C
Caesar
Guest
No, I did not mean that at all.
- Status
R
Resurrexit
Guest
I think it is good that they re-instituted permanent deacons.
What I disagree with is the removal of Sub-deacons, and the removal of celibacy.
What I disagree with is the removal of Sub-deacons, and the removal of celibacy.
C
CatholicNick
Guest
Indeed Resurrexit, should I make it to the sub-diaconate, that is when one takes the ‘vow’ of celibacy. One has to remain perpetually celibate at Ordination to the sub-diaconate.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
i confess that i see married permanent deacons as priest wannabes too. the reason i feel this way is because there are so many middle aged and older married deacons and too little priests. typically a parish will have one priest but three or more deacons. they also play very little role in the liturgy unlike in eastern christianity.
i don’t think they should be allowed to be married when priests are celibate. it’s a compromise that makes deacons look like laity. it would be different if priests could marry. of course, this is just my opinion.
A
AlexB
Guest
The FSSP parish in Atlanta and St. Josaphat in Detroit make use of permanent deacons for the TLM. It all comes down to the character of the deacon in question. The right man, with the right outlook towards Holy Tradition, can be edifying.
I am not aware of any permanent deacons serving TLM communities who don’t want to be there. So far the system seems to be self-selecting.
I am not aware of any permanent deacons serving TLM communities who don’t want to be there. So far the system seems to be self-selecting.
A
AJV
Guest
Perhaps “abuse” was a strong word, but possibly one could think of it as an “abuse” not in the way the rubrics are “abused” nowadays but as a less than ideal practise. The Traditional liturgical books, because of their inherently conservative nature sanction other practises that may not really be ideal: such as the priest reciting parts proper to the other ministers that came about due to the effect of the Low Mass on the High Mass.
If one really thinks about it, why does the Traditional books have the priest blessing the deacon AND subdeacon and other practises-a sign that they are ‘lower’ than him. In the first Mass the assistant in the cope acts differently than the deacon and the subdeacon-because he is “recognised” as a priest.
The whole reason the subdiaconate and diaconate are there are (well aside form the apostolic origin of the latter) to fulfil a function rather than be just stepping stones to something higher.
The reason that priests are used for those roles is because there are limitations on using those of inferior rank-the “straw subdeacon” cannot touch the sacred vessels, etc.
M
mozier
Guest
I want to assure everyone that my initial question had no ulterior motive to cause trouble or to start controversy. I do consider myself a Traditionalist Roman Catholic, supportive of Vatican II yet very dismayed by the abuses in its aftermath, both witnessed personally and read about. I have a deep appreciation and yes, love for the Tridentine Latin Mass, as well as certain old traditions that seem to have fallen by the wayside since the coucil.
I am also a candidate for diaconate formation and was somewhat disturbed by that video posted here about how horrible today’s church is, complete with a priest doing the liimbo dance under a pole. In the video, there seemed to be some implication that the permanent diaconate was somehow wrong, and it began to get me thinking if perhaps I was misunderstanding the video’s message on this subject.
W
Windmill
Guest
many parishes that offer traditional Masses are run by a religous order of priests (FSSP, Institute of Christ the King…). aren’t the subdeacons and transitional deacons all seminarians back at the seminary? i mean, an FSSP chapel would not have subdeacons or deacons around at all. the FSSP deacons are back in Denton, NB.
H
Hesychios
Guest
If that is the only place they are, than it needs to be addressed.
Deacons are assistants to the bishop, they have specific traditional duties distinct from the presbyter (which they usually do not actually do anymore). Subdeacons likewise, although in that case the role is primarily liturgical. These people need to be in the parishes, if traditional parishes are served by FSSP priests that does not mean that the deacon must also be FSSP, he can be diocesan.
It is a shame that the church made the diaconate into a transitional position because that is now so routinely assumed that we get all these people thinking deacons are priest wannabe’s (it’s a shame that men doing the best they can with the opportunities they are given seldom get the full recognition they deserve). Theoretically, a priest need not actually be a deacon before ordination to the priesthood, although I understand that to be the common practice.
W
Windmill
Guest
michael,
one may say that transitional deacons are also “priest-wannabe’s”. the only difference is, they actually will be one. it seems to me that anything less than a celibate permanent diaconate will foster this image.
one may say that transitional deacons are also “priest-wannabe’s”. the only difference is, they actually will be one. it seems to me that anything less than a celibate permanent diaconate will foster this image.
