I love going to Whitefriar St when I'm up in the big smoke also I've often popped in for a prayer to Clarendon St. ,such beautiful churches.
In the current debate (sacraments for the non repentant) this is a distinction without any difference. By the way, most Traditionalists practice Tradition.
You would think so wouldn't you. But not anymore. Those who ignore Tradition but warm a pew seat still think they're Catholic. Nobody's telling them otherwise (except maybe a very few holy priests spread far and wide). Sigh.
Pope Francis through the mercy of God will hopefully find a way to accomodate Trads but meantime the old maxim still applies "no virtue without obedience" . External practice counts for nothing if this is lacking. Pope Francis has never advocated reception for those in mortal sin. I wonder if knowingly false witness about the Pontiff is mortal. There is nothing I can do to change you mind in this Brisn. You are far too clever for that. Perception and appreciation of that which is truly of good requires wisdom, a quality in which Pope Francis abounds.
The pope's hand picked secretary of the 2014 and 2015 Synods, and a known dissenter on homosexuality who personally interjected the homosexual agenda into the 2014 interim report, just said this IS the pope's personal agenda, the giving of the Holy Eucharist to those in irregular unions. The Vatican, a week later, still has not corrected Forte. Therefore your problem is with Forte and the pope, not me. Unless you think it's ok to do this. Then your problem is with Jesus and His clear words in scripture. It has nothing to do with who is clever. It has to do with the Truth.
If so, and Forte is wrong about the pope in what he said, then Forte has committed the mortal sin. No one here. On the other hand, if Forte is right, those who deny this are committing sin in refusing to admit what has been publicly and plainly stated.
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”… Thank you, Lord, for giving the Church Pope Francis who leads it with such love and determination.
He certainly is determined. Determined to change teaching.... Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen Life of Christ: Christ affirmed that when a man married a woman, he marries both her body and her soul; he married the whole person. If he got tired of the body, he might not thrust the body away for another, since he was still responsible for her soul. So He thundered, ‘You have heard.’ In that expression He summarized the jargon of every decaying civilization. “You have heard, ‘Get a divorce, God does not expect you to live without happiness’”: then came the BUT. But I tell you that the man who puts away his wife makes an adulteress out of her, and whoever marries her after she has been put away commits adultery” (Mt 5:32). This perhaps was what most shocked Christ’s contemporaries. Our Lord cannot be any clearer. For the Christian there is to be no divorce. What God has joined together, no one can break. Not the couple, not the State, not the Church, no one.
Fulton Sheen prophecy, “We are at the end of a tradition and a civilization which believed we could preserve Christianity without Christ, religion without a creed, meditation without sacrifice, family life without moral responsibility, sex without purity and economics without ethics. We have completed our experiment of living without God…”
I think we should be very wary of making judgements on the basis of statements by third parties, more particularly if they are not what one would regard as the highest calibre of witness and all the more so if there are likely to be agendas involved. Non-denial does not necessarily amount to admission. There are alternatives to mere guilt as charged, even if only that denial in the modern media atmosphere can be tantamount to continuing to deepen the hole one finds oneself standing in. Let us continue to pray for our pope, Francis.
I was 'forced' by the Church to go through a divorce in order to have my application for annulment considered. Being told my marriage was not binding for life was very a very painful process but I really hated going through divorce. This priority given to divorce has been the case long before Pope Francis. Only when you are granted a divorce will they go ahead with the annulment.
There is a civil aspect to marriage. I suppose the tribunals fear they could be sued by irate spouses so this may be for legal reasons. "If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense" (CCC 2383).
Let's be quite clear about SSPX : in their own video they refer to the post conciliar mass as an offense against God and should not be attended on the pain if sin. They say that even to fulfill the Sunday obligation it should not be attended. So these wonderful Trads are not only supporting mortal sin they are promoting it. According to a very learned priest I know they are no better than the Protestants of HenryVIII's time. Yet our Holy Father is bending over backwards to find a way to welcome them back into the fold. In my book their offense is every bit as serious as those who recieve unworthily. In fact it may be worse as they are encouraging others to receive without fulfilling their sacred obligations. Only the Mercy of God as shown by Pope Francis will facilitate their return. In the past they agreed to terms of return then went back on their word and slapped the Church in the face by illicitly ordaining their own bishops so that they could stay in control of their direction by the letter of the law. But this never followed the Spirit of the law. Whited sepulchres indeed.
Henry VIII would certainly have approved of Amoris Laetiae. Sure poor Henry would have been accompanied pastorally after his divorce to Catherine of Aragon - and this would have saved Ann Boleyn & Catherine Howard from getting the chop At the same time, from our awareness of the weight of mitigating circumstances — psychological, historical and even biological — it follows that “without detracting from the evangelical ideal, there is a need to accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressive appear”, making room for “the Lord’s mercy, which spurs us on to do our best.
I admittedly do not know much about Archbishop Forte, but I did do some quick research this afternoon. I discovered that in 2004, Forte was considered a promising young theologian and was asked by then Pope St. John Paul II to perform the Vatican's Lenten Spiritual Exercises, which were apparently well-received and later published. Later that year, St. John Paul II named Forte an Archbishop. The principal consecrator for Forte was Cardinal Ratzinger. In subsequent years, Forte was rumored to be a possible choice for the CDF (the post went to Cardinal Levada) and also the See of Naples, Italy (which was entrusted to Cardinal Sepe). Thus, as far as I can tell, for more than a decade (i.e., from 2004-2014), Forte enjoyed a positive reputation. Last year, it was reported that Forte was responsible for inserting some very troubling language into the interim synodal documents. Most recently, he apparently made some statements implying that his own position on communion for those in irregular unions was consistent with that of Pope Francis. Again, I do not know much about Forte, but given the above information, which was readily available online, it appears that the Archbishop (at one point, at least) had the support of two much loved former pontiffs (one of whom is a saint). Now, it appears, he has shifted in a direction that is inconsistent with the Church's traditional teaching and he wants us to believe that he speaks for Pope Francis. So, what are we to believe? Well, I would hesitate to believe Archbishop Forte on his statement that he speaks for the Pope. We've been down that path before with certain prelates claiming to speak for Pope Francis, and, ultimately, it became clear that those who claimed to speak for the Pope most certainly did not. Thus, I would urge caution before jumping headlong down this particular rabbit hole.
