Permanent deacons of FSSP

[twf]

That’s actually very funny.

But levity aside, it really depends on the parish, I think, more than on the diocese. For example, I know of one parish (in a Latin diocese), where there are several non-transitional deacons, but there are more EMHCs, mainly female, than one can shake a stick at. The interesting thing is that the young pastor of this particular parish is very traditional, (he even prefers the Usus Antiquior), but apparently doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers. I suspect that the presence of the deacons is inconsequential. It’s a fairly sizable parish but with the deacons and so many (unnecessary) EMHCs, communion is done rather quickly and Mass rarely last more than 45 minutes.

Yeah. I made up the specific examples, but that really is some people’s reasoning. Its funny and sad at the same time. Our cathedral here in Vancouver is really good with not over using EMHCs, even without permanent deacons (the archdiocese is just starting to ordain permanent deacons - and as noted, neighbouring dioceses still don’t do it at all). There are 4 daily masses Monday through Saturday and 7 masses on Sunday. At all masses (all Novus Ordo, but sometimes with a bit of Latin thrown in), the altar rail is used for those who wish to use it (if you receive standing you line up along the centre aisle - if you receive kneeling you line up on either the left or right hand side), and usually at least a couple priests will come in at communion time to help distribute. The rectory is attached to the cathedral and there are usually 6-8 priests in residence…and they actually make use of them.
My local geographical parish is another matter. Today there were three priests concelebrating (two visiting): two priests distributed, one sat down, and two women EHMCs came forward…

 

[commenter]

I think for some it is a fear that it will cut out some of the women who hold lay ministerial positions in parishes. Deacon Bill starts distributing communion so EMHC Glenda has to sit down…Glenda may protest this. (Yes this happens). Deacon Bill starts bringing communion to the sick, so EMHC Susan, who has been doing it for years, is hurt. There could be a thousand other examples.

And Glenda, in between casting spells, may go to the local secular newspaper to complain about a trend in the diocese of disenfranchising women, of regarding women as submissive baby machines, excluding them from significant ministry, a desire to turn back to the Middle Ages. The secular newspaper which has no interest in the women running the prolife, will point out that some theologian in 1100 AD thought women had no souls. The article will somehow work in the priest sex abuse scandal.

 

[twf]

And Glenda, in between casting spells, may go to the local secular newspaper to complain about a trend in the diocese of disenfranchising women, of regarding women as submissive baby machines, excluding them from significant ministry, a desire to turn back to the Middle Ages. The secular newspaper which has no interest in the women running the prolife, will point out that some theologian in 1100 AD thought women had no souls. The article will somehow work in the priest sex abuse scandal.

Yep, and the bishop, foreseeing this great scandal, decides to nip the whole situation in the bud by simply not bothering with a permanent diaconate program…

A local paper recently had an editorial denouncing the “misogyny” of the Catholic Church for refusing to ordain women and proclaimed that the sex abuse scandal would likely have never happened had women clergy been making the calls. I’m surprised they didn’t add “and now that the Archbishop has decided to introduce a permanent diaconate program, open only to men, Catholic women find themselves once again out in the cold.”

 

[smead2942]

I think for some it is a fear that it will cut out some of the women who hold lay ministerial positions in parishes. Deacon Bill starts distributing communion so EMHC Glenda has to sit down…Glenda may protest this. (Yes this happens). Deacon Bill starts bringing communion to the sick, so EMHC Susan, who has been doing it for years, is hurt. There could be a thousand other examples.

Oh darn, Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion replacing an Extraordinary ones? Hmm. Heaven forbid the “EMHCs” should be offended.

 

[Mystrx]

Oh darn, Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion replacing an Extraordinary ones? Hmm. Heaven forbid the “EMHCs” should be offended.

 

[twf]

That’s good to hear. 35% of all global deacons is still extremely disproportionate…but better than it was.

 

[otjm]

Yep, and the bishop, foreseeing this great scandal, decides to nip the whole situation in the bud by simply not bothering with a permanent diaconate program…

A local paper recently had an editorial denouncing the “misogyny” of the Catholic Church for refusing to ordain women and proclaimed that the sex abuse scandal would likely have never happened had women clergy been making the calls. I’m surprised they didn’t add “and now that the Archbishop has decided to introduce a permanent diaconate program, open only to men, Catholic women find themselves once again out in the cold.”

