Permanant Deacons in the EF

[JReducation]

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?

At the Last Supper Christ performs what in Greek is called Diakonia, service. He serves the meal and he washes the feet of the guests. That is the ministry of the deacon, to distribute the Eucharist and to serve the people. The apostles continued the tradition and eventually handed it on to Stephen, Jason and others as the community grew. But it came from Christ’s diakonia.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

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.

The issue for Pope Paul was not whether their function was integral, but the fact that they are not part of the sacrament and the term “order” even when we say “minor orders” is misleading. They were really lay ministries instituted by the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

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?

Christ instituted the sacrament of Holy Orders at the last supper. Deacons, priests and bishops are part of that. These recieve a special gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.

CCC 1536 to 1589 speaks about the sacrament of holy orders

***I. WHY IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED “ORDERS”?

1537** The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture, has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,. . . .

1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

1570 Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all…

1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate “as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,” while the Churches of the East had always maintained it.*

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

The issue for Pope Paul was not whether their function was integral, but the fact that they are not part of the sacrament and the term “order” even when we say “minor orders” is misleading. They were really lay ministries instituted by the Church.

Not meaning to contest your statements in any way, I’d be interested however, to hear your thoughts on the action of Pope Paul VI in the light of this statement from Trent:
Council of Trent:

from the very beginning of the church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit those of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeaconship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.

What makes the 20th century so different that it requires the suppression of these orders that “are known to have been in use” since “the very beginning of the church”?

 

[JReducation]

Not meaning to contest your statements in any way, I’d be interested however, to hear your thoughts on the action of Pope Paul VI in the light of this statement from Trent:

What makes the 20th century so different that it requires the suppression of these orders that “are known to have been in use” since “the very beginning of the church”?

Because they are not of Divine institution, any pope can suppress them. No pope is bound by anything other than divine law, natural law and dogma.

Pope Paul was very aware of that, being one of the brightest canon lawyers of modern times. He knew that these were lesser orders and that they were never part of the sacrament. He decided to use his authority to change their name from minor orders to ministries and to suppress some of them.

There is nothing wrong with that. St. Boniface established that no council, prior pope or law binds any pope. Pope Paul knew this as well. He did not act in a vacuum. He acted well within the parameters of what’s permissible to a pope. I can only repeat his assertion that the term “minor orders” was a misleading term, because originally they were not called orders. They were called ministrations, which we would call ministries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Because they are not of Divine institution, any pope can suppress them. No pope is bound by anything other than divine law, natural law and dogma.

Pope Paul was very aware of that, being one of the brightest canon lawyers of modern times. He knew that these were lesser orders and that they were never part of the sacrament. He decided to use his authority to change their name from minor orders to ministries and to suppress some of them.

There is nothing wrong with that. St. Boniface established that no council, prior pope or law binds any pope. Pope Paul knew this as well. He did not act in a vacuum. He acted well within the parameters of what’s permissible to a pope. I can only repeat his assertion that the term “minor orders” was a misleading term, because originally they were not called orders. They were called ministrations, which we would call ministries.

I never doubted Paul VI had the authority to suppress these orders, I was just actually hoping to know the reasons. It just seems to me that there should be a pretty big reason to abolish something that has been around since “the very beginning of the Church”, at least according to the Council of Trent.

I read the Motu Proprio Ministeria quaedam and it doesn’t say much about the why except that the reorganization into the ministries of reader and acolyte better fits “contemporary needs”. I don’t really see why that is true.

All in all, I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t understand why, and I wish that bishops would actually use these ministries instead of uninstuted lay lectors and EMHCs.

 

[ProVobis]

There is nothing wrong with that. St. Boniface established that no council, prior pope or law binds any pope. Pope Paul knew this as well. He did not act in a vacuum. He acted well within the parameters of what’s permissible to a pope. I can only repeat his assertion that the term “minor orders” was a misleading term, because originally they were not called orders. They were called ministrations, which we would call ministries.

Br JR, then how does one reconcile this with what ewtn says on authority:

"As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

 

[JReducation]

I never doubted Paul VI had the authority to suppress these orders, I was just actually hoping to know the reasons. It just seems to me that there should be a pretty big reason to abolish something that has been around since “the very beginning of the Church”, at least according to the Council of Trent.

