Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Amoris Laetitia, Fully Implemented

In the 14 months since the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia was published, countless pixels have been spilled discussing it, dissecting it, breaking it down, and lamenting its clearly heterodox intent.

We’ve seen its ambiguous provisions allowing Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” implemented in more concrete fashion in the Philippines, in Argentina, in Malta, in Belgium, in German, and even in Rome. It was in fact the Argeninian bishops of the Buenos Aires region who brought to light the pope’s personal interpretation of his exhortation, when he confirmed their allowance for sacraments for the “remarried” with a letter stating, “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

It appears that one bishop in Argentina — elevated to the episcopacy in 2013 by Pope Francis himself — has decided to go all in on this interpretation, of which the pope insists there is no other:

This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what’s behind Amoris laetitia.

In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are “marginalized” because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the “path of discernment”, it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living “as brothers [and sisters].”

In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion.

We have reached the last train station on the line, ladies and gentlemen. This is the full implementation of Amoris Laetitia, and it didn’t take long to get here.

If the pope wants to make a course correction, to pull back and say this isn’t what he really intended, now is the time, and this is the case. If he does nothing about it — which we can all reasonably conclude that he won’t — this puts an end to the debate, forever, over whether or not this is exactly what he wanted Amoris Laetitia to do.

162 thoughts on “Amoris Laetitia, Fully Implemented”

      • If they are fearful, and do not believe, with every bone in their body, that they have a righteous duty, given by God, to give a formal and public correction, for the sake of the Church, in love of God, in duty to their flock………If they have no real courage, no resiliency to stand firm and weather the storm after such correction……..then let them keep silent, in my opinion, for they shall do more harm than good if they were to speak in a weak, and gentle voice.

        • You’re so right here with this. They shall do more harm if and when they speak in a gentle jibber-jabberish no-meaningless voice. As I may see that many prelates are doing right so, which is sad. Very sad! But still, they are wrong with that option, because that’s not an option at all! One of our very good, devoted and faithful ones, bishop Antun Mahnić from Croatian island Krk, was loudly and clearly saying in the 1920’s already, that THIS time is the time of division of the spirits. We are for our Lord Christ, or we are for Belial! There is NO third or any other option!
          He said than also this: “The lukewarm shall be overrun. Dismissed as an old patch!”
          So, all the PRELATES should and must SPEAK and ACT for CHRIST, and make themselves clear they are for Christ or for Belial! Silence cannot be their apology, but defense of Christ’ Church, His teaching and His flock must be their apology.

      • Waiting? What about the faithful who have been waiting 50 years for a correction? I’m truly thankful that I didn’t have to witness the wreckovation after VII; though, AL and Francis may prove to be much more damning to the faith. Only by the grace of God we are Catholic.

      • I am in the process of composing a letter to Cardinal Muller (yes, the one roundly bashed on this site for talking out of both side of his mouth), reminding him of his office and that he has the authority AND THE OBLIGATION to answer the dubia in the only way a faithful Catholic can answer them, to do it publicly and to publicly advise the Pope he must either agree, publicly, with the answers or resign and, if he does neither he reveals himself to be a manifest heretic and will be deposed. There’s no other way to bring this to a head.

        If he gets a couple of thousand letters like that they may wake him up.

        • I don’t want to be negative but I doubt he cares. We are nobodies to guys like him. In my experience people like him just care what other big shots think about him.

          • It’s up to him and God, what he will do with it. If winslow feels obligated to do something like this, I am sure he is potentiated by the true Spirit. I believe that’s not just great, but we all should do the same. Instead of giving up before the end of the battle. Do whatever we can do. Whatever.
            Winslow I am very glad to may hear this, and you like it or not, you have a little bit support for that from me and my Holy Rosary. God bless you.

        • If you write it up I will add my name to it. Why not deliver it to him personally? Surely these Vatican officials meet with the laity and we have a problem here that they need to clarify.

      • It’s time to see things as they are. Sadly, it seems that there isn’t going to be any. PF seems to be trying with every fiber of his being to split the Church. Is there a point you concede the fact that this is not the true Church anymore? Personally, I think whether there is a formal correction or not, it is our duty as Catholics to pray for the conversion of Francis and fight to protect what’s left of Holy Mother Church.

        • Part of the problem with this whole mess is that it can lead to loss of faith in the Church and even in God. It can raise serious doubts and raise questions like, ‘how can I believe when Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, but allows it to be rampant with evil and led by one whose goal is the destruction of the Chucrch?’ There are those who have atarted to read Scripture and the irthodox documents of txge Church with a jaundiced eye.

  1. A special Mass to celebrate adultery and admit adulterers to Holy Communion!!! It makes me wonder what sin they can celebrate next. Sodomy is already widely celebrated though in many places still on the hush, hush. Perhaps its time to break all those paedophile priests out of prison and get them to concelebrate at a special Pontifical Pederasty Pride liturgy. You know that it makes sense, the “god of surprises” tells me so.

      • Fr Thomas Pègues OP (Catechism of the Summa Theologica, pp 224-225) writes that the opposition to Christ by Satan “will rise to such a pitch that Satan will concentrate the whole of his power and malice in some individual human being who will be called Antichrist.” The Antichrist will be in a special way the head of the wicked “for there will be more malice in him than there ever was in any other man; he will be Satan’s vicar, whose object will be to strive his utmost in order to lead men to damnation and so ruin the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.”

        Could the Vicar of Christ bring forth the Vicar of Satan?

        • When I think on ‘s. galen mafia’, then I am thinking on c.Daneels & Co…
          When I am thinking on them, then I am always asking myself a question of one million $: Who is real vicar of Christ?
          We should pray (more often) for pope Benedict.
          I am just saying it…

        • Or is the “vicar of Christ” a wolf in sheep’s clothing — the vicar of Satan? I’m leaning in that direcrion.

