Michael Voris - re: Fr. Rodriguez vs. Bp. Ochoa in El Paso
#11
Simply speaking, the NO church is going t hell! it is everywhere! ???
Reply
#12
(10-21-2011, 12:14 AM)kingtheoden Wrote: How in the world can we square the mainline Diocese of LA with its legions of Permanent Decons, who have excommunicated themselves by not renouncing married life, with the Traditional communities of the SSPX, ICKSP, IGS, etc?  The answer is that you can't.

Agreed on the rest, but the thing about married deacons being excommunicated by canon law is absurd to practically everyone except Ed Peters, who is a neo-Catholic sensationalist.
Reply
#13
This is a great video. I am glad that Voris went down there. The interviews with the people show that Fr Rodriguez has done a good job from the pulpit. And interestingly enough, this thread ties into the whole state of necessity and the SSPX (Dan, are you reading?). The SSPX still maintains a church is El Paso, which often has the monks from Silver City celebrate Mass there. Could it well be said that some of these people who want the traditional sacraments would not feel the necessity of going to the SSPX, while their Bishop is persecuting them and their priest? See how this all ties it? See the reality people experience instead of dry arguments? I will keep Father and his people in our prayers, and the Bishop also, who needs to convert to Christ and feed the flock instead of trying to fleece them of their spiritual treasures. Maranatha!
Reply
#14
(10-21-2011, 12:55 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: This is a great video. I am glad that Voris went down there. The interviews with the people show that Fr Rodriguez has done a good job from the pulpit. And interestingly enough, this thread ties into the whole state of necessity and the SSPX (Dan, are you reading?). The SSPX still maintains a church is El Paso, which often has the monks from Silver City celebrate Mass there. Could it well be said that some of these people who want the traditional sacraments would not feel the necessity of going to the SSPX, while their Bishop is persecuting them and their priest? See how this all ties it? See the reality people experience instead of dry arguments? I will keep Father and his people in our prayers, and the Bishop also, who needs to convert to Christ and feed the flock instead of trying to fleece them of their spiritual treasures. Maranatha!

After debating this myself in my mind for many years while attending an FSSP parish, I came to realization that the SSPX are right in their view of the state of necessity and not attending the NO. Until the new mass is abrogated or drastically modified to be more like the TLM, which would be pointless anyway, just keep the TLM and get rid of the NO, then it won't be possible to fix the crisis. The Crisis is the priests and the new mass itself as well as the erroneous doctrines found in the Vatican II documents. We have to throw them out and burn the documents and the new missals until we are to see a worthwhile change. They burned our traditional vestments and nuns threw away their habits and gave into polyester happy clappy garbage. Until we reject that stuff and get back to tradition, the church will not and cannot recover from this.
Reply
#15
(10-21-2011, 04:37 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(10-21-2011, 12:14 AM)kingtheoden Wrote: How in the world can we square the mainline Diocese of LA with its legions of Permanent Decons, who have excommunicated themselves by not renouncing married life, with the Traditional communities of the SSPX, ICKSP, IGS, etc?  The answer is that you can't.

Agreed on the rest, but the thing about married deacons being excommunicated by canon law is absurd to practically everyone except Ed Peters, who is a neo-Catholic sensationalist.

To add to that: since when do we interpret Canon Law for ourselves?  Deacons are in fact ordained all the time without making promises of continence, and so until the Church definitely states that Canon Law must be intepreted to mandate continence for married deacons in the Latin Rite, that remains an untenable interpretation.

Dr. Peters is right, IMHO, to bring the issue to the attention of the Vatican so they can clarify -- but no permanent deacon should stop relations with his wife over this!
Reply
#16
Voris' followup on yesterday: 

I like the statement of the guy toward the end "at least Luther had the decency to leave...".  There are A LOT of clerics in the Church today who are worse than Luther ever was.
Reply
#17
Those folks are a mirror reflecting the good Father's work. On the flip side, Father, in exile,  will bring others to a better understanding of their Faith.

pray for him,

tim
Reply
#18
(10-21-2011, 07:23 PM)timoose Wrote: Those folks are a mirror reflecting the good Father's work.

That's a good point, Tim.  I didn't think about it from that perspective.
Reply
#19
It was my understanding that SSPX strongly shares Dr. Peters' opinion on the issue because inherent to the traditional understanding of the clerical state is continence.

To permit a permanent deaconate of pre-meditatively non-celibate married men is disordered and not continuous with tradition.
Reply
#20
(10-21-2011, 07:34 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: It was my understanding that SSPX strongly shares Dr. Peters' opinion on the issue because inherent to the traditional understanding of the clerical state is continence.

I'm aware of the infamous article that's on the SSPX's site regarding married deacons. It's virtually the only thing I've ever really cared to take the Society to task on. But even other knowledgeable SSPX'ers I know find the article disagreeable and sensationalist for a number of reasons. The problem with the one you've given above is that marriage/celibacy/continence is all a matter of discipline. Married clergy exist in the Eastern church, and they did in the Western church as well until Lateran I (1123). Of course there was a trend toward clerical celibacy leading up to that time, and the Apostle Saint Paul promoted celibacy..... but like it or not, married clergy existed in the West for a thousand years. Celibacy or continence is simply not an inherent part of the clerical state.

Furthermore, the Council of Trent opened the possibility of imposing the minor orders to married men. Not the same as deacons, to be sure, but the minor orders still confer the clerical state.

Council of Trent, Session 23, Chapter 17 Wrote:And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.


Finally, consider the spirit of the law. Can a man who is fully orthodox and pledges himself to God's service, placing full faith in the authority of the Church to bestow the order of deacon on him, be excommunicated? If a man can receive canon law's harshest penalty on a technicality as interpreted by a very small minority of canonists, then canon law is hardly worth the paper it's printed on.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)