FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Restore the minor orders! - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Restore the minor orders! (/showthread.php?tid=41146)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Re: Restore the minor orders! - WhollyRoaminCatholic - 01-11-2011

(01-11-2011, 05:11 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote: So when was there a tradition of a married permanent diaconate in the Church that somehow so needed to be restored by V2, while V2 simultaneously trashed the minor orders leading to the priesthood?
Yes, for many hundred years.  Indeed, some of the greatest saints of the church were permanent deacons (http://saints.sqpn.com/saints-who-were-deacons/) and many of those were married.

Quote:In most NO parishes I've been involved with in the past, the 'deacon' pretty much supplanted most functions of the priest, other than at the consecration.
Strange, since the permanent diaconate really isn't that common.  Most?  Really?  And in just how many NO parishes have you been involved?

Quote:If you feel the need to jab trads as 'reactionaries' who cast a jaundiced eye at this whole sordid concoction, then by all means knock yourself out.
:laughing:  Right.  Because you're not reactionary.  LOL.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - The_Harlequin_King - 01-11-2011

(01-11-2011, 05:11 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote: So when was there a tradition of a married permanent diaconate in the Church that somehow so needed to be restored by V2, while V2 simultaneously trashed the minor orders leading to the priesthood?

Vatican II did a bad deal to the minor orders, no question. However, restoring the permanent diaconate was actually on the agenda for the fathers of the Council of Trent. They wanted to do it, but like the minor orders, never got around to implementing anything useful to that direction.

Quote:In most NO parishes I've been involved with in the past, the 'deacon' pretty much supplanted most functions of the priest, other than at the consecration.

In truth, most secondary things that priests do, especially with regard to administration, are best left to deacons. Deacons should also have more direct involvement in religious education. This frees up the priest to perform his primary roles, which are sacerdotal: offering the Mass, absolving sin, and so forth.

Quote:And maybe, just maybe, that was part of the plan all along. Luther's 'priesthood of the people' and all that rot, to go along with his 'table'. Married ministers, just like the protties.

While I do support married deacons, that's a tertiary issue in my book. What I'm advocating here is minor orders in the parishes (celibate or not), and permanent diaconate and subdiaconate in general. If I could have entered a diaconate formation program a year ago, I would've been a permanent celibate deacon. The U.S. restricts entry to diaconate formation until 32 in most places, though. Life's given me other plans in the meantime.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - Christus Imperat - 01-12-2011

(01-11-2011, 05:11 PM)cunctas_haereses Wrote:
Quote:Perhaps some traditionalists have a reactionary stance on the issue because the permanent diaconate was restored by Vatican II, ergo it must be bad.

So when was there a tradition of a married permanent diaconate in the Church that somehow so needed to be restored by V2, while V2 simultaneously trashed the minor orders leading to the priesthood?

In most NO parishes I've been involved with in the past, the 'deacon' pretty much supplanted most functions of the priest, other than at the consecration.

I think the real irony is that, with these 'permanent deacons' combined with the flood of laity, it's pretty difficult to see what purpose priests themselves have at all these days!!

And maybe, just maybe, that was part of the plan all along. Luther's 'priesthood of the people' and all that rot, to go along with his 'table'. Married ministers, just like the protties.

Yes, yes, the Easterns have married clergy. This is Latin. Married 'deacons' just greases the skids.

If you feel the need to jab trads as 'reactionaries' who cast a jaundiced eye at this whole sordid concoction, then by all means knock yourself out.

I think the lack of deacons in one crucial way actually led to the liturgical implosion.  Without deacons, the Solemn High Mass is impossible.  The Missa Cantata is an indult or adaptation of the Solemn High Mass, given a shortage of suitable clergy. 

In many Irish-American parishes before the Council, there were no High Masses at all.  Everything was Low Mass.  This state of affairs encourage liturgical minimalism, which fully bloomed after the Council.

The Low Mass is fine and beautiful, but more proper for the priest's private Mass or a small group of faithful during the week. 

I think that both Harlequin and I would argue that the devaluation of the minor orders prior to the Council made their abolition after the Council unsurprising.

I saw elsewhere that Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the restoration of the permanent diaconate.  I haven't found a source for that yet though. 


Re: Restore the minor orders! - Christus Imperat - 01-12-2011

From Bishop de Mallerais' biography

"I (Lefebvre) quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate" (277).

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008/12/book-review-marcel-lefebvre.html


Re: Restore the minor orders! - WhollyRoaminCatholic - 01-12-2011

(01-12-2011, 12:22 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: From Bishop de Mallerais' biography

"I (Lefebvre) quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate" (277).

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008/12/book-review-marcel-lefebvre.html

His excellency must have been just another secret closeted modernist. :laughing:


Re: Restore the minor orders! - Christus Imperat - 01-12-2011

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm

Above is a counter-point.

Now the question: Did Mgr. Lefebvre advocate only a celibate permanent diaconate?  Or did he also accept the married permanent diaconate?  The quote from the biography doesn't tell us.

No one here would deny that celibate deacons are at the very least preferable to married ones.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - WhollyRoaminCatholic - 01-12-2011

(01-12-2011, 12:30 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: No one here would deny that celibate deacons are at the very least preferable to married ones.

I would.  At least, I'd claim that married or celibate isn't important to the diaconate.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - Christus Imperat - 01-12-2011

(01-12-2011, 09:38 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-12-2011, 12:30 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: No one here would deny that celibate deacons are at the very least preferable to married ones.

I would.  At least, I'd claim that married or celibate isn't important to the diaconate.

Well, the Church does hold celibacy for the sake of the kingdom to be an objectively better choice.

I think there is a crucial difference between deacons and priests, in that deacons are not handling the sacred species directly. 

The article on the SSPX site is giving me some second thoughts.  However, it is also very difficult for me to believe that married clergy in the East was never legitimate at all and that they were nearly all hard-hearted schismatics for centuries.  This issue is worth thinking about more, perhaps in another thread.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - The_Harlequin_King - 01-12-2011

(01-12-2011, 09:48 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I think there is a crucial difference between deacons and priests, in that deacons are not handling the sacred species directly. 

It should be said here that deacons may distribute the Host during Communion. They're considered ordinary ministers in the 1983, and extraordinary ministers in the 1917 version.


Re: Restore the minor orders! - The_Harlequin_King - 01-12-2011

I don't have time to address the article on the Society's website in full, but it seems to be intellectually dishonest by ignoring very large amounts of evidence of a continuous tradition of married clergy in the East. One can't simply assert that the Eastern churches just invented married/non-continent clergy in 692. I believe MagisterMusicae, an SSPX schoolteacher himself, offered a refutation of various points in the article some time back, but I can't remember for sure.

Either way, this is still tertiary to the matter of the usage of orders lower than the priesthood in general.