Author Topic: To Telephorous (Read 1918 times)

LordPhan · « **on:** February 25, 2012, 12:18:09 AM »

I have taken some photographs while I was at the Priory of two books on the 1917 Code of Canon Law for you to read.

Both of these are the Commentaries on the Code of Canon Law that every Priest would have had Pre-Vatican 2.

The First one is from the Franciscans, the Second one is from the Jesuits. I have included the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat pages.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:27:54 AM »

Code of Canon Law that the SSPX recognizes sets the age of majority at 18.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:31:29 AM »

Secondly, this commentary says that the decision is to be deferred to the bishop.

Even so, none of this justifies telling a girl who is of age not to even greet someone.

If Benedict XVI is your Pope, 18 is the age of majority.

To argue that you can disobey that because it goes against the Faith is the SSPX nakedly saying the Faith is whatever they say it is whenever they say it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:38:15 AM »

The law also says the Civil law is to be taken into account. And the Civil Law in nearly every state set the age of consent for marriage at 18 for women when the Code was promulgated.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:39:16 AM »

Note:

The article says minor children should consult their parents and follow their reasonable advice, but not that they are bound to obey them.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:41:25 AM »

The reason the SSPX tells a young woman not to even say hello to someone she's already met, for over a year, is that it's a controlling cult.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:43:22 AM »

It says the natural rights of the contracting parties are to be taken into account.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:47:35 AM »

The priests involved in this must publicly apologize to me and admit publicly they lied.

Otherwise they will be held to account.

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2012, 12:58:35 AM »

You must apologize to the Priests, you picked through it like a Protestant picking and choosing what you thought you could use and discarding the rest.

You also then stated that we had to follow the Code of 1983, which you manifestly have stated not to be in effect. Since you believe the Pope is not the Pope your rejection of it would constitute de facto schism.

Your belief that the Code that should be followed is RELATIVE to what you believe someone else believes is a Modernist Heresy. There is only one truth.
All Laws that are promulgated illegally are null and void.

Read this:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q8_1983_code_of_canon_law.htm

That is the official position of the SSPX on the Code of Canon Law. We also refer to the Code of Canon Law 1917 to get the Mind of the Church.

Your Rejection of Priestly Authority is Schismatic.

Your attack on the SSPX calling it a cult, schismatic, and based on emotionalism, your emotionalism is an aspect of immuturity, in Marriage Catechism it states that those who are immature should be instructed not to marry until they have matured.

You stated that

Quote

Note:

The article says minor children should consult their parents and follow their reasonable advice, but not that they are bound to obey them.

But that article stated that if they do not obey their reasonable advice they are in mortal sin. The Fact that you would ask the girl to marry you through commiting a mortal sin is a good enough reason to make sure you never talk to her again. You are manifest in your evil thoughts. It is all about what you want and you do not think about the girl, who you say you supposedly loved, but you cannot have loved her if you wanted to put her soul in jeopardy.

You are reading into the Civil Law comment, which I did not take a picture of, because it was meaningless to the discussion, it never once stated that the law of the State would supercede that of Canon Law, quite the contrary. It had to do with other trivial aspects such as getting a Marriage Licence.

You should meditate on this, pray for guidance and apologize to the Poor Priest, the Poor Girl, and her Father who you wronged.

That is the Catholic thing to do. Your rediculous emotiolisms are Protestant in nature.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:06:31 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

You must apologize to the Priests, you picked through it like a Protestant picking and choosing what you thought you could use and discarding the rest.

On the contrary. The Code of Canon Law says the age is 18. The SSPX priests saying that they are not bound to that are the one's who are engaging in Protestant picking and choosing.

Quote

You also then stated that we had to follow the Code of 1983, which you manifestly have stated not to be in effect. Since you believe the Pope is not the Pope your rejection of it would constitute de facto schism.

There's nothing inconsistent in my position. The only inconsistency is in the SSPX position. IF Benedict XVI is their Pope 18 is the age of majority that they are bound to follow.

Quote

Your belief that the Code that should be followed is RELATIVE to what you believe someone else believes is a Modernist Heresy. There is only one truth.
All Laws that are promulgated illegally are null and void.

That is absurd. The Code of Canon Law says the age of majority is 18.

