Author Topic: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married? (Read 7902 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** December 05, 2022, 03:34:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 05, 2022, 03:28:26 PM

I don't have a clue what you're babbling on about. Reject what separation? - Canon law 1012 I posted says there can be no separation in a valid marriage. Why bring in the Armenians, what about the Irish? Plenty of posters from Ireland here you know.

I bring up the Armenians since that was the context of your citation from Ott, duh? So you brought up the Armenians by citing that passage.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** December 05, 2022, 03:37:27 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on December 05, 2022, 02:15:29 PM

.
I do not hold that there are no more church pastors, but I do hold that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine who they are, and would concede that most Catholics are without pastors for all intents and purposes due to the difficulty in sorting the proverbial wheat from the chaff. So between the two options you gave, my position would be closer to the latter.

If you're with SSPX now, though, you're good ... since they have some symbiotic relationship with the Conciliar Church to make sure the Conciliar Bishop and one of his appointed presbyters PROPERLY witnesses / approves of your marriage.

So does this mean all those people the SSPX witnessed marriages for should go back to the SSPX to get their original marriages sanated by the Novus Ordo? Methinks this sends mixed messages and confusion to the faithful.

I've actually known two cases where women who wanted to leave their Trad husbands decided to get their marriages "annulled" (declared null) by the Novus Ordo on these grounds ... and they're now "happily remarried" (having milked their husbands for most of their martial assets while also cohabitating with someone providing another income). There are major financial incentives for pulling this stung. You get to milk your ex AND shack up with another "provider" and get dual incomes.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #62 on:** December 05, 2022, 05:34:08 PM »

I didn't read every last posting on this thread, so if this is repetition.....never mind.

I have an acquaintance whose daughter that got permission from her local NO Bishop to marry a Jєω in a Jєωιѕн ceremony. The reason given was that getting married by a priest in a Church would cause too much distress and hardship for the Jєω and his family. A priest was not present.

I also know of a few marriages where both a priest and rabbi officiated together. I don't think this is unusual in the NO.

So , approved by the NO, but VALID????

2Vermont · « **Reply #63 on:** December 05, 2022, 05:42:08 PM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on December 05, 2022, 05:34:08 PM

I didn't read every last posting on this thread, so if this is repetition.....never mind.

I have an acquaintance whose daughter that got permission from her local NO Bishop to marry a Jєω in a Jєωιѕн ceremony. The reason given was that getting married by a priest in a Church would cause too much distress and hardship for the Jєω and his family. A priest was not present.

I also know of a few marriages where both a priest and rabbi officiated together. I don't think this is unusual in the NO.

So , approved by the NO, but VALID????

Yeah, that's why I don't understand why a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't practice the faith enters a valid marriage only if he/she has his/her marriage witnessed by a NO "priest".

2Vermont · « **Reply #64 on:** December 05, 2022, 05:50:25 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on December 04, 2022, 03:46:13 PM

If you assume that the NO (here shorthand for the post-Vatican II Church) is, indeed, the Catholic Church, and that she has the power of binding and loosing (which, strictly speaking, does not require that the Petrine chair be occupied by a valid Pope), then if a pastor allows a couple to marry, then whether the priest is validly ordained or not, shouldn't matter.

I know, it's messy.

So....even if the pastor is not a Catholic priest, but effectively a Protestant minister it doesn't matter?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** December 05, 2022, 06:45:39 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 05, 2022, 01:21:54 PM

So the Old Catholics would have been theologically sound on indefectibility if they had declared Pius IX a heretic and therefore not a pope since not Catholic, and therefore the true Catholic Church, which is only governed by legitimate, non-heretical, Catholic popes, was still somewhere present and indefectible post-Vatican I? That church under Pius IX, perhaps the First Conciliar Church, whatever it was, wasn't the Catholic Church - so would go an Old Catholic who had his argument tightened.

That's basically your argument: the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because its "popes" and bishops who accept their doctrine and governance are heretics and the true Catholic Church remains among us and indefectible despite those four or five or whatever non-popes sitting on the see of Peter for some 60 years running and no visible governing body for that entire period.

You're an Old Catholic with the benefit of about 150 or so years of theological refinement.

