is a different vocation altogether. I guess part of the reason why I set up this poll is that from some people I’ve heard only negative things about the restoration of the diaconate in the West, that’d it was instituted as a backdoor way of getting married priests or other such stuff I consider outright foolishness.

I know their role is minimal in the liturgy, but I brought my then non-catholic girlfriend to Mass a couple years ago and she told me, “No wonder guys like the idea of becoming priests, he just gets to sit there while the deacon and others do everything else.” 🙂
 
The permanent diaconate is still evolving afer 30 years. There are many more now-17,000 in the U.S. Many areas are just starting out and some still have no PDs. Things happen very slowly in the church, so I feel it is too early to assess the impact. As part of PD ministry, PDs are called to get people involved in the ministries of the church-to the poor, the aged, those in prison, those in hospitals and nursing homes, thoses living on the street, just to name a few. From these ministries, some may feel called to the priesthood or religious life. We now see many late vocations. In some areas, PDs struggle against the conception that they are mini-priests, which they are not. I thank God that I have a very kind pastor and have been in my present parish for 25 years.( 2 1/2 as a PD.) It’s like all the faithful at my church are family. Which I guess they are since we have one Father in heaven. May God bless all who are patient with their deacons.
 
David B:
I personally believe that it has been a wonderful blessing to the church to have adult men in this capacity, being able to witness marriages, officiate at baptisms, and lead weekday communion services on the priest’s day off (I prefer the Holy Mass infinitely but I’d rather have a man sharing Christ’s ordination than a wannabe female priest…I only mention that since I’ve seen it before).
Ditto
My uncle - in - law has been one for 18 years. He has officiated more baptisms & weddings in the family than I can count at this moment! Every family needs a Deacon.
 
The question that is the title of the thread presupposes that the purpose of the diaconate as a separate vocation and office is to increase vocations to the priesthood rather than to simply fulfill the historical office and role of deacon. Such is, of course, not the case. That is NOT what the diaconate is for, nor is it the purpose of the renewal of the vocational diaconate.

One question virtually universally asked of all aspirants for the diaconate is “What can you do as a deacon that you cannot already do as a layman?” or some variant of that question. Part of the answer has to be “I can follow my vocation. I can grow into who and what I am called by God to be.”

As others have said, a vocation to the diaconate is a vocation to servanthood. It is not a calling to be a “mini-priest” or a “Second class priest” or a “substitute for a priest.” It is a calling to BE a deacon. In that sense it is definitely NOT a calling the purpose of which is to increase vocations to the presbyterate. That will take care of itself. Folks need to be true to their vocation - and all of us have one - no matter what it is - to the diaconate, the presbyterate, or the laity.
 
I think that the ideal is that the Priest should do EVERY sacramental thing possible. Why have a Deacon do it when you can have a Priest do it?

When you have a Deacon do a wedding, for example, this just encourages Catholics to get married without a Nuptial Mass. And why would you want to be baptised by a Deacon rather than a Priest?

I understand that some people would want to be baptised/married by a Deacon, because he is a family member. But then this would turn a sacramental occasion into a family social occasion.
 
For those who think the permanent diaconate is a new creation of the Catholic church, please check out this website. In fact: St.Stephen, was a deacon and he was the first martyr of the church.
deacons.net/Articles/A_brief_history_of_the_permanent_Diaconate.htm
DEACONS IN THE EARLY CHURCH

Deacons are ordained ministers, as priests and bishops are. From the very earliest days of the church they were understood to occupy a special place in the Christian Community, set apart along with the ‘presbyters’ (bishops and priests) for a special role modelled on that of Christ himself. The first definite reference to deacons in this sense – perhaps as early as 53 A.D – occurs in St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians, which is addressed to “all the holy ones at Philippi, with their bishops and deacons in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 1:1)

Some hold that the very origin of the diaconate is recorded in the New Testament – in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There we read of a dispute which arose in the church of Jerusalem between Greek – speaking and Aramaic – speaking Christians, the former complaining that some of their poor weren’t getting a fair share of the goods which the Christian community divided among people in need of help. When the argument came to the attention of the Apostles, the leaders of the community, they declined to become directly involved, explaining: “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.” Instead they told people to select for this charitable work seven upstanding men “acknowledged to be deeply spiritual and prudent”. The seven candidates were presented to he apostles, who “prayed over them and then imposed hands on them”. Among them was one Stephen, “a man filled with grace and power”, who for his courage in proclaiming the Good News of Christ soon became the first Christian martyr (cf. Acts 6-7).

