Jump to content

Harry Reid Doesn't Like Cardinal Burke Much?


3DOP

Recommended Posts

It would seem that Harry isn't fond of real Catholics like Cardinal Burke? It makes sense. He likes Catholics best when we don't believe anything about what our church teaches. I do not exaggerate. I would be a Maxwell/McConkey Mormon before I could ever be what Harry Reid loves, a Pope Francis Catholic. That is not because I am wavering about my Catholic faith. In my opinion, Maxwell/McConkey Mormons are better Catholics than Jorge Bergoglio. When Harry Reid despises me and loves what I oppose, I figure I am on the right track. 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Mormon-Catholic-fan/2014/11/26/id/609863/

 

 

Link to comment

It would seem that Harry isn't fond of real Catholics like Cardinal Burke? It makes sense. He likes Catholics best when we don't believe anything about what our church teaches. I do not exaggerate. I would be a Maxwell/McConkey Mormon before I could ever be what Harry Reid loves, a Pope Francis Catholic. That is not because I am wavering about my Catholic faith. In my opinion, Maxwell/McConkey Mormons are better Catholics than Jorge Bergoglio. When Harry Reid despises me and loves what I oppose, I figure I am on the right track. 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Mormon-Catholic-fan/2014/11/26/id/609863/

Hi Rory,

I consider the religious issues here to be an internal Roman Catholic matter, in which I have no business intervening.  However, I hope that doesn't mean that I am not permitted to say that I like the current Pope a lot, just as I have a number of recent Popes.  All of them wield not only religious authority among their large and far flung flock, but also considerable moral and political authority throughout the world.  If you imagine that "Shoes of the Fisherman" is one of my favorite books (and film) that would be a strong part of the reason why.

 

Each pope may bring with him particular concerns and emphases, just as different political figures do, and my interest in certain socio-political issues may make me partial to this or that religious or political leader -- in hopes that they will help improve our world in some tangible way.  Even if fallible in various ways, there are some leaders whom I respect, among them Senator Harry Reid and Pope Francis.  I wish them both well, even if I am a constituent of neither.

 

Bob

Link to comment

Hi Rory,

I consider the religious issues here to be an internal Roman Catholic matter, in which I have no business intervening.  However, I hope that doesn't mean that I am not permitted to say that I like the current Pope a lot, just as I have a number of recent Popes.  All of them wield not only religious authority among their large and far flung flock, but also considerable moral and political authority throughout the world.  If you imagine that "Shoes of the Fisherman" is one of my favorite books (and film) that would be a strong part of the reason why.

 

Each pope may bring with him particular concerns and emphases, just as different political figures do, and my interest in certain socio-political issues may make me partial to this or that religious or political leader -- in hopes that they will help improve our world in some tangible way.  Even if fallible in various ways, there are some leaders whom I respect, among them Senator Harry Reid and Pope Francis.  I wish them both well, even if I am a constituent of neither.

 

Bob

 

It wasn't noteworthy that Sen. Reid loves Pope Bergoglio. I have learned to live with the fact that this Holy Father, who seems bent on the destruction of my faith, is beloved by people who have slight regard for the Catholic Church. Of course you are allowed to say you like him. And I do think you have some regard for the Catholic Church. But you are not Catholic so your regard will be naturally "slight" in comparison to one for whom the Catholic Church is everything.

 

Imagine to yourself a President of the Church, who becomes a media sensation, wildly popular with a world that has disdained Mormonism for a long time, and who it seemed to you was mostly popular for casting doubt on beliefs and practices that were central to your understanding of the Restored Gospel. Maybe that can help explain to you why I taste a little gall every time some non-Catholic gushes about the pope. I have failed to use the restraint that I should at times. 

