Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Media Errors Give False Impression that Cardinal Müller Has Repeated Dubia Criticism

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017, the Belgian Catholic weekly, Tertio, published a new interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This interview, entitled “Huwelijk blijft haalbaar project” (“Marriage remains an achievable project”) covers a wide range of topics, among them the question of marriage.

As an introduction to the interview itself, the journal presents a paragraph in which it mentions the debate about the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its manifold interpretations. It also repeats, with explicit reference to Cardinal Müller’s earlier 8 January statement to the Italian media, what the Prefect had said at the time about the four dubia Cardinals, namely that he thought Amoris Laetitia is clear teaching and that he did not like the publication of the dubia, which Müller said were “damaging for the Church,” according to Tertio.

Unfortunately, both the official website of the German Bishops’ Conference — — as well as the news agency of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference — — misrepresented this introduction in their reports, claiming that Cardinal Müller had again rebuked the dubia of Cardinals Caffarra, Brandmüller, Meisner, and Burke. If true, such a piece of news would be discouraging to many Catholics in the world. published on 1 March an article entitled: “Cardinal Müller criticizes dubia Cardinals” (“Kardinal Müller kritisiert Dubia Kardinäle“) and repeats, right at the beginning of its article, that Cardinal Müller has again rebuked the Dubia Cardinals in a new interview., on the same day, chose another title “Cardinal Müller: Mercy is No License to Continue to Sin” (“Kardinal Müller: Barmherzigkeit kein Freibrief für Weitersündigen“). The article reports on Cardinal  Müller’s words on mercy and then adds:

At the same time, he [Müller] criticized the initiative of four cardinals who asked the pope in a letter for a clarification of several “doubts” (“dubia“) concerning Amoris Laetitia — among them the reception of communion for the remarried divorcees. This is damaging the Church, Müller stressed.

These two articles of two major European Bishops’ Conferences presented a potentially grave misrepresentation of the actual Müller interview which could now contribute to the further confusion and intensification of conflict within the Catholic Church. The prominent German national Catholic newspaper, Die Tagespost, ran a similiar story. The internet site has already picked up on this story and has reported today on it. It is also being reported internationally; the website of the Belgian Church of Flanders,, has also run a similiar story, independently of the German-speaking sources. (This fact might indicate that Tertio itself, by the nature of its introduction, contributed to this misunderstanding.)

I contacted Geert De Kerpel, the editor of Tertio, to receive a fuller clarification, and he promptly confirmed that the mentioning of the Dubia Cardinals was merely an editor’s introduction of the article, and that what follows is the new, “exclusive interview.”

I also contacted the German Bishops’ Conference’s website,, and they answered, saying that they had relied on another news agency’s report (Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur KNA), and after verifying realized together that they had both committed an error. The article has now been honorably corrected, to include its title. (However, the article is not any more displayed on the website, so many people who originally read it will miss the correction. I also contacted once more because they still claim in their corrected article that Cardinal Müller said in the Tertio interview that Amoris Laetitia is not contradicting the indissolubility of marriage. However, Cardinal Müller himself does not once mention that theme or papal text in any way in his interview.)

After contacting, Dr. Paul Wuthe, editor-in-chief of Kathpress, answered back admitting the mistake and correcting the original article by removing the passage on the Dubia Cardinals.

Thus it seems that, due to this intervention, a prompt correction of the error has been undertaken. But, will this now be sufficient to stop the spreading of the false impression? A more emphatic public correction would perhaps be fitting here, for the sake of integrity. In some ways, such a misrepresentation as it has now occurred is also quite symbolic of our times since the atmosphere is so tense that swift and hasty mistakes are too often taking place. We also reported in the recent past on another case where had omitted some important parts of another Cardinal Müller interview, which, however, was not corrected subsequently.

