Permanant Deacons in the EF

[TrueLight]

Has anyone seen a temporary deacon distribute communion in the EF?

 

[Usige]

The deacon does need to be a priest anymore than the priest needs to be a bishop. Each order in the Sacrament of Holy Orders had its place in the Church and in the plan of salvation.

Thank you, Br JR. I doubt people see a priest and go “that poor proto-bishop, I don’t know why he was ordained since he’ll never be a bishop.” Look to the Eastern Churches where the diaconate never died out. It has always been seen there as a vital part of ministry with it’s own calling.

For those that reject permanent deacons as a Vatican II novelty, I suggest you read the proceedings from the 23 session of the Council of Trent (in particular article 17).

That the functions of holy orders from the deacon to the porter, which have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles, and which have been for some time discontinued in many localities, may again be restored to use in accordance with the canons, and may not be derided by the heretics as useless, the holy council, burning with the desire to restore the ancient usage, decrees that in the future such functions shall not be exercised except by those constituted in these orders, … their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life

This was 400 years before the second Vatican Council, but it took nearly that whole time to institute what was never lost in the East. Given that I would not exactly call the permanent diaconate a novel innovation.

I would love to see permanent deacons able to exercise their ministry in an EF mass, but I have personally never seen it done. We should also remember that deacons have non-liturgical functions too, but that’s would be for another thread

 

[TrueLight]

Thank you, Br JR. I doubt people see a priest and go “that poor proto-bishop, I don’t know why he was ordained since he’ll never be a bishop.” Look to the Eastern Churches where the diaconate never died out. It has always been seen there as a vital part of ministry with it’s own calling.

For those that reject permanent deacons as a Vatican II novelty, I suggest you read the proceedings from the 23 session of the Council of Trent (in particular article 17).
That the functions of holy orders from the deacon to the porter, which have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles, and which have been for some time discontinued in many localities, may again be restored to use in accordance with the canons, and may not be derided by the heretics as useless, the holy council, burning with the desire to restore the ancient usage, decrees that in the future such functions shall not be exercised except by those constituted in these orders, … their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life D

Good find. What were married clerics of approved life?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s as good as new. When was the last time permanent deacons existed in the Roman Church? Was being a deacon a stage of transition to priesthood before the recent reforms, like being an acolyte?

Through out the history of the Roman Church. The permanent diaconate was never suppressed.

The religious orders had permanent deacons before Vatican II.

 

[Chatter163]

Has anyone seen a temporary deacon distribute communion in the EF?

The practice in our FSSP parish (and, I believe, most FSSP communities) is that a permanent deacon typically does not distribute communion, but a transitional one does. This reflects, I believe, a practical philosophy, rather than an ontological one. We had a Solemn Mass last Sunday with a transitional deacon as deacon of the Mass, and he distributed communion. A permanent deacon was the subdceacon, and he did not. This is a common arrangement for us.

 

[TrueLight]

The practice in our FSSP parish (and, I believe, most FSSP communities) is that a permanent deacon typically does not distribute communion, but a transitional one does. This reflects, I believe, a practical philosophy, rather than an ontological one. We had a Solemn Mass last Sunday with a transitional deacon as deacon of the Mass, and he distributed communion. A permanent deacon was the subdceacon, and he did not. This is a common arrangement for us.

Thanks!

 

[JReducation]

It’s as good as new. When was the last time permanent deacons existed in the Roman Church? Was being a deacon a stage of transition to priesthood before the recent reforms, like being an acolyte?

Neither were ever considered a state of transition. One a man is ordained a deacon, he is a deacon for life. For this reason, a priest can function as a deacon in the liturgy, because he is both a deacon and a priest, not because he’s a priest. His rights and duties as a deacon remain with him for life His place in the Church and in the liturgy remain with him. They were never rungs on a ladder. They were orders in the sacrament. That understanding was very poor catechesis prior to Vatican II.

Theologians, religious superiors and bishops understood it, but they never thought it was necessary for the laity to understand it. The laity grew to believe that once you became a priest, you were no longer a deacon. Not true.

