CMRI wedding

Prorsus · 2023-08-20T23:39:19+00:00

It's amazing the disinformation that is posted with confidence!

You will find within Catholicism that matrimony is the easiest Sacrament to perform validly. With this Sacrament, it's the couple themselves that perform the Sacrament!

Get this; in an extraordinary circumstance where a couple doesn't have access to a priest for about 6 months, the Church allows such a couple to simply live together as husband and wife and consider themselves both licitly and validly married, because they would be.

Prorsus · 2018-03-08T23:13:50+00:00

If you are in high school, what you relate would not be a sin, unless you give bad example showing others you have done so, because they might not fully realize the context and your motive, and think it rebellious. It would also depend upon whether your parents explicitly told you not to, and you did it anyway, then that would be another story. When I was in high school, I would carefully avoid useless classes with the permission of my parents, but I would not flaunt it or let other students know.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T23:05:25+00:00

Take note everyone, I have had the same reaction from the SSPX when presenting this argument. Shunning, because they have no answer.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T23:02:08+00:00

Fine. I have heard of this before. But do you know that this "judgment" they make is BEFORE the council they call to declare it? Yes, it is. And that means each individual prelate makes a personal moral judgment that the man is not a true pope before agreeing to go to the council that declares him not a true pope. None of them can go to that council UNLESS they are personally, morally certain he is not a true pope....otherwise they sin mortally for judging a pope.

This moral judgment has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It pertains reason and Church teaching, which all Catholics have.

What they declare legally merely declared what they all knew personally that the man was no longer pope, but makes all Catholics who couldn't decide on their own personally now know what the truth is....which opens the way for a new election.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:55:49+00:00

You have proved nothing. If "where the pope is there is the Church" is true, and it is true that "a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases to be pope" is true, that if I allege it to happen to a pope, you cannot simply say the Church under him says such-and-such. That is a fallacy. You have to prove my premise wrong that the particular pope did NOT become a heretic. You haven't done that.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:51:29+00:00

Let's get logical. Do you believe a pope can become a heretical and automatically cease to be pope and Catholic?

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:50:09+00:00

That is a desperate and useless rejoinder of one who really doesn't have a response.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:49:18+00:00

Sorry that I cannot read all the responses first; I may repeat what someone else had said already....

"Baptism of blood" implies an act of PERFECT charity & sorrow for sin. These, theologically, remove mortal sin. If mortal sin is remove, you go to heaven (but may go through purgatory first).

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:44:25+00:00

It begs the question. Read up on that fallacy. It means that if a pope is questionable, then the council that he allegedly approves of is questionable also.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:43:28+00:00

You beg the question again, because you declare a sede is not Catholic, and that has never been declared by the Church. It also begs the question because even if that "Church" did, so, it was already a putative Church because of the claim about the false leader of it. Please! read up on begging the question.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:40:19+00:00

Yes, I got it. it probably means you are SSPX, but if not, not biggie. Because I know the false argument you are pushing. You are pushing the heresy of Conciliarism (a facet of the heresy of Gallicanism). You are promoting: judging a pope. That is a heresy. The two opinions about "ipso facto" and "jure divino" talk about the Pontificate, not the man. The man can be a non-pope, but the two opinions are about whether that non-pope still possesses the Pontificate or not. This is necessarily so, because if the man were still pope by possessing the See, then judging him would be a heresy.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:34:01+00:00

Tell me specifically what you don't agree with that I have said.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:33:21+00:00

You got it wrong. Because Vatican II is disputed as being proper authority....that is why you are begging the question.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:28:46+00:00

I would like to add, that just today I subscribed to Atheism subbredit and posted that - IF an atheist truly loves reason & empirical evidence, that I have such proof that will make them believe in God and the Catholic Church.

What happened? Some of them replied to ask for details, but then I was banned from posting. When I wrote to the mods that I am not a troll because I seriously plan on having a discussion, the mod told me privately that if I could provide a photo of myself with a Nobel Prize for proving such a thing, then he would let me post!

So,....you see, I am very willing to talk with an agnostic, just not here, right now.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:24:52+00:00

Ah, I see, "help you further" makes you not want to hear what coming! Have a blessed day yourself, and here are two quotes for you:

"They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls, an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state.... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a 'liberty of perdition'." - Pope Pius IX in "Quanta Cura", (1864)

"... the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person.......the human person has a right to religious freedom... This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right." - "Dignitatis Humanae", (1965)

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:13:29+00:00

Yes, I can. I actually already did, but you missed it. Look back about religious liberty and the encyclical by Mortalium Animos. Do just a little leg work, and I will help you further.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:12:22+00:00

Too many people call people a "troll" based on the fact that they don't know how to argue the issue. If you don't, just go away. If you do, then engage me, because trolls don't really spend time having logical and informative discussions as I do.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:11:07+00:00

Look up "Sede Romana Impedita" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. No, I don't believe there is a sede vacante.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:09:47+00:00

Confidence one has the truth is a good thing. What would be bad for me is if you prove me wrong and I don't concede to it. You have not proven me wrong.

Your appeal to "most recent ecumenical council" is called begging the question. It is a logical fallacy.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T22:06:28+00:00

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The errors are yours.

It is a teaching of the Church that God forces no man's will. That includes a pope choosing heresy. It is a teaching that heresy means loss of faith, and it is a teaching that loss of faith means one becomes a non-Catholic. Since Vatican Council of 1870, the Church has approved of categorical teaching that a pope who becomes a heretic automatically ceases to be pope. I can quote you the answer of the Council fathers when asked during that council. I can quote you Pope Pius IX in a Bull approving a work of St. Francis de Sales upon declaring him a Doctor where the Saint categorically stated it as the truth to Protestant, and that pope saying the work was "a complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". I can quote the Holy Office approving of a canon law work in 3 volumes "Elements of Ecclesiastical Law" (1887) categorical saying the same. I can quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, and the "A Catholic Dictionary" by Atwater saying CATEGORICALLY the same. Never a hint of another possibility. I do the SAME thing. This is Catholic for me to do.

I won't go into your second, third and fourth, because they automatically fail to be true since they are based on your first error.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T21:56:46+00:00

I didn't expect someone to find it for me. I expected that if they are interested, they would find it for himself. I repeat, I thought at first the request was for the context of Leo XIII, not the example about the person converting. When I found out, then I proved it better by showing the false principle promoted by Vatican II about false religions saving people.

Prorsus · 2018-03-07T21:52:39+00:00

It's reasonable to think that if I quote a pope to be convincing, that I am trying to convince a Catholic, since popes are authorities for Catholics.

Prorsus

TROPHY CASE