Burke says he’s not a foe of Francis, but ‘confusion’ needs an answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This controversy, regardless of your views of Cardinal Burke or Pope Francis, makes one think of Pope Benedict. During his pontificate he worked with many cardinals and bishops who had wildly different views on many things. Somehow he brought all of them to the same table, utilized their strengths in the ministry of the Church, toned down their Left and Right extremes, limited their tantrums and tangents, and made them cooperate to some extent with each other. Attacks on each other were far fewer.

No doubt there was a lot of yelling, in person or on paper or email, among the various factions. But these battles must have taken place behind closed doors, until some kind of workable compromise emerged. They did not play out in the media, to the delight of the Church’s enemies and consternation of the confused laity.

The benefit of Benedict is visible in hindsight, as we now see what happens without him, and the same liberal/conservative, and other types of divisions play out, with the same exact players he worked with. In Benedict’s time, national conferences of bishops were not opposing each other, in the media of course. “Friends of the Pope” were fewer and had far less media power. Pope Benedict’s legacy will be that of The Unifier.
 
Last edited:
Then may I suggest the Vatican start responding to this. What is happening right now is inexcusable.
 
Do find that your boss often “explains himself” to you? I’ve not encountered that I. The Church. We tend to say “yes Father”. I guess Cardinals get alot more opportunity to challenge.
 
SuperLuigi said:
hen may I suggest the Vatican start responding to this. What is happening right now is inexcusable.
Click to expand...
Well, for those who don’t work in the Vatican, which is myself and maybe others, the immediate response is prayer. Fasting would help also.
 
I think we need to do more than that, especially today.

If Catholics don’t start to get with the program and can’t even get their communication down, we’ll continue to cede ground to anti-Catholic forces.

And if you thought so-called gay marriage popping up all over was a “surprised”, just wait…
 
I’ve found that when leaders don’t explain their decision outside of military command structures, it can be hazardous for morale.

Simply saying “I’m the Dad” doesn’t work well at all anymore.
 
I don’t mind Cardinal Burke. He promotes the Holy Face chaplet, which is cool. The dubia is an establisted mechanism for cardinals, who may be thought of as corporate VP’s with the Pope as President, to ask for clarification from their leader. The “filial correction” memo is much more bothersome.
 
Yes, the days of “obey and do not question” are long over. The Church has long since moved away from that. Otherwise this whole website and the whole realm of apologetics would not exist if the preeminent mentality was “shut up and don’t ask questions”. Pope Francis was the one who said he wanted to “make a mess” and “encourage dialogue”. Well…be careful what you wish for.
 
There’s nothing wrong with correction. I’ve been corrected even on here before. That’s the WHOLE point to dialogue.
 
SuperLuigi said:
There’s nothing wrong with correction. I’ve been corrected even on here before. That’s the WHOLE point to dialogue.
Click to expand...
In the Age of the Internet, “correction” takes on a new meaning. Under St JP II competitive websites sprang up, telling Catholics some priests are teaching false doctrine, and WE WILL NAME NAMES. Then later their competition said it is not just the false parishes but even dioceses. Then when their donations and “hits” went down, they had to meet the competition, “We will name bishops!”

That used to attract the outraged. But then the outraged started going over to other websites that screamed “the problem is not just the bishop, it is the Vatican!” OK, but now lots of websites blame the Vatican, so people had to name the Pope himself as the problem. But if your competition blames the pope in general, you have to declare him Heretic. They have not labelled him Anti Christ, but they will go as close to that as they can.

Keep in mind lots of websites had gone pretty far in that direction under prior popes, not just Pope Francis. No matter who gets elected next pope, even if it is Cardinal Burke, they won’t turn off the machine. The websites have bills to pay, they need the internet hits. At first they will blame “the men around the pope” as evil, lurking in the Vatican shadows. But eventually they will have to attack the pope himself, whoever it is.

