Image via Die Tagespost
Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a prominent Catholic German princess who is very supportive of orthodox Catholic causes in Germany, has just last Friday welcomed Cardinal Gerhard Müller – the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – at the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen in Mannheim, Germany, for the occasion of a public presentation of his new book on the papacy (The Pope – Mission and Mandate). Archbishop Georg Gänswein, as well as Prelate Wilhelm Imkamp – the director of the pilgrimage site Maria Vesperbild (Augsburg) – both also participated in this book presentation which took the form of a public discussion which was moderated by the Protestant Church historian, Christoph Markschies.
During this session, Cardinal Müller, according to reports published by the Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, as well as by the German digital newspaper Mannheimer Morgen, made some helpful and encouraging statements with regard to the current situation in the Catholic Church. First of all, when speaking about the papacy, the German cardinal made it clear that a deep and disciplined “theological competence” has to be the foundation for “magisterial authority.” A fruitful relationship between Magisterium and theology is dependent upon a good formation. As Die Tagespost sums up his words, as follows:
To rely solely upon the inspiration by the Holy Ghost in theological questions? A frightening idea for the professor-dogmatician [Müller]. Müller makes reference here to the example of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621); he pointed out to Clement VIII (1536-1605) in clear words his lack of theological competence.
According to the Mannheimer Morgen, Müller quoted St. Robert Bellarmine’s own words, “You have no idea about that!” — which he had once firmly expressed to the pope. The newspaper continues, saying: “That was a long time ago. But Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller explicitly named him as his model, and with joy he quoted exactly that sentence.” The newspaper also indicates that it was clear to them that the wound of Müller’s recent dismissal “is still deep, very deep.”
As the Mannheimer Morgen reports it, Cardinal Müller had some strong criticism concerning the current state of affairs in the Vatican:
Instead of the Congregation [for Doctrine], the Vatican’s Secretariat of State is now considered to be the most important institution. “Diplomacy and power questions now have priority, that is a wrong crucial development which needs to be corrected.” It should be rather the Christian belief which should be at the center, and the pope should merely be a “servant of salvation.”
As an example, Cardinal Müller named the recent visit of Cardinal Pietro Parolin to Moscow and the public impression it made: the images of Parolin with Putin and with Patriarch Kyrill are giving in Müller’s eyes a “fatal optic, because one can fall here into the trap of thinking that religion and politics are one unit.” In the words of Die Tagespost, Müller pointed out:
It never worked out when the Church’s mission was circling around [and concentrating on] power. “The center of the papacy is not the pope himself, but the Christian Faith.” He [Müller] himself would wish for “a clearer theological preparation of [official] documents.”
Archbishop Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household, also spoke during this public discussion. He did not seem to object at all to any of Cardinal Müller’s polite but firm criticism. As the Mannheimer Morgen puts it: “From him [Gänswein], there came neither a critique of Müller, nor a distancing.” According to the Tagespost, Gänswein said: “I do not see that Catholics have fallen away from unity with the pope. If cardinals criticize papal statements and conduct – what is so bad about that?” He also pointed out that the pope himself has invited free speech. “That one cardinal or another is of another opinion, the papal office has to endure,” in the summarizing words of the Tagespost. Gänswein also added that, throughout the history of the Church, cardinals have sometimes harshly criticized popes. He said:
I do not see this as a criticism of the papal office, but a critique of certain statements which possibly have been misunderstood by persons – also outside of the Church.
These words coming from the man who also serves as the personal secretary of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI could very well also now be read in the context of the recent dismissal of Professor Josef Seifert by his archbishop in Granada, Spain, with the explicit disapproving reference to Seifert’s polite critique of Amoris Laetitia, but also in the context of the four dubia cardinals and their own polite and direct questions to the pope.
In a similar vein, Prelate Imkamp, himself a learned historian – he had worked for a while for then-Professor Walter Brandmüller at the University of Augsburg – also made some helpful comments. That is to say, he himself highly values Catholic debates among high-ranking prelates, according to the Tagespost:
The College of Cardinals is not a [Communist] Political Office, but the “most beautiful example for the functioning synodal principle in the Catholic Church.” It has always been the “privileged place of disagreement”: “The cardinals always challenged each and every pope.” In all of the pontificates in the last 500 years, there was to be seen individual cardinals who had disputes – some of them intense ones – among each other.
May we dare to see here the first signs of a polite and principled defense of the four dubia cardinals – and also some support for Cardinal Müller himself – as well as for those laymen who have raised serious questions concerning the papacy of Pope Francis? And may we dare to see here also the first signs of a growing conviction and courage in Cardinal Müller himself to speak up where his office as cardinal calls him to defend the Catholic Faith?
11th round, he lands a faltering but surprise punch. And technically the fight is not over. But I’ve learned more about having faith from Tom Brady’s last superbowl than I have had listening to just about any cardinal.