The order that gives you the right to proclaim the Gospel, preach, distribute Holy Communion, baptize, witness marriages, to bless and bury the dead is the order of deacon, not the order of presbyter.

The order of presbyter gives you the right to consecrate the Eucharist, to absolve from sin, to lead the people in offering the sacrifice.

The order of bishop gives you the right to confirms, ordain, govern, teach and sanctify.

Each order has its rights and those rights are not transferable to the next order. Simply put, as the man moves up the ladder of Holy Orders, he acquires additional rights and duties. For that reason, you can’t be a bishop unless your also a deacon and a presbyter. The foulness of the priesthood is found in the unity of all three orders.

Personally, I have enough of novelty, archeology and experimentation.

The diaconate is not novelty. It’s like the EF. It was never suppressed. It was misunderstood and abandoned. Pope Paul VI clarified the misunderstanding and returned it to its rightful place.

I would like a Gregorian mass said according to a missal from the 1920’s, ideally. It’s weird that this seems to be heretical view, when ad-libbed masses in the wider Church are not unusual.

It would be illicit, not heretical.

I’m waiting for the scales to fall away from people’s eyes.

My friend, we can’t expect for the Church to see itself as we see her. As Pope Benedict XVI likes to repeat. It is we who have to learn to think and feel with the Church, specifically with the current papacy. That’s what he means when he says this.

I think a whole bunch of catechesis is needed (not just here but within the parishes) as to what the ministry of a permanent deacon is. [BIBLEDRB]Acts 6:1-7[/BIBLEDRB]

The first thing that has to be dismissed is the notion that permanent deacons and transitional deacons have different ministries. There is only one order of deacon. All deacons share in that order. The differences are going to depend on their superiors, not on the diaconate itself. The superior of a transitional deacon would like him to focus more on further academics. He’s going to have less pastoral exposure than the permanent deacon who is finished with his studies, unless he’s going for a doctorate in theology.

Second, the proper catechesis is to teach people that the two are exactly the same, but their circumstances are different. The circumstances influence their presence and activity in the community, not the order of deacon itself. The best example that can be used to help people understand is the regular priest and the secular priest.

They share in the same priesthood, but they do not always do the same thing, because the regular priest has a prior commitment to the religious life that the secular priest does not have. Neither is more priestly than the other.

You can use the example of the ordained religious and the non ordained religious. They share in the same call, duties and have the same rights, but heir ministries are different, because the one serves his brothers and sisters through the sacramental ministry and the other through other ministries, but they are equally religious and equal in every other sense. The difference is in their circumstances. Circumstances and contexts are concepts that people understand.

BTW, congratulations on the developments in your order!

Are you asking when were married clerics approved? I don’t get the question. Help me here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

Are you asking when were married clerics approved? I don’t get the question. Help me here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

No, I’m asking what this referred to:

decrees that in the future such functions shall not be exercised except by those constituted in these orders, … their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life D

Were they referring to married deacons or some other type of cleric?

 

[TempleServant]

I think the traditionalist objection to permanent deacons also stems from the fear that they will be used to fill the gap left by the fall in vocations in priests. To ‘keep the show on the road’ in a liberal diocese until the final demographic implosion.

Also, you can be a married permanent deacon. I think this might be exciting to people who want a non-celibate clergy.

Neither of these outlooks are attractive to traditionalists. They don’t want to encourage this sort of thing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the traditionalist objection to permanent deacons also stems from the fear that they will be used to fill the gap left by the fall in vocations in priests. To ‘keep the show on the road’ in a liberal diocese until the final demographic implosion.

Also, you can be a married permanent deacon. I think this might be exciting to people who want a non-celibate clergy.

Neither of these outlooks are attractive to traditionalists. They don’t want to encourage this sort of thing.

Its not really about what they want. Its about what the Church wants.

When your wants differ from the Churches then there is an issue that you need to address.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the traditionalist objection to permanent deacons also stems from the fear that they will be used to fill the gap left by the fall in vocations in priests. To ‘keep the show on the road’ in a liberal diocese until the final demographic implosion.

Also, you can be a married permanent deacon. I think this might be exciting to people who want a non-celibate clergy.

