I
I_thirst_4_YOU
Guest
Ya ya ya I know that **Permanent Deacons are married and Transitional ones are “transitioning” into the priesthood, but what else is different about them? **
Thanks
Thanks
What is the difference between Permanent Deacons and Transitional Deacons?
- Status
S
SKWill
Guest
As you’ve noted, permanent versus transitional is the biggest difference. Another big difference is the nature of their parish assignments: permanent deacons are almost always assigned to their home parishes, while transitional deacons serve brief assignments in parishes of their bishops choosing as part of their seminary training. A handful of permanent deacons serve in full-time ministries (e.g. as chancery officials or heading diocesan ministries or agencies.) Occasionally permament deacons will receive parish assignments other than the parish they belonged to when they were ordained. For example, after my father retired from the Air Force (about a year after his ordination) we moved to a large, well-staffed parish, so our bishop asked him to serve in a small deaconless parish nearby.
Well, permanent deacons don’t have to be married! (But probably most are.)
There is really no difference in the nature of their orders. Liturgically there won’t be a difference in the roles they play.
But their overall training is going to be different. Since a transitional deacon is going to spend much more time as a priest than he is a deacon, naturally his training will be geared more toward the priesthood. A permanent deacon is destined to fill a different type of role so his training will be geared toward that.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Just a point about Deacons & marriage.
A man who is single and seeks ordination as a Permanent Deacon makes a promise of celibacy, and may never marry. A PD who is married upon ordination may not re-marry if widowed, unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. young children).
A man who is single and seeks ordination as a Permanent Deacon makes a promise of celibacy, and may never marry. A PD who is married upon ordination may not re-marry if widowed, unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. young children).
I
iDeacon
Guest
In the books, there is no difference whatsoever. “There is one Order of Deacon!” That’s what it says and that’s what they teach in diaconate formation. (And the books say, and they teach that we’re “clergy” too, but . . . well I’ll leave that for another post!)
In my Diocese and in many, many others as I have learned from other Deacon forums and groups, the reality, in practice, couldn’t be further from that! Where to begin? As a Deacon in the permanent state myself, I’ll refer to “us” and “them,” not in an effort to polarize even further, but just for brevity and clarity.
We are referred to as “Deacon ___________,” while they are referred to as “Reverend Mr. _____________.”
They wear the Roman collar and “clerics.” We dress like insurance salesmen, lawyers, or undertakers!
Its the alb for us, but cassock and surplice for them.
A major Diocesan Mass at the Cathedral or elsewhere? Better be sure to use one of those transitional Deacons on the altar and not one of those dedicated,ordained, faithful, lowly permanent Deacons.
If you do happen to assist, if there are any spoken parts and there’s a transitional Deacon there, he always gets them.
Deacons processing in together for a major Mass? Transitionals dress differently to clearly distinguish themselves as definitely NOT being a permanent Deacon.
Chair or tables to be moved? Get a couple of the permanent Deacons instead of the ones who are on their way to be priests.
Time to acknowledge those who are present and helped/participated? Visiting priest - check. Local presbyterate - check. Transitional Deacons - check. Seminarians - check. Organist/choir/cantor - check. The faithful - check. Those who decorated - check. Those who prepared meal - check. Permanent Deacons - nope! (Has happened more times than I care to remember.)
General Intercessions? Pray for vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life. (Never Permanent Diaconate.)
It’s also apparent how differently the two groups of the one type of Deacon (make any sense?) are treated by priests socially. The transitional are fawned all over and introduced to everyone in the room while the permanent Deacons are left to socialize among themselves.
Transitional Deacons have been invited to “priest-only” functions that permanent Deacons wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near.
Bottom Line: Don’t be fooled by what the books say, or by what is taught in diaconate formation prior to Ordination. Once you’re “in” and the assignments are made, the reality can be quite different!
In my Diocese and in many, many others as I have learned from other Deacon forums and groups, the reality, in practice, couldn’t be further from that! Where to begin? As a Deacon in the permanent state myself, I’ll refer to “us” and “them,” not in an effort to polarize even further, but just for brevity and clarity.
We are referred to as “Deacon ___________,” while they are referred to as “Reverend Mr. _____________.”
