A couple thoughts on the Douthat-Burke interview. The story starts off like this:
I had never met him before, but he was as I anticipated: at once obdurate and guileless, without the usual church politician’s affect, and with a straightforward bullet-biting to his criticism of the pope. The Burke critique is simple enough. Church teaching on questions like marriage’s indissolubility is supposed to be unchanging, and that’s what he’s upholding: “I haven’t changed. I’m still teaching the same things I always taught and they’re not my ideas.” What is unchanging certainly can’t be altered by an individual pontiff: “The pope is not a revolutionary, elected to change the church’s teaching.” And thus if Francis seems to be tacitly encouraging changes, through some sort of decentralizing process, it means “there’s a breakdown of the central teaching authority of the Roman pontiff,” and that the pope has effectively “refused to exercise [his] office.”
Except, that’s impossible, right? A pope has no more power to change moral teaching on the reality of marriage than he has to change math to say 2+2=5, right? So if something impossible is apparently happening, shouldn’t we be looking for the false base premise?
It was also in discussing the Amazonian synod that Burke brought up the specter that hangs over Francis-era debates, the idea of a schism in the church.
Burke: While the final document is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic faith. The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.
Douthat: But how can that be possible? You’re effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism.
Whoops! If a true pope could lead a schism from the true Church, explain to me again how Christ isn’t a liar? How have the Petrine Promises not been broken, if this statement is true? How could any of the faithful have a moral duty to pledge unity and submission to a man or to an office which is capable of such monstrous error?
Douthat: Isn’t that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?
Burke: Of course. Exactly. It’s a total contradiction. And I pray that this wouldn’t happen. And to be honest with you, I don’t know how to address such a situation. As far as I can see, there’s no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation.
So Bergoglio apparently has the power to violate the law of non-contradiction? That’s amazing. Do you see where a false base premise leads? You start out with this (false) thing that you think is true, you are sure of it. So sure of it, that you re willing to take any number of other known truths, even from scripture, and doubt their validity because their validity would violate the base falsity.
Folks, THINK. How can the Standard of Unity also be the Vector of Schism?
The most appropriate response I can think of is this post from just one week ago:
Action Alert: Top three questions to ask anyone who refuses to examine the nullity of Benedict’s resignation
Be they cardinals, bishops, priests, laity, friends, family, bloggers, Trad Inc., or whomever, I think now is the appropriate time to cut to the chase. Contained herein are three questions to be asked, privately or publicly as the case may warrant, of every single Catholic, no matter their rank, who professes Jorge Bergoglio to be the one true living pope. The timing seems right, because all the bad things hatching out of the Roman sewers are redpilling a lot more people these days. Something isn’t right, and the open worship of demons inside the Vatican has shifted the Overton Window in a way few other things could have done.
It is of crucial importance to state at the outset that this has nothing to do with Bergoglio “losing his office” or trying to craft some mechanism in which to “depose” him. Folks, Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, which means he needs to be removed, not deposed. We have to get past the false base premise that Bergoglio is now, or ever was, a true pope. All of this heresy/apostasy has no effect on who holds the office of the papacy, because the office of the papacy has been held continuously by Pope Benedict since April 2005. Note well: It would have made no difference – at all – who was “elected” at the faux conclave of 2013, no matter if it had turned out to be someone totally orthodox, that person would still have been an antipope. There was no election, because there was no conclave, because there was no resignation. The personal apostasy and orchestrated demon worship of Jorge Bergoglio upon the high altar of St. Peter’s is not a causal factor as to why he is not pope.
However, the heresy/apostasy of Antipope Bergoglio does serve as a helpful proofset of the fact that he has never held the office, and so does not enjoy any of the supernatural protections of the papacy promised directly from our Lord Himself. If you think about it, this is actually a tremendous grace, because it would have been much harder to find the truth if everything appeared to be “normal.” It’s really not that confusing if you get your base premise correct.
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
The questions which follow are of solid linear reasoning, which drill immediately to the core base premise. But they are also questions of grave matter to those professing submission to, and union with, an apostate heretic. It is out of fraternal charity that these questions must be asked, and answered.
Ready? Let’s get started!
Question One: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would permit the Church Militant to be put into a Catch-22 position of having to be in union with, and in submission to, a Pope who demands apostasy from the One True Faith in order to be in union with him, wherein we are literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t? How is this not a clear violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, wherein the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism?