 

What pushed me over the edge last night, was Reid's obvious disrespect for what is a lonely dim star in a traditional Catholic midnight which to all natural appearance, will be dead before the sun comes back. I don't really think highly of Cardinal Burke. But he is about all we have out of thousands of cowed or ambivalent bishops. LDS are bound to love Pope Francis. But when a Mormon despises somebody so irrelevant to the LDS universe as this little man who is known to be an orthodox Catholic prelate when there are virtually none left, it left me more than usually disgusted.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory 

Link to comment

It would seem that Harry isn't fond of real Catholics like Cardinal Burke? It makes sense. He likes Catholics best when we don't believe anything about what our church teaches. I do not exaggerate. I would be a Maxwell/McConkey Mormon before I could ever be what Harry Reid loves, a Pope Francis Catholic. That is not because I am wavering about my Catholic faith. In my opinion, Maxwell/McConkey Mormons are better Catholics than Jorge Bergoglio. When Harry Reid despises me and loves what I oppose, I figure I am on the right track. 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Mormon-Catholic-fan/2014/11/26/id/609863/

 

I have no problem with the Mormonism of either Reid or Romney. I can't vote for Reid as I'm not a resident of Nevada, and wouldn't vote for Romney on a dare.

Link to comment

I just read the interview. Reid sounds like a high school football player who has been rocked once too often. Should one not expect more thoughtful responses?

To 3DOP, as I am not familiar with the issues, could you provide a couple of examples of the stark divide between the current Pope and traditional doctrine?

Link to comment

Lad, see some of Rory's posts here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64521-bishop-on-harry-reid/page-3#entry1209438724

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64355-do-we-worship-joseph-smith/page-15#entry1209430664

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64088-one-catholic-writers-take-on-kate-kelly/?p=1209415455

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64088-one-catholic-writers-take-on-kate-kelly/?p=1209414837

There are more, it might be easiest for you to search with 3dop as author, "pope" as the search term and show as posts as the option for viewing (default is topic) and then skim through those for when Rory discusses specifics.

Link to comment

I just read the interview. Reid sounds like a high school football player who has been rocked once too often. Should one not expect more thoughtful responses?

To 3DOP, as I am not familiar with the issues, could you provide a couple of examples of the stark divide between the current Pope and traditional doctrine?

 

Thanks very much cal, and for your interest, strappinglad. 

 

Our church sponsored a small conference last weekend in honor of the 100th centenary of the passing into heaven of Pope St. Pius X in 1914. We had two speakers, the first of whom, made some striking comparisons and contrasts between Pius X and Pope Francis.

 

The second speaker was a priest of the Society of St. Pius X who spoke about many of Pius X's truly sweeping reforms. His subject was upon the reason this great pope was chosen as the patron for the formation of the priests of the fraternal society named in his honor. It was not at all about opposition to every change. Any living thing has to change as it grows and matures. Sometimes changes must even be bold, such as Pius X's encouragement for the faithful to receive Holy Communion daily, if properly disposed. He drastically reduced the holy days of obligation for the faithful in Italy. He reduced what had grown to become an onerous duty to recitation of "the Divine Office" to be recited by priests and religious. Specifically, he made it less time consuming. He also lowered the age at which children may receive First Holy Communion to the age of accountability, proposing that the fruit of this action would be children who would be saints. Before he was gone for three years, three children at Fatima should be more renowned for startling maturity and holiness of life, than for the remarkable miracles which accompanied the accurate prophecies they attributed to visions of the Blessed Mother of God.

 

Perhaps needless to say, Pius X came under severe criticism for his needful reforms at the time. But his commitment to proper growth and development according to times and seasons was always with an eye to firmly adhere to the doctrines of the faith as he had received them. As a result he has become known to friends and foes alike as the pope who had opposed what he termed, the synthesis of all heresies, or modernism, in the Catholic Church. Modernism is a good title because it doesn't care about the past except to suppress its influence on us. I mention this only to highlight the fact that our priest speaker made great and I must say, convincing efforts, to point out that the little band of priests (SSPX) which receives worldwide attention all out of proportion to its size, was never founded for the purposes of opposition to anything, be it the New Mass, a handful of Vatican II errors, doctrinal deviancy in high places, or even "the synthesis of all heresies", modernism.

