Today, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, is the 39th Anniversary of Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s Priestly Ordination. And exactly on that same day, a piece of news comes to us according to which Cardinal Müller is now under increasing pressure for having recently given an interview to the Italian journal Il Timone; in that interview, the German cardinal had made it clear that “For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace.” He also repeated the Catholic Church’s teaching according to which the “remarried” divorcees may not have access to the Sacraments unless they live “as brother and sister,” according to the 1981 papal document, Familaris Consortio, 84. With this interview, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given an indirect answer to the Four Cardinals’ dubia which have been presented to Pope Francis in November of 2016.
This very interview has now provoked harsh criticism in Italy. It nearly seems as if his dismissal is being prepared by rebuking him for his disloyalty toward Pope Francis. In the following, we publish a translation of a Nuova Bussola Quotidiana article published today by the same man who conducted the Il Timone interview, Riccardo Cascioli. Mr. Andrew Guernsey was so kind and generous once more to provide a translation of this new article. Furthermore, Guernsey added some excerpts from a 10 February article written by the Vatican expert and close confidant of the pope, Andrea Tornielli. Tornielli’s articles are often regarded as expressing the voice of the pope. Thus his indirect criticism of Cardinal Müller might also be of greater-than-average significance. (It is Tornielli whom Cascioli refers to as “The Vatican Sniper,” for reasons explained here.)
Before going to the translations, I would add one thought. If Pope Francis were to decide to put Cardinal Müller — whose current five-year term is ending, and who would need to be re-appointed next July — out of his office, he might well offend Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, who had called Müller to that very office. Secondly, he might not realize that Müller henceforth — after his dismissal and with all of his usual respect toward Pope Francis — might become a mightier and more influential critic of his papacy than the constraints of his current office seem to allow. I have observed several Catholic conservative journalists who have wished for quite some time that Cardinal Müller would be freed from his duties so that he may be stronger in his public defense of the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage.
As we say, God’s Will be done. And everything will work unto His Glory for those who love Him and obey Him.
And They Continued to Call Him the Vatican Sniper
Riccardo Cascioli
2/11/2017
Translated by Andrew Guernsey
It took a few days to sort things out after the interview published in the monthly magazine “Il Timone”. But now the decision has been made, the word of command has been given: to eliminate Cardinal Müller. His words in defense of the doctrine – he who is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – evidently have given much annoyance, and were judged not in line with the intentions of the Pope. In the interview, Müller points out that Amoris Laetitia cannot be interpreted in discontinuity with the previous Magisterium, according to which there is no communion for the divorced and remarried, and that it must be remembered in the ecumenical process that Luther has corroded the content of Revelation.
Two challenges were issued both to the bishops and to Pope Francis, which certainly enraged them: and the super-sniper, the Vatican Sniper, came into action. Yesterday [he published] a long article retracing, in the last 50 years, the history of disagreements between Popes and their closest collaborators, the Secretary of State or the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We find, therefore, that differences about some decisions have always been there but were resolved in private, also with the willingness of the collaborators to resign if the Pope did not listen to reason. Today, however, the Vatican Sniper complains, these cardinals speak through newspapers. The invitation is clear: Cardinal Müller should resign. Some will object: nowhere in the article is Cardinal Müller named. This is true, but this is classic clerical style: when someone ought to be eliminated he is not challenged directly, he is made to feel a hostile atmosphere that grows around him, allusions are made, are insinuated, oblique messages are sent. Moreover, by doing so one is made to understand that it is not a personal problem, the same fate can fall upon anyone else who stands in the same way. Today it is Müller’s turn, but the message must also get to other well-known names.
But meanwhile, since the signal has been given, the crossfire has already begun: Alberto Melloni of La Repubblica had already said, ahead of time a few days ago, that for only half of what Cardinal Müller has done and said, Pius XII would have taken away the cardinal’s hat. On Panorama.it, in an article by Orazio La Rocca dedicated to the booklet put out by Cardinal Coccopalmerio, which justifies communion for divorced and remarried, a little thought for Müller is not lacking: To make the dubia public is “a gesture of blatant disrespect towards the Pope,” and it is equally disrespectful to make use of interviews: “As, for example, the German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has done in recent days, who in a newspaper has openly criticized the admission to the sacraments of the cohabitating and the divorced and remarried because, he warned, “you do not touch” Doctrine. Curious: to defend doctrine today has become a point of accusation.
And who knows what will await us in the coming days. Surely the tones are becoming ever more violent, and Cardinal Raymond L. Burke can testify to it: after being deprived of authority as the spiritual leader of the Knights of Malta, after having suffered repeated attacks from the usual Guardians of the Revolution, yesterday, February 10, he was the target of a most violent article in the Washington Post, which demands – with a certain conceit and arrogance, it must be said – that the Pope throw him out of Rome, where he could obstruct the path of reform that Francis is carrying out with success. The author of the article, Emma-Kate Symons, is notoriously far off from Catholic views – it is indeed curious that those who care so much about the path of reform of the Church are those who hate it – but she seems to be terrified by a possible alliance between Burke and the Trump administration that (it is not clear how) could facilitate the rise of fascism in Europe.
This is a madness typical of the 1970s, but the violence of the words (even in Italy) prompts us not to underestimate the phenomenon.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
The Dossier and Undermining the Pope in the Press, All Have Been Seen Before
Continuity and discontinuity: corrosive articles and the maneuvers of prelates, the precedent of 1962. But today the curial style has changed
Andrea Tornielli
2/10/2017
Translated by Andrew Guernsey
[Bolding used by Tornielli]
The drama and aggravation of tone that accompany certain media polemics on the current pontificate can make one think that we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation. It is not so: the posters in the streets of Rome in the faux popular Roman style (received by the Pope with a laugh), as well as newspaper articles that, well beyond legitimate criticism, attempt to undermine anything in the Successor of Peter says or does, are part of a “tradition” that sees in the media a pawn of the internal power struggles of the Curia and the Church. The recent history of the Holy See, together with the constant repetition of a few, however, also highlights the discontinuities: one of these concerns certainly the style and attitude of those who work most closely with the Pope, on the part of curial cardinals. The most authoritative and influential “ministers of the Pope” until the other day were, in fact, accustomed to talk face to face with their superior, not to distance themselves from him publicly.
[…]
One of the major novelties of the present season, however, is represented by the repeated public statements of cardinals “ministers” of the Pope and his collaborators in the Roman Curia. Critical statements, even in the press, on the part of bishops and cardinals with respect to some papal decisions are not unheard of: it would be enough here to recall certain statements following the publication of Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae.” But in that case it had been the cardinal or resident bishops (or, as happened a few years earlier in the case of a booklet strongly opposed to the liturgical reform, by curial cardinals emeritus, no longer in office) [the Ottaviani Intervention]. An example of the style of the past is represented by Joseph Ratzinger. It is no secret, for example, that the ideas of the then-Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did not always coincide with those of the Pope, John Paul II. […] There was some difference of opinion, for example, on the occasion of the first interreligious meeting in Assisi. These differences of opinion, however, were presented and discussed in the context of the personal relationship between the cardinal and the Pope, in audiences at table or meetings requested ad hoc. Contrary to what happens today with the practice become commonplace, one would search in vain, when Ratzinger was Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, to find some public statement of his that seemed to distance himself from Pope John Paul II.
