Yesterday (January 9th), the Remnant published Michael Matt’s recent interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke.
If you’ve not yet had an opportunity to read it in its entirety, I would strongly encourage you to do so. What you will find is that the interview offers a mixed bag; excellent questions, telling answers, and missed opportunities.
Michael, just as one might have expected, opened by asking Cardinal Burke to comment on Amoris Laetitia; specifically, its authoritativeness and whether or not it is merely scandalous or perhaps even “savors of heresy.”
Cardinal Burke took the opportunity to restate his initial, and decidedly tepid, response to the poisonous text:
Well first of all, as I stated from the beginning, the very form of Amoris Laetitia, and, actually, the words of the Pope within the document, indicate that it is not an exercise of the papal magisterium. And the way the document necessarily is read, as with every document, is in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church.
What this tells me is that Cardinal Burke’s actions in this matter are still being guided not so much by his understanding of Amoris Laetitia as by his misunderstanding of the papacy itself.
Specifically, he gives every appearance of having embraced a form of “creeping infallibility;” operating on the false assumption that grave errors cannot be taught by the pope, though he does seem to allow that grave errors may possibly be held on a personal level by the man who is pope.
That, presumably, is why he is determined to insist that Amoris Laetitia isn’t “papal magisterium,” and this in spite of fact that this “Apostolic Exhortation” (addressed to the faithful of the entire Church), when read “in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church,” plainly teaches blasphemy and heresy.
As for how authoritative the document is, as anyone with even a modicum of Catholic sense knows, it isn’t the least bit authoritative, properly speaking, inasmuch as it does not bind the faithful in any way whatsoever.
That is not to say, however, that Amoris Laetitia isn’t a deliberate “teaching” act; it most certainly is, and it plainly teaches error.
With all of this said, it will hardly come as a surprise that Burke’s subsequent comments are all over the map.
For instance, he once again chose to categorize the controversial portions of Amoris Laetitia as “at best confusing,” saying “they must be clarified.”
Nonsense. There is nothing in the text that needs to be clarified; Amoris Laetitia plainly contains propositions that were condemned almost verbatim by the Council of Trent.
Burke states, however:
So certainly, without the clarification of these questions, there is a potential of scandal.
A potential of scandal?
He can’t be serious. If what we’re witnessing today doesn’t qualify as actual scandal, then I don’t want to experience what does.
Cardinal Burke moved closer to the heart of the matter, saying:
With regard to the question of heresy, one has to be very attentive to material heresy and to formal heresy. In other words, material heresy: are there actual statements in the text which are materially heretical? Are they contradictory to the Catholic Faith? Formal heresy: did the person—namely the person of the pope who wrote the document—intend to proclaim heretical teachings? And the last thing, I don’t believe myself at all.
And I think with regard to the first question, the language and so forth is confusing and it’s difficult to say that these confusing statements are materially heretical.
As he seems to confirm later in the interview (we’ll get to this momentarily), Burke almost certainly knows very well that material heresy is present in the text of Amoris Laetitia.
In any case, the million dollar question concerns formal heresy; i.e., whether or not Francis “intends to proclaim heretical teaching.”
This, Cardinal Burke doesn’t believe at all, and the reason appears rather plain; as stated above, his view of the papacy is such that he considers it virtually, if not literally, impossible.
This, unfortunately, would seem to tell us everything we need to know about how far he is willing press forward, but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.
With regard to the dubia, Cardinal Burke said, “they’re very honest questions and they merit an honest reply.”
Prior to this, however, Michael Matt, to his credit, had asked, “Don’t you already know the answers to your five questions?”
Bravo! My friends, the importance of this question, and Burke’s answer, cannot be overestimated!
The cardinal replied on behalf, it would seem, of all four authors of the dubia:
Certainly we do [already know the answers to the five questions]. But the important thing is that the pastor of the universal Church, in his office as guardian of the truths of the Faith and promoter of the truths of the faith—that he make clear that, yes, he answers these questions in the same way that the Church answers them.
This confirms what has been stated in this space numerous times; the dubia under discussion here is not (as my friend Robert Siscoe insists) merely a request for clarification concerning certain objective facts – it is tantamount to a warning issued with the intent of giving Francis the opportunity to either convict or acquit himself of formal heresy.
I my view, it is plain: Cardinal Burke is admitting to using the dubia in essentially the same way a prosecutor leverages the power of interrogation; challenging defendants with questions to which the evidence in hand already definitively answers.
