Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Müller on Amoris Laetitia, Paul Ehrlich, Antonio Spadaro and the Three Dismissed Priests

Yesterday, 25 May, the Catholic channel EWTN aired an interview of Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over which was conducted a week ago with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). In this interview – which was conducted in English – the German cardinal touches upon several important matters which are of interest to the larger Catholic world.

When Raymond Arroyo asks Cardinal Müller about the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia and the confusion stemming from it, the cardinal first states: “It is absolutely impossible that the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ for the Universal Church, [would] present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.” The pope and the magisterium are “merely the interpreter” of the words of Christ, and the “doctrine on indissolubility of matrimony is absolutely clear,” explains the cardinal.

In Müller’s eyes, the pope intends with Amoris Laetitia “to help, to have in his sight,” all those people who live “in the secularized world” and “who do not have a full understanding what is a Christian life.” “He does not want to say: ‘Either you accept absolutely all from the beginning or you are absolutely out.’” The German cardinal explains that “we must lead them as good pastors until [up to] this point that they could accept completely the Christian doctrine and Christian life and our understanding.”

With regard to the famous footnote in Amoris Laetitia according to which it is possible to have, under certain conditions, access to the Sacraments while living together as a “remarried” couple, Cardinal Müller explains that this only applies to those “who live as brother and sister” after “a conversion of the heart, penitence” and the “intention not to sin again.” “It is impossible to live with two legal wives,” he adds. “We don’t accept polygamy!”

It is in this context – and after explaining that doctrine and pastoral care always go together – that Cardinal Müller makes a side remark about Father Antonio Spadaro’s recent tweet according to which, in theology, 2 and 2 does not need to make four, but can be five:

Some of those people who present themselves as a counselor of the pope, [saying] that the theology, the pastoral [care] for two and four [sic – two] can be five, that is not possible, because we have the theology.

When Raymond Arroyo, in his searching questions, raises the problem that Pope Francis himself has encouraged the Argentine bishops in their progressive understanding of Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Müller responds that he is not glad “that the bishops interpret the pope, the pope interprets the bishops,” adding: “We have some rules how to act in the Church.” The cardinal adds that, after two synods and a papal authoritative word in this matter, the discussion should be “finished.”

When asked about the dubia and whether they should be answered by the Holy Father, Cardinal Müller says that, with regard to the content of the dubia, these are “legitimate questions to the pope.” However, he regrets that “that it came out into the public,” causing “tensions between the pope and some cardinals.” “This is not good in our world of mass media,” concludes the cardinals, adding that “our enemies are glad to see our Church in a certain confusion.”

Moreover, Cardinal Müller distances himself from the misunderstandings on “both sides” or camps during the two family synods, saying that this had to do with “prejudices” and “an ideological view of things.” “Some argued too ideologically,” and thought that “we must fight for our ideas,” he explains, yet “we have the responsibility for the unity of the Church.” “It is not good to make a pressure group,” “to enter as a pressure group for one’s own ideas in the synod.” There are in the Church today “two wings, two ideological wing, extremes,” adds the German cardinals. “Everybody wants to win the battle against the other.” But, says Cardinal Müller, “the Revelation of God unites” and “it is not our task to unify in a totalitarian way.” It is wrong, according to Müller, to think “everybody must think like me.”

It seems that here, Cardinal Müller distanced himself, not only from the progressive camp, but also from those conservative prelates who tried to defend the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage during the two synods.

With regard to the question of the female deaconate, Cardinal Müller makes it clear that there cannot be a sacramental female deaconate and that Pope Francis established his study commission merely in order to find out more ways of participation in the Church for women.

Raymond Arroyo also asks the German cardinal whether the invitation of Paul Ehrlich and other progressive speakers at the Vatican is disturbing for him. In response, Cardinal Müller explains that, as a former academician, “I can discuss with everybody,” but “we must avoid the impression” of a relativization. “These people might be good scientists, but anthropologically, they [these secular academicians] have some lacks [deficiencies],” but we must “always have respect” for the natural law and the dignity of man, explains the cardinal. It is important to highlight the “right to life,” according to Cardinal Müller. “Overpopulation of the world could be a problem [sic], but we cannot resolve it with the killing of the half of mankind.”

When asked whether he is worried about giving moral credence to these speakers, Müller responds: “That could be the danger.” “Pope Francis was very clear against the gender ideology against transhumanism,” he adds. Pope Francis, in Müller’s eyes, “wants not to exclude these people” but wants them to learn from our “good anthropology” and have more “respect for human life.”

Moreover, Cardinal Müller confirms the idea that this approach is part of Pope Francis’ “evangelical hand held out to them,” as Arroyo puts it. The Church was once “a little bit separated from other groups,” seeming to be a little bit by itself, explains Cardinal Müller, and the pope wants now to reach out more to other groups in society.

With regard to the story about the three CDF priests who were dismissed around Christmas 2016 (as Marco Tosatti reported), upon the order of Pope Francis, Cardinal Müller makes it clear that he was opposed to the measure taken: “I am in favor of a better treatment of our officials in the Holy See because we cannot only speak about the social doctrine, we must also respect it.” The German distances himself “absolutely” from this dismissal which was not based on the fact that they committed a “mistake.” Müller does not want to participate in a form of a “court system”: “I am not a man of court [courtier].” For the employees of the Congregation for the Doctrine, orthodoxy and competence have to be the reasons for their employment, explains the cardinal.

When asked about the possible reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, Cardinal Müller responds with the words: “It needs time,” because it is not only about “signing a document” but also about the change of heart. Some of the members of the SSPX, he adds, think “we [ourselves] are the right Catholics.” They have to accept the “hierarchical communion” of the Church, as well as the creed, the pope’s authority and the councils. A “deeper reconciliation” is needed, according to Müller.

Cardinal Müller also explains to Raymond Arroyo that he generally agrees with Cardinal Robert Sarah’s claim that we have a “crisis of the liturgy,” but he insists that this crisis goes back to before the Second Vatican Council. The loss of the sense of the “mystery” at Holy Mass was a problem which already Romano Guardini discussed, says Cardinal Müller. It depends on the “inner attitude” as to whether one has a “life in God,” and not so much because of the “exterior forms.” The German cardinal states that, also with the traditional Latin Mass, one could celebrate Mass quickly – even in ten minutes – without entering into the mystery of the Mass.

His desire, Cardinal Müller says at the conclusion of the interview, is to “help to overcome secularization,” i.e., the “life without God.” In the face of his burdens as the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Müller insists that “with the help of Grace, we can confront all these questions.” In light of this new interview, it might be worthwhile considering what Professor Anna Silvas recently said at the Lay Conference on Amoris Laetitia in Rome:

There is one group however, whose approach I find very strange: the intentionally orthodox among higher prelates and theologians who treat the turmoil arising from Amoris Laetitia as a matter of ‘misinterpretations’. They will focus on the text alone, abstracted from any of the known antecedents in the words and acts of Pope Francis himself or its wider historical context. It is as if they interpose a chasm that cannot be crossed between the person of the Pope on the one hand, over whose signature this document was published, and the ‘text’ of the document on the other hand. With the Holy Father safely quarantined out of all consideration, they are free to address the problem, which they identify as ‘misuse’ of the text. They then express the pious plea that the Holy Father will ‘correct’ these errors.

No doubt the perceived constraints of piety to the successor of [Saint] Peter account for these contorted manoeuvres. I know, I know! We have been facing down that conundrum for a year or longer. But to any sane and thoughtful reader, who, in the words of the 45 Theologian’s Censures, is ‘not trying to twist the words of the document in any direction, but … take the natural or the immediate impression of the meaning of the words to be correct’, this smacks of a highly wrought artificiality.

Update, 4 P.M.: Raymond Arroyo has now posted a full transcript of this interview on his Facebook.

253 thoughts on “Cardinal Müller on Amoris Laetitia, Paul Ehrlich, Antonio Spadaro and the Three Dismissed Priests”

    • Having read the remarks of the Cardinal, I suggest that the famous “Peter’s Pence” collection taken-up each year in June ought be restyled the “Peter’s Parse” collection.

      • This will be my second year of not contributing. I am not giving the Vatican one penny under this regime. I pray all faithful Catholics do likewise.

        • Dear Eugene, I haven’t seen you posting for some time, I hope that all is good with you. Here in France we don’t even know where the collections go, we are not allowed to know how much the monthly collections generate but we are on occasions told to give more.

          • Thank you Christopher for your kind reply. Actually I am going through a tough personal time where I am under attack from both a personal and professional standpoint, your prayers would be appreciated. God bless you

          • Eugene, Great to hear from you although not so great to hear that you are having difficulties, however will keep you in my prayers.

        • I give only to very trusted and carefully vetted charities and organizations these days, Monks of Norcia, OnePeterFive, etc.

          Peter’s Pence is not one, I assure you.

    • Not only in AL, but through his deeds Bergoglio contradicts Church teaching. He blesses couples living in sin. We have become so used to these lies and manipulations coming from the top, we don’t ask – what does it mean? Is the couple receiving the blessing encouraged to use contraceptives or is it encouraged to conceive children out of wedlock? Perhaps abortion is a valid consideration? When unmarried couples expecting children came to Bergoglio asking him to marry them, he chased them away – do not come until three years have passed, you ought to marry for the right reason!

      So, someone like Cardinal Mueller could (I say – should, must) ask – what do you mean, Jorge? What is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? Is fornication suddenly not sinful? Conceiving children out of wedlock, as parties involved test each other out, and attempt to establish the rightfulness of the reason for this testing with a loving accompaniment of their spiritual guide, is now acceptable? Is it what our Lord wants us to do? If the purpose of marriage is not conception of children, what is wrong with sodomy? Wow, God is so backward!

      I am disgusted by these liars. Can’t even look at them, and their words are like smelly slime.

      • If Cardinal Muller said what you want him to say, he’ll be fired before sundown and a Bergoglio stooge will be his replacement.

        Your outrage is misplaced. Try thinking things through before you start throwing stones.

        • Any outrage is certainly not misplaced. He is head of a dicastery tasked with the defense of the Faith and instead of doing so he carps at those ready to step up to the mark.

