The following article was sent to Cal Catholic on Jan. 30 by one of its readers. The author is Father Benedict Kiely, pastor of Blessed Sacrament Parish in Stowe, Vermont and founder of Nasarean.org, which supports persecuted Christians in Iraq, Syria, and around the world.
Vatican politics is notoriously fickle, and media reports about who is in and who is out usually depend on the particular bias of the reporter. However, for months, reports from both the ecclesiastical left and the right were in agreement about the imminent demotion of the leading American cardinal in the Vatican: the Church’s chief justice, or, to give him his proper the title, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Church, after the pope — Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.
For once, it seems, the tittle-tattle over the evening limoncello was correct. Burke has been “promoted” downward to a position that is normally a sinecure for an elderly cardinal past his sell-by date. As the new cardinal protector of the Sovereign Order of Malta, Burke, a youthful 66, will now oversee the Knights of Malta, one of the oldest existing military orders in the Catholic Church. They are known today mainly for their works of charity.
Burke has been viewed by many as a spokesman for the “loyal opposition” to the somewhat frenetic leadership of the media’s darling, Pope Francis. After the recent synod on the family, when backroom attempts to force through dramatic changes in Church teaching and practice, seemingly with Francis’s tacit approval, were resisted by none other than Burke and the Australian “bruiser,” Cardinal George Pell, the understanding that Burke’s days were numbered was all but confirmed. His comments a few weeks later that the Church under Francis appeared to be like a “rudderless ship” were clearly the nail in this cardinal’s coffin.
Despite the image of Francis as a man of dialogue and compromise, he is regarded in Rome as the most authoritarian pope in decades. He is also a man known to settle scores. Immediately after his election as pope, he swiftly moved an Argentinian bishop known to have been his chief opponent when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires — another “downward” promotion — transferring him to an obscure position in the Vatican bureaucracy. In the space of just over two years, Pope Bergoglio has been removing, or not reappointing, many of the key men put in place by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
Yet Burke stayed on as the “pope’s judge,” not least because he was seen by many as the most able man for the job. Meanwhile, Vatican watchers noted that he was the most senior figure to keep his position but not be confirmed in it by Pope Francis. Even Cardinal Burke’s enemies — and he has many, and they are all ideological — admit that he is exceptional in that he has never evinced ambition for higher office. But Francis brooks no opposition, so Burke had to go.
His crimes? Burke upholds traditional Biblical teaching on marriage and encourages devotion to the traditional Latin Mass. He is regularly seen in different countries celebrating a liturgy that Francis regards as a relic of the past, although the churches where these Masses are celebrated are usually filled with large young families, and they produce a wealth of vocations to the priesthood and religious life. (Buenos Aires was known to have hardly any vocations in the seminary during the time that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was archbishop.) But perhaps Cardinal Burke’s most glaring offense was that he declared that Catholic politicians who support abortion should be refused Communion.
The titular appointment of Burke to an apparently irrelevant ancient chivalric order looks like an effort to sideline him, but it might turn out to be the Argentinian pope’s greatest mistake. Burke himself, unlike many, is a true man of the Church, and he is unshakably loyal to the successor of Saint Peter. There is, in fact, no “opposition,” in the political sense, to Pope Francis; he is the validly elected pope and, as long as he does not lead the Church astray, must be respected and obeyed. However, in a tradition stretching back to Saint Paul and later to Saint Catherine of Siena, and to countless others, it is not disloyal to fraternally correct or question certain actions or statements of the pope. To paraphrase Chesterton, it is the difference between being a courtier and a patriot. A “patriot,” Chesterton said, “meant a discontented man. It was opposed to the word ‘courtier,’ which meant an upholder of present conditions.”
In today’s Vatican, the courtiers have the upper hand. It is as a patriot, a man discontented with yet loving his Church, that Burke in his new position will enjoy a freedom that until now he did not have. He will be able to travel and to celebrate the ancient Mass all over the world. He can lecture, preach, and write. And the Knights of Malta are not, as left-leaning devotees of liberation theology might believe, relics from a Dan Brown novel. Not only are their ranks filled with members of the aristocracy from every nation on earth but, far more significantly, the newer members are often wealthy and influential figures in industry, politics, and the media….
There is one possible final irony. Some have speculated that Pope Francis, who turns 78 next month, will follow the example of his predecessor and eventually step down from the Petrine office, perhaps at age 80. In any case, Raymond Burke will likely be a significant figure at the conclave to elect his successor, and already some observers are predicting that the courtiers’ foe will end up as the next king.
The following comes from a Jan. 23 posting on the website of the New Liturgical Movement.