In other words, the four cardinals (as I wrote the day the dubia were published) have put Francis on public trial – either he “answers these questions in the same way that the Church answers them,” or he will have judged himself a formal heretic. It’s that simple.
So why has Francis failed to answer plainly? (Once again, I feel compelled to state my opinion that he most certainly has answered in precisely the manner one might expect of a duplicitous modernist.)
Cardinal Burke gives us his opinion, and in so doing he indicates that (deep down, anyway) he knows very well that Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic.
Michael Matt asked Cardinal Burke to comment on the degree to which he and the other cardinal-authors of the dubia have been castigated by certain “members of the hierarchy.”
While neither Michael, nor Cardinal Burke, mentioned Francis by name, the ring leader of these attacks is clear to all concerned; as such, Burke’s response clearly applies to Francis as much, or more, than anyone else. He said:
What I see in these intemperate reactions is a sign that the people who don’t want to answer our dubia in fact realize that they are not on solid ground. They can’t answer the dubia correctly and so they try to discredit the person who raised the questions. It’s an old human reaction, but it’s mundane, it’s secular. It has no place in the Church.
Please allow me to translate. Burke, for all intents and purposes, is saying:
What I see is a sign that Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t want to answer our dubia; in fact, he realizes that he is not on solid ground. He can’t answer the dubia correctly and so he tries to discredit the person who raised the questions. It’s an old human reaction, but it’s mundane, it’s secular. It has no place in the Church.
Though Cardinal Burke refrained from speaking as plainly as I’ve written, the “translation” above is nothing more than the logical, sum total of his very own words.
Before you get too excited, however, recall that Cardinal Burke is among the disoriented; a man conflicted, and ultimately (as we will see) a man of the Council.
When asked what the promised “formal act of correction” might look like, Burke provided an underwhelming response:
Well, it doesn’t look too much differently than the dubia. In other words, the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected. Does that make sense to you?
Micheal replied, “Yes, absolutely,” but to me, it makes no sense at all.
If the bitter experience of the past five decades has taught us anything, it’s that simply juxtaposing truth alongside error without plainly condemning the latter (in this case, Amoris Laetitia) and its purveyors (Francis chief among them) is a fool’s errand.
The reason Cardinal Burke is unable (or unwilling) to recognize as much is simple, as I just stated; he is a man of the Council – that regrettable event wherein this dereliction of Apostolic duty was given papal approbation; only to infect the entire sacred hierarchy even to this very day.
As readers of this space are all-too-well-aware, the errors of the Second Vatican Council lie at the very heart of the present crisis; i.e., Amoris Laetitia is cut entirely from conciliar cloth.
Michael had a magnificent opportunity to invite Cardinal Burke to connect the dots. He asked:
I’m wondering, is there any concern in your mind that what we’re seeing now is in fact a following of some sort of continuum of that spirit of Vatican II that has less to do with Francis and more to do with a new orientation of the Catholic Church altogether.
Not to be unfairly critical (I have no idea how much time Michael had to prepare for the interview, or whether or not this question was perhaps asked spontaneously), but I have to say that I was disappointed to see it framed in reference to the “spirit of Vatican II.”
Michael knows as well as anyone that what we’re seeing now is in fact a continuum of the very text of Vatican II – not just an amorphous “spirit” unrelated to the Council’s errors.
In any case, Cardinal Burke immediately seized upon the implication, saying:
That is a legitimate concern. And whenever I hear this language—the ‘spirit of the Vatican II’—I am immediately alerted because there’s no question, it’s been demonstrated and can be demonstrated more that a lot of what happened in the Church after the Second Vatican Council, which invoked the Second Vatican Council, had nothing to do with what the Council Fathers taught.
We saw it in the devastation of the Sacred Liturgy and in other aspects, as well. So I think that what we must do is return to the constant teaching of the Church as it’s expressed in the Second Vatican Council, but in all of the ecumenical councils and in all of the authentic teachings of the Church down the centuries.
So there you have it; according to Cardinal Burke, the Second Vatican Council isn’t part of the problem, it’s part of the solution, because, after all, it offers the constant teaching of the Church!
Has it never occurred to His Eminence that the documents of the Council – by turning on its head the constant teaching of the Church on such matters as religious liberty, ecumenism, the Church’s relationship with the Jews, etc. – actually set the stage for Amoris Laetitia to do the same with regard to adultery, marriage and family, Holy Communion, and even the very concept of mortal sin itself?
