I must have missed that. What comment did Cardinal Burke make about the pope?
I must have missed that. What comment did Cardinal Burke make about the pope?
On the subject of the Pope, I’m going to think outside the Ultra-Trad box for a minute, and say that I have this peculiar feeling God is using Pope Francis in a way neither he nor anyone else expected. It’s just a feeling, based on the knowledge that he has a genuine and deep love for the Faith and for Our Lord. I think if he can be said to go wrong it is only through kindness: he does not think people have a right to impose heavy burdens on other people, which forgets that God can and does sometimes impose heavy burdens on people (just read Solzhenitsyn) at times through human agency.
Anyhow, to the point. I think Providence might just be using Pope Francis as an instrument to upset the apple cart - the apple cart being the uneasy co-existence between real Catholics who want to practise their Faith within the structures of the Church, and pseudo-Catholics who, sincerely or not, want to adapt that Faith to modernity and hence undermine it. A Kasper and a Marx might cite Pope Francis as their ally, but he is not really of their mindset. A true modernist does not believe in Catholic dogma; he just pretends to for as long as he thinks the dogmas are psychologically or socially useful, dumping them the moment he decides they have outlived their usefulness. But the Pope is not a modernist, not by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t think Kasper or Marx fully appreciate this fact.
By allowing the progressive element of the hierarchy to use the synod as a means of putting forward proposals that no Catholic can twist his brain around, the Pope - whatever his intentions - is obliging everyone to declare themselves. The uneasy co-existence (thank heavens!) is coming to an end. This can only be for the good.
If anyone thinks this is nonsense, that’s fine. I certainly can’t prove any of it. But I can’t help feeling a lot more cheerful about things.
This ties nicely into Bishop Schneider’s arguments, of which I assume you are well aware and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I likewise agree that, while hard to nail down, the Pope is definitely to the center (I’ll avoid the word “right” :)) of Kasper/Marx - and orthodox at the core. I do suspect he may have some sympathy with the Kasper brigade - unless you can come up with another reason for all of this to have gotten underway. I do think the Church will come out the better for this. And I suspect and fervently hope, after much pain and hardship (cleansing if you will), the Pope will answer and unite with the faithful who wish to retain orthodoxy. Don’t underestimate his love of the will of the people; he will follow it. Our job is to express it.
Those who wish to do that should remember that Jesus commissioned his first apostles to “go forth into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching all nations what I have taught you.” He did not tell them to go out into the world, find out what is going on, and bring it back to incorporate it into his church. That would be the Gospel in reverse.
Ironically, if we made some of the comments toward each other in this forum, like these two holy men do in public, we would be sanctioned for being uncharitable!:D:shrug:
You mean the proposal that the Pope at least tolerated and which the majority of bishops in attendance voted for? That is the proposal that “no Catholic in conscience can accept or tolerate”? Are you saying that the Pope and a majority of the bishops are not truly Catholic?
The Bishops didn’t vote for the proposal. They voted on whether to include a paragraph that mentions the proposal in the final doc.
“52. The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
Greetings…yes I think that may be just what the Holy Father is trying to accomplish with his inductive Ignatian reasoning. We must give him time and pray for him!
Some people (“Certain media”, certainly not ALL the media) are scurrilously charging Cardinal Burke with opposing Pope Francis concerning the recent Synod on the Family at the Vatican (Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family).
I see absolutely no evidence of Cardinal Burke opposing Pope Francis.
I especially see no suggestion of this alleged “opposition” in the fine article cited on this thread.
I DO see people besmirching Cardinal Burke’s excellent reputation trying to depict or portray him in opposition to Pope Francis.
What was amazing at the Synod from Pope Francis is . . . . how good of a listener he was.
Other than opening and perhaps closing statements, I don’t think Pope Francis said anything at all to the assembly–nothing–although he WAS busy listening.
Next year at the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family (in October 2015) is when he evidently plans to speak to these issues in more detail.
Concerning this article: Here is ALL that was stated directly concerning Pope Francis (from the article that this thread is centered upon) . . . .
In an interview with journalist Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke emphasized that he is not an opponent of Pope Francis.
“Certain media simply want to keep portraying me as living my life as an opponent to Pope Francis,” he said. “I am not at all.”
I am not sure how people on this thread or elsewhere see this as “opposition”.
Pope Francis himself has publicly said he seeks sincere and open debate on these family issues.
Why not just take Pope Francis at his word?
See Associated Press story:
Cardinal Kasper himself admitted (here and elsewhere) that doctrine cannot change:
The Word of Jesus is clear, but how to apply it in complex, different situations? It’s a problem to do with the application of these words. . . .
. . . . The teaching does not change but it can be made more profound, it can be different. There is also a certain growth in the understanding of the Gospel and the doctrine, a development.
So the issue isn’t: “Is it OK to change doctrine?” No (that’s impossible for the Church).
The issue is how best to carry out pastoral implementation of pre-existing doctrine and principles. Is a change even necessary? If so, what approach?
And what pastoral directions may threaten doctrine or at least potentially confuse the faithful (even if they don’t threaten doctrine). How can we formulate doctrine so it is easier for the clergy and laity to present this to the world?
All of this is for the Bishops to decide.
This public debate Pope Francis called for IS legitimate and appropriate for the Bishops to carry out.
What is NOT legitimate is for us to see the Pope to openly and publicly request debate . . . … and then when the Pope gets this feedback he asks for . . . . “certain media” attempt to attack those Bishops for honoring the Popes request.
Bishops like Cardinal Burke who has had to endure many of these attacks from the some in the media.
