jump to navigation

Cardinal Burke on the Synod’s final report: “misguided,” “abusive” October 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, manhood, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership.
trackback

Via the increasingly omnipresent Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke blasts the final document pretty hard (my emphasis and comments):

The section entitled “Discernment and Integration” (paragraphs 84-86) is…..of immediate concern, because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men.

First of all, the term, integration, is a mundane term which is theologically ambiguous. I do not see how it can be “the key of pastoral accompaniment of those in irregular matrimonial unions.” The interpretative key of their pastoral care must be the communion founded on the truth of marriage in Christ which must be honored and practiced, even if one of parties of the marriage has been abandoned through the sin of the other party. [Clear, concise, charitable…..plain ol truth]The grace of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony strengthens the abandoned spouse to live faithfully the marriage bond, continuing to seek the salvation of the partner who has abandoned the marriage union. [Who else in the Church says this today?  Aside from some traditional priests, just about no one. No wonder Catholics divorce and remarry just like pagans, they’ve never been taught any different] I have known, since my childhood, and continue to meet faithful Catholics whose marriages have, in some way, been broken, but who, believing in the grace of the Sacrament, continue to live in fidelity to their marriage. They look to the Church for that accompaniment which helps them to remain faithful to the truth of Christ in their lives. [Those people should be lionized and extolled, not pushed off to the side as overly pious fundie do-gooders – yet that is very much the sense we got from far too many at the Sin-nod]

Second, the quotation from no. 84 of Familaris Consortio is misleading. At the time of the 1980 Synod of Bishops on the Family, as throughout the history of the Church, there has always been pressure to admit divorce because of the painful situations of those in irregular unions, that is, those whose lives are not in accord with the truth of Christ on marriage, as He clearly announced it in the Gospels (Mt 19, 3-12; Mk 10, 2-12). While, in no. 84, Pope Saint John Paul II acknowledges the different situations of those who are living in an irregular union and urges pastors and the whole community to help them as true brothers and sisters in Christ by virtue of Baptism, he concludes: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” He then recalls the reason for the practice: “the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.” He also rightly notes that a different practice would lead the faithful “into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” [And yet we see how the novel language, rationalizing such “accompaniment”, in #84 of Familiaris Consortio actually constitute part of the problem – quoted out of context in 2015, this “accompaniment” is now twisted – unfairly – to say what the modernists want.  “Accompaniment” comes first, discipline a distant second.  This can and should have been foreseeable in 1980, for as Cardinal Burke says, the intent was plain even then, to admit those in manifest grave sin to the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps what should have been said was simply a forthright restatement of Doctrine, without the pastoral “weasel words” so open to abuse]

Thirdly, the citation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1735) regarding imputability must be interpreted in terms of the freedom “which makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary” (CCC, no. 1734). The exclusion of those in irregular matrimonial unions from the Sacraments does not constitute a judgment about their responsibility for the breakdown of the matrimonial bond to which they are bound. It is rather the objective recognition of the bond. The Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of June 24, 2000, which is also cited is in complete accord with the constant teaching and practice of the Church in the matter, citing no. 84 of Familiaris Consortio. That Declaration also makes clear the finality of the conversation with a priest in the internal forum, that is, in the words of Pope Saint John Paul II, “a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage” (Familiaris Consortio, no. 84). The Church’s discipline provides ongoing pastoral assistance for those in irregular unions who “for serious reasons such as for example the children’s upbringing, …cannot satisfy the obligation to separate,” so that they may live chastely in fidelity to the truth of Christ (Familiaris Consortio, no. 84).”

I’m being a bit hard on Familiaris Consortio, because we have seen over the past several decades far too much evidence of how the Revolution in the Church works.  Each tiny surrender, even something that seems rather innocuous, like saying pastors should take individual cases into account, is simply the springboard for the next great advance. We will see in the coming months just how much such language can be abused to help advance the sexular pagan agenda in the Church.  I have a feeling in those regions where progressives dominate, it will be a very great deal.

And then, of course, there is the next Synod, already scheduled for 3-4 years from now.  What will be achieved then?  The problem for the orthodox is that we must be forever vigilant, because the progressives never let up.  Even seemingly tiny openings can turn into gaping maws with enough revolutionary manipulation.

And the openings coming out of this Synod are not exactly tiny.  They are in fact disturbingly large, as Cardinal Burke notes.

Point it out, show how it’s wrong, reject it, and continue to live your life faithfully.  Inform as many as you can.  Pray as offer as much penance as you can. Beyond that, there isn’t a terrible amount we can do.

Comments

1. tg - October 28, 2015

God bless Cardinal Burke. I don’t know why these bishops and the Pope care so much about those in irregular unions. I can tell you from experience since I was once in an irregular union, they don’t CARE. Most are too lazy to even attend Mass. I felt bad when my kids did their First Holy Communion and I couldn’t receive but I wasn’t going to demand anything from the church. I knew it was my fault and my decision. If I hadn’t been taught that it was a sacrilege, I probably would have gone anyway. Now when I see someone not receiving, I admire them because I think they know at least what mortal sin is. The people I see not receiving are almost always Hispanic so there’s still hope for my people.

Brian E. Breslin - October 29, 2015

Wow, tg, I guess you can think what you want to think about those not going to receive the Blessed Sacrament, but you surely may have jumped to pretty rash conclusions. Could even be due to a bum and painful knee. Qui le sait? Le Dieu le sait!

Marguerite - October 29, 2015

The Lord can be with you mystically if you make a spiritual Communion, asking him to come into your heart, mind and soul to help you in all of your spiritual and temporal needs. The Church should reiterate this beautiful practice.

2. Liz Dorso - October 28, 2015

Cardinal Burke is the voice of truth in all this madness. I trust him in all this confusion.

Sent from my iPad

>

3. Frank - October 29, 2015

Can it also be imagined that in order to further the destruction of the Church through allowing Communion for those in illicit relationships, the next step would be to allow homosexuals to receive Communion as well?

4. Marguerite - October 29, 2015

The Sixth Commandment was written by the Hand of God, not by man. Was God wrong in exhorting us to lead holy and pure lives, even at the cost of being wronged by the other spouse? Msgr. Charles Pope in one of his articles asked a brilliant question: Does God want us to be happy? Most, including myself, would answer yes. The correct answer is no. God wants us to be holy. Being holy would bring happiness, not necessarily on this earth but definitely in Heaven.

5. David - October 29, 2015

About opening communion to the divorced and remarried (without a sacramental marriage – which requires a decree of nullity from a previous union), I am sure in most parishes in quite a few dioceses these people are walking up to communion and receiving. It is sad that several pastors turn a blind eye to this practice.

Some parishes may have EMHC’s who are in this situation, even though a criteria to be an EMHC is that if married, the marriage must be a sacramental union – good pastors check and follow up on this.

Godfathers and godmothers must also meet this criteria if married. At least one godparent must be a practicing Catholic.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: