(Sarcasm aside, no joke, I’m serious, not kidding… someone please splain it to me. This man knows full well that an apostate is just that: Someone who has apostatized, denied the faith. Such a person, by their own choice, is outside the Church. A person outside the Church cannot hold juridical office inside the Church (if he ever did). According to canon law, this “loss of office” is automatic. Cardinal Burke was the top canon lawyer in the Church before the usurper illegally and invalidly stripped him of that rank. That this man is floating the erroneous idea that an apostate can hold any position of legitimate authority in the Church is, at best, diabolical disorientation. At worst, outright deception. Eminence, what the hell are you doing? You’re worried about people leaving the Church because an impostor has been imposing heresy for the past 12 years? Newsflash, you are part of the problem, not the solution (or not yet). Why do you keep claiming he’s definitely Pope? You owe it to the flock to depose this usurper, and then open an investigation into Pope Benedict’s failed partial abdication. The entire Bergoglian antipapacy needs to be declared null since its faux inception. Just like dozens of other antipopes have been deposed, while they yet lived. In fact, you owe it to Bergoglio himself, so that he may repent, confess his sins with full contrition and purpose of amendment, die in the state of grace, and obtain the Beatific Vision. Good grief, man, for the care of souls, all souls, DO SOMETHING.) -nvp
Cardinal Burke urges Catholics to stay in the Church even if the ‘highest’ leaders commit ‘apostasy’
‘No matter what we are asked to suffer, we must remain with Him, even if those in the highest positions of authority in the Church should abandon Him, should commit the grievous crime of apostasy from the Catholic faith,’ Cardinal Burke declared.
LA CROSSE, Wisconsin (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Raymond Burke exhorted Catholics to hold onto the Catholic faith regardless of “apostasy” at the highest levels of the Church hierarchy.
In a December 14 homily during Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Wisconsin, Cardinal Burke encouraged Catholics to keep their faith in difficult times, stressing the importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary in our redemption.
“No matter what we are asked to suffer, we must remain with Him, even if those in the highest positions of authority in the Church should abandon Him, should commit the grievous crime of apostasy from the Catholic faith,” Cardinal Burke said during the candlelit Rorate Mass said in the honor of the Blessed Virgin…
My thoughts 1000 percent. Burke, Schneider, Strickland etc. have my prayers but they have lost my respect.
AMEN! My thoughts exactly!
Burke would have in his power to solve this immediately, since in this state of sede vacante, he is one of the leaders of the Catholic Church. Instead, he wanted lay people to pray a 9-month novena. I mean, what was he thinking: the lay people should do what exactly? How many people does he want to be scandalized before he just says the simple truth out loud? Burke should just tell the truth, and start preparing for a conclave.
I don’t see what’s so scary about telling people what Jorge is. Yes, you’ll be sacked. But with that sacking you might just save your soul.
Surely you realize legitimizing the false prophet puts your soul in a dangerous position?
I don’t see how someone who believes in an eternal hell will let the world scare him into helping the Devil, or at least being quiet as he launches the one world religion. Do people think that fraternity between religions is just an idle threat? That somehow meting with other religious leaders in the capstone of a pyramid is just for fun? Canonizing schismatics and heretics? Implying that all religions are willed by God and paths to God?
My concern is this: if Jorge isn’t sacked – if no bishop or cardinal publicly charges Bergoglio with heresy and/or calls for an investigation into his election – what does that mean for the credibility of the Church?
In his reply to Dr. John Lamont, Fr Brian Harrison recognizes this fact: “…the ecclesiology implied by affirming that the entire college of bishops could ever be, and has in fact been, seduced into following an antipope is surely heterodox. It implies the Protestant ecclesiology that the true Church is invisible, that it needs no recognizable earthly head, and that it consists of all those scattered individuals who hold orthodox Christian belief. This runs up against the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church and the dogma, defined by Vatican I, that Blessed Peter will have perpetual successors i.e., right up till the Second Coming.” Agree with him or not, this is a logical outcome which is exactly why Burke, Strickland et al MUST act and act immediately.
