Whatever side you are on, we are all watching history unfold before our very lives
We have a Maverick pope who wants the Catholic Church to leapfrog into modernity and embrace Moderism of liberal Protestantis, a failure of epoch proportions and we have a so-called emeritus pope who represents Catholicism's true identity.
Who will win? I have placed my bet and time will tell.
Who in the name of God and all that is holy would have thought five years ago that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church would place a reigning pope on notice. Apart from the rhetoric of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, I do not recall another period in Church history quite like this:
Cardinal Burke: Scalfari Episode ‘Went Beyond What Is Tolerable’
The American cardinal says the recent ‘interview’ regarding hell was a ‘profound scandal,’ and that the Holy Father is not only failing to proclaim the Church’s constant doctrine and sound discipline but also ‘increasing the confusion’ over crucial issues.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said Pope Francis is not only “refusing to clarify” the Church’s doctrine and discipline but also “increasing the confusion” on the “most fundamental and important issues.”
In an interview Thursday with the Italian Catholic daily La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, the patron of the Order of Malta said the “confusion and division” in the Church on such important issues as marriage and the family, the sacraments, intrinsically evil acts, eternal life and the Last Things “are becoming more and more widespread.”
In spite of this, he said the Pope “not only refuses to clarify things by proclaiming the constant doctrine and sound discipline of the Church, a responsibility inherent in his ministry as the Successor of St. Peter, but he is also increasing the confusion.”
Asked if he was referring to statements coming from some of those who have spoken or met with the Pope (recently an Argentine sister said the Pope told her contraception is permissible in some cases, and a French priest said Francis condoned the blessing of homosexual couples), Cardinal Burke referred in particular to alleged comments the Pope made to the Italian atheist Eugenio Scalfari over Easter. Scalfari replorted in the La Repubblica newspaper that the Pope told him he doesn’t believe in the existence of hell, but that unrepentant sinners simply disappear.
That episode “went beyond what is tolerable,” Cardinal Burke said, adding that to have a well-known atheist speaking on behalf of the Pope in “denying the immortality of the human soul and the existence of hell, has been a source of profound scandal not only for many Catholics but also for many people in the secular world who have respect for the Catholic Church and its teachings, even if they do not share them.”
He also decried the fact that the story came out on Holy Thursday, “one of the holiest days of the year,” and that the Holy See’s response was “highly inadequate.”
“Instead of clearly reasserting the truth about the immortality of the human soul and hell, the denial only states that some of the words quoted are not the Pope’s,” he said. “It does not say that the erroneous and even heretical ideas expressed by these words are not shared by the Pope, and that the Pope repudiates these ideas as contrary to the Catholic Faith.”
“This playing around with faith and doctrine, at the highest level of the Church, rightly leaves pastors and faithful scandalized,” Cardinal Burke added.
He went on to say the current situation is “further aggravated” by the silence of bishops and cardinals, and that ”the faithful who understand the gravity of the situation” are left feeling “lost” while those who don’t understand the crisis are left “in confusion and possibly victims of errors that are harmful to their souls.”
He also said those who have chosen to come into the Church “suffer intensely” from the situation as they perceive the Church is going down the same road of Protestant ecclesial communities and “abandoning the faith.”
Cardinal Burke alluded to an “apostasy from the faith” taking place within the Church and that in such a situation, bishops and cardinals “have the duty to proclaim true doctrine” and the College of Cardinals in particular must act as a “check against papal error.”
The cardinal, who will address a conference Saturday on confusion in the Church and the limits of papal authority, said some aspects of the Petrine Office need to be clarified. According to the constant teaching of the Church, he said the Pope’s “essential service” is to “safeguard and promote the deposit of faith, true doctrine and sound discipline consistent with the truths believed.”
On the frequent labeling of the Pope as a revolutionary (a description most recently made by Scalfari), the cardinal said the Petrine Office has “absolutely nothing to do with revolution” but rather is about the “preservation and propagation” of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith.
He further stressed that the Pope’s power belongs not to “his person but to his office as Successor of St. Peter” and pointed out that previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks.
“At present there is a risky and even harmful confusion between the person of the Pope and his office, that results in both the obscuring of the Petrine Office and in a worldly and political idea of the service of the Roman Pontiff in the Church,” he said.