If acceptance of heresy/apostasy/demon worship is the requirement in order to be in union with Bergoglio, which it clearly is, then how is that to be squared with the moral obligation of submission to, and union with, the Roman Pontiff under pain of mortal sin? Both things can’t be true.
“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” 2 John 1:8-11
Yes, we’ve had bad popes in the past. We have had dozens of men hold the papacy who were less than stellar when it came to personal morality, to put it mildly. But we have never had a pope personally conducting himself as an apostate heretic, with the dethronement of God and the deification of Man as his central Freemasonic theme (and now an open worshiper of demons, because that’s where Freemasonry leads), who is also intent on forcing heresy on the faithful by preaching objective mortal sin as a moral good, willed by God (AL#298, 300, 303 HERE; AL footnote 351 HERE; inter alia). That’s supposed to be not possible, and we don’t need some future council to explain this to us. God gave you a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
Let’s take it one step further. When a true pope is elected, it is dogmatically certain that the transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors, (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, 1870, HERE) not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church, but rather directly from Christ, immediately upon a validly elected successor’s acceptance of the office… (if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)… which leads us to Question #2:
Question Two: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would force the Church Militant into a Catch-22 position by His own divine will, by conferring the office of the papacy upon a man known to Him to be a wretched apostate heretic, and then WITHHOLDING the negative supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18-19, and Luke 22:32), so that the wretched apostate heretic could openly approve fornication (cohabitation), adultery, sacrilegious Communion, and even perform idolatrous demon worship upon the high altar at St. Peter’s? HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Said another way: If you are a person who believes Bergogio is a true pope, validly elected at a valid conclave after a valid resignation, then it is an article of faith for you to also believe that the papal office was bestowed BY CHRIST HIMSELF on Bergoglio at the moment of his acceptance of the papacy. If that’s true, then how is it possible that “Francis” could be permitted BY CHRIST HIMSELF to wage war on the Catholic Church, raping His bride, yet somehow the Petrine Promises have not been broken? Both things can’t be true.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
Souls are at stake, so I highly recommend everyone engages with those closest to them, pose these first two questions, demand that people actually think, and get them to answer. Put it on facebook and twitter. Permission to cut and paste from here with no attribution. Imagine if just a hundred people started doing this; it would exponentiate in mere days.
The answer to these first two questions, with a high degree of moral certainty, is that it is impossible for Jorge Bergoglio to be pope. Once the false base premise is out of the way, the next logical question to be asked is… what could have caused this? Which leads us directly to Question Three…
Question Three: Will you now, honestly and thoroughly, engage the publicly available data and argumentation that demonstrates that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, and has been since 13 March 2013, not by reason of heresy/apostasy, but as the result of an invalid conclave due to the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict? If you will not, why not?
Yes, the heresy/apostasy/demon worship is awful, but these things are clues, not causes. Bergoglio did not cease being pope because he worships demons. Bergoglio is not pope because the conclave was invalid because Benedict’s resignation was invalid. This is the root, nothing else.
Summary of events surrounding the invalid resignation:
Canon Law forcefully shows that Pope Benedict’s purported resignation in February of 2013 was invalid and that he remains the one and only living Pope. There are a multiplicity of violations which nullify the abdication, rendering also null the subsequent conclave and its result. Violations of Canons 17, 36, 38, 332.2, 188, 359 have been demonstrated, and Canon 131.1 is also in play HERE. For example, he used the term “ministerio” (ministry, lower case) in the essential clause of the renunciation, instead of Munus (Office). The Office and the ministry are not the same thing, and although he could have properly manifested his resignation in accord with Can. 332.2 without using the word Munus, that’s not what he did, explained HERE. Prominent Canonists and Theologians were already crowing about the faulty Latin and nullity of the act within hours of it taking place HERE.
Another subset of evidence includes Benedict’s “always and forever” discourse during his last General Audience 27 February 2013 HERE. This is where he revealed his belief that the papacy imparts an indelible character upon acceptance of the office.
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (the day Ratzinger accepted the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord…
The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this... I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.
Benedict admitted in that same speech that by instituting the role of “Pope Emeritus” he was creating a “novelty,” which means that he intended his “resignation” to be different tfrom any before, thus “remaining in a new way.” This concept was explained in great detail during Archbishop Ganswein’s epic “Expanded Petrine Ministry” discourse of 20 May 2016 HERE, wherein he explained how the papacy now consists of one “active member” and one “contemplative member,” and then (I’m not making this up) equated Benedict’s decision to bifurcate the papacy to God’s decision to spare His Blessed Mother from Original Sin via the Immaculate Conception HERE. The plain words of Benedict and Ganswein in these two speeches, if they were sincere and not subterfuge, demonstrate “Substantial Error” as a nullifying factor, as anticipated in Canon 188, since a bifurcated papacy is an ontological impossibility.
