Cardinal Burke Feet of Clay…

In the clip below, Cardinal Burke pronounces the Society of Saint Pius X in schism.  Listening to it, I recall the reason several Catholic friends gave for refusing to attend his Pontifical High Mass in a Glasgow parish church recently, summed up by one insightful soul: “…he’s not the real deal.”   

Blogger Gabriel Syme, who did attend the Pontifical High Mass in Glasgow recently, writes: 

I read that earlier and was much dismayed by the reported comments from Cardinal Burke.

it is unbecoming for a prelate to tell fibs (that the SSPX is in schism) which contradict his brother Bishops.

Ironically, he would never say such a thing about genuinely schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches.

How disappointing that he is so feeble in the face of Francis, yet so bold with unprovoked attacks on faithful Catholic groups, attacks based on deceit.

I am very disappointed in him and have diminished respect for him now. As if attacking the SSPX should be on his agenda, while everyone is waiting (and waiting and waiting) for him to act on the dubia.

Comment:

His “damp squib” dubia and meek acceptance of the Pope’s refusal to grant him an audience to discuss the four cardinals’ concerns about Amoris Laetitia, are now placed firmly in context.  He hasn’t a clue.  He’s apparently no clearer in his grasp of the limits as well as the extent of papal authority than most of the confused Catholics, ordained and lay, suffering in the Church-anything-but Militant today.  He has shown himself to have feet of clay. Or maybe you’re a Cardinal Burke fan, just because, at least, he values the traditional Mass?  Let’s hear it… 

Maybe Cardinals Should Try Phoning Pope Francis: He Tends To Ignore Letters

Seven months on from the “dubia,” Pope Francis has received midway through this spring another letter from the same four cardinals, signed by Carlo Caffarra in the name of the other three: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, and Joachim Meisner.

And to this letter as well, like to the “dubia” before it, he has not responded.

The four cardinals were asking the pope for an audience. To talk with him about the divisions generated by “Amoris Laetitia” and about the resulting “situation of confusion and disorientation” in much of the Church.

The letter was in Francis’s hands back on May 6. But the prolonged absence of a response has expanded its nature. As has already happened with the “dubia,” the four cardinals now think it right that the letter be offered for the reflection of the whole “people of God,” from which arises the demand for clarification to which they are giving voice.

The complete text of the letter, translated from the original Italian, is reproduced further below.

But in the meantime it is also useful to point out that, during the 45 days that have passed between the delivery of the letter to the pope and its publication, the Babel of interpretations of “Amoris Laetitia” – but not only this – has continued to grow.

The following facts can be presented in this regard:

– In Poland, the episcopal conference has announced that in October it will publish guidelines for the application of “Amoris Laetitia” that will hold firm, without exception, the teaching of John Paul II on the divorced and remarried, who will be able to receive communion only if they resolve to live “as brother and sister.”

– In italy, the episcopal conference of the region of Sicily has published “Pastoral guidance” on the eighth chapter of “Amoris Laetitia” that provides for “practical solutions distinguished according to the situations,” including absolution and communion for the divorced and remarried who live “more uxorio.”

– In Belgium too, the bishops with a “Pastoral letter” have given the go-ahead to communion for the divorced and remarried, even if simply “decided in conscience.”

– In Argentina, in the diocese of Reconquista, Bishop Ángel José Macín, installed there by Pope Francis in 2013, has publicly celebrated the full readmission into the Church of around thirty divorced and remarried couples that continue to live “more uxorio,” giving them communion – he said – at the end of a collective course of preparation based on the indications of “Amoris Laetitia” and of the subsequent letter written by the pope to the bishops of the region of Rio de la Plata.

– Also in Italy, the theologian Maurizio Chiodi has published in the latest issue of the authoritative “Rivista del Clero Italiano” an essay in which he argues in the light of “Amoris Laetitia” for the possibility of communion for the divorced and remarried on the basis of “a theory of conscience beyond the alternative of the norm.” The “Rivista del Clero Italiano” is published by the Catholic University of Milan, under the direction of three bishops: Gianni Ambrosio, Franco Giulio Brambilla, and Claudio Giuliodori. And Chiodi was appointed by the pope a few days ago as an ordinary member of the renovated Academy for Life.