It's the SSPX that is relativistic.

Quote

Your Rejection of Priestly Authority is Schismatic.

Your attack on the SSPX calling it a cult, schismatic, and based on emotionalism, your emotionalism is an aspect of immuturity, in Marriage Catechism it states that those who are immature should be instructed not to marry until they have matured.

No, telling a young woman to not say hello to someone for over a year, after already meeting them, is cultish behavior. It has nothing to do with Catholic traditionalism, and everything to do with being a controlling cult.

Quote

But that article stated that if they do not obey their reasonable advice they are in mortal sin.

IF THEY MARRY against reasonable objections. But that's not the case here. And the FACT remains that the Canon Law Age of majority IS 18.

Quote

The Fact that you would ask the girl to marry you through commiting a mortal sin is a good enough reason to make sure you never talk to her again.

Only if the objection is reasonable. Secondly it's weighed against the natural rights. There's nothing reasonable about telling someone not to say hello. No one was asking anyone else to commit a mortal sin except the SSPX priest who encouraged the girl to lie about her behavior.

Quote

You are manifest in your evil thoughts. It is all about what you want and you do not think about the girl, who you say you supposedly loved, but you cannot have loved her if you wanted to put her soul in jeopardy.

That's another lie.

Quote

ou are reading into the Civil Law comment, which I did not take a picture of, because it was meaningless to the discussion, it never once stated that the law of the State would supercede that of Canon Law, quite the contrary. It had to do with other trivial aspects such as getting a Marriage Licence.

Wrong, you obviously haven't read what the article stated, that the requirements of Civil Law are to be considered.

Quote

You should meditate on this, pray for guidance and apologize to the Poor Priest, the Poor Girl, and her Father who you wronged.

That is the Catholic thing to do. Your rediculous emotiolisms are Protestant in nature.

I'm never going to forget the evil that this cult and its freaks committed against me, and surely, unless they make reparation, they are going to be held accountable.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:12:53 AM »

One more thing LordPhan.

Next time format your post properly.

You really aren't very bright.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:16:14 AM »

The SSPX is bound to follow the requirements of the 1983 Code of Canon Law on this issue. It is well within the rights of the Pope to set the age of majority at 18.

It absolutely is not within the rights of the SSPX to disregard their Pope on such an issue.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:21:16 AM »

The whole question of free choice in marriage was completely hypothetical and had to do with the fact that someone who has reached majority, who is free to marry someone else without parental consent, is free to speak to suitors.

As the commentary on the Code says, children are not bound by their parents as to whom they marry.

For that reason, there is absolutely no justification in forbidding all spoken contact of any kind on the pretense that the girl is under 21. That is denying one's natural rights.

And the 1917 Code says that the natural rights of minor children must be considered.

LordPhan, I had my chance with this girl, and I restrained myself, out of good faith. And what was returned was the bad faith of a cult of dirty bullies.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:31:23 AM »

If you want to reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law in entirety, (even on issues which are matters of discipline that do not touch the Faith) (which the SSPX doesn't do) then it's time to declare yourself a sedevacantist.

AS it stands the SSPX is morally bound to be consistent. It's priests morally bound not to lie about other people, or encourage other people to lie, as it has done in this case. Morally bound to rein in freakishly controlling behavior, instead of encouraging it. And morally bound to weigh the natural rights of minor children in making their own choice of spouse.

That's true regardless of what Canon Law is in effect.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2012, 01:42:41 AM »

LordPhan objects to my holding the SSPX to the Pope because I'm a sede.

What he fails to understand is that discussion with the priest was hypothetical. I wasn't certain I was a sede at that time either.

The issue discussed was hypothetical - if you accept the Pope, you must accept the age of 18 as the age of majority, and you therefore cannot require that I have a father's consent to speak to a girl.

The priest, in stating the SSPX's "praxis" - was simply refusing to accept the law of the man his society claims to be Pope. It proves the SSPX makes up its own pharisaical cult rules as it goes along.

Now, as to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, I was never in that situation. That Code talks about marriage. Not about speaking to someone. It says the natural rights of the minor children must be considered. It's quite clear that absolutely no consideration is given to those rights if a girl is bound not to even say hello in the confessional.