Tales of Burke/Bergoglio Schism are Greatly Exaggerated

Tales of Burke/Bergoglio Schism are Greatly Exaggerated February 13, 2015

So the big news last week was the ecstasy in Reactionary circles about Cdl. Burke “resisting” Francis. Reactionaries have been shouting “Let’s you and him fight” at Burke for ages and organs of reliably unreliable propaganda like Roarhate Daily and Lifesite have been in there doing their best to stir the pot against the pope. So the big headlines last week were stuff like “‘I will resist’ the Pope should he contravene doctrine”

Mhm. So here’s the actual story: Somebody asks Burke what he would do if the pope started attacking the faith and Burke, like Paul, says basically, “****If**** we or an angel of God preach some other Christ, let him be accursed.” The SSPX, that bastion of factionalism and hostility to the Church manned by such common sense people are Richard Williamson and similarly holocaust-denying kooks then picks up the story and trumpets it as a something close to a declaration of war. Reactionaries across cyberspace then manufacture a proclamation of defiance of pope Francis out of that like the liars they are and suckers among the Francis Haters believe and promulgate the lie.

Truth: He is not actually calling for any resistance, simply answering a question about a hypothetical situation as any orthodox Catholic would.

All that said, permit me to remark, as has been said 50 million times by Reactionaries about Francis, that it might behoove the good cardinal to be more careful in his phraseology and to perhaps reconsider giving quite so many interviews given how the wolves are hungry to misuse his words to sow dissent and discord.

If schism comes, it’s going to come from the Greatest Catholics of All Time, not the ordinary rank and file upon whom they look with such Olympian contempt.

"Writing biopics by necessity will mean at the very least, emphasizing some parts of their ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"The notion that the Most High creator of all that exists would deny a person ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The Catholic Church is a good deal more reasonable and compassionate now than it used ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The number of Christian missions isn't an indicator of the health of a society.Good grief."

Dear Prolife Suckers

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • $139892560

    Dear Mark, after reading this, I sighed a very deep sigh of relief. I am so distressed about the hatred and judgement I am seeing for Pope Francis posted all over on the so-called Catholic blogs. I find a really beautiful blog with what looks likes wonderful articles and I read and look at the comments and- wham! I feel like an alien in my own Church. Most of these commenters are calling him the ‘Apostate Pope’, the Pope who is destroying the Catholic Church, Anti-Pope, and on and on it goes. What exactly is it about Pope Francis that is so threatening to these Catholics? I guess I can call them Traditional Catholics, at least this what they claim to be. In all my life I have never seen anything like this. I think Pope Francis is a truly wonderful Pope. What is going on with this, do you or does anyone know?

    • HornOrSilk

      Much of the English speaking blogosphere is influenced by American politics. The Pope isn’t follow the left-right positions of America, and often what he decries are some of the idols of the right (of course, he doesn’t support the idols of the left either). Yet, his message is clear, and it goes against their idols, so they fight back.

      And they had a narrative given to them by schismatics in South America which they picked up to immediately judge him and have used ever since.

      • $139892560

        But most of the people who are against him are Traditional, Latin Mass Catholics, the last group I would expect to be like this. I am very conservative, politically speaking, and Pope Francis has never said anything that would upset me – if he did, I would rethink my politics because so far, everything he has stated sounds just like Jesus, as far as I am concerned. For the first time in my life I can honestly say I feel scandalized by these people and the terrible way they are talking about the Holy Father. I think it borders on serious sin.

        • HornOrSilk

          The so-called “Traditional” Latin Mass Catholics tend NOT to be traditional; they like to keep a few things from tradition, often in the wrong fashion and form, and ignore the whole of tradition. They have a false view of history (for example, their discussions on the mass, tend to promote the Tridentine Latin Mass in a way which goes against history), and though they might be “strong” against some sins (fornication), they ignore the tradition on others (avarice for example). The so-called “Trads” are not traditional: they are really like those who claim to be pro-life who are anti-abortion but ignore the other ethics contained in the pro-life position. And if you look to these “trad” groups from within, you see all kinds of social discontents (for example, in South America, a large number of them continue with racist policies). In the US, the discontent comes with charges of “communism” for anything Catholic Social Teaching desires that contends against their political and economic stands (which is a non-Catholic stand; their Americanism becomes quite noticeable there). Again, they are reacting because the Pope has put to light all their claims of being traditional, good Catholics and in the light, the darkness which has festered within is now becoming clear.

          • $139892560

            Thanks, this is an excellent post!

            • HornOrSilk

              YW

    • Andy

      I would add to what HOS says by suggesting that he, Pope Francis speaks in a very clear, blunt manner. A manner that is harder to parse into what a person wants to hear.
      I agree he has said or done nothing that is not in the image of Jesus and what has been taught by the church. I find him refreshing and challenging in a new way.

      • capaxdei

        Let’s say, harder for Traditional Catholics to parse into what they want to hear. At least until recently, others have had an easier time.

        • Andy

          I agree – harder for the Traditional Catholics to parse – my mistake.

      • $139892560

        Thanks, this is a very good point, I couldn’t agree more!

  • zebbart

    How would one, even a cardinal, really know if the pope were to contravene doctrine? Can there be a case where one man independently can legitimately claim to know? I don’t think so, and I would think it more precise for Cardinal Burke to say that the Church would resist if the pope were to contravene doctrine. I’m afraid the cardinal has bought into the Protestant notion of the heroic man standing for his truth against the crowd. The Catholic way is to bring your best efforts to the community and submit them to the process, trusting that truth will come through.

    • Heather

      ” I don’t think so, and I would think it more precise for Cardinal Burke to say that the Church would resist if the pope were to contravene doctrine.”

      That’s pretty much exactly what he did say. He stated that no, they were not at odds and the Pope was not about to contravene doctrine, and only gave the “resist him” line when the journalist specifically pinned him down with a hypothetical situation of “well what if he DID?”

    • $139892560

      I agree.

    • I believe that Pope Francis is not going to be contravening doctrine anytime soon. It is much more likely that he might have a passing moment of carelessness and in such circumstances it’s not only tolerable, but admirable for others in the Church to remedy that carelessness.