Let us now return to the new Tertio interview itself. Cardinal Müller, when speaking about truth and mercy, explicitly says that “there are no circumstances that would make adultery not be a mortal sin” [my emphasis] and that “The merciful God does not dispense of the Commandments.” Pastors “cannot remove the responsibility toward others” and cannot “exempt people from the Commandments.” Cardinal Müller also says that “the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is clear” and stresses the importance of the “responsibility for the children.” While we all as human beings can commit errors and sins, the cardinal adds, “we need forgiveness for our sins” and have to “beg for mercy.” Cardinal  Müller importantly explains: “Again, mercy is not a licence to sin or to live in sin” [my emphasis]. In Catholic terms, contrition of heart “must be accompanied by a willingness to convert.” The cardinal insists that “a just mercy helps us to live in truth, and a wrong mercy gives us false assurances, but does not make us free.” Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime, and we have to pray for that, and therefore “marriage is an achievable project that makes people happy.”

It is to be hoped that this set of authentic quotes from this latest interview of Cardinal Müller may now spread in lieu of the earlier misrepresentations.

I personally still also hope that Cardinal Müller himself will come to see that the dubia are, indeed, important and abidingly helpful for the Catholic Church. (After all, he did publicly distance himself from the dubia in February, and he has not yet in any way publicly corrected himself.) They are of great help in a situation where Pope Francis — by ambiguous and confusing passages in Amoris Laetitia and by his subsequently explicit encouragement of heterodox interpretations by certain bishops in the world (as in Argentina, Malta, and Germany) — encourages thereby an heretical understanding according to which acts of adultery would not any more be in each case a mortal sin.

Update, 2 March, 17:00: Gabriele Höfling from responded to us a second time, confirming that she now also has removed that one sentence referring to Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Amoris Laetitia, as well, seeing that Müller did not at all himself mention that papal document in the interview.

Update, 3 March, 10.30: Geert De Kerpel, the editor of Tertio has asked us to add the following comment as sent to us:

“Prior to publication in Tertio on March the first, our editor submitted the full interview, including the introduction and the paragraph we quote from an earlier Italian interview, to Cardinal Müller. The Cardinal has fully approved the text. We have the imprimatur on mail. Thus, on Tertio’s part not the least confusion has been sowed.”

67 thoughts on “Media Errors Give False Impression that Cardinal Müller Has Repeated Dubia Criticism”

  1. Maybe he should not give so many interviews.
    The only interview Mueller should give would be to Francis, himself and then go from there.
    All these men know how to do is to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and then…. to .write and write and write and write……but they say NOTHING, not really.

      • I think so many of these prelates would surely give their lives for you or me or anybody.
        But, would they give their life for Christ?
        And by doing so, would then, be truly giving their lives for us?

    • Cardinal Mueller should give his own fraternal correction to Francis. However, since he won’t get behind the dubia, he clearly doesn’t have the guts to do so.

      • Good morning, Jafin,

        The broad intention of Gerhard Cardinal Mueller simply rests, as it only can, in his language, lack there of, in his acts, and lack there of, as res ipsa loquitur. The specific intention as to whether it is rooted in cowardice or malice we cannot know unless he reveals it. May Almighty God help this pathetic man, this miscreant all dressed up in the robes of Holy Mother Church, while at once not assisting in the salvation of eternal souls, rather yielding to Pope Bergoglio, an emissary of evil. In caritas.

        • Obviously you are miles behind the curve. As I wrote to Barbara above, Cardinal Muller has amended his remarks against the dubia and he is now on the record with a completely orthodox position on adultery, the dubia and the nature of marriage.
          Your attacks on him are unseemly and just a little hysterical. Get hold of yourself.

          Signing your messages “in caritas” is hypocritical in the extreme.

          The Cardinal’s name is spelled ‘Muller.’ ‘Thereof’ is one word. Your continued use of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ tells me you don’t know what it means.

          • Good afternoon winslow,

            Thank you for the correction of my spelling of “Muller”. I will put that into praxis. “As I wrote to Barbara above,…”, says winslow. It is wonderful to know that as winslow has now “written” to Barbara, all is now well with Gerhard Cardinal Muller. It is so reassuring that as winslow now writes, all is now well among the prelates in Holy Mother Church. “Your attacks on him are unseemly and just a little hysterical. Get a hold of yourself “, pleads poor winslow. Thank you also for the correction in my word use of, “thereof” but I prefer, there of. I haven’t “attacked” the Cardinal, winslow. Simply reading what it is that he says, as those with eyes to see and ears to hear do. Since you are now perhaps the “official organ” of the voice of Gerhard Cardinal Muller, please enlighten us with just what his “official” position is on the Dubia as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He does have an official position, right? In caritas.