Does he not realize that the “confusion” that he lays at the feet of Amoris Laetitia pales in comparison to the utter devastation that has been wrought on the entire Church over the last 50-plus years thanks to the Council?
Apparently not.
In any case, Burke’s characterization of the Council – one that contradicts everything that the “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) so-called “movement” stands for – went unchallenged and the interview effectively came to a close.
Like I said, the entire thing is a mixed bag that includes some excellent questions, telling answers, and missed opportunities.
Taken as a whole, it would seem to suggest – to the extent that Burke is representative of the cream of the cardinalatial crop (such as it is) – that it is very unlikely that any concrete steps will be taken toward ridding the Church of the scourge known as Francis.
I will conclude with one final quote from Cardinal Burke:
I can’t be distracted … worrying about whether I’m going to be in some way persecuted for defending the truth. As I said, one person said to me: “Aren’t you afraid to insist on these matters?” And I said that what I’m afraid of is to have to appear before Our Lord at the Last Judgment and having to say to Him: “No, I didn’t defend You when You were being attacked, the truth that You taught was being betrayed.”
Burke’s shortcomings aside, this is an attitude worthy of emulation.
Dear Lord, help us not to despair.
Dear Louie,
Another most excellent article. You are spot on about all the points you bring up. Who knows why Cardinal Burke is afraid to come out and unabashedly condemn AT as worthy of hell itself. It certainly leads souls there. I pity the bishops who value their cushy jobs and all the great perks that they enjoy but never give a thought about their eternal destiny or the destiny of those entrusted to them. They should tremble with fear but do anything but. God will have the last word and I think it will be rather soon.
These men are the masonic sons of vatican 2 and that is all that needs to be said. Until they denounce vatican 2 as a masonic inspired mess (and St Pope Pius X would back up everything I say here)…..and until most who post here (and on “the remnant”) recognize the same….then these cardinals will be allowed to play the game, because they HAVE to know better, but continue, surely knowing that they are wrong, to hang on to the masonic religion of man. Until Burke and co. (and fellay as well), say what needs to be said, by condemning the vatican 2 church of man, then I sadly have to keep continuing to believe that they are the worst of the wolves.
Chin up, Lynda! I had to laugh when I read Louie’s “Jesus is just alright” title for this piece. That put me in mind of Bergolio’s ‘god of surprises’ who wants no evangelization, no conversions, no repentance, etc. The more I reflected on it, the more I now am convinced that the theological underpinnings of Bergolio’s ‘god of surprises’ was set-out in this song:
Billy Joel – ‘Just the Way You Are’ (1977) from the album ‘The Stranger’
“Don’t go changing, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don’t imagine you’re too familiar
And I don’t see you anymore
I would not leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times, I’ll take the bad times
I’ll take you just the way you are
Don’t go trying some new fashion
Don’t change the color of your hair
You always have my unspoken passion
Although I might not seem to care
I don’t want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are.
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew
What will it take ’till you believe in me
The way that I believe in you.
I said I love you and that’s forever
And this I promise from my heart
I couldn’t love you any better
I love you just the way you are.”
Not only did Burke make reference to the “constant Church teaching” in V2, he also went on to advise the Flock to continue learning the Faith by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and talked about the “Ordinary Form” at which he prayed that day.
So with his validations of the Second Vatican Council, the CCC, and the New Order mass, is it any question Burke is a man of the V2 Council? What value of these 3 heretical fruits can be gained, other than to expose the Modernists?
Burke is not our man, but please don’t quit praying for him. Or Francis. Ramp up your fasting, sacrifices, mortifications, rosaries. Things are fixin’ to get bumpy.
Agreed, he is not. Some of us were quietly hoping for a Rambo moment, and Gomer Pyle showed up instead. Muller reinforces as Sergeant Schultz.
This has all been part of the show.
The only people who despair are those who will not voluntarily unplug themselves from the internet, those who will not remove Francis from their microscopes, those who will not turn their gaze from him and onto themselves. My advice: Unplug, stop reading Church horror news and live your Catholic life! The thought of despair will then dissipate.
Contrarily, immerse yourself in dung and you will never rid yourself of the stench and will despair.
I think your comment is rather harsh and is wide of the mark in respect of your understanding of Lynda’s prayer, Brother.
Would a soldier anticipating imminent combat unplug his field radio simply because the clash is yet afar off? No. I suspect he would keenly follow reports of the advance of enemy forces so as to determine how best to be prepared when the barrage begins to drop on him. He would pray to God for the Grace to be able to hold his nerve when the time comes, and such is Lynda’s prayer.
