Cardinal Burke - T. Nelson
I just think he's kind of a ...
I'm talking about Cardinal Burke. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in his apostolate of bringing back the Extraordinary Form of Mass, and all of the accoutrements which accompany it, he bolsters a strange resistance movement to the Pope and Post-Conciliar Church. (I'm against classifying the Church as post conciliar, but I use the term as a convenience here.)
I don't really think the Cardinal is a ditz, yet he is always and apparently everywhere dressed as a Medieval prelate, making the rounds, blessing and celebrating 'at the Throne'. It's a wonderful patrimony we Catholics have, and we treasure it, and Pope Benedict opened the treasury to all Catholics, in the hope it would enrich the Church's Ordinary Form. The problems arose before that, but escalated after Summorum Pontificum, used by some to force a counter reformation and as a means to denigrate the OF Mass. Many claiming one is more sacred than the other, and God is more pleased with the EF than the OF - while insisting the increase of vocations is proof of that.
Cappa Magna Americano - T. Nelson
That's the tip of iceberg, as it were.
As Cardinal Burke travels about, his appearances seem to emphasize the differences, which are used to disparage the Ordinary Form. Maybe he doesn't actually say that - but the impression is given, and the EF contingent play it that way. So my point is, you can't say the 'new' Mass is a bad Mass, and you can't say Vatican II was a bad council - but that is exactly what 'they' are saying.
Cardinal Burke maybe doesn't say it outright - but he does imply it, repeating all the usual points as to what was wrong in the interpretation of the 'spirit of the council', along with pointing out all the liturgical abuses, which developed along the way. That's not a bad thing, BTW - that is exactly how the Council bears fruit, and it is his job, so to speak.
That said, what is hard for me with Cardinal Burke, is not that he leads the devout who love the Traditional Liturgy, but the fact he is used by many to represent a rad-trad element which existed since Vatican II. Included among the movement, many are also deeply influenced by a hardcore, right-wing political element. Yes, the Cardinal has disassociated himself from Bannon, but there are plenty of his ilk in the mix.
Cardinal Burke also seems to accept the notion that the requests made by Our Lady of Fatima weren't properly implemented, the Consecration of Russia done negligently, and so on. This echoes Fr. Gruner and those I refer to as Fatimists. He seems to believe and is apprehensive that the fulfillment of other mystical dooms-day prophecies, especially as they apply to the crisis in the Church and Her liturgy, are enacted now. What I'm saying is, he strikes me as one deeply influenced by the far-right, conspiracy theories, and dubious revelations and prophecies, which have been used to discredit the popes and magisterium. Many of these prophecies were linked to fake apparition sites in the late 1960' -'70's, such as Necedah and Bayside. They are all reformulated and repeated today in sensationalized books such as Taylor Marshall's 'Infiltration'. Again - Burke doesn't officially, explicitly make clear statements to the fact, but one picks it up when his online followers and fans write articles or agree with him in com-boxes on social media sites.
Blognic in an Egg - T. Nelson
Don't mention the cappa, I did, but I think I got away with it.
So, this is kind of a can of worms and I'm simply trying to clarify what I meant in another post referencing the Cardinal. To be fair, in his interview with Patrick Coffin, Burke didn't actually call into question the election of Pope Francis, he simply discussed the issue in his response to questions in the interview. The interview touched on points others have used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Pope Francis, e.g. the St. Gallen mafia conspiracy, as well as the infiltration theories contained in Taylor Marshall's book. The upshot being Burke concluded there's no way to prove this stuff without a corroborating eye witness. Yet right there is how he feeds those who ardently believe these theories are fact. Rod Dreher just wrote an article about stuff like that.
Yeah but - and many will defend him and support him, despite the fact his evident pearl-clutching exacerbates the suspicions and doubts of ordinary Catholics, who, despite the sexual abuse cover-up crisis, have all they can do to have the proper respect due to the office of bishop. I might remind readers that Burke once gave permission for a transgender woman to live as a nun. When reported to Rome, he expressed his displeasure towards the Catholic woman who reported him. So he knows the good, bad and ugly of religious intrigue and back-biting involved in the infiltration paranoia. He's maybe sought to protect his reputation more often than we know.
Finally, the amazing thing to me is how Cardinal Burke's supporters, followers-fans, become so defensive if anyone criticizes him, yet they willing and eagerly pick apart the Franciscan papacy, and make the most audacious claims against the Holy Father and his curia. To date, I've heard these people claim Francis is nuts, possessed, the Antichrist, or an anti-pope, and so on. Faithful Catholics say that crap publicly. Cardinal Burke doesn't help dispel such nonsense - especially when he seems to be discussing it seriously in pod casts and at banquets.
Otherwise, I really like Cardinal Burke. What?
My opinion doesn't matter.