          • Hi Jafin,
            I thought the response polite given the ad hominem assault. I will cease and desist, at your request as moderator. If I have sinned may God forgive me. In caritas.

          • Dear winslow,

            Please accept my apology. I took your ad hominem approach and ran with it. As Jafin pointed out, I should not have done so. I am as I can only every remain this side the veil, a perfectly miserable creature, who knows with certitude that I am loved perfectly and infinitely by the One Who is Love, as Deus Caritas Est. I am sorry winslow. In caritas.

          • No, he has not amended his position regarding the dubia. He proclaimed the truth regarding adultery, but made no statements as regards a changed positon toward the dubia. If this is not the truth, then please direct me to a quote that says he supports the dubia. Cardinal Müller (proper speller has the umlaut) spoke before regarding adultery in a totally orthodox manner, and has never changed that tune. He has simply said that there is no danger to the faith. As I said above, the man is either blind or afraid. Again, if you know of an actual quote where he changed his position regarding the dubia or indicated there is indeed a danger to the faith, then please, correct me. I would love to have Cardinal Müller on board… unfortunately, there is little evidence if any that he is.

          • “Cardinal Müller, when speaking about truth and mercy, explicitly says that “there are no circumstances that would make adultery not be a mortal sin” [my emphasis] and that “The merciful God does not dispense of the Commandments.” Pastors “cannot remove the responsibility toward others” and cannot “exempt people from the Commandments.” Cardinal Müller also says that “the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is clear” and stresses the importance of the “responsibility for the children.” While we all as human beings can commit errors and sins, the cardinal adds, “we need forgiveness for our sins” and have to “beg for mercy.” Cardinal Müller importantly explains: “Again, mercy is not a licence to sin or to live in sin” [my emphasis]. In Catholic terms, contrition of heart “must be accompanied by a willingness to convert.” The cardinal insists that “a just mercy helps us to live in truth, and a wrong mercy gives us false assurances, but does not make us free.” Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime, and we have to pray for that, and therefore “marriage is an achievable project that makes people happy.”
            Mauke Hickson, 1Peter5

          • While he clearly does preach the truth, he has not explicitly changed his position as regards the dubia or that Francis needs to be corrected. He says the dubia are dangerous one week, then 3 weeks later preaches the truth as regards marriage. This is why I have said that he is either blind or afraid. He is blind if he does not see that Francis is in error, nor that the faithful are terribly confused. Or he’s afraid because, while he wishes to proclaim the truth, he fears what may happen to him or perhaps to others if he comes out publicly for the dubia or to correct Francis.

            I defended Cardinal Müller for a long time and gave him the benefit of the doubt, but he’s proven himself lacking, either in discernment or courage or both. As the prefect for the CDF, we need from him clarity, not confusion or equivocation. The fact that we can disagree as to his position indicates the clear problem. We don’t know what his position is. It reminds me of the first couple months of the Bergoglian papacy. No one really knew what he stood for and could interpret his acts either way. This is not helpful, it is harmful, and it needs to end. If he comes out tomorrow for the dubia, I will stand with him 100%. But that doesn’t excuse his lack of clarity now.

      • We don’t know that he hasn’t given his personal correction to Francis. Francis could be ignoring him as he has ignored all of those who correct him in charity. We cannot say what Mueller is doing that is private and we are uncharitable when we speculate that he is a coward.

        Just like all the criticism of Bishop Fellay because he doesn’t speak out more. Why should he add fuel to the fire when it’s blazing all over the world? We don’t know what happens behind many a door and to castigate Fellay because he doesn’t say what we think he should say IN PUBLIC is uncharitable and does not help. Bishop Fellay has, moreover, given many, many interviews and conferences where he has said what needs to be said. He is NOT a blogger who thinks he has to report every day to itchy ears.

        • Gerhard Ludwig Müller is a German Cardinal prelate of the Catholic Church. He is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since his appointment by Pope Benedict XVI on 2 July 2012.

