Traditional Catholic View Of Deacons

[archangel04]

CradleCath;6897399:

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)

 

[KingTheoden]

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

And no less the Saint and Martyr!

youtube.com/watch?v=NRt2cKvJLlE

 

[reindeer]

Thanks for your explanation. I’ve never really known anything at all about deacons.
I met one for the first time last year. I attend a traditional church staffed by fssp
priests who celebrate EF masses. This deacon was ordained and was in transition.
He was ordained a priest this May
Your post explained a lot about early church history and how it evolved to our
catholic practices today. Thanks for the history lesson.
Lorraine

 

[CradleCath]

THE YEAR OF THE PRIEST:.

Very often priests are not always appreciated for their immense contributions to the spirituality and liturgical life of the Catholic Church. In some cases they are because of their declining numbers seen as not “relevant” to the modern Church, antiquated and often socially out of touch. Quite a few of their responsibilities it seems have been delegated or usurped on a parochial level by legions of laity, volunteers and well meaning but often theologically deficient faithful with a penchant for the implementation of American democracy as the focus of Catholic life and ministry. Far too often, the life of a Catholic priest is rationalized or misconstrued by what a priest is not, more than what precisely a priest is in the Church. Often, human shortcomings of individuals are highlighted as glaring examples of the need for revolutionary modification of the lifestyle of Holy Orders and people forget the intensely critical role of the Priest as another Christ in our Church.

bloggernews.net/121283

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;6897399:

Show me the link where Christ defines his two natures. Show me the link where Christ defines the immaculate conception.

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.

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?

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

 

[sulkow82]

I think permanent deacons should become priests because the Church desperately needs priests.

Yes, the Church does need Priests. However, there is something about this which I would question. One time, when the Second Reading for mass was on Marriage, our Priest specifically delegated the task of the homily to our deacon because he is married. So, he could speak from both having the Holy Orders of his Diaconate as well as the personal experience of his marriage.
This can also be true with ongoing marriage formation. You can go to the most God-fearing wonderful Priest in the world, however, ask him about day to day techniques for growth in the marriage… He can give you the best advice he has ever read from a textbook. However, unless that priest is a special case himself, that information from a textbook is just that info. from a textbook.
In a way it is like developing a relationship with God in general. You can ask someone who has read about it in a textbook, or you can ask someone who practices it every day.

With a Deacon (on Marriage), it can be that he speaks from personal experience and should be that he speaks from formal education in line with the Holy See. Both is best.

I do not disparage the transitional Diaconate. I just believe that both can serve the Church in different ways.

As others have said, I think the permanent deaconate blurs the line between the priesthood and the laity.

I hope this will not come across as a divergence of topics. However, on the angle of “blurring the lines” between the laity and the priesthood. What is your take on Third Orders? The Vatican has directly said that the Secular Franciscan Order (of which I’m a member) is an Order. However, we are also laity.

 

[Seamus_L]

That’s not an argument I’d be comfortable with since it seems to be a favorite of lapsed Catholics “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 think Cradle Catholic gave the best response with the quotations from the Year Of The Priest. That's basically the way I see things.

 

[Seamus_L]

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 ?

 

[smithm29]

The deacon has his own role, and doesn’t require the priest to “give anything up”. The priest(s) simply stop doing what he was not supposed to be doing in the first place in order to allow the ordinary minister to take his appropriate role. That’s during the liturgy, which is what I assume you’re talking about. Outside of the liturgy, the deacon should serve however the bishop tells him to. If the bishop currently has a priest performing some role (college chaplaincy, for example) and decides that a deacon would be better suited, then the deacon is better suited.

CradleCath, your quote is irrelevant. The deacon is not a layman, but an ordained member of the clergy.

 

[TheDoctor]

…'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 ?

Sorry, but your question makes no sense to me. The Priest has “duties” that cannot be shared by the Deacon (like confession and Mass) and duties that can. You make it sound like the Deacon is somehow forced on the parish The Deacon, unless I am misinformed, serves at the pleasure of their Bishop and not the parish priest. No matter how many priests a parish has, there will be the need for clergy to visit the sick, witness marriages, baptize, etc. If there are so many priests that they requrie no additional assistance then the Bishop will reassign the Deacon to a parish that does.

 

[CradleCath]

That’s not an argument I’d be comfortable with since it seems to be a favorite of lapsed Catholics “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 think Cradle Catholic gave the best response with the quotations from the Year Of The Priest. That's basically the way I see things.

Thank you, Seamus. As far as a priest knowing nothing about marriage. I’ll bet his folks were married, he probably has a couple of sisters or brothers who are married & most of our priests have
counseled arried people. I think that they can give a completely objective view of the Sacrament & help a couple see that a marriage between two Catholics, their vows proclaimed in Church before God, is different than other marriages…or, at least, it’s supposed to be.

A

 

[whm]

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 ?

We have 3 full time priests and 3 permanent deacons and 1 transitional deacon. No problems what so ever. As I stated previously there is no shortage of vocations in St. Louis, many more priests than parishes and plenty of deacons as well.

As for “supporting” permanent deacons. Since they fall under the sacrament of Holy Orders, we all have to support them in a sense to be in good standing with the Church.

