jump to navigation

Cardinal Burke continues to walk a fine line November 6, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD.
comments closed

Once again, as I saw another blogger predict, Cardinal Burke has seemed to walk back a bit some comments he made earlier in the week.  Those comments included statements like this:

“Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be; now, it is more important than ever to examine our faith, have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith.”

Cardinal Burke seems quite at pains to establish that, in spite of his many statements, he is not at odds with Pope Francis as so many have interpreted his comments to mean.  Now he says:

Certain media simply want to keep portraying me as living my life as an opponent to Pope Francis,” he said. “I am not at all. I’ve been serving him in the Apostolic Signatura and in other ways I continue to serve him.” [OK, fair enough]

The Wisconsin-born prelate was responding to comments he made in an interview he gave the Spanish weekly Vida Nueva last week. The article misconstrued him as criticizing the Pope–despite his stressing in the interview that he was not at odds with Francis.

He told the Spanish publication there is a “strong sense” the Church is like a “ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be.” But he made it clear in the interview he was not “speaking out” against the Pontiff. He said the Pope is right to call on Catholics to “go out to the peripheries” but added “we cannot go to the peripheries empty-handed.” [He did say that, as my own post linked above makes clear.  But when a cardinal says “there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm,” that certainly seems to point to the helmsman, or Holy Pontiff.]

“I wasn’t saying that the Holy Father’s idea is this,” he explained, “but I’ve seen other people using his words to justify a kind of ‘accommodation’ of the faith to the culture which can never be so.” [And so Cardinal Burke is almost daring the Pope to come out and explain his “true” position in clear terms, even if many of us – and I’m sure this include Cardinal Burke – are already quite certain what that position is]

Burke told Breitbart his wish is “to present the Church’s teaching around which there’s been a great deal of confusion.” He pointed to last month’s synod on the family in Rome as partly to blame, and said those who identify with a “so-called reformist agenda” of Pope Francis are now trying “to discredit what I say by attributing it to some personal animosity toward the Holy Father, and that’s not right.” [OK. And this I can agree with, too, Cardinal Burke is not criticizing the Pope, if he is, simply because he doesn’t like him.  He is discrediting bad and destructive ideas, which he should.  But one can still be in opposition to a person without holding a personal animus against them.  So that part seems like a little Vatican gamesmanship going on.]

And furthermore, if a prelate found himself consistently being misquoted by the press, or that the press was misrepresenting his ideas, should he not, then, in prudence and charity, stop giving such interviews, if the interviewers consistently fail to get his message across correctly?  But that has not occurred.  Again, I think this is some politicking for many reasons, it could be a strategy, but it could also simply be that Cardinal Burke, like many of us, constitutionally does not feel comfortable being “at odds” with the Pope.

So all that aside, what of the future, Cardinal Burke?

Talk of possible schism has increased in the Catholic Church after the recent synod appeared to be leading the Church in a more “progressive” direction on moral issues. A controversial document issued by bishops midway through the meeting (which Burke called a “total disaster”) pointed to radical changes in the area of homosexuals, divorce, and remarriage among other things, but the proposals were largely toned down or failed to reach a consensus in the final report.

Questioned about whether there is a genuine risk the Church might split, Burke said if, in the runup to a second synod on the family next October, bishops are seen to move “contrary to the constant teaching and practice of the Church, there is a risk because these are unchanging and unchangeable truths.” He also pointed out that the head of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, has “identified himself very strongly” with Kasper’s thesis and “subscribes to that school.” [And who raised Baldiserri to the cardinalate, and who put him in charge of the Synod? It wasn’t Mickey Mouse.  Could all these appointments and very public demotions just be coincidental?  Or are they part of a direction only one who has the power to make such decisions wants to move the Church in?]

Warning that this battle will continue, he called on Catholics to “speak up and act.”

Oh thank you for saying that, Cardinal Burke. But how, specifically, should we do so?  Send letters to the Vatican?  Burn an effigy of KKK?  Get giant puppets and weirdos on stilts and parade around St. Peter’s square?

Seriously, we could use some direction here!  What is the best way to speak out?

Not that I am terribly sanguine that it will have a great effect.

