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

[gilliam]

Did he really say that every kind of change in pastoral teaching is a change in doctrine? I didn’t see that he did.

Then he would be open to discussing different pastoral approaches that don’t affect changes in doctrine, right?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Somehow I don’t see the bishops saying that.

It is possible that they would say something like the local bishop can look at a situation and make a determination that the first marriage was not binding; so there is no ongoing sin involved (in other words, give an annulment locally without all the fancy paperwork now required.) Or something like that. But I really don’t know what kinds of solutions they will eventually come up with (or not.) Anyway, I see nothing wrong with them discussing it.

The presumption of a sacraments validity is equivalent to the accused’s presumption of innocence in criminal law, and anything which infringes upon that presumption ought to be opposed by all men of good will. Let us preserve due process (i.e. fancy paperwork), because the burden of proof is, and should always be, on the party asserting the invalidity of the sacrament. Perhaps the process could be expedited, but when that would mean sacrificing care to preserve that presumption, it shouldn’t be.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Then he would be open to discussing different pastoral approaches that don’t affect changes in doctrine, right?

Do you have any reason to believe he wouldn’t?

 

[ProVobis]

Then he would be open to discussing different pastoral approaches that don’t affect changes in doctrine, right?

Seems like the last time a pastoral approach was used (lifting the excommunications imposed on the divorced among other things) only made things easier and thus increased the divorce rate among Catholics.

In any case, we must be careful any more pastoral approach doesn’t lead directly or indirectly to more cohabitation, civil marriages, etc. Do you think this could be done?

 

[McCall1981]

Somehow I don’t see the bishops saying that.

It is possible that they would say something like the local bishop can look at a situation and make a determination that the first marriage was not binding; so there is no ongoing sin involved (in other words, give an annulment locally without all the fancy paperwork now required.) Or something like that. But I really don’t know what kinds of solutions they will eventually come up with (or not.) Anyway, I see nothing wrong with them discussing it.

I don’t think this is the result people are really worried about though. What you suggest here would, IMO, be a very bad idea, but it would ultimately be orthodox. What I think people are really worried about is ending up with something that is objectively heterodox, like the “penitential process” proposal.

On the one hand you’re saying its fine for them to be discussing any of these ideas (even the heterodox ones), but on the other hand, each time you’ve suggested a possible result, you suggest one that is orthodox.

So my question would be, what if one of the suggestions like the penitential process does end up being the result? I get the feeling you don’t think that will actually happen, but that is the concern (for me at least).

 

[gilliam]

I don’t think this is the result people are really worried about though. What you suggest here would, IMO, be a very bad idea, but it would ultimately be orthodox. What I think people are really worried about is ending up with something that is objectively heterodox, like the “penitential process” proposal.

On the one hand you’re saying its fine for them to be discussing any of these ideas (even the heterodox ones), but on the other hand, each time you’ve suggested a possible result, you suggest one that is orthodox.

So my question would be, what if one of the suggestions like the penitential process does end up being the result? I get the feeling you don’t think that will actually happen, but that is the concern (for me at least).

My answer is trust the Magistarium and the Holy Father. I really don’t see either asking the Church to go in the wrong direction right now. And silencing the bishops isn’t the answer anyway. That is only the answer if you want a oppressive Church and Christ wasn’t a founder of an oppressive Church.

BTW: that is also why you don’t want canon lawyers running the Church right now

 

[McCall1981]

My answer is trust the Magistarium and the Holy Father. I really don’t see either asking the Church to go in the wrong direction right now. And silencing the bishops isn’t the answer anyway. That is only the answer if you want a oppressive Church and Christ wasn’t a founder of an oppressive Church.

BTW: that is also why you don’t want canon lawyers running the Church right now

Ok, but aren’t you essentially saying "its fine for them to discuss all these ideas because ultimately we know they wont enact anything problematic".

That may very well end up being correct, and if so, great. But at this point in time I see no reason not to take their consideration of the problematic proposals very seriously.

 

[livingwordunity]

My answer is trust the Magistarium and the Holy Father. I really don’t see either asking the Church to go in the wrong direction right now. And silencing the bishops isn’t the answer anyway. That is only the answer if you want a oppressive Church and Christ wasn’t a founder of an oppressive Church.

In what way is the Church currently being oppressive? The only way someone might be stopped from receiving Holy Communion is if they announce when they go up for it that they are in a state of mortal sin. Other than that, Catholics are expected to know that we should not go up for Holy Communion if we know that we are in a state of mortal sin. I struggle with sin, so there are times when I don’t go up. The current position of the Church on this is exactly the same as what St. Paul taught about it.

 

[livingwordunity]

Ok, but aren’t you essentially saying "its fine for them to discuss all these ideas because ultimately we know they wont enact anything problematic".