Speaking of subterfuge, there is also the possibility that the nullity of the resignation was intentional; four dimensional chess executed by Benedict in order to protect the papacy and keep it out of the hands of the heretics. There is no direct evidence which supports this angle, but it also cannot be disproven at this time. I mention it because it has a certain appeal, and although I think this scenario far less likely, it is possible.
Finally, there is furthering evidence visible to this day, which to the naked eye would appear we have “two popes.” This includes Benedict’s retention of title, form of address as “His Holiness,” his continual presence inside the Vatican, wearing white, wearing his not-destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, writing books and papers, blessing new cardinals, imparting “My Apostolic Blessing,” etc.
The notion that Benedict really, truly, completely retired, retaining not a shred of the papacy, is absurd. And since a partial abdication is not possible, his Declaratio is therefore juridically null, reverting the situation to the status quo. This is true even if he has seemingly delegated the power of governance, as stated in Canon 131.1: “The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.”
Benedict XVI is the one and only living pope, and has been since April 2005.
Battlespace awareness is critical to truly grasping what is happening here. Understanding the bigger picture of interconnected forces means going far beyond the tactical elements and individual breadcrumbs which have been provided for us.
Thank you to Ann Barnhardt for her contributions to this piece. The bigger picture is explained in great detail in Part Two of her Bergoglian Antipapacy video below. You don’t need to watch Part One first, as everything you need is contained in Part Two. For people risking their souls by being scandalized out of the Church because of the actions of a man who isn’t the pope… two hours of video is well worth your time.
Our Lady undoer of knots, pray for us.
8 thoughts on “Cardinal Burke claims a true pope can lead Church into Schism”
I agree with you Mark and Ann Barnhardt.
Along that line here is a comment I made regarding Ross’s column ‘What Will Happen to Conservative
Catholicism?’ in yesterday’s New York Times.
Conservative Catholics are compromised and uncertain lacking the courage to make a decision for either
Liberal or Traditional Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is in defacto schism. “Pope” Francis leads the heretical element while no one in
particular is charge of the Traditional orthodox Catholicism
Few Catholics are involved in this debate or know much about it. Most Bishops and Cardinals are silent.
And anti-pope Francis, as he is called by some Traditionalists, just feeds the fire of apostasy.
He has told an interviewer he does think Jesus was God and that Jesus didn’t resurrected from the dead.
Rather he is more interested in environmental sustainability and a One World Government.
What we have been seeing for the last 50 years is the collapse of the Catholic Church as it transitions
from heavenly to earthly concerns. Pope Francis has made that abundantly clear.
Question: What will be God’s next move?
I’m beginning to believe that Burke is what is referred to as the southward side of a mule headed north.
I think it is high time for a little less calm, peaceful, baleful, academic discussion of where this might all lead us (in theory), and a little more wild-eyed, spartan, holy man of God, locusts and honey, accusatory finger-in-the-face confrontation, on behalf of all that is holy.
Pray, absolutely. Also, do. Act. As did Don Juan Of Austria, Rosary in his and every soldier’s hand; the Blessed Mother leading his assembled forces on behalf of God and Holy Mother Church.
Pray *AND* Act. We can do both. Stop the hand wringing, roll up your red sleeves and risk everything for God and Church. Or curl up in a ball and let your moment pass you by.
Frank made a good point today about ++Burke calling BiP’s extremists. Liberals use this term to shut people up. A few years ago one was called a fundamentalist. As IF this was a bad thing. One of the many things I learned from Ann is that the opposite of love is not hate….it’s indifference. We all know what God says He’ll do with the lukewarm. He cannot use us or help us If we are indifferent. A great example of this is the conversion of Bruno Cornacchiola. He hated what he thought the Church was and hated the Pope and our Lady for the lies a Protestant told him. Bruno had passion…so much so he wanted to commit murder (Pope Pius XII). He did a total 180 after a visit from the Virgin of Revelation. Bruno was an extemist…and even though he was extremely wrong….hello…God used him.
Are we not the Church Militant? Hello. Aaaannnddd the definition of militant is what? Hello.
The photos are priceless.
Right on brother!
I think Pope Leo XIII would agree with your summation.
How can the Standard of Unity also be the Vector of Schism?
Don’t know. Maybe Burke should send Bergoglio a dubia to answer that one.