      I believe that the interviewer asked what Cdl Burke would do personally in such a case where the Pope persisted in a particular erroneous tendency. The Cardinal simply answered the question.

  • antigon

    Dear Mr. Shea:
    *
    When you libel the superb, steady & profoundly Christian work of Lifesite News as but ‘reliably unreliable propaganda’ you are guilty of the very charge you falsely & alas all too regularly toss their way.
    *
    That is, you bear false witness. You should accordingly repent & confess that sin, & indulge it no further.

    • chezami

      Meh. Lifesite has burned me too many times to trust them.

      • $139892560

        That is one odd site- I never post offensive comments yet that site is so anti- Pope Francis they have deleted at least 12 of my posts in the past 2 days..that moderator is something else!

      • antigon

        Caro Shea:
        *
        I know it is your habit along with others to indulge this drive-by sans evidence, which is why you should either provide the latter or repent the sin. I mean, we are talking about a major Christian news source with some twenty or more articles more or less daily for well over a decade now, so ten examples to back your charge – is five too much? – should take but a minute or two to summon.
        *
        Possibly His serene Eminence Kasper’s reformist view of the 8th Commandment is why Mr. Horno fails to provide links to his libels, & alas I fear the gentle Signora (ita?) Fuentes would find no links to uphold her – is calumnious too strong an adjective? – charges either, which is why she should not make them.
        *
        Mr. Sigroli’s arse might arguably prove meanwhile a good spot to look for his morality as well as non-existent phobias since, far from constant, rare – indeed not impossibly too rare – are critical LSN posts on dubiously faithful bishops; & while I rarely read its comboxes, Mr. S shall have to forgive me for suspecting his insights there might too be found where he keeps other things warm.
        *
        Yeah, unlike the phony attacks above, LSNews is obviously, manifestly & indeed profoundly Christian, very much in the ways you invoke when Mark Shea comes under attack. As with you, their op-eds & approach to news is subject to criticism, but, also as with you, not of the drive-by kind that ignores their enormous contribution on behalf of the faithful, & indeed of the Faith.

        • Benjamin2.0

          I’ve never found the “post links or you’re a liar” approach very engaging, especially in the presence of actual links. I think the lean-back-and-demand-even-more-evidence approach is the last ditch effort of one without a case. It’s a trick for eliminative materialist atheists, flat earthers, young earth creationists, and modern critical theorists in every case I’ve ever observed but this one.

          The manful thing is to engage the arguments already presented using the degree of evidential support you’d prefer to see from your opponents, making short work of their obfuscations by drawing clear distinctions. If you could keep something like that up for a few posts, you’d win over an undecided like me perhaps to the point of taking up your cause.

          • antigon

            ‘engage the arguments already presented.’
            *
            Mr. Benjamin:
            *
            Would be happy to, save that only libels were presented, no arguments.
            *
            Now it may be that when folks call the current Pontiff a heretic they are under no more obligation to present evidence than Mr. Shea & burpers are when they indulge His serene Eminence Kasper’s views of the 8th Commandment; but tho nutballs tendentiously demand evidence solely forever to travel the Circle Line, it does follow that every such request is but an effort to avoid exiting at Gower St.
            *
            Nonetheless per your request to reiterate, ax-grinding can be blinding, but any Catholic or Christian not thus a-grinding will see with but a click to https://www.lifesitenews.com/ that the site is serious, professional, comprehensive, & yes & not least, profoundly Christian.

            • Benjamin2.0

              Errm… Folks who call the current Pontiff (the visible sign of Christian unity and the head of the Church universal) a heretic are absolutely under more obligation to present evidence than “Mr. Shea & burpers” are when they indulge His serene Eminence Kasper’s views of the 8th Commandment. I should think that axiomatic. Furthermore, where claims toward Pope Francis’ heresy are tied up in (thinly) debatable matters of interpretation and Cardinal Kasper’s are in blunt statements of fact, the burden of proof false equivalency is fulfilled in spades, anyway.

              Introducing an entire website into evidence, an obvious document dump, finally, is what I understand the children these days like to call a “Richard move.” A fight for my allegiance would require a bit more honor and pageantry than that. Shirley, you don’t think I’m that cheap.

              • antigon

                ‘I should think that axiomatic.’
                *
                My dear Benjamin:
                *
                Axiomatic to be sure, which means we happily agree not all calls for evidence come but from travelers on the Circle Line.
                *
                No less happy is our accord that demands for introducing an entire website into evidence would be ridiculous, & even possibly as cheap as Shirley pretending such a demand had been made.
                *
                Evidence for Mr. Shea’s claim that LSNews is an organ of ‘reliably unreliable propaganda’ was sought, however, but none provided because, as none exists, the charge is a libel Mr. Shea should honorably retract, & a violation of the 8th Commandment he should repent.
                *
                Y’know, just sayin’ n’all.

            • Guest

              • antigon

                Ms. Blossoms:
                *
                Can’t address this or your interpretation of it, as I only go to LSNews for its excellent & comprehensively superb news coverage; only read the comboxes when they write about – & they are close to the only ones that do – the extraordinary witness for life made by Mary Wagner & Linda Gibbons.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Lifesite contains some good articles, but they frequently take the pope’s statements in the most uncharitable light, taking them out of context, and painting him as a danger to the faithful.

      • HornOrSilk

        Or they twist the Pope to make him say what they want him to say, such as when they tried to make Pope Benedict condemn Harry Potter, which he never did.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          I always wondered where that chestnut came from. I run into people who enjoy all sorts of fantasy, but somehow HP is eeevil, as in froo-eets of the devil. They’re always mightily offended that the wizards are special and the rest of us are”muggles”. When I think about it, we live in a world where there is a dark lord who wants to destroy. He’s real. Who’s equipped to fight him? Christians. Who has the Word, the Power, the Grace, and the Knowledge? Christians. Who are the muggles? The ones who don’t know or won’t acknowledge that there is an enemy.

          • antigon

            Dear Ms Fuentes:
            *
            As revealed near the top of this thread, the chestnut is Mr. Horno’s, not LSN’s.