Muller is afraid, “very afraid”. If Caffarra was indeed being wire tapped by an elite Swiss Guard IT Unit, then this has spiraled way out of control. Francis is giving off very strong vibrations of a world wide socialist conspiracy.
Afraid of WHAT?
He should be more afraid of His Lord and Master.
Good point. Why are these guys so afraid? John Paul II took on the Nazis and then the Soviets and didn’t blink an eye.
Operative phrase is should be.
Each person is with God or with Satan. The time is now. There is no middle ground. Which side each person has chosen can be easily seen via our actions (including when words constitute an action, e.g. rebuke, correction) and failures to act. Politics are over. Pick up your cross and follow Christ or start reconciling yourself to hell.
While we still have duties to each other, especially those for whom we’re responsible, it’s now every man for himself. If you or I have family, friends or associates who refuse to obey what God commands or that want to find some middle way or imagine that nobody goes to hell or that God discerns between willful sin and being sincerely wrong, let that person be anathema–he’s refused his cross. Pray for him but don’t linger.
The difference between ” willful sin and being sincerely wrong” is part of the traditional teaching of the Church, it’s not a novelty. Otherwise Saint Jacob and Saint Abraham would be in hell, because they were polygamists, and polygamy was, is, and always will be against the eternal moral law of God. They didn’t know that. So yes, God discerns, whether you like or not. This is pre-conciliar teaching.
They thought it would be pleasing because they didn’t have the fullness of God’s Law. We have it now. So will a polygamist living in a primeval tribe that has not had contact with the wider of the world have the possibility of salvation? Yes, I am sure. Will people who have been taught the truth or at least heard of it and have access to it at the tip of their fingers be able to use their consciences as excuses? No, they will not….whether you like it or not.
Yours is the pre-conciliar teaching.
Marco’s is not.
Excellent points, Brian. Well put.
Many people are being misled by false teachings, expecially in this period. We can and should judge the act, not the person. And many times people find themselves in situations in which they have mitigating factors other than ignorance (such as a new family).
P.s
” These married people living adulterous lifestyles stood before a priest and vowed to be faithful. If they were not listening to words spoken it is their own fault”.
If they didn’t really understand thei vows, or didn’t mean them (for instance they didn’t accept the Bonum Sacramenti) their marriage is null.
Many divorced and remarried have previous marriages which were not real marriages, so they aren’t in an adulterous situation.
Tl;DR
It’s not up to us to be their judge. Leave that to God instead of passing judgment on people. You can judge the act, not other people’s spiritual condition.
I am judging acts, not people. As for not understanding vows, that argument is absolutely ridiculous: the vows are said in such a way that a third grader can understand. As for the second contention, that they didn’t mean it….that is even more ludicrous: so they are not in a state of mortal sin by virtue of standing in front of God and one of his representatives on earth and making a vow/pact with God and his or her spouse which they didn’t mean! So what makes one innocent now is lying to God!?
“I am judging acts, not people”
You are judging people: you claim that we can know that these people are in a state of mortal sin, but we cannot, because we don’t know if their sin is fully imputable to them.
This doesn’t justify Communion for them, because if we can’t know when they are fully culpable we can’t know when they are not.
“As for not understanding vows, that argument is absolutely ridiculous: the vows are said in such a way that a third grader can understand.”
The evangelization is very lacking. Many people marry thinking that their wows means that they shouldn’t leave their spouse if he is broken or if he suffers an accident ecc, they don’t know that if he/she starts cheating or beat the other spouse to a pulp they can separate but, after that, they are condemned to a life of involuntary celibacy.
Not only they don’t know, but they marry thinking that if things get ugly they can separate, and this is rejection of Bonum Sacramenti, which is essential for a validity of a marriage.
“so they are not in a state of mortal sin”
They are in a state of objective mortal sin due to the fact that adultery is grave matter. If they are guilty of actual mortal sin and fully culpable only God knows. This, i repeat, doesn’t justify the reception of the Sacraments.
“by virtue of standing in front of God and one of his representatives on earth and making a vow/pact with God and his or her spouse which they didn’t mean! So what makes one innocent now is lying to God!?”
Listen, is someone marries his/her spouse rejecting Bonum Sacramenti their previous marriage is invalid, so they are not in a state of adultery and they can remarry again. If you find this unjust blame the Church, but the fact that Bonum Sacramenti is essential is doctrine.
P.s: sorry for my errors in writing, I’m not English or American.
The words spoken in the marital vows are clear and unambiguous. I can say nothing else. The Ten Commandments were written in stone and Christ confirmed them. The issue of marriage is one of the most unambiguous teachings in the Bible.
Read this and refute Cardinals Burke, Muller and Caffara and Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/25/divorcedremarried-an-update/
I have nothing to refute in that article, because I completely agree that Sacraments shouldn’t be given to validly married people who are engaged in another relationship and don’t make the purpouse to live in abstinence.
