Cardinal Burke to write a Fraternal Correction?

[Kate Jackson]

In the after dinner chat at the Fatima Conference, one of the participants indicated that Cardinal Burke has written a Fraternal Correction as opposed to a Filial Correction. Why would that be any different to the Filial Correction as signed by the 62 (and counting...)?

[Dawn Marie]

Hmm good question.

[David Kaftal]

I 'spects a filial correction would be equivalent to a son correcting a parent. Signatories to the filial correction letter included priests and even lay people. A fraternal correction seems to me to probably be brotherly, a peer correcting a peer, as a Prince of the Church correcting a brother Prince of the Church.

Just an eddicated guess.

[Kate Jackson]

SO it's a case of a slightly elevated brother bishop (Cardinal) correcting his equal - more St Paul correcting St Peter about the gentiles rather than perhaps the new appointed apostle that replaced Judas Iscariot?

Another thing - Fr George Roth of Friars Immaculate said that he wouldn't sign the Filial Correction because he wasn't a theologian. I wonder if this is a necessity?

http://www.stmarysgosport.org.uk

When I think certain of names who might have the appropriate letters after their names, it does worry me, for example Henri De Lubec, Karl Rhaner, Hans Urs von Balthasar even Hans Kung (who doesn't accept Papal Infallibility) would be considered acceptable as "theologians"

[Bill]

Kate— we have to make a distinction here (I’m referring to your first paragraph). The only way that a Cardinal could be an equal of a Catholic Pope is in only 2 scenarios: an acceptance of the modernist heresies which include collegialism and hence a destruction of the office of the Papacy, or sedevacantism, where neither Francis is Pope (nor even priest, by virtue of his ordination after P VI’s changes) nor Burke, for the same reason, is only a Priest. When you get down to it, would Pope St Pius X consider either 1 a Catholic?

A true Catholic cannot consider any other an equal of God’s Vicar on earth.

[Dawn Marie]

That's what she meant.  She doesn't consider a cardinal equal to a pope.  Your hanging out with sedes has turned your kind personality rather sour. 
Bill said:

Kate— we have to make a distinction here (I’m referring to your first paragraph). The only way that a Cardinal could be an equal of a Catholic Pope is in only 2 scenarios: an acceptance of the modernist heresies which include collegialism and hence a destruction of the office of the Papacy, or sedevacantism, where neither Francis is Pope (nor even priest, by virtue of his ordination after P VI’s changes) nor Burke, for the same reason, is only a Priest. When you get down to it, would Pope St Pius X consider either 1 a Catholic?

A true Catholic cannot consider any other an equal of God’s Vicar on earth.

[Bill]

Dawn, i dont “hang” with sedes. And my kind disposition has not turned sour. It’s just that im coming to realize the importance of words. I wasnt criticising Kate, nor was i implying that Kate considers that anyone is equal to a true Pope. I was hoping to clarify what she was saying.

I’m wondering, though, because of what you wrote above, if you believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a Catholic? If you do believe he is, your opinion is acceptable. But if you believe he is not, and if it is true that he isnt, don’t the Doctors teach he would have lost the office by this?

Let me be very clear— a sedevacantist does not possess the authority to teach his sedevacantism, because only a Catholic Pope has the authority to make that judgment. This is where the sedes err. They are not Pope. Only a future Pope can pass this judgment. Until then, not talking about it is more dangerous to souls than talking about it is.Dawn, these are the people I hang with.

If you accept Francis as Pope but pick and choose what to follow from his, ahem choke, teachings, does much damage to the office of the Papacy.

We live in messy times. Let’s not messy them more by not at least clarifying what each one of us are saying.

I wanted to add to Kate especially— because my teply to you was interpreted by Dawn to be a criticism, please accept my sincere apology— it was in no way meant to be. I was responding to what you wrote, and was seeking to clarify. Please accept my good will, and my apology.

[Dawn Marie]

I absolutely agree with the context of what you wrote, no pope is equal to a cardinal, naturally.   Thank you for clarifying what you meant as to the rest.  Sometimes when we write things they are misinterpreted. 

As for Frank, since the day he was "elected" I have known he is not a valid pope and his heretical "papacy" has only proven that beyond any doubt.  

I believe Benedict remains pope.  This has been my stance from day one and it has not changed at all.  Francis is and remains the "pope" of the Alta Vendita. 

An interesting article on this which certainly gives food for thought. but the fact is if people were following what was happening to Benedict they wouldn't have needed wikileaks to show that Obama, Clinton and Sorros were pushing him out, they were doing it quite openly at the time as they had no fear of repercussion from any source.

Link to article HERE

[Bill]

Thanks for this Dawn— it’s good to be able to hear what the other is saying, without “muddying the waters.” I disagree about Joseph Ratzinger. I need to ask the same question i asked on the EC thread: by which standard can he be considered Catholic? St Pius V’s? X’s? JPII’s?

We dont have the answers. And we won’t until a Catholic is once again Pope. Until then the Head of the Church, in my opinion, reigns in Heaven and remains invisible. It is He one follows safely, in accord with the Teachings of St Pius V and St Pius X. Following any other, such as a Ratzinger will always be a mixture of Truth and error. As if the Mass of St Pius V could be enriched by the protestantism of the gathering foisted by Paul VI. (As written by Benedict in Summorum Pontificum.)

[David Kaftal]

So very possibly the "fraternal" equivalency comes from both of them being nonCatholic...

[David Kaftal]

Oh course what I said was silly. While "Francis" is clearly not Catholic, Burke is a confused Catholic who often seems to be trying to do the right thing.

David Kaftal said:

So very possibly the "fraternal" equivalency comes from both of them being nonCatholic...

[Dawn Marie]

It seems that way with Burke but sometimes I wonder.  That he advises between a heretical priest and the sspx, it's better not to attend the "schismatic" sspx really makes me question this mans sanity.

David Kaftal said:

Oh course what I said was silly. While "Francis" is clearly not Catholic, Burke is a confused Catholic who often seems to be trying to do the right thing.

David Kaftal said:

So very possibly the "fraternal" equivalency comes from both of them being nonCatholic...

[Michael]

I believe Cardinal Burke is playing politics.  He knows that the SSPX has been considered non-schismatic from the beginning.  This position of his helps those that wish to go in with Rome now in a back handed way.  He praises, but then calls them schismatic, in an attempt to get the fence sitters to move in his direction.  Bp. Schneider toured the seminaries and considered everything happening to be Catholic.  This is politics.