    • Sigroli

      “Profoundly Christian”, me arse. LifeSite does some good work in the pro-life arena but whatever good they do is overshadowed by their paranoid homophobia and their constant bishop-bashing. Moreover, hateful combox remarks by idiotic Francis-haters are permitted, even encouraged, but calling any of these clowns on their scurrilous posts is not. A cyberpox on LifeSite and its anti-Christian tirades.

      • Guest

        Agreed. That site has been removed from my list. Shame on them for persecuting the Vicar of Christ.

  • Willard

    Not quite correct. Nobody is talking about changing the doctrine of the Church on marriage. What is under consideration is changing the current discipline of not allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion.

    This is something the Pope can do and therefore the analogy with St. Paul fails. A better analogy might be to Luther who is reported to have said, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

    • DJR

      The teaching of St. Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio is the exact opposite. It is responses like these that show the depth of schism in the Church that is already there. The fact of the matter is that, like women’s ordination, the Church, and by extension the pope, cannot change “the current discipline” without contradicting the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and Saint Paul on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the necessity of receiving Holy Communion in the state of grace.
      Those who think that is possible don’t understand the Catholic Faith.
      It is not just “current discipline”; it’s perennial, unchangeable discipline. The pope simply has no authority to change it.
      Cardinal Burke is not the only orthodox prelate who publicly states this. Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Lenga, and Archbishop Hoser have also made similar public statements. Archbishop Hoser has stated publicly that “the Church has betrayed John Paul II.”

      • DJR

        Familiaris Consortio, part 84.

        However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from 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. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

        Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180)

        This discipline is unchangeable because, as Pope St. John Paul II makes clear, it is based on Sacred Scripture. The Church has no authority to contradict Sacred Scripture .

        • Willard

          This quote from FC states that withholding communion from the divorced and remarried is indeed a practice or discpline. St. JP2’s decision, of course, is currently binding but that doesn’t mean another Pope couldn’t change it. In FC itself, it is clearly stated that, “They are unable to be admitted thereto from 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”. The key word there is objectively. As we all know, not every objectively grave act is in fact a mortal sin. The Catechsim paragraph 1735 explains this clearly. And obviously those not in mortal sin could be allowed to receive communion if the Pope approves it.

          What all sides of the debate should keep in mind is the following from the infallible 1st Vatican Council:

          “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

          • Benjamin2.0

            As we all know, not every objectively grave act is in fact a mortal sin. The Catechsim paragraph 1735 explains this clearly. And obviously those not in mortal sin could be allowed to receive communion if the Pope approves it.

            The current practice is to deny communion on the basis that remarriage is objectively sinful, so those denied communion are informed of their sin and can no longer claim to be ignorant of its gravity. It seems that you propose the Church actively enable ignorance of the gravity of sinful matter by passing over it in silence rather than informing the ignorant. If the means and ends are both superior in the status quo to the proposed amendments, then the amendments are definitionally morally inferior to the status quo. Likewise, I don’t think every discipline, especially those which come as necessary conclusions from a set of unchangeable dogmatic premises, can be changed validly, let alone licitly.

            • Artevelde

              What I fail to understand is what the concept ”remarried” means in the first place. What act precisely is it that separates those denied communion from those not denied communion? In fact, what act (in absence of annulment of marriage) separates the divorced from the married? Your answers will be much appreciated.

              • Benjamin2.0

                Sorry for the delay. I’m much busier than I used to be.

                In this case, the question is whether to admit those in invalid second marriages (sans annulment or death of the actual spouse) to receive communion. Those in question are in a state of deliberate and publicly attested adultery. The Church, of course, can’t admit them by changing it’s doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage or the doctrine regarding the proper status of one receiving communion. It seems the… other side?… would have the Church choose not to turn away such people at the communion rail (I’d suppose this ‘turning away’ is rarer than communion rails these days, anyway).

                One would suppose the mechanism by which this is supposed to be achieved is the theory that the Church should leave these people to die eternal deaths at the hands of their own private consciences or else that they should be made clean by their blissful ignorance of the sinful matter at the expense of the clergy’s eternal destiny. I suppose it’s partly fueled by some desire that those dispensing communion shouldn’t “”judge”” or something. However, if the Church is expected not to turn away these public sinners, one wonders if it can be expected to turn away any.

                Honestly, I can’t find a single way to turn this round proposition such that it will fit through the square hole of moral reasoning. Every argument is instead presented in terms of emotional sensationalism.

                • Artevelde

                  I’m afraid I must ask the question again. What exactly is the validity the church grants ANY form of civil marriage and why? Does this also mean that civilly married people find themselves in another state than those who just live together, even though in both cases the sacrament is absent?
                  Notice that my question is not about whether a remarried man living with another woman lives in an objective state of sin or whether that state should lead to being denied communion. My question is what distinguishes such a man from let’s say one who lives with another after his divorce WITHOUT being civilly remarried.

                  • Benjamin2.0

                    Canon Law can answer this, then:

                    Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

                    §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

                    Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

                    Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

                    §2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

                    Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

                    Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

                    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

                    • Artevelde

                      Am I to understand that according to 1055 § 2 every civil union is automatically elevated to the status of sacrament? If that is the case, I’m seriously worried.

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      No, a marriage between two unbaptized adults is considered a merely natural marriage. This can actually be dissolved by the Church itself (and only the Church) in rare cases according to the Pauline or Petrine privilege.

                    • Artevelde

                      What about a civil marriage between a man and a woman who were baptized as Catholics but have since left the church?

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      If ‘baptized’ is the criterion, and baptism is permanent, I’d conclude that it’s still sacramental. An annulment would be necessary for remarriage.

                    • Artevelde

                      An annulment by the Church? Somehow I doubt that. That would mean that some people could not receive the Sacrament of marriage, depending on their earlier civil status or statuses?

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      I’m pretty sure a natural marriage can be ‘elevated’ to sacramental status. The proper term escapes me. I’ve seen a relative or two do it.

                    • Artevelde

                      Oh I think it can. I also think even a gazillion civil marriages accompanied by a gazillion divorces wouldn’t technically pose a problem for a later (first and only) Sacramental marriage. Anyway, this is a mess.

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      Natural and invalid marriages can be dealt with using the labyrinthine nuance and detail of Canon Law. It’s the walking away from that first and only sacramental marriage that really causes the problems, I think. I’d blame the popular acceptance of Lord Byron’s definition of ‘love,’ but I think even that’s been used as grounds for annulment.

