Traditional Catholic View Of Deacons

[Seamus_L]

I know this is bound to be a controversial topic (so what else is new) but I’d still like to get some (name removed by moderator)ut from Traditional Catholics on the subject of permanent deacons.
I believe the ones we in the Traditionalist community have are only temporary and at some time in the future will become priests, but I'm not 100 pct certain. I can see where tension might occur in certain churches where the deacon and some parishoners might have quite a differing viewpoint on how important (or not as the case might be) his role is.

 

[MarkThompson]

I know this is bound to be a controversial topic (so what else is new) but I’d still like to get some (name removed by moderator)ut from Traditional Catholics on the subject of permanent deacons.

I believe the ones we in the Traditionalist community have are only temporary and at some time in the future will become priests, but I’m not 100 pct certain. I can see where tension might occur in certain churches where the deacon and some parishoners might have quite a differing viewpoint on how important (or not as the case might be) his role is.

Not to worry. I think the great majority of traditionalists correctly realize that it is the bishop’s and the pastor’s “viewpoint” that matters, and that the church isn’t to be governed by a straw poll or “community” vote. People who disagree just need some reeducation in proper ecclesiology.

 

[JohnDamian]

I believe the ones we in the Traditionalist community have are only temporary and at some time in the future will become priests, but I’m not 100 pct certain.

Whilst it is true that before VII the office of Deacon was generally equivalent to what we now call “Transitional Deacon”; it is clearly the case that Deacons in the past have existed in a permenant state. St Francis; Nicholas, Cassinensis, Philip the Evangelist, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Stephen Protomarty are cases in point.

 

[Genesis315]

Whilst it is true that before VII the office of Deacon was generally equivalent to what we now call “Transitional Deacon”; it is clearly the case that Deacons in the past have existed in a permenant state. St Francis; Nicholas, Cassinensis, Philip the Evangelist, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Stephen Protomarty are cases in point.

Don’t forget Sts. Lawrence and Ephrem–they’re biggies

 

[malphono]

JohnDamian;6881490:

Whilst it is true that before VII the office of Deacon was generally equivalent to what we now call “Transitional Deacon”; it is clearly the case that Deacons in the past have existed in a permenant state. St Francis; Nicholas, Cassinensis, Philip the Evangelist, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Stephen Protomarty are cases in point.

Don’t forget Sts. Lawrence and Ephrem–they’re biggies

And if I recall correctly, so was Thomas Becket until he was elected Primate: deacon to priest to bishop in 2 days!

 

[malphono]

I know this is bound to be a controversial topic (so what else is new) but I’d still like to get some (name removed by moderator)ut from Traditional Catholics on the subject of permanent deacons.

I believe the ones we in the Traditionalist community have are only temporary and at some time in the future will become priests, but I’m not 100 pct certain. I can see where tension might occur in certain churches where the deacon and some parishoners might have quite a differing viewpoint on how important (or not as the case might be) his role is.

Whether “transitional” or “permanent,” a deacon is a deacon. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m a little confused as to what the point here really is.

 

[Seamus_L]

You’re unaware of the fact that married deacons are frowned upon by many Traditionalist Catholics ? It’s seen by some as a usurpation of priestly duties.
My own experiences with married deacons have been somewhat negative. In one instance, I had a married deacon become rather upset with me (this was not at a TLM parish) simply because I refused to agree with his extreme pro-ecumenical beliefs. My understanding is the man in question feels that he is not respected by many parishoners at his church, and he is now a rather unhappy fellow.

 

[malphono]

You’re unaware of the fact that married deacons are frowned upon by many Traditionalist Catholics ? It’s seen by some as a usurpation of priestly duties.

Oh, that. Yes, I’m aware of it.

First thought that comes to mind is that “permanent” deacons are not necessarily married. I’ve personally known a couple who were single (and I do not mean that they were widowed after ordination).

Anyway, from what I’ve seen, a good number of the people you mentioned frown on “permanent” deacons simply because they view the very existence of such deacons as a post-conciliar phenomenon which, of course, is historically and ecclesiastically incorrect. Their idea of “deacon” is merely as “senior seminarian” a year or so away from “real” ordination, which is also incorrect.

A while back I was made aware of at least one case where a “permanent” deacon was a supporter of the EF, but the congregation was so negative toward him simply because he was a “permanent” deacon that he never actually served as deacon (or even, for that matter, subdeacon) at Solemn Mass. Shame. Personally, I would have welcomed with open arms and helped him into his dalmatic (and would probably have offered him a beer afterward).

My own experiences with married deacons have been somewhat negative. In one instance, I had a married deacon become rather upset with me (this was not at a TLM parish) simply because I refused to agree with his extreme pro-ecumenical beliefs. My understanding is the man in question feels that he is not respected by many parishoners at his church, and he is now a rather unhappy fellow.

I cannot and will not comment on your experience with such deacons other than to say I’ve had similar rows with priests and laymen. Come to think of it, even a bishop or two as well.

 

[Chatter163]

I must have missed the reference to marriage and the diaconate in the OP.

 

[JohnDamian]

You’re unaware of the fact that married deacons are frowned upon by many Traditionalist Catholics ? It’s seen by some as a usurpation of priestly duties.

I suppose they also frown upon the 20% of Catholic Priests who are married? Not to mention “traditional” popes like St. Peter…

That aside; not all Permenant Deacons are married. People who become Permenant Deacons whilst single are not allowed to marry.

 

[Chatter163]

I suppose they also frown upon the 20% of Catholic Priests who are married? Not to mention “traditional” popes like St. Peter…

That aside; not all Permenant Deacons are married. People who become Permenant Deacons whilst single are not allowed to marry.

