What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirach2 said:
Knowing he’s been the center of controversy in the press, Burke again takes the stage to speak to the press, and masks his intention under a ‘hypothetical.’ Our Lord’s words, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” strongly suggests his real motive, to gain as much press as possible to thwart any possibility of divorced and remarried spouses being ‘surprised by God’ in a ruling by Pope Francis. He plants the seed publicly so that others will take the hint and follow in his footsteps, resisting if necessary.

A meek and humble person, *knowing *that he is a favorite target for comments by the media, would refrain from further comment and notoriety, preferring to await the outcome of the synod. There was no need to give audience and voice yet again, his extreme disapproval, with hints of ‘resistance’ if his ideal is thwarted in any way. Once again, another public display of apparent dismay toward Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
👍

Jim
 
estesbob said:
And their words count for the same unless the Pope declares he is speaking ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 100)
 
otjm said:
“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 100)
Click to expand...
So we agree their words count the same
 
otjm said:
No; one leads, the others follow. When their words are not in harmony, then their words do not count the same.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that in the Catechism? Both are members of the Magestrium.
 
Thanks for your wise (name removed by moderator)ut, TIGG!👍
Tigg said:
It is so apropos in the current climate that goodness be persecuted and misunderstood - even hated.
Click to expand...
Dear Tigg,:blessyou:

How true, how true :sad_yes:

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light,

and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem."

Isaiah 5; 20-21…

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and

utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the

prophets who were before you."

**:highprayer:GOD BLESS CARDINAL BURKE!!:highprayer:

My prayers, daily Mass are for Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Conley, etc. etc. etc.:highprayer:

May Saint Michael the Archangel protect them all :knight2:

May Our Blessed Mother keep them safe & guide them in their hard hard

paths…:highprayer: **

Kyrie Eleison

Christe Eleison

Thank you, ABYSSINIA for the thread.
 
otjm said:
One, however, is a member, and the other the head.
Click to expand...
The magisterium is the 2000 year old teaching church. You may be lost on this but Cardinal Burke’s position is the position of 265 “heads” (popes) not just one and thousands upon thousands of “members” (Bishops) of 2,000 years. HOWEVER, MOST importantly, it is the position of the REAL head who is famously called by the name Jesus Christ. Just keep that in mind the next time you do a “Burke” vs “Francis” weight contest. Importantly as well, the church is not stupid to teach that ONLY when speaking ex cathedra is the pope infallible. That means pope Francis has ZERO guarantee from teaching erroneously in ALL other instances. The weight contest is therefore silly and inconsequential here. What matters is which of these opinions, Burke’s or the pope’s, are TRUE, especially where the church has already taught.

I believe that what the pope has SEEMED to indirectly support/propose regarding divorce and remarriage is clearly contrary to Jesus’ supreme divine authority to teach us what is adulterous and what is not. Our duty, as is the Pope’s, is to believe that like simple children, to conform to it in our words and actions. I believe that the positions he has seemed to support are contrary to INFALLIBLE church proclamations in the Council of Trent and in the UNANIMOUS continuous magisterium of 2,000 years. If a pope can overturn an infallibly taught truth of catholicism then NOTHING is off limits and nothing can therefore be said to be true of ANYTHING that has ever been infallibly taught, including the Trinity, the nature of Christ etc. It is the heresy of all heresies to poke around already taught truths because you are proclaiming to the world that the church has never been infallible, nothing we believe has any more claim to truth than the next, and the church and christian truth is nothing special…nothing! All this, why? Because we want divorced and remarried catholics to enjoy their so-called “right to be happy” and to integrate them into the regular life of the church.

I look at the early christian church and this agenda to “integrate” those whose lives are incongruent with the faith into the life of the church by LETTING them remain that way while allowing them all sorts of participation is entirely missing. When did that become the mission of the church? To make sure that we feel comfortable in our sins? To make sure that the church treats our sins as regular , good, holy things as much as possible?

As far as I can tell, the early church certainly integrated sinners into the regular life of the church…by demanding repentance and imposing penances upon repentance. Never had it been the mission of the church to place those whose lives are incongruent into leadership or prominent positions BEFORE amendment of life was done. Yet this is what seems to concern the pope today, that those remarried without annulment don’t feel comfortable in the church and are not permitted to do those public things in the assembly before they have am ended their situation? I gather that no one is supposed to feel comfortable while they lead a life that is incongruent with the faith we proclaim, so what am I missing here?

Thank God that the church does not belong to man but to God. I don’t know why God has decided to put us through such a trial at this time, but I who was loosing my faith completely have decided to remind myself that it is Jesus who promised and that until his promise proves false, I have no grounds to fret. No change has yet occurred but I think God will bring the greatest good out of this confusion sadly wrought by what I believe is great imprudence on the pope’s part. I remember that Peter denied the lord three times and yet never failed the church because it is God and not Peter who keeps the church. I will therefore pray that just like the devil once sought to sift Peter like wheat but the prayer of Christ was invincible, so the devil will fail this time as he seeks to sift Peter again like wheat, and that Christ’s prayer will overshadow Peter once more, in our Pope Francis, who though may fail as a human being like we all do, will nonetheless prevail as the sovereign pontiff and like Peter on Pentecost, fearlessly proclaim the faith that had been denied.
 