                      Anyway, this is a mess.

                      Hear hear, here.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      In general (because there are a lot of what-ifs), a Catholic couple who does not follow canon law as to how they are to get wed (for example, with the church as witness) unless they have a dispensation, would be seen to have an invalid marriage (and so, baptized who have left the church would be included here). There are many other what-ifs but that is the general norm.

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      Ooooh. Mr. Silk with the correction. My lack of expertise in Canon Law is apparent.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      This is a complicated issue, all in all!

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      Indeed! I can parse the particular wrongs of the Inquisitions from the fictional ones, but the ins and outs of marriage validity and licitity (licitude?) frequently confound me.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      If you want to see how difficult it can get, read sanguinity debates from the middle ages — where the issue often was brought up because large populations (such as villages) had all kinds of blood relations, and so it was often difficult to find those who could marry each other.

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      Blooughf.

                      I think I’ll stick to my sanitized and theoretical moral philosophy approach, thank you. I like my villagers spherical and in a vacuum.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    Seriously, the theology of the sacrament of marriage is (contrary to what some in the West think) in need of a lot of work, and I think the Pope is right to note this. Theologically, the West and East look at marriage differently. Interestingly enough, Francis understands this and keeps pointing to the Orthodox and it explains why the Orthodox allow for second and third marriages. The fact that the Orthodox view remains a view within the Church (Eastern Catholics) which cause pastoral confusion when people of different ritual churches get married (a deacon can’t be used to marry an Eastern Catholic), we can see the theology of marriage has yet to be fully explored and thought out.

                    One of the key points of the East is that a priest has to be the one who gives out the sacrament, contrary to the Western position. The East doesn’t say there is no marriage if there is no sacrament — otherwise, non-Christians would never be married; so this view of what happens with non-Christians is also understood as happening within second/third marriages in the East. What if it is a remarriage after a sacramental marriage? Many Eastern writers suggest something happened so the sacrament of marriage itself “died” through sin — while they do not talk about it, I think an argument can be made similar to the way Christ’s presence is no longer in a host if the host loses its physical accidents which make it bread. Of course, that is speculation on my part, and I am not saying that is the proper answer – but shows why the Church still needs to explore things in more detail. The Orthodox view on marriage has never been officially denounced as heresy (though many question it).

                    Saying that this brings enough into the equation to discuss the current discipline, I think, is right; I am not saying the discipline should be changed, but I do think there are things which need to be worked out and when they are, what the discipline should be will be clearer.

                    • Artevelde

                      I can only agree. While I would generally be on the side of those in favor of continuing the practice of not allowing communion for remarried people, that is only because generally such people do find themselves in a situation that warrants it. I have an overwhelming feeling though that we should leave the matter for what it is until the groundwork is done.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      And from what I understand, it is the groundwork which the Pope is more concerned about. And the Orthodox do allow such (interestingly enough they see second/third marriages, not as a sacramental service, but as a penance service).

          • Disciplines are expressions of deeper and often unchangeable truths. You are indeed correct that the Pope may change a discipline, but only in a manner that remains consistent with doctrine. A Pope could change the discipline of the celibate priesthood. He could not change it to allow them to marry other men even though celibacy is, indeed, only a discipline for the priesthood.

            So it would seem to me that the question is whether the discipline is changeable to allow communion for those in irregular relationships without also doing damage to doctrine. What is the available safe path that does not also challenge doctrine? I see none.

          • DJR

            Basically what that position implies is that the Catholic Church contradicts Herself. There is no way that such a view is compatible with the Catholic Faith.

            Let me demonstrate the error involved here.

            From the above: “And obviously those not in mortal sin could be allowed to receive communion if the Pope approves it.”

            It is clear from that statement that the topic of discussion relates to Catholics who are in the state of grace: “those not in mortal sin.”

            1. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that baptized Catholics who are not in the state of mortal sin are ipso
            facto in the state of sanctifying grace. There is no third option. Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”), para. 1996, et seq.

            2. Catholics must be in the state of grace to receive Holy Communion. CCC, para. 1415.

            3. The only other requirements for Catholics in the state of grace to receive Holy Communion is that they “be properly disposed to receive Communion” and “normally should have fasted for one hour.” Guidelines for the Reception of Holy Communion issued November 14, 1996, USCCB.

            4. Catholics who are not in mortal sin don’t need a pope’s approval to receive Holy Communion. They already possess that approval. If a Catholic is in the state of grace, possesses a proper disposition, and has fasted the requisite time, that person may receive.

            5. The precepts of the Catholic Church are “obligatory” and binding on Catholics. CCC, para. 2041.

            6. One of the precepts of the Church is that Catholics must receive Holy Communion during the Easter season. CCC, para. 2042.

            7. That precept is obligatory on the group of people under discussion who are divorced and remarried and yet allegedly not in the state of mortal sin.

            8. Pope Saint John Paul II promulgated both the CCC and Familiaris Consortio (“FC”). See Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.

            9. If there are people who are divorced and remarried (or married to previously married persons, with no annulment) who are not in mortal sin, then the position taken above necessarily implies that St. JPII issued an apostolic exhortation with “binding” effect, FC, that specifically prohibits these Catholics from receiving Holy Communion even though they are in the state of grace.

            10. So, in your view, at the same time the Church, via the CCC, commands this group of people who are in the state of grace to receive Holy Communion during Eastertide, She also forbids that same group, via FC, from doing so.

            Thus, the Catholic Church commands a group of Catholics to do something while at the same time forbidding them to do it. In other words, She contradicts Herself.

            That position is completely untenable for a Catholic.

      • Sue Korlan

        I believe it was Cassian and his monasteries where the reception of the Eucharist by those in grave sin was encouraged as a form of remedy. The Church decided to forbid this behavior. So this issue has already been decided.

    • I think it might be an exercise in over-optimism to say that “nobody” is talking about changing doctrine. Somebody tried to pull a fast one at the recent gathering regarding marriage and the majority of the bishops didn’t let that effort win. I would hope that you do not endorse leadership’s attempt to write documents that inaccurately reflect the bishops positions.