On January 10th, His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke celebrated a Votive Mass of the Espousal of the Virgin in the Basilica of San Nicola in Carcere in Rome, as part of a recent conference of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy; this Mass was chosen because marriage and the family, and issues related to them, were the topic of the conference. His Eminence has very kindly allowed New Liturgical Movement to share the full text of his sermon with our readers, for which we offer him our gratitude. (The Scriptural readings of this Mass are Proverbs 8, 22-35, and Matthew 1, 18-21.)
To read Cardinal Burke’s homily, click here.
I doubt we will be lucky enough to have Pope Francis retire at 80.
As others have posted, of our 267 Popes 12 have been evil/corrupt including but not limited to Pope Alexander VI who fathered Lucrezia Borgia and others, and playboy Benedict IX.
Popes are sinners too.
Cardinal George re Pope Francis:
” The question is raised, why doesn’t he himself clarify these things? Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear that burden of trying to put the best possible face on it?
Does he not realize the consequences of some of his statements, or even some of his actions?
Does he not realize the repercussions?
Perhaps he doesn’t. I don’t know whether he’s conscious of all the consequences of some of the things he’s said and done that raise these doubts in people’s minds. ”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/static/cardinal-george-on-pope-francis-why-doesnt-he-clarify.html
Based upon all of Francis’s statements, actions, and those he chooses to surround himself with, it sure seems that Francis knows exactly what he is doing and saying – and it’s not good.
David, I think it is important to know what the Pope really said and not rely on the mass media for information. There are some good blogs and web sites that post each of the Pope’s homilies and his other statements. His morning sermons are especially good, in my opinion. This Pope, Francis, in spite of popular opinion has never stated anything that is against traditional Catholic teachings. He urges each of us to spend 15 minutes a day in prayer, to read the Bible, to fight against a culture of death and to pray to the Blessed Mother. He is very orthodox in his teachings. What gets his critics all in a twist, to the delight of the press, is that he is also worried about the pastoral care of people and how best to keep them close to Christ. The recent Synod was called to discuss how best to serve families, traditional and not so traditional. The reason for the Synod is the recognition that “traditional family” as we once knew it is faltering. When huge numbers of people are foregoing marriage to simply live together, how do we pastor to them. When culture says we are bigots because we don’t approve of same sex marriage, how do we keep gay people in the church and still hold to our faith’s teachings? Those are the questions? Nothing he has said is unorthodox. Granted, the press has made him the darling of the liberals, but it ain’t true.
The Pope says one thing to one group, and the opposite to another.
His promoting of Kasper and Dannells as his personal guest speakers at the 2014 Synod (to promote Sacrilege – receiving Holy Communion while in the state of Mortal sin),
and the Pope’s insisting that the 3 bad paragraphs in the 2014 Lineamenta that DID NOT get the required 2/3 vote of the Synod proves his real intentions.
His actions speak louder than his words of faithfulness.
Yea, Bob One, Pope Francis urges us to pray, and then by his actions, tells us it’s ok to receive Holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin. – Sacrilege.
He is pushing this agenda through his appointees and actions.
Baldeserri, Kasper, Danneels, and forcing these points of his
on the 2015 Synod even though they lost the 2/3 vote at the 2014 Synod.
We are not stupid.
If Francis wins we can commit adultery, have sex with those of the same sex or fornicate, and all have one big party by receiving Holy Communion together. One big fantastic Sacrilege singing ” Kumbaya”.
Why we won’t even need Confession. Repentance and trying not to sin again will not be that important.
I have no idea where you came up with this notion that the Pope is pushing through the things you say he is pushing through. That he, by his actions, is saying it is ok to go to communion with confession. That repentance is not that important. Could you please cite specific places where he has said or done ANY of this? The only thing he has said is that he wants to speed up the process of annulments so that people don’t have to have their emotional and sacramental lives on hold wondering what the church bureaucracy is going to say when they are done rifling through all their papers. That is hardly saying that repentance is unnecessary.
YFC: The Pope’s actions speak louder than his words.
1) He personally appointed Kasper and Danneels to be his featured guest speakers at the 2014 Synod. This gave them and their heresies worldwide publicity as being approved by the Pope.
2) He personally appointed Baldiserri to be the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops. (Baldiserri has publically stated that DOGMA can change which is heresy.)
3) He personally forced paragraphs # 52, 53, 55 which violate the Faith and did NOT get the required 2/3 VOTE at the 2014 Synod, to be included in the Lineamenta for consideration at the 2015 Synod.
(These include giving Holy Communion to those chosing to continue to live in Mortal Sin.)
4) In the USA the Pope has appointed Donald WUERL to the Congregation for Bishops – to make recommendations for future Bishops. (Wuerl has publically stated that he believes in giving Holy Communion to those in mortal sin – ie politicians etc.)
And this appointment resulted in Apb Blasé Cupich of like mind being appointed for Chicago).
The Pope is responsible for those he appoints. He knows exactly what he wants to accomplish. He is not stupid.
