Deacons and perfect continence
#46
(02-10-2011, 09:00 PM)Basher Wrote: I think the will of Rome is a married deaconate that is not continent.

I think you're letting emotion make your arguments, because you've taken the contra-tradition interpretation of every point of law so far in an attempt to defeat me. 

I think that's just a bit ludicrous of a statement.  If I had knee-jerked to a traditional interpretation of what was written and what has been going on, then that would be emotional.  Instead, I have looked objectively at what is in Canon Law, what Rome has allowed knowing full well what is going on, etc., and come to a conclusion.

Further, you have offered no points of law.  You've offered conjecture and conclusions based on circumstantial evidence on your part.  I've merely pointed out where your conclusions are non sequitur or not necessary conclusions based on the facts.

Quote:Wait just a bit and I'll give it to you point by pont and we'll see if you still want to claim that a married, incontinent clergy is possible or that Rome could ever specifically will it or that it should *ever* be considered the default position and the burden of proof be on the other side. 

That's not the discussion, though, is it?  The discussion is whether married deacons are required to be continent under the Canon Law of 1983 or not.  That's what I'm arguing.  The law and the actions of Rome show that it does not. 

Here is a point of law for you in the form of a legal maxim: silence implies consent.  Rome has been silent on the deacons being incontinent.  What does that imply according to that legal maxim?

A permanent married diaconate is not traditional, and I am not for it.  You can see I volunteered that statement like 10 posts ago in response to someone else.  That's much different than asking what the 1983 CCL requires.

Quote:What is the traditional in traditionalist for? 

The tradition of the Church.  Examining with virtue and an eye to the truth instead of political gain.  If we act like the Modernists, we are no better than them.

BTW, I would appreciate if you refrain from the ad hominem attacks, both explicit and implied, on how "trad" I am and stick to the discussion.  Thank you.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 01:12 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 01:31 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 02:38 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:32 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:45 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-08-2011, 07:46 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:51 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:05 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:15 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-08-2011, 08:23 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:35 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-08-2011, 08:40 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-09-2011, 12:05 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Resurrexi - 02-09-2011, 12:24 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Resurrexi - 02-09-2011, 12:26 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-09-2011, 01:06 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-09-2011, 04:14 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-09-2011, 05:04 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 01:57 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 03:23 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 08:24 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 09:00 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 09:31 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 10:38 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-11-2011, 09:46 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 04:31 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 11:46 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 08:36 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:34 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 09:46 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:04 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:13 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:18 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:23 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:25 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-16-2011, 12:22 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-16-2011, 12:46 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)