Just curious–what is the source of the 20% statistic? And while your second paragraph is true, on a practical level one wonders how many single, non-widowed permanant deacons there actually are. I would imagine that it is an extremely small number.

 

[whm]

And while your second paragraph is true, on a practical level one wonders how many single, non-widowed permanant deacons there actually are. I would imagine that it is an extremely small number.

If they are widowed before they become deacons, I think one could count them as single deacons and I would say there are a fair number on those.

I guess I am a little surprised that traditionalist’s frown on deacons. I’m am traditional leaning, and I love that there is always a deacon assisting at the Sunday Masses at our parish. Everybody coming down the main aisle receives the Eucharist from an ordained priest or ordained deacon. I guess instead of somehow viewing them as less than a priest, I view them as more than an extraordinary minister of communion, lay lector, lay youth minister, lay RCIA instructor etc.

 

[CradleCath]

I guess I am a little surprised that traditionalist’s frown on deacons. I’m am traditional leaning, and I love that there is always a deacon assisting at the Sunday Masses at our parish. Everybody coming down the main aisle receives the Eucharist from an ordained priest or ordained deacon. I guess instead of somehow viewing them as less than a priest, I view them as more than an extraordinary minister of communion, lay lector, lay youth minister, lay RCIA instructor etc.

I know only one deacon, the one that baptized my Granddaughter. He is married & he & his wife attended the family get-together after the ceremony. He is a very nice man.

However, no matter whether it is an old custom of the Church or not, I don’t like the whole idea of permnanent deacons, EEM’S, Lay Liturgists or any of the various ministries that have led to the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity. I realize that, in some areas, they might be used out of necessity…but I view that as a negative necessity. The use of so many deacons leads one to believe that the regional priest shortages have been & are ** expected**. I’ve found that, in life, we usually get what we expect.

The addition of consecrated life & the diaconate… as a distinct, third, state in life… stems from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council: see (Lumen Gentium 44§ 4). The MANY ministries that have been so in fashion since the council, have not, imo., encouraged vocations…have indeed, discouraged them.

 

[Seamus_L]

Well said Cradle Catholic. Sums up alot of what I believe on the subject.

 

[whm]

However, no matter whether it is an old custom of the Church or not, I don’t like the whole idea of permnanent deacons, EEM’S, Lay Liturgists or any of the various ministries that have led to the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity. I realize that, in some areas, they might be used out of necessity…but I view that as a negative necessity. The use of so many deacons leads one to believe that the regional priest shortages have been & are ** expected**. I’ve found that, in life, we usually get what we expect.

The diaconate is part of the sacrament of holy orders. Are you saying you don’t like (part) one of the Sacraments? That is very different than being against the various EMM’s and lay readers.

I would disagree with the premise that permanent deacons are somehow limiting the number of priests. You must be at least 35 to enter formation for the diaconate. At least 90% of the permanent deacons I’ve seen are gray haired and in their 60’s. It is a vocation made up of empty nesters near retirement, and not young men who to somehow have the “best of both worlds”. The more likely reason for having less priests are the big changes in society. I would agree with you in that “liberal” changes/abuses are not encouraging vocations to the priesthood and that more orthodox dioceses such as St. Louis are having abundant vocations to the priesthood. St. Louis also plenty of deacons and they do not appear to be getting in the way of priestly vocations. In fact Archbishop Burke (hardly a liberal force within the Church), while he was in St. Louis appointed one of his rising stars, the young, now Monsignor Morris as being in charge of the diaconate for St. Louis (he has now been tapped for a position at the Pontifical College Josephinum)

 

[Cohibas]

It sounds like a lot of these so-called “Traditionalists” (I prefer to call them “Catholics” like the rest of us!) need a good dose of Sacramental Theology!

+Deacon Tom

 

[smithm29]

The permanent diaconate is not an “old custom” of the Church- it’s a doctrine of the Church, founded in scripture, confirmed through Tradition, and renewed after the Council. They are not the laity. They are ordained clerics who cannot be lumped together with the roles assumed by the laity in the liturgy. Let’s not forget that the “traditional” subdeacons were not ordained- they did not receive Holy Orders.

The diaconate was not an “addition” of the Second Vatican Council. It was an addition of Jesus Christ, mentioned in the bible and used in the service of the Church through the ages. Also, I don’t know how many deacons you think there are “crowding out” the priesthood, but the USCCB estimate is just over 16,000 permanent deacons in active ministry. More than six in ten permanent deacons are at least 60-years-old, four in ten deacons are 60 to 69, and about a quarter are 70 or older-- that’s not your priesthood-seeking crowd. There are also over 41,000 priests in the US- four times as many priests as deacons.

The restoration of the permanent diaconate is the very definition of traditionalism. Anything else is nostalgia.

 

[Seamus_L]

Keep in mind that in 2005 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to put out a reminder that Deacons may not administer the Sacrament of the Sick. So right there it certainly appears that we’ve had Deacons attempting to take there duties to a level that is not permitted.

 

[smithm29]

We’ve also had bishops promoting the homosexual agenda. The problem isn’t with the episcopate, but with the individual bishops.

We also had celibate priests molest children. The problem isn’t with the celibacy or the presbyterate, but with the individual priests.

So why when deacons do something wrong, is it a problem with the diaconate?

 

[DCNBILL]

It sounds like a lot of these so-called “Traditionalists” (I prefer to call them “Catholics” like the rest of us!) need a good dose of Sacramental Theology!

+Deacon Tom

Amen, Deacon Tom!