Accepting Bergoglio as Pope has consequences…
“Cardinal” Burke Confirms Demotion
— Neo-Traditionalists in Shock
The following is a post we published on Sept. 17, 2014, regarding reliable rumors of “Cardinal” Raymond Burke’s impending removal from the Vatican’s Supreme Court, the Apostolic Signatura, by “Pope” Francis. This rumor is a rumor no longer — now Burke himself has confirmed that he has been demoted:
[original post of 17-SEP-14:]
Apparently the Neo-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are just now beginning to wake up to the fact that when you accept a Modernist as Pope, you also have to accept the Modernist consequences. The well-informed and reliable Vaticanist Sandro Magister reports on September 17 that “Pope” Francis is going to severely demote the American “Cardinal” Raymond Burke from his post of Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the ecclesiastical Supreme Court) to being the Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Magister rightly calls this a “decapitation” and an “exile” for Burke, as his new post is merely honorary and practically irrelevant. At age 66, such a transfer from judge of the church’s supreme court to that of “cardinal patron” of a military order is a real slap in the face.
If confirmed, Burke’s exile would be even more drastic than the one inflicted on Cardinal Piacenza, who, transferred from the important congregation for the clergy to the marginal apostolic penitentiary, nevertheless remained in the leadership of a curial dicastery.
With the shakeup on the way, Burke would instead be completely removed from the curia and employed in a purely honorary position without any influence on the governance of the universal Church.
This would be a move that seems to have no precedent.
In the past, in fact, the title of “cardinalis patronus” of the knights of Malta, in existence since 1961, like the previous one of Grand Prior of Rome, has always been assigned to the highest ranking cardinals as an extra position in addition to the main one.
Burke is 66 years old, and therefore still in his ecclesiastical prime. Ordained a priest by Paul VI in 1975, he worked at the apostolic signatura as an ordinary priest with John Paul II, who made him bishop of his native diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin in 1993. It was again pope Karol Wojtyla who in 2003 promoted him as archbishop of the prestigious see, once cardinalate, of St. Louis, Missouri. Benedict XVI called him back to Rome in 2008, and made him a cardinal in 2010.
For more information and full context, be sure to read Magister’s entire piece.
As of right now, Burke has not been removed yet from his position as head of the Apostolic Signatura — in fact, the Vatican has yet to announce or confirm Magister’s report, which, however, should only be a matter of time, given Magister’s connections and reliability. In fact, about 18 hours after Magister posted his article, the U.S.-based LifeSiteNews.com reported that “sources in Rome have confirmed” to them that Burke’s removal is indeed forthcoming.
What remains to be seen at this point is whether the demotion will be effective before or after the upcoming Synod on the Family, which would make a considerable difference to the influence Burke would have over its proceedings. As the head honcho of the Knights of Malta, he probably wouldn’t even be invited to attend.
Reaction from the Neo-Traditionalist camp is mostly one of shock and outrage, as can be seen from various blog posts, tweets, and articles that have appeared since Magister broke the story. For example, the popular “buy-me-something-from-my-Amazon-wishlist” blogger John Zuhlsdorf (“Fr. Z”) has a spittle-flecked nutty in his commentary on the matter (but not without an AmaZon sales link!):
Apparently even Mr. Zuhlsdorf has now given up on “reading Francis through Benedict”, which was his mantra for over a year. Now that’s really saying something!
To give you more of a sample of how “conservative” Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are trying to cope with this news of Bergoglio vs. Burke, here are further interesting links to various bloggers and commentators sounding off:
- “The Lion of Rome” (Vox Cantoris)
- “Moving Beyond” (Fr Ray Blake’s Blog)
- “Sources Confirm – Burke gone from Rota, given debasing position” (Veneremur Cernui)
- “Goodbye, Good Cardinals” (Mundabor’s Blog)
- “Quo Vadis, Cardinal Burke?” (One Peter Five)
- “Cardinal Burke and the Francis Revolution” (Fetzen Fliegen)
- “The Humiliation of Cardinal Burke” (National Catholic Register)
The expected removal of Mr. Burke — “ordained” to the priesthood in the invalid Paul VI rite in 1975 — comes as no susprise to those who have been paying attention and actually adhere to traditional Catholic principles. The real story here is not that Burke has been exiled, but that many Neo-Trads are shocked about it. Have they been living under a rock? Do they not understand how a hierarchical church works (which they claim to believe in)? Do they not realize that the Pope, who Francis purports to be, can promote and demote people as he sees fit, and doesn’t care about silly democratic petitions or what internet pundits think?