I read the Motu Proprio Ministeria quaedam and it doesn’t say much about the why except that the reorganization into the ministries of reader and acolyte better fits “contemporary needs”. I don’t really see why that is true.

All in all, I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t understand why, and I wish that bishops would actually use these ministries instead of uninstuted lay lectors and EMHCs.

There have been many times when popes have changed course because they felt is was the most pastoral thing to do.

Br JR, then how does one reconcile this with what ewtn says on authority:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

This applies to moral teachings, not to disciplines and laws. Even then, this particular statement by the Council of Trent is not an infallible statement. It is a theological position, which popes that come after Trent are not bound to hold. It all goes back to Boniface. No council can bind a pope.

A council only binds a pope when it states what is of divine revelation or natural law. I believe that this is a problem for many lay Trads, because we were never properly taught law. We were simply taught that the Council of Trent said A, B, and C and we had to do it. Many of us, including me, until I studied it, believed that if we had to do it, so did the popes that came after Trent. We were not told that it was already established by the early Fathers that councils cannot bind popes. When we get a pope like Pope Paul VI who steps outside the box, everyone gets rattled. Of course Pope Paul is looking around him wondering why everyone is so confused, because it makes perfect sense to his legal and intellectual mind.

This was also an issue for Pope Pius XII. A lot of his behavior, especially concerning WW II confused many people, including Catholics. But the man was an eminent philosopher and he understood logic better than his peers. He knew that if he went to the left, this could happen and if he went straight ahead, that could happen, so he chose to go to the right or not to move at all.

When you’re dealing with scholars in positions of power and authority, the rest of us are often at a loss. I always tell my novices that the key is not to understand, but to think with the Church as Pope Benedict always says.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

I never doubted Paul VI had the authority to suppress these orders, I was just actually hoping to know the reasons. It just seems to me that there should be a pretty big reason to abolish something that has been around since “the very beginning of the Church”, at least according to the Council of Trent.

I read the Motu Proprio Ministeria quaedam and it doesn’t say much about the why except that the reorganization into the ministries of reader and acolyte better fits “contemporary needs”. I don’t really see why that is true.

All in all, I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t understand why, and I wish that bishops would actually use these ministries instead of uninstuted lay lectors and EMHCs.

I noted the following about half way down…

***This arrangement will bring out more clearly the distinction between clergy and laity, between what is proper and reserved to the clergy and what can be entrusted to the laity. ***

-Tim-

 

[TempleServant]

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.

I disagree. You can’t revive things long-dead and call it tradition. I object to the pick-and-mix that is going on in the Roman Rite since the 60’s. I believe it is done to advance an agenda. This is the anti-clerical, anti-hierarchial and anti-sacred agenda of modernists.

We’re having a nice literary debate here. Meanwhile, Communion in the hand, bare churches, total vernacular, the table altar and an edited rite are fact for the majority of Catholics. To what end? It’s not attractive to Canterbury or Mt Athos and it’s leaving a lot of Catholics ignorant and blase about what their religion actually entails.

Traditionalists see permanent deacons as part of that ferment. While techically, they can serve at TLMs, it’s up the the presiding priest whether they will or not, I would guess.

Point of interest: how many of them now exist?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t quite understand why anybody, trad or non-trad, objects to having a deacon perform the duties of a deacon! at Solemn Mass. That is just… asinine.

 

[Chatter163]

I don’t quite understand why anybody, trad or non-trad, objects to having a deacon perform the duties of a deacon! at Solemn Mass. That is just… asinine.

Let’s not have that type of name-calling. That helps to give traditionalists a bad name.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Let’s not have that type of name-calling. That helps to give traditionalists a bad name.

What?

 

[Melchior_1]

I disagree. You can’t revive things long-dead and call it tradition. I object to the pick-and-mix that is going on in the Roman Rite since the 60’s. I believe it is done to advance an agenda. This is the anti-clerical, anti-hierarchial and anti-sacred agenda of modernists.

Regarding the bolded, once again, we’ve had permanent deacons for the last 2000 years. Like I said before:

*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]

Here’s a link about the numbers of them:
nationmaster.com/graph/rel_cat_per_dea-religion-catholic-permanent-deacons

A related web page.
vocations.ie/Permanent_Deacons

Quotes:

“In about the fourth century, for a variety of reasons, including the rapid development of the Church, the permanent diaconate as a separate ministry disappeared.”

