Skip to main content

If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him

 Traditionis Custodes • An “Attack” On The Traditional Latin Mass?

The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. - Pope Benedict XVI when still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

"[E]minent canonists and theologians could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it." -  Theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

“The pope has power to build up,” wrote Grosseteste, “but not to pull down. These appointments tend to destruction, not edification, being of man’s device and not according to the words of the Apostles or the will of Christ. By my very love and obedience to the Holy See I must refuse obedience in things altogether opposed to the sanctity of the Apostolic See and contrary to Catholic unity. As a son and a servant I decline to obey, and this refusal must not be taken as rebellion, for it is done in reverence to divine commands.” (This letter is quoted by Matthew Paris and in the Burton Annals. It can be read in full in the Epistles, No. 128.) - The saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64437/64437-h/64437-h.htm]

The Summorum-Pontificum.de writer Michael Charlier is predicting that "Francis Plans Bloodbath: Roman Rite Communities Will Be FORCED Into Novus Ordo" according to Gloria.tv:

Michael Charlier writes on Summorum-Pontificum.de (30 November) that measures will be announced before the end of 2021 to force all Roman Rite communities into the Novus Ordo.

Charlier has published accurate reports and predictions in the past...

... According to Charlier, papal delegates will be sent to these communities. Unlike commissioners, they won't replace existing superiors but will be their superiors. Their mandate is "to reconcile" their communities "with the spirit of the Council".

As a first step, presiding the Eucharist will be ordered to totally replace the celebration of Mass so that these priests can subsequently be integrated into Novus Ordo pastoral work.

The public celebration of Mass, which is still permitted for the time being, will be entrusted only to Novus Ordo priests who are faithful to the failed Council. Roman Rite priests will only be allowed to celebrate Mass internally and in exceptional cases. The administration of the other sacraments will be forbidden.
[https://www.gloria.tv/post/cCnpRKVZbAvb6QHZBBNYhUQu7]

Rorate Caeli presented a translation of the November 30 Charlier article from the German website Motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum that they titled Ex-Ecclesia Dei Communities Facing a Decision (source). It is summed up by the above Gloria.tv's post and concludes apparently saying resistance to this betrayal of Pope Benedict XVI's act of religious freedom for Traditionalist Catholics is "schismatic ":

[T]he unbridled and despotic character of Francis and to the lack of ideas and arguments in post-conciliar theology and liturgy, which up to now has been able to develop a certain persuasive power only in those places where, under modernist and secularist influence, attempts are being made to emancipate oneself from core elements of the traditional teachings of the apostles.

This point of departure opens up extremely unpleasant prospects for short- and medium-term development. It is conceivable that the “papal delegates” will be able to persuade at least parts and probably also majorities of the leadership of some communities to submit to their own twisted understanding of obedience. It is hardly conceivable that all or even the great majority of their members will follow them in this regard; the communities will break up. That might well be in line with the papal strategy. The split will have an even greater effect on the communities of tradition. Ordinary people in the pews are thoroughly fed up with watching their beloved Catholic Church being transformed into a left-green Zeitgeist agency by faithless bishops in the regions and curial officials in Rome who are addicted to modernization mania. The already existing split between the secularist-universalist and the “simply Catholic” camps in the Church will deepen—and that split certainly reaches a good deal further than the adherents of the traditional liturgy. It is quite conceivable that Francis—as he let slip in a rare moment of clarity and truth—will go down in history as “the pope who divided the Church” (source).

The defenders of apostolic tradition should not make this easier for him by now positing ostentatiously schismatic acts on their part. According to Matthew (10:16), the Lord urges the disciples to be “wise as serpents, but guileless as doves.” This [twofold advice] is not easy to reconcile—but that is precisely the task.
[https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/ex-ecclesia-dei-communities-facing.html]

The theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski says that Charlier said to him it will "make a smooth transition to the NO":

The author has clarified his meaning in an email to me. TC alleges all TLM-exclusive clergy to be illoyal to “THE COUNCIL”—thus conveniently equating the Council and the "spirit of the Council" as seen by Bugnini and his followers up to Archbishop Roche. On the other hand, TC also assumes that most diocesan clergy (and in Germany/central Europe this is often the case) are steeped in this spirit and therefore will "celebrate" the TLM in the "right" spirit—e.g., trying to use readings from the modern lectionary and contemporary songs, altar girls, and all the rest, in order to make a smooth transition to the NO. [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/ex-ecclesia-dei-communities-facing.html]

