Anyone with a basic catechesis who holds the Faith would read the quote from Toledo and instantly react that something is missing either in context, or interpretation, or perhaps it is a lie. We know that the Church is unchanging and that fornication is a sin. To state that the Church has condoned mortal sin is a form of blasphemy and has no place on a Catholic forum. In Catholic times, the poster would be silenced and given public penance for such nonsense instead of having a platform. Reading the passage as a condoning of present day mortal sin is reading Church history as a Protestant reads Scripture. He is already attached to his sin and will scour obscure sources for anything to justify himself. This poster has a pattern of such behavior, as well as an unwillingness to be corrected. Instead, he lashes out at truth with name-calling. For those who might be bothered by the passage he shared, the answer is quite simple, as Worlds Away already stated. The Council of Toledo was a regional council, not ecuмenical. The definition of concubinage under Roman law (the situation they were addressing) is quite different from what the word concubine came to mean in medieval times, id est,  a mistress. So to use this passage as a proof that the Church allows fornicating with a mistress is the fallacy of equivocation. Under Roman law, a concubine was what would be the equivalent of a civil marriage today, but without rights to property or title. Usually, this was because the woman was from a lower class or even a slave. The Council is simply making it clear that the secular distinction of the time between wives and concubines doesn't matter. What matters is the union of one man and one woman. The lack of such basic knowledge of the nature of the Church, sin, as well as catechism and logic should preclude anyone from taking any of WWCSG's posts seriously.

If you get married, do NOT get a state marriage license. If you do, you forfeit your sovereignty as a man over to the woman who is backed by the state. The courts are heavily weaponized against men in favor of women. In getting a state license, the woman is married to the state, not you. A state license attempts to nullify the ontology that women were created to serve man, and man was created to serve God. Also, do NOT get married without a prenuptial agreement. Protect yourselves, men.

In these days of anti-Christ and his Jezebel, you'd be better off with a concubine not a wife. Even the Church permits a concubine: 

"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" ~ Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001

A live-in girlfriend can still take you to court for your assets and child support. Cohabitation is seen similar to marriage. To suggest a concubine is ridiculous.

I do agree that state involvement in marriage has been destructive since it incentivizes women to divorce. A family member went through divorce and it destroyed him. His ex wife wanted all of his assets and made up lies about him being abusive to the judge. If you don't trust a woman that you think you should marry, it's better not to marry at all. 

The Church was obviously using "concubine" in the same sense it was used in Scripture. Many of the patriarchs had "concubines" which were lawful wives, albeit from lower classes or slave class. 
They weren't side-pieces, girlfriends, or mistresses.

What a joke.

The Church suggests concubines as I provided the text which Matthew deleted. You're essentially saying "the Church is ridiculous for suggesting it."

The Church has never "suggested" concubines. The text you posted was a law regarding who was to be allowed, or refused, communion. 

A man who had a legal wife under Roman Law and a concubine was to be refused communion because he was committing adultery 

A man who had a temporary concubine was to be refused communion because he was a fornicator 

A man who had a permanent concubine ("only let him be content to be united with one woman") was considered to have a real marriage by the Church (permanent, indissoluble until death, one man and one woman) while not having a legal wife under Roman Law..he was to be allowed communion 

Anyways, Trent condemns concubinage

CHAPTER VIII.

Concubinage is severely punished.

It is a grievous sin for unmarried men to have concubines; but it is a most grievous sin, and one committed in special contempt of this great sacrament, for married men also to live in this state of damnation, and to have the audacity at times to [Page 203] maintain and keep them at their own homes even with their own wives. Wherefore, the holy Synod, that it may by suitable remedies provide against this exceeding evil, ordains that these concubinaries, whether unmarried or married, of whatsoever state, dignity, and condition they may be, if, after having been three times admonished on this subject by the Ordinary, even ex officio, they shall not have put away their concubines, and have separated themselves from all connexion with them, they shall be smitten with excommunication; from which they shall not be absolved until they have really obeyed the admonition given them. But if, regardless of this censure, they shall continue in concubinage during a year, they shall be proceeded against with severity by the Ordinary, according to the character of the crime. Women, whether married or single, who publicly live with adulterers or with concubinaries, if, after having been three times admonished, they shall not obey, shall be rigorously punished, according to the measure of their guilt, by the Ordinaries of the places, ex officio, even though not called upon to do so by any one; and they shall be cast forth from the city or diocese, if the Ordinaries shall think fit, calling in the aid of the Secular arm, if need be; the other penalties inflicted on adulterers and concubinaries remaining in their full force.

Fool. The Church specifically said "only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine"

"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" ~ Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001

You lose.

Right, "whether wife or concubine".

Wife, being the woman recognized under Roman Law as being legally married to a man.

Concubine, being a woman not recognized under Roman Law as being a legal wife of a man, as it was not legally permitted by the state. (Due to a difference in social class, for instance)

The former being viewed as a legal marriage by the state, and a real marriage by the Church.

The latter being viewed as a temporary or permanent concubinage by the state, temporary being condemned by the church as fornication or adultery and permanent being recognized by the Church by that same legal term (concubine) while still being a real marriage ("content to be united with one woman")

So you wasted space and time on this thread by trying to split hairs yet essentially making no point other than backing what I said.

What did you mean by this?

In these days of anti-Christ and his Jezebel, you'd be better off with a concubine not a wife

Were you using the term "concubine" in the context of Roman law, which has not been in force for over 1500 years? In the sense that the first Council of Toledo used it: as the lifelong indissoluble union between one man and one woman, recognized as a real marriage by the Church?