As a new Catholic (Easter 2015) with a divorce and remarriage (to a Protestant not happy with my conversion) situation....this news is very disheartening. I became Catholic first and foremost for The Real Presence and then the beautiful Truth of the Faith. This is maddening to me.

Part of that beautiful Truth of the Faith is: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mk 10:11; cf. Lk 16:18; Mt 5:32, 19:19). Your first concern should be the eternal destiny of your soul. Don't allow yourself to lose sight of that by getting wrapped up in Church politics. Today's pastors are wolves in sheep's clothes. You must not follow them into perdition. You must heed the words of our Lord and Saviour. The Truth will make you free.

I am very well aware of my dilemma. Thanks be to God and due to circumstances beyond my control my situation, for now, is rectified. What's maddening for me is defending the TRUE teachings of the Church to my Protestant friends and being accused of being "more knowledgeable" and "less merciful" than our pope. Makes it a bit harder to be a good and faithful witness when my pope says something entirely different.

There's a video by Peter Kreeft on You Tube. In it, he tells a joke about the indeffectability of the Church. Time Index 23:50 https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Unfortunate for us .no the Tabernacle nor the Holy Eucharist will stay with us for very long as Francis will soon have it removed from the altars of every church in the world except for the Traditional catholic who will not obey him.

As ordinary Catholics trying to live out our lives according to the clear teaching of the Catechism, from the first one, the Didache, to the current one promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II. There is one theme that runs through all of them, which is clearly grounded in the Gospels: there is the way of life and the way of death. The way of life is narrow and hard; the way of death is broad and easy. Nothing that any of the current Church leaders can say or do, including the Holy Father, can change the reality of this teaching. About 40 years ago, as I was driven to distraction by the modernist currents undermining the faith of so many in the Church, an old Orthodox priest I met told me to save myself and others around you will be saved. Also, consecrate ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, pay attention to her words, especially those spoken at Fatima, and we will remain on the narrow road. We must learn to love God and neighbor according to God's way of love, which is self-sacrificial and leads to the Cross.

Thank you Dr. Snow.....beautifully stated. Very comforting to read we are to save ourselves and others around us will be saved. Very comforting.

"He urged all bishops to convene a press conference – if possible
everywhere at the same time, that is to say, simultaneously, with the
press conference in Rome – to present the post-synodal letter of Pope
Francis about the family."

Funny how easy it ease to organize all the bishops, simultaneously no less, to promulgate institutionalized sacrilege. But in order to organize them to, say, consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart as she requested, well that's a no-can-do.

Funny you should say that. It was one of the things that finally dawned on me. They can 'organize' simultaneously for this post synod exhoration but no way have they ever been able to do this for the Consecration of Russia!

"Much more likely however, is that there are many seeking diligently but
indirectly and Gradually to destroy belief in the Real Presence!"

And there it is. That's been the end game since the 60's. The whole new mass with all it's novelties is geared to that end. Communion in the hand while standing, rip out the altar rails, turn the priest around to make it a communal meal instead of a sacrifice, every Tom, Dick, and Mary in the universe allowed to handle the Blessed Sacrament.

Abomination of desolation.

As I wrote in March of 2014, before I felt called to start this website:

"Cardinal Kasper is a man who has a problem with the central truths of the Catholic faith and her most venerable traditions, but not the errors one finds outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. He disputes her claims of exclusivity, and the necessity of her sacraments for salvation.

More to the point: his current, ongoing push to find pastoral solutions to provide communion to the divorced and remarried is, I submit, not about marriage at all.

It is about the final destruction of the remaining belief in the Real Presence and the authority of the Magisterium. It is about treating all religions as equally and sufficiently efficacious for eternal salvation and denying the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

This, at last, is the coup de grâce in the century-long onslaught against the Catholic faith that has been waged from within the Church. It is about modernism’s final, momentous triumph.

What the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control could not accomplish in 1967 appeared to be a great victory for the Church. But I have come to believe that Satan and his co-conspirators, so actively at work in the Church, accepted what seemed to be a crushing defeat at the time, knowing that the seeds for a much greater victory had been planted. Dissent blossomed in the Church, with no few bishops leading the charge. Contraception destroyed marriage. Worldwide, it has irrevocably separated the sexual act from procreation, and thus has ushered in the age of virtually ubiquitous extra-marital sex, abortion, pornography, and now same-sex marriage. As the institution of marriage has weakened, the frequency of divorce has increased exponentially. The apparent victory that was Humanae Vitae was not enforced from the pulpits. The faithful were not sufficiently catechized. And now the state of marriage — including Catholic marriage — is in such a bad way that it’s impossible to know how many marriages within the Church were ever valid in the first place. (Ask anyone going through required diocesan marriage prep how many of their classmates are already sleeping together. They’re not shy about it.)