They wear the Roman collar and “clerics.” We dress like insurance salesmen, lawyers, or undertakers!
Its the alb for us, but cassock and surplice for them.
A major Diocesan Mass at the Cathedral or elsewhere? Better be sure to use one of those transitional Deacons on the altar and not one of those dedicated,ordained, faithful, lowly permanent Deacons.
If you do happen to assist, if there are any spoken parts and there’s a transitional Deacon there, he always gets them.
Deacons processing in together for a major Mass? Transitionals dress differently to clearly distinguish themselves as definitely NOT being a permanent Deacon.
Chair or tables to be moved? Get a couple of the permanent Deacons instead of the ones who are on their way to be priests.
Time to acknowledge those who are present and helped/participated? Visiting priest - check. Local presbyterate - check. Transitional Deacons - check. Seminarians - check. Organist/choir/cantor - check. The faithful - check. Those who decorated - check. Those who prepared meal - check. Permanent Deacons - nope! (Has happened more times than I care to remember.)
General Intercessions? Pray for vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life. (Never Permanent Diaconate.)
It’s also apparent how differently the two groups of the one type of Deacon (make any sense?) are treated by priests socially. The transitional are fawned all over and introduced to everyone in the room while the permanent Deacons are left to socialize among themselves.
Transitional Deacons have been invited to “priest-only” functions that permanent Deacons wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near.
Bottom Line: Don’t be fooled by what the books say, or by what is taught in diaconate formation prior to Ordination. Once you’re “in” and the assignments are made, the reality can be quite different!
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
In my experience, all too true, too sadly true.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I just posted about the history of the diaconate in another thread about Bishops vs. Elders in relation to Presbyterian arguments about how Churches governance should be organized. This post is based on that and so apologies if anyone has read both.
Familiarity with the history of the diaconate in the Catholic Church helps answer the OP’s question to a great deal.
100 AD to 500 AD is often called the “Golden age of the diaconate” in the Catholic Church. During this time, deacons were the “Eyes and ears” of the local bishop. The office of bishop was often granted not because of any great skill in pastoral care or because of any great knowledge of doctrine but often because of administrative skills, what we today would call “Organizational Management”. It is a point of fact that some Bishops rose from the ranks of the diaconate without ever having been ordained to the priesthood. Deacons were usually sent out to the surrounding area to report back to the Bishop what was going on in the local Churches and to communicate the Bishop’s wishes back to those Churches. The diaconate was often greatly involved in governance of the Church while the presbyters were often more concerned with pastoral care. This is where many of the non-Catholic religions get their idea of “Elders”.
More lay involvment and governance of the Church by deacons was necesary to a certain extent, especially early on in the history of the Church, because of persecution. One could not just hang up a sign, set up adminstrative functions in the local office park and start issuing memos “From the desk of the Bishop…” To be caught with correspondance on Church matters and other Christian documents, church vessels, or being found in the posession of anything identifiable as Christian meant probable torture and death. And this is where the diaconate, as the “Eyes and ears of the bishop” came in. Deacons fulfilled a very useful role.
It is a shame that the permanent diaconate virtually disappeared from Catholicism from 900 AD until it was reestablished by Pope Paul VI in 1967. But much of the decline in the diaconate as the “Eyes and ears of the Bishops” was not because of a concious decision to do so nor as a result of a deviation from Christ’s teaching about how to organize the Church. As persection declined, secular government support increased, and technology improved, the need for deacons as administrators of the Church was lessened to the point where the diaconate all but disappeared. As the Church became more powerful, lines of communication became formalized and Bishops were able to move about and communicate more freely, the diaconate became nothing more than a stopping point for seminarians on the way to the priesthood.
Fast forward to 2011 where there are close to 20,000 deacons in the US Catholic Church alone. These do just about everything conceivable in management and governance of local parishes. And the OP’s question about the differences between the permanent and transitional diaconates is something that every deacon asks himself… Am I ordained to service? What does that even mean? What pastoral role do I have? Do I just hold the cup? If I am just a Church administrator, why am I even ordained? What role do I have that neither the priest nor the laity can fulfill? Am I here just because there is a shortage of priests? These are all questions the modern diaconate struggles with. The fact that deacons are often described in negative terms… they can’t consecrate, they can’t hear confession… doesn’t help matters. Who want’s to be come someone who can’t do things?