          • Ven Fulton Sheen wrote: “We are living in the days of the Apocalypse – the last days of our era…. The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest.”

            He continued: “The False Prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit church. Christ’s Church [the Catholic Church] will be one. And the False Prophet will create the other. The false church will be worldly ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches. And religions forming some type of global association. A world parliament of churches. It will be emptied of all divine content and will be the mystical body of the Antichrist. The mystical body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from among our bishops.”

            Francis has demonstrated a natural empathy for Judas. On April 11, 2016, Francis delivered a sermon at Casa Santa Marta in which he called Judas Iscariot a poor, repentant man, victimized and driven to suicide by unmerciful lovers of the law. This extraordinary attempt to rehabilitate Judas Iscariot, the greatest, most wicked traitor in history and despairing self-murderer, is beyond unprecedented. It reeks of supernatural evil.

            However, it is unlikely that Francis is the Antichrist for this Man of Sin is preceded by the False Prophet in much the same way as John the Baptist preceded Our Lord Jesus Christ. The counterfeit precursor is to prepare the way for the counterfeit Christ and then the wicked one will be revealed.

          • One can be antichrist without being THE Antichrist. Francis has proven himself to be the former. Perhaps he is the false prophet Bishop Sheen has written snd spoken about. And, yes, Francis is a traitor. Amoris Laetitis and its implementation reveals that. It contradicts the Words of Jesus, promotes disobediece of God’s commandments and encourages sacrilege by priest and recipient of the Most Precious, Most Holy Body and Blood of our Savior.

          • The primary link is the Vatican Radio Francis Homilies ─

            There are numerous secondary links; google ‘francis and judas’. I found an article written by David Martin titled ‘Did Francis Just Defend Judas?’ in The Remnant Newspaper Blog Fetzen Fliegen, Thursday, April 14, 2016

            An extract which may be of interest is: “One cannot help to note, too, how Francis laments so deeply the hardness of heart wherewith the high priests behaved toward Judas, yet he says nothing of the cruelty and hardness that they demonstrated toward the Son of God whom they were about to kill. Where in the Church’s history was it said or taught that the high priests were evil because they were mean to Judas?

            I would have replied earlier except I have just returned from a 3500km journey for my mother’s funeral. Could you spare a prayer for the repose of her soul? Thankyou.

          • Dear Ben, thankyou for the assurance of prayers for my Mother. I have included your Mother’s name on our family Rosary intention list which is placed at Our Lady’s feet on our altar. Additionally, I will have a Mass offered by our SSPX priest when I see him on Wed. If you are not aware of it check out the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society.

          • Yes, I have added her to the list so she will be remembered before God many times in the future. THANKS indeed Gerry. May the souls of our dear mothers and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.

    • Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP, the one-time Dominican Master or Superior called sodomy a sacrament, so little shame is left among Conciliar sodomite priests.

        • No doubting that Padre, everyone from St Peter Damian to St Pius V faced the efforts of the devil to corrupt priests. A big problem now post V2 was that until BXVI efforts to root out ‘filth’ were not properly made. Sadly, the present Pope seems to allowing efforts to slacken again. Anyhow, all must pray for priests, maybe invoke St Jean Vianney, patron St of priests.

      • Yes, and Bergoglio had to resurrect Fr. Radcliffe and all the other aged libs, and heretics and apostates. Should we be surprised about Argentina …they are only following what Bergoglio did for years in Argentina. The need for clarification has certainly deminished or disappeared completely. Perhaps this is the clarification we’ve all been waiting for..actions speak louder than words.

    • The Word of God (Holy Scripture) stands for all eternity. ANY “Mass” that violates and effectively denies His word becomes a sacrilege and is essentially invalid. Unless repentence occurs and reparation is made, those who participate, and especially tge celebrants, condemn themselves.

  2. At least Cardinal Schoenborn has been proven wrong about Amoris taking a long time to understand. Is this, at last, going to be a wake-up call for the dyed-in-the-wool ‘conservative’ Bergoglians? Or are the rest of us going to be served up a yet another Dixie Cup of Kool-Aid about the poor pontiff not really intending to change either doctrine or pastoral practice in any way ultimately inconsistent with authentic Catholicism?

  3. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us! You promised the gates of hell would not prevail against Your Church! Lord, hell is at the gates and has opened them to enter in! Save us! Have mercy on us! What can we do; what must we do to stop this horrible desecration of Your Holy Body and Blood? Please save us from this evil Pope!

    • Our Lady of Fatima told us what to do. The So far 5 popes have refused to honor Her request. Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, Say the Rosary, and do the 1st Saturdays, Confession & Receive the Blessed Sacrament. So the excuse is “Don’t want to get the Eastern Orthodox religions angry. Oh poo!

      • I cannot personally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary although I can pray for it. Frankly, under Pope Francis it seems highly unlikely to happen. So then what? I can pray the Rosary. I cannot make the First Saturdays because there is no Mass before 5:30 pm on Saturdays in the Bible Belt town where I live and I have to be to work by 3:30. I go to confession and receive Holy Communion. What else can I do? I feel so desperate. I’m 70 years old and I don’t want to die in a Church where I may not even have a priest to give me Last Rites. It’s clear that Pope Francis is an evil, insane man who wants to destroy the Catholic Church! Lord have mercy!

        • Katherine, Our Lord gave certain dispensations for the first Saturday devotion, allowing certain flexibility as long as, as always, the communicant is in a state of grace. I am sure that the 5:30pm mass on Saturday will meet the requirement, even though that is probably is the first Sunday obligation mass. Just go to mass again on the Sunday for Sunday, so that you have been for Sat and then Sun. As long as you receive communion in a state of grace; go to confession on the Saturday or as soon as possible either side of Saturday; say 5 decades of the Rosary on Saturday; and accompany Our Lady for 15 minutes, while meditating on the mysteries of the rosary on Saturday, you will, I believe satisfy the requirements. Our Lord and Our Lady understand, I believe, the difficulties of where you are in the world.

          • I mentioned to our Priest that I cannot wear the Brown Scapular because of extremely sensitive skin and he said “I think Our Lady can handle that.” He told me to carry it with me. Trust Our Lady! She can handle whatever circumstances we have.

          • The scapular medal can be substituted for the brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel if circumstances require it, assuming you are not allergic to metal; also, once invested in the Brown Scapular, you do not need to have the scapular blessed each time you get a new one.

          • I think you can get a partial indulgence for kissing the Brown Scapular. Just wondering: Can babies get indulgences?

    • I was a member of the UK Conservative Party for 20 years.

      Until they elected as leader David Cameron, a liberal who may be “touched in the noggin” or may be just downright liberal/ evil, take your pick.

      He has been replaced by someone else very similar though perhaps not quite as bad. (Perhaps though more incompetent).

      But Cameron did not elect himself as leader. He did not have to do all his own work when elected. People who had always been conservative suddenly voted for him and then others started following him including some of those who had voted against him.

      Bergoglio didn’t elect himself either. And he didn’t say this Mass. I think it unlikely that he arranged the Envoronmental Conference himself although he will have known what was going on. He didn’t arrange for that revolting painting in a Cathedral. In fact he wasn’t even Pope then. Of course he did appoint the man who did to lead the Pontifical Academy for Life

      If it was only Bergoglio/ Cameron who were “touched in the noggin”, they would never have got into the position that they were in and even if they somehow had done, would have been quickly removed.

      That this hasn’t happened proves that he is far from being the only one.

      “Being touched in the noggin” may explain his behaviour. But it does not and can not explain the behaviour of those many others who follow him.

      • Of course he is not the cause. He is neither the only one. And they are not even inventors. He is (they are) the consequence.
        The rotten fruits of that black smoke and his maker, the great deceiver, that suffocates us for lasts decades.

      • That’s right, and it goes to the heart of my personal concerns.

        I, to be truthful, expect a bad Pope from time to time.

        But when I converted, I didn’t expect to find the vast effeminacy that I have found in the leadership.

        Indeed, among the remnant faithful there is courage, tenacity, doctrinal loyalty, but among even the so-called strong leaders of today, it is quite hard to find one I’d REALLY trust in fire and flame.

        But alas, it has been so in the past.

        Only 2, Joshua and Caleb, from the entire nation entered the Promised Land after the entire nation refused the gift God offered them all.

        • … or this as a nice example of such bad apostasy…of all prophets except the one, Elias:
          “And Elias said again to the people: I only remain a prophet of the Lord: but the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men.” (1 Kings 18,22)

    • They need open support from Pope Benedict 16th and a majority of red hat Cardinals to speak up . This Pope Benedict 16th did for ab Sarah indeed

        • They DO need their support. Otherwise the cino faith in the west will continue to collapse as it has Obviously done in Canada and west Europe under Paglia etc. and Francis Bergolio already.

          • Without their support of Dubia Bishops by Benedict 16th and red hat Cardinals the RC cino faith will disintegrate. This has has occurred already in similar fashion with Anglican Episcopal Protestant dying sect …… I am watching the cino RC rump church self destruct here in Waterbury and Naugatuck CT area….. Despite a INCREASE in over all population here the church is disintegrated here in CT..

          • I get what you’re saying but it ain’t going to happen….the 4 Dubia Cardinals need to push ahead and throw down the gauntlet.

          • Athanasius had support. He was willing to contra mundum but he wasn’t contra mundum solus

          • Fantastic….maybe you can define the requisite “support threshold” for the 4 Cardinals so they’ll know when it’s OK to act….until then we can all go back to contemplating our navels….

          • I’m not making a comment on when the Four Cardinals should act. I’m just pointing out that St. Athanasius had support

          • Let me guess then…your otherwise vapid post was really just an opportunity to showcase your incredible mastery of Latin….amirite?

          • No it was to point out the historical inaccuracy of the original comment. Sorry you consider that vapid

          • You need to work on your reading skills. Where did I say that Athanasius had no support? What I am saying is that he didn’t wait for the stars to perfectly align so he could then resist Arianism.
            Do the 4 Cardinals really need to have B16 and a majority of the red hats to issue a formal correction? Really? Good luck with that…..I am sure Cardinal Burke’s invitation to discuss the dubia with Francis just got lost in the mail.
            270 days and counting….

          • “You need to work on your writing skills”
            Stick to being vapid….”clever” is too much of a reach for you.

          • Gentlemen, I enjoy a good fifth-grade battle of wits as much as the next guy, but I’m waiting for one of you to call the other a “poo-poo head,” and I’d like to save you the embarrassment of that sort of escalation. After all, once it’s been said, you can’t take it back.

            Can we maybe rein in the digression a bit? Mmkay thx bye.

          • Let me guess now…anything not sufficiently angry at and/or demanding action of the Four Cardinals Pope Francis, Pope Emeritus Benedict, or probably God Almighty Himself is “vapid” to you!

  4. Why do I feel strongly that our orthodox prelates will tell us

    1} the answer to the crisis is prayer by the laity and…
    2} silence is golden for the prelates.

  5. But Amoris laetitia is in perfect conformity with Familiaris consortio and Veritatis splendor, right Cardinal Muller?? There’s no inconsistency, correct Your Eminence? No rupture, no contradiction, nothing to see here…….just move along.

    The head of the CDF is an empty cassock.

      • I was introduced to that history a couple years ago by an old missionary priest who served in Korea. Many Koreans, too, received the Catholic faith before they received priests.

        I have felt exactly as you note here ever since. Those Japanese Christians waited, and waited. They are a strong witness to our Lord Jesus and a model for all those who are stranded in bleak spiritual environs.

