I would like to know what Traditionalist Roman Catholics think about the permanent diaconate. Does it have a place in the TLM and in the Traditional expression of our faith?
I think that permanent deacons go all the way back to the apostles, which I guess would make them very traditional:D
Deacons are an ancient order of the church which was allowed to lapse for a long time. When they were revived, the criticism made was that if a man is fit to be a priest he ought to be a priest, and if not he is unfit to be a deacon.
Actually the deacon is the bishop’s servant, whilst the priest is the bishop’s assistant. Whilst there is some overlap, and what they have in common, that both help the bishop, is much more important than what divides them, the two roles are not very similar. The assistant to the financial director is a very different figure to the assistant financial director, in most companies.
The problem with deacons is a rather silly one. Celibacy. because the public is fixated on the idea of priestly celibacy, deacons are perceived as priest wannabes who couldn’t hack celibacy. I am sure that, for the vast majority of deacons, this is grossly unfair, and the time may come when they are called upon to prove that their orders are no less meaningful than priestly orders. However that time isn’t yet, and we cannot simply pretend that this perception does not exist.
Look at the rubrics for a Traditional High Mass. That should explain everything.
Yes, it will be nice to actually have deacons filling the deacons roles again. Unfortunately so far the High Masses I have seen recorded still employed priests in those positions.
I wonder what the position of the SSPX is on permanent deacons?
I dont think I undersand. The Order of Deacon never went away- it has just been a transitional, rather then a permament, diacontate. Since there are actual Deacons and Subdeacons (an order that Paul VI supressed) in traditional orders and congregations of priests, the Solemn Mass can be, and is, celebrated often with an actual Deacon and Subdeacon.
I have only seen it done with Priests in the deacons roles.
Can anyone confirm that the solemn high Mass is routinely served with real deacons these days?
A priest IS a real deacon. So is a bishop.
That’s why Tridentine bishops wear dalmatics, chasubles, even the subdeacon’s tunic.
You don’t stop being a deacon once you become a priest. The sacrament leaves an indelible mark.
It doesn’t matter how many layers a bishop puts on. It will be nice to see the Mass done properly for a change, using priests in the deacons role at a solemn high Mass is an abuse.
Perhaps reintroducing the permanent diaconate is restoring a much needed balance to the church.
True but he has become MORE than a deacon.
Hesychios’ view is erroneous.
It is NOT an abuse to have priests function as deacons or subdeacons at Solemn High Masses.
It is permitted under the rubrics of the Tridentine Missal. It’s not an abuse.
What is it with Easterners attacking Western practices on this forum?
“The Mass done properly for a change…”
What arrogance. How offensive.
Why Alex I’m shocked:bigyikes: Don’t you know that Eastern Rite practices are obviously superior?
At least that’s the impression I seem to get from many of these posts. Everything in the eastern Rites is superior, more pure and not tainted as the Latin Rite so obviously is.
Actually I’m starting to think many of these posts may in actuality be something other than what they appear.
I think you’re right; suspicious that this Traditional Catholicism forum seems to have suffered an invasion of arrogant Easterners and their supporters who have, indeed, been claiming that the “true tradition” is theirs and certainly not Trent, product of that decadent and corrupt West as it was.
In the Eastern view of pulmonology, it seems they breathe just fine with one lung, while the West gasps for air.
Actualy, it is quite normal. Because in the past Deacons and Subdeacons were transitional orders, they were in short supply for the average parish. Instead, two priests could be used for those roles. That is no abuse at all.
There should be no problem at all for traditional Catholics to accept permanent Deacons within the Mass or in any other diaconal function. The Bible tells us of St. Stephen, a deacon, who was one of the Church’s first martyrs.
There is no indication that this saint was a “priest wannbe”, nor should modern-day deacons be viewed as such because their calling is to service in a different way.
The Church did at one time have permament Deacons; however, it is a long established tradition that the Deacons be a transitional step to the priesthood rather then a permament vocation.
Does your use of the word “did” mean that a traditional Catholic should not recognize the validity of the ordinations of the permanent Deacons ordained since V II?
OK, I can understand that. I retract my assertion that it would be an abuse, based on the fact that the western church did not have many deacons available at any given time.
I wonder if there is acceptance among Traditionalist RC of the permanent diaconate in general?
I sense a bit of hostility. Would you rather I not post here any longer?