Quote from: Stubborn

Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.

Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest:  Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.

From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.

Looks like you might be a fan of Andy Sloan!

I just gave you two quotes from approved Catholics authors before Vatican II, and you counter those with a quote from the Old Testament, with your own interpretation!

Okay, let's take note of the New Testament as the word of God also. Do you see the New Testament approves of slavery? Does that mean slavery is okay forever after that?

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Stubborn Feeneyite, as usual. The Haydock commentary you gave doesn't exclude dispensation for a changing circuмstance. As well as you violating approved Catholics works. Notice that you cannot even answer about slavery, which proves my point.

The incest mention was an analogy, it wasn't a premise. That can disappear and my argument about epikeia still stands, which you clearly won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Ignorant Cushingite suffering from the syndrome of sedevacantism.

How many years did you spend in the NO? My guess is you spent your whole life minus about the last few months in there.

You have not offered a single solitary bit of proof to defend whatever it is that you are supporting - do you even know what it is that you are supporting or what it is that you are defending?

The only thing you've demonstrated to this point is that you are of the opinion that schism can be good and lawful under certain circuмstances - which is not something Catholics believe, but it certainly agrees with what schismatics believe.

 

No answer on slavery and the New Testament?

No answer on epikeia?

I thought as much.

You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.

You are wrong here again Nado. The concept of "Epikeia" which is found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. There are certain explicit requirements though. What is important to remember here is that it can ONLY apply to Human Law, never Divine Law.  Epikeia is not applicable to those laws whose universal observance is demanded. So no, it does not give you a "convenient excuse" to receive the Sacraments from schismatics or abuse it to supersede laws or grant power of jurisdiction to those who have none or open new sects such as CMRI like Protestants do.

First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.

Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.

Epikeia is a virtue. It existed on Pentecost day when there was no canon law. It merely means that whatever human law is enacted, the lawmaker cannot foresee every circuмstance that it might not apply in, and that there will be circuмstances that extraordinarily arise that the law would not have been expected to apply by that lawmaker. Epikeia is the virtue that discerns that.

The canon you mention makes mention of unusual, but common enough, circuмstances where, if the law didn't apply, epikeia most certainly would, but the law explicates about it to make it easier, because it is common enough to legislate about.

Epikeia is a virtue, and as all virtues, it is not something we can expect every person to make no mistakes with. The Saints say that we must resign ourselves to making mistakes in practice of virtue, and that we should have mercy on those who make the mistakes.

Baptism & Confession are two "Sacraments of the dead" that can be received from the hands of non-Catholics, in danger of death, and when it is the last resort. Receiving them does not imply one agrees with their errors, or their sect. No sect has Sacraments of their own. If they are valid, they are Sacraments that they stole from the Catholic Church. Receiving them in unforeseen and extreme circuмstances is a Catholic right.

Look up "argumentum a fortiori". You will see that if this is the truth with baptism & confession, it must also be for the priesthood IF the priesthood is becoming extinct, because the priesthood is the ordinary source of those very Sacraments of the dead.

It is not divine law that forbids Catholics from receiving those Sacraments even from a non-Catholic in dire need, therefore epikeia applies.

The CMRI thought the priesthood was becoming extinct, and acted rightly. It is fair enough to have criticism for their decision, but it is not fair to state they are schismatic. They could have been imprudent, but they didn't have the slightest intention of believing or working with Old Catholics. They ousted Schuckardt....which is a good sign because cult followers don't oust cult leaders. Those who insist on making innuendos about schism are only showing they are ignorant of Catholic principle, violating what the Saints say about having mercy when others fail in practicing virtue, and perhaps even have a touch of jansenistic rigorism driving them.

“In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded.”

“In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.”

“At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.”

“Intimately connected with this problem is the question of whether or not epikeia has any standing in the external forum. It would appear to be the rather general consensus of authorities today that it has not. Writing in Apollinaris, D’ Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters…Van Hove contends that, since epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, it has value only in the internal forum. …Hilling seems almost unwilling to give any standing to epikeia at all. Believing that it practically amounts to self-dispensation, which is in contradiction to law as a binding norm, he concludes at the most that it may be recognized in the internal forum.” .

Quote from: Stubborn

1) They trace their lineage back to Bishop Francis Schuckardt who was ordained and consecrated in 1971 by Old Catholic Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, who traces his lineage back to Old Catholic Bishop, Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew whom Pope Pius X himself excommunicated.

2) CMRI was founded in 1967 by lay man Francis Schuckardt. The CMRI officially trace their lineage back to this lay man.  

3) The difference here is that "some bozo" woke up one morning and ended up buying authentic Catholic buildings with all the authentic statues and furnishings and started a community - but he took it a few steps further by hooking up with and getting ordained and consecrated by a schismatic bishop, then called that community "Catholic".

The above are historical facts which are indisputable.

You have been presented with the principle of epikeia in Catholicism, where in an emergency one can receive a necessary Sacrament from a non-Catholic within being accused of being non-Catholic. You avoided that from the start, because it gives the lie to what you are writing here.