H
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cardinal Burke: ‘Consecration of Russia’ to Our Lady ‘more needed now than ever’
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Emeraldlady
New member
He’s become a political pundit over the years hasn’t he. This article seems to just pay lip service to Scripture and Our Lady of Fatima to give his ideology undeserved cred.
In the article ‘atheistic materialism’ is mentioned 12 as a synonym for Communist Russia and Communist China but Pope St John Paul II was very clear about its manifestation in the greedy Western ideals as well. Covid 19 is also just another hook for this ‘look over there’ rant.
Fr Longenecker wrote a good piece about Pope St JPII’s condemnation of ‘atheistic materialism’ and its manifestation in the West.
Pope St. John Paul II said there were two atheistic materialistic societies: Communist Russia and the Unrestrained Capitalism of America. The philosopher pope asserted this not because he hated America or was against capitalism per se, but because he was against the kind of unrestrained capitalism which is a form of atheistic materialism.
In the article ‘atheistic materialism’ is mentioned 12 as a synonym for Communist Russia and Communist China but Pope St John Paul II was very clear about its manifestation in the greedy Western ideals as well. Covid 19 is also just another hook for this ‘look over there’ rant.
Fr Longenecker wrote a good piece about Pope St JPII’s condemnation of ‘atheistic materialism’ and its manifestation in the West.
Pope St. John Paul II said there were two atheistic materialistic societies: Communist Russia and the Unrestrained Capitalism of America. The philosopher pope asserted this not because he hated America or was against capitalism per se, but because he was against the kind of unrestrained capitalism which is a form of atheistic materialism.
G
Genesis315
Guest
You are certainly correct that western Liberalism (especially the first manifestations of it) and Communism are two sides of the same coin, but the moderated Liberalism that later took hold in the West is a bit different. The latter generally, while still falling well short of conforming to the kingship of Christ and not being acceptable in principle, at least allowed for the freedom of the Church to carry out her mission and to have a voice in the public square. That’s why the Church leading up to and especially at Vatican II abandoned the approach toward Liberalism exemplified especially by the papacies of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Pius X and took a more positive and cooperative approach. This is explicitly why Joseph Ratzinger famously called Gaudium et Spes a “counter syllabus” (ie Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors represented an oppositional stance toward Liberalism, whereas Vatican II’s text, along with the decree on religious liberty, represented a more open, cooperative approach).
On the other hand, communism, as exemplified by the current regime in China, does not grant the Church this freedom and voice. There, the state directly controls and suppresses the Church. It seemed to me Cardinal Burke was warning about this kind of enforced materialistic atheism seeping back into Western Liberalism, whereas the state denies the Church her rights of self-governance and considers man’s spiritual concerns “non-essential.”
I think the state can impose limits if the common good requires (cf. CCC 2109), but it must take into account man’s temporal and spiritual needs (cf. CCC 1925 and 2244). There is definitely a danger that even moderated Liberalism will not do this, which is why it is important for bishops to advocate for the fullest liberty for the Church possible under such circumstances. As Cardinal Burke says, they should be the ones making informed decisions. In many places Church and State have been on the same page, but in some places they have not. It ultimately belongs to the Church and not the state to decide how and when we administer our sacraments and conduct our worship. Ideally, this is worked out between the two in harmony (and thankfully, it many places it has been it seems).
On the other hand, communism, as exemplified by the current regime in China, does not grant the Church this freedom and voice. There, the state directly controls and suppresses the Church. It seemed to me Cardinal Burke was warning about this kind of enforced materialistic atheism seeping back into Western Liberalism, whereas the state denies the Church her rights of self-governance and considers man’s spiritual concerns “non-essential.”
I think the state can impose limits if the common good requires (cf. CCC 2109), but it must take into account man’s temporal and spiritual needs (cf. CCC 1925 and 2244). There is definitely a danger that even moderated Liberalism will not do this, which is why it is important for bishops to advocate for the fullest liberty for the Church possible under such circumstances. As Cardinal Burke says, they should be the ones making informed decisions. In many places Church and State have been on the same page, but in some places they have not. It ultimately belongs to the Church and not the state to decide how and when we administer our sacraments and conduct our worship. Ideally, this is worked out between the two in harmony (and thankfully, it many places it has been it seems).
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
It’s so far fetched to use the current State restrictions on public gatherings as rising to the level of the infiltration of Communist idealogy. Cdl Burke likewise seems be turning this very life affirming global policy into an anti Church attack. Everyday it becomes more evident that countries that didn’t do that like Sweden, are acknowledging that was a huge error in terms of the human cost and increasingly looks to have not led to ‘herd immunity’.I think the state can impose limits if the common good requires (cf. CCC 2109), but it must take into account man’s temporal and spiritual needs (cf. CCC 1925 and 2244). There is definitely a danger that even moderated Liberalism will not do this, which is why it is important for bishops to advocate for the fullest liberty for the Church possible under such circumstances. As Cardinal Burke says, they should be the ones making informed decisions. In many places Church and State have been on the same page, but in some places they have not. It ultimately belongs to the Church and not the state to decide how and when we administer our sacraments and conduct our worship. Ideally, this is worked out between the two in harmony (and thankfully, it many places it has been it seems).
It’s really quite spurious of Cardinal Burke to be hitching his anti Church conspiracy theories to what’s happening at the moment.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thanks be to God for St. John Paul having the wisdom in his consecration of Russia to consecrate the whole world along with it. While we will always have wars and rumors of war, the change that followed that consecration is nothing short of miraculous. At least we are not on the brink of nuclear Armageddon over East Europe.
It is hard for me to see the current time as more in need, especially in regards to what is now Russia.
It is hard for me to see the current time as more in need, especially in regards to what is now Russia.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
In ancient times China adopted and developed the errors of Buddhism from India, and now the errors of Communism from Russia. Unfortunately those two errors have combined to slough a suffocating nihilistic morass that threatens the world in the wake of their growing political power. They have repeatedly rejected Christianity over the centuries as a “foreign” threat: the tragic irony is epic.
F
Feanor2
Guest
So is Cdl. Burke adding his voice to those who, for some reason, insist that the Consecration wasn’t done or either wasn’t “done right”?
S
stpurl
Guest
Would it really be so terrible to consecrate Russia to Our Lady? Even if the whole world (which obviously includes Russia) was consecrated, even if it was accepted, is it really that terrible to consecrate Russia to Our Lady now?
I mean, the U.S. was consecrated to Our Lady and yet on May 1, 2020 I believe both the U.S. and Canada were consecrated again. So obviously it is acceptable to consecrate more than once.
It does not have to be takenstrong text****As if the first consecration was lacking, does it? Does it really? Unless those who are so hasty in calling out those who ask for this consecration as being rigid and intractable by not accepting the prior consecration truly do not understand that they are being just as rigid and intractable by not accepting that consecrations can be done more than once without impugning prior ones or ‘elevating’ future ones. . .
I mean, the U.S. was consecrated to Our Lady and yet on May 1, 2020 I believe both the U.S. and Canada were consecrated again. So obviously it is acceptable to consecrate more than once.
It does not have to be takenstrong text****As if the first consecration was lacking, does it? Does it really? Unless those who are so hasty in calling out those who ask for this consecration as being rigid and intractable by not accepting the prior consecration truly do not understand that they are being just as rigid and intractable by not accepting that consecrations can be done more than once without impugning prior ones or ‘elevating’ future ones. . .
T
twf
Guest
Yes, Russia could be consecrated again in theory. Our Archbishop consecrated our archdiocese to Our Lady on May 1 (as part of efforts across Canada and the US) - I watched the rite on live streaming.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.