This is a fairly solid point ... except that you're addressing it to the wrong individual. In fact, in my "Pope-Sifting" thesis, I pointed out explicitly that it's not acceptable to argue modo tollentis (aka, backwards) from a purported error taught by the Holy See to the illegitimacy of the Pope. That's precisely what is meant by "Pope-Sifting".

I argue from the fact that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ that the Papal authority and Magisterium that gave birth to this new religion cannot possibly be legitimate Papal authority being freely exercised.

As to how this happened or why, take your pick ... heretic pope, infiltrator pope, no pope, material pope, impounded pope, blackmailed pope(s), drugged pope, brainwashed MK Ultra pope, imposter pope, impeded pope (Siri was the true pope) ... my personal favorite. I'm not a dogmatic SV, and in fact I have referred to myself as a "sede-doubtist", appealing to the principle of papa dubius nullus papa (at least in the practical order), which positive doubt suffices for exonerating Traditional Catholics of schism / heresy.

It is precisely in this area, in identifying the credibility of an institution as being the One True Church of Christ where human reason (for us, enlightened by faith, since we have the faith to guide us) does play a legitimate role. We reject the claims of the Conciliar Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ. We do not recognize in the teaching of the V2 Papal Claimants the Voice of the Shepherd.

At no point did the Catholic Church under Pius IX lose the notes of the Church or cease to be be recognizable as the Catholic Church. Thus, since it's identifiable as the Church of Chist, it's indefectible and protected by the Holy Spirit from a grave error such as defining a false dogma. Had St. Pius V time-warped forward to the reign of Pius IX, he would have absolutely no problem identifying the Church under Pius IX as the Catholic Church. Had St. Pius V time-warped froward to the alleged / putative reign of Jorge Bergoglio, he would never in a million years guess that this sect is the Holy Catholic Church. And if you told him that it was, he'd immediately drop dead of horror.

This is my problem with you guys ... not that you might have one or another theory about how and why this crisis happened, but because you blaspheme and deride Holy Mother Church by claiming that she can become a whore like this and corrupt Catholic faith, morals, worship, and cultus (veneration of the saints).

It's absolutely laughable ... if it weren't diabolically perverse ... for you to accuse me of being an Old Catholic when you were exposed clearly as regurgitating nearly every single talking point from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrech.

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #66 on:** December 05, 2022, 07:14:16 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 05, 2022, 05:50:25 PM

So....even if the pastor is not a Catholic priest, but effectively a Protestant minister it doesn't matter?

If all the conditions of Canon 1098 are fulfilled, a marriage will be valid even if it's officiated by a non-Catholic minister.

The Extraordinary Form of Marriage According to Canon 1098. Edward Fus, J.C.D (1954), p.133:

Quote

Non-Catholic ceremonies are still forbidden, even in cases envisioned in Canon 1098. However, if the parties, whether in good or bad faith, do approach a non-Catholic minister and exchange matrimonial consent, otherwise naturally sufficient, in the presence of two witnesses, the marriage will nonetheless be valid.

Canon Law Digest, Vol.III., T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. (1954), p.454:

Quote

Mixed Marriage Before Protestant Minister Valid If Conditions of Canon 1098 for Marriage Before Witnesses Only Are Verified (S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925) Private.

The following rescript was received by the Bishop of Pinsk in reply to a question concerning mixed marriages.

Reply. If all the conditions which are required by canon 1098 for the validity of marriages before witnesses only are verified, the circuмstance that such marriages were blessed in a non-Catholic church is an argument, not against validity, but against licitness.

(Private); S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925. Reported by Dalpiaz in Apollinaris, Vol. 10, 1937, p. 277. See also Nevin in The Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. 19, 1942, p. 96.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #67 on:** December 05, 2022, 07:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on December 05, 2022, 11:31:57 AM

Apologies for the length of the proceeding post, but it seems highly relevant. Copied and pasted from a thread from a few years ago, this table describes the lawfulness and validity of all possible marriages. Please be sure to read the "other notes" below, which argue that due to Canon 1098, marriages that violate the Catholic form of marriage are still valid due to the crisis in the Church and the inability of marrying before one's pastor.