        • If he is replaced, so be it.

          We can no longer give in to the scenario, ” what if……”, as to prevent the Truth from being spoken. I wonder how many watched that EWTN interview and came away in more despair OR in more confusion, which is very SEDUCTIVE in its quest to harm the Teaching Church.

          I would agree, Cardinal Muller is in a difficult position, but he agreed to the position, did he not? So now, he must act like an apostle of Christ’s, defend the faith, and have more trust in speaking Truth and not worry so much about ” the what ifs of the matter…….”
          That ” what if….” has harmed the Church in so many countless ways!!!!!

          You have suggested to myself and others, that we should write to him?
          Do you think he will read these letters?
          Even our own bishops have insulated themselves from the laity’s concerns.

        • Muller is a Bergoglio stooge. He’s doing nothing to counteract the harm done by AL. On the contrary, he’s putting the Francis spin on AL in the above interview. Replacing him would change what, exactly?

          The only difference between Muller and Mariadiaga, Marx, Kasper et al., is that the latter are rabid attack dogs while Muller is a submissive lap dog. At best he’s a Pollyanna.

        • I have a tendency to think things through.
          I have been observing Jorge Bergoglio ever since he was announced as pope. I know about the mafia who admitted to selecting and campaigning for him, I know about the many expressions of dissent against the Catholic faith he performed as a priest and bishop in Argentina (possibly the reason why he was selected), and his bashing of faithful Catholics as a pope, including equating faithful Catholics with Islamic terrorists. According to this, a Catholic opposed to full communion with the Body of Christ’s Holy Church of an unrepentant sinner who celebrates his sin is the same fanatic as a suicide bomber murdering infidels.

          If I can see this (and I can and I do), so can Cardinal Mueller. Faithful Christians are persecuted around the world, and one of their leaders is Jorge Bergoglio, as he continuously bashes them.

          This is not a time to be politically correct, to exercise misplaced loyalty (our loyalty is to Jesus Christ. It is high time to speak truth, no matter the consequences.

          Yes, I judge Cardinal Mueller (note that I do not condemn him to hell, when I condemn his beating around the bush, while not naming his intentions which I do not know), and I will be/Imam judged by my Creator accordingly to the standards I apply in judging him.

        • Your acknowledgment that Bergoglio will only tolerate someone who tolerates him (and his–what shall we call them–heretical ambiguities?) as head of the CDF is the greatest denunciation of Cardinal Muller possible.

          • I disagree, Helen. Assumimg Muller agrees with Bergoglio just because he still has his job is begging the question. Cardinal Muller doesn’t have to agree with Bergoglio to be the head of the CDF. He’s been there a long time and doesn’t rock the boat for the reasons I have stated.

          • You are not the only one to have “stated” such “reasons.” The notion that it is morally preferable to compromise one’s principles rather than to make room for others who might do even worse is etched onto the pages of history in the transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials. That’s what they all said–that, at least, by keeping their jobs (of turning on the gas jets, etc.), they were ensuring that the cruelty, or the numbers of deaths, or what have you, would be mitigated. You may not realize this, but surely His Eminence does. In the final analysis, Cardinal Muller is no different from anybody else. There comes a point at which one must do what is right, and let the chips fall where they may. That point is where the agenda of man ends, and the law of Almighty God begins. Blame-shifting and verbal gymnastics are of no use here. Pope Bergoglio is the one “rocking the boat;” if it’s stabilization you’re after, take it up with him.

          • Your unfortunate decision to include Nazi atrocities in this discussion is somewhat beneath you, Helen.

            The relevant parts of your message are easily said by you the others here, but you’re not sitting in Muller’s seat and you don’t know what he’s up against and what he’s thinking. Perhaps you will write to him and let him know your thoughts. You can send it to him at c/o Vatican Postal Service, 00120 Vatican City. Do NOT add ‘Italy’ or ‘Rome’ to the address.

          • Thank you very much. Now, could you explain to me how to lick the back of the stamp, too? As I have already noted, His Eminence is well aware of what he is doing already, as demonstrated not only by his general conduct, but also by his verbal evasions and menacing nonverbal messaging during the recent Arroyo interview itself. And as for having incurred your disapproval, let it simply be noted that I do not share the conviction that ignorance is an intellectual virtue, nor that the subject of the Nazi atrocities should be politely shunned lest our civilizational commitment, “Never Again!” be honored. But I am also convinced that you will want “the last word,” since that rather than any appreciation of the truth is your evident goal, so have at it.

  1. I don’t envy the place Cardinal Muller is in. Having said that, if he is trying to say AL in written in the light of Church teaching I think it has been shown over and over that that simply just isn’t the case. Anna Silvas is correct in what the stated. The exhortation was written to be purposely ambiguous. I think its way past time for calling something what it is, without spin or interpretation, and not dance around it and the issues it cultivates.

    • Precisely! The time of politically correct speech and faith in church politics to give the appearance of unity must come to an end. For that very approach has wrought nothing but false unity for the past 50 years. The restoration of authentic Catholic Truth in all of it’s terrible splendor must now begin.

    • The criticism of Cardinal Muller by you and others is shameless and ignorant. It’s not a question of the Cardinal liking his job, but of the necessity of his keeping his job. As I said above, if he says what he thinks of the Pope he’ll be fired and one of the Pope’s stooges will take his place. How would you like that??

      • We have too many “ambassadors” already at the higher levels in the Church. How is Muller doing any good by not challenging the ambiguities of this Pope? If I were forced to lie (which is what Muller is doing) to defend my boss when he is doing evil, better that I be fired.
        Evil must be resisted. Let the chips fall where they may.
        I was fired myself on a job for refusing to falsify documents, just FYI. And someone replaced me that was worse than me. So what, I sleep at night.

        • Respect! It is so good to read that you see all things in perspective… To stand before God after this life and made the right choices in life, is so much more important than anything else.

      • Since Müller has been castrated, his clinging to his job is pointless. Bergoglio will die. We will know within 48 hours if his successor is a Catholic.

      • If Mariadaga were to take his place as per your example, at least he would be honest. He is quite content to embrace the label of modernist and would act accordingly. Muller is acting like a modernist for the sake of who knows what, but is trying to maintain the pretense of orthodoxy. He is only adding to the confusion which such dishonesty engenders.

        • “If Mariadaga were to take his place as per your example, at least he would be honest. He is quite content to embrace the label of modernist and would act accordingly.”

          Are you suggesting that a bishop who opposes the words of Jesus Christ and the teachings of prior Popes and Councils while posing as a Catholic is honest??

          “He is quite content to embrace the label of modernist and would act accordingly.”

          Are you willing to accept the result of his ‘acting accordingly’?

          I’ve re-read the article and the transcript of the interview and am starting to back off a little, but I’m still willing to give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I don’t think he’s the unprincipled man most of you think he is.

          • “Are you suggesting that a bishop who opposes the words of Jesus Christ and the teachings of prior Popes and Councils while posing as a Catholic is honest??”

            Like the Pope, he is honest to his understanding of what a Catholic is. Neither of course understands “Catholic” in the way that Catholics understand the word.

            I don’t necessarily believe Muller to be unprincipled. He speaks like a man who is confused – like one who is experiencing cognitive dissonance and is trying to square a circle. He is attempting to construct a syllogism to account for the facts, but the reality he is dealing with will not fit into the premises from which he is starting.

          • “Like the Pope, he is honest to his understanding of what a Catholic is. Neither of course understands “Catholic” in the way that Catholics understand the word.”

            That’s pure sophestry. Like the Pope he is a liar and a tool of Satan.

            As for Cardinal Muller, I agree with you.He has backed himself into a corner and, instead of admitting his error, is just making it worse. I think I’ll write him a letter and tell him so.

          • I do not think Cardinal Muller is unprincipled. Unfortunately, when you sit behind the Vatican Walls for too long in a great position, such as his, one can forget that he is a priest first before anything else. I think if we are all honest with ourselves, each of us could fall into this trap as well.

            It seems as though Carinal Muller is working more for the Pope, than for Christ.
            This can be a real consequence for so many in the Vatican, who over time, become very taken with the responsibility of their position and fidelity to the Pope. So much justification and rationalization can occur by these prelates as they attempt to navigate around it all.

            Regardless, the red hat is red for a reason. And I am truly sorry Cardinal Muller is in such a position, My comments have been harsh at times, but this is not personal against Cardinal Muller. It is very unfortunate his interview on EWTN will be heard by many……more confusion……chaos and the acceptance of heresy and justification of sin will only be more fermented in the minds of many.

            God will protect him and His Church! He just needs to be true to his priesthood, and let our Lord worry about the rest, in my opinion.

          • cs, if you think Cardinal Muller is working more for the Pope, than for Christ then you do think he’s an unprincipled man.

            Given the way he was treated by Pope Bergoglio after he asked why he was being forced to fire three of his best men, I doubt Cardinal Muller has any respect or affection for him much less prefers him to Christ.

            Your first paragraph is presumption. I realize it’s hypothetical, but it makes your point quite clearly. ‘Cardinal Muller has forgotten he’s a priest.’

            “I think if we are all honest with ourselves, each of us could fall into this trap as well.” That nails it to the wall.

            The truth is none of us knows what the Cardinal’s relationship with Christ is; we know nothing about his prayer life, how, when and where he celebrates the Mass, whether he says the Divine Office every day, whether he fasts and goes to confession regularly, prays the Rosary every day, how he likes his eggs cooked or whether he has red wine with his dinner. I think if we’re honest with ourselves and fair we will not entertain ourselves with the kind of conjecture you and others have engaged in on a very public, global forum.

            That doesn’t mean we are not to discuss these matters publicly; it means we should be careful about what we say and how we say it. I may be the greatest offender in that regard, but I’m trying to do better.

            To put a period to this harangue, EVERYTHING said about Cardinal Muller on this forum about this subject has been, to some degree, personal.

            You make some good points in the last part of your message.

          • To be more careful in what we say, is good advise. I shall be better at it. Sometimes the disappointment can get the better of me and I admit I am very disappointed with the cardinals interview

          • I think he IS good; dangerous to Satan & therefore being seriously messed with – courage being hacked away at, etc.

