At the Rome Life Forum last weekend, Cardinal Raymond Burke urged Catholics to submit to the reign of Christ the King.
At present, unfortunately, the full text of the address appears unavailable, however, excerpts have been provided in several articles posted at LifeSite News.
According to those reports, Cardinal Burke stated:
The Kingship of Christ is, by nature, universal, that is, it extends to all men, to the whole world. It is not a kingship over only the faithful or over only the things of the Church, but over all men and all of their affairs.
Bravo!
In this, Cardinal Burke is simply stating, at least in part, the traditional (and, incidentally, immutable) doctrine of the Church concerning the Social Kingship of Christ as articulated very clearly in the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, and elsewhere.
Cardinal Burke went on:
The kingship is exercised from the Heart of Christ in human hearts. It does not pretend to govern directly the world but to govern it through man.
OK… we’re still on Catholic ground, although one senses a tremor…
He continued:
Christians who do not pretend to govern the civil state by means of the Church at the same time are called to give an heroic public witness to the truth of the moral law, of the law of God. Thus, Christ’s Kingship is exercised by hearts one with His Royal Heart.
At this, the ground is not only rumbling, it is beginning to crumble.
Cardinal Burke seems to be suggesting that it is ill-advised for those who exercise civil authority to do so “by means of the Church;” as if for them “heroic public witness” is somehow limited to their personal life and does not extend to how they govern.
In reality, those who govern are obligated to do so by means of the Church!
Why?
Simple, as Cardinal Burke stated previously, the Kingship of Christ extends over all men and all of their affairs, and it is through the Holy Catholic Church alone that He speaks and thus guides the affairs of men – yes, even the affairs of State.
As Pope Leo XIII taught:
All men are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of rulers of State to favor the one true religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. (cf Immortale Dei – 6)
Needless to say, it is impossible for those who govern to uphold this sacred duty apart from availing themselves of, and heeding, that which only the Holy Catholic Church can provide; i.e., by means of the Church.
Given that Cardinal Burke is most certainly a man-of-the-council, it would seem too much for us to expect him to proclaim the Church’s doctrine on the Social Kingship of Christ in its fullness, as this would require him to denounce as irreconcilable with immutable Catholic tradition the text of Dignitatis Humanae – the Declaration on Religious Liberty of Vatican II.
It would also force him to denounce the Constitution of the United States, as he himself approvingly noted at the Church Teaches Forum, in Louisville, KY on July 16, 2016:
Religious liberty thus understood [in the text of Dignitatits Humane] has been protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In a follow-up report from LifeSite News, Cardinal Burke is also quoted as saying at the Rome Life Forum:
‘Freedom of religion’ does not mean the freedom to practice a religion which is false or a religion which contradicts the law of God.
Amen to that!
The freedom to practice a false religion, however, is precisely that which the Second Vatican Council insists upon as a civil right in Dignitatis Humanae.
It states that this so-called “right” extends even to those “who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.” (cf DH 2)
Do not be fooled by the caveat concerning “just public order.” The Council has left it to the State to determine what justice in the public order entails, and we know all too well how that is going.
The bottom line is simply this – the Council plainly teaches that man has a positive right to practice false religion; a right founded in the very dignity of the human person as made known by Divine revelation. (ibid.)
So, Cardinal Burke, whether he knows it or not, has placed himself at odds with the Council. He has also placed himself at odds with Benedict the Abdicator, who in a reflection published in the October 10, 2012 editon of L’Osservatore Romano wrote of the Council’s deliberations on religious liberty:
At stake was the freedom to choose and practice religion, and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms.
As the Church has always taught, no such right exists. Period. Such evil as false religion can at best be tolerated.
In conclusion, Cardinal Burke will no doubt receive uncritical applause from the usual cast of characters (some of them con-trads) for the true statements he made with respect to the Kingship of Christ and religious freedom; thereby leading the foolish to look up to him as a trustworthy voice for the true Faith.
In this sense, he is perhaps even more dangerous than the Walter Kaspers of the world.
You see, unless and until Cardinal Burke ceases casting his lot with the modernists, defending Vatican II and all that goes with it, his flirtations with tradition will ultimately only contribute to a continuation of the current ecclesial crisis and the loss of countless more souls.
Pray for Cardinal Burke. It appears that he is a man wildly conflicted and terribly disoriented, but one who still seems to hear at least the whisper of tradition.
For the good of souls, his own included, may he embrace it in its fullness before its too late.