Neither of these outlooks are attractive to traditionalists. They don’t want to encourage this sort of thing.

Such an objection belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the diaconate in the Church.

The structure of the Church changed gradually but radically after Christianity was legalized in the fourth century. The office of bishop, priest and deacon were viewed as unique vocations and the offices were viewed as seperate but equal up to that point. Each was seen as a vocation in and of itself.

As the Church grew and administrative burden increased after Christianity was legalized, the hierarchical structures of secular governments and the military were slowly adopted and over the course of the next two or three centuries. crsus honorum, or rising through the ranks became the norm. Christian public life gradually took on the the attributes of the state or the military, and the diaconate-priest-bishop roles became clerical and hierarchical, with the permanent diaconate seen as a stepping stone to the priesthood and the priesthood seen as a stepping stone to the office of bishop. The adoption of a cursus honorum was a secularization of the Church .

An honest study of the role of deacon in the early Church would show an incredible diversity of responsibilities, but it was clearly seen as a seperate and unique vocation, not a stepping stone to the prieshood, nor was the diaconate ever intended to fill in the gaps where priests were unavailable. If anything, a renewal of the permanent diaconate in the past 50 years is a return to recognition of the permanant deacon as a unique vocation in-and-of itself and a segregation of the roles of priest and deacon.

The idea of rising through the ranks is one the Church is moving away from, and is moving back toward a realization that the roles are complimentary but seperate. In restoring the permanent diaconate the Church is moving away from what was actually a secularization of the Church.

Anyone truly interested in the subject should pick up the book The Diaconate: a Full and Equal Order by James Monroe Barnett.

-Tim-

 

[TempleServant]

I don’t buy the archeological argument. Because it existed in the 4th century is no justification to revive it now.

Neither is: ‘The Church wants it, so you’re at fault’. That’s a funny one.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t buy the archeological argument. Because it existed in the 4th century is no justification to revive it now.

Neither is: ‘The Church wants it, so you’re at fault’. That’s a funny one.

And I don’t buy your implied argument that you know better than the Pope as to whether the Church should have a permanent diaconate.

 

[ProVobis]

The diaconate is not novelty. It’s like the EF. It was never suppressed. It was misunderstood and abandoned. Pope Paul VI clarified the misunderstanding and returned it to its rightful place.

Br JR, do you know why he suppressed the subdiaconate?

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t buy the archeological argument. Because it existed in the 4th century is no justification to revive it now.

It’s existed throughout the last 2000 years.

I congratulated a friend of my once on his ordination to the “transitional diaconate”. He proceeded to correct me and say that “all priests are deacons. We don’t cease to be deacons after becoming priests”.

In that sense, we need to look at the term “transitional deacons”. They are not temporary deacons who lose that role after becoming a priest, rather they are permanent deacons who eventually transition into the dual role of deacon and priest. If we look at this grammatically speaking, we can see the difference.

Transitional Deacon (noun).

Transitional (adverb) Deacon (noun).

TempleServant, it appears that you subscribe to the former, whereas for the last 2000 years the Church has subscribed to the latter.

 

[JReducation]

No, I’m asking what this referred to:

Were they referring to married deacons or some other type of cleric?

I think the traditionalist objection to permanent deacons also stems from the fear that they will be used to fill the gap left by the fall in vocations in priests. To ‘keep the show on the road’ in a liberal diocese until the final demographic implosion.

Also, you can be a married permanent deacon. I think this might be exciting to people who want a non-celibate clergy.

Neither of these outlooks are attractive to traditionalists. They don’t want to encourage this sort of thing.

The Traditionalists have no choice here. The Church can ordain married men to the diaconate and to the priesthood, even in the Roman Rite. We have married priests in the Latin Church.

SP says that any diocesan priest can celebrate the EF without permission. All of our married priests are diocesan priests. The Anglican priests coming over are all diocesan priests. SP applies to them too. They are not excluded.

SP is only about the form of the mass, not the marital status of the priest and deacon. That option has never been given to anyone.