 

[angelic06]

I will reiterate, once more, what has already been said by others on this very thread, for those of you who try to distinguish between the idea that the transitional diaconate and the permanent diaconate are different—as far as divine law is concerned, they are one and the same. Somebody has already posted this post on this very thread, I have personally stated it on many threads. There is one, and only one order of diaconate. If people don’t like the diaconate, why does the Church require that her priests spend a minimal time serving as one before becoming priested? A transitional deacon theoretically does the same thing as a permanent one, so why do some of you favor one over the other and say that the one is interfering with a priest’s duties and not the other?

Also, the post which one of you posted regarding the year of the priest is immaterial since the bolded part regards us laity upsurping the roles of the priest. I will reiterate what others have already said: a priest is a cleric, not a layman. Laymen have no right whatsoever to liturgical and pastoral duties. Rather, they can be admitted when the bishops and pastors judge it necessary to perform some, mind you, not all, of the functions of the clergy. Deacons as such do have a proper role in the liturgy—the apostles sought them out precisely because it would free them to do other things. Why didn’t the apostles ordain more bishops if it wasn’t the will of God to have deacons permanently assigned as such to serve in the Church? Now, the Church in her wisdom has likewise sought them out for us Latins, in order to fully realize the threefold theology of sacred orders initiated by the power of the Holy Ghost in ancient times. Once we have cleared up our terms and theology, only then can the discussion go forward. Now, carry on.

May I respectfully suggest to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI that he institute a Year of the Deacon?

 

[angelic06]

 

[angelic06]

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?

Good post, MrsMW.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

 

[Matthew419]

Randy,

Well put.

May God bless you in your formation!

Thank you!

 

[HopefulOne]

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

I agree with cradle Catholic about vocations too!

I believe that transitional deacon is the step about a year before becoming an Ordained Priest.

Permanent Deacon, is just that, permanent as priesthood is. He has been ordained a deacon by the bishop, and he can do baptisms and weddings. He cannot do any of the other 5 sacraments. So he is a big help to priests who have big parishes on their own… or several parishes to pastor on their own… many of those in our Virginia diocese now, but he is not regarded the same as a priest.
In our parish he assists at Mass and does the homilies one Sunday per month. Does plenty of baptisms and weddings, and does plenty of other parish charitable activities.

 

[Matthew419]

The ministry of deacons is threefold: diaconia of the word, the altar and of charity.

Deacons proclaim the Gospel at the Mass. At the altar he serves the chalice and the book. Finally he has the ministry of charity. This is where the deacon, in my opinion, exemplifies the term “diaconia.” The deacon strives to serve all but he has a particular call to reach those who suffer.

The Church established the diaconate in Acts 6.

At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.

So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. Act 6:16

I think this scriptural establishment of deacons in the Church demonstrates the key role of deacons and not something that was simply conjured up. I know most recall this scriptural reference but some may have forgotten it. We all need reminders sometimes…

Your brother in Christ,

Randy

 

[CradleCath]

How do you know that in light of divine will that the diaconate was not intended to flourish again? **Can you say definitively that it was God’s will that the permanent diaconate disappear during the medieval times—**but that it is not the work the work of the God that it should reappear now? Comparing it to CITH is an analogy, not explanation. Defend your position with explanation.

I’m not sure what part of my position you are speaking of. That the permanent diaconate tends to blur the lines of the Ordained Priesthood? That the permanent diaconate caused the same problems in the middle ages that it is causing today? Can I say what is God’s will, outside of what He gave us in Scripture & that which the Church has defined as His will? What “position” do you want me to defend"??

For now, I’ll just provide a link from a DEACON’S site re the abandonment of the permanent diaconate during the middle ages…

DECLINE OF THE DIACONATE

Even as the diaconate flourished, the causes of its eventual decline and disappearance began to appear. This happened as early as the third century. But the process itself was a complex one which extended over many centuries. No single reason suffices to explain what happened, except perhaps, it appears that both priests and deacons experienced a kin of identity crisis. There were problems and failings on both sides, and the principle reason of argument appears to be in **confusion of roles in the sacralisation of the presbyterate. **The ensuing negative attitude toward the diaconate came especially from presbyters who, now exercising many episcopal functions (eg. Eucharistic presidency), saw no reason why the deacons were not subject to them, and did not assist them as they also assisted the bishops. So by the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, presbyters (priests & Bishops) were presiding at the Eucharist. As the presbyterate became increasingly associated with presidency at Mass, **presbyters like (St.) Jerome demanded to know why deacons had so much power **– “After all, deacons could not preside at Eucharist, and presbyters were really the same as bishops”. As early as the patristic age, the very meaning and purpose of the three orders came to be organised in a new way. One’s role in the Eucharist came to be the factor which governed one’s place within the church. Deacons came to be assistants of priests, as they were of bishops, and primarily at the altar.

Part of the process, evident by the fourth century, was that ever more emphasis came to be placed on the liturgical role of deacons, at the expense of the ministry of the word and the ministry of charity.

deacons.net/Articles/A_brief_history_of_the_permanent_Diaconate.htm