On August 30, Cardinal Raymond Burke held an international teleconference with media members in anticipation of the release of his book, Hope For the World: To Unite All Things in Christ.
Writing for Catholic World Report, Carl Olson, who participated in the call, provided some interesting details.
Among the cardinal’s most noteworthy comments in my view were those on Islam. As reported by Mr. Olson:
Cardinal Burke first said he thinks the common response in the West to Islam is “deeply influenced by a relativism of a religious order, with people telling me, ‘Well, we all worship the same God. We all believe in love.'” Such an approach, however, fails to really study and understand what Islam is and what Christianity is.
Noting the fact that Christianity involves the ability to live according to the law inscribed in reality, Cardinal Burke insisted, “this is not true in Islam” as it has no natural law tradition.
According to Olson:
The key point, he said, is “I don’t believe it’s true that we worship the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor; in other words, fundamentally, Islam is sharia … and that law, which comes through Allah, much dominant [sic] every man eventually.” This law is not founded on love, he added, even if individual Muslims are gentle and kind people.
Cardinal Burke went on to ask rhetorically, “How can the God we know, who is fundamentally a God of love as St. John says, be the same God that commands and demands of Muslims to slaughter infidels and to establish their rule by violence?”
Bravo!
These are unpopular but incredibly important truths that few are willing to speak aloud.
At this, Cardinal Burke was asked to comment on Nostra Aetate of Vatican II; a document that has led many to believe that Muslims and Catholics do indeed worship the same God.
He responded just as one might expect; he went about splitting hairs by suggesting that a distinction must be made between saying that Christians and Muslims acknowledge the same Creator (as Nostra Aetate does) and saying that we worship the same God.
The reality is (and I say this based on my own experience), Nostra Aetate, like much of the conciliar text, is so deeply flawed that no responsible censor librorum would ever grant it a nihil obstat.
If pressed in private, Burke himself may even admit that the text of Nostra Aetate doesn’t merit his own imprimatur, but being that it is part and parcel of the Almighty Council, he instead chooses to make excuses for its flaws; thus assuring that it will continue leading souls straight to Hell.
In other words, this is classic Cardinal Burke.
So too is the following, also from Olson’s report:
The core drive in Islam to to [sic] govern and control the world, whereas Christianity, relying on right reason and sound metaphysics and true faith, “we make our contribution to society,” mindful that the Church is not intend [sic] on governing and controlling the world.
What the observant Catholic cannot help but recognize in this is the denial of the Social Kingship of Christ.
It is true that the Church does not intend to govern and control the world, but only if this is understood to mean that the Church does not intend to usurp the role that is proper to the State.
What the Church was commissioned to do (and should intend to do, though in our day it does not), however, is to make it known to all, including those who exercise legitimate civil authority in the various nations, that Jesus Christ is the Sovereign and King to Whom all authority rightly belongs, from Whom all authority comes, and to Whom all obedience is due, and furthermore, that He speaks and reigns through His Holy Catholic Church.
In other words, the intention of the Church should be to Christianize the entire world.
Does Cardinal Burke believe this?
If so, it’s not apparent as he seems to imagine that the Church should be content simply to “make a contribution to society” (just as the heathens, heretics and Jews also do).
Elsewhere in the teleconference, the conversation focused on the upcoming “canonization” of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (more properly understood as her posthumous reception of the Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the Revolution).
Mother Teresa “has been an inspiration to me from my years in the seminary when I first came to know her,” Cardinal Burke said.
He went on to make note of how Mother Teresa approached her work with the understanding that “we can only love one person at a time and so she went out with her sisters and picked up one dying person at a time and took them to the home for the dying.”
“This was the genius of Mother Teresa; Christ was so much alive in her,” he said.
What Burke failed to mention (clearly because it doesn’t trouble him in the least) is that the overwhelming majority of the persons that died in Mother Teresa’s care did so without Christ and without the sacraments; not simply because they were Hindus or Muslims, but because she didn’t bother with the “solemn nonsense” of seeking converts.
According to Fr. Brian Kolodiejchuk, MC, Postulator of the Cause of Canonization of Blessed Mother Teresa, her understanding of her mission can be summed up thus:
She wanted people to come closer to God (however they understood Him) and believed that in this way they would also come closer to each other, love one another, and ultimately create a world that is better for everyone to live in.