– Again in Italy, in Turin, the Catholic priest Fredo Olivero has confirmed that the interconfessional group “Breaking bread” in which he participates meets once a month to celebrate the Eucharist now according to the Catholic ceremony and now the Protestant, all of those present receiving communion. He has said that he is sure this is the true “personal thinking” of Pope Francis, according to what he said on November 15, 2015 during his visit to the Lutheran church of Rome. He added that the dogma of transubstantiation must be reinterpreted in a “spiritual” vein, and that according to Jesus the Mass can be celebrated by anyone, not only an ordained minister. Fr. Olivero made this disclosure in the latest issue of “Riforma,” the weekly of the Waldensian Church.

– And finally, at the Vatican, it turns out that has been set up a commission charged with “reinterpreting” in the light of “Amoris Laetitia” the encyclical of Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” on contraception. The members of this commission are Pierangelo Sequeri, head of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Angelo Maffeis, head of the Paul VI Institute in Brescia, and Philippe Chenaux, a professor of Church history at the Pontifical Lateran University. The coordinator is Gilfredo Marengo, a professor of theological anthropology at the aforementioned institute founded by John Paul II and a longstanding supporter of revisionist ideas.

This is the state of the facts. And this the letter to the pope from four cardinals who are not resigning themselves to it.

In addition to Italian, English, Spanish, and French, the letter is also available in Portuguese and German:

> “A nossa consciência força-nos…”

> “Unser Gewissen drängt uns…”

“OUR CONSCIENCE IMPELS US…”

Most Holy Father,      

It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine “munus.” We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the “munus” of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which “has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood” (Acts 20:28).

On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five “dubia,” asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia.”

Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.

Most Holy Father,

A year has now gone by since the publication of “Amoris Laetitia.” During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from but contrary to the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening – how painful it is to see this! – that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on. One is reminded of the bitter observation of B. Pascal: “Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank.”

Numerous competent lay faithful, who are deeply in love with the Church and staunchly loyal to the Apostolic See, have turned to their Pastors and to Your Holiness in order to be confirmed in the Holy Doctrine concerning the three sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist. And in these very days, in Rome, six lay faithful, from every Continent, have presented a very well-attended study seminar with the meaningful title: “Bringing clarity.”

Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience.

May Your Holiness remember us in Your prayers, as we pledge to remember You in ours. And we ask for the gift of Your Apostolic Blessing.

Carlo Card. Caffarra  [Ed: pictured above]

Rome, April 25, 2017
Feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist     – Source 

*

AUDIENCE SHEET

1. Request for clarification of the five points indicated by the “dubia;” reasons for this request.

2. Situation of confusion and disorientation, especially among pastors of souls, in primis parish priests.

 

Comment:

The absolutely scandalous writings of Monsignor Basil Loftus,  the Leeds priest who lives in the Scottish Highlands (a mystery in itself) continue to savage Cardinal Burke and anyone else who dares to question Amoris Laetitia.   This week, Cardinal Burke is rudely told  to “get a life”. That is, to stop “[yearning] for “all the episcopal carnival costume, music-hall headgear for the clergy, clerical dominance, virtual contempt for women, effective contempt for laity, legalism, literalism and dogmatism which were the hall-marks of the pre-conciliar Church.” 

Yip – for 2,000 years,  since the time of Christ Himself until 1962, the above describes the Church; in the new Religion for Dummies, nothing, absolutely nothing, was right until Vatican II.   When Our Lord promised his Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit upon them to remind them of all that He had taught etc. He simply forgot to mention that said descent of the Holy Ghost wouldn’t occur until 1962. 

So, what are we to make of the fact that Papa Francis steadfastly refuses to respond to the concerns of his cardinals in the matter of  the unchangeable teaching of Christ on marriage, beyond the self-evident fact that it encourages blatant dissenters like Mgr Loftus to continue with their assaults on Holy Mother Church?  Is there anything that can be done to force the Pope to respond?  

Cardinal Müller: No Elephant in Room…

Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes

by Christopher A. Ferrara
January 9, 2017

The article below is taken from the Fatima Center website

According to Stanze Vaticane, the blog for the Italian TV channel TGCom24, Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has ejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia (especially Chapter 8, ¶¶ 302-305) which prompted the four cardinals to present

Cardinal Müller

Cardinal Müller

their dubia to Pope Francis. Those passages of Amoris clearly open the door to Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in “certain cases” — as bishop after bishop is now declaring — while appearing to reduce exceptionless negative precepts of the natural law (including “Thou shalt not commit adultery”) to “general rules” and mere “objective ideals” rather than divine commands from which no one can claim an exemption.