And Cardinal Burke far from being a rebellious prelate is being a faithful servant of the Lord and obeying Pope Francis’ call for a “sincere” and “open” debate on these issues.
If Cardinal Burke were to see potential red-flags with these proposals, and NOT say anything, THAT would be insincere.
Incidentally. Many other Bishops have ALSO have seen difficulties with some proposed “pastoral changes” to Catholic Church disciplines, and have spoken out as well (and that is part of their job to do so).
So the frequent targeting of Cardinal Burke in the media (and unfortunately sometimes elsewhere) seems to be inappropriate to me.
A certain non-authoritative element of the debate has “spilled out into the streets” concerning us as laity too. And I think this is by design of the Holy Spirit to better prepare us as lay people to defend the Church and help sanctify the temporal order as the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (at Vatican II) calls upon us to do.
VATICAN II (from Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity)** They (the laity) exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel. In this way, their temporal activity openly bears witness to Christ and promotes the salvation of men. Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, live in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ. . . .
. . . . There are innumerable opportunities open to the laity for the exercise of their apostolate of evangelization and sanctification. The very testimony of their Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have the power to draw men to belief and to God; for the Lord says, “Even so let your light shine before men in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).
This is a sublime and privileged calling for us as laity. May we meditate upon the family concerning these issues, so when we get our mandate from our Bishops we will be prepared to take it out in a deeper manner to the world.
God bless Cardinal Burke and all the Bishops of the Church as they try to the best of their God-given abilities to proceed forward in the manner the Holy Spirit calls them to.
Petition to sticky this entire quote.
I agree with everything you said. Personally, I don’t think it is as much fighting as the media is portraying it. We simply can’t confirm anything because we don’t know anything. And the media LOVES a good story.
Greetings…No Blessings sent to the Holy Father?
[quote="cathoholic]God bless Cardinal Burke and all the Bishops of the Church as they try to the best of their God-given abilities to proceed forward in the manner the Holy Spirit calls them to.
The Holy Father AKA the Bishop of Rome? That Holy Father? Are you just looking for something to find fault with?
Correct. This paragraph:
Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).
The Pope didn’t vote, the synodal bishops did. The paragraph can, if you try very hard, be taken simply as a report of the positions taken by different bishops on the subject. It does not categorically affirm: “Communion must be given in certain cases to remarried divorcees”. So a bishop could vote for it and mentally distance himself from the proposal. But that is really straining things - the paragraph clearly favours giving Communion to those in irregular unions.
The problem is that the option was included at all. It is untenable, indirectly undermining either the dogma that marriage is indissoluble or the dogma that a communicant must be in a state of grace.
Every indication points to the Pope favouring the Communion proposal, but I personally have not yet managed to fit that with his undeniable orthodoxy. I suspect he may have a blind spot originating from his kindness - he does not want the Church to lay intolerable burdens on laity who have got themselves into situations they humanly cannot get out of (a stable second marriage with children - what do you do?). Fine, but how do you square that with sacrilege? In any case whatever the indications, the Pope has not yet clearly pronounced himself on the issue and will not until the end of the next synod.
It would be naive to suppose that most of the bishops who voted in favour of paragraph 52 don’t actually favour Communion for remarried divorcees. They do. Cardinal Marx certainly thinks so:
“Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they had failed to get the two-thirds majority, the majority of the synod fathers had nevertheless voted in their favor,”
Marx is head of the German Episcopal Conference, i.e. he is not a lone-ranger maverick. If he said something like this it would be for good reason. He has his elbow in the bathwater.
Budeux. You stated (concerning my post 29):
No Blessings sent to the Holy Father?
Of course, “blessings to the Holy Father” Budeux!
The Holy Father IS A BISHOP (he is the Pope too, but he is a Bishop)!
Go back and re-read my post. I was complimentary to the Pope and blessings were sent to him and ALL the Bishops.
God bless Cardinal Burke and all the Bishops of the Church
The very title of the article cited by the original post (Cardinal Burke renews criticism of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, interim synod report) directly concerned Cardinal Burke.
So I addressed primarily Cardinal Burke . . . especially since I think he has been inappropriately portrayed by the media.
The media is wrongly conflating or mixing–up Cardinal Burke’s criticism of “proposal(s)” and jumping to (wrong) conclusions that this is equivalent to criticism of the “Pope”.
And I am saying this is NOT equivalent—especially when the Holy Father himself has directed the Bishops to give open, honest, and sincere debate. Especially when the Pope did not weigh in on the debate at the Synod.
And then when there IS open, honest, and sincere debate . . . Cardinal Burke gets attacked (by some in the media).
And I am saying this is inappropriate (for the media to do, and not even “the media” entirely but only the media that has carried this out. And these attacks against Cardinal Burke HAVE been carried out Budeux).
You might complain and say: “Well others have been wrongly besmirched too.” I would agree. . . . . But this article cited in the original post of this thread was centered around Cardinal Burke’s criticism of proposals and also subsequently correctly reported that: “Certain media simply want to keep portraying me (Cardinal Burke) as living my life as an opponent to Pope Francis,” he said. “I am not at all.”
I will assume you incompletely read my post and are not gratuitously manufacturing criticism Budeux.
A “put down” of the Holy Father is completely absent from his remarks.
Cardinal Burke correctly states that no Catholic in conscience can accept or tolerate the proposition that those living in an objective state of sin receive Holy Communion.
Exactly and I would add that, as faithful, we are obligated to follow him here; unfortunately it’s not an option.
Cardinal Burke has paid the price for his opposition to the Pope
“The Hammer Falls… And Then Some”
Agreed. Mortal sin = no communion is something I learned in grade school. Either divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin or it isn’t. As long as the church says it is then no communion is a no brainer.