Is the Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate "the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther?"

[TrueLight]

I copied this from another thread. I find what Tim had to say very interesting.

I’m not really sure of the role of the permanent deacon as I don’t encounter any permanent deacons in the EF’s I have attended.

Does anyone agree that the reinstatement of the permanent deacon is the biggest thing that has hit the Church? If so, why?

Why do traditional parishes not have permanent deacons?

All thoughts appreciated.

I think the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate after 1000 years of disuse is the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther. That’s one of the reasons why I am discerning. Who knows what the release of tens of thousands of permanent, public ministers ordained to serve not only the Church herself but the entire world - who knows what God has planned for them. That’s just one example of something which Vatican II has done but which is not well understood and not appreciated enough.

Diacanoia is service. It is Christ washing the feet of the disciples. Deacons have a threefold ministry - litury, word, charity - and wherever service is needed, a deacon is a public minister of the Church ordained to the role of the servant, and he goes there to serve.

Our Church has a very specific hierarchy. Christ is the head. Just below Christ are the poor. The poor are at the top of the Church, just below Christ who always assocated with the poor - Christ’s body must do so as well. Then comes the laity. Then the Bishops and the Holy Father. Then priests. Deacons are at the lowest level - servants. That’s what they told us in the inquiry meeting. You are aspiring to the lowest rung on the ladder. They said that you will even loose your name. You will become “The deacon” instead of Joe or Bill or Tim. Great…

What do deacons do? Serve. What does that look like? It looks like whatever job needs to get done, and it doesn’t matter if the person is Catholic, Christian, rich, poor, whatever. Deacons serve. And they wear the collar as public ministers of the Church - the Church herself entering the world as a servant. A deacon is the sacramental presence of the visible Church serving the world.

Prisons. Hopspitals. Hospice. The poor. Families who have just had a child die. The elderly. Autism. In one place in Germany, deacons in formation are told to go out and create their own ministry. Porn addiction is a new scourge and I would like to work there somehow. Catechesis, yes, and baptism, benediction, blessing, homily, prayer, prayer, prayer. Word-Liturgy-Charity. But what you see a deacon doing at Mass is only a small part of what he does.

There is a good book titled “The Emerging Diaconate” by Bill Ditewig if you want to explore further. I really don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of the theology of the diaconate.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t know if I would say that. I think the “Spirit of Vatican II” is the biggest thing to hit the Church since -]Martin Luther/-] the French Revolution.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t know if I would say that. I think the “Spirit of Vatican II” is the biggest thing to hit the Church since -]Martin Luther/-] the French Revolution.

Okay. What are your thoughts on the role of permanent deacons?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t know if I would say that. I think the “Spirit of Vatican II” is the biggest thing to hit the Church since -]Martin Luther/-] the French Revolution.

I do not understand this reply.

Why the dig?

How does this further the discussion?

What does this have to do with the restoration of the permanent diaconate?

 

[surritter]

Br. David, I think his reply was well within the discussion. We were asked if the restoration of the permanent diaconate is the biggest thing to hit the Church over the last 500 years. I too think that it is not the biggest thing.
YoungTrad thinks that the misapplication of Vatican II has had a big effect, and maybe he’s right. (I certainly hope he wasn’t criticizing VII, but just the misapplied “spirit of VII”).

 

[Cristiano]

I do not think that the Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate “the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther?”. A lot of other things had and have a much bigger impact.

I mixed feelings about the idea of the permanent diaconate, depending on the intent of adopting it. First, I think that the concept of service is critical and it needed to be brought up to much higher levels both in the ordained life and among the laity. In my opinion the diaconate fills a very specific as it was described in Acts and the ontological change of ordination is necessary. At the same time I am very uncomfortable with how the permanent diaconate is being considered by a lot of young man. I do not like the fact that it is considered an intermediary vocation between the priesthood and married life, or in other words to have one’s cake and eat it too.

 

[Cristiano]

Br. David, I think his reply was well within the discussion. We were asked if the restoration of the permanent diaconate is the biggest thing to hit the Church over the last 500 years. I too think that it is not the biggest thing.
YoungTrad thinks that the misapplication of Vatican II has had a big effect, and maybe he’s right. (I certainly hope he wasn’t criticizing VII, but just the misapplied “spirit of VII”).

I disagree with you, the bringing up the French revolution as a new point of reference to talk about Vat II is really an excuse to take gratuitous pot shots at the council. If the French revolution is considered the biggest thing since Martin Luther then it should be discussed independently of Vat II.

 

[TimothyH]

I do not understand this reply.