Remember however, that the permanent diaconate was reestablished 44 years ago in the wake of Vatican II, and that reestablishment was after almost 1100 years of disuse. To a certain extent, the Church herself does not know what the role of the deaconate will become in the next centuries. Having both an ordained role in the Church and a secular life, I have heard deacons described as “Euchariistic Ambasadors to the world.” They clearly have a role in bringing the Church to secular places just by their very presence in secular life and I personally hope they will take a major role in teaching, catechesis and defense of the faith.
I think only the Holy Spirit knows what role the permanent diaconate will ultimately play in the future Church. I can tell you that I am excited enough about the prospect that I’ve mentioned the thought of becoming a deacon to the senior pastor at my parish.
-Tim-
Familiarity with the history of the diaconate in the Catholic Church helps answer the OP’s question to a great deal.
100 AD to 500 AD is often called the “Golden age of the diaconate” in the Catholic Church. During this time, deacons were the “Eyes and ears” of the local bishop. The office of bishop was often granted not because of any great skill in pastoral care or because of any great knowledge of doctrine but often because of administrative skills, what we today would call “Organizational Management”. It is a point of fact that some Bishops rose from the ranks of the diaconate without ever having been ordained to the priesthood. Deacons were usually sent out to the surrounding area to report back to the Bishop what was going on in the local Churches and to communicate the Bishop’s wishes back to those Churches. The diaconate was often greatly involved in governance of the Church while the presbyters were often more concerned with pastoral care. This is where many of the non-Catholic religions get their idea of “Elders”.
More lay involvment and governance of the Church by deacons was necesary to a certain extent, especially early on in the history of the Church, because of persecution. One could not just hang up a sign, set up adminstrative functions in the local office park and start issuing memos “From the desk of the Bishop…” To be caught with correspondance on Church matters and other Christian documents, church vessels, or being found in the posession of anything identifiable as Christian meant probable torture and death. And this is where the diaconate, as the “Eyes and ears of the bishop” came in. Deacons fulfilled a very useful role.
It is a shame that the permanent diaconate virtually disappeared from Catholicism from 900 AD until it was reestablished by Pope Paul VI in 1967. But much of the decline in the diaconate as the “Eyes and ears of the Bishops” was not because of a concious decision to do so nor as a result of a deviation from Christ’s teaching about how to organize the Church. As persection declined, secular government support increased, and technology improved, the need for deacons as administrators of the Church was lessened to the point where the diaconate all but disappeared. As the Church became more powerful, lines of communication became formalized and Bishops were able to move about and communicate more freely, the diaconate became nothing more than a stopping point for seminarians on the way to the priesthood.
Fast forward to 2011 where there are close to 20,000 deacons in the US Catholic Church alone. These do just about everything conceivable in management and governance of local parishes. And the OP’s question about the differences between the permanent and transitional diaconates is something that every deacon asks himself… Am I ordained to service? What does that even mean? What pastoral role do I have? Do I just hold the cup? If I am just a Church administrator, why am I even ordained? What role do I have that neither the priest nor the laity can fulfill? Am I here just because there is a shortage of priests? These are all questions the modern diaconate struggles with. The fact that deacons are often described in negative terms… they can’t consecrate, they can’t hear confession… doesn’t help matters. Who want’s to be come someone who can’t do things?
Remember however, that the permanent diaconate was reestablished 44 years ago in the wake of Vatican II, and that reestablishment was after almost 1100 years of disuse. To a certain extent, the Church herself does not know what the role of the deaconate will become in the next centuries. Having both an ordained role in the Church and a secular life, I have heard deacons described as “Euchariistic Ambasadors to the world.” They clearly have a role in bringing the Church to secular places just by their very presence in secular life and I personally hope they will take a major role in teaching, catechesis and defense of the faith.
I think only the Holy Spirit knows what role the permanent diaconate will ultimately play in the future Church. I can tell you that I am excited enough about the prospect that I’ve mentioned the thought of becoming a deacon to the senior pastor at my parish.
-Tim-
T
TrueLight
Guest
Thanks for sharing your experience.