My points are the following:
1) many divorced and remarried are not in a state of adultery because their previous marriage was never valid in the first place, so they can seek a declaration of nullity and remarry in the Church;
2) among the divorced and remarried it could be the case that some of them have mitigating factors which exculpate them from the imputation of mortal sin, but we don’t know that we this occurs, so the divorced and remarried should not be allowed to receive the Sacraments unless they make the purpouse of living chastely.
I don’t see what’s wrong about it.
And even Steve admitted what I’m saying
” Almost certainly, the culpability of many people will be reduced. The sin will fall far more heavily on those who led them astray.
Remember, God is just. He knows what we know and how well we acted upon it. The conditions for mortal sin exist for a reason”. https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/paragraph-298-amoris-laetitia-promote-adultery/#comment-2655429271
If you don’t like it because you wish to see those people condemn to everlasting torment it’s your problem, you will be judged with the same standard you use.
They are in mortal sin: it’s called adultrey. That doesn’t mean Steve is wrong–he certainly is not: those who promulgate this will certainly suffer a worse fate.
As for your appeal to feelings regarding wanting them to suffer eternal torment, you have confused my stance and yours so let me correct it: I am gravely concerned with for their souls which is why I want them not take communion and to stop committing adultrey! It is in their receipt of communion and ongoing adultrey that they endanger their souls.
” They are in mortal sin: it’s called adultrey.”
Again: adultery is grave matter, but we don’t know (nobody knows) how many or them are, or aren’t, in a state of actual mortal sin and fully culpable.
In addition, as I already said, many marriages are null due to the fact that people marry tainted by divorce mentality.
“That doesn’t mean Steve is wrong–he certainly is not: those who promulgate this will certainly suffer a worse fate.”
What Steve was saying is that it’s certainly possible that some adulterers are not in a state of actual mortal sin due to mitigating factors, but we can’t determine for sure if and when this occurs. That’s why we can’t agree with Al, which permits the reception of the Sacraments for them, and I agree with him.
So, if for example some divorced and remarried were to die suddenly in this moment, it could be the case that some of them would go to Purgatory instead of going to hell, because they weren’t fully guilty of their sin.
Of course we should tell them that they have to pray and ask the Grace of repentance and to stop committing adultery (in the cases in which the previous marriage is valid), and if they pray they will obtain what they ask for, but what I’m trying to say is that saying that Al is very dangerous (I agree), and that we shouldn’t accept the Comunion for the divorced and remarried (I agree), doesn’t mean that they are all fully guilty. Some of them are, some of them aren’t. Only God knows, and even if they are guilty they can pray and obtain repentance by the Grace of God.
Marco, you are arguing from feelings and have NO theological leg to stand on. First off, the comment about null marriages due to divorce mentality is completely idiotic. Again, you stand in front of God and make a vow in simple terms in the local language: think, if you can, about what you are insinuating: it’s like say you can confess a sin you have yet to commit and be forgiven. That is ludicrous.
Truly, no offense, but any other thoughts you have are irrelevant to me: I have dogma and the Bible (ever heard of the Ten Commandments?). Pope Francis and his cadre of heretics don’t get to put words in Christ’s mouth nor do they get to reinterpret the unerring, inspired Word of God. Can’t do it. It’s written in stone. Literally.
“Marco, you are arguing from feelings and have NO theological leg to stand on. First off, the comment about null marriages due to divorce mentality is completely idiotic.”
I’m not arguing from feelings: Bonum Sacramenti is absolutely essential to the validity of a Marriage. When there is the rejection of Bonum Sacramenti the marriage is null, this is a fact.
” Again, you stand in front of God and make a vow in simple terms in the local language: think, if you can, about what you are insinuating”
I’m saying that many, many people don’t believe and don’t accept the lifelong commitment as intended by the Church.
For example, they don’t think that if their spouse leave them they are condemned to a life of involuntary celibacy, and they think that they have the right to divorce and pursue another union if their spouse cheats on them or treat them badly.
When this is the case, Bonum Sacramenti is rejected and the marriage is null.
That said, I don’t agree with the liberal interpretation of Al, as I have already said.
IT DOESN’T MATTER IS THEY ACCEPT THE COMMITMENT: THEY SAID THE WORDS, IN FRONT OF GOD. FULL STOP. There are very few marriage that the Church does not consider valid. There’s no way around that.
This is factually false: if they (or one of the spouses) married WITHOUT the correct intentions, the Marriage was never valid in the first place. I’ve said, I’ve repeated it and I’m continuing to say it. It doesn’t matter if they said the words if they didn’t mean it, and they thought that if his/her husband/wife cheated of beat them they were free to divorce and engage in another relationship. Many people marry with this intentions, and this means that they didn’t accept the Bonum Sacramenti (which, I repeat, is essential for the validity of a Marriage).