[…] Examples of the old curial style. the closest and most authoritative collaborators of the Pope, at the helm of the most important dicasteries, expressed their positions in face to face meetings with their superior – willing, in some rare cases, even to give up their posts in order to defend them – without any of this to be found at all reflected in public statements, as instead is the case today.
There ya go. This is the interview where Mueller straddled the fence and said that irregularities over the implementation of AL were all the fault of bishops who were misinterpreting the rigorously orthodox Francis. So what happens? He still cops it in the neck!
Memo to Mueller; they’re never going to love us, OK? Quit trying to hit from both sides of the batter’s box and just do the right thing!! Say what needs to be said! You know the saying…..“better to be hung for a sheep than a lamb”.
You really pack a punch, kiwi! ?
They never would have gotten to be Cardinals without (1) essentially going along with the Revolution since day one of their ordination and (2) ducking and weaving to cover both sides of their face.
Red hats didn’t arrive by accident; they arrived because they went along to get along.
C’mon people, WAKE UP!
Wrong. There are faithful Cardinal’s who have been faithful all along, Müller has said some questionable things in the past (this is fact) however, that does not mean that every Cardinal is a traitor of Our Lord (and it doesn’t mean the Müller is one either, the last act of a Man proves His Worth.)
I never should have been ordained a Priest (given the times we live in) because I never backed away from a Theological Fight in Seminary, even with the Rector and the rest of the Faculty. God gave me courage and I always publically spoke the truth of the Catholic Faith, especially when a faculty member contradicted it. I was even labeled ‘Rigid’, which is the kiss of death to all seminarians, by some of the Faculty and yet God protected my Vocation through it all. My own Diocese was leaning against ordaining me to the Diaconate and my Rector and Spiritual Director intervened on my behalf (which is almost unheard of) and I was Ordained to the Deaconate and then to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
God will not be outdone by Heretics. There are more than a few men who have bravely put everything on the line, out of Love of the Lord, and the Lord vouchsafed their Ordination, Episcopal Consecration and even elevation to the Rank of Cardinal.
Do not vilify every Cardinal because several of them are traitors of our Lord! This is like Condemning the Apostles (and our Lord) because of Judas.
Father, I am glad you made it. I did not. I conducted myself in the same way as you. My rector came to my defense, but would not override the formation teams’ recommendation for my dismissal a mere six months before ordination to transitional deacon. At any rate, God led me to a wonderful Catholic woman whom I married- thirteen years strong now. And, God blessed us with a son. I am glad you made it to ordination. Thousands of us did not. In fact, I went to one of the seminaries that Michael S. Rose mentioned in his book “Goodbye, Good Men.” And, I had many of the same seminary faculty members he mentioned in his book. I, like you, received the death nail label of “rigid.”
You should wear that label as a badge of honour!
Al, you know well that God writes straight with the crooked line’s of men. He seasoned you to be a Good Husband and Father through what you endured in an evil place that posed as a seminary. God, and all of the truly faithful, are grateful to your witness. Where did you attend?
1988-89 at Mount St. Mary’s of the West (1st year theology, otherwise known as the Athenaeum of Ohio), and 1989-91 at Kenrick Seminary in St. Louis. The “Mount” was much worse than Kenrick. However, part of my demise was that I befriended one of my bishop’s sexual abuse victims in St. Louis. The guilt factor hit my friend who then told the bishop (the now deceased Anthony J. O’Connell). It gets pretty sick after that. The defining event occurred during January of ’91 when O’Connell visited me in my room at the seminary. He confronted me as to what I knew. I denied knowing anything. After that, it was all downhill from there. He spent the next fifteen years blackballing me as I applied to over fifty dioceses. You get the picture. I never let him “groom” me. I refused to play along. In the end, I did forgive him (after he was exposed in March of 2002 by one of my classmates- Father Chris Dixon- who resigned the priesthood and is now married). Enough of that for now. Sorry for so much information. I think you have the picture. I am extremely familiar with the inner workings of the “Lavender Mafia” as we called it.
Amazing Fr.! Miracles happen every day. I’ve also heard story after story of Priests upon going through the seminary in the 70’s and 80’s had to kind of ‘bob and weave’ to get through. Once through they had to reteach themselves the true faith as they got precious little in the seminary. Don’t know if that was the right approach, but obviously they thought it was.
Gold is tried by fire.
That’s Ecclesiasticus 2: 1-10:
Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation. [2] Humble thy heart, and endure: incline thy ear, and receive the words of understanding: and make not haste in the time of clouds. [3] Wait on God with patience: join thyself to God, and endure, that thy life may be increased in the latter end. [4] Take all that shall be brought upon thee: and in thy sorrow endure, and in thy humiliation keep patience. [5] For gold and silver are tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.
[6] Believe God, and he will recover thee: and direct thy way, and trust in him. Keep his fear, and grow old therein. [7] Ye that fear the Lord, wait for his mercy: and go not aside from him, lest ye fall. [8] Ye that fear the Lord, believe him: and your reward shall not be made void. [9] Ye that fear the Lord, hope in him: and mercy shall come to you for your delight. [10] Ye that fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened.
Yes, I rejected that position prior to entering seminary. Good faithful laity counseled me to keep my head down and my mouth shut. I reasoned that if I do that while training to be a priest then that is most probably what I will do as a priest, therefore better to be dead or kicked out than to be that kind of priest.
I was in the seminary in the 90’s, and at one of the ‘better’ ones but…I still needed to correct professors more than once (ok, several times and in one particular class at almost every class period) publically during class. One of my friends told a visiting friend of ours (from a different seminary) that things were great at the sem we were at because, “RP is on a first insult base with everyone, including the Professors!”
God gave me the grace to not hide who I am because who I am is what I Believe (in One God…) and He saw me through the tough times. Blessed Be HE Forever and Ever, Amen.
I’ve heard stories that, during those same decades, there was a priest at a faithful parish in my diocese who would hold De-programming sessions for seminarians on Saturdays (I think it was saturdays?) where this priest would inform all the men what was wrong they learned that week and told them what the Church really taught! And, from what I hear, this wasn’t discovered until well after the then bishop was “emeritized”. And the priest was never ostracized!
Wow! Where there’s a will, God will help you FIND THE WAY!
My seminary experience EXACTLY.
What is the date of your ordination, Father?
I was ordained on June 5th, the Feast of Saint Boniface (aka chopper down of the unholy Thor Tree) my kind of Bishop!
Mnohaya i blahaya Lita!
Many and blessed years!
Ad multos annos!