Pope Francis has NEVER said that it is OK to receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin, which would again be the mortal sin of sacrilege. I do not believe his actions say this.
But you bring up a good point. A married person can commit adultery or an unmarried person can have a relationship and as long as they repent and confess it, they can go to communion. A person who is divorced and remarried, even if they want to repent and confess it, cannot. If a person is staying in a second marriage, not of free will, but because of children or illness of the spouse or another reason, they cannot go to communion (except apparently if they live as brother and sister and do not cause scandal).
I think you are misunderstanding what Cardinal Kasper proposed. He did not propose that all people who divorced and remarried could receive communion. He is speaking of a very limited situation. I have not heard if abstinence is a part of his proposal but it may be. I do not think the Cardinal Burke and the others who have reacted so strongly against his proposal would be doing so if there was wisdom in it. There could be a great potential for abuse and for such unintended consequences as the destruction of marriages and families.
Anonymous, start adhering to the CCC in your posts. otherwise you are preaching heresy.
And never defend heretics.
CCC: ” 1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.
In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.
If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.
Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.
Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. “
Anonymous – how quickly you forget.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-sinner-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
The Pope himself has NEVER refuted this.
There is no such thing as a LIMITED SITUATION.
Either having a SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP with the VALID SPOUSE of ANOTHER is a Mortal Sin, or it is not a Mortal Sin.
Either it violates the Commandments of GOD, and the Words of Jesus, or it does not.
You can not have it both ways.
“Thou shall not commit Adultery” – GOD’s Commandment
Ex 20:14 ; Deut 5:18.
“Thou shall not covet thy Neighbor’s wife” – GOD’s Commandment Ex 20:17 ; Deut 5.20.
Teachings of JESUS about divorce and remarriage – Mk 10:6-12; Mt 5:32.
Teaching of JESUS about adultery, mercy, and required repentance – “Go and Sin NO more” Jn 8:11.
Condemnation for receiving Communion unworthily – 1 Cor 11:26-30.
Regarding the Divorced and Remarried: CCC 1649 – 1651.
Regarding the Faith – the Pope, Bishops and Priests can not treat some Catholics one way, and give a pass to other Catholics based upon their desire to continue sinning.
All have the capacity to stop sinning (repent), and give a firm purpose of amendment to sin no more.
(Those who are raped do not commit sin. It is against their free will. Adulterers are not raped but choose to sin of their own free will.)
All Catholics must be treated the same regarding whether something is sinful or not sinful.
I am divorced and civilly remarried.
Divorced and civilly remarried persons have 3 choices.
1) If we believe that there may be a possibility that our first marriage was not valid, we should immediately contact our Diocese Marriage Tribunal Office for more information and forms.
(We can not lie to Jesus, who will judge us at our death.)
2) We can live in “complete continence” when we choose to stop committing adultery – and do God’s will, not our own will.
And then we can receive the Sacraments.
3) We can choose to continue committing the mortal sin of adultery with the valid spouse of another
and not receive the Eucharist.
But we must attend Mass, and raise our children Catholic.
This is all already spelled out CLEARLY in Sacred Scripture and the CCC.
If some people are permitted to receive the Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin,
all should be permitted to receive the Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin.
The choice is our own in each and every case.
We are not trapped with zero choices.
We have to decide whether God’s will, or sex is more important.
Let us not forget that the choice to commit adultery in the first place was our own.
The DESTRUCTION of marriages and families will follow if Pope Francis and Kasper, and Baldiserri get their way.
You can not teach that the sexual acts of adultery are permitted for some, but not for others.
Just like other sexual sins, when someone truly repents they must stop committing those sexual sins.
“Go and sin no more” – Jesus – Jn 8:11.
* * * * * Children are not a legitimate excuse for continuing the sexual acts of adultery, and neither is anything else.
When is Francis going to go back to the 10 Commandments and teachings of Christ for all ?
Btw if we can break 2 of GOD’s 10 Commandments – Thou Shall NOT Commit Adultery and Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife – why not be able to break them all ?
This is the ultimate message that this Pope will be sending.
MARYANNE,
It is not OK to commit mortal sin. When you married again and when you married civilly, you committed mortal sin.
Unless your marriage has been annulled, you are married to your first husband.
Your number 3 is not an option. Mortal sin is never an option.
You should divorce your second spouse and return to your first.
If you are an innocent party of a divorce and your first spouse does not agree to re-marriage then you should still divorce and live alone.
I realize that sometimes there are reasons that this cannot be done (children, ill spouse, some financial issues.) That is what the internal forum solution is for. If you need to remain married to a second spouse for serous reason and will live as brother and sister, you priest may give you communion in private or you may go to a parish where no one knows of your situation so that you do not cause scandal.
Bob One, don’t fall for the poisoned food.
It is not PASTORAL, CHARITABLE or MERCIFUL to confirm or condone ANYONE in the state of Mortal Sin.
