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

[LongingSoul]

Absolutely not true!!! Please support this idea here with actual church teachings that teachings beyond EX-CATHEDRA teachings are infallible??? This is precisely what was rejected clearly by the Vatican I Council when the church defined papal infallibility and gave the very precise conditions for when a papal teaching can be termed infallibly-taught,that is “guaranteed as free from any error”. Even more so, please support with actual church teachings the idea that papal policy DECISIONS of any sort are also infallible or free of error. I suppose those old policies in the high middle ages to burn heretics to death and take their properties were free of error too? Of course not. The church is very clear on when the Pope teaches infallibly and it is ONLY when he makes ex-cathedra statements. In the last 100 years, only two such statements have been made: the assumption and the male-only priesthood.

So no:
-Only teachings and not policy decisions are infallible
-Only extra-cathedra teachings meeting the four conditions taught in Vatican I are infallible

Dont know what other mageisterium has ever taught anything else, neither Pope Francis nor any other pope or council, so don’t know where all these ideas are coming

I don’t think you have the correct understanding of ‘infallibility’ there. Here is the generic explanation from Catholicism for Dummies…

dummies.com/how-to/content/infallibility-and-the-catholic-pope.html

Catholicism maintains that the pope is infallible, incapable of error, when he teaches a doctrine on faith or morals to the universal Church in his unique office as supreme head. When the pope asserts his official authority in matters of faith and morals to the whole church, the Holy Spirit guards him from error.

Papal infallibility doesn’t mean that the pope can’t make any mistakes. He’s not infallible in scientific, historical, political, philosophical, geographic, or any other matters — just faith and morals.

It boils down to trust. Catholics trust that the Holy Spirit protects them from being taught or forced to believe erroneous doctrines by preventing a pope from issuing them.

Whether the Holy Spirit’s intervention is as subtle as getting the pope to change his mind or as drastic as striking him dead, in any event, Catholics firmly believe that God loves them and loves the truth so much that he would intervene and prevent a pope from imposing a false teaching upon the whole Church.

This belief doesn’t mean that personally and individually the pope is free from all error. He could privately be wrong as long as he doesn’t attempt to impose or teach that error to the universal Church, because at that point the Holy Spirit would somehow stop him from doing so.

Infallibility is widely misunderstood. It’s not the same as the Catholic beliefs of inspiration or impeccability:

Inspiration is a special gift of the Holy Spirit, which He gave to the sacred authors, those who wrote the Sacred Scripture (the Bible), so that only the things God wanted written down were written down — no more, no less. So the pope isn’t inspired, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were when they wrote their Gospels.

Impeccability is the absence and inability to commit sin. Only Jesus Christ, being the Son of God, and His Blessed Mother had impeccability — via a special grace from God. Popes aren’t impeccable, so they’re capable of sin — which, by the way, was visible in the case of the first pope, St. Peter, when he denied Christ three times just before the Crucifixion (Matthew 26:69–75).

Everything the sacred authors wrote in the Bible is inspired, but not everything every pope says or writes is infallible. Infallibility means that if the pope attempts to teach a false doctrine on faith or morals, the Holy Spirit prevents him (even by death) from imposing such an error on the faithful.

So, for example, no pope can declare, “As of today, the number of commandments is nine instead of ten.” Nor can he declare, “Jesus was not a man” or “Jesus was not the Son of God.”

Infallibility also doesn’t mean perfection. Infallible statements aren’t perfect statements, so they can be improved so that subsequent popes can use better or more accurate language. Yet infallible statements can never be contradicted, rejected, or refuted.

So according to Catholicism, an immoral pope (you’ll find several in Church history) can sin like any man and will answer to God for his evil deeds. However, as supreme head of the Church, the pope retains his infallibility on matters of faith and morals as long as he remains pope.

No pope in 2,000 years has formally and officially taught an error of faith or morals to the universal Church. Individually, some may have been poor or inadequate theologians or philosophers, and some may have had erroneous ideas about science.

That has nothing to do with papal infallibility, however, because the main objective is to preserve the integrity of Catholic faith for all the members at all times and in all places.

 

[Tigg]

P.S. For a prominent example of a pope teaching error outside of Dogmatic proclamations we have Pope John XXII, who erroneously taught that the blessed did not see the beatific vision until the general judgement; he later recanted and taught that the opposite was true when his error was braught to his attention.

This is true, although I understand when the error when declared he was doing so as a private theologian, not as pope. And the faithful themselves were instrumental in bringing this to his attention because it violated sensus fidelium. Why do we keep forgetting this important element and why are those concerned with Card Kasper’s innovative theorem being accused of gossip and of being Pharisees? The faithful cannot be discounted in this process.