“The Church exists for the salvation of souls,” he added. “Any act of a Pope that undermines the salvific mission of Christ in the Church, whether it be a heretical act or a sinful act in itself, is simply void from the point of view of the Petrine Office.”
“We must always distinguish the body of the man who is the Roman Pontiff from the body of the Roman Pontiff, that is, from the man who exercises the office of St. Peter in the Church,” Cardinal Burke said. “Not to make this distinction means papolatry and ends up in the loss of faith in the Divinely Founded and Sustained Petrine Office.”
He stressed a Catholic must always respect the Petrine Office, and, through a “rightly formed conscience,” judge when a pope “deviates or seems to deviate from true doctrine and sound discipline.” A Catholic also has the right to express to their pastors concerns about the Church, and to receive their pastors’ response.
The cardinal said it is not only possible but also “necessary to criticize” a pope if he does not “fulfill his office for the good of all souls.”
Rather than an act of “rebellion or disobedience,” he said that if asking for correction of confusion or error is made out of due to respect for his office, it is “an act of obedience to Christ and therefore to His Vicar on earth.”
48 comments:
Cardinal Burke "pointed out that previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
Really? Hmmm...I guess that Cardinal Burke had forgotten that Pope Benedict XVI issued personal opinions via books and interviews.
I guess that Cardinal Burke had forgotten that the Vatican was forced to clarify various statements that Pope Benedict XVI had issued via books and interviews.
During an interview with journalist Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI said:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility."
To quell the supposed "controversy" that Pope Benedict XVI had unleashed within and without the Church, the Vatican was forced to clarify Pope Benedict XVI's statement in question.
Vatican Clarifies Pope Benedict's Remarks on Condoms
www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html
Vatican statement on Benedict XVI and condoms | National Catholic
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr.../vatican-statement-benedict-xvi-and-condoms
Vatican clarifies pope's condom comments - The San Diego Union
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-vatican-clarifies-popes-condom-comments-201
==============================================================================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Burke "pointed out that previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
Oh?
Cardinal Burke had forgotten that Pope Benedict XVI unleashed a firestorm via the personal opinions that he (Pope Benedict XVI) issued via his book Jesus of Nazareth -- The Infancy Narratives.
======================================
-- Pope Benedict Disputes Jesus' Date of Birth | TIME.com
newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/
=======================================
-- Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions - CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus.../index.html
=======================================
-- Pope Claims Christmas Traditions Are Wrong
https://www.christianitytoday.com/.../pope-claims-christmas-traditions-are-wrong.html
========================================
-- Killjoy Pope crushes Christmas nativity traditions
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../New-Jesus-book-reveals-donkeys-crib-lowing-oxen-definitel
=========================================
Cardinal Burke's claim "that previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions" is false.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Burke declared last year that the SSPX is schism from the True Church.
As the SSPX noted, Pope Francis granted to the SSPX "ordinary power to hear confessions to all the priests of the Society, and even more so the fact that he recognizes them as qualified Church witnesses for the marriages of their faithful."
However, Cardinal Burke had cast doubt upon Pope Francis' action(s) in question as he (Cardinal Burke) insisted that "there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly."
Cardinal Burke declared also that the SSPX "is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X."
===========================================================================
Did Cardinal Burke's negative assessment of the SSPX — contrary to Pope Francis' merciful, pro-SSPX actions — scandalize many Catholics who are attached and/or sympathetic to the SSPX?
Has Cardinal Burke scandalize Catholics as he holds views that are contrary in dramatic fashion to Pope Francis' teachings in regard to the SSPX?
Has Cardinal Burke gone "Beyond What Is Tolerable" (as was said about Mr. Scalfari) in regard to his declaration that the SSPX is schismatic...that "is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What constitutes the greater scandal?
1. Mr. Scalfari's (a non-Catholic) statements related to Pope Francis supposed rejection of hell's existence (despite the fact that Pope Francis has, on several occasions, declared that hell exists).
2. Cardinal Burke's (a Prince of the Church) opposition to Pope Francis' teachings in regard to the SSPX.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I suspect, Father, that we have our money on the same person.
What to say? Seems we've said it all before. Without question and to my understanding, Cardinal Burke is absolutely right. Francis has sullied the Office. The Cardinal rightly asks where is the leadership to ensure the preservation of the Office? To me, the leadership is still trying to preserve Francis to the detriment of the Office. Once that changes, or, there is a new pontiff, perhaps the chair and its occupant will once again be unified. Until then.....we have this....