K
kleary
Guest
Mostly, Traditionalists see the permanent diaconate as something totally “novus ordo”. However there are some who see it as a plus to having more Solemn Masses, since only a deacon or a priest can fill the role of deacon at at Solemn TLM.
I brought the issue up at my parish (see link below) some time ago. The pastor was ok with the idea of a PD assisting at a Solemn Mass, but would not allow it due to offending the sensibilities of some of the regular parishioners. “I fear what they would think- a married PD.”
As in 1962 the diaconate was transitional, not permanent, showed that the one ordained to that ministry was on his way to the priesthood…and with vocations to the priesthood declining…it seems to be a wrong thing to do- the Permanent Diaconate that is- we need more priests…not more permanent deacons.
In the Traditionalist Orders, such as the FSSP- the Permanent Diaconate does not exist- all “deacons” are transitional. However “legally” a permanent deacon can assist at the TLM as deacon- but it is considered not advisable and could cause scandal in the Traditionalist parishes, such as mine.
Ken
T
Thursday1
Guest
Perhaps the Church understands that not all whom God calls to ordination are called to be Priests. It is as silly to think that all deacons should eventually be priests as to think that all priests should eventually be bishops.
We are only seeing the first generation of married deacons. Maybe a flood of vocations will come from sons witnessing their father’s service at the altar. With God, all things are possible.
As to the scandal it might cause, would these parishioners be scandalized if a converted Anglican priest said Mass for them? Shouldn’t this be an opportunity for catechesis on the difference between discipline and dogma? The Church allows for married deacons, they should not be a cause for scandal.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
P.S.
I will most likely be ordained a permanent deacon, though I have to wait 14 years (minimum) for it. Hey, almost faster than the Jebs. . .
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
“Accept” and “agree with” are two different things. Accepting that Bloggs is validly appointed milk monitor doesn’t mean that you agree that Bloggs was the appropriate boy to receive this honour.
Secondly, I never said that deacons were “priest wannabe who couldn’t hack celibacy”. I said that this was the public perception, and we couldn’t ignore it. I’m sure that before long deacons will have the opportunity to show that their orders are no less meaningful than priestly orders, and I only hope that God can come up with something a bit more creative than a persecution.
B
Brendan
Guest
St. Patrick - “Confessions”
B
Brendan
Guest
Unless one was already married.
I’ll dig up the reference, but Trent reiterated that the Minor Orders AND the sub-diaconate may be filled by married men.
K
kleary
Guest
The Church also allows many other things. Communion in the hand, lay ministers of Holy Communion, standing for Holy Communion and altar girls. Now you just try and plug any of these things the Church allows at a TLM only parish and see what scandal it would cause.
Ken
H
Hesychios
Guest
Are we to understand then, that the TLM people are only interested in the traditional church as it stood in 1950?
BTW, what do vestments for permanent deacons look like for serving the TLM? Any links?
B
Brendan
Guest
The difference is that all of those are new inventions.
Since the institution of the Diaconate its4lf, there has NEVER been a point in time where the Catholic Church has not had married deacons.
T
Thursday1
Guest
If they are following the rubrics for the TLM, those things would rightly cause scandal, as they are a departure from the rubrics. However, I don’t know of a rubric that mentions the marital status of a deacon serving at the Mass. At this point, there is no cause for scandal, and the parishioners would be scandalized for the sake of being scandalized.
A further question is how would they know he is married? Unless he says “Hi, I’m Deacon X! Did you know that I’m married?” they shouldn’t have any reason to think this. (many priests and deacons wear wedding rings)
Also, you didn’t comment on the silliness of all deacons being transitional. Does this mean you agree with my assessment?
Yours in Christ,
Thursday “The eventually married ‘priest wannabe’”
A
AJV
Guest
Nope only the sedevacantists. If you speaking of the licit ones, 1962. Minus, perhaps, permissions for the vernacular and other changes in that time
At the risk of being seen as a TLM basher, the thing is that having seen some of the changes that have moved the pendulum to the other end, many are not favourable to even minute changes. I suppose there a a lot of good and bad points for that approach in the current climate.
I would guess the same as always: dalmatic, maniple, etc.
- Status