A bit non sequitur – Thailand arms civilian auxiliary to stop muslim terror November 6, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Ecumenism, history, horror, non squitur, persecution, secularism, self-serving, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Most readers are likely aware that the past decade or two have seen the worst persecution of Christians we have seen in a century or so.  However, while due to proximity and other reasons Christians tend to bear the brunt of muslim depredations, muslims are equal opportunity persecutors.  I have mentioned on this blog that I used to belong to a defense analysis group online that included a broad cross-section of military/diplomatic/economic professionals deep in “the business” (the defense biz), as well as some exceedingly well informed outsiders.  And then I just kind of hung along.  Anyway, one of the professionals that belonged to our group (which included high ranking staff and flag officers (including a former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy), senior defense analysts at the premier consultancy firms, people with many years experience developing and applying military hardware, etc) was an active duty major general in the Royal Thai Army.  There was no one quite like Suphi.  She had fought the Vietnamese at Mon Mok Moon (an attempted invasion of Thailand by Vietnam crushed by the Royal Thai Army and almost unknown in the West), conducted counter-insurgency against the Vietnamese and Chinese backed communist insurgency in Thailand (she had a special method of “interrogating” communist cadres, she would take them up in her personal helicopter and throw them out), and, around 2003, started informing us of the growing muslim insurgency, backed by Malaysia, against the southern Thai provinces.

This activity soon got so intense she would drop off the site for extended periods.  Then she ultimately relayed that because of the coups that began in Thailand in 2006 and the role the Army (or she?) played in those coups, she could no longer participate at all. That’s about the time I finally dropped off, as well.

But prior to doing so Suphi had described for the benefit of others how Thailand defeated  the communist insurgency of the 70s and 80s.  They did this not by bombing their own country to smithereens, as we  did to our ally South Vietnam, nor by flooding the countryside with hundreds of thousands of troops and thereby totally disrupting rural life so essential to the stability of any country.  No, they did it by giving some basic training to villagers, winning them over to the country’s/government’s side decisively, arming them, and leaving a radio to call for help to stop large groups of insurgents the villagers could not handle.  This method was exceedingly successful, and after 20 years of patient effort the communist insurgency – conducted mostly by Chinese and Vietnamese outsiders – was crushed.

She said similar steps were being taken to fight the muslim insurgents in the South, but that the left wing government that occasionally came to power constantly opposed this. The most recent coup in Thailand unseated a certain destructive political movement again, and I must admit I smiled when I read this:

Thailand has a separatist problem. A Muslim separatist problem, to be more specific, in three southern provinces. As straitstimes.com reports, “Violence in Thailand’s Muslim-majority south has left thousands dead – the majority civilians – since 2004 across the southernmost provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala, which were annexed more than a century ago by Thailand. In response to a recent slew of shootings and bomb attacks on civilian “soft” targets, Thailand has vowed to protect locals while it seeks a firm date for a fresh round of peace talks with the publicity-shy but ruthless rebels.” But the strategy they’ve chosen is an unusual one for a government that took power in a military coup . . .[Suphi described how these terrorists work. First of all, almost all of them are high as a kite on speedballs when they do their attacks. She described hitting one with 7 rounds from her .45 Smith and Wesson Desert Eagle and still not taking a doped up terrorist down. He was eventually cut down by a Ma Deuce.  Secondly, they have sanctuaries in Malaysia and the Malaysians do absolutely nothing to stop them, and probably help the insurgents quite a bit, least of all by letting armaments get to them.]

So to uphold the new prime minister’s promise to bring both sides to the negotiating table, he’s trying to create a balance of power. To do that…

Some 2,700 Heckler & Koch HK33 assault rifles have been distributed over the past two months to volunteers in the region, according to a spokesman for the Internal Operations Security Command (ISOC). [Yeah, well, these people cannot be negotiated with.  They aren’t interested in “dialogue.”]

Yes, an authoritarian government is putting thousands of rifles in the hands of volunteers who have come under attack, part of an insurgency that has killed more than 6000 people in the last decade. As one internal security official put it,

“They need weapons for self-defence… they can’t fight with just wooden sticks,” ISOC spokesman Colonel Banphot Phunphien told AFP.