Substantively speaking, this is essentially the credo of the Masons!
“Mother Teresa believed that conversion is a work of God and that faith is a gift,” Fr. Kolodiejchuk said. “She respected every person, including atheists or agnostics, and respected the faith they had or even lacked.”
Certainly, it is one thing to recognize that faith is a gift; it is quite another for a religious to have so little regard for the missionary work of converting souls to Christ.
Writing in her book, A Simple Path, Mother Teresa plainly stated:
I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. (Pg. 31)
That’s a simple path alright; it’s just not a Catholic one.
In any case, try to reconcile the legacy of Mother Teresa with the following:
Relativism is a key problem, said Cardinal Burke, because it undermines respect for the truth. Too often there are general statements—“We all believe in the same God”—but “this is not helpful” and if it is not addressed, “it will be the end of Christianity”.
Get that?
In one breath, Cardinal Burke tells us that religious relativism – the same that is personified by Mother Teresa – will be “the end of Christianity” if left unaddressed; in the next he celebrates the fact that Mother Teresa is about to be held up as a model of heroic virtue; even going so far as to call her “a brilliant teacher to us.”
You can’t make thus stuff up, folks.
This is the conciliar religion (quite distinct from the Catholic religion) in a nutshell, and Cardinal Raymond Burke, in spite of the occasional praiseworthy comment or two, is one of its biggest nuts.
Yes the cardinal is right to say that Islam is sharia , it’s nor a religion in its pure sense , it’s a government system, to think that Islam is merly a religion is a false idea promoted in the west. Catholics need to learn about it, because. Islam is far more focused on kafirs than Muslims. Kafirs are everyone who isn’t Muslim , n their brand of Christianity comes from the Arian heresy, if there’s one way for God Almighty to shake up , his people it’s Islam. Hear comes the heathens too bring about thePhysical chaistisement , last ditch effort from God to get the people to wake up before the annilation of nations maybe?
Funny the cardinal goes against JPIIs opinions n new catholic catechism, n Vat II here.
A ex Muslim said Islam is the mother of all harlots. It’s doctrine is purly from the pits of hell. The good Cardinal seems to be just learning about Islam, well better later than never I suppose.
What’s so strange is that a number of bishops have had meetings with Dr Bill Warner n not so much a peep! No warning , whats real scary is that the Muslims are united n organized they are ready n ppreparing their children n we don’t even have game.
Aside from my agreement , the cardinal is a modernist like Mother Teresa, here comes Islam the ideology which sanctions deception to expose the deception of the modernist in broad daylight, How mysterious is God Almighy’s justice indeed.
thank you Almighty Father for Our Lord your son , Our Lady your daughter, Our Saints, pope St Pius X, pope Leo VIII , Fr Hesse n so many more , especially those faithful who have been persecuted by the modernist.
Father Nicholas Gruner defined diabolical disorientation this way:
” when a person is disoriented by various tricks of the devil.” “These diabolical tricks are not simply a kind of possession portrayed on television and in the movies. The devil, the purveyor of diabolical disorientation, manages often to give the targeted person a perception quite different from reality and yet, the person so diabolically disoriented is convinced what he thinks is the truth, when it is actually a lie.”
I see that you also spoke of it Mr. V, regarding Cardinal Ottaviani’s attributing relativism to distortions of the true Vatican II teachings and intentions:
“My friends, …let’s not be afraid to state the truth. ..”Apart from Divine assistance, no one – not even a giant of the Faith like Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviaini – is entirely immune to the confusion that is sown by the hand of the Master Deceiver, in the present case, as made manifest in the event and decrees of Vatican Council II.
—Knowing this, and ever solicitous of our wellbeing, Our Blessed Lord sent His mother to three shepherd children in Fatima in 1917 to forewarn us, and to show us the way to avoid falling prey to diabolical disorientation….
—“We all know what happened….
–” For us, the lesson should be clear: Stay very close to Our Lady, that She may take us under Her mantle and shield us from the wiles of the Devil. ”
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/2016/newsviews0728.asp
Until Russia gets properly consecrated, I expect they’ll keep handing souls these glasses of “pure-looking” water to drink, that contain just enough poison to kill. My prayer is that all who are able to discern what is happening these days, especially those working to expose it, may maintain the purity of heart and fraternal charity God requires of His disciples and messengers, while they continue to derail as much as possible of these lies and abberations of the devil. Keep the Faith Mr V, and keep on defending it. God Bless you with all you need to be always pleasing to Him.
In service to truth, I am very perplexed and must ask: How is it, in investigating the cause for sainthood, that miraculous cures were attributed to Mother Terrsa and JPII? Can anyone comment on the integrity of this process? How can these two, who confirmed great swaths of mankind in their error, be saints?
Dear helpusLord,
Thank you for giving us more than a glimpse into the Third Secret of Fatima. Thank you for summing up the ills of the last 54 years in a nutshell. The recitation of the Holy Rosary every day, is the only protection from wiles of the devil.
The old order of Canonizations were infallible. Because the new order of Canonizations has been changed so radically, their infallibility is no longer assured. I am not obligated to believe that JPII and Mother Teresa are saints.
Akita,
You raise a very important point here. We’re seeing many otherwise well-intentioned souls, like Mother Theresa, falling for this false ecumenical spirit, which leaves them essentially countermanding the mission Christ gave His Church, while believing they are better Catholics for it. Some have been spoon-fed this garbage by people they should have been able to trust as representing the true teachings, and my guess is, it fell in line so well with what their EMOTIONS told them “felt” right, that they not only fail to question it, but wholeheartedly embrace it as “God’s will”. ( Scripture calls this having one’s “ears tickled” by false prophets). Unfortunately, they end up behaving just like Islamic jihadists, only on a spiritual level, and we who have not fallen for it, see clearly how evil their indifferentism is. The question is, how will God judge these people who are duped or diabolically disoriented this way?
I shudder when I read in Ezechiel 13 what the lot of the false prophets is:
Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to them that sew cushions under every elbow: and make pillows for the heads of persons of every age to catch souls….
… to kill souls which should not die, and to save souls alive which should not live, telling lies to my people that believe lies. [20] Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold I declare against your cushions… and I will tear them off from your arms: and I will let go the souls that you catch, the souls that should fly.
Douey footnote: [18] Sew cushions: Viz., by making people easy in their sins, and promising them impunity.- they flattered them with promises of life, peace, and security. …That is, to sentence souls to death, which are not to die; and to promise life to them who are not to live.
[21] And I will tear your pillows, and will deliver my people out of your hand, neither shall they be any more in your hands to be a prey: and you shall know that I am the Lord. [22] Because with lies you have made the heart of the just to mourn, whom I have not made sorrowful: and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, and live. [23] Therefore you shall not see vain things, nor divine divinations any more, and I will deliver my people out of your hand: and you shall know that I am the Lord
Apparently God intends to pass a harsher judgment on those who KNOW they are lying, and join in with spreading false teachings, than on those they dupe.
When it comes to these final judgments, we have to remember Isaiah’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. … Isaiah 55:8
For my part, I’m leaving the judging to Him, and hoping these apparently disoriented “Saints” are not burning in Hell as their monuments are being raised here on earth. I fully expect the modernists to keep canonizing themselves until they are stopped.
Not the “only” protection, but one of the best. Don’t omit the value of praying before the Eucharist, attending Mass, wearing the scapular, making the first Fridays and Saturdays…and many other sacramental efforts. (as I know from what I’ve seen you post before, you are also very appreciative.) 🙂
Some would propose that if you are not obligated to believe that JPII and Mother Teresa are saints, then by the same reasoning you are under no obligation to believe that certain men are Popes.
Mother Teresa was a wonderfully generous humanitarian. She was at heart a “social worker” in a nuns habit. She relieved a tremendous amount of physical suffering to the poorest of the poor. But it is clear from her own words and writings that her work was not about “saving souls” but healing bodies, psyches and providing human dignity to the dying. A highly commendable life for sure but raising to the level of a canonized Saint? It’s not clear. One could make an argument that she didn’t formally preach Christ…she just taught him by her real life, hands on, fully involved example of “Love of Neighbor”. To paraphrase St Anthony of Padua….”Words Teach”, “Actions Speak”. Truly the world was and would be a much better place if we had more Mother Teresa’s.