Father McDonald said..."Who in the name of God and all that is holy would have thought five years ago that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church would place a reigning pope on notice?"
Father McDonald said..."Apart from the rhetoric of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, I do not recall another period in Church history quite like this:"
Father, I recall a similar period...1986 A.D.
Although they weren't Cardinals, in 1986 A.D., Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer placed Pope Saint John Paul II, Cardinal, and bishops on notice via the following declaration:
"Adopting the liberal religion of Protestantism and of the Revolution, the naturalistic principles of J.J. Rousseau, the atheistic liberties of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the principle of human dignity no longer having any relation with truth and moral dignity, the Roman authorities turn their backs on their predecessors and break with the Catholic Church, and they put themselves at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
"The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace.
"The high point of this rupture with the previous Magisterium of the Church took place at Assisi, after the visit to the synagogue. The public sin against the one, true God, against the Incarnate Word, and His Church, makes us shudder with horror. John Paul II encourages the false religions to pray to their false gods—an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal.
"For us, remaining indefectibly attached to the Catholic and Roman Church of all times, we are obliged to take note that this Modernist and liberal religion of modern and conciliar Rome is always distancing itself more and more from us, who profess the Catholic Faith of the eleven Popes who condemned this false religion.
"The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II who break with their predecessors.
"This denial of the whole past of the Church by these two Popes and the bishops who imitate them is an inconceivable impiety for those who remain Catholic in fidelity to twenty centuries of the same Faith.
"Thus we consider as null everything inspired by this spirit of denial of the past: all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety."
===================================================================
Wow! Pope Saint John Paul II, Blessed Pope Paul VI, and each Cardinal and bishop who adhered to the teachings of said Popes had broken "with the Catholic Church...they put themselves at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
Oh...then-Cardinal Ratzinger was also on the SSPX's/Bishop de Castro Mayer's list of supposed "modernists" who were destroying the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
Like Uncle Peregrine in Waugh's 'Unconditional Surrender', you have the ability to empty a room in any centre of civilization in Christendom. If boring were an Olympic event you would surely win gold.
Boiled down to essentials, your argument is as follows: PF is not sowing confusion since his predecessors (Paul VI, JP II and B XVI) were accused in some quarters of sowing confusion. This makes no logical sense.
Regarding SSPX, PF has said nothing about its status, which remains irregular. Burke and Müller have tended to be more hardline than others, such as Abp Pozzo, Secretary of PCED, which is nominally under Ladaria, Müller's replacement at the CDF, who has yet to comment.
SSPX is marginal in the Anglophone world. However, if I lived in France or Belgium, where liturgical life has all but collapsed, I would happily attend SSPX churches, regardless of what an American cardinal might think or say.
To Mark Thomas
Pope Francis has met with that atheist numerous times. The result of each interview is scandal. This raises valid questions.
If the interviews are made up by that atheist and what is reported is false then why does Francis keep meeting with him and allowing this to happen?
If what is reported in the interviews then why doesn’t Francis publicly correct them himself? He is the pope and the faithful have the right to expect a pope to uphold the teachings of the Church.
But if what is reported is true and the pope did say these things then he is not only a heretic but he isn’t even a Christian and therefore he is not pope. The situation is serious.
The existence of Hell and the immortality of the soul are defined doctrines of the Church that Francis has no power to change or do away with in any way. Not only is belief in these doctrines necessary to be a Catholic but necessary for every Christian. If Francis said these things it makes not only him but the papacy the object of ridicule. What faithful, honest Christian would ever listen to what he says or does after it’s reported he doesn’t believe in Hell. And for you Mark Thomas to defend this situation makes you complicit in what’s going on.
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.
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144
Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who does the act. Francis cannot make what is black, white. And he can’t make what is white, black just because he is pope. 2 + 2 NEVER equal 5 and he cannot make it so. Your defense of his imprudent and scandalous behavior is disgusting. Save your PAX nonsense. It’s a liberal cover to make yourself appear so merciful and charitable while all the time defending sin. Shame on you.
"We have a Maverick pope who wants the Catholic Church to leapfrog into modernity and embrace Moderism of liberal Protestantis, a failure of epoch proportions and we have a so-called emeritus pope who represents Catholicism's true identity."
Wow. Just wow.
