The following comes from an October 7 Diocese of Orange press release:
The Most Rev. Kevin Vann, Bishop of Orange, will ordain 15 new deacons to serve the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange during a Mass of Ordination at St. Columban Church in Garden Grove (10801 Stanford Ave), October 17, 2015 at 10 a.m.
The Order of Deacon was restored by Pope Paul VI on the feast of St. Ephrem, the Deacon, June 19, 1967, in accordance with the will of the Second Vatican Council. The United States Catholic Bishops Conference (USCCB) reinstituted the permanent diaconate in 1968 following the Pope’s decree. Since that time the number of deacons has quickly grown from around 800 in 1975 more than 18,000 in 2012 according the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University.
Candidates to be ordained:
• Ricardo Barraza Mejia – La Purisima
• Stephen Michael Byars – St Mary’s by the Sea
• Pedro Jose Cardenas – Holy Family Cathedral
• Biviano Cordero Roman – Immaculate Heart of Mary
• John Randolph Davies – St. Irenaeus
• Daniel Joseph Diesel – Santiago de Compostela
• Angelo Giambrone – St. Vincent de Paul
• Peter Murray Lauder – St. Juliana Falconieri
• Tuan Duc Nguyen – St. Boniface
• Timothy William O’Donoghue – La Purisima
• Humberto Ramirez – Santiago De Compostela
• Michael James Shaffer – St. Angela Merici
• Michael Thomas Stock – St. Edward the Confessor
• Chau Quy Tran – St. Nicholas
• Antonio Vazquez-Orozco – St. Anthony Claret
I’d like to say great … but the formation of deacons in the Diocese of Orange is terrible …
Since deacons preach at Mass, they should be required to have at least an M.Div.
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Foundation for a lay-led church, coupled to the national {Catholic} church initiative semi-detached from Rome rule?
Priest-replacements. Not surprising given the prior episcopate of Tod Brown (1998-2012), a long-time friend of Card. Mahony and Levada (former classmates at St John’s, Camarillo, he ordained in 1963, Mahony in ’62 and Levada in ’61), and whose tenure was marked by the continuing progressivism of the New Church.
You mean marked by the heretical teachings of Cdl Joseph Bernardin,
and their approval/hinding of child abuse ?
All Faithful Catholic men who adhere to the ENTIRE Doctrine of the Faith as contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” (aka CCC;
dark green cover in the USA) –
should pray and consider being a Deacon. Inquire at your Diocese office.
All Faithful men and boys should volunteer to be Altar servers at Mass.
Your Parish Priest will train you.
Serve the Lord.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished on this site!!!! This is a time for “bravo”, “nice job”, “God bless these men”, etc.. Imagine devoting five years to theological formation and discernment about ordination. I have known several Deacons who serve the Lord in varying ministries, who serve at the altar with grace, and who preach the Word with certainty. We need not fifteen, but hundreds more. You may have noticed that the Bishop and the Pope are served on the altar by Deacons, some permanent and some transitional. I say Hooray for these folks. Now if we could return to the old tradition of the Church and ordain women to this high post.
Preaching with “certainty” does not mean preaching with accuracy.
Yes deacons often assist at Papal and Pontifical Masses. But did you ever see a deacon preach at a Papal Mass? I bet not. Why? Inferior and incomplete theological preparation.
Women were never ordained deacons, another false account of ecclesial history. When Paul refers to Phoebe in Roman 16:1, the Greek word diacanon refers to, yes, serving others, which is what her role was. Bob One, you just dropped the mask and showed your true heterodox New Church colors.
“Bob One, you just dropped the mask and showed your true heterodox New Church colors.”
Excellent work, Steve Phoenix!
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm is a good reference point.
An ineffective and unfactual evasion of the question. ( I have said for years that New Advent is a lousy Catholic site and has very poor research and thinking as well as documentation.)
You didn’t answer the question: where is the evidence in the writings of the patristic fathers, either Greek or Latin, or in the New Testament, of imposition of hands and ordination of women? There is none. You are heterodox, Bob, you need to face it. You also are defying Ordinatio Saverdotalis of John Paul II. The question is: do you care?