Sirach2 said:
Ah yes, to the uninformed, it may look that way, ***but I keep discovering more and more covert actions on his part that causes me much alarm, ***wondering “what next?”
Click to expand...
How about some of the actions of some of the cardinals from Germany, who are causing their fair share of alarm as well…care to comment on that?

Peace, Mark
 
Rubia said:
The magisterium is the 2000 year old teaching church. You may be lost on this but Cardinal Burke’s position is the position of 265 “heads” (popes) not just one and thousands upon thousands of “members” (Bishops) of 2,000 years. HOWEVER, MOST importantly, it is the position of the REAL head who is famously called by the name Jesus Christ. Just keep that in mind the next time you do a “Burke” vs “Francis” weight contest. Importantly as well, the church is not stupid to teach that ONLY when speaking ex cathedra is the pope infallible. That means pope Francis has ZERO guarantee from teaching erroneously in ALL other instances. The weight contest is therefore silly and inconsequential here. What matters is which of these opinions, Burke’s or the pope’s, are TRUE, especially where the church has already taught.

I believe that what the pope has SEEMED to indirectly support/propose regarding divorce and remarriage is clearly contrary to Jesus’ supreme divine authority to teach us what is adulterous and what is not. Our duty, as is the Pope’s, is to believe that like simple children, to conform to it in our words and actions. I believe that the positions he has seemed to support are contrary to INFALLIBLE church proclamations in the Council of Trent and in the UNANIMOUS continuous magisterium of 2,000 years. If a pope can overturn an infallibly taught truth of catholicism then NOTHING is off limits and nothing can therefore be said to be true of ANYTHING that has ever been infallibly taught, including the Trinity, the nature of Christ etc. It is the heresy of all heresies to poke around already taught truths because you are proclaiming to the world that the church has never been infallible, nothing we believe has any more claim to truth than the next, and the church and christian truth is nothing special…nothing! All this, why? Because we want divorced and remarried catholics to enjoy their so-called “right to be happy” and to integrate them into the regular life of the church.

I look at the early christian church and this agenda to “integrate” those whose lives are incongruent with the faith into the life of the church by LETTING them remain that way while allowing them all sorts of participation is entirely missing. When did that become the mission of the church? To make sure that we feel comfortable in our sins? To make sure that the church treats our sins as regular , good, holy things as much as possible?

As far as I can tell, the early church certainly integrated sinners into the regular life of the church…by demanding repentance and imposing penances upon repentance. Never had it been the mission of the church to place those whose lives are incongruent into leadership or prominent positions BEFORE amendment of life was done. Yet this is what seems to concern the pope today, that those remarried without annulment don’t feel comfortable in the church and are not permitted to do those public things in the assembly before they have am ended their situation? I gather that no one is supposed to feel comfortable while they lead a life that is incongruent with the faith we proclaim, so what am I missing here?

Thank God that the church does not belong to man but to God. I don’t know why God has decided to put us through such a trial at this time, but I who was loosing my faith completely have decided to remind myself that it is Jesus who promised and that until his promise proves false, I have no grounds to fret. No change has yet occurred but I think God will bring the greatest good out of this confusion sadly wrought by what I believe is great imprudence on the pope’s part. I remember that Peter denied the lord three times and yet never failed the church because it is God and not Peter who keeps the church. I will therefore pray that just like the devil once sought to sift Peter like wheat but the prayer of Christ was invincible, so the devil will fail this time as he seeks to sift Peter again like wheat, and that Christ’s prayer will overshadow Peter once more, in our Pope Francis, who though may fail as a human being like we all do, will nonetheless prevail as the sovereign pontiff and like Peter on Pentecost, fearlessly proclaim the faith that had been denied.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis, since the end of the first round of the synod, has clearly, and publicly, said that doctrine is not going to change, so that issue is off the table. I.E., comments made during his trip to the Philippines.

Given that issue is off the table, then something else must be afoot.
 
Rubia said:
The magisterium is the 2000 year old teaching church. You may be lost on this but Cardinal Burke’s position is the position of 265 “heads” (popes) not just one and thousands upon thousands of “members” (Bishops) of 2,000 years. HOWEVER, MOST importantly, it is the position of the REAL head who is famously called by the name Jesus Christ. Just keep that in mind the next time you do a “Burke” vs “Francis” weight contest. Importantly as well, the church is not stupid to teach that ONLY when speaking ex cathedra is the pope infallible. That means pope Francis has ZERO guarantee from teaching erroneously in ALL other instances. The weight contest is therefore silly and inconsequential here. What matters is which of these opinions, Burke’s or the pope’s, are TRUE, especially where the church has already taught.

