A few months ago, a kind reader reported that Cardinal Raymond Burke, at the Sacred Liturgy Conference that was held in Medford, OR, in July, had publicly declared that the FSSPX is “in schism” while advising the faithful to neither attend their liturgies nor receive their sacraments.
If true, I understood that this would be important information to share for obvious reasons, but I decided that it was first necessary to obtain irrefutable confirmation as to what was actually said.
Today I received an audio recording of Cardinal Burke’s condemnation of the FSSPX as given during the Q&A Session that was held on July 15, 2017 at the above referenced Sacred Liturgy Conference.
Please listen for yourself as Cardinal Burke even goes so far as to suggest that the Society’s faithful stand in need of being “reconciled and returned to the Church.”
A transcript follows.
<<TRANSCRIPT>>
MODERATOR: Is it ever licit to attend and receive Communion at a Pius X liturgy? If there are there no other reverent Masses within reasonable distance. Can this fulfill the Sunday obligation?
[Archbishop Sample, who was also on the panel, defers to Cardinal Burke.]
CARDINAL BURKE: The, despite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
Having said that, we, part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly.
And, also Pope Benedict XVI, before his abdication, he lifted the excommunication of the four bishops who were ordained without the papal mandate, but, he, they hadn’t, the requirement for having an excommunication lifted is that a person has withdrawn from his contumacy and now desires to be fully reconciled with the Church but in fact that hasn’t happened, and so that’s another bit of an anomalous situation
They’re no longer excommunicated, but they’re also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church.
And so the whole thing is very complicated, but I would say to you that, I don’t think it’s a good sign to receive sacraments in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X because that’s not helping them to, first of all, the sacraments are not celebrated licitly. They’re valid, there’s no question about it if the priests are validly ordained, but it’s not a, it’s a countersign to the communion of the Church. Instead we should be encouraging the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to be reconciled with the Church
In fact, I think that Fr. Saguto could confirm this, I know it was the case both in Lacrosse and in St. Louis where there were apostolates of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest for those desiring the rites of the Church according to the ancient usage, many, many people who had been going to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X were reconciled and returned to the Church.
And I say that if instead we simply go freely to those Masses [of the FSSPX] and so forth that are celebrated, what encouragement does that give to them to be reconciled with the Church?
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Q. Rome these days, seems to be over-run with Modernists. Do you have any real friends there?
A. They who might be our friends, and who recognize the damage which Modernism is causing to the Church, have not had the courage to uphold it, and so it is possible to say that Rome is almost completely occupied by the Modernists. All that is done there is done according to modernistic principles.”
Archbishop 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.”
And this is who the Neo Trads think is there hero,
especially “The Remnant” Michael J. Matt swoons over him in his interview Dec. 2016
St Cyprian gives witness to the idea that you are actually contaminated with the sin of a sinful priest’s sacrifice…and you Should separate yourself from them!! (an idea that seems to have been totally forgotten today and one which needs to return.)
I found two passages, one at New Advent and one in Jurgens:
…
St Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 67
To the Clergy and People Abiding in Spain, Concerning Basilides and Martial.
…
“For in Exodus God speaks to Moses, and warns him, saying, Let the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest the Lord forsake them. Exodus 19:22 And again: And when they come near to the altar of the Holy One to minister they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die. Exodus 28:43 Also in Leviticus the Lord commands and says, Whosoever has any spot or blemish upon him, shall not approach to offer gifts to God. Leviticus 21:17 …
…3. Nor let the people flatter themselves that they can be free from the contagion of sin, while communicating with a priest who is a sinner, and yielding their consent to the unjust and unlawful episcopacy of their overseer, when the divine reproof by Hosea the prophet threatens, and says, Their sacrifices shall be as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be polluted; Hosea 9:4 teaching manifestly and showing that all are absolutely bound to the sin who have been contaminated by the sacrifice of a profane and unrighteous priest.”
…
Letter of Cyprian in Council with thirty six other bishops, to certain clergy and laity of Spain. AD 256
(Jurgens , The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I p234 #588)
.
“The people, in obedience to the precepts of the Lord and in fear of God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, nor ought they associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially insomuch as they have the power both of electing worthy priests and of refusing the unworthy. This very thing, too, we note, stems from divine authority. – that a priest be chosen in the presence of the people and under the eyes of all, and that he be approved as worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. …”
…
In the modern Church, the excuse makers for the sacrilegious dominate and so we keep accepting that the claim of Apostolic Succession magically insulates the hierarchy from teaching errors – it does not.
Cardinal Burke is working with Francis to bring in Fellay and the SSPX to conciliar
Rome. I know it sounds far fetched but Never forget Sept 11, 2001, evil forces are at work. Good Cop / Bad Cop !
I guess “pope” Burke won’t be our knight in shining armor. Surprise! Surprise!
Oh all those poor decieved trads who were so looking forward to Burke issuing that formal correction. Well, I guess its the SSPX who got his informal correction. Guess Fellay and Co didn’t realize they were back in schism according to the Neo in Chief. When will trads learn to have nothing, absolutely nil zero zilch to do with modernist heretics? Wel Raymond got one thing right. The whole issue is a complicated anomaly. Every thing to do with the conciliar church is a compicated anomaly. A lie built upon a lie, a modernist construct of a false religion. The only people who are not confused or confounded with what is going on in the conciliar church are the way left progressive communists like Francis and Kasper et al AND sedevacantists. The progressives are not confused. They know their mission, to destroy the old and eternal reform of the new. I suppose the only thing confusing for sedes is how other trads stay trapped thinking Francis is pope.
He’s totally Bergoglioized. He sounds more confusing than the Pope:
“Having said that, we, part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly.”
Uh, he *is* the Pope, right, your Eminence? How can he grant faculties to those outside the Church, or ‘not in communion with the Church’, or those in Schism? Can the Pope grant faculties to the Russian Orthodox? They’d laugh at him.
Simply an anomaly? How does that explain the Papal blessing on their sacraments?
Unfortunately for the SSPX “Cardinal” Burke is right in saying the SSPX is in schism. In fact they demonstrate a classic example of schism- refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or fellowship with members of the Church while calling yourself a Catholic. They have been schismatics since the days of Paul vi.
As far as an anomaly the entire Novus Ordo sect is an anomaly- a deviation from the standard of what is normal. What is standard and normal for the Catholic Church is to adhere to the perennial unchanging doctrine of Faith- something neither the Novus Ordo sect nor “Cardinal ” Burke do.
Psalm 25
1 Unto the end, a psalm for David.
.
Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my innocence: and I have put my trust in the Lord, and shall not be weakened.
2 Prove me, O Lord, and try me; burn my reins and my heart.
3 For thy mercy is before my eyes; and I am well pleased with thy truth.
4 I have not sat with the council of vanity: neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things.
5 I have hated the assembly of the malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit.
6 I will wash my hands among the innocent; and will compass thy altar, O Lord:
7 That I may hear the voice of thy praise: and tell of all thy wondrous works.
8 I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house; and the place where thy glory dwelleth.
9 Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men:
10 In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts.
11 But as for me, I have walked in my innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me.
12 My foot hath stood in the direct way: in the churches I will bless thee, O Lord.
A Catholic individual – or group – cannot be in actual schism with the Modernist sect currently (and temporarily) occupying the Vatican, any more than they could be in schism with the Seventh Day Adventists or the Anglicans.
Cardinal (?) … Bishop (?) … or Father (?) … or perhaps more likely, Mr Raymond Burke tells the faithful to steer clear from one of the few places where one can be certain the Sacraments are valid.
Hmmm, what a choice! Stay with heretic (and more than likely, laymen to boot) impostors simulating the “Latin Mass”, or go to the Society where they have the Faith and Sacraments intact.
He wants me to choose the latter? It’s not even water off a duck’s back as far as I’m concerned.
I meant “He wants me to choose the FORMER?”
Add an edit button to the wish list!
Well said as ever Tom.
Excellent comment, and this is why it makes no sense to keep approaching “them” time and time again. They do not love Tradition. No one is home. Stop knocking, keep doing what the SSPX has always done, and wait for Our Lady to triumph.
Sounds to me that Burke was always on the Francis team. He is just another one that it took the Pope undermining marriage, to get his attention. They didn’t worry over all the little things, like the Mass, Sacraments, Catechism and Canon Law being destroyed all those years ago.
Contumacy? WHAT contumacy?
Reconciled with the church?
They WERE, with the lifting of the excommunications.