Anyone want to do a friendly wager when Louie goes from bennyvacantist to sedevacantist? I’ll go with Labor Day.
Christmas.
As to the substance of the argument, it is clearly true that the Church changed/developed her teaching on religious liberty at the Second Vatican Council.
Having said that, it should be remembered that Pope Leo XIII whom Louie quoted above also, to the annoyance of the then “conservative” Catholics, also told French Catholics to “rally round the Republic”. And that was the French atheistic anti-clerical Republic!
So all is not so cut and dried.
Louie has better things to do than chase rabbits, he seems to prefer wolf hunting.
But, if this is a recent photo I am fearing for Cardinal Burke; he is looking more and more like the Orson Welles version of Cardinal Wolsey. He looks mighty uncomfortable as a con-trad knight in XXXL armor.
I prefer to read what St John wrote and said.
St John Chrysostom was asked what meant when he said ,’In those times it will be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah”
St Chrysostom explained ,”Because in those times even many of His Ministers will be sexually perverted.”
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73018.htm
What in this piece gives you that impression?
He’s now directly attacking the Declaration on Religious Liberty from V2. That, combined with his current bennyvacantism, means that he will end up rejecting all of the post V2 popes at some point.
He has always condemned Vatican II. Where have you been?
“It should be remembered that Pope Leo XIII whom Louie quoted above also, to the annoyance of the then “conservative” Catholics, also told French Catholics to “rally round the Republic”. ”
What does that have to do with Catholic condemnation of religious liberty?
French Republic was not Catholic. Pope said to support it.
The Social Kingship of Christ is a great concept in theory and fully orthodox. It is impossible to out 100% into practice in reality. If you disagree, find me one example where it was fully and successfully implemented. And the less religiously homogeneous a society is, the more likely a theocracy isn’t going to be at all Catholic, and will probably be anti-Catholic. So secular, benign government is ok as a practical solution if it preserves religious liberty and human rights.
Hundreds of years of religious warfare accomplished nothing in Europe. It’s ok to develop doctrine to encourage freedom of conscience as a way of discouraging this sort of wasteful violence.
Did he say to support its religion?
This site used to be literally called “Harvesting the fruits of Vatican II”
It didn’t have a religion.
That’s kind of my point.
There are more than 10 non-homosexuals on my block. Also, Lot offered to pimp out his daughters to protect his guests. I wouldn’t take that particular story quite that literally.
Ummmm, try clicking on the link and READ the Scriptural passage. Then read the alleged Third Secret released by the Vatican.The quote from St Chrysostom is from one of his homilies.Not mention of “millstone ” from the Biblical passage .
Then research the word in other Biblical quotes.
I know Blunder, it is just too much work.
Mr. Verrecchio: “Cardinal Burke seems to be suggesting that it is ill-advised for those who exercise civil authority to do so “by means of the Church;” as if for them “heroic public witness” is somehow limited to their personal life and does not extend to how they govern.”
–
Comment: What Cardinal Burke said was correct, and, in the excerpt you quoted, he did not say what you suggested. The state does not govern, or exercise its authority, “by means of the Church”. They are each perfect societies in and of themselves, distinct both in their origin and in their end. The state has it origin in the natural law and existed before the Church. Its end is the temporal happiness of man; its proximate purpose the preservation of an external juridical order to provide for the temporal well being of man. The Church has its origin in the divine positive law. Its goal is the supernatural happiness of man; its proximate purpose to safeguard revealed truth and protect the internal moral order of right and wrong. In temporal matters the state is supreme. In spiritual matters (and in “mixed matters”) the Church is supreme.
–
While it is true that the state has a duty to profess the true religion, and to conform its laws to the natural law and divine positive law, this does not mean the state is “governed by means of the Church”. It is governed independently from the Church (but not entirely separated from the Church), since it is a perfect society of itself.
Furthermore Lot was a righteous man and he offered up his daughters rather than allowing his heavenly Angelic guests sent by God to be objects of perverse abuse.Abraham was willing to slay his only son at God’s command and in both cases God preserved them all.
“Pimping out his his daughters” was never the intent.
Like I have said before , this is Theology on tap Blunder style.
Yes, I know…but the point is that he has been condemning Vatican II for years now. So this particular piece is in line with his views about VII for some time. Nothing new here.
I’m Catholic, not Protestant, so I don’t read the Bible and make up my own interpretations.
It’s the Apocalypse. Vague.
You’re telling me with a straight face that you worship a god who thinks it’s good for a guy to send his daughters to be raped in order to protect two angels who could easily destroy the planet, let alone defend themselves from a mob. You can’t possibly have kids and be ok with that.
