Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has given a new interview in which he has made some comments with 
regard to the papal document Amoris Laetitia, and which may now be seen as an indirect response to the Four Cardinals’ own dubia.
Cardinal Müller spoke with the Italian journal Il Timone, and the interview was just published in the February issue of that journal. Dr. Sandro Magister, the Italian Vatican specialist, first reported on this interview and has today already published in English certain passages from that interview. Magister says that the German Cardinal had at first not responded to the dubia when they were sent to him directly, but, he adds:
To make up for this, however, now Müller is bringing clarity, and how [?], in an extensive interview that is coming out today [1 February] in the magazine Il Timone, conducted by editor Riccardo Cascioli and by Lorenzo Bertocchi. In the interview, the cardinal does not use the word dubia, but he says “apertis verbis” [with open words] precisely what the four cardinals were asking to have clarified. And he does not fail to lash out against those bishops who with their interpretive “sophistries” – he says – instead of acting as leaders for their faithful, are falling “into the risk of the blind leading the blind.”
In the interview, Cardinal Müller answers to the question as to whether there can be a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience with a clear: “No, that is impossible.” He continues:
For example, it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church. [my emphasis]
With this quote, the Prefect for Doctrine rejects the confusing comments – stemming from Amoris Laetitia – which indicate just the opposite. Cardinal Müller insists that “Amoris Laetitia must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church”; and he adds that he does “not like it, it is not right, that so many bishops are interpreting Amoris Laetitia according to their way of [more subjective] understanding the pope’s teaching.”
Müller continues:
This [more subjective individual way] does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate. The bishop, as teacher of the Word, must himself be the first to be well-formed so as not to fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind. [my emphasis]
In a 1 December 2016 interview, Cardinal Müller also insisted that the local bishop is strictly bound by the Church’s doctrine. This part of that interview, as we then said, unfortunately was – and still is – largely overlooked. We also recently reported that Cardinal Müller has recently again insisted upon that part of the post-synodal document Familiaris Consortio – paragraph 84 – which very clearly states that the “remarried” divorcees must live in permanent and sincere continence if they wish to access the Sacraments. This is what he also importantly repeats in this new interview, thereby answering some of the dubia himself:
Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must strive [sic] to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?
A: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” with the clear doctrine of the “intrinsece malum [intrinsically evil].” [my emphasis]
Müller repeats what he has done before, namely he insists that not even a pope can change the substance of the Sacrament of Marriage:
For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.
Cardinal Müller then proposes that we study the doctrine of the Church more deeply, in order to avoid chaos and further confusion. He also rejects the use of sophistries with regard to marriage:
I urge everyone to reflect, studying the doctrine of the Church first, starting from the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, which is very clear on marriage. I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings, above all that according to which, if love dies, then the marriage bond is dead. These are sophistries: the Word of God is very clear and the Church does not accept the secularization of marriage. The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity. One cannot refer only to little passages present in Amoris Laetitia, but it has to be read as a whole, with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage and the family more attractive for persons. It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it. All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations. [my emphasis]
This new interview comes as a surprise, since Cardinal Müller only recently had rebuked the Four Cardinals for their publication of the dubia, thereby, he said, putting the pope under pressure to answer. He then also had said that there will be no public correction of the pope because “there is no danger to the Faith.” Moreover, he additionally had claimed that “Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine.”
Therefore, while Müller still essentially upholds this prior claim, he now implicitly and substantially rejects those parts of Amoris Laetitia which are causing much of the confusion (as he had done already in May of 2016). And he effectively thereby includes the newly presented episcopal guidelines, for example, the ones in Malta and in Argentina – all of which confusions were the cause for the dubia in the first place. It is to be hoped that this statement by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will bear, in some enduring way, good fruit for the sincere termination of these equivocating and demoralizing confusions.
Is Cardinal Müller now admonishing PF for upholding the episcopal guidelines issued in Argentina & Malta? It would also be interesting to know his view of the recent overthrow of sovereignty of the K or M.
How much longer will he last in the CDF? I’m thinking maybe 3 months.
Mueller may want to begin packing his suitcase. I hear the Arctic Circle is lovely this time of year and needs a bishop . . .
Exactly. He should watch his back so that he is not caught by surprise by the hit men Francis sent to to undermine Cardinal Burke in the Knights of Malta fiasco.
The formal correction must have been issued & this is Cardinal Müller’s response, even if a somewhat weak. If PF removes (demotes) him & Cardinal Burke that would pave the way for an Informal Council & he must know that.
Exactly.
I’m sceptical. I hope I’m wrong.
You mean Imperfect Council. I imagine an Informal Council as the Cardinals lounging around in jeans in the local pub, maybe over a beer or a Creme de Minthe.
Yes sorry. Although your description of such a Council is probably what does occur, out of sight.
Now, let him open his eyes and admit publically that Amoris Laetitia is the problem and so is the one who’s signature is upon it.
“It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.” That is absolute rubbish and he must know that, he is trying to pretend that the Pope isn’t walking around naked for the sake of the dignity of the Papal Office.
None of the ‘bad interpretations’ would be possible if Amoris Laetitia didn’t say what it clearly says. Furthermore, if the Pope actually cared about Bishops ‘misinterpreting’ him, then he would have answered the Dubia the day they were sent. Instead he has sat silent on the subject and released his minions against the authors of the dubia and he hasn’t stopped preaching insulting absurdities day after day in the awful chapel at Santa Marta.
Sorry, but no amount of fog can cover the Pope’s nakedness regarding Amoris Laetitia. He approved of the Aregentine interpretation, and also the Cardinal Vicar of Rome’s and allowed the Maltese directive to be published in the L’Osservatore Romano …and Archbishop Scicluna (of Malta) has publically claimed that he is following the Pope’s directive in AL and is in fullunity with him and used the Romano’s publication of the Maltese directive as proof of it being so.
As of yet the Pope hasn’t corrected Archbishop Scicluna’s ‘misinterpretation.’
It’s always the “misinterpretation” these days. Never the documents.
Vatican II’s been misinterpreted, so they say. The CCC has been misinterpreted, so they say. AL’s been misinterpreted . . .
Enough of this “misinterpretation” bulls**t!
I wonder if there is a course on Papal Apologetics in seminaries. There must be lots of stretching and warm-ups before all those contortions, but virtuosos have great prospects in Rome.
the misinterpretation baloney is the politically correct way of avoiding having to expose the naked emperor by saying that AL has heresies in it.
Agreed, he’s still not being honest about what the document plainly says, let alone addressing Francis’ response to the Argentine bishops. This, however, is yuge:
“This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, NOR THE POPE, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”
Total shot at Francis.
To be clear, I am very Happy with what Cardinal Müller has said about Intrinsic evil and the Sacraments etc…just not buying the “well, the problem is…..” while obfuscating the real problem.
Perhaps Cardinal Muller is giving the warning shot. I thought that as well.
For the love of the pope, the Church, could he be letting Francis know
where he stands and where he WILL stand and with whom?
Perhaps it’s an invitation to the Pope to retract in a way that lets him put the blame on others? Oh, it wasn’t never really my own interpretation… It’s a correction of wrong interpretations from those bishops (now I’m guessing they would be furious!).
Much too late for that. The devil led Francis a merry dance past the point of no return. To save face and his place in history he must completely repudiate the errors in AL. God is good and miracles still happen.
And God will hold him accountable for those lost souls of sodomites, adulterers who had continued committing sins. He and his minions are big liars.
Why does the author of the article (Maike Hickson) say that Cardinal Muller now implicitly and substantially rejects those parts of Amoris Laetitia which are causing much of the confusion? I’m not seeing that Cardinal Muller is rejecting anything in Amoris Laetitia at all. He certainly doesn’t make any reference at all about rejecting anything in Amoris Laetitia.
