Permanent Deacons and Traditional Catholicism

[twf]

I have noticed that many so called “traditionalists” take issue with the Church’s decision to restore the permanent diaconate. As married “permanent” deacons were very much a part of the Church’s life for most of her history, only dying out in the Middle Ages, and as they have always remained vital in the East, what exactly is the basis of this complaint?

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Very interested in what the responses will be. The one conversation I’ve had with a “traditionalist” about this seemed to point in the direction of the married state, with much more comfort with a single/celibate permanent deacon. But that was just one person.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I’ve never been fond of the permanent diaconate, even before I became a traditionalist. It seems many traditional Catholics don’t like them because they aren’t celibate.

 

[pianistclare]

yeah, I don’t get it.
We have 5 Deacons at our parish. I guess people fear they “dilute” the priesthood. They don’t. They are there when the stretched to his limit pastor can’t be. Their training is very rigorous. Not for the faint of heart nor the uneducated.
Most of ours are older men. I don’t sit around imagining their private lives.

 

[fred_conty]

I have noticed that many so called “traditionalists” take issue with the Church’s decision to restore the permanent diaconate. As married “permanent” deacons were very much a part of the Church’s life for most of her history, only dying out in the Middle Ages, and as they have always remained vital in the East, what exactly is the basis of this complaint?

It may be as simple as getting use to anything that is new or different. In a couple of generations it will pass.

In our parish we welcome them and would like more.

I believe the deacons themselves wish they could administer the sacrament of anointing of the sick, especially when going to hospitals.

 

[Usige]

It seems many traditional Catholics don’t like them because they aren’t celibate.

That is essentially what I find to be the case. The few in depth conversations I’ve been involved with actually point more to continence than celibacy. In otherwords, many traditionalist find it distasteful for a sexually active man to be in the sanctuary.

I am a little curious how it will go over with many of my wife’s friends from the local FSSP parish if I am ordained to the diaconate in 4 years. The pastor there was very encouraging to my wife when we first talked about me entering formation, but some of the parishioners are certainly less keen about the idea.

 

[corsair]

I don’t care for them. So I’ll just stick with our FSSP parish and then I’ll not even think about them.

 

[Usige]

I’ve never been fond of the permanent diaconate…

I don’t care for them…

Just curious if either of you would care to expand on why you dislike permanent deacons (or perhaps the thought of them as distinct to particular people). Does the same disquiet apply to men who were ordained in the seminary, but left before being ordained to the priesthood?

 

[FrancescaMaria]

We have great deacons, and I love them, but I think they supplement the priests too much sometimes. When my daughter was baptized, we were not allowed to choose the minister of baptism for her in our parish, and I was a little disappointed that we got a deacon. I think there is something really special about being welcomed to the Church by a priest.

 

[pianistclare]

We have great deacons, and I love them, but I think they supplement the priests too much sometimes. When my daughter was baptized, we were not allowed to choose the minister of baptism for her in our parish, and I was a little disappointed that we got a deacon. I think there is something really special about being welcomed to the Church by a priest.

You can ask for the priest. It’s not a matter of “allowing”.

 

[commenter]

I have noticed that many so called “traditionalists” take issue with the Church’s decision to restore the permanent diaconate. As married “permanent” deacons were very much a part of the Church’s life for most of her history, only dying out in the Middle Ages, and as they have always remained vital in the East, what exactly is the basis of this complaint?

I would be careful not to lump “traditionalists” together.
Many Catholics prefer the EF, sometimes belong to small faith communities approved by their diocese, where they might not see the need for the deacon - right there. But they might also belong to a much larger parish, or their children attend a Catholic high school, or they see the need for clergy in hospitals, prisons, and social service agencies, and they know there is a shortage of clergy overall.

So they accept the response of the diaconate as a normal part of Catholic life in 2016. These traditionalist Catholics are ok with married priests! coming over into the Ordinariate - as long as they are “traditional”, which they all seem to be.

But there are other traditionalists who have sympathy with groups not in union with the Church. They say that since the Latin Rite did not have permanent deacons in 1958, that is proof they are not needed now. They will find something “against Catholic Tradition” with every new or restored program because they distrust all the popes since 1958. Even if the Church had attached a celibacy condition to restoration of the Permanent Diaconate, they would still oppose it.

 

[powerofk]

Seriously, if people have a problem with permanent deacons, then they have problems with St. Stephen, St. Phillip the Deacon, St. Lawrence, and… St. Francis (and St. Francis was a permanent deacon at a time when the permanent diaconate had pretty much disappeared)!