For any Clergy to knowingly allow anyone to receive Holy Communion while that person purposely chooses to continue committing adultery (sexual activity) with the valid spouse of another is of SATAN.
It is Sacrilege. 1 Cor 11:26-30.
Never tolerate Moral Sin.
Never condone or affirm anyone in Mortal Sin.
CCC: ” 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers. ”
Admonishing sinners, instructing the uniformed, and counselling the doubtful are 3 of the Spiritual Works of Mercy,
What is good for some, is good for all.
What is evil for some, is evil for all.
Jesus never taught that it is ok for some to sin, but not ok others.
Jesus does NOT have a double standard – like that which is being promoted by Pope Francis and his cronies.
Jesus taught to obtain forgiveness (HIS MERCY) we must repent and sin no more.
When there is a conflict created by Francis, who will you follow – JESUS or Francis ?
We all may be forced to make this decision and we should be prepared.
how do we keep gay people in the church and still hold to our faith’s teachings? We don’t Bob One. People like YFC pretend to be Catholic while promoting sodomy. On the other a homosexual person who is trying to carry his/her cross and not demand we accept their sins is always welcome…
We keep single people in the Church regardless of sexual orientation by teaching the TRUTH, and that includes the requirement for Chastity.
If they sin, they must repent with an amendment not to commit the same sin again.
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
After they know the TRUTH, it is their own choice.
Many of His disciples left JESUS because of His Teaching. Jn 6:66.
Do the Clergy really think they are better than JESUS ?
“…When culture says we are bigots because we don’t approve of same sex marriage, how do we keep gay people in the church and still hold to our faith’s teachings?”
How did the ancient Church respond when the prevailing culture thought ill of them for not offering incense to idols or believed Christians to be against Rome because they refused to welcome other gods?
There’s your answer.
What did Christ do when His disciples left Him because the teachings were too hard?
There’s your answer.
Respect free will, Bob One. And act according to the actual Faith. You cannot ‘keep’ those who, by their own free will, do not want to be faithful. You may believe that to be cruel, but the servant is not greater than the Master. And if Christ set the example of teaching the hard truths and letting individuals correspond with and/or reject His grace, then that is what we must do.
Excellent answer, Anne Malley.
…prayers for the upcoming Synod that the example of our forefathers will be followed. They knew what they were about for that is why we’re still here.
God bless.
Quite frankly, I do not think Pope Francis is a heretic nor is Cardinal Burke. I do not think the pope will change any Church teaching. Perhaps Pope Francis has put Cardinal Burke right where he wants him and he needs to be, and Cardinal Burke is well aware of that. Who really knows what is going on with ISIS and all at the gate.
…nobody is saying the Pope is a heretic, AnneT. But the perhaps is pregnant with all manner of possibilities… so prayers all around is the call as folks play their hand for good or ill.
It would be interesting to know what situation with the Knights of Malta came up and why the Pope needed a smart American to deal with it. There is a mimic order which calls itself the Knights of Malta here in the US. It was started by a conman in the 1950s. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Sorry Ann Malley, we can’t just let you wander off into hell without trying to stop you.
Consistent witness to the Truth would help one and all, Anonymous. Try that and you won’t have to work so hard telling folks to blind themselves to the crisis in the Church.
Try sticking to the topic too. That’s part of accurate witness.
Annymous: When did God tell you that Ann Malley was going to hell? When did He tell you to try and stop her? Just curious!
Thanks, RR, but tagging me and what I represent is just the distraction desired by those attempting to destroy the Church via permission of the ‘magisterium’.
RR, schism is a mortal sin. We are all called to admonish the sinner.
…there is no schism, mous. (…and ‘tone’ of schism as defined by others who will likely ravage after Cardinal Burke for indicating he would resist certain measures does not qualify.) You keep attempting to define it as such when even Rome does not. You endanger your own soul by continued presumption and unending slander.
Ann Malley, Satan is trying to destroy the Church. This is very typical of someone who knows they are doing something wrong-claiming persecution to try to win sympathy and painting the Church as the bully. Know any other group that does this?
Tell that to Cardinal Burke, mous. For he is not saying he will resist ‘outsiders’ if need be. Wake up.
Ann Malley, you are lying your way to hell.
Ann Malley, you sound just like YFC.
Anonymous: So, you are the schism police on CCD? So, in the Church, it is you who declares someone a schismatic? Who knew?
RR, schism does not have to be declared by the Church and neither does the excommunication incurred for it.
Thanks for your reply.
God bless you for trying, RR. Mous is a broken record and seems to believe that the magisterium has the lawful right to interpret that scripture no longer matters. For that is the trajectory. (Mous should glob onto Cardinal Burke and tisk His Excellency for intimating that he would fight to uphold the teachings of the Church.)