All of which has caused pearls to be clutched and hands to be wrung among Thailand’s peace activist community, who have apparently learned to appropriate talking points from America’s disarmament community. As bbc.com relates,

Guns have been distributed to Muslim and Buddhist villagers before this, but some fell into the hands of the insurgents themselves or resulted in incidents where volunteers opened fire on unarmed civilians. [Sure, and guns were stolen from villagers during the communist insurgency, but the vast majority weren’t, and the forming of armed groups of loyal Thai citizens played a decisive role in blocking the previous insurgency]

Right(s) groups have condemned the distribution of guns saying it would only increase violence in the region. [And the government removed from office by the military – possibly at the behest of the Thai king – had made this policy so inconsistent as to be ineffective.  Perhaps it will be more so now.]

I’m not saying this is the only way to defeat an insurgency, but it’s a proven and effective way.  The British won the insurgency against them in Malaya during the 50s by police tactics which included arming loyal citizens.

Thailand is one of the least Christian countries in the world.  It was never successfully penetrated by missionaries of any stripe.  The vast majority of the populace is semi-Buddhist but mostly addicted to pleasure.  Thais are a happy people, a business-like people, and an incredibly well-mannered people, but they are not religious. It will be interesting to see how they stand up to this insurgency, even more fanatical than the communist one.

Excerpts of a gloriously sung Mass offered by Fr. Rodriguez in Shafter November 6, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, persecution, priests, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition.
comments closed

I am fairly certain the below is the Mass offered on Trinity Sunday 06/15/14 in Shafter, TX by Father Rodriguez.  Many of the prayers sung below were composed by William Bird, according to JMJHFProductions.  No commentary regarding Fr. Rodriguez, just a post to enjoy the glory of our Catholic Faith at its most sublime.  This is the pinnacle of Western Civilization, incredibly, under the greatest attack from within the very bosom of its source.

I am going to try to put the videos in the proper order in the Mass.  I asked Our Lady to keep me from messing this up!


O Sacrum Convivium, Motet by Remondi:

Jesu Redemptor, composed by Oreste Ravanello in the VI Century:



Agnus Dei:

This is just so beautiful.  I believe the same Mass in its entirety can be watched below.  I really thank all those who drove for hours to make this Mass possible.  JMJHFProductions puts out some of the best videos of the Mass I’ve ever seen. It is certainly a different perspective seeing Father from the altar’s point of view!

Special thanks to the choir.  Wow, truly a superlative performance.  Again, most involved probably drove 5 hours or more just to get to Shafter.  It is that remote.  But Shafter has turned into quite a little gem of the glorious practice of our Faith.  Thank you Father Rodriguez!

If you find these videos edifying, you might consider supporting JMJHFProductions through the Saint Vincent Ferrer Foundation, which is a tax-deductible charity.

St. Vincent Ferrer Foundation of Texas
5628 Rosa Ave.
El Paso, TX  79905
Phone # (915) 500-3025
Website: http://svfonline.org/about-the-founda…
Email: stvincentferreroftexas@gmail.com
Please indicate donations are for support of the JMJ HF videos.
The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Non-profit Corporation. You will receive a receipt for your donation. Thank you!

Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of divorce and the undermining of the Sacrament of Matrimony November 6, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I am not sure how many people are reading the excerpts I’m posting from the great bio of Pope Leo XIII I have been reading.  In the interest of time, I will simply say that I pray our popes will again speak with this kind of Catholic voice, with so great clarity and precision.  This kind of charitable concern for souls is desperately needed at the highest level of the Church again:

….we here address ourselves to you, Venerable Brothers, with especial affection, and earnestly beseech you to display your priestly zeal and pastoral vigilance in kindling in the souls of your people the love of our holy religion, in order that they may thereby become more closely and heartily attached to this chair of truth and justice, accept all its teachings with the xiii_leodeepest assent of mind and will, and unhesitatingly reject all opinions, even the most wide-spread, which they know to be in opposition to the Doctrines of the Church.  [The Church does not “search” for the Truth.  The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Church is His Mystical Body, the Church has all the Truth necessary for salvation.  Unfortunately, it is clear that our current pope does not understand this.]