“As of yet the Pope hasn’t corrected Archbishop Scicluna’s ‘misinterpretation.'” …as of yet the Pope can still say that it is Cardinal Muller who has misinterpreted it and wheel on Schonborn to take his place. I think muller would be singing a different tune if that were to happen.
Of course & the Imperfect Council would then be called to clear-up this mess. PF has gone so far now that he is a huge embarrassment to the entire church – even those they were going along with things. He may soon have no option but to resign.
There is a well understood maxim in law concerning both statutory construction and the drafting of contracts that hold that if something can be interpreted a certain way, then it will be interpreted that way at some point. Thats why, in contract law, issues of contract involving ambiguous language always holds against the drafter as they could have written it in a way to avoid multiple (legitimate) conclusions. As long as Amores Laetitia CAN be interpreted in a manner that violates Tradition, it is permissive of violating Tradition and at some point it will be interpreted that way. Any analysis that does not read intent into this, or at least raise the question in real way, is defective.
In the information operations world, when this happens and there is an articulable benefactor of that ambiguous or non-conforming language who further has a material role in its drafting, that “other” meaning is what it is intended to mean and that is the intent. The fact that the current Pope plays out his role in the drama through proxies further clarifies a well recognized pattern and persona.
If people took out the names of the players and their titles and replaced them with “Entity A” and “Entity B” etc, and then generified the language and the issue, it would be much easier to read. The problem we confront is that the slowness to pull the trigger on what we are seeing stems from the fact that, in our wildest days, no-one I know would have ever thought they’d see this from the Vatican at that level. If someone wrote a script like this 10 years ago, we’d have called the author anti-Catholic.
Thank you for clearing this up by using a different analogy – works for me. We were given intellects by Our Loving Father. We can use them is we want to.
Following up on my assessment below; taking up another point Fr. RP made, when a proxy answers on behalf of the principal in an unofficial capacity, in an unofficial forum, and in a manner that makes some effort not to respond directly to the questions at hand (the Dubia), they should not be recognized as answers (maybe trial balloons?) because, in such circumstances, neither the principal nor the instrument in question (Amores Laetitia) have been touched – hence, nor have the actual questions in controversy been answered.
Its a tactic to declare agreement based on such circumstances, seeing a fig leaf, only to find that when the principal floats the instrument in an official manner, it remains substantively unchanged with protestations that no agreements were reached – no agreements were made – no real meeting of the minds was had. The very act of the Cardinal responding without recognizing the true nature of the questions is itself a relevant data point.
In the sum, SirCollins, Gerhard Cardinal Mueller is simply affirming outwardly what he denies internally and denying outwardly what he affirms internally, all in the unofficial forum of the now infamous secular “interview”. Smoke and mirrors. In caritas.
Yes, and in this instance, the whole way the Senior Vatican conduct itself follows a recognized pattern known for its lack of integrity and cravenness.
While this is much better than “AL is no danger to the faith” nonsense, it still lacks the AL *is* the cause of the problem. And we all know that there will not be any forthcoming “clarification” to AL. More heat to the boiling schism.
Oh So well said Father RP!!!! Cardinal Mueller cannot have it both ways. He ignores the elephant in the room. Lay people are not stupid.
Maybe Muller’s plan is to try a different strategy than the four bishops. Explicitly positing the clarity of the pope’s teaching even in the face of the increasing confusion over its proper interpretation may be Muller’s way of drawing Francis into the open for a clarification while avoiding the accusation of disobedience. Not that I think it will work. Francis seems to love the shadows.
Perhaps his Eminence has chosen this way out of a sense of charity, hoping to offer the Holy Father a dignified escape from the heretical corner into which he’s painted himself. Wishing to see the papal office or its occupant not exposed to scorn and ridicule ought to be praiseworthy. Perhaps this is an offer in the spirit of filial loyalty, hoping to cover the nakedness of the Holy Father. We shall know before long what comes of it.
No covering large enough at this point.