But those who want to replace the teachings of the Church with a blank check are all for a magisterium with no oversight, not even Christ Himself.
Put more clearly, let’s look at the potential ‘ecumenism of fidelity’. As marital fidelity hits closer to home for many, the analogy may help although I think mous is already fully onboard. YFC too.
Eg: Some people have open marriages, and we must truly look at the love and understanding being sought by those in open marriages. They are also greatly edified by the vitality of the physical renewal that they can bring to the conjugal embrace by such ventures. So perhaps we can “learn” from “others” how better to please our spouse and each other by opening up to these “new” ways. We must understand that the Spirit can work through them for see how “happy” and “energized” they are? And that will be a great mode of outreach to bring the good news to those in poly-amorous situations. We “must” always look to the good after all.
Get ready, mous.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot interpret that Scripture no longer matters. Anyone who understood the Teaching of the Church on Scripture would know that.
I have been fighting with Cardinal Burke for longer than you have even cared about the Church. I believe you said that you did not go to Mass for 3 decades.
Those of us who believe as the Church Teaches that the Holy Spirit guides the Church are doing our job and praying for all in the Church and for those who have left the Church for sects or other religions.
I have stood up for Tradition when others were lying about what Tradition was.
If you have an open marriage (I remember you said that you married outside the Church to a non-baptized person) you are greatly offending the Lord. You are harming yourself and your husband and your children and the souls of those you commit adultery with. You have killed your soul and the souls of all those you have involved in your evil. You must repent, confess (to a priest with faculties-not a suspended priests). Why aren’t I surprised? Sinners can justify anything. I have a hard time believing the SSPX teaches this. I guess it is your own idea.
Ann Malley, is this the new thing do when you get mad?
Instead of calling the people who tick you off gay, you now accuse them of being on the side of eroding the teaching on marriage?
Nobody is that stupid.
Ann Malley, I wasn’t a part of this conversation, but since you brought me into it, let me add my thoughts, please. I have know idea what you mean by “ecumenism of fidelity”. And I have no idea why it is that you can’t understand that schism and excommunication don’t have to be declared in order to be effective. Your friend ‘mous is correct on that point. Creating your own church, whether out of whole cloth or schismatic one, is a distinction without a difference. You and your SSPXers from the beginning level a charge of “confusion”, even while you undertake no effort to alleviate your confusion. This is not a valid justification for schism.
“…I have been fighting with Cardinal Burke for longer than you have even cared about the Church.”
God bless you for revealing what you are about, Anonymous. There is no confusion anymore in understanding that you are not for Church teaching – not at all.
THANK YOU again for revealing your *fight* with Cardinal Burke. I wonder if you are a cleric…. for you say you’ve been fighting *with* Cardinal Burke. And YFC, it was mous who brought you into the conversation, so you may want to turn around in your swivel chair and acknowledge as much.
Thank you all once again for shedding light on the confusion and doublespeak you all seek to spread despite what the Church actually teaches :)
Fighting with him for fidelity to Church teachings not against him.
Fighting for him is not the correct terminology because we fight together with many others for the Church.
I understand how you could misunderstand what I wrote.
However, if you followed Catholic teaching on giving remarks a favorable interpretation, you would not have erred.
…then you should stand beside Cardinal Burke and understand what he is saying, Anonymous. You should also take a hint at how he does not bash the SSPX in interviews. You could learn a lot about how the Church desires how you should behave…. especially since you would proclaim how you are such a member in good standing, full communion etc.
And ‘fighting along side’ him or ‘fighting in union with him’ would be clear. But that’s okay. You just demonstrated the need for clarity in communication. Just think, the opposite of what you ‘meant’ was taken by what you wrote as it ‘could’ be interpreted correctly in the manner that I took it. So while language may not mean so much on an insignificant post between two parties, a communique that has any hint of wiggle room in it can and is often misinterpreted to obtain a desired end. And not all ‘ends’ are holy. (That’s why Cardinal Burke cannot countenance any ‘charity’ in giving those in unrepentant mortal sin Holy Communion.)
So the next time you attempt to raise yourself by denouncing one who admitted to being away from the Church for a very long time, smooth your feathers, think clearly, adopt a Christ-like attitude and imitate Cardinal Burke. Not a pecking hen determined to de-feather all comers to assert dominance over the rest of the flock. Cannibalism is an ugly thing.
You want to exploit Cardinal Burke and even Jesus Christ himself to get someone to shut up because you don’t want to hear that the wages of sin is death.
You falsely accuse and deride people who have taken a Christ-like attitude to you and told you the Truth because you are content in your sins and you do not want to convert.