Blunder Blunder Blunder…….So Catholics do not read the Bible it is only for Protestants?
The Catholic Church is based on Scripture and Tradition. You would have learned that in Theology 101. What you call ‘”vague” has been expounded upon by Catholic Saints and Theologians. The Commentary in my old Douhay states that many this is Rome. The commentaries on passages in another Bible I have are from the Early Church Fathers as handed down directly from the first Apostles and Disciples .
All Catholics should read the Scriptures as it is officially Indulgenced prayer by the Church itself, to do so. Understanding the Scriptures is necessary to understand the official teachings of the Church . Note the Scriptural references at the bottom of all Magisterial documents and references to other Magisterial documents which are also foot noted by Biblical passages.
You better read the Bible because it IS CATHOLIC !
For Blunder and anyone else who thinks Catholics do not or should not have to read the Bible.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/sodomy
and this
https://biblereasons.com/sodomy/
“The practice of too many Catholics, who don’t read the Bible at all, so as to not be “confused” or “led astray” is a sort of lamentable “kindergarten Christianity” and laziness. The same people manage to find plenty of time to devote to the “study” of sports, politics, or to a hundred different subjects they will learn all about in high school or college (spending thousands of hours), but somehow they can’t find any time to read their Bibles and soak in the words of the very Lord they worship and receive every week?”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/why-are-catholics-so-deficient-in-bible-reading
Catholics should read the Bible. They’re not supposed to make up their own interpretations.
I cannot challenge your second source, which begins “Anal to anus sex should not be done even if it’s in marriage”. I didn’t know people did that.
Blunder, the Theological interpretations are in the COMMENTARIES at the bottom of the pages !My Douhay ( Catholic) Bible (from the Latin)
states clearly that many Church Theologians believe the passage I referred to means the city of Rome , both during St John’s time and in the future. It is eerily similar to the released Third Secret of Fatima minus the dialogue explanation we did not and should have been given.
My Greek Bible ( used in the Eastern Catholic Rites) says the same.
St John Chrysostom’s commentary on what Christ meant when He preached it would be worse in the End Times than during Sodom and Gomorrah, is a commentary in my Greek Bible directly from one of his homilies. Sadly, the newer editions of Bibles have become INCLUSIVE and politically corrected ……..i.e.sodomy was not the sin of Sodom but inhospitality was.
Sorry Louis back to your post at hand.
I find it particularly odd that Fr Fahey’s books were censured especially since he expounded on the Social Reign of Christ the King.
But then again he demonstrated how the Protocols were diametrically opposed to this teaching.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion they were a “conspiracy theory” , they should read the Talmud Unmasked………which is exactly where that Jewish Hollywood producer came up with his plot for Jesus and Mary Magdalen as either married or having an illicit affair and the notion that the Apostles stole the Body of our lord rather than His Resurrection. The plot is as old as the Bible because it came straight from the Talmud.
https://archive.org/stream/FaheyDenisTheKingshipOfChrist_201603/Fahey_Denis_-_The_Kingship_of_Christ_djvu.txt
From ,Catholic Toronto Witness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLBWNGLgyMci5LoOVbEkLVtplAazwn_gq8&v=6Y3KUYlXc2g
“Please pray for those suffering from same-sex attraction. Please pray for those who have been seduced into the homosexual lifestyle (many times, due to being molested as a child or young boy). “
Paraphrased: “Before you accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories, let’s remember that the Jews control the world and are responsible for all bad things.” Alrightythen.
A NO Cardinal contradicting the Council is hardly news. Seeing how the Council is a contradiction itself. as is the NO, it is safe to assume that everytime any NO prelate opens his mouth there’s bound to be a contradiction.
Hi Ignatio! Can you please give me a couple of very simple and easily found references to this as I am a bit confused by it.
Thanks!
Like I said the more I read the more confused I get. This is based upon Ignatio’s comment. I can understand the separateness of the church and state as societies but what I cannot understand is that if you are a Christian (and I am assuming we are speaking Catholic here,) you don’t have to govern by the Church’s teachings, only by the moral law. If this is the case, then we have to live according to two separate sets of guidelines. Is this a correct understanding? For example: If I were in office and a vote came up for me to vote on whether or not a Jewish organization was to be permitted to build a place of worship in my community, I would have to go by the rules of the building codes for the area not whether or not it furthered the Reign of Christ. I don’t know which is right. Any comments would be most welcome. And I do apologize for my ignorance and my lack of ability to express myself eloquently as I am not nearly as intelligent as most of Louie’s subscribers. God Bless!