I have speculated whether the Cardinal Prefect is throwing a life line to the Pope, though with no real confidence that Francis will grab it. At this point I expect nothing short of disaster.
My guess is, that’s it for Muller. In 30 days, he will no longer be prefect of the CDF. If he has real guts, he will publish something official before it is too late. Perhaps he should simply publish answers to the dubia in his capacity as prefect of the CDF and then let PF try to have the next guy retract it. Or failing that, perhaps he should publish all the corrections he sent to PF concerning the drafts of AL that were ignored.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think he can make any “official” statement without the approval of the Pope, so it wouldn’t even need to be retracted, it wouldn’t be official.
Yes, but it would certainly lay down a marker as he heads into exile and force the defenders of AL to do a lot of explaining.
For his trouble Muller will be the next Cardinal Patron to the Knights of Malta…I hear there’s going to be an opening there soon!
“It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.”
WE KNOW HOW TO READ! Please Cardinal Muller, stop covering for Senor Jorge! What about the infamous & filthy FOOTNOTE in AL???? Didn’t that FOOTNOTE OPEN THE GATES OF HELL?
Cardinal Muller why don’t you lecture Abbott and Costello (the two bishops of Malta) for their wicked DESECRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST through their own interpretation of AL? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a38832ef94fcbdae80acb0ec0b7001a08d434f733ac803db2c8bf970256be2f3.jpg
What a dance. How many more documents are going to have to be laid upon the faithful that must “be interpreted in light of tradition” that clearly are meant to circumvent tradition by stating the opposite? This tortured application seems to be reaching preposterous levels. It’s surreal to see such games played with words that affect the eternal destiny of souls. What a blessing it is to have the four cardinals (and supporters) who decided that word games were insufficient this time around!
The article states, at the end, that…”he [Cardinal Muller] now implicitly and substantially rejects those parts of Amoris Laetitia, which are causing much of the confusion.”
I’m not seeing anywhere in the article that Cardinal Muller rejects anything in Amoris Laetitia. Rather, he doesn’t seem to find a problem with Amoris Laetitia, but only in the interpretation of it.
The article quotes Cardinal Muller as saying…..”One cannot refer only to little passages present in Amoris Laetitia, but it has to be read as a whole, with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage more attractive for persons. It is not Amoris Latitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.”
He’s basically agreeing with what Cardinal Burke initially said – that it wasn’t Magisterial & only the Pope’s opinion. Cardinal Burke & the other three Cardinals took a different viewpoint when theologians, academics et al pointed out the dreadful possibilities in its interpretation.
It seems to me that Cardinal Mueller is saying that AL is fine, but then he proceeds to reject certain aspects flowing out of the document, such as the possibility of having access to the Sacraments while living in adultery – which he now clearly refutes. It would be much better he would just agree with the Four Cardinals and their dubia and request from the pope a correction of those parts in AL that have caused such a turmoil in the Church. Let us pray he will do that one day.
Dear Maike,
In humility, it would seem that any “prelate” of Holy Mother Church who would suggest, (as Mueller is quoted in your essay as saying, ‘ “…with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage more attractive for persons.” ‘), that the rhetoric of man, “Amoris Laetitia”, can somehow improve upon the divinely inspired language of the Blessed Paraclete through the Holy Gospel, by virtue of somehow, “…making the Gospel of marriage more attractive for persons”, is tantamount to suggesting that the soul killing fires of perdition are somehow more satisfying than the re-Creative Fire of the Holy Ghost. Mueller is either, if it were possible, implacably deceived, or he is a virtuoso Modernist of the Bergoglian and Ratzinger order of magnitude; Bergoglio in praxis and Ratzinger in “evolutionary” rhetoric which laid the platform for the Bergoglian “Pontificate”. In caritas.
” ….he [Muller] adds that he does “not like it, it is not right, that so many bishops are interpreting Amoris Laetitia according to their way of [more subjective] understanding the pope’s teaching.”