      • Yes it can be done. During the terrible days of communism I read of one parish that went to their Church–an empty Church because the priest had been arrested and killed and lovingly laid out the vestments at the altar steps and prayed the prayers of the Mass and the Rosary. In penal times when Mass was not allowed the people prayed the Rosary and baptised their children and taught them the catechism in secret. That is what happened in Japan as well. It’s not fun, it’s not easy, but God does provide..

      • I pray we won’t have to wait that long. With the antichrist attitudes within and without the Church, there will be very few authentic Catholics left. And the knowledge of the faith will be further weakened because the majority of writings have been reprinted and revised to include modernist content. This includes the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Thomas Acquinas’ Summa Theologia . And the New American Bible along with the Roman Missal are virtually overflowing with the post-councilar trash.

        • I was talking with a close friend and he pointed out that by the time the bishops returned home to the US that most books to be published — like the Catholic Encyclopedia — were ready to be printed with VII modernism. Now, we fast forward to today where AL was already prepared before the synod started. A correction is when we do something on accident, this was no accident.

      • *Most* of our shepherds have abandoned us. There’s a few still left because Our Lord promised that He would not leave us orphans. The voices of faithful prelates are drowned out by the siren voices in secular and religious circles.

        O God, grant us priests!
        O God, grant us holy priests!
        O God, grant us many holy priests!
        O God, grant us many holy religious vocations!

  6. Even the notorious footnote to Chapter 8 calls for “a process of discernment” and a penitential approach. Obviously that didn’t happen here.

    It’s as if Our Lord’s poor broken body is being madly danced upon by drunkards and ignorant knaves. But isn’t that what’s been happening ever since that evil Council?

    • “… after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the “path of discernment” …”
      It sounds like a joke!

  7. I’ve never understood how anyone could even question the pope’s intentions in this regard. Maybe it was the Clinton years that did it to so many of us Americans. Somehow we’ve turned into spin doctors ourselves. The pope has remained at a slight remove from the actual implementation of AL, giving himself a tissue-thin plausible deniability. All of his confusing double-speak and refusal of clarity can leave us with only the tiniest shred of doubt as to his intentions. Yet many, many Catholics are using that tiny shred to act like “See nothing’s really changed”. They would rather play the tiresome linguistic and rhetorical games than simply acknowledge the obvious reality. Like a spin doctor would.

    Steve, this will not put an end to the debate. To every honest person there is no need of debate, nor has there been for a long time. For every dishonest person, nothing short of Pope Francis saying “Look, get this through your thick skulls…” will suffice. Let ’em be. Their lack of probity is their own punishment.

      • I think it was Pope Honorius III (?) who was derelict in his duties and a later Pope dug him up, dressed him in Papal robes, held a meeting to condemn him, He was then cast into the Tiber River as I recall. Have I got this right??? Help me with the history please.

    • It is a terrible dilemma.

      A couple years ago I realized that the only people who are confused by the Pope are those whop try for force him into the vestments of an orthodox prelate.

      “Divorce” {pun intended} yourself from that binding restriction, allow him to speak for himself and listen to his words and he isn’t confusing at all.

  8. I feel your pain, though perhaps I may offer an outsiders perspective, being Greek Orthodox:

    1. Either Rome is True, or it is false.

    2. If it is true, then it cannot in itself give that which is harmful to its faithful. But a New Liturgy that is protestantized, a New Code of Canon Law that promotes mortal sin, and new Doctrines from her own perspective (Dignitatis Humanae) are objectively harmful to souls.

    3. Moreover, Sedevacantism cannot be an option, because Catholic theologians teach the Church is infallible in identifying her head.

    4. There is another option- What if it’s all just wrong?

    Consider, how many times have you told yourself, “Well, at least the Pope didn’t say or do X, that proves he really is Pope and our religion is not in vain.”

    My dear friends, my heart bleeds for your plight, but we must be honest with ourselves. These kinds of innovations are not a RESULT of Vatican II. Vatican II is a symptom of a far deeper sickness. When does it begin? In the 11th Century, when Rome first capitulates and added the Filioque to the Creed, But prior to this she had anathematized WITH St. Photios the Great any who would add even a single word to the Creed (879 Reunion Synod, Constantinople IV which Abrogated the 869 Synod). Just read the Decretals of Pope Gregory VII. The Pope can absolve subjects of their fealty to wicked men? Then there is the innovation of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, then the innovation of sprinkling as normative for baptism, then the innovation of created Purgatorial fire which of ITSELF cleanses from the penalty of sin, then the innovation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which your St. Bernard of Clairveaux despised and protested against, then the theological innovation on the filioque, etc.

    In fact, a very simple proof of the dubious nature of Ex Cathedra statements is the “Dogma” of the Assumption. The Orthodox do not doubt that the Theotokos was taken into heaven by Christ body and soul. But it is impossible for this to be a DOGMA, it is simply a matter of historical fact. For consider my dear friends, if it was a dogma then it must have been taught from the beginning and at least implicitly present in the message of salvation preached from the time of Pentecost. But the Theotokos didn’t die for 15-20 years AFTER Pentecost. Did then all the Churches who received the Gospel receive an incomplete faith before the death of the Holy Virgin? Or did St. John the Evangelist revisit them all after her death and catch them all up? And if he did, who told him that this was of DOGMATIC significance? Was there a SECOND revelation of the Truth after Pentecost?

    The point is that we can keep telling ourselves, “If he does just one more thing I am leaving!”

    Rome has BEEN doing one thing after another SINCE the 11th Century. They have walked away from the fathers and from their unanimous consensus on matters of faith long ago in favor of their one sided dialectic. This really makes the Pope the first Protestant, the first hierarch to insist on none other than his own private interpretation of scripture and tradition as normative for the entire Church, and he himself casts Luther as his Shadow. And if you don’t believe me, just look at Frank.

