Deacons and Communion Distribution

[piusx1914]

In the May 31 Remnant there is an article describing how the Remant has been banned in Pittsburgh and it is revealed in that article that permanent, married deacons are being used to distribute Communion at the Pittsburgh Indult Mass.

 

One page 126 of the new SSPX Missal it says this about the Deacon: "The consecration of the Deacon, giving the right and power to sing the Gospel, to baptize, and to dispense holy Communion, and to preach."

 

I realize that Deacons were not ordinarily used for the distribution of Communion, but the SSPX Missal suggests that it is theoretically possible without violating tradition.  I also realize that permanant deacons are a product of Vatican II, although it would seem irrelevant whether we are talking about a single transitional Deacon or a married permanant Deacon because the sacrament of Orders has been conferred regardless.

 

What do you all think?

[Paul]

Given the choice between a permanent deacon distributing communion (and I believe the new rite of Holy Orders to be valid) and using EMHCs, I'll take the deacon. If it were a married priest celebrating the TLM, I'm sure some groups would raise a big stink about that, but such things are subject to change, and the man is ordained, married or not. We know doctrine cannot change, but rejecting anything and everything since 1969 seems to be the kind of archaelogism condemned by Pius XII. Much of what's come out of Vatican II is bad, and I do agree that the permanent deacon diminishes the role of the priest, but if we have one around, let's let the clergy do what they're supposed to do instead of having more "lay ministry".
 

[HMiS]

Hi,

 

Permanent deacons were no problem in the Latin rite, as long as they are not married. Most larger Archdioceses had Archdeacons, many of whom originally were not priests, some Benedictine Monasteries had permanent deacons.

 

Being married is no problem in the Eastern rites, so it should not be so much of a problem over here either. The problem however is, that the permanent married diaconate is often being exploited now as an argument against obligatory celibacy and the obligation of taking vows of celibacy before Ordination in the Latin rite Church.

 

Though I do share most of their opinions, I can't agree with The Remnant in this matter. A married deacon is as much a deacon as a Benedictine monastic deacon is. So there is nothing sacrilegious about it.

 

I must say however, that traditionally, since the 4th century, there are few if any examples to be given of married deacons in the Latin rite. I am not counting concubinates (in the Early Middle Ages) however....

 

In the traditional Code of Canon Law, the deacon is mentioned as the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, probably using that, because the deacon did not ordinarily give Holy Communion at the altar rail (except in seminaries, monasteries), as there were virtually no permanent deacons in parishes. And the deacon did and does not confect the Holy Eucharist.

 

It is lawful however, and morally licit as long as he purifies his hands, that a deacon distributes Holy Communion.

 

In fact, the permanent diaconate makes perfectly lawful the practice of frequent Holy Communion for the sick and home-bound. Permanent deacons can do that sort of functions.

 

Our local Permanent (married) deacon however is a formerly protestant (and as such thrice married/"married" and divorced) married Catholic layman heavily involved in the Charismatical "Renewal" and inclined to reject Latin. Which is to me a proof of lack of sensus catholicus and sensus fidelium.

[spasiisochrani]

I fail to see the problem here.  Would anyone object to distribution of Holy Communion at a Latin Mass by a visiting Eastern priest or deacon who is licitly married?

[piusx1914]

I fail to see the problem here.  Would anyone object to distribution of Holy Communion at a Latin Mass by a visiting Eastern priest or deacon who is licitly married?

 

Thank you to all who replied.  I don't think there is a problem at all, spasilsocharani.  It would seem to me that Paul and HMIS are consistant in their replies.

 

It is interesting you bring up Eastern Deacon's.  I attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy yesterday and was faced with this situation.  I really wrestled with whether to go to Communion or not and did in the end.  This is when I came home and remembered the Remnant article and the definition in the SSPX Missal about the role of a Deacon.

 

Although most pre VII parishes and most modern day Trad's have never dealt with whether or not to receive Communion from a Deacon, it appears like there is nothing wrong with the practice from a traditional perspective.  When I made my original post, I was just "fishing" to see what the reaction of fellow Trad's was on the issue.  I have to admit that I was kind of suprised by the responses, even though I agree with them.  I thought other Trads would freak out about this, but supprisingly, they did not.

[piusx1914]

The next logical question, to me anyhow, is about the ordination of a Deacon.  We have always heard that the priests hands are consecrated in order to handle the Eucharist.  Since we all seem to agree that having a Deacon distribute the Eucharist is not a modernist innovation, are a Deacons hands consecrated in some manner to handle, although not consecrate, the Eucharist? 

[HMiS]

No, a deacon´s hands are not blessed (or consecrated) at the Ordination to the Diaconate. He is ordained to administer the Word (the Gospel), to preach and to prepare the altar and serve at it.

 

But the Diaconate is part of Major Orders, of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and as such its ordination is sacramental: it truly gives grace, the Holy Ghost and the character of the Order.

 

Likewise, a priest can be ordained in an emergency situation with merely the imposition of hands and the essential words (a formula of about twenty words in the Roman Rite). He would after that lawfully handle the Eucharistic Species.

 

The blessings at ordination and the unction of the hands, (or of the head, at episcopal consecration) are mere sacramentals, not part of the Sacrament itself, nor necessary for validity or in se  for the lawful exercise of the priestly or deaconal ministry. They help and - if devoutly received and accepted - give subjective grace.

 

As said: please note, that in the Latin rite, the deacon of old was an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, brought the holy mysteries to the sick and the physically impaired, but in the old Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917, he is mentioned as the extraordinary minister. The new John Paul II Code of Canon Law of 1983 mentions him as the ordinary minister. But it was always customary for him to distribute Holy Communion nevertheless, this was done, after the Council of Trent, by seminarians who were educated pastorally for half a year at a certain parish, a sort of practical exam before Ordination to the sacred Priesthood.

[piusx1914]

 

   

The blessings at ordination and the unction of the hands, (or of the head, at episcopal consecration) are mere sacramentals, not part of the Sacrament itself, nor necessary for validity or in se  for the lawful exercise of the priestly or deaconal ministry. They help and - if devoutly received and accepted - give subjective grace.

 

Thanks for the response, HMIS, I never knew these things.

[CatholicCrusader]

As said: please note, that in the Latin rite, the deacon of old was an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, brought the holy mysteries to the sick and the physically impaired, but in the old Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917, he is mentioned as the extraordinary minister. The new John Paul II Code of Canon Law of 1983 mentions him as the ordinary minister. But it was always customary for him to distribute Holy Communion nevertheless, this was done, after the Council of Trent, by seminarians who were educated pastorally for half a year at a certain parish, a sort of practical exam before Ordination to the sacred Priesthood.

 

S. Thomas clearly illustrates in the Summa that a deacon is, indeed, an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion : III. 82. iij.

[HMiS]

S. Thomas clearly illustrates in the Summa that a deacon is, indeed, an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion : III. 82. iij.

 

Okay, but the deacon merely is the extra ordinary minister, because he does not confect the Sacrament himself. He however lawfully can hand out Holy Communion, and this has been apostolic practice since the persecutions of the Catacombs.