This is from your ordination anniversary last year (2016):
http://lit.royaldoors.net/2016/05/29/june-5-2016-third-sunday-after-pentecost-octoechos-tone-2-holy-priest-martyr-dorotheus-bishop-of-tyre-holy-priest-martyr-cosmas-presbyter-of-armenia-dorotheus-of-palestine-abbot-and-writer/
This is from Byzantine Daily Worship:
Commemoration of the Holy Hieromartyr DOROTHEUS, Bishop of Tyre
Dorotheus suffered martyrdom under Emperor Julian the Apostate in the year 362. He was 107 years old, great in wisdom and in the knowledge of several languages. Some scholars have attributed to him a “Study on the Prophets, the Apostles and the Disciples of the Lord.”
St. Dorotheus sounds like your kind of bishop too. ?
Excuse me, Father, but what does your history have to do with what I said?
To say “several of them are traitors” widely misses the mark. First of all, Bergoglio was elected by the Cardinals mostly appointed by Popes Woytyla and Ratzinger. They ALL knew that Bergoglio had been Martini’s stalking horse in the 2005 Conclave. How do you explain this away?
Now, Bergoglio has appointed more than 40 Cardinals. What condition do you think the College is in now? The Apostolic College of Bishops is FILLED with heretics. How many of them have spoken against one major heresy. . . .like Jewish exceptionalism from having the need to have the Gospel preached to them? That’s just one issue.
Modernism infects everything in the post-conciliar Church. If these men had truly fought it, they would not be wearing miters. God will not be outdone by heretics when all is said and done. But PLEASE spare me the pious platitudes regarding the condition of the present episcopacy.
What shocks me is that you got 29 up votes.
When you think its a good idea to judge every Bishop and Cardinal as being a heretic simply because they are a Bishop or a Cardinal it is you who are way out on a dry rotted limb.
Being distressed and recognizing the great evil in the Church and in many prelates doesn’t mean that you have the right to trash all of them or to cop an attitude because I pointed that out.
As a serious Catholic you should already know this. Or are you not a serious Catholic?
Don’t go there, Father. I suspect you are a very young priest (the way you keep bringing up your seminary experience, etc.) Seasoned and senior priests are usually long past that. I have been a Catholic deep into my 7th decade and weathered many a storm. If you want to play in this forum, expect serious responses to things that you say. You have not yet substantively addressed my point of logic except to deny it.
The hierarchy has enabled this crisis — and very often promoted it for 50 years. If there are any rotting limbs hanging around, their the ones sitting on them.
DO NOT talk down to me. Thank you.
You are the one who spoke down to me and are continuing to do so with you belittling remarks and aggressive tone. I asked the question because people pop up who like to stir the pot while themselves not being serious.
So, you are comfortable with slandering the entire Hierarchy…that is a seriously stupid and spiritually dangerous position. I have given fair share of criticism of members of the hierarchy, I do not wear rose colored glasses.
I am not a very young priest or a very old priest, I brought up my experience to point out that one can be faithful and still be ordained and pointed out that one can be faithful and be consecrated a Bishop and also elevated to the Rank of Cardinal.
Yes, there are many members of the hierarchy who are seriously guilty of damaging the Church, but not all of them. And that is my point.
Furthermore, your primary point (you have to be bad to be made a Cardinal) isn’t logical, it’s presumptuous.
Name me the bishops and Cardinals who have contradicted or opposed the openly advocated policy of non-proselytizing Orthodox schismatics and the post-conciliar teaching that the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jews and they, neither, are in need of conversion.
There are nearly 200 particular churches in the United States. How many of the Ordinaries enforce Canon 915?
How many bishops protested and opposed the removal of the priest in Cardinal Wuerl’s diocese for forbidding openly cohabiting self-professed lesbians from receiving Holy Communion? Weren’t the faithful owed such a frank response from bishops in order to combat scandal?
How many bishops have spoken against permitting homosexuals to adopt children?
The Ecumenical Directory mandates that if a Protestant in a nursing home professes the same belief in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church and has no access to a minister of their own heretical sect, a priest must give such a person Holy Communion. This is the case even though the Protestant cannot be asked if he/she is mortal sin, and even if he/she was, he/she could not receive sacramental absolution. How many bishops have opposed and forbidden this sacrilege? (You really think AL appeared in a vacuum?)
How many bishops and Cardinals require their seminarians to take the Oath Against Modernism before they are ordained?
Just give me a few examples of each of the above, Father.
You have called my “position” stupid and spiritually dangerous. (1) I’ll overlook the “stupid” remark; it certainly is beneath the dignity of a priest to use such language about a position that he has not refuted — only criticized. But you’re ordained less than a year. You have a lot to learn. (2) I would suggest that you have no clue as to my spiritual situation; thankfully, my confessor does.
More evidence:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-council-of-cardinals-pledge-allegiance-to-pope-francis
It is my belief that Cardinal Müller was trying to be respectful of the Papal Office itself (not Pope Francis) because he knows the significance of the Barque of Peter. I myself was critical of his failure to point out the fault lying in Amoris Laetitia and it’s Author, however that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand what he is trying to do. He is trying to hold the Ship together without a mutiny (and may God bless him for it!) however, the Captain of the Ship is now the chief mutineer…
And I believe that Cardinal Müller reluctantly knows this and will, in the end, stand firm with the Lord Admiral of the Divine Fleet.
I too believe Cardinal Mueller will stand firm in the end. It appears that the shake-ups the firing of three of his faithful priests at the CDF, and other happenings with the Knights of Malta,etc. temporarily shook him up a bit and caused him to falter and to make that interview with TGCom24. It seems with the interview with Il Timone he got back on track and is upholding the truth as he had before. What he does say is very clear even though he does not directly criticize Amoris Laetitia. Eventually, if it is prudent he may end up doing just that.
I suspect the bishops of Malta guidelines for AL were the straw that broke the camel’s back. All the other guidelines COULD be interpreted as such rare cases that they were already really probably permitted (i.e. a woman who is with an incredibly abusive man who demands sexual relations or will harm her and kids or will leave them homeless and penniless. Lacks full consent of will and all that) or confession would be at the very least. I know that wasn’t the intent, but the argument could be made. It was the Bishops of Malta that said “If you conscience is good, then YOU’RE good!” And, IIRC, it was the next day that the interview he’s being persecuted for came out. Along with the Maltese bishops, there was also the Order of Malta and the firing of the priests. Also, the formal correction has probably been made privately. Combine all of these and you get the Cardinal leaving the CDF.
He needs the courage of C. Burke and to be willing to take the consequences which will certainly come.
In trying to be respectful of the Papal Office, if that indeed is what Mueller was trying to do, he had no business in throwing other bishops under the bus for he placed the blame for the irregularities in the implementation of AL squarely on their shoulders and gave Francis a pass.
As the bishops of Malta pointed out…..“we’re simply following the Pope”. The problem here, in the first instance, is Francis. To imply otherwise is to pervert the truth. In trying to give the Pope an “out” from all of this, there was no need for him to characterize other bishops as bunglers who had it all wrong. He essentially made them scapegoats for the AL turmoil.
That gets a big thumbs down from me.
And, as I said, I criticized him for the same thing. Armchair quarterback is easier than playing quarterback and all of that is much easier than being the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when the Pope is seriously in error…in many ways.
