"Are we prepared to promote conditions in which the living contact with God can be reestablished? For our lives today have become godless to the point of complete vacuity. God is no longer with us in the conscious sense of the word. He is denied, ignored, excluded from every claim to have a part in our daily life." - Alfred Delp, S.J.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Before he is made Anti-Pope, Cardinal Burke should maybe make an attempt to rein in his followers and promoters.



I love Cardinal Burke - as do many Catholics - but there is a vocal contingent among his most devoted admirers who play him against other bishops and cardinals, and even in some cases, against the Pope.  I was a bit startled by something I read at another blog, asking:
Who will you follow: the Wuerl-Cupich axis, or the Augustine-Aquinas-Leo-John Paul II-Burke alliance?*
Sometimes it seems to me these people are like Christian fundamentalist politicians who want to try and hasten the Second Coming by expanding the wars in the Middle East.  In this case, they seem to be attempting to realize the message of Our Lady at Akita:
The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops.
While that may be happening on some level, extremely vicious attacks are being made regularly upon the Holy Father and the hierarchy - by Catholics who insist they are devout.  Creative Minority Report and 1Peter5 as well as Rorate Caeli are extremely divisive and very nearly schismatic in tone.  Pat Archbold featuring Ann Barnhardt comes very close to schismatic, pretty much condemning the Ordinary Form of Mass.



Cardinal Burke will be in Minneapolis this fall and is scheduled to celebrate a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form in September at the Basilica of St. Mary.  He is will be here for the
Annual Meeting and Investiture Weekend, of the Northern Lieutenancy of the United States Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.  Perhaps someone could approach him there and request that he intervene?

*I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - I Corinthians 1:12

If someone offers you membership status - just say no.  Despise honors and capes.  What?

Just remember:

"This is the one whom I approve: the lowly and afflicted man who trembles at my word." - Isaiah 66: 2

47 comments:

  1. Well thought-out as always, Terry. My first reaction was that, with all due respect, this is a fight the Pontiff himself has picked, through his many inflammatory and confusing comments. However, it's true that some of his critics launched their attacks the moment his name was read from the balcony, before he'd even had a chance to step out. I confess I was dismayed hearing his name, based on what I'd read about him before.

    Yes, comments from some (many?) bloggers are beyond inflammatory, beyond even disrespectful. As you know, I am no fan of this Pontiff. I share most of the apprehensions critics have of him. I have all I can do to avoid total and complete contempt. I think he's a divisive figure when the Church can least afford such division - he's not bringing people together but driving them apart. But in order to have such concerns taken seriously and respectfully, it's necessary to express them forthrightly, without hyperbole and breathless certitude. This is often missing in the remarks of the Pope's critics.

    On the other hand, as someone who welcomes a spirited debate, I admit it is quite frustrating to attempt engaging the Pope's supporters (whom I do consider, by and large, as Ultramontanists) in discussing this. Whereas much of the vitriol of the "traditionalist" voice comes from the fringe blogs, the vitriol from the "other side" (term used for the sake of brevity) comes from what might be considered "mainstream" Catholic blogs such as Patheos, and is every bit as degrading and hyperbolic as that coming from the trads. It is, I think, the unwillingness of the mainstream bloggers to engage in productive, if spirited, dialogue that leads to the frustration and, ultimately, intemperate remarks made by those (e.g. Pat Archbold) who are not schismatic. Look at how many domestic disputes result from the refusal of one spouse to engage the other in discussion: the more apathetic one appears, the more insistent and strident the other becomes. If the Church is all one family, don't you think this analogy applies?

    None of us know what's really going on in Rome, as disreputable and political a place as exists on earth. We can't rule out the possibility there is indeed a latent schism forming in the Magisterium. Even of half of "Windswept House" is beyond the pale (and, by the way, I think it was quite a bit more credible than that), one still has to allow for the fact. We don't want to position one Cardinal against another, one faction against the Pope; nevertheless, this perception may already be reality.

    I think the die has been cast; the fracture within the Church has been present for many decades, and this simply brings it out in the open. Given the diametrically opposing viewpoints of the two sides, I don’t think it can be healed. Eventually there will be a schism, whether formal or informal I don't know, nor do I know the eventual shape such a split would take. I said earlier that the Pope is driving people apart; perhaps that's part of God's plan. Even Caiaphas had a role to play. But, with the stakes this high, I think Cardinal Burke has far better things to do than to chastise a group of supporters that, as you've said of all Catholic bloggers, make up an infinitesimal (if influential) number of Catholics. Even were he inclined to do so, I doubt it would do much good, as I doubt it would do much good for the Pontiff to reign in his supporters.

    I'm secure enough in my own faith not to worry, although I do feel for those who may never receive the faith because of the bleached-out Catholicism this Pontiff preaches. I'm just fascinated to see how it all turns out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mitchell - No doubt the Holy Father invites criticism - but the sites I refer to are way over the top - two of them think Ann Barnhardt is something of a prophetess - she reminds me of the false mystic from Wolf Hall.

      It's too crazy to take seriously - and like all heresy and false prophets - it just sounds so sensible to people already on edge.

      Delete
  2. "Annual Meeting and Investiture Weekend, of the Northern Lieutenancy of the United States Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. Perhaps someone could approach him there and request that he intervene?"

    ...Yes! I hope he does intervene! That name is a monster. Seriously. That's like what Monty Python would have come up with for a skit mocking a Catholic group.

    I wonder where people get the idea that Catholicism is no longer culturally relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have come to be suspicious of hierarchy who relish the pomp and circumstance, frilly vestments and antiquated titles of the monarchical church. Vanity of vanities is this not the greatest vanity of all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you'd have to read someone's soul to know that using a particular vestment called for in the ancient liturgy is motivated by vanity. So, was every Cardinal before Vatican II vain because they wore the cappa magna? Besides, when it is removed it's a symbol of shedding the worldly. Vanity? I think not.

      Delete
    2. I consider it a legitimate patrimony of the Church - nothing wrong with it - it is part of the traditional liturgical rites and vesture. - it has its place. The problem arises when Catholics promote or prefer one form to the other and claim that one is holy and one is profane - that is wrong and needs to be corrected. That is not to say there are not and haven't been ridiculous innovations and abuses introduced, but all the men ordained in this diocese are trained in the proper way to celebrate the ordinary form, while some also learn the extraordinary form.

      Cardinal Burke is fine - his fans have issues.

      Delete
    3. It's unfortunate that our modern culture has caused so many to take this view of beauty.

      Remember, one of the purposes of priestly vestments are not to elevate the priest as an individual, but rather to mask his individualism -- to remind us that the priest is exercising his ministries not by his own power, but through the power of the person of Christ.

      Likewise, all beauty -- whether in vestments, Church art, Church architecture, etc. -- is a taste of heaven. By attempting to reflect heaven as best we can in our Churches, we humble ourselves. Beauty in regards to liturgical matters is not about vanity, but about directing our attention upwards to what we could never hope to attain by our own power, therefore motivating us to humble ourselves before Almighty God.

      "Be you humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in the time of visitation" - 1 Peter 5:6

      Delete
  5. @wallacehamilton. You don't know that any of them do it out of vanity. The Church has it's traditions which were never obliterated by Vatican II, no matter how badly some people wanted it to be true. Your lack of appreciation for formal ecclesiastical vestments and titles in no way means that it is vain for people to use them.

    We all claim to be Catholic and should just stop with this pettiness and follow Christ without insulting any of His priests.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was going to fetch that Scripture verse but you beat me to it Terry - the one mentioning of Apollos.

    My guess is that Cardinal Burke has no idea his name is being used. He is a humble man and one I doubt would approve of some things we see. I recall when he withdrew from a conference after the flyer came to his attention with something that was on the strident side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is such an obvious link isn't it - the Corinthians citation?

      I hope Cardinal Burke will confront this stuff - one blogger I cite in the post actually wrote to the Cardinal at some point - regarding a separate question - the Cardinal responded - so I;m sincere in hoping he will address the nuttiness online at some point and calm the concerns these folks have.

      Delete
    2. I do not know/follow Cardinal Burke well enough but will give him, like I do our Holy Father, the benefit of doubt especially if he's clueless to all that goes on in the inflammatory blogosphere - left or right. The folks in the center are too busy praying, feeding the poor, dressing their wounds and burying the dead and visiting prisoners to go online and argue.

      They are as I hope, praying for us too...we all need it especially those who think themselves better Catholics than us average Joes who support and admire Papa Francis.

      I decided today after visiting a few blogs who in my humble opinion lack charity based on their rancor and disrespectful comments towards the Vicar of Christ that I am done trying to engage these folks. Their minds are already made up and they will not see reason nor budge when it comes to our Holy Father. "I am wrong and they are right" and they say they are a "better Catholic than me." Wow!

      I ain't gonna budge either because I cannot relate nor understand the rancor, the vile, the lack of charity and outright scandalous attitudes towards our Holy Father.

      I too hope if Cardinal Burke is aware of the discord among his followers that he like the good shepherd that he is said to be, well, I hope he will speak in truth, in love, and in charity as a faithful son of the Church, in union with the Vicar of Christ, to ask for consideration and respect as is due the office of Peter.

      I am praying.

      Too much is happening in the world to get worked up over people's dislike of Papa Panchito. I am more concerned with what is happening to our beloved Little Sisters of the Poor.

