Permanent diaconate in a latin-mass parish?

[otjm]

Wow! That’s probably the most intelligent question that I have seen on CAF.

The answer is rather simple. We (religious and clergy) were told that we could use the 1962 missal, but we must use it according to the code of 1983. This acutally makes sense.

I’ll give you a simple example from my own religious life. Our rule was written in 1209. But anything in the rule that is in conflict with the code of 1983 has to be put to the Holy Father for an indult. In other words, the code supercedes the rule. The principle is that the last law is final.

However, there is another principle in the Catholic Church. That is the pirnciple of antiquity. Certain practices that have been in place for more than 100 may be allowed to continue, even if the law changes. It is up to the Holy See to decide which practices can coninue.

In this case, the Tridentine form was never abrogated and has obviously been in place for over 100 years. The pope has allowed it to remain in place, hence Summorum Pontificum to remind all of us.

However, the laws that govern the clergy and define how the sacraments are executed have changed and Summorum Pontificum did not say that for the purpose of celebrating the Tridentine Form the definitions of the roles: deacon, presbyter and bishop, should be those of the code that preceded. It only said that the form could be celebrated.

We have to preserve the form, but use the current definitions of the roles: deacon, priest and bishop. In other words, the Motu Proprio did not rewrite canon law. It clarified that canon law had never abrogated the Tridentine Form of 1962.

Pope Paul VI, who was the mastermind behind the code of 1983, was very clever in how he organized it. He separates the mass from the ministers. In one section the law speaks about the mass. The ministers are are spoken about at great length under the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They are mentioned only when absolutely necessary in the laws that govern the mass. The old law was written a little differently. There was a lot more about the ministers interwoven in the canons about the mass. The new law keeps referring you to look at the laws that govern Holy Orders.

One more thing . . . I realize that Pope Paul was dead when the code of 1983 was decreed. But it was he who ordered that it be rewritten and he that masterminded the whole architecture of it all. He was a Doctor of Canon Law and had a very clear vision of what he wanted it to say and how it should be said. He died before he was able to promulgate it. Pope John Paul II put it on the back burner for a few years. Some analysts think that he did not want to walk in the door and make monumental changes. I don’t know.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That does. Thank you.

 

[PaulJason]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but there is permanent deacon at St. Francis de Sales a FSSP Parish in Mableton Georgia.

 

[CradleCath]

Well, if one is following the 1962 Missal, would it be necessary to follow the 1917 Code? That is, is there anything in the 1917 Code that would impact the 1962 Missal (or better asked, would there be anything in the 1983 Code that would impact the 1962 Missal in a different way than the 1917 Code)?

I was wondering the same thing & I’ve also wondered why most parishes who offer the TLM. would be concerned about a **permanent **deacon. Usually these parishes are conservative & it seems to me that they would be using TRANSITORY deacons, men studying for the priesthood. I know that whenever my parish uses a deacon, he is from the Seminary. I’m not trying to be contentious, my questions are legit. Do most parishes that offer the Latin Mass need a deacon often? Do these parishes use a permanent deacon?

I’m trying to find whether Old St. Patrick’s Oratory in Kansas City has a need for permanent deacons. HELP???

 

[otjm]

CradleCath:
I was wondering the same thing & I’ve also wondered why most parishes who offer the TLM. would be concerned about a **permanent **deacon. Usually these parishes are conservative & it seems to me that they would be using TRANSITORY deacons, men studying for the priesthood. I know that whenever my parish uses a deacon, he is from the Seminary. I’m not trying to be contentious, my questions are legit. Do most parishes that offer the Latin Mass need a deacon often? Do these parishes use a permanent deacon?

I’m trying to find whether Old St. Patrick’s Oratory in Kansas City has a need for permanent deacons. HELP???
Deacons do a little bit more than assist at Mass.

It is great that when you need a transitional deacon, you can get one from the seminary. Not all parishes which have the EF can be so lucky.

And they are transitional deacons, not transitory.

So the question may be: do parishes need a deacon (or two or three), not does a parish that has the EF need a deacon. Or better yet, can a permanent deacon be of value to a parish?

 

[Hesychios]

So the question may be: do parishes need a deacon (or two or three), not does a parish that has the EF need a deacon. Or better yet, can a permanent deacon be of value to a parish?

It’s too bad the question has to be put at all.

The order of diaconate is Apostolic, it is (if anything) even MORE traditional than the presbyterate, since it was created first. It can fairly well be claimed that the first bishops after the Apostles were elevated to that role from the diaconate.

