D
DCNBILL
Guest
If I am not mistaken this document was in response to various requests by bishops to allow for this, and not from an abuse of the Sacrament.
- Status
C
Cohibas
Guest
Seamus L - DCNBill is correct. There was a question among the clergy (bishops, priests and deacons alike), and clarification was sought. Your conclusion as to the reason the clarification was sought is not based upon facts.
However, the irony of your conclusion is that in actuality the bigger problem for many deacons is that their bishop and/or pastor refuse to permit them to exercise the fullness of their Ministry as provided by the law and rubrics of the Church! Thankfully I am with a wonderful pastor and I have no such problems.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Cohibas
Could you elaborate on that last paragraph, regarding the refusal of bishops and pastors to allow deacons to exercise the fullness of their ministry.
J
Joseph_Misango
Guest
The deaconate has its original back the apostles era. Phoebe of Cenchreae was deaconnese sent by Paul to deliver his letter {Rom.16:1}
M
MrsMW
Guest
Let me remind the everyone here that the Eastern Churches have always had permanent deacons. This is not some new thing from Vatican II. Deacons have always had a place in the Eastern Churches. We are hardly some hotbed of liberalism.
Would you rather take Holy Communion from a EM?
Can we study history?
Would you rather take Holy Communion from a EM?
Can we study history?
M
Matthew419
Guest
Thank you Deacon Tom.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
I am currently going through the Diaconate Formation. Last year as an aspirant we read and studied this publication:
usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=145
I would recommend this for those who have questions about the history of the Diaconate and how Deacons are part of the ordained clergy.
Your brother in Christ,
Randy Duke
Diocese of Biloxi
R
rben20
Guest
Yea some traditionalist are just…for lack of better words, stupid. How can a married deacon who is permanent be frowned upon? I’m guessing even a married priest? Jesus…at least they are serving the Church. What have you all done except criticize their relationship status? As mentioned earlier, I guess you would look down on St. Peter as well? Get over yourselves or as they say “wake up and smell the coffee.” The Church needs vocations for the clergy and our SUPPORT.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I tend to frown upon the modern permanent deaconate because it appears to be another post conciliar novelty. I am aware that the Church allowed permanent deacons in past ages, but I don’t think it is always a good thing to resurrect something just because it was something the Church did in the past. Does the permanent deaconate help the Church? I don’t think it does. I think permanent deacons should become priests because the Church desperately needs priests.
As others have said, I think the permanent deaconate blurs the line between the priesthood and the laity. I believe in the transitional deaconate; I don’t believe men should remain deacons; they should become priests! The Church desperately needs more priests! We should do more to encourage vocations to the priesthood. I believe the permanent deaconate is a factor causing the current priest shortage.
Traditionalists don’t live in the past! We want the best for the Church, and we believe a return to more traditional worship and disciplines would greatly strengthen the Church while fostering growth and holiness. Part of this renaissance means that we should abandon practices that have not been in the best interests of the Church. In our age, there is an extreme shortage of priests; for this reason, we must do all we can to promote the priesthood; and I think the abandonment of the permanent deaconate will result in greater vocations to the priesthood.
As others have said, I think the permanent deaconate blurs the line between the priesthood and the laity. I believe in the transitional deaconate; I don’t believe men should remain deacons; they should become priests! The Church desperately needs more priests! We should do more to encourage vocations to the priesthood. I believe the permanent deaconate is a factor causing the current priest shortage.
Traditionalists don’t live in the past! We want the best for the Church, and we believe a return to more traditional worship and disciplines would greatly strengthen the Church while fostering growth and holiness. Part of this renaissance means that we should abandon practices that have not been in the best interests of the Church. In our age, there is an extreme shortage of priests; for this reason, we must do all we can to promote the priesthood; and I think the abandonment of the permanent deaconate will result in greater vocations to the priesthood.
O
Orogeny
Guest
So you are a traditionalist who thinks we should abandon the celibacy requirement for priests?
Peace
Tim
G
Gabbione
Guest
The permanent diaconate is very much a large part of church history and tradition. Vatican II addresses in pretty forceful terms the validity of the permanent diaconate. Seems to me that pretty much settles the argument.