Why can’t you just be honest and say “I don’t care if I go to hell. I am going to stay at the psuedo-church. I like it there.” But no, you are like all the others who are so narcissistic that they do not believe that God will put them in hell. Mortal sin is mortal sin. God isn’t going to say to you “You can get into heaven because someone else sinned too.” That is not how it works. You are judged by your sins and your sins alone, including the nasty way that your treat people and your arrogance. The Bible says in Proverbs 8:23
The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.
Do not kid yourself that the Lord established an alternative Catholic Church. He did not. Sinful man did. if the Lord’s Church is not good enough for you, then you put yourself higher than God and you have made an idol out of your own self-will.
Sorry if that is too direct and ruffles your feathers. I am not trying to dominate you. I only try to warn you. There is no earthly reason why I should. Perhaps Jesus loves you enough to go after His lost sheep, even if they bite Him.
Nobody is ‘exploiting’ Cardinal Burke, Anonoymous, except you when you tout your unity with him only to behave as if you don’t know him…. or what he is saying. (You should follow his gentle example.)
And you are correct, there is no alternative Catholic Church. There are bad bishops, however, and many agendas that are pushed forth under the umbrella of ‘official’ that are anything but because of what they attempt to circumvent. God’s Truth. That is why Cardinal Burke said what he did, Anonymous.
Do not kid yourself. I know first hand that the wages of sin is death. That is why I do my best to avoid scandalizing my children the way I was scandalized. You have made an idol out of your own perception instead of looking to reality and even what which Cardinal Burke is stating very clearly we *must* be prepared to fight. Are you prepared? Or will you be so self directed that you’ll just let the Faith be sold out?
If, as you erroneously insist, everything would always be fine and we could just relax and trust the Holy Ghost,surely Cardinal Burke would have said so. When asked questions, he could have said something to the effect that, “Everything is find and we can rest easy inside the Church knowing that all is well no matter what happens this next October.” But the Cardinal didn’t say that.
Sometimes in an election, someone demands a recount of the ballots. Just a thought. Is it possible, or realistic, that Pope Francis might take early retirement? Pope Benedict XVI was the answer to my prayers. He was (is) a holy man. He tried to bring the Church back to the traditional ways that held the Church together for centuries. It seems he was forced out by Vatican politics. Was there a cabal involved which wanted to modernize the Church?
” Cardinal Burke’s most glaring offense was that he declared that Catholic politicians who support abortion should be refused Communion.”
“The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin” by Cardinal Burke
THE REAL PRESENCE – CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST
https://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
The real sin by this Pope and some of his personal appointees at the 2014 Synod is that they put man before God.
It appears that they do not believe in the “Real Presence”.
Not once in the final 2014 Synod document is the Mortal Sin of Sacrilege against the Real Presence mentioned.
Those who choose to continue to live in Mortal Sin should never be permitted to receive Holy Communion.
Needed repentance and a purpose of amendment to sin no more is not included and therefore merely dismissed like garbage.
According to Baldiserri, this Pope insisted that paragraphs # 52, 53, 55 remain in the LINEAMENTA document for 2015 Synod consideration, even though they did not get the required 2/3 vote in 2014.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20141209_lineamenta-xiv-assembly_en.html
1 Cor 11: 23-25; 1 Cor 11:27-30.
Jn 6:47-51; Jn 53-58.
CCC: 1378; 1379; 1374; 2120.
Without the REAL PRESENCE, there is no reason to be a Catholic, become a Catholic, or to revert back to the Catholic Faith.
Any Protestant faith would do. (Some Protestant ministers give better homilies than many Catholic Priests. At least people hear about sin, heaven and hell.)
Many will fall away from the Catholic Faith and never return if this Pope, and his appointees Kasper and Danneels, along with Wuerl and Cupich prevail in the promotion of Sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Our Lord – approval of receiving Holy Communion while choosing to live in Mortal Sin.
There will be no need for the Sacrament of Penance.
Sacrilege and disrespect for the Body and Blood of Our Lord is the gravest sin.
It puts the Will of man above the Will of God. (In violation of the first Commandment.)
And puts Evil above Good.
It appears that they do not believe in the ‘Real Presence’, or simply do not care. We must weep for them and their sin.
I agree. We all need to think about this.
There will be no need for the Sacrament of Confession.
If Pope Francis and companions let some people get away with receiving Holy Communion while in mortal sin, why not everybody else ? – This is what it will come down to in thinking by the vast majority.
Either the Pope does not believe, or does not care.
Or is he planning on saying adultery and homosexual acts are ok as far as he is concerned ?
I did not know before that “Buenos Aires was known to have hardly any vocations in the seminary during the time that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was archbishop.” And now Pope Francis has not even designated Medjugorje as a shrine. One of the greatest fruits of Medjugorje is priestly vocations.