This was a good post. Yes, indeed, Cardinal Burke is also saddled with the baggage of Vatican II, which has scattered the dust of diabolical disorientation in his mind.
–
Does anyone recall Christ wishing pagans to become better pagans and Jews better Jews? Heck, if that passes muster, why establish a New Covenant? Why offer the Father a perfect Sacrifice – through unimaginable suffering of the God-Man – and institute a Church with priests who have the ability to make it present, calling down His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity, if Hinduism will also do? What a load of absolute horse shit.
Do you believe Padre Pio is a saint?
Very well put. I don’t think the Father is very happy.
Absolutely, as well as Pius IX.
The election of a Pope is an act of administration. The Cardinals vote and the winner is elected. These same Cardinals can at a later date, depose the Pope if they choose to. You, Papal Subject, are powerless to do neither one or the other.
Jacobum, I have to strongly disagree.
If the things reported about Mother Theresa’s indifferentism are true, then the world was definitely NOT and IS not a better place for having more like her. True followers of Christ never value the body higher than the soul. Acts of kindness may open people up to receiving the truth, but if their benefactor then withholds it from them, misleading them by encouraging them to believe their false religion will “save” them, if they only adhere to it better, then you have the blind leading the blind into the pit.
I say IF these things are true, because I have no way to verify them.
One website reports this interview: with a Catholic nun, “Sister” Ann, who worked in Kathman-du, Nepal, with “Mother” Teresa’s organization Missionaries of Charity. It says the interview was conducted 11/23/84 at the Pashupati Temple:
Q: Do you believe if they die believing in Shiva or in Ram [Hindu gods] they will go to heaven?
A: Yes, that is their faith. My own faith will lead me to God, … So if they have believed in their god very strongly, if they have faith, surely they will be saved.
Q: Today it does not seem that the Catholic Church is trying to convert anymore. I know that John Paul II is saying now that those of other religions are saved. You do not believe they are lost anyway, right?
A: No, they are not lost. They are saved according to their faith, you know. If they believe whatever they believe, that is their salvation.
Nuns are becoming just social workers today, and that is because modernism has invaded the Church. Not a good thing at all.
Every false religion contains elements which reject the truth and lead the soul away from God and salvation. It’s why Catholic missionaries went to such lengths (before Vatican II) to “proselytize” rather than just doing acts of kindness in religious silence. We were all blessed by their work.
As I said earlier, I don’t know about the state of Mother Theresa’s soul, and I have no doubt she was a very self-sacrificing person, but if these things are true about her beliefs, then inasmuch as she was in error and spread it, she did grave harm.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Who uncrowned Him? Who? Who did the uncrowning and who was uncrowned? Who was uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who uncrowned Him? The authorities in Rome today. And the uncrowning shows in a very clear way in the Assisi ceremony. Jesus Christ is uncrowned. He is no longer King. Universal King, the king we proclaim in our liturgy from Christmas through to His Ascension. All the liturgical feasts proclaim the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From end to end of the Liturgical year we chant: King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now instead of extolling the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, here they are instituting a Pantheon of all religions. And just as it was the Roman authorities, or pagan emperors, who built the pagan Pantheon then, so to the pagan Pantheon of today, the meeting place of all religions, is being constructed by the church authorities of Rome! What an immense scandal for souls, for Catholics who already question the universal kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
Cardinal Ottaviani quote, December, 1960, (he had read the Third Secret by this time):
“It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…”
+Lefebvre:
“…If we have Him as our King here on earth, then we shall have Him as our King for all eternity.
Beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph today, not only for us, but for our families, for all those who surround us, that they may come to the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that they recognize evil, and also for those who do not obey Him or who have withdrawn themselves from Him. Have pity on all these souls who do not know the King of Love and of Glory, in Whom we have the happiness to believe, in Whom we have the happiness to love. Beseech Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph to convert all these souls to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King.”
If Cardinal Burke were elected to be the next pope (a big IF!), what should he do to salvage what is left of the Catholic Church after the Bergoglian wrecking ball? What would he be allowed to do surrounded by wolves and the purple mafia? Perhaps he could be more effective as a Cardinal than a Pope, if he had the courage and stamina to really step up to the plate. Any one have any thoughts on this?