Bonum Sacramenti deals with forced or coerced marriages.
No, Bonum Sacramenti is the acceptance of the lifelong commitment. In many cases today this acceptance is lacking, because people marry (as I’ve already said countless times) with the idea that “if he/she cheats on me or beats me or will make my life miserable, i will divorce and engage in a new relationship”.
When this is the case, the acceptance of Bonum Sacrament didn’t happen.
That doesn’t invalidate the promise they made in front of Christ. Oh God…you’re not capable of understanding this rudimentary concept.
You are not capable of understanding that this is a ground for nullity: when
“A spouse entered marriage while intending to not make the commitment
for life. He/she held the conviction that there were certain circumstances which would justify ending the marriage” the promise was never really made in the first place, because the spouse didn’t want to do what the Church commands. It’s nullity ground, understand? I even posted the link for you, if you are really arguing against it I think that you are trolling me.
Read this damned link https://archden.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Grounds-of-Nullity.pdf for heaven’s sake, and you will find out that the “simulation contra Bonum Sacramenti” invalidates a Marriage.
When we have a “simulation contra Bonum Sacramenti”? When (quoting from the link):
1) A spouse entered marriage while intending to not make the commitment
for life;
2) he/she held the conviction that there were certain circumstances which would justify ending the marriage.
That’s exactly what I’m saying and what I’ve already said to you: such a marriage was never valid in the eyes of God.
Read this and understand that I do not give a darn about Post-VII contrivances. You and your friends can take it up with Christ when you see him. I have my own sins to worry about without trying to find excuses for others:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Brian,
Theologically, Marco is correct. This is not merely a post-conciliar innovation. From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:
This is why any defect in consent nullifies the marriage. It is not divorce. It is the recognition of an invalid sacrament.
Defects of consent occur through impediments to giving consent to what marriage actually requires (ie., coercion, consanguinity, impotence (which would keep the sacrament from being consummated) etc.), or through some volitional witholding of consent (secret plan to divorce, to never have children, to not be faithful to vows, etc.).
I’m speaking generally here, and I’m sure a moral theologian or canonist would be able to dial in my arguments. But annulments are certainly possible, because the sacrament of marriage — like any other sacrament — can be performed invalidly.
Thanks Steve.
Sure thing. It’s important for people to remember:
Abusus non tollit usum.
Of course. The problem with Brian was that he outright rejected the acceptance of Bonum Sacramenti as essential for the validity of a marriage. Besides, I’m not even a post conciliar catholic, I go to the Latin Mass everytime that I can here in Italy.
Steve, thanks for the comment and intervention–I mean that, too.
Marco is contending that this has broad application, to quote Francis, that “most marriage are invalid”. I disagree as I know three people who have attempted to have their marriages declared null and none have succeeded. That Francis proposes sweeping application is heretical.
Next, he contends that only God knows the truth of people’s hearts: well, yeah, of course I agree but if that’s the argument there are only two words: Sola Scriptura.
Finally, I believe, obviously in doctrinal development and that the Catholic Church has authority to interpret, discuss and develop doctrine. But quotes from various documents not withstanding, Christ’s words on marriage are clear and unambiguous. To argue against his words to me is tantamount to arguing against the Ten Commandments. Where the Inspired Word of God is stated unequivocally, I don’t care about development. Nobody ponders the Ten Commandments per se. In this case the argument for D&M would be like saying that somebody who was not insane or acting in self defense could be considered not to have murdered somebody who they intended to shoot, aimed a gun at and pulled the trigger.
Also, the other sacraments are, to my understanding (please comment as I am trying to learn here) are not susceptible to nullity due to the intent or state of mind of the laity. E.G. If I approach a validly consecrated Eucharist thinking that it’s not the real presence, if the host given to me is validly consecrated the real presence does not cease. I think also of praying during dark nights of the soul: when you cannot hear God or feel God and you doubt that he exists or is listening but you still plough through and daily recite prayers and the Rosary, my understanding is that those prayers are still heard and are efficacious.
I admit, on this issue I am very juvenile and confrontational. I have hear Father Murray, Cardinals Burke, Caffarra and Muller all speak to the inanity of what is going on. Quite obviously they, too, I agree with some instances in which nullity may apply but those instances are rare. Very rare.
“Marco is contending that this has broad application, to quote Francis, that “most marriages are invalid”. I disagree: I know three people who have attempted to have their marriages declared null and none have succeeded. That Francis proposes sweeping application is heretical”
Oh yeah?
“In the US, 6 percent of ordinary-process cases are renounced by those seeking an annulment, while an additional 6 percent are abated because the parties failed to follow through with the procedural acts necessary for a trial to take place. Of the remaining 88 percent of cases in which sentences are given, 96 percent of sentences are in favor of nullity. Sentences in favor of nullity are automatically appealed to a court of second instance in another diocese. One percent of these cases are renounced or abated, 69 percent are confirmed by decree, and 30 percent proceed to an additional trial. In this final category, 98 percent are eventually ruled null.” http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/04/28/annulment-nation/
98 percent.
” Next, he contends that only God knows the truth of peoples hearts: well, yeah, of course I agree. ”
I’ve said that only God knows which divorced and remarried are in a state of actual mortal sin. You cannot simply say “they are all going to hell”, because you don’t know when they have mitigating factors which reduce their culpability.
“Also, the other sacraments are, to my understanding (please comment as I am trying to learn here) are not susceptible to nullity due to the intent or state of mind of the laity”
The Sacrament of Marriage is different, because in Marriage the spouses are the ministers of the Sacraments. Period.
If you don’t like it because you hate that those people are free to remarry it’s your problem, not mine.
” I agree with some instances in which nullity may apply but those instances are rare. Very rare.”
Not so rare in this day and age. We are not in the XVI century, many people are tainted by divorce mentality and marry refusing the lifelong commitment as intended by the Church.
“Marco is contending that this has broad application, to quote Francis, that “most marriages are invalid”. I disagree: I know three people who have attempted to have their marriages declared null and none have succeeded. That Francis proposes sweeping application is heretical”
Oh yeah?
“In the US, 6 percent of ordinary-process cases are renounced by those seeking an annulment, while an additional 6 percent are abated because the parties failed to follow through with the procedural acts necessary for a trial to take place. Of the remaining 88 percent of cases in which sentences are given, 96 percent of sentences are in favor of nullity. Sentences in favor of nullity are automatically appealed to a court of second instance in another diocese. One percent of these cases are renounced or abated, 69 percent are confirmed by decree, and 30 percent proceed to an additional trial. In this final category, 98 percent are eventually ruled null.” http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/04/28/annulment-nation/
98 percent.
” Next, he contends that only God knows the truth of peoples hearts: well, yeah, of course I agree. ”
I’ve said that only God knows which divorced and remarried are in a state of actual mortal sin. You cannot simply say “they are all going to hell”, because you don’t know when they have mitigating factors which reduce their culpability.
“Also, the other sacraments are, to my understanding (please comment as I am trying to learn here) are not susceptible to nullity due to the intent or state of mind of the laity”
The Sacrament of Marriage is different, because in Marriage the spouses are the ministers of the Sacraments. Period.
If you don’t like it because you hate that those people are free to remarry it’s your problem, not mine.
” I agree with some instances in which nullity may apply but those instances are rare. Very rare.”
Not so rare in this day and age. We are not in the XVI century, many people are tainted by divorce mentality and marry refusing the lifelong commitment as intended by the Church.
1. While I am reading:
“Politics are over. PICK UP YOUR CROSS AND FOLLOW CHRIST or start reconciling yourself to hell. /…/ let that person be anathema–HE’S REFUSED HIS CROSS. Pray for him but don’t linger.
2. TEACH ME THE LOVE OF THE CROSS – LAMB!,… I hear in RadioMaryja.pl (14/09/17 3:57 pm)
TEACH ME the LOVE of THE CROSS
Teach me the love of the cross
Still dying with you – Lamb
Teach me the love of the cross
Teach me the love of the cross
In your blood wash my robes – Lamb.
Look Lord on my weak heart
Which wants to give out your love
Not only to friends, but above to all enemies
You are hidden inside me, love them.
Full of love you look from the tree of the cross
Stretching arms wide
May every suffering bring me closer to you
Teach me silently suffering Lamb .
AND TODAY IS September 14th
Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
This feast was observed in Rome before the end of the seventh century. It commemorates the recovery of the Holy Cross, which had been placed on Mt. Calvary by St. Helena and preserved in Jerusalem, but then had fallen into the hands of Chosroas, King of the Persians. The precious relic was recovered and returned to Jerusalem by Emperor Heralius in 629.
The lessons from the Breviary tell us that Emperor Heraclius carried the Cross back to Jerusalem on his shoulders. He was clothed with costly garments and with ornaments of precious stones. But at the entrance to Mt. Calvary a strange incident occurred. Try as hard as he would, he could not go forward. Zacharias, the Bishop of Jerusalem, then said to the astonished monarch: “Consider, O Emperor, that with these triumphal ornaments you are far from resembling Jesus carrying His Cross.” The Emperor then put on a penitential garb and continued the journey.
“The liturgy of the Cross is a triumphant liturgy. When Moses lifted up the bronze serpent over the people, it was a foreshadowing of the salvation through Jesus when He was lifted up on the Cross. Our Mother Church sings of the triumph of the Cross, the instrument of our redemption. To follow Christ we must take up His cross, follow Him and become obedient until death, even if it means death on the cross. We identify with Christ on the Cross and become co-redeemers, sharing in His cross.”
I’m going to bury the hatchet in my assessment of Cardinal Müller.