I've taken the liberty of snipping the vast bulk of this post. This is quite the essay, and I am going to have to print it out and sit down with it for awhile, to digest it, before I can respond appropriately. Let me be clear, though, that I was only referring to a "normal" situation, viz. two Catholics who are free to marry, and who have unimpeded access to a pastor and a parish, yet choose freely to attempt marriage outside of canonical form with no dispensation. I do not refer to a "no priest available for a month" scenario, or anything that is outside the pale of normal circuмstances in a normally functioning Church. IOW, pretend it's 1958 in an area where legitimate pastors and bishops are freely available to solemnize marriages.

My hat is off to anything who can write such a thorough, well-reasoned essay, with the research and knowledge that went into it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** December 05, 2022, 08:40:33 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on December 05, 2022, 07:14:16 PM

If all the conditions of Canon 1098 are fulfilled, a marriage will be valid even if it's officiated by a non-Catholic minister.

Did you read Canon 1098?

Quote

Canon 1098

If the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest who assists at marriage according to the norm of Canons 1095 and 1096 cannot be had or
cannot be present without grave inconvenience:

1. ° In danger of death marriage is contracted validly and licitly in the presence only of witnesses; and outside of danger of death provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition will perdure for one month;

2. ° In either case, if another priest can be present, he shall be called and together with the witnesses must assist at marriage, with due regard for conjugal validity solely in the presence of witnesses.

This requires danger of death or else that a ORDINARY / DELETED pastor (with the necessary faculties) CANNOT be found for a month. And even then, if any other Catholic priest can be found it is required for him to be called as an additional witness.

This is for either danger of death or the case of someone stranded on a desert island type of scenario where there can be no Catholic priests found or, alternatively, in a land where there are no Catholic Churches (of which there are very few) ... probably in the Middle East like in Saudi Arabia or the like.

But, no, you gratuitously throw in the part about the "officiated by a non-Catholic minister". No non-Catholic minister can "officiate" over a wedding, but can serve only as any other ordinary witness. Of course, if you have non-Catholic witnesses, their testimony would be sketchy at best, since they're not aware of what's required for valid Catholic marriage ... but would likely only be able to testify to the fact that these two said some stuff about getting married. Such a situation would likely have to be convalidated and potentially sanated later.

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #69 on:** December 05, 2022, 10:31:16 PM »

Correct, the non-Catholic minister would not be officiating on behalf of the Church, only on behalf of the civil law. It's also correct that for the conditions of Canon 1098 to be fulfilled, apart from danger of death, it must be prudently foreseen that the unavailability of the pastor, ordinary, or delegated priest will last for one month. And it's also true that any other Catholic priest should be called under these conditions to perform the marriage. It will be valid, though, without him, as Fr. Augustine says, "“Lastly, calling a priest does not affect the validity of the marriage, which therefore may be contracted validly in the presence of only two witnesses.” (Augustine, Charles P., O.S.B., D.D. A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law. 3 rd Ed. Vol. V, Book III, St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1920. C.1098, p.296).

Among other things, this priest would serve as one of the two required ordinary witnesses, but he would not be an official witness like the pastor, ordinary, or delegated priest.

"But since such a priest is not a testi qualificatus seu authorizabilis, “neque ad valorem neque ut videtur ad liceitatem matrimonii necesse est ut requirat excipiatque consensum.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. p.171.

The only requirement of the two witnesses is that they have reached the age of reason and be able to act as witnesses. They are not required to ask anything or receive the mutual consent like a priest. They only need to be present in person and together, knowing that a marriage is being contracted between those two persons. Even if the parties unexpectedly exchange consent in the presence of the two witnesses, the marriage is valid under the conditions of c.1098.