But Müller’s choice of words is very curious.  As reported by Stanze Vaticane, during an interview with TGCom 24 (translations mine), Müller stated:

“Everyone, above all the cardinals of the Roman Church [sic], have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was astonished, however, that this became public, almost constraining the Pope to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I do not like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith as Saint Thomas has said. We are very far from a correction and I say that it harms the Church to discuss these things publicly.

Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine, and we can make out the whole doctrine of the Church on matrimony, all the doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history. Pope Francis asks for discernment of the situation of those persons who live in an irregular union, that is, not according to the doctrine of the Church on matrimony, and he asks for aid of these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the Sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I do not see any contraposition: on the one hand we have the clear doctrine on matrimony, and on the other the obligation of the Church to concern herself with these persons in difficulty.”

First of all, why is Müller “astonished” that the dubia became public?  The four cardinals state clearly in their accompanying letter that while their dubia were first submitted privately to Francis, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.” 

That is their right as cardinals, and indeed it is the right of any member of the faithful:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”  (Canon 212, § 3)

Secondly, why is a “possible fraternal correction” deemed “very far off” — meaning that there is a potential for one — when Müller says at one and the same time that Amoris presents the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and that there is no opposition to that doctrine in the call for “discernment” of the situation of people in “irregular unions”? If Amoris were really so clear, and there were really no contradiction between Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Francis’ call for “discernment,” Müller would say simply that a correction of Francis is unnecessary. He would not say a correction is “not possible at this moment…”

I am afraid Müller’s statement falls into the category of so much of what has come out of the Vatican over the past fifty years: artfully worded doubletalk that tries to have it both ways.

Now let us be serious. Cardinal Müller knows very well that Amoris is not only problematic, but a veritable H-bomb targeted on the foundations of Christian life. As the four cardinals note in their presentation to a stonily silent Francis, different bishops interpret Amoris differently — some pro, some con — regarding the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments (in “certain cases”) without a prior amendment of life. Müller also knows well that Francis has sided with the pro faction.  In his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires regarding their “guidelines” for the “implementation” of Amoris, Francis declared there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris than their guidelines, which provide as follows:

“If it is acknowledged that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).”

Accordingly, the four cardinals rightly note with alarm (while Francis stays silent) that interpreters of Amoris “come to different conclusions… due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life.”  Thus, as they conclude:

“In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can — under certain circumstances — be readmitted to the sacraments. 

“Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life. Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.

Indeed, the fifth question presented asks the Roman Pontiff, of all people, if following Amoris “does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, n.56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?”  In short: Is Francis — the Pope — authorizing departures from the natural law?

Müller knows all of this.  And he knows the whole Catholic world is in turmoil following the publication of Amoris, as some dioceses now regard as “mercy” what others still regard as a mortal sin: the reception of Holy Communion while living in adultery. There is no way he cannot know what is happening. Yet he has chosen to put on a blindfold in order to be able to say that a correction of Francis “is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”

Really? If not now, when?  After thousands and perhaps millions of souls have put their eternal salvation at risk by receiving Holy Communion while engaging in adulterous sexual relations?  After the already weakened faith in Holy Matrimony is completely destroyed in many by the spectacle of people who are not married being treated as if they were?  After the very concept of mortal sin is de facto abolished by the subversive notion, promoted by Francis in Amoris (¶ 303), that conscience can properly counsel the continuation of gravely sinful conduct as “what for now [!] is the most generous response which can be given to God… while yet not fully the objective ideal”?

What a sad day for the Church when the very head of its doctrinal congregation blinds himself to what is perhaps, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has observed, the greatest doctrinal crisis since the Arian heresy.  How sad as well that, in contrast to the four cardinals who confront the crisis with eyes wide open, we must say of Müller what Our Lord said of the Pharisees: “Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Matt 15:14)   

Comment:

Can you explain Cardinal Müller’s assertion that:  “…a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off.  It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”  

I read those words with a sense of incredulity.  Given that most of us can see  the elephant in the room (even those who are late to the circus) and can, moreover, see it hurtling around the the room causing havoc, how can Cardinal Müller deny the fact that great danger to the Faith has already been caused by Amoris Laetitia. What’s wrong with him?  No rudeness, mind, folks, keep the heid. Nobody’s asking you to say it with flowers, just don’t be rude 😀   

Update: 11 January – The mystery deepens