      It was a regrettable moment in the history of the Church, however brief. I actually find it insulting that it is being identified with Pope Francis. This is clearly a journalistic effort to get the leadership of the Church to fight one another and it is regrettable that Life Site News swallowed the bait.

  • petey

    well y’see, if only cdl burke spoke clearly. you must admit, he doesn’t always communicate clearly and therefore he may be leading others into error.

    • Guest

      He seemed pretty clear to me. He seems to be a man with a plan..I hope I’m wrong.

  • NotaRadTrad

    Is reviling a mortal sin? It very well could be.

    http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2015/02/trasancos-reviling/

  • Thinkling

    I was surprised when you criticized LifeSite. They’re not perfect but usually do good work. But then checked the link, which was to LifeSiteNews. Big. Difference. With friends like LifeSiteNews who needs enemies? You may wish to edit that reference.

    • $139892560

      I agree!

    • Sigroli

      Thinkling, I believe that you are confusing LifeSiteNews.com (bad) with LifeNews.com (good).

    • Sue Korlan

      I suspect that you are confusing lifesite and lifesitenews.

  • David Standeven

    I feel the need to point out that Williamson has not been with the $$PX for a few years now (though it was after he unfortunately did much damage to that well-intentioned organization).

    The SSPX has some very reasonable people like Fr. Nicholas Pfluger who says things like:

    “The Catholic Church is broad, much broader than just the Traditional movement. This movement began in the 1970’s as an understandable reaction of Catholics rendered homeless by the Conciliar revolution, but we will never make Tradition attractive or convincing if we remain mentally stuck in the 1950’s or 1970’s. Catholic Tradition is a vast treasure, not to be confined within the condemnations, which were routine in the 19th and 20th centuries, of modernism, liberalism and Freemasonry. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the SSPX did act as a lifeboat for souls drowning, but in 2014 “our time is different, we cannot stand still.” Church Tradition is one, but traditions are many, and much that is modern is not immoral.”

    Heck, I can get along with the average SSPX-er much better than I can a “JP II the Great!” cultist.

    • HornOrSilk

      So you get along with schismatics over those who follow the cult of the saints.

      • David Standeven

        Before I hear any more tripe about the SSPX being “schismatic”, let me pull a couple quotes from actual people who were involved in the matter.

        “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988)

        Cardinal Ratzinger: “From the examination of the case… it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity. (June 28, 1993)

        And, yes, I would rather have company with traditional-minded Catholics over sensationalist ultramontanist neocon whackos.

        By the way, before you speculate, I’m a Byzantine-Rite Catholic with no dog in this fight. I just have a low tolerance for garbage propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.

        • HornOrSilk

          Oh, you have a “dog” in the fight. And you ignore the rest of what officials have said about the excommunication. I would also wonder if you were always Byzantine, or if you were a convert? We don’t normally say “Byzantine Rite Catholic.” Because there are many particular churches which use the rite — which autocephelous church are you? (Oh, and you could have said Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, and that would have been legit — it is what I am, but because I am in communion with Rome, and Pope St John Paul II is a saint, I certainly have a “dog in this fight” because I’m Catholic)

          • David Standeven

            JP II being a saint has nothing to do with anything. I actually like JP II but can’t stand his obsessive fanclub.

            And my church is the true Church of Rus. I said Byzantine-Rite to be more vague.

            • HornOrSilk

              Actually, John Paul II being a saint has a LOT to do with things, because you disregarded the cult of the saints and called people “cultists” for their veneration of him.

              “True Church of Rus”? So, you can tell me who your Metropolitan is? Just keeping it vague. Why is it? What is it you are hiding? Is it something along the lines of going to a church of the “Priestly Society of St Josaphat” perhaps? Which is why you entirely quote a few texts out of context about the SSPX ignoring a greater wealth of texts about them?

              • HornOrSilk

                (Just so others know, the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh is an autocephelous church, and so, while we are from the Ruthenian tradition, to saywe are “the true church of Rus” would be to act like those within Rusyn lands are not, which would be a problem).

                • HornOrSilk

                  http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=54919 this is for people who want to know why I brought up the SSJK

                • Artevelde

                  Your posts here are a delight to read. It reminds me why I often read things on http://www.byzcath.org, though I never post there. Ecclesiology at its most bewildering.

                  • HornOrSilk

                    Thanks.

                    Yes, ecclesiology can get quite complex indeed.

                  • Artevelde

                    That reminds me. I think, and it’s not too often mentioned, many of the attacks on Francis from the ”trad” side haven’t got anything to do with doctrine. Doctrine isn’t going anywhere, but the comfortable post-Trent ecclesiology is on its way out.

              • David Standeven

                Seminack of Chicago. The St. Josaphat Society are a bunch of anti-traditional idiots. And I don’t know why you’ve made this about me. Rather than discuss the issue at hand you start a string of ad hominems. I make a comment about the SSPX and take a swipe at the remnant of 19th century ultramontanist la-la land and you bring on the inquisition.

                And I think I know more about the SSPX than you. I know many people in the Fellay camp, the Williamson camp, and those who were part of the broader traditionalist movement from the 70’s to the 90’s but have since joined the Ecclesia Dei groups.

                Even if the SSPX were schismatic, were I to go to Germany I would prefer to commune with schismatics (I have prayed with Orthodox many times) than with the apostate German church.

                • HornOrSilk

                  I asked who your Metropolitan is. You don’t even know the meaning of the term? Your answer is a Croatian Catholic Mission in Chicago? And you talk about knowing what you are talking about? And you admit you would prefer to be in schism than be in communion with Rome? This is not the response of a stable person.

                  And I would like to remind you, your original post was an insult to the cult of St John Paul II and it was the promotion of schism. As even your most recent post continues to do.

                  The SSPX are not the “remnant of the 19th century.” And a Croatian Mission is not the answer to who your Metropolitan is. You have been called. And I’m not accepting your bluff.

                  • David Standeven

                    No, you silly billy. This bishop:
                    http://esnucc.org/node/6

                    And this is the metropolitan:
                    http://www.ukrarcheparchy.us/index.php?categoryid=78

                    I do not promote schism. I merely oppose heresy and love all tradition.