"By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),… receives… the faith, once for all delivered to the saints… the People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.’
Lumen Gentium

 

[on_the_hill]

Aren’t popes selected by a democratic process?

 

[SWolf]

Conversely, if Cardinal Burke is merely pursuing a personal agenda, and is fanning the FLAMES of discord, then he is being far from good and pastoral.

That this cardinal’s words and behavior are now being viewed by some as almost sacrosanct is quite disturbing. It is almost as though a cult was beginning to form around Cardinal Burke.

Dangerous.

Having the orthodox position on a topic, the same as JPII and every previous Pope, and stating so unambiguously, is sowing discord?

 

[ProVobis]

Aren’t popes selected by a democratic process?

I would say more by a republic process.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW and from EWTN:

Doctrine. The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings. The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine faith, the second doctrines of catholic faith. Together they are said to be “of divine and catholic faith.” Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed. A side note, doctrine shares the same root as orthodox, meaning correct belief. Those who hold the Church’s doctrines faithfully are thus orthodox.

Dogma. Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

Definitively Proposed. Doctrines that are definitively proposed are no less certain, even though they are not proposed as formally revealed by God. They are connected to dogmas, however, by either historical or logical connection. An example of logical necessity would be the reservation of priesthood to men in the witness of Scripture and Tradition. The Church has not yet taught that it was formally revealed by God, but such dogmatization is possible. Papal infallibility was similarly infallibly taught by the Church before it was proposed as formally revealed by God. An example of historical necessity would be the election of a Pope or the celebration of a General Council. While a portion of the Church could elect an antipope, or hold a false council, the Church as a whole could not err in this way without compromising Christ’s revealed promise to be with the Church until the end of time.

Infallible. As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of “divine and catholic faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limnited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

 

[Seraphignatius]

I would say more by a republic process.

An aristocratic process.

 

[ThankUJP2]

Its disappointing to see such a spirited opposition to the truth in the quote from the Cardinal…

We need only to look at the extremely low percentage of Catholics who attend Mass, reconciliation or profess - and try to live in communion with - the mind of Holy Mother Church to see how very confused present day Catholics are (I’m thinking here of belief in the real presence, Church teachings on sanctity of human life, eschatology…) We should all be wary about such a state of confusion, as confusion is not a characteristic of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think its a huge stretch to think that formally implementing any change regarding distribution of Holy Communion to those in disordered unions, may add to the confusion. I do agree with many; rather, that such would likely result in a further watering down of the perceived sanctity of traditional marriage and the family. Is that what is needed in our present day?

In cases where people are expecting some poor Papal decision(s) to result from the Synod, be not afraid. We do not know by what precise means Christ wills His Church to bring His grace to those who love him.

Let’s all keep the Holy Father, our Bishops and our Priests in our daily prayers!

 

[Rubia]

I don’t think you have the correct understanding of ‘infallibility’ there. Here is the generic explanation from Catholicism for Dummies…

Ok. So there are none (authorities stating that POLICIES and non-exathedra papal teachings are infallible), since you’ve cited none. Good. That article you’ve pasted says nothing close to what you claimed and that I asked you to support with church teaching. All it does is repeat the Vatican I teaching, especially in its first paragraph. Only those teachings that meet that criteria are infallible.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), **he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.
**

So we have (1) Doctrine (2) On faith or morals (3) by a DEFINITIVE act (4) taught to the whole church by virtue of the papal office, or ex-cathedra.

Nothing there on policy or on any and all papal teachings being infallible.

In fact,Catholic answers goes on to explain:

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Catholic encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Denzinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680).

For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
-The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
-Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
-Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
-Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, **the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. **

Again, I have no idea where you got the idea that all teachings and policy decisions of the pope are infallible. I would think if that were the case then the church has been acting rather pointlessly in STRICTLY defining just when the pope is speaking infallibly. Yet you claim that whatever the pope says or decides in the church is infallible. Certainly wrong and NOT a catholic teaching by any measure.

 

[McCall1981]

Its disappointing to see such a spirited opposition to the truth in the quote from the Cardinal…

We need only to look at the extremely low percentage of Catholics who attend Mass, reconciliation or profess - and try to live in communion with - the mind of Holy Mother Church to see how very confused present day Catholics are (I’m thinking here of belief in the real presence, Church teachings on sanctity of human life, eschatology…) We should all be wary about such a state of confusion, as confusion is not a characteristic of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think its a huge stretch to think that formally implementing any change regarding distribution of Holy Communion to those in disordered unions, may add to the confusion. I do agree with many; rather, that such would likely result in a further watering down of the perceived sanctity of traditional marriage and the family. Is that what is needed in our present day?