Please see my FB page Fdr Roman
If you want to share your ideas, many of us do not have Facebook.
Every time any “conservative” bishop or outlet announces some novena with intentions that make no logical sense, a counter-novena should be announced to bring these people back to their senses along with the correct intention.
Is it still a good idea to expect this fellow (who denies an article of faith, by implying a pope could apostatize and still be pope) be the one to correct the Benedict XVI false-resignation business? I think we’re going to need another cardinal.
If Cdl. Burke denies parts of the Catholic religion, including those regarding the papacy, the HIGHEST authority on earth, then he himself has jettisoned the faith. What we really need to do is make HIM aware of this (since formal heresy depends, at least somewhat, on having a chance to be corrected)?
In other words, you won’t fix Bergoglio and friends through Cardinal Burke because you must first fix Cardinal Burke.
St. John Eudes, ora pro nobis.
That’s exactly right, Chris, and that’s my next step.
That is 100% correct. This all boils down to Burke accepting V2 as legitimate. Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio clearly teach that heretics and schismatics are 1) members of the Church, 2) avenues of sanctifying grace, and 3) part of the means of salvation. Those are ERRORS. The Magisterium cannot teach any error on Faith and morals (pope Pius XI, Quas Primas).
This is why the only “Conciliar” bishop who has formally pronounced that The Argentinian is not now and never was “pope” is the one who denounced V2 and equated it with Pistoia and the Robber Synod.
My operating belief is that while V2 created a new religion, the New Order liturgical rites formally separated that new religion from the Catholic Church. As long as a cleric holds the NO is “Catholic”, then they belong to the new religion. This is based on a friend of mine, an NO cleric who started saying the TLM. He remarked that he couldn’t, in good conscience as a Catholic, continue saying the NO…because it wasn’t Catholic. I trust his opinion.
I’m pretty sure it has something to do with him being a “man of the Council.” That’s just my intuition, so not worth much, but I throw it out with the hope that someone else can more precisely draw a line between VII and the Definitelypope position.
If the last pope was Pius XII or Cardinal Siri, since all the lawful bishops appointed by a pope are dead, the Church lost apostolic succession in 2020 and defected. If not the consequent then not the antecedent.
If you are having trouble reconciling as a trad, I recommend trying to understand what the Church means by tradition. The only traditions that are irredeemable are Apostolic Traditions. Some traditions in the Church have always changed throughout history, but some absolutely cannot.
Your assumption that Apostolic Succession ends when there is no pope to appoint bishops is not consistent with history.
Augustine was elected bishop by thr people of Hippo, consecrated and installed WITHOUT papal approval, and was considered a Successor to the Apostles. Same with the Old Catholic bishops from the 1300s to Trent (and to the 1700s, I believe), before they went nuts.
That assumption also means that any retired bishop, including Strickland and Burke would not be Successors to the Apostles, because they have no appointment.
Interestingly enough, the best arguments against sedevacantism reject the idea that Apostolic Succession ends if a pope cannot appoint bishops, because 1) the Church is a perfect society and ALWAYS has the means to perpetuate itself in its essence (including Apostolic Succession), 2) the Church Herself possesses the power to appoint bishops, and has in the past, and 3) the Church Herself has the jurisdiction necessary to ensure that bishops are available, and a pope can be elected when there are no Cardinals.
At worst, you have imperfect Succession, wherein valid bishops exist and pass on the Apostolic Faith and provide the sacraments, but have no jurisdiction to formally correct the faithful and administer a diocese. That would be perfected when a valid pope is elected and appoints them as ordinaries of a diocese.
What is stopping the ‘58 Sedes from electing a true pope via Ecclesia Supplet?
Mark, maybe because the two largest sede groups, CMRI and RCI are at odds? I doubt Bp. Sanborn would participate in a conclave and things might actually worsen. IDK. If I had my wishes for a pope, it would be HE, Bp. Fliess. He gave this sermon shortly before is consecration, which I was privileged to attend.