          Whatever he is doing in private, is not the issue. He is really abdicating his duty and authority to PROTECT and DEFEND the faith. Has he?
          Of course, my personal opinion, is that these numerous Congregation of this and that are just for appearances sake anyway. Pretty worthless all around.

          • Barbara, I agree with your previous where you said we don’t know that he hasn’t spoken to the Pope. We do know that his previous comments, criticized by Mark above, have been amended and his opinion about adultery, etc., has negated his previous statement. Obviously he has come to his senses. I especially agree with you that it would be uncharitable of us to rake him over the coals until it is certain he does not support the dubia and its writers.
            There obviously much going on in private and Cardinal Muller is probably not at liberty to make any kind of statement that has so much as a chance to confuse matters further. Cardinal Burke is way overdue for a public correction of the Pope and my guess is, he is contacting every bishop in the world to see who will sign on to a public rebuke of the Pope and possibly his ouster. I suspect it’s taking so long because the Pope keeps throwing gasoline on the fire and the head count changes twice a day.

          • I would suggest, ‘if’ you are correct, that Cardinal Burke should hurry and not let these little fires get in the way.
            The public correction is overdue.
            I do not care for what goes on behind the scenes any longer. Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. More bad news and more bad news……..ENOUGH!

            The faith must be defended and Francis must be rebuked with a public correction for more than just his little A.L. So much more!

          • I agree with most of what you said. It’s easy for us to pound the desk and demand that others get on the ball. For those others it isn’t that easy.
            My hope is that the dubia Cardinals are trying to get an overwhelming number of bishops to declare the Pope to be a manifest heretic and throw him out. That takes time and very careful planning and execution. I’m getting a little impatient, too. I wish this thing would come to a rolling boil soon. The difference between us is, I’m willing to be patient and let those who know the rules and regs, the politics and the terrain do their job. I have no doubt they are as anxious to get rid of Bergoglio as we are.

        • Good morning Barbara,

          Gerhard Cardinal Mueller, in his specific act of proclaiming that Amoris Laetitia in itself, does not somehow jeopardize the deposit of the Faith, as it is received as the faith of the individual human person, is a profound error minimally and worse, an utter lie on the part of Mueller. These realities simply rest as res ipsa loquitur, themselves speaking to the act of the individual who proffers them, and this an inescapable reality. For eyes to see, see, and ears to hear, hear. In caritas.

        • Bishop Fellay is not the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and is in a very delicate period of negotiation with the Vatican. While there are a large number of opinions as to whether or not he should be in that state is another matter, but it is wise to not agitate the one you’re negotiating with or they may rescind their offer. I have no problem with him not speaking out at this point.

          Cardinal Mueller on the other hand, has a specific role to play, that of defender of the faith. He isn’t doing it. In fact, just a couple of months ago he said the dubia were dangerous and that there could not be a correction because there’s no danger to the faith. We seem to have forgotten since, in one time since, he spoke about marriage and communion according to the deposit of faith. It is clear he is either blind or he’s afraid. He seems to know the truth, but refuses to speak out against a grave offense promoted by the pope, and even covers for him. So either he truly sees no danger (and thus will not correct Francis, as the Jan. 8 interview indicates) or he’s afraid, and won’t correct Francis. This is from his own words.

          • Good afternoon Jafin,

            All Modernists “know the truth”. Lucifer “knows the truth” beyond our capacity to imagine, as you I’m sure know. Before I go on, allow me to digress. Be ever so careful regarding your spelling of “Muller” as “Mueller” or “winslow” will correct you as he did me, every so “kindly” I might add.

            You wrote this Jafin, “So either he truly sees no danger (and thus will not correct Francis, as the Jan. 8 interview indicates) or he’s afraid…”. The third option is that he is doing this with intent. Again, all Modernists “know the truth” and yet theirs’ is a game of, “affirmation of what they deny and denial of what they affirm”. This is the life of the double entendre’, so corrosive, so pernicious, so soul killing. In caritas.

