Deacons and the Motu Proprio?

[AJV]

Originally Posted by Thursday1

Ken,
It is the Code of Canon Law (CIC) that says who can confect which Sacraments, not the 1962 Missal. CIC 1917 has been abrogated, and has no force anymore. So that makes your second point completely wrong. A validly ordained deacon, whether permanent or transitional can preside over a wedding, or preform a baptism according to the 1962 formula, as CIC 1983 gives him that right.
In a nutshell, you are not getting the CIC 1917 with this, though I'm sure some would love that.

CIC 1917 also has the deacon as a minister of solemn public baptism- but he needs the permission of the pastor or the bishop.

According to the liturgical books, he cannot bless the salt and water in the baptism ceremony- he must use pre-blessed salt and water.

[First of 9]

Originally Posted by kleary

"Offensive" because those who attend the TLM object to the change- a married deacon so to say. Some Traditionalists just find it offensive- I know this from experience because I brought the issue up at my parish several years ago- a permanent deacon was interested in assisting at our parish. They said absolutely no and were very suprised that I suggested it. (emphasis added)
I told them that they had nothing to fear, so did my pastor- if a permanent deacon were to show his face at our parish- no problem to assist at Holy Mass in his role- it would mean more Solemn Masses.


Ken

Who is running this parish, the parish priest or the congregation?

I've been under the impression that for at least the last 59 years (my lifespan), the pastor was in charge, not the congregation. Even post-VII, the congregation, parish council, etc., played an advisory role only.

This parish doesn't sound "traditional" to me.

[AlexV]

The west does have subdeacons. All the so-called traditionalist orders ordain their men to the subdiaconate.

[Windmill]

My understanding is that the role of proclaiming the Gospel is proper to a Deacon, but if one is not present for the (Pauline) Mass, then a Priest fills in for his role (this is why the Priest, at the Dominus vobiscum preceding the Gospel doesn't extend his arms in the orans position - he is acting as a deacon who doesn't use such priestly gestures). This is a legitimate option since the Priest has already received the order of Deacon.

My reason for bringing this up is that a poster mentioned before that it was an abuse for a priest under the old rubrics to fill in for a deacon. It still seems to be the practice, and it seems to be based on reasonable grounds.

Someone educate me.

[AlexV]

You don't stop being a deacon when you become a priest, anymore than a bishop is suddenly not a priest.

That's why in the extraordinary usage, a bishop often wears the tunic, dalmatic, the chasuble...he possesses the fullness of Holy Orders.

[Sure]

Originally Posted by First of 9

Who is running this parish, the parish priest or the congregation?

I've been under the impression that for at least the last 59 years (my lifespan), the pastor was in charge, not the congregation. Even post-VII, the congregation, parish council, etc., played an advisory role only.

This parish doesn't sound "traditional" to me.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!

kleary,

What on earth is going on in your parish? It sounds like the liberal parishes that are controlled by runaway committees of lay people intent on destroying Catholic tradition and liturgy. And since when can the "committee" decide that a validly ordained deacon cannot fulfill his rightful role in the Mass. There is a word for the people on your parish "committee" - protestants.

[Sure]

Originally Posted by AlexV

You don't stop being a deacon when you become a priest, anymore than a bishop is suddenly not a priest.

That's why in the extraordinary usage, a bishop often wears the tunic, dalmatic, the chasuble...he possesses the fullness of Holy Orders.

Great point. This is why it's perfectly appropriate for priests to fill the roles of subdeacon and deacon when needed.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Sure

Great point. This is why it's perfectly appropriate for priests to fill the roles of subdeacon and deacon when needed.

That is correct, but if a Deacon is present, the role goes to him, over a priest who also happens to be a deacon. This is part of the principle of subsidiarity.

[Sure]

Originally Posted by Brendan

That is correct, but if a Deacon is present, the role goes to him, over a priest who also happens to be a deacon. This is part of the principle of subsidiarity.

Agreed!

The priest fills in that role only if a deacon/subdeacon is not able to do so.

So, would it be preferable to have a deacon fill in as a subdeacon instead of a priest filling in the role of subdeacon?

[Andreas Hofer]

Originally Posted by rtconstant

First off a "traditionalist" should have no problem with the permanant Diaconate as that is the most ancient state of that Order. Before the Council of Nicaea Deacons were the direct representatives of the Bishop they Baptized, distributed the Eucharist etc. In Nicaea some of their previous functions were obsorbed by the Priesthood. This was when the decline of Permanant Diaconate began.

Up to that point all Orders whether minor or major were very specific and important functions in the Church and the liturgy. Also remember that the original Cardinals were Deacons, though that position changed and adjusted quickly and often. Still my point is that we should acknowledge that the ancient Church honored the permanant Deacon. So I would certainly hope that no "traditionalist" would look down their nose at them.

I will defend the clerical dignity of married deacons all day long, so I don't want to come off as impugning them in any way, but:

1) let's not confuse "traditionalism" with "antiquarianism." Traditionalists, as the word is commonly understood, do not want the oldest practices, rather they want the practices as they stood at the peak of their organic development, before they were artificially redirected by committee.

2) I'm slowly trying to discern whether I have a vocation to the diaconate (being 24, I've got some time), but since I'm also traditionalist, I'm kind of torn about it. On the one hand I realize that allowing married deacons will have the effect, if taken advantage of, of making solemn Masses a much more viable possibility for many parishes. At the same time, I think clerical celibacy has been a great treasure of the Latin church and don't know how to feel about overturning that long tradition in our church. I have no problem at all with any deacon serving as such at a TLM, but I do wonder whether I, in a traditionalist context, would pursue those orders.

[bpbasilphx]

**(Yet at my parish we do not allow "permanent deacons" to assist at Solemn Mass because many find it offensive).**

But temporarily demoting a priest by dressing him up in a dalmatic or tunicle is NOT offensive?

Just what does your parish think deacons (and subdeacons) are supposed to do, anyway?

I think the term "permanent deacon" should be abolished. A deacon is a deacon is a deacon is the first of the three major orders.

[AlexV]

I have no problems with deacons.

That said, a priest IS a deacon. He doesn't stop being a deacon anymore than a bishop stops being a priest.

It's not "playing dress up" to have a priest exercise the diaconal function at a Solemn High Mass (obviously, in the absence of a man who is "only" a deacon).

That priest remains a deacon until death, just as a bishop remains a deacon, and a priest.

[bpbasilphx]

** In the Pope John XXIII Missal the only function I noted was proclaimer of the Gospel in the solemn celebration of the Mass but not referred to in the ordinary Mass. **

The solemn celebration IS the "ordinary Mass." Missae privatae ("low masses") are permitted only as an accommodation to human weakness and lack of personell.

[BobP123]

The solemn celebration IS the "ordinary Mass." Missae privatae ("low masses") are permitted only as an accommodation to human weakness and lack of personell.

Where is this written?

[Andreas Hofer]

Originally Posted by bpbasilphx

** In the Pope John XXIII Missal the only function I noted was proclaimer of the Gospel in the solemn celebration of the Mass but not referred to in the ordinary Mass. **

The solemn celebration IS the "ordinary Mass." Missae privatae ("low masses") are permitted only as an accommodation to human weakness and lack of personell.

Originally Posted by BobP123

Where is this written?

Might I suggest a compromise? I don't have any binding quotes in mind, but can't we all agree that the sung Mass is considered the ordinary form, meaning it is certainly preferred over low but need not always be solemn?