Enjoy and blessed finish to Advent to all.
https://youtu.be/rRpfZOrsBiU?si=j_89ZqheilVp_vK9
Asinine, Catholic cosplay.
Point out to me where the lawful successors are.
Theological sources from before Vatican II seem to indicate that FORMAL apostolic succession requires jurisdiction. If material apostolic succession were enough one could argue that the Church can never defect as long as Eastern Orthodoxy exists.
If the formal cause is lacking, then the Church lost apostolic succession, one of the 4 marks of the true Church, at some point–which it said can never happen before the end of time. Did time end in the 60’s? Or in 2020? Is time still flowing?
Maybe this excerpt from Crdl. Manning on the Passion of the Church can help? Certainly if a Bergoglio “papacy” drones on until a Bergoglio XII, we would all be long-time sedes. IDK the answers, but seems to me sometime *soon?* the ’22 sedes will have to concede the NO is not the Catholic Church.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/excerpted-from-a-lecture-by-henry-edward-cardinal-manning:-the-passion-of-the-church
‘22 sede is the only option that I see possible that leads to the Church not contradicting itself. Plus I see the signs of Apocalypse 13 coming true by 2030. I don’t see how Benedict could be pope if VII was heretical. And I don’t see how the Church did not defect if SSPX or ‘58 sedes are correct.
I do know promoting LGBT rights is contrary to apostolic tradition.
Besides the stinking, rotten fruit of V2, the heresies in V2 documents, I don’t see how the seat hasn’t been vacant all these years. And I agree with you about SSPX…it’s a most destructive position they hold.
But you see, if the seat has been vacant all these years, all the legitimate bishops are dead, because there has been no pope to appoint them. The Church teaches that by apostolic succession they do not mean merely having valid orders but also true authority. That is, no one can appoint themselves as bishops, regardless of how strong their faith is
I’m hanging on by a thread. If Jorge is not an antipope if not false prophet then I’m out of options.
The way I grapple with VII is distinguishing between apostolic traditions and other traditions.The latter can always change.
Can anyone make the case that the apostles handed down teachings that the state must be Catholic? It seems to be a post -Constantine tradition, because the early Church was persecuted by the state.
If the seat has not been vacant all these years, then the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has defected, because the NO religion is certainly not, One, Holy nor Catholic. And this did not begin with Jorge.
So, no matter what happened, it defected if VII was heretical. Either it lost apostolic succession or teaches heresy in the universal, ordinary magisterium.
Perhaps it is the assumption that it taught heresy in an ecumenical council that must be verified.
Irreformable, not irredeemable.
Burke is a massive disappointment. Francis got to him a while ago, after punishing him. Now he’s basically sold his soul. I hope he gets a spine again.
This was my twitter response to the statement when it came out…
Cardinal Burke,
Please if those in the highest positions have committed apostasy…They have NO AUTHORITY in the Church. They are OUTSIDE the Church.
When will you Cardinals and Bishops call them out by name and declare them anathema?
Also my comment regarding their novena for Francis conversion:
They don’t seem to care that we are in WW3.
We need a VALID Pope NOW!
Our Lady asked for the Concecration of Russia, if not done per Her request , wars would spread and nations ANNIHILATED.
What can one say?
Denial isn’t just a River in Egypt.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but with a quick read of the article I did not see any comments from Cardinal Burke to the effect that Bergoglio is the pope, or that we need to obey him. The cardinal seemed to be exhorting people to not leave the church, which Trads of every stripe would agree with (we just differ on where the “Church” resides, the status of the “pope”, etc.). The cardinal may have expressed other opinions, but I’m not seeing it in this linked article.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
In the article, Cardinal Burke did not mention the Pope. He did not delve into what should be done to directly counter the apostacies or issues of obedience to disobedient prelates.
Who else would be the “highest position of authority” in the Church?