Pray for Cardinal Müller and for the Pope. May God deliver us from this present evil distress.
The waters are indeed very choppy. And the anchors are not where they should be with the Holy Eucharist and Our Lady. Hard to navigate a barque prone to the capriciousness of the wind.
Saint Don Bosco: Ora Pro Nobis.
Today, we visited an FSSP parish. The priest, who was not the pastor, did the Mass. He spoke for about 20 minutes at the homily regarding the present crisis in the Church regarding the AL and the implications for thereof. He was respectful to the pope, yet did not diminish all what we know and discuss here on this forum and elsewhere perhaps. The priest asked us to pray for a ST. John the Baptist, or a St. John Fisher. He told us that we are now finding ourselves in a position of choosing between the pope and Christ, and the choice of course is Christ.
It was a sobering homily, yet, in my thoughts, one that needed to be given, if not for our sake, but for his.
How far is the FSSP parish from where you live? Perhaps you should start going there for mass? That’s how my wife and I ended up at a FSSP parish here. We visited. I had the realization while standing in line for confession (available during Mass which is really wonderful) that this was a place I could get holy. Now we go no where else! We’ve even had one of the two priests over for dinner and to get an Epiphany house blessing!
The parish is about 50 minutes from our home. I have met the pastor some time ago, and he is truly a most humble and faithful servant.
Presently, we belong to a diocesan parish, TLM. These diocesan priests are very strong and faithful priests as well. They will NOT go against Christ, I am certain.
Here in our diocese, we are now without a bishop, as the former retired for medical reasons. We await a new bishop and of course there is worry here as to what will become of us. But, I can assure you there is a core group of priest who simply will NOT go against the Divine Law. And……they too will need the support of the laity, if when that day comes. AND it is coming!!!
I certainly appreciate your thoughts. I had visited the parish about one year ago, and met the very humble FSSP pastor. We went to Mass there yesterday, as I just could NOT bear to see our beautiful Mass hijacked by the Catholic Charities Appeal with boom box recording, script,etc. in our diocese.
i am praying on this. I truly would prefer to stay and support our TLM diocesan priests, who are truly remarkable priests as well.
WOW! That was a blockbuster, Steve.
Re the statement “…one would search in vain, when Ratzinger was Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, to find some public statement of his that seemed to distance himself from Pope John Paul II.”
Actually, then-Cardinal Ratzinger DID make a statement that distanced himself from PJPII.
In the fall of 1986, he made critical remarks about the Assisi meeting, while PJPII favored it.
Also, that’s why +Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops June 30, 1988. In his writings, he said that he had asked God for a sign as to whether or not he should consecrated a bishop or bishops to continue the work of ordaining traditional priests. He tried publicly and privately to dissuade PJPII from participating in the Assisi meeting. When he went through with it, the Archbishop took it as a sign that God wanted him to consecrate bishops to carry on the work of ordaining priests according to the traditional Latin rite and administer the sacrament of Confirmation (we say Chrismation) to the Latin faithful.
Time has vindicated +Archbishop Lefebvre, and one day the Church will too.
Lefebvre: santo subito!
From your post to God’s ears.
I didn’t know that about Archbishop Lefebvre. Makes me a bit more sympathetic to the consecrations that resulted in excommunications. I have always agreed with the stance of the SSPX regarding all the insanity in the church and modernism prevalent throughout the Novus Ordo establishment, but always felt the excommunications were a valid exercise of papal authority and were justified (I also thought JP2 should have given papal mandate to the consecrations but that’s another conversation.) Knowing that bit of background regarding a sign, though… changes my view of those events. Doesn’t change my overall view of the Society (which is fantastic), but of those events, definitely. Thank you!
Thank God for Cardinal Muller! Let him carry the cross as Jesus did his! We pray for him.
It is time to be a coward or a saint.
If the pope wants to remove this good cardinal, then just do it. Let it be done then.
But the good and faithful servant will not swerve from defending the faith.
Your move Francis? For the faithful to do not run, nor remain silent. But remain in peace, the peace that only
Christ can give. That is what Peter did, what Thomas did,what Andrew did, and the many early church martyrs. God be with you Cardinal Mueller. Our dear Lady is. May she give you the comfort and protection that the Mother of God can only do.
The Pope would rather him resign, which according to Deacon Donnelly may have happened…https://twitter.com/ProtectthePope?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
If I were Cardinal Müller I would not give him the pleasure, I would make him remove me (unless, I planned on joining the Four Cardinal’s forthwith in an immediate public rebuke of PF, then I might resign my office out of a sense of duty…And then, it would be all faithful guns blazing.)
According to Deacon Donnelly’s twitter feed, there are also ‘strong persistent rumors’ that the Pope has already been corrected by the Cardinals in private. If he does not respond, they AGAIN will go public with a PUBLIC CORRECTION. Again……these are ‘rumors’, but??????
I’ve suspected for awhile that the correction already happened. There were strong indications it would happen in January “after Epiphany” and for nothing to have happened this far after seemed far fetched. Especially with how hard and fast the Order of Malta events went down after the Vatican Commission idiocy.
OK so let’s ‘presume’ for the sake of argument, that the ‘private’ correction has been given. How long now do we wait for the ‘public’ formal correction to be given? Let’s see, it took them waiting for what 2 months to go public with the Dubia? Just trying to get a handle on it, I guess.
I’m frustrated too. I would THINK it wouldn’t stay private for too much longer. Perhaps we’d have to wait February out. I’m getting the sense though, especially with this news regarding Cardinal Mueller, that things are heating up in Rome. And according to Deacon Nick Donnelly’s twitter, the rumor is that Mueller has already been removed (or resigned) and that Cardinal Burke is cancelling a number of engagements. Obviously, this is an unconfirmed rumor, so take it with a grain of salt. If this is true, though, well, let’s just say things are about to get “real.” I for one hope it’s true. I will wait for confirmation though.
Concur, and I posted the same several weeks back. Every thing that has occurred in the past month strongly points to the Private Correction as have already taken place and what we are witnessing is the response.
So what happens now if he is a heretical, can they remove him or call him not the Pope?
If it did occur, I’m surprised that PF even agreed to give them an audience, knowing what they were coming to do. It would be consistent with his autocratism to deny them an audience. But then I suppose he knows they would then immediately go public, and he doesn’t want that, methinks.
They could take a tip from Luther & nail both Dubia & Formal Correction to his apartment door. They could then take a photograph & send it to the Catholic media for publication, or have it made into posters & distribute accordingly to CC worldwide.
There is no reason–either in charity or justice–for the Formal Correction to be done in private, since Bergoglio has caused public scandal.
Of course there is. It demonstrates a worthy respect for the august office of the papacy, and in charity gives a final opportunity for the pope to correct his own errors.
The pope will not do it! These are the things he wants to go forward. He wants to ‘make a mess’ and has.
Well, then, Maggie, if this is true it is even more important as per what Steve has said that things on OUR side be done with the utmost attention to protocols and details. We cannot afford a single chink in the armor, as it would be just that exploited by our opposites, versus dealing with the real issues. We cannot give them a postage-stamp’s worth of toehold. The cleaner we are, the more obvious will be the corruption that bubbles forth for the world to see, once the veneer of their orthodoxy is shown to be less than .000000000000000000001 millionths of an inch deep.
Well said, Julia. I’d give you 5 upvotes if I could.
Well, Miss Margaret, I’ll say the same for YOU! 🙂 I feel we are friends, I always enjoy your postings! 🙂
Thank you! 1 Corinthians 12: 25-26; Philemon 1: 3 (Douay-Rheims Bible Online)
“Tru dat!,” as the kids say! Thank you, Margaret, lovely.
We don’t do the right thing only when it’s practically effective even more than we do the wrong thing so that good may come of it. Consquentialism is not our friend.
If we do what is right and he doesn’t correspond in kind, more’s the pity for him when he faces judgment. And of course, in the particular matter of correction, there’s nothing to prohibit private correction from being followed by public reproof if he chooses to remain obstinate.
Probably. But we have to at least give him the chance. It’s what charity demands.
I respectfully agree and disagree. That assumes that he is really the pope, which I sincerely doubt. Benedict is still the pope and God is allowing this charade to continue for the purification of the Church. The devil is getting his chance to “destroy” the Church before his eventual humiliation by Our Lady. In the meantime, the modernists have been exposed.
There is no solid evidence to support the idea that Benedict is still the Pope, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, and only speculation and some strange misplaced hope to support it. Perhaps one day the Church will determine otherwise, but for now we have to work under the assumption that Francis is, as much as we might wish otherwise, actually the Pope.
We *must* assume that he’s the pope. The Universal Church accepts him as such, including his predecessor.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Where in Church Tradition or Scripture does it ever indicate that God has to honor a papal resignation, especially one that, despite the claims of Benedict in the press, was fostered by the intense internal opposition to his efforts? As far as the pope emeritus issue goes a familiar writer wrote…
https://servusfidelis.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/pope-john-paul-ii-a-pope-emeritus-is-impossible-onepeterfive/
Thanks for the tip!
Would it be necessary in some way to resign as Prefect of the CDF to join the Four Cardinals? I would think that would give weight to the matter.
That’s what I thought! Join the good cardinals while he is there! Except it might be awkward to join the 4 cardinals in the Dubia when it is addressed to him as well, CC’d anyway. But, crazy is as crazy does these days, upside down and inside out. Yikes! He can go from “to” to “from” adding his name on the sig. line.
it seems Muller already has, in effect, joined the 4 Cardinals because he directly answers (some of) their questions.
The problem is that the Roman Curia and all of the Congregations exist to assist the Pope, they do not exist for their own sake. So yes, he probably would need to resign or be removed in order to formally join the Four Cardinal’s.
I am quite certain that the Holy Father see’s him as already informally aligned with them, despite Cardinal Müller’s proclamation that AL need to be read in continuity with the orthodox teaching of the Church prior to it (most probably because he is close to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who would counsel him in this regard as it is his (PBXVI) way of dealing with the difficulties of VII), simply because Cardinal Müller still explicitly contradicts what AL teaches. Furthermore, he isn’t favorable to Luther etc….
Ok, that makes sense. I could see, on the one hand, the need to resign since such a joining with the cardinals could be seen as opposition to the Pope. On the other, isn’t the issuing of the dubia by the cardinals precisely for the purpose of assisting the Pope in the Petrine Ministry? So, as the Prefect of the Congregation responsible for safeguarding doctrine, wouldn’t it be entirely within the purview of his office to ask Peter to clarify doctrine? I’m not saying he hasn’t made the attempt (evidence suggests he tried “many times”). I’m just saying a case could be made for the other way, that it would be just as effective and totally acceptable to stay in his position while asking for the clarification. Or to draft a response to the Dubia and say “This is my answer as the question was asked of me as well. I ask you to approve it, as it is the only way acceptable to the Catholic Faith to answer. I trust you will?” I mean, he’s probably been ordered not to do that… but I’m just speculating. I like imagining these sorts of meetings… it’s like a movie in my head. =P
Mueller statement is theology like Ukrainian Greek bishop advice who told Francis in last MTG. With bishops opened to the media live……….. He Francis was told to his face ,By ugc. Bishop he Francis Needed to pick up RC Catechism and Read up on faith teaching of communion for those living in Sin…….. Something the Argentina’s, German, Malta, Belgium and USA bishops like Cupich, Gomez, McElroy ,Farell ,McGrath and Baron need to do as well.
Please, more details on this meeting. Was it with Patriarch Sviatoslav?
Last open mike media live event with Bishops since Greek Ukrainian patriarch bishop among East rite visitors looked Francis straight in the face. He DID tell Francis this as did Cardinal Mueller in a Theology similar statement… . I believe 30 AB in addition to Dubia four stated the obvious. This would explain Francis petulant commenTs about Curia and Traditions religious beliefs and orders
Greek Ukrainian eastern rite bishop patriarch Catholic .
Do you have a link for that? Please post it. Thank you!
Is it better to be disloyal to Bergoglio or to God? This question is easy to answer…..
This just in……….rumors swirling around Rome that Mueller has resigned from CDF.
Not sure whether he resigned or “resigned” (i.e. as in Festing’s “resignation”) but there it is……
where is this from, please?
Deacon Nick Donnelly on Twitter via Vox Cantoris
“Guardians of the Revolution” or agents of destruction?
All the true Cardinals in the Roman Curia should resign so as to show publicly their disagreement with the Pope’s teachings which go against Catholic doctrine. At least they would be free from the Pope’s tyranny. In fact when the CEO’s subordinates resign, the CEO should take the hint and resign and we should pray that the next Pope would be one after God’s own heart. But considering the no. of influential liberal Cardinals in the present College of Cardinals who are eligible to vote in the Conclave, I would not be surprised if the next Pope would be worse than the present. Only Christ’s second coming can save the Church. Satan has already entered the Vatican ever since the liberal teachings of Vatican 2 and he seems to be having his hay day now with Pope Francis in office. Only the ardent prayers of the faithful Catholics can save the situation for the better. Lord please make all the Apostate Cardinals inactive in the Church by your mighty Power and place in their seats the faithful Cardinals whose thinking is not corrupted by the Freemasons who have infiltrated the Church even at her high echelons. Jesus save us.
“Only Christ’s second coming can save the Church. ”
You DO realize that “Christ’s second coming” means the end of time, the Last Judgment, etc., don’t you?
Yes Arthur I do realize what u say.And at Christ’s second coming don’t you agree that the Church will be saved? I mean the true Church not the Apostate one.
. Only Christ’s second coming can save the Church.
Not yet. When the Third Secret of Fatima is revealed (NOT the vision, but the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”), then the Holy Father will get the graces he needs to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. There will be a period of peace, as Our Lady said. After that, will come the Antichrist, and THEN the Last Judgement.