That said, I have spoken with several priests about the diaconate and to a man, they do not encourage even looking into discerning this as a vocation. They speak about the bad formation process, that deacons think that they are “priest-light”, that dioceses where there is an active diaconate show less vocations to the priesthood than those dioceses which have eschewed the permanent diaconate, etc. The attitude smacks of elitism.
Look, if the formation process is less than impressive, change it! If there is a problem with lines of authority, make those lines VERY clear and VERY bright.
Many priests simply do not like having a deacon thrust on them by the Bishop … for you see, permanent deacons answer to the bishop, not to the priest! Now most parish priests want to control their parishes and here you have a man who in essence answers not to the pastor, but to the Bishop. Maybe the pastors are afraid the deacon has the ability to go directly to the bishop. I doubt such would be done by a deacon, but … Remember, even those who are paranoid have real enemies!
I have been in parishes with deacons assisting in all phases of the ministry. To my mind, those parishes have tended to function more effectively and efficiently. Priests are being burnt out because there are simply not enough to go around. Rather than doing a few things very well, they end up doing everything they can and compromising in the process. I have no problem with a deacon helping with sick-call, leading wakes and vigils, baptizing, officiating at weddings, leading parish council meetings, leading CCD classes, etc. Priests consecrate, hear confession, set the path, etc. Every ship’s captain needs good lieutenants, ensigns, and swabbees. Deacons originally were the parish administrators and priests took care of the spiritual needs of the flock.
Let’s get back to letting priests lead a flock. Deacons can be a very valuable aide to the parish priest.
Vivat Jesus!
That said, I have spoken with several priests about the diaconate and to a man, they do not encourage even looking into discerning this as a vocation. They speak about the bad formation process, that deacons think that they are “priest-light”, that dioceses where there is an active diaconate show less vocations to the priesthood than those dioceses which have eschewed the permanent diaconate, etc. The attitude smacks of elitism.
Look, if the formation process is less than impressive, change it! If there is a problem with lines of authority, make those lines VERY clear and VERY bright.
Many priests simply do not like having a deacon thrust on them by the Bishop … for you see, permanent deacons answer to the bishop, not to the priest! Now most parish priests want to control their parishes and here you have a man who in essence answers not to the pastor, but to the Bishop. Maybe the pastors are afraid the deacon has the ability to go directly to the bishop. I doubt such would be done by a deacon, but … Remember, even those who are paranoid have real enemies!
I have been in parishes with deacons assisting in all phases of the ministry. To my mind, those parishes have tended to function more effectively and efficiently. Priests are being burnt out because there are simply not enough to go around. Rather than doing a few things very well, they end up doing everything they can and compromising in the process. I have no problem with a deacon helping with sick-call, leading wakes and vigils, baptizing, officiating at weddings, leading parish council meetings, leading CCD classes, etc. Priests consecrate, hear confession, set the path, etc. Every ship’s captain needs good lieutenants, ensigns, and swabbees. Deacons originally were the parish administrators and priests took care of the spiritual needs of the flock.
Let’s get back to letting priests lead a flock. Deacons can be a very valuable aide to the parish priest.
Vivat Jesus!
E
EvelynEVF
Guest
I’ve also heard some of those hair-raising stories about diaconate formation, but my parish’s deacon is quite orthodox and an excellent spiritual director. He has helped provide continuity through changes of pastors and does a great deal behind the scenes to keep things running smoothly so the priest can pastor, besides all the obvious ministry things.
When he goes on vacation, it’s funny to see all the behind-the-scenes stuff come to the forefront because it doesn’t get done, from Mass bloopers to bulletin proofing and just all sorts of little things that aren’t so little when they don’t happen the way they are supposed to.
When he goes on vacation, it’s funny to see all the behind-the-scenes stuff come to the forefront because it doesn’t get done, from Mass bloopers to bulletin proofing and just all sorts of little things that aren’t so little when they don’t happen the way they are supposed to.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Note that the vast majority of vocations to the permanent diaconate are married men.