                    No, the idea that the pope is infallible is all things and can never be opposed is a 19th century fantasy. It was a fantasy the saintly Lefebrve was wise to reject.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      You actually did and do promote schism.
                      Metropolitan Archbishop – Most Reverend Stefan Soroka (Metropolitan) is not: Seminack of Chicago

                      I asked who your Metropolitan is. And you said “Seminack of Chicago.” That might be your Eparch, and if you said Eparch, would not have been the same.
                      But when you just went, in a very crude fashion, “Seminack of Chicago” as an answer to the Metropolitan question, you have demonstrated how little you know of what you are talking about. He is no Metropolitan.

                      And it is interesting now you are using Ukrainian Catholic now, after saying “Byzantine-Rite Catholic.” While Ukrainians are, indeed, Byzantine Rite (use), again, they would not just go “I’m Byzantine Rite Catholic” like you did. They would declare themselves as Ukrainians. And to say they are the “true Church of Rus” is to ignore other churches. But I think most people now know enough about you.

                    • David Standeven

                      Ignoring what I originally brought up, ad hominem attacks, deflecting the conversation to unrelated tangents… What are you, a Soviet authority?

                      I recommend you cease this papolatry and go do something worthwhile like pray the Divine Office (it is that time of day for me).

                      Have a holy and blessed lent! 🙂

                    • HornOrSilk

                      What you originally brought up was an insult to those who venerate St John Paul II. Your word “cultist” for them was intended as an insult (not cult of the saint, but modern sociological meaning of the word). And so that was used as a way to dismiss what they have to say — as a true ad hom. You continue to add to your use of ad hom., such as suggesting I’m a “Soviet authority.” The irony of you accusing anyone of ad hom., when you begun with it, is probably lost to you.

                      I have pointed out the errors of what you have said, and you have offered nothing substantial. I will let you be — others will see what I have shown. It’s interesting how you try to act like an authority but have problems with basics.

                      Oh, and your strawman above, again, very telling.

                • You are walking a dangerous course. While the SSPX itself is not entirely outside the Church, they are walking the borders and certain leadership walk outside. May you be guided well by the Holy Spirit to contribute to the healing of the dispute and not contribute to its worsening.

              • I was instructed that, in the East, if you get thrown out of the Church it’s because the Church has made a positive act of excommunication. This idea of tossing people out by category is a western concept, valid, but perhaps not the wisest innovation to come out of that tradition.

                I find that trying to minimize the blast radius of a declaration of excommunication to be well within the eastern tradition and hope that my approval of the effort does not bias you against the idea.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Go away. Don’t talk to me. I told you this before.

                  • Thank you for being reliable in your vendettas. As always, your announcements are educational.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Go away. Don’t talk to me. I told you this before.

                    • David Standeven

                      Glad to see that HornOrSilk is just a sad little nasty troll. Prayer would probably do him much good, whoever he is. I’ll make a note of it.

            • How do you differentiate between proper and improper admiration for Pope (and Saint) John Paul II?

        • HornOrSilk
        • So long as your impulse is to pull people to full communion with the Church, who you are in company with is much less important. That falls under my heading of ‘tax collectors and prostitutes’. In other words, if Jesus can associate with the lowest in society in order to pull them into a new way, we do no wrong when we imitate him in this.

          I’m more puzzled about your condemnation of the ‘ultramontanist neocon whackos’. I’ve never met such and don’t understand the problem. I am also of the Byzantine Rite but I suspect a different branch, (Romanian Byzantine Catholic to be specific).

          Byzantines have a dog in any fight concerning the SSPX due to its support of the pro-latinization Society of St. Josophat. That organization seems to have a problem with Orientalium Ecclesiarum. That opposition makes me have a problem with them.

          • David Standeven

            I would be elated to see Bp. Fellay regularized into the mainstream. If Kasper is not outside the church, then who is?

            For ‘ultramontanist neocon whackos’, please see this.

            http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2014/11/tradistan-neo-con-whackos-east.html

            What makes the Society of St. Josaphat especially galling is that they are ordained to the priesthood using the Latin formalae. So much for authentic tradition.

            • Ok, read the link and find it really… weird. I’m more blessed than I knew not to have to deal with certain problems.

    • Artevelde

      The Church as a big tent. I’m all for that. Sometimes I feel more drawn to one side of the tent, on other issues I find myself in a completely different corner. Hey, sometimes I’m even willing to debate adjusting a few tent poles. What I’m very much not though is someone who is sulking twenty metres away from the tent, thinking the whole tent is basically rotten and calling those who set it up and maintained its structural integrity for 20 centuries the henchmen of the devil.

    • Sigroli

      That’s “SAINT JP II the Great”…

  • HornOrSilk
    • antigon

      ‘a lot of yawn.’
      *
      Not uncharacteristic of your interminable posts my dear Horno.
      *
      As to this latest imitation of His serene Eminence Kasper’s view of the 8th Commandment, ‘all kinds’ should win thy glutes a pat.
      *
      Regarding the examples above, however, apart from joining you in libeling LSNews, Vox Nova has also condemned Mr. Shea for ‘attending idol-worshipping ceremonies’ – so you may wish either to join that condemnation too, or perhaps find sources less likely to expose thy vacuous proclivities.
      *
      Sources better for example than the National Post, that in its dedicated neocon insanity simply invented & published & saw published ubiquitously in the neocon press (which like libeling LSNews – hell with the truth, just get the thing out there – is I suppose the point), replete to be sure with an accompanying 1935 photo from Germany, that, to quote the headline ‘Iran Eyes Badges for Jews.’ Just made the thing up.
      *
      Remind you of anybody?
      *
      Even so, while joining y’all in tut-tutting LSNews for actually publishing news, the Post piece does rather vindicate the serious Christian focus of that estimable not to say reliable online daily.
      *
      Reliable not least for going where others won’t, such as exposing the CRS collusions with abortion, in which LSN has been thoroughly vindicated. Kasperite devotees like thyself will doubtless consider it unanswerable evidence that CRS chose officially to lie about its collusion, but there are others – even Mr. Shea! however more admirable attention to the thing preached might arguably prove – who hold what some consider the now discredited view that lying & detraction & bearing false witness are sins.
      *
      As to ‘arry, I read all but the last, thought them great fun, respected the concerns of opponents while unpersuaded by their arguments, & cringed when His Holiness Emeritus seemed to condemn them in a note he wrote to a German friend. But it was news, there was a controversy, & while Akin’s efforts to rescue His Holiness were noble & even valid to a point, they were much more strained than LSN’s arguments.
      *
      Thus, dear Horno, to charge that LSNews habitually ‘twist the Pope to make him say what they want him to say’ is simply a lie, as is the charge that ‘they tried to make Pope Benedict condemn Harry Potter,’ when they ‘tried’ no such thing, but simply noted letters he wrote that very much seemed to indicate as much.
      *
      To repeat, then, Mr. Shea should accordingly repent of libeling what is almost certainly the finest & arguably the definitive online Christian daily in English on the web, Eye of the Tiber excepted of course.
      *
      And so should you, Horny, along with the other groupies.