The pastoral situation that the bishops are now facing as they consider the question of communion for the divorced and remarried is of their own making. And I submit for your consideration the idea that this happened not by accident, but by design. With marriage all but destroyed, finding a “pastoral” solution is necessary. It just so happens that this pastoral solution razes the infallible teaching of the Church on the Eucharist as it is implemented."

http://www.steveskojec.com/...

It has never been about communion for the divorced + civilly remarried. Their goal is the destruction of the Church:

Cardinal Pell said only three of the synod's 10 small groups had supported a controversial proposal by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, even without an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages.

"Communion for the divorced and remarried is for some -- very few, certainly not the majority of synod fathers -- it's only the tip of the iceberg, it's a stalking horse. They want wider changes, recognition of civil unions, recognition of homosexual unions," Cardinal Pell said. "The church cannot go in that direction. It would be a capitulation from the beauties and strengths of the Catholic tradition, where people sacrificed themselves for hundreds, for thousands of years to do this."- http://www.catholicnews.com...

(My emphasis)

A video is here: https://shyanguya.wordpress...

Thank you for this Steve. I had not read this yet, and yes 'whew' it is a long one, but you are right on the money. Did not realize ( or remember, I guess) that you as well felt a dread when Francis appeared on the Loggia for the first time. I remember thinking: 'What's wrong here, something is really very wrong, who is this man?' I had no idea who he was or where he came from before then. Had never heard of him, but when he stepped out, I instantly felt that this was wrong. I hate to rely on 'feelings', and always try to push them aside in favor of facts first, but I could NOT shake the feeling. And....unfortunately my 'feelings' have been confirmed over and over again since then. Jesus have MERCY on us and on the whole world!

If you had the chance to watch the Funeral Mass for Mother Angelica yesterday, you'd have been overjoyed at the Ad Orientem Mass. People received Communion by KNEELING at the COMMUNION RAILS and of course, only on the tongue. She finally got her way after fighting for it for many years. The Lord allowed her in death to this privilege, as the rest of us, if only to watch. It was BEAUTIFUL beyond compare.

I'm afraid I didn't see that but I'm glad you mention it. I hope they will replay it and I'll be on the lookout for it. Thanks.

One can only hope that the Catholic cardinals have already booked a room for a conclave to start a few days after the publication of this document, should it really suggest that Francis has apostatised from Catholicism and joined the Kasperite sect.

I don't think he needs to join Kasper, Kasper proposed in theory, Borgolio put it in practice long before he went to Rome.

Let us not forget that it is the solemn duty of every member of the hierarchy to reprove, remonstrate with, warn, denounce and judge, and finally separate from any other member who falls into heresy, as they would if they admitted public sinners to communion, even if living as brother and sister.

Wow. Church teaching doesn't change. The final report at the synod did not attempt to change Church teaching. But Pope Francis supposedly has written a 200 page summary of the synod and now wants every bishop around the world to hold a press conference about teachings that haven't changed. I wonder why he was concerned about people buying into conspiracy theories last year?

The Catholic Church's teaching is that "homosexuality" is an inclination, not a person. Persons exist in relationship as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, not according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation.

Your statement has no relevance to my comments.

""Reforming" the words of Jesus Christ"

That concept should scare tar out of any faithful Christian. Seriously.

I wrote similarly above, bosco, before I read through the comments to see your thoughts. I agree with you.

Heretical sons of bitches!

Word on the street (form Dominican sources in Rome) is that the document will give leeway to individual Bishops conferences to come up with their own solutions to the 'pastoral' problem of adulterer's receiving Holy Communion etc...Decentralization of pastoral practice by giving jurisdiction to Local Episcopal Conferences to undermine the Discipline of the Sacraments by relativizing the moral requirements for the admission to the Sacraments is a disaster that will bring about the Structural Collapse of the Church in the West: just as it has to Protestantism. Look at the Anglican 'communion' for a perfect example of what it looks like in practice...

All of this was discussed publically by the Kasperite Faction and the Pope at the close of the last Synod...the Chair of Peter is about to loose one of it's legs through self amputation.