“The second essential condition requires that two witnesses should be present. The canon uses the expression ‘testes’ in the plural, so one witness is not sufficient. The witness need ask nothing and need not receive the mutual consent, as must the priest when assisting. It suffices that the consent should be given in their presence. So they must be present: personally (not by telephone), together, ‘moraliter’ i.e. the must know that a marriage is being contracted between those two persons. In order to be valid witnesses, i.e. ad validitatem, the only requirements are that they should have reached the age of reason and be able to act as witnesses. So male or female, puberes or impuberes, Catholic or non-catholic, voluntary or forced, warned beforehand or totally unexpected, -so long as the ‘actu’ witness the contracting of the marriage.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. pp.170-171

“Coram solis testibus. Since the Codex uses the plural, it goes without saying that one witness will not suffice. They need, however, ask or do nothing even if the parties should unexpectedly exchange consent in their presence, that would be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the law; it suffices, therefore, if they are merely present.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. pp.175

I'm not aware of anywhere that it's possible for Catholics to marry in the presence of the ordinary, pastor, or priest delegated by either of those, as prescribed by c.1094. Such conditions have existed for years now, and it may be prudently foreseen that these conditions will last at least another month. It seems reasonable to conclude that a majority of Catholics are currently under the conditions described in c.1098.

Stubborn · « **Reply #70 on:** December 06, 2022, 05:33:57 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 05, 2022, 03:32:22 PM

1917 Code 1070 and 1098 in particular. I cited it above, but I deleted the cross-references to the 1983 Code, but the latter upholds the same standards ... EXCEPT that at some point that I not yet researched, one of the Conciliar papal claimants made an exception for those who formally renounced their Catholic faith. But that caused so much confusion that in 2009 Ratzinger rolled it back.

Referencing Ott who referenced the Council of Trent.....

Quote

Trent:
Although it is not to be doubted, that clandestine marriages, made with the free consent of the contracting parties, are valid and true marriages, so long as the Church has not rendered them invalid; and consequently, that those persons are justly to be condemned, as the holy Synod doth condemn them with anathema, who deny that such marriages are true and valid; as also those who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by the children of a family, without the consent of their parents, are invalid, and that parents can make such marriages either valid or invalid; nevertheless...

Trent then goes on to talk about those *not* free to marry:

Quote

....and whereas it takes into account the grievous sins which arise from the said clandestine marriages, and especially the sins of those parties who live on in a state of damnation, when, having left their former wife, with whom they had contracted marriage secretly, they publicly marry another, and with her live in perpetual adultery; an evil which the Church, which judges not of what is hidden, cannot rectify, unless some more efficacious remedy be applied....

....Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them.

For those *free to marry* but marry outside of the Church, their marriage is valid unless and until the Church declares them invalid. Is that not what Trent says above in bold?

This is something I've come across more than once, there is a dreadful misconception among trads that all marriages outside of the Church are on that account, null and void - but as quoted from Trent in bold above, this belief is condemned by Trent.

To all those marriage minded trads who may be probing those who've been married outside of the Church for potential candidates because they think those marriages are automatically all null, don't do it, they're not all null. The bottom line is that you're better off to consider that are all without any doubt valid, and continue looking for those never married. If they both said the words, "I do", then look elsewhere.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #71 on:** December 06, 2022, 06:11:42 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 06, 2022, 05:33:57 AM

Referencing Ott who referenced the Council of Trent.....

Trent then goes on to talk about those *not* free to marry:
For those *free to marry* but marry outside of the Church, their marriage is valid unless and until the Church declares them invalid. Is that not what Trent says above in bold?

This is something I've come across more than once, there is a dreadful misconception among trads that all marriages outside of the Church are on that account, null and void - but as quoted from Trent in bold above, this belief is condemned by Trent.

To all those marriage minded trads who may be probing those who've been married outside of the Church for potential candidates because they think those marriages are automatically all null, don't do it, they're not all null. The bottom line is that you're better off to consider that are all without any doubt valid, and continue looking for those never married. If they both said the words, "I do", then look elsewhere.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I think we must assume that any “first” marriage is valid unless there is a blatantly obvious impediment that even a blind person could see and couldn’t cause scandal to even the most delicate of conscience’s.

Stubborn · « **Reply #72 on:** December 06, 2022, 06:54:13 AM »

Quote

For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I think we must assume that any “first” marriage is valid unless there is a blatantly obvious impediment that even a blind person could see and couldn’t cause scandal to even the most delicate of conscience’s.

Yes, imo it is definitely best to keep this matter as simple as possible.....if they said "I do" then they're married. Move on.

