"On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium)." Since this is what the SSPX also does, why does he believe they are "in schism" for holding the same positions as he does? That's a head scratcher!
Does Cardinal Burke think Pope Francis is an anti-pope?
Short answer - No. He prays for and names the pope every time he says Mass....which is exactly what the SSPX does. So why does he say they are "in schism?" Ordaining the bishops with only one mandata from the Vatican does not, in itself, rise to the level of a schismatic act according to many canon lawyers, particularly since Archbishop Lefebvre did not confer jurisdiction (a diocese) on the bishops.
Will the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) be further crushed by Francis?
Time will tell. The rumor is that a new grenade, an Apostolic Constitution, will be lobbed at the TLM in early April, possibly the Monday of Holy Week. Pray and fast that it doesn't happen. "Keyboard warriors," take your mark! The keyboard is mightier than the sword!
"...will Roche succeed in assuming more authority for his dicastery than it actually has?"
How many bishops will act like the bully in Atlanta?
And how many priests will suffer because of it? How many faithful will be swept up in the liturgical chaos? How many will leave the Church?
Mary Ann, the precise problem is that both Cardinal Burke and the SSPX hold that Bergoglio is pope. That is the whole shooting match right there.
ReplyDeleteSo what is your position? Has there been a legitimate pope since 1958?
ReplyDeleteSeveral
DeleteMy last interaction with Thetimman was in Sept. of last year. At that time he believed as Ann Barnhardt and Mark Docherty, that Benedict was pope, therefore they are now '22 sedevacantists.
DeleteNow with TC 2.0 supposedly coming in April, and the potential of many loosing their TLM, Mr. Docherty is advising his readership to seek refuge at SSPX. I've asked Mark repeatedly to also direct his readers to sede Churches, but he refuses. It's strange to me he refuses to do so, as I've asked him privately if he thought it ok for me to seek Last Rites from the sede priest very near me and he said yes as long as their ordination was from a valid sede bishop.
The only reason I say all this Mary Ann is because many who read Ann and Mark (Non Veni Pacem), are now '22 sedevacantists and believe Bergoglio is an Antipope. Makes zero sense to me to direct your readership to only the SSPX, who publicly say Bergoglio is pope, if you believe he's not. I don't know about you, but if I believed Bergoglio was a heretic and antipope, I'd certainly not want a spiritual director who couldn't see what I can plainly see. '22 sedevacantism is in a very bad position.....imo
Mary Ann,
ReplyDeleteSeveral valid popes since 1958.
Debbie, One is not a sedevacantist, as the term is used in trad circles, if one acknowledges that after a pope dies a mew pope must be elected. And until that happens there is a vacancy as usual.
Thetimman,
DeleteSorry I'd forgotten to reply to you. I think the term sedevacantist applies to those who held the "Benedict is pope" theory too. Both groups deny who the NO religion say is pope. Does it really matter if the interregnum is 45 days or 64 years if you're going against the NO magisterium? But regardless, I'm usually quite careful in distinguishing between '22 and '58 sedes.
We're living in very confusing times, Debbie. As Bishop Schneider says, Jesus seems to be sleeping in the boat, but he's in the boat. I think Catholics of good will are struggling to do the best they can in the midst of chaos. I trust God looks at the heart and will judge us accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, none of the sede positions makes any sense to me as you know. I pray to my guardian angel and the Holy Spirit to know the truth. That's a prayer I'm sure is pleasing to God. In the meantime, let us just treat each other with respect and tolerance. I have no bone to pick with Mark or Ann or you. Pax vobiscum.
The resignation was purposely flawed. IMHO. Benedict knew what he was doing. Even had he validly resigned, the conclave that elected Francis was invalid in at least three ways....JPII was prescient and God was Provident. We are in an interregnum. Not unusual.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting my comment Mary Ann. And I agree wholeheartedly that we're all trying to figure things out in this absolute chaos. That's why I am so adamant about exposing the likes of Ann who dismiss sedevacantism as anything but Catholic....and NEVER do so with theology or Church teachings. I fully understand that the sede position is frightening. It took me almost a year of reading and listening to their arguments before I was persuaded. I'd just like to encourage all to do their own investigation, whether it be the Indult priests, SSPX or sede. In fact, research all of them....then decide. Don't do as I did by listening to Catholics who make a living off of the crisis. Take all your questions to the priests of all the groups and see which position sounds Catholic. Thanks again. God bless and the Virgin protect us all!
