15 November 2016

Perhaps an Apology to Cardinal Burke Might Be in Order?

I believe His Eminence deserves an apology from those many pundits who faulted him for silence or weakness in the face of the promulgation of the Exhortation of Desolation, and the subsequent letter from the Pope to Argentine bishops confirming a sacrilegious interpretation of the same as it relates to unrepentant public adulterers receiving Holy Communion.

I believed then that the Cardinal's response was, though seemingly subdued, at least adequate in that it explained to dismayed faithful that such a document could not form part of the authentic magisterium. Wrong, said most. Weak, said all.

As it turns out, the Cardinal had taken steps commensurate with the level of threat as it became necessary. He was not idle. When other interpretations were possible of this shameful document, he gave them. When not, he acted with the mind of the Church.

We now know that he and the other three Cardinals responsible for the dubia had acted prudently. First, as St. Paul advised, they remonstrated privately. While Francis was silent and they were castigated for weakness, they waited.

Now they make the dubia public, and they are in a position of forcing an answer: either an official interpretation that precludes violence to the moral law, or an admission of guilt by guilty answer or guilty silence. Checkmate.

It is for Francis to declare himself Peter-- or Arius-- or Honorius.

This isn't the last we hear from these dubia.

In this faithless time, we can be grateful for Cardinal Burke and those other few willing to shepherd.

Maybe an apology is in order?

12 comments:

Lynne said...

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

M. Prodigal said...

Cardinal Burke is prudent and he is no coward. He is a very holy man! One of the bright spots at this time of the Church.

Hildebrandon said...

In this midst of all this hubbub, a begged question: Why can't Francis simply ignore the dubia?

thetimman said...

He can, but it is damning enough for him to do so. That's why I mentioned Honorius. He was anathematized after his death for failing to speak in favor of the faith. Here, there is a direct challenge by his princes to so speak. Not as dramatic as a yes or no to heresy for him, but will count as a yes in the end.

Anonymous said...

Thank-you Cardinal Burke for your courage and honesty. God bless you on this terrifying journey to remain Catholic.

thewarourtime.com said...

Agreed.

Catholic Mission said...


Yes there is an error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has error and so could not be considered magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivism and this error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.
This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up with is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.
This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chose the irrtional option.
With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.
Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times. Cardinal Richard Cushing was active at Vatican Council II and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?
-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...

But...but...Dave Armstrong says that +Burke is just like Martin Luther and thinks he's better than everyone else who is happy to read the 1,000,001 clarifications he's blogged about.

-Excitator Stercore

Jane Chantal said...

Matthew 10:16 "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves."

His Eminence is being methodical. Sometimes you have to be.

Karen said...

This is not my original idea; I read of it on another site, but could it be possible that +Burke saw or was in some way informed of the third secret of Fatima and his role in it as an explanation of his apparent change of heart on AL? I admit when I read this I was rather stunned. Our Lady can make use of anyone and any circumstances to carry out her plans. I think this idea is intriguing and I pray that it might be so.

DJR said...

How do we contact Cardinal Burke to voice our support for his efforts?

thetimman said...

I think if you really want to give immediate feedback he has a page on Facebook where you can post comments or send messages. I think, but don't know, that Mr. McKenna possibly administers this.