It's fine that Myth posted a laundry list of conditions, and referencing canon law etc., is what us lay folk are stuck with doing in these times, but the typical Catholic should simply accept the teaching of the Church that validity is always presumed unless declared invalid by the Church....or as you said above, invalidity in blatantly obvious, but even then we have no authority to declare invalidity, heck, these days who does?

2Vermont · « **Reply #73 on:** December 06, 2022, 07:00:22 AM »

So, one of my nephews (non-baptized) married a baptized Catholic woman (I'm assuming this since I believe her mother was brought up Catholic). This woman does not practice the Catholic Faith, does not attend church, etc. The wedding ceremony did not have a priest.

Even if this couple married with a priest, this would have been a NO priest who would not have really been a priest. She certainly would not have sought out a certain traditional Catholic priest.

Valid or not? It sounds like based on the canons, it's invalid. Of course, my head is spinning from this topic, so who knows?

Given the crisis and the question of NO priests, I'm not sure that it should be called invalid simply because I do not believe that the canons could have been properly followed.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #74 on:** December 06, 2022, 07:10:57 AM »

Ladislaus,

I think you go wrong because you're struggling to make sense of the Conciliar Church with tools or principles that are inadequate to deal with it; the principles invoked are twisted so that you think you can manage them, like a rubber band, to go around the phenomenon, when in reality they snap in your attempt to apply them.

Indefectibility is destroyed not by a certain mass or quantum or error but by a quality of error. Even a drop of poison kills, if it's the right poison. A single, a single error in a definition of an ecuмenical council approved by a pope kills indefectibility. Or a single error of sufficient magnitude in any teaching proposed by a pope with the moral majority of the bishops in union with him on the teaching destroys indefectibility.

This is why Pius IX invoked the principle of indefectibility against the Old Catholics by their rejection of the single error of the Vatican I council in defining the infallibility of the pope. In your own words (from post 30 in this thread):

Quote

He realized that it was a bit of a circular argument to say that they were rejecting an infallibly-defined dogma when it was the ability of a pope to infallibly define dogma that was being defined. So he teaches that the Old Catholics are heretical because their conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails" ... which is not possible given her indefectibility.

By their conclusion that the Vatican I council had taught heresy in the single matter of infallibility the Old Catholics were saying that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails," a violation of the doctrine of indefectibility per Pius IX, who of course is right there. A single drop of poison - a single heretical teaching - by the magisterium of the Church destroys indefectibility. Likewise, a single theological error of sufficient magnitude in an ecuмenical council's teaching, a false teaching regrading faith or morals proposed and taught to the world by the magisterium of the Catholic Church destroys indefectibility. Especially where it contradicts prior teaching of the Church, since it's impossible for truth to contradict itself, and an indefectible teaching is not indefectible if he teaches two things that are contradictory: he is false, erroneous in one fo those teachings, necessarily, by the requirements of truth itself.

So your totally "gone off the rails" argument, as a distinction, simply doesn't work. What's the principle that's applied to the Conciliar Church to support your argument? Totally "gone off the rails" doesn't work, since, as Pius IX showed with regard to the Old Catholics, a single error of sufficient magnitude taught by an ecuмenical council equals "gone off the rails" and a violation of the principle of indefectibility. So your "gone off the rails" theory doesn't distinguish the Conciliar Church from the claim of the Old Catholics that the Vatican I Church of Pius IX had "gone off the rails."

We're Catholic gentlemen, and reasonable men. The history of the Church is built on solid principles explaining the truth of our faith, an edifice unequalled by any other religion: St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the Scholastics, etc. Where's the principle supporting your position regarding the "gone off the rails" of the Conciliar Church?

Your "motives of credibility" theory or principle doesn't work either. As I've pointed out before, prior to Vatican II, when Paul VI was elected pope, what did the "motives of credibility" say? He was elected by all the Cardinals by proper procedure in conclave. He became pope by all appearances to the Church. His teaching thereafter would be the teaching of a pope. If "sifting" was proscribed from that point, the subsequent teaching of Vatican II should have been accepted, the New Mass, etc. - if one, as you say, is forbidden from "sifting" when the "motives of credibility" click in. So, your invocation of the "motives of credibility" theory or princinciple, like your invocation of "indefectibility," doesn't work to distinguish the Conciliar Church and its popes, or to shield you from your bogeyman of "sifting."

