Permanant Deacons in the EF

[JReducation]

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.

This I can assure you. This is how it is taught at all the Pontifical Schools of Theology around the world. I studied at two of them and they both taught the same. It’s speaking about tradition when tradition speaks on matters of doctrine and morals. In other words, some doctrines don’t have to be declared, because they are built into the tradition, repetition is one way of doing this. A good example of this is the sacraments. There was never a formal decree on them. They were handed down to us through tradition. The doctrines around them have been repeated over and over again, that we know this is part of our faith.

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?

No, the SP does not bring back the minor orders. We cannot read into it what is contrary to canon law. SP simply says that the Tridentine form may be celebrated as it is in the missal of 1962. In the missal of 1962, it calls for these particular ministries. Canon Law says that these are lay ministries. Therefore, to comply with the missal of 1962, laymen may be used for this ministries. They can be seminarians or well rounded Catholic adults, as long as they know what they’re doing.

We have to remember that the key word in SP is “extraordinary”. Trads have to live with this word or we’re all going to be miserable. Everything that happens in the EF is out of the norm. The use of these ministries is not the norm, it is extraordinary. It is allowed for the Tridentine form, because if you use an extraordinary form, you’re doing to have to follow extraordinary rules.

Trads want so desperately to make the EF the norm that many overstep the Church’s intention. This whole issue with the permanent deacon is one of them.

My suggestion to all Trads is to back down on this one. There are thousands of permanent deacons around the world They cannot be denied their rights. They are clerics just as is a priest and a bishop. To make enemies out of the permanent deacons by rejecting them is to make enemies of the bishops. The bishops have an obligation to protect their clergy. This would be an area where the bishop can intervene, because in Catholic tradition, the deacon is ordained for the benefit of the bishop. Any rejection can be interpreted as defying the bishop, especially if the bishop assigns the deacon to an EF parish. It would be a good idea to accept it with good grace.

We need to remember that we will not get to heaven by following rubrics or customs. We will get to heaven by love. Real love often has to bite the bullet.

The popes have not given any further explanation as to why the married deacon was brought back other than what has been quoted here. I do know someone who worked for at the Vatican. He always says that Pope Paul was a very holy man and may someday be canonized. The interesting thing about his style was the he never ceased to be the lawyer. When he made a statement or did something, such as Humanae Vitae or the return of the married deacons, the cardinals would ask for explanations. He would give one liners. If they wee not happy or wanted more, his answer was always the same. “The pope has no more to say.”

Legally, this is right. The pope rules by divine authority. We have to take what he says and what he does and not try to read more into it than what he has said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wasserfall]

No, the SP does not bring back the minor orders. We cannot read into it what is contrary to canon law. SP simply says that the Tridentine form may be celebrated as it is in the missal of 1962. In the missal of 1962, it calls for these particular ministries. Canon Law says that these are lay ministries. Therefore, to comply with the missal of 1962, laymen may be used for this ministries. They can be seminarians or well rounded Catholic adults, as long as they know what they’re doing.

It wasn’t Summorum Pontificum, but rather the erection of the Fraternity of St. Peter that brought back the minor orders.

No, I don’t mean legally, I mean de facto.

Among the “traditional” groups, seminarians are “ordained” into the minor orders and the subdiaconate. They are constantly referred to as “minor orders” and those who receive them are constantly said to “be ordained”, etc. both by the members of the traditional groups themselves, and by their ordaining bishops (diocesan & curial) and by the various organs of the Holy See itself.

It looks to me like this is a situation where the law hasn’t caught up with reality.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It wasn’t Summorum Pontificum, but rather the erection of the Fraternity of St. Peter that brought back the minor orders.

No, I don’t mean legally, I mean de facto.

Among the “traditional” groups, seminarians are “ordained” into the minor orders and the subdiaconate. They are constantly referred to as “minor orders” and those who receive them are constantly said to “be ordained”, etc. both by the members of the traditional groups themselves, and by their ordaining bishops (diocesan & curial) and by the various organs of the Holy See itself.

