James Martin is Wrong

Evidence of bad faith: Not Very Credible · Someones Attacked Pope Michael · Someone Played Foul · Possibly here too: James Martin is Wrong

Possibly, this one is to be included in "evidence of bad faith" too - two people interact in nonsensical ways with comments that are not on the main topic of the video.

It is possible that this was some kind of "demonstration" to me that I don't like silly quibbles. Either. In that case, it would be bad faith. The first comment so interacted with is an agreement with Trent Horn's remark, the second so interacted with is also an agreement, the main point where I give another point of view he didn't give is not commented on, this is the first one, at 2:03.

Pushing me to block could also ne a "lesson" about not resenting the deletion on Pints with Aquinas, where John Salza spread disinformation about the IV Council of Constantinople. That would also be bad faith.

Fr. James Martin's Gaslighting on Marriage
The Counsel of Trent, 30 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrg4Nl86cr4

2:03 To correct James Martin.

Pete Buttigieg could be married if he got a legal divorce and married a woman.

So could Chasten James Glezman.

Would you forward them a suggestion to go and date lesbian couples so that two legal divorces could be followed up with two actual marriages?

Btw, I just looked up more on Chasten Glezman ... he has two children.

A priority would be to marry ... the mother. Seems, however, they kind of paid a woman to carry children they would adopt ...?

Obviously, if the mother is involved in another lesbian couple, like the mother of Amos Gardell ... and they had kind of a deal, next pregnancy for the lesbians, the deal should be changed for actual father marrying actual mother, and the other two marry.

Meaning, if marriage is what Buggigieg and Glezman want ...

11:23 Both are possible.

I saw you and Chris Check between you pretend St. Robert Bellarmine had pretended Galileo's observations were not proven.

I saw a friend of Alex Pismenny on quora pretend that the Babylonian or Sumerian version of Noah was Gilgamesh, and refusing my correction that no, the name those people gave to a rough equivalent of Noah was Utnapishtim (in the Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI has Gilgamesh asking Utanapishtim about the Flood).

If intellectual ineptness is a thing among more or less faithful Catholics, what shall we expect from James Martin?

Deliberate misrepresentation is also a thing.

I'd opt between them, some people have a favourite cause and tend to misrepresent a very obvious objection even to themselves, blinding them to what basically everyone else can see, and they too before they started fiddling with their knowledge to suit their agenda ...

CanIBeZeroun

What is the contradiction here? Trent is saying only a man and woman can be married.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CanIBeZeroun I was commenting on exactly one time stamp. The words that he was saying up to 11:23.

And I was commenting on intellectual ineptitude, ignorance, unfortunately coming even from moderately faithful, like himself, so one can certainly believe a heretic like James Martin could be ignorant too.

13:31 First thing that came to my mind is, they actually went to bed together, not just become the two parties to a test tube baby, or rather insemination.

That would also seem implied in "in a human fashion" ... [Can 1061, §1, Code of 1983 - in this case arguably agreeing with the real one]

13:49 A Protestant couple would in fact be having a valid sacramental marriage when it's ratum et consummatum.

As neither is Catholic, the only requirement for the sacramental marriage is both being baptised, both consenting (to a real marriage).

Normally, the Church could not annul such a marriage.

In some cases there could be special reasons.

Tyler B

@Hans-Georg Lundahl This makes no sense. The Church doesnt "annul" a marriage in the same way as some protestant churches may divorce a couple, as annulment is just acknowledging a marriage never occurred. This does not require permission from anyone as a marriage occurring/ not occurring is a historical fact. Maybe there are pastoral/ecumenical reasons the Church may hesitate to declare annulments. But that has no bearing on the validity of a marriage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tyler B Excuse me, what exactly were you reading where I was supposed to say anything like that about annulment?

I said "normally the Church could not annul such a marriage" - precisely for the reason you state.

"In some cases there could be special reasons."

I meant like one of them being previously married to another baptised protestant who wasn't dead or other actual reasons for annulment.

Tyler B

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Church only needs one reason to declare a "marriage" void. If it was never valid in the first place. You're obfuscating basic facts here unnecessarily.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tyler B The one obfuscating is you.

One reason is indeed sufficient for one case, but "in some caseS" plural "there could be special reasonS" also plural obviously refers to different reasons for different cases.

Either way, it is a real basic fact that the cases are not all Protestants marrying outside the Church, but that such a marriage is normally valid.

Tyler B

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Youre obfuscating because youre misrepresenting what annulment is. The Church doesnt need permission to make a marriage valid or not. It just is or it isnt.

Youre making annulment sound like divorce which is wrong. Its not the same process at all. Also, no one is disagreeing with the fact that (heterosexual) Protestant marriages are valid unless proven otherwise. Youre arguing a strawman.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tyler B Did you finish elementary school and then go your own self teaching across intellectual stuff without even homeschooling?

The Church has God's permission or authority to annul a marriage which first of all isn't one and second is not desired or possible to become one.

The Church doesn't have any kind of authority or permission from God to make annulment a kind of divorce by consent if the original marriage was valid.

And the Church obviously in all She does needs the in principle authorisation of the divine legislator. Mediated by Bible, tradition, magisterium, canon law.

It is bad faith or incompetence on your part to pretend that I make annulment sound like divorce, I simply do not do that.

And the strawman is on your side - not on mine.

[After which I blocked him]

16:40 I am glad you agree that whatever crimes Clinton was guilty of, it was not perjury.

"That is not sex" - probably one of the truer things he said in his life, and the truest I happen to know of.