The issue of permanent, non-celibate deacons is a very timely one - with some folks openly questioning the churches discipline on clerical celibacy.
ping
May 23, 1979 ??
Permanant?
Furthermore, the "revelations" contain statements contrary to Catholic teaching including references to "Rapture" like events and to my knowledge, none of Mrs. Lueken's predictions have come to pass.
Finally, it was condemned outright by the local bishop.
The "apparitions" will be found "thought-provoking" only by those who already believe that everything which currently occurs in the Church is the result of a conspiracy.
Those who respect Catholic teaching and the Pope will find these "apparitions" bogus.
LOL!!! Veronica Luekens was dismissed as a mental case by the Diocese of Brooklyn in 1973.
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel when you use this imposter to justify your positions.
Aren't you one of those "by their fruits, you will know them" people?
Well, the permanent diaconate has ordained over 800 men per year over the last 25 years, on average. That's twice the number of men who've been ordained to the celibate priesthood.
The permanent diaconate is the only clerical vocation that continues to grow dramatically.
So when does this apply to churches in Dallas? :-)
I have been away for a while and not had chance to catch up with the myriad pings I've received in my absence, but I felt obliged to jump in here because there are numerous errors both in the posted story and subsequent comments.
Thor, I normally agree with you 100% in your analysis of the present sorry state of Holy Mother Church, however, I must question your seemingly uncritical acceptance of these alleged apparitions.
Firstly, deacons were the first of the Holy Orders to be established after and by the apostles. Our order existed in the New Covenant before the order of presbyter, and initially the only ministers with a liturgical function were the bishops and deacons - the presbyters effectively "sat in choir" until they later assumed the role of "mini-bishops".
In both East and West, the deacon was always an ordinary minister of Holy Communion - specifically it was his duty to minister the Precious Blood to the faithful. However, the deacon has always had a levitical role rather than a priestly role, and so never (officially) offered the sacrifice.
The order of deacon has always been the first of the 3 major orders of the Church; a deacon is in Holy Orders; he is a clergyman and consequently there is NO SUCH THING AS A LAY DEACON. The term is an oxymoron, a nonsense, a protestantism!!!
The terms "transitional" and "permanent" are irrelevant because they are merely adjectives - there is only one order of DEACON. It is a HOLY order and a CLERICAL order which is configured to be an icon of the Servant Christ just as a priest is configured to be an icon of Christ the High Priest. Both terms are misnomers IMHO because there is no such thing as a non-permanent deacon - a deacon who goes on to be ordained to the priesthood is always still a deacon. Hence the pre-conciliar practice of a bishop being vested in a dalmatic under his chasuble.
As a clergyman, he should dress as such which means clerical garb and collar or cassock. For those of us who are not ashamed of what we are, we dress appropriately. People can always distinguish me from the local priests because I wear my clerical shirts and collar or my cassock, whereas most of the priests round here wear sweatshirts and jeans!!! I do admit to not wearing my cassock in the bath, however!!!
As for the restoration of the "non-transitional" diaconate and admission of married men to its ranks being a product of the nefarious spirit of Vatican II, the entity which was giving these alleged visions to the alleged visionary was obviously very ignorant of the history of the Ecumenical Councils! It may surprise you to learn that it was actually the COUNCIL OF TRENT which first called for the restoration of the diaconate and it was the COUNCIL OF TRENT which also called for the admission of married men as clerics, although obviously not to the priesthood and episcopate.
The diaconate is not a backdoor to married priests in the West - that will never be the norm. The far graver threat to our Tradition is the admission of married former-Anglican pseudo-clergy to the Catholic priesthood: BIG MISTAKE! A deacon is a deacon and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discipline of the priesthood.
You think most deacons are ignorant of Church teaching? Big deal - I KNOW THEY ARE! But in case it had escaped your notice, most bishops, priests and laypeople are also ignorant! We are swimming in a veritable cesspool of heresy at the current time and the diaconate is no less immune from this than any other part of the Church. But its not because they are deacons that they are ignorant of the Truth - they are ignorant because they are ignorant, and they've been trained and ordained by ignorant priests and ignorant bishops. (I'm being charitable here by calling them ignorant - but you know what I mean - its Lent!)
As for "having power", the deacon has the three munera of teaching in the name of the Church, sanctifying by administration of the Sacraments and governing, that bishops and priests do. The deacon's munera are obviously limited by the faculties of the order of deacons, though.
Quite frankly I don't want the faculties to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve sins - they pertain to the vocation of the priest - not the deacon. However, I do have the vocation to teach and preach - to prepare the ground and sow the seeds for the one who tends this corner of the vineyard. To my mind, in this time and age, this is the most important thing that can be done to serve Almighty God. What use is it to have the Sacraments in plentiful supply when those who should benefit from the Grace in them impede it by ignorance, heresy, and sin?
The Tridentine Mass will no more restore orthodoxy than it did prevent the Church from degenerating into widespread heresy and apostasy. The rise and domination of liberalism took place while the Tridentine rite was the only rite of Mass in the Latin Church. 99% of the bishops at Vatican II knew no other rite than the Old Mass.
It is ORTHODOXY and FIDELITY which the Church needs to recover before any of the problems (including the full restoration of the Mass of St. Pius V) will be put right. These come through FAITH, which comes through HEARING, and how will anyone hear unless someone is SENT?
The Church doesn't need to get rid of the diaconate - it just needs ORTHODOX DEACONS, like it needs orthodox bishops and priests.
Thor, rather than slagging the diaconate off, maybe you should think about whether you are called to be a deacon!