      • Cardinal Mueller – by his own utterance has rendered himself totally ineffectual. His deluded pieties about the Pope not changing doctrine – whilst all the while the Pope achieves the same via temerarious heads up nudgings to modernist churchmen and Bishop’s conferences – effectively negate his efficacy as a stabilising spokesman for orthodoxy within the Curia. It’s one step forward and three steps back. And it’s cowardice dressed up as ‘prudence’.

        One may as well purport to defend neoconservative/neocatholic positions as to defend the Cardinal’s tortuous positions in the interview. Talk about slow death by a million cuts!

  2. Is anyone else more confused by this interview of Cardinal Muller?

    “Everybody wants to win the battle against the other.” But, says Cardinal Müller, “the Revelation of God unites” and “it is not our task to unify in a totalitarian way.” It is wrong, according to Müller, to think “everybody must think like me.”

    His statement troubles me greatly. First of all, just who is trying to win the battle against the other…….Cardinal Burke??? Is that what Muller is implying? Second, ” Revelation of God unites”??????? Does Cardinal Muller forget, under all his degrees, what Revelation is? And third, the good cardinal needs to understand that everybody must have the mind of God, which the Church used to promote and defend.

    To hear this statement from Cardinal Muller, only makes me realize more fully, that our Church has been thoroughly hijacked by an anti-Gospel, anti Church powerful group of prelates, and some do not even realize it.

    • How is this for unification value? –

      If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

      • I found this interview more unsettling than A.L.

        Cardinal Muller is obviously a careerist as he straddles the fence, giving rise to more confusion, chaos and perhaps now even a seal of approval for what God has joined together, allow man to separate for the sake of ………….whatever.

        Very, very troubling.

        Fatima! Oh many of these cardinals yap about it, quote our Lady or the children…….but they do not really believe! The sun bore brightly and descended upon the earth……almost………but perhaps this time it shall be justifiable done. Why should the King of Kings show mercy?

        • If we follow the Cardinal’s reasoning to its opposite conclusion, then if “It is absolutely impossible that the pope, as the successor of St.
          Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ for the Universal Church, [would]
          present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.” – then anyone who does so, i.e. ‘present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ’, is not the pope.

      • I was just thinking of that one yesterday! Notice He did not suggest “accompanying” people, nor did He ever suggest that they don’t need to accept everything right away. Uh.

      • Gibberish. Pure and simple. No Hegelian Dialectics were harmed in the production of this interview. All I can see in my mind, though I have not watched the interview is Raymond Arroyo’s headshot with slightly pursed lips and slightly raised eyebrows, a la the Kasper interview.

          • James, a deviation from the subject of this thread, but I don’t know how else to get this to you.

            I have not seen my message to Fr. Hunwicke on his blog, so here it is:

            Fr. Hunwicke, it is not disputed that the Pope has not uttered a single formal ‘From The Chair’ heretic syllable. He’s much too smart to leave himself open to being deposed. What he has done is enable heresy *and applauded it* once it has come to pass. The dioceses in Argentina, Malta in Germany and the Diocese of San Diego, California, and who knows where else, are giving Holy Communion to public adulterers. That is a gross deviation from the constant 2000 year teaching of the Church and clear heresy and schism. It could not have happened without the well-crafted Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia and the Pope’s approving rheoric.

            Can there be any doubt that document had the complete approval of the Pope? When one insists the ‘jot and tittle’ standard is the only legitimate one by which to assess the actions of the Pope, you may have a case. May have, but somehow I don’t think Our Lord will accept it when He, and most of the rest of us, a bedrock principle of Catholic doctrine is being violated and the Pope has engineered it.

            Is it not the obligation of the Bishop of Rome to defend the Catholic Faith and her doctrines? Is it not his obligation to clarify doctrinal ambiguities, especially when such clarification is sought from him? The Pope is seriously deficient in this matter across the board. Is that heresy? I don’t know, but I know it’s in that category.

            Your erudite defense of him, and it is a defense, lacks discernment and avoids reality. It is the Pope who is responsible for the giving of Communion to unrepentant adulterers. That is clearly on the books and it is heresy.

            Ferde Rombola, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA

          • Received with appreciation. Well crafted. I can’t understand why he didn’t let it through. It deserves his reading and it would be fascinating to see his response. I learn a lot from him, despite the fact that I share your grave misgivings on that specific series. Any time I’ve tried to post a comment over there I can’t make it register. I’m certain that he never sees my attempts – I wonder if yours did not meet with the same fate mine do.

          • I got a note that the message was being held awaiting approval from on high. Not those words, but you get the gist. Did you ever see such a message?

          • No. You pieced the veil! I can’t even get a comment to register over there. Whenever I’ve tried they have been supportive notations. Nevertheless, it appears very odd. There were multiple other comments published over their, accepted in a timely manner.

          • Are we taking bets as to whether your comment will be published on that other web site? Call me a cynic, but I’m betting not. Your writing is clear and articulate and, I suspect, a tad bit “too truthy” for comfort. (More than a tad bit — major truth and major discomfort.) You are uncovering denial and cognitive dissonance with logic and persuasion. As such, it will not be allowed or acknowledged. If it gets published, then I will eat my words.

            If you hadn’t published the same comment on 1P5, no one would ever know that you had written to challenge the Father’s defense of Francis. The problem: at some point those who defend Francis to the point of irrationality end up (sooner or later) losing their own credibility. And those who remain silent are complicit and approving of Francis’ innovations (which are contrary to 2000 years of church teaching) by their silence.

          • I’m betting with you, Susan, which is why I posted the message here. Thanks for your kind words.

          • Excellent. Fr. H is a convert, and none of them (at least I’ve found none) truly understand the fullness of Catholic theology and tradition. I’ve tried to post challenges to his point of view before; he’s reluctant to publish damning research to his premises.

            Bergoglio has also effectively established the Anglican Communion type of ecclesial structure. Church teaching now differs and contradicts from Bishops Conference to Bishops Conference and even from diocese to diocese. The Mark of Unity of the Church is under assault. Please indulge these citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

            Some false notions of unity

            All admit that unity of some kind is indispensable to the existence of any well-ordered society, civil, political, or religious. Many Christians, however, hold that the unity necessary for the true Church of Christ need be nothing more than a certain spiritual internal bond, or, if external, it need be only in a general way, inasmuch as all acknowledge the same God and reverence the same Christ. Thus most Protestants think that the only union necessary for the Church is that which comes from faith, hope, and love toward Christ; in worshipping the same God, obeying the same Lord, and in believing the same fundamental truths which are necessary for salvation. This they regard as a unity of doctrine, organization, and cult. A like spiritual unity is all the Greek schismatics require. So long as they profess a common faith, are governed by the same general law of God under a hierarchy, and participate in the same sacraments, they look upon the various churches — Constantinople, Russian, Antiochene, etc. — as enjoying the union of the one true Church; there is the common head, Christ, and the one Spirit, and that suffices. The Anglicans likewise teach that the one Church of Christ is made up of three branches: the Greek, the Roman, and the Anglican, each having a different legitimate hierarchy but all united by a common spiritual bond.

            True notion of unity

            The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself. . . . All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith, and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed, their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external. All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches. Accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.

          • Thanks for the citations. Of course, with Bergoglio in the Chair all bets are off regarding the “True notion of unity.”

          • Steve, I have copied one of my messages on this thread. Perhaps you could repost it and give be some relief from having to reply to everyone who is throwing stones at Cardinal Muller, which is to say, everyone.

            winslow: “Cardinal Muller is a very intelligent man and has a difficult task. He must be faithful to the Church and, for the sake of the Church, must keep his job. I’m sure he knows, if he says what he thinks about the Pope he’ll be fired and replaced by one of the Pope’s stooges. How would we like it if Maradiaga was put in Cardinal Muller’s place? Working in the Vatican these days is no walk in the park. Let us pray for Cardinal Muller and all other faithful bishops and priests that the Lord will protect them from the ravages of Satan.”

          • Let is come to pass then, should Maradiaga replace Cardinal Muller.

            Have trust, that our Lord and His Holy Spirit will protect the Church, even though, these possible consequences cause us to shudder.

          • I’m afraid I disagree. He should have joined the dubia cardinals. His betrayal of their cause was a serious blow.

            He should also have made a statement and resigned in protest. But human respect is a helluva drug.

          • Steve, do you have a reaction shot of Cardinal Muller, when Raymond wouldn’t back off about Amoris? His Eminence, who seems quite amiable and engaging the rest of the time, hardened his expression and slitted his eyes quite markedly, the time that Puddleglum put his foot in the fire when the Green Witch was still thrumming away. “Touch my Apostolic Exhortatipn again, Mud-Filth, and I’ll turn the blood to fire within your veins!”

          • Please Cardinal Muller you mention our enimies would be delighted to see our confusion please Cardinal can you elaborate on these enemies and does Pope Francis also consider them enemies?

          • I can never avoid thinking he looks like a kewpie doll – something about the eyes and the eyebrows. For the record, I regard him very highly, especially because of his more recent interviews about AL.

          • Yes! That’s it…thank you! (I like him too; smart & courageous)
            Also, kind of, ventriloquist’s dummy? Absolutely not meant in a bad way.

    • With all respect to card. Muller, with this saying “the Revelation of God unites” I smell here a simple scholar example of deceiving the listeners or readers.
      When even a lay, let alone a high ranked cleric talks about things so, and the thing IS about a REVELATION OF GOD, that (since VII) very common word ‘UNITE’ , which follows but without a fully and well Catholic explanation IN WHAT, – gives every listener at the first, second, and third impression a totally non-Catholic meaning.

    • Then you must write to them and set them straight.

      Cardinal Muller knows if he says what he thinks about the Pope he’ll be fired. I think he is between a rock and a hard place and must be careful or he’ll be replaced by someone who really deserves your insults.

      • Shall we be kind and forgiving of an apostle of the Church who will not defend, and cause more confusion and chaos with his words on national television?

        This is about Christ’s Church, not about personalities.

    • “Everybody wants to win the battle against the other.” But, says Cardinal Müller, “the Revelation of God unites” and “it is not our task to unify in a totalitarian way.” It is wrong, according to Müller, to think “everybody must think like me.”