          • Theoretically, yes, he could be doing this with malice. However, without strong evidence for such a thing, I would hesitate to make that accusation. Modernism has been so ingrained in the education of our priests for so long that it’s entirely possible that any modernist tendencies are not intentional, but simply a product of his formation. You may be onto something with this third option. But then again, you may be off point. And, as I said, I don’t like to assume malicious intent right off the bat.

          • Jafin,

            Not postulated as an “assumption”, rather as a “consideration” as being the third option, as your other two are “considerations”. When Gerhard Cardinal Muller says, “Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime, and we have to pray for that, and therefore marriage is an achievable project that makes people happy.”, he utterly puts into question the command of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as “What God has joined together let no man put asunder”, until death do you part. Of course there is no question from the mouth of the Son of God, simply a command. The Prefect of the CDF simply cannot put the Hegelian question into the minds of the faithful. That is fully anti-Christ. In caritas.

      • Jafin, we don’t know he is not supporting the dubia. When we see a list of bishops who support the dubia and his name isn’t on it, then we can say he won’t get behind it.

        • In the January 8th interview, which this new interview drew some of its information from and thus caused this article to be written, the Cardinal referred to the dubia as “damaging for the Church.” It was also the one where he said “there would be no correction because there is no danger to the faith.” OnePeterFive’s report on this is linked in the second paragraph. According to his own words, the cardinal doesn’t support the dubia.

          • I recall his saying that. As I remember it came close to the public posting of the dubia. To me that indicated he was shooting from the hip. Perhaps he thought it was too direct an attack on the Pope and, for his own reasons decided to defend the Pope. He didn’t give himself a chance to parse the dubia against AL and made a mistake.
            Let’s face it, this whole mess has caused a lot of us to shoot from the hip. Things happen so fast there’s hardly time to digest what we read before we feel obligated to respond, or are compelled to respond. Maybe we should be like Muslims here. If we say something today that contradicts what we said yesterday, yesterday is cancelled.

          • It was 2 months after the public release of the dubia. January 8th.

            I find your final statement faulty. If that’s the case, many jump from orthodoxy to heterodoxy on a daily basis.

          • Obviously I have a faulty memory.
            Shifting gears, is it possible to add another button to the 1P5 appeal page? Like ‘I’ve already donated’ instead if just yes and no?

          • I don’t know for sure; Steve will have to answer that one.

            I feel bad about clicking no personally 😛

        • If Cardinal Mueller has fundamental courage and humility he should tell directly to PF that he has caused too much disorders, confusions and heresies in teachings and has to stop. Please be straight and honest.

          • Are you certain he has not done it? Or do you think everything they say to each other has to be posted on the internet?

  2. It remains as res ipsa loquitur, that which is the understanding of the intentions of Gerhard Cardinal Mueller, based upon what he says, what he refuses to say, what he does, and what he refuses to do. We indeed find ourselves amidst imminent peril with this statement of his as quoted here from above, by Maike Hickson:

    “Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime, and we have to pray for that, and therefore “marriage is an achievable project that makes people happy.”

    Here again in the words of this emissary of deception, the Modernist quo Modernist Mueller, he establishes the grand dialectic of Hegel, at once injecting the question into the minds of anyone who reads this quote of him, as it regards the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony and its immutable reality, “until death do you part”. And so this eminent German theologian, much like his eminent conferrer Joseph Ratzinger, sets up Hegel’s dialectic with the thesis as “marriage” and the anti-thesis as, “an achievable project”, while at once the synthesis is to be found in making, “people happy”. Make no mistake; this is Luciferian from within its very linguistic immanence.

    For this murderer of Truth in language, Mueller, to have spoken as a true son of Holy Mother Church in his eminent position as the prefect of the CDF, in lieu of injecting a question so insidiously into the minds of any who read his statement, “Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime,…”, he would have said, “Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage— IS— for a lifetime. Look very carefully at what Mueller accomplishes in his words, “can be” versus the word of Holy Mother Church, “IS”. Viewed from the reality of Thomistic metaphysics, the word, ” is ” speaks to God Himself, as, ” I am “. The words, “can be”, speak to what may be referred to metaphysically as “becoming”, which is the “synthesis” of Hegel’s dialectic. Therefore, “can be”, as it speaks to “becoming”, places an affront to the law of non-contradiction, which states that, “being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect”. Lastly on this line of thinking, marriage cannot both be understood as, “can be for a lifetime” and “IS for a lifetime”. Marriage, as all created things by God, can only exist within one reality and that Reality Almighty God is the divine Author of. Mueller, I would with humility suggest, displays a preternatural cunning in the use of this specific language. Further, in lieu of his saying, “…we have to pray for that,…”, he would have said, “we have to pray for the reception of that grace, that grace which remains as it only can, inseparable from the Holy Sacrament, as it flows from its utter ontology as Sacrament.”

