Disturbing yet unsurprising. Cardinal Burke being removed.
#31
I agree with you, formerbuddhist. In many ways, it was worse in the last 50 years than it is now.

I would like to have the issue of Orthodox views East-West/ etc. explained by an Orthodox member if we have one, or someone who was Orthodox. In another thread, not this one!

Also, you know, a lot of really terrible things can happen in the Church by men of the cloth. The history of the Church is riddled with details of assassinations, bastard children, mistresses, Renaissance popes trying to be like pagan Roman emperors. The issue is the Blessed Sacrament. The issue is, do we have the Blessed Sacrament? Do we have priests? If a pope were to introduce laws that certainly invalidated the Eucharist, and did so with that intent, or ditto with priestly ordinations (and I am not talking about nitpicking over details that popes can change and alter), then we have a problem, and even then, the problem would not so much be a "membership" problem, but it would be our problem to know lineage, to know whether a priest is validly ordained or not. And again, I am not talking about abuses of a system. We have those, yes. I mean if a pope were to alter the law, the letter of the law itself to willfully remove the sacramental priesthood, then we would have a problem, but as I said, it would be a practical problem, not a theoretical, membership/group problem, and no, he won't do this anyway. They are too old and too inefficient, and the worst of them spend too much of their free time in gay bars instead of working away at night like older-generation secular humanist cardinals (like Wolseley). And the generation of younger, traditional priests is too large and formidable. An open battle would be a loss for the enemy. All kinds of good groups out there that are not even Trad groups would turn trad in an open battle. And there are too many good cardinals, Caffara, Burke, Ranjith, etc. These guys are not stupid. And the rotten ones know this. And the pope knows this. I think the rotters are just having a last hurrah and will expend themselves in acts of belittlement, in little acts of cruelty and insensitivity towards those to whom the future belongs.
Just think: in Quebec City, a place that sent more missionaries out to the world per capita than any country in the world after Ireland in the 50s, there will be about 6 churches open by 2020. This is what will happen. Emptiness. And the emptiness will be filled by the younger, better priests in groups that today are sidelined and maligned. It will happen in France first, is indeed happening. In the worst places, the improvements will be seen fastest. In Quebec, who is going to pay for all the archdiocesan infrastructure? Not the Quebecois. Not the sidelined groups. It will fall. Venerable, beautiful old buildings formerly dedicated to the worship of God and the teaching of seminarians and Catholic children will continue the process of being turned into secular university buildings, and government buildings, and, yes, condos. Gotta love the older generations of Quebecois that abandoned their Churches only to return to live in the same buildings once converted into secular condos. There's no place like home. And when the dust settles, out they will come. Catholics will still need Mass, and there will be, at least in Quebec, pretty much only the FSSP, the SSPX, Opus Dei, and the Dominicans (for some reason we seem to have a good batch of young, traditional Dominicans, go figure).
My point is that if you look at the worst places, you can see what will happen there and you can then see what will happen in Rome: they will cut, cut out and sideline good men, good cardinals, cut costs, dicasteries and bureaus and offices and congregations will be fusioned, joined up, to cut costs and so that there will actually be people in them, just like what they are doing to the parishes. Cut, close, fusion, cut costs, sideline the good guys, and then . . . die out. In Quebec they speak of "managing the shrinking". That is what we will see. So the removal of the Athanasius of today, Cardinal Burke, is part of the process of death of dead wood that has to happen before he returns to cultivate the growth that will come in the future Church, "smaller and more purified" as former Cardinal Ratzinger had said, to the consternation of all the Springtimers.
Reply
#32
Maldon,

I read a letter a while back from St. Catherine of Siena which said pretty much the same thing--sometimes the dead branches need to be pruned away first before the young, healthy shoots can come forth.

St. Bernard applied the prophecy of Isaiah to the Church: "in peace, is my bitterness most bitter."

"It was once predicted of the Church, and now the time of its fulfillment draws near: Behold, in peace is my bitterness most bitter (Is. 38:17). It was bitter at first in the persecution of the martyrs, more bitter in later times in the struggle with the great heresiarchs, but most bitter of all now in the evil lives of her members. She cannot drive them away, and she cannot flee from them, so strongly established are they, and so multiplied are they above measure. The plague of the Church is inward; it is incurable. It is that which makes its bitterness most bitter, even in the midst of peace. But in what peace! Peace it is, and yet it is not peace. There is peace with the world, but not from her own sons. At this time is heard the voice of her complaining: I have nourished and brought forth children, and they have rebelled against me (Is. 1:2). They have rebelled. They have dishonored me with their evil lives, by their many works which walk in darkness."