This is another building block, a very large building block, of the protestantization of the Roman Catholic Church.

Hopefully it isn't so, but...

Interesting. If true, it will damage the Church. However, Local Episcopal Conferences can be corrected in the future by more orthodox Successors to Peter...

Or dissolved altogether. However, the immediate effect would be defacto schism in many places for they would immediately formally adopt heretical, sacrilegious practices. Which will cause local clergy to be severely disciplined by their heretical overlords and even cause non-conformist Bishops to be deposed (these are already happening, however it will get much worse), faithful laity will be excommunicated etc...like I said: The structural collapse of the Church in the West.

I'm taking up drinking.

The Catechism and Vatican Council II are not a break with the dogma EENS unless invisible and visible, hypothetical and objective cases are confused : how would Dr.Robert Dickson interpret CCC 1257 ?

How would Dr.Robert Dickson interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) ? He has a choice and he doesn't know it.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism of the Catholic Church.

'but he himself is not bound by his sacraments'. Is this relevant or an exception to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 16th century missionaries? Probably it is an exception for Robert and Maike Dickson.

But not for me.

1. Since I do not know any one this year who will be saved without the Sacraments.

2.Neither would Maike and Robert Dickson know of any one in 2016 or in the past who was saved without the Sacraments.

3.I look at CCC 1257 with the theology of Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to EENS. For the Maike and Robert Dickson, Cardiinal Ratzinger and Fr.John Hardon, it was with the theology of Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and so every one does not need to enter the Church formally as it was believed in the 16th century.)

4.For me in principle hypothetical cases cannot be objectively seen.

5.The baptism of desire and blood,LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.

So there is a choice. We can interpret CCC 1257 with Feeneyism or Cushingism, with rationality or with an irrationality, according to Tradition or opposed to Tradition, in agreement with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium or in agreement with the contemporary magisterium.

For Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper the interpretation of CCC 1257 is with Cushingism. So we have the hermeneutic of rupture. Since there is a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, they could suggest that other teachings of the Church can be changed.There is no change in ecclesiology we must note, when the Synod Exhortation is announced.

So it is important to know that the Catechism(1992) and Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS unless invisible and visible, hypothetical and objective cases are confused.

It was because of this confusion in 1949 Boston that it was assumed every one does not need to enter the Church and that a person in invincible ignorance can be saved without the baptism of water.So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church to avoid Hell who know about Jesus and the Church.Since those who are saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

The LG 14 insertion comes from the Holy Office 1949 and the Archdiocese of Boston wrongly assuming there is salvation outside the Church, since there are known cases, physically known cases of persons saved without the baptis mof water.People in Heaven were considered exceptions on on earth.

It was based on this objective error that LG 8 mentions being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth', as if these cases are known and so relevant to the dogma EENS.

Similarly it is based on this objective error in 1949 that UR 3 refers to those Christians saved in imperfect communion with the Church, as if these cases are known and phyiscally visible, so they were mentioned in Vatican Council II.

Similarly NA 2 refers to 'that ray of the Truth'.This is another hypothetical case interpreted as being objective, since this was the error pattern at Boston in 1949.It should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. It is like dead wood, flotsam and jetsam and unecessary Cushing Addition.

Ad Gentes 7 mentions 'seeds of the Word' and AG 7 and LG 14 refer to the catechuman saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which he did not receive before dieing and there are those cases of persons in invincible ignorance, allegedly personally known and saved. None of these cases should have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.

There cannot be adevelopent of a doctrine or dogma based on invisible cases.However the mistake was made in 1949 and the error transferred to Vatican Council II on a big scale. It is as if they called up the Council only to officially approve the error in the 1949 Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani Letter from Rome.

This is a magisterial error. If any one, pope or cardinal, infers that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved this year with or without the baptism of water, it is nonsense.-Lionel Andrades

It would be useful if Dr.Maike Hickson could comment on this before the Synod Exhortation is out http://eucharistandmission....

Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were interpreting the Catechism and Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology
http://eucharistandmission....

"This is a magisterial error. If any one, pope or cardinal, infers that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved this year with or without the baptism of water, it is nonsense..."

Saints aren't declared to be in heaven?

And to your other point about invincible ignorance-I thought Pius IX talked about this in the 1800s?

"This is a magisterial error. If any one, pope or cardinal, infers that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved this year with or without the baptism of water, it is nonsense..."