Every diseased nuance of ‘Francis’ belongs under the microscope as does every sort of plague germ which threatens the Faith.
Dear Bosco, that made me laugh. I had never appreciated the philosophical and theological profundity of Mr Joel’s song before!!!
Well said Bosco49.
Thank you Louie. These points of yours have to be heard. I am rooting for any crumbs that we are getting in this battle. Nonetheless, I really hope Cardinal Burke reads this posting in hopes that it may help him to see more clearly and get stronger in this battle we are all facing.
Yes, Bosco49. You are to be praised for the spiritual work of mercy of comforting the afflicted.
Some, however, take comfort in dogmatizing their own opinions, giving way to the nasty habit of anathematizing others’.
Its time R&R be changed to mean Reject and Restore. This holding pattern of inaction just continues to legitimize the modernists who occupy the real estate as the true face Roman Catholicism. They are not. So please, I beg everyone to stop considering anyone or anything associated with the conciliar church as Catholic. They are not. They have a protestant liturgy. They profess a false religion. Why, why, why do so many who profess the true faith continue to consider those who don’t as Catholic? It’s cognitive dissonance.
Thanks Louis for articulating what was frustrating me the whole time I watched the interview. Actually this sort of thing has been troubling me since this AL fiasco began. It’s too little too late from Burke and company. The way they are going about fighting this thing is not going to work. The problem is much deeper than Francis and AL, as you’ve said and as the readers here know.
I hope and pray this is the year of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
True for you Gladstone, but I am a man who actually relishes diversity of opinion so long as it is presented as such straightforwardly, lacks hysteria and bombast, and does not conflict with or attempt to supplant known, or readily known, facts.
Until retirement, I had had a decades-long career of evaluating evidence and its probity in respect of the matter(s) in contention.
“Would a soldier anticipating imminent combat unplug his field radio…”
The bold actions of one man, Archbishop Lefebvre, guaranteed that there would be a steady stream of Catholic Priests throughout the world to carry on. And still, the SSPX is a regular victim of abuse in the comments section. Reading this blog, which varies little from week to week, does almost nothing to prepare anyone for anything.
There aren’t any soldiers here, just a group of Sedevacantist malcontents. They criticize the SSPX for not being pure enough for them. The truth is, the SSPX is doing everything, while they can do nothing but complain.
Without the SSPX, there would be no FSSP or ICKSP. The entire Latin Rite would have gone Novus Order decades ago. Cuff of Copee is spot on! The victory has already been won by Jesus on the Holy Cross of Calvary.
The Jesuits used to be a good group too. Times change.
418 years ago Our Lady of Good Success appeared to Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres. It was during Venerable Mother Marianna’s lifetime that Our Lady of Good Success spoke of these times in which we now live specifically and in specifics. She also told us how it would all end. Take heart everyone! She is coming!
Do not despair! She is Our Hope! In His Mercy, Our Lord has given Her to us!
Our Lady of Good Success told us that we should pray to hasten the coming of the promised Holy Prelate who will be with us during the complete restoration of The Church. Look no further for answers just do what she says.
Who will restore This Church?
Our Lord, through the Triumph of Our Immaculate Mother, Our Lady of Good Success! This is our Mother!
http://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk003.htm
Live the Fatima message, our hope, our shield, our promise.
What more could we ask for? We are God’s children and SHE is our Mother! It just doesn’t get better than that. We are on the side that ALWAYS wins!
I agree. Archbishop Lefebvre provided the lifeboat that true Catholics have been using for decades now. I, too, find it frustrating that I have to go to Michael’s site to find those who recognize the contribution made by the SSPX and the fact THAT is where the Church is. Bergoglio and his ilk ought to be asking Bishop Fellay to be regularized. I also find it frustrating that despite everything he has done, this site continues to find fault with the Athanasius of his time, Cardinal Burke. At first he didn’t speak out. I wrote here, wait he knows what he’s doing and HOW it has to be done. Then it was he spoke out but didn’t use the exact language some wanted. Now it’s a missed opportunity to not show all his cards on a TV program, a short time before he’s going to lower the boom on the heretic in chief. I suggest again, wait. He knows exactly what he’s doing and when each step must be followed. Stop whining that his eminence isn’t doing, saying exactly what you would on your timetable. I believe Cardinal Burke’s timetable is God’s.