He said “highest positions of authority”. It is a fudge factor. It would be different if he said “He who is in highest position of authority”. I take it more that he is trying to provide help to confused laity of whatever condition or level of formation they have.
Catholic: A person outside the Church cannot hold juridical office inside the Church (if he ever did). According to canon law, this “loss of office” is automatic. Is this statement true? I have read others have the opinion that only a future Pope can make the declaration about a current Pope?
Answer from Grok AI:
The statement you’ve provided regarding canon law and the holding of ecclesiastical office by non-Catholics touches on several complex aspects of Catholic canon law, particularly under Canons 145 to 196 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which deal with ecclesiastical offices. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant points:
Loss of Ecclesiastical Office: According to Canon 184 §1, an ecclesiastical office can be lost through various means, including by resignation, transfer, removal, or deprivation. However, the automatic loss of office due to someone becoming a non-Catholic is specifically addressed in Canon 194 §1, which states that one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church is removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself. This does not require a formal declaration by any authority, as the loss is “ipso facto” or automatic.
Canon 194 §1: “The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself: 1° one who has lost the clerical state; 2° one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church; 3° a cleric who has attempted marriage, even a civil one.”
Papal Office Specificity: The situation with a Pope is unique. The Pope, as the head of the Catholic Church, does not have a “superior” within the Church to declare him removed from office. Historically, the process for ending a papal term has been through resignation, death, or, in the case of the Western Schism and other historical crises, by the election of a new Pope when the validity of the current one was in question. The notion that only a future Pope could declare the loss of office for the current Pope does not align with the general principles of canon law, which do not provide for such a mechanism regarding the papacy. Instead, the loss of papal office is traditionally considered to occur automatically upon death, resignation, or if the Pope were to publicly defect from the faith (though this would be highly controversial and historically unprecedented in such terms).
While Canon Law does not explicitly address the Pope’s situation in terms of public defection from faith in the same manner as other offices, the principle of “loss of office” by public defection is generally recognized. However, any practical application in the case of a Pope would likely involve significant ecclesiastical debate and might require a conclave or some form of council action to address the situation, given the unique nature of the papal office.
Interpretation and Praxis: There’s a distinction between the legal theory of canon law and its application. While the law might state something is automatic, in practice, especially for the papacy, the situation could be far more complicated. The Church’s understanding of its own law, tradition, and the need for clarity and continuity would guide how such a situation might be handled.
Given these points, the statement you’ve provided is generally true in the context of most ecclesiastical offices under canon law, but the application to the papacy involves nuances that the law doesn’t explicitly cover for such a unique office. The idea that only a future Pope could make a declaration about a current Pope’s “loss of office” is not directly supported by canon law but reflects the unique challenges of applying canon law to the pontiff.
Louie Verrecchio points that out as well. The 1917 CIC is more clear, in that is SPECIFICALLY STATES that no declaration is necessary.
Perhaps we should follow Christ alone and not Rome, lest we too promote the antichrist NWO.
We may as well be evangelical Zionists and worship the fake Jews claiming to be Israel..
No matter the flavor of deception we have been born or duped into, it is time for all true followers of Christ to come out from among her (from among all of them, separate from all of those who refuse to renounce the murderous antichrists among us), unless you want to be judged with the Harlot- or murdered by her.
If ever there were blind following the blind, it is here. You see only these men, who are indeed stains, yet the main problem is the organization- the fabric upon which the stains reside, and are only a surface issue- one of many.
Not yet. We have to wait till the abomination of desolation. When Christ’s Real Presence is gone from their ecumenical worship service, we must run without looking back.
Oh look. It’s a Protestant.
First there was Christ, then darkness for 1500 years, then Luther was born and Amazing Grace became the national anthem.
The criminal apostate usurpers are not the Church. The Catholic Church has an unbroken Apostolic and intellectual patrimony to which one can measure the validity or trueness of a man in white. If he teaches a gospel that is different from the previous 1960 years, he is not a pope, and a Catholic adheres to what always was, in spite of the not-a-pope, because he is not-a-pope.