Quote

This is a fairly solid point ... except that you're addressing it to the wrong individual. In fact, in my "Pope-Sifting" thesis, I pointed out explicitly that it's not acceptable to argue modo tollentis (aka, backwards) from a purported error taught by the Holy See to the illegitimacy of the Pope. That's precisely what is meant by "Pope-Sifting".

At some point after the election of Paul VI you're "arguing backward" to reject him. This just doesn't work, Lad. I can't believe you don't see this.

Quote

I argue from the fact that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ that the Papal authority and Magisterium that gave birth to this new religion cannot possibly be legitimate Papal authority being freely exercised.

As to how this happened or why, take your pick ... heretic pope, infiltrator pope, no pope, material pope, impounded pope, blackmailed pope(s), drugged pope, brainwashed MK Ultra pope, imposter pope, impeded pope (Siri was the true pope) ... my personal favorite. I'm not a dogmatic SV, and in fact I have referred to myself as a "sede-doubtist", appealing to the principle of papa dubius nullus papa (at least in the practical order), which positive doubt suffices for exonerating Traditional Catholics of schism / heresy.

It is precisely in this area, in identifying the credibility of an institution as being the One True Church of Christ where human reason (for us, enlightened by faith, since we have the faith to guide us) does play a legitimate role. We reject the claims of the Conciliar Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ. We do not recognize in the teaching of the V2 Papal Claimants the Voice of the Shepherd.

Where's the principle invoked and applied, Lad? The issue is, what is the principle to determine the Church's "credibility" as an institution? Reason involves the application of principles to facts to reach conclusions. If it's "indefectibility," the Old Catholics would have been right, per Pius IX, for rejecting the Vatican I Church on that basis if it indeed taught heresy regarding infallibility of the pope, on the basis of that single teaching. The principle doesn't server to distinguish the phenomenon of the Conciliar Church. If it's "motives of credibility," Paul VI was elected by the cardinals and took the seat and was accepted as pope by the Catholic Church and from that point his teaching could not be rejected without the forbidden "sifting" of a pope, so that theory doesn't work either.

Quote

At no point did the Catholic Church under Pius IX lose the notes of the Church or cease to be be recognizable as the Catholic Church. Thus, since it's identifiable as the Church of Chist, it's indefectible and protected by the Holy Spirit from a grave error such as defining a false dogma. Had St. Pius V time-warped forward to the reign of Pius IX, he would have absolutely no problem identifying the Church under Pius IX as the Catholic Church. Had St. Pius V time-warped froward to the alleged / putative reign of Jorge Bergoglio, he would never in a million years guess that this sect is the Holy Catholic Church. And if you told him that it was, he'd immediately drop dead of horror.

This makes no sense. What's the purpose of your "[a]t no point"? After Pius IX's election, if "at some point" you determined that the notes were lost by Pius IX's teaching of heresy or imposition of a new rite of Mass, wouldn't that be "sifting"?

And the eyes of St. Pius V aren't a principle for us to apply. Even if they were, they are unavailable.

You mentioned somewhere recently John Portrello, who attacked the Sedevacantist argument and the Catholic Church in his book, The Sedevacantist Delusion. His arguments are effective because the explanation of the Conciliar Church in light of principles like "indefectibility" and your "motives of credibility" simply don't work: the facts and phenomenon of the Conciliar Church betray any attempt to explain it by using those arguments and principles.

This is my problem with your approach: its inconsistencies. Your arguments simply don't work under the facts. The Conciliar popes are popes, and if, as we believe, they have taught erroneously, and the bishops of the Catholic Church have supported the teachings, we need an explanation that works to explain that reality, because truth matters. Otherwise, why do we bother and argue about these things?

Author Topic: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married? (Read 7902 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Ladislaus

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

josefamenendez

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

2Vermont

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

2Vermont

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Ladislaus

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Joe Cupertino

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

SimpleMan

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Ladislaus

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Joe Cupertino

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Stubborn

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

Stubborn

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

2Vermont

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?

DecemRationis

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?