Your capacity to exaggerate is beyond the pale.
You willingness to engender, even create, division is patently dangerous and unsound, theologically, sociologically, and morally.
A, place the blame "to engender, even create, division (that) is patently dangerous and unsound, theologically, sociologically and morally, where it belongs, at the feet of our Holy Father. Then think Germany, Chile, Argentina, and the conference in Rome on Saturday and revise your misplace blaming game.
In other words, don't shoot the messenger.
MT misses the point, by a considerable distance. For starters, the exact day od Christ’s human birth is not the same as affirming the existance of Hell. The problem with PF is that he makes these titillating comments then does not drop the other red shoe. When Pope BXVI made comments that begged explanation they came with a map back to Church doctrine. OTOH, PF defends the ecumenical situation as if Church doctrine was merely an alternative ethic. This gives the impression that he is more committed to Catholicism as a branding preference than a Way to the Truth.
No, the "real" pope vs the "fake" pope scenarion is of your making. It does not come from Pope Francis nor from bishops in Chile, Germany, Argentina, or anywhere else. It is shameful that a priest would support and spread such malicious division.
rcg,
You're wasting your time with papalotor, MT. You can't reason with him. I guess he never heard of the concept of "faith and reason."
Anonymous (Kavanaugh),
LOL. You are hopeless like MT
Cd. Burke was in our town recently giving a talk -- I know that some of our SSPX priests were in attendance (the USA District House is here), as well as some of the SSPX faithful. Cd. Burke will be across the state in August ordaining men to the priesthood for the Institute of Christ the King. Again, I suspect some of the SSPX faithful (my family too) may be in attendance.
While I appreciate black and white sectarianism in theory, it doesn't really exist in reality. I fully support the SSPX, regardless of Cd. Burke's opinion of their juridical status. I also fully support Cd. Burke, who seems to be the only sane member of the hierarchy left on this earth.
Is he the next incarnation of Abp. Lefebvre? I'm not counting that out like some are. People complain Cd. Burke is too reserved, but the good archbishop was similarly reserved -- both men have a tendency to prudence and a true sense of Romanitas. At the end of the day, it would accomplish little for Cd. Burke to simply declare Francis a public heretic; in the same way, Abp. Lefebvre steadfastly refused to make such declarations about the popes with whom he was dealing (despite the evidence in support of such a declaration).
Fake pope/real pope??????? I wrote that or do you need glasses? Please stop spreading fake news about me--we have one reigning pope and one emeritus pope. Maybe you didn't get the memo?
Well, I saw an earthly version of Hell yesterday on I-20 heading to the Masters---bus overturned near Milepost 185 causing a massive backup of Augusta-bound Masters fans like myself. Our car covered two miles in one hour, but worse, turns out the bus driver was charged with DUI! Being at the Masters is an earthly form of heaven in my view, though of course not as long-lasting as the one above!!!
I wanted to add regarding a lack of practical sectarianism: Although we are SSPX parishioners and the district superior was celebrating the solemn Good Friday liturgy at our chapel, we went to the local Institute of Christ the King oratory where the solemn liturgy was the 1945 Mass of the Presanctified with local diocesan clergy and seminarians filling out the deacon and subdeacon roles. It was a good choice as I fully support the reinstitution of the old rites for Holy Week.
And if you're wondering what Francis is up to in allowing the old rites in the Ecclesia Dei communities, it is likely precisely what happened with us: He got us to go to an "approved" liturgy instead of the SSPX. That Francis is crafty.
"Fake pope/real pope??????? I wrote that or do you need glasses?"
Yes, you wrote that, and it is shameful.
"We have a Maverick pope who wants the Catholic Church to leapfrog into modernity and embrace Moderism of liberal Protestantis, a failure of epoch proportions and we have a so-called emeritus pope who represents Catholicism's true identity."
Francis is not a "fake Pope." He is the logical outcome of Enlightenment "theology," cultural and moral syncreticsm, modernism, and Vatican II efforts to embrace the secular/protestant world view. At one point, the Church might have taken a strong stance against this progression (Pope Pius X), but she did not do so. The Catholic Church has just had too long a history of nature/grace, culture/Christ amalgam to reject it in favor of a radical New Testament/Pauline condemnation of culture and its God, Reason. But, do take heart Brethren, "the ax is already laid to the root of the trees."