Wish Cardinal Burke could be our Pope! He’s terrific!!
when john paul ii became pope,the ‘ pre-vatican ii church is withering away’ set was horrified, but laughed it off, feeling that the momentum of church history was theirs, that all power was delegated to the local church and the figurehead could hold all the audiences he wanted. when the new pope declared a holy year almost right off the bat, it was loudly ignored by the US church and seen as ‘too soon’ since we had recently had a holy year. the US church had no inkling that the Holy Spirit might have wanted it, but rather a feeling that it was some sort of vatican bureaucratic reflex. archbisop weakland publicly announced that the new pope had no substance, just a buffoon and showman lost in the detritus pulled down statues of the ‘ renovation’, calling him a ‘polish ham’ ( and then leading the liberal hate posse after Mother Angelica and the newly born EWTN, almost getting her work shut down). the hauteur of the american church was rudely on display when cardinal Cooke tried to silence and upstage the pope, a’ la kanye-taylor swift, for not seeming quite proper and dignified in his public style in his first NY visit. and then the pope began to travel the world evangelizing, upstaging the local trends, and reminding local catholics that the magisterium was rooted in petrine primacy. I met priests in New England in the mid-nineties who were overjoyed at a ‘medically verified’ rumor that John Paul had cancer.
For the sake of discussion, do you agree with the notion that John Paul II and Francis are very similar? At least in their public persona, and perhaps even in their pastoral style. Both huge lovers of big crowds and vice versa. Both loved touching the faithful, and the children. Both were reformers at least in external style. Both travel(ed) extensively, trying to bring the Gospel to new corners of the world and emphasized the Church’s primary mission as evangelist. Both were trying to incorporate the upheavals that come after every ecumenical council yet reconcile the Church with her past. Both use[d] diplomacy and the [bully] pulpit to bring freedom and peace.
Paul and Benedict were more introverted. Warm, and beloved by close friends but not beloved by the cameras and the spotlights. Both tried to set limits to modernization while still bringing the Church into the modern world. Both had relatively short but critically important pontificates. Both were advisors to the Popes they themselves served, and both shaped the pontificates of their bosses at least as much as they shaped their own Pontificates.
What do you think? Obviously no right or wrong answers – but interesting to ponder.
Cardinal Burke is an orthodox Priest and he doesn’t care about how his statements get reported in the press. He is a constant voice for the faith. That is a given. That is his strength. We also know that our strengths are also our weaknesses. His straight talk made him a liability in the public forum, not that he ever said anything wrong, but that he didn’t manage what he said. That is why he was “promoted” out of St. Louis. (Italians don’t fire people, they promote them to positions where they will have little influence). As head of the Church’s Supreme Court, he could be stuffed into an office and never heard from again. That was not his style and he kept coming back with more strong statements. He again, or continued to be a “liability” to those who were trying to soften up the rhetoric. So, he was demoted in full public view. (It wasn’t an Italian doing the firing). He is now in a position of little or no influence, supposedly. On the other hand, he has nothing to do except to travel the world on the Mission of the Knights of Malta saying whatever he wants to say and nobody will be able to control him. They might have been better off making him the Archbishop of some obscure city that would keep him very busy and unable to leave town.
Bob One, our strengths are NOT our weaknesses.
IF your silliness was correct, we would all be completely immobilized/paralyzed due to weakness.
You have no clue what you are talking about – POPE BENEDICT XVI was of German descent not Italian.
Your ignorance outshines you.
In 1989, SAINT Pope John Paul II named Burke the first American Defender of the Bond of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest ecclesiastical court official in the Catholic Church apart from the Pope.
This is before he was even named a Bishop.
On December 10, 1994, SAINT Pope John Paul II named Burke as Bishop of La Crosse, consecrating Burke himself to the episcopate on January 6, 1995, in St. Peter’s Basilica.
(Later came the Diocese of St. Louis)
On May 6, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI named Burke to two Vatican offices.
He was named a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which authentically interprets canon law,
and also became a member of the Congregation for the Clergy, which regulates the formation and training of diocesan priests and deacons.
On June 27, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Burke as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura exercises final appellate jurisdiction for conflicts between two or more Vatican congregations and appeals of administrative decisions by diocesan bishops and Vatican congregations.
Joseph, your historical data is correct, but you seem to assume that Pope Benedict wasn’t influenced by the cabal of bureaucrats in the Vatican that were grasping for power. Yes, Pope Benedict was German, but the Church operates in an Italian culture. Anyone who has worked in organizational development and management development knows, by the way that a person’s strengths always get him/her in trouble at some point. Aggressiveness may make for good sales reps, but the same quality often makes for poor sales management, etc. It’s my opinion only, but too many of us look at the church from a U.S. perspective. We represent only six percent of church membership. The southern hemisphere is where the numbers are and toward which the church is turning. They think differently than us and act differently than we do and act differently than we do. I wish I could be around in fifty years to see how it all works out.
Bob One, ALL Clergy are required to adhere to Sacred Scripture and the CCC.