Speaking of facts, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not prohibit women deacons.
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not prohibit women-deacons..” Ignorance speaks: read what even the USCCB states: diaconate is one of the 3 levels of ordination to the priestly ordained state:
https://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/diaconate/
…just as the bishop is the “fullness of priesthood” (Lumen Gentium, Ch. III, diaconate is a participation in the ordained state. It is forbidden to women.
now, let’s just go at Round 2 because I know Bob One will not acknowledge this is a fact. So show me where in any of the Greek or Latin fathersor, in the New Testament that there was the laying on of hands and the ordination therefore of women. Please.
It is WIDELY regarded, even among very conservative bishops, that women were ordained to the deaconate. There is even archeological evidence that women were ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
Stop the fairy tales, Your fellow change agent. The superintendent of the Vatican’s sacred archaeology commission, Fabrizio Bisconti said, “Such readings of these frescoes were fables.”
Loose lips sink sin-nod ships! Readers who want to remain faithful will certainly appreciate the heads up warning confirmation of “widely regarded” apostasy. The word “conservative” means NOTHING. You are a Catholic bishop and with Him OR you can play make-believe playhouse and call yourself a “conservative bishop” and still be against Him. Just like Judas!
We were taught that the deaconess of old were not ordained with Holy Orders. One possibility is that they were the wives of deacons. Also see this:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2014/02/06/could-women-ever-be-ordained-deaconesses/
Provide the proof, Our Occasional Catholic. New Testament, Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers, Migne, mysterious uncited Bugnini-like “archeological evidence” (perhaps a 1st C. photo?)—you must have excellent evidence, what are the highly regarded, highly cited sources? We pant with excited anticipation. You are ever rhapsodic about traditional-types not providing factual citations: and yet you make a bald-faced unbased assertion. Rubbish.
Women were NEVER ordained. Deaconesses were the wives of Deacons in the early Church. Adhere to Doctrine – – – .
DOCTRINE: CCC: ” 1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. “
“Now if we could return to the old tradition of the Church and ordain women to this high post.” = Sin-nod birds and enablers of the same feather have always been chirping the same historically sulphuric dissent together.
Bob One,
For all of your duplicitous posts over the years on CCD, you decided to comfortably remove your mask. Feeling quite confident about the sin-nod it seems. You are teaching many how scheming & plotting vipers work. Your particular judgment, as well as your “fellow” vipers, will be far more severe than the young misguided woman or older misled women who you are deliberately trying to ensnare.
What a vicious post. True Christians do not post such venom against each other.
When so called “venom” is Truth and it offends the Left it is a persons duty to posit it….
Catherine is merely acting in accordance with her well formed Catholic conscience, YFC. Who are you to judge? And especially via such high drama. Good grief.
You all are pouncing on Bob One as though his appeal to the ancient tradition of ordaining women to the diaconate was heresy.
Get a hold of yourselves people! Not only is there solid historical reference to female deacons, but there is honest discussion about a female diaconate, even amongst the most conservative of bishops!
That’w right, you can’t answer the questions, you are afraid of defining difference, so you must be victims.
There is zero historic, traditional, or archaeological evidence of imposition of hands and ordination of women in church history. Except for the Gnostics, which you two both must be members of.
BobOne – why are you advocating VIOLATING Doctrine of the Faith –
CCC # 1577 ?
There is zero evidence that women were ever ORDAINED within the Catholic Church.
Deaconesses were the wives and widows of Deacons.
‘women were ordained to the deaconate.’ They were NOT ordained but have a DIFFERENT role as de deacons. Most of the work was baptism since adult women were baptized naked it the right thing to do.
Now women do a lot of things in the church, is NOT necessary to have deaconess anymore.
By the way, this additional time bomb can be squarely laid at the feet of the false god of Vatican II:
“…The diaconate can be restored in the future as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy.” V2, Lumen Gentium, 29.
““The second Vatican Council established that “it will be possible for the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy….(and confer it) even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force”, in accordance with constant tradition.’” Basic Norms for Formation of Permanent Deacons,” Congregation for Catholic Education & Congregation for Clergy, quoting V2 decree Optatam…
quoting V2 decree Optatam Totius, #1.
