Author Topic: Cardinal Burke: Cardinals could take a "Formal Act of Correction" (Read 12510 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #105 on:** December 24, 2016, 05:30:39 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: TKGS
Isn't it interesting that no one really has any idea which side Bergoglio is going to be on?

Somehow, I'm guessing that he will decide that the Order had no right to dismiss the "high-ranking Knights of Malta official [who] oversaw the distribution of condoms and oral contraceptives in developing countries."
What about Cdl. Burke? There seems to more than meets the eye regarding his "demotion" to being patron of that order of Malta.

I thought about that. The timelines reported pre-date Burke's appointment. Either Burke was completely unaware of the issue not having any function with the Knights or he found out what was going on and took action. The article doesn't say so I thought it best not to speculate.

But since you raised the issue, given the fact that Burke is does have some sense of right and wrong on some sɛҳuąƖ matters, it's possible that he put an end to the problem even as the man who was fired was carrying out Rome's agenda. Perhaps Bergoglio blew it, thinking Burke wouldn't actually do anything as the Knights' chaplain.

Geremia · « **Reply #106 on:** December 24, 2016, 04:26:30 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

But since you raised the issue, given the fact that Burke is does have some sense of right and wrong on some sɛҳuąƖ matters, it's possible that he put an end to the problem even as the man who was fired was carrying out Rome's agenda. Perhaps Bergoglio blew it, thinking Burke wouldn't actually do anything as the Knights' chaplain.

The recent Rorate Cæli post confirms that Cdl. Burke concurred with the council's dismissal of Albrecht von Boesinger:

Quote

It is no secret that Pope Francis’s removal of Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke from the tribunal of the Apostolic Signature and his installation as “Patron” of the Knights of Malta was intended to consign the trad-friendly Ur-canonist to an ecclesiastical backwater. No “promoveatur,” just “amoveatur,” and don’t let the door slam on your cappa magna on your way out.

How much trouble, Bergoglio and his entourage probably figured, could Burke possibly cause heading a charitable organization that now specializes in disaster relief?

Well plenty, it seems. Rorate readers are well aware of the cardinal’s strenuous efforts to defend the traditional Catholic teachings on marriage and the reception of the sacraments, especially in the affair of the “dubia,” which has yet to play out completely.

Apart from this, though, readers should be ready to watch how Francis’ plan to neutralize the cardinal is about to blow up in his face.

On Tuesday, December 22, the Knights of Malta’s council, with the concurrence of Cardinal Burke, dismissed the Order’s Grand Chancellor (and as Health superior, responsible for the Malteser charity activities), Albrecht von Boesinger, in connection with the distribution of condoms under the aegis of the Order in Burma.

One can see why this would cause agitation in the buffet line at the Casa S. Marta. If every case of divorce, remarriage and reception of the sacraments is somehow “unique” and requires “accompaniment,” if morality is not “black and white,” and if nothing is now “malum in se,” why fire a religious who adopts a “merciful” approach towards condoms?

Pope Bergoglio immediately established a five-man Vatican commission to investigate whether the Order’s council had acted correctly with regard to Boesinger’s dismissal – the hidden goal of the inquiry being, of course, to discredit or remove Burke.

The method is a variant on the one Francis employed in order to destroy the traditionally-oriented Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

But the Sovereign Order of Malta cannot be so easily picked off. It is an ancient religious order whose members profess solemn vows, its government is regulated by a thicket of previous papal legislation and it is, to boot, a sovereign entity.

The Order’s response[/url] to Pope Bergoglio’s appointment of the five-man commission was curt and to the point:

Quote
“The Grand Magistry of the Sovereign Order of Malta has learnt of the decision made by the Holy See to appoint a group of five persons to shed light on the replacement of the former Grand Chancellor.

“The replacement of the former Grand Chancellor is an act of internal governmental administration of the Sovereign Order of Malta and consequently falls solely within its competence.”
"Drop dead," in other words. None of your business.

You can be sure that before the council of the Order issued this response, His Eminence Cardinal Burke did his canonical homework.

So if Francis decides to pursue his vendetta, he will have a real battle on his hands with a formidable, intelligent and articulate opponent.

And we can savor the irony of how Francis, as a result of his attempt to neutralize Burke, will have brought all this mischief down upon himself: Convertetur dolor ejus in caput ejus, et in verticem ipsius iniquitas ejus descendet!

Geremia · « **Reply #107 on:** January 10, 2017, 04:31:08 PM »

Jan. 9, 2017, interview:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/OcDFehYqkt0[/youtube]

poche · « **Reply #108 on:** January 17, 2017, 01:52:19 AM »

Sections of Amoris Laetitia are copied from an essay written more than 20 years ago by a close associate of Pope Francis, a Catholic University professor has revealed.

Writing in Crux, Michael Pakaluk shows that a footnote in the controversial Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, and other passages from the papal docuмent, are drawn almost verbatim from an article published in 1995 by Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez. Since the Argentine archbishop is known to be an adviser to the Pope, and is believed to have drafted the encyclical Laudato Si’, it seems most likely that Archbishop Fernandez also helped to draft Amoris Laetitia, and incorporated some of his own previous work into the docuмent.

The use of material from an earlier essay raises new questions about the papal docuмent, Pakaluk observes. Are the passages in question the teaching of the magisterium, or the thoughts of Archbishop Fernandez? Has the archbishop deliberately exploited his position to give his ideas—which were controversial at the time of their first appearance, and contain at least one grossly inaccurate quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas—the stamp of papal approval? And has Archbishop Fernandez needlessly embarrassed the Pontiff by using his own words. As Pakaluk observes, “In secular contexts, a ghostwriter who exposed the author he was serving to charges of plagiarism would be dismissed as reckless.”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30488

Geremia · « **Reply #109 on:** February 01, 2017, 09:02:34 AM »

Quote

The Pope Is Silent, But Cardinal Müller Speaks. Who Responds To the "Dubia" This Way

To him too, in addition to Pope Francis, cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner had sent their five “dubia” on the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia,” seeking “clarity.”