Why the dig?

How does this further the discussion?

What does this have to do with the restoration of the permanent diaconate?

I should have seen it coming. Martin Luther probably wasn’t the best choice of milestones in the Church for comparison.

In my own defense, I did say biggest and not greatest.

The Battle of Lempanto seemed a bit obscure for most people outside of the Knights of Malta and the Council of Trent seemed a bit pretentious. The Reformation was all I could think of as a major event.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

. At the same time I am very uncomfortable with how the permanent diaconate is being considered by a lot of young man. I do not like the fact that it is considered an intermediary vocation between the priesthood and married life, or in other words to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Interesting point.

 

[Melchior_1]

One thing that needs to be remembered is that the permanent diaconate never went away. All priests remain deacons, they just happen to have the role of priest added to it.

I would say the move of going back to people NOT going into the priesthood while being a deacon (which is what Tim is referring to) is a potential huge deal within the Church, and can only lead to positive things. These are secular men living in the world, yet they are also ordained men who may also have families. They’re a bridge, they live to serve. It’s a wonderful thing.

My spiritual director, who I am just going to start seeing, is a Deacon. He’s heavily involved in ministries, and he’s married to a lovely woman. A perfect fellow for me to go to for direction, as I’m a married man who is involved in ministries. He’ll help me balance my spiritual and family lives.

 

[Melchior_1]

At the same time I am very uncomfortable with how the permanent diaconate is being considered by a lot of young man. I do not like the fact that it is considered an intermediary vocation between the priesthood and married life, or in other words to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Define “young”. In my area they only consider you after your kids are all out of the house, and you have the time/resources to invest. I’m thirty years old, and if I was called to be a deacon I’d have to wait at least twenty years.

Having one’s cake and eating it too, vis-a-vis with being ordained and married, could also be said of the Eastern Church

 

[TrueLight]

Define “young”. In my area they only consider you after your kids are all out of the house, and you have the time/resources to invest. I’m thirty years old, and if I was called to be a deacon I’d have to wait at least twenty years.

Really?!!

 

[Melchior_1]

Really?!!

My wife actually understands this really well. She comes from a protestant background, where the pastors are married. The role of a pastor’s wife is a tireless one, one that’s pretty much a job in itself. In this sense, she totally understands the practical reason why the Western Church has celibacy for priests.

A deacon isn’t a pastor in the same sense, but a deacon does have a lot of shuffling that might need to happen. They’re assigned to parishes (and it could be one further from their house), they do diocesan ministries. They handle all sorts of events. Their family would likely get involved too, and it would also affect the family dynamic.

Being an ordained man, while working full time, with teenagers, and a wife. That’s a lot. So the unofficial official rule around here is that a man needs to have a stable environment, and with older children before being considered.

 

[surritter]

I disagree with you, the bringing up the French revolution as a new point of reference to talk about Vat II is really an excuse to take gratuitous pot shots at the council. If the French revolution is considered the biggest thing since Martin Luther then it should be discussed independently of Vat II.

Yeah, I’m not sure why the French Revolution was brought up. Do SSPX folks et al. use that as a comparison for VII?
I simply meant that there is room to discuss the misapplication of Vatican II as a pretty big factor impacting Catholicism over the last couple of centuries. And to me, that’s been a bigger factor in the life of the average Catholic than the permanent diaconate.

 

[Cristiano]

Define “young”. In my area they only consider you after your kids are all out of the house, and you have the time/resources to invest. I’m thirty years old, and if I was called to be a deacon I’d have to wait at least twenty years.

Having one’s cake and eating it too, vis-a-vis with being ordained and married, could also be said of the Eastern Church

Let me address the second point first. This thread is in reference to the Latin Church and her disciplines. The problem that I was mentioning is limited only to the Latin Church because of Her disciplines; however, your point does not lack insight because there are some Latin Catholics that think of transferring to an Eastern Church in order to be married and ordained too, and that is an issue too.

When I say young I mean that I started to hear that kind of comments from fifteen year old boys up to single people in their twenties. The Church understands what the diaconate is about but individuals might still have misconceptions about it. That is why I am glad that usually the Church does not consider people in the lay diaconate until they are well in their forties. By that age a man knows if he is called to marriage. If he is called then by that time he is already married and he had time to mature in his responsibilities as a married man.

 

[Rich_C]

All the arguments for a permanent diaconate I’ve heard made sense to me and I agreed with them, but I really don’t see what’s the big deal.

I think deacons are just not on peoples’ radar unless they also feel called to be one.