      • HornOrSilk

        You, again, follow all kinds of logical fallacies to dismiss the content of what was said in the specific posts. And I only gave examples. The LSN attacks on Harry Potter are based upon outright lies: and I gave one example of that discussion, not all the discussions. And the fact that LSN can and would willingly lie about a priest in Canada is seen as ok? Seriously, again, any examples people give will be dismissed by you for all kinds of fallacious reasons — your confirmation bias is shown. Good day. Enjoy YOUR false representation of Shea and others.

        • antigon

          ‘You follow all kinds of logical fallacies.’
          *
          Cling to the hope my dear Horno, or rather, to another libel.
          *
          But it looks like you might be aspiring to more than just bum pats from His Eminence with your newest & now openly malicious lies, to wit:
          *
          1) That ‘The LSN attacks on Harry Potter are based upon outright lies,’ which simply isn’t true, nor claimed by Akin (his plausible if somewhat strained claim was misinterpretation), nor backed by any evidence since there is none.
          *
          2) That LSN lied about the open opponent of Church teaching on marriage Fr. Raymond Gravel, even as you provide not a scintilla of evidence to support that charge, unless it’s Gravel’s own argument that LSN was wrong to call him ‘pro-abortion’ when in fact he is, in his own words, but ‘pro-choice.’
          *
          ‘You have made a monstrous charge,’ Cardinal Newman wrote to Kingsley, ‘direct, distinct, public; you are bound to prove it as directly, as distinctly, as publicly; or to own you can’t!’
          *
          Kingsley couldn’t. Neither can you, but like Mr. Shea & the minions, you still have time to repent, & should.

          • HornOrSilk

            Repent for following the Pope in Catholic teaching instead of attacking the Pope for misrepresentation of what he said? Nope. And Pope Benedict did not condemn Harry Potter, and to think in any stretch of the imagination it could be construed he did is enough to indicate how far out you are. QED.

            I will not play your game. You ignore and spin, and it is funny and sad all at the same time, you whine about LSN being somehow slandered while all the bile they post on the Pope and Bishops is acceptable?! Seriously? Spin all you want, anyone who reads the accounts sees how LSN fails the integrity test.

            • antigon

              ‘Repent for following the Pope in Catholic teaching?’
              *
              No my dear Horno, nor for loving children or your mother or puppy dogs either, but for consistently bearing false witness & refusing to repent of or cease doing so when given ample proof & opportunity.
              *
              ‘Pope Benedict did not condemn Harry Potter, and to think in any stretch of the imagination it could be construed he did is enough to indicate how far out you are. QED.’
              *
              QED all right my dear H, albeit as regards your Kasperette contempt for the 8th Commandment, since…
              *
              Then Cardinal Ratzinger’s friend Gabrielle Kuby wrote a book attacking the Potter series, entitled ‘Harry Potter: Good or Evil?’, which she sent to His then Eminence, & to which from him she got this reply:
              *
              “It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.”
              *
              When Kuby again wrote Cdl. Ratzinger asking permission to publicize his letter to her, His Eminence answered the ‘Esteemed & dear Ms. Kuby’ that ‘I can gladly allow you to refer to my judgment about Harry Potter.’
              *
              To think the above ‘by any stretch of the imagination’ might suggest hostility to poor ‘Arry accordingly does not show what you (once again) knowingly & falsely charge, but simply reveals your pathetic & (if you have any control of your will anyhow) sinful modus o, to wit –
              *
              You bear false witness, get called on it, provide but further false witness, get called on that with real evidence, whereupon you ignore the real evidence & invent more false charges, presumably ad infinitum, Kasperette warrior of the combox that you like to be.
              *
              Given thus thy own difficulties with minimal integrity dear H, I suppose your latest libel against LSN should be considered a perverse sort of endorsement, tho I quite agree anyone, or anyone who’s serious, would do well to read the professional & profoundly Christian LifeSiteNews, daily.
              *
              Alas, the bile is all yours & your kind, poor H, whether you call yourself Trads or Papists, the Greatest Catholics of All Time or the *Real* Greatest Catholics of All Time. There is virtually zero to none of that at LSN proper tho, neither for bishops nor His Holiness, albeit plenty of solid news; but of course you know that, & have known it all along.
              *
              So once again, dear H, do stop the detractions, the libels, the bearing of false witness. Do repent, & once you do, try to help others to overcome the attractions you know so well to that besetting sin.

              • Francisco J Castellanos

                Huh?

                • antigon

                  Signor Castellanos:
                  *
                  The exchange above actually begins below, when vigilant antigon reproaches noble Shea for libeling the magnificent & profoundly Christian online daily Lifesitenews. At which point various folk sought to try some libels of their own, happily sans success.
                  *
                  Does that help?

                  • chezami

                    Libel? Sorry, but I’ve been burned too many times by Lifesite’s reporting to trust them. And their work has only gotten less trustworthy as they have decided to defend the Church from the pope.