    Further, he has the unmitigated audacity to refer to the Holy Sacrament of Marriage as such utter profanity in the language, “an achievable project”, which at once suggests that the only reason marriage may last, “until death do you part”, is a pure and utter consequence of the will of God’s perfectly miserable human creatures, who are linked as, “one flesh”, within that covenant, and NOT as a result of the Will of Almighty God and His sacramental / sanctifying grace flowing from the immanence of that covenant.

    Lastly, the sine quo non of the dialectic of Hegel, its synthesis, is seen in the last part of Mueller’s statement as, “that makes people happy”. It speaks utterly, pristinely, and finally to the “fruits” of the covenant of Matrimony to be found exclusively in the “happiness” of the “people”. “Happy” and “sad”, which are as they can only ever remain, purely emotive understandings of the passions of man, which change like the winds of this world, and its Luciferian ethos. This man Mueller, may God have mercy on him and me, is under the spell of Lucifer and he is bidding his work. I pray this helps. I know this is hard. In caritas.

    • You are clearly foaming at the mouth now and quite out of control.

      I’d like to know from you what you find objectionable about the following statement by Cardinal Muller:

      “Thus, with God’s Grace, marriage can be for a lifetime, and we have to pray for that, and therefore “marriage is an achievable project that makes people happy.”

      • “…marriage can be for lifetime….” ???????? The word ‘can’ should be substituted with the word ‘ IS’. Or do I have it all wrong?

        “…marriage ia an achievable project that makes people happy.” ?????

        Is that what the sacrament of matrimony is all about?

        I had once given this man, the benefit of the doubt, but he is way too unsure of himself, and for a man in his position, that is not so good for the Church.

        • I gave him the benefit of the doubt too… and unfortunately, he’s given cause for doubt. Pray for him. God can change hearts and open eyes.

        • I understand your point(s), but much is assumed in the particulars.

          “…marriage can be for lifetime….”
          Is that not true? Is marriage always for a lifetime? Sadly, no. Perhaps that’s what Cardinal Muller (I don’t know where to get an umlaut) means. Perhaps he means what you and others think (want) he means.
          The man has a lot on his plate. I bet his phone is ringing 24/7 with advice, demands, threats and who knows what else. He’s under a lot of pressure and is walking through a minefield. I prefer to take it easy on him. The rest of you can cut him up as you wish. I’ve said enough and will not comment further.

          • Actually, marriage is always for a lifetime, if validly contracted. The relationship between the persons may not last, through human weakness, but the marriage does. And that relationship can be regained through the graces of that sacrament. So I would argue that, no, “can be” is not an appropriate term to use. However, I agree with you that what he probably meant was indeed what we all intend. Language is important, though, and the language used often indicates what kind of thought there is. Cardinal Kasper would say that marriage of course lasts for life. We know, of course, that in principle he doesn’t really believe this. And Pope Francis as well with his “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”

            Regardless, what we need to do is pray for him. It gets tiresome, and often we feel like we’re doing nothing, but prayer… prayer is the way through this.

      • Again, Good Afternoon winslow,

        Poor, poor winslow. You really should bring your head above water now and take a breath before you drown in your lake of anger. Poor, poor winslow, you are indeed another human person who finds it so hard not to attack the character, the person who proffers the argument rather than their argument, which you obviously have utterly no understanding of. The question you pose of me in your little, little sophomoric tirade is what the paragraphs above your “humble” question of me indeed answer. “You are clearly foaming at the mouth now and quite out of control.”, says winslow. Know the Peace of Christ winslow, not of this world. I wonder who here is “foaming at the mouth now” and “out of control”? That question is indeed already answered as res ipsa loquitur. In caritas.