Reconciled with The Church?
Give us a break, Cardinal. Start with Francis/ Bergoglio. Reconcile HIM with the Church.
The SSPX?
They’re Catholic. Move on.
Lawyers. Sheesh.
I dont think you can be in schism, Catholically speaking, from a false church…..to me that just makes no sense. The SSPX is certainly doing SOMETHING wrong, but I cant see that wrong as being schism. They dont obey a false church BUT they believe that said false church is the real Church. Hmmmm. I cant call it.
As far as Cd Burke….who here actually takes this guy seriously in 2017?
I agree with you for the most part (wish I read your comment before I posted). I continue though to have a HUGE issue with the SSPX regarding
their disobedience towards what they believe is the Catholic Church. As a sede I couldnt care less about what comes out of Rome simply because I KNOW that Rome isnt Catholic. If I wasnt a sede, I couldnt imagine defaming, on a daily basis, what I fully believed was the true Catholic Church. I dont want to offend anyone, but that is simply not how any good Catholic would ever act. Its actually mortally sinful.
Not a perfect analogy but whats going on in Catholic Church battle is kind of like whats going on in U.S. politics battlefield. You have the extreme left wing Democratic Party led by Obama, CNN, Pelosi, etc. just like in Catholic Church we have the extreme left wing Modernist Liberal Party led by Pope Francis, National Catholic Reporter, Bishops Cupich, McElroy, Fr. James Martin, etc. Than on opposite side we have the conservative Republican Party led by the Paul Ryan’s , FOX News, the Romney’s , Bushes, etc. while Catholic “conservatives” are led by Arch. Chaput, EWTN, National Catholic Register, Card. Sarah, Burke, etc. Now whats happened in the U.S. is many people realized that both parties, despite much of their rhetoric that tries to convince otherwise , really believe and promote same garbage when you get to the bottom of it. Hence, we have many people voted for Trump because they believed he wasn’t an established mainstream RINO like the whole rest of party and we can know this is true by the fact that majority of Republican pols hate his guts now too. So the way I see it is the “Trump” card in the Church is Arch. LeFebvre or at least his teachings and until all trads and neo cats realize what fortunately many in this country already have realized in terms of dem/rep politics , that the so-called “battle” between the liberal Bergoglians and the “conservative” Burkians is ultimately useless and just a red herring just like the pretended “battle” between the Democrats and Republicans was a big fat joke, we wont see anything really change unless the leaders of conservatve movement like Cards. Burke, Sarah, Schneider, etc. realize we need to all start following what Arch. LeFebvre (The Church’s TRUMP) proclaimed and all other pre-VII stuff while TOTALLY rejecting all the VII modernist garbage (ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.) at the root of this crisis that unfortunately the “consevative” prelates accept along with the liberal Cupichs and James Martins of the Church and is the unfortunate reason why both sides of this “battle” find much in common with their never ending praise of PJPII who is person mostly at the root of all these problems. We need to “drain the swamp” with Arch. LeFebvre’s truth, the dubias should be talking about his canonization nonstop rather than condemning him and SSPX, but until that happens all this “A.L.”, pope must answer the dubia, Frances pope or not stuff is pretty much useless unless it somehow leads to putting Arch. LeFebvre back on the top where he belongs before PJPII obstinately cut him down. We catholics need to wake up to the “dog and pony” show going on in Church between the “cons” and liberals like so many in this country did about the FAKE repub. vs. dem. sideshow.
Yet more proof that he’s controlled opposition. CatholiCucks love him, of course.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CatholiCuck&defid=12005800
MAny of the SSPX priests are validly ordained. I say many, because they have been accepting among their ranks defectors from the Novus ordo without conditionally ordaining them. So attending a random SSPX mass is like a box of chocolates…
Regarding Mr. Burke… I hate to break it to y’all: He’s not validly ordained….
Do your homework..
Was the Dubia a ploy to make us think he is pro-Tradition and anti-Bergoglio? I notice he is still alive and has been given a new “advisory” position by King Bergoglio. Checi it out.
oops–check it out!
Dear Cardinal Burke, In about forty five minutes I’ll be heading out to attend the Mass Of All Time at the SSPX chapel of St Catherine of Sienna in Woburn, Ma. Those whom you accuse of schism are the very ones who are not in schism, they have remained steadfast and true to Our Divine Savior and His Holy Church. I will pray for you Cardinal Burke and for all the Princes of the Church while at mass today. Our Lady of Fatima, Ora Pro Nobis!
The man is starting to bore me.
According to the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X they are in schism.
8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
[The schismatics of the SSPX obey their own Bishops not the legitimate Bishops but, of course, this objective reality will be denied because diabolical disorientation. Meet the new schismatics, same as the old putative Orthodox schismatics. In another form years or so, it will be plain to all that the SSPX is in the same situation os are the schematics of the east, the so-called orthodox who also have their own bishops and mass]
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
10 Q. Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?
A. The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.
11 Q. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?
A. Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.” And again: “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.”
12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?
A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
14 Q. Why is the Church called One?
A. The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.
The SSPX only obey the Pope when he takes a decision they approve of which is just another saying os say that they, the sspx schism, considers itself to have the ultimate authority.
I could be totally wrong on this, but isn’t he merely saying it’s not an “ideal” situation, because technically the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome? And technically, that’s true right?
By that logic, the Orthodox are not in an “ideal” situation.
He affirmed the SSPX are schismatics.
So the priests of the SSPX are validly ordained. Check.
The masses of the SSPX are valid. Check.
The confessions of the SSPX are valid. Check.
The marriages of the SSPX are valid. Check.
The SSPX is in schism? In what delusional universe do you live in? So if you don’t go along with the modernist heresies of a current Pope you are in schism? Then count me as a schismatic…and call St. Athanasius a schismatic too. I follow all Popes who follow Christ and the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. I am under NO obligation to follow a Pope when teaches and promotes error…if anything, I have an obligation to resist him to his face ala St. Paul to St. Peter. That resistance is exactly what the SSPX have been doing since the Modernists have taken over Rome.
I have never even been to an SSPX Chapel, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they have been the heart and saving bulwark of the Church for 50 years. God bless the SSPX! And may Our Lord open the eyes of Cardinal Burke and give him the courage and humility to repent to the SSPX for his calumny and unjust persecution.
God bless~
According to the late Canon Gregory Hesse (traditional Catholic canon lawyer), the ordination rite in the Novus Ordo church is valid, though illicit. You have your facts wrong.
How is it possible to be in schism from a church that is itself in schism from the Catholic Church? A Modernist Sect is occupying the True Church. The conciliar church still has a few aspects left of the True Church (as many in schism do), but it is clear that the conciliar church is in schism from the True Church. That’s a fact that the SSPX used to believe, but really doesn’t anymore. The new SSPX has stated thinking like the conciliar church, unfortunately.
I appreciate this article by Louie. I had still thought that Cardinal Burke understood tradition, to a certain extent, and was on our side. Clearly, he isn’t on our side.
To believe that the SSPX is in schism is to not understand the Crisis in the church, as it really is. Cardinal Burke is deluded.
Thanks, Tom, as usual you went straight to the heart of the matter.
As I see it facts can no longer be twisted, half hidden and misleading – decisions must be made and soon.
Fact one: The church is already in schism; we are reliving the Arian fiasco – ie the true and the false church side by side with no common ground except for the danger to souls.
Fact two: The schism might have been declared if Bergoglio hadn’t “forgiven” Cdl Burke leaving only one member of the original Dubia. Burke, being a Vatican II supporter is only too willing not to grow a spine and do the deed!
Fact 3: How can Burke claim SSPX who have St Peter as their Pope and adhere strictly to the Mass of ages are schismatic when the Novus Ordo bishops and priests are improperly ordained and they have rendered the Holy Mass and some Sacraments invalid and the “pope” they obey to the peril of their immortal souls is heretical therefore almost certainly Apostate ?
Fact three: It seem that Cdl Burke is attempting to pulled the last remaining rug of true Catholicism out from under feet of the Faithful. How DARE he.
Fact 4: The time has arrived for every Catholic and Apostate to make a decision and choose finally ……God or Satan. Until that happens more millions of souls will be lured into the unthinkable trap.
As Sister Lucy said: The time is coming when there will no longer be a chance to change your choice!
Cardinal Burke has found a sixth Dubai to present to the pope when the time is ripe.
I don’t know where you get the “neotrad business. The Matt family has been in the trenches for Tradition from the beginning.
