"Without guile"?? Unless there has been a complete pole change and it went unnoticed by all, you would have to be a type of narcissist or someone rating yourself above your pay grade to discuss, and for a world wide audience, your "boss'" actions and words and teachings, personally interpreting them, giving them your own personal meaning, even critiquing current "Vatican style" without cause or authority (and this isn't the first time for usurping another's rightful authority) and then expect him not to notice this other "little church" seeming to be in formation from some self anointed clique from within. There is definitely opposition here, but it certainly doesn't warrant a classification as somehow being "loyal"....unless to self and one's own loyal followers. And this interview occurred AFTER the former "demotion" decision had been in the air and thus known. Someone may believe that he deserves to be Pope and his followers may wish the same but until the Holy Spirit makes that possible one's ideas about humble service should be known by one's actions and words, esp. for the little ones....who may one day have only your final recourse for a decision about guilt or innocence. http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/12/15/cardinal-burke-on-pope-francis-and-church-reform/ Within the following interesting comment for the above link which comment itself makes several good points: #2 by Bill deHaas on December 15, 2013 - 8:36 pm [FONT=Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, Sans, FreeSans, Jamrul, Garuda, Kalimati]Words of Pope Francis on narcissism:[/FONT] I don’t like the word narcissism, it indicates an excessive love for oneself and this is not good, it can produce serious damage not only to the soul of those affected but also in relationship with others, with the society in which one lives. The real trouble is that those most affected by this — which is actually a kind of mental disorder — are people who have a lot of power. Often bosses are narcissists. Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy. No, there are sometimes courtiers in the curia, but the curia as a whole is another thing. It is what in an army is called the quartermaster’s office, it manages the services that serve the Holy See. But it has one defect: it is Vatican-centric. It sees and looks after the interests of the Vatican, which are still, for the most part, temporal interests. This Vatican-centric view neglects the world around us. I do not share this view and I’ll do everything I can to change it. Now, let the "incoming" find its target! in 3-2-1
The referenced comment from link in my above comment was comment #2 from Bill deHaas http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/12/15/cardinal-burke-on-pope-francis-and-church-reform/
I find your response really strange, earthtoangels. I am pretty sure that churchmen discuss their interpretation of their superior's words all of the time. And he was correct in the vast majority of what he said. Anyway, I guess I don't get the sinister overtones that you are putting on the interview. Anyway, you certainly can't accuse him of having guile after straightforwardly putting his opinions out. Oh well, I have met Cardinal Burke, and so I can't understand these things. He is the farthest thing from a narcissist. It also seemed to me that the blog you referenced seemed to want to find a tension or a battle in the comments regarding Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis. I don't think such a tension is warranted by the actual words of Cardinal Burke.
Great research MotherSuperior. Perhaps the good Cardinal was the one trusted enough to rectify this situation.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but such an obvious expose in the public of what amounted to a correction of the Pope's meaning, along with a personal disagreement with the new current or feeling within the Vatican was really out of place for an appointed top authority of the Church and displays, again, a kind of narcissism and anything but loyalty. If there is any correction to be made it should be left to one who is authorized by the source himself and with respect for the Pope. This was way out of place. It smacks of our own top lawyer, Mr. Holder's, attitude of "so sue me"! You don't advertise your disagreements before the faithful and not expect some kind of reply by the authority you've agreed to serve? It would be better if such a person who feels it necessary to speak for his boss would be honest and simply resign....don't try and go around an honest personal confrontation by using your own connections to get your points across. Burke all but denigrates Francis’ apostolic exhortation (which is only one step below a motu proprio – sounds like he is just trying to confuse things by throwing out lots of dust) If you've been observant over the years this other comment sort of sums up the anything but guileless approach of the man: I am not at all surprised by this claim by Cardinal Burke. It’s the way in which he has thought and consistently acted for years. If you don’t like a particular decision, work through your connections to get it reversed, suspended, or mitigated in some fashion. If you don’t like a particular pronouncement, work through your connections to get a “proper” interpretation or have it placed in its “proper” context. and I would add, by what authority??? Pope Francis, to his credit, is trying to