There are no legitimate excuses for anything else.
You did lie about Cardinal Burke. He is well loved by Faithful Catholics in St. Louis. I have relatives who live there.
While the Curia operates within an Italian culture, Joseph Ratzinger (one of our most intellectually gifted Popes) operated for many, many years within that culture–and successfully–before becoming Pope. I’d take him at his word: his advancing age, health and disinterest in administration (evidenced when he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising) are enough to explain his retirement decision. No need to posit cabals and conspiracies.
This proves that the head of the Synod of Bishops secretariat,
responsible for organizing the highly controversial October Synod on the Family
is a heretic – with sinister motives.
” Cardinal Baldisseri’s ‘Evolution of Dogma’
vs St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism ”
by Edward Pentin
https://edwardpentin.co.uk/cardinal-baldisseris-evolution-of-dogma-vs-st-pius-xs-oath-against-modernism/
(continued)
Letter of Saint Athanasius
Bishop of Alexandria
To His Flock
The Catholic Church Ravaged in the Fourth Century
“No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. “Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
– (Coll. Selecta SS.Eccl.Patrum, Caillau and Guillou Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Mike, do priests still take the swear to the oath in your link? If dogma cannot change in any way from century to century, does that mean that we must believe what people in the year 1200 believed? Does the work of an Ecumenical Council supersede the teachings that preceded it? Theology is the study of Scripture; what it means, how it applies today, etc.. If nothing changes, should we abandon the study of Theology in colleges and seminaries? I suggest that you have opened a whole discussion that requires people smarter than most of us to figure out. Maybe it is worthy of another thread on this site.
Bob One, there is difference between DOGMA and DOCTRINE.
And between DOCTRINE, and PRACTICE (tradition with a small “t”).
DOGMA: Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself.
A few examples of DOGMA are: the TRINITY, REAL PRESENCE, CHRIST is God, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of MARY, etc.
Once something is declared DOGMA no matter what year – if you are Catholic you MUST believe/adhere.
DOCTRINE: Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina or possibly from Sanskrit: dukrn) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions,
taught principles or positions,
as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system.
PRACTICE: A spiritual practice or spiritual discipline (often including spiritual exercises) is the regular or full-time performance of actions and activities undertaken for the purpose of cultivating spiritual development.
CCC 88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
Dogmas are the truths contained in divine Revelation. Doctrine are the truths having a necessary connection with these.
From the Glossary of the CCC;
Doctrine/Dogma The revealed teachings of Christ which are proclaimed by the fullest extent of the exercise of the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium.
Doctrine :Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.
Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.
From Modern Catholic Dictionary.
Discipline has many meanings;
Systematic mental, moral, or physical training under someone in authority. the term also applies to the order maintained by persons under control, whether self-determined or imposed by others.
It is likewise a private means of penance, in use among ascetics since the early Church, e.g., a whip or scourge.
It is the exercise by the Church of her right to administer spiritual penalty, and
it may finally refer to any of the laws and directions set down by Church authority for the guidance of the faithful.
Modern Catholic Dictionary
Mike, Thanks!
Yes, MIKE, what you posted does prove sinister motives. That is why you cannot credibly say that those who are in Traditional Societies, those whose only doctrinal disagreement with the Church is predicated on the supposed disagreement of whether or not the magisterium has the right to interpret scripture, are not fighting sin. Yes could mean yes or no is not “interpretation” of doctrine, but rather the utter negation of it. Much like a legal contract that is unclear in its demands cannot be enforced in a court of law – the document will negate itself.
For on one hand you point to the corruption within and the sinister motives of those heading the October synod. What do you think that is, friend, but an attempt to disconnect the official magisterium of the Church from the official teachings of the Church? And that has been going on for a long time, not just this past October.
So you may have convinced yourself that “others” are not in the fight. But it is precisely those “others” who have removed their families from the ongoing scandal of the very sinister individuals you now seem to recognize that have given their children the actual FAITH. And the understanding of what that means.
You need those Catholics, MIKE. Because too many inside the Church have been malformed by just such schlock as that which is shocking you when it comes from the mouth of Cardinal Baldiserri.
Mike
Letter of Saint Athanasius
Bishop of Alexandria
To His Flock
The Catholic Church Ravaged in the Fourth Century
“May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle — the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way … “You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.”
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
You have probably already seen this.
https://www.catholicvote.org/the-pope-didnt-exile-cardinal-burke-he-gave-him-an-army-photos/
God bless Christ the King, Our Sovereign High Priest.
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence. [2] But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he shall meditate day and night. [3] And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit, in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper. [4] Not so the wicked, not so: but like the dust, which the wind driveth from the face of the earth. [5] Therefore the wicked shall not rise again in judgment: nor sinners in the council of the just.
[6] For the Lord knoweth the way of the just: and the way of the wicked shall perish.