He like all current prelates seem, admittedly, to have been formed of stuff other than muscle and bone, but having said that, maybe the recent exercise he’s taken under the “training” of this Pope is toughening him up.
Look, what many secular Catholic men know from their work in business, these guys might just be finding out. Power is a fact, and some worship it. Some even who wear vestments.
So I’m going to cut him some slack and say “Good on you, Cardinal Müller, and keep it coming!”
I am afraid I disagree.
Give him time. You know, it takes time to muster up the courage to do your job.
Oh…he got fired…
😉
Rod, it’s Ecclesiasticus like this man who gave promoted desacralization at every step. Until he fesses up and apologizes (and withdraws his heretical views on the virgin birth in oartu
Well, I certainly understand the sentiment.
I’ve just got to the point where I have basically no respect for any of them. So I sort of chuckle and “applaud” when one of these…guys…stumbles into doing something that gives the impression that it’s right…for the moment of course, cuz wait a week and it’s likely he’ll somehow take it all back…
I’ve got a heavy case of what one poster called Catholic Scandal Fatigue and under the circumstances, I have to smile any time I see some action that remotely appears to be what a person of the male gender might do.
AMEN to your last sentence.
We should remember, he did sort of get fired for doing the right thing, as tentative as it all was.
When did he say that???
O all-praised treasury of our resurrection, we hope in you; * bring us up from the pit and depth of sins, for you have saved those subject to sin by giving birth to our Salvation, * O Virgin before childbirth, and Virgin in childbirth, and still a Virgin after the childbirth.
Theotokion, Tone 7
I agree. too little too late.
Mueller knows all about “power”, now.
He watched Cardinal Sarah’s entire Congregation given pink slips, he saw the Knights of Malta trashed, he saw the Pontifical Academy for Life kicked to the kerb, he saw Burke shipped to Malta, he saw Francis flip the bird to the dubia Cardinals yet he was still running interference for El Lider Maximo.
It wasn’t until Bergoglio’s muddy size 10 boot print was splattered across his
rear after he was shown the exit at CDF that he finally got the message.
Yeah, Your Eminence, it really is all about worldly power. It has to be that way. When one is an unbeliever, what else is there?
How does that saying go? First they came for the FFI. ..and we did nothing…then they came for Cardinal Burke…and we did nothing etc etc until there was no one left…and then they came for us. Or something like that.
Oh for goodness sake!
What in God’s name does any of this have to do with what is going on in the Church, at the present moment?
I am confused friends.
Right now, we have in our Church, given permission from the highest point in the Vatican, a priest who is
promoting, seducing young adolescents/ young adults into the blessings of a homosexual union???
He goes from college to university, tapping upon the youth’s great vulnerabilities…….extreme silence abounds.
So you take your time your Eminence, take your good old time and lick your words and collect your pay check and all the trimmings that go with it…….and that includes every one of you cardinals as well.
When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck……it’s a duck.
I am tired. I am ready to tear up right now….so i leave for a bit.
I’m with you, cs. There are so many sordid, immoral, or downright pagan ideologies being promulgated from the very top of the Church and here we have these Germans fussily dissecting political esoterica
And here we are at One Peter Five scurrying for microscopic crumbs that might indicate the shepherds really do take their shepherding seriously.
“Microscopic crumbs”.
True enough.
Look, these guys are all basket cases.
But in the process of fixing this mess, little steps at a time.
We all know this guy and probably ALL this generation of pathetic anti-leaders are going to have to die in the desert like the faithless, gutless Hebrews of old.
In the meantime, I’m going to at least be glad when one of them admits grudgingly admits the obvious.
“Most beautiful of creatures, who desires so ardently to know the dwelling place of your Beloved in order to seek Him and be united with Him, you are yourself the refuge where He takes shelter, the dwelling place in which He hides Himself. Your Beloved, your Treasure, your one Hope is so close to you as to live within you.” (St. John of the Cross, Spiritual Canticle)
“So you take your time your Eminence, take your good old time and lick your words and collect your pay check and all the trimmings that go with it…….and that includes every one of you cardinals as well.”
That seems to be the way of it.
IT IS “WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE CHURCH.’ Whatever issues Bergoglio addresses, he addresses not as a Successor of Peter but as an amateur and untutored, and ad-libing political theorist. Wherever he goes in the world, he goes, not as the Vicar of Christ, but as a politician. For Bergoglio, theology is too abstract and esoteric, and not applicable in comprehending and meeting the challenges of the contemporary world. He wants political, secular solutions, and he surrounds himself with sycophants, yes-men; (and not a few yes-girlie-men) whose sole motivation seems to be to curry favour with ‘the boss’ for the sake of their own advancement.
Chin up cs – now is the hour to pour on the power!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8740399618c961763ee6c23f6bd429ad89d34b10bd2bdab5dee9083edd0bd893.jpg
Chin up cs – now is the hour to pour on the power.