 

My understanding from his talk is that the priests, three bishops with no jurisdiction, and we who follow them, need to constantly recall that if we oppose anything, it cannot be merely "change". Much change is needed. The founder of the SSPX, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre himself, actually favored for a time that the Mass should be in vernacular up to the time of the Offertory. Those of us who have read his work know that he was not this stubborn, unthinking, head in the sand prelate, who is portrayed by his enemies as being vehemently opposed to any and every change. He chose Pius X as the patron of the SSPX so that guided by his wisdom, God's priests would be able to discern which changes can be accepted and which cannot. I was reminded by this wonderful talk that truth makes progress within defined limits in the Church, and some changes in practice will always be prudent.

 

But as Pius X withstood crazy ideas that can never be reconciled with the Church's past, it is necessary today to stand in the midst of a whirlwind of doctrinal revolution and decline to join in. (I would add as I have before, that the claims of Mormonism cement my will against adapting to change that is only a product of the times in which we live, with no organic historical/Apostolic development.) But we must only oppose out of necessity, when it is practically forced upon us by threats and slander, while we are free in conscience and canon law to adhere to our Sacred Trust. Traditional Catholics have to know that all change is not bad, especially if we could help troubled and confused Catholics to see that not all change is good.  

 

Rory         

Link to comment

I am LDS and do not particularly like the current pope. I find some things he says to be out of harmony with Catholic dogma but instead of encouraging study on the matter and a search for whether changes are necessary he just throws them out there.

It would be like an LDS apostle suggesting odd doctrines or new practices without any follow through. It would cause more confusion and contention then anything else.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

It would seem that Harry isn't fond of real Catholics like Cardinal Burke? It makes sense. He likes Catholics best when we don't believe anything about what our church teaches. I do not exaggerate. I would be a Maxwell/McConkey Mormon before I could ever be what Harry Reid loves, a Pope Francis Catholic. That is not because I am wavering about my Catholic faith. In my opinion, Maxwell/McConkey Mormons are better Catholics than Jorge Bergoglio. When Harry Reid despises me and loves what I oppose, I figure I am on the right track. 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Mormon-Catholic-fan/2014/11/26/id/609863/

 

I'm not sure the analogy is right, as I can't imagine a Maxwell/McConkie Mormon opposing the Prophet as vehemently as you oppose the Pope.

Link to comment

Hi toon...

 

I wasn't intending to make an analogy. 

 

I was expressing my belief about what is the more credible between what I thought would be a more tradition oriented Mormonism, or an anti-traditional form of Catholicism. Those who applaud Pope Francis seem totally unconcerned about how the Catholic Church could defend itself historically if the changes Pope Francis seems to favor are a part of apostolic tradition. I am admitting for instance, that if the Catholic Church has been wrong for two thousand years about one of the seven sacraments, and that marriage, divorce, and remarriage are now permissible in the eyes of God, then it would prove to me, as Neal Maxwell, Senator Reid, and all faithful Mormons believe, that the Catholic Church is indeed apostate. In my opinion, 2014 is way too late for the Catholic Church to have been wrong about a sacrament. In that event I would be looking for a Restoration of the true church, and not a reformation of the Catholic Church. 

 

I cannot argue with a perception. I do not like to be thought to be "vehemently opposed" to the Holy Father. It grieves me if I have done so, but I cannot separate Francis from his predecessors as I think most of his greatest admirers have done. Before any of us had ever heard of Jorge Bergoglio, I have been committed to a kind of Catholicism that reflects on the full scope of teaching which popes and councils have put forth for 2,000 years according to distinct and recognizable gradations of authority in the ways a teaching may be expressed. To this point, Francis has been almost entirely informal. He has not uttered a single word that requires obedient submission on the part of the faithful. Nevertheless, when we discover the content of what he has sometimes said, it fills us with dismay at the confusion that can be caused when non-Catholic observers hang on every word of a living pope as though it represents absolute teaching for every Catholic.  