In my diocese an unauthorized chapel started in the 1970s, when we had a very liberal bishop and no Latin Mass. They “corrected” the liberal diocese. A few bishops later, the diocese is very different, we have 2 TLMs, but the chapel is still in the “correction” mode. Even if the next bishop is Bishop Schneider, I predict they will always be in the “correction” mode. It is the only mode they have.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The benefit of Benedict is visible in hindsight, as we now see what happens without him, and the same liberal/conservative, and other types of divisions play out, with the same exact players he worked with. In Benedict’s time, national conferences of bishops were not opposing each other, in the media of course. “Friends of the Pope” were fewer and had far less media power. Pope Benedict’s legacy will be that of The Unifier.
Click to expand...
Great points. Pope Benedict was a great Sovereign Pontiff. I don’t think many would disagree with my saying that he was one of the most brilliant theologians to sit on the throne of Peter. I was devastated when he abdicated; and nothing will convince me that he wasn’t pressured to resign - I don’t buy the excuse that he was too old.
 
Read his book. If you are a fan,you will.love it.
The Last Testament,.in his own words. It is interview style.
It is lovely to discover our Popes personal traits and stories in books like this.
Or at least,I love that
 
Last edited:
This isn’t about website inaccuracy. We have a sitting Pope in an office that hasn’t been corrected like this in nearly 700 years.

Yes, internet nonsense is a problem with low-quality content. We’ve dealt with questions like that on the Family Life Forum.

But this goes way, way beyond that and is the symptom of a larger problem.
 
SuperLuigi said:
This isn’t about website inaccuracy. We have a sitting Pope in an office that hasn’t been corrected like this in nearly 700 years.

Yes, internet nonsense is a problem with low-quality content. We’ve dealt with questions like that on the Family Life Forum.
Click to expand...
Actually Pope Paul VI was “corrected”, on Humanae Vitae, by a far more prestigious group of theologians than this one. (I don’t agree with them, just saying recent popes were certainly “corrected”). St. JP II and Benedict were of course “corrected” many times by theologians and others on the Left, and occasionally on the Right. We live in the Golden Age of “correction”; always on the Media, of course.

If a genuine correction were to take place (and who knows, there might be something going on now), there would be no press conference, no public release of any correction, no media at all. You would not learn anything about it, until maybe years in the future, certainly long after that pope had died. The weak corrections, like this one, muddy the waters, and make it harder for genuine corrections, if one is needed.
 
Last edited:
No, Paul wasn’t corrected, because nobody could lie in 1968 and claim that Paul was propagating heresy.
 
Vadne said:
No, Paul wasn’t corrected, because nobody could lie in 1968 and claim that Paul was propagating heresy.
Click to expand...
100% TRUE. In 1968 Paul VI REAFFIRMED doctrine despite the fact that the majority wanted him to change. Francis is trying to change doctrine despite the fact that the majority of orthodox Catholics oppose his efforts. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In fact, it’s disingenuous and potentially sinful to mislead people into believing that Paul VI’s situation in 1968 and the situation caused by Francis is similar.
 
Last edited:
Vadne said:
No, Paul wasn’t corrected, because nobody could lie in 1968 and claim that Paul was propagating heresy.
Click to expand...
Actually, lots of people lied in 1968 and claimed Paul was propagating heresy. I don’t agree with those people, just pointing out, they were saying that, and still do. Most actual heretics take some partial, ancient truth, modify it, twist it out of context, and misleadingly apply it to new situations; as the liberals did in 1968. Then they denounce the true teacher, Pope Paul VI, as a supposed innovator. The Left did the same thing to St. JP II and Pope Benedict.
 
commenter said:
A few bishops later, the diocese is very different, we have 2 TLMs, but the chapel is still in the “correction” mode. Even if the next bishop is Bishop Schneider, I predict they will always be in the “correction” mode. It is the only mode they have.
Click to expand...
I like this analysis, but only because I agree with it. I call it “remnant mentality,” a type of counter-culture reaction.
 
Saxum said:
Francis is trying to change doctrine despite the fact that the majority of orthodox Catholics oppose his efforts.
Click to expand...
Wow, two opinions not in evidence in one sentence. And people here wonder why I like the phrase “beggint the question so much.” I get dizzy from all the circular reasoning I read here.

So, do you believe four bishops and a dozen or two priests are the majority of orthodox Catholics?

Surely even the simplest reader can recognize your fallacy that you define orthodoxy by the standard of your own opinion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top