While these seven early Christians were not deacons in the developed sense, the

While these seven early Christians were not deacons in the developed sense, the account in Acts accords with the understanding of the diaconate as it emerged and evolved in the church. ‘Deacon’ comes from a Greek word – diakonos – which means a servant or helper. It occurs frequently in the New Testament and is sometimes applied to Christ himself. But the Apostles, for whom it was not “not right…. To neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables”, the deacons soon came to be understood as helpers in more than a material sense – “not servants of food and drink, but ministers of the Church of God”. As St. Ignatius of Antioch put it around 100 A.D., the deacon’s task was nothing less than to continue “the ministry of Jesus Christ”.

In a special way deacons were considered to be ‘helpers’ of the bishop. St. Ignatius specifically mentions two functions of this sort; writing letters for the bishop and generally assisting him in ministry of the word, and serving as the legate of the bishop from one local church to another.

In addition, deacons often rendered assistance – on the bishop’s behalf – to the poor and needy of the community. The special relationship between deacons and bishops was emphasised, among other places, in a third century Christian document which speaks of the deacons being ordained “for the ministry of the work designated by the bishops as being necessary to the Church’s ministry”. Similarly, the Theologian Karl Rahner says that central to all that deacons did was the fact that they were “to help those who direct the church”. It has been suggested that in current terminology, one might say deacons, though they share certain basics in common, can be thought of as ‘specialists’ available for assignment by the bishop to very specific tasks.
So GoLatin…having a deacon in the family is very much a church thing, not a family thing
 
40.png
GoLatin:
I think that the ideal is that the Priest should do EVERY sacramental thing possible. Why have a Deacon do it when you can have a Priest do it?

When you have a Deacon do a wedding, for example, this just encourages Catholics to get married without a Nuptial Mass. And why would you want to be baptised by a Deacon rather than a Priest?

I understand that some people would want to be baptised/married by a Deacon, because he is a family member. But then this would turn a sacramental occasion into a family social occasion.
Ughhh!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Do you even have a correct understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders? A deacon has received this sacrament. Having a deacon preside over your wedding does not discourage people from being married with a nuptial Mass. People my husband marries are not going to have a nuptial Mass because there is one party who is not a Catholic. There is absolutely no difference between a baptism done by a deacon or a priest - both are ministers of the sacrament. You are no more baptized if you are baptized by a priest than by a deacon or by a lay person (in the case of emergency). People who have their children baptized or married by a deacon are not having a social occassion, they are having a sacrament given according to the Catholic Church. Are you more Catholic than the Church?
 
David B:
I agree with you 100% that it is a different vocation altogether. I guess part of the reason why I set up this poll is that from some people I’ve heard only negative things about the restoration of the diaconate in the West, that’d it was instituted as a backdoor way of getting married priests or other such stuff I consider outright foolishness.

I know their role is minimal in the liturgy, but I brought my then non-catholic girlfriend to Mass a couple years ago and she told me, “No wonder guys like the idea of becoming priests, he just gets to sit there while the deacon and others do everything else.” 🙂
  1. Ignorance sadly cannot be blamed entirely on genetics. People who say anything about it being a back door way are so ignorant it’s funny!
  2. Your girlfriend obviously does not know much about either the priest hood or the diaconite, nor much about Mass.
 
40.png
GoLatin:
I think that the ideal is that the Priest should do EVERY sacramental thing possible. Why have a Deacon do it when you can have a Priest do it?

When you have a Deacon do a wedding, for example, this just encourages Catholics to get married without a Nuptial Mass. And why would you want to be baptised by a Deacon rather than a Priest?

I understand that some people would want to be baptised/married by a Deacon, because he is a family member. But then this would turn a sacramental occasion into a family social occasion.
You might want to do a bit of reading as to what a deacon is; maybe even go to an ordination.

Why on earth would someone not want a deacon to do any of the things he is entrusted by the Church to do? Are we playing a “holiness” card?
 
40.png
otm:
You might want to do a bit of reading as to what a deacon is; maybe even go to an ordination.

Why on earth would someone not want a deacon to do any of the things he is entrusted by the Church to do? Are we playing a “holiness” card?
Amem, Amen!
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
 
40.png
deaconswife:
Having a deacon preside over your wedding does not discourage people from being married with a nuptial Mass. People my husband marries are not going to have a nuptial Mass because there is one party who is not a Catholic.
I am very happy that this is the situation in your parish. Not everyone is so fortunate. In some parishes, couples are told that they will have to wait longer to get married by a priest in a nuptial Mass. They can chose to get married by a deacon and have a shorter wait. This doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with having the deacon witness the marriage or that the Sacrament isn’t as valid or holy. It has, at least, *the appearance * of discouraging people from nuptial Masses for their weddings.

