Lil Red Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 i don't get this.... Deacon Greg Kandra (who writes at Deacon's Bench), has a piece up about Bishop Bruskewitz retiring, but [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/09/the-vocation-that-lincoln-lacks-permanent-deacons/"]laments the lack of permanent deacons.[/url] "Meantime, to this day, the diocesan vocations page in Lincoln does not list the diaconate as a possible vocation, and it does not list an office of the permanent diaconate, either. Perhaps under the new bishop, things will change." ?? Obviously the bishop was doing something right, because according to the link: "According to [url="http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/Pages/about_home.aspx"][b]the diocesan website[/b][/url], there are 150 priests serving 134 parishes and 96,000 Catholics. There are 44 seminarians and 141 religious sisters." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 grrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Edmonton didn't have any until a year or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yes, it does appear that Bishop Bruskewitz was doing something right in how he promoted vocations to the priesthood. It appears that Deacon Kandra, however, was disappointed that the good Bishop did not also show a similar zeal in promoting the permanent Diaconate. Following Paul VI's [i]Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem[/i], it is the decision of the ordinary to determine the need and extent of the permanent diaconate in his individual diocese. Bishop Bruskewitz appears to have felt that there was not a need of the permeant diaconate in his diocese. The article states that is because "he felt it would inhibit vocations to the priesthood." Deacon Kandra, a permanent deacon himself, clearly disagrees and believes this to be an unfounded fear. There can be found good arguments to both sides of this healthy debate (the need and extent of the permanent diaconate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filius_angelorum Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Generally, in most dioceses with permanent deacons, deacons are undertrained and underpaid to perform the roles that they are given. Unless, as makes sense to me, deacons begin receiving full and complete seminary training, the permanent diaconate seems to me to be more of a liability than an asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 What does their training consist of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Exhortations, smiting, and Gospel reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 well...considering the permanent diaconate was restored at the Council of Trent, it took a while to get off the ground everywhere, not actually being implemented until after Vat II. still waiting on full implementation of instituted acolytes that Pope Paul VI decreed. we just got em 3 yrs ago and still waiting for them to fully replace EMHCs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 And this is deficient how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 not deficient. just pointing out that the Church moves in decades and centuries, not years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I know many people, especially those who are committed to the EF liturgy and the things that pertain to it, who don't really care for the permanent diaconate. Some go so far as to say that it was just an excuse to get laity more involved (perhaps a little, but that's overly simplistic). Others just don't care for it. I knew a bishop who just never implemented it in his diocese and didn't have deacons until his successor took over (and he had no idea how to use them). Sometimes there are theological reasons, and other times just practical reasons. With Bishop Bruskewitz, I suspect it was the former. I have had many experiences with permanent deacons. Some of them are crazy and really not up to the task. For instance, I've met deacons who didn't know that wine goes into the chalice (and he was serving at Mass with his bishop, who turned to him and said to try again!) Sometimes permanent deacons cause more problems than they help, particularly with theological formation. Depending on the diocese, permanent deacons aren't necessary and their roles can easily be supplemented by transitional deacons. On the other hand there some great permanent deacons and they like to stand up for each other... This is all to say, I don't think that permanent deacons actually help the number of priestly and religious vocations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347761886' post='2482860'] well...considering the permanent diaconate was restored at the Council of Trent, it took a while to get off the ground everywhere, not actually being implemented until after Vat II. still waiting on full implementation of instituted acolytes that Pope Paul VI decreed. we just got em 3 yrs ago and still waiting for them to fully replace EMHCs [/quote]I just went back and saw this. Your bishop has instituted acolytes? He told me almost seven years ago that he wouldn't. I'm glad to see he changed his mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthephysicist Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1347759015' post='2482836'] What does their training consist of? [/quote] Same question. [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347761886' post='2482860'] well...considering the permanent diaconate was restored at the Council of Trent, it took a while to get off the ground everywhere, not actually being implemented until after Vat II. [/quote] Can you give a little more history on this? I'm too young to remember a time without permanent deacons. What was going on before the Council of Trent that led to them diminishing or being restricted or whatever it was that made it necessary to restore them? Was it [i]more[/i] promoted to be implemented after Vatican II or was Vatican II the first time it had been promoted [i]at all[/i] since before Council of Trent? [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347761886' post='2482860'] still waiting on full implementation of instituted acolytes that Pope Paul VI decreed. we just got em 3 yrs ago and still waiting for them to fully replace EMHCs [/quote] What is an acolyte? The only 2 times I've ever heard of them was 1 from X-Men and 2 overheard two old church ladies talking about someone reaching the level of acolyte on his way to the permanent diaconate. I guess I should ask what their training consists of too. And if a parish (or perhaps it makes more sense to say diocese) were to "institute" an acolyte, what does that mean? Is it a permanent thing like the deaconate can be? Or maybe semi-permanent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthephysicist Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1347759015' post='2482836'] What does their training consist of? [/quote] Same question. [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347761886' post='2482860'] well...considering the permanent diaconate was restored at the Council of Trent, it took a while to get off the ground everywhere, not actually being implemented until after Vat II. [/quote] Can you give a little more history on this? I'm too young to remember a time without permanent deacons. What was going on before the Council of Trent that led to them diminishing or being restricted or whatever it was that made it necessary to restore them? Was it [i]more[/i] promoted to be implemented after Vatican II or was Vatican II the first time it had been promoted [i]at all[/i] since before Council of Trent? [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347761886' post='2482860'] still waiting on full implementation of instituted acolytes that Pope Paul VI decreed. we just got em 3 yrs ago and still waiting for them to fully replace EMHCs [/quote] What is an acolyte? The only 2 times I've ever heard of them was 1 from X-Men and 2 overheard two old church ladies talking about someone reaching the level of acolyte on his way to the permanent diaconate. I guess I should ask what their training consists of too. And if a parish (or perhaps it makes more sense to say diocese) were to "institute" an acolyte, what does that mean? Is it a permanent thing like the deaconate can be? Or maybe semi-permanent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 acolyte docs: [url="http://www.stmattcc.org/index.cfm?load=page&page=210"]http://www.stmattcc.org/index.cfm?load=page&page=210[/url] perm deaconate docs:: [url="http://www.fwdioc.org/vocations/perm_deacon/Pages/default.aspx"]http://www.fwdioc.org/vocations/perm_deacon/Pages/default.aspx[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now