Three Offensive Paragraphs To Remain In The Final Report

In my post that showed in the wee hours of this morning, I mentioned that Rorate Caeli had reason to believe that the three paragraphs of the interim report that were voted out of the final report were still going to remain.  I just learned that Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has reported the same thing.

Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected.  They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”

"Not completely rejected"?  If not, what was the purpose of the vote?  Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?

"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it?  If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?

Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.

I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants".  You can see the machinations have been going on for some time.  Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them.  They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.

In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook.  However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."  It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.