reform this political type of approach to positions in order to serve the whole world and not just the Vatican. How can anyone who has not a toe in the water of the life experience with living with the poor and marginalized as Francis has have the guile to "re-interpret" his meanings and intentions of his own authoritative writings? I speak from my own discernment of this history in facts, not simply to disagree. I am of the conservative approach but hold that the same rules should apply for all and most especially for those in positions of expected union with the Church as for the faithful little ones. The Spirit of Christ's meaning here should be accepted: re: the Pharisees: They lay heavy burdens upon the people but would not do anything to make the load lighter. Their own works were done to be observed by men rather than God. They made broad their phylacteries, the Scriptures which they customarily bound to their forehead and to their left wrist, containing the Scriptures of Exodus 13:3-16; Deuteronomy 6:5-9 and 11:13-21. This they did, not only when they prayed in the morning, but throughout the day, for the purpose of being seen of men. They also enlarged the borders of their garments, the tassels referred to in Deuteronomy 22:12, which were tokens that they were holy men. Jesus charged the Pharisees with loving the best places at the feasts and the chief seats in the synagogue. They loved to be called rabbi, which recognized that they were teachers and scholars. Jesus reminded them that their Messiah, “Christ,” was their Master, and God was their Father. .................... - in the recording, Arroyo introduces Burke as *one of the most influential* – and he knows this how? not sure this is true anymore? - Arroyo also includes the statement that Burke is the *best canon lawyer in the world*….really, and, again, he knows this how? know a few folks in the Canon Law Society of America who wouldn’t agree with that description
Somehow it is OK for certain individuals on this forum to cite "Paul challenging Peter" from scripture as a basis for debating the Truth (all the way up to the top of the Church), yet in this instance, it is something to be considered neo-Pharisitic and narcissistic. It's also interesting that the most ardent promoters of LTTW are the most accepting of this.
In the schism that is coming, it is exactly this kind of browbeating and attack that will be used to silence good Faithful and Faith-filled Catholics who simply try to defend the Faith from heterodoxy. I've seen the false "Pharisee" and "Narcissist" charge flung about by too many progressives to not recognize it for what it is.
So who were the individuals who cited "Paul challenging Peter" and spoke to this question as well? And is there some de facto connection between mentioning LTTW to watch how they play out and this discussion? Don't quite get your drift other than something created from whole cloth.
In any coming apostasy it will be due more than like to those who consider themselves above the Church's ongoing historical structure that has been for the sake of unity as designated by Christ who just may feel, out of necessity of course, it better to formulate something better....and of course, ironically, more "faithful".
Just a casual observation. LTTW is most likely a false deception, and the locutions certainly exhibit personalities claiming to be Jesus and Mary that are not consistent with their unique personalities that are immediately recognizable in works like sacred scripture, Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Way of Divine Love, the diary of Saint Gemma, the Fatima apparitions, and also even Garabandal. Affinity for LTTW appears to indicate a willingness overlook this, and allow too much emotion, intellect or willful imagination to affect discernment. This could be related to discernment of other ideas or the objective truth. I'm somewhat short on patience today (one of my primary faults), so I apologize for being too confrontational, but not for my observations. Truth is too important, and love for all souls drives my desire for Truth to be shared.
You speak of an affective discernment as lacking an ability for objectivity and then use some blanket description of "most likely a false deception" based on "personality" analysis of Jesus' and Mary's "unique personalities" from scripture and a few other private revelations?? You do know that people have not but a limited mention of Mary's "personality" from scripture and thus look to her various permitted historical appearances to clarify just who she really is to today? And still could not offer any all encompassing combination of who our "tainted nature's solitary boast" really is. Otherwise it would be considered simply chutzpah. Most respected Mariologists would caution the curious to note that such interpretations are always filtered through the subjective understanding of the chosen human vessel....and locutions are even less reliable than actual visions. There are still many Bishops today who would defy anyone who would attempt to describe to them a "Mary" who would even think of mentioning dire future events for the world....they would argue that she's much too sweet and motherly to be assigned such a task by the Father. (and in that also including a slap at God Himself). And they would also mention their own personally chosen few selections from that history to prove their point. Human nature I suppose.