Blogger John Nolan said..."Regarding SSPX, PF has said nothing about its status..."
Bishop Fellay disagrees with you. He has insisted that Pope Francis has recognized the SSPX as Catholic. Pope Francis was instrumental, for example, in having the SSPX recognized in Argentina as "Catholic."
Bishop Fellay declared that Pope Francis said that he (Pope Francis) will not condemn the SSPX...that he (Pope Francis) has insisted that it's legitimate for Catholics to attend SSPX chapels.
Do you dispute Bishop Fellay's claims in question?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Blogger John Nolan said..."Regarding SSPX, PF has said nothing about its status..."
Mr. Nolan, His Holiness Pope Francis has made it clear that it's legitimate for Catholics to attend SSPX chapels.
Pope Francis has granted to the SSPX "ordinary power to hear confessions to all the priests of the Society, and even more so the fact that he recognizes them as qualified Church witnesses for the marriages of their faithful."
However, Cardinal Burke declared also that the SSPX "is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X."
===========================================================================
Mr. Nolan, Cardinal Burke has rejected Pope Francis' teachings in regard to the SSPX.
Mr. Nolan, in opposition to Pope Francis' declarations in question, Cardinal Burke has warned Catholics that the SSPX is in schism...and that "it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X."
Mr. Nolan, are you confused as to whether it's legitimate to receive the Sacraments from the SSPX?
After all, Pope Francis has said that it's legitimate to receive the Sacraments from the SSPX. However, Cardinal Burke declared the opposite in regard to the SSPX.
Mr. Nolan, in regard to the SSPX, should we believe Pope Francis or Cardinal Burke?
My, my, my...scandal and confusion. Oh...such confusion in regard to the SSPX. What are we to believe? :-)
Oh, my...it's akin to Pope Francis many public declarations that hell exists...but Mr. Scalfari claims that Pope Francis has said that hell doesn't exist. Do we believe Pope Francis or Mr. Scalfari? Oh...such confusion!
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mr. Nolan, are you confused as to what to believe in regard to the Faith?
Has Pope Francis confused you...caused you to question as to what you are to believe in regard to Catholicism?
I am not confused in regard to the Faith. Pope Francis hasn't confused me.
Anyway, Mr. Nolan, has Pope Francis confused you in regard to the Faith?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Benedict/Burke vs. Francis/Scalfari . . . Who will prevail? No need for either bets or prolixity. The answer is predetermined:
"The gates of Hell shall not prevail." (Matthew 16:18)
John Nolan said..."However, if I lived in France or Belgium, where liturgical life has all but collapsed, I would happily attend SSPX churches, regardless of what an American cardinal might think or say."
Is Cardinal Burke a great canonist? A pillar of orthodoxy? I thought that unlike big, bad, ignorant Pope Francis, Cardinal Burke's grasp of Catholicism was tremendous.
However, Mr. Nolan, you have made it clear that renowned canonist Cardinal Burke's declaration that the SSPX is schismatic has z-e-r-o impact upon your view of attending SSPX chapels.
You are free to dismiss Cardinal Burke's assessment of the SSPX. Correct?
Mr. Nolan, as you are free to dismiss Cardinal Burke's assessment of the SSPX, are not Catholics...hmmm, even the Pope...free to dismiss Cardinal Burke's assessment of Amoris Laetitia?
After all, you are not special, Mr. Nolan. That is, you are not more privileged than the next Catholic when it comes to possessing the right to dismiss Cardinal Burke. Correct, Mr. Nolan?
Oh...and if Cardinal Burke is so far off the mark in his assessment of the SSPX, then it's legitimate to wonder what additional assessments of Church life that Cardinal Burke has botched.
Thank you, Mr. Nolan, for your very telling comment about dismissing Cardinal Burke.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Satan and his minions continue to sow discord with their lies and half-truths. We all need to pray to be faithful to the Truth, and to live our lives so that others can see the Truth within us.
We also need to pray for the whole Church, that she stand against the evil that desires to tear her apart. We need to ask the Holy Spirit to pour out His gifts upon all who have the grace to receive them.
We are in a spiritual battle, and unless we fight it as such, we will all be reduced to continuous bickering.
Mark is off his meds again...