      Yes, straw arguments, or false in some dimensions it appears….clearly the Beloved says He came to be a Sign of Contradiction, to bring Division and the Sword not Peace in the Revelation of Holiness to Eternal Truth as the Way to Life….this we must battle for with Our Lady and Saint Michael Revelation Teaches:

      Chapter 12: 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and bear witness to Jesus.

      If we are true to the Beloved and His Revelation, those who are true will have the Unity of the Blessed Trinity but simultaneously those who will not be true will not have this Unity but divided and disunited…

      May Our Lady of Fatima work the Great Miracle of the Triumph and Reign Jesus and Her Hearts in all and everywhere!! Alleluia!

    • I find it that you can learn a couple of things about a person by paying close attention to what he/she chooses to say or don’t say and how they do it as well. In Mueller’s case, he is constantly using keywords and phrases that are paraphrases of writers such as De Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, and he also seems to be completely immersed in Ratzinger’s “New Theology”.

      Ratzinger’s philosophical philosophy and theology adopts a metaphysical and spiritual evolutionary worldview that is highly Hegelian, where everyone and everything will inevitably eventually transcend our present struggle (thesis vs antithesis) and reach a “new” stage in spiritual development (synthesis), hence Ratzinger’s prophesy of a future smaller and faithful church. This is probably why Mueller says that some in the church “argue too ideologically” and talks about wings and extremes as if he himself has transcended such polar positions, i.e. he is sitting right on top of the Omega Point and he is just waiting for the rest of the Church to join him (which they will, sooner or later…inevitably…because evolution).

      I’m not sure if I’m correct in this, but once you see their remarks through this lens it’s easier to understand them and to anticipate their reactions to the developments within the Church.

      • A of mumbo jumbo as they say!

        Our faith is so simple, so pure, so regal as to impart the ” kingship of Christ”, to anyone who will believe.

        I do not know of De Lubac and De Chardin, and quite honestly have no desire to know of them.
        Why should I care to read them, when we have the Early Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, Holy Scripture and the Magisterium?
        We have been given the Immaculate Conception and Fatima. Such Revelation!

        But no! These great minds look to their own achievements, their own complicated understanding of our faith and God’s Revelation.

    • cs: please excuse this question — and I apologize ahead of time if I am out of line for even asking it; but did you have a conversion experience not too long ago? I ask only because I came across another site (I’m not even certain it’s active) and a “cs” posted and mentioned with a couple of excellent remarks that he had recently returned to the Church and traditional Faith. I just wondered if it was you and that we now benefit from your comments here.

      • I am not so certain. Most likely, it is not, for although I never physically left the Church, I grew robotic like in attendance at Mass, not realizing what I was missing; The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Too young was I to know the TLM, and I had no one to show me. Years upon years, I knew that something was missing at Mass and I did grow very complacent in my faith. Upon the funeral of JP ll, a great moment occurred for me however. I knew, as certain as I can count my fingers and toes, that this was the Church of Christ, in spite of it all. I read, and read from the lives of the saints, and began to read about JP ll and his some of his writings, here and there.
        How much I had missed! The TLM was given back once again, in small doses, back then, but finally I was able to see what I had missed, what I was not able to give to our Lord at the other Masses that I had grown up with.

        Well, whoever wrote these comments, I can take no credit, as you spoke of this person having left the Church, in all actuality. I had no idea there was another ” cs” posting.
        Whoever this ” cs” is, hopefully, he or she will post further here at OnePeterFive.

        God bless.

  3. One word comes to mind, “lukewarm”. May Our Lady of Fatima obtain for clergy and laymen the grace of Holy Zeal.

  4. As I see it, Mueller’s stated disagreement with Francis’ Argentinian letter simply ratifies the “meatless Friday” approach to Communion for irregular situations.
    Meaning, that most faithful ‘understand’ that the fasting requirement was done away with completely, whereas it was reformatted to a more personal Friday sacrifice/mortification. The Church retains its “position” while carelessly allowing the requirement to be ignored.

    Francis has let the cow out of the barn. Word is out, Communion for irregular situations is OK. Mueller protests, but the requirement will drift off due to a sense
    of fatigue and in time folks will say “no kidding, you can’t have 2 wives and receive Communion”. The damage to the Church has been done.

    The only recourse is for Church leaders to pull the issue back into full daylight (enforce Dubia), or it’s over….the ‘thread has been pulled” and to what degree
    Church’s fabric will unwind will be determined by time.

    • The next Pope will repudiate ALL of Bergoglio’s output within a week, or we will know he’s just another “organization man,” papering over reality.

  5. Since a direct consequence of AL is the immediate issuance, by many Bishops and Cardinals, of statements that AL permits Holy Communion to those living in grave sin (which is the case) as well as pastoral guidelines to “accompany” those living in grave sin with a full admission to holy sacraments, and since they received a full support from Jorge Bergoglio, I consider these pronouncements by Cardinal Mueller dishonest and misleading.
    He knows the real life consequences of AL. We are talking about real life, I stress, not rigid ideologies.

  6. I am saddened by this report, I thought better of Cardinal Mueller. AL was intentionally written to be ambiguous just so that modernism would welcome sin without directly saying it…. this is most definitely the work of Satan! Very sly, very decieving.But, we must not give in to this ever and speak the Truthof Holy Scripture and the Catechism .Speak out to all who will listen! It would be a sin of omission not to do so. We need to stay close to the Immaculate Heart of our Blessed Mother! She has warned us. Remain faithful to Him to the end!

  7. Hmmm. Language matters. Moreover, while there are certainly some things here in the Cardinal’s speaking that, were the reins held tightly, would come across as true charity, but otherwise rankle: “He does not want to say: ‘Either you accept absolutely all from the beginning or you are absolutely out.’” The German cardinal explains that “we must lead them as good pastors until [up to] this point that they could accept completely the Christian doctrine and Christian life and our understanding.” Yes, indeed, often one must bring people incrementally to the full Truth. But when the reins are held loosely, as they are now, such a statement has so much wiggle room in it that, even if it is not meant to be a harbor for weakening of doctrine, it becomes such. My other main issue with the Cardinal’s words are that they reiterate an ongoing motif of the Pope’s, which is that we hold up the Truth as a goal, but not as an achievable reality. Something like “Man’s reach must exceed his grasp, or what’s a Heaven for?” Poetic, but dangerous when talking of eternal things. For if one can never grasp the goal, one does not have it. Including the Heaven for which one is reaching.

  8. I find much of Mueller’s responses frivolous in the full interview. No more talk about truth and traditional teaching of the Church; the new word is ideologists, and by referring to those Cardinals faithful to the truth, that way , he is saying they just have opinions maintained unreasonably. Mueller is dishonest. It also seems to be fashionable to be incoherent and apparently to laugh especially when replying to serious questions deliberately downplaying the issue. He’s following the leader.

  9. Is this man serious? I had no idea the man was so deluded in his thinking.

    “When Raymond Arroyo asks Cardinal Müller about the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia
    and the confusion stemming from it, the cardinal first states: “It is
    absolutely impossible that the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, the
    Vicar of Jesus Christ for the Universal Church, [would] present a
    doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.”

    No it is not impossible. It is impossible that he could bind the Faithful to believe it but that he could never ‘present’ a doctrine or throw the teaching of the Church into confusion is not impossible. Cardinal Muller is simply attempting to defend the indefensible.

    First the article says “In Müller’s eyes, the pope intends with Amoris Laetitia “to
    help, to have in his sight,” all those people who live “in the
    secularized world” and “who do not have a full understanding what is a
    Christian life.” “He does not want to say: ‘Either you accept absolutely
    all from the beginning or you are absolutely out.’” Then this. “His desire, Cardinal Müller says at the conclusion of the interview, is to “help to overcome secularization,” i.e.,
    the “life without God.” In the face of his burdens as the Prefect of
    the CDF, Cardinal Müller insists that “with the help of Grace, we can
    confront all these questions.”

    Such confused thinking. The interview shows somebody attempting to defend the pope a all costs while carping at those cardinals who have had the temerity to do his job!

    • Cardinal Mueller, me thinks, has his head in the sand. “Impossible” for a Pope to present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.? In A.L. clearly Francis did this very thing. So……..the only other conclusion to be had, is that ‘maybe’ he is not even a valid Pope. I’m sorry, but there is no way that A.L. is a document that coincides with 2,000 years of Church teaching!!

      • I’m thinking Cardinal Mueller has fallen into Ultramontanism here. He thinks a pope cannot present a doctrine against the words of Christ so he does all he can to spin them in an orthodox way… It’s a pretty common error these days, but it’s a bit disheartening that the head of the CDF has done so.

      • The Pope is infallible ONLY under the exact conditions laid down by Vatican I. If ALL the conditions are not met, then the charism of infallibility doesn’t come into play.

        AL is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is NOT infallible.

  10. “in
    time of schism and error, to cloud and distort the proper sense of
    words is a fruitful artifice of Satan.” Fr. Felix Salvany The attempt to oppose ideology to doctrine is an attempt to control discourse and silence one’s opponents. The only question to be asked about AL regards its position vis a vis the Church’s perennial teaching. Does it throw into doubt the previous teaching or seek to better explain it to modern Catholics? To see what followed its publication is to answer that query.

  11. “….our enemies are glad to see our Church in a certain confusion”.

    Oh, c’mon Cardinal Müller, surely you can do better than that. Stop being a politician and give straight answers to these questions:

    1. *What* is the confusion?
    2. *Who* created the confusion?
    3. *Why* does the confusion persist?

    You can’t have it both ways and call the dubia ‘legitimate questions’ and then absolve from all blame the person to whom they were addressed and who is yet to respond EIGHT MONTHS LATER. What price honest and logical thinking?

    • Exactly what I was thinking as I read the interview. However….

      Cardinal Muller is a very intelligent man and has a difficult task. He must be faithful to the Church and, for the sake of the Church, must keep his job. I’m sure he knows, if he says what he thinks about the Pope he’ll be fired and replaced by one of the Pope’s stooges. How would we like it if Maradiaga was put in Cardinal Muller’s place? Working in the Vatican these days is no walk in the park. Let us pray for Cardinal Muller and all other faithful bishops and priests that the Lord will protect them from the ravages of Satan.