 

[babochka]

That is essentially what I find to be the case. The few in depth conversations I’ve been involved with actually point more to continence than celibacy. In otherwords, many traditionalist find it distasteful for a sexually active man to be in the sanctuary.

Do they have a similar problem with married altar servers/acolytes?

I’ve not really encountered this attitude among my friends who attend the FSSP parish. I don’t know that many of them are hard-core traditionalists, though. My priest is married with several young children (so obviously not continent). We frequently have visitors from the FSSP parish and none seem to have a problem with his marital state. In fact, I think he’s a bit of a curiosity for them.

 

[twf]

yeah, I don’t get it.
We have 5 Deacons at our parish. I guess people fear they “dilute” the priesthood. They don’t. They are there when the stretched to his limit pastor can’t be. Their training is very rigorous. Not for the faint of heart nor the uneducated.
Most of ours are older men. I don’t sit around imagining their private lives.

5!!! Wow! That must be a blessing. Western Canada didn’t restore the diaconate in the wake of Vatican II… My archdiocese is only now being introduced to a first “generation” of permanent deacons. The majority of parishes don’t have one yet. There are 8 priests in residence at our cathedral but only one Deacon.

 

[Usige]

Do they have a similar problem with married altar servers/acolytes?

I’ve not really encountered this attitude among my friends who attend the FSSP parish. I don’t know that many of them are hard-core traditionalists, though. My priest is married with several young children (so obviously not continent). We frequently have visitors from the FSSP parish and none seem to have a problem with his marital state. In fact, I think he’s a bit of a curiosity for them.

Personally it is very few in the FSSP that have commented on it. Most find the thought of me becoming a deacon as a curiosity. The ones that seem to have the most problem with the thought used to be members of SSPX chapels.

Since we have only started to see instituted acolytes as permanent features in my diocese over the last two years, I don’t think married acolytes are even on their radar.

If I understand eastern practices, continence is practiced the night before celebrating the divine liturgy as opposed to perpetual continence in the Latin Church. I don’t know if that discipline in the Latin Church would make more people comfortable with permanent deacons.

 

[Chatter163]

I have noticed that many so called “traditionalists” take issue with the Church’s decision to restore the permanent diaconate. As married “permanent” deacons were very much a part of the Church’s life for most of her history, only dying out in the Middle Ages, and as they have always remained vital in the East, what exactly is the basis of this complaint?

Being in an FSSP parish with a permanent deacon, I don’t see this. Why don’t you ask the people that you “notice” what their “complaints” are?

 

[twf]

Being in an FSSP parish with a permanent deacon, I don’t see this. Why don’t you ask the people that you “notice” what their “complaints” are?

The comments I’ve noticed have been online, so I asked here. And in point of fact, if you read through the thread, you can see a number of people already expressed their dislike of the permanent diaconate or related accounts from their experience. The lack of celibacy seems to be the issue.

 

[twf]

Personally it is very few in the FSSP that have commented on it. Most find the thought of me becoming a deacon as a curiosity. The ones that seem to have the most problem with the thought used to be members of SSPX chapels.

Since we have only started to see instituted acolytes as permanent features in my diocese over the last two years, I don’t think married acolytes are even on their radar.

If I understand eastern practices, continence is practiced the night before celebrating the divine liturgy as opposed to perpetual continence in the Latin Church. I don’t know if that discipline in the Latin Church would make more people comfortable with permanent deacons.

Yes, Eastern clergy abstain from marital relations the night before serving the Divine Liturgy. I suppose an issue in the Roman Rite would be our practice of a daily eucharist. Orthodox parishes don’t typically have a daily Divine Liturgy. As I understand it, only monastics serve the liturgy daily.

 

[edward_george]

I am one of three priests in a parish of 18,000+ parishioners. I love offering the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I love having 6 deacons in our parish too because that way my 50 hour work week doesn’t become an 80 hour work week.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[twf]

I am one of three priests in a parish of 18,000+ parishioners. I love offering the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I love having 6 deacons in our parish too because that way my 50 hour work week doesn’t become an 80 hour work week.

-Fr ACEGC

18 000? That’s incredible. That’s more than some rural dioceses. How many weekend masses- even if it’s a dozen you would have such vast crowds. Your diocese must truly be blessed with vocations to the diaconate to have so many in your parish. As mentioned earlier, our archdiocese only “restored” the permanent diaconate within the last few years- our cathedral has 8-9 priests in residence at any given time but only one Deacon. The idea of multiple deacons per priest makes a lot of sense to me but I’ve never experienced it.