    This whole issue of Amoris Laetitia is just the most recent link in an iron chain of syllogistic reasoning increasingly divorced from the mind of the fathers. Rome is broken because she has fallen. Will she rise again? Perhaps. But not without returning to the fathers.

    • Spare me both your faux pain and the selective history lesson (your “theology” is nothing more than a schismatic screed). I guess you “Orthodox” schismatics don’t have any problem with “Amoris Laetitia” since you permit up to 3 marriages? But don’t worry, we Roman Catholics will pray for you when you end up in Purgatory, because since you schismatics don’t believe in it, you won’t get any prayers from your fellow religionists.

      • Actually, we limit remarriage to 3 times. The Roman Church has no limit on remarriage, provided each marriage is severed by death.

        Regarding prayers for the dead- we believe all those who die descend into Hades and go either to the place of blessedness for the righteous or torment for the unrighteous. But those in torment can be delivered from their torment by the prayers of the Church and individuals. We simply deny that pain, of itself, can make up for the punishment due to sin.

        The essence of schism is for one body to say to another, “I have no need of you.”

        From the time then that Rome trespassed the boundaries she helped establish, that she persecuted the Orthodox, that she denied the teaching of the saints, that she has sought to improve upon Christ, she has already lived this attitude of “I have no need of you.”

        But it’s actually built into the ecclesiology, for as much as Rome will pay lip service to the east, at the end of the day the Church is the Pope. All could band together and anathematize him, and he could annul it and all alone state, “I am the Church.” And it would be true, since apparently all have need of him, but he has need of none.

        Who then is the schismatic?

        • You’re nothing more than a Jimmy Swaggert wannabe.

          Your silly points of argumentation are old hat, as old as your schism. The Greek Orthodox are haters. I’ve walked down the streets of Athens with a Roman Catholic priest(s); sheer hostility. For you to come to this site and taunt is a sign of an inherent lack of charity among many –not all — of your schismatic co-religionists.

          I’ll pray for you because I’ve been commanded to do so by the Lord of Life who gave His Church (not yours) the Office of St. Peter.

          By the way, the next time the world media stops to watch the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople, let me know.

          • I am not taunting, I am simply pointing out that this notion of a golden age of 1950’s Catholicism free of innovation and the wiles of Vatican II is simply not reality. Innovations have been present in Rome from 1012 (When Pope Sergius first sang the Filioque in Rome) down to the present day. Vatican II is just the germination of the seeds planted by the various Popes. The innovations over the centuries have a cumulative effect culminating in “wreckovation.” But that is the result of abandoning the fathers in favor of dialectic, and making philosophy the final arbiter of truth as opposed to the unanimous consensus of the saints.

            Just look at Roman art after the 11th Century. The entire notion of sanctity was altered as is reflected in the iconography, which is ever more worldly down to the present day, again culminating in post-modern cubist representations of Christ. That’s an internal disorder showing its face, and it’s a spiritual condition. But it’s endemic all throughout western history after the 11th century.

    • This is so complex a subject that good people have been divided over it for a thousand years. I for one appreciate the prayers of the Eastern Orthodox, and am embarrassed by comments such as the one below.

    • You “kind” of forgot the main reason why your “religion” separated from the True Faith, from the True Church founded by Our Lord and Savior. The main reason of all your disputes from the 7th century on, which resulted in you going your protestant orthodoxy, is that your priest were “horny” and chose marriage instead of doing as St. Peter -our first Pope- who even left his wife to follow the Lord did.

      Also about marriage after the death of one of the spouses, appears a bad thing unless they are willing to continue having babies. St. Basil -one of our Church Fathers- said that “post menopausal women” shouldn’t get marriage for their union is for the only purpose of sexual satisfaction.

      Come to the True Church brother, you will be fed good Traditional Faith going to PSSP; SSPX; ICK;… which without denying the Chair of Peter, will teach you the Truth

      • No, it won’t, that’s the point. The spirituality is totally departed from the patristic teaching. You say come home, to what? Communion with heresy? No. Ecumenism? No. Interfaith gatherings and joint declarations? No. I appreciate the offer, but we must abide where the sacraments objectively exist and not pass beyond the bounds of the Church seeking for what cannot exist outside her.

        We would submit to the Pope in a heartbeat if only he would confess the faith of Peter. Without the faith of Peter he doesn’t hold the throne of Peter. Rather the Church herself in her catholicity is the custodian of Peters faith, as the fathers teach, like St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augustine.

        How can you witness your house being devoured by the quicksand and ask us to abide with you in it? With what?

        • Again, some interesting critique, but we are not asking you to commune with heresy, we are asking you to join in the unity of the Body of Christ, not remain outside in your national and ghettoized groups.

          There is no doubt that the Body is bleeding at this time in history. The question is: Who will help bandage and soothe the wounds?

          I spent most of my life as a Protestant and your arguments are straight out of the Protestant playbook.

          No thanks.

          I’d rather join those who are reaching down into the ditch to drag out the injured than walk by and look the other way.

          In truth, we can call out to those who walk by and we can ask their assistance, but if they ignore the cries for help, in charity and truth, don’t really need them if our goal is to obey God, no matter how steep the ground or deep the ditch.

          • That’s not the scenario. What’s happening is you are seeing the corpse decompose. We are saying, “Don’t live with a corpse.” No one can drag anyone to salvation. You have to look around, evaluate where you are and act accordingly.

            Lol, don’t be so anachronistic. The Orthodox were here from the get go, Protestantism is just another evolving form of western rationalism. I WAS Protestant AND Catholic. I know where the arguments come from.

            The bottom line is if something should be impossible for your Church to do, and then it goes and does it, it is not Christ’s Church.

          • Just what exactly is “impossible” that has happened?

            An heretical Pope?

            You have doctors of the Church that disagree with you.

            Has this Pope declared some heresy as dogma?

            The Catechism itself prophesies a “religious deception” that will cause many in the Church to fall away.

            To be sure, other deceptions have occured in the past, like those that led to the schism by the Orthodox.