 

When some non-Catholic "loves" Pope Bergoglio, it doesn't seem to me like it is because he is in conformity with 260 plus popes who came before him. In the instance I have cited, the non-Catholic admirer of Pope Francis, seemed to have a lack of admiration to match for a traditional Catholic prelate. This tends to confirm my own impression that for Francis' most ardent admirers, it is because his novel views are recognizable not for their consistency with Catholicism, but for their consistency with their own worldviews, which are often in "vehement opposition" to Catholic Tradition. If I have "vehemently opposed" Francis, it is because of a perception that he and his most ardent admirers are "vehemently opposed" to traditional Catholic devotions, worship, teaching, and moral values.

 

Rory

Link to comment

When some non-Catholic "loves" Pope Bergoglio, it doesn't seem to me like it is because he is in conformity with 260 plus popes who came before him. In the instance I have cited, the non-Catholic admirer of Pope Francis, seemed to have a lack of admiration to match for a traditional Catholic prelate. This tends to confirm my own impression that for Francis' most ardent admirers, it is because his novel views are recognizable not for their consistency with Catholicism, but for their consistency with their own worldviews, which are often in "vehement opposition" to Catholic Tradition. If I have "vehemently opposed" Francis, it is because of a perception that he and his most ardent admirers are "vehemently opposed" to traditional Catholic devotions, worship, teaching, and moral values.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "love" the current Pope (beyond the general love that all men are due as children of God), and I haven't been following his doctrinal peregrinations, whatever they may be. But I revere him in his position as head of the Catholic Church, an institution I have always had some fondness for, and continue to hold. I respect him for the fact of his position as spiritual leader of a faith that counts among its adherents a significant fraction of humanity.

 

Now, I have nothing to do with the development of Catholic theology, nor do I have much stake in it, but the following two facts stand out in my mind:

  • per RCC doctrine the Pope when speaking ex cathedra is infallible (you can correct me if I am wrong about this)
  • the current pope was chosen freely from and by a conclave of men holding what they believe to be apostolic authority

Considering these two facts, why is it completely out of the question that Pope Francis is leading the Catholic church in the direction the Lord is inspiring him to lead it?  It's the Lord's church, isn't it?  Surely He will do nothing save He reveal his secret through His servant the prophet?  And if the Pope is all he is supposed to be, then he must be a prophet.  It would then follow that those who are opposing him are opposing the will of God.

 

I suppose that it is possible that Francis is actually an anti-Pope, although I am unsure how this is to be determined.

Link to comment

Hi Stargazer.

 

I appreciate your reply and as a Catholic I must concur with everything in your first paragraph. He IS my spiritual father, and if I must oppose him, I have an obligation to oppose him with reverent respect. However, the reason I mentioned the informality of the pope's most popularly quoted remarks, was to highlight the fact that faithful Catholics are under no obligation to submit to them. Most of the stuff is just off the cuff comments to reporters. It is neither ex-cathedra nor prophetic. I am not suggesting that Francis is an anti-pope. I am explaining why I think he is popular with many who dislike most of the other popes in history.

 

Pope John Paul II dealt with the question of females receiving the priesthood. He affirmed that he, as pope, had no authority to overturn the constant Tradition of the Church. The document is called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, is readily available on the internet, and brief. Non-Catholics and some Catholics often fail to appreciate that the authority of a pope has limits. All they think of is papal infallibility. I believe in papal infallibility as proclaimed at Vatican I in 1870, but only according to the prescribed limits. Papal Infallibilty was a true but imprudent declaration in my opinion, because it has led to terrible misunderstandings among both Catholics and non-Catholics who now think everything a pope says on an airplane carries the mark of infallibility. They don't know about, or ignore the fact that at least one living pope has been accused of heresy and condemned, before he recanted his errors. But it is as though there is no lesson to be learned from the event! Catholic doctrine teaches, and papal infallibility, properly understood, implies that popes make mistakes, and are especially prone to error if they strike out on new paths. They don't constantly speak as prophets. It doesn't mean they are not popes. It doesn't mean they are anti-popes. It means that the faithful have an obligation to defend the apostolic faith as it has been taught through the centuries, and against a living pope if necessary. 