“Their way” of understanding the pope’s teaching????
Uh, no……this is the way Francis wants it understood. He’s made that perfectly clear by now. Furthermore, if it’s not the way Francis wants it understood, he should correct them, no? Yet he doesn’t. Neither will he answer the dubia.
Muller is still procrastinating, fence-sitting, prevaricating…..call it what you want. He’s singing out of both sides of his mouth.
He’s be asked to choose between God and man, and all he say is “I’m still thinking”. Wake up, Cardinal!
“It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.”
This statement is incoherent. To paraphrase: it is not AL that has provoked confused interpretations, but confused interpretations that have provoked confused interpretations.
You end with Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass sentences like these when you try to talk your way around the truth.
Where are the men in the Church with the courage to just speak the truth? There’s no charity in these tortuous circumlocutions and obfuscations.
Exactly.
This is nonsensical and ridiculous in its attempt to preserve the orthodoxy and integrity of the Pope.
And it demeans the Church, making all Catholics look like friggin idiots who are mindnumbed and incapable of defining what “is” means.
No, Cardinal Müller, the document is a mess, OK? It is a hot mess.
Beginning with the worst paragraph of all, para 3.
Give me a break.
RTHEVR, it’s simple, don’t you see?
“Is” (and any word for that matter) means whatever the Pope happens to say it means on a given day.
Remember: A good Catholic follows the Pope, no matter what. If you don’t, you’re in schism, even if what you’re doing is nothing more than what Catholics have done before you for centuries.
(sarcasm off)
Interesting development for sure, but still sitting on the fence. I hope this is an overture to something else. “It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.”. Come on Your Eminence, please!! (Edit: I now see Fr RP has made the same point already)
I have felt as if we have been and are being played — as a cat “toys” with a mouse. I hate, truly hate, being manipulated. The fiasco has undermined the credibility and authority of the Catholic hierarchy. Is there nothing sacred? Nothing holy? And it isn’t just this one thing; it is multiple things, as in scandal after scandal. Are we really making analogies to Noah’s sons covering the nakedness of their father? (aka, the Cardinals trying to cover the nakedness of the Pope). Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. I’m sorry, but unfortunately I caught a glimpse of the Emperor with No Clothes, and I can’t get that simply awful image out of my mind.
They’re trying to cover the nakedness of the pope and forgot they’r naked too. What is he going to do with German church now?
I just used the same analogy of cat and mouse on a different thread. I’m so relieved many are aware and. It falling for it.
Still, God loves his chosen ones.
There is some better news too:
“The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy of these USA, of Australia and of England issued a joint statement about Pope Francis’ Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.”
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/3-confraternities-of-catholic-clergy-statement-on-amoris-laetitia/
That is a good development.
Actually, that is a GREAT development.
I think we are Well, Past a need for a mere correction. In view of Francis undermining the CDF by removing priests and his subversion of the Knights of Malta it is time for a Formal replacement of Amoris Latita by Canon law 915 or 16.Right away this MUST be done by the majority of the Red Hat Cardinals and I hope Pope Benedict 16th..In reality , Otherwise watch the Rc faith denigrate into a Schism like the dying Anglican episcopal, Presbyterian, UCC, Congregationalists ,Lutheran and Calvinist churches have done already sad to say……… I thought it was a Joke to give a stamp or Communion to Luther and Lutherans. If this occurs and this apostasy goes on by Bishops in Germany, Chicago, Dc and most of California (McElroy, Gomez , Ochoa and McGrath) then a Schism has arrived like it or not ……………… Even AB Napier and others such as Kazach bishops have pointed out the disaster about to envelope the RC faith. It is dying on the vine in most of West Europe, Parts of the USA and Canada. All we get out of Francis and his scurrilous minions is coercion and double talk.
I think I may stop reading anything about AL until there is an announcement of retraction or schism. This is so tiresome. Black and white really are black and white, up cannot be down and 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 5.