            In essence, what we are witnessing today is very similar to that which resulted in the creation OF the Orthodox. In time, watch and see if other ghetto “synodal” “churches” do not form up, especially after we receive the blessing of a good Pope.

            Throughout time, God has allowed heresies to rise. Was just reading in 1 Corinthians today and Haydocks notes on that subject are quite interesting. Anyway, such heresies cause a sifting of the Church. Faith is not that which is seen, but that which is not seen. The Truth still remains in the Church, but we are certainly seeing at present many challenges to that truth, challenges foretold by a number of apparitions, warned against by several Popes, and now manifest.

            Now isn’t the time to LEAVE the Catholic faith. Now is he time to be ever more dedicated TO the Catholic faith. Ditto when every other crisis period has occured. But many people would rather quit than fight, to be sure.

            Now, as for that which is impossible, I’d agree that nothing is impossible in doctrine for those who leave the fold. The Orthodox have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

            There is much to admire in the Orthodox, but much that also is eternally shortsighted and there is no way the broken and scrapping sects can in any way be called catholic. The Orthodox were the warmup band for the Protestants, and the approach they use to declare their misunderstandings are identical.

          • Well, I’ll say this; Going from Protestant to Orthodox you are getting closer, but you aren’t home quite yet.

            Now, just what exactly is “impossible” that has happened?

            An heretical Pope?

            You have doctors of the Church that disagree with you.

            Has this Pope declared some heresy as dogma?

            The Catechism itself prophesies a “religious deception” that will cause many in the Church to fall away.

            To be sure, other deceptions have occurred in the past, like those that led to the schism by the Orthodox.

            In essence, what we are witnessing today is very similar to that which resulted in the creation OF the Orthodox. In time, watch and see if other ghetto “synodal” “churches” do not form up, especially after we receive the blessing of a good Pope and the heretics can’t stand it and leave, declaring, naturally, in Orthodox and Protestant tradition, that they are the real “Church”.

            Throughout time, God has allowed heresies to rise. Was just reading in 1 Corinthians today and Haydock’s notes on that subject are quite interesting. Anyway, such heresies cause a sifting of the Church. Faith is not that which is seen, but that which is not seen. The Truth still remains in the Church, but we are certainly seeing at present many challenges to that truth, challenges foretold by Our Lady and warned against by several Popes, and now manifest.

            Now isn’t the time to LEAVE the Catholic faith. Now is he time to be ever more dedicated TO the Catholic faith. Ditto when every other crisis period has occurred. But many people would rather quit than fight, to be sure.

            Now, as for that which is impossible, I’d agree that nothing is impossible in doctrine for those who leave the fold. The Orthodox have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

            There is much to admire in the Orthodox, but much that also is eternally shortsighted and there is no way the broken and scrapping sects can in any way be called catholic in the universal sense of that term. The Orthodox were the warmup band for the Protestants, and the approach they use to declare their misunderstandings are identical.

          • No, I went from Protestant to Catholic and after 10 years of involvement in traditionalist circles left it for Orthodoxy.

            The historical record is simply too overwhelming.

            For example, is it possible for a Pope to use his authority to promulgate that which is objectively spiritually harmful?

            No, it is impossible. Read Fr. Fentons work on Papal Encylicals. The Pope is not only dogmatically infallible ex cathedral, but all his official acts that aim at the promulgation of any teaching are infallibly SAFE.

            Except we see this is not the case.

            The Popes after 1012 officially took upon themselves an anathematized position, that which was anathematized by THEIR authority, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, which former Popes like Leo III and John VIII fought against and explicitly prohibited.

            ” Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing
            Whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

            “I believe in One God, Father Almighty, …and
            in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God…and
            in the Holy Spirit, the Lord…who proceeds from the Father… [the whole Creed is cited here][.”]

            Thus we think; in this confession of faith we were we [sic] bap- tized; through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις [idíais heuresiologíais]) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely ( κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη [ katakibdēleúsai apothra- syntheíē ]) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.”

            It just doesn’t get clearer. Pope John VIII and St. Photios agreed on this.

            That’s just warming up.

            Consider purgatory. Now obviously the Orthodox pray for the dead, that God would deliver them from torment.

            But the NATURE of that torment is what’s disputed. In the Latin view, Purgatory is a place within hades where the fires of Hell reach and purify one from the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

            But if that’s true, why pray for the dead? It very rapidly breaks down when you start to ask questions. For example, the idea that suffering in itself satisfies for an objective debt is the keystone of purgatorial fire. But WHY then are you asking God to remove a person from this circumstance? It’s God’s justice at work, right? Who are we to interfere with the soul and God? If it takes 10,000 years, Oh well, that’s the penalty of sin. But what does it even mean to pray for a person undergoing purgatorial fire? What does it presuppose? It presupposes that God is not so strictly tied to his sense of Justice as to ignore the entreaties of the faithful, right? He can do whatever he wants, so he can purify by his own action in his own way completely independent of purgatorial sufferings, right?

            So then what’s the point of them? It is far simpler to say what the fathers said- That a soul cast into hades before the general judgment can have a hope that God will be merciful if the Church and her members will intercede. But this has nothing to do with purifying sufferings. It has everything to do with the goodness of God who is not bound by justice to leave souls in their eternal abodes. If he was, then how can we explain the reasurection of non-Christians from the dead, where the soul is plucked out of hell? In the same exact way, we can hope that God will remove from torment those for whom the Church prays and offers sacrifice.

            Again, the final Challenge I defy any Latin theologian to answer, lol.

            In the Trinity all things are either one, or three. Those things which are one belong to the common essence, those things which are three belong to the particular person. So unbegottenness belongs to the Father alone for example, so that is his personal property. Begottenness belongs to the son alone. But all three persons are just, good, eternal, etc. these properties belong to the common nature.