“…’the law of celibacy must remain in force’, in accordance with constant tradition,” (q.v. above)
What constant tradition? When revolution within the Church has commenced, constancy and tradition has ended. Do whatever you want with your “church”: it is a false church.
And your mask has finally come off, SP:
You refer to the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Supreme Pontiff, thusly: “Do whatever you want with your “church”: it is a false church.”
You have finally come out as a heretic and schismatic.
Ha! This from one who is ever-whining and ever-caterwauling about being a victim and being called names. One who can dish it out, but just…cant…take it. Ha!
Steve…I don’t understand. Does ’the law of celibacy must remain in force’, in accordance with constant tradition,” mean that married deacons must be celabet?
Who knows what it means, C&H (“the law of celibacy must remain in force”): it is a Vatican II-inspired document, co-authored by Pio Laghi, one of the most famous change-agents in the Catholic Church (who appointed so many destructive US bishops during his tenure as papal nuncio in the 1980’s). So it is intentionally ambiguous and can be interpreted anyway that revolutionary churchmen wish.
Deacon Tom at St. Timothy in Los Angeles is a wonderful example of what a deacon should be. An educated man, his homilies are well prepared and delivered, and he speaks to the readings of the day plus how to understand and incorporate them into daily life. Much prefer his style to that of the pastor whose sarcastic ramblings are unpleasant. Be thankful for good MALE deacons.
For me, it is a blessing for Gnostics and true heretics to call me names: more of it, please, a curse shrieked at me by a Gnostic or a heretic is a gift.
A false church’s advocates call for women’s ordination. A false church’s advocates reject P John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis [OS: stating: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” (#20)]. A false church’s advocates reject marriage and family (Gaud. Spes, 47-52) and call for re-marriage and alternative marriage. Bless me again, O Gnostic False…
..False Churchers..
But again, Our Erstwhile Catholics and Bobsey Twins have avoided the real question:
Provide the proof: New Testament, Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers, Migne, mysterious uncited Bugnini-like “archeological evidence”—you must have excellent evidence, what are the highly regarded, highly cited sources? Don’t send us to some checked-pants-collegiate-freshman Catholic website that is a joke to the faith. Where are the original sources, O Knowledgeable Gnostics?
C&H, a married Deacon must become celibate if his wife dies before him, according to my friends who have been ordained. Until then, they are not required to be celibate. The five year process of becoming a Deacon involves the wife at many stages of the program, especially in the discernment year.
When men are ordained, we should thank God and pray for them. As a deacon, I’d like to add something to this discussion. The 2nd Vatican Council restored the diaconate for the Latin(-rite) Catholic Church, since it had previously been discontinued. We Eastern Catholics have always had the diaconate (not only as something “transitional” for priestly candidates). The diaconate is ancient, in fact, older than the priesthood/presbyterate (in Biblical Greek). See Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3. The Apostles ordained the first deacons, Their successors, bishops, continue to ordain deacons. Church history has many deacon Saints who were never priests. St.s Francis and Lawrence come readily to mind. When you pray for vocations, please…
What is done in the Eastern Church, is fine for that tradition. This is another error of confusing the different rites and their discrete traditions.
As for St. Francis being a deacon, he specifically declined to advance himself to priesthood. He was not “in”the permanent diaconate.
…. But this really begs the real issue here, which is that there are some heterodox types who want to have ordination of women, and that has absolutely no scriptural or patristic basis at all
Permanent deacons were supposed to work mainly in missionary lands, but the opposite is true. Because they can have their cake, and eat it too, more males would rather be ordained deacons than priests. Many deacons know little about the faith, and some are leading not so moral lives. Basically they serve little or no purpose, and are as useful as a crocheted commode.
It is incorrect, unjust and uncharitable to say about my brother deacons, many of whom, including my father-in-law, have labored long and faithfully for Christ’s Church that they “basically they serve little or no purpose, and are as useful as a crocheted commode.” The ignorance of the diaconate displayed here is appalling. Read what the Church Herself teaches about deacons. Don’t take my word for it. Read what the Apostles, bishops and the magisterium of Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church have to say. Is name calling, and hiding one’s true identity, some kind of a mark of orthodoxy in some people’s minds?!
