Exclusive interview: Cardinal Burke says confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’

[Tigg]

That doesn’t prove much since those suffering legalism use this claim.

In other words…the Pharisees…again?

The letter binds and kills.

*Those who fear the Lord seek to please him;
those who love him are filled with his law.

Sirach 2:16*

 

[Tigg]

Is what I stated incorrect? If so, what exactly has Cardinal Burke taught that he has not supported with actual Church teaching?

I think we’re still waiting for the answer to this.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Brendan
Is what I stated incorrect? If so, what exactly has Cardinal Burke taught that he has not supported with actual Church teaching?

We are not challenging what Cardinal Burke is ‘teaching’ in line with the Church… we are saying that Cardinal Burkes saying that issues raised by Pope Francis for synod discussion should not be discussed or examined any further because the Church has definitively spoken on them for all time… is not in the spirit of the Church’s mission.

 

[Brendan]

We are not challenging what Cardinal Burke is ‘teaching’ in line with the Church… we are saying that Cardinal Burkes saying that issues raised by Pope Francis for synod discussion should not be discussed or examined any further because the Church has definitively spoken on them for all time… is not in the spirit of the Church’s mission.

So what you are saying is that what it the Church teaches is not in the spirit of the Church’s mission?

That seems rather contradictory?

 

[Brendan]

In Pauls teaching to the Corinthians 2Cor3:4-6 he explains…

Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The spirit of the law is a living teacher. The letter binds and kills.

So are you claiming that the teachings of the Church are NOT of the Spirit?

 

[LongingSoul]

So what you are saying is that what it the Church teaches is not in the spirit of the Church’s mission?

That seems rather contradictory?

You must reread what I wrote. Cardinal Burke says there is no room for synod examination of the communion/divorced/remarried issue or the Church response to homosexuality. He wants them off the synod agenda in spite of their invite by Pope Francis. What is not in the spirit of the Churchs mission… is to hold that no issue can be examined for further light or development and the letter of the law set down in one part of Church history must remain without any further examination now or presumably ever.

 

[LongingSoul]

So are you claiming that the teachings of the Church are NOT of the Spirit?

I demonstrated in an above post how the Church taught that Limbo exists and that to deny it was a Pelagian error. Today the Church teaches that Limbo was a hypothesis and it is fine to expect deceased unbaptised children will be with God. Some Catholics of the traditionalist kind say that what the Church taught in the past was the definitive truth of doctrine and that the current teaching is heresy.

 

[ProVobis]

Limbo was taught as an essential part of the doctrine of Original Sin and baptism. It was not presented as a mere hypothesis that the faithful could take or leave. It was thought to be an unchangable part of doctrine.

If it were infallible, it would have had to be defined. Since there is no clear definition of Limbo, except as offered as some sort of default state, it was never infallible nor even doctrinal or scriptural. Unlike receiving unworthily, adultery, etc.

 

[LongingSoul]

If it were infallible, it would have had to be defined. Since there is no clear definition of Limbo, except as offered as some sort of default state, it was never infallible nor even doctrinal or scriptural. Unlike receiving unworthily.

But nuances as you’ve described are developments in the understanding of doctrine and its development. Certain things understood by scholars and theologians were not taught or understood by the lay people. We will certainly find in another 500 years of Church teaching that many nuances hidden from us today will come to light for our descendants in faith.

 

[Brendan]

I demonstrated in an above post how the Church taught that Limbo exists and that to deny it was a Pelagian error. Today the Church teaches that Limbo was a hypothesis and it is fine to expect deceased unbaptised children will be with God. Some Catholics of the traditionalist kind say that what the Church taught in the past was the definitive truth of doctrine and that the current teaching is heresy.

Longing, go back and read what you wrote. Pope Pius VI was noting that the can be no middle state between Heaven and Hell. The Janistists described such as a state and is just as much an error now as it was then.

I demonstrated in an above post how the Church taught that Limbo exists and that to deny it was a Pelagian error.

Actually,no that was not what was stated. Those who die with the stain of original sin go to Hell, that is definitive. Neither is that the Grace of Baptism is necessary for Salvation

There the Church knows two things definitively, those who die without the Grace of Baptism go to Hell.

Those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism receive the Grace of Baptism.

Those are unchanging doctrines, and none of the statements that you provide indicate otherwise

The question becomes, do those infants who die without Baptism receive the Grace of Baptism, and the Church has declared that it has no knowledge one way or the other, instead commits the answer to the Mercy of God.

This is remarkably different from the questions where the Church DOES know the answer, such as adulterous nature of sex done with one who is one’s valid spouse.

As far as Aquinas, his claim was, as you noted

“**there is reason to believe **that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell”

Once again, that is still true today as then, there are reasons to believe so.

As far as St. Bellarmine, what part of his statement do you thing does not apply today

this matter [of Limbo and its inhabitants] we should not be carried away by any human consideration, by which so many are wont to be swayed; rather should we consult the teaching of the Church Councils, the Scriptures and the Fathers, and then follow it.”

Are you stating that Popes today command that we SHOULD get carried away, or that we should NOT consult the teachings of the Church and of Scripture.

 

[Ender]

You must reread what I wrote. Cardinal Burke says there is no room for synod examination of the communion/divorced/remarried issue or the Church response to homosexuality. He wants them off the synod agenda in spite of their invite by Pope Francis.

This is inaccurate. The pope never indicated that he wanted those two specific issues discussed. He asked for the situation of the divorced and remarried to be examined to see how they could be better ministered to. His invitation was never directed at a reexamination of those particular questions.