ReplyDeleteSedevacantism doesn't frighten me at all; I just think it's incoherent. My understanding is that sedevacantists believe the seat has been empty since Pope Pius XII. So that means the magisterium hasn't given us a legitimate pope in almost 70 years. Who is going to decide when an elected pope is legitimate, since the magisterium have been wrong for the last six popes and can't be trusted? I don't want to get into a back and forth again, but that's why I can't accept sedevacantism.
ReplyDeleteYou pray for me and I'll pray for you.
Thanks again Mary Ann. And thanks for praying for me, I will also pray for you.
ReplyDeleteTo your question; who is going to decide when an elected pope is legitimate? Don't know. And the sede clergy doesn't know either. Barring Divine Intervention, I'd guess if/when the SSPX is in full communion with Rome could be a clue?
Mary Ann,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that I would never presume to judge anyone about this colossally confusing time. I bear no grudge against any well-meaning Catholic. I could be wrong, and I am not infallible to say the least. My opinion is that the eggs are easier to i scramble if the abdication was not valid. But I can make a case the other way too. God bless you and your wonderful work here.
The "magisterium" does NOT "give us the pope." It may be disturbing if there has not been a pope since 1958, or whenever, but the Magisterium is absolutely not involved or cast into doubt.
ReplyDeleteThe conclave has no magisterial function. It teaches nothing. It performs an administrative act, electing a pope. The conclave does not TEACH the name of the pope, and a Catholic who has doubts about the validity of a given election, or the validity of a putative pope, is in no way doubting any teaching of the Magisterium.
(Needless to say, the Magisterium does not teach the old wives' tale that "the Holy Spirit chooses the pope." Neither does it teach that there is a maximum length established (in Heaven?) for an interregnum. Even "1958 Sedevacantism" contradicts nothing taught by the Magisterium. It constitutes neither heresy or schism. Thus, it is outrageous that some are flinging about the accusation that a person who believes the See has been vacant since December 31, 2022 is a heretic or schismatic.)
Thank you for the correction, Father, but then what is the point of the election? Does it mean nothing? That just adds to the confusion for me. I know the Holy Spirit doesn't elect the pope; we've had a enough bad ones to illustrate that. But then how can we ever know if a pope is legitimate?
ReplyDeleteIf the election appears to have been carried out lawfully (i.e., no living pope, no skullduggery), and the man elected does not, by teaching heresy, call into question his own legitimacy, no one should be anxious. The Magisterium does not collapse from exhaustion with the death of each pope, and have to be prodded or shocked back to life by the next one. That silly notion is precisely the view promoted by a large contingent of jackals today: If you believe what was taught by 265 popes, you are now a "heretic" and "schismatic" because of you-know-who.
ReplyDelete"Universal peaceful acceptance" is not a term of art any longer, if it ever was. But it's worth pointing out that there is a world of difference between acceptance of a pope by virtually all Catholics because it is reasonable, and a simulacrum of "acceptance" which is really just craven silence and compliance imposed by terror--i.e., what we have now.
The sacraments and grace do not flow down from the pope to the bishops, priests, and people. The Church can get along just fine without a pope for a surprisingly long time. And we have had at least 40 anti-popes. It's not, in itself, the end of world.
The Great Western Schism lasted from 1378 to 1417. The College of Cardinals had split into factions based on secular politics. At one point there were three Popes or anti-Popes sitting in Rome, Avignon and Pisa. Altogether some 8-men were elected to one of the three Papal seats during this 39-year period. Confusion was rife even among faithful Catholics. All three, different factions were supported by men and women who would later be canonized as Saints. The Church appears to be always in crisis.
ReplyDeleteGod bless
Richard W Comerford
The Church Militant will always be in crisis because the devil will never rest in his pursuit of souls until the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteI thought Michael Voris was the pope. Does this mean he isn't?
ReplyDeleteMichael Voris was supposed to be elected pope at Br. Alexis Bugnolo's hotel conclave in Rome
ReplyDeleteexcept that the Sankt Gallen Mafia hijacked the event and had Cardinal Bergoglio elected instead. Now Francis is legitimate according to Bugnolo.