On this point the Roman Pontiffs who have come before us, and last, of all, Pius IX, of saintly memory, especially in the Council of the Vatican, had present to their minds the words of St. Paul: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ (Col II:8); hence they lost no needful opportunity to condemn spreading errors and mark them with apostolic censure.  All these condemnations we, following the example of our predecessors, confirm and renew from this apostolic seat of truth, beseeching fervently, at the same time, the Father of lights that all the faithful, being perfectly of one accord and agreeing in sentiment, should be of one mind with us and speak the same thing.  [Oh what clarity!  But I must note with dismay that the upholding of doctrine from one papacy to the next which had been such a constant feature for centuries has lost its vigor and, some may even say, broken down in the past several decades.  What was once taught so forcefully is now doubted, disputed, or held to be obsolete. Even the most orthodox/traditional pope of the past 5 decades stated that Vatican II was a “counter-Syllabus,” referring to the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX.  Somewhere, somehow, the machine broke down]

Your duty it is, Venerable Brothers, to bestow unremitting care on scattering the seeds of the heavenly doctrines broadcast over the field of the Lord; to make Catholic teaching penetrate, in good time, into the minds of the faithful; to plant it deeply there, and to keep it safe from admixture with corrupt doctrines.  The more active the enemies of religion are to teach the unlearned, the young especially, which clouds their intellect and corrupts their morals, the more should you exert yourselves to establish not only a well-adapted and solid method of instruction, but a method in every way, both in letters and in discipline, in conformity with the Catholic faith, especially as regards mental philosophy, on which they right teaching of all other sciences depends in a great measure – a philosophy such as shall pave the way  for divine revelation instead of aiming at overturning it; which shall defend revealed truth, as in their Leo XIII-2writings did the great Augustine and the Angelic Doctor, and the other teachers of Christian wisdom.

The best way of training youth, however – that which conduces to preserve the integrity of both faith and morals – should begin from early childhood and in the Christian home. [It is in faith and morals that the transmission of the Faith has most broken down] Unhappily, the Christian family in our times has been sadly disturbed, and can only recover its proper dignity by being governed by the laws under which it was placed in the Church by the Divine Author of both.  By raising the matrimonial contract, in which He willed us to see the sign of His own union with the Church, to the dignity of a Sacrament, he not only sanctified the union of husband and wife, but also provided the most efficient helps for both parents and children to fulfill their mutual and respective duties, and thereby the more easily attain to everlasting life and the happiness of the present.

But impious laws, taking no account of the sacredness of this great Sacrament, placed it on the same level as all merely civil contracts; [did not the “Relatio” do very nearly that, pretend that divorce and remarriage is not such a big thing and certainly not an impediment to the Blessed Sacrament?] and the deplorable result has been that citizens, desecrating the holy dignity of marriage, have lived in legal concubinage instead of Christian matrimony; the married pair have violated the fidelity pledged to each other; the children born to them have refused them obedience; and what is most scandalous and most baneful to public morality, very often unhallowed love was followed by fatal quarrels. [divorce] All these unhappy and deplorable results must move your zeal to warn your faithful peoples assiduously and fervently to have a reverent regard for the Doctrine of the Church on Holy Matrimony, and to observe scrupulously the laws of the Church regulating the mutual duties of parents and children. [“Move your zeal…..”  Wouldn’t that be nice!  But that is hardly true of the vast majority of prelates today, who actively encourage the breakup of marriages with their annulment mills and policies that demand civil divorce before an annulment can be considered!  When did any of you last hear any priest or bishop personally preach against the evils of divorce?  It’s as much a forbidden topic as is contraception – and that correlation is not at all accidental.  Now we have prelates saying “We’ve done such an abysmal job catechizing people probably the majority of marriages today are invalid.”  But the answer is not to end this scandal by drastically improving catechesis, but to give up teaching all together and just go with the sinful flow!  “We’ve tried Pope-Leo-XIII-1900nothing, man, and we’re all out of ideas.”]