I had the following to offer this morning before I read the article “German Bishops Allow Holy Communion for the “Remarried” Now.” Just goes to show you the psychotic disorientation reigning supreme on Vatican Hill.
Cardinal Muller’s words provided the greatest comfort this morning, however we remain in the same position. The Holy Father’s response to the Argentinian episcopate stand as they were rendered and provide the defining key of interpretation – despite what Cardinal Muller says. How can you get around it?
How do you get through to those who need to hear that two messages are being rendered to the faithful, and it is not the fault of the faithful, it is the fault of the pastor. How do you get that across to “somebody?” Why does it take so much effort? What is the impediment? “Amoris laetitia,” all be it an Apostolic Exhortation requiring a considered and thoughtful reading, is not Heidegger’s “Being and Time.” It’s a pastoral document that should have fairly friendly access. A maze of profound insights it is not. Ambiguity and pious poetics triumph over depth intellect here, despite its length.
Tossed salad double speak will not do. It is counterproductive and, should this go on any longer, will mark this pontificate as at least disingenuous if not far, far worse.
Time to clean up the mess in the short time remaining while it might still be accomplished.
Not much virility in these discussions, is there? Neither on the part of heterodoxy, nor of orthodoxy. Mrs May handles her Brexit in a more manly way than the cardinals defend the Truth.
“Mrs. May handles her Brexit in a more manly way than the cardinals defend the Truth.” Amen, bro; what the Church has lacked more than anything, probably since Vatican II, is clear vision and manly courage.
…with apologies to the exceptions to the rule, led by St. JPII, that is.
It was a good and courageous act. He is being charitable to the Holy Father.
“I urge everyone to reflect, studying the doctrine of the Church first”, HA HA HA “I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings” HA HA HA HA “The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity” HA HA HA HA HA “It is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA “To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the
doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate” JUST ANSWER THE DUBIA ALREADY!!!!!
Isn’t it pathetic?
At a cost of €3 and hours of dealing with a very wobbly website I have managed to get a
copy of Cardinal Muller’s interview in Il Tamino in Italian. My
Italian is rudimentary but as far as I can see what he says about
Amoris Laetitia is entirely orthodox. Basically he says that you
really cannot take a footnote as justifying communion for the
divorced and remarried and that Familiaris Consortio remains the
teaching of the Church. He says that any confusion has arisen
because of individual interpretations by some Bishops.
It is a long document and does, it seems to me, effectively rubbish most of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia even though he says the real problem is the sophism of many Bishops. I hope it gets translated into English soon so that we can study it further.
So what is all this about? The four Cardinals submitted their dubia. The Pope has made
clear he is not going to answer and furthermore he has not asked the
CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of which Cardinal
Muller is the head) to comment. So there is nothing coming out from
the CDF. But here we have Cardinal Muller giving an interview,
presumably in his personal capacity and not as Prefect of the CD,
which seems to contradict the indorsement which Pope Francis gave to
the heterodox views of the Buenos Aires Bishops.
I see this as a direct challenge to Pope Francis. What will happen next? Cardinal Muller
sacked and replace by Cardinal Schonborn?
How can the divorce of doctrine and morals from the Magesterium in paragraph 3 be “orthodox”?
I know it is obscenely and mindnumbingly verbose, but he needs to read it again…or at least the first three paragraphs.
Having read the comments here I think we must not be too hard on Cardinal Muller. We need to have the full document in English and I think we will then find that it is fairly thorough. Evidently the Cardinal is in a gradual process of discernment – he has lost three of his best men and he has been asked by the Pope not to say anything officially about the dubia but he has come out and done just that although as an individual. The whole position is getting worse by the day but I welcome this as the sooner the boil will burst.
“Evidently the Cardinal is in a gradual process of discernment”.
This line just struck me as hilariously funny.
