What do we address deacons as?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaolen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GangGreen said:
I refuse to call members of the clergy by their first name. Father (Last Name), Deacon (Last Name) that’s how it should go.
Click to expand...
Not in the Eastern Churches!!!

Both the Byzantine Rite Eastern Churches in Union with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, the proper mode is first name, not last name. We even address our bishops by first name. In the introductory or formal written modes, it’s first + last…

Father Bishop Gerald + Dino,
to his face, “Father Bishop” or “Father Bishop Gerald”,
address line: Most Reverend Gerald + Dino

My Pastor:
Introduction: Rev. Fr. Mikhailo Sidun
To him: Rev. Father Michael, Rev. Fr. Mikhailo, Father Michael, Father Mikhailo
Addressing envelope: Rev. Fr. Mikhailo Sidun

Our Deacon: Stephen Vrable
Introduction: Father Deacon Stephen Vrable
To him: Father Stephen, Father Deacon, Father Deacon Stephen
Envelope: Rev. Mr. Stephen Vrable, Deacon Stephen Vrable

This is different from the Roman praxis, but is something to be aware of.
 
I got my new 1962 missal and there if references to subdeacon. What had happened to the subdeacon?

I wad too young, but were permanent deaconates added to the postconciliar church?
If so, why?

Sorry to ask but I’m a recent revert and I cant find out.
 
Salvelinus said:
I got my new 1962 missal and there if references to subdeacon. What had happened to the subdeacon?

I wad too young, but were permanent deaconates added to the postconciliar church?
If so, why?

Sorry to ask but I’m a recent revert and I cant find out.
Click to expand...
The subdiaconate was suppressed by Pope Paul VI in 1972. Only the traditionalist orders who celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the Traditional Latin Mass) and have seminaries dedicated to the older Thomistic model of formation, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICRSS) retain the subdiaconate as a privilege.

The permanent diaconate was restored in 1967 after having faded in the second millenium of Church history.
 
Regarding the use of the prefix “Reverend” for the clergy:

“Rev.” should only be used when it is preceded by a definite article. Because of this, in formal situations, and in written communication, priests are addressed as “The Reverend Father N. N.” Likewise, deacons are “The Rev. Mr. N.N.,” and bishops are “The Most Rev. N.N.”
 
Chatter163 said:
The subdiaconate was suppressed by Pope Paul VI in 1972. Only the traditionalist orders who celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the Traditional Latin Mass) and have seminaries dedicated to the older Thomistic model of formation, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICRSS) retain the subdiaconate as a privilege.

The permanent diaconate was restored in 1967 after having faded in the second millenium of Church history.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the permanent deaconate was something required due to the severe drop in vocations after Vatican II?
 
I have had two very close friends have conversion experiences that eventually led them to the Diaconate. One is now deceased. Their wives have been my dearest friends for going on 40 years. I knew these men pre and post “conversion” (they were non-practicing before) and have socialized with them for 40 years.

No way did I address them by other than their first names, and no way did they want me to. There is a modicum of common sense that should prevail here.
 
Salvelinus said:
I wonder if the permanent deaconate was something required due to the severe drop in vocations after Vatican II?
Click to expand...
The restoration of the permanent diaconate was actually suggested within the documents of the Second Vatican Council:

*Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: “Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.”

Since these duties, so very necessary to the life of the Church, can be fulfilled only with difficulty in many regions in accordance with the discipline of the Latin Church as it exists today, the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. *
**
(Lumen Gentium 29**)

See: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

So if this was about a ‘severe drop in vocations,’ it clearly predated the council.

In Christ,
Withburga
 
Withburga said:
The restoration of the permanent diaconate was actually suggested within the documents of the Second Vatican Council:

*Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: “Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.”

Since these duties, so very necessary to the life of the Church, can be fulfilled only with difficulty in many regions in accordance with the discipline of the Latin Church as it exists today, the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. *
**
(Lumen Gentium** 29)

See: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

So if this was about a ‘severe drop in vocations,’ it clearly predated the council.

In Christ,
Withburga
Click to expand...
Indeed, the Second Vatican Council called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate, but I’m not sure how you inferred that it was to address a shortfall of vocations. The documents of the Second Vatican Council called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate because it was a restoration of an ancient practice to perform the duties that were specific to the diaconate, not to address any shortage in vocations. I don’t see anything in your quote or the documents that suggest that.

In fact, it might even be argued, a restoration of the permanent diaconate would not actually address a shortfall of priests because deacons perform very, very different duties from that of priests. For instance, the deacon’s primary role in a liturgy is to assist, whereas priests preside. In that vein of logic, creating more assistants cannot possibly make up for the fact that you have fewer presiders. In fact, by creating an additional option of vocation for Catholic men, one might argue that deacons could reduce the number of priestly vocations.