Exactly. With all that’s going on in the Church, you have these Ecclesiastical fusspots sitting around whining, and wordsmithing every little thing. Also, I don’t really care to hear anymore about how people are misinterpreting the Pope. It’s quite obvious that dog won’t hunt!
The wicked spirits in the high places are the rulers of the darkness of this present world.
As angels they’re endowed with a naturally superior understanding of our human nature and with an unmatched ability to push our buttons.
Now, I’m not one who is optimistic about our future (as Catholics), at least not in the way that is often discussed here and elsewhere.
Nonetheless, I’m noticing a pattern in the spiritual activity within the Church and traditionalist circles that I believe gives away some of their strategy.
It seems to me that as control slips away from their fingers, they seek to use our love for the Holy Mother Church as weapon against us by creating scandal and drive us into despair. In this way they hope cloud our perception of magnitude of the growing resistance agains them or to neutralize us by burning us out.
So do not despair CS as you’ve been chosen by Christ as a member of his army, to fight alongside Him and you are not alone. Remember St. Anthony’s words when surrounded by demons:
“If you had any power, only one of you would be enough to kill me; but the Lord has taken away your strength, so you want to frighten me by your number. The proof of your powerlessness is that you are reduced to taking the form of senseless animals. If you have any power against me, come on, attack me! But if you cannot do anything, why torment yourselves unnecessarily? My faith in God is my defense against you.”
So sad to think Catholics are pinning their hopes on such men. Sterner characters are needed. While they play the old paradigm of political appeasement and deference, Francis goes on merrily.
Just remember, folks, this guy was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
You know, what was formerly known as the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition”.
INQUISITION My Aunt Fanny!!!
Comrades, Lenin rightly said that intellectuals had to be guided by the iron hand of the Party. And so we see with the Catholic Church of Vatican II: for so long now, for many decades, the flock has been led into this gully and over that cliff edge by a veritable locust cloud of clerical intellectuals who cannot do anything other than foist their opinions on the laity and damn to hell their responsibility to be tough men, shepherd’s crook in hand, devoted to the sheep and keeping them from all danger.
What we see here is more of the same “Hello Clouds! Hello bees! Hello flowers!” uselessness from a bunch of benighted buffoons.
Where is the Cardinal or Bishop who says with the ‘The Imitation of Christ’ “I would rather feel compunction than know how to define it”?
Padre Pio is dead, Archbishop Lefebvre is dead. Where is now the man who even mildly approximates in his faith, a faith without any compromise whatsoever, to one of the early Fathers of the Church? Men who taught the truth without fear, men whose voices rolled across the world?
Where is the priest so beautifully described by Chaucer?
To drawen folk to heven by fairness
By good ensample, this was his bisynesse:
But it were any persone obstinat,
What so he were, of heigh or lowe estat,
Him wolde he snibben sharply for the nones.
A bettre preest, I trowe that nowher non is.
He wayted after no pompe and reverence,
Ne maked him a spyced conscience,
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taughte, but first he folwed it him-selve.
If only these damnable Cardinals would teach “Cristes lore”, follow it himself, and “snibben sharply for the nones” the obstinate, the proud, the intellectual gabbler of uselessness!
Comrades, Lenin rightly said that intellectuals had to be guided by the iron hand of the Party. And we see the truth of it with the Catholic Church of Vatican II: for so long now, for many decades, the flock has been led into this gully and over that cliff edge by an unchecked locust cloud of clerical intellectuals who cannot do anything other than foist their opinions on the laity while refusing their responsibility to be tough men, shepherd’s crook in hand, devoted to the sheep and keeping them from all danger.
What we see here is more of the same “Hello Clouds! Hello bees! Hello flowers!” uselessness from a bunch of benighted buffoons.
Where is the Cardinal or Bishop who says with the ‘The Imitation of Christ’ “I would rather feel compunction than know how to define it”?
Padre Pio is dead, Archbishop Lefebvre is dead. Where is now the man who even mildly approximates in his faith, a faith without any compromise whatsoever, to one of the early Fathers of the Church? Men who taught the truth without fear, men whose voices rolled across the world?
Where is the priest so beautifully described by Chaucer?
To drawen folk to heven by fairness
By good ensample, this was his bisynesse:
But it were any persone obstinat,
What so he were, of heigh or lowe estat,
Him wolde he snibben sharply for the nones.
A bettre preest, I trowe that nowher non is.
He wayted after no pompe and reverence,
Ne maked him a spyced conscience,
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taughte, but first he folwed it him-selve.
If only these damnable Cardinals would teach “Cristes lore”, follow it themselves, and “snibben sharply for the nones” the obstinate, the proud, the intellectual gabbler of uselessness called Bergoglio!
