Diocese of Rome’s new guidelines allow Communion for sexually active cohabitating couples in ‘limite

LifeSiteNews ^ | October 5, 2016 | Claire Chretien

[dp0622]

I hated moynahan except for his brilliant “deviancy down” speech.

If we START with only allowing married folk to get communion, then MAYBE some will avoid the other types of relationships because of that.

If we START with gays and unmarried folk getting communion, where is the next level in the deviancy down?

[steve86]

F the Vatican and the demonic leadership of MY Church.

A Catholic traditionalist retro revolution is due razing every Satanist thing they’ve done since 1960.

The devil is truly in control over there.

[skr]

We, the believers, are the Church. Your church organization has failed you, as have many other church organizations failed their members. The Bride of Christ, however, is not a building that Jesus is coming for, He’s coming again for us, praise be to Him!

It is disheartening to see such corruption in our church homes, whether Catholic or Protestant. It’s not something I expected to see in my lifetime, not on this scale.

[Arthur McGowan]

The Diocese of Rome has left the Catholic Church.

[spirited irish]

My thoughts exactly. Thank-you.

[MichaelCorleone]

I’m seeing some pushback with the rank-and-file and the Priests themselves. The majority being passive-aggressive in nature.

Vatican II was a mistake.

[Jim Noble]

My impression is that, at Vatican II, the Catholic Church adopted some of the worst features of Protestantism, the most important of which are attention to the "signs of the times" and the notion that Christ's body on Earth can substitute itself for Christ's head, or rather can and should make adjustments to His divine teaching pending His return.

No offense intended to anybody, I'm bi-confessional and tend to look for the good, and ignore the bad, in both traditions.

And, even after Vatican II, Catholics still can't sing.

[Rashputin]

The laity as a whole failed the Church first, this is the result.

The sheep have been more than happy to have lax shepherds and unwilling to challenge them if they were unhappy. They just melted away leaving the Church of Nice full of heretics.

Even the shock and awe over heresy is often the loudest from those who no longer attend Church anyway but do love being shocked and awed.

JMHo

[MichaelCorleone]

“And, even after Vatican II, Catholics still can’t sing.”

Ha! I know I can’t.

[Vaquero]

Francis is the anti-pope.

[piusv]

New guidelines about the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia issued for the pope’s own diocese of Rome suggest that couples living in a state the Church labels objectively sinful may in limited circumstances receive Holy Communion in a "discreet manner." The release of the new guidelines follows closely on the Vatican’s authentication of a letter from Pope Francis to Argentine bishops affirming that the only valid interpretation of the exhortation is one that similarly liberalizes sacramental practice.

So, (1) Catholics can blaspheme and commit sacrilege as long as they are hush-hush about it; and (2) anyone who merely focuses blame on the Diocese of Rome here is willfully blind. The so-called Catholic hierarchy there are merely following the Magisterium of their so-called pope.

[piusv]

A Catholic traditionalist retro revolution is due razing every Satanist thing they’ve done since 1960.

What do you think Archbishop Lefebrve, SSPXer's and sedevacantists have been trying to do all these years? Novus Ordo Catholics are too busy calling them schismatics and non-Catholic....right here on this board (and I know you are not one of those people but I never see you defend them either).

And if you really think the so-called "trads" of the Novus Ordo/modernists like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius are actually going to do anything against their fellow Modernists, you're fooling yourself.

[piusv]

The laity as a whole failed the Church first, this is the result.

Really now? Tell me, where did the Catholic laity cause Vatican II? No, this was 100% the hierarchy's fault. The only blame the laity has is that they went along with it (even though so many knew something was terribly wrong with the new religion). Having said that, I understand why they did what they did 50 years ago. Now? Not so much.

[Rashputin]

Agitating for more involvement and decrying dictatorial rule was a common theme among the cognoscenti prior to Vatican I and Vatican I was Pastoral to ave the Church become more open to involvement of the Laity.

If, in your opinion, it was a minority of liberal agitators who were arguing for that increased involvement, fine, then where was the counter balance to that at the Parish level? Silent, at the very least, is where.

Whether the calling of the council was a bolt from the blue or not, changing what came out of the council into into what they wanted it to be rather than what it was intended to be was backed and funded by the same people who backed Murry and Hesburgh to the hilt after Vatican I and who met next to no resistance from any other group of lay people.

Understand what you like and have any opinion you like but the fact remains that the vast majority of the same generation that didn't lift a finger to resist Murry and company didn't pass the faith on to their own children in a meaningful way or the Church in this country couldn't have collapsed in such short order.

That sums up where the problem lies and it's mostly not at the feet of those attending Vatican I who behaved like whipped dogs when what they thought they had done was twisted into what it became and those are two different things without a doubt.

Vague statements some say were deliberately vague can just as easily be read and interpreted and publicly taught in light of Tradition and the words of Christ as they can be turned into an invitation to heresy but which reading received the cheers of the laity?

Nostalgia is all well and good, but tell me, who was the Papal encyclical Testem benevolentiae nostrae addressed to were they then as well as now looked upon as being a solid Catholic?

[piusv]

The laity were sheep led to the slaughter. I lay no fault at the feet of those who trusted that the hierarchy was actually giving them good when in fact they gave them evil. You know, because that is what Catholics expect! The reality is that the proverbial shit rolled downhill. Without a doubt.

Did the laity's continued blindness and lack of resistance help lead us to where we are now? ABSOLUTELY. We still have most Catholics blindly defending teachings that are just not Catholic. But the fault comes initially and squarely from the hierarchy.

[cloudmountain]

I think this mechanism has been around for a while.
I had an aunt (my godmother) who married a divorced man, my father's youngest brother.

She faithfully attended Mass and...managed to get to Holy Communion. I didn't even think of it until now. The first wife finally died and they had a Catholic wedding ceremony as well. This was DECADES ago.

I still miss my Aunt Nora. She was a PEACH.

[piusv]

Nostalgia is all well and good, but tell me, who was the Papal encyclical Testem benevolentiae nostrae addressed to were they then as well as now looked upon as being a solid Catholic?

I am sorry I didn't answer this, but I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

[Rashputin]

B o l o g n a

Your POV boils down to one of two possible arguments.

1) the "a fish rots from it's head" theory when in reality that only applies to a dead or nearly dead fish because a healthy fish produces massive amounts of antibodies and fights of the infection well before it beomes rot. Horribly wounded fish continue to swim the sea for years without rotting.

or

2) the same insanity the Big Bang people who don't believe their is a Creator make when they say, "absolutely nothing existed, then one day it blew up".

As I said, you're welcome to any opinion that suits your personal comfort zone. That in no way implies I believe your comfort zone is in sync with reality.

[Rashputin]

Pretty simple. Is the late frequently lamented Cardinal Gibbons a pillar of the Faith or not?

Most nostalgic Catholics say yes due to his involvement with the Baltimore Catechism but but a study of his work and where he wanted the Church in America to go says he was an Americanist in order to avoid being labeled a Modernist which is why the Pope wrote an encyclical reprimanding those who agreed with that watering down of the Faith.