That being said, I do not believe that it is true that deacons cannibalise priestly vocations, or that they are a bad thing even if they do. People who have a calling to the diaconate can now be ordained to the permanent diaconate as they are called properly rather than being forced to choose between the typical lay life and the priestly life. Such people, if they choose the priesthood, may not be suited to what it entails, and actually end up performing the vocation suboptimally. 🙂
 
Filii_Dei said:
Indeed, the Second Vatican Council called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate, but I’m not sure how you inferred that it was to address a shortfall of vocations.
Click to expand...
I did not infer this.🙂

I was responding to a poster who had inferred that the restoration of the permanent diaconate was related to a shortfall in vocations post-V2, and was pointing out that if indeed the restoration was intended to address a shortfall, it cannot have dated from the post-V2 era, since the restoration was itself planned at the council.

I thought this was obvious from the quote I included from the previous poster?:confused:

For the record, I do not believe that the restoration of the permanent diaconate was to address a shortfall in priestly vocations, pre- or post- the Second Vatican Council. 👍

And I think we’re now well off-topic, unless anyone wants to make this diversion into a separate thread. :o

In Christ,
Withburga
 
Filii_Dei said:
Where the Latin Church is concerned, permanent deacons are addressed as “Reverend Deacon Smith”. Transitional deacons (those who will eventually be ordained priests) are traditionally addressed as “Reverend Mister Smith”. 🙂
Click to expand...
I keep seeing this on these forums but never a source. So I dare to ask “citation, please.”
 
PacoG said:
I keep seeing this on these forums but never a source. So I dare to ask “citation, please.”
Click to expand...
Ditewig, William. 101 Questions and Answers on Deacons. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2004. Print. Nihil Obstat: Rev Isidore Dixon. Imprimatur: Rev Msgr Godfrey Mosley.

Does it suffice? 🙂

It does admits that there is a great deal of variance between terms of address deacons, but it makes clear that the tradition is for deacons to be addressed “Revered Mister”, which continues to be used for transitional deacons at least, while the newly-established permanent deacons have a tendency is to be titled “Reverend Deacon” instead.
 
Withburga said:
I did not infer this.🙂

I was responding to a poster who had inferred that the restoration of the permanent diaconate was related to a shortfall in vocations post-V2, and was pointing out that if indeed the restoration was intended to address a shortfall, it cannot have dated from the post-V2 era, since the restoration was itself planned at the council.

I thought this was obvious from the quote I included from the previous poster?:confused:

For the record, I do not believe that the restoration of the permanent diaconate was to address a shortfall in priestly vocations, pre- or post- the Second Vatican Council. 👍

And I think we’re now well off-topic, unless anyone wants to make this diversion into a separate thread. :o

In Christ,
Withburga
Click to expand...
Clearly I need more sleep. My apologies. 😃
 
Filii_Dei said:
That being said, I do not believe that it is true that deacons cannibalise priestly vocations, or that they are a bad thing even if they do. People who have a calling to the diaconate can now be ordained to the permanent diaconate as they are called properly rather than being forced to choose between the typical lay life and the priestly life. Such people, if they choose the priesthood, may not be suited to what it entails, and actually end up performing the vocation suboptimally. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s important to remember: A lot of priestly vocations pre-vatican II in the US (where the “crisis” was most visible) were folks like my cousin - they started in minor seminary in high school, never dated, and were expected and socially pressured to proceed to the major seminary and ordination. Many weren’t even making the choice to go to minor seminary, the choice having been made for them by their parents. This resulted in a lot of men who didn’t really feel they had a vocation being pushed forward to ordination… and like many of them, my cousin laicized to marry.

Part of the discussions of V II was the issue of priestly formation… and discernment thereof. And changes have happened in the US… Minor seminaries are far fewer. The age of ordination to the diaconate has been raised from a low of about 18 years old back to 25. Most seminary programs for the major orders (deacon and priest) now are graduate schools, rather than undergraduate, and most seminarians must have undergraduate degrees now. Screening for mental illness is now standard in the US and Europe; this has reduced abuses, but also the number of seminarians; now, they are removed before ordination, not after. Further, many men who have vocations find that they are not suited for the priesthood after their ordination to the diaconate; in the past, most simply followed the track onward to the priesthood anyway, while now, many complete the program, but do not get ordained priests, and serve as diocesan permanent deacons.

The permanent diaconate for married men, at the same time, has a minimum age in the US of 35 for the Roman Church (varies for the Eastern Churches in Union), and is emphasizing a different role - one of preaching and teaching - rather than the old mode study for the priesthood and emergency ministry.

Further, the first class of married men ordained deacons I’ve heard of was in fact due to a shortage - the Archdiocese of Anchorage ordained a group of married men, mostly natives, for ministry in remote villages in the early 1970’s. IIRC, 1974. the 1967 “restoration” was only for celibates, and was mostly taken up by friary and clerical orders, rather than seculars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top