Saints aren't declared to be in heaven?
Lionel:Yes Catholics are declared to be saints by the Church, and they are saints.
However no one in the Church can say that a Catholic is a saint in Heaven without the baptism of water and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Since no human could see a person in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. The Church also does not recognise any one as having the ability to physically see people in Heaven.
__________________________

And to your other point about invincible ignorance-I thought Pius IX talked about this in the 1800s?
Lionel: Yes we can speculate that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and this will be followed by the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching of EENS.
However no can say that there is aperson in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water( or even with the baptism of water).Since this is not physically possible.
It was liberal theologians after the Council of Trent who would interpret Pius IX as referring to being saved in invincible ignorance, as if it was an explicitly known case and that too without the baptism of water. Then they speculated that these 'explicit cases' were exceptions to EENS,
This was the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumes the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refers to explicit cases without the baptism of water. Then these hypothetical, theoretical for us cases, were assumed to be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So I assume tha tPius IX was not talking about an explicitly visible case and was not saying it was an exception to EENS. The text does not say this. Since if he was saying this then it would mean he made an objective mistake.Since we physically cannot see persons saved without the baptism of water.
__________________________

This is no different than giving communion to an obese person. Only *mortal* sin deprives one of sanctifying grace.

Please enlighten us as to when adultery, entered into freely with the full consent of both parties, is not a mortal sin.

Full knowledge too, of course.

Take the example of a couple married by the SSPX. Now we know from canon law that their marriage is invalid. Do you really believe they are committing *mortal* sin?

Only because of the requirement of canonical form, about which I have mixed feelings. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law, and it still has to be shown to he invalid, even when it is rather easy to do so.

Why do you use asterisks?

Ought they not be scare quotes?

I have been praying for the conversion of these heretical prelates, and if they refuse, and continue on this path of destruction, that God will strike them down.

"To proclaim heresy is to invalidate one's papacy."

I don't know that I agree with that statement. I think it depends on whether the heresy is material or formal. Granted, the discussion on this can delve into the "weeds" pretty quickly but I don't think material heresy automatically invalidates one's papacy. Pope Honorious was condemned a heretic by his successors and a Church Council but he is still considered a pope. Vatican I danced around Honorious by setting the standard for formal heresy pretty high. Essentially, it must proclaim a dogma of the Church and it must be binding on the Faithful. Everything else is fair game for error, which brings us to the bizarre papacy of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has not declared any new dogma of the Church that would be binding on the Faithful for belief. What he has done and continues to do is defy and confuse previously established teachings - fair game for criticism because at best it is idiocy and, at worst, material heresy. This behavior is scandalous, but unless someone can credibly present a case of formal heresy, I do not believe his papacy is invalidated.

"Who am I to judge", when it comes to acts that do not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, would be a new dogma. It is not Loving or Merciful to desire that we remain in our sins, or not desire that we overcome our disordered inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but become transformed through Salvational Love, God's Gift of Grace and Mercy. Our Call to Holiness, is a call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.

Pope Francis has not declared this as a dogma and has certainly not declared it binding on the Faithful; its his own warped understanding. Read on the history of Pope Honorious because it provides excellent context to this discussion. Pope Honorious put into pen a Christological heresy. However, he did not proclaim it a dogma and did not proclaim it binding on the Faithful, which kept it out of bounds for formal heresy. Likewise with Pope Francis. So, I would respectfully disagree.

With all due respect, you are mistaken:

http://www.dailycatholic.or...

This document states the Roman Pontiff should be counterdicted if he is found to have deviated from the Faith. Amen to that. But it does not speak to papacy invalidation for anything the pope does AFTER he is elevated to the papal throne. So, I disagree with you.

2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows: In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it. Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.

You took this section WAY out of context of the original document.

Re-read this document again as I just did. The section you are posting refers to prior excommunications issued by predecessor Roman Pontiffs being honored by the current Roman Pontiff. You did not include the subsequent paragraph to the above paragraphs that outlines who these people could possibly be - and the Roman Pontiff was not listed.

The ONLY reference in the entire document that prescribes a course of action as to what to do when a reigning Roman Pontiff deviates from the Catholic Faith pertains to what orthodox minded Catholics are already doing (except Michael Voris and company) - it instructs that the Roman Pontiff should be contradicted. Notice it did not say (and it was the perfect place to say it if it were true), under those circumstances, the papacy was invalidated.