FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal Burke's comments on schism and apostasy.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I've heard him say numerous times something to the effect of "we can never go into schism with the Church".  By "the Church", it's clear he means only those priests and bishops and laity that are in submission to the Holy See.  He's also said that no matter how bad things might get, we need to stay in the Church.

From what I can tell, Cardinal Burke thinks the SSPX is in schism (despite ALSO praising them, at times).  It's clear he wants them to be fully reconciled with Rome.

So here's really the point of my post:

Is there literally NO line that can be crossed before we are permitted to separate ourselves from the visible Church?  What if a Pope started ordaining women priests?  What if other sins were given a "blessing".  Do we continue to remain in communion with the visible Church?

I ask this because I ALSO have issues with the independent priests (e.g. SSPV, SSPX-Resistance).  My main issue with those groups is that they don't seem to have any chain of command anywhere.  (I could be wrong on that).  It seems like they just do their own thing -- in GOOD FAITH to the pre-Vatican 2 Church -- but from whom have they been sent?  From who in the Church do they derive their priestly mission?

Forgive me if I'm mutiliating terminology here, but I think I've expressed myself clearly enough for the most part.
(04-06-2018, 10:51 AM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard him say numerous times something to the effect of "we can never go into schism with the Church".  The "the Church", it's clear he means only those priests and bishops and laity that are in submission to the Holy See.  He's also said that no matter how bad things might get, we need to stay in the Church.

From what I can tell, Cardinal Burke thinks the SSPX is in schism (despite ALSO praising them, at times).  It's clear he wants them to be fully reconciled with Rome.

So here's really the point of my post:

Is there literally NO line that can be crossed before we are permitted to separate ourselves from the visible Church?  What if a Pope started ordaining women priests?  What if other sins were given a "blessing".  Do we continue to remain in communion with the visible Church?

I ask this because I ALSO have issues with the independent priests (e.g. SSPV, SSPX-Resistance).  My main issue with those groups is that they don't seem to have any chain of command anywhere.  (I could be wrong on that).  It seems like they just do their own thing -- in GOOD FAITH to the pre-Vatican 2 Church -- but from whom have they been sent?  From who in the Church do they derive their priestly mission?

Forgive me if I'm mutiliating terminology here, but I think I've expressed myself clearly enough for the most part.

I don't have an answer to your question but you did touch on why I don't place the kind of trust in Burke that I see others place in him. His comments can be all over the place.

I just get an icky feeling from the SSPX offshoots. I commend them for at least making sound rationales for their positions but eh.
Yes FultonFan,that is exactly what Cdl Burke seems to be saying. Since the pope has no equal and no-one short of God Himself can depose him there is nothing for a Catholic to do but to live with the cognitive dissonance and obey him and the hierarchy. The Achilles Heel of the RCC is a monsterous ultramontanism that has no checks and balances (appeals to faith and scripture dont count in my opinion) which effectively makes the entire church at the whims and mercies of one man. 

I too see that the SSPX, SSPV are doing the best they can,but their positions remain unconvincing to me as well. I cannot in good faith associate with either but i get why they feel the need to operate the way they do,they cannot see the point in remaining in communion with what the RCC has become nor it's leadership.

If anything it's good you're asking these questions and looking for answers. All i suggest is you keep asking,keep searching.
(04-06-2018, 11:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Yes FultonFan,that is exactly what Cdl Burke seems to be saying. Since the pope has no equal and no-one short of God Himself can depose him there is nothing for a Catholic to do but to live with the cognitive dissonance and obey him and the hierarchy. The Achilles Heel of the RCC is a monsterous ultramontanism that has no checks and balances (appeals to faith and scripture dont count in my opinion) which effectively makes the entire church at the whims and mercies of one man. 

I too see that the SSPX, SSPV are doing the best they can,but their positions remain unconvincing to me as well. I cannot in good faith associate with either but i get why they feel the need to operate the way they do,they cannot see the point in remaining in communion with what the RCC has become nor it's leadership.

If anything it's good you're asking these questions and looking for answers. All i suggest is you keep asking,keep searching.

I don't think SSPX and SSPV are as comparable as your post implies. I mean the pope himself has clarified the validity of SSPX sacraments, so I'm curious as to how it's possible you arrived at the conclusion that you can't associate with them. Do you know something the past two popes do not?
(04-06-2018, 11:50 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-06-2018, 11:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Yes FultonFan,that is exactly what Cdl Burke seems to be saying. Since the pope has no equal and no-one short of God Himself can depose him there is nothing for a Catholic to do but to live with the cognitive dissonance and obey him and the hierarchy. The Achilles Heel of the RCC is a monsterous ultramontanism that has no checks and balances (appeals to faith and scripture dont count in my opinion) which effectively makes the entire church at the whims and mercies of one man. 

I too see that the SSPX, SSPV are doing the best they can,but their positions remain unconvincing to me as well. I cannot in good faith associate with either but i get why they feel the need to operate the way they do,they cannot see the point in remaining in communion with what the RCC has become nor it's leadership.