 

[triumphguy]

I’ve completed the application process for the Diaconate and am just waiting for the letter from the diocese.

Why do I want to be a deacon?

It’s a privilege and a responsibility: a chance to work in the person of Christ. As a deacon you act as Christ the Servant. There is a sacramental change since you participate in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

I want to be a deacon because I want to serve the Church.

I have done so in my ways over the last few decades: as a prison chaplain, working with street kids, as a teacher, leading programs in the parish, sacramental prep, youth ministry.

The dioconate allows me to do these same things (or more or different forms of service) at a different level. It is asking me to engage my whole being with these tasks and to do them in the person of Christ.

This is an unmeasurable privilege.

Just going the the application process has made a difference to my family.

Is it the biggest thing to hit the Church since sliced bread?

Probably not, but it is far more important than most people know.

 

[TimothyH]

I do not think that the Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate “the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther?”. A lot of other things had and have a much bigger impact.

I mixed feelings about the idea of the permanent diaconate, depending on the intent of adopting it. First, I think that the concept of service is critical and it needed to be brought up to much higher levels both in the ordained life and among the laity. In my opinion the diaconate fills a very specific as it was described in Acts and the ontological change of ordination is necessary. At the same time I am very uncomfortable with how the permanent diaconate is being considered by a lot of young man. I do not like the fact that it is considered an intermediary vocation between the priesthood and married life, or in other words to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Your concern re. an intermediary vocation is a big problem, and it stems from having an incomplete understanding of who a deacon is and what he does. We were spoken to very bluntly about this in the inquiry meetings. People see the deacon raising the chalice, reading the gospel and baptizing babies but that is the cherry on top of the icing on the cake. Every deacon helps in the liturgy, proclaims the word, and helps in the parish, but he does much more out in the world that most never see. I can tell you that anyone who considers the diaconate as “having their cake and eating it too” will get a rude awakening when he finds himself in a state prison conducting bible study or walking into a funeral home with a mother and father to help them pick out a casket for their son

The diaconate has been a stopping point for men on their way to the priesthood for the past 1000 years. The permanent diaconate hs only been restored for the past 50 years. There are many misconceptions about who the permanent deacon is. Any discussion of the merits of a permanent diaconate has to start with an understanding of it first.

At it’s heart, the deacon is the sacramental presence of the visible Church serving the world.

We heard stories of men in the past who were not screened well enough, and some of these got through to ordaination. They told us the story of one guy who put on his collar right after ordaination and said, “Now I can’t wait to tell the people what they need to know.” That’s not service.

Now there is a peer review process, where the other members of your cohort, the people who spend every Saturday with you in class for five years and know you the best get to provide feedback on your attitudes and such. Archbishop Gregory in Atlanta where I live actually authored much of the "National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanant Deacons in the United States" when he was president of the USCCB. and he addresses many of these issues in formation, at least in our Archdiocese.

Obviously I’m right with you when you say that service “needed to be brought up to much higher levels both in the ordained life and among the laity.” A greater understanding of the role of the deacon in the early Church and how it has been and contiues to be restored will go a long way toward that, and toward dispelling misconceptions that a deacon is a married priest-lite.

Incidentally, I am not married. Unless God puts a woman in my life and makes it crystal clear that I am to be married, there will be no cake for me. I will be celibate. That is my intent for now, anyway.

-Tim-

 

[Cristiano]

Yeah, I’m not sure why the French Revolution was brought up. Do SSPX folks et al. use that as a comparison for VII?
I simply meant that there is room to discuss the misapplication of Vatican II as a pretty big factor impacting Catholicism over the last couple of centuries. And to me, that’s been a bigger factor in the life of the average Catholic than the permanent diaconate.

Instead of bring up the SSPX I would just drop the Vat II topic, until someone brings it up again with a self supporting argumentation.

 

[Melchior_1]

Let me address the second point first. This thread is in reference to the Latin Church and her disciplines. The problem that I was mentioning is limited only to the Latin Church because of Her disciplines; however, your point does not lack insight because there are some Latin Catholics that think of transferring to an Eastern Church in order to be married and ordained too, and that is an issue too.

That’s what I was getting at with my comment

When I say young I mean that I started to hear that kind of comments from fifteen year old boys up to single people in their twenties. The Church understands what the diaconate is about but individuals might still have misconceptions about it. That is why I am glad that usually the Church does not consider people in the lay diaconate until they are well in their forties. By that age a man knows if he is called to marriage. If he is called then by that time he is already married and he had time to mature in his responsibilities as a married man.

I haven’t heard anyone say anything like this, although I wouldn’t be surprised if some did.