That's it...the last straw. To Richard sorry, but to Picadilly you are like politicians all talking points and intellectually limited. It is time to take a break from this place. If someone leaves the church because of this nonsense. May God forgive me for being part of this poo. Padraig may you be enlightened but this is a direct attack on the Catholic Church. For my own healing of my soul...I will be gone for 30 days. HOPEFULLY - PRAYING May Gods Will be Done
And after my melodramatic exit. I wish all of you a very Happy and Prosperous Christmas and New Year. It strange but all of you feel like my Catholic family. And I might even have to meet up with Brian at the Abby. We might have to have a long and bare knuckled conversation. But that's what families do. May God Bless you and all your families. Brother in Christ Your humble servant
Very good I didn't catch that. You are thinking on a whole other level. The jig is up! Or should I say the Jigawatt. 1.21 to be exact
Good luck Brother Al. I'll say some prayers for you. I could sense you getting wound up today as I saw your posts this morning. I was going to suggest maybe a break as you have done in the past but I didn't want to sound condescending. Hope to see you soon and refreshed. God Bless
Another question: Someone here referenced, I could be wrong, that you were possibly a member of Opus Dei. Why do they consider themselves a "church within the church" and is that good or gnostic?
Nonsense? What part of what I wrote is not the truth? The truth does hurt fallen saint. Is not Jesus Christ all about truth? or secrecy?
I too will leave this subject now. It is sadly obvious that a clear understanding of authentic theology is lacking,or perhaps more concerning a deliberate decision on the part of some to ignore what has been proven with a wide variety of direct sources from pre and post Vatican II teachings on moral theology. Padraig, I hope you discuss what you have publicly declared with a good priest, as it is a terrible thing to have come to the decision you have. Still, mercy is always available to all of us. Francis was elected in the proper way, and therefore there is no doubt at all with his papacy. Benedict confirmed he resigned with complete freedom to do so after much prayer. There is simply no reason not to accept him a pope, and as Lumen Gentium tells us we should submit to the teaching authority of the Pope even in his ordinary magisterium.He has full and immediate power to do as he has done. I have shown absolutely that his approach has been used for centuries in the internal forum. Contrary to some judgmental comments here, I dont believe for one minute that Holy Communion should be availble to all remarried persons. Far from it in fact!. But I know that some are in terribly difficult situations and as Ratzinger said himself, one size does not fit all, and there will be cases where repentance and reception of Holy Communion will be appropriate. Jesus is not a brutal ruler and lawgiver. All he desires is a flicker of contrition, a desire to try and work through the minefield of everday life in the 21 century. The catechism is very clear that various circumstances can mitigate grave sins and stop them being mortal. For those people-avoiding scandal- a path is available with the wisdom of a good confessor. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit is still in charge and guides Pope Francis. Yes I dont deny some things he says are strange and maybe his style from Latin america we are not used to, but that aside his magisterium is what counts and I accept him as Peter for the here and now. Jesus has not given another option to leave the Church or rebel against the Pope. He is the rock and always will be. I ask you to look within your hearts and think carefully, this slagging off of Jesus' representative on earth-does that please the Lord, is it a good example for lurkers at this forum? My view for what little its worth is that we dont judge and we look for the good in others. In our own lives we must strive to be perfect as the Father is perfect, but always ready to look mercifully on those who struggle to live the Gospel. Thats why I wont call others adulterers or sinners. As someone said the other day, surely Mother Teresa stealing a pencil is worse that some ordinary catholic committing a grave sin.Jesus said those to whom more is given on trust, more will be expected. Thats why we should look no further than ourselves. God will judge us very harshly if we show a bad example. Sticking the boot into the Holy Father is unfortunately doing just that. Obedience to him is what will please Jesus and Mary. Forget your issues with me. that not important. I hope you will look back to your catholic upbringing and remember love of the pope is essential-whoever he is.
Excommunicated for following his conscience? Dont think so. Are you not one of the modern school of theologians who argue that a mortal sin is difficult to commit?
Smudger continues to evade a simple question that I have asked him several times: "Is there or is there not a pathway to Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who refuse to live as brother and sister." He just can't bring himself to answer that question. And so his sophistry will continue.
Smudger, You came on here saying that people have left the faith because of the actions of some traditional priests. What a short memory you have. How about the tens of millions that left because of the "spirit" of vatican 2 ? What about the pedophile crisis and the "lavender mafia"? Oh yeah, the pope assures us there is not one. Rubbish! Who's fault was that? Jesus said "the truth will set you free". Do you believe that?
Regardless he's a retread with an axe to grind. I don't think he's vicious enough to be BH, and Smudger posted a thread promoting a friend's new book, the author of which is from Great Britain (while BH was from 'down under'). Emmett is also from Great Britain and the author that Smudger promoted and Emmett are friends. Emmett and his author friend are former members here at MOG with an axe to grind over how they were treated on a thread about amillenarianism (for which I frankly don't blame them as they were correct.) To say I'm incredibly disappointed in him is an understatement though. There is an element of playing head games here that I can't get into but I've been a promoter and defender of Emmett's blog in the past and we've shared friendly correspondence.
