You didn’t ask me for a Burke quote…you were referring to a post from another.So, I ask for a quote from Cardinal Burke, am given one from Archbishop Lefebvre, and am told that they “sound” similar. Whether a similar quote from Burke could actually be found that is in fact similar to this doesn’t address this point: are we to assume everything Lefebvre said is therefore wrong simply by reason of his excommunication? Really? That’s your argument?
Other than the fact that Lefebvre said it, what part of his statement do you disagree with?
Ender
And what is wrong with that statement by itself? It contradicts ultramontanism–good! Simply because the statement came from a schismatic doesn’t make it wrong. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a host of other dissidents have made orthodox statements. The fact that they are dissidents does not delegitimize everything they say. Also, I find the comparison between Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Burke highly offensive. Didn’t Mr. Robert Bay say that Clergy are not fair game on this forum?“No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries…"
Cardinal Burke in many of his statements sound frighteningly similar this quote. Unfortunately, this quote is comes from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974. Lefebvre was excommunicated and was the founder of the Society of St Pius X.
My apologies if you found the post offensive. That was not my intention. I’m not attacking Cardinal Burke… No clergy is not fair game. I simply make a comparison to between two like statements of Church prelates. Lefebvre was in good standing at the time. Perhaps the statements need context. When I home at a desktop rather than on a phone, I’ll try to provide additional contextAnd what is wrong with that statement by itself? It contradicts ultramontanism–good! Simply because the statement came from a schismatic doesn’t make it wrong. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a host of other dissidents have made orthodox statements. The fact that they are dissidents does not delegitimize everything they say. Also, I find the comparison between Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Burke highly offensive. Didn’t Mr. Robert Bay say that Clergy are not fair game on this forum?
The statement has nothing to do with my offense. The man is the problem. The comparison of Cardinal Burke to a sedevacantist is what is offensive. Do you find anything wrong with the statement?My apologies if you found the post offensive. That was not my intention. I’m not attacking Cardinal Burke… No clergy is not fair game. I simply make a comparison to between two like statements of Church prelates. Lefebvre was in good standing at the time. Perhaps the statements need context. When I home at a desktop rather than on a phone, I’ll try to provide additional context
I find it odd though that you defend the statement in one sentence and then claim offense in the next.
Again not my intention to attack card Burke. If Mr Bay finds issue with my statements, I’ll comply with his guidance.
It’s not what was said but why it was said. And that was to reject legitimate faith development prescribed by the Church.The statement has nothing to do with my offense. The man is the problem. The comparison of Cardinal Burke to a sedevacantist is what is offensive. Do you find anything wrong with the statement?
I agree. I am not sympathetic to archbishop Marcel. Change is a good thing considering the corruption in the Roman Church throughout the centuries. I can never understand those who want to go back to the “good old days” of the pre-Vatican ii Church. There were no such days and there never will be before Christ’s second coming. My point still stands: no one is immune to criticism. I am attacking the position that those in the seat of Peter can never error. I have nothing against the man. It is the idea I question. Remember Pope Honorius.It’s not what was said but why it was said. And that was to reject legitimate faith development prescribed by the Church.
I don’t know anything about Pope Honorius except that he was often an example used against Catholic teaching by Protestants. I suspect his story was resurrected again to put obstacles in the way of ecumenism after Vatican II.I agree. I am not sympathetic to archbishop Marcel. Change is a good thing considering the corruption in the Roman Church throughout the centuries. I can never understand those who want to go back to the “good old days” of the pre-Vatican ii Church. There were no such days and there never will be before Christ’s second coming. My point still stands: no one is immune to criticism. I am attacking the position that those in the seat of Peter can never error. I have nothing against the man. It is the idea I question. Remember Pope Honorius.
Well, I’m not the one doing the criticizing. Cardinal Burke is so I am respecting the hierarchy. Same with Pope Honorius. I’m not the one who anathematized him. The third council of Constantinople did that. I’m not like some on this forum who brashly accuse Pope Francis of heresy. In my opinion, his insistence on the gospel is a truly precious thing. But neither do I say “yes” to everything any Pope throughout history has said. Instead of being humble, one simply becomes a “yes” man–following blindly whether he/she understands or not.I don’t know anything about Pope Honorius except that he was often an example used against Catholic teaching by Protestants. I suspect his story was resurrected again to put obstacles in the way of ecumenism after Vatican II.
