The second Council of Vaison (529) declared that a priest might preach in his own parish, but that when he was ill a deacon should read a homily by one of the Fathers of the Church, urging that deacons, being held worthy to read the Gospel were a fortiori worthy of reading a work of human authorship. Actual preaching by a deacon, however, despite the precedent of the deacon Philip, was at all periods rare, and the Arian bishop of Antioch, Leontius, was censured for letting his deacon Aetius preach. (Philostorgias, III, xvii). On the other hand, the greatest preacher of the East Syrian Church, Ephraem Syrus, is said by all the early authorities to have been only a deacon, though a phase in his own writings (Opp. Syr., III, 467, d) throws some doubt upon the fact. But the statement attributed to Hilarius Diaconus, nunc neque diaconi in popolo praedicant (nor do the deacons now preach to the people), undoubtedly represents the ordinary rule, both in the fourth century and later.
I'm assuming this deacon that preached was transitional, right? I hope so... because as I was researching this myself, I ran across a thread at *shudders* CAF about "permanant deacons and the 'EF'." I wanted to vomit.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=196307There are "already 'permanant' deacons handing out communion in Chicago at the 'EF' masses."
Ugh I do NOT like where this is going.
Topic: Can someone corroborate this from Saint Marys please? (Read 1172 times)