Traditional Catholic View Of Deacons

[CradleCath]

Magnus467;6897455:

**Originally Posted by CradleCath **

Show me the link where Christ defines his two natures. Show me the link where Christ defines the immaculate conception. I wonder about what happened to being obedient to the Magisterium instead of calling every decision they make liberal. To be honest I strongly dislike the term “Traditionalist Catholic” it is redundant. The proper term is traditional with no capitalization. Does it matter when or why the Church establishes the permanent diaconate? Or should we just call it liberal because it is new?

Additionally, Holy Orders is a calling not something you just up and do. People are called to be permanent deacons. Was not St. Stephen a deacon? (BTW I am not trying to single you out I’m just building off of your post)

The above is not my message. I think it was posted by Magnus.

 

[Cohibas]

Many opinions have been stated here. Some reflect an accurate understanding of sacramental theology and Church documents which are completely on point on this issue. Sadly, many do not. Suffice it to say, if we’re going to base this answer on opinions, I kind of think this one has substantial weight on the issue:

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.”

Who said this? Just a guy named St. Ignatius of Antioch!

(Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A.D. 110]; St. Ignatius traveled from his home city to his execution in Rome around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. In every church there was the same three-fold ministry.)

And, oh yeah, deacons both in the permanent state and in the transitional state were a reality in the Church at the time he wrote this!

 

[Magnus467]

Magnus467;6897455:

CradleCath;6897399:

Let me think for a minute…Is this thread about the two natures of Christ??? hmmmmm. Is it entitled “Christ & the Immaculate Conception”?? ahhhh, NO! It’s entitled Traditional Catholic View of Deacons…nice try, though.

Perhaps you missed my statement, "All things old are not necessarily traditional & all things new are not necessarily liberal.

Ha. well it appears you missed all of my points. The point is just because it isn’t explicitly listed in the Bible does not mean it isn’t to be. But you should already know that. Again, I said I was just building off your post not singling you out. I was commenting on the 1st part. Rolling of eyes is immature.

 

[Sherry_G]

I have a question for those who support having permanent deacons. While we have heard the argument that a deacon can make life easier for a priest who is overwhelmed with duties and responsibilities, I’d like to know what you think about a situation where a parish has several priests (there are actually a few) Should those priests give up some of there duties just so the parish can have a deacon and he can have something to do ?

My parish has a wonderful priest and an ordained married deacon who assists him. They have a very good working relationship on the whole and I appreciate being apble to receive the Holy Eucharist from the hands of the priest every day at Mass, but on crowded Sat eve or Sunday Mass perhaps from the hands of the deacon.

My only question about this comes up in regard to the homily at Sunday Mass. The habit has been developed to assign one week out of every four in which the deacon gives the homily instead of the priest. My thinking was that the priest should give the homily except during extraordinary cases such as the priest having a cold/laryngitis, etc. I really am irked when the deacon gives the homily while the priest just sits there. I much prefer the homilies of our priest but more than a preference, I thought that was the mandate??

 

[smithm29]

No; only ordained clergy can give a homily. Since a deacon is an ordained clergyman, he can give the homily.

 

[sulkow82]

That’s not an argument I’d be comfortable with since it seems to be a favorite of lapsed Catholics

That sounds like a “discredit by association” argument. There are many things which a priest can be versed in which do not directly involve his Holy Orders. However, my comment was to say that theories read in a book may or may not work. There are people who learn more from other people sharing their personal experience.

“What the h_ll does the priest know about marriage, or raising children” If you follow that line of reasoning, a priest shouldn’t know much about anything outside of being a priest.

I don’t follow how that premise requires arriving at your conclusion about other topics. There are many things a Priest can be very well versed in which are not directly related to their Holy Orders. There are Priests which are Church historians (not required or restricted); priests which are highly acclaimed chefs (not required or restricted). I even know of priests which are accomplished surfers (not restricted or required). The list goes on and on. However, can we include being married to this list?

 

[sulkow82]

I have a question for those who support having permanent deacons. While we have heard the argument that a deacon can make life easier for a priest who is overwhelmed with duties and responsibilities, I’d like to know what you think about a situation where a parish has several priests (there are actually a few) Should those priests give up some of there duties just so the parish can have a deacon and he can have something to do ?

Depends on the number of Priests. If a Parish has so many priests that the Deacons are “twiddling their thumbs,” then one idea would be to transfer one or more of those Priests to a parish or Diocese which is starving for priests and let the Deacon take over some of the Duties (ie. Marriages, Baptisms, I believe Deacons can do house blessings too) from the Priest transfered out.

 

[DCNBILL]

I have a question for those who support having permanent deacons. While we have heard the argument that a deacon can make life easier for a priest who is overwhelmed with duties and responsibilities, I’d like to know what you think about a situation where a parish has several priests (there are actually a few) Should those priests give up some of there duties just so the parish can have a deacon and he can have something to do ?

In our parish, a while back, we had 3 priests and 5 deacons and there was still enough work to go around, I guess it depends on the size of the parish and how active it is. There are always ways one can find to minister to the faithful.

 

[TheDoctor]

My parish has a wonderful priest and an ordained married deacon who assists him. They have a very good working relationship on the whole and I appreciate being apble to receive the Holy Eucharist from the hands of the priest every day at Mass, but on crowded Sat eve or Sunday Mass perhaps from the hands of the deacon.

My only question about this comes up in regard to the homily at Sunday Mass. The habit has been developed to assign one week out of every four in which the deacon gives the homily instead of the priest. My thinking was that the priest should give the homily except during extraordinary cases such as the priest having a cold/laryngitis, etc. I really am irked when the deacon gives the homily while the priest just sits there. I much prefer the homilies of our priest but more than a preference, I thought that was the mandate??

One of the duties of the deacon is to preach, so to be “irked” while the priest sits there, as if he is doing something improper, is most probably due to a lack of understanding about the role of the deacon. Remember though, that like priests and bishops, not every deacon is given the gift of being a good preacher, so if you are “irked” because you would rather hear the priest that is one thing, but if you are “irked” because you think the deacon has no part in preaching, that is another. One week out of four sounds solid, but that is up to the pastor.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Part of the issue is the traditional formation of the deacon. Currently, all are formed according to the OF - both in theology and in the rite. I don’t know of any diocese that currently offers a traditional formation for permanent deacons. To think that it is just a case of leaning how to perform the role of deacon or subdeacon at the EF would be a mistake.

Of the traditional orders, the SSPX, FSSP, and ICK do not have room in their seminaries for an extra janitor, let alone the six years of full-time formation that it takes to get a seminarian to deacon. They are packed and just do not currently have the capacity to spend the time and stop at the deaconate and not have an ordained priest at the end. Since a priest can also act as a deacon or subdeacon in a Missa Solemnis, there is really no point in the EF to make permanent deacons since a priest is always needed to say Mass and there is no rubric to have just a priest and deacon in the EF - you have to have a subdeacon also.

 

[smithm29]

All of that assumes that the deacon’s only role is during the liturgy.

 

[giuseppeTO]

All of that assumes that the deacon’s only role is during the liturgy.

Good point. So the permanent deacon would make more sense in a parish where the priest is too busy to do all of the baptisms, sick and prison calls. In the personal parishes of the ICK, FSSP and SSPX chapels, the priests usually prefer to take care of all of these themselves

 

[EvelynEVF]

Sherry, my parish’s deacon is a better homilist than the priest, so I look forward to that one weekend out of four I guess it depends on the men individually.