Speaking for myself and those of my generation of Catholics groomed with a particular respect of the papacy… one has to experience their place and competency with humility. There is a hierarchy of roles in the Church similar to the family and to imagine we have a right to criticise the Pope in the way that Paul criticised Peter or the Cardinals criticised Honorius… is to dismiss the importance of the hierarchy.
I’m not advocating a blind following like some have with political figures etc. I’m advocating an obedience that resembles a childs obedience based on parental authority. Even when an older sibling comes into conflict with the parents, the younger children are still obliged by their obedience to their parents. To get behind the older sibling in a standoff over rules is a direct attack on the hierarchy ordained by God.Well, I’m not the one doing the criticizing. Cardinal Burke is so I am respecting the hierarchy. Same with Pope Honorius. I’m not the one who anathematized him. The third council of Constantinople did that. I’m not like some on this forum who brashly accuse Pope Francis of heresy. In my opinion, his insistence on the gospel is a truly precious thing. But neither do I say “yes” to everything any Pope throughout history has said. Instead of being humble, one simply becomes a “yes” man–following blindly whether he/she understands or not.
Also, Pope Honorius’s story had nothing to do with countering ecumenism. It was brought up during Vatican I when Papal infallibility was being discussed. He was anathematized for being a monothelite and some objected to papal infallibility on that basis. The Church came to the conclusion that while in his personal beliefs, Pope Honorius may have been a heretic, he never issued a dogmatic ex cathedra statement regarding whether or not Christ had one will or two. Hence, the example of Pope Honorius does not touch on papal infallibility. It does, however, counter Catholics who seem to think that anyone who fills the office of the papacy can do no wrong. We do no respect or service to papacy when we turn the Pope into a de facto god.
Thank you for the response. We all need to be reminded of the importance of obedience.I’m not advocating a blind following like some have with political figures etc. I’m advocating an obedience that resembles a childs obedience based on parental authority. Even when an older sibling comes into conflict with the parents, the younger children are still obliged by their obedience to their parents. To get behind the older sibling in a standoff over rules is a direct attack on the hierarchy ordained by God.
Within all that, there is a clear understanding that the parents could be less than perfect in establishing rules and regulations, but the rights of a parent in regard to the way they run the family is a principle protected by Catholic teaching against outside interference.
Of course in a case of criminal behaviour, the parents lose their right to obedience, but that needs to be based on fairly clear charges and official intervention. The situation where the children are not making clear accusations that warrant an investigation of those parents… but instead bad mouth them to each other and the world based on their own opinions … too cowardly to come out and call heresy or crime… that’s just toxic and anti family.
You live by the family rules or your report the parents with clear accusations.
That is a matter of opinion. St. John Paul urged us to say five new mysteries of the rosary, a practice which did not exist before. St. Francis introduced us to the Nativity crèche as a devotion for those who could not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.Maybe you need to re-read what Cardinal Burke said, very carefully. He is right whither you like it or not. God Bless, Memaw
I read through the post and it seems to me the comparison was with the statement made, not the person. People are much more than one sentence they utter in their life, and even if two people share one commonality in belief, that does not make a comparison between that belief a comparison of two people.The statement has nothing to do with my offense. The man is the problem. The comparison of Cardinal Burke to a sedevacantist is what is offensive. Do you find anything wrong with the statement?
St. Paul was a member of the Church before any of us. He stated the role of the individual to approach communion.Moreover, the faith required to receive the Eucharist is not something one can decide on his or her own.
Dear godisgood77:” The Pope cannot teach us or urge us to do anything other than what the Church has always taught and practiced."
Yikes…it is discouraging to read this. It appears that "; this is utterly absurd, of course.
The good Cardinal sounds like quite frustrated; almost like a child throwing a tantrum because he did not get his way. We should all pray for Cardinal Burke that his mind and heart are opened. Burke’s comments are becoming more and more defamatory …and he is sowing division within the Church. The Pope has taught nothing against the Jesus’ teachings…
These diatribes are heart wrenching