“… [A] deep and disciplined “theological competence” has to be the foundation for “magisterial authority.” Well, that certainly throws a large monkey wrench into the gears of the Bergogilan papacy, doesn’t it?
It throws a monkey wrench into the past 50 years. . . And Mueller is no exception.
Just sign the dubia, Your Excellency. No one cares about your books and cranky interviews.
Agreed! Sign the dubia, subito!
Indeed, any more and he’s gonna sound like Hilarious Clinton.
“I got canned by Pope Francis because of the weather, Republican extremists and Jim Comey!”
Indeed. Your Eminence, make your voice explicit and perfectly clear.
Amen.
When a person or party has definitively gained the upper hand, they can afford to allow for a little discussion. By that time, it makes for good window dressing. Where was everybody when Cardinal Burke’s book was being suppressed? While a little dialogue may have done some good back then, all it’s going to do at this stage is (from the Bergoglian point of view) no harm.
No, I’m afraid I consider anyone seeing the above-quoted remarks as a starting point of respect to be plunging face first into mirage. And it isn’t human respect that the Dubia Cardinals and their supporters desire, in any case (nor its Enlightenment cousins, such as consensus and unprincipled unity, either). We insist on respect for the authority of Almighty God, which has no other starting point except unconditional surrender to the reality of a Truth beyond one’s own making–a Truth in need of no one’s agreement, to dissent from which harms not the Truth itself only the dissenter. Is that the direction in which the above-quoted palaver is potentially heading?
If you believe that, then George Soros would like to talk to you–something about the planet getting a little bit warmer all the time, I think he said.
Thank you Helen Weir, most sincerely.
Comrades, Lenin rightly said that intellectuals had to be guided by the iron hand of the Party. And we see the truth of it with the Catholic Church of Vatican II: for so long now, for many decades, the flock has been led into this gully and over that cliff edge by an unchecked locust cloud of clerical intellectuals who cannot do anything other than foist their opinions on the laity while refusing their responsibility to be tough men, shepherd’s crook in hand, devoted to the sheep and keeping them from all danger.
What we see here is more of the same “Hello Clouds! Hello bees! Hello flowers!” uselessness from a bunch of benighted buffoons.
Where is the Cardinal or Bishop who says with the ‘The Imitation of Christ’ “I would rather feel compunction than know how to define it”?
Padre Pio is dead, Archbishop Lefebvre is dead. Where is now the man who even mildly approximates in his faith, a faith without any compromise whatsoever, to one of the early Fathers of the Church? Men who taught the truth without fear, men whose voices rolled across the world?
Where is the priest so beautifully described by Chaucer?
To drawen folk to heven by fairness
By good ensample, this was his bisynesse:
But it were any persone obstinat,
What so he were, of heigh or lowe estat,
Him wolde he snibben sharply for the nones.
A bettre preest, I trowe that nowher non is.
He wayted after no pompe and reverence,
Ne maked him a spyced conscience,
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taughte, but first he folwed it him-selve.
If only these damnable Cardinals would teach “Cristes lore”, follow it themselves, and “snibben sharply for the nones” the obstinate, the proud, the quasi-intellectual gabbler of uselessness called Bergoglio!
Hi Steve, my comments are being marked as Spam. What’s that all about?
It’s one thing to admit there have been many instances where Cardinals and learned, faithful theologians have criticized statements from popes – did they listen when they were in error – that’s the question.
History shows that the smart pope of the past listened, consulted, then made his decision. We know exactly what happened in the past because there are records. Now? Not so much.
The readership here is not being soothed with well-spoken presentations and small seeds of hope that may or may not germinate. And these ate well-informed readers. Something is truly boiling underneath. Too late for the heat to be turned down? Could be.
Folks are exiting the Church in the multi-millions. Slightly over 20% of Catholics accept the existence of Satan as a being – slightly below those who believe in Transubstantion.
A *turning* is about to occur, a *sorting out* event. It will exhibit itself during the upcoming Synod on the Youth. (The conceit of *youth* has been the harbinger of many revolutions.)
Yes, one can reach into the past to harness understanding of our present crisis, but it must be admitted something different, something quite alien, has been stirred in our current cauldron of confusion, crisis, and shakedowns.
The crisis of heresy hobbled to mere survival.
Pope Benedict should not have resigned; that report put into his hands should have been leaked and published. If that had been so the (reversed) ratline from Argentina would have been gated and locked down.
I gather Cardinal Müller made the right bet at the wrong time. The right bet, because he assumed common sense was still a norm at the Vatican. At the wrong time, because common sense ceased to be a norm at the Vatican with Francis.
The time has come for Cardinal Müller to take sides. He has been hinting that he is on the side of the great ‘dubia’ Cardinals. But I am of the opinion that mere hints are no longer enough to rescue the Catholic Church from the spreading bergoglian plague.
May Our Lady give Cardinal Müller the fortitude to do what he *must* do.
prayers, sacrifices and more prayers