                    • antigon

                      Caro Shea:
                      *
                      So you keep saying.
                      *
                      But as LSNews has been publishing something like 20 articles a day for more than a decade, it should not be difficult to provide examples of these ‘many times.’ Given their large body of work, it is likely that, like you, they have on occasion stumbled; but burned you?
                      *
                      So would five examples be asking too much? Or five showing ‘they have decided to defend the Church from the pope’? Because if like the estimable Simcha Fisher they have called the current pontiff a ‘blabbermouth’ or gone ‘oy’ at his pontifications, I missed that.
                      *
                      Or is Mrs. Fisher’s work now too to be considered an organ of ‘reliably unreliable propaganda?’
                      *
                      If not, as surely not, it seems fair to suggest that Cardinal Newman’s response to Kingsley is applicable to what you’ve said of LSNews.
                      *
                      ‘You have made a monstrous charge,’ His Blessed Eminence wrote, ”direct, distinct, public; you are bound to prove it as directly, as distinctly, as publicly; or to own you can’t!’
                      *
                      Because LSNews isn’t propaganda, isn’t unreliable, & certainly isn’t reliably – to wit regularly – unreliable, I don’t think you can prove those monstrous charges. But unless you can, you are honorably bound to retract them.
                      *
                      Or otherwise stand guilty of libel.

                    • chezami

                      I can’t remember and I’m on the road and have no energy to go dig stuff up. Suffice it to say that I’ve had enough experiences posting stuff from LSN, only to get an embarrassing correction from a reader that I simply stopped posting from them because I didn’t want to leg around the Internet making sure they were not going to leave me with egg on my face. I don’t trust them, so I don’t use them. Sorry, but that’s how it is.

                    • antigon

                      ‘I don’t trust them, so I don’t use them.’
                      *
                      Caro Shea:
                      *
                      Thy privilege to be sure, however doubtful (& of course unsubstantiated) the reasoning; & however distinct that privilege from the one you at least morally don’t have, to wit the libelous charges in your post above.
                      *
                      Buon travels nonetheless, & may they carry you to even higher piles of all that mountainous apologetic dough.

  • Schism will hopefully never come. No Catholic is immune from the temptation to error and schism can come from any faction. It just matters whose buttons the devil decides to push at any particular time.

    I’m sure that the US schism over the denial of the eastern married priesthood was a great surprise to many at the time and *not* where schism was expected to show up on these shores.

  • Sheila C.

    Still. If the Pope said “x isn’t an infallible teaching of the Church and I am going to change it,” which is the proper response? To assume the Pope knows better than we do what’s infallible …. or to “resist” the Pope?

    Everyone who begins a schism or rebellion within the Church does so because they think the Pope is abandoning the Faith. But for him to do that is not possible — we have been promised the gates of hell will not prevail. You can’t really manage to be an obedient Catholic unless you recognize the other possibility — that you yourself were wrong about what the Church taught and how irreformable it was. In Burke’s place, I would have answered, “I don’t believe that’s possible because I feel very certain both that the current teaching on marriage is irreformable, AND that the Pope is not capable of declaring anything untrue …. but if it did happen, I would assume I must have been wrong about the current teaching. Because it is *possible* for me to be wrong and it is *not* possible for the Holy Spirit to abandon the Vicar of Christ.”

    Where Peter is, there is the Church. When Rome speaks, the case is closed. Even if you think he’s wrong.

    If you are absolutely certain the Pope is wrong, the answer is not to resist the Pope … the answer is to leave the Church because clearly Christ has.

    I wish the good Cardinal had reaffirmed this. Instead he’s reassured the various schismatics, “When you think the Pope is wrong, resisting him is the right course.” Heck, that’s what the womenpriests do!

    • DJR

      This is an incorrect assessment of the teaching of the Catholic Church on the infallibility of the pope and apparently assumes that there can be no objective truth apart from what a pope declares to be true. This is not Catholic at all.

      Catholics who believe such a thing are the ones who should leave the Church because, if it were true, then Christ left the Church a long time ago, and the Holy Ghost is a liar.

      Are there Catholics who don’t believe popes have contradicted previous popes?

      Popes have erred in the past; it’s an historical fact. When they did so, Catholics resisted them. By resisting the popes, those Catholics were
      protecting the truth taught by Christ and preserved in the Church.

      Pope John XXII publicly erred regarding the beatific vision and
      was opposed by many of the clergy. He recanted his position shortly before death.

      Pope Stephen VI (or VII, depending on the reckoning) declared that Pope Formosus was not a true pope, annulled all his ordinations and episcopal consecrations, ordered all clergy ordained by the pope to resign, had the former pope’s body dug up, put it on trial, had the corpse’s fingers cut off, and had the pope’s body thrown in the river. Pope Stephen did this; it’s a fact.

      After Pope Stephen, Pope Theodore II undid all the things Pope Stephen VI did regarding Pope Formosus. He annulled Stephen’s annulling of the ordinations and reinstated the clergy involved and also declared Formosus to be a true pope. In other words, he contradicted Stephen VI
      regarding the validity of Pope Formosus and the validity of Formosus’
      ordinations.

      Subsequently, Popes John IX and Leo V agreed with Theodore II and accepted the validity of Pope Formosus.

      The next pope, Pope Sergius III, immediately upon being elected, proceeded to contradict Theodore, John, and Leo, and declared Pope Formosus’ ordinations invalid. He had Pope Formosus’ body, which had been reinterred, dug up again, put on trial again, and had the head cut off.

      The Church has subsequently accepted Pope Formosus’ papacy and has accepted the fact that Stephen VI and Sergius III were in error. They publicly held error in this regard, contradicted other popes, and pronounced many bishops’ and priests’ ordinations to be invalid when, in fact, their ordinations were quite valid.

      These are facts of history.

      Catholics who hold views such as are espoused above regarding the Holy Ghost guiding everything a pope does would be beside themselves if those events occurred in our day, as said Catholics would have to constantly flip flop their position, depending on which pope was in office, as if there were no objective truth involved.

      Regarding the issue of the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics whose first marriages were valid and the spouse is still alive, the issue is settled, and the pope has no authority to change it. Those people cannot receive Holy Communion because they are in the state of adultery, as Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught, and are prohibited from receiving, as Saint Paul and Pope Saint John Paul II taught.

      Those things are irreformable, and no pope can change them. Any pope who attempts to change that Catholic teaching will be resisted by true Catholics everywhere, both clergy and laity alike.

      Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Lenga, Archbishop
      Hoser and several other Polish bishops, are orthodox bishops. They are not “schismatics.” They will, however, oppose any move by the present pope to falsify the Church’s practice in this regard.

      True Catholics everywhere will support them in this.