As far as I’m concerned, Burke’s statements come under the heading “Bait and Switch”. Every time Burke opens his mouth, he starts off sounding somewhat “traditional” and in a matter of seconds, he switches to N.O. doublespeak. I am baffled as to why some in the so-called Traditional Movement get so excited every time he makes a pronouncement. Burke is not going to fix anything. Let us remember that Burke isn’t against the V2 church. He is functioning inside the V2 church while pretending to be against it. Our Lord said we cannot serve two masters. Which is it, Burke, Bergoglio or Christ? Make up your mind.
Do not pre “paraphrase” and make assumptions based on your learning curve. Obviously there are historical reality gaps in your understanding. Why were the Germans so easily swayed by Hitler to turn against the Jews?
The economy in Germany was in the dumps . There was mortgage foreclosures and job loss everywhere. Most German Jewish bankers did not foreclose on their own and gave grace periods. Hitler targeted a scapegoat ethnicity with a genuine history of bias and bigotry against Christians. According to the older German people I spoke to he was considered a nut talking in the beer gardens and then as the economy worsened people started to applaud his speeches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqCTvW5URfY
Burke consecrated the CMtv studio. Burke is close to Opus Dei. During the conclave Voris was touting him in videos as the best choice for the Papacy.In fact, RealcatholicTV almost seemed like a political campaign for the election of Cdl Burke. His history as Bishop of Madison Wisconsin Diocese was anything but stellar concerning empathy for clerical pederast victims. As Bishop Burke, he gave approval for a male transgender to start a woman’s religious community.
All very Traditional ?
Translation: “Hitler not all bad. Jews kinda had it coming. Old Nazis told me so.”
You think the Catholic Church agrees with that?
Prior to V2, non-Catholic historically literate elites among the Jacobins, KKK, Freemasons, Zionists, Bolsheviks, etc. knew that the Catholic Dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ was synonymous with ONLY a Catholic State, the only truly just and legitimate political state/entity a Catholic could take an oath to uphold and defend. The Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, expressed this very clearly. “The Jew,” he writes, “is the living testimony of the disappearance of the State founded upon theological principles and which the Christian anti-Semites dream of reconstructing. The day when a Jew became the holder of a public position, the Christian State was in danger. That is perfectly accurate, and the anti-Semites who affirm that the Jews have ruined the idea of State could say with greater justice that the entry of the Jews into society symbolised the destruction of the State, that is, of course, of the Christian State.”[1]. L’Antisémitisme, p. 361. So, taking an oath or serving in a public position that requires obedience to the STRICT separation of “Church” and State can rightly be considered an act of denying the Social Kingship of Christ. As Pope Leo XIII says in his work Longinqua, “For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.” Keep in mind this was well before Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, Cutter v. Wilkinson, etc,
My2cents, the same can be said for the SSPX. Who will they serve?
Tom A–That is the big question. I’m hoping and praying that after the July election of a new Superior General, the SSPX will get back on track with their true mission as per Archbishop Lefebvre. However, I don’t have much hope for that. Let’s see.
Translation: As evidenced by your comments above ,you are not Catholic . You are an immature troll.
Oh well I tried, no more pearls for the swine.
I hope they stop thinking there is anyway to reconcile with apostates.
Linda, you are right. Civil society not only has a duty to frame its laws according to the natural moral law (which is the eternal law of God stamped upon man’s reason), but also in accord with the positive Law of Christ, made known through revelation.
–
The laws of the state should help man more easily live in accord with the ENTIRE law of God, by forbidding what God forbids and encouraging its citizens to live in accord with virtue.
–
That being said, the state is concerned primarily with temporal affairs, the Church with spiritual matters. Each has a right to operate freely in its domain. The Church doesn’t interfere with the state’s decisions on where to build roads, how to spend tax revenues, or matters of national defense etc., and the state doesn’t interfere with how the Church conducts its affairs.
–
You asked “If I were in office and a vote came up for me to vote on whether or not a Jewish organization was to be permitted to build a place of worship in my community, I would have to go by the rules of the building codes for the area not whether or not it furthered the Reign of Christ. I don’t know which is right.”