Ah, but of course they know that a Pope has such power, they just didn’t think Francis would use it in this way. But why shouldn’t he? He’s a Modernist to the core, and Modernist thought leads to Modernist action. Besides, he knows he can do as he pleases, for many people have long made up their minds they will never be sedevacantists, no matter what the evidence. So what would be stopping him from going full-steam ahead with the next phase of the apostasy?
The Semi-Traditionalists live in a fantasy world. The church they believe in does not exist, that is, it does not exist with Francis as Pope. The church they believe in is a church that is identical to the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, but one in which the true Pope is now Jorge Bergoglio, in which some ecumenical councils can be ignored by the faithful, and in which papal teaching and disciplinary decisions are subject to review by a lawyer from Virginia or a journalist from Minnesota. We hate to break it to them, but such a church does not exist, and the sooner they realize it, the better.
Perhaps it has not occurred to them yet that Francis is simply now doing for the Vatican II Liberals and Modernists what Benedict XVI did for the Neo-Trads when he was in charge. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: The Recognize-and-Resist traditionalists had their field day with Ratzinger in 2005-2013, and now it’s the liberals’ turn. Did Ratzinger fans not realize that what one “Pope” can institute, another can take away? That what one can permit, another can forbid? That a person one Pope can appoint, another can remove? That if they can have a field day, so can their liberal counterparts?
We remember very well when, after Benedict’s election in 2005, The Remnant and many like-minded people switched into “It’s the Restoration of Tradition – Go, Benny, go!” mode, and praised the old Modernist Ratzinger to the skies, spinning him as a great defender of Catholic Tradition, when he was nothing of the sort. But he used the traditional externals they like so much, so that all reason, all cool analysis, and all Catholic principle went out the window for a great many “traditionalists”, who lost themselves in the puffs of sweet-smelling incense that now billowed forth from the German “Pope’s” Modernist thurible.
It just had to be the Great Restoration of Tradition now, and facts to the contrary just weren’t supposed to get in the way. And so they began to interpret all the news and facts through that dogmatic and irrevocable narrative, and they ignored, minimized, distorted, under-reported, or otherwise dismissed typical Modernist shenanigans in Benedict’s reign, such as his visit to the Blue Mosque in Turkey, his claim in a Jewish synagogue that whoever meets Christ meets Judaism, his new Good Friday prayer composed at the behest of the Talmudists, his Assisi interfaith prayer event, his blasphemous declaration that the Novus Ordo Missae constituted “the same rite” as the Traditional Catholic Mass, and so forth. These things weren’t supposed to get in the way of the great “Restoration of Tradition”, so they dealt with them accordingly. They even came up with a long-running “Benedict vs. the Vatican” narrative, in which a super-orthodox Ratzinger was the poor, innocent victim of evil Vatican bishops hell-bent on preventing his defeat of Modernism and his planned restoration of all things Catholic.
Here are a few essays we published during this time, trying to make people realize that their beloved Benedict was neither a Pope nor a Catholic, and the fabled “Restoration of Tradition” was nothing but a speed bump on the way to hell:
- Summorum Pontificum: How Benedict XVI Aims to Destroy the Traditional Latin Mass
- Quo Vadis, SSPX? Benedict XVI Lifts the “Excommunications”
- Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the “Restoration of Tradition”
- No Friend of Fatima: Unspinning Chris Ferrara’s Defense of Benedict XVI
- The Chair Is Still Empty: Refuting John Salza’s Attack on Sedevacantism
What has changed since then is that Jorge Bergoglio now sits in the Vatican claiming to be the Pope, and though he is very different from his immediate predecessor, the two are also very much the same. Both are Modernists in essence, differing only perhaps in degree, but definitely not in kind. What distinguishes them is how openly and brazenly they are willing to display their Modernism. Benedict XVI preferred to be sly and hidden about it, using the trappings of traditional externals to get good-willed souls to swallow his anti-Catholic poison, whereas Francis is in-your-face about it and openly flaunts his hatred for Catholicism. This difference in the external display is what causes the public perception of there being such a stark contrast between the two, but as far as their Modernism goes, they are both identical.