wow, earthtoangels, I am going to let others comment and see what information others can bring up. I didn't realize that there were (I presume) orthodox Catholics who did not like Cardinal Burke. As to the interview, though, the part about abortion and gay marriage came from an interview with Pope Francis, where he said that we cannot insist ONLY on abortion and gay marriage, and refers back to the proclamation of Jesus Christ as being prior to that. So, I can't find any fault in either what Pope Francis said or what Cardinal Burke said. They are both right. It is only an interpretation of others that states that Pope Francis was saying that these teachings are not essential, and Cardinal Burke is pointing that out. As far as the Apostolic Exhortation, he talks about how those who are saying that the document changes the Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage are incorrect. I can't see that as controversial. The only area where I can see that you may have a point is when the Cardinal is unsure as to the weight of the document. However, due to the fact that it does speak of guidelines and pastoral mission, perhaps he is right that it is not intended to break new doctrinal ground. Reading the document, it does not seem to be of a doctrinal bent, but rather in putting things in the proper perspective, etc. So I don't see the great controversy here. Can you point to a specific example of where Cardinal Burke is trying to undermine Pope Francis, or whatever it is exactly that you are accusing him of? Also, is it really that controversial or offensive to call Cardinal Burke the best canon lawyer in the world, when in fact he was, in effect, the chief canon lawyer in the world? Sure, some could disagree, but to be offended by the statement?!? Just bizarre.
I'm probably making a mistake commenting here as I know very little about Cardinal Burke as I'm not an American but I find myself sympathising a little with earthtoangels here (which is a surprise as I certainly am not on the same wavelength when it comes to his enthusiasm for LttW !). The link he provides to the 'Pray Tell' blog is quite interesting and I find it illustrative of why this 'demotion' might have occurred. I find some of the Cardinal's comments about Pope Francis' approach to things as indicating he doesn't fully understand that approach. I find the same 'puzzlement' about Pope Francis shows itself on this forum from time to time. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for Pope Francis to maybe just feel that it would be difficult to work with the Cardinal because of that lack of understanding. Such preferences are perfectly reasonable and I don't think people should be getting upset about something like this.
That's fairly reasonable, although I think the "Pray Tell" blog shows a strong bias of its own. The two do have a different approach, but sending Cardinal Burke from a top position to a purely titular position at his age is the ecclesial equivalent of being fired, like a strong insult. Then again, there may be more to this that we don't understand from our vantage point. What's puzzling to me is that I don't find much to disagree with from either Pope Francis or Cardinal Burke. They are both, well, Catholic. I think that the media spins the words of Pope Francis in a certain direction, but the actual content is unremarkable. Cardinal Burke is much like Pope Benedict XVI, and the popular perception is also that there is a major gulf between Benedict and Francis, but really there is not.
This is just the kind of trickle down effect from such a condescending attitude from a prelate going above his position, taking advantage of his American contacts willing to air his opinions with their own additional lack of propriety, to "re-interpret" just what the Pope "really" meant. To take advantage of the secular media's own bias to place yourself center stage is, to be charitable, disingenuous. People now actually believe that somehow the Pope is not as "orthodox" as this "great" canon lawyer (which title emphasis appears to have to precede him always in introductions) which is a horrible attempt to slant the depth of caring Francis has always demonstrated. Frankly, I say he's more orthodox than the lawyer. Christ's life didn't stop with the law but His words and actions fulfilled that law. To infer otherwise is really a cheap shot to one's superior. He should have been sacked way back then. This Pope emphasizes, not the constant repetition of the law and "talk", but rather a more all encompassing approach to the victims with compassion and forgiveness....always a pastoral approach. In just the case of abortions so often women punish themselves over again with more abortions due to feelings of worthlessness and guilt, even when subconscious. He's saying that whoever holds a position of judgement in the Church must have a feeling for the complex human experiences involved in order to judge fairly or else there may be no real conversion and hope within sorrow. It isn't the outward ecclesiastical garb that comes with the office or the title one must be known for, but the humility that must be the part of the person in such a lofty position. He isn't a "chief" canon lawyer. He is one among many good ones who has been given a position that must weigh all arguments presented by even perhaps better equipped and more experienced solicitors. It's the wisdom in that ability that most comes into play. An example of manipulation/undermining and without merit in the facts, to make one's self appear somehow morally superior (and people count the number of "I"s in Obama's speeches!): Well the pope’s statement doesn’t state that. In fact it’s a text (text? an Apostolic Exhortation?) that’s not altogether easy to interpret (for him). But my response (as if it is even called for) is, what could be more essential than the natural moral law? (inferring that the Pope could even be suggesting anything against such when it was a question of approach rather than just words)… And so, to me the pope can’t be saying, I can’t interpret that phrase of his, as saying that these are not essentials. (not necessary anyway) I’m not exactly sure why he mentioned it. (then he is completely clueless or just being disingenuous) One gets the impression, or it’s interpreted this way in the media, that he thinks we’re (we?...setting up a false dichotomy of a "we"/the good and "them"/those in error approach which sets up division) talking too much about abortion, too much about the integrity of marriage as between one man and one woman. But we can never talk enough about that! (the operative word is "talk"....when the need, according to the Pope's statements, a pastoral involvement beyond the talk...that is what is necessarily most essential for souls to experience, but then that kind of involvement can be uncomfortable to those in the cat bird seats)
Thanks for this background. Now I better understand the origins of this bizarre attack. I'm thankful tonight for the IT guy who invented the "Ignore" button.
