Editor’s note: This essay is reprinted from the Radical Fidelity blog on Substack.
Another firm favorite among quasi-traditionalist conservative types, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, has emerged from the synodal shadows to defend his version of Catholicism.
In his latest interview with Diane Montagna of The College of Cardinals Report, he called for the suspension of the Synod on Synodality, a revision of Traditionis Custodes, and even proposed the establishment of a Vatican dicastery dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).
In short: just more campaigning to put Traditional Catholicism in a neat little golden cage and domesticate it within the Conciliar Concentration Camp.
Of course, conservative Catholic media and Trad Inc. types were frothing at the mouth over the interview, caught in the ecstatic grip of a momentary “we are so back” lapse of reason. As usual, they forgot — or chose not — to ask an important question: why should faithful Catholics put their hope in a prelate who has spent decades serving and defending (not to mention benefiting from) the apostate postconciliar disaster that created the “crisis” (read: new religion) in the first place?
From the luxurious confines of being nestled between the teats of the Synodal Sow of Heresy, from which he has been sucking for many years, and without risking anything, Burke presented himself as a defender of doctrinal continuity, lamented the confusion introduced by synodality, and warned against “paradigm shifts.”
What he failed to recognize is that the theological and liturgical revolution did not begin with the Synod on Synodality, but with the Second Vatican Council. One could rightly argue that it even preceded Vatican II. But, of course, defenders of this hybrid demon religion risk being ostracized and marginalized if they dare engage with truth and reality.
Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Cardinal Burke has accepted Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council, acknowledged the legitimacy of the reformed “liturgy” promulgated after the Council, and recognized the authority of the “popes” responsible for the spiritual massacre.
He is therefore merely criticizing abuses and misapplications, not the diabolical principles of the Council’s new religion.
The Dispatch
The current synodal revolution — indeed, religion — did not magically appear out of nowhere, but is the logical fruit of the doctrines of collegiality, ecumenism, religious liberty, and the Modernist Church’s capitulation to the modern world.
The same hierarchy promoting synodality is the hierarchy Burke has faithfully served throughout his priestly and episcopal ministry. If he wishes to be seen as a true son of Mother Church who wants to right these wrongs, he will have to do far more than air a few criticisms from the comfort of his synodal armchair.
The same goes for his criticism of Traditionis Custodes. It does not question the authority of the hierarchy that issued it. Instead, Burke merely hopes that a future pope will reverse the legislation. Unfortunately for him, usurpation begets usurpation.
This approach leaves untouched the underlying fallacious assumption that the postconciliar papacy possesses unrestricted authority to suppress or restore the Church’s immemorial liturgy according to its satanic “pastoral” whims.
Burke’s proposal for a new Vatican dicastery dedicated to the TLM likewise reflects a bureaucratic solution to what is fundamentally an unprecedented theological crisis. If the traditional Roman Rite is truly the Church’s historic liturgy, why should Catholics require a special department, granted by Catholicism-hating heretics, to “preserve” it?
Cardinal Burke has also never repudiated the Novus Ordo Missae for what it is: intrinsically deficient and harmful to souls. Although he frequently celebrates the TLM, he has consistently maintained communion with the postconciliar liturgical system and has functioned for decades as one of its highest-ranking officials.
His resistance is limited because he accepts the framework that made these excesses possible. That is called hypocrisy.
This pattern has been visible throughout his public ministry. He has often issued strong statements defending Catholic moral teaching on marriage, abortion, and sexuality, but he has never rejected Vatican II, the New Mass, or the reforms.
To summarize: once again, this is a textbook example of the quasi-trad/conservative approach — recognizing the symptoms while refusing to treat the disease.
The tragedy is that many well-meaning Catholics continue to place their hopes in conservative churchmen who talk a big game but have no intention of helping to remove the cancer afflicting the Faith.