–
That would be a matter for the state authorities to decide. “Religious liberty,” as it is understood today, is an error, but religious toleration is not. In a Catholic state, due to the circumstances, it might be best to permit false worship to prevent a greater evil. Just as God tolerates evil, not because evil is good, but because it is sometimes good to tolerate it, so too is it necessary for the State to tolerate some evil. If the public authority believed forbidding false worship would lead to an overthrow of the state, it would have a duty to tolerate the evil in order to preserve the stability if the state. This prudential decision would be the responsibility of the public authorities. Here is what Leo XIII wrote about religious toleration:
–
Pope Leo XIII: “Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, ‘neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good’ This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.”
–
As far as what you can read, I have three recommendations. Start with the article on Church and State in the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
–
Then, I would highly recommend reading – or better yet, studying – Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals Libertas Praestantissimum, and Immortale Dei.
–
Libertas is one of the most important encyclicals for our day, since it shine the light of truth on the errors of liberalism. And don’t confuse liberalism with the political “left” of our day. No, today the “conservatives” on the right are the liberals, while the left has become something else, which it would take too long to explain.
Thank you very much Ignatio as this really helped me to understand. God Bless!
Thank you Lenny B! I understand that America is not and has never been any type of truly Christian or Catholic country. From what I have read by you, I would think that in the strictest sense it would be best and wise for no truly Catholic person to be in office based upon the oath that would need to be taken and how they would be expected to govern.
Last I checked, Francis was the Pope, NOT Cardinal Burke.
To contradict the Pope is one thing, but to contradict an OECOMENICAL COUNCIL and its teachings… BOTH the author of this article AND Cardinal Burke are very close to skirting into heretical territory.
To deny the validity of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council is schismatic heresy. To deny Dignitas Humanae is anathema! To deny Nostra Aetate is anathema!
Also, to deny the freedom and right to adhere to a religion that deeply resonates in your soul is nonsensical. Isn’t it Catholic teaching ranging back to the Tridentine Council, that every human individual has free will and has the freedom to deny God’s grace?
Any bets when Francis has enough of him and takes his purple biretta away?
Ooopsie! Ignore the comment! Ignore the comment!
Yeah, but what exactly was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Especially when Jesus condemns communities that lack hospitality (Matthew 11: 14-15) and compares them to Sodom and Gomorrah? Or Ezekiel, when he says: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezechiel 16: 49)? And lets be honest: “They were haughty and did detestable things before me” (Ezechiel 16: 50) sounds very vague: It could mean anything ethically and morally detestable. And in Genesis 19, the people of Sodom wanted to rape the guests of Lot – they wanted to use violence and perversion to humiliate and degrade them. And no decent human being of ANY sexual orientation would condone rape. And how did they react to Lots attempts to mediate and pacify: “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” (Genesis 19: 6) Sounds pretty xenophobic to me… And, let’s be honest, reminds me of 21st century right wing rhetoric in Europe and the United States. I bet, this could be out of a racist American’s mouth…
There is no such thing as “sexual orientation”, just orientation to God and our true God-given nature or deviation therefrom.
Of course, we have to be governed by God (law of Natural Reason tells us this) and after the establishment of the One Holy Church on Earth by God Himself by the doctrine of the Church. The state ought always be subject in its operation to God’s Law as revealed by reason, by direct Revelation, etc. The state does not exist outside man; the state is a function of man, organised over a particular limited jurisdiction. If the state declares itself not subject to the dictates of the Holy Trinity, the men responsible are sinning against God and purporting to set up authority over others that is not in conformity with our duty to Holy God. All authority wielded by man is valid only insofar as it does not go against God’s law. The modernist, man-centred heresies that talk about Rights of Man, and separation of Church and State, and private versus public morality, separation of objective moral law from man-made positive law, etc. is evil, and rampant, and always leads to promotion of extreme evils, false, satanic religions, and persecution of the One True Religion and those who uphold Truth and their prior duty to God and His Holy Church above all. The ten commandments gets thrown in the dung heap, whilst the evil state tears down all true Faith and Morals through such false, evil, and irrational ideas as “freedom of religion”, etc. The modernist heresies of “Americanism” for instance, are endemic in the post-VII Council institutional Church. All aspects of man’s life, personal, communal, national etc. is subject to God and His Law. We may not exclude God from any area – more moral and spiritual harm is done to greater numbers by denying or defying God in the public realm. It is moral, rational man who creates a state for what ought to be limited purposes (the principle of subsidiarity applying to all powers given to man-made entities). States do not exist outside the moral and religious nature and duties of man, who, as in a nation, decides to create one for the service of that people or nation. A Catholic people may, however, be under the rule of an immoral atheist State (most states) but must always resist the evil and work towards a moral state built on Truth, which is always a state consonant with the One True Faith.