The Mass has a role for deacons (although in the more recent past it was taken by priests), that role was originally served by permanent deacons in the early Mass, so returning them to their station seems to me like the best in restoration of authentic tradition.

I think that every parish that can get a deacon, needs one.

 

[CradleCath]

Deacons do a little bit more than assist at Mass.

It is great that when you need a transitional deacon, you can get one from the seminary. Not all parishes which have the EF can be so lucky.

 

[malphono]

otjm;7050691:

It is great that when you need a transitional deacon, you can get one from the seminary. Not all parishes which have the EF can be so lucky.

It has nothing to do with luck

On the contrary, I think otjm is correct in that it does have a lot to do with “luck” (perhaps “geographical fortune” might be clearer). Even in the hypothetical situation where every seminary taught the EF and was awash in vocations and, consequently, “transitional” deacons, not every parish that offers the EF is in reasonable proximity. Those parishes farther afield will hardly (if ever) see a “transitional” deacon.

 

[otjm]

On the contrary, I think otjm is correct in that it does have a lot to do with “luck” (perhaps “geographical fortune” might be clearer). Even in the hypothetical situation where every seminary taught the EF and was awash in vocations and, consequently, “transitional” deacons, not every parish that offers the EF is in reasonable proximity. Those parishes farther afield will hardly (if ever) see a “transitional” deacon.

To which I would add that there can be a multitude of other issues which may result in a seminarian who is a transitional deacon not being available - commitment to family, commitment to a parish in which they have served or may be serving as part of pastoral training to name only two. The Archdiocese of Chicago, at the last time I counted, had 12 parishes which had the EF; I don’t know how many men are being ordained anywhere but 12 at a time was not that common prior to Vatican 2, and in addition, those being ordained are not necessarily from the diocese in which the seminary sits.

OK, I am beating the point like a bad dog. The point is, a permanent deacon is just as well qualified as a transitional deacon to serve at any Mass - EF or OF, all things being equal. But a transitional deacon may have a year in a parish as part of pastoral training; a permanent deacon assigned to a parish provides a lot that someone “passing through” doe not and the value should be recognized. They are equally “ordained” at that point but on different paths. Trying to recruit a transitional deacon from a seminary for a Mass when a permanent deacon could be assigned to a parish full time seems to miss what being a deacon is all about.

 

[CradleCath]

On the contrary, I think otjm is correct in that it does have a lot to do with “luck” (perhaps “geographical fortune” might be clearer). Even in the hypothetical situation where every seminary taught the EF and was awash in vocations and, consequently, “transitional” deacons, not every parish that offers the EF is in reasonable proximity. Those parishes farther afield will hardly (if ever) see a “transitional” deacon.

You are welcome to think what you want. However, it seems that our Seminarians, who are all quite young, (only 2 are over 30 ) are happy to drive quite a distance for an opportunity to participate in a TLM. It’s a shame they have to do so, it would make life easier for them if every parish held a TLM.

 

[CradleCath]

It’s too bad the question has to be put at all.

The order of diaconate is Apostolic, it is (if anything) even MORE traditional than the presbyterate, since it was created first. It can fairly well be claimed that the first bishops after the Apostles were elevated to that role from the diaconate.

 

[malphono]

You are welcome to think what you want. However, it seems that our Seminarians, who are all quite young, (only 2 are over 30 ) are happy to drive quite a distance for an opportunity to participate in a TLM. It’s a shame they have to do so, it would make life easier for them if every parish held a TLM.

I really don’t see how it would make their life easier. It was never the case that seminarians and/or “transitional” deacons were at every parish church for every Mass (not even for all Solemn Masses). The numbers are, and were in pre-conciliar days, limited. The distances are, and were in pre-conciliar days, not necessarily negotiable on a regular basis. In short, it is not, and never was, feasible.

Look at it this way: if every parish offered the EF, no matter how many seminarians there were, there would never be enough “transitional” deacons to go around, would there?

 

[JReducation]

Hesychios;7050764:

It’s too bad the question has to be put at all.

Actually, the first “deacons”, although they were not called deacons, are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. This role came about simply because the Apostles did not have the time to see that food for the poor was distributed evenly in their community. In the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we read of a dispute which arose in the church of Jerusalem between Greek – speaking and Aramaic – speaking Christians. The former complained that some of their poor weren’t getting a fair share of the goods which the Christian community divided among people in need of help. When the argument came to the attention of the Apostles, the leaders of the community, they declined to become directly involved, explaining:** "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.**

" Seven candidates were presented to the apostles, who “prayed over them and then imposed hands on them”.