This all just makes me wonder what those who preach that all religions are the same, in that they lead you to Heaven, think of martyrs like St. Isaac Jogues. I guess his getting his fingers chewed off by the Iroquois was all for naught. Then, his returning to them after his escape to continue his True mission, only to be Tomahawked to death was also not necessary.
As unworthy as we are, we all have a right to the Truth and should, in our unworthiness, preach it.
Pray for great courage to speak the Truth in these times.
St. Isaac Jogues…pray for us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Jogues
One thing I add to my prayers every day is the simple request that the Lord keep me grounded in the Truth always. I recommend it to everyone!
In times of crisis it has sometimes been the laity that has kept the Church on the right course. This, I believe, will be one of the those times.
Our Lady of the Rosary came to Fatima. Our Lady has given a new efficacy to the Rosary. Yes, there are many ways to pray, but the daily recitation of the Rosary is not optional. if someone wishes to save their immortal soul, they must pray the Rosary each and every day.
Dear Rushintuit. Sorry, you’ve overstated this. To save one’s soul requires Baptism and remaining free of Mortal sin. Our Lady asked for the daily Rosary as a free will offering from those who are willing to help her bring more Graces to souls so desperately in need. While it’s true that one who rejects this type of prayer is probably in even greater need of it, it is NOT true that without it a soul is lost. The Church would never teach that.
I always recommend that busy mothers for example, try to fit in a decade or two while doing laundry and dishes, and pray some with their older children during morning and evening prayers. If they don’t complete all five, they shouldn’t be made to feel guilty. This is an meant to be act of love, not a heavy burden.
Sorry if this reaction sounds over-board to you, but I’ve known people who have become very over-stressed believing God expects more of them than they could manage. He truly does not.
Amen!
I think the very first thing he should do if elected Pope is to carry out the proper Consecration of Russia. Then, as Our Lady promised, God’s Grace would shower down and many will be converted and a period of peace will be granted. The implication of this, it seems, is that most of the muddled thinking in the Church would clear up. I’m afraid that if this wouldn’t be his first function, things would stay the same, or even get worse in the sense that a false sense of orthodoxy would placate the faithful who understand where the Church needs to go, with the result of the Church limping along on its current trajectory (although at a slower pace). Although it might seem like a wonderful development if someone the likes of Burke would become Pope (because of the fact he seems more Orthodox than most) it might actually be worse – you know, the whole thing about a little bit of poison.
The crowning of Satan by one of his servants posing as the Vicar of Christ in Assisi after his crowning of the Satan-inspired United Nations as lord of this world ought to have generated a thundering response of incredulity and protest among everyone claiming to be Catholic. No. He was canonized by the other servants of Satan within his counterfeit church.
For someone like Cardinal Burke to be elected the next Pope, a tremendous change (such as the consecration of Russia?) would have to precede the election, or there would exist no majority that would even consider voting for him.
If that were to happen, we’d all be dealing with an entirely different scenario, as both the voting Cardinals AND Burke would likely no longer be disoriented as they now are, and the Pope’s obligation of preserving and teaching the truth, could go on as it has for over 2,000 years before the confusion of these times.
Jesus was simply a certain “consciousness” of the cosmic god of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin whose theology and philosophy became that of the Vatican Institution which can, therefore, claim that all religions have some truth within them and all are paths to salvation. It also claims that the Mosaic covenant was not abrogated with the New Covenant of Christ and thus, Jews rightly wait for their messiah and we Catholics are forbidden to try to convert them, or try to convert anyone to our Catholic religion since it is merely one expression of the religious “spark” within people leading them to it while others have different religious sparks that lead them to another understanding of God. That is why those in the Vatican institution can still claim to be Catholic.
In defence of Mother Teresa…..
———-
The following passages are quotations of Mother Teresa from the book “One Heart Full of Love,” edited by Jose Luis Gonzalez-Balado.