This is one of the weaknesses of the Traditionalist movement. It has a tendency to want to ban what the Church legitimately allows. That is not permissible. We don’t do what the Church prohibits and we don’t prohibit what she allows.

If a married deacon wants to serve at an EF mass, there is no legal reason for the priest to deny him.

The married diaconate is going to remain, because it is part of our tradition. The fact that it was lost does not take it out of the Catholic tradition.

Br JR, do you know why he suppressed the subdiaconate?

Yes. The Holy Father, who was a Canon Lawyer, felt that the Code of 1917 did not make legal sense, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders only has three orders: deacon, presbyter and bishop. That’s what we inherited from the Apostolic Church. The other ministries were added later, but they were never part of the sacrament. Pope Paul eliminated them all except acolyte and lector and he deliberately chose to call them ministries rather than minor orders to avoid misrepresentation. It would be misrepresentation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to say that these are part of the sacrament. He reserved exorcist to those whom the bishop selects.

It was he who wrote the laws about Holy Orders before he died. Bl. John Paul II finished the work and promulgated the code in 1983.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t buy the archeological argument. Because it existed in the 4th century is no justification to revive it now.

Neither is: ‘The Church wants it, so you’re at fault’. That’s a funny one.

The justification for it’s existence in the early Church is the same justification for its existence now.

The offices of deacon, priest and bishop are divine institutions, given to us by Christ. These are ordained through a sacrament. Porters, exorcist, acolyte, lector, subdeacon, archdeacon and metropolitan are ecclisiastical institutions, given to us by the Church and are not ordained through a sacrament. The Church can create and supress it’s own institutions but institutions given to us by Christ cannot be created or suppressed by the Church. The Church cannot mess with the sacraments. The sacraments are instituted by Christ.

Although the diaconate never completely ceased to exist on both a practical and sacramental level, the relegation of the role of deacon to a that of a temporary place for seminarians on their way to the preisthood was in many ways, and in part, an abandonment of that which Christ himself instituted. The renewal of the permanent diaconate is therefor a renewal of that which Christ gave us, and which was lost due to the Church adopting secular practices.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

The justification for it’s existence in the early Church is the same justification for its existence now.

The offices of deacon, priest and bishop are divine institutions, given to us by Christ. Porters, exorcist, acolyte, lector, subdeacon, archdeacon and metropolitan are ecclisiastical institutions, given to us by the Church.

-Tim-

Tim, I must be sleepy, because I’m drawing a blank.

When did Christ institute deacons? Was it at the last supper? If so, would that not argue for transitional deacons?

 

[JReducation]

Don’t forget folks, what I said before. A bishop is also a presbyter and a deacon. The presbyter is also a deacon. It’s not like you cease to be a deacon when you’re ordained presbyter. The three orders continue to exist. The man who has the fullness of the priesthood, which is the bishop, has the functions of all three.

I’m not sure why there is a sudden rebellion against the idea of the permanent deacon. I’m as much in favor of tradition as the next guy. But we have to be knowledgeable of tradition. Tradition is not what the Church was before Vatican II. Tradition is what the Church has been since that first day in Jerusalem to today. Neither is tradition only what I know in my little corner of the Church. Tradition is everything that is Catholic, from Carthusian Monks to an Eastern Catholic Church that has an anaphora without the words of consecration, because it never used them. The apostle that founded them, never taught it to them. All of this and everything in between is Catholic tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Yes. The Holy Father, who was a Canon Lawyer, felt that the Code of 1917 did not make legal sense, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders only has three orders: deacon, presbyter and bishop. That’s what we inherited from the Apostolic Church. The other ministries were added later, but they were never part of the sacrament. Pope Paul eliminated them all except acolyte and lector and he deliberately chose to call them ministries rather than minor orders to avoid misrepresentation. It would be misrepresentation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to say that these are part of the sacrament. He reserved exorcist to those whom the bishop selects.

Hmmm. Eliminating the subdeacon, whether cleric or minister or just a role, seems strange since he plays an integral role in the Solemn High Mass, which Montini/Paul VI celebrated many times I’m sure. In fact, the deacon and subdeacon appear to be wearing the same vestments in the Solemn High Mass, EF of course.