In cases where people are expecting some poor Papal decision(s) to result from the Synod, be not afraid. We do not know by what precise means Christ wills His Church to bring His grace to those who love him.

Let’s all keep the Holy Father, our Bishops and our Priests in our daily prayers!

I’m confused

You say youre disappointed in what Card Burke said, then you seem to agree with what he’s saying. Maybe I am misunderstanding…

 

[Seraphignatius]

I’m confused

You say youre disappointed in what Card Burke said, then you seem to agree with what he’s saying. Maybe I am misunderstanding…

He’s saying that the Cardinal is right and that he’s disappointed that so many people are opposed to the good cardinal.

 

[McCall1981]

He’s saying that the Cardinal is right and that he’s disappointed that so many people are opposed to the good cardinal.

Oh I see, sorry ThankUJPII (great username btw )

 

[ThankUJP2]

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

I agree with the Cardinal’s sentiment listed in this thread’s title…

That is to say, I’m disappointed that many Catholics don’t believe that confusion is a very substantive problem in the Church.

I apologize if my wording was poor

 

[pnewton]

That is to say, I’m disappointed that many Catholics don’t believe that confusion is a very substantive problem in the Church.

Do you mean you are disappointed that some Catholics do not share the same opinion that confusion currently exists as a substantive problem, or that you are disappointed because of lack of belief that confusion would be a serious problem if it did exist?

The first, I do not understand, as there should be hope that many are not confuse and do not encounter much confusion in their experience with the Church. The second, well, I simply haven’t seen that anywhere.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Do you mean you are disappointed that some Catholics do not share the same opinion that confusion currently exists as a substantive problem, or that you are disappointed because of lack of belief that confusion would be a serious problem if it did exist?

Confusion is a major problem in the Church at present, and there is great danger that if the Church’s leaders do not act prudently then that confusion will grow to Kasparian proportions.

 

[pnewton]

Confusion is a major problem in the Church at present, and there is great danger that if the Church’s leaders do not act prudently then that confusion will grow to Kasparian proportions.

I was wondering if the person that said they were disappointed meant that they were of this opinion. I am not. It should be a source of hope when someone in the Church is not confused, and does not encounter confusion in there experience with the Church. I think the Catechism promulgated by St. John Paul has done a lot to prevent this, giving a sure norm by which we can stand.

I would encourage those here who think they are confused to pick up that book are reflect on just how much we have that we know without doubt and not consider the “what ifs” of one section of discipline.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There was one time when St. Peter had to be corrected by St. Paul. So there is a precedent in Sacred Scripture for what Cardinal Burke has been doing. There were times when St. Peter was infallible and other times when he wasn’t. And that’s always been the teaching of the Catholic Church with Her dogma on papal infallibility.

It seems to me that if someone is going to constantly muddy the waters by publicly dissenting from the Pope and then talk about confusion spreading among the laity then one does not have to look too far for the cause.

 

[Seraphignatius]

It seems to me that if someone is going to constantly muddy the waters by publicly dissenting from the Pope and then talk about confusion spreading among the laity then one does not have to look too far for the cause.

Are you saying that he is publicly dissenting from official papal teaching, or are you saying that he disagrees with some opinions or actions of the pope? There is a world of difference.

 

[Rubia]

It seems to me that if someone is going to constantly muddy the waters by publicly dissenting from the Pope and then talk about confusion spreading among the laity then one does not have to look too far for the cause.

Could you please provide the teaching of pope Francis that is being dissented from? Not CNN’s or the TIME’s…just pope Francis’. And since when do agnostics care that Catholics are dissenting, anyway? Wonders never cease! AndPS: sticking to the teaching of over 200 popes is not what dissenting is.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I was wondering if the person that said they were disappointed meant that they were of this opinion. I am not. It should be a source of hope when someone in the Church is not confused, and does not encounter confusion in there experience with the Church. I think the Catechism promulgated by St. John Paul has done a lot to prevent this, giving a sure norm by which we can stand.

Nevertheless there is much confusion in the Church. The Catechism has proven to be an important barrier against it, but a barrier unmanned and undefended is no barrier at all.

I would encourage those here who think they are confused to pick up that book are reflect on just how much we have that we know without doubt and not consider the “what ifs” of one section of discipline.

I don’t think anyone here believes themselves to be confused, but rather fears that there may be an increase in the already great confusion amongst the laity and the world in general regarding what Catholics believe.