Ah, another fish wrapper that has neither a reporter nor editor who actually know anything. Someone should introduce them to the John Jay Report; most women are not much interested in men who have a jones for teenage boys…

 

[giuseppeTO]

No, not quite right. It doesn’t matter if a Deacon is ordained with the 1962 books or the 1970 books, if he remains a Deacon, he remains a Deacon. Neither the OF or EF make a distinction of transitional or permanent. Those are just practical labels for administrative purposes. The reason why there are no permanent Deacons, is bacuase the end goal of the FSSP is priests.

I believe it does matter. In the 1962 books, a seminarian elevated to the deaconate would need to be laicized to relieve him of his vows of chastity which he typically takes when taking the “step” as a sub-deacon. There was no provision in the 62 books for married deacons and there is no vow of chastity in the 62 rite of priestly ordination as it is incorporated in the first of the major orders (sub-deaconate).

i would be surprised if the Fraternity left a seminarian in the permanent state of transitional deacon when the man decided not to pursue the priesthood. Perhaps there was an arrangement make with the diocese but that would not be typical.

 

[Chatter163]

I believe it does matter. In the 1962 books, a seminarian elevated to the deaconate would need to be laicized to relieve him of his vows of chastity which he typically takes when taking the “step” as a sub-deacon. There was no provision in the 62 books for married deacons and there is no vow of chastity in the 62 rite of priestly ordination as it is incorporated in the first of the major orders (sub-deaconate).

i would be surprised if the Fraternity left a seminarian in the permanent state of transitional deacon when the man decided not to pursue the priesthood. Perhaps there was an arrangement make with the diocese but that would not be typical.

As a member of an FSSP parish, and someone familiar with its operation, I doubt that this (a deacon opting not to continue to the priesthood) has happened more than once, if at all. This is extremely rare in diocesan situations, and even less so in religious orders and societies of apostolic life, to say nothing of a traditional group like the FSSP. Generally the decision (made by the seminarian or the order) is made well before the diaconate.

Though the subdiaconate was traditionally a major order, and subdeacons were (and still are, in the FSSP and ICRSS) styled “The Rev. Mr. _____,” with the suppression of the subdiaconate in 1972 and the promulgation of the new code of canon law in 1983, subdeacons in the traditional orders are canonically still laymen, and do not assume the status of clerics until they are deacons. The traditional orders have been given the privilege of addressing and treating them as clerics since Ecclesia Dei restored the practice, but canonically they are not clerical. This is why they are only briefly ordained to the subdiaconate, typically only a month or two at most, sometimes only a few weeks.

 

[ProVobis]

Though the subdiaconate was traditionally a major order, and subdeacons were (and still are, in the FSSP and ICRSS) styled “The Rev. Mr. _____,” with the suppression of the subdiaconate in 1972 and the promulgation of the new code of canon law in 1983, subdeacons in the traditional orders are canonically still laymen, and do not assume the status of clerics until they are deacons. The traditional orders have been given the privilege of addressing and treating them as clerics since Ecclesia Dei restored the practice, but canonically they are not clerical. This is why they are only briefly ordained to the subdiaconate, typically only a month or two at most, sometimes only a few weeks.

Good to know this. This would have been a question of mine. Thanks.

 

[eamonnroma]

No. Their charism is using the rites as they are according to the 1962 Roman Missal. As such, there is no rites for ordaining permanent deacons. It’s not part of their charism. As the FSSP is a society of apostolic life of pontifical right, they are directly under the authority of the pope, so we can be confident them not having permanent deacons is fine with Rome. FWIW: not all dioceses ordain permanent deacons.

Surely, the ordination rite for permanent and transitional deacons is the same.

 

[edward_george]

Surely, the ordination rite for permanent and transitional deacons is the same.

The only difference, of course, in the modern rite being that the promise of celibacy is omitted for permanent deacons.

-ACEGC

 

[Entwhistler]

Does the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter have permanent deacons?

The priest at our local FSSP parish has given the option for men of the parish to take part in the diaconate program along with the diocesan candidates. He talked to the Bishop and the Bishop did not say no. Of course, any potential deacons would be under the supervision of the diocese but would be assigned to the Latin Mass community.

 

[TrueLight]

Why? Does the FSSP deny the validity of the restoration of the permanent diaconate? Is there no perceived need for a “service” role in the FSSP, beyond the liturgical functions assigned to permanent deacons in the OF?

Where did anyone say the FSSP “denies the validity” of anything. You obviously have an ax to grind.

 

[TimothyH]

Where did anyone say the FSSP “denies the validity” of anything. You obviously have an ax to grind.

It’s good to see a post from you TL. I hope you are at peace and pray for you from time to time.

-Tim-