Deacons and perfect continence
#50
(02-15-2011, 04:31 AM)Basher Wrote: I don't think we're having an honest debate here.  Unless you dispute some of the above information, then most of what you've posted on previous pages is exposed as bunk.  The *reason* the wife can veto the ordination is that she is meant (in the law and in tradition) to be giving up her right to sex in the marriage - not some other reason you've speculated.  Etc.

The fact that the same veto is present in the 1983 Canon as it has been in the past does not prove it is there for the same reason.  In fact, even though I agree that was the main reason, in the past there were other reasons besides the fact she was giving up her right to sex in marriage.  If they had to live separately and such, she was giving up provision, a father for any children they had, etc.  You can't look at one aspect of the history and ignore the rest such as the fact during one period the woman would enter a convent.

Quote:I submit again that you're just taking positions against me for the sake of it, and if examined, these positions are in fact modernist since you are using them to argue that the constant and ancient tradition of the Church can be changed by mere silence and omission in regards to abuse.

I've about had it with you making accusations and ad hominem attacks.  I've also had it with your trolling.  This is your last and final warning.  Either discuss the topic at hand without directing attacks at me or anyone else, or get out.

If you're going to deny your trolling and looking for trouble, read my response to you here first before you bother:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33409327

Quote:One of these interpretations represents the constant and ancient tradition of the Church and has not been over-ruled or abrogated by any act of the Church.  The other is a speculation which Rome has declined to endorse officially.  I'm with Peters, we can only choose one of these. 

You are now arguing something completely different: namely that the Church cannot change this particular law which is different than the question as to what the current law actually says, which is the point of this topic.

You are also not being accurate in some areas which go against your argument.  It has been the constant and ancient tradition of the Church in the Latin Rite, not Universally.  Therefore at first glance it would seem to fall under the same area of tradition as leavened vs. unleavened bread which could be changed by the Church if she so desired, or do you deny the Holy See has the authority to force the Byzantine Rite Churches to use unleavened bread?

There is also the problem that the only penalty, if one is applied, has been laicization and as I said, if there is no punishment applied, there is, in effect, no law.  These men are still valid deacons, they would only be operating illicitly, but the final determination of licitness goes to the Holy See, not you or Dr. Peters.
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)