      • He is neither hot nor cold…so what good is it to have him in that position anyway? A politician dancing on the fence does not stand up for the Truth. This is evil and the fact that this interview went on EWTN to the world just helps to confuse more people and obfuscate the truth.
        “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
        But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”
        The Apocalypse Of Saint John (Revelation)
        Chapter 3 verses 15-16

      • “Cardinal Muller… has a difficult task.”

        What would that “difficult task” be, but trying to be a modernist heretic while pretending to be a Catholic at the same time. That is a tough assignment indeed.

      • I’m sorry, I am simply to old to have any patience with people who are unwilling to state politically incorrect truths.

      • ” “Overpopulation of the world could be a problem [sic], but we cannot resolve it with the killing of the half of mankind.”
        I checked the world abortion count and we are at 1.4 billion abortions worldwide since the 1970s. And let’s face it, killing them prevented more life to be born.
        So, technically we wiped out several generations. Which elevates 1.4 billion to 5.0 billion, conservatively speaking.

        The hierchy of our catholic church now sees “fruit” by dining with it’s schism. The hierchy are now salesman to a degree.

        A parable for modern mankind would be something as: If the “flock of sheep are healthy, strong, they will jump over the fence. If the flock of sheep are timid, small, weak, they will crawl under the fence. The Fence is the Catholic Church and the sheep are wandering BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HERE THE MASTERS VOICE.

    • One could say, as you imply, “Speak the truth!” about AL. On the other hand, one could assume the Cardinal is trying very hard to interpret “Pope Francis” in an orthodox manner. I believe he’s trying to model generosity, compassion, and hope. Of course he knows AL is tosh! But treating “Pope Francis” in the manner “Pope Francis” treats others (those who hold tight to revealed truth in the Gospels and Tradition) is not the Christian way to go about it. At least, that’s how I choose to hear Cardinal Müller.

      • Michael,

        As cs says directly above my post, in his position, Cardinal Müller should have Truth as his focal point and his generosity/compassion in spinning or tiptoe-ing around the pope’s dismantling of Church teaching is seriously misplaced. Athanasius knew there would be unpleasant temporal fallout as a result of his actions but that didn’t deter him from speaking out boldly and letting the consequences run their course.

        • Exactly! In all true charity, it is important to boldly speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks be to God, Athanasius has boldness and courage and speaks the truth.

          • So you guys think Cardinal Muller will be more influential in exile than as head of the most important congregation in the Curia. Strange thinking. To come to that conclusion means one has to overturn all the rules of logic and common sense.

          • Would have nothing to lose & freedom to speak. St. Paul’s most joyous / influential epistles written from prison cell.

          • The end does not justify the means. The end you seem to want is for Cardinal Muller to remain in his position so that he can help save the Church from further evil. Yet, by what means and at what cost should this end be achieved!?! If the means to keep his position to “help save the Church”, is to obscure the truth and confuse the issues, then the means are evil and that evil is never justifiable even if it’s rationalized that it is done in order to achieve a good end. No good end can come of evil means.
            As far as his influence, he’s already used it in the wrong way and therefore rather than gathering, he is already scattering! He who does not gather, scatters.
            The problem is especially made worse by the fact that he is one that many people expect to solidly and strongly protect the true faith, so they put their trust in him. Unfortunately, in this recent interview, even his own words show that he is playing the politician on both sides of the fence. Truth suffers.
            Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Trust in God. God does not want His ministers or shepherds to avoid telling the truth! He wants the truth always. He is Truth. Remember it was Pontius Pilate who asked, “What is truth?”!!!
            So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?”Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
            Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
            John 18:37-38

          • I agree- with so much confusion Truth needs spoken clearly, boldly. The world with Satan is making this battle serious and no amount of gentle acceptance by means of ” accompaniment ” will bring souls from a path toward hell t heaven. This is too dangerous!!! I’ve never seen this work- it is a subtle way to accept sin as the evil one desires. Oh my, Precious Lord please send us courageous bold leaders who can speak Trurh with clearity and love!!!!!!????????

      • I understand the “pull” to take the position you have articulated. But what you’re effectively accomplishing is inverting the Two Great Commandments — which is the chief mark of the post-conciliar Church. God and His prerogatives must come first; human considerations are secondary. If we don’t get God right,we won’t get humanity right.

        • I don’t disagree with you. If one were to read the totality of my comments on Disqus, one would find rather more comments critical of the Vat II Church, and certainly of “Pope Francis”. But sometimes I do hope to be a better man, and to see in the comments of my peers and of the prelates something more indicative of the hope that is to come, instead of the current battle to be fought.

    • But is that the role of a cardinal, to ” spin the nonsense of Francis the destroyer?”

      Cardinal Muller is his own man, with many graces bestowed upon. No excuses.

  12. I came to leave a comment and before I scrolled down, I thought I’d start off with “…in a word”, only to see the top comment starts with “One word comes to mind…lukewarm”. Strange we should be on nearly identical wavelengths. But before I got here, I also decide to use two words, not one, because I couldn’t think of one word to cover the strategy used in the interview, but here they are:

    In two words: dissemble and dither.

  13. While not by any means entirely pleased with Cardinal Müller’s performance last evening, I was drop jawed at his finesse in navigating treacherous waters. It is not my disposition, but you have to applaud his ability to field these issues on television.
    I am often given to diagnosing the pathology presently engulfing the Church as “denial.” I can’t determine if Cardinal Müller is in denial, or very much not in denial — and has determined that the best way through this hell is to be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.
    He requires and merits our prayer.

    • I do not admire his “finesse.” That is one of the hallmarks of any Modernist apologia. It’s akin to saying that while the Fire Captain is not very competent at putting out a raging fire (nor is he certain it even should be), but you sure admire the fancy way he explains the complexity of it all.

      I do agree that he requires our prayer; but then again so does each and every one of us require prayer — whether we merit it or not.

      • Those of us who are discouraged by ecclesiastical behavior that does not project the degree of forthrightness we expect in productive discourse are undermining themselves and the cause we hope to advance – a return to orthodox Roman Catholicism.
        Members of the episcopate who are involved in the effort to correct the current trajectory need to perform according to a precise code of behavior. To do otherwise is to risk undermining their very rationale and themselves. This needs to be done correctly. The ecclesiastical monkey bars do not hold a safety net beneath them.
        Heterodoxy always pretends to play by the rules. Orthodoxy attempts to abide by the rules.
        The constitution of the papacy and the Church are at risk.
        Francis will be gone sooner or later. The papacy will remain. In large measure its survival is in the hands of us who seek the correction of his aberrance.
        While we are in a civil war, surgical intervention is the battle plan, not nuclear destruction of one individual and his cabal – though it is a tantalizing option. There is nothing more the Bergoglians desire than to see the button employed. Their objective of an eviscerated papacy and all the collateral damage will then have been achieved by us, not by them. Their hands clean they will have a credibility which yet remains inherently dubious.
        We have never in the history of the Church been at a moment like this. It has no precedent. Members of the episcopate who are faithful to the perennial Magisterium of the Church and those supporting them must move with precision and patience.

        • You make some good points.

          Admittedly, this interview given by Cardinal Muller was difficult to read for many reasons.
          He seemed more like a ” company man”, than a man with fidelity to Christ first.
          His intentions may be for good, but good intentions can also pave the road to hell.

          I think we shall have to leave it to Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Sarah and their fellow prelates to know what and when to do anything. As a layperson, while I lament and am saddened by al of this, I do have trust in these two prelates.

          • I think you’re reading on the surface of Cardinal Muller’s remarks.

            Read James’s message again. Study it.

        • I’d say that I agree with you in part and WANT to agree with you in whole, but the problem is we have heard this type of response for so long that it is hard to really believe this is actual shrewdness on the Cardinal’s part and not just the same-old vapid, pathetic, moral spinelessness we’ve seen from leaders for decades now.

    • Yes but I hope it is not because, ” the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.” Luke 16:8.

  14. “The Church was once ‘a little bit separated from other groups,’ seeming to be a little bit by itself, explains Cardinal Müller, and the pope wants now to reach out more to other groups in society.”

    Excuse me, Your Eminence, but by the very nature of the Church — that it is the One True Faith — means it will always be “a little bit by itself.” Duh?

    The interview saddens me (maybe it’s just been a long week). But I realize that reading the thoughts of these hierarchs who are in control of the machinery of the Church reveals to me that we no longer share first principles of the Faith. Therefore, we truly do have the effectively marginalized and underground True Church opposed and hunted down by the dominant anti-Church.

    The kicker was when he mentioned overcoming secularization. This from the Vatican which for 50 years has opposed the Catholic State and has encouraged the secular model of the United States. Do these men have any central core? Or do they just make things up to camouflage their inherent Modernist heresy?

    • Watching our Marxist bishops for fifty years, giving Communion to pro-aborts, behaving like Democrat lobbyists, abetting the Muslim/Mexican invasion, I can’t think of a worse idea than a Catholic state.

        • A Catholic state will be shaped by the clerics who are in office, be they Augustine and Athanasius, or Bernardin and Bergoglio. No thanks.

      • Arthur, given the present state of things, I don’t disagree with your comment. But I think the principle needs defending, n’est ce pas?

        • Indeed it does.

          Of course, in today’s world, the last thing we need to “worry” about is the re-establishment of a Catholic State.

          • I guess my concern was less the re-establishment of the Catholic State, but the active dismantling of them in Spain, Italy and some Latin American countries (Ratzinger worked hard at this) — and then complaining about secularization. It was more the hypocrisy of his statement that got me.

            On the other hand, look at the Irish Constitution of 1937 established by de Valera in Ireland — and the Catholic hierarchy singlehandedly destroyed it with their leftist policies.

            Without the complete collapse of what is left of the West, there is zero chance of the re-emergence of the Catholic State. But I would think that having the Catholic Church and the State working together to forge an authentic Catholic culture would be something worthwhile — in principle.