I believe that what the pope has SEEMED to indirectly support/propose regarding divorce and remarriage is clearly contrary to Jesus’ supreme divine authority to teach us what is adulterous and what is not. Our duty, as is the Pope’s, is to believe that like simple children, to conform to it in our words and actions. I believe that the positions he has seemed to support are contrary to INFALLIBLE church proclamations in the Council of Trent and in the UNANIMOUS continuous magisterium of 2,000 years. If a pope can overturn an infallibly taught truth of catholicism then NOTHING is off limits and nothing can therefore be said to be true of ANYTHING that has ever been infallibly taught, including the Trinity, the nature of Christ etc. It is the heresy of all heresies to poke around already taught truths because you are proclaiming to the world that the church has never been infallible, nothing we believe has any more claim to truth than the next, and the church and christian truth is nothing special…nothing! All this, why? Because we want divorced and remarried catholics to enjoy their so-called “right to be happy” and to integrate them into the regular life of the church.

I look at the early christian church and this agenda to “integrate” those whose lives are incongruent with the faith into the life of the church by LETTING them remain that way while allowing them all sorts of participation is entirely missing. When did that become the mission of the church? To make sure that we feel comfortable in our sins? To make sure that the church treats our sins as regular , good, holy things as much as possible?

As far as I can tell, the early church certainly integrated sinners into the regular life of the church…by demanding repentance and imposing penances upon repentance. Never had it been the mission of the church to place those whose lives are incongruent into leadership or prominent positions BEFORE amendment of life was done. Yet this is what seems to concern the pope today, that those remarried without annulment don’t feel comfortable in the church and are not permitted to do those public things in the assembly before they have am ended their situation? I gather that no one is supposed to feel comfortable while they lead a life that is incongruent with the faith we proclaim, so what am I missing here?

Thank God that the church does not belong to man but to God. I don’t know why God has decided to put us through such a trial at this time, but I who was loosing my faith completely have decided to remind myself that it is Jesus who promised and that until his promise proves false, I have no grounds to fret. No change has yet occurred but I think God will bring the greatest good out of this confusion sadly wrought by what I believe is great imprudence on the pope’s part. I remember that Peter denied the lord three times and yet never failed the church because it is God and not Peter who keeps the church. I will therefore pray that just like the devil once sought to sift Peter like wheat but the prayer of Christ was invincible, so the devil will fail this time as he seeks to sift Peter again like wheat, and that Christ’s prayer will overshadow Peter once more, in our Pope Francis, who though may fail as a human being like we all do, will nonetheless prevail as the sovereign pontiff and like Peter on Pentecost, fearlessly proclaim the faith that had been denied.
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic post, thank you.
 
Sirach2 said:
Ah yes, to the uninformed, it may look that way, but I keep discovering more and more covert actions on his part that causes me much alarm, wondering “what next?” No need to take out a megaphone. Those who have eyes to see, will see. There are weapons that are greater than the media. 😉
Click to expand...
Sounds like rash judgment and detraction to me.
 
Sirach2 said:
Ah yes, to the uninformed, it may look that way, but I keep discovering more and more covert actions on his part that causes me much alarm, wondering “what next?” No need to take out a megaphone. Those who have eyes to see, will see. There are weapons that are greater than the media. 😉
Click to expand...
For most of my life I’ve been really deeply moved to tears during the Stations of the Cross and the Good Friday ceremony. However in 2011 I did the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius and a new anguish and repulsion gripped me like never before. Jesus was sold out by His *friend *Judas! His brothers in faith from the Synogogue joined forces with the secular haters and tortured and killed Him! There is no greater pain than betrayal and I experienced that so deeply for my dear Lord during that year of contemplation! That all just had me thinking in this lead up to Lent.
 
Sirach2 said:
…Knowing he’s been the center of controversy in the press, Burke again takes the stage to speak to the press, and masks his intention under a ‘hypothetical.’
Click to expand...
What do you mean “masks his intention” ?
 
Lion_IRC said:
What do you mean “masks his intention” ?
Click to expand...
When some in the Church speak out under the guise of their high status, there is an eerie and disturbing phenomenon that follows. That is when you hear people cautioning each other “there have been bad popes before.” That is very disturbing. We as Catholics are called to obedience to the the Church. We are guaranteed of protection from error when the Pope speaks on faith and morals. That is the ultimate sign of Catholic faith. When a speaker inspires others to express doubt in the papacy in the course of its explorations… there arises in the faithful foot soldiers, a heightened sense of suspicion as to the source of that confusion .
 
Surely it’s possible to hear Cardinal Burke in good faith and take what he says as being in proper harmony with the magisterium.

…without inferring something sinister or suspicious. 😦
 
Show me where he has actually said something that is mutually exclusive or diametrically in opposition to what Francis has actually said.

Where is the contradiction?
 
It’s just things like in mid December the Pope commented that the Church needs more female theologians and then early January Card. Burke alerts the media that the Church is too feminised and needs to turf female altar servers and females around the altar as they are responsible for the lack of Priests. Why are things like that necessary or should we just think of them as coincidences?
 
LongingSoul said:
It’s just things like in mid December the Pope commented that the Church needs more female theologians and then early January Card. Burke alerts the media that the Church is too feminised and needs to turf female altar servers and females around the altar as they are responsible for the lack of Priests. Why are things like that necessary or should we just think of them as coincidences?
Click to expand...
For journalistic balance maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top