Not every parish is the same, not every diocese uses deacons appropriately. Think about how some of the rest of us might not have the same postive experience with deacons that your husband brings before you resort to name calling.
 
I am sorry if I offended you in any way and that your diocese is doing things in a manner that is different from the norms set out by the Church. In my diocese we have completely implemented Redemtionis Sacramentum and our bishop is a very holy, orthodox man. I don’t know how long the waiting period is in your diocese (here it is one year) and it makes no difference who is marrying you - it is still one year. Occassionally, exceptions are made, like in the case of someone with a life threatening illness who wants to marry and may not survive. The thing that upset me in the post was the statement that a deacon doing a baptism or marriage turns a sacramental occassion into a family social occassion. I would no more say that than being baptized or married by a relative who is a priest turns a sacramental occassion into a family social occassion.
 
Thank and praise God for our three permanent deacons. They free our priests up do do what only they can do. It also allows them time to take a breath between jobs. We are considering hiring a Business Manager for the business end of things. I think it is interesting to note that the number of permanent deacons in this country is almost exactly equal to the decline in the number of active priests. Is God trying to tell us something about how ministry is carried on in our Church? I am not sure.
 
Since I was one of only three dissenting voters (so far), I wanted to explain my rationale. First of all, there were three separate questions being asked. I answered the one in the thread title about increasing priestly vocations. The poll title asked a different question and the poll choices asked yet another. If given the option I would have voted “no” for increasing vocations, “yes” for the aye or nay and “no” for has it been a postive development - in my experience.

Now my explanation: I do not think that having permanent deacons increases vocations. It may, in fact, decrease them as it is often presented as a way to “have it all” - marriage, kids and an ordination. Not always, but often enough to be troublesome. The number of deacon candidates keeps going up but there is a barely measurable increase in seminary attendees.

One year we had dozens (I think it was over 60) deacons ordained and only two priests. 😦 I couldn’t help thinking that these middle aged (all) men quite possibly had vocations to the priesthood that were not acknowledged or fostered. We all (the Church and families) did a really bad job at that for decades.

Our formation in this diocese worries me. I have heard several deacons speak in homilies and in Catechist training and they say some odd things. Once the deacon told a room full of Catechists that Confirmation was a superfluous sacrament and that deacons frequently administer last rites (no, I don’t mean the prayers for the dying, someone asked for clarification). Another deacon gave a homily where he said that the old testament stories didn’t really happen. :mad: One of these deacons teaches at the seminary.

Besides formation, the reason I think it is not a positive development in this diocese is that the deacons are very unevenly dispersed. My parish has one priest and no deacon. Other parishes share a priest. The deacons all seem to be in parishes that already have multiple priests. I am told that deacons here almost always go to their original parish rather than be sent where they are needed.

In spite of all of that, I think that the return to wide spread ordination of permanent deacons will be a good thing. I think that the implementation of the process and utitlzation still has some kinks to be worked out.
 
I think the permanent diaconate tells people “you don’t have to be a priest- you can do almost as much and still get married by being a deacon”- much like what EMHC’s do. I say don’t have ANY EMHC’s or permanent deacons. Let parishes close due to lack of priests. Then maybe the parents will stop being so selfish and have more kids, and encourage people in their big families to persue a vocation to the priesthood or religious life.
 
40.png
otm:
You might want to do a bit of reading as to what a deacon is; maybe even go to an ordination.

Why on earth would someone not want a deacon to do any of the things he is entrusted by the Church to do? Are we playing a “holiness” card?
On the subject of ordinations, it is amazing how close a diaconal ordination and a priest ordination are in form. The only difference is the consecration of a priest’s hands with chrism. Besides that, from what I remember, they are pretty much the same.

While a priest is ordained for the altar, a deacon is ordain for service plus service at the altar. They are two completely different directions. Without priests, we will not have a church. Deacons cannot carry the church - - they can only assist the priests in the mission of the church.
 
Most parishes don’t have deacons, and all of the deacons’ duties can be performed by layfolk when needed, and actually are performing them in most places

Its been a blessing as it gives a handful of men an opportunity to really dedicate themselves permanently to the liturgical ministries, but the church isn’t a whole lot better off.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
Most parishes don’t have deacons, and all of the deacons’ duties can be performed by layfolk when needed, and actually are performing them in most places

Its been a blessing as it gives a handful of men an opportunity to really dedicate themselves permanently to the liturgical ministries, but the church isn’t a whole lot better off.
That’s saying that the Church as a whole isn’t better off because it still retains the three major ordained ministries it has always had since the 1st century. God didn’t plan the diaconate to go out of style. He didn’t start it then think better of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top