This is not the first time that Francis has betrayed Catholics. In 2018, the Catholic Monitor wrote of the Francis betrayal of the Chinese Catholics and called on them to resist and disobeyed in good conscience as shown by the saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste in 1253:

On November 2, Vatican expert Marco Tosatti reported that Cardinal Joseph Zen said:



"[T]he 'Interim Agreement' signed last September between the Holy See and the Chinese government allow a meeting between the two Churches... It does not make sense... It is a secret agreement of which only three elements are known for the time being. Everything is controlled by Parolin [Secretary of State, ed.], The Pope does not understand anything. Parolin does not tell the whole truth to Pope Francis! Parolin knows the reality of the situation of Chinese Catholics, but does not tell the whole truth to the Pope. He has no faith!... He wants a diplomatic agreement with China." [https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/11/02/zen-il-papa-crede-di-poter-unire-la-chiesa-in-cina-ma-e-ingenuo-non-avra-lultima-parola-con-i-comunisti/&xid=17259,15700019,15700122,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700214,15700230&usg=ALkJrhgVetExMjuR3v2_4HE5V5x5y6AGSQ]

Communist expert Robert Royal on EWTN's World Over has said that the Chinese government is a totalitarian regime that doesn't respect truth, religious rights and most of all human life.

It is evil and totally godless.

Human life for them is cheap. People are killed and tortured at the whim of the regime.

Do Parolin and Francis believe that the underground Chinese Catholics are worthless things that they can cause suffering for to play at the so-called game of "diplomacy"?

If the Pope is actively collaborating with Parolin, with full understanding, in the totalitarian Chinese Communist deal, then he "has no faith" as Cardinal Zen said of Parolin. Francis said of the China deal:


"I think of the resistance, the Catholics who have suffered. It's true. And they will suffer..."

"... I signed the [China deal] agreement," Pope Francis stated. "I am responsible."
(Catholic Herald, "Pope Francis takes responsibility for China Deal," September 26,2018)

The betrayal of the Chinese Church can thus be called the Francis/Parolin deal.

The Francis/Parolin deal is a abuse of papal power which can be disobeyed in good conscience as shown by the saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste.

In 1253, Bishop Grosseteste disobeyed Pope lnnocent IV who ordered that a benefice within his jurisdiction be given to the papal nephew. Benefices were a form of financial exploitation given to prelates who didn't reside in the diocese and never saw their flock so souls were lost for lack of true shepherding or pastoral care.

Grosseteste said that benefices have only one end: "the salvation of souls." Exploitative use of benefices was a abuse of papal power so he disobeyed Pope Innocent IV.

Innocent reportedly raged in anger, but his advisors told him to back down because all of Christendom knew Bishop Grosseteste was "one of the most learned men" of the age and a saintly bishop.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Grosseteste:

"Bishop of Lincoln and one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages... That he opposed... abuses of the papal administration is certain, but a study of his letters and writings... destroy the myth that he disputed the plena potestas of the popes."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, new advent.org, "Robert Grosseteste")

If a pope could be disobeyed by "one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages" for the lost of souls due to benefices then there is no doubt that the Francis/Parolin betrayal of the Chinese Church to the totalitarian Communist regime which will result in the loss souls must be disobeyed.

Moreover, the Arian heretics were saying the same thing about Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius when he as some historians say was excommunicated by the pope of the time. That he was in schism.

The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope's approval.

Cardinal John Henry Newman showed that a bishop can resist popes and other bishops.

Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops under the pope of the time.

In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in "The Antiquities of the Christian Church" said:

"Athanasius... made no scruples to ordain... [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata... ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia."
 

Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:

"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)

Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?

Also, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar's Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Doctors of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option on explicit heretical popes:

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

Bishop Rene Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave. [http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html]

Finally, the theologian Dr. Kwasniewski stated "eminent canonists and theologians could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it":

[E]minent canonists and theologians could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it.


Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388–1468) states that if a pope fails to observe “the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship” and “divides himself with pertinacity from the observance of the universal church,”  he is “able to fall into schism” and is neither to be obeyed nor “put up with” (non est sustinendus).[14] The well-known commentator on St. Thomas, Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), counsels: “You must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart—for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money, or in exchange for services… A case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.”[15] Cajetan is talking about simony, the buying or selling of ecclesiastical offices, which was obviously a massive problem in centuries past; but it is far from being the worst sin or the greatest problem. Objectively speaking, the imposition of harmful discipline such as the promulgation of a valid but inadequate and inauthentic liturgy, or an assault on the integrity of doctrine, is certainly worse than simony. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) declares: “If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.”[16] Suárez moreover claims that the pope could be schismatic “if he wanted to overturn all the ecclesiastical ceremonies resting on apostolic tradition.”[17] (Note he says “resting on,” apostolica traditione firmatas: he’s talking about the whole structure that has been raised upon apostolic origins. That would mean something like the 1570 Missale Romanum.) The Dominican Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a leading figure in the initial response to Martin Luther, explains that if the pope is destroying the Church by evil actions,

he would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.… He does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.[18]

Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) likewise says: “If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.” St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) concurs:

As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior.[19]
[...]
 
To see that the position I am defending here is not extravagant, we should consider a famous proponent of it in recent times: none other than Joseph Ratzinger. In The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000), Ratzinger writes:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

Benedict XVI takes up the same theme in 2005, in his first papal homily at St. John Lateran:

The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the Faith. The pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism. … The pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church’s pilgrimage. Thus, his power is not being above the Word of God, but at the service of it. It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.[22] [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html]
 
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


Comments

Aqua said…
A police officer has immense power when he clearly, forcefully, responsibly represents the Law. He has no inherent power in his uniform and weapons beyond that conferred by society and its *duly enacted, just* laws. Commit a crime, and it’s not just Officer Smith who is apprehending you, it is Officer Smith, the entire law apparatus and society with him.

That same police officer has zero authority to pull you over and tell you to choose a different color fir your car next time; he can’t arrest you for wearing striped pants; eating a cheeseburger with jelly instead of ketchup. He can’t tell you that your socks don’t match properly. His opinions on things are not relevant to his power. He is a servant to something that transcends his person. Police inspire respect to the extent they embody Law and society with it. That is why he wears a uniform. Step into the uniform, out on the badge and it’s not merely Steve Smith but Officer Smith. Steve Smith is fun to have BBQ with and share a beer. Officer Smith is not that guy.

Just so with the Pope and Bishops in union with him. His power is immense beyond anyone else on earth *to the extent* he is unified with Christ his Lord, the Church and its laws (Deposit of Faith). Stay within that lane and Kings bow before him. Exit that lane and try to rule as Jorge (etc) the merciful and cool, and create reality as it seems right however it strikes his fancy … he’s just another dude.

The Pope must act within the constraints of his authority. Within that constraint, his power is immeasurable. And all Popes worthy of the name will ALWAYS supply footnotes that connect current acts to his source of authority which is the Sacred Magisterium. Vatican II is NOT the Magisterium - parts of it are, but the Magisterium is far, far above VII which must be the oxygen from which a Pope lives and breathes. Leave the lane, and I will not leave with you. The lane of Magisterial Catholic Faith is that which lends power to Popes and salvation to the Faithful.

Aqua said…
BTW - what I say here is precisely why I don’t accept Jorge Bergoglio as Pope; why the abdication of Ministerium alone and retirement to the subsequent title of Pope Emeritus is COMPLETELY unacceptable. It is not sourced in the Sacred Magisterium and is explicitly contrary to governing Canon Law.

It is lawless.
It is unprecedented.
It is revolutionary.
Therefor it is invalid. It is as simple as that.

Footnotes and clear explanations of current acts to source authority is mandatory of our rulers - most especially the Pope above all else.
Debbie said…
Please God let the SSPX publicly declare Bergoglio an antipope, announce their loyalty to the true pope, Pope Benedict XVI and Rome. Let all priests who adhere to Tradition join them (the humility required to join them, most especially for the FSSP, would be a good thing). Consecrate more bishops and then with the help of Jesus and Mary Consecrate Russia.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk