Permanent Deacons - Opinions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter praytell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I’m going to open the “can of worms” here:
Deacons were re-instituted as part of Vatican II, I think.
So people who don’t love the changes that Vatican II brought, also probably don’t like the idea of deacons.
Or is that oversimplifying?
 
That’s a good point too. I could see some having that type of attitude. There is definitely an undercurrent with some folks who have a strong negative reaction to anything that came out of the Council. I understand that the implementation in many parts of the country/world was poorly handled but that doesn’t indicate that VII was an abomination.
 
BTW lest I leave a wrong impression from my previous post, I love and support our deacons*. I just still don’t know what I would do were I one. 😂
InThePew said:
Besides poor homilies (which far from a major concern) the problems I’ve heard of with deacons tend to be around inadequate theological formation and poor leadership (basically an overinflated sense of self-importance).
Click to expand...
One weird example was a kind of mis-placed clericalism when our deacon was first assigned. At communion time he and Father would administer the species of bread, leaving the administration of the cups to extraordinary ministers! Thankfully (IMHO), Deacon has now resumed his proper ministry of the cup.
*
We have plural deacons now due to an impending parish merger.
 
I went to the funeral of a young man in our parish who had committed suicide. During the homily, the deacon (a good friend of mine) pulled out his cell phone and pretended to have a conversation with the deceased including messages for each of his brothers.
 
27lw said:
Okay, I’m going to open the “can of worms” here:
Deacons were re-instituted as part of Vatican II, I think.
So people who don’t love the changes that Vatican II brought, also probably don’t like the idea of deacons.
Or is that oversimplifying?
Click to expand...
I think it’s oversimplifying. Although I suppose it depends on who you’re talking to. I, nor any trads that I know, don’t have any problems with permanent Deacons. There are things we like and things we don’t.
 
Last edited:
Titivillus said:
One weird example was a kind of mis-placed clericalism when our deacon was first assigned. At communion time he and Father would administer the species of bread, leaving the administration of the cups to extraordinary ministers! Thankfully (IMHO), Deacon has now resumed his proper ministry of the cup.
Click to expand...
FYI…I think it is a little simpler than this…from Canon law
Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
Click to expand...
Either a bishop, priest, or deacon is an ordinary minister of holy communion (whether body or blood).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P38.HTM
 
27lw said:
Okay, I’m going to open the “can of worms” here:
Deacons were re-instituted as part of Vatican II, I think.
Click to expand...
Wow. I didn’t realize this. The East has always had them as a separate-but-equal role. They can’t confect the Eucharist, of course, but they’ve always been the “Holy Diaconate” just as we have the “Holy Priesthood”. We refer to deacons as “Father Deacon” as well.
 
Thanks for the reference! I didn’t know that. That explains some things…
 
I do notice that when I watch Midnight Mass at the Vatican, that it is a deacon who is beautifully chanting.
Just curious if deacons receive training in chant? Or if that’s just special for the Vatican deacon(s)?
 
Last edited:
I’ve always wondered about the deacon chanting the Exsultet.

What if the deacon hasn’t been blessed with a good voice, but the priest has? If a deacon is present, is it mandatory that he chant it, or can he defer to the priest?
 
Here’s what I meant - - like at 31:40.
So especially lovely when chanted!
They might as well teach deacons to chant (not to mention priests!). IMO

 
Last edited:
Thank you @(name removed by moderator)

Also (as I am sure you know) GIRM 182

After the Priest’s Communion, the Deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the Priest himself and then assists the Priest in distributing Communion to the people. If Communion is given under both kinds, the Deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; and, when the distribution is over, standing at the altar, he immediately and reverently consumes all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted, if the case requires, by other Deacons and Priests.
 
In the Eastern Catholic Churches Deacons are only ordained to serve in a liturgical capacity. They cannot do Baptisms (except in cases of emergency), witness marriages, etc. They don’t even have the power to bless items. These are all reserved to Bishops and Priests. I think this model would be better for Roman Deacons as well. Since most lay Catholics think Deacons are like half-priests anyways, having Deacons return to their original practice (strictly liturgical) would be a good way to clarify this confusion for people. Having Deacons blessing items, witnessing marriages, presiding over funerals, etc only leads to more confusion as to what a Deacon is supposed to be. That’s my take anyways.

Plus I would say that many people find the current system of Deacons suspect as the formation they receive is very questionable. For every solid orthodox Deacon there are a handful that take very confusing positions. My Godfather is a Deacon and a devout and holy man. Every other Deacon I’ve met has not been entirely orthodox in their presentation of the Catholic faith. So it’s a mixed bag and I think that turns a lot of people off. If the TLM communities like the FSSP, SSPX, etc had training programs for the Permanent Diaconate, this would be a game changer. But these communities don’t use permanent deacons so that’s likely not going to happen.
 
This issue comes up regularly, and is confusing for this reason:
The General Instructions of the Roman Missal (GIRM) assume a single chalice and ciborium in the instructions.
Click to expand...
If it were the case that the parish is small; and only the priest is needed to distribute the the Body of Christ, than the Deacon is the one to distribute the (singular) chalice of the Blood of Christ.

Hardly any parishes are actually that small, and use that few ministers to distribute Holy Communion.
During COVID-19, most (if not, all) parishes have suspended distribution under Both Kinds. As a result, the Deacon should distribute the Body of Christ, alongside the Priest.
Click to expand...
An Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion is always used before an Extraordinary one. If there were multiple locations distributing the consecrated Hosts, and multiple locations distributing the Precious Blood, the Deacon would typically take the Chalice next to the Priest. He may, however, also take the position next to the Priest in distributing the consecrated Hosts. There is nothing wrong with this.
This is very common at weddings and funerals; the Priest and Deacon typically take the center positions as they are better equipped to handle the confusion of people coming up that aren’t Catholic, want a blessing instead, etc.
Click to expand...
Some parishes add extra distribution places simply to create a need for more EMHC. This is just silly. All Ordinary ministers, unless impeded (for example, difficulty standing, or trouble going up and down the sanctuary stairs), should distribute Holy Communion before the need of EMHC are employed.

If there are only one ciborium and one chalice, yes, the Deacon should take the chalice. But, in any other arrangement, it is appropriate for him to distribute either species.

Deacon Christopher
 
Since we Catholics believe that Christ is fully present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in either species, it would be better for the modern Church to reclaim the tradition of only giving out the Host in Communion. Bringing back altar rails and using patens (to avoid our Lord’s Body being unintentionally/accidentally profaned). I have been to TLM parishes that are three times (at least) the size of the novus ordo/diocesan parish near me where the priest alone distributes Communion to a much larger population and the use of altar rails makes it go so much faster. It doesn’t make sense to see one priest handle such a high volume, than at our diocesan parish to have our priest and one of three deacons having to be assisted by 4-7 lay Catholics in distributing Communion to a much much smaller population. In this regards, the use of Extraordinary ministers is an abuse (even by Vatican II’s standards). I don’t say this to be contrary or degrade anyone who is an extraordinary minister of holy communion. I am only saying this practice is simply not necessary, anywhere. Provided the Church bring back altar rails.
 
Perhaps this was an exception? Obviously, in the earliest days of the Church one Priest was likely being spread very thin travelling to various communities. I could see Deacons filling that void. Once it became more established however, there isn’t much evidence for Deacons in anything other than a liturgical context. At least not in the Eastern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches. My only point was that it would be good for Rome to perhaps consider shaping the diaconate on the same model as our Eastern brothers in order to maintain uniformity, that way there is not so much confusion.
 
At Papal Masses there are always two deacons, and, on [at least] high holy days, the second deacon chants the Gospel in Greek. The first deacon chants the Gospel in one of several different language choices: Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, German, English, etc.

Yes, all sacred ministers (every deacon and every priest) should undergo some musical training. Gregorian Chant is easy to teach to others. Byzantine chant is more complex, but also needed for every Eastern deacon and priest.

Deacon Christopher
 
I don’t get the point you are trying to make Deacon Jeff, with this last post? Can you please clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top