Peace for the Church often leads to complacency, which leads to decadence, and decadence to decay. It's not coincidental that, say, the corruption associated with Arianism was at its worst after the Edict of Milan. In many ways it is cyclical. The problems St. Bernard described, ultimately led to the Gregorian reforms of St. Gregory VII.  The decadence that led to the Reformation ultimately spurred on the counter-Reformation, etc., etc.

After World War II, the Church was on top of the world and was receiving more respect from the world that it had had in centuries. But in peace did its bitterness become most bitter.  Paradoxically, now that the world is turning more and more against the Church, and the Church is sinking pretty low, we may see the turnaround begin.  Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.
Reply
#33
(09-18-2014, 11:00 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Read Matthew 19:9, a verse often brushed aside. Jesus did apparently allow for divorce in case of adultery.

Important to note there that he seems to only be permitting a man to initiate a separation. If you take his words exactly, he does not permit a woman to leave an adulterous husband.
Reply
#34
You also need to compare that verse to the parallel verses: Mark 10:2, Luke 16:18, and Matt. 5:32, and 1 Cor. 7:10.

Given those, it needs to interpreted that, while adulterous spouses may be put away, it does not mean they can therefore freely marry another thereafter.

If adultery could lead to a valid dissolution of the marriage, both parties could marry another without committing adultery thereafter.  However, this would merely reward adulterous spouses, since one unjustly put away would not be able to marry again, while an adulterer would be able to.
Reply
#35
(09-19-2014, 03:47 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: You also need to compare that verse to the parallel verses: Mark 10:2, Luke 16:18, and Matt. 5:32, and 1 Cor. 7:10.

Given those, it needs to interpreted that, while adulterous spouses may be put away, it does not mean they can therefore freely marry another thereafter.

If adultery could lead to a valid dissolution of the marriage, both parties could marry another without committing adultery thereafter.  However, this would merely reward adulterous spouses, since one unjustly put away would not be able to marry again, while an adulterer would be able to.

This was all resolved in the Council of Trent

Quote:Session XXIV
Canon VII. If any one shall say, that the Church doth err in that she hath taught, and
doth teach, according to the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, that the bond of
matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties;
and that both, or even the innocent party, who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot
contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other married person; and, that he is
guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another wife, as also
she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall wed another husband; let him be anathema.
Reply
#36
(09-18-2014, 10:19 PM)Jeanannemarie Wrote: Last night, I found a document called "Homoheresy" by Father Oko, a Polish priest , if I remember correctly.  It gives insight into the homosexual agenda in the Church which I found very interesting.  I am sorry that I cannot post the link.  Since I got Windows 8 on a new computer a few months ago, I have not been able to relearn how to do certain things, and when I do figure it out, it doesn't work.  My "share button" on my "charm bar" doesn't seem to be hooked up!  LOL  The article will be easy to find.  It's thirty some pages, and I am glad that I read it.  I have had trouble understanding the battle between the clergy, like Dolan with his antics, being supported and someone like Burke being punished along with the FFI.  A little understanding of the situation has gone a long way to helping me understand the dynamics.  Like why  Holy Innocents, thriving TLM is possibly  being closed in NYC, while American Jesuits boldly involve themselves with homosexual things?  I am starting to get the drift.  It is really hard for me to fathom such evil, but I am coming to accept it.  I hope you all look this article up and give it a read.  I have also recently recommended reading the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, explaining the working of Modernism after being suggested by Father Peter Carota, in his blog, Traditional Catholic Priest.  Things have been making a lot more sense to me.

Here's the article you mention: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02...-pope.html
Its quite good indeed. Its very sad reading it knowing what came after: Benedict's renunciation and the election of Francis.

Our Lord did warned us that the Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a field wherein the good man sows wheat and along comes the enemy and sows tares. The separation will happen only at harvest.

I think its hard to understand the crisis because our Lord never gave the proportions of wheat to tares and its hard to imagine that the tares are trying to kill the wheat.

Maybe this crisis will serve as a, at least partial, sorting of the wheat, like the other crises have done, as maldon and SaintSebastian pointed out.

