Celibacy of Deacons
#31
Good to have you onboard, DC. I agree with everything you said.
Reply
#32
(07-23-2010, 12:30 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: RandomTradGuy,

You will not be excommunicated if you become a married deacon.  The SSPX has ZERO authority to make a wild ass claim of excommunication in this regard. 

As has been hashed out in other various threads, articles posted on an SSPX website are not necessarily an indicator of SSPX policy or even an endorsement of some opinion.

That is generally the case with most websites. For instance, what I write here does not automatically receive the endorsement of Quis, and especially in circles where large quantities of information are shared, it's very common to post articles which provide good information, but may not be entirely representative of one's position.

You've apparently read enough of the article to note that the author of the article indicates that previous law has serious censures for what now passes as normal, yet you've failed to recognize that the article was not written anonymously by the SSPX, nor was it written by one of it's clergy, nor was it written by an employee or teacher of the SSPX. It is reproduced from an article printed in the U.S. District's magazine -- itself, a translation of an article from a non-SSPX magazine.

That's several steps removed from being the official stand of the SSPX.

The only thing connoting support for the article's claims are its posting on the SSPX website, however, given that there are many articles by many people expressing many ideas, it seems a huge stretch to suggest that these are any more than articles intended to help people understand more about the controversies and important topics surrounding tradition, and not as treatises on the official positions of the SSPX.

I would never try to claim that an article written by a Cardinal and put in L'Osservatore Romano connotes the official teaching of the Church, nor would I ever try to suggest a single article on the FSSP website communicates their official policy or an attempt to legislate for the Church.


(07-23-2010, 12:30 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Married Clergy is a discipline. The Church has the authority to change disciplines, and they changed this discipline BACK to allowing married deacons in the Latin Rite. 

No argument that the celibacy of clergy is a discipline.

Where you are wrong is again, pointed out in the article with which you so loudly objected above (and thus, I question if you even read it before passing judgement on it). Since the First Eccumenical Council (Nicea) the certain law of the Church has forbid clerics in major orders from being married or if married, mandated perpetual celibacy. The article also describes how the Eastern Churches came to violate this law as a custom. Eventually for the peace of the Church, it was tollerated in the Eastern Rites.

While I will not say that the Church cannot allow Latin deacons to marry, it is manifestly false to suggest that Latin Rite deacons, at one point, were permitted to be married (or at least married and yet not celibate).

(07-23-2010, 12:30 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Also note, deacons are not peculiar to a particular rite.  You can be ordained a deacon in the Latin Rite and serve in the Eatern Rites as a deacon, or visa versa.  It's not complicated like switching rites as priest.

Indeed, but at the same point, deacons, as clergy, exercise their ministry only under the authority of their Ordinary. Just like priests, deacons have faculties to operate in certain places and areas. They do not and cannot just exercise their ministry as they see fit.

A deacon cannot just go from diocese to diocese exercising his ministry, just as a priest cannot do that. He has faculties in his diocese. When he is outside his diocese he must generally ask for permission to exercise his ministry from the local Ordinary.

Just as priests are generally allowed faculties only for one particular rite, so is the case with deacons. A Latin deacon cannot simply show up to a Byzantine church and serve as a Byzantine deacon. Neither could a Byzantine deacon simply show up to serve in a Latin Rite Mass as a Latin Deacon. They would each need to go through the proper channels to get the faculties to exercise their ministry in the other rite.

Such faculties are not lightly given.

A deacon is a deacon, no matter the rite in which he was ordained, but the territory in which he exercises his ministry is restricted, just like a priest.
Reply
#33
(08-11-2010, 09:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-23-2010, 12:30 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: RandomTradGuy,

You will not be excommunicated if you become a married deacon.  The SSPX has ZERO authority to make a wild ass claim of excommunication in this regard. 

That is generally the case with most websites. For instance, what I write here does not automatically receive the endorsement of Quis, and especially in circles where large quantities of information are shared, it's very common to post articles which provide good information, but may not be entirely representative of one's position.

But their website isn't a user-driven forum like this.  The article didn't get posted by accident.
Reply
#34
All the deacons I have ever seen (present parish excepted) haven't worn clerical garb during Mass.....just the Klan bedsheet over their street clothes.