From this we shall obtain one blessed fruit – that every member of Christian society will reform his own conduct and outward manner of living.  The decayed and degenerate trunk of a tree puts forth shoots that are worse still and bear unhappy fruit.  So does the moral evil which infects the tree of domestic life become a contagion which communicates its virus to the community and  yields a baneful harvest for public life. [And Christ cursed the fruitless tree, a very significant act, since that fig tree was adjacent the path by which the Pharisees and Scribes entered the old temple.  It was Christ cursing the fruitless Jewish faith.]

On the contrary, where Christian families are governed by the law of Christ, all their members are habituated by degrees to cherish religion and piety, to look with horror on false and pernicious doctrines, to practice virtue, to obey their superiors, and to control that tendency to self-seeking which is at the root of human degeneracy and degradation……

…….The waning of truth – not only of the truths of the supernatural order which are known by the light of faith, but of natural truth, both speculative and practical; the prevalence of the most insidious errors and disorders is everywhere increasing.  

The most potent cause of such moral ruin is the separation, the attempted apostasy, of actual society from Christ and from His Church, in which alone resides the virtue sufficient to repair all the enormous evils done it.

———-End Quote———-

But what happens when huge swaths of the Church, up to and including its very highest levels, separate themselves from the Faith as it has been believed and practiced for 2000 years?  Where is the world to turn when the Church turns itself inside out?

They are going for the Doctrine November 6, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

In the wake of the Synod (“a work of darkness”), I had a fairly extensive offline discussion with a certain reader on whether the intervention of the more orthodox Synod Fathers really represented a setback to the modernist agenda, or whether it was all more or less part of the plan.  Sure, this commenter said, they may have liked to have gotten more at the Synod, they may have preferred to have the mid-term “relatio” approved, but they also counted on opposition and were supremely happy to achieve what they did, which was, in the words of Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem) was clearly a prefabricated text with no reference to the actual statements of the Synod fathers. In the sections on homosexuality, sexuality and “divorced and remarried” with their admittance to the sacraments the text represents a radical neo-pagan ideology. This is the first time in Church history that such a heterodox text was actually published as a document of an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope, even though the text only had a preliminary character.

For a while, I thought the commenter being overly negative, that the opposition that had emerged was an impressive indication that this Church-destroying agenda could be blocked, but that was because, at that time, I was under the mistaken impression that roughly 62% of the Synod members had voted against the Relatio, rather than the other way around.  In fact, the 2/3 majority to impose these disastrous “pastoral” practices was very nearly obtained.  So much for mass opposition to this agenda.  Yes, this was a somewhat hand-picked group of bishops, but still…….we now know probably at least half the bishops of the Catholic Church no longer have the Catholic Faith.

As the weeks have gone by since the closing of the Synod, I tend to side much more with the commenter’s view, that the Synod was very nearly a total success for the modernists and the setback at the end, if not planned/programmed in advance, certainly did not surprise or overly concern them.   Kasper the Klown Kardinal’s replacement as point man for the revolution, Cardinal Marx of Germany (of course), had these comments regarding the conclusion of the Synod:

Anyone who comes to that conclusion has not had their eye on what has been going on in our church over the past one and a half years,” Marx said. “Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they had failed to get the two-thirds majority, the majority of the synod fathers had nevertheless voted in their favor.

“They are still part of the text,” Marx continued. “I especially asked the pope about that, and the pope said he wanted all the points published together with all the voting results. He wanted everyone in the church to see where we stood. No, this pope has pushed the doors open and the voting results at the end of the synod will not change that.”

“The doors are open — wider than they have ever been since the Second Vatican Council. The synod debates were just a starting point. Francis wants to get things moving, to push processes forward. The real work is about to begin…….

I must also remind, that both Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Marx were claiming, in the aftermath of the Synod when perhaps they were so giddy with success to guard their words, that Synodal documents would in future change doctrine, and that had been the goal all along.  Some may say “that’s impossible,” but such attempts have certainly been made many times in the past.  Another report by Rorate indicates where the Argentine mood seems to be on the subject:

“Were they expecting the resistance of the conservatives during the Synod?” “Yes, of course it was expected,” he answers. “It will be hard. The problem is that those who advise the Pope are doing things wrongly. They will move towards a change in the pastoral practice, leaving doctrine as it is. And what must be done is to change doctrine because, if it is not changed, in three hundred or four hundred years they could move everything backwards.”