The order of the Diaconate was failing by the 3rd century. It seems that the Deacons were not satisfied with their position & tried to usurp the duties of the priests causing an identity crisis for both the Deacons & the Priests.

How suprising.

Can you give me 3 good reasons to depend on the permanent diaconate in lieu of the Transitional Diaconate? And remember that there are areas in this country who are not experiencing a shortage of Seminarians.

1. The permanent diaconate is a vocation. The transitional deacon is not.
2. The permanent deacon has a pastoral role as well as liturgical role. The transtional deacon has no pastoral role. They cannot adminiter parishes, serve as spiritual directors, chaplains, chancery officials, tribunal lawyers, canonists, theologian, Directors of Religious Education, marriage counselors, chancellors, vicars general, or religious superiors. Permanent deacons can do all the above. It’s part of their ministry and formation.The only thing that a permanent deacon cannot do is be a friar or a monk. Even that can happen with an indult. There are some permanent deacons who are friars and monks. Though it’s generally fround upon by the monastic and mendicant orders.
3. The transtional deacon is not a permanent member ofa parish or a diocese. The permanent deacon is. The stability of the permanent deacon adds to the sense of continuity of a parish, diocese or other ministry. They’re not there for a year and gone.

You only asked for three reasons. The Vatican has given us many more reasons for having permanent deacons. The most important one is the necessity of their presence to present to the world the fullness of the priesthood, in all three orders serving side by side.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Chatter163]

On a practical level, a permanent deacon assisting at an EF Mass is generally there because he was asked to assist at the EF Mass and was willing to do so, either for an occasional Mass or an ongoing basis. He went through the diocesean formation program and was ordained as a permanent deacon in the OF. The involvement in the EF came later.

In the case of the permanent deacon at the FSSP parish in the Atlanta archdiocese, he was a permanent deacon years before the EF was ever offered in the archdiocese. When the EF began to be offered by the FSSP, he was interested and became involved. Eventually, when the FSSP parish was formed, he requested to be tranferred to that parish and the Archbishop of Atlanta granted that request, so his involvement with the EF became ongoing. This is a rare situation.

As has been pointed out, permanent deacons also exercise pastoral duties in parishes and dioceses. But on a practical level, there are no permanent deacons ordained speciifcally for the EF, as the FSSP, ICRSS and other traditional orders do not have this. Where one sees a permanent deacon assisting, either at a diocesean or FSSP/ICRSS/etc. Mass, it is someone who was previously ordained in the OF and was willing to become involved in the EF–most frequently in addition to his duties in an OF parish setting, but very occasionally by a later official assignment to an EF venue.

 

[JReducation]

There is a canonical reason why deacons are not ordained exclusively for the EF. The institutes that are committed to the EF fall under one of two categories. They are either Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life.

For example, Christ the King, FSSP, SSPX are Priestly Societies of Apostolic Life. Anyone who seeks to enter them is going to be ordained a priest. Canonically, they are secular socities for priests only.

The Canons of St. John Cantius, Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Sons of the Holy Redeemer are Institutes of Consecrated Life. Anyone who enters them is going to be a religious. Religious men are either lay or priests. Religious communities of men are not allowed to have permanent deacons.

A man who wants to be a permanent deacon has two choices. He must apply to the local diocese, if he is secular or he can ask permission of his religious community, if he is a religious.

In the case of the Institutes of Apostolic Life, they were not founded to have permanent deacons. In the case of the Institutes of Consecrated Life (religious congregations and religious orders), they can only have permanent deacons with the permission of the major superior.

In both cases, the permanent deacon is not the norm, because it was not the vision of the founder.

Men are not ordiend for either the EF or OF, per se. If yiou belong to the Roman Church, you are orained to be a Roman cleric. The EF and OF are not rites. They are forms of the same Roman Rite. You are ordained in the Roman Rite. You can celebrate the sacraments in either form. If you belong to an institute, of any kind, you celebrate the liturgy in the form that is approved by your institute. If you belong to a diocese, you can pick the form.

If you are a permanent deacon who prefers the EF, you can ask for an assignment to a parish that has the EF. But keep in mind that the institutes usually do not have permanent deacons. It’s not part of the constitution of the institute. Maybe, someday one of the institutes will rewrite their constitutions to include permanent deacons among them. But right now, that is not the case. In some religious orders, permanent deacons are not allowed, one is either canonically lay or canonically ceric, but never a permanent deacon.

You will usually find permanent deacons are part of the diocesan clergy.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF