Friday, April 06, 2018

Cardinal Burke stirring things up.

The Cardinal has had opportunities to speak directly
to the Pope and hasn't.  He gives interviews
and addresses conferences instead.

The Cardinal.

He says he supports the Pope and then turns around suggesting His Holiness is an apostate.

He's kind of a trouble maker I think.  Protests too much, maybe?  What?

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.” - Edward Pentin

Actually, I think Burke, Pentin, NCRegister and EWTN are the ones to blame for increasing the confusion.

We've only just got over Lent, and here you all are ...


  1. “Actually, I think Burke, Pentin, NCRegister and EWTN are the ones to blame for increasing the confusion.”

    AMEN. Spot on... you know that EWTN and National Catholic Register all owned by the same entity, correct?

    1. Well, when you try to make sense out of the disaster that the Holy Father has made, it's bound to be difficult. How do you talk sense to nonsense?

  2. I like Opus Dei all the more because of this:

    NEW YORK - In a letter to the New York Times, the U.S. vicar of Opus Dei said that the personal prelature has no conflict with Pope Francis, but supports him and is united with his mission.

    “From my perspective, I don’t see that there’s any conflict with the Holy Father. Love for the Holy Father is part of our DNA. We pray for him every day. We learn from him,” Msgr. Thomas Bohlin told CNA April 5.

    He quoted Opus Dei’s founder, St. Josemaria Escriva, who used to say that Opus Dei had three great loves in the Church: “Christ, Mary, and the pope.”

    In his comments to CNA, Bohlin said he felt compelled to write the letter because “we wanted to make sure that people know that we support the pope, we pray for the pope. He needs our prayer, he needs to feel that support.”

    I am going to do my best to stay away from the critics who do not seem to promote any type of prayer or charity for our Holy Father (at least not from any of the articles I've read) in fact, not for many years now.

    Where is it? Did charity and giving one the benefit of doubt get tossed out the window too, at least in some Catholic circles?

  3. I don't think this is a fair post. When did Cardinal Burke suggest that the Pope was an apostate?

    Additionally, we know that Cardinal Burke HAS brought his concerns to the Pope. I'm sure he has done so even more than we know.

    Also, the blame for the confusion is misplaced. To recap...

    1. A reporter reports that Pope Francis says that souls who die in a state of mortal sin don't go to hell, but rather are destroyed at the point of death. (A heretical position)
    2. The Vatican, rather than denying this report or correcting the record, simply states that the quote isn't an exact quote. Given the circumstances, this is a pathetic response. No wonder people are concerned.

    How is the confusion which comes about as a result of this the fault of Cardinal Burke, EWTN, or NCR?

    Do I think Pope Francis actually said this to Scalfari? No, I do not. The initial report doesn't concern me because I doubt that Pope Francis actually said that. The silent response from the Vatican is what concerns me.

    1. Absolutely, Carolus. As much as I respect Terry and his opinions, I am forced to disagree with him here. I really do sense here, not only with Terry but with many of those who comment here, this ultramontanism that infects the Church.

      I have the greatest respect for the Papal office, and the man who holds that office is due some of that respect by the very nature of holding it. However, for example, I vehemently disagree with those who state that the Holy Spirit chose the pope - that's a denial of free will that itself could be a heresy.

      I agree that much of the discussion surrounding the pope has been crude and uncharitable. However, I think it comes from both sides - the pope certainly could not be more insulting than he has been when talking about people with whom he disagrees. I think that oftentimes he has gone out of his way to provoke, and what can you say about the state of things when the words of the Holy Father become a near cause of sin because of their ability to provoke?

      I refuse to go along with the idea that the pope is an anti-pope, or illegitimate. That's way above my pay grade, and there's nothing to be gained from engaging in that discussion. The current occupant of the Throne of St. Peter is the pope, whether or not we like it. But does this mean that we are not allowed to engage in conversation regarding what he says or is alleged to have said? Sometimes I get the feeling from people here that you can't question him at all; it reminds me of Waugh in "Brideshead Revisited" when the young man is asked what he would say if the pope said it were raining when it wasn't: "I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it." Is that how Terry feels about it all?

      Eventually, if Terry insists on listing the names of those guilty of, as he puts it, causing confusion, he's going to run out of room. He'll wind up naming cardinals, bishops, priests, columnists, bloggers, authors - alas, I'll probably see my own name added to the list after this comment. Eventually, it might be easier to name those who aren't causing confusion. The only name I see missing from the list, ironically, is that of the pope.

      By the way, the only area in which you and I may differ is over the accuracy of Scalfari's comments. I think that the pope probably did say something along those lines, because it's consistent with his mode of operation in other areas - refusing to be clear in his statements, using others as his surrogates, promoting theologians of questionable orthodoxy.

      And yet, through all this, I would never accuse Terry of heresy, or of heterodoxy, or of splitting the Church. It's because I know and like him and know that we can disagree in good faith. He'll probably never read my book "The Collaborator" because he may not like what I have to say in it, but I can't blame him for that.

      Ultimately, my greatest concern is for the future - those who have yet to be born, those who are struggling to hold on to their faith, those who have not yet started on that journey, those who continue to ask questions in search of answers. As the Good Thief said, we indeed are guilty of our crimes - if Pope Francis is the Pope of our chastisement, then it is because we have deserved it through our sins, our indifference, our quarrels, our refusal to follow the words of God, our desire to be our own gods. Yes, we deserve what we are going through, but those who have yet to come to Christ - they do not deserve this. They don't deserve a Church that is being divided from the very top, that refuses to offer clear and authoritative teaching, that offers cheap grace and cheap mercy. They deserve the truth and beauty of the Church which Christ Himself left for us. In short, they deserve better than us, and for our faults we must hope that God is merciful indeed.


    I just read this over at CNA. A healthy discussion is hoped for where fairness and benefit of doubt and charity, I hope, will prevail and not innuendo or double speak as to "just what our Holy Father is up to."

    I read that SM plans to attend ... it is well known what he thinks of our Holy Father.

  5. I visited Canterbury Cathedral today. I reflected on the turmoil in the English Church over the past centuries. The building is beautiful and filled with history. Still I felt something lacking as I always do when visiting a Protestant church. No tabernacle light, no real presence. This is what a break with the Pope produces. The art, architecture, beauty and history are not enough. There is something lacking. I feel it deep in my bones. Am I wrong?

    1. Wallace, you experienced the Real Absence.

  6. Wallace Hamilton - I read your comment with interest and great sympathy. I, too, like to visit old churches, Catholic or not. I always go away with the same feeling with the Protestant churches. They may be very beautiful, and their members may love the Lord, but they do not have Jesus, living and real, in the presence of the Holy Eucharist. Even the most bare Catholic church is more beautiful because Jesus lives there.

    BTW, if I am not mistaken, Canterbury Cathedral was built as a glorious Catholic cathedral. It was unlawfully and violently seized and appropriated by the English during the Reformation, as were so many other Catholic churches in the British Isles and Europe. Perhaps that is the emptiness you felt - that beautiful cathedral grieving and bereft without the presence of Jesus and the Sacraments of the Church.

    God bless and protect you, brother - Susan, ofs


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.