Reminds me of the old Cheech and Chong dog poop skit…
Okay, it is hard to take someone seriously when they can’t keep their story straight. So, what part of the Cardinal is talking here? I have respect for the Prefect, but it is hard to know from what side of his mouth (and thus of the Pope’s) he is talking from. At this rate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will be renamed the “Circus of the Faith”, since all we have is a never ending circus of displays from diverse “interpretations”. I suppose it is hard being isolated from Orthodoxy now that the Reforms of Francis have kicked in, thus deeming anyone of orthodox Faith an Enemy of the Pope. I think it best if the Reverend Cardinal just didn’t say anything on this matter – as he seems to cause even more confusion to Mount Confusion that the Supreme Teacher has already built.
I think we know, even if we wish to conceal or veil it, that Our Most Holy Lord the Pope does want to change Teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony. It also appears that in the Franciscan Papacy, the footnotes now have their own Magisterium, and that in future diverse Letters we turn our gaze not to the text, but to the Infallible Footnotes at the bottom. Apparently, the Church can be changed via the Papal Footnote, to wit, a Pontiff can now change everything by penning a phrase under the actual text! Perhaps, we shall see the emergence of a new Letter: the Apostolic Footnote.
However, I shall not get to worked up about it. All I say is: It is Your Church, my dear Jesus. You take care of Her.
Folks, read Chapter 6 of 2 Maccabees and you will see what is going on here with these embarrassing attempts to make AL sound legit.
Eleazer had the guts to stand up for his convictions and look what he was up against. These guys at WORST might have to find another line of work and yet they want it both ways. They want to eat fake pork.
Maybe it’s time for a revival of reading that Holy Scripture.
As a convert, if I could change ONE main thing in the Catholic Church, it would be the culture of Bible “handling”. By that I mean the way the Bible is used, because most of the time with most people…it isn’t. It needs to be dragged off the shelf and USED. Worn out. Read over and over.
The Bible is the single most important reason I am a Catholic today.
It was through a lifetime of reading the Bible cover-to-cover/over-and-over that the weaknesses of the Protestant sects were exposed. Because of many reasons {mostly my belief that the Catholic Church was a religiously indifferent, universalist sect that minimized Jesus and the uniqueness of the Christian faith, I steered clear of the Catholic Church. Wanted nothing to do with it. It was a joke as far as I was concerned. I grew up with Catholics and none I ever knew ever knew anything about the Bible and not much about the teachings of the Catholic Church for that matter, either.
When I finally did give the teaching of the Catholic faith a glance, it didn’t take long for all the loose ends of my Bible study years to be tied up neatly. CLEARLY, whatever my personal experience had been, the Catholic faith held the truth; Biblical, historical TRUTH, and NONE of the other professing Christian groups did.
The Catholic Church through her Tradition GAVE the world the Bible.
It is high time Catholics start using it. It’s “our” book after all.
And we are all still waiting for the dubia cardinals to issue their formal correction. I do wonder if Muller will participate.
Maybe he is in some sort of pathetic way trying to rehabilitate himself here. I said on a past thread I suspected he might try to make a comeback, and it looks like he has, tho it is half-baked at best.
We need a revolution of righteousness to sweep through the Church.
It’s going to take a lot more than a few oldster Cardinals and a quivering CDF head to right the wrongs that have been committed against Holy Mother Church.
We need true Catholic renewal from the bottom to the top.
When even Jimmy Akin doesn’t buy Müller’s “this is not the way the Pope wants AL interpreted” in his 12 things to know and share, you know we have a problem… http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/cardinal-mueller-on-amoris-laetitiae-12-things-to-know-and-share
Not THIS???
The failure of Akinization?
Things must be bad now…
Cardinal Muller’s words should be cheered by everyone, and they echo Galatians 1:8: “This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”
However, the position he is trying to maintain is untenable, even ridiculous. The actual text of Amoris is the problem, and he is too smart a guy not to know this. The bishops of Argentina, Malta, Germany have not mis-read the Pope, but put his document into practice.
