Permanent Deacons in Traditional Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter mozier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about the subdiaconate but mino orders, yes, and the lgislation I don’t think was repealed in that matter but simply fell into disuse (but I’ll have to check the 1917 Code for that)
That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the porter-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles, and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders; and It exhorts in the Lord all and each of the prelates of the churches, and commands them, that it be their care to restore the said functions, as far as it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches of their dioceses, where the number of the people and the revenues of the church can support it; and, to those who exercise those functions, they shall assign salaries out of some part of the revenues of any simple benefices, or those of the fabric of the church-if the funds allow of it,-or out of the revenues of both together, of which stipends they may, if negligent, be mulcted in a part, or be wholly deprived thereof, according to the judgment of the Ordinary.
And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.
Click to expand...
 
Hesychios said:
BTW, what do vestments for permanent deacons look like for serving the TLM? Any links?
Click to expand...
A deacon vests as a deacon. There is no outward difference between married and celibate, permanent and transitional.

I myself am torn over permanent deacons and the traditional rite. Intellectually, I see no problem whatsoever. I would even advise people to err on the side of using them because it would give far more access to solemn Masses and thus a full liturgical life. I still have some sort of unreasoned block to the idea, though. All part of not wanting to tinker with what we received (at least not make any changes until the traditional rite has a stable life of its own). A fear of changing what is by now such a long Western practice.

This may have to do, though, with how my feelings about how we’ve resurrected the permanent diaconate are mixed. Despite the fact that there are great traditions for part of Western and all of Eastern history of permanent diaconate, it’s hard to tell at present whether the men we have entering that state are, on the whole, really pursuing a call to be a deacon. The vast majority of permanent deacons in the world are in the United States, and, let’s be honest, how many of us know or even know of a celibate permanent deacon. I’m sure there are some out there, but we can reasonably assume from experience that if we meet a permanent deacon he is very likely to be married. Maybe God is simply calling mostly married men to the diaconate at this stage, or maybe many of us who were torn between priesthood and married life (like myself) are trying to get as close as we can to both. If I could easily know which is the case it might change my feelings on the matter.
 
Brendan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about the subdiaconate but minor orders, yes, and the legislation I don’t think was repealed in that matter for a long tiem except as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, that such people forfeited certain benefits.
The 1917 Code says that in if a marriage is contracted it is valid but the person is reduced to the lay state and is no longer ranked among clerics. It also changed the rule so that ordaining married men to the higher orders (subdiaconate onward) required an Apostolic dispensation (previously it was at the local level and the wife then lived in the convent after a vow of continence had been made).

The relevant part form Trent
That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the porter-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles, and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders; and It exhorts in the Lord all and each of the prelates of the churches, and commands them, that it be their care to restore the said functions, as far as it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches of their dioceses, where the number of the people and the revenues of the church can support it; and, to those who exercise those functions, they shall assign salaries out of some part of the revenues of any simple benefices, or those of the fabric of the church-if the funds allow of it,-or out of the revenues of both together, of which stipends they may, if negligent, be mulcted in a part, or be wholly deprived thereof, according to the judgment of the Ordinary.
And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.
Click to expand...
 
kleary said:
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
Click to expand...
The Church defines scandal as “word or deed that encourages others to sin by presenting sin as permissable” ( Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Hardon S.J)

Could you explain how a ‘permanent’ deacon assisting at a TLM could present sin as being permissable?
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
A deacon vests as a deacon.
Click to expand...
I realize that. I have not actually seen a Latin deacon vested for the TLM since I was young, when my parish would occasionally get deacons assigned before they were ordained priests.

I was just hoping to see some images of the vestments. I am sure they do not vest in the manner of the deacons for NO liturgies.
 
A deacon is a deacon. The former Mass is still contained within the Latin Rite, therefore any deacon with faculties to assist in the Latin Rite should be able to assist the priest in both the current Mass and the former one.
 
Hesychios said:
I realize that. I have not actually seen a Latin deacon vested for the TLM since I was young, when my parish would occasionally get deacons assigned before they were ordained priests.

I was just hoping to see some images of the vestments. I am sure they do not vest in the manner of the deacons for NO liturgies.
Click to expand...
Traditional deacons wear the alb, amice, girdle, maniple, stole (over one shoulder) and dalmatic. The vestments were given in the ordination rites: when one becomes a subdeacon he is given the amice, maniple and tunicle, when he becomes a deacon he is given the dalmatic, and the stole.
Prior to 1960, the dalmatic was the festive vestment and in penitential seasons, a folded chasuble (in the front) was worn instead by the subdeacon, and deacon, and at certain points the deacon would replace it with a stolone (broad stole).

http://jdtreat.com/SClementsPix/holyweek/palm02/images/06offertory.jpg

The same vestments are worn in the NO, but the dalmatic may be omitted on less festive days, and the maniple is not mentioned anywhere.
 
Brendan said:
Originally Posted by kleary

“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
The Church defines scandal as “word or deed that encourages others to sin by presenting sin as permissable” ( Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Hardon S.J)

Could you explain how a ‘permanent’ deacon assisting at a TLM could present sin as being permissable?
Click to expand...
Some people on this thread are simply misusing the term “scandal”. What they mean is “outrage”.

“We shouldn’t have milk monitors” is quite different to “Bloggs was in the wrong to volunteer for milk monitor”.
 
AJV said:
Prior to 1960, the dalmatic was the festive vestment and in penitential seasons, a folded chasuble (in the front) was worn instead by the subdeacon, and deacon, and at certain points the deacon would replace it with a stolone (broad stole).
Click to expand...
Interesting. But I would have thought that the deacon and subdecaon wearing chasubles (albeit folded), was more, rather than less penitential.

I’m sure there is a good traditional reason for it (and I’m not one to fabricate liturgy), but would make more sense to me to omit the dalmatic and tunicle, and have the deacon wearing a broad stole, for the penitential seasons, for instance.
 
Resurrexit said:
Interesting. But I would have thought that the deacon and subdecaon wearing chasubles (albeit folded), was more, rather than less penitential.

I’m sure there is a good traditional reason for it (and I’m not one to fabricate liturgy), but would make more sense to me to omit the dalmatic and tunicle, and have the deacon wearing a broad stole, for the penitential seasons, for instance.
Click to expand...
AJV said:
It is. That’s what I said, no? 🙂
Click to expand...
Umm… let’s change that to less rather than more penitential (chasuble being a more decorated and priestly vestment). 😛
 
Resurrexit said:
Umm… let’s change that to less rather than more penitential (chasuble being a more decorated and priestly vestment). 😛
Click to expand...
Usually these ones were extra plain. One way you can identify them is that many a time they lack the cross at the back. I have a sneaky feeling that the black one here on this page was actually such a chasuble.
 
Hesychios said:
I realize that. I have not actually seen a Latin deacon vested for the TLM since I was young, when my parish would occasionally get deacons assigned before they were ordained priests.

I was just hoping to see some images of the vestments. I am sure they do not vest in the manner of the deacons for NO liturgies.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, the deacon wears the full set of vestments, as opposed to the stripped-down NO without maniple and, often, dalmatic or even cincture (it is now optional if the alb is fitted to not need one). On the whole, the deacons at a TLM, though, just vest like the priest. So if the priest has a fiddleback, the deacon’s dalmatic will be a similar style, whereas if the priest has Gothic vestments the other ministers will have Gothic vestments, too.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
As others have pointed out, the deacon wears the full set of vestments, as opposed to the stripped-down NO without maniple and, often, dalmatic or even cincture (it is now optional if the alb is fitted to not need one). On the whole, the deacons at a TLM, though, just vest like the priest. So if the priest has a fiddleback, the deacon’s dalmatic will be a similar style, whereas if the priest has Gothic vestments the other ministers will have Gothic vestments, too.
Click to expand...
Good, thank you. I thought the difference would be more pronounced than as you describe.

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top