Ok, Deacon Anderson, you wish to set the record straight re. diaconate and your vocation, well and good: however, do not typify those of us who discuss the matter as opposed to the many good people who serve in the office.
However, since you are willing to serve up correction to the lay people here, let’s also correct some things.
First of all, you reveal a neo-primitivist tendency (“…the diaconate is ancient, in fact, older than the priesthood..”): Well this isn’t exactly true, because John the Presbyter, one of the 1st century disciples, is mentioned by Papias (70-163AD)and by Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340);, two of the Patristic Fathers who I am sure you are well-acquainted with, so there were priests (Gr. word,…
…(Gr. “presbyteroi”, “presbyters”, or priests) in the very early “ancient” Church that it appears you use to justify diaconate. It shouldn’t be justified over and against priesthood, as it appeared you seemed to do. But that is probably what they taught you in the New Church diaconal training schools. You should have noted you only get about half the story (if you are lucky).
Secondly, if you believe in the continuity of the R. Catholic Church, then you believe in the continuity of the development of doctrine (ex. Card. JH Newman). The priesthood in the Latin Catholic Church, which developed organically over centuries is not beholden to the Eastern Rites, respected as those rites are. The priesthood has served the Catholic Church quite enviably well—up until 1965. That is a matter of statistical fact.
The point is, if you follow what Presbyterum Ordinis (Decree/Priesthood, V2, 1965), the ministry of priests was not to be marginalized or set aside—even as an unintended consequence. What followed V2 was a precipitous drop in priestly numbers: simultaneous to that was the movement to recruit married…
…the post-1965 movement to recruit married men to the diaconate. That correlation cannot and should not be overlooked nor dismissed. Priesthood, already marginalized (“presider”, an entirely unbiblical term), has become the potted plant of the Novus Ordo sanctuary.
Diaconate is a good thing: but just as the episcopal rank is the fullness of priesthood, priesthood has a greater fullness and capacity to serve the “people of God.” I am sure you agree with that.
One last thing: I am sure you were over-trained in diaconal school against the demon of “clericalism”: but I couldn’t help your note your condescension to us living in our mud-and-wattle huts when you disparaged our discussions as “name calling, and hiding one’s true identity, some kind of a mark of orthodoxy.” That didn’t display much of a fair and objective viewpoint: you might want to note that.
Too many of us have been demonized and scapegoated for telling the truth in the dioceses we still work in: is that the way for the diocesan “body” to work? But it does. There is a matter of freedom of speech—parallel you might say to “Religious Liberty” of V2. Don’t try to take that away from us, just because you want to…
Don’t try to take that (freedom of speech and of thought), Deacon Craig, away from us, because you may want so much to defend diaconate and your fellow deacons. That’s understandable: but even we peasants have thoughts and “cling to our Bibles.” And traditional Missals.
However, you might also best think ahead how you are going to preach on the defense of marriage and family, and that there is no alternative in Catholic doctrine to the permanency of the marriage bond, that which can only be between a man and a woman (Gaud. Spes, n. 47-52). You may also want to think how you are going to preach about the defense of life, especially of the unborn, in these times of murder and dismemberment. This is not a time to be quiet to…
…This is not a time to be quiet in order to facilitate a false church growing up in place of a True Church.
Lastly, Deacon, think of the sermons preached by the priests at the pivotal naval Battle of Lepanto–a time when they faced almost certain annilhation in which the dead would be considered the lucky ones. What was the theme? “There is no heaven for cowards.”
This is not a time for any of us to be cowards, Deacon Craig, to be cowed in to silence and submission. Let us show we are not ashamed of Christ before men so he will not be ashamed of us before the Heavenly Father (Mk. 8:38). There is no heaven for cowards.
Deacons should be restored to Holy Orders for celibate men only like it was prior to the disaster called Vatican II. Women cannot and will not be priests or deacons the Church has said time and time again the matter is CLOSED!!!! Go join the dying Episcopal Church.