J
jpjd
Guest
This sounds like the culture in your particular diocese. I don’t see this to be the case in my diocese. In particular, in my parish, we have been very happy to welcome a newly ordained deacon who is being shared between my parish and a neighboring parish. He is respected by our priest and parishioners, and our bulletin lists him as “Rev. Mr. XXXXXXXX”.
Just be aware that the situation in your diocese does not hold true for all.
P
PacoG
Guest
I remember reading somewhere on this forum that permanent and transitional deacons wear their stoles differently. Is that so?
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
Your experience is certianly not the case in my diocese. Not only do ALL deacons vest the same for Mass, if they are serving with the Bishop, there is always permanent as well as transitional Deacons on the altar.
The only visual distinction will be the clerics worn by the transitional deacons.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Well, in the Latin Rite, yes. In the East there is no difference. They vest the same, and since there is no celibacy rule for priest, any deacon can be ordained a priest.
B
Brendan
Guest
I would agree that it seems to be a diocesan practice. Here in Detroit, all Deacons are informally (spoken) referred to as “Deacon”, in writing or address, it’s “Rev Mr. —”
Two “permanent” deacons are assigned ( on a 3 month rotating basis) to the Cathedral to assist the bishop. Those deacons who have that assignment are the ones that assist at the Cathedral Masses. One will act as Deacon of he Word and the other will act as Deacon of the Altar.
The only exception is the Mass of priestly ordination. That one is traditionally served by the newly ordained “transitional” deacons. That makes perfect sense, as those men have gone through years together in the seminary.
As far as clerics, they are required for ‘tranitional’ deacons, optional for ‘permanent’ deacons.
L
Lapey
Guest
I must admitt that many of your characterizations are true, you do come off as a little bitter. Remember that the focus is and always should be on the priesthood. The Church can survive without PDs, She cannot survive without priests. No priests no Eucharist, no Eucharist no Christians…it’s that simple.
It is a little disheartning that there are seperate “rules” for different deacons. Clerical garb, titles, liturgical functions, ect., but the good PD is the one who is in the back ground making things happen to complete the duty imposed on us in canon 1752…this doesn’t happen on stage.
C
Cohibas
Guest
Not bitter, but disheartened by the difference from what we were taught and told in formation to the way many of my brother Deacons are treated in reality. The original post had nothing to do with where the focus should be, so your comment in that regard is a bit off-post. Nevertheless, I am an incredibly strong supporter of the Holy Priesthood. In fact, in my Holy Thursday homily I focused upon the importance of the priesthood and how invaluable they are to us.I must admitt that many of your characterizations are true, you do come off as a little bitter. Remember that the focus is and always should be on the priesthood. The Church can survive without PDs, She cannot survive without priests. No priests no Eucharist, no Eucharist no Christians…it’s that simple.
It is a little disheartning that there are seperate “rules” for different deacons. Clerical garb, titles, liturgical functions, ect., but the good PD is the one who is in the back ground making things happen to complete the duty imposed on us in canon 1752…this doesn’t happen on stage.
I simply wish that the ones who are negative towards deacons would take some time to come to know us. To learn that we desire only to assist them and not usurp any of their functions or position. We want to collaborate with them to fully live out our vocations and ordained nature. But in doing so, a little respect for the Office of Deacon (not me personally!) would be nice!
L
Lapey
Guest
Cannot disagree with you here…in time I guess. The permanent diaconate is “new” for the church in this age. We will have to do the best we can possibly do to show the diaconate as filled with the light of Christ, so that the next generation of PD’s have it better than us.Not bitter, but disheartened by the difference from what we were taught and told in formation to the way many of my brother Deacons are treated in reality. The original post had nothing to do with where the focus should be, so your comment in that regard is a bit off-post. Nevertheless, I am an incredibly strong supporter of the Holy Priesthood. In fact, in my Holy Thursday homily I focused upon the importance of the priesthood and how invaluable they are to us.
I simply wish that the ones who are negative towards deacons would take some time to come to know us. To learn that we desire only to assist them and not usurp any of their functions or position. We want to collaborate with them to fully live out our vocations and ordained nature. But in doing so, a little respect for the Office of Deacon (not me personally!) would be nice!
I’m up for the challenge!!!
A
Alfonsus
Guest
Nope. They wear the stole the same way.
- Status