5 thoughts on “Cardinal Sarah accepts new position in Bergoglian Anti-Papacy”

1. Not-So-Obvious-Establishment anti-church asset, perhaps? What with all the hub-bub on the book co-written with Pope Benedict. Or is Cdl Sarah an infiltrator and double agent?

   Since he has yet to call for an official investigation into Feb 11, 2013, I’m leaning toward Not-So-Obvious-Establish anti-church asset. He says some good things but his actions, or rather inactions, not so much.

2. Cardinal Sarah has always been a company man. Having been formed, ordained & consecrated in the VII Ape Church to expect him now to voice any worthwhile concern is anathema to him. At least Cardinal Burke has, to some extent, by signing & issuing the Dubia queried, but not emphatically enough, the rise of Jorge Bergoglio to the PO.

   1. Ana, on October 29, 2019 my husband and I hand delivered Br. Bugnolo’s Quaestio and other munus/ministerium Canon Law-type discussions and documents to Cdl Burke when he was giving a conference in Denver, Colorado. Along with the documents we also included our request that he call for an official examination of the evidence. To be precise, I did not put the envelope into the cardinal’s hand. He directed me to give it to one of his attendants which I did.

      Tellingly, a little more than one week later, an interview with Cdl Burke was published in the New York Times wherein he made absurd, blow-your-mind comments that can be found on Barnhardt.biz and which I’ve copy and pasted below:

      Burke: While the final document is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic faith.

      The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.

      Douthat: But how can that be possible? You’re effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism.

      Burke: Yes.

      Douthat: Isn’t that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?

      Burke: Of course. Exactly. It’s a total contradiction. And 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 can see, there’s no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation.

      Here is one of Miss Barnhardt’s comments on Cdl Burke’s statements which can only be seen as even more disturbing especially in light of the fact that our request had been given to him directly, in person:

      “This is a crystal clear example of the very serious mathematical/philosophical concept of ‘Reductio ad absurdum’”…

      So my conclusion is that, Dubia aside, Cdl Burke is also one of the “company men”, one of the Not-So-Obvious-Establishment, who cannot be counted on to do any more than what he has done. It is the laity who must “roar” on behalf of our Holy Father.

3. The fact that the imperfect council Cardinal Burke promised Catholics he would call if the Dubia wasn’t answered didn’t happen, tells us he was personally threatened, perhaps along with the 2 signers of the Dubia who died unexpectedly. Instead of having the grace to go public about the Mafia treatment used against them he joined the rest of the silent Cardinals & lost our trust. Cardinal Mueller at the time stated it would cause a ‘schism’ (that magic word of escape) if Francis the Destroyer responded to the Dubia although, in reality, it had already occurred at VII & is still in progress within the Church in Germany. These are the times Our Lady of Good Success spoke of when She implored that the people of this time should “clamor insistently” to the Heavenly Father for an end to ‘these ominous times’ sending to the Church a prelate and father who would restore the spirit to the priests…I am convinced that by stressing a prelate & not a Pope Our Lady is indicating the end of the Papacy as we have known it up until now. The bifurcation brought about by PBXVI’s invalid resignation & the consequent invalidly procured election of Antipope Francis watched by our complicit, docile & effeminate prelature has seen to that.

   1. “…the end of the Papacy as we have known it…” Hmmm… perhaps more precisely one would say, “the end of the Papacy as Jesus divinely instituted it.” As you know that’s been the plan.

      I agree with you that “by stressing a prelate & not a Pope” Our Lady is directing our focus to the papacy and not to any single pope. However we’ve known it up to now, that papacy as Jesus established it is massively threatened.

      All the infighting, hand-wringing, silence, and inaction only serve to increase the doubt and the attacks by the faithful on each other and the papacy. Since 2018 when Msgr Bux called for an official examination of the evidence, the “heroic” words from Vigano, Burke, Sarah, Mueller, Schneider, Zen, etc… coupled with their inaction regarding an official examination only serve to foment and increase those same attacks on the papacy.

      To borrow a slogan from the “white-allies” of BLM, their ‘silence IS violence’.

      What is the laity’s concerted plan that allows us to “roar” both in and outside of com-boxes? Of course prayer, but what else?

Comments are closed.