I was so disappointed when Mr. Matt asked Cardinal Burke, “But what has gone wrong in the Church when a simple request for clarity on a matter of morality and doctrine is met with was such a visceral reaction on the part of members of the hierarchy? What has gone wrong?” and Cardinal Burke: “I’ll tell you what I think has gone wrong, and that is a very worldly, a very mundane way of thinking has entered into the life of the Church.”
It is as though almost all of them are blinded to the loss of Faith since VII, the permeating protestantism, the abominable destruction of The Holy Liturgy, the lack of True Catholic Catechesis, the lack of True Catholic formation in Seminaries, etc. etc. etc… The list seems endless.
Worldly just doesn’t seem to fit the root problem.
GOOD ONE!
I have to agree with tradprofessor’s take on Cardinal Burke. Remember, when Christ our Savior came on the scene, He wasn’t exactly what the people were expecting, either, was He? I admire Burke maybe more than any other prelate in the Church today. Sure, others have spoken courageously for the Truth, but he has put his money where his mouth is. He gets sacked and he comes back unfazed, he won’t be intimidated. I think his steps are ordered by God.
I see his response as saying the same thing you did, actually. Though he didn’t mention the Council was to blame, I’d bet he agrees with your assessment completely.
Burke is the “Athanasius of his time” ? Im assuming that this is a joke.
BP Fellay is a validly consecrated bishop. Why in the world would he need to be “regularized” by the masonic church of vatican2? Should he need to be regularized by the jews ans muslims too? Get a clue my friend.
Amen.
Dennis
When Christ was on earth he WAS the standard….He never had to meet people’s expectations. Dont compare this man Burke to Christ.
Worldliness and Faith are mutually exclusive.
Rich, I was careful NOT to compare Burke to Christ. It was my intention to remind everyone that answers/solutions do not always come in the way/person we might expect.
Before you start praising Billy Joel, take a look at these lyrics from another one of his “hits”:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyjoel/onlythegooddieyoung.html
Dennis
The prevailing problem is not so much of searching for people to solve the crisis….the problem is that people (most likely very good people) are continuing to be unable to identify the crisis. Trads are currently focused on Bergoglio….WHY are they focused on this disgusting little man? He is not the isssue…and THIS is the problem.
Rush, any criticism of SSPX is purely fraternal and tactical. If only there were more Abp Lefebreves to combat modernism. The Catholic faithful thank the God Lord above for all the SSPX has done since the 70s to preserve the true Priesthood. That said, they are not the authority of what is and is not Traditional Catholicism. The fact is there is no authority other than the teachings of past Popes who professed the true faith. Most sedevacantists are ex-SSPXers. Why do you think that is so? It is so because it is the only logical conclusion one can arrive at if one does not want to live the contradiction of a non-Catholic being the head the Catholic Church. Every sedevacantist supports Bp Fellay and any other cleric who resists Francis and the modernist heretic v2 sect. They just dont recognize him as pope. And they see prelates like Burke and Schneider for who they truly are, V2 NO modernists. It is true that they are resisting Francis now too, but their victory, which I doubt will happen, will further the Traditional Catholic cause not one iota.
They never blame the Council or the Novus Ordo. There are so many things they blame, but never the cause. They are modernist wolves no longer happy to be dressed as sheep. Now they dress as shepards. And millions and millions of faithful sheep lead themselves to the slaughter of their faith every Sunday when they attend Novus Ordo sacrileges.
To add to the theme of the article I’m still not convinced that St. Nicholas punched Arius in the conk hard enough. Shame on him for his week kneed approach to heresy!
“So please, I beg everyone to stop considering anyone or anything associated with the conciliar church as Catholic. They are not.”
—
Would this include such people as, inter alia, Padre Pio, Sister Lucia dos Santos, Archbishop Lefebvre, Vasyl Velychkovsky, Vasil Hopko?
The “conciliar church” was the only game in town by the end of 1965. We who were around back then were all part of “the conciliar church.” Every single one of the above belonged to “the conciliar Church.”
When is it alleged that Catholics who were alive in 1965 stopped belonging to the Catholic Church and, along with people like Padre Pio, who died three years after the end of the council, ended up in “the conciliar church”?
___
“They have a protestant liturgy.”
Not all Catholics are Latin Rite Catholics.
Even assuming arguendo that we who worship according to the Byzantine rites of the Church belong to a “conciliar church” as opposed to the Catholic Church, our liturgy is in no way protestant.
My curiosity piqued, I searched St. Nicholas and Arius to find an article describing how St. Nick, when he’d had enough of Arius’ arguments against the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, walked across the room (of the first ecumenical council) and slapped him in the face! Thanks for adding some levity, JT.