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Link to comment

Hi Stargazer.

 

I appreciate your reply and as a Catholic I must concur with everything in your first paragraph. He IS my spiritual father, and if I must oppose him, I have an obligation to oppose him with reverent respect. However, the reason I mentioned the informality of the pope's most popularly quoted remarks, was to highlight the fact that faithful Catholics are under no obligation to submit to them. Most of the stuff is just off the cuff comments to reporters. It is neither ex-cathedra nor prophetic. I am not suggesting that Francis is an anti-pope. I am explaining why I think he is popular with many who dislike most of the other popes in history.

 

Pope John Paul II dealt with the question of females receiving the priesthood. He affirmed that he, as pope, had no authority to overturn the constant Tradition of the Church. The document is called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, is readily available on the internet, and brief. Non-Catholics and some Catholics often fail to appreciate that the authority of a pope has limits. All they think of is papal infallibility. I believe in papal infallibility as proclaimed at Vatican I in 1870, but only according to the prescribed limits. Papal Infallibilty was a true but imprudent declaration in my opinion, because it has led to terrible misunderstandings among both Catholics and non-Catholics who now think everything a pope says on an airplane carries the mark of infallibility. They don't know about, or ignore the fact that at least one living pope has been accused of heresy and condemned, before he recanted his errors. But it is as though there is no lesson to be learned from the event! Catholic doctrine teaches, and papal infallibility, properly understood, implies that popes make mistakes, and are especially prone to error if they strike out on new paths. They don't constantly speak as prophets. It doesn't mean they are not popes. It doesn't mean they are anti-popes. It means that the faithful have an obligation to defend the apostolic faith as it has been taught through the centuries, and against a living pope if necessary. 

 

Regards,

 

Rory

 

It would seem to me that one who exercises that obligation certainly has a tremendous responsibility to be certain they are correct.  Such opposition can cause a lot of turmoil and damage within the Church.  We have certainly seen it in the LDS Church at times.

Link to comment

Hi ERayR,

 

I think you misunderstand me. Any "opposition" that I would have with the pope would be first with regards to my own conscience. My position is that he would still be pope even if he taught heresy formally in the public forum. 

 

His recent synod on the family entertained ideas that are clearly incompatible with what the Catholic Church has always taught about marriage. Rather than compromise the Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage, England was eventually lost to the Catholic faith because of the refusal of the Catholic Church to make an exception that would allow King Henry VIII to divorce and remarry. Now, five hundred years later, after Catholics have been taught to admire the Church for its uncompromising adherence to its own teaching in the face of what turned out to be a political and religious disaster for English Catholics, we are supposed to consider the possibility that Henry VIII was in the right, and the Catholic Church was wrong all along? Thomas More and John Fisher died for the wrong cause too. But yet, the Catholic Church is also true? 

 

ERay, I just don't get how anybody could take Catholics seriously if we did a thing like that. Catholics are supposed to reject everything they have been taught about the indissolubility of marriage (since the coming of Christ), and act like its okay that we are the last Christian church on earth to finally figure it out? NO. I will not join Henry VIII and the Anglicans! It isn't hard to figure out and I have a responsibility to defend 260 plus other popes who disagree with this one if he should ever have the audacity to formally teach such a novelty. Yes, I have a tremendous responsibility and it is clear. God help me and I will keep the faith that has been taught by saints and popes through the centuries. If forced, I hope I have the grace and strength to respectfully disagree with any pope of my lifetime no matter how much the non-Catholic world might adore him for being the first Catholic pope who agrees with Henry VIII and Hollywood about divorce and remarriage. 

 

Rory         

Link to comment

Hi ERayR,

 

I think you misunderstand me. Any "opposition" that I would have with the pope would be first with regards to my own conscience. My position is that he would still be pope even if he taught heresy formally in the public forum. 