            Please feel free to answer this simple question-

            Is the ability to breathe forth the Holy Spirit, Spiration, is it a personal property or an essential property? If it is essentiall, then all three persons possess it, but then you would have the Holy Spirit spirating a fourth, and the fourth would breathe forth a fifth, etc., and we get polytheism, or at least a Godhead of infinite persons.

            If it is a personal property, but it is also ascribed to the son, then you have confused the persons of father and son, which is semi-sabellianism, modalism.

            So is active spiration a Personal Property or a natural attribute?


          • Regarding the Trinity, you appear to be trying to set a “trap” for the Catholic Church yet in the doing you fall into the very trap you set.

            For you state that “all things are either one, or three” then go on to explain the differences between the functions of the 3 Persons, denying your first principle, which is that “one” cannot be “Three”. Yet you and we would all accept that in mystery, truly, there is “Three in One” in God and thus using human understanding, there are “differences” even in unity. And we can all agree that this mystery existed from the beginning, for in Genesis 1:26 we are told that God refers to Himself as “us” which no Christian denies.

            Do not forget that one of the acts of creation was the breathing in of spirit of life, a foretelling of the later breathing of the Holy Spirit. From…”us”.

            Further: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” (Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301)

            The Catholic faith does indeed teach that there is further explanation and clarification of doctrine thru the years. Not all doctrines are known in full and in writing from the beginning. No Orthodox can deny this is sound in principle because of, for example, the relevant issue of marriage/divorce/remarriage itself where the Orthodox have a doctrine that is nowhere found as agreed-upon doctrine in the early Church and indeed, is denied. Yet it is Orthodox teaching today.

            But of course, that isn’t merely a development of doctrine, that is a wholly changed teaching done to placate and make more acceptable the teachings of Christ.

            Indeed, you and the other Orthodox should love this Pope, for it appears {who knows??} that he is doing just that. Remember, he has a very high regard for Orthodox theology and polity, even if he appears to have much less of an affinity for Catholic Tradition and organization.

            As for just exactly HOW we are to deal with what appears to be an heretical Pope, that, too is granted us in the teaching of the Church. You are right to allude to the necessity for Catholics to give assent to the teachings of a Pope even if those teachings fall below the authority of an ex cathedra declaration. The PROBLEM with this Pope is that it is manifestly unclear WHAT he is specifically teaching. So in the end, we must do what in fact all Catholics must do even when there IS a clearly-speaking Pope: Follow Jesus and the known teaching of the faith in Scripture and Tradition. And wait, and pray.

            Just like all Christians have had to do through all time, for none have seen the fullness of God’s plan, and for all of us there is the element of that called forth in Hebrews 11; living by faith in that which is not seen, the consummation of God’s eternal plan.

            Give the Church time and we will yet again see a clarification. Right now we are in crisis, chaos even. But as it is said in the Word: “whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.”

            God is sifting His Church, as he has done in the past, and as He will do in the future.

      • I would be interested in a brief analysis on your part. WHEN did Orthodoxy separate from Rome definitively and what was the nature of the schismatic act and its repercussions through history?

        For my part I can tell you exactly which Pope initiated the process of Rome falling away, which ones aggravated it, and which ones completed it. Moreover I can demonstrate how it originates first from a spiritual condition imported from a mindset foreign to the fathers (The Franks under Charlemagne), how it first manifests itself politically, how it separates itself from the fullness of the Church and culminates in a religion that seeks to basically improve upon Christ. And again, I can point to the Latin saints who abandon the patristic mindset in favor of a new notion of “Romantic” spirituality and demonstrate the types of delusions this causes the west to fall into.

        What can you show me on your end?

  9. Headline: Catholic Church Goes Protestant (or more accurately goes more Protestant). Next will be to eliminate the “discernment” charade of Amoris Laetate. After that the Sacrament of Confession will be included as part of Mass. And so forth as the devil leads the way. I think we could use a little intervention from God, and right now.

    • Given that the “discernment” path is apparently just attending to a fixed number of meetings on Saturdays for a few months, we could just consider that the mere desire for discernment becomes an “implicit” discernment, we have become experts at this kind of thing… And same for confession of course…

  10. “Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel, for the Lord shall enter into judgment with the inhabitants of the land: for there is no truth, and there is no mercy, and there is no knowledge of God in the land.
    Cursing, and lying, and killing, and theft, and adultery have overflowed, and blood hath touched blood.
    Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth in it shall languish with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the air: yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be gathered together.
    But yet let not any man judge: and let not a man be rebuked: for thy people are as they that contradict the priest.
    And thou shalt fall to day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee: in the night I have made thy mother to be silent.
    My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.
    According to the multitude of them so have they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame.
    They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall lift up their souls to their iniquity.
    And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways upon them, and I will repay them their devices.
    1And they shall eat and shall not be filled: they have committed fornication, and have not ceased: because they have forsaken the Lord in not observing his law.
    Fornication, and wine, and drunkenness take away the understanding.”

    (Hosea 4,1-11)
    Just a reminder…

  11. From a book I am reading by Romano Amerio, “Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century:

    “The many grave disturbances which the Church experienced in the Middle Ages were not true crises since through them all the Church was
    never in danger of changing its nature or dissolving itself into something else. Low moral standards among the clergy and lust for riches and power disfigure the face of the Church, but do not attack its essence by attempting to alter its foundations.” … “[The Church] is not destroyed when human weakness conflicts with her own teaching (that contradiction is inherent in the Church’s pilgrim condition); but she is destroyed when corruption reaches the level of corroding dogma, and of preaching in theory the corruptions which exist in practice.”

    Is not Amoris Laetitia an example of “corroding dogma” by “preaching in theory the corruptions which exist in practice”? Is this not where Francis has led the Church today, the very definition outlined above of a true crisis, attacking the essence of the Church to alter its foundation, a condition worse than the clerical low standards of the Middle Ages?