Seems like most dioceses permit (if not promote) the bare minimum.
Reply
#35
(08-12-2010, 09:23 AM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote:
(08-11-2010, 09:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-23-2010, 12:30 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: RandomTradGuy,

You will not be excommunicated if you become a married deacon.  The SSPX has ZERO authority to make a wild ass claim of excommunication in this regard. 

That is generally the case with most websites. For instance, what I write here does not automatically receive the endorsement of Quis, and especially in circles where large quantities of information are shared, it's very common to post articles which provide good information, but may not be entirely representative of one's position.

But their website isn't a user-driven forum like this.  The article didn't get posted by accident.

Fair point. The site is not exactly the same, but the point is the same. One post here doesn't represent the official site's policy or opinion. Neither does a single article written by a non-SSPX faithful necessarily represent the SSPX's position.

My only problem is assuming that content on any site, forum or not, is somehow more than just the author's opinion.

On a non-forum site we know an article posted is at least of some value to the site's owners, but beyond that we know nothing.
Reply
#36
If I could perhaps add a couple of additional thoughts with what has been discussed so far;  the wearing of the dalmatic quite often comes down to cost (as sad as that sounds).  Deacons are not paid to be deacons (although in some diocese they may be employed for particular ministries or administrative duties) but they are not paid for their liturgical and charity ministries based out of a parish.  Most receive stoles as gifts or buy their own;  quite often, in a parish setting, the cost of dalmatics is seen by some on parish staff as 'excessive', and so the 'unspoken' expectation is that the deacon will purchase his own - quite often they can't afford them on their own, and so do without.
I was quite fortunate in that during my final year of formation, my pastor who was very supportive of my vocation, asked what I would like for an 'ordination present'.  I said I didn't need anything, and he , quite rightly said, "well, you will need proper vestments', and so he and my wife planned together where a set of all four dalmatics (liturgical colors) and stoles were paid for by different groups as gifts - my immediate family, my extended family, individual friends from the parish, and one from the parish itself.  I am incredibly blessed that I had such tremendous support and , by extension, tremendous formation at our diocesan seminary - liturgy was very important in our studies and it saddens me to hear of deacons in other diocese being described as'clueless' on the sanctuary - perhaps because their formation was not adequate in that particular area;

which brings me to the second point; the commentary/article connected to the sspx about automatic excommunication of married permanent deacons.  While this may be someone's 'personal opinion', it does have other consequences - while some may not see as 'harmful', they are certainly not 'helpful' or even charitable.  For example, I and others who were ordained with me several years ago have been looking for resources to study and learn the proper role of the deacon at the EF or NO Mass; there is at least one online business which advertises materials for learning the Latin Mass who state quite clearly that they will only fill orders for priests and 'transitional deacons', NOT permanent deacons, and they provide, as their rationale, a link to the sspx article that has been in question on this thread.  So I suppose in this individual 'opinion' a group which is not in communion with Rome  supposes they can suggest I am not in communion with the Church which ordained me and for whome I strive to humbly serve.  This simply strikes me as another example of a complete unwililngness on the part of some to even enter into dialogue with Our Holy Father and why I hold out such little hope that the 'society' will ever be welcomed back 'into the fold'.

And lest I bore everyone to tears with one more point, 'transitional' or 'permanent' the rite of ordination for both is the same, and as has been stated in Ecclesia Dei (though more eloquently) 'a deacon is a deacon is a deacon."
God bless you all

DC
Reply
#37
(08-11-2010, 09:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Where you are wrong is again, pointed out in the article with which you so loudly objected above (and thus, I question if you even read it before passing judgement on it). Since the First Eccumenical Council (Nicea) the certain law of the Church has forbid clerics in major orders from being married or if married, mandated perpetual celibacy.


This is a misrepresentation of canon 3 of Nicea.  This canon did not prohibit clerics from living with their wives, but instead prohibited them from living with a subintroducta (syneisaktos).

CANON III.

THE great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter,
deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta
dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such
persons only as are beyond all suspicion.


The subintroducta was not a wife, but an unmarried  woman disciple living with a celibate cleric.

http://jbburnett.com/resources/canons/1can/1can03.html

Quote:The article also describes how the Eastern Churches came to violate this law as a custom. Eventually for the peace of the Church, it was tollerated in the Eastern Rites. 

The allegation that the Eastern church violated a preexisting law of celibacy at the Council in Trullo, or by custom, is unhistorical nonsense. 
Reply
#38
(08-17-2010, 05:33 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(08-11-2010, 09:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Where you are wrong is again, pointed out in the article with which you so loudly objected above (and thus, I question if you even read it before passing judgement on it). Since the First Eccumenical Council (Nicea) the certain law of the Church has forbid clerics in major orders from being married or if married, mandated perpetual celibacy.