D
DIT
Guest
This is a post from another blog but it really hits the point. One of the Traditionalists’ points of view is that Christ instituted the priesthood and not the diaconate. I think this posting adds a lot to the subject on this.
I am reading in some of the previous posts that the presbyterial ministry was instituted by Christ himself where the diaconate was not. I will say this but I hope the expert(s) can discuss this more in-depth.
Isn’t it true that the fullness of Holy Orders, the idea of ministry passed on from Christ was seen more as the role of the bishop and less of the priest? Christ’s Apostles and Disciples were sent forth and took up their ministries in different areas of the known world. They had what we would call today, the fullness of the Orders which lies in the Bishops. Is this correct so far?
Next, came the institution of deacons. They were appointed by the Apostles to care for the widows and orphans under the Apostles (bishops). The deacon’s ministry flowed as the eyes, ears, arms, and feet (of the service) of the Apostles (bishop). They were the administrators, as well as preachers and the like, of the Bishop’s area (today’s diocese). In fact, was it true that when a bishop was replaced in the early Church, many times, if not most times, they were replaced by one of their deacons?
When it became evident that the bishops could not administer the sacraments to their flocks, the presbyters (priests) were created to carry the sacramental function of the bishop to the people (which were growing in rapid numbers). Their functions were limited from that of the bishop as the bishop was the only individual who possessed the fullness of Orders. Is all this correct so far?
So the functions of a priest were instituted by Christ as much as most of the functions (if not all) of the deacon were also instituted by Christ. The official “roles” of priest and deacon were made by human creation through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Not that this means a whole lot in the scheme of things but to help place a historical reference on the discussions above, is this correct?
As has been stated, the fullness of Orders lies in the Bishops. The “priests and deacons are his assistants in the governing and serving of the diocese.”
What I hate to see is the divisiveness of who is what and who can do what. We are all in this together with roles and responsibilities - this includes the ordained and non-ordained. Our Baptism calls us to this role. This is why I wish this all could be cleared up. . . . but I have to go tilt some windmills tonight.
I am reading in some of the previous posts that the presbyterial ministry was instituted by Christ himself where the diaconate was not. I will say this but I hope the expert(s) can discuss this more in-depth.
Isn’t it true that the fullness of Holy Orders, the idea of ministry passed on from Christ was seen more as the role of the bishop and less of the priest? Christ’s Apostles and Disciples were sent forth and took up their ministries in different areas of the known world. They had what we would call today, the fullness of the Orders which lies in the Bishops. Is this correct so far?
Next, came the institution of deacons. They were appointed by the Apostles to care for the widows and orphans under the Apostles (bishops). The deacon’s ministry flowed as the eyes, ears, arms, and feet (of the service) of the Apostles (bishop). They were the administrators, as well as preachers and the like, of the Bishop’s area (today’s diocese). In fact, was it true that when a bishop was replaced in the early Church, many times, if not most times, they were replaced by one of their deacons?
When it became evident that the bishops could not administer the sacraments to their flocks, the presbyters (priests) were created to carry the sacramental function of the bishop to the people (which were growing in rapid numbers). Their functions were limited from that of the bishop as the bishop was the only individual who possessed the fullness of Orders. Is all this correct so far?
So the functions of a priest were instituted by Christ as much as most of the functions (if not all) of the deacon were also instituted by Christ. The official “roles” of priest and deacon were made by human creation through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Not that this means a whole lot in the scheme of things but to help place a historical reference on the discussions above, is this correct?
As has been stated, the fullness of Orders lies in the Bishops. The “priests and deacons are his assistants in the governing and serving of the diocese.”
What I hate to see is the divisiveness of who is what and who can do what. We are all in this together with roles and responsibilities - this includes the ordained and non-ordained. Our Baptism calls us to this role. This is why I wish this all could be cleared up. . . . but I have to go tilt some windmills tonight.
D
DIT
Guest
First, deacons are not thrusted upon a pastor. In most (arch)diocese, the pastor has to recommend an individual for the diaconate formation program. This recommendation does not automatically make one a deacon. It is the first in many, upon many reviews of the deacon candidate’s life, attitude, and ministry during his four to five years in formation school. After ordination, a priest and a deacon is assigned to a parish or institution by the bishop depending on the needs of the (arch)diocese. All assignments happen after much consultation with pastors and other supervisors that may administer these places.