Michael Matt and others act as though they are the guardians of Tradition. You try and discuss the opinion of sedevacantism on his site and you are “deleted.” None of us have the answer to what really happened to the Church since 1960s, but to blantantly dismiss a whole theory that actually has merit is the height of dishonest debate.
Caimbuel, Hesse has no authority to say they are valid just like GMU has no authority to say they are invalid. What you and GMU have the obligation to do is avoid doubtful sacraments. A simple reading of the new and old and some study on the issue is enough to create doubt. Incidentely, “Fr” Hesse, who I greatly admired, was “ordained” in the new bastard rite. I am sorry, but I am not betting my eternal soul on the fact that he “feels” his priesthood. I want objective certitude with my sacraments. The SSPX better stop their practice of selective conditional ordinations or they too will put doubt into their sacraments. “Fr” Hesse’s opinion is not objective certitude.
I have no problem with schism with heretics. I have no idea why SSPX fears the label. Cmon Frankie, grow a pair and excommunicate all us traddies. Do us a favor. I will have nothing to do with the NO V2 sect ever again.
He said nothing about an “ideal” situation. He said: “the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism.”
As for “full communion,” see:
Gnostic Twaddle: ‘Full Communion’ and Other Cosmic Connections
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
You shoot your own argument in the foot straight out of the gate, only because you’re defending the Vatican II Novus Ordo sect occupying Rome, not the Catholic Church.
Try fitting this sect into the description provided by that catechism answer and see how far you get.
The old adage, “he who proves too much, proves nothing”, is quite apt for you.
“Clearly, he isn’t on our side.”
Many have been saying that all along.
Someone should ask Cardinal Burke about attending Masses held by priests who promote Holy Communion for adulterers, or women deacons / priests, say that LGBTQ is just fine, etc.
Yes, let’s quote some Amoris Laetitia saying that not reaching for the ideal is all that God is asking from us. 🙂
The problem with the SSPX isn’t that they are in schism. Their problem is that they are not in schism ENOUGH!! The SSPX should separate themselves entirely from the N.O. establishment. How do you expect to”restore all things in Christ” while flirting with the enemies of Christ.
“I am under NO obligation to follow a Pope when he teaches or promotes error………if anything, I have an obligation to resist him……”
Bravo MMC – according to Canon 212 that’s exactly right. Lay people should speak out against anything which gives scandal to our Church.
Burke is a modernist, moderists are heretics, heretics are not Catholic, Burke is not Catholic. Why is it that most trads will admit to the first three statements but cannot quite make the leap to the fourth? The fourth statement MUST follow if the other three are correct. This same easy formula can be applied to Bergolio, your local diocesan “bishop,” and practically every priest that offers the fake NO mass.
Gods Servant and MMC, oh where to start with your errors…
First, you state, “I am under no obligation to follow a Pope who teaches or promotes error.” Well, if a Pope teaches an error about something other than Faith and Morals, yes you may totally ignore him. But if he teaches on Faith and Morals, then you must assent. For a true Pope cannot err when he teaches on Faith and Morals.
Second, MMC, St Paul did not “correct” St Peter on a matter of doctrine or dogma or faith or morals. He corrected him on a matter of appearance. St Peter was not eating with Gentiles in fear of antagonizing Jewish Christains. St Paul admonished him for his behavior. At no time the St Peter teach or promote error that was corrected by St Paul.
And finally, the third mistake of yours is to referencing Canon 212 (no offense Frank Walker). Canon 212 is from the 1983 Code of Canon Law which was promulgated by a modernist. It codifies the errors and heresies of the robber council called Vatican 2. No Catholic should feel bound to this nefarious document. Even if one were to apply Canon 212, the Canon only give the hapless Novus Ordite the right to express his OPINION. Opinions no longer are allowed after a matter is settled by the Church. Canon 212 does not give the hapless Novus Ordite the right to question and resist a teaching of the Magesterium. True Catholics know Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
Dearest Tom A,
To quote you from above: “None of us have the answer to what really happened to the Church since 1960s, but to blatantly dismiss a whole theory that actually has merit is the height of dishonest debate.” The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is today where it always has been since established by our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. The difference, as you well know, is the operation and occupation of the edifice once controlled by that same Church, the One, True, Church, now occupied and controlled by the church of the Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic, while at once completely as utterly devoid of all things Christ Jesus. All things “new” have been orchestrated, as a new religion, new sacraments, new exegesis, new catechesis, new catechism, new canon law, new breviary, new missal, new mass, all in Lucifer’s likeness and image, established solely for the purpose of taking souls to an eternity in hell. To suggest that the “sacraments” of the “conciliar church” of the Antichrist are valid, is an absolute ontological absurdity, as a proper understanding of “Quo Primum” helps to elucidate. “Proper matter, proper form, and proper intent” simply as pristinely means, “proper matter, proper form, and proper intent”, period and end. When the form is changed so is the act of the Sacrament, as properly understood metaphysically, therefore no longer an act of Christ our Lord, rather an act of the church of the Antichrist, completely devoid of love as Love Himself. We can know these things Tom A, with metaphysical certitude, in knowing and applying both metaphysical laws of “motion” and “non-contradiction”. This is why these emissaries of Lucifer, all dressed up as in a masquerade, in the robes of the Church, as Josef Ratzinger for instance, hate Thomistic metaphysics with all their veiled ire, because metaphysics as properly understood, unveils their lie proffered as Truth, then knowing with certitude that “the emperor has no clothes”.
As you know Tom A, so called “Sedevacantism”, is not a theory, as it is the only application of the Holy Writ, the apparition of Our Lady at LaSalette, the authentic Vatican Council of the 19th century, and scholastic metaphysics which forms then “right reason”, that which originates in the Mind of God Himself, such that internal contradiction is not held by the human person who accepts the “Sedevacantist” reality as Reality. Any human person who holds internal contradiction in matters deFide is NOT in Christ, as He commanded in John 14: he who knows My commands and follows them, loves Me, and as I am In the Father, you are in Me and I in you. God does not hold contradiction as it is antithetical to being as Being Himself, and as thus anyone in contradiction in matters deFide, is devoid of Christ, period and end. The Truth is hard but He commanded that He came to bring not peace but the sword, as it is in division that the truth springs forth and is plainly seen.
So where is Holy Mother Church, Christ our Lord’s Mystical Body and spotless Bride, as where it has always been in Truth? The Church is located within the very human persons who hold the true Faith within their deepest interiority, while at once free of the “operation of error”, such that the truth is believed as the Truth. There lies Holy Mother Church. Not in the Pope alone of course, who as you well know, has been “taken out of the way”, as Saint Paul prophesied would one day occur in 2 Thess 2, 7. That is why Jesus the Christ commanded that when the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith left upon the earth?, as the Church would then be in apostasy and the edifice controlled by the Antichrist. In caritas.
Hello Tom A,
It all becomes entirely clear, when a Catholic who truly holds the Faith as without internal contradiction thus, that the reason those who believe themselves to be Catholic and yet hold internal contradiction in matters deFide, as you say, those “other trads stay trapped thinking Francis is pope.”, is because in truth as Truth, they do not hold the Faith, as they cannot hold the Faith, with metaphysical certitude. As the law of non-contradiction holds, one cannot both hold the Faith and as thus not be in contradiction to the Faith and also “hold the Faith” while at once hold internal contradiction to that same Faith, as to contradict is not to be in union with. The Truth is hard but it just Is, as the Truth is a divine Person, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, Who came to bring division, not peace. In caritas.
Archbishop Lefebvre (two quotes):
“If we have not charity in us, if we are not united among ourselves, Our Lord Jesus Christ will not be able to act efficaciously in us, it is not possible. Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot enter a soul that has no charity. And how painful it is sometimes to think that some persons who nourish themselves daily on the Eucharist are not yet entirely dominated by this virtue of charity. They have to criticize, to cause divisions, to make rash judgments, to manifest their antipathy towards persons for whom they ought to manifest only friendship.”
“This victory that the Virgin Mary desires is a victory against Satan and, consequently, against sin. The Virgin Mary is the symbol of those who do not want to sin, who do not want to disobey God. This is the battle that the Virgin Mary is going to wage through the ages. So it is a great lesson that God gives us in announcing the birth of His Mother, in announcing that we shall have a Mother, a heavenly Mother, a Mother who will do battle. So we shall do battle together with her and we must do battle against the common enemy – Satan, and all those who with Satan are against God.”
Hello again Tom A,
Pope Saint Pius V is the one who actually deemed that the novus ordo sacraments are not valid in “Quo Primum”. It is most important to realize that Pope Saint Pius V bound all human persons unto the end of time in that Apostolic Constitution, as he was in union with his Bishops at the behest of the Council of Trent, on matters deFide, as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is. The Holy Sacrifice is not a “juridical” matter and thus it does not involve the “binding and loosing” powers of Peter, rather it binds the Church unto the end of time invoking the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, period and end. He invoked the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul on “anyone” as “anyone” who would attempt to materially (from its essence) change the Roman Missal or the Breviary. In caritas.
This is beginning to sound more and more like the Church equivalent of “Whose on First?”. When Abbott and Costello did it, they were hilarious. There’s nothing the least bit amusing in the Bergoglio & Burke modernist heresy routine. Funny it’s not. Deadly, it is…..for an eternity that is damnation.
Burke is starting to remind me of the Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare while Obama was still POTUS. Easy to vote for something knowing it will be accepted but never approved. As to his position on SSPX?. Diabolical Disorientation is an equal justice malady. Like rejecting just a single dogma of the Faith and still calling oneself “Catholic” You need a score card to follow “Whose On First”. The B&B ecclesial routine is no different.
Your posts continue to get better all the time Tom A. You are clearly laying out the issues.
I must clarify my remark above. If a Pope makes an error on on a subject other than faith or morals, we may respectfully disagree with him after giving his opinion due consideration. A Pope has Christ’s authority on earth to teach and govern the faithful. We cannot ever simply ignore a true Pope.
So what, Tom. You’re opinion is worth nothing.
Good Quotes, MaryiLoveHer. .
I assume that You mean to equate Cardinal Burke’s comments on the SSPX with a lack of charity, as Archbishop Lefebvre is describing.
Interesting, Tom, that you greatly admire Fr. Hesse, but you apparently have no idea about what his views were regarding the new rite of ordination. I doubt that you are very familiar with his views at all. So don’t pretend that you are an admirer.
He was not a sedevacantist, since he was not an admirer of innovation, as you are, Tom. Sedevacantism is an innovation.
Aren’t you amazingly clever for figuring it out? You must be a saint or prophet in the making. I suppose we must all bow down to you, due to your profound insight.
The same Pope wrote the same paragraph when he promulgated the Breviary which was revised by Pope St Pius X.
So, Pope Saint Pius X is a heretic, right?
The SSPX are protestants in Fiddlebacks and they have wrongly convinced many that the grave spiritual crime of schism is no big deal despite St Augustine teaching there is never a just reason to create a schism.
The Old Catholic Encyclopedia even identifies the unjust reasons for schism that many in here trumpet daily as just reasons for a schism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
In Caritas, I am not certain that their is no Pope, so Sedevacatism remains only a possibility. I do know with certitude that no one from the V2 NO sect can occupy any office in the Catholic Church. So sedevacantism remains the most probable theory but not the only possible solution.
“CARDINAL BURKE: The, despite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X?”
Cardinal Burke was supposed to answer the question, “as a Canonist.” This was on the tape—not on the transcript. Let us concede that, by Cardinal Burke’s definition, the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism. This would apply to the members, the priests and bishops, not the faithful in the pews. In fact, according to Canon law, the faithful can satisfy their Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel:
Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
And then the code goes further. Legitimacy comes with only a “spiritual advantage” :
Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Those who choose to believe Cardinal Burke on this question must realize that he should not be ignorant of these canons.
Yes Rich, that was the reason I could not truly consider the R&R position. I have a lot of trouble accepting the SSPX argument for their defiance.
Innovation??? The second St Peter’s eternal soul departed his earthly body after being crucified upside down, sedevacantism existed.
Not sure what I wrote is opinion. After re-reading the post you object to, I don’t see my opinion stated. Only facts.
1. “Fr” Hesse nor any of us has any authority. Fact.
2. We have an obligation to avoid doubtful sacraments. Fact.
3. Reading the changes in the ordination rites creates doubt. Fact. Maybe not in everyone, but it did in many. Therefore it created doubt.
4. “Fr” Hesse was ordained in new rite. Fact.
5. SSPX had already created doubt by not conditionally ordaining NO priests.
It required no special cleverness, holiness, or profound insight to see that Burke is a man of the Judas Council. The real question you should be asking yourself is: “Why did I wear the blinders of CatholiCuckery for so long?”
I see we have a FSSP partisan amongst us. Why come here to antagonize?
Hi Tom A,
As you have written over time, you know that Jorge is not the Holy Roman Pontiff. You don’t speculate, you write this idea definitively. You haven’t posed a question about whether Jorge is Pope, you simply acknowledge the reality as Reality that he is not, as he cannot be. That understood, as Jorge is not the Pontiff and as you posit now that, “I am not certain that there is no Pope”, the query then beckons, who is the Pontiff? In caritas.
You write:“The people, in obedience to the precepts of the Lord and in fear of God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, nor ought they associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially insomuch as they have the power both of electing worthy priests and of refusing the unworthy.
I agree. That’s why I’ll continue attending what Cardinal Burke even calls “valid” Masses and sacraments at my SSPX parish and avoid like the plaque that which has become the new-sect heretical hierarchy that now only occupies traditional Catholic real estate. The only clear, straight line I can find from Christ and His first pope to the present day is, in fact, through Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful priests.
Hello again Amateur Brain Surgeon,
Apparently you do not understand what the words, “from its essence”, mean. Understand that and you will have the reality as Reality and not the reality as deception as you hold it, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. I pray this helps. In caritas.
So you think it’s a swell idea for everyone to exhibit “submission to the Roman Pontiff or fellowship with members of the church…?” Submission to a heretical anti-pope and a cabal of modernist sodomite apostates who have, in fact, argued for, it not already created a new sect to replace Christ’s Church. Do you really find Jorge Bergoglio–or Paul VI, for that matter–more faithful to the Church than Archbishop Lefebvre? You sound heavy invested in the cult of pope worship that is criticized by all true traditionalists. Your kind of blind obedience to any pope is not only not required, it can be downright dangerous. Just as St. Athanasius.
I have attended Thomas Aquinas Seminary and, later, an SSPX parish for years. I used to ask God to help me confirm my belief that the true Church lived on in the remnant and that SSPX was a key part of it. It became more and more clear as time went on and then the Holy Ghost stepped in to make the issue clear to all who would see. The neo-church got Jorge Bergoglio. Does anyone really believe he is God’s idea of a faithful pope who will preserve Christ’s teachings and Church? He is, however, proof that true Catholics had better get back to the Church as Christ established it…and it isn’t among the hierarchy any longer.
Sorry but the Sede position is insane. That means Our Lord has basically abandoned His Church for the past 50 years thus we have had no ordinations, no sacraments etc.
Our Lord promised to always be with us…He is also a God of justice, thus allowing His sheep to have no shepherds for half a century is unjust.
You are reading the infallible aspect of the papacy to broadly. A Pope CAN make an error in faith and morals if he does not impose the infallibility criteria, which our wiley Jesuit of a Pope knows full well. Also, the issue with St. Peter and Paul was serious, opening up the Christian faith to non-Jews was a major issue, a doctrinal issue that Our Lord (if I recall) correctly even sent a vision to St. Paul to tell him of it. Thus St. Peter choosing to reject that truth by only eating with Jews triggered the deserved rebuke.
God bless you:+)
In Caritas, we cannot declare something we do not know. I have no idea how there could be a Pope at this time, but God’s ways are not ours. We can be sure, based on the authoritative teachings of the Church that modernist heretics like Bergolio cannot be Popes. Of that we can be sure. I do not hold the belief that there is some hidden Pope somewhere but can the possibility be ruled out with certitude? I dont believe so. So that is why Sedevacantism can never be proved. As you correctly say, it is a metaphysical certitude that heretics are not Popes. So we are left with two possibilities. One being the obvious and most likely, the See is Vacant. Or there is some other hidden scenario that is known only to God or perhaps a select few. If the second possibility is not possible and can be shown as a certitude, then I will stand corrected as I am always willing to follow Truth where it leads.
Dear GMU
You are so right about the box of chocolates–we drove over an hour late on Sunday thinking the SSPX chapel had a Roman Catholic SSPX priest there. Unfortunately, the priest admitted he had never been conditionally ordained to the Roman Catholic Rite. He is a Novus Ordo priest presiding over the Mass of Pope John XXIII in Latin. He is not a member of SSPX but works for them. Warning to all seeking the certainty of true sacraments in the Latin Roman Catholic Church!