Btw, next Sunday is Meatfare Sunday – the Sunday of the Last Judgement. Matthew 25: 31-47.
“Answerest thou the high priest so?”
Cardinal Muller is nobody’s fool. His Il Timone interview was no off-the-cuff affair. It was obviously very well considered, and he knew precisely what effect it would have. Bergoglio is on the record as having recently stated; “History may record that I split the Catholic Church.” He is so hell-bent on pursuing his ‘reforms’ that he is seemingly quite prepared to precipitate a schism rather than abandon the course he has chosen. It’s almost as though he is saying; “If I lose, we all lose.”
If Cardinal Muller is removed by this (possibly borderline psychopathic) pseudo-Successor of St. Peter, many more prelates may join the resistance, and the schism will be formally declared. If so, the sooner this happens, the sooner the task of re-building the Church from the ruins can begin.
And if Muller has reisgned should the SSPX regularise with this debauched papacy?
Bergoglio hasn’t made overtures to the SSPX because he wants to bring the Society into a harmonious co-existence with the rest of the Church. He wants to be able to control it, and effectively neutralise it. If, in the unlikely event that Bishop Fellay showed any willingness to come to an accommodation with the Bergoglio regime, he would face a massive revolt by the great majority of his priests.
I sincerely hope you are right!
AS DO I !!!!!!! Pray for Bishop Fellay as well!!!!!!!! He seems to be caught in the black widow’s web!!!!!!!!!
If you really believe that, then you are – as Rorate Caeli noted on Twitter yesterday – condemning any Ecclesia Dei group and its supporters for remaining in a canonically regularized status. Every one of them would already be “controlled” and thus “effectively neutralized.”
And I know there are Society supports and clergy who feel this way. Perhaps you’re one of them. But either way, I wish people arguing against Fellay taking *any* deal in this pontificate would have the courage to follow their logic all the way to the destination: You should be advocating for all regularized traditionalist groups and priests to break their canonical ties with Rome. Now.
Hello, Richard. I don’t disagree with your statement, just wanting to clarify something. You are suggesting that these already regularized groups become independents, in a sense, “go rogue”?
Hello Julia,
Oh, I’m not suggesting or advising anything.
It’s only a question of where the logic against a deal – any deal at all – leads. If you’re already fully in the Society fold, one can very readily understand the concerns. But if you’re a “Summorum Pontificum Trad” who argues against it, it’s a puzzlement why you don’t abandon your Ecclesia Dei or diocesan Mass and flee immediately to a Society chapel while urging your present clergy to abandon their canonical status. Because if it’s too dangerous for the Society to be in canonical obedience, it’s too dangerous for the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Institut du Bon Pasteur, Monks of Norcia, or even diocesan priests attached to the TLM to be so, too.
As Rorate tweeted yesterday: “There are many who are in favor, but it’s understandable if you are against it: it is a reasonable position. / But if you are a Catholic in “full communion”, in a regular parish, either be in favor or reach consequences of your reasoning and leave. / It’s absolutely appalling to believe being in a regularized situation, in “full communion”, is a good for yourself, say it isn’t for SSPX.” https://twitter.com/RorateCaeli/status/830520158296928257
(FYI: I presently attend a diocesan TLM, and I attend TLM’s of Ecclesia Dei societies whenever I am in a location where one is available. I have never attended a Society Mass, but I have very good friends who do, and I wish them and the Society nothing but good will.)
Yep.
What if, once the Society is regularized, all these Ecclesia Dei groups will lose their raison d’être in the eyes of the current Vatican authorities – i.e., canonically regular alternatives to the canonically irregular SSPX?
Hard to read the future.
But each one of these groups that sprang from the SSPX (or other quarters) – FSSP, ICRSS, IBP, Le Barroux, CRNJ, FSVF, Campos, Papa Stronsay, etc. – never gave any evidence of basing their decision to regularize on the continued non-canonical status of the Society as soom sort of independent counterweight that indirectly protects them – and, indeed, to the extent that they have spoken on the subject, have said they are in favor of the Society being regularized.
Now they might be imprudent or unwise in thinking so. (Perhaps they are.) But I think Rorate is right to say that the logic has to be the same for all: If it’s a bad idea for the Society to regularize (presumably with a favorable deal), then it is a bad idea for these societies and orders to continue in that status. One understands the reticence of many in the Society. What is harder to understand is the stance of “regularized” traditionalists who are urging Bishop Fellay to refuse any deal.
If one were to go by widely known and indisputable facts – the Holy Father’s clearly stated displeasure with “rigid”, “restaurationist” orders attracting lots of vocations, the ongoing FFI affair, the recent developments in the Order of Malta, etc. – one might understand the fears expressed by some, inside and outside of the Society, about the very real danger of a future attempt at suppressing traditional orders.
True, the EC entities did not give evidence of basing their decision to regularize on the continued irregular status of the SSPX. But does it follow from here that they do not enjoy some protection in virtue of the current state of affairs? Hardly so. How else would you explain the stance of “regularized” Traditionalists who are urging Msgr. Fellay to postpone (NB: not to refuse!) a deal with the Vatican authorities? Are they simply lacking critical thinking skills?
I totally agree with you that the logic should be the same for all. Holding firmly to the Catholic Faith should have never been and never should be a reason for excluding anyone from the canonical structures. The regularization of the Society is a matter of justice; it must and it will happen. Whether the time is now, that’s an entirely different question.
An unpopular view here but logically consistent.
I’m not sure it’s an unpopular view. I think most of us are thinking “ok, alright. Just BE CAREFUL!!!” Regularization and canonical status would be wonderful, but the cost of losing the SSPX would be too high.
Bravo, Stewart!!!
If it is true that they have been offered the deal on the basis that they do not need to accept the novelties of Vatican II, then I hope they take it. This is probably the best opportunity we will have to secure a papal admission that adherence to Vatican II is not a touchstone of Catholicity or orthodoxy. That is what is really needed before the true reformation of the Church can begin, and I think this is why God has permiited us to suffer under a Pope who does not give a fig about doctrine.
You make a very good point, Deacon Augustine. Some months ago, Bergoglio stated with regard to the SSPX; “We are all part of the same Church.” Unfortunately, given the manner in which Bergoglio operates, any seemingly tempting carrot which he offers to the SSPX will have been poisoned. I have great faith in Bishop Fellay, and I’m sure he knows precisely who and what he is dealing with. But regardless of that, if he were to accept any such offer, he would have to contend with a mutiny among the great majority of his priests.
If Müller resigns & adds his name to the Dubia & Formal Correction then a great number of so far silent Cardinals & Bishops will do the same. The schism will be in the open. Those who follow Jorge Bergoglio will be called Bergoglions just as those who followed Luther are Lutherans. The remainder will follow Jesus & restore the RCC to its former glory as befitting Christ’s Church on earth. Since VII it has lost three of the four distinguishing marks of One, Holy & Catholic & now the fourth mark of Apostolic must be fought for as this is the main reason so many of us stayed put. If we lose that mark then the CC is no more. However, we have Our Lord’s own promise that He will be with His Church until the end of time and Our Lady’s word that when all seems lost then would be Her Triumph.