  12. Our Lord promised that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against It (His Church).” What our Lord says is true – His Words can be nothing but Truth for He is Truth Itself. I wonder if it is our understanding of the Church that is skewed or clouded or that we mistake the hierarchy of the Church to be The Church. No official teaching of the Church has been changed here, but what we are doing is very different from what’s “on the books.” Christ told the Jews to follow what the Pharisees taught, but not what they did. He also lamented, “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?” Since His Words are Truth, they are timeless and must be heeded. The final triumph will be His and His alone – whether cardinals speak up or we pray the Rosary matters more to our individual salvation than that of the Church. Each one of us will be held accountable as to whether He finds faith, hope and charity within our hearts. Faith in Him, hope in Him and love of Him and of our neighbor as He loved us – that means, praying from our cross for those who persecute and wantonly flout the faith as He did from His Cross. We are to follow Him in all that He did AND said – period. Get out your Catechism, go to Mass, say the Rosary, offer reparations and trust. Pray that you shall not be sifted like wheat.

  13. I´m Argentinian. I live in the southern part of the country, in Patagonia. This is not new, nor surprising at all coming from Argentine bishops, mostly of them eagerly wishing to fullfil Francis´ (that old coleague…) will. The news is that now is public, and adulterers seem to be honored in the “welcome” Mass. I feel ashamed of these bishops, what else can I say? We Argentine catholics have been left alone by our “shepards”, most priests and bishops have abandoned their sheep.

  14. It is a dangerous thing to promote “social justice” at the expense of Church doctrine. You cannot change eternal truth, but change is coming….one way or another. One hopes it will come from within…….a renewal of the Faith…….rather than lead to a new Schism.

  15. Excellent, Steve. You nailed it to the wall. Since Bergoglio is the instigator of the goings on in Santa Fe, Argentina his pride and arrogance will prevent him from making any correction to the result. Bergoglio’s heresies have marked him from the beginning of his corrupt pontificate. He must be deposed. If we say that often enough, with the reasons why, maybe those who can depose him will get the picture.

  16. “…after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the ‘path of discernment’, it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION”

    If the outcome is a given, where is the discernment? It’s like saying you’re attending a vocations retreat, but you already have a fiancée, a wedding date, and tickets for the honeymoon — none of which you intend on changing. At the end, you say “Thanks for the great food and intriguing talks, but was never really interested.”

    What’s the point of the “path of discernment”? Communion will be given no matter what; it was more a six-month wait for the inevitable. Makes a total mockery of the term.

  17. If Nancy Pelosi can receive Communion (and she can), ANYONE can.

    The whole controversy over AL was settled years ago by the bishops who have been giving Communion to the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, etc., and the Popes who did nothing about it.

    One of Cardinal Wuerl’s favorite lies, excusing himself from Canon 915, is that the bishop and pastors cannot deny Communion unless they know “the state of the soul” of each would-be communicant. This lie is at the very heart of Amoris laetitia.

  18. My mom and dad will celebrate 55 years of marriage in December. My mother’s first husband left her just after the birth of their 3rd child. She was 22. She began dating my dad, who adopted my three sisters, and they had 6 more kids of their own. My mother never had her first marriage annulled. To this day my mom and dad have never taken of the blessed sacrament. There is nothing one could say or do to convince them they could (AL). In fact, when my dad was hospitalized some years back, a priest visiting the hospital offered communion to my dad. He was sure to explain his marriage situation to which the priest also confirmed he could not partake of communion. My parents were raised under and remember the Latin Rite.

    AL does say, “Respect needs to be shown especially for the sufferings of those who have unjustly endured separation, divorce or abandonment.” I think I recall Pope Francis saying divorce was hardest on the kids. This I will say is true. In my younger days I struggled with what seemed like there being no forgiveness for my parents. When I left the church I chided it as an unforgiving hierarchy and cited my parents as an example. When I returned, I looked again to the faithfulness of my parents (though they are not perfect); they did not violate God’s law by silently taking of Holy Communion.

    I have given AL and its concessions a lot of thought. In the final analysis I think my parent’s convictions speak more to the sanctity of marriage and what the church has said than to allowing a concession. I believe JPII was correct on the issue of the divorced and remarried taking communion, “the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. I never would have thought my parents, which I used as an example when I left the church, would be my strongest example upon coming home to the church that AL’s stance is incorrect, invalid and should be reversed if it is not clarified. My parent’s stance, and the church’s stance (pre-AL) has done more to speak to me about the sanctity of my own marriage and the seriousness of maintaining this bond as a witness to the world, the church and my own children.

  19. Is it just me or does it seem like the Dubia Cardinals were bluffing and Bergolio called them on it?

    They know they have miniscule support, and probably hoped that the mere mention or possibility of a “Formal Correction” would temper Bergolio’s pride. I think they overestimated his virtue.

  20. These are the right things which we have to control if we really want to survive happy life without any problem. Yeah that something looks odd if you always compromise and hurt your eggo but if you continously comprimising then i think this relation isn’t worthy but that doesn’t means you will end this relation but you can try to make it better relation having all the things sort out. These tips maybe help you.

  21. What a complete sham.This pope is a complete disgrace to “OUR” Catholic faith.What are the Cardinals and Bishops doing about it?(Excluding cardinal Burke and the four others).Wake up oh sleepy ones .Your faith is being hijacked.Your silence is deafening.

      • Just found it odd.
        Re rubrics, isn’t “proper” what we all want? I guess I didn’t see the image as part of the overall “theme”. Sorry to have intruded on your day.
        Regardless, I found the piece to be well-done. I have no issue with the analysis.

        • I chose the image. I find it incongruous to report a story like this while showing an image of Eucharistic reverence and orthodoxy. Pearls before swine comes to mind. And considering how few good images of the Eucharist are in the public domain, I like to save them for stories about respect for the Eucharist.

          No bother at all, though. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...