And neither he, Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, nor much less the pope had responded until now to the questions of the four cardinals.

To make up for this, however, now Müller is bringing clarity, and how, in an extensive interview that is coming out today in the magazine “Il Timone,” conducted by editor Riccardo Cascioli and by Lorenzo Bertocchi:

> La verità non si negozia

In the interview, the cardinal does not use the word “dubia,” but he says “apertis verbis” precisely what the four cardinals were asking to have clarified.

And he does not fail to lash out against those bishops who with their interpretive “sophistries” - he says - instead of acting as leaders for their faithful are falling “into the risk of the blind leading the blind.”

Here are the key passages of the interview.

*

Q: Can there be a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience?

A: No, that is impossible. For example, it cannot be said that there are circuмstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.

Q: This is a question that is being extensively discussed with regard to the debate surrounding the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

A: “Amoris Laetitia” must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church. [...] I don’t like it, it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting “Amoris Laetitia” according to their way of understanding the pope’s teaching. This does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate. The bishop, as teacher of the Word, must himself be the first to be well-formed so as not to fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind. [...]

Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must strive to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?

A: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” with the clear doctrine of the “intrinsece malum.” [...] For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.

Q: How can one resolve the chaos that is being generated on account of the different interpretations that are given of this passage of Amoris Laetitia?

A: I urge everyone to reflect, studying the doctrine of the Church first, starting from the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, which is very clear on marriage. I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings, above all that according to which if love dies, then the marriage bond is dead. These are sophistries: the Word of God is very clear and the Church does not accept the secularization of marriage. The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity. One cannot refer only to little passages present in “Amoris Laetitia,” but it has to be read as a whole, with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage and the family more attractive for persons. It is not “Amoris Laetitia” that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it. All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations.

happenby · « **Reply #110 on:** February 01, 2017, 11:05:58 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

This presents a possible big problem for the R&R folks. If this ends up being just another Archbishop Lefebvre moment, then it will resolve nothing. We will continue on in the same crisis that we have been in since 1963. But if the 4 Conciliar cardinals take it a step further and actually declare Francis to have lost his office, how will the R&R handle it? How could the R&R justify such an act if they have spent the last 40 years developing arguments for how such a thing could never be done? It would be a great irony if the 4 cardinals and their myriad NO followers broke from the Conciliar church just as the SSPX was entering it. I'm not sure how this will play out but regardless of the outcome it will be interesting to see how it is handled by the various players involved.

The ideal situation from my perspective would be for the 4 cardinals to not only declare the Roman See vacant but to also seek valid orders from a traditional bishop. If that happens, this could be the definitive resolution to the crisis. It could have the potential to unite many sede vacantists with many R&R and conservative Catholics around a truly Catholic pope. That could be a miraculous outcome.

They won't declare the See vacant. It isn't in their powers. Even if it was, I can't see this group doing it. Still, this could to lead to a schism with more formality of questioning, or even an accusation of heresy. A pronouncement of heresy brings new problems because plenty of Catholics will insist it's null and void. The process in light of the bishop's own fear could easily drag out beyond Francis' last breath but the divisions if he doesn't die will be even more serious. People will be forced to decide whether they will 'apostasize' and back the bishops, or go with Francis, or worse, another candidate entirely, which will split the Church in three. And then there's Benedict. With the press coverage likely insisting that the bishops are in apostasy, the bulk of the people will go with Francis, and punishments for not staying loyal to the Pope could ensue in the name of maintaining some kind of unity. This may even lead to war and/or the feared martyrdom of good Catholics trying to hold their Faith. Guaranteed it will light up the media and Internet with even more spin.

poche · « **Reply #111 on:** February 01, 2017, 11:18:51 PM »

Catholic Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who heads the Vatican's office for the Doctrine of the Faith, said divorced and remarried couples must live in continence, as brother and sister, if they want to receive Communion at Mass and this teaching cannot change -- not by a Pope, an angel, a council of bishops, "no power on Heaven or on Earth."

Cardinal Muller explained this point in an interview with the Italian magazine Il Timone, portions of which were translated into English in the newspaper L'Espresso and re-published in the Catholic Herald. The topic is controversial now because of Pope Francis's letter Amoris Laetitia, which not a few bishops have proclaimed permits the divorced/remarried, who are living as man and wife, to receive Communion, although they are objectively in a state of adultery, a grievous sin.

In the interview, Cardinal Muller is asked, "The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must commit to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?"

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/vaticans-muller-no-communion-divorcedremarried-not-evan-pope-can-change

Geremia · « **Reply #112 on:** February 20, 2017, 10:50:49 AM »

At about 15:45, he says: "What are we being loyal to [by pledging allegiance to Francis]?" Despite being clueless that Francis himself is promoting all this confusion, he realizes that Francis's refusal to stop the spread of heresy is not compatible with the office of the papacy.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xe4PpSz54Tw[/youtube]

Incredulous · « **Reply #113 on:** February 20, 2017, 12:48:42 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

At about 15:45, he says: "What are we being loyal to [by pledging allegiance to Francis]?" Despite being clueless that Francis himself is promoting all this confusion, he realizes that Francis's refusal to stop the spread of heresy is not compatible with the office of the papacy.

Even the modernist faithful are seeing through the Destroyer pope's rabbinic logic.

At the risk of losing credibility and audience ratings, the producers of this Francis "looney tunes" show, may realize it's time for a commercial break",