Last Step before Schism?
“Cardinal” Burke threatens Francis with “Formal Act of Correction” if he won’t retract the Errors in Amoris Laetitia
When on Monday, Nov. 14, the Italian journalist Sandro Magister published the five dubia submitted to Francis by “Cardinals” Caffarra, Burke, Brandmuller, and Meisner in September, requesting a “clarification” on various controverted points found in the Bergoglian exhortation Amoris Laetitia, it was certain that “clarification” was just a smoother-sounding code word for “retraction”. There is, after all, nothing left to clarify: The exhortation is a most dangerous document subversive of the very foundations of Catholic morality that brazenly attacks the indissolubility of the marriage bond; and Francis has already confirmed, sometimes more, sometimes less openly, that any ambiguous passages are to be understood in their heretical sense.
Since the publication of the challenge to Francis, “Cardinal” Raymond Burke has given interviews to several Novus Ordo organizations. One was published by Catholic Action on Nov. 14, and can be read here. The other was conducted by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register and was just released last night:
This latest interview contains an explosive open threat made by Mr. Burke, and in this sense it represents a new stage in internal Novus Ordo opposition to Francis: Burke said flat-out that “if there is no response to these questions [by Francis], then … it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error” (italics added). This right there tells you that any talk of a “clarification” is euphemistic. They know full well that there is nothing to clarify: Francis has been pushing serious errors, errors that even a number of Novus Ordo scholars and academics have already truthfully labeled as “heretical”.
But a “formal correction” of “papal” heresy is not enough. According to Catholic teaching, a Pope cannot be a heretic and still be Pope, and Mr. Burke knows that. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for Burke to embrace after a “formal correction” would be to recognize that Francis is not the Pope, and this would mark the beginning of a formal schism within the Modernist Church. But we’ll have to see how it all plays out. When push comes to shove, a lot of people refuse to draw necessary conclusions if they find them undesirable or causing inconvenience.
In any case, it looks like we’re finally going to see some real fireworks, at least if the “roaring lion” Raymond Burke follows through on his promise and doesn’t end up as a meowing kitten by Bergoglio’s bedside: The long stretch of nothing-but-words appears to be finally coming to a close, and action will soon follow. It looks like the internal Novus Ordo schism we’ve predicted may finally be realized.
As we’ve explained before, however, such a schism would not be a good thing, because it could indirectly lend even greater legitimacy to the Vatican II Sect in one way or another. True, a Novus Ordo schism would be a positive thing insofar as it would make plainly visible to all that the supposed “unity” in the Vatican II Church is illusory and thus it could get a number of people to re-evaluate if they should perhaps look into Sedevacantism after all. However, there would also be a very grave danger that would blind people for decades to come: Those who, in the event of a schism — perhaps one in which Benedict XVI plays Francis’ “conservative” counterpart, for it seems that this whole Benedict XVI thing isn’t done yet — flock to the “Pope Emeritus”, would be under the most dangerous but emotionally satisfying illusion of having escaped the Modernist deception, which they would see only in Francis’ sect, whereas the truth is, of course, that it began long before Francis, namely, in 1958 with the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as the first false pope (“John XXIII”) of the Novus Ordo Church.
Thus, a schism internal to the Modernist Church could actually prevent a number of conversions to Sedevacantism because the Ratzinger adherents would with great satisfaction believe themselves to have eluded the Modernist scheme, whereas in truth they would only have adjusted rooming arrangements within the the same deadly anti-Catholic sect. The Ratzinger sect and the Bergoglio sect would be but two wings of the same bird. Such a “deception-within-a-deception”, with a false and controlled opposition, might be the ultimate devil’s trick in the “operation of error” permitted by God “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” in punishment for man’s indifference to truth and refusal to turn from sin (cf. 2 Thess 2:10-11; Mt 24:24; Apoc 3:16).
It is ironic that all of this is coming down just as the Society of St. Pius X is about to rejoin the Modernist Sect and end its decades-long quasi-schism with the men they have acknowledged to be legitimate Roman Pontiffs. And it is telling — pathetic, in fact — that it takes a blunt endorsement of adultery and fornication on the part of a “Pope” to get any of these Vatican II “cardinals” to take any action at all. Where have they been? Many things a lot worse than an approbation of sexual perversion have been taking place since Vatican II, and they all sat there and watched it happen. Unless it is somehow about sex, it seems, no one in the Novus Ordo Sect really cares, even the so-called “conservatives”.
The truth is, “Cardinal” Burke is no conservative hero. He adheres to all of the errors of Vatican II, he submits to all of the post-conciliar “Magisterium”, and he has the distinct honor of being the first American prelate to accept a transsexual biological male as a “nun” when he was the “bishop” of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Opposing adultery, wearing a fancy cardinal’s outfit, and — not possessing a valid ordination even to the priesthood — simulating the Latin Mass won’t change that.
So, the next few weeks should be very interesting. Chaos Frank has once again delivered, validating his moniker for the umpteenth time.