In November 2016, in Misericordia et Misera, Pope Francis announced the extension of the faculty of SSPX priests to absolve sins beyond that which was granted to them in the Jubilee Year 2015. I don't know of any statement by Cardinal Burke that he opposed this. Pope Francis has not taken any action to change the the irregular status of the SSPX. vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. For all intents and purposes, unless someone can cite evidence to the contrary, Pope Francis' and Cardinal Burkes views of the SSPX's status are the same, irregardless of the differences of opinion which abound as to whether the status is irregular or schismatic.
Announcing the the pope is leading us to Modernism and that the former pope is the true locus of Catholic teaching is sowing lies, discord, and, not half-truths, but whole untruthiness.
The Pope is not "leading us to Modernism"...he is celebrating it as a fait accompli.
James, There is no such word as irregardless.
If I understand correctly, the SSPX has been given some additional faculties but is not regularised. I suspect Cardinal Burke understands this and its full importance and is simply keeping Pope Francis between the lines, as it were. Details and clarity matter a lot to Burke, it appears that Pope Francis is not as concerned and might be willing the allow the SSPX to consult their internal fora to bridge the final gaps.
John Nolan said..."...I would happily attend SSPX churches, regardless of what an American cardinal might think or say."
Mr. Nolan, you adhere to the principle held by those who don't hesitate to dismiss...what an African Cardinal might say or think.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
rcg said..."MT misses the point, by a considerable distance. For starters, the exact day od Christ’s human birth is not the same as affirming the existance of Hell."
Pope Francis has affirmed publicly that hell exists. He has done so on several occasions.
========================================
Back to Cardinal Burke's claim that "previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
That is utterly false.
Example: It is an undeniable fact that Pope Benedict XVI, via an interview with journalist Peter Seewald, declared:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility."
Pope Benedict XVI's statement in question set off a news media firestorm...as well as a firestorm within the Church.
The Vatican, in an attempt to defuse the "controversy" in question raged within and without the Church, was forced to clarify Pope Benedict XVI's comment in question that he had uttered to a journalist.
Again, as demonstrated by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Burke's claim in question is utterly false...his claim that "previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
I, and no doubt everyone else on this blog, fail to see any consistency in your arguments. I am not going to attempt to refute the comments so pointedly directed at me, since in doing so I risk becoming a monumental bore like yourself.
What I write is clear enough for most people to understand, assuming a reasonable level of literacy. Feel free to disagree, but don't bombard me with pointless and stupid questions.
John Nolan said..."I am not going to attempt to refute the comments so pointedly directed at me, since in doing so I risk becoming a monumental bore like yourself.
What I write is clear enough for most people to understand, assuming a reasonable level of literacy. Feel free to disagree, but don't bombard me with pointless and stupid questions."
That is fine with me. The following isn't meant in nasty fashion: Initially, you responded to me. I didn't seek a conversation with you. I couldn't care less as to whether you respond to my "pointless and stupid questions".
The reality is that you are unable to respond to me as you've trapped yourself.
1. It is an absolute fact that Cardinal Burke's following claim is utterly false: "...previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
2. Cardinal Burke declared that the SSPX is in schism...and that it is "not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X."
3. The above is opposed to Pope Francis' teachings on the SSPX. Pope Francis declared that the Faithful are free to receive from the SSPX the Holy Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony.
4. You dismissed Cardinal Burke as a mere "American cardinal"
5. Despite Cardinal Burke's declarations against the "schismatic" (his claim) SSPX, you made it clear that you couldn't care less about Cardinal Burke's assessment of the SSPX as you would attend SSPX chapels if you pleased.
6. If Cardinal Burke, a renowned canonist, "conservative," and Prince of the Church who comes with high credentials is so colossally wrong about the SSPX being schismatic, then one must wonder what additional assessments of his are wrong.
Mr. Nolan, please have a nice day.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
P.S. Again, Mr. Nolan, your dismissal of Cardinal Burke as a mere "American cardinal"...and having made clear that as he's an "American cardinal," you couldn't care less as to that which he "might think or say" (your words)...
...echoes the comments of those who have dismissed Cardinals who are merely "African cardinals."
Mr. Nolan, you have had a very bad time on this thread...time for you to retreat.
Bye.
Here’s the thing: If SSPX attendees cared what Rome’s opinion was about attendance at SSPX chapels, we wouldn’t be SSPX attendees in the first place. We go to the SSPX because we don’t trust Rome as they’ve not demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy in light of the crisis in the Church of the last several decades.
So MT is trying to destroy Cardinal Burke while defending Francis who said He’ll doesn’t exist and also denied the immortality of the soul. Outrageous! Clearly an attempt to make that which is sinful appear holy and that which is holy as something evil. Francis should have appointed you to his stacked synods. Why should anyone bother even refuting MT anymore. A reasonable person does not waste his time trying to reason which someone who is unreasonable.
Keep pursuing those very small "victories " in life, MT.
Pax.....or,whatever
I meant to say Rome as demonstrated themselves to be not trustworthy, etc.
MT,
Go away, just go away. You've accomplished what George Soros is paying you to do
Mark Thomas
(Sigh) Did I say Burke was a 'mere' American cardinal? I don't think so. I have a great respect for him, and others like him. More than I have for Bergoglio and the shady characters he surrounds himself with.
I don't live in France or Belgium although I visit both countries regularly. Ten years ago the only church in Brussels which had any discernible liturgical life which was identifiable as mainstream Catholicism was the SSPX church (hardly a chapel - it is in fact the Belgian national shrine, St Joseph's in the Leopold Quarter).
Twenty-five years ago the only Tridentine Mass in Paris was at St Nicholas-du-Chardonnet (SSPX). Things are now marginally better, but I would still occasionally visit St Nicks out of respect for the late Marcel Lefebvre, without whose heroic witness the 'legitimate' TLM would not exist. The Vatican cannot agree on the precise status of SSPX so until they sort it out I shall give the Society and its priests the benefit of the doubt.
One other thing. Don't flatter yourself that you can engage me in argument and win. You will need to get up a lot earlier. Kavanaugh knows this, and I don't think you are in his league. He is merely intellectually dishonest, whereas you are like a precocious adolescent who believes he is well informed, but hasn't a clue as to how to manage the information he googles.
Pox
JN
Anonymous said..."So MT is trying to destroy Cardinal Burke..."
Please demonstrate where I said anything false about Cardinal Burke...where I misrepresented his declarations and character.
1. I noted that via controversies that pertained to Pope Benedict XVI's interviews/books, the following declaration from Cardinal Burke is utterly false:
"...previous popes consciously avoided making public their personal acts or opinions precisely to avoid confusing the faithful about what the Pope does and thinks."
==============================================================
2. I noted that Cardinal Burke has contradicted Pope Francis' SSPX-related teachings.
-- Pope Francis teaches that Catholics are free to receive from the SSPX the Holy Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony.
-- However, Cardinal Burke declared the following:
The SSPX "is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff."
"And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X."
============================================================================
Anonymous, again, please demonstrate as to how I "destroyed" Cardinal Burke?
Did I invent the above declarations uttered by Cardinal Burke?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous said..."So MT is trying to destroy Cardinal Burke while defending Francis who said He’ll doesn’t exist and also denied the immortality of the soul."
His Holiness Pope Francis has on several public occasions declared that hell exists.
Please cite Pope Francis' official denials of hell and the immortality of soul. I have been unable to locate said citations.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
“Please cite Pope Francis’official denials of Hell...” here we go again.
Amoris Laetitia paragraph 297 states: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” Really? Those in Hell are condemned forever and Francis has no authority to change it.
To be fair to Pope Francis, although what his 93 old friend expressed is heterodox, the fact that a soul is annihilated forever and this consists of hell, is not a denial of hell, but a heterodox view of it and that the immortal soul created in the image and likeness of God, and eternal because of that, can be done away with by God. Certainly He can do that but has revealed that our soul is immortal and will find its end according to our personal judgement, which He alone (not us) decides.
Has anyone noticed that MT has signally failed to engage me in argument? The reason that Kavanaugh prefers to post anonymously or pseudonymously is because he knows that he will lose the argument.
MT, stop hiding behind hyperlinks and start arguing as an adult.
John Nolan,
Good luck with that. I envision that MT is a lonely little soul, with no deep or systemic knowledge of any aspect of the Faith, and merely comes here because he (or she) craves attention. I will no longer respond to MT. Kavanaugh is a piece of work - fortunately his kind will blessedly no longer be a force in the Church. The younger clergy is focused on the Catholic Faith, not social work and liberal politics masquerading as religion. Cheers!
Arguments aren't won or lost because they are attached to a name.
What a silly, silly thought.
Post a Comment