The only thing I can think about Muller, in light of the contrast between his orthodoxy and his defense of Amoris, is that he is trying to play some kind of “long game.” But this tactic is futile; a papal document will long outlive anything he says or doesn’t say. He is only the head of the CDF; Francis writes as the Pope.
There is no good way out of this thing. So long as the document remains uncorrected, it will continue to do terrible damage, and Francis certainly isn’t going to correct it. None of us can see how this thing will play out; only God knows how this situation will be resolved.
This is an excellent summation. After reading this article, I couldn’t put my finger on what was bothering me about this positive turn of events. It’s the content of AL being uncorrected, of course.
Nothing has really changed with the Cardinal’s recent comments and the crisis will continue:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-pope-accuses-his-critics-of-cowardliness-for-overfocus-on-following-1
Thank you for your insight.
Exactly.
Jesus didn’t tell His Apostles to turn the other {theological} cheek. He told them to teach the people to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. Jesus affirmed the good and condmened the bad…and so did the Church until Pope John XXIII’s opening address to Vatican 2 when he said She would no longer use that approach. Since then, a culture of dishonesty has nearly triumphed.
What we are seeing today is the full fruit of that dishonesty that has racked the Catholic Church for decades. It is disingenuousness as a “doctrine”, playing the game that we can “affirm and not condemn” all things, finding good in all no matter WHAT.
It is the scourge of Pope John XXIII’s opening address to Vatican 2 and it has swept through the Catholic Church stem to stern and now is rotting out the hull.
Time to find a good ship’s carpenter to start shoring up the timbers cuz the barque of St Peter is struggling in some very rough seas.
The volume of intellectual dishonesty surrounding AL is staggering, starting with Francis, but at least Cardinal Muller is clearly answering one or more of the dubia. These days, I consider that alone to be borderline heroic, but that is probably more a statement of the esteem in which I’ve come to hold the Magisterium than anything else. Anyway, our autocratic Pope must be just fuming now at yet another Cardinal, all the more reason for yet another demotion and replacement with another likeminded, compromising, Vatican II relativist.
We must see that Card. Muller is rejecting the radical subjectivism and contradictions of Amoris. Of course, he is a diplomat and serves at the pleasure of Pope Francis, so we should not expect candor.
Dear Carlo,
See Gerhard Cardinal Mueller for who he is, a quintessential Modernist, who in public praxis affirms that which he himself denies and publicly denies that which he himself affirms. This is the art of the rhetorical double entendre’ and the sine quo non of the Modernist and Mueller is a virtuoso. See here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a01z_002_Kramer.html In caritas.
If any one is interested I have written a precis of the entire interview and added some comments at:
http://guildofblessedtitus.blogspot.co.uk/
The key point in my view is that Cardinal Muller says that only the Pope can or should interpret Amoris Laetitia. He overlooks the point that Pope Francis has interpreted it in his letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops. Cardinal Muller has ignored this and that we are now into heresy.
GOT YA! Did you think that I’ve forgotten about the MAKE OUT GUY? You know ….THE MAKE OUT GUY! You know the “Heal me with your mouth” Dude: (The ghost writer for Jorge’s Amoris Laetitia) Archbishop Fernandez. Since YOU, Cardinal Muller, stated that “For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace”,
THEN WHY DON’T YOU……… KICK OUT THE BUM WHO CONTRADICTED THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH?
Fernandez’s Work “El sentido del carácter sacramental y la necesidad de la confirmación” in 2005:page 42:
“On the other hand, given that we cannot judge the subjective situation of persons and taking into account the influences that attenuate or eliminate imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin may coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.” – Victor Fernandez’s 2005: 42
COPY CAT AMORIS LAETITIA Paragraph 305:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin –which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.” – AL Paragraph: 305
Now notice that Satan’s little helper (Fernandez) is quoting CCC 1735, however, once the person is taught the truth of the Catholic Faith INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE does not apply!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbc8603e4c92ad157b7f97b8eb80529975f871d63bcbdc358d001c9b6760d872.jpg
we are getting played with like a cat and wounded mole…