We have been especially chosen to live in these dark times for a reason : Is Bergoglio about to change the Mass thereby rendering it, “invalid?” Our penance has begun! @voccantor.blogspot.com.es
Amen to all that you say Ana. If Bergoglio does carry out what is rumoured re the Mass, then we are into the prophecy of Daniel. What interesting times we live in and the tribulation that Our Blessed Lord talked about in the Parousia of St Matthew has yet to even start to heat up. Let us heed St Paul and Stand Fast in the Faith.
“Dear friends, may no adversity paralyze you. Be afraid neither of the world, nor of the future, nor of your weakness. The Lord has allowed you to live in this moment of history so that, by your faith, His name will continue to resound throughout the world.” – Pope Benedict XVI.
All I know is that a very orthodox Dominican Nun I know with close ties in Rome says one big colloquial “UGH!” at what is rumored to be the intent of the Pope in tinkering with the translations. I read an article (somewhere) making the case for further change on the basis of melodious English phraseology. Oh, yeah, in a country where more and more don’t read above a 4th grade level due to lousy public schools we are worried about poetry?????
Ana – Slight typo in your last sentence. It’s
@voxcantor.blogspot.com.es
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Margaret
Thanks Margaret – the two letters side by side on my laptop.
You’re welcome. Glad to help.
Btw, I saw on another blog that the SSPX might stream the TLM from Sacred Heart seminary. I don’t know if the link is fixed though, so I’m not posting it. If I see that it’s fixed, I’ll post it for you.
Margaret
NO.
The SSPX should remain as they are for now. I feel quite certain that the Society will long outlive the Bergoglian Revolution
Good for Cardinal Muller. Hopefully he will join Cardinal Burke in the A.L. dubia clarification effort. Pope Francis must be stopped. He is a plague to Catholicism and the world at large by encouraging the madness of self indulgence among the faithful and lending the prestige of the Catholic Church to political initiatives.
It is becoming clearer by the day that Amoris Laetitia is a signpost to heresy and eventually to hell.
But still one has to keep an open mind on all this and try and understand Pope Francis and his development of doctrine and generally get with it.
And yet I go to Mass this morning (I know now I have no obligation to do so but what would my wife say?)
And what do we get:
Ecclesiasticus:
“If you wish, you can keep the commandments,
to behave faithfully is within your power”
Well I am not too sure about that and anyway is that not a bit neo-pelagian?
And it goes on:
“He never commanded anyone to be godless,
he has given no one permission to sin.”
Well that is definitely out of date but anyway that is the OT and surely OTT.
Then we get the psalm and we have to recite the refrain:
“They are happy who follow God’s law” (It should be blessed not happy)
But Pope Francis has told us that if we do that we will be closed in Catholics definitely rigid. Again stuck in the past of the OT.
I think we can pass over what St Paul said to the Corinthians; I am sure the German Bishops could teach them a thing or two about being Greek and not repaying their debts.
Then we have Matthew (presumably not Festing but it might have well have been him):
‘Jesus said: “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to complete them”‘
It gets worse:
‘Therefore, the man who infringes even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven,…’
Now that sounds like a direct attack on the papacy and certainly is not going forward.
Really is it not time we dumped all these scripture readings and got something modern and up to date instead? Should not Archbishop Roche be looking into all of this in his review of the liturgy? I am sure he would welcome some suggestions. A text from Austen Ivereigh, Spadaro or even the Washington Post? Any ideas?
This is not difficult. Criticism of Pope Francis is no longer private because people know privately, he will ignore you and tell you he is the Pope and he need not answer questions. Also, the frequency in which he makes statements contradictory to the Faith, I believe is unparalleled. So, now let’s get back to having the Dubia answered.
Muller has facts on his side, his opposition politics. For the life of my soul, I’m obliged to follow Muller.
Speak the Truths of the faith which can never change because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and you will be persecuted by the ‘one world’ modernist Vatican. If you speak heresy, are a communist, a liberation theologist, an abortionist, etc….well, that is fine.
“If Pope Francis were to decide to put Cardinal Müller — whose current five-year term is ending, and who would need to be re-appointed next July — out of his office, he might well offend Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, who had called Müller to that very office.”
I agree, but Pope Francis would probably respond: “So what? Benedict is powerless and I can do what I want. Nobody is going stop me.” From Bergoglio’s perspective such an occasion to create a crisis should not be wasted.
Secondly, he might not realize that Müller henceforth — after his dismissal and with all of his usual respect toward Pope Francis — might become a mightier and more influential critic of his papacy than the constraints of his current office seem to allow.
Again, I agree, but we know that Francis is rather stubborn and he will not be impressed. He’ll go on whacking all opposition by vilifying them and using all dirty tricks of his tool kit. The Dubia will remain unanswered. Francis will go on to appoint ultra-modernists as bishops and as members of the Vatican dicasteries. Things will only get worse as long as he is Pope. The only thing which can stop him is to end his pontificate. We all know that there are no legitimate ways to do that. The only way this can happen is by a massive rebellion of the Vatican clergy supported by the faithful, which seems rather unlikely.
It is a bit like wondering what to do about Kim Jong-in in North Korea.
Does Francis really care about Emeritus Pope Benedict’s opinion?
Certainly not.
The irony implied in this statement is too much to bear:
“I have observed several Catholic conservative journalists who have wished for quite some time that Cardinal Müller would be freed from his duties so that he may be stronger in his public defense of the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage.”
Isn’t defending the doctrine of Catholic marriage precisely one of the primary duties of his present office as the head of the CDF? So, he has to be dismissed from that office before he can actually do his job??
Yup, because the Pope has ordered him not to do his job…..
Over on Rorate Caeli there is a fascinating article by John Lamont about formal correction of a Pope. The second part which deals with the blind obedience which Jesuits owe to their superiors even to do illicit actions is particularly important. This doctrine of blind obedience seems to have seeped into the Church as a whole and this explains the silence of so many Cardinals and Bishops in the face of Amoris Laetitia. Post-Nuremberg any doctrine of blind obedience must surely be revised and modified – at least that is how I a lay lawyer see the matter.
Some are opting for the ultra montane position: blind obedience/trust (parking personal understanding in a dark corner). I am striking this quite a bit. These people wont discuss the facts nor even acknowledge there is justifiable tension over morals. I believe they take this position because no one can reconcile being a true Catholic in the Church built on the rock of Peter without actually supporting whatever the Pope says. They figure if they stick with the Pope, God cant condemn them. There are millions of people who personally will not live out the amoral aspects of AL, but parishioners they mix with, will. And it is likely more widely felt changes are on the way via the Liturgy. I really dont see how any Catholic will be able to avoid the confusion and chaos that is part of this pontificate, at some stage.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
– St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church
– Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
I think that it is going to be up to the laity to challenge any Bishop who behaves like the Maltese Bishops claiming that they have to obey the Pope where matters of faith are concerned.