‘Praising’? C’mon now. Don’t be wrapped so tight that you can’t get a joke? Relax. Improv always has a few jeering at the back tables.
I’m sure the Doobie Brothers (to whom Louie referred semi-obliquely in the title of this piece) may have had a lyric or two that were questionable.
Are non Latin-Rite Catholics in communion with mr bergoglio?
I would imagine so, in the same manner Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Cekada, Father Sanborn, et al., were in communion with Pope Paul VI at the end of Vatican II. The problem with SVism is that it butts right up against the indefectibility of the Church.
At what specific date is it contended that the Catholic Church ceased to exist and became “the conciliar church”? Who, if anyone, escaped becoming part of “the conciliar church”? How can Archbishop Lefebvre not be considered part of “the conciliar church” when he himself attended the council and signed its documents? Ditto for the other good bishops.
Padre Pio was in a “conciliar” monastery. He lived nearly three years after the council ended. Was he part of “the conciliar church”?
If they accepted V2 and said the NO mass, then they were Conciliar. I too was part of that church too for many years until I realized that it was no longer Catholic. 99.9% of us were fooled. Thank God Abp Lefebrve and some others were not. I believe Padre Pio never said the NO. And honestly, just looking at pictures of Sr. Lucia before and after 1960, it doesnt look like the same person.
“Most sedevacantists are ex-SSPXers. Why do you think that is so?”
Because Satan is the master manipulator of human nature! The devil doesn’t care whether he gets you to fall to the right or to the left. The Pope is the link in a 2000 year old chain. If the Holy Ghost wanted to inspire Pope Francis to define a dogma, He could do so, but you would not accept it.
Rush, the Pope’s job is to defend the deposit of faith not invent new dogmas that contradict old dogmas. Satan also uses fear to keep people in their error. If you honestly think the Holy Spirit inspired the confusion of Vatican 2 then that explains why we will never agree. Vatican 2 is the foundation that the modernists built their phony church upon. You aid and abet their perfidy with your recognition of their authority.
What about the period of time between when the council ended and before the New Mass was promulgated (during which time the Mass was constantly changing, errors were being promulgated everywhere, et cetera)?
Padre Pio lived during most of that era. What church did he belong to? Wasn’t his monastery a “conciliar monastery”?
Where do Byzantine Catholics fit in? Is my parish part of “the conciliar church”? We don’t have the new Mass. In fact, we don’t have “Mass” at all. But we recognize Paul VI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, and Francis as true and valid popes.
Are we part of the “conciliar church”? When did we leave the Catholic Church and become part of “the conciliar church”?
What about Byzantine Catholics who died post Vatican II and are considered either saints or blessed by Byzantine Catholics? Are they also part of “the conciliar church”?
The lyrics to Billy Joel’s “Only the Good Die Young” is a blatant insult to the Catholic Church in general and to young ladies taught by good Catholic Sisters in particular. I don’t see it any other way. I fail to see humor when my faith is attacked by anyone. Apparently, you don’t have a problem with that. So be it.
The above comment re Billy Joel was for Boscoe 49.
In the main as our priest pointed out this gang of four [or five] are essentially modernists. So they rant and rave about Amoris Laetitia but they accept every blinkin’ thing from Vatican II. It’s not really difficult to see through this sham. These blighters are hypocrites. Conservatives? My old gran’s knickers.
“If you honestly think the Holy Spirit inspired the confusion of Vatican 2…”
Vatican II spawned a new religion, a religion that put man in the place of God. There is no way that the Holy Ghost was involved. But, if the Holy Ghost wanted to use Pope Francis to define a dogma tomorrow, He could do it, because there is a Pope.
I depends on what faith one professes. If you profess all the teachings of the Church before V2 then you would be Catholic. If you accept the heresies introduced at V2 you are a conciliarist. I myself was one for many years out of ignorance and many good Catholics were and are fooled and/or misled. God will judge their souls. From what I know of the Eastern Catholic Churches, their liturgies were not substantially altered so their faith was not as dramatically damaged. To what degree they buy into to the ecumenical heresies and religious liberty heresies of V2, I simply do not know. Im sure if you sat down with an Eastern Catholic and started discussing Ex Ecclesia Nula Salus with them, you would quickly find out if they held to tradition or adopted a conciliar attitude. Likewise there are many Catholics who hold the traditional faith yet are caught in Novus Ordo land simply because there is no real mass to attend and they labor under the false impression that they have to meet their Sunday obligation by attending a protestant mass.