STAS seminary video

[3Sanctus]

I'm more than willing to listen to whatever the SSPX's explanation for this may be...but this sounds like it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Their article against married deacons is linked on the same page: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celiba...eacons.htm

The article makes the untenable claim that married clergy was always forbidden even in the Eastern church (really, now?) and appeals to Catholics' sense of squickiness about sex with lines like "Nowadays in the Catholic Church we see deacons who step from the conjugal bed to the sanctuary."

This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate", according to the biography by Bishop Tissier. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008...ebvre.html

What I said was largely in reaction to the fact they treat unmarried permanent deacons the same way.

[The_Harlequin_King]

What I said was largely in reaction to the fact they treat unmarried permanent deacons the same way.

Ah. Yes, I find that even more outrageous than the position on married deacons.

[JoniCath]

Yes, it's a great video & your new Seminary looks beautiful. I have just one question.....I realize that SSPX priests may marry, can they be married when entering the Seminary? If so, how are the  married priests & their wives housed?

SSPX priests can't marry...

I believe JoniCath actually meant "SSPX priests may not marry".

The Society doesn't accept married men as seminarians, either. That is, of course, fine, but they go one very absurd step further and assert that all married deacons are automatically excommunicated upon their ordination to the diaconate. They send free Latin Mass learning materials to Novus Ordo priests or seminarians, but refuse to send them to permanent deacons (apparently even the unmarried ones). http://www.sspx.org/for_the_clergy.htm

*NB:  these kits are available only for transitional deacons (i.e., those studying to become priests); we will not send these kits to permanent deacons

Thanks H. K., but I made a stupid mistake. I was thinking of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. I've been looking into joining one is search of a sacred & solemn Liturgy, as I've lost the one TLM within driving distance of my home. However, I DO appreciate your kindness in assuming the best concerning my blunder. .  :blush:

[karl]

... but they go one very absurd step further and assert that all married deacons are automatically excommunicated upon their ordination to the diaconate. They send free Latin Mass learning materials to Novus Ordo priests or seminarians, but refuse to send them to permanent deacons (apparently even the unmarried ones). http://www.sspx.org/for_the_clergy.htm

***

The article makes the untenable claim that married clergy was always forbidden even in the Eastern church (really, now?) and appeals to Catholics' sense of squickiness about sex with lines like "Nowadays in the Catholic Church we see deacons who step from the conjugal bed to the sanctuary."

This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate", according to the biography by Bishop Tissier. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008...ebvre.html

This is one of the things that makes me wary of the SSPX, despite all of the good work they've done in preserving tradition.

[TrentCath]

I'm more than willing to listen to whatever the SSPX's explanation for this may be...but this sounds like it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Their article against married deacons is linked on the same page: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celiba...eacons.htm

The article makes the untenable claim that married clergy was always forbidden even in the Eastern church (really, now?) and appeals to Catholics' sense of squickiness about sex with lines like "Nowadays in the Catholic Church we see deacons who step from the conjugal bed to the sanctuary."

This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate", according to the biography by Bishop Tissier. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008...ebvre.html

Let's not get into this,there's a list of authorities as long as my arm saying that the married priesthood was an innovation and not the original practice of the east.

[TrentCath]

... but they go one very absurd step further and assert that all married deacons are automatically excommunicated upon their ordination to the diaconate. They send free Latin Mass learning materials to Novus Ordo priests or seminarians, but refuse to send them to permanent deacons (apparently even the unmarried ones). http://www.sspx.org/for_the_clergy.htm

***

The article makes the untenable claim that married clergy was always forbidden even in the Eastern church (really, now?) and appeals to Catholics' sense of squickiness about sex with lines like "Nowadays in the Catholic Church we see deacons who step from the conjugal bed to the sanctuary."

This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate", according to the biography by Bishop Tissier. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008...ebvre.html

This is one of the things that makes me wary of the SSPX, despite all of the good work they've done in preserving tradition.

It is unfortunate that many people believe the orthodox have kept to their original traditions in this matter, they have not, there is a long list of authorities saying that priests originally had to be celibate or perfectly continent.

[3Sanctus]

I'm more than willing to listen to whatever the SSPX's explanation for this may be...but this sounds like it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Their article against married deacons is linked on the same page: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/celiba...eacons.htm

The article makes the untenable claim that married clergy was always forbidden even in the Eastern church (really, now?) and appeals to Catholics' sense of squickiness about sex with lines like "Nowadays in the Catholic Church we see deacons who step from the conjugal bed to the sanctuary."

This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate", according to the biography by Bishop Tissier. http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2008...ebvre.html

Let's not get into this,there's a list of authorities as long as my arm saying that the married priesthood was an innovation and not the original practice of the east.

What about the bit where the Society - allegedly - doesn't support the permanent diaconate for celibate men?

[EcceQuamBonum]

I'm excited that this architectural marvel will be close to where I live.  And, who knows, maybe if I'm still in the area when it opens, it will ultimately be what secures my conversion?  I'm thinking this is something of a sign.  ;)

[karl]

It is unfortunate that many people believe the orthodox have kept to their original traditions in this matter, they have not, there is a long list of authorities saying that priests originally had to be celibate or perfectly continent.

I just find it odd that the Society takes a position that is more extreme than the Church has taken in receiving Eastern Catholic priests back into communion with Rome and maintaining their priesthood, and they seem to treat it as a matter of dogma and not a disciplinary matter.  To me the subtext of the article that HK refers to is that Eastern Rite priests aren't real priests at all.

Don't get me wrong, I still support the SSPX and would attend their parishes regularly if they were closer, think this will be a gorgeous and much needed seminary, and have and will continue to provide monetary support for its construction.

[TrentCath]

It is unfortunate that many people believe the orthodox have kept to their original traditions in this matter, they have not, there is a long list of authorities saying that priests originally had to be celibate or perfectly continent.

I just find it odd that the Society takes a position that is more extreme than the Church has taken in receiving Eastern Catholic priests back into communion with Rome and maintaining their priesthood, and they seem to treat it as a matter of dogma and not a disciplinary matter.  To me the subtext of the article that HK refers to is that Eastern Rite priests aren't real priests at all.

Don't get me wrong, I still support the SSPX and would attend their parishes regularly if they were closer, think this will be a gorgeous and much needed seminary, and have and will continue to provide monetary support for its construction.

Thats nonsense, they are priests and the SSPX accepts them as such, it merely points out that clerical celibacy or perfect continence  was the original practice and not a latter addition. it's not a dogma per se, but it is apostolic tradition.