The article is very interesting but I’m not sure this “blind obedience” is so widespread. It seems to me we have a very one-sided obedience: everyone is very obedient when it comes to orders that promote laxity, but not when it’s about reaffirming orthodoxy.
I’ve encountered a disobedient Jesuit or two.
No way! Surely you lie!!! The Jesuits are…ok, I can’t keep the joke up, they are not whom they claim to be, excepting the minority of that order.
Obedience must be in all things except sin. We must obey God rather than man, especially even our superiors command us to do something sinful.
There is nothing that can be ‘especially’ about THAT. We must obey God rather than man. PERIOD (FULL STOP)
It is The Church of Christ God, not the Church of jesuits, or any other kind of man.
Indeed, it is a good and venerable essay (though, longish…which I too am prone.) It reminds me of the frequent lectures given by our house spiritual director at seminary (now a Bishop….of course) who waxed pathetically about the vice of ‘individuality’, in the sense that all good seminarians should be conformists and alike.
This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion, for the Lord God Almighty did not make us all the same, rather He, in His infinite Wisdom, created each of us unique and individual. All of us, to be sure, needed to be conformed to the Divine Wisdom and Law, but each of us according to our nature and particular talents, which the Lord Himself formed, express and carry out the Divine Wisdom and Law as individuals, not as a collective (a.ka. Borg.)
For me to reject my God given talents in order to fit into a ‘cookie cutter mold’ manufactured by another who is not God would be for me to reject the very nature and grace that God has bestowed upon me, as an individual, and to which He will hold me to account. It is tantamount to saying to St. Catherine of Sienna that she ought not be St. Catherine of Sienna, because not everyone is or can be St. Catherine of Sienna. It is a real and pernicious evil put forth as docility and obedience.
This manifested itself immediately after Ordination to the Priesthood, the Pastor to whom I was subject was reluctant to allow me to use my God given talents in a particular way (a catechetical enterprise that I wished to undertake in the parish) not because he thought it might harmful to the faithful, but because the Parochial Vicar who came after me probably would not be able to continue it because he wouldn’t have the same talents. So, he reasoned it would be better for me to do more pedestrian work so that whom ever came after me would be able to continue it. In short, he thought it would be better if my lamp were placed beneath the bushel basket of mediocrity.
The hardest part of being a Religious or Ordained is not Chastity, nor Poverty (both can be difficult): It’s Obedience….especially when the vast majority of one’s ‘superiors’ are incompetent and even unfaithful dolts. I preached, today, that all of my Parishioners are called to Obey me when I command them to Follow the Teaching of Jesus Christ, and none of them are to Obey me or anyone, including Pope Francis(whom I happened to mention by name) ever if I or anyone teaches them not to follow the Commandments of Jesus Christ, rather they are commanded to disobey me and indeed rebuke me and pray for my salvation. Amen.
On reflection I think the obedience thing is only part of the explanation as to why so few Cardinals and Bishops have spoken out about Amoris Laetitia. I would suggerst there are different groups who follow different reasons:
1. Those who support what Pope Francis is doing.
2. Those who genuinely believe they must obey at all times.
3. Those who are not sure but find obedience is a good excuse.
4. Those who are fearful of losing their position.
5. Those who are genuinely afraid of what might happen to them.
6. Those who perhaps support Pope Francis but are fearful of upsetting orthodox priests in their dioceses.
7. Those who have lost the faith and see the Church as merely an NGO
8. Those who are not bothered one way or the other.
9. Those who wait patiently for something to happen.
Well said, Father. My current pastor said something quite the same in a homily about a year ago.
Beautiful! Thank God for you, Father, and everyone who is holding the line. Your witness gives me hope.
May God bless you abundantly.
The Doctrine of obedience obviously applies to a validly elected Pope, not to a pope, who prior to his election, condoned certain same-sex sexual relationships, and thus denied the Sanctity of the marital act, excommunicated himself from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
This chap Tornielli seems to be arguing the point “yes, the Pope does desire a heterodox interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, and it is quite wrong for Cardinal Mueller even to imply otherwise.”
Have I got that right? Or am I confused? It seemed to me that Cardinal Mueller was bending over backwards to place the Pope in the best possible light.
Yes, playing both sides the fence. Successful bishops in the Modernist Age of the Church do this. That is how they rose through the ranks.
The veil has been lifted; there is no longer a need for the unfaithful to play both sides of the fence. Pray that Cardinal Muller does not flee for fear of the wolves but remains, steadfast to Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, The Church that Christ Was Baptized into, and promised to remain with, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I Have Commanded you, and behold I Am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”.
To Cardinal Müller, the pope’s loyal servant, but Our Lord’s first, I say: choose well.
Am I the only one seeing images which are temptations to sin under the heading “Sponsored Links.? Partciularly as we are about to enter Lent I find pictures of chocolate biscuits (cookies) to be quite offensive!
🙂
Pius XII would not have been pushing communion for the divorced and remarried.. If the Dictatorship of Mercy sticks it to Muller then the Pope would be in a unique position of creating a Catholic Martyr for defending the Faith.
These are the same tactics which were used by those who surrounded JPII, he withstood the hatred of those who hated him because he blocked the progressivist agenda of those who hijacked Vatican II. Then these same evil men trained their hatred on Benedict, he was less able to withstand these tactics and made the grievous error of resigning, thus opening the papacy to Francis. And now we are in the situation where those faithful to the Unchanging Holy Teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and who defend the Sacraments from sacrilege are labeled as those who offer “a gesture of blatant disrespect towards the Pope,”. If the actions of this unholy Pope demand gestures of blatant disrespect then let the disrespect flow, for that disrespect is deserved for those who act to establish heresy and apostasy within the True Church. By the way, that JPII was hated by the hierarchy of the Vatican and for the reasons stated was clearly established by Father Malachi Martin, who warned that the days which we experiencing now would come. That warning came twenty years ago, and included warnings about the Jesuit Order and what evil might arise from among their ranks. It has.
If Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, is to answer the Dubia to-morrow (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com) on behalf of PF then Cardinal Müller, in fidelity to the Office he presently holds, must have his total response ready before he resigns (which PF wants him to do) as the short summary given seems to repeat what is in AL. If so, such an answer to the Dubia would make untenable his stay at the CDF. It would also leave him unfettered to sign the Dubia & Formal Correction immediately. There will be a fight on no matter which way the cat jumps.
With all of this talk about loyalty and obedience, one would think we were in Lutheran Prussia circa 1750.
Disagreements yes, but pressure, rebuke, preparation for replacement, judged, name calling, etc. put on him (and others) for stating a truth and a teaching of the Catholic Church!
These dirty tactics are found in secular politics and in the beginning of totalitarian regimes. The communists treat those who disagree with them by killing them off or they just disappear.
Why would there be objection to the truth being spoken publically by a prelate of the Church unless,(as we know) that modernism is replacing doctrine and the Gospel itself from the top? There will be nothing but disagreements then that we can look forward to, until Jesus cleanses His Bride and restores her to a holy life without fear.
Oh how I wish we could stop this maddening Pope from scandalizing us! Please God show us a sign!