Your Catholic training was seriously deficient if you were taught that the sacred Order of the Diaconate was a minor order and not a Sacrament. For instance: Cardinal Journet was one of the great Thomistic theologians before the Council. Msgr. Lefebvre, himself, spoke of him with praise (quotes from SSPXAsia website): "Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian", "Cardinal Journet, one of the outstanding theologians of this century...". He writes in his great treatise on the Church, The Church of the Word Incarnate:
Three of these are of divine institution: the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate ... The last of these three divinely instituted powers, the diaconate, contains in an eminent manner other lower powers, which gradually made their appearance in the course of time, as the divine cultus developed. The subdiaconate was instituted, and the various Minor Orders ... Bishops, priests, deacons—such, in the line of order, in virtue of divine institution, already clearly indicated in the earliest magisterium of the Church, are the degrees of the hierarchy. We must now consider for a moment each degree in particular.
All you've done to prove your case is claim "Catholic training". That doesn't prove anything. Pius XII clearly settled the case for the sacramental nature of the Diaconate with the dogmatic, ex cathedra definition in Sacramentum Ordinis:
Since these things are so, invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge We declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the imposition of the hands; but that form, and likewise alone, is the words which determine the application of this matter, by which the sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders, and grace of the Holy Spirit, and which as such are accepted and applied by the Church.
"sacred orders of the diaconate ... sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders..." How could he be more clear?
The Council of Florence also is clear on this matter:
Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated ... The sixth sacrament is that of order, the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the diaconate, however, by the giving of the book of the Gospels ... (Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, Nov. 22, 1439, in Denzinger-Deferrari 695, 701)
To say that the Diaconate is not a sacrament or a sacred order goes against the express teaching of the Council of Florence and of Pope Pius XII. To say that an ordained deacon has no character imprinted on his soul is contrary to the Council of Florence. You haven't produced anything to prove otherwise, but just insist that we take your word for it, as if you were some sort of infallible oracle greater than three ecumenical Councils (Florence, Trent, and Vatican II) and Pope Pius XII, to whom we could add Urban II (Denz. 356): "Moreover we call sacred orders the diaconate and the priesthood".
Very nice. All the blather you have cut & pasted was in reference to the transitional diaconate, through which our ordinand passed before being ordained to the priesthood.
They do not necessarliy or directly refer to the modern confection, post V2, of the "permanent diaconate", which is something not in existence nor conceived of when those things were written.
And......who cares anyway?