I must say though that although I did not care for his style he had a couple of right thoughts. I think everyone should be very careful about officially separating themselves from the Pope. Not even the SSPX claim that Francis is not Pope. I do not know all of the implications but I have heard of the automatic excommunication before for not accepting the authority of the Pope. I know many on the forum here are upset with what is going on in the Church but please at least accept that Pope Francis is the Pope. You don't need to love him or agree with all of his statements but please accept his official authority as head of the Church. I say this for the good of all of your souls. There are a lot of good people on this forum and we are probably in the most confusing time there has ever been in the history of the Church. I think right now this is as good as it will ever be until the restoration of the Church. That could be a long way off. The Church may become so shattered that all we will have left is the Rosary and the Scapular. I think I am starting to understand Our Lady's words now. Also please everyone do your First Fridays and/or First Saturdays while there is still time. By this time next year it may no longer even be possible to do them or it may be tremendously difficult. To those who faithfully follow Our Lady’s requests for the Five First Saturdays, she has made a wonderful promise which she, as Mediatrix of All Graces, will certainly fulfill: "To all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months ..." fulfill all the conditions requested, "I promise to assist them at the hour of death with all the graces necessary for the salvation of their souls."
Richard, I think Smudger did answer your question, in his quote below. I've also highlighed other things Smudger stated that are very beautiful and consoling to me personally.
This will be my last posting on this thread and subject pending Cardinal Burke's formal correction. For myself, I will devote more time to prayer than to debate here on this topic. I think all Catholics should reaffirm that Pope Francis is indeed the Pope; it is certainly not up to the laity to determine who is a legitimate Pope or who is an anti-Pope. If I have offended anyone here (Smudger, Davidtlig, etc.) I ask forgiveness. This can be an emotional topic to say the least. I will end by citing words of Cardinal Muller made at Oviedo. I hope that his view of this episode in Church history ends up being the correct one: Some have affirmed that “Amoris Laetitia” has eliminated this discipline and has permitted, at least in some cases, the divorced and remarried to receive the Eucharist without the need to change their way of life according to what is indicated in FC 84, which means abandoning the new union or living in it as brother and sister. To this it must be replied that if “Amoris Laetitia” had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons. There is however no affirmation in this sense; nor does the pope bring into question, at any time, the arguments presented by his predecessors, which are not based on the subjective culpability of our brothers, but rather on their visible, objective way of life, contrary to the words of Christ. But isn’t this change of course found - some object - in a footnote that says that in some cases the Church could offer the help of the sacraments to those who are living in an objective situation of sin (no. 351)? Without entering into a detailed analysis, suffice it to say that this footnote refers to objective situations of sin in general, without citing the specific case of the divorced in new civil unions. The situation of these latter, effectively, has particular characteristics that distinguish it from other situations. These divorced persons are living in contrast with the sacrament of marriage, and therefore with the economy of the sacraments, the center of which is the Eucharist. This is, in fact, the reason recalled by the previous magisterium to justify the Eucharistic discipline of FC 84; an argument that is not present in the footnote or in its context. That which footnotes 351 affirms, therefore, does not touch the previous discipline: the norm of FC 84 and of SC 29 is still valid, and its application in every case. The basic principle is that no one can truly desire a sacrament, that of the Eucharist, without also desiring to live in accord with the other sacraments, including that of marriage. One who lives in contrast with the marriage bond is opposed to the visible sign of the sacrament of marriage; in that which touches his bodily existence, even if he should be subjectively not culpable, he makes himself an “anti-sign” of indissolubility. And precisely because his bodily life is contrary to the sign, he cannot be part, in receiving communion, of the supreme Eucharistic sign, where the incarnate love of Jesus is revealed. The Church, if she were to admit this, would fall into what Saint Thomas Aquinas called “falsity in sacramental signs.” And what we have before us is not an excessive doctrinal conclusion, but rather the very basis of the sacramental constitution of the Church, which we have compared to the architecture of Noah’s ark. It is an architecture that the Church cannot modify because it comes from Jesus himself; because she, the Church, comes from here, and supports herself here to navigate the waters of the flood. Changing the discipline on this concrete point, admitting a contradiction between the Eucharist and marriage, would necessarily mean changing the profession of faith of the Church, which teaches and realizes the harmony among all the sacraments, just as she has received it from Jesus. On this faith in indissoluble marriage, not as distant ideal but as concrete reality, the blood of martyrs has been shed. Someone might insist: isn't Francis lacking in mercy if he does not take this step? Isn’t it too much to ask these persons to move toward a life in keeping with the word of Jesus? What happens is instead the contrary. We would say, using the image of the ark, that Francis, sensitive to the flood situation of the contemporary world, has opened all possible windows of the boat and has invited all of us to throw ropes from the windows in order to pull the castaway onto the barque. But to permit, albeit in only some cases, that communion be given to those who visibly lead a way of life contrary to the sacrament of marriage would not be opening an extra window, but opening a leak in the bottom of the boat, allowing the sea to enter in and endangering the navigation of all and the service of the Church to society. Rather than a way of integration, it would be a way of the disintegration of the ecclesial ark, a way of water. In respecting this discipline, therefore, not only is no limit placed on the Church’s capacity to rescue families, but the stability of the boat is also guaranteed together with its capacity to bring us to a fair haven…. http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351295?eng=y