Reply
#37
(09-18-2014, 12:21 PM)demoslider Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 09:42 AM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 08:50 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 04:52 AM)tradprof Wrote: I know Cardinal Burke. I first met him when he was bishop at La Crosse, WI and he was under fire for installing the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, an order which was dedicated to offering the Latin Mass, each  time striving for an even higher level of perfection in the liturgy. The real Mass was offered in the cathedral daily when Bishop Burke was there. The school was located in the same building and not once in the whole time the Canons were there did any teacher bring any child to the Latin Mass, if for no other reason than the history of it. Shame on the blind--and arrogant and stubborn--in that diocese.

Cardinal Burke is a saint-in-waiting. The same can't be said of Pope Francis...unless, of course, you assume he'll also be canonized like the other Vatican II era popes to prove that VII was a really swell idea and not a failure leading to the demise of what now passes for the Catholic Church. I am always amazed to hear so many say Francis must be the correct choice for the Church; the Holy Ghost surely was involved in his selection. But why can't this just be a case of Divine permissive will allowing the chaff of the magisterium to be separated from the wheat of true faith? We are getting exactly what we deserve, whether it be in the form of the pope, cardinals and bishops or politicians, entertainers and social activists. But I also believe we're getting exactly what God intends. I'm older; if someone had told me 50 years ago that we would ever be at this state I would have thought them insane.

The more I watch what's happening with this almost unintelligible pope and his lack of knowledge of or interest in dogma and faith, I'm beginning to think that the Society of St. Pius X may, indeed, become the final repository of the real Catholic Church. If things go very wrong with the fall synod, I'm heading to the nearest SSPX chapel...for good. Many are called but few are chosen. A great many saints--and Pope Benedict himself--have said it will turn out to be a VERY few. It's starting to look like among them will be those with the SSPX. The rest of the "church" is increasingly heading toward being the real schismatics.

I agree with you here.
This Pope might have some faith, throwing himself the way he does without protection into moslem territory. But still, he's by no means a bright man and he seems to have a great animosity towards the traditions of the Church. By most measures he's a disaster.
Indeed if something too radical happens at the Synod (a Synod according to the reports is being manipulated into a liberal revolution) I myself will go rather quickly to the next SSPX chapel.
Why the SSPX? It is extremely unlikely that SSPX will become sedevacantist even if tables are turned at the Synod. Sedevacantism is the worst heresy for the SSPX. To me it seems that if anything radical happens in October there'll be two choices: sedevacantism or Orthodoxy.

How can Orthodoxy be a logical option? They already allow divorce and remarriage.
Yeah, but they're at least consistent in their teaching so perhaps they got it right from the beginning.
Reply
#38
(09-21-2014, 11:32 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: Yeah, but they're at least consistent in their teaching so perhaps they got it right from the beginning.
Then it's pointless to be talking about St Pius X and Modernism, considering he was part of a Church, that had it wrong all along.
Reply
#39
(09-21-2014, 01:16 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(09-21-2014, 11:32 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: Yeah, but they're at least consistent in their teaching so perhaps they got it right from the beginning.
Then it's pointless to be talking about St Pius X and Modernism, considering he was part of a Church, that had it wrong all along.
I'm not saying we've had it wrong all along. I'm saying we'll have to at least consider this possibility IF something very radical happens next month.
Reply
#40
(09-21-2014, 03:14 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(09-21-2014, 01:16 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(09-21-2014, 11:32 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: Yeah, but they're at least consistent in their teaching so perhaps they got it right from the beginning.
Then it's pointless to be talking about St Pius X and Modernism, considering he was part of a Church, that had it wrong all along.
I'm not saying we've had it wrong all along. I'm saying we'll have to at least consider this possibility IF something very radical happens next month.
I think it is dangerous to one's Faith to even entertain such an idea. To entertain that idea is to have no faith in Christ's promise to Holy Mother Church when He said in St Matthew's Gospel Chpt 18 "...and the gates of Hell shall not prevail"

If there is a radical change (which there won't be, which will be much to the disappointment of some) then essentially Christianity is false, because Hell would have prevailed.

Either we have supernatural faith and we trust in God the Holy Spirit to protect Holy Mother Church from error and we pray, pray, pray on the upcoming synod (because yes even Cdl Dolan and Kasper desperately need our prayers) or we walk with a faith that is all head and no heart....we simply become the roots growing on the rocks that are scorched by the sun.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)