This is a misrepresentation of canon 3 of Nicea.  This canon did not prohibit clerics from living with their wives, but instead prohibited them from living with a subintroducta (syneisaktos).

CANON III.

THE great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter,
deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta
dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such
persons only as are beyond all suspicion.


The subintroducta was not a wife, but an unmarried  woman disciple living with a celibate cleric.

http://jbburnett.com/resources/canons/1can/1can03.html

Quote:The article also describes how the Eastern Churches came to violate this law as a custom. Eventually for the peace of the Church, it was tollerated in the Eastern Rites. 

The allegation that the Eastern church violated a preexisting law of celibacy at the Council in Trullo, or by custom, is unhistorical nonsense. 

I you look at what I originally wrote, you'll find it said that it was mandated that a cleric be celibate or, if married be "perpetually celibate". That is imprecise terminology. I should have written that clerics were prohibited from taking a wife, or if married already, following their Ordination, they were to be perpetually continent.

This is, of course, a discipline. The specifics of it are not in Canon III as you mention, but you've interpreted the Canon very narrowly. More specifically it prohibited a cleric in major orders from living with any woman, except his family. The reason was that the traditional and law required a cleric in major orders to be celibate or continent. Living with any woman other than family would have stood against this principle.

In his Demonstratio Evangelica (1.9), one of the leading proponents of this Canon at the Council, Eusebius of Nicomedia, explained what I have above, that a cleric if not married was to be celibate and if married before Ordination was to be continent.

Again, I did not cite Trullo, so you're reading into my words. I agree that the Quinisext Council didn't violate this law, per se. The author of the article overinterprets, but his point is larger than that mistake. Starting with Trullo there began to be a growing separation of East and West. Eventually the Eastern clerics abandoned the foundational principles of Canon III (though not the words of the law, they rejected the celibacy/continence of clerics). Not only were clerics married before ordination permitted to keep their wives, but, as I understand it, were permitted to continue to have conjugal relations. That was a concession due to the frequent violation of the law mandating perpetual celibacy/continence. When Easterns came back into the Church, the Church tollerated their new customs because not doing so probably would have pushed them back into schism.

Hope this clarifies what I was trying to communicate.
Reply
#39
(07-07-2010, 06:12 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: Ever since I have been a traditionalist, people have said I should be a priest. Our director of vocations said if anyone would be a priest, it would be me. He knew this from the Latin Masses I have said with a retired priest in residence at our parish. How he knew I will never know.
I hsve no desire to be a priest, mostly because I am already committed to college to be a doctor of medicine, thats the plan at least. I am aware deacons are allowed to be married now, so I thought that would be neat. I could see myself doing that. I would wear a birretta and the cassock and everything. The traditional deacon.

Well, again my freinds, tradition and logic has slapped me in the face. I would like opinions on what the fishies here think about the SSPX's opinion. [http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celiba...eacons.htm
They say I would be latae setentiae excommunicated, if I knew I wasn't allowed to be a married deacon but did it anyway.


That sounds like a fashion statement, not a vocation.  Being a deacon doctor seems like a great way to do a half assed job in either field.  The world needs good Catholic doctors.  You should just continue your studies and live in the state of grace.  If God is calling you to a priestly vocation, then circumstances and desires will facilitate that later.  Your medical knowledge could be of great use to you later as a priest. 

And again, if you're planning on being married, you don't have a clerical vocation in the Latin Rite. 
Reply
#40
Here is the relevant scripture:

1 Timothy 3, 1-13
This saying is true: if anyone is eager for the office of bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher, not a drinker or a brawler, but moderate, not quarrelsome, not avaricious. He should rule well his own househhold, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God? He must not be a new convert, lest he be puffed up with pride and incur the condemnation passed on the devil. Besides this he must have a good reputation with those who are outside, that he may not fall into disgrace and into a snare of the devil. Deacons also must be honorable, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for base gain, but holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let them first be tried, and if found without reproach let them be allowed to serve. In like manner let the women be honorable, not slanderers, but reserved, faithful in all things. Deacons should be men who have been married but once, ruling well their children and their own households. And those who have fulfilled well this office will acquire a good position and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)