1. Faith, we must remember, is a gift from God. One of our co-workers asked me once, “Do you want us to become Catholics like you? “ I answered, “I would like to give you the treasure that I possess, but it is not in my hands to give it to anyone, because it is a gift from God. What I am doing is giving you the opportunity to do works of charity. Through these works, you come closer to God because works of charity brings you closer to God. When God comes to you or you go to God, then you will have the chance to accept Him or reject Him. Accepting Him is the gift of faith.” (68)
———-
If we truly understand the Eucharist; if we make the Eucharist the central focus of our lives; if we feed our lives with the Eucharist, we will not find it difficult to discover Christ, to love Him, and to serve Him in the poor.
——–
Conversion cannot be forced (50)
I am not afraid to say I am in love with Jesus because He is everything to me. But you may have a different picture in your life. And this is the way that conversion has to be understood—people think that conversion is just changing overnight. It is not like that. Nobody, not even your father and mother, can make you do that. Not even Almighty God can force a person. Even Jesus, though He was God Himself, could not convert the hearts of the people unless they allowed Him to.
——-
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
The Vatican institution intends on changing or transforming everything the Catholic Church has taught and practiced.
One of its transformations was the process of canonization which made it easier to canonize those the Modernists (i.e, the Vatican instituion which is a subset of the Catholic Church by its own Vatican II decree) who represent them.
Prior to Vatican II, a part of the canonization process included a devil’s advocate and the number of meticulously substantiated miracles was reduced to one. The new process (approved by none other than JPII) eliminated any way that objections could be freely and fairly raised and allowed the postulator (who is appointed by the petitioner for the cause) to present the case both for and against the candidate. In other words, one man was now to act as lawyer for both the plantiff and defendant, but was in fact now to be appointed by the plaintiff.
Worse, and even more damaging to the cause of truth, the postulator, using a clause that allows him to eliminate “unsuitable” witnesses, is able effectively and selectively to bar the most damaging eye-witness testimony negating the candidate. This vague “unsuitability” clause was never a part of the traditional norms, which, by the way, had been in place since 1640.
Prior to JPII’s approval of the new canonization process, the Church declared as Saints only those who had shown an heroic degree of sanctity and not simply to the first and common degree, which consists of the state of grace. This special and eminent degree is called the state of perfection, when the soul is entirely moved by the Holy Ghost. The new process abandoned this requirement. (See Vatican II’s “Lumen Gentium”, chapter 5.)
Another change in the canonization process was the relinquishing of the pope’s magisterial role to one of mere confirmation of the judgment of the local bishop. The local bishop, of course, has fewer resources for determining the facts of a cause beyond any moral doubt. Moreover, he has a conflict of interest in that he is financially benefited by having canonized Saints from his diocese.
Prior to Vatican II, it was the papal authority itself that was fully engaged, through the pope’s own Sacred Congregation of Rites, so that those previous acts of canonization were judged to be near to an infallible definition. But under the new process, the pope is not directly and fully engaging his authority as Vicar of Christ. Thus, the authority of the canonizations under the new process do not bear the same mark of papal authority, certainly nothing approaching infallibility.
Regarding infallibility, both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine held that canonization is not invariably held to be an act of papal infallibility and is certainly not a primary exercise thereof. Aquinas holds that canonization is a middle case (medium) and terms the opinion that the judgment that the Church cannot err in such cases as merely a pious belief, not a dogma, while St. Bellarmine holds that it is quite possible for the pope “to err in particular controversies of fact which depend chiefly on human information and testimony.”
The institutional church is at heart “a social/political organization”, left-leaning in the extreme where the popular culture (i.e., the culture of death) is both its ruler and its object of worship.
These words are not a defense of what Mother Theresa is accused of doing, if she did indeed teach her nuns to encourage those in false religions to be “better” Hindus, Moslems, etc.
There is a huge difference between restraining oneself from trying to “force” the Faith on others with the understanding that God’s Grace is a gift which draws a soul to Himself; and the indifferentist belief that all religions are equally able to save souls, which leads to failure to teach the necessity of the Salvation offered only through the Catholic Church and acceptance of Baptism into it which came only through the Cross Jesus bore for all who will accept it. No good Catholic would try to “force” the Faith on anyone, any more than they would deliberately hide the truth that every soul is in need of it for salvation.
