Man There Is A Lot Here

[Don John of Austria]

Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.

Man, does a mistress count as a concubine, if so then we should be not going to Preist nknown to have mistresses masses, this is actuallyan issue at least down here where it is Common Knowledge that certain Preist has Mistresses, maybe if we followed the Councils instruction Bishops would get rid of such men.

I noted that just in this Canon it also rejects civil marraige and supports the concept of annulment. Interesting/

[hyperdulia again]

don, what's this aboot?

[Chrysologus]

I think that not attending a mass given by a priest with a mistress would be a good Catholic thing to do. But you should check what the current Code of Canon Law says. I'll bet that it addresses it.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe sins of a celebrant to not invalidate the Mass.

[Don John of Austria]

No, Cmom they do not that was decided ata much earlier Council, but that doen't mean that the mass should be attended by the Faithful.