All Catholic’s accept the three types of holy orders. Married deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence in the Eastern Catholic Churches, however per Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD, perfect and perpetual continence is required for the diaconate of the Latin Church, assumed by Canon 277 whereby married deacons are already expected to live in perfect and perpetual continence. However, this is disputed.
We know that Prot. N. 13095/2011 of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Francesco Coccopalmerio, President, Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary) clarifies that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.
It is better to avoid use of the term “Traditionalist Catholics”, which has wildly varying meanings. By definition it may include all Catholics, since Catholicism upholds Tradition. Or it may refer to conservatives, most of whom don’t attend the EF, and conservatives include many sub groups. Or it may refer to EF goers. Or it may refer to SSPX, etc. Best to avoid the term.
I think the term is permanently rendered useless by now. Like the term “Protestant”, which those people themselves used to describe themselves when I was a child, but now rarely used, mainly by Catholics. A word that can mean almost anything, comes to mean almost nothing. C. S. Lewis wrote some good stuff about that.To your last question, no I don’t know of any, @Cloisters may know.
But you have hit on something that has always been a “thing” here.
The use of the words Traditionalism, and Traditionalist.
Someone asked on another forum, why the bleep was I posting in “Traditional Catholicism” if I myself prefer the OF. Never mind I said I believed those who prefer the EF should have it, but the person who said this clearly has another definition of what Traditional means.
I wish some forum somewhere, would define it.
Definitively.
True, I was just using “religious orders” as an example of Catholic communities, organizations, ministries, or entities that set up their own internal policies, without applying those policies to others in the Church outside the entity. Though even religious orders have Associates, third orders, etc.
Interesting concept. I am imagining a sort of deacon-version of the Oratorians of St Philip Neri.
True, but Dr Peters (and others) still dispute that Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s letter qualified as an authentic interpretation of Canon 277. I know that he has maintained that position as of last year.Mi_Rose:
We know that Prot. N. 13095/2011 of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Francesco Coccopalmerio, President, Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary) clarifies that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.
These:Vico:
True, but Dr Peters (and others) still dispute that Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s letter qualified as an authentic interpretation of Canon 277. I know that he has maintained that position as of last year.Mi_Rose:
We know that Prot. N. 13095/2011 of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Francesco Coccopalmerio, President, Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary) clarifies that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.
That does not mean the matter is not settled, but that many still dispute that perpetual continence is required of married deacons. My wife ran into someone that attends a parish with only the ordinary form that holds to the strict reading of Canon 277, so it isn’t only “traditionalist” that might hold that all Clerics should be continent.
Personally I wish that Pope Francis would modify Canon 288 to include Canon 277 in the list of Canons that do not bind permanent deacons so that the law in explicit on the matter. Dr Peters himself says that it would settle the matter for him.
One person thinks that his interpretation is a non-sequitur.Vico:
True, but Dr Peters (and others) still dispute that Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s letter qualified as an authentic interpretation of Canon 277. I know that he has maintained that position as of last year.Mi_Rose:
We know that Prot. N. 13095/2011 of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Francesco Coccopalmerio, President, Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary) clarifies that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.
That does not mean the matter is not settled, but that many still dispute that perpetual continence is required of married deacons. My wife ran into someone that attends a parish with only the ordinary form that holds to the strict reading of Canon 277, so it isn’t only “traditionalist” that might hold that all Clerics should be continent.
Personally I wish that Pope Francis would modify Canon 288 to include Canon 277 in the list of Canons that do not bind permanent deacons so that the law in explicit on the matter. Dr Peters himself says that it would settle the matter for him.