Tom A and company seem to fill up the comm box like an overheated popcorn machine, but your short answer takes all the flavor out of their claims. Checkmate.
Hello again Tom A,
There is nothing “occult” or hidden about Christ’s Church, His Mystical Body and spotless Bride, as He is the Light of the world, which is veiled in darkness, not His Church. He commanded that we seek the Truth and it will set us free. We know that the Truth is hard as in John 6 and also in the command that Jesus the Christ told us He did not come to bring peace but the sword. There is mystery, as we know with the certitude of Holy Tradition, as the “Mysterium Fide”, but divine Mystery does not defy right reason, whose wellspring is the Mind of God. The Truth, as He is the divine Person of the Beloved Son, does not somehow hide nor conceal Himself from us but He is hidden from the world as they freely choose, as all those who have no zeal for Him, as they have no love for Him, as Love Himself.
You wrote this Tom A: “…we cannot declare something we do not know.” While you posit that statement, you also write, “I have no idea how there could be a Pope at this time, but God’s ways are not ours.” We have been prophetically forewarned Tom A. Our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, admonished His disciples for not discerning the signs of the times, while at once commanding in John 14, that the Father would send the Blessed Paraclete Who would remind them of all that He taught them and teach them more. Further, that the world would not know Him nor see Him but we would. The “world” receives the “operation of error” to believe the lie as the Truth because the world has no true love nor zeal for the One Who is Love, as Truth Himself. That Supernatural operation is sent by God in accordance with their will and not His Will for them. We have been forewarned Tom A in 2 Thess 2, verses 3-11, that the time would come of “the rebellion”, the Great Apostasy, and this would occur consequent to the reception of the “operation of error” on a scale the likes of which would have never before been known, as the Great Apostasy is a singular occurrence within the Mystery of Love, unfolding in time and space. In that time, when the lie is believed as the Truth, the Baptized would be outside the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in apostasy where there is no salvation, and not even know that they are, as that is what it means to believe the “lie as the Truth”. What is also prophesied inerrantly there, is the reality as Reality that “…he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” “He”, is the Holy Roman Pontiff because the,”he” which Saint Paul speaks of there, is the same “he”, which Saint Paul proclaims will hold the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the “son of perdition” as the person of the Antichrist, until the time of the Great Apostasy and then “he”, will be “taken out of the way”. After the Holy Roman Pontiff is, “taken out of the way”, this act of the Pontiff being, “taken out of the way”, and only this singular act, will allow then, as no other time in the history of the world before or after, Satan with all the power and wonders allowed for him, to reveal the person of the Antichrist.
Lastly, this reality as Reality, that the Holy Roman Pontiff will be, “taken out of the way”, is supported in the proclamation of the Vatican Council. The Council deemed that the Holy Roman Pontiff “should” remain until the end of time and this then in accordance with the Will of Almighty God. What the Council did not say and therefore did not deem, is that the Holy Roman Pontiff “will” remain until the end of time, nor could the Council have deemed that, because the authentic Council would then be in contradiction with 2 Thess 2, which as you well know cannot ever happen. No contradiction can exist in the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride the Church, as no contradiction can exist in God Himself. Know with certitude, Tom A, that the word “should” is suggestive and the word “will” is definitive. Almighty God in His Council did not use the definitive command, “will”, rather the Council used the suggestive word “should”, which is fully in accordance with His Will for His Church, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Where does this end and the heresy of Donatism begin?
Ditto what other wrote, well said!
From what I have observed since hearing about the issue of those who condemn the Second Vatican Council, all of you who broke away from the Catholic Church because of the Second Vatican Council are no better than the Protestants who broke away since October 31, 1517. You all speak against the Church in general and the Popes in particular. Satan wants division within Christianity and you are giving it to him because of your pride.
I would also point out something glaring about you. Vatican II was opened on 11 October 1962. That was almost 55 years ago. I am willing to bet that most, if not all of you, were not even around yet. Those of you who were were probably children in grade school.
As far as I am concerned, unless you were born at least by January 1, 1940, the you cannot even begin to understand what was going on back then. I was born in 1970. I admit that I do not understand everything that happened at that time. However, that does not mean that demonize people that go to any Latin Masses. I have been to a couple of Masses that were under the authority of my Bishop. However, as interesting as it was, I do not know that I could go to one on a daily basis.
I notice that you refer to your traditions, as if they are an end to themselves. You are no better than the scribes and Pharisees who placed their own traditions either equal to, or greater than, God’s word.
You may want to read the Gospels and see what Jesus has to say about all of this.
Protestants have said the same thing about Luther and the other Reformers who have said that the Reformation has not gone far enough to strip Christianity of Catholicism.
You sound no different than the anticatholics.
You sound just like a Protestant.
You sound just like a Protestant.
And those who left the Church over Vatican II has caused scandal.
And those who left the Church over Vatican II have caused scandal.
Thanks for bringing up Oct 31. In a few weeks the Novus Ordo sect will be celebrating Luther at 500. And you think it is I who left the Catholic faith???
Now George, just a cotton pickin’ minute here. What are you really trying to say here? You simply have to look no further than Evangelii Gaudium, note 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.” This encyclical, a “papal act” of the conciliar church, is an explicit heresy directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenics III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, as well as the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, namely, that the Mosaic Covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated.” All of this is in addition to clear Scripture that there is salvation in no one else but the NAME of Jesus (Acts 4:12) and numerous other scripture passages too numerous to cite here. So, when a “pope” officially teaches explicit and clear heresy, flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Church, then you should know that he is a false pope. Francis simply cannot be the pope and any prelate who believes this (which most in this day and age do) simply cannot be true bishops but counterfeits. This is a form of apostasy in not believing or declaring that Christ our Lord is the one and only Savior of mankind. Period. Full stop. Please please think and pray long and hard on where you’re placing your trust. Further more, Sts. Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus Liguori, Antoninus, and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, that is to say, a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be a pope. If he was already a public heretic before he was elected, then his election was invalid. The reason is because a public heretic is not a Catholic and thus not a member of the Catholic Church.
Bellarmine teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore, the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null and void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without a doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of the Roman Pontiff. Ironically, St. Francis of Assisi is said to have prophesied that there would come a uncanonically elected pope who would not be a true pastor but a destroyer. This, to me, fits the description of the current putative pope.
Tom,
Your problem is that you’re defining papal authority far too narrowly. It is not true that whenever a Pope speaks on something touching Faith and Morals he is guaranteed the charism of infallibility.
Were this true, John XXII, who taught heresy (on after the Last Judgement do the blessed have the Beatific Vision), because he spoke on a matter of Faith must be obeyed. The theologians who called this heresy were heretics and thus his successor Benedict XII, defining John XXII’s theory as heresy, was then himself a heretic.
So, clearly, your theory is missing some elements.
The Catholic doctrine is that not only must the Pope teach something on Faith and Morals, but he must define such a matter, intending to use the full weight of his Apostolic authority to bind the consciences of the universal Church to hold a particular proposition as true, and to hold such with Faith.
This is why, for instance, Quo Primum is not infallible. It is not on Faith or Morals, and even if we try to say it was, it clearly only intends to bind the Latin Church, so can’t be an exercise of Papal infallibility.
When a Pope speaks on Faith or Morals, but not intending to so define a truth or bind the consciences of the Faithful (like John XXII did), you are right: religious submission is owed. But when that non-authoritative opinion is in error or heretical, this level of obedience is not owed. No infallibility is guaranteed in such matters, and faithful who are convinced that such a proposition is false, may and must resist, since they must follow their certain conscience.
So judgmental and pharisaical of you, George.
I’m no fan of Cardinal Burke, but your naive simplicity in argumentation (and failure above to even define the limits of Papal Infallibility as the Baltimore Catechism explains them), makes me think you don’t know what Modernism is.
So, define “Modernist” according to Pascendi. Then explain how Cardinal Burke certainly fits this definition and we can be certain that he holds such a position. Cite writings, speeches, etc.
By saying “Reformation” rather than “Revolt,” you’ve adopted the language of the destroyers and are, therefore, a CatholiCuck. Very Protestant of you, George.
