FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Deacons and perfect continence - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Deacons and perfect continence (/showthread.php?tid=41868)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Deacons and perfect continence - Christus Imperat - 01-29-2011

http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2011/01/canon-277-does-not-require-perfect-and.html

"Account taken of the above, Dr. Peters gravely errs in advancing his thesis that can. 277, § 1 obliges married permanent deacons to observe perfect and perpetual continence, because he concomitantly denies that they are bound to celibacy. His opinion, therefore, is gravely misleading, and particularly imprudent to advance in a forum prone to sensationalism."


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - randomtradguy - 01-29-2011

Ya there was universal outlash from actual deacons who know how it works against Mr. Peters's claim.


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - The_Harlequin_King - 01-29-2011

I believe the argument by Peters simply defies common sense and goes to no purpose but sensationalism. However, I suppose it'd be helpful for Rome to issue a clarification.


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - randomtradguy - 01-29-2011

(01-29-2011, 09:50 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I believe the argument by Peters simply defies common sense and goes to no purpose but sensationalism. However, I suppose it'd be helpful for Rome to issue a clarification.

I know it's not facebook but: ^^like.

His son is no help, he's the author of the American Papist blog, he's just like: my dad's awesome bc he's a canon lawyer he's always right these deacons need to stfu

Edited to fix poor grammar


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - The_Harlequin_King - 02-04-2011

I don't blame Peters, Junior for agreeing with dad; that's natural. But there was a certain neocon flavor to his blog that made me stop following it a long time ago as I got more traditionally minded. And maybe it's just me, but he seems to have gotten way more political in recent years.


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - Basher - 02-08-2011

So, above I see 4 posts absolutely devoid of content.  If someone disagrees with Peters, you might try actually noting why.

"Ya there was universal outlash from actual deacons who know how it works against Mr. Peters's claim."

Pray tell, which actual deacons are you thinking of?  Dr. Peters is a canonist, which would make him an authority on Canon Law.  I've been reading through the responses from deacons on their various blogs and frankly they are unimpressive.  Dr. Peters may well be wrong (although "wrong" is not apt in a matter of basically uninterpreted law) but if he is, it's not for any of the ham-fisted reasons the deacons have been giving.

"I believe the argument by Peters simply defies common sense and goes to no purpose but sensationalism. However, I suppose it'd be helpful for Rome to issue a clarification." 

Which part defies common sense?  1.That married deacons can be held to perpetual continence or 2.that the law taken literally seems to bind them to exactly that?  #2 is aptly demonstrated by Peters, #1 is aptly demonstrated by Church history. 

"he's just like: my dad's awesome bc he's a canon lawyer he's always right these deacons need to stfu"

I think uninformed people need to "stfu".  And before some admin cracks me over the head, I'm quoting this poster. 

"But there was a certain neocon flavor to his blog that made me stop following it a long time ago as I got more traditionally minded."

Since when is it "neocon" as opposed to traditional to claim the law means what it says?  I'm stumped as to what sense the quoted comment makes. 



If anyone wants to actually discuss this, I'm game, let's do it.  I think there are vast ramifications for tradition in this matter, but you geniuses have missed them, completely.
 





Re: Deacons and perfect continence - The_Harlequin_King - 02-08-2011

Relax, dude.


Basher Wrote:Which part defies common sense?  1.That married deacons can be held to perpetual continence or 2.that the law taken literally seems to bind them to exactly that?  #2 is aptly demonstrated by Peters, #1 is aptly demonstrated by Church history. 

I have no doubt about #1. I doubt #2. Married men were ordained to the diaconate before the 1983 Code was published, and continued to be ordained after the 1983 Code without issue. Why is it an issue only now?

Quote:Since when is it "neocon" as opposed to traditional to claim the law means what it says?  I'm stumped as to what sense the quoted comment makes. 

That comment was in regard to the American Papist blog in general, not this topic specifically.


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - Christus Imperat - 02-08-2011

(02-08-2011, 12:43 AM)Basher Wrote: If anyone wants to actually discuss this, I'm game, let's do it.  I think there are vast ramifications for tradition in this matter, but you geniuses have missed them, completely.

I do want to actually discuss this; that is why I started the thread.  Your manner of introducing yourself doesn't suggest that you are interested in a level-headed discussion though.  Are you a banned member returning under a different name?


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - CollegeCatholic - 02-08-2011

(02-04-2011, 05:50 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I don't blame Peters, Junior for agreeing with dad; that's natural. But there was a certain neocon flavor to his blog that made me stop following it a long time ago as I got more traditionally minded. And maybe it's just me, but he seems to have gotten way more political in recent years.

I miss the pictures.  That's how I found his blog, but then he got super-political, way more anti-abortion/pro-life, and stopped blogging with pictures and more Church-centric stuff.


Re: Deacons and perfect continence - Basher - 02-08-2011

I have no doubt about #1. I doubt #2. Married men were ordained to the diaconate before the 1983 Code was published, and continued to be ordained after the 1983 Code without issue. Why is it an issue only now?

Srsly?  That's like...the entire point of the series of articles by Peters that you bunch have been lampooning.  Oh, I'll drag it all out in front of you and explain it in small words if you like, but really, if you can't answer this yourself, then ipso facto you cannot comment on the issue.  

This is sad.  

I do want to actually discuss this; that is why I started the thread.  Your manner of introducing yourself doesn't suggest that you are interested in a level-headed discussion though.  Are you a banned member returning under a different name?

Nope, never been here before, as a scan of my IP will attest.  I have been around Catholic.com mostly and some on Catholicconvert.com, but not fisheaters.  I found this thread while googling for new news on this topic.

So, yeah, let's discuss, but part of level-headed discussion is knowing something about the subject matter before levying opinions, wouldn't you agree?