It looks to me like this is a situation where the law hasn’t caught up with reality.

Or the opposite where the situation of these being instituted ministries has not caught up with these groups.

Side note. In the Byzantine Churches the minor orders were also suppressed except for the sub-diaconate. All candidates for the permanent diaconate (this was never lost in the East) and for the priesthood are instituted as lectors and acolytes before ordination. They are also ordained a sub-deacon before diaconial ordination.

I believe that sub-deacon is still called a minor order whereas lector and acolyte are not.

 

[JReducation]

It wasn’t Summorum Pontificum, but rather the erection of the Fraternity of St. Peter that brought back the minor orders.

No, I don’t mean legally, I mean de facto.

Among the “traditional” groups, seminarians are “ordained” into the minor orders and the subdiaconate. They are constantly referred to as “minor orders” and those who receive them are constantly said to “be ordained”, etc. both by the members of the traditional groups themselves, and by their ordaining bishops (diocesan & curial) and by the various organs of the Holy See itself.

It looks to me like this is a situation where the law hasn’t caught up with reality.

The Church treats the ED institutes as she does religious orders with solemn vows. That’s what you’re seeing. She’s not giving them the same things, but the same treatment.

The law for the Latin Church has not changed. These institutes are erected differently. You’re getting to a whole area of canon law here. If you look in a commentary of canon law, you would have to read the section on associations of the faithful to understand why the ED institutes are allowed to do this. It has nothing to with the sacrament, but with the erection of the institute.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Chatter163]

All true, remembering that canonically, today’s subdeacons are not legally clerics, even though the ED institutes allow them to be titled “The Rev. Mr. ______” as a concession to tradition. Prior to V2, the subdiaconate was classified as a major order, and celibacy was obligatory upon its reception.

 

[JReducation]

All true, remembering that canonically, today’s subdeacons are not legally clerics, even though the ED institutes allow them to be titled “The Rev. Mr. ______” as a concession to tradition. Prior to V2, the subdiaconate was classified as a major order, and celibacy was obligatory upon its reception.

That’s exactly right. The ED institutes are being granted a concession, because it is necessary in order to celebrate the EF. It is a concession not a norm. That’s why I said that they are getting the same treatment that religious orders in solemn vows get. We get many concessions that religious congregations, diocesan priests and lay people don’t get. That does not make it the norm. It’s the norm for us, but not for the rest of the Church. Just as it would be wrong for us to take these concessions and try to push them on the rest of the Church, the same applies to concessions given to the ED institutes.

The fact is that the ED institutes do not try to make their situation the norm. Unfortunately, many people are not listening to them. The Canons of St. John Cantius, the clerks of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the FSSP have been interviewed by the Franciscan Friars on EWTN a number of times. These questions and others have come up. Each time they do, the ED clergy has stated that they are not the norm and they don’t want to be the norm. They don’t want to be the mainstream parish priests anymore than a Franciscan wants to be a Carthusian monk.

It’s really people outside of the ED institutes who are pushing the issue, not the institutes or any of the religious communities or dioceses. The institutes, religious communities and dioceses can work with permanent married deacons and even with the convert married priests.

These married clerics cannot enter the institutes, because the institutes require celibacy. But the institutes do not object to working with them. They can’t. That would be discrimination and the institutes are not in the business of discrimination. They’re in the business of making saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Here’s the relevant quote from UE about minor orders and ED institutes. It doesn’t say much, other than the fact they are allowed to confer them (and it calls them minor orders):

1. Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.

They don’t want to be the mainstream parish priests anymore than a Franciscan wants to be a Carthusian monk.

You don’t want to be a Carthusian?!? I love the idea of Carthusians, but wow, what a difficult vocation… talk about total consecration to God! As a note of interest, the Carthusians have their own rite of Mass, since they predated Pope St. Pius V suppression of rites not 200 years old. So they’re neither OF or EF. Anyways… Chartreuse anyone?

• PAX