Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Cardinal Burke: Holy Father will need to offer clarification


David Gibson, "Cardinal Burke insists he is serving Francis, not opposing him" (RNS, August 22, 2016):
“We can’t understand this document to be magisterium in the way other documents have been because Pope Francis simply has a different approach to the papacy,” the cardinal said. “In his documents he mixes his own thoughts and approaches, which are personal, with questions of doctrine.”

Burke says he knows some disagree with him, but he said that he and “many serious-minded people” in the church hierarchy are calling for Francis to issue a follow-up document.

“I trust that something will have to happen also because some very formal calls for clarification are in process and they simply will demand a response,” Burke said, “not in any kind of hostile or aggressive way, but simply for the sake of souls because people are getting confused.”
Read more >>


1 comments:








Catholic Mission

said...

Who issues clarifications?
Canon Law could apply to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf in Norcia : promotes a falsehood

Canon Law should apply to those who interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so are theologically and doctrinally a break with Tradition,Scripture and the past Magisterium I mentioned in a previous blog post.1
In another blog post I wrote that presently there is a doctrinal ambiguity with the use of a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ?
Catholics are being forced to proclaim
a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.2

I had mentioned that Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. He assumes hypothetical references are actual, known persons in the present times.

I wrote in response to the debate on Islam mentioned on the blog of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf.What I wrote about Msgr. Swetland could equally be applied to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16 would refer to a person saved in invincible ignorance in 2016, or in the past,without the baptism of water.Msgr. Stuart Swetland would then conclude that this person is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Fr.Zuhlsdorf does the same.

They both have changed and so rejected Feeneyite EENS and they have have changed and rejected the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite).The Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is changed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins they are the baptism of water, desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc.' Most of them are without the baptism of water.This is a new doctrine based on a falsehood. The false hood is that there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc.The falsehood is that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in the present times.

They have rejected Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and offer Holy Mass with this first class heresy.

Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland and popes and ecclesiastics in first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

When Msgr. Stuart Swetland changes the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma EENS,it is automatic excommunication.On many blog posts I have mentioned that Fr.Zuhlsdorf is teaching heresy.

They both are unable to proclaim the Catholic Faith. They are not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They cannot say that that all Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell with no known exceptions ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II AG 7, LG 14, Dominus Iesus 20 etc, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257 etc).Non Catholics do not have 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) and did not convert into the Catholic Church.

According to Canon Law Fr.John Zuhlsdorf needs to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
It's a false inference.There is no explicit for us baptism of desire.This is a lie. For Fr.Z to consider the baptism of desire an exception to EENS ( Feeneyite) would infer that it is explicit and seen in the flesh to be an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology.
I
affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.I accept Vatican Council II but without the inference.

continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/canon-law-should-apply-to-frjohn.html