When was the permanent diaconate suppressed?

[Digitonomy]

The permanent diaconate, recently restored, was apparently suppressed in the Latin Church for a number of centuries.

When and why did this occur?

 

[rtconstant]

It began after the Nicean Council, where many of its traditional functions were taken over by the priest. Before then the Diaconate was the right hand of the Bishop. It was a position whose prestige was equal to the priesthood. After the Nicean Council the priest began to be used as the representative of the Bishop to the local congregation. At which point the Diaconate became seen as a stepping stone to Priesthood.

The original cardinals were Deacons in fact. Though obviously that deacons may no longer hold that distinction the lowest tier of the College of Cardinals still holds the title Cardinal Deacon.

Anyway, I wouldn’t say that the position was suppressed as much as its main function was given to another position and so really wasn’t to much need after that. The same thing happened to the minor orders as well.

 

[Digitonomy]

After the Nicean Council the priest began to be used as the representative of the Bishop to the local congregation. At which point the Diaconate became seen as a stepping stone to Priesthood.

So were almost all of the deacons (and subdeacons) in Latin parishes since Nicaea in transition to the priesthood?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t have the reference at hand, but recall reading the following: For several centuries Priests did the sacramental work in the churches while Deacons were responsible for the administrative end. As often happens control of the finances evolved into control of the organization. [The Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules.] One deacon even complained to Rome that his bishop had ordained him a priest against his will and cost him his lucrative post of running the parish. I think it was around the end of the first Millennium that the problem was resolved by abolishing the permanent diaconate. [A misnomer since every priest is also a deacon, and every bishop is also a priest and deacon. But you know what I mean.]

 

[Genesis315]

So were almost all of the deacons (and subdeacons) in Latin parishes since Nicaea in transition to the priesthood?

I don’t know, but St. Francis of Assisi was a deacon, for example, and he lived well into the second century.

 

[Genesis315]

At Vatican II, it was primarily the Latin American bishops who argued for the restoration of the permenant diaconate. The argued for it for the same reason that the Apostles first instituted it, because they were getting too caught up in “waiting tables” instead of doing their primary job spreading the Gospel, offering the sacraments, and saving souls.

 

[rtconstant]

So were almost all of the deacons (and subdeacons) in Latin parishes since Nicaea in transition to the priesthood?

Not necessarily but I should also add that things began at Nicea there were still Deacons for a good while after that there was just continually less and less. So there was a mix the needs of the Church changed during those times. I think though that soon Deacons will start to gain more prestige as a Holy Order again. They can do a lot in the current Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It was never fully suppressed as the religious orders had deacons.

Only the permanent diaconate of the secular clergy was suppressed.

 

[OldRedleg]

The following from an article titled, A Brief History of the Permanent Diaconate seems to cover your question.

"The causes of its eventual decline and disappearance began 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 kind 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, were 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 were presiding at the Eucharist. As the presbyterate became increasingly associated with presidency at Mass, presbyters like 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.

It seems that the failure to comprehend and appreciate the special value of the diaconate in its own right eventually resulted in its collapse. That, however, was a long time happening. 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. By the fifth century, it seems, most deacons did little except perform Mon, unctions. By this time, too, the idea had begun to gain currency that the diaconate was no more than an introductory stage in Orders, a step on the way toward ordination as a priest. Its value as an integral part of the hierarchy of Orders – deacons, priests, bishops – was obscured. By the Middle Ages the office of deacon was, according to Rahner, close to being a “legal fiction”.

So it remained for many centuries. There were deacons in the Western church, but they were men on their way to becoming priests. Few people imagined it being any different."

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for that detailed excerpt, it seems to confirm and elaborate what rtconstant said.

presbyters like 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”.

I wonder if Jerome shared the view of Aquinas that bishop is not a separate order from priest?
Joe Kelley:

I think it was around the end of the first Millennium that the problem was resolved by abolishing the permanent diaconate.

Do you have any details about the formal abolition of diocesan deacons?

 

[OldRedleg]

The diaconate was never formally abolished by the Church. It has always existed as one of the three orders of the clergy.

From what I have been able to read on the subject, the diaconate as a permanent order started to decline in the third century and fell into general disuse by the middle ages. Part of the decline involved clearer definition of the roles of the priest in the Mass that limited what a deacon could do. There was also some bad feelings toward deacons due to the power and influence they had as the traditional administrative power houses of dioceses under the authority of the bishop. As the power and influence of the priesthood increased the diaconate decreased. By the middle ages the diaconate was simply seen as a step to being ordained a priest. This was the tradition in use up to it’s restoration as a permanent order by Vatican II.

As for whether Jerome shared the view of Aquinas that the order of bishop was not a separate order from priest…lets leave that one to a new thread.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .Do you have any details about the formal abolition of diocesan deacons?

No. It’s just a fragment remember from something I read long ago.