When was the Permanent Diaconate discontinued

[BenFischer]

I’ve read several times that after Vatican II, the Diaconate was “restored”, which I assume means that prior to Vatican II there weren’t any permanent Deacons.

When was the Permanent Diaconate dissolved? I have several old missals that pre-date VII and there are roles for Deacons and Sub-deacons in the Mass, which implies that people were ordained into those orders.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve read several times that after Vatican II, the Diaconate was “restored”, which I assume means that prior to Vatican II there weren’t any permanent Deacons.

When was the Permanent Diaconate dissolved? I have several old missals that pre-date VII and there are roles for Deacons and Sub-deacons in the Mass, which implies that people were ordained into those orders.

The permanent Diaconate was never discontinued. Religious orders had permanent deacons and the Eastern Churches have to.

The secular part of the Church, the dioceses, might have discontinued it but the Church as a whole did not.

Those roles of deacon and sub-deacon in the old Latin Mass were filled by priests and in most cases still are today.

 

[SteveLy]

According to James Barnett in “The Diaconate: A Full and Equal Order” it declined in the 400’s as the Presbytery (Priesthood) increased. Thought never officially discontinued as has been mentioned, the roles were filled by Priests or the increase of Transitional Deacons. In the Anglican Communion, also by lay people, as chalice bearers.

In the mid 1960’s both the RC and Anglican Church took a greater look at rejuvenating the order. It appears Priestly Chastity (in the form of celibacy) may have caused the Diaconate in the Catholic Church to increase at a greater rate, due to the allowance of married men who might otherwise become Priests, than in Anglicanism where Priests can marry and the Diaconate is clearly seen as an inferior role. The discontinuance of the Transitional Diaconate would help reduce this perception by clearly delineating the separation of Orders.

Peace

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have read [a long while ago so my facts may be fuzzy] that toward the end of the first millenium deacons did the administrative work of the church. They managed the business of the parish while the priests supplied the sacrament.

Unfortunately, the business end was the more profitable so attractive. There was at least one case of a priest complaining that his bishop had forced priestly ordination on him and deprived him of his greater income as a deacon.

Also, following the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules - deacons tended to be the de facto authority in the parish and ordered the priests around.

Rather than take the effort to straighten it all out, the powers that were took the easy route and abolished the deacons.

Not sure how valid this is, but I think it was from a reputable source.

 

[Pious_Mat]

According to James Barnett in “The Diaconate: A Full and Equal Order” it declined in the 400’s as the Presbytery (Priesthood) increased. Thought never officially discontinued as has been mentioned, the roles were filled by Priests or the increase of Transitional Deacons. In the Anglican Communion, also by lay people, as chalice bearers.

In the mid 1960’s both the RC and Anglican Church took a greater look at rejuvenating the order. It appears Priestly Chastity (in the form of celibacy) may have caused the Diaconate in the Catholic Church to increase at a greater rate, due to the allowance of married men who might otherwise become Priests, than in Anglicanism where Priests can marry and the Diaconate is clearly seen as an inferior role. The discontinuance of the Transitional Diaconate would help reduce this perception by clearly delineating the separation of Orders.

Peace

I’m afraid that in a sense, it is theologically impossible to separate the transitional diaconate from the priesthood. You see, if you recieve a minor order, you automatically recieve all the orders beneath it. If you are made a subdeacon, you are automatically also an exorcist, lector, porter, acolyte, etc. In the case of the major orders, you have to be ordained to a lower order before the higher one. A priest must be ordained to the diaconate before he is ordained to the priesthood, just as a Bishop must have both before he is consecrated. This is why Bishops have “the fullness of the priesthood”–they possess all orders. Hence there can’t be a separation of orders, since a priest also possesses the Diaconate. It also does the order of the Diaconate a great disrespect to try to skip candidates for priestly ordination for it as quickly as possible. Also, if every candidate for priesthood spent a year or two in the diaconate before ordination, and priestly vocations were what they were 40 years ago, permanent deacons would essentially be unnecessary. This is what happened after the council of Trent. Also, although Deacons are great, and the permanent diaconate has really helped the church today, you can have a million deacons in one parish, but if a priest never comes by, the parish can’t function.

In the end, over-glorifying the Diaconate is a very dangerous thing. It is a full and equal order, but the least of the three major orders, and to forget that does us no good.