Permanent Deacons in the Extraordinary Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter hamburglar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hamburglar

Guest
Is there such a thing as Permanent Deacons among traditional clergy? I have only seen Ordained Priests filling roles as Priest and Deacon during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Subdeacon is filled by a Seminarian.

I know that Seminarians are ordained as transitional deacons. Are there permanent deacons, such as those who are married and go through the diaconate program in a Diocese?
 
Yes there are.

There was one at my last parish. He and his wife ran a bible study class and would occasionally sit in on the RCIA classes, too.
 
I think it would be important to realize that while service on the altar is a great honor, it isn’t the heart of a deacon’s role – as I understand it, ministry of the Word and Ministry of Service should be the major components of the deacon’s role, and that would hold true regardless of whether the parish is oriented to the OF or the EF.
 
Let me also point out that this same Deacon also celebrated mass with the Priest, often times reading the 2nd Reading or the Gospel and deferring the Homily to the Priest. He also assisted with Communion.
 
hamburglar said:
Is there such a thing as Permanent Deacons among traditional clergy?
Click to expand...
If by traditional you mean orders like the FSSPX or FSSP then no, there are not. Usually priests will fill the role of deacon, as you said.
 
PBTY said:
Some links on the subject readers may be interested in;

www.sspx.seminary.org/vocations/index.shtml
Click on “Steps to the Priesthood”

www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm
“The Controversy over Celibacy for Deacons”
Click to expand...
I recall seeing these links on the SSPX website - PBTY beat me to posting them on here. Given that many traditionalists have such a negative view of the permanent diaconate, it is unlikely that permanent deacons will ever be common at the EF Mass. Although, theoretically, I don’t think there is any canonical bar, as they are validly ordained deacons - just that the Priest and the parishoners would not wish to have them serve at an EF Mass.
 
autumn_nights said:
Let me also point out that this same Deacon also celebrated mass with the Priest, often times reading the 2nd Reading or the Gospel and deferring the Homily to the Priest. He also assisted with Communion.
Click to expand...
A deacon does not celebrate mass withour without a priest.
 
I read the articles, but there is a problem with their interpretation of the ancient writings and the promise of celibacy. The articles forget several things.
  1. The married man, deacon or otherwise, does give his body over to Christ when he lays with his wife. He is the Bridegroom and she is the Church. The articles failed to include cross references to writings on marriage. They give the impression that there is something bawdy about married men having sex, because they are ordained.
  2. They also forget to mention that not all ordained men are religious. That vow of celibacy only applies to religious, not to secular men. Secular priests make a promise of celibacy and a promise of obedience to their bishop, not vows.
  3. They cite a number of ancient documents, bu they do not cite the point when the Church makes the canonical distinction between a consecrated man (a religious) and a secular man. Both can be ordained. The consecrated man can only be ordained after he has made perpetual vows in a religious community and after he has received the permission of his brothers and his major superior. The secular man can only be ordained after he has made marriage vows (where applicable) and after he is approved by the bishop.
Most deacons, priests and bishops are secular men, not consecrated men. They are not in vows. They are not religious. They are clerics, but secular. They retain whatever is proper to the secular state according to Church law and tradition. This distinction was made about the year 1,000 AD.
  1. The Eastern Church was allowed to ordain married men, not because of the hardness of their heart, but becaues they were secular men. That reference to the hardness of their hearts was speaking about those who were bound to celibacy and would not embrace it. The Church at the time validated their marriages. But this was an isolated event at a particular time in history. However, those who are consecrated bishops in the Eastern Church must be religious, not secular priests. All Eastern bishops are monks. We do not have that tradition in the Western Church. We have very few bishops who are consecrated religious. Though the numbers are rising especially among Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Benedictines.
As to whether a permanent deacon can assist at an EF mass, there is nothing in the rubrics that forbids it. There is nothing in the rubrics that forbids him preaching either. Preaching is part of his ministry. I would imagine that would be a detail to be worked out between the deacon and the celebrant.

By the way, deacons do not celebrate mass with the priest, even if the deacon is a priest. A deacon assists at a mass. His three “priestly” functions at mass are to proclaim the Gospel, preach the homily and distribute communion. Preaching the homily is not mandatory, but it is his right, not his privilege.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
JaMc said:
I recall seeing these links on the SSPX website - PBTY beat me to posting them on here. Given that many traditionalists have such a negative view of the permanent diaconate, it is unlikely that permanent deacons will ever be common at the EF Mass. Although, theoretically, I don’t think there is any canonical bar, as they are validly ordained deacons - just that the Priest and the parishoners would not wish to have them serve at an EF Mass.
Click to expand...
I guess I was more wondering if there were permanent deacons that were part of a traditional group such as FSSP or ICRSS.

Why do traditionalists have a negative view of the permanent diaconate? I guess I’m indifferent to the issue, as I do not know much about the permanent diaconate.
 
hamburglar said:
Why do traditionalists have a negative view of the permanent diaconate? I guess I’m indifferent to the issue, as I do not know much about the permanent diaconate.
Click to expand...
From looking at the links (only the second link, actually - the first is coming up “dead”), the traditionalist (at least SSPX) argument against the permanent diaconate seems to boil down to: (1) The diaconate is a step on the way to the priesthood; and/or (2) the various theological justifications for, and Church teachings on, Priestly celebacy apply to Deacons as well.
 
Why do traditionalists have a negative view of the permanent diaconate? <<

Because they weren’t brought up with it.

So they consider it a novelty and abberation, even though permanent deacons existed in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and other Eastern Churches) for centuries.
 
JaMc said:
…Given that many traditionalists have such a negative view of the permanent diaconate, it is unlikely that permanent deacons will ever be common at the EF Mass. Although, theoretically, I don’t think there is any canonical bar, as they are validly ordained deacons - just that the Priest and the parishoners would not wish to have them serve at an EF Mass.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out several times already, those who claim that diaconate must be a transitional step toward priestly ordination are mistaken. The Latin Church restored the permanent diaconate, which was an ancient practice – one can’t help but think of S Stephen, protomartyr – that had fallen into disuse in the Latin (Western) Church. It did not pull the idea out of thin post-conciliar air.

Anyway, it is correct to say there is no canonical restriction. I’ve heard reports of (but have not witnessed in person) several cases where permanent deacons have assumed the diaconal (and sub-diaconal) role at the EF, and personally I think that’s a good thing.

It’s probably also the case that permanent deacons will never be common at the EF, but I would add a reason: most permanent deacons are not particularly interested in the EF. Why? It seems to me to be pretty much the same reason that dixibehr gave for the laity: “Because they weren’t brought up with it.”

Just my :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top