God love Card Burke for what he does, but he is not just wrong here is a small way, he is canonically, legally, and factually wrong. This man was in the position of the Highest Canonical leader in the Vatican, yet he appears to have left his learning and experience behind. St. Lucy of Fatima said we are in times of Diabolical Disorientation. If think it was from Akita that Our Blessed Mother said three would be Cardinals against Cardinals, and Bishops against bishops. Bishop Fellay (General Superior of the FDSSPX) was the ONLY bishop in the whole world that signed the Correctio Filialis that was given to the Holy Father. A document that supports the Dubia of which Card Burke was one of the authors! But Card Burke’s reason is still occluded by lingering veils of modernism he has imbibed and fostered. Thus, are we all ensnared.
I’ll qualify that by stating that I have read in many places that NO Bishops and Priests are ALLEGEDLY improperly ordained and have rendered the Holy Mass and some Sacraments invalid” Others say they are valid. Perhaps this conflicting advice is all part of the “diabolical disorientation” . I have no wish to deliberately mislead.
So true. Humanly speaking, there is no way out. Yet we must resist and not be counted party to the crime. We can’t give up (sede), or give in (novus ordo). Our Lady is the only one who can help us ( “only she can help you”).
Tom A you have seriously one down in my estimation! You admonished me for saying that I won’t obey the Pope’s heretical demands or teaching and you say I owe him absolute obedience – yet here you are pronouncing that he isn’t even a Catholic? God help us – no wonder people are diabolically disorientated!
Sorry – gone down in my estimation.
Gods Servant, I admonished you for saying that a Pope can issue an heretical teaching. I am not pronouncing anyone a non Catholic, since I have no authority to do so. That was already done be Pope Pius X in Mystici Corporis when he taught that heretics separate themselves from the Mystical Body of Christ. I am glad you find disfavor with me. I am in constant need of being reminded that I must be humble. I know I can come across as a know it all. Lord knows my kids tell me it all the time. That is why in these forums I strive to cut my opinion out of the discussion and base my posts on what has been definitively taught by the Papal Magesterium. Obviously, I am not always successful. Back to the point of strict obedience to the Pope, I challenge you to find any Papal document that says we the faithful do not owe strict obedience to a Popes temporal and spiritual authority. I know many theologians have opined on this subject, but what has the Magesterium actually taught prior to the disasters of the 1960s?
Andrew81, thank you for your comments. Here is a quote from Pator Aeternus, chpt 4:
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
Seeing how this was promulgated in the 1800s, I would say the Church did not consider the episode with John XXII as an example of a Pope falling into heresy.
I do believe you are correct that Quo Primum is not infailable since it is legislative in nature. The question on Quo Primum is if it binds future Popes. Some say it does not and others say it does because the Mass is a part of Divine Law and not simply Church Law. I think it is safe to say that the changes before the 1950s were accidental. It is not until the changes by Pius XII that one can argue that more than just accidentals changed. And clearly the Novus Ordo changed much more than accidentals. It changed the substance of the Mass itself. It supressed the propitiatory purpose of the Liturgy and introduced the novelty of a communal eucharistic banquet purpose.
MMC, what seems insane to me is a Pope teaching anti Catholic dogma. To me that would be God abandoning His Church by letting a Pope lead billions astray.
Magladhur—I’m sure that many who appreciated the good Cardinal Burke has done feel betrayed. How do you continue to trust someone who is capable of betrayal especially when his true motives are not known? I certainly hope that +Fellay makes a very strong statement concerning this. At least in France the SSPX has spoken out.
https://gloria.tv/article/WrH9ajdRbQXP47BhPqGRFYqLB
Or rather that the Society has not been lacking in charity towards those like Cardinal Burke. The SSPX does everything to manifest friendship and unity but are not treated in a like manner.
Dear Tom A, thank you so much for responding. I have the red headed Irish propensity for jumping in with both feet at times! My bold statement about disobedience to the Pope was stated in response to my belief and general acceptance that Francis may very well be the Anti Pope! Pope Benedict resigned the Office but NOT the Munus – plus the resignation and subsequent election organized by the St. Gallen Mafia must, of necessity, render it ‘suspect’. I honor the Petrine Office and always will which is why I am heartbroken at the current abuse of the Petrine Office. I try to be guided by great saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church – it’s moments when I fancy myself as a “great thinker” that I make a hash of things!
Pope St Leo the Great – “He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct is himself in error.”
Pope St Leo III – “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it.”
St Cyprian: “To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.”
St Alphonsus Liguori
: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate. If , however, God were to permit a Pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St Francis de Sales: “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.”
G.K Chesterton :”These are days when every Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own.” and “Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything.”
Once again thanks Tom and I’ll STILL copy and file your excellent posts! God bless.
A Pope teaching error has happened before in Church history…John XXII, the Arian crisis etc. If the faithful know the faith, even a Pope can’t lead them astray…as has happened with me, with you and others here:+)
But Our Lord Himself abandoning His Church? No priests? No bishops? No eucharist? No confessions? That means we would be like the Protestants…have a valid baptism and then on our own for the rest of our lives.
Papalotry comes in many varieties. Giving the vicar of Christ too much power/importance is the major issue of our day. Although understandable since Vatican I confirmed the issue of infallibility and we had solid popes for awhile. The Romans didn’t see their Popes as perfect in any way, shape or form…many of them were outright crooks and criminals.
What helped me was understanding the parameters of the Petrine office. I hope you find that info too and it helps:+) God bless~
Do you love him for committing the Novus Ordo?
All of these problems and confusion that we encounter in these online forums are a direct result of not having a Pope to settle all these issues. Holding fast to Tradition is all we can do during these times of diabolical disorientation. Say the Rosary daily and observe the first Saturday’s Our Lady requested. I would add avoid the NO and V2 sect like the plague and seek out the Latin Mass by priests ordained in the Old Rites solely. These discussions online bring out the confusion we suffer because we lack earthly Shepards to guide us.
St Cyprian is not saying the sacraments are not operative, what he is saying is that you can share in his sin, and so you should avoid such people, a concept which has been largely ignored in the Church for a very long time. You can share in another’s sin by your silence or by your assent.
A word about obedience.
Since the recent condemnation of the SSPX as “schismatic” by Leo Cardinal Burke, the topic has once again been raised.
Please, follow me here.
The ENTIRE AGENDA of the theological Modernists was delivered by DISOBEYING not only the Holy Father, but also the bishops (before they became democratized with episcopal conferences and collegiality).
Of them, St. Pius X wrote:
“Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever.”
and:
“And so they go their way, reprimands and condemnations notwithstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a show of bowing their heads, their hands and minds are more intent than ever on carrying out their purposes.”
(Pascendi gregis)
Such Nouvelle Theologie luminaries as Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J. and Fr. Hans Urs Vonbalthasar had books on the Index. De Lubac wrote two books in DEFENSE of arch-heretic Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., who was forbidden to teach or publish for the entire length of his life. Yet these DISOBEDIENT priests engaged in clandestine publishing and underground networking to poison the minds of seminarians and other students.
The rogue leaders of the Liturgical movement such as Dom Lambert Beauduin experimented with illicit liturgical practices forbidden by canon law and the orders of the Pope himself. Yet as soon as Sacrosanctum concilum was signed by Pope Paul VI, SUDDENLY it was all the rage to offer Mass facing the people and in the vernacular, AGAIN, in abject DISOBEDIENCE to the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff.
We could say more about communion in the hand, made up prayers in the offertory, and other abuses that were done in flagrant DISOBEDIENCE to Canon Law and the Pope.
Yet when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was begged by a dozen seminarians for a Traditional formation and he ordained them EXACTLY AS HE HAD ORDAINED A THOUSAND PRIESTS BEFORE he was immediately saddled with the epithet of “DISOBEDIENCE.”
The entire idea would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Satan’s masterpiece: making obedience to the Church disobedience to the Holy Spirit.
Abp Lefebrve WAS disobedient. He was disobedient to modernist heretics.
In Caritas, I am in agreement with us being forewarned. But is it not possible that “taken away” could mean hidden from the vast majority of souls. I only bring this up as a very remote and extremely slim possibility to explain the current situation. This is the only reason why I posit that sedevacantism is a theory and not objective truth.