Who speaks now is a priest with regular, or rather, daily, contact with the Holy Father. “The last thing he told me before I came was to pray so that he can effect profound and definitive changes in the Church in such a way that they can never again be modified.”

My correspondent likened the actions of the revolutionaries to that of a mechanical wratchet, once set, they only move forward in one direction, and once they achieve the next step advance, they never go back.  Unless deliberately broken, but who has the muscle for that?

Another salient phenomenon associated with all this is that as the revolutionaries move their ratchet forward again and again, most people in the Church gradually become accustomed to the new levels or rhetoric and practice.  None of us are immune to that, and even Catholics most solidly grounded in great catechesis have to check themselves to insure they are not being pulled along by the always heterodox, definitely modernist drift.  As this drift advances, we rapidly seque from alleged “pastoral” changes to things that actually do at least try to move Doctrine.  And how many Catholics are certain enough of what the Doctrine of the Church is anyway, to resist that advance, even if they wanted to?  Not many.

They are coming, most assuredly, for the Doctrine.  By advancing in slow stages (and even giving the appearance of having suffered “setbacks”), they can so change the intellectual landscape in their favor that people can be led to believe that the changes are not, in fact, happening, or simply not that important. But they will be of the utmost importance, just as the mid-term Relatio was of the utmost importance.  It’s failure to pass with a 2/3 majority at the first part of the Synod still left the modernists with 95% of their goal achieved, for the first time in the history of the Church an official Church document states that sodomites have “gifts” and that it would be merciful to permit adulterers to commit the gravest of sacrileges.

The main point is that, you cannot magically separate doctrine and practice.  A change in practice with respect to settled doctrine necessarily means a change to that Doctrine, as Cardinal Burke notes below:

“Today we act, as if we are creating the church out of nothing.”
The mid-term report of the Synod was for Burke “one of the saddest documents that I could imagine ever coming from the Church”: “Many of us were horrified with this idea that was presented in the report, that there could somehow be good elements in mortally sinful acts. This is impossible.”
Furthermore Cardinal Burke criticised a breakup between doctrine and discipline: “One of the most insidious ideas in the presentation of Cardinal Kasper and the discussions of the Synod is that: ‘Yes we uphold the doctrine of the Church with regard of the indissolubility of marriage.’ Even saying: ‘Who would question the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage? We are talking about a matter of discipline.’ In other words: Marriage is indissoluble, we believe this. But in certain cases, where a person is married before God, but that marriage has in some way or another failed (without any comment about whose fault it is), but that person has knowingly and willingly attempted to another marriage and his living with someone who is not his or her husband and wife. In some of those cases we don’t uphold the indissolubility of marriage. We admit persons to the sacrament of confession and to holy communion.’”
This idea – Cardinal Burke pointed out – “must be a denial of the indissolubility of marriage”: “When one goes to confession for example and confesses a sin, one has a firm purpose of amendment or otherwise you can’t validly confess. How can a person, who is living in an adulterous union confess that – when he or she has the intention of remaining in that situation? These are simple facts.”
They are coming for the Doctrine. In the minds of millions, the Doctrine of the Faith regarding sodomy, adultery, attempted bigamy, etc., have already been changed by the widely publicized mid-term “relatio.”  Even while they pretend to leave doctrine alone, they are seeking to change it.  Changing how doctrine is applied in practice is the same thing as changing the doctrine, any arguments to the contrary are just modernist double talk of the same kind Cardinal Burke exploded above.
They are coming for the Doctrine.  1600+ years ago, when noxious Arian heresies were proposed to a group of bishops, they bishops didn’t just politely sit their awaiting their turn to vote, they did not wait for a mid-term report to be released, they went on the attack, to the extent of St. Nicholas breaking Arius’ jaw.  They would not listen to the heresies (as Saint John advised), pandemonium broke out in the hall (in the presence of the Emperor of all the civilized world), and the orthodox bishops stormed out.  I pray our bishops get some of the zeal the early Fathers had.
They are going to need it.