Permanent deacons in EF: is it possible?

[Asperges_Me]

Years ago, I remember a permanent deacon giving Holy Communion at our local “indult” Mass. I don’t know whether he was actually married or not.

I think that the people who say that we can’t go back in a time capsule to 1962 are correct. If there has to be some minor adjustments made to conform to the 1983 Canon Law or whatever, then so be it. Look, what is the better goal here? Have one EF Mass per diocese because only a handful of people can agree down to the most detailed rubric of what is pure 1962? Or perhaps being flexible enough to have enough broad support to get at least one EF Mass implemented in most parishes? It’s like the argument over the blogs that a Papal EF Mass is almost impossible these days because so many things like the Papal Court has been abolished. Is the Pope the Pope or not? Or how about the criticism of the bishop in Vermont that said the EF Mass as a priest and not a bishop? Would some traditionalists actually wish that this bishop not have said the EF at all? This kind of talk is foolish. Let’s keep our eye on the prize here.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Asperges Me, in regards to things like a bishop saying the EF as a priest and so on, I think you are correct. Further, married deacons acting “as deacons” in High Mass doesn’t seem like a problem; we have High Mass every Sunday with altar boys acting as deacons (I think… I don’t know all the things a deacon would do) except they don’t read the Gospel, and the idea of a married deacon reading the Gospel at the EF is not intolerable.

However, distribution of Holy Communion is a different matter. The standard practice is to distribute under one kind, and in this matter it seems that deacons have no more standing than laymen in regards to the appropriateness of touching the Host, at least according to the Angelic Doctor:

Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.

On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.

According to which, were Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds, it might be appropriate for a deacon to administer the Precious Blood, but it does not seem appropriate for a deacon (married or not) to distribute the Host.

I know, I know, EMHCs are PERMITTED but by NO MEANS are they required. And the EF gets along fine with no EMHCs. Therefore neither does it need deacons to distribute the Host.

I know I invite flaming. Try to be gentle with me and if you know of someone who suitably refutes St Thomas I am happy to hear of it.

 

[AJV]

Asperges Me, in regards to things like a bishop saying the EF as a priest and so on, I think you are correct. Further, married deacons acting “as deacons” in High Mass doesn’t seem like a problem; we have High Mass every Sunday with altar boys acting as deacons (I think… I don’t know all the things a deacon would do) except they don’t read the Gospel, and the idea of a married deacon reading the Gospel at the EF is not intolerable.

At an EF Mass, when no deacon is present, most things that he would do are done by the priest. The altar boys taken the place of the acolytes- two steps below deacons

As to bishop offering the Mass in the manner of the priest, certainly people should not get carried away in criticism over such matters, but at the same time, it is necessary to observe the rubrics. On the scale of 1-10, in the post conciliar age, such a matter would probably not rank more than 1, but non-adherence to the rubrics is a slippery slope which can conceivably later lead to problems.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There were a few in the Latin Church but they were required to be celibate and not marry.

I think it’s funny how we talk about the diaconate and load our language with assumptions because we really muddle our terms. You’re absolutely right about the fact that there have long been permanent deacons who, in accord with general discipline and, normally, their religious vows, were celibate. I know you’re clear on the distinction, but I thought I would take a teaching moment to point that they are separate concepts.

In most threads about the diaconate, the language seems to indicate an assumption that permanent=married and transitional=celibate. But it is entirely possible to have a celibate permanent deacon (to which I don’t think any traditionalist would raise objections) or a married transitional deacon (even in the West under the pastoral provision). I seriously don’t think the objections the OP is indicating have anything to do with deacons being permanent, rather it is their marital status that some have trouble dealing with.

 

[BobP123]

I know, I know, EMHCs are PERMITTED but by NO MEANS are they required. And the EF gets along fine with no EMHCs. Therefore neither does it need deacons to distribute the Host.

Not quite. Deacons, permanent or otherwise, have been bestowed with the sacrament of Holy Orders. Deacons were distributing communion even before Vatican II so it really should pose no problem for traditionalists. Well, maybe some. But, if I understand right, a permanent deacon is not necessarily that permanent. After all, he can still become a priest someday under the right circumstances.

As far as receiving from a married men, would one refuse to receive from a priest in any of the Eastern Rites? After all, his hands have been ordained.

BTW, has the subdiaconate been restored?

 

[snhs]

I think that the people who say that we can’t go back in a time capsule to 1962 are correct. If there has to be some minor adjustments made to conform to the 1983 Canon Law or whatever, then so be it. Look, what is the better goal here? Have one EF Mass per diocese because only a handful of people can agree down to the most detailed rubric of what is pure 1962? Or perhaps being flexible enough to have enough broad support to get at least one EF Mass implemented in most parishes?

Slightly off topic, but would the same thing be applicable to altar girls, given that the Pope has given consent and assuming the ordinary and parish priest were in favor etc?

 

[Sure]

Slightly off topic, but would the same thing be applicable to altar girls, given that the Pope has given consent and assuming the ordinary and parish priest were in favor etc?

There is nothing in the rubrics of the 1962 Missal that would prevent it. I think it HIGHLY unlikely that it would ever occur, nor do I think it should occur. But according to the code of Canon Law, it would be permissible.