        • You can get your point across without insulting anyone. While I disagree with winslow, your condescending tone is not becoming of a Catholic. We’re all on the same side are we not? You are clearly educated in the the theology and philosophy to take this apart. Educate, don’t condescend.

      • He doesn’t seem to be foaming. Quite opposite he seems to be perhaps a bit too much in his head. Regarding your question, I’m pretty sure his whole comment was answering it. His second and third paragraphs in particular are where the meat of his argument is I think.

  3. What does it really matter what any of them say or do not say anymore? Any of them who are not attempting to call this so-called Pope to account for his continuous heresies and blasphemies are part of the problem – not the solution. Apart from a few faithful souls, we have a hierarchy which has failed in its calling – they are nothing but salt which has lost its savour and deserve to be cast out and trodden underfoot.

  4. It seems to me that a literate man of reasonable common sense can make himself understood. All this “misunderstanding” is nefarious in its origin.
    What is unambiguous is the character of those participating in this unconscionable charade.
    If you can’t do the job get lost.
    All of you.

    • Good evening James,

      They are indeed charlatans of the linguistic genre’, if you will, however, theirs’ is both a perspicacious and at once an exquisite deception, orchestrated to the principle cause of leading human persons into the loss of the Supernatural Faith, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. As the deFide teaching, “extra ecclesia nulla salus”, is as it can only ever remain, until the end of time, the impenetrable and immutable Truth of Holy Mother Church, may Almighty God have mercy on their eternal souls and ours. In caritas.

  5. Excellent reporting! I admire your determination to track this information down and convince the other news agencies to make the correction. I wish they all would be so professional.

  6. Didn’t Mueller already give an interview were he basically said that no one in a second marriage cannot receive communion?

  7. Why is it that when we see a list of prelates who have issued guidelines for permitting the divorced and remarried to find their way to Holy Communion without reform of life, it almost never includes the Cardinal Vicar of Rome? He has issued such guidelines and surely would not have done so without the approbation of the Pope. It is not possible to have any doubt about the Pope’s position. He might be silent, but he is certainly acting.

      • Steve, this is an excellent article from last October on the guidelines issued for the Diocese of Rome. It exemplifies the problems engendered by Amoris laetitia. After two years of talk and two synods with everything focused on answering the question whether the divorced and remarried may receive Holy Communion, AL doesn’t answer it. It doesn’t say they can, but it doesn’t say they can’t. And therein lies the mischief.

        I think Cardinal Müller is trying to head off a formal correction. His interview last month in Il Timone answered each of the five dubia, indirectly but in a perfectly orthodox way, while he asserted that only the Pope himself and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are competent to interpret the papal magisterium. I am not sure the Pope would accept that last bit.

        Apparently the Cardinal has been told not to answer the dubia. Anyway, he has criticized their existence, so this is the best he can do. He is walking a thin line and I can sympathize with his position, but it might not be tenable much longer. Cardinal Burke said a formal correction would not be issued until after the Epiphany. Well, the season after the Epiphany ended three days ago (new calendar). I pray the Four Cardinals have not put their hand to the plow and then looked back. We must all pray for and support faithful clergy and resolve to remain faithful ourselves no matter what happens.

  8. Mueller never spoke frankly against Amoris Leatitia, nor did he repliy by an official statement to the five dubia letter, which was HIS DUTY, since the Pope who was the addressee chose to remain silent.
    But anyways, through some confidences and unformal interviews he gave, we know that he doesn’t fully agree with the Pope and the “party line”. He looks more and more suspicious in the modernist mafia’s eyes and no doubt that his days will be shortened soon by the Pope, in order to replace him by a mlore faithful and unconditional man.

  9. I fully expect Cardinal Mueller to support heresy one day and denounce it the next, and so on, on alternate days. He’s pretty much a useless pustule upon the bottom of the universe, to my mind. I don’t really care what he thinks or says.

  10. Steve, I honestly don’t know how you keep your sanity, keeping up with all this stuff. I personally need to go watch Bugs Bunny right now.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...