Second, all clerics are responsibile to their ordinary (bishop/archbishop). Priest, whether pastors or associate pastors, or parochial vicars, report in the end to the bishop. Same goes for deacons. The pastor is the immediate supervisor of all that work or minister in the parish. If a pastor is in conflict with a priest or deacon, he would take it up with the individual first and then with the bishop if necessary. If a solution cannot be found, re-assignment is in order.
Third, this division between laity and clerics - between priests and deacons, between traditionalist and liberals - has to stop. We cannot build the church if we are constantly fighting over petty issues. As the saying goes, “a house divided shall surely fall.”
Bishops serve their roles; priests serve their roles; deacons serve their roles; and their roles have all the same outcome and that is to serve the Lord. The laity are right in there with the clergy as we all have to live to our baptismal call of being priests, prophets, and kings.
Preach the Gospel to all you come in contact with. . . . sometimes use words!!
D
DIT
Guest
My post specifically mentioned permanent deacons. A cut & paste from my previous message:
I don’t like the whole idea of **permanent **deacons, EEM’S, Lay Liturgists or any of the various ministries that have led to the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity.
It is transistional deacons who are part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
You have a serious flaw in your theology and canon law of the Church. Holy Orders, as a sacrament, has three levels of Bishop, Priest, & Deacon. It doesn’t say permanent or transitional for BOTH are deacons. There is no difference between the two except that one will continue to the next level of Holy Order and one will remain in the diaconate. By belittling the order of deacon moves you towards a cafeteria catholic. . . sounds far from traditional.
Also, with the permanence of the diaconate, the church was trying to move away from the steps to ordination that was pre-Vatican II thought. One used to progress through the various minor orders and then was ordained through the major orders. Each one of these Orders was a stepping stone to the next. That philosophy ended with the dissolution of the minor orders (which are now two institutions known as lector and acolyte – and a lay person can receive these orders without progressing up the steps to Ordination.) The call to Orders is not for the greater glory of the person . . . it is for the greater glory of God and those whom they serve.
set-apart, men called by God to act in Persona Christi? I don’t. What about the kid who has received every bit of his education re Catholicism…from the Lay CCD./RICA “directors”? Do you think that the priesthood holds special attraction for him? .
I am not sure that is the type of priest we want today. We want a priest of service to his people - one who cares about their well-being and souls - not one who wants to be special and set apart from the people. Holy men and women are called to God through service and that call is not to hover over or be superior to those they serve. The new coadjutor bishop of Trenton’s, David O’Connell CM, coat of arms motto states it so well: “To Serve, and Not to be Served.” The problem is that you are out of touch with your church’s mission.
I am not trying to disrespect you or your opinion. I am focusing on the fact that a traditional, conservative Catholic has to allow for the Holy Spirit to work in their Church, just like everyone else who is my brother and sister in Christ. The divisiveness that is in the church is what is tearing at its core.
You have to look at the reason for the re-organizing of the hierarchy of the Church. The call for the return of the diaconate as a permanent state was directed because of the loss of connection with the secular world. The failings of the Church’s ability to stop the crimes of WWII was one of the reasons because many felt that the church lost touch with the citizenry - by the very fact that bishops and priests lost the perspective of the true world because they had set themselves apart from it. The diaconate was instituted to be the eyes and ears, the hands and feet of the bishop in the secular world to recognize the areas of concerns (poverty, inequality, social justice needs) and create the actions necessary to battle them. The church and the world wanted to prevent to atrocities of WWII from ever happening again.
Now where I have issue with you is your belittling of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
C
CradleCath
Guest
M
Magnus467
Guest
A
archangel04
Guest
Yeah I don’t think abondoning the deaconate is going to promote the priesthood. You can’t become a permanent deacon until you hit the age of 35, by that time most people have set lives. No what has hurt the vocation of priest is modernism, abuses the Church has allowed, sexual abuses, and the failure to attract young Catholic men to the priest hood. It really has nothing to do with the deaconate at all.
- Status