Based on the words you quoted, it would be essential to know what Mother Theresa had in mind when she wrote: “When God comes to you or you go to God, then you will have the chance to accept Him or reject Him..”. It sounds as if she did not have the complete Catholic understanding of how God makes use his human followers to spread the Faith, and instead saw conversion as a purely mystical encounter of each soul with God, with no human intervention except for examples of kindness and charity, which are only part of the job.
Pope Francis apparently thinks this way, as do most modernists we see who’ve adopted philosophical/theological ideas contrary to the teachings of the Church. The journey to “cosmic oneness” is used as an excuse to take no responsibility for being that often unpleasant “salt” and light to the world. It’s much easier to give physical care to someone, than it is to risk their resentment of hearing the truth, that their Faith is a false religion.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“2. Ecumenism: Fraternity. That is not directly contrary to Our Lord, but ecumenism is, for it is a fraternity which destroys paternity. Who makes the unity of brothers? It is the father. Ecumenism makes us all brothers in a sentimental communion but no longer in the faith, no longer in the faith taught us by Our Lord, no longer in the “Father” we have in the Creed. That unity is not in the Father but in a vague feeling of subjectivism, of religious sentiment : it is Modernism.
3. Religious Liberty: that is conscience in place of law. Once more something subjective in place of law, which is objective. And what is this law? It is the Word of God. The Word of God is the Law: Our Savior Himself is our Law. You can see how all that is directly opposed to the authority of Our Lord!”
In the year 1214 Our Lady spoke these words to Saint Dominic:
“Dear Dominic, do you know what weapon the Most Holy Trinity wants to use to reform the world? I want you to know that in this kind of warfare the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter (Rosary) which is the cornerstone of the New Testament”.
It sounds to me like it would be very difficult to overstate the importance of the Holy Rosary. Your digression into busy mothers, guilt and heavy burdens is over the top sentimentalism. No rational person would consider spending fifteen minutes in prayer a heavy burden.
I was very disappointed to see Mother Theresa serve as Eucharistic Minister at Mass in a documentary about her life. In the past, she said that only the hands of a priest are consecrated. Did she go along to get along? Only God knows. However, IMO, this was a very bad example to give as a Catholic nun. It would have made quite an impact if she refused to administer Holy Communion or receive in the hand.
People like Cardinal Burke are too smart not to recognize the inherent contradiction of condemning religious indifference while holding up Mother Teresa as a “great teacher” of the Faith. Is it too much for a reporter to ask him about this…with a camera rolling.
He is interviewed by traditional folks from time to time isn’t he?
I mean, why can’t someone ask him or any of the other supposed “good guys” about this? Or about any of the other violations of the law of non-contradiction that become manifest the instant a “tradition-friendly” prelate or priest embraces novus-ordoism.
You speak of emotionalism , and yet your statement seems to be based on it.
“if someone wishes to save their immortal soul, they must pray the Rosary each and every day.” No exceptions? Do you REALLY believe that if someone doesn’t pray the rosary every day, they will thereby lose their immortal soul? If so, I believe you are in serious error. You have not provided any evidence that that your declaration is true, or even that it was stated by any of the Saints who promoted the rosary, including Saint Dominic. When our Lady appeared to him, he had already committed himself to a life of prayer, and was frustrated at not being able to overcome heresy by his preaching alone. She gave him the weapon he needed. We definitely all need heavenly help to fight the powers of darkness, but your dogmatic threat of loss of a soul, appears to be an exaggerated view.
Dear Rushintuit, thanks for the reply.
I am certainly not claiming any authority to depose a Pope whatsoever.
Could you please provide a theological source for the idea that the Cardinals can? It sounds like you are suggesting the Pope is a kind of CEO elected by the board, which can vote to have him deposed at a later time.
Very strong words there, Catherine.
I agree that the Novus Ordo Church is not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit religion.
New doctrine (or rather, none at all), new liturgy, new laws and new heirarchy.
If the old order is infallible, then the new one is as well. The proper object of the infallibility is the Church’s proclamation of a person’s sanctity. That proclamation uses the same language as formerly. The fact that the process has changed would not of itself affect the infallibility of the proclamation.
It’s like a bull that defines dogma; what is protected is the definition, not the rest of the document. Plenty of people seemingly accept this about papal bulls without trouble given the number of people who believe Our Lady did not die, based on the wording of Pius XII’s definition of the Assumption but ignoring the rest of the document’s references to the shared tradition of East AND West that she did die.