          • “Without the complete collapse of what is left of the West, there is zero chance of the re-emergence of the Catholic State. But I would think that having the Catholic Church and the State working together to forge an authentic Catholic culture would be something worthwhile — in principle.”


    • Right on.

      What part of “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword” {Matthew 10:34} and “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” {Lk 14:26} is so hard for
      Cardinal Müller to grasp?

      Every convert I know has had to face very similar challenges to what the Cardinal is facing, and doing so with his attitude would seem to suggest they stay put in their old life…which come to think of it…is exactly what this POPE has already bluntly advised! {no conversion, no proselytism, etc}.

      My head spins at times…

      • Good to see you , my former very effective sparring partner. The problem that Bergoglio has unleashed with AL is even more devastating when you think that he is challenging the Catholic notion of Unity as a Mark of the Church. I comment above. The only good thing about this Pope is that he has brought to a visible head (pardon the pun) what has been germinating and actually being lived for nearly 60 years. Anti-Church is out of the closet. Stay well. Oremus pro invicem.

        • Haha!!

          I agree 100%, every word of it!

          You nail it with the issue of “collegiality” and Protestant “unity” in complete chaos and fragmentation”…AKA “synodality” so touted by this Pope.

          And there are signs of hope scattered here and there. Our FSSP parish for example is not just “OK”, not just “good”, but utterly wonderful. Our leadership is fantastic, the zeal for Christ and His Church is there, built on sound doctrine and the never-changing teaching of the Church. No shame about it, no embarrassment. We have our warts, but they are warts common to human frailty, not the protected and “celebrated” diseases common to the spiritually suicidal who seek to destroy the Church. Folks are literally leaving their homes all over the country and moving to the area just to be a part of the parish. I praise God for our priests and parish leaders every day. We are growing, getting ready to build a new church, adding a priest, with support of our Bishop now and even there…our Bishop is showing signs of spiritual sensitivity. We even have a new convent of cloistered Carmelite nuns, with support of our bishop to-boot! Credit where credit is due…I’ve been rough on him in the past for his “Müllerite” interpretations of Bergoglianism, but he isn’t just accepting what’s going on with apathy, he is supportive. He even had a very productive meeting with the SSPX priests in our area! I think all the time about those faithful and priests as well who are stuck in areas where it just seems hopeless and how hard that must be. I encourage everyone to visit a truly dynamic Catholic parish and see that there is yet hope!

          Anti-Church is out of the closet and the real thing so much easier to see when it’s there to be seen!

    • He is living in a toxic environment and is manning the barricades without much help. See my first message on this thread.

      • “Manning the barricades”??…LOL!!

        That would be Burke, Caffara, Sarah, Brandmuller, Cordes, Meissner and one or two others.

        Muller is attempting to put a positive spin on AL. He’s sugar-coating a toxic pill. That is not “manning the barricades”.

        • That’s what I was thinking. Tge only ‘barricade’ is to keep PF from being deposed or assassinated before his usefulness has run out.

    • ….or maybe just visiting. This interview is about as clear to me as his theology on the perpetual virginity of Mary or his explanation of the theology of the Eucharist.

  15. Ever worked in a place where one of your fellow employees was an obsequious lap-dog who would vacuously parrot whatever the boss said, no matter how blatantly wrong or ridiculous? You know the guy (or gal). He (or she) was the bosses eyes and ears and would do anything for brownie points or to get in the bosses good graces. If anyone ever said a critical word, he’d tattle to the boss when nobody was looking. In fact, he’d do anything to further his own interests. Right and wrong didn’t matter. All that mattered was saving his own skin.

    Well that’s Muller.

  16. “This is not good in our world of mass media,” concludes the cardinals, adding that “our enemies are glad to see our Church in a certain confusion.”

    This Pope IS the enemy of the Church. Pope Tango’s (2 steps heresies & 1 step orthodoxy) homilies are full of heresies. And he wants to celebrate Luther with a “stamp” of approval even though Luther rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation? THIS IS AN ATTACK ON THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH–THE ATTACK ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST! I wish Raymond Arroyo had asked him why the heck would Pope Tango & the Vatican want to celebrate a MAJOR HERETIC?

  17. The next window of opportunity to effectively take down the force of evil operating in the Church at the Vatican is the future conclave. We need to have a couple of Cardinals left to deliver a bracing antidote to the toxins presently holding sway. Move the wrong way by a centimeter and Müller, Burke et al., will have lost their leverage. They need maintain their credibility within this very small group of men. They cannot be labeled traitors or wack-jobs if they are to have any impact. They know that.
    The next conclave is the only real opportunity to turn this around.

  18. Let’s pray for those good Priests and Bishops who are working in Vatican departments these days. It’s over 3 years now and the culture there is toxic to Faith, truth and trust.

  19. After Raymond Arroyo pushed Cardinal Mueller regarding Francis’ letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, he should have kept pushing to force a truthful answer. In other words, how can we keep pretending that no pope can issue doctrine that is against the teachings of Jesus Christ, when Francis did that in AL and then confirmed it to the bishops of Buenos Aires? Coupled with complete silence by Francis or the CDF on those dioceses who loud and proud affirm the heretical implementation .

  20. Disagree with most posts here. I think it is about the strongest rebuke one could imagine a CDF head could make of the Pope. 1) he made clear that the AL footnote does not change doctrine in any way; 2) he refutes the “pastoral” end around doctrine; 3) he agrees with Sarah on the liturgy; and 4) does not refute the account of the firing of his staff adding the qualifications to be a staffer is orthodox beliefs. I am shocked he has not been fired.

    • If he is attempting to hold the line until Francis kicks the bucket, he and others are doing a poor job. Several Bishops’ Conferences have already kow-towed to the Bergoglian line; the damnable document still exists, Imbroglio is still Pope.

      Where is the St. Athanasius of our time? Come on Cardinals Burke, Caraffa et al! GET ON WITH IT.

      • The interview speaks for itself. What is unclear about Muller’s statements? St Athanasius had the ability to appeal to a secular ruler, and only after Constantine called it did Nicea happen. Not sure where Burke could go in that regard. Perhaps you don’t realize there are more Cardinals in favor than opposed to Pope Francis. This is not a pleasant fact but obviously true.

  21. I think he’s trying to hang in there – reaffirming the teaching of the Church while trying to offer an explanation for PF bad theology and somehow avert a visible schism. When he’s removed, then what? Where is Cardinal Burke? All these renegades running the Church….what a mess.

  22. “Pope Francis was very clear against the gender ideology against transhumanism.”

    This is a great quote by Cardinal Muller, as it clearly links escalating sexual psychopathy with transhumanism to form a synthesis that is rightly called “Sexual Transhumanism”.

    It is crucial that the growing complex of Sexual Transhumanist laws be seen for what it is: the invention — out of sheer self-will and a disregard for natural law and God’s sovereignty — of the legal framework for the emergence of the Transhuman Race: an artificial life form that exalts Dr. Frankenstein-like megalomania and self-experimentation without limits or definition. Consider that in recent years, in Canada alone, Sexual Transhumanist legislation has concocted Transhuman “marriage” (Canada Bill C-38, 2005), the Transhuman “family” (Ontario Bill 28), and the Transhuman “person” (Canada Bill C-16, possible days away from passage — Lord, deliver us from such evil). I pray that, one day, the Church will see the need to speak out much more boldly and unflinchingly against the evil of Sexual Transhumanism — the destroyer of the image of God in man — and call for tearing out its poisonous laws by the roots.

    The other thing that’s highly noteworthy in this article is Cardinal Muller’s assertion that: “It is wrong, according to Müller, to think ‘everybody must think like me.’”

    Another commentator, CS, made a similar observation an the strangeness of the Cardinal’s statement, because I, for one, have no desire that everyone should “think like me”. Who cares what I think? And why is my opinion of any particular interest? No, what matters is that we think as God thinks — to “put on the mind of Christ”. We are all to be united in this union of will and intellect with the mind of our Lord Jesus.

  23. Card Müller, whilst “generally” agreeing “we have a crisis of the liturgy” quotes modernist Romano Guardini in support of
    his claim that loss of the sense of “mystery” at Holy Mass predates VII. “Life in God” depends on “inner attitude” rather than “exterior forms.” In an attempt to strengthen his claim, he says “also with the traditional Latin Mass one could celebrate Mass quickly – even in ten minutes – without entering into the mystery of the Mass.”

    Card Ratzinger, a CDF predecessor, addressed the subject of the liturgical crisis but avoided Müller’s lukewarm, politically
    correct nuances. Observing that the liturgical reformers created a ‘fabrication, banal product,’ Ratzinger claimed that ‘the result has not been a reanimation, but devastation.’ (Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990)

    In his autobiography ‘From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977’ he wrote “The unprecedented manner in which Pope Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo of the Mass created tragic consequences for the Roman Catholic Church.”

    Lamenting that “the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so.” he said “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of ‘etsi Deus non daretur’ (as if God did not exist): as though in the liturgy it did not matter anymore whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

    “But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?” he asked.

    He wrote in ‘La Mia Vita’, “the banning of the old Mass caused some extremely serious damages for us.” Not only did the banning of the old Mass represent a severe departure from tradition, but the revolutionary manner in which the new Mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own, not something which “is given.”

    “I was dismayed by the banning of the old Missal,” he wrote, “seeing that a similar thing had never happened in the entire history of the liturgy….”

    In a 1984 interview in Jesus Magazine, Card Ratzinger revealed that he had read the Third Secret of Fatima and that it refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world.”

    He said the Secret also refers to “the importance of the Novissimi [the Last Times / the Last Things]” and “If it is not made public, at least for the time being, it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational…” The Cardinal further revealed that “the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions.

    Sr Lucia had made a similar statement when questioned about the Third Secret: “It’s in the Gospel and the Apocalypse, read them. Frere Michel relates that she then indicated Chapters VIII-XIII. (Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol I and II passim.) Chapter XIII concerns the coming of the Antichrist.

    One of those Marian apparitions referred to by Card Ratzinger is La Salette which dealt with the coming of the Antichrist. “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist ….. all the universe will be struck with terror, and many will let themselves be misled.” Solange Hertz explains that in 1915 Rome forbad commentaries on the approved 1846 apparition.