More background... Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press A new book with articles by prominent churchmen is about to be released worldwide in several languages (in English by Ignatius Press, under the title "Remaining in the Truth of Christ"), with important articles strongly defending all aspects related to the traditional Catholic doctrine on family and marriage, and the integrity of Blessed Sacrament, words that come from Our Lord Himself. This is how Ignatius Press describes it: In this volume five Cardinals of the Church, and four other scholars, respond to the call issued by Cardinal Walter Kasper for the Church to harmonize “fidelity and mercy in its pastoral practice with civilly remarried, divorced people”. Contributors include Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, C.S., Robert Dodaro, O.S.A., Paul Mankowski, S.J., Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, John M. Rist, and Archbishop Cyril Vasil, S.J. Cardinal Kasper claims support for his position in early Church practice. The contributors bring their wealth of knowledge and expertise to bear upon this question, concluding that patristic and biblical texts do not support the kind of “toleration” of civil marriages following divorce advocated by Cardinal Kasper. They also examine the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as “mercy” implying “toleration”) in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. The book traces the long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice. As the authors demonstrate, the charge that traditional Catholic doctrine and contemporary pastoral practice are in contradiction is an erroneous perception that can be remedied by closer examination of the Church’s teachings. "Because it is the task of the apostolic ministry to ensure that the Church remains in the truth of Christ and to lead her ever more deeply into that truth, pastors must promote the sense of faith in all the faithful, examine and authoritatively judge the genuineness of its expressions and educate the faithful in an ever more mature evangelical discernment." - St. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio [Source] It is therefore a book that, precisely because it intends to protect the doctrine on the sacraments of Matrimony, Confession, and the Eucharist, stands in direct and explicit contradiction with Cardinal Kasper's attempts to subvert the traditional doctrine of the Church. However, according to a Vatican correspondent of the semi-official daily and Catholic paper of record of the French Episcopate, La Croix (as authoritive a source as there can be for Catholic news in French), in an article published in today's print edition, Pope Francis is greatly irritated with this book, so much so that he specifically told Cardinal Müller not to promote it. Pope Francis, who had expressed his attachment to the text of Cardinal Kasper at the time of the consistory, would be irritated [serait irrité] by the publication of this collective work a few days before the Synod, according to a high-placed source close to the Argentine Pope. He would have demanded [aurait demandé] of Cardinal Müller not to take part in the promotion of the book, that also includes the texts of two Jesuits. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already expounded on his position in other occasions. Cardinal Kasper, who has not yet received the new book, tells La Croix that he assured the Pope of not "taking part in a quarrel among cardinals." At the end of the consistory of last February, Pope Francis had asked for the unity of the Cardinals. [Source, in French. Tip: Le FC]
Sometimes it is easy to see how the schism/split in the Church will manifest itself, even on this forum with each other. I don't know Pope Francis well. I see what is written about him and what he allegedly say's, according to the media. So I just pray for him to guide the Church in unchanging truth. I do however know about Cardinal Burke and along with Cardinal George, I feel he is one of the very best in the US and world for that matter. He is as orthodox in his faith as they come. He along with his very close friend, Servant of God, Father John Hardon, SJ., founded the Guadalupe shrine in LaCrosse, Wisconsin (a beautiful place of prayer) http://www.guadalupeshrine.org/ I would stand side by side with him to the end. Many of the great saints of the Church served in 'hidden' meaningless places, but God nonetheless worked miracles through them wherever their place in life took them. Cardinal Burke will do the same.
Brian, I'm not sure if the LTTW messages (which I initially thought were authentic, but lately seem more like a person wrote them) are the source of this attack on Cardinal Burke. I haven't seen anything against him in those messages, which I read until fairly recently. I am grateful for your presence on this forum. earthtoangels, I don't have anything more to add to this discussion except that we must always take care to cast another's actions in the most charitable light. It does not seem that you are doing this with Cardinal Burke, and I'm sure there is a reason. It seems that you must not have liked Pope Benedict XVI either...the two are very close. We are now clearing seeing the "Cardinals vs. Cardinals" prophecy play out before our very eyes.