What is not in the spirit of the Churchs mission… is to hold that no issue can be examined for further light or development and the letter of the law set down in one part of Church history must remain without any further examination now or presumably ever.

The issue isn’t whether no issue can be further examined but whether this particular issue is subject to…development. As Cardinal Burke said, that question is no longer debatable.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

We will certainly find in another 500 years of Church teaching that many nuances hidden from us today will come to light for our descendants in faith.

Seeing the declining marriage rates, we may not have to wait 500 years before all Church teachings on marriage (among other things) become obsolete and the 2015 Synod will be forgotten. I will agree with you to that extent.

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing, go back and read what you wrote. Pope Pius VI was noting that the can be no middle state between Heaven and Hell. The Janistists described such as a state and is just as much an error now as it was then.

Actually,no that was not what was stated. Those who die with the stain of original sin go to Hell, that is definitive. Neither is that the Grace of Baptism is necessary for Salvation

There the Church knows two things definitively, those who die without the Grace of Baptism go to Hell.

Those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism receive the Grace of Baptism.

Those are unchanging doctrines, and none of the statements that you provide indicate otherwise

The question becomes, do those infants who die without Baptism receive the Grace of Baptism, and the Church has declared that it has no knowledge one way or the other, instead commits the answer to the Mercy of God.

This is remarkably different from the questions where the Church DOES know the answer, such as adulterous nature of sex done with one who is one’s valid spouse.

As far as Aquinas, his claim was, as you noted

Once again, that is still true today as then, there are reasons to believe so.

As far as St. Bellarmine, what part of his statement do you thing does not apply today

Are you stating that Popes today command that we SHOULD get carried away, or that we should NOT consult the teachings of the Church and of Scripture.

And yet in all these examples, a certain set of Catholics unwilling to allow for the possibility of richer understanding than the understanding of people in the middle ages, claim that to reject Limbo is a heresy.

Can’t you see the point I’m making? This is not a discussion about the nature of the teaching on Limbo… but how a statement written in one era has the appearance of the whole of doctrine without possibility of change… yet to us now looking back on these statements with the light of theological advances, we can see the developments with real clarity. That is not a reflection of changing doctrines. It is reflection of the evolutionary nature of human understanding and awareness of things.

 

[OraLabora]

Seeing the declining marriage rates, we may not have to wait 500 years before all Church teachings on marriage (among other things) become obsolete and the 2015 Synod will be forgotten. I will agree with you to that extent.

And then what? The Church bars access to the Eucharist to anyone with children as it is evidence of “fornication” outside a valid marriage?

The Church’s mission will always be to minister to souls. Somehow she will have to find a way to adapt that mission to reality by reaching out to people where they’re at, or become irrelevant herself. We are already well down that path, alas. I’m not sure circling the wagons to keep the riff-raff out will be an effective long-term solution.

 

[Brendan]

Can’t you see the point I’m making? This is not a discussion about the nature of the teaching on Limbo… but how a statement written in one era has the appearance of the whole of doctrine without possibility of change… .

And I was pointing out that there no cause for claiming that the Church changed it’s definitive teaching on anything, Limbo or otherwise.

Everything you quoted is just as valid today as it was then.

There might be those who misinterpreted what was said, as you did, ou outright reject Church teachings, all of them, throughout the ages.

 

[Tigg]

The Church’s mission will always be to minister to souls. Somehow she will have to find a way to adapt that mission to reality by reaching out to people where they’re at, or become irrelevant herself.

Do you really believe that Christ who died for our sins and directs the economy of salvation would want His church to surrender to the secular culture? If so, why was His death even necessary?

 

[OraLabora]

Do you really believe that Christ who died for our sins and directs the economy of salvation would want His church to surrender to the secular culture? If so, why was His death even necessary?

You misrepresent what I wrote. She will still have to be the guardian of the truth, but may need to seek new ways to evangelize to a people even farther from God than now.

 

[Brendan]

You misrepresent what I wrote. She will still have to be the guardian of the truth, but may need to seek new ways to evangelize to a people even farther from God than now.

No farther than when She converted the pagan Romans, or even the human sacrificing Aztecs.

In every case, She did so by preaching the Truth, and never diluting it. She did it by calling them from their sin into repentance.

 

[HelpingStranger]

God Bless Cardinal Burke. What he says may be true, but let’s remember This Great Church can stand up to the gates of hell. This secular influence that is entering the Vatican will be short lived. Pray for Cardinal Burke and Pray for Pope Francis and all the clergy so that they may have the strength to fight evil.

 

[Tigg]

You misrepresent what I wrote. She will still have to be the guardian of the truth, but may need to seek new ways to evangelize to a people even farther from God than now.

To those who might call us Pharisees and inundated with legalism, here are some thoughts I love - don’t they speak to the heart and also the truth?

*The proper work of charity is the building of the true Temple. It is present before all creation as ministration, efficacy. Sometimes we confuse it with a certain tenderness and weakness that disarms us before the will and desire of another, making us condescend to him, even to his damnation. Charity knows nothing of this cowardly condescension. It is “strong as death,” according to the phrase in Solomon’s Song. Pleasing someone is often the opposite of doing him good. True love is pitiless. It does not love weakness; it loves in spite of them and against them, it corrects them. But its strength is that of love, it is trust, help, support. We look for violence in irony or insult, but it is charity that is truly strong – strong to others but above all strong to itself, hard as a diamond, lucid, transparent, penetrating to the depths; hard, but not inflicting pain. Violence bruises, irony inflicts pin-pricks; charity goes straight to the heart and heals the sufferer.

From the Sign of the Temple
by Jean Cardinal Danielou, S. J.*