    In his letter of 25th January 1987 Abp Lefebvre wrote: “This overturning of the faith seems indeed to be preparing the way for the Antichrist in accordance with the prophecies of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and in accordance with the commentaries of the Fathers.” Later, at the Consecration Sermon of June 30, 1988 Abp Lefebvre reminded the faithful of The Exorcism of Leo XIII revealing that “the See of Peter would become the seat of iniquity.”

    According to Catholic exegetes the coming of the Antichrist is to be accompanied by an apostasy and collapse of the Mass. Is there any doubt that the conditions for the advent of the Antichrist have been met?

    The appearance of his False Prophet would herald the imminent arrival of the Antichrist.


  24. Cardinal Muller tipsily walked Arroyo’s questions of trying to reconcile Pope Francis words and actions with Catholic doctrine. Bottom line: Muller is a “company man”. We received no new light from any of this just more equivocation and obfuscation. No one would say this is Christ’s Way, Truth or Life. So we wait, and pray as we wait, for the Catholic Church to come to itself in doctrine and action.

  25. Cardinal Müller, Sadly you sound like a politician. Taking the middle ground where everyone is misinterpreting everything and spinning the situation doesn’t help resolve the issues. The issues will just become bigger and more damage will be done.

  26. If I hear one more “it’s impossible for the Pope to change doctrine” lines from this man I think my head will explode. Dude, he’s DOING IT. Don’t you get it?? He’s doing it by stealth and studied ambiguity, but he’s doing it!

    And if said “it’s impossible . . .” line is intended as an admonition to PF . . . Dude, it’s not working, he’s IGNORING YOU.

    I even imagine Cardinal Mueller is a running joke to PF and his inner circle. As diocese after diocese falls into the Bergoglian heresy, PF’s pals tell each other over their wine and pasta, “Card. Mueller says what we’re doing is impossible! Let’s have a toast to our ‘impossible’ accomplishments!” Clink!

    • Well strictly speaking, Cardinal Müller is correct when he says that a pope cannot change doctrine but Francis and his modernist mafia are experts in changing the *perception* of that doctrine and for huge numbers of Catholics, that has the same end result – mass apostasy and a Church in almost total eclipse.

  27. After experiencing various Church contortions done “in the spirit of Vatican II,” the angst of AL is simply an new era of “rinse/repeat.”

    Dear Cardinal Mueller, nothing delights the enemies of the Church (Satan) more than confusion, especially when it is self-inflicted.

  28. “the Revelation of God unites” and “it is not our task to unify in a totalitarian way.” It is wrong, according to Müller, to think “everybody must think like me.” AND “It needs time,” because it is not only about “signing a document” but also about the change of heart. Some of the members of the SSPX, he adds, think “we [ourselves] are the right Catholics.” They have to accept the “hierarchical communion” of the Church, as well as the creed, the pope’s authority and the councils. It’s in the same document!

  29. In our modernist Church, it seems a struggle to just proclaim the truths given to us by Jesus Christ and handed down from the Apostles. The pope is not doing it and in deference to that high office, others are afraid to do it and since the pope cannot ‘officially’ proclaim a heresy, all is done in shadow and confusion and ambiguity.

  30. I was just on the phone with a friend who hadn’t heard about the new EWTN Muller interview yet. In describing it, I commented that the thing which distressed me the most was the Cardinal saying that the real problem is that the Dubia were made public. My friend paused a moment before remarking, “Isn’t that what Nixon said about Watergate?”

    • It is not the “deed” that is the problem; it is “disclosure” of the deed that is the problem. In other words, what you don’t know can’t hurt you — or can it? Isn’t there a verse in Hosea that says something along the lines of “my people perish for lack of knowledge”? Ignorance is not bliss; it can be deadly.

  31. There was no crisis in the liturgy before Vatican II. Any crisis in the liturgy was brought about by the Vatican who went through three missals between 1955-1965 and 5 missal changes in total, in two decades, 1950-1970.

  32. When it comes to Amoris Laetitia someone’s head is buried-deeply-in the sand. If everything is square with Catholic Doctrine then why are so many Bishops and Cardinals proclaiming that remarried actively practicing adulterers can discern that the Lord wants then to continue in their adultery and receive Holy Communion? And, one could add that if the good Cardinal believes that AL upholds the constant teaching of the Church on Divorce and the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony, Communion and Penance, then why isn’t he rebuking and censoring these ‘rogue’ Bishops and Diocese?

    “Woe to you blind guides!” comes to mind…though, I suppose it is hard to see with so much sand in one’s eyes.

    • May I chime in regarding abusing the TLM by saying it quickly. It is not an abuse to say the Mass quickly unless it is the priest’s intention to be irreverent. I have been to many Masses, Latin and English, said quickly but reverently. I have been to many N.O. Masses said purposely S L O W L Y because Father felt that slow was more reverent. It bored me to no end but I offered it up. I think reverence is the key. Since I learned to say the rosary in Latin, I say it much more quickly than in English. Why? It just rolls off my tongue that way now. I never thought I was being less reverent because I now tend to say it more quickly. Hope everyone has a blessed Memorial Day!

      • I took the Cardinal to mean those who were saying the Mass as quickly as possible to get it done. I have been witness to it and it is definitely not reverent. Let us just say this: If one’s intention is to offer the Mass as quickly as possible, then one’s intention isn’t what it should be.

        Slow in and of itself is not reverence either, however the more reverently one offers the Holy Sacrifice to more carefully He offers it and that lends itself to a slower pace rather than a quicker one. Same with the Rosary.

        The Rosary can be prayed devoutly in 15 minutes, but when it comes to 10 minutes or less it tends to be hurried. Now, if one is hyper active and they naturally speak very quickly, then they might be being very devout in their 10 minute rosary.
        And yes, the Latin does tend to move along more quickly than the English.

        • Fr, much agreed. I find that I must say the rosary out loud or the prayer speed up too much. When I say it out loud, I hear myself and keep from slipping into a “speed rosary”

        • Are you sure the 10 minute Mass wasn’t a communion service!? Wow. I agree with you, Father. God bless and keep you.

  33. This is all a horrible nightmare! Pope Francis is a disaster but the horror really does for the most part go back to Vatican II. That completely unnecessary Council was basically the French Revolution in the Catholic Church. It has shown itself as a dispickable thing that if a pope was actually honest, he would apologize and ask for Penance for if. But instead we have fools in the Church who are determined to parrot to the crew and passengers of the sinking ship that everything has been a new springtime, and that the Council was a wonderful thing.

  34. Cardinal Müller is both a bright scholar and a brave knight. Müller’s appearance on EWTN is a sign that he needs our prayers and support. “We have some rules how to act in the Church.” Oh, really? I guess if you are dealing with freaks from the Culture of Death, then you have to be polite and on edge. The solution is examined in the July 7, 2007 “Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum” which gives freedom to individuals in parishes to defeat the freaks from the Culture of Death. “For such celebrations… the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.”

  35. Before People jump up and down too much over this issue. Think of those children who were catholic but sexually absued by catholic priests, Is their anyone on here who would say that if those victims were no longer believers in the Catholic church or indeed believers at all, would any of you damn them to judgement. I suspect not becasue the circumstances are such that we can not imagine them to be damned under such circumstances. So take care in what you would ask for of those designated to pastor to people who are very badly damaged. As it is now how many people who attend communion and receive but would without doubt be in a state of mortal sin, how many of YOU know people who are those who should not be fronting up to communion, how often have you gone to the priest and reported them.

    • You conflate different things. Catholics expect the pastors to teach the truth in season and out of season, and if an individual soul is in big trouble, to deal with that soul with mercy and compassion – without retreating one step from the truth, even if that means (in human terms) that the compassion and mercy shown is hard.

      The path of mercy lies in amendment of life, however hard, and the Confessional. I know this from my own life.

    • Hence in Pope Pius V’s suggestion, such men should be turned over to the State for punishment, including

      I myself have been scandalized that ordained sex perversion felons have not be straightaway reported to the police by Catholic priests and bishops who have come to know of their crimes.

      And yes, I do understand the ploys, means and methods of those who try to game the system to attack the Church unjustly. There are too many cases of KNOWN felonious perverts being protected to pretend all charges are false.

  36. Why does EWTN waste time interviewing a Vatican insider close to the Pope when they – and we – know full well he will toe the “party line” and waffle and will never, ever, give a straight answer to a simple question? This neutral, meaningless double talk is merely adding to the existing and massive confusion among rank and file Good Catholics. In the words of the vernacular – Muller and the rest of the failing hierarchy of our Church should either “Put up or shut up”.

    • Its actually not a waste of their time at all – exposure of the false church; let people see his party line, waffling, & meaningless doubletalk. You never know what will be the last straw for someone, the watershed moment, watching, reading, hearing

    • Cardinal Muller was invited to give the Commencement Address at Christendom College in Virginia as Arroyo stated, and the interview took place at the College.
      Link for Commencement Address:

      Move to Inbox More
      4 of 16,267

      Print all In new window
      Muller at Christendom 2017

      Maureen Avila
      May 28 (1 day ago)

      to me

  37. Me thinks the Cardinal has missed his calling. He should have been a lawyer or a politician. And at the rate things are going, I am coming to believe that “clergy” should now be grouped into the same category as “lawyer” and “politician”. This interview has only strengthened and confirmed my belief. Lawyer, politician, and clergy — all the same thing. Straight answers to honest questions: if I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  38. Cardinal Muller, Clovis, Sarah, Burke! We can’t look to the pope for clarity, so we desperately seek it in whoever has opened his mouth lately. What a circus minimus…..

    • Some of the better educated faithful Catholics do not even want to read or listen to anything coming from Pope Francis and doubt that he ever was, or if so, still is a legitimate Pope given his verbal promotion of heresy and his choices of unorthodox clergy for leadership positions.

      • I think you are on to something… Now take a look at some of the things JPII said and did concerning blasphemy … like kissing korans and praising african voodoo religions…

  39. In case I haven’t been clear: Death and Hell Await all who betray our Lord and do not repent. This stands for many Cardinal’s, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious and the Pope.