That may very well end up being correct, and if so, great. But at this point in time I see no reason not to take their consideration of the problematic proposals very seriously.

And it’s only going to infuriate those who are pushing for change even more if they don’t get everything their way.

 

[Seraphignatius]

And it’s only going to infuriate those who are pushing for change even more if they don’t get everything their way.

If the fallout of Vatican II is any indication, then they will act like they got their way even if they didn’t. The confusion caused by discussing such issues as though they were legitimate possibilities, even if they are ultimately rejected, gives a certain element cover to enact their diabolic malice. Lord preserve us from theologians, liturgical experts, and the pastorally minded.

 

[livingwordunity]

If the fallout of Vatican II is any indication, then they will act like they got their way even if they didn’t. The confusion caused by discussing such issues as though they were legitimate possibilities, even if they are ultimately rejected, gives a certain element cover to enact their diabolic malice. Lord preserve us from theologians, liturgical experts, and the pastorally minded.

Things today with western culture are going exactly the way that Jesus, the Apostles, and the prophets foretold. We are in the time of the great rebellion.

 

[LongingSoul]

I used to be living in sin. When I was I refrained from receiving Holy Communion. I didn’t blame the Church for the situation that I knew I got myself into. The sinful relationship that I was in ended, and then I was able to go to Confession and then receive Holy Communion. Refraining from receiving Holy Communion at the times when we know we shouldn’t go up for it means that we believe that the Eucharist we receive is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord instead of just bread and wine. If the Church ever said that it makes no difference the Church would cease to be Catholic and would become just another of the thousands of Protestant denominations. It would be no more than an imitation of Anglicanism.

Do you mean that the sinful relationship you were in ended… and then you were free to receive Communion. Your legitimacy wasn’t a result of change of heart… but change of circumstance?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Do you mean that the sinful relationship you were in ended… and then you were free to receive Communion. Your legitimacy wasn’t a result of change of heart… but change of circumstance?

Perhaps he ended it, or perhaps the change of circumstance helped him to change his heart. We are all sinners, and I for one cannot claim to have never fallen or to always have risen immediately and without difficulty.

 

[gilliam]

Things today with western culture are going exactly the way that Jesus, the Apostles, and the prophets foretold. We are in the time of the great rebellion.

No, I don’t think so. And no one will know for sure when it will occur. Best to just be vigilant. “The key is not to worry about the end of the world, but rather worry about our personal salvation and everything else won’t matter.”

see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=812518

 

[Seraphignatius]

Nope

If nothing else, our times are type and figure to the apostasy that may well be yet to come. The only unfulfilled condition for the rise of the antichrist is that the Gospel has not yet been accepted in every nation. Some posit that the Gospel need only be preached in all nations rather than accepted; in which case all the signs of the seasons are fulfilled, and we can expect the man of sin any day now.

 

[gilliam]

If nothing else, our times are type and figure to the apostasy that may well be yet to come. The only unfulfilled condition for the rise of the antichrist is that the Gospel has not yet been accepted in every nation.

I really don’t understand where your getting this. Certainly nothing is happening in the Church to lead to such a conclusion. Relax! As I quoted in the previous post: “The key is not to worry about the end of the world, but rather worry about our personal salvation and everything else won’t matter.”

 

[Seraphignatius]

I really don’t understand where your getting this.

I. Sacred Scripture
II. The Early Church Fathers
III. The Doctors of the Church

Certainly nothing is happening in the Church to lead to such a conclusion.

I would count the events of the last 50 years. (The Gentiles of the Roman Empire came into the Church, and as foretold have now gone out.)

Relax! As I quoted in the previous post: “The key is not to worry about the end of the world, but rather worry about our personal salvation and everything else won’t matter.”

I am relaxed and hope in the Lord. I also watch the signs of the seasons and joyously await his return as we are instructed to do.

 

[gilliam]

I would count the events of the last 50 years. (The Gentiles of the Roman Empire came into the Church, and as foretold have now gone out.)

.

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying Vatican II is leading us to the anti-Christ, Vatican II is heretical, or what?

 

[Seraphignatius]

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying Vatican II is leading us to the anti-Christ, Vatican II is heretical, or what?

No…

I’m saying the Faith is all but dead in Europe, and dissent from the Faith within the Church has been widespread in a way it hadn’t been since the times of Luther.

 

[gilliam]

No.
I’m saying the Faith is all but dead in europe, and dissent from the Faith within the Church has been widespread in a way it hadn’t been since the times of Luther.

Ah, but the world is not Europe (sorry Europeans.) Christianity in the form of Catholicism is widespread now, probably more so than at any time in history. There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world’s Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years.

Catholic Church by country
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

I expect the voice of non-European bishops to be reflected in what the Synod comes up with. And by and large they are staying out of the debate that seems so popular in the media today.