If anything it's good you're asking these questions and looking for answers. All i suggest is you keep asking,keep searching.

I don't think SSPX and SSPV are as comparable as your post implies. I mean the pope himself has clarified the validity of SSPX sacraments, so I'm curious as to how it's possible you arrived at the conclusion that you can't associate with them. Do you know something the past two popes do not?

Yes, two very different groups.  SSPX is very near reconciliation with Rome, I believe. 

SSPV are unlikely to EVER be reconciled with Rome.  I think V2 would need to be declared null and void before the SSPV would even consider such a thing.  I also imagine they'd want to do away with the Catechism of Pope John Paul 2, the new Code of Canon Law, and, of course, the New Mass. 

Seems more than a tad unlikely that Rome will ever concede to any of those conditions, unless somehow an ultra-Consevative Pope manages to get elected.
Its like Peter said to Jesus, where would we go? At the end of the day the Catholic church as it currently stands is the church that Jesus' founded. To leave that and go to some off shoot is no different than protestantism. Oh sure the SSPX does ascribe to the Catholic faith but they are essentially following their own beliefs on what Jesus wants. They are not following the church that he founded. They don't claim to be the real church with the real Pope that leads them. So there claim is similar to Protestants.

No matter what happens, what any Pope does, it does not matter because at the end of the day we have the promise from Jesus. The gates of hell will not prevail. He doesn't say eventually they will prevail. Or that they might prevail. He says they won't and you must trust in him that he will keep his word. So if any Pope tried to change Dogma it wouldn't happen. Jesus would stop it some way. Who knows how. Although you must believe he would stop it, if you trust him.

The church has been through so much in its 2000 year history. It can survive whatever is thrown at it by whomever. To leave the church is to deny Jesus' church and his promise.
(04-06-2018, 02:26 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]Its like Peter said to Jesus, where would we go?  At the end of the day the Catholic church as it currently stands is the church that Jesus' founded.  To leave that and go to some off shoot is no different than protestantism.  Oh sure the SSPX does ascribe to the Catholic faith but they are essentially following their own beliefs on what Jesus wants.  They are not following the church that he founded.  They don't claim to be the real church with the real Pope that leads them.  So there claim is similar to Protestants.  

No matter what happens, what any Pope does, it does not matter because at the end of the day we have the promise from Jesus.  The gates of hell will not prevail.  He doesn't say eventually they will prevail.  Or that they might prevail.  He says they won't and you must trust in him that he will keep his word.  So if any Pope tried to change Dogma it wouldn't happen.  Jesus would stop it some way.  Who knows how.  Although you must believe he would stop it, if you trust him.  

The church has been through so much in its 2000 year history.  It can survive whatever is thrown at it by whomever.  To leave the church is to deny Jesus' church and his promise.

[Image: 4ab.jpg]

Why do you post on a traditionalist forum again?  Oh, right because you are paid to do so.  What other explanation is there for someone who literally despises everything about traditional Catholicism?
(04-06-2018, 11:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Yes FultonFan,that is exactly what Cdl Burke seems to be saying. Since the pope has no equal and no-one short of God Himself can depose him there is nothing for a Catholic to do but to live with the cognitive dissonance and obey him and the hierarchy. The Achilles Heel of the RCC is a monsterous ultramontanism that has no checks and balances (appeals to faith and scripture dont count in my opinion) which effectively makes the entire church at the whims and mercies of one man. 

I too see that the SSPX, SSPV are doing the best they can,but their positions remain unconvincing to me as well. I cannot in good faith associate with either but i get why they feel the need to operate the way they do,they cannot see the point in remaining in communion with what the RCC has become nor it's leadership.

If anything it's good you're asking these questions and looking for answers. All i suggest is you keep asking,keep searching.

So is havok's brainlet written vomit your position as well?  I'm not interested in engaging with him further, but I'm curious if you find his child-like "arguments" about the SSPX convincing.  Why do you think the way you do about them given the Holy See's canonical recognition of their sacraments?  How is your position possibly tenable?  You would literally have to disagree with the Pope in order to hold your view.  You realize this, right?
(04-06-2018, 11:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Since the pope has no equal and no-one short of God Himself can depose him there is nothing for a Catholic to do but to live with the cognitive dissonance and obey him and the hierarchy. 

But he does though. A heretical pope can be and has been deposed before from his office as the Vicar of Christ if a council of bishops does the following thing:

Quote:...the Pope has no superior on earth, even in the case of heresy, but that the Church does possess a ministerial power when it comes to deposing a heretical Pope. This opinion avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial function required for the deposition. The ministerial function consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is indeed a heretic, which is then followed by a public declaratory sentence of the crime. It is God himself, however, who causes the man to fall from the Pontificate, but not without the Church herself performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.
And as I said on the other thread where you posted this, as much as I'd like to accept the reasoning in this, I find myself incapable of understanding a situation in which a 'declaratory sentence' of deposition could be issued without someone having judged that the Pope was guilty of heresy.
Pages: 1 2