Dearest Tom A,
To quote you from your response to Andrew81: “I do believe you are correct that Quo Primum is not infallible since it is legislative in nature.” Our eternal salvation rests in the balance Tom A; yours, mine, and every Baptized person on this earth, most who do not hold the True Faith and therefore are outside the Church, where there is no salvation. I implore your contemplation and discernment of “Quo Primum”, which binds “every as every” human person from 1570, July, when it was promulgated, and until the end of time. There is no alternative in Truth, therefore, there is none in reality as Reality. But there are many alternatives in reality as deception, and as parlayed by Lucifer and his minions. Pope Saint Pius V proclaimed his Apostolic Constitution, “Quo Primum”, commanding that if “anyone”, and as “anyone means anyone”, with no Papal exception for any Successor given, should add or subtract any iota of anything from its essence as the Roman Liturgy, that is from the Gregorian Rite as codified in Quo Primum, which is divine in its nature as the Holy Sacrifice, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur, he would incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. A child having attained the age of reason and pure in his heart, knows exactly what this means. There are no exceptions. There is nothing Tom A to be known somehow as “legislative”, using your term, to be found in the codification of the summa and summit of the divine reality, and as infinitely understood, of the representation of the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary. Amen. Alleluia.
You are in error Tom A when you claim this Apostolic Constitution is “not infallible”, as Pope Saint Pius V proclaimed it in full accordance at the behest of the Council of Trent and its command of firming up the texts. He also did it in union with his Bishops authoritatively, as the Successor of Peter, which carries with certitude the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, protecting Sacred Tradition from any iota of error, as our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ commanded in Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22: 31,32. Know this Tom A, as there can never be an iota of error contained within Sacred Tradition, there can never be one iota of error in anything which a true Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops, causes to enter into, that same Sacred Tradition, as “Quo Primum”. Anything other than this is error and it comes from Lucifer using his powers of deception and accusation by proxy through his minions as Roncalli, Montini, JPI, JPII, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio and company as “bishops”. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dearest Tom A,
It is not possible that “taken out of the way” could mean “hidden” from the “vast majority of souls”. Firstly please remember, that precious nothing deFide can be based on so called human respect, as in whether we “agree”, because as you well know and as you have actually recently written, you strive not to inject your “opinion” into anything you write, well knowing that your opinion and mine, as all human creatures is worthless, as we were created ex nihilo. All that matters is that we give our full free will assent to all that is True as Truth Himself. We also know with divine certitude that any Baptized Catholic in the state of grace and free of the operation of error, holds the True Faith as a true member of the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus. Amen. Alleluia.
Saint Paul proclaimed and prophesied in 2 Thess 2, that the mystery of iniquity was bound, under the power of “he” who “holdeth”. Saint Paul said further that “he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” He forewarned us that there is one human person who holds the power to keep the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth into time and space, the “son of perdition”, as the very person of the Antichrist. Further, Saint Paul declared this definitely by stating that “he who now holdeth do hold” and then completing that statement, “until he be taken out of the way.” What Saint Paul did not tell us was how long “he” would “holdeth” the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist. We now know with metaphysical certitude, as coming from the Holy Writ and Holy Tradition, that “he” has been “taken out of the way”. And this we know, as we write, that heretics cannot be true Popes. Period and end. Any Baptized human person who rejects that teaching of Holy Mother Church is trapped within the operation of error, period and end. As it is a Supernatural operation, there is no escape from believing the lie as the Truth, other than repentance and receiving God’s grace, that gift both freely given and completely undeserved.
The reason the true Pontiff cannot be “hidden” is because it is by virtue of his very presence on this earth, as the true Vicar of Christ Jesus, that “he” has held the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, until this time. Remember we are dealing with the spiritual realm, as we speak of the mystery of iniquity and not the physical. Thus, it is not the “physical” as sensate presence of the Holy Roman Pontiff that has kept the person of the Antichrist from entering the world, rather his spiritual presence as the Vicar of Christ in this world. Whether he would be physically evident or not, if he was here on this earth, the mystery of iniquity could not bring forth the son of perdition. There is nothing to be found in the Holy Writ or in authentic, private, Catholic revelation that suggests the Holy Roman Pontiff plays any role in somehow fighting off the person of the Antichrist, as in the final battle. In reality as Reality, the only reason the person of the Antichrist can be made manifest in time and space, is because the Holy Father is no longer here, as “he who now [from the Apostolic Age of Saint Paul] holdeth do hold” as “he” has been “taken out of the way”. All we need to do is glimpse around Tom A. The darkness in our midst encircling the world writ large, has never before been seen to this degree and scope in the history of the world, and we have just tasted the beginning, as you know.
Saint Paul concluded by saying that after, “he who now holdeth do hold” and “until he be taken out of the way”, that after “he” would be taken out of the way (and he did not stipulate how long he would be “out of the way” before the final happening occurs), the next and final thing would be the appearance of the Antichrist, as brought forth by all of the power and wonders allowed for and used by Satan. We are there Tom A. This is why we are in the Great Apostasy and this to be known as res ipsa loquitur. Before the Antichrist could come, the Church would have to be in Apostasy as prophesied again by Saint Paul. The Great Apostasy only occurs once, as does “he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way”, and of course as does the appearance of the person of the Antichrist. I pray this helps.
The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
It’s now fashionable among former traditionalists who are sliding into CatholiCuckery to speak of “the big picture.”
In Caritas, “Par in parem potestatem non habet”: Equals have no power over each other. Pope St Pius V himself changed the Mass after issuing Quo Primum to add the Feast of Our Lady of Victory. What cannot change about the Mass as you mentioned somewhere else is the essence of the Mass. That essence is one of propriatory sacrifice for sin. Anti Pope Paul VI was guilty of changing the essence of Mass. Many Popes, including, Pope St Pius V changed accidentals of Mass. Quo Primum is legislative in nature. It commands what missals can and cannot be used. That is a law.
“Quo primum” is infallible.
“…it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically. So it is not merely disciplinary , it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith.”
Here is a link to a concise explanation:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htm
I think that is what I said about the essence of the Mass could not be changed. The link you provided says Quo Primum is more than disciplinary because its “based on dogma.” The dogma is the nature and essence of the Mass which orginates from Divine Law. I do believe we are all in agreement on this point. All these differences of opinion. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a Pope again to decide these issues!
Burke says the NO mass. That makes him a modernist. Modernism basically attacks faith itself and deals in subjectivism instead of objectivism. Modernist are easily identified based on the ambigious statements they make. V2 is loaded with ambiguity and Burke upholds V2. Burke is clinging to the false notion that V2 can somehow be read in light of Tradition.
Dearest Tom A,
Know perfectly well, that which is being written about here, as “Quo Primum”, has nothing to do with my worthless opinion nor yours’. As we write of “Quo Primum”, we are writing of the infallible Universal Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Period and end. There simply cannot be one iota of equivocation about such matters, as they are deFide. As they are deFide Tom A, they are unchangeable, ever and period. Any definition or teaching of that which touches the Faith or Morality, by the Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, as “Quo Primum” does from an ipso facto understanding, because from its essence, it edifies and codifies the Holy Sacrifice and Breviary of the Church. As these are matters divine and to be understood then with divine certitude, they cannot be changed by “anyone as anyone”, Tom A and NOT as by “anyone but a Successor to the Chair”.
To quote you from above Tom A,
“In Caritas,’ “Par in parem potestatem non habet” ‘: Equals have no power over each other. Pope St Pius V himself changed the Mass after issuing Quo Primum to add the Feast of Our Lady of Victory.” The Holy Roman Pontiff has as his peer in this world, his Predecessors and his Successors to the Chair, period and end, as you well know. That understood, “Quo Primum” touches deeply into matters divine as its Subjects—the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Praying of the Psalms—and their objects—the Roman Missal and Breviary, and as such, the Holy Roman Pontiff and his Successors, remain infinitely subordinate to those realities of the Mass and the Breviary, in Truth, as those matters are specifically as actually Divine in their origin. Period and end. As the Church Subjects of which “Quo Primum” speaks, and as it codifies them in Apostolic language thus, they are unchangeable as they are immutable and inscrutable, or the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s spotless Bride. The “changes” as you refer to them, which Pope Saint Pius V himself made, are not “changes” from that which is the essence of “Quo Primum” as you say Tom A, rather changes in what would be referred to as the ontological “accidentals”, as opposed to the ontological “being” of the Mass and Breviary themselves. Therefore, altering the accidentals is not somehow prevented by “Quo Primum”, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur, with Pope Saint Pius V having done so himself, as you suggest.
“Quo Primum” is NOT “legislative” as you suggest, as from its essence. We have already established with divine certitude that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the praying of the Psalms are divine in their Origin. As they are divine in their origin, they must have divine protection. That which from its essence is divine, cannot also be from its essence “legislative”, which is human. “Quo Primum” is the holy work of a true Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops. The defining and teaching of any and all things divine in their origin (Faith and Morality) takes place from within the deepest interiority of Sacred Tradition, perfectly infallible as you well know Tom A. The analogy of the defining and teaching of “extra ecclesia nulla salus” can be used. As it is deFide, it cannot also be “legislative”. That dogma binds all Successors just as “Quo Primum” does, from its essence as divine. Any dogma is divine in origin, as Truth is the divine Person of Jesus Christ, Whose Mystical Body and Bride the Church is.