      Delete
  8. @Joshua: you may sneer, but the Equestrian Order provides a lot of charitable support for Palestinian Christians, their schools, and Christian sites in the Holy Land. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not provide a lot of charitable support for Palestinian Christians. I also do not have an absurdly archaic name, which is what I was poking fun at. Did you actually misread my comment to think I was criticizing the work they do?

      Delete
    2. Joshua - I didn't think you were critical at all.

      My big fault is that I like to make fun of capes. I'm not sure why I think they are so funny.

      That said - of course the order does wonderful works and many good people are members - and lots of them are very proud of their membership, very proud.

      I'm not attracted to such things.

      Delete
    3. Terry--in case there was confusion, my question about misreading my comment was for thomas tucker, not you.

      I come from a family of Shriners. This group seems like a super-classy version of Shriners. Both are fraternal orders that combine great charitable works with a members-only social club that allows for a chance to network with like-minded (and like-walleted) people and indulge in a little pomp in an all-to-often blase world.

      Delete
    4. I knew that. It's funny you mentioned the Shriners - I was going to as well - they build great hospitals for kids, among other things.

      Great charitable works with members only exclusivity - yep.

      Delete
    5. Of course its archaic- the name goes back to the Middle Ages. It's not quite as archaic as Joshua, though, so that's somewhat of an irony.

      Delete
    6. @thomas - Here, this might help: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaic

      Thomas, I'm sure your club does good works. The Church is full of different tracks/approaches/foci/spiritualities, etc. That's all well and good. I just find tracks where a qualifying attribute is wealth to be distasteful. Not wrong or sinful. Just distasteful.

      Delete
    7. @Joshua: since this track involves financially supporting Palestinian Christians, it requires money to give to them. Pretty simple, really, and strange that you find that distasteful, unless what really bothers you is that some people have more wealth than you do. If that is so, I suggest that you examine your own conscience. But we've come far afield from your sneering at the name.

      Delete
    8. @thomas - I am jealous of some things. Others' wealth is not one of them. However, your advice is still sound. I will examine my conscience. Thanks for the exchange.

      Delete
  9. This helps....you can of course differ from the powers that be but, heaven forbid, don't actually say it too loud or share it on a blog. They must be silenced by the enlightened. Bring out the guillotine. Off with their heads after a 'fair trial' of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha! I'm not sure fair trials are possible online.

      Delete
  10. Like it or not the formal dress of Cardinals is more political then liturgitical. It is a vestige of the imperial papacy. What next? Bring out the tiara? Please. There is a simple test for authenticity. WWJD? I doubt he would go anywhere near these costumes. They belong in museums as reminders of a church very much out of touch with the gospel message and yes, I will say it again, vain!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not a great admirer of the vesture - just pointing out it has a place of honor and many find it meaningful - removing the cappa and vesting at the altar and all signifies the trampling underfoot of vanity and worldliness and all of that - the whole nine yards .... I know you know that, though and I understand your comment.





      Delete
    2. So they put on a symbol of vanity and worldliness so they can make a symbol of taking it off. Really? That's the reasoning? Yo no comprendo.

      If I had a lot of extra money, I could go on lavish vacations, drive a new Mercedes, drink very expensive wine--all while still giving my 10% to the Church of course--and then give it all up, thus making all of it an exercise in virtue because I shed it? Is that how the thinking goes? I mean, if the symbol is good, why not the reality?

      Delete
    3. It's a little weird, isn't it. Not a question.

      I'm a really simple guy - I used to love it in the monastery on Mondays - very quiet Mass, no signing, no fluff. With the extraordinary form, I prefer a low Mass.

      Delete
    4. No singing - Trappist still do some signing though. :)

      Delete
  11. "This is the one whom I approve: the lowly and afflicted man who trembles at my word." - Isaiah 66: 2

    Somehow, this does not quite sound like "Pope Francis"/Bergoglio.

    Have you tried to take a look at rival claimants, like Pope Michael?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hans, Pope Francis is the pope. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has favoured desecration of Hosts by persistent hand communion, though in "his own archdiocese" a Eucharistic miracle happened due to hand communion leading to sacrilege by negligence.

      Favoured this again (as "Pope") when six million were at a Mass - and one Communion Distributer, a girl named Cristina - died, along hosts that had been trodden into the mud.

      He also (back then) pronounced himself against validity most marriages due to "immaturity".

      AND he "canonised" a Koran kisser and Tilak taker and a Vatican Council Convoker as well.

      AND there is ascii code gematria:

      B 66 60 6
      E 69 120 15
      R 82 200 17
      G 71 270 18 ( !)
      O 79 340 27
      G 71 410 28
      L 76 480 34
      I 73 550 37 (!)
      O 79 620 46 / 620+46=666 (=18*37 !)

      I copied the one count where I had counted tens and units separately, so as to get a most secure sum. Whole discussion, see link.

      Delete
    2. Not saying the other (real) Vatican Council Convoker couldn't be validly canonised, not saying he could, but at least he could not be canonised counting the council as one of his miracles.

      A man who can count Vatican II as a miracle is not my idea of a Catholic.

      Delete
  13. Well, in fairness to Creative Minority Report, I think they've only gone half-crazy. Matt Archbold still appears to have his head screwed on straight. However, it seems that the cheese has slipped off of Patrick's cracker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Never heard that expression - totally love it.

      Delete
  14. My wife has had a couple of interactions with Cardinal Burke and has repeatedly remarked how soft-spoken, humble, and kind he is. I hear the same over and over from priest and lay friends of mine. I think he is a remarkable man. As for the "pomp" he has stated that such things "have meaning" and he does not wear them at every Mass, nor are all of his Masses ones that include a cappa.

    And if you like simple Masses with no pomp, I suggest you view the following video of Cardinal Burke at the Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma. I do not hesitate to suggest that so-called "simple" churches full of guitars, drum sets, amplifiers, microphones, speakers, video projectors, and new-agey-architecture cost FAR MORE than what you are about to see. I submit this to wallacehamilton in particular:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcOTkbhlEIg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I'll be - Jericho you are married?!

      This is why anonymous and pseudonymous commenters are so frustrating - I was sure you were someone else.

      Anyway - some of my friends know the cardinal as well - he is very humble and charitable - he is a very kind man. I'm sure he feels these criticisms lodged against him as deeply as the Holy Father must experience those lodged against him.

      Delete
    2. Jericho, I did watch the Mass you pointed out to me. Tank you. I am more then a little familiar with this form having been an altar boy from grade 4 to 12 in the 1950's and 60's. I must say I was quite good at it too. It is lovley in a historical context but not what I prefer as a meaning worship for me today. For those who miss it I say go for it. The SSPX has perfected it and they have their people everywhere. I think you may have missed my original point which was about the non liturgical wearing of very fussy ornate garments that belong more in the Middle Ages then the 21st. I have plenty personal experience with religious men and woman and the most holy have the simplist garments. That said, I do not begrudge anyone the option of worshiping under the old rubrics. Go for it. I have been there and, although it has its beauty it can have a mindset that masks the gospel in royal and authoritian wrappings. Peace to you Jericho, your wife, Cardinal Burke and all other traditionalists who want to go back in time.. We soon enough find out what God thinks of our efforts to live the gospel faithfully.

      Delete
  15. Replies
    1. I do what I can Poodle.

      Delete
    2. What does the expression even mean?

      Delete
    3. It's meant to infer the blogger uses catchwords, popular news items, or controversial names/issues to increase Internet hits to his site - increase traffic - increase stats or number of views. The term escapes me at the moment. It's a marketing ploy to increase ratings. This is useful only for people who earn money from their blog or website or who have advertisers who give them a percentages - people with Donate apps also depend on traffic to their blog.

      Like I said it's a marketing strategy, or a way to be picked up. Spiders pick up populat terms, names, political issues, and so on. Cardinal Burke draws a lot, as does anything with Medjugorje or something negative about Pope Francis. The more controversial, the more likely news portals will pick you up and stats go through the roof.

      Bloggers who are listed by New Advent or join a web magazine like Patheos and have their daily posts indexed benefit from that exposure - when the post title includes a hot topic - stats shoot up even more.

      Delete
    4. Click-bait was the word I was searching for. Bloggers and news stories us it to attract traffic to their site.

      Delete
  16. That definition would stamp me as one.

    I happen to have indirect interest, in hoping for blog to book arrangements.

    Here are my conditions, and the more readers I get, the likelier someone is to make such a decision.

    Partly because his own click might be the extra one, partly because if he or she hesitates, some knowledge of my many clicks may give some encouragement about publishing. Or, rather, republishing, since I am already publishing the texts on internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is really nothing wrong with that or any technique to increase readership - for added income or not. It's just a way to guilt people - stir things up, as it were. People online are very sensitive. Most people have figured out by now I simply like to push buttons, and they're bored with that.

      Writers write, thinkers think, bloggers post. ;)

      Delete
    2. I have just added a sudoku as click-bait (with solution on other blog previously not very used).

      I agree there is nothing wrong in adding click-bait, as long as one is not spreading lies or detraction to do so, but you were not the guy who used the expression "stats whore".

      I mean, if the guy is envious of stats you can get, why not try to make a good blog earning good stats himself?

      Delete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.