I wonder why I am getting contradictory views on this Synods Finals.
This link from the Novus Ordo New Advent claims "Final Synod
Docuмent backs Church Teachings."

What does this mean: The Real Scandal is the Fear of Love.?

The real sins of the so called Conservative Catholics is that they
cover up the messes of the Liberal and radical Catholics. Instead
of Exposing them.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/final-synod-docuмent-strongly-backs-church-teaching-beauty-of-family-life-37584/?utm_source=feedburner&amp%3Butm_medium=feed&amp%3Butm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&amp%3Butm_term=daily+news

That's a non sequitur. Without actual grace, there is no hope or possibility of conversion and return to sanctifying grace. Since the Holy Ghost wills "that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth", He does not deny to adulterers the light and actual grace to repent of their sins and live in accord with the law of God. But it is terribly and wretchedly formulated, yes.

Agreed.  Living in sin does not preclude the reception of actual grace.  It does not state in passages that the OP and others have singled out that they are in a state of sanctifying grace.

I have a problem with THIS however:

but they should live and mature as living members of the Church

They are in no way LIVING members of the Church.  It says that they should not be treated as excommunicates.  This is correct.  Mortal sin does not sever from membership in the Church as does excommunication.  But those in mortal sin are DEAD members, not living ones.  This presents a serious problem.

This docuмent is an absolute abomination before God, a horror crying out to heaven for vengeance.  Any prelate who signed this, endorsed this, or in any way promotes this, or even fails to publicly repudiate it will doubtless burn in hell for all eternity unless he should first convert.

85. Saint [sic] John Paul II offered an all-encompassing criterion, that remains the basis for valuation of these situations: "Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid." (FC, 84)

While there are certainly varying degrees of moral culpability when it comes to divorce, as described above, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not their original marriage was invalid and does ABSOLUTELY nothing to justify SUBSEQUENT ADULTERY.  Nor does it make any difference what motivated someone to enter into the illicit union (i.e. "the children" -- ah, it's always "the children", tug at the heart string here).  Now the Church has long tolerated a couple living together as "brother and sister" for the sake of said "children" ... provided certain conditions applied and there was no danger of scandal.  So if it's JUST about the children and not about adultery, there's already provision in place for that.  But even the good of children doesn't justify living in sin (ends never justifies the means).  Finally, the "subjective certainty in conscience" that their first marriages were not valid means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  99% of "divorced" persons will convince themselves that either their first marriage was not valid or else that THEY were the innocent party who was wronged in the proceedings.  That's ALWAYS the case.  This opens the door for ANYONE who has decided SUBJECTIVELY that they "feel good" about their adulterous union and the circuмstances leading up to it, or else can use the rationalization of the "good of the children" ... to start receiving the Sacraments.  This has completely replaced objective moral law with subjectivism.  Just as Vatican II replaced dogma and faith and no salvation outside the Church with subjectivism, this replaces the entire moral order with subjectivism.

It is therefore a duty of the priests to accompany the interested parties on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the orientations of the Bishop. In this process, it will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by way of moments of reflection and repentance. Remarried divorcees should ask themselves how they behaved themselves when their conjugal union entered in crisis; if there were attempts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the abandoned partner ["partner" in the original Italian]; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and in the community of the faithful; what example does it offer to young people who are to prepare themselves to matrimony. A sincere reflection may reinforce trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.

So as long as you feel good about your conscience in the entire divorce and remarriage process, you can rationalize with the blessing of these prelates that you are not living in sin and can receive the Sacraments.

Additionally, it cannot be denied that in some circuмstances, "the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or annulled (CIC, 1735) due to various conditioners. Consequently, the judgment on an objective situation should lead to the judgment on a 'subjective imputability'" (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). In determined circuмstances, the persons find great difficulty with acting in a different way. Therefore, while holding up a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility regarding specific actions or decisions is not the same in every case. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account the rightly formed conscience of persons, should take these situations into account. Also the consequences of the accomplished acts are not necessarily the same in every case.

Unbelievable.  As long as you subjectively clear yourself of guilt in what led up the second marriage, adultery is fair game.  Again, let me repeat, whether or not a party was innocent or guilty in the circuмstances that led to the divorce has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBSEQUENT UNION IS VALID OR LICIT.

As I said, any prelate who supports, condones, and does not publicly repudiate this docuмent will burn in hell for all eternity unless he repents of it first.

What Francis is doing is very simple: He's bringing the worst kind of modern men (feminists, marxists, murderers, psychopaths, fanatics, etc) to the Vatican II sect and when the modern man finds himself in a difficult position, he won't think twice before starting another French Revolution or another 1917 Bolshevik genocide.

If things goes on like the way it's going the next 10 years will be much worse than the beginning of Vatican II.

I don't think this is accurate.  The "worst kind of modern men" who would be attracted to the Vatican 2 sect are already there.  

People who aren't already a part of this false religion are not going to be attracted to it now.  It's not as if feminists, Marxists, murderers, psychopaths, fanatics, etc. would flock to the Vatican 2 sect even if Bergoglio formally allowed adultery (oops! he already did with his motu proprio) or sodomy (oops again! who is he to judge?) or require Marxist totalitarianism as a moral imperative (oops! he's done that too with his environmental encyclical), etc., etc., etc.

Yet the Conciliar sect is still isn't growing, nor is it likely to grow.  The only Catholicism that will grow is traditional Catholicism.

Another very interesting fact that the freemansons in the Novus Ordo have done is this:
They are promoting the idea that the Church after VII was still so conservative, so strong to tradition that Catholics felt that they weren't receiving comfort .

Even B16 did this. He used some Paul VI speeches to "prove" that the Church have "failed" to comfort modern man and it was time to go further. Few people see it and 100% that go to a Novus Ordo will agree that "B16 was a very traditional Pope" and "Paul VI preserved tradition in the Council and stopped the liberals."

I saw a interview with a brazilian movie director that was thinking about making a movie about Paul VI who said "I want to show the audience that Paul VI stopped the liberal to go further"

That's is just to show how bad the situation! I feel very possible in the next 10 years people will regard Francis as a "traditionalist".

It looks like the synod's final docuмent is the worst possible outcome.

It appears to be vague enough so that liberals can, as happened in the wake of Vatican 2, do anything they want and point to the synod docuмent as their authority while the conservatives point to the same docuмent and declare that nothing has been changed.  

All the while, the bishops of the Conciliar church (you know, the "authentic magisterium" who have the authority to "authentically interpret" the synod's docuмent) will carry out the liberal agenda and conservatives will complain that what the entire Conciliar church is doing is merely an "abuse".

I wish I had recorded a phone conversation I had a couple weeks ago where I said *exactly this would happen* a la VII.

You wouldn't believe it.

I promise I said this is what would come out of the Synod: something so ambiguous so as to be inane and give those with an agenda the latitude they need. Here comes "the spirit of the Synod"

We do have to recall that this is merely a "Relatio", essentially a report to Francis.  We'll have to see the final docuмent coming out of Rome.  That's why I said that any prelates who signed it have committed a grave sin.

PS -- there's nothing just "ambiguous" about this; it completely subjectivizes into the internal forum whether someone who's living in a bad marriage can approach the Sacraments.

I was actually very disappointed with the outcome. I was hoping Francis would declare sodomy and divorce to be morally acceptable so this false church would finally be exposed beyond any doubt. Alas, Francis and his minions are far too clever, so we get more ambiguity. Of course, Francis could declare in an interview that God doesn't even exist and the Novus Ordites wouldn't flinch because he didn't declare it ex cathedra.