Finally Tom A, consider what you wrote here again about “Quo Primum”:
“It commands what missals can and cannot be used. That is a law.”
In reality as Truth, what “Quo Primum” commands is what the very essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Breviary are. The “Missal” is simply the instrument which communicates what the Church commands and as it relates the essence of Her Holy Sacrifice and Her Holy Prayers, which can never change in Truth and this speaks again as res ipsa loquitur. Last point of clarity. Giovanni Batista Montini, as “Pope Paul VI”, was actually as literally a “False Pope”, as to have an “Anti-Pope”, one needs a true Pope present. I pray this helps. May Almighty God have mercy on you and me. In caritas.
We must simply disagree. I hold that Trent defined the Divine Law as to the essence of the Mass as revealed by Christ Himself. Quo Primum codified which Rites were allowed and which supressed. Popes cannot bind other Popes on matters of law, only on dogma. Pope Pius XII wrote in Mediator Dei:
“…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. ”
As long as the changes do not change the essence of the Mass, true Popes can change and alter the Liturgical Rites of the Church.
Tom, the “essence” of the matter is that the law of custom governs the celebration of the liturgy, and this pertains to the deposit of faith. (See Fr Paul Kramer’s book, “The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy,” p. 89, note 5.) This was obvious to the faithful and clergy until…wait for it…Pius XII came along. We do not disregard all the Councils and tradition, the “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” of the Church, because Pius xii wrote this one paragraph. When there seems to be a conflict the will of the Pope is interpreted inside of tradition.
In Caritas-
Ultimately it’s of little consequence to someone who has the sensus fidelium and the sensus catholicus if a pope goes into formal heresy and if that entails him vacating the See. It is possible, it would be horrible situation to be sure, it could be a sign of the end of all things, etc…yes…but when and if this happens, we just continue to listen to Christ and Tradition and continue to sanctify and purify ourselves, even if the sacraments (including the most important and fundamental One) become scarce and the clergy and hierarchy run amok and become scarce. Christ will not abandon us even when all seems lost. He gave us His word. Indeed, when and if that happens, that’s when He is most present. Who among us can testify to that in our own lives? I’m quite certain many can.
I don’t know who you are, In Caritas, whether you’re lay or consecrated or ordained, but with all due respect all this speculation about sedevacantism you’ve posted on here over time is ultimately a waste of precious time for the average lay faithful and indeed much of the clergy inasmuch as it DOESN’T HELP PEOPLE and creates NEGATIVITY and thereby simply exacerbates the problems we face. Sedevacantism is a legitimate theory per se and has solid arguments, sure, but ultimately it’s a big “so what? and can lead people in the wrong direction very easily. We see this now within the SSPX (yes, I fully support the SSPX and everything about them and believe they are completely valid and licit in their sacraments and always have been, for the record). Christ is the King, not the Pope, and indeed a Pope could be really evil, heretical, or even turn out to be The Antichrist himself. So what? Ignore him and resist him then, and inasmuch as he is evil he can go to hell. After all, if WE OURSELVES are in the state of grace and are resisting error and heresy and schism, the diabolical elements in this world and beyond this world are ultimately powerless and can return to hell where they came from.
Carry on, and when priests and popes and bishops talk blather and error and heresy, ignore them, and don’t make a grand display of it.
+Mater Boni Consilii, ora pro nobis.
HN
Thank you for the excellent reminders of what we are about as Catholics
I have the following questions [ not opinions yet!] You rightly outline the requirements of the Faith, the Church and the Pope BUT the Pius X catechism is based upon the assumptions that:-
1. The Pope is legitimate. However, there are questions about this since Pope Benedict resigned the Office but not the Munus so do we really, in fact, have two Popes after all?
2. The Pope faces charges, from Bishops, priests and Theologians, of spreading heresy via A.L. so surely the latest closed meeting of Francis’ supporters to make A.L. acceptable and official to all – it must of necessity have Francis’ papal approval which would surely render him a Formal Heretic and therefore no longer Pope?
3. How can the Catholic Church be “ONE” if Holy Communion is open to unbaptized Lutherans , Anglicans et al – OR if a schismatic group is welcomed praised as being a “model” for true Catholics?
In short what I’m saying is that the New, Improved catholic Church designed by Francis bears no resemblance to the Q&As in the Pius X Catechism.
I think you finally nailed it Tom A – We cannot ever simply ignore a true Pope. What about a false one? Seriously?
Our Blessed Lady of Fatima stated quite clearly that Apostasy would take control of our beloved Church and that it would start at the TOP. Sister Lucy spelled out the “diabolical disorientation” that surrounds us which without the help of the Holy Spirit, penance, and the Rosary we will sink. Period; no ifs, buts or maybes. That’s what we’re dealing with now and it’s gathering speed while we here agonize over details! Sad.
I see the evil these divisions are causing; for whom Christ died. I think Cardinal Burke should be ashamed of sowing division. He knows he has just made a HUGE about face, not submitting our ‘dubia.’ So he should feel nothing but shame for such loss of courage and for “changing his spots.” Its just dead wrong for, I am certain, those who want to be true to Jesus Christ in Holy Tradition, to be fighting other “traditionalists.” Instead, I would hope it should be obvious to all lay people (I’m a religious, a lay person of sorts) that there are very strong and complex arguments in all three “factions” of “Novus Ordo,” SSPX and Sede-Vacant. Even canonists and learned theologians are having a hard time convincing the most faithful among us of their arguments. Therefore THAT means it is VERY likely that Christ would have us to be at Unity with one another as much as we are able, and NOT do as Cardinal Burke has done (& Michael Voris) and make for greater strife among traditionalists (by ostracizing and labeling each other). We should be united in putting down the wicked “heresy of all heresies,” – modernism, than fighting each other. I truly believe Archbishop Lefebvre may not have been always right theologically or canonically (I believe, for instance, like E. Michael Jones showed, that there is a huge difference between the work of Bugnini in the Novus Ordo Mass and the actual documents of Vatican II. Granted some of them were particularly modernist {Gaudium Spe, Nostra Aetate}, but some of them were biblically didactic, like the Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium) but he was a holy man who profoundly helped the Church not completely fall to modernism. So instead of fighting and sowing seeds of further strife and division, we should strive to be true to Holy Tradition, but remember that Holy Tradition should include the reverential, prayerful study of the Pauline Epistles (and the Prophets), areas where we may be in need of renewal.
By your own definition then an Albigensian or Atheist Unbaptised Communist is a “modernist” since “Modernism basically attacks the faith itself”.
I would probably agree with you that he at least holds positions that stem from modernism, but he’s no Alfred Loisy. In a word, he materially accepts propositions which flow from a modernist-imbused theology, but were he to see that they do not agree with the Faith, I doubt he would continue to hold them.
I’m in no way a supporter of Burke, but I don’t think we can go thrown around “modernism” willy-nilly, especially if we’re then accusing people of heresy. Your simplistic syllogisms above (Burke =Modernist, Modernism = Heresy; Heresy = Not Catholic; Burke = Not Catholic) shows a total lack of understanding of even basic logic and high school catechism.
That’s why I asked you to define your terms, and you apparently refuse to show you know what “Modernism” really is. St. Pius X did a fine job defining it well. If you follow his definition, I don’t think we can call Burke a formal heretic.
Andrew, because Pope St Pius X defined modernism there is no need for me to do so. He defined it for all of us. We can label Burke a modernist if he objectively displays any modernist thought (which he does). Of course we cannot call Burke a formal heretic. No one judges the internal forum. We can only observe the externals. That is another grand trick of the subjective modernist. They deny us the ability to observe objectively because we cannot know subjectively. This leads to there being no objective matter that can be pronounced because all is hidden inside the internal forum where no one except Our Lord may judge. You too have fallen for this modernist trick by adopting the “formal heretic” hurdle you claim we must cross before we label Burke a heretic. Well we can never cross that hurdle because its subjective so, material heretics remain “good Catholics” and the faithful remain scandalized. Burke is a modernist heretic because of his actions and what he has said and done. It is simplistic. The faith always has been until the modernists came along and made it so complicated that the faithful were scattered.