The great nineteenth-century Spanish priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany wrote about the different “classes” of Modernists, who were called simply “Liberals” in his day:
We are surrounded by Liberalism in all its shapes and varieties, and it behooves us to be on our guard against its subtle dangers. To lay down special rules by which we may detect it in its shadings and minutiae is neither practical nor necessary. But some general directions may be given. Their application must be left to each one’s proper discretion.
To facilitate the matter, we will divide Liberals, whether persons or writings, into three classes:
1) Extreme Liberals; 2) Moderate Liberals; 3) Quasi Liberals, or those only tainted with Liberalism.
We will essay a description of each of these types. The study of their physiognomy will not be without interest and profit, for in the types we shall find a rule for our guidance in distinguishing Liberalism in its practical details.
The Extreme Liberal is easily recognized; he does not attempt to deny or conceal his perversity. He is the declared enemy of the Pope, of priests, of everything ecclesiastical; a thing has only to be sacred to rouse his implacable wrath; “priestcraft” is his favorite shibboleth. He subscribes to all the most violent and incendiary journals, the more impious and blasphemous, the better to his liking. He is ready to go to the furthermost conclusions of his baneful system. His premise of destruction once laid down, his conclusion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. He would put it into practical execution with pleasure and exultation if circumstances permitted. He is a revolutionist, socialist, anarchist. He glories in living a life devoid of all religion. He belongs to secret societies, dies in their embrace and is buried by their ritual. He has always defied religion and dies in his defiance.
The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere, but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him; these points secured, the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his Liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent — that would appear too brutal, but the convent once burned, he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. The cheap impiety of a penny paper grates on his well-bred nerves; the vulgar blasphemy of Ingersoll he deprecates; but let the same impiety and the same blasphemy appear in the columns of a so-called reputable journal, or be couched in the silken phraseology of a Huxley in the name of science, and he applauds the polished sin. It is with him a question of manner, not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club, he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. He may even like priests, above all, those who are enlightened, that is, such as have caught the twang of modern progress; as for fanatics and reactionaries, he simply avoids or pities them. He may even go to Church and, stranger still, sometimes approach the Sacraments; but his maxim is, in the Church to live as a Christian, outside of the Church to live as the world lives, according to the times in which one is born and not obstinately to swim against the stream. He dies with the priest on one side, his infidel literature on the other and imagines that his Creator will applaud his breadth of mind.
The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes, or takes up. Like Madame de Sevigne, he can say, “I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume” This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow’s fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments.
(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16)
With just some little adaptation to the circumstances of our own times and applying it to the heresy of Neo-Modernism that rules our day, we can quickly recognize that Fr. Sarda’s definition of the “Extreme Liberal” describes, mutatis mutandis, the man Jorge Bergoglio, whereas his description of the “Moderate Liberal” fits the man Joseph Ratzinger. (The “Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism” accurately describes many good-willed Novus Ordos.)
Which of these three is the most dangerous one? It is the Moderate Liberal, of course, because he is secretive and dishonest about his real beliefs, whereas the Extreme Liberal shouts his Modernism from the rooftops. Fr. Sarda explains:
The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism; the moderate Liberal mouths it; the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless, the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence; the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature; but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism.
(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16; underlining added.)
For those who are not familiar with Fr. Sarda’s work, not only does it bear the obligatory imprimatur, it was actually examined by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII and received the Holy See’s direct approval and recommendation, as noted in the preface of the work. The text is available online for free (click here); if you prefer to purchase a paperback copy, you can do so at a very low cost through this link.
