Might Great Schism Cardinal's Lying to St. Vincent shed light on why Cdl. Burke appears to be running away from a Canon law Expert & apparently is Lying?
Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo gives a brief summary of why Saint Vincent Ferrer was wrong on who was the real pope during the Great Western Schism. It appears that this history may shed light on our present crisis on why Cardinal Raymond Burke appears to be running away from Br. Bugnolo and apparently is lying:
"Despite all the graces and gifts which Saint Vincent had, and despite the great wisdom and learning he possessed from years of studying — for example he memorized the entire Latin version of the Bible and spoke 5 languages: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and Langue d’óc — CHRIST WITHHELD from the Saint graces to see who was and who was not the true pope. Our Lord did this, in my opinion, to give us as lesson for our own time."
"The Saint was a close friend to Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was a supporter of the Antipope. The Schism began in 1378, when the previous pope, having been persuaded by Saint Catherine of Sienna to return to Rome, died. And the new Pope Urban VI was elected at Rome. The French Cardinals did not accept the election and immediately elected Clement VII. Cardinal Pedro knew his election was uncanonical, but concealed the facts from Saint Vincent for 38 years! In 1394, Cardinal Pedro was elected to succeed the antipope, and took the name Benedict XIII."
"Saint Vincent was so deceived by Cardinal Pedro that he preached to convince the people of the Kingdom of Aragon to give allegiance to the Antipope of Avignon and to break from Rome! So troublesome was this schism to the soul of Saint Vincent that he said to others that it frequently made him ill."
"The Great Western Schism had begun on a dispute where the wrong side was making claims on the basis of their allegations of being forced to vote. This kind of claim was really impossible to prove, it rested solely on the testimony of the alleged victims. No one disputed that the antipope was elected second. No one disputed the laws which govern the election."
"But though he was a convinced supporter of the antipope of Avignon, Saint Vincent, nevertheless, loved the Church more than his personal friend, the Cardinal, and thus he urged Councils to end the Schism. And here is where his virtue is a lesson for us."
"Because in Council of Perpignan, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in January 6, 1416, when the evidence was presented to Saint Vincent by the King of Aragon that Benedict XIII’s claim was not well founded, Benedict’s supporters could give no response and defend his claim against the charges. Saint Vincent had come to the Council a supporter of Benedict. He even preached in his defense. But when no evidence could be brought to defend the claim of the man whom he thought was the pope, St. Vincent immediately switched allegiance, for he recognized, being a master of Logic — a text book on which he had written — that when one side refuses to answer or has no argument, it means that they have no valid claim at all for their position."
"... Saint Vincent for all his supernatural gifts, erred for many years, because he put his trust in his favorite Cardinal, who was lying to him. And he never bothered to examine the case calmly according to the principles of the law. — He was not a canon lawyer, and so that failing is understandable in a man who was so humble as to never think evil of others. But it nevertheless was such a grave error in law, that God Himself did not give him the grace to see it by supernatural means. The truth came to him by the testimony of fellow men."
"In November, I asked Cardinal Burke through Canon Lenhart for an audience to discuss the Renunciation. In December, I returned and asked again and was promised one in January. January has come and is now ended. Still no audience or response to my Scholastic Question, containing 39 arguments which conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope."
Is it possible that Cardinal Burke might be running away from the canon law expert's arguments on the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation?
Moreover, on Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales's teachings on deposing a heretical pope is he lying as that cardinal lied to St. Vincent?
Moreover, on Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales's teachings on deposing a heretical pope is he lying as that cardinal lied to St. Vincent?
If he is lying, why might he be lying?
Who and/or what has made Cardinal Burke like cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog with a rope leash and a "Rope Limit."
[See:http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/why-are-cdl-burke-faithful-catholic.html]
Here is the evidence:
Here is the evidence:
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of the word "lying" as a noun is "the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness," whereas as a adjective it means "telling or containing lies, deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false."
It appears that Cardinal Burke may be lying in the sense of "telling... false statements." Only Burke can tells us if he is "deliberately [being] untruthful."
Cardinal Burke in his recent interview with the New York Times the newspaper asked him to explain his implications of Francis possibly backing heresy in the Amazon Synod working document, stating:
"You're effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism?"
Burke responded: "Yes."
The Times then asked: "Isn't that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?"
Burke replied:
"Of course. Exactly. It's a total contradiction. I pray that this wouldn't happen. And to be honest with you, I don't know how to address such a situation. As far as I see, there's no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation."