    Let no man of God abideth evil Fools who deem that the Holy can be joined with the Unholy. The Lord is the avenger of Souls and He shall requite everyman according to his deeds.

    Let it be understood and let it be told and may it come to pass…soon. Amen.

    • Father, good to have your input again . Truly, speaking for myself, it is not easy to know what best to do often. The following could apply to Card. Mueller. I go to Mass in a very good Parish, but actually work as catechist in two other not so good Parishes. With Fr. Clovis’ presentation about Church and AntiChurch occupying the same space, I put a lot of hope in conveying Faith knowledge and (I hope) Virtue formation to my students, and trusting that God’s action is there whilst I try to do that. But I am concerned that should these young people go to Mass, they will not encounter what I have been teaching. I am afraid of what they might hear, although I appreciate it will take longer for some people to absorb a “subjective let me be the judge of that” mindset, whereas I would “call” it as soon as a hint of it was raised. This personal dilemma comes back to haunt me – perhaps as a temptation? A day ago I came across a blogger who applied “we may not do evil so that some good may come of it” principle, applying it to Catholic laity who endeavour to remain in employment in Catholic Schools or institutions doing whatever good they can and when they can, but sometimes of course they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Was this blogger being too severe? Would it not be better for good Catholic people to remain at their posts (which cannot be easy by the way) rather than apply this principle wrongly?

    • You have been very clear, Father RP.

      I recently read Msgr. Charles Pope’s column in LifeSite News. He has been very clear as well.

      Good to see you posting here.
      God bless you and thank you, for your words offer wisdom and comfort.

    • A simple comment that doesn’t apply to you because you already get it, but I wonder if many clergy do not due to their formation.

      What you describe here is merely what every Catholic layman faces every time he goes to work. We laymen must face challenges to our faith in ethics and morality and the living out of doctrine every day, and if we are ashamed of Christ, so, as He has told us, will He be ashamed of US before God. We EXPECT this to be the way of the world. We expect the devil to be present in the world of mammon, the world of the secular world. We do not live and work among those with whom we are in agreement on eternal matters.

      Priests: neither do you!

      I think many priests live under the totally understandable view that somehow things aren’t that way in the Church. I have long felt that the worldview of the clergy is often unprepared to face what is now an undeniable and quite obvious reality; the wolf is in the sheep pen AND HE HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.

      Underlying one’s calling, naturally, is quite understandably the general assumption that one is part of a “team”, of a group of allies, fellow priests and bishops who are at least on the big issues in agreement. But it is now manifestly obvious that this is simply NOT true.

      Clergy: you are not automatically among friends by virtue of your ordination! Do not assume yourselves so to be!

      In fact, though the CHURCH bears the charism of indefectiblity, individual priests and bishops do not, and heretics have permeated all levels of the Church hierarchy. Bella Dodd wasn’t kidding! Much has changed. Many heretics and enemies of the faith exist among the clergy.

      I truly believe that Bergoglio has done us a favor in exposing this reality in its vastness. And let it now inform the hearts and minds of priests everywhere.

      Clergy MEN of God, rise up. Do not allow the “corporate culture” of the heretics to shame you into accepting mediocrity. Holiness is the goal, and perfection is God’s command. Do not shy from speaking the truth in your parishes and dioceses! The salvation of the Church and the souls of the faithful, and…as Fr RP so perfectly puts it…YOUR soul demands it!

      Be harmless as doves and shrewd as serpents! The devil prowls about…even in the Church…seeking whom he may devour! Do not any longer put spiritual trust in any man…trust…and verify!


      I know this can be done, for I see it in my priests.

      • “Clergy: you are not automatically among friends by virtue of your ordination! Do not assume yourselves so to be!”
        One simply need reference Cardinal Maradiaga’s gross vindictiveness against Cardinal Burke in the last few weeks.
        Rest assured, after one week in the seminary, house of formation or monastery all new candidates are well aware of that reality. As I have stated more than once, heterodoxy always pretends to play by the rules while orthodoxy attempts to abide by the rules.
        For example, aberrant superiors in seminaries, houses of formation and monasteries employ this tactic as a means of weeding out those of traditional sensibility. They appeal to traditional practice for nefarious ends in order to aggravate them, they then “self-select” and leave. The superiors’ “hands are clean” – those who left “had no vocation” – and the community is saved from orthodox perspectives that would make the high life uncomfortable.
        It is the rule of the road – it is used all the time. One not lift the eyebrow the wrong way in the face of some opinion uttered by a superior – particularly of a heterodox bent and you have signed your exit papers. As a novice with the Trappists
        I was warned (out of charity) during the pontificate of John Paul II not to stir the waters by referencing him as the “Holy Father.” The Bergolian nest of vipers has been well concealed over the decades. They now sun themselves on the rocks boldly.
        This is a reality that need be brought to bear while everyone is using Cardinal Mueller as a punching bag. How many individuals piling on this man are willing to walk into the boss’s office and inform him/her of their grievous deficiencies?
        Once again, we have never in the history of the Church been at a moment like this. It has no precedent. The Cardinals and those supporting them must move with precision and patience.

        • You seem to be suggesting that standing up for the truth and for Christ is something nobody does. I disagree. I bet I am not the only one here that has stuck his neck out on many occasions in my work. In fact, I don’t think it is uncommon at all among professing Christians, though most of my experience to be sure is among evangelical Christians, since I have only been a Catholic for 4 years.

          If you want some famous cases, one need only look at the ridiculous court cases involving bakers and florists. But then again, aren’t most of them evangelical Protestants? Certainly there are Catholics who have lost jobs and status due to standing up for Christ.

          Are you intimating that all Catholics have simply lost their guts?

          Maybe you are right? I hope not.

          • A wise man uses the correct tool for the job.
            You don’t use a sledge hammer when a fine chisel is required.
            As for “all Catholics” — I would suggest that inordinate regard for ecclesial obedience obliged the laity, religious and clergy to conform to a post-council agenda that was — not merely in hindsight — ludicrous. And that fifty-two years later we have two generations of the grossly uncatechized, inadequately catechized, and erroneously catechized.
            What group are you in?
            As I have said here before, the dangerously heterodox element in the Church, presently wielding a gross abuse of authority, only want to see people pushing the button so they can not only interrupt proper ecclesiastical functioning, but to obliterate it.
            They are essentially terrorists, and they want your rage.
            Pray for discernment.

        • I agree the Church has not before because during the Arian crisis, 3 of 1000 bishops were sound but the church was not as organisionally structured as today and communication and travel was slow. These deficiencies would have ensured breathing space.

          • The speed of communication and its dispersal and the power of the secular academy to give “the imprimatur” has changed everything. But I have come to the conclusion that the denial of the Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ is already on the table. It will be unmasked in Roman Catholicism for all to observe in the next decade — but those in the academy are already on that band wagon. Mainline protestantism is there already. Its not big news because mainline protestantism is dead.

          • I dont know whether it has jelled with all that believing Jesus is God is a non-negotiable for all Christians. Criticising proselytism seems to deny Christ’s Divinity when you follow it through to conclusion.

        • Some time back there was an excellent piece on ‘blind obedience’ which was a particular interpretation of obedience broadcast amongst religious ongoing (I think post reformation). This kind of obedience enabled abuses of all kinds down the track and is still around today.

          • It is very true.
            “Blind obedience” as it were, is abstractly quite fine when everyone
            is complying with the rule and its intention. It is a weapon when wielded by a person of nefarious intention. Surely there has always been abuse [read the lives of the Saints], but in the current epoch when the “ecclesial
            contract” has for all practical purposes been abandoned and the Church
            peppered by those who clearly hold Roman Catholicism in contempt, the
            admonition to evangelical “obedience” can be something akin to an
            infant with a machine gun.
            When I read Francis’ Apostolic Constitution “Vultum Dei Quaerere” regarding contemplative nuns last summer I quaked. Follow the mutterings of Arturo Sosa SJ, Superior General of the “Society of Jesus” – enraptured with their own notions and pet peeves – entirely divorced from the wisdom of classical religious observance.
            Angry men intent on their raking in their revenge.

    • Not to put too fine a point on it, but he is missing a lung, too, isn’t he?

      We need to pray for him…and his potential successors…every day.

  40. Currently watching it. Glad to hear Cardinal Muller correct the 2 + 2 = 5 nonsense of whoever said that.

  41. Folks – has anyone else been over to Fr Z’s Blog?

    I went over to see his take on the interview, but was astonished that the sole segment of the interview he chose to highlight was Cardinal Mueller’s statement that female deacons are impossible…yet totally ignoring the elephant in the room about what he says about Amoris Laetitia.

    I’m stunned at Fr Z’s elision/greyout of that segment – and even more stunned that NONE of his commentators thereon have elected to discuss this matter either ! Maybe it’s just too much for the goodly Fr Z – ‘let’s emphasise the positives…nothing to see here beyond lady deacons’. Just a gobsmacking omission – I’m amazed!

    • The wise man picks his battles.
      “…wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove.”
      A lot of people on this thread are advising our competent and faithful clergy to go on a suicide mission. Believe me, when they go down, we go down. The heterodox exercising power hold the faithful laity as ignorant groundlings. They look forward to the biological time bomb to free them of the nuisance of laity who survive who had competent catechesis. We are a dying breed. After us there are no more.
      Only faithful clergy can bring the corrective to the theological holocaust that is upon us.

      • You’ve highlighted the important fact of our dependence on a small scattered number of clergy mostly older clergy; and the small number of well catechised laity, and unless God intervenes the Church will shrink.dramatically but surely God, to feed His flock will ensure ongoing access to good clergy.

        • I find Old Testament references very comforting these days. So many come to mind. But very often I refer to this moment in the history of the Church as the “Bergoglian Captivity.”
          “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat and wept…”

  42. “He does not want to say: ‘Either you accept absolutely all from the beginning or you are absolutely out.’”

    Yes, because that’s what we’ve been saying. Sheesh, what an absurd straw-man argument!

  43. “But the Cardinal is a good man”. Indeed he is. But being good is not enough – one must be EFFECTIVE. He is good, but ineffective, a model of ecclesial impotence in the course of this disastrous papacy.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...