Make popcorn, folks.
Image source: Getty Images
License: Getty embed
I myself am a non-formal “sedevacantist”. I began by questioning Francis, but inevitably I ended up rejecting the validity of the “Popes” of the Second Vatican Council, because there occurred the formal separation of Catholic doctrine.
I have not exactly taken the formal step towards the sedevacantism, hoping that many of my brothers will see these things. This may be the beginning. Indeed, Francis is the last effect of the doctrinal deviation that took place (and not happened later) especially in the time of Paul VI.
I believe that priestly ordinations can be implicitly valid.
>> I believe that priestly ordinations can be implicitly valid. <<
What do you mean by that, and what is your source for this belief?
I, now that I know, don’tt approve the new rite of ordination. But so many who used it came from the assumption made by Davis, “they considered that Paul VI was the Pope.”
I can’t say that so many believed that the priesthood is only to guide the people of God.
Yes, there is no doubt that virtually all of them believed Paul VI was the Pope. But what they believed about Paul VI does not have any bearing whatsoever on the invalidity of their ordinations.
All it is….is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (that is the Newchurch).
While people continue to believe that Christ’s Authority passed from Pius XII and the Holy Roman Catholic Church to the Novus Ordo and its leaders, the ‘eclipse’ of the Church continues. But there is no excuse. People all over the world have followed truth and left the Novus Ordo, suffering ‘inconvenience’ and a lot more by taking up this cross. If highly educated faithful clergy right down to the mildly educated faithful pew punters can see, hear and accept the truth and follow it, then the conclusion must be that 99% of Novus Ordites do not have, and, perhaps, never did have the Faith. Vatican II and its heresiarchs (papal look-a-likes) seems to be the excuse for all those who prefer to be given over to the ‘operation of error’.
Francis is the only reason I began to question things. I am a Novus Ordo convert from 2003 who appeared as a guest on the EWTN program Life on the Rock (April 2004, “I Regret My Abortion”). Francis’ dismissal of abortion as not a primary issue set me on edge from the get go. In the beginning only the pseudo traditionalists were the ones raising the red flag and many were saying that he was the logical result of Vat 2. That propelled me into a study of Vat 2 and a comparison to what the Church taught before. What a shock!
So now I attend a small independent sede chapel.
So can someone tell me if V2 was so obviously heretical why did the world’s bishops sign off on it?
I have listened to all your tradcasts. You speak strongly against the traditionalists in the resist camp, quoting document after document of why one cannot resist the Vicar of Christ. But you don’t see the illogic in the idea that individual Catholics can decide who is a valid pope and who is not or what is a valid ecumenical council and what is not. You disparage people listening to tax lawyers but you yourselves refuse to identify yourselves. You have convinced me of the invalidity of the sedevacantist position.
As to your first question, since it’s a question that could equally be asked of the semi-traditionalists, at least people like John Vennari and John Salza, who believe V2 was heretical (but not Chris Ferrara, who insists it wasn’t), I suggest you ask them.
There is no illogic involved in the sedevacantist position. To illustrate: Take the Great Western Schism, for example, where there were at one point 3 people claiming to be Pope. Who had to decide who the true Pope was, what do you think? That’s right: Each individual, more or less. Sure, you could say, “I will go with what my pastor decides”, but ultimately it was yours to decide whether to stick with your pastor or go with another pastor. Or, at the very least your pastor or bishop had to decide the question — it certainly wasn’t possible to say, “We’ll let the Church decide” because that would involve an evident self-contradiction, since where the Pope is, there is the Church.
I agree with you that each individual Catholic cannot decide what is or isn’t a valid ecumenical council, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE POPE, but that’s not something sedevacantists do, that’s something semi-traditionalists do (like the late “Fr.” Gregory Hesse, for example).
Yes, we disparage people listening to tax lawyers WHO SET THEMSELVES UP AGAINST THE VERY PEOPLE THEY CLAIM ARE THE LEGITIMATE HIERARCHY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. We do not operate or act or say anything AGAINST the legitimate Catholic hierarchy, only (necessarily) WITHOUT it. The anonymity helps to emphasize that what matters here is to follow the traditional Catholic teaching, NOT this or that individual person. No one is to attach himself to this or that person as a “substitute Pope” — that’s what the semi-traditionalists do — but simply follow the teaching of the Catholic Church. That is the essential difference. Salza, Ferrara, Matt & Co. ultimately tell people to follow THEM over the individuals they say are the legitimate Catholic teaching authority. We do not do that.
God bless you, and merry Christmas.
Thank you very much for your kind response. The difference between now and the great schism is there aren’t other claimants except for some elected in tiny conclaves.
I just don’t see God asking us to see as individual Catholics that some pope let’s say John xxiii, since he was the start of the problem in your view, who was elected in a conclave of the Catholic Church was not really a pope.
I pray that we both come to complete understanding of the truth on this.
Merry Christmas and may God lead and guide us both in 2017.