Now if, as seems to me must be the case, NO canonizations are infallible, how to reconcile recent high-profile canonizations with the traditional Faith? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, and others all teach that a general council alone would be the competent authority to oversee the matter of an heretical Pope. John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the universal Church, which is that of a general council”. (30) He cites three historical examples to confirm the point:
“This is indeed evident from the practice of the Church, for in the case [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols, a synod was gathered together for the purpose of discussing this case, as is recorded in Cap. Hunc c, distinct. 11. And in the case of the schism in which there were three reputed pontiffs, the Council of Constance gathered for the purpose of settling that schism. And also in the case of Pope Symmachus, a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it. It is known, from the resources cited above, that the pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to excuse themselves of charges, did so in the presence of a council.” (31)
Suarez said it is “the common opinion of the doctors” that a general council would be responsible for overseeing the matter of a heretical pope. He began by saying: “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church.” Then one paragraph he adds:
“In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2).” (32)
What about St Robert Bellarmine?
You explain succinctly the canonisation of sainthood in Tradition and the recent fundamental alteration of the proper procedure which by reason alone leads to doubt in the establishment of the necessary criteria for having achieved sainthood prior to death. If a person is believed to have likely achieved sainthood, the Church has a duty to establish that fact beyond any reasonable doubt so that souls can rely on the rightness of invoking the person declared to be a saint in the salvation of their own and other souls, for the promotion of their public veneration and the seeking of their intercession.
The fundamental alterations to the procedures by which the truth of sainthood is proclaimed to be established (insofar as man can reasonably so do) are such as to bring the process and therefore conclusion in any particular case, into general disrepute in the eyes of the right thinking faithful. The result is damage to the canonisation power which is rightly seen to be abused, causing damage to souls.
Amen!
There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.
The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.
These are the two main opinions of theologians with respect to a heretical Pope, and the Church has never made a definitive judgment on which of the two is correct. But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecumenical council, or by the College of Cardinals. The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.
That’s like saying, It doesn’t matter what words the priest uses at the Consecration of the Mass. The important thing is that the priest wants to make Christ present on the Altar. The new method of saint making is not infallible.
“Even Jesus, though He was God Himself, could not convert the hearts of the people unless they allowed Him to”
These words are a cop out for the refusal to do the hard and courageous work of the fullness of the Gospel i.e. evangelization, call to repentance and conversion. Yes, Our Lord could not convert hearts unless the free will of the person accepted it. But at least He spoke the truth they needed to hear unlike Mother Teresa and the MC’s who supposedly keep silent on the most important aspect of the Christian faith.
“What I am doing is giving you the opportunity to do works of charity. Through these works, you come closer to God because works of charity brings you closer to God.” No, what you are doing is turning people into humanistic social workers. The HIGHEST form of charity is the salvation of souls. Without that, you loose all true charity.
Living the Gospel MUST include the preaching, teaching and evangelization of people. It was the most important aspect of Our Lord’s life, it’s what His main purpose for coming here was for and it’s what got Him killed. The post V2 Church has hedged around this aspect of the faith for 50 years and the fruits have shown that without it, the tree dies.
Well done comments, btw, helpusLord:+)
God bless~
This is, indeed, correct. The bastardized, abbreviated canonization process–which no longer includes the “devil’s advocate–was designed by JPII to make it easier and quicker for him to canonize half of Poland, it seems. But with the last two “canonizations,” even those ridiculously simplified rules had to waived to even get them across the finish line. In fact, did John XXIII have any miracles after beatification? These “canonizations” were Bergoglio PR efforts to help legitimize Vatican II. Can Paul VI, John I and, ultimately, Bergoglio be far behind? After all, with all those “saints” involved, Vatican II must have been legitimate. I no more consider JXXIII and JPII saints than I could ever consider, uh, well, Bergoglio anything other than a heretic.
In the meantime, we still need to avoid a heretic, and this is of Divine Law, as heretics are not members of the Church. In your opinion, as I gather it, you must accept Amoris as authentic papal teaching until the authorities get around to declaring it heretical and blasphemous.
It truly is the goal of the Modernist church to bring all of Catholicism into general disrepute.