(New York Times, "Cardinal Burke: I'm called the Enemy of the Pope, which I am Not," November 9, 2019)
As far as I can see, Cardinal Burke in that paragraph made a "false statement" because in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World Report website in responding to questions he apparently said exactly the opposite:
"CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or hersey?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's automatic. And so, that could happen... '"
"... CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'"
(Catholic World Report, "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," December 19, 2016)
Sadly, it is almost impossible to believe that Burke could say "there's no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation."
As the Catholic World Report interview shows, he knows the teachings of the Doctors of the Church and some of the greatest theologians of the Church summed up by Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:
"The Pope.. when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
If Cardinal Burke or anyone else can show me that I am wrong in the above piece I will be happy to delete this post and apologize. But, I cannot honestly see where I am wrong.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
It appears that Cardinal Burke may be lying in the sense of "telling... false statements." Only Burke can tells us if he is "deliberately [being] untruthful."
Cardinal Burke in his recent interview with the New York Times the newspaper asked him to explain his implications of Francis possibly backing heresy in the Amazon Synod working document, stating:
"You're effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism?"
Burke responded: "Yes."
The Times then asked: "Isn't that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?"
Burke replied:
"Of course. Exactly. It's a total contradiction. I pray that this wouldn't happen. And to be honest with you, I don't know how to address such a situation. As far as I see, there's no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation."
(New York Times, "Cardinal Burke: I'm called the Enemy of the Pope, which I am Not," November 9, 2019)
As far as I can see, Cardinal Burke in that paragraph made a "false statement" because in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World Report website in responding to questions he apparently said exactly the opposite:
"CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or hersey?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It's automatic. And so, that could happen... '"
"... CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?"
"Cardinal Burke: 'It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'"
(Catholic World Report, "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," December 19, 2016)
Sadly, it is almost impossible to believe that Burke could say "there's no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation."
As the Catholic World Report interview shows, he knows the teachings of the Doctors of the Church and some of the greatest theologians of the Church summed up by Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:
"The Pope.. when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
If Cardinal Burke or anyone else can show me that I am wrong in the above piece I will be happy to delete this post and apologize. But, I cannot honestly see where I am wrong.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments
As with Abbe de Nantes who accused P.Paul VI and P. John Paul II of heresy and did not receive a reply, so it was with St. Vincent. Interestingly, if, as Fr. Villa suggests, P. Francis is not pope and Benedict, emeritus, is pope, P. Francis can be examined and judged heretical (or not) by any competent Church authority. Else, as demonstrated by Abbe de Nantes, the only one who can judge P. Francis is...P. Francis.
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales vs. the non-Doctor of the Church, non-saint and even within traditionalist circles considered a bit controversial by some Abbe de Nantes.
Easy choice.
While that may be so, the decision might also be framed as: choose 38 years delay as a result of human respect or respond to the heresies as they develop and appear: St. Vincent, the former (human respect and trust in Cardinal Pedro, a flaw adamantly decried by St. John Bosco) or Abbe de Nantes, the latter(considered, as indicated, controversial).
Nearly 60 years on from the Second Vatican Council, how much more must be lost because of those whose primary duty does not clearly seem to be the salvation of souls?
The choice, in charity, is to deny human respect: deny the so-called Cult of Man.
If you believe someone is a heretic, you can ask him in private or write a letter. But when he does not respond, you must follow Jesus' rule and approach him with others as witnesses and if he still wont reply, you denounce him to Church authorities. Did the Abbe do that? or was his letter a publicity stunt?
With great esteem for your thought and work, I thank you for your reply.
From what I can glean, Abbe de Nantes was at first inclined to hope in P.Paul VI, particularly upon hearing his discourse on the Virgin Mary and Corpus Christi May 1964. That all evaporated with the publication of Ecclesiam Suam in August that year.
What, then, did Jesus say to do in the event that the person, believed to be a heretic, is not only "a" Church authority, but is "the" Church authority? Apostolic tradition suggests one such solution in Galatians 2 and this action is echoed by The Remnant, the Dubia Cardinals et cetera. Perhaps Abbe de Nantes has simply provided philosophical and theological justification for requiring the Successor of Peter to judge himself, that he might not be in error?
Nevertheless, this poses an even graver quandary, particularly today: suppose the current Bishop of Rome is accused of heresy and, following Abbe de Nantes, he invokes papal infallibility to render judgement(of which he may or may not possess...A. Barnhardt et al.):
a) He is pope and any heresy is pronounced and/or renounced
b) He is not pope, further cementing the Conciliar experiment
Eschatologically speaking, while there are precursors to the anti-Christ, there also exist precursors to the Second Coming of Christ, of which, I believe, are to be seen Henoch-type and Elijah-type men. Like Father Luigi Villa. Like Abbe de Nantes. And, yes, like you Brother Alexis.
So, no, I don't think his letters, books and other publications were a publicity stunt.