“In this way deacons can also help to reduce the burden on priests in a time of shortage.”

I guess traditionalists see the recent revival as a capitulation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here’s a link about the numbers of them:
nationmaster.com/graph/rel_cat_per_dea-religion-catholic-permanent-deacons

A related web page.
vocations.ie/Permanent_Deacons

Quotes:

“In about the fourth century, for a variety of reasons, including the rapid development of the Church, the permanent diaconate as a separate ministry disappeared.”

“In this way deacons can also help to reduce the burden on priests in a time of shortage.”

I guess traditionalists see the recent revival as a capitulation.

A capitulation to what?

This is the biggest problem with some (self proclaimed) “traditionalists”, they don’t want traditionalism, they want what the view as traditionalism.

 

[JReducation]

I disagree. You can’t revive things long-dead and call it tradition. I object to the pick-and-mix that is going on in the Roman Rite since the 60’s. I believe it is done to advance an agenda. This is the anti-clerical, anti-hierarchial and anti-sacred agenda of modernists.

We’re having a nice literary debate here. Meanwhile, Communion in the hand, bare churches, total vernacular, the table altar and an edited rite are fact for the majority of Catholics. To what end? It’s not attractive to Canterbury or Mt Athos and it’s leaving a lot of Catholics ignorant and blase about what their religion actually entails.

Traditionalists see permanent deacons as part of that ferment. While techically, they can serve at TLMs, it’s up the the presiding priest whether they will or not, I would guess.

Point of interest: how many of them now exist?

Permanent deacons are not a discipline or an art form. They are part of a sacrament. There is a big difference here. The Church is not reviving something long dead. She’s doing justice to herself by correcting something that should not have happened in the first place and that no one can explain why it did happen.

As to whether the permanent deacon serves at the EF or not, it’s not up to the presiding priest. It’s up to the pastor. It is always the pastor who assigns and creates the schedule.

In addition, if anyone were to tell a permanent deacon that he is not welcome to serve at an EF mass because he’s a permanent deacon or because he’s married, there would be hell to pay, not matter how Traditionalist one is. It is one thing to tell the deacon that you don’t need him, because you have a deacon and another to discriminate. It would be obvious discrimination when you turn away a deacon and get a priest to serve as deacon. We cannot violate the canonical rights of the clergy.

This would also apply to a married priest. You can’t stop one of them from celebrating the EF. If people drop out of his EF mass, because he’s married, there would be no legitimate reason to ask the bishop for another EF mass. They had one and they blew it.

Finally, I don’t see the picture as grim as you paint it. It may be that way in your local parish. I happen to living in a community that has five Catholic parishes, all of them with 7 masses every Sunday and they’re full. The larger one gets about 500 cars in its parking lot for every mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I disagree. You can’t revive things long-dead and call it tradition. I object to the pick-and-mix that is going on in the Roman Rite since the 60’s. I believe it is done to advance an agenda. This is the anti-clerical, anti-hierarchial and anti-sacred agenda of modernists.

Still waiting for the definition of “modernists”.

 

[ProVobis]

This applies to moral teachings, not to disciplines and laws.

Br JR, I don’t disagree here. The thing is to determine what exactly are moral teachings and which are not. Can something under the appearance of morals, for example, profanity against God or worshipping false gods, can suddenly be declared a disciplinary matter? Non-Catholics seem not to think ABC is a moral issue. And so on. But that’s an interesting discussion for another thread, IMO.

As for permanent deacons, I don’t see this as anything new. In fact, by your own admission, all deacons are “permanent,” in the sense they will retain this title even if they were to become priests or bishops. And aside from what the Council of Trent tried to define, I understand that subdeacons are not ordained. But I’m still having a problem with the elimination of the subdeacon ministry altogether. What’s the pastoral value of that? And also, have the last two Popes de facto reversed the elimination of the subdeacon (or at least his role) by restoring the Solemn High Mass?

 

[tradcathusa]

The question regarding the straw subdeacon of a layman is interesting. The use of a straw sub deacon in the USA is that a man who is a cleric can act as a straw subdeacon ( his use is frowned upon but has been tolerated). A cleric is a man who has at least been tonsured. Thus a layman from the pew cannot act as a straw subdeacon. I have not attended that many masses with the Institute of Chrsit the King. I would like to hear what the Institute does in this regard?