The point here is simply this: All who are shocked or outraged at Francis’ demotion of “Cardinal” Burke seem not to understand that as long as they accept a Modernist as Pope, they will always be at the mercy of a Modernist, for what one Pope can graciously concede, another can stubbornly deny; what one Pope can give, another can take away. That’s how the papacy works in the Catholic Church. This is never a problem for a Catholic, however, who can rest assured that no Modernist will ever validly occupy the Holy See — the Pope will always be Catholic, or else cease to be Pope. And when a true Pope does make a decision we disagree with or we think is imprudent, there is only one way: that of submission and obedience (not to a sinful command, of course, but to one we don’t think is a good idea). Remember Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Jesuits in 1773? If you were a Jesuit, you had to comply, whether you liked it or not (note well, SSPXers!).
Those in the Vatican II Church during the Ratzinger years who rested in great confidence that all was going to be well now because Benedict XVI had granted them this or that permission, or promoted this or that supposedly wonderful cleric to an influential position, etc., obviously did not understand that in essence, nothing had changed: A Modernist had simply chosen to grant their wishes on a particular matter; there was absolutely no reason to think that another Modernist — or even the same one — could not later rescind it all again. In other words, the principle hadn’t changed at all, only a particular instance of the exercise of this principle was different. (As someone once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.”)
With Francis, we see the same principle at work, but this time favoring the other side. By 2012, the Neo-Trads were on cloud nine, so to speak — but when Bergoglio came on the scene in 2013, suddenly it became apparent that despite eight years of Benedict XVI, they were quickly headed back to 1971 all over again. Déjà vu!
In the 1880s, Pope Leo XIII penned two important Apostolic Letters that we have made available in their entirey for all to read, in English translation. In these two documents, both of which appeared in the official collection of the Holy See’s documents (the Acta Sanctae Sedis at the time), the Pope teaches clearly what the obligation is on the part of the faithful to submit to and obey their rightful bishops and the Pope, who possesses the divine mission to keep watch over the flock entrusted to him:
- Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (1885)
- Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Est Sane Molestum (1888)
This is the true teaching on the necessary subjection to the Pope. You won’t see any of those Neo-Traditionalist pundits apply it to Francis, however, we guarantee you! It’s so much easier to say Francis is the Pope than to act like it! (John Vennari, for example, is on record stating that he would not even so much as permit Francis to teach religion to his children!)
It is high time that all who accept Francis’ claim to be the Vicar of Christ actually put their money where their mouth is and acted in accordance with it. Francis doesn’t like “Cardinal” Burke, so he has to go. By contrast, take a look at some high-profile clerics Francis will not demote or exile:
- Francis appoints scandalous Belgian “Cardinal” Daneels to Synod on the Family
- Francis appoints Homo-Friendly “Cardinal” Woelki as new “Archbishop” of Cologne
- “Cardinal” Schonborn Delighted at Success of Bearded Transvestite Singer
- “Cardinal” McCarrick Blesses “Mohammed the Prophet”
- Francis’ New Vatican Bank Chief “Mgr.” Ricca is a Sodomite
Considering the prelude so far, the upcoming Synod on the Family promises to be spectacular. Francis’ true colors are so obvious at this point, and the deception of his false pontificate so easily visible and out in the open, that one begins to wonder: Who benefits from this deception? For one thing, of course, Francis and his gang of theological thugs. But in addition to that, there is another one benefiting, perhaps not so much from the deception itself as from its gradual and clear disclosure: the “Pope Emeritus”, Benedict XVI. He looks like a super-Catholic hero now. Neo-Trads in the Novus Ordo are falling down before him, and some even claim his resignation wasn’t valid and he is still Pope.
We predict that if the outcome of the synod is revolutionary enough, a schism will emerge within the Vatican II Church: It will be Bergoglio followers vs. Ratzinger followers. A lot of people have long been restless over the Argentine apostate and his openly Modernist program, and no doubt many are waiting for “just one more thing” before definitively abandoning his claim to be Pope. The speculations about the validity of Ratzinger’s resignation will come in real handy for these people then, because when the truth is inconvenient enough, it is easier to replace one lie with another.
Hold on to your hats, folks: The Synod is right around the corner. It’s going to be a wild October!