 

His recent synod on the family entertained ideas that are clearly incompatible with what the Catholic Church has always taught about marriage. Rather than compromise the Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage, England was eventually lost to the Catholic faith because of the refusal of the Catholic Church to make an exception that would allow King Henry VIII to divorce and remarry. Now, five hundred years later, after Catholics have been taught to admire the Church for its uncompromising adherence to its own teaching in the face of what turned out to be a political and religious disaster for English Catholics, we are supposed to consider the possibility that Henry VIII was in the right, and the Catholic Church was wrong all along? Thomas More and John Fisher died for the wrong cause too. But yet, the Catholic Church is also true? 

 

ERay, I just don't get how anybody could take Catholics seriously if we did a thing like that. Catholics are supposed to reject everything they have been taught about the indissolubility of marriage (since the coming of Christ), and act like its okay that we are the last Christian church on earth to finally figure it out? NO. I will not join Henry VIII and the Anglicans! It isn't hard to figure out and I have a responsibility to defend 260 plus other popes who disagree with this one if he should ever have the audacity to formally teach such a novelty. Yes, I have a tremendous responsibility and it is clear. God help me and I will keep the faith that has been taught by saints and popes through the centuries. If forced, I hope I have the grace and strength to respectfully disagree with any pope of my lifetime no matter how much the non-Catholic world might adore him for being the first Catholic pope who agrees with Henry VIII and Hollywood about divorce and remarriage. 

 

Rory         

 

Understood.  May God light your way.

Link to comment

Hi Stargazer.

 

I appreciate your reply and as a Catholic I must concur with everything in your first paragraph. He IS my spiritual father, and if I must oppose him, I have an obligation to oppose him with reverent respect. However, the reason I mentioned the informality of the pope's most popularly quoted remarks, was to highlight the fact that faithful Catholics are under no obligation to submit to them. Most of the stuff is just off the cuff comments to reporters. It is neither ex-cathedra nor prophetic. I am not suggesting that Francis is an anti-pope. I am explaining why I think he is popular with many who dislike most of the other popes in history.

 

Pope John Paul II dealt with the question of females receiving the priesthood. He affirmed that he, as pope, had no authority to overturn the constant Tradition of the Church. The document is called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, is readily available on the internet, and brief. Non-Catholics and some Catholics often fail to appreciate that the authority of a pope has limits. All they think of is papal infallibility. I believe in papal infallibility as proclaimed at Vatican I in 1870, but only according to the prescribed limits. Papal Infallibilty was a true but imprudent declaration in my opinion, because it has led to terrible misunderstandings among both Catholics and non-Catholics who now think everything a pope says on an airplane carries the mark of infallibility. They don't know about, or ignore the fact that at least one living pope has been accused of heresy and condemned, before he recanted his errors. But it is as though there is no lesson to be learned from the event! Catholic doctrine teaches, and papal infallibility, properly understood, implies that popes make mistakes, and are especially prone to error if they strike out on new paths. They don't constantly speak as prophets. It doesn't mean they are not popes. It doesn't mean they are anti-popes. It means that the faithful have an obligation to defend the apostolic faith as it has been taught through the centuries, and against a living pope if necessary. 

 

Regards,

 

Rory

 

A most excellent reply!  I do believe that your understanding of papal infallibility is very insightful (and certainly correct), and in fact I would probably use similar words to describe the infallibility of the President of the LDS Church.  Perhaps we have not had any who have needed to recant anything, but perhaps, too, that is because we haven't had as many Presidents as the RCC has had Popes.

 

Mike

Link to comment

I am suddenly struck by the peculiarity of two Latter-day Saints calling out a devout Catholic for suspected or perceived disloyalty towards the Pope, or the RCC itself!  And the peculiarity continues as both LDS are then evidently relieved that their concern was unwarranted.

 

Darn, this is a form of ecumenicalism that I don't think I've ever heard of before.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...