Archbishop Mueller Introduces Himself.

The Mueller I like.

Archbishop Mueller has introduced himself, and he stinks mightily of heresy already. If Pope Benedict thinks he can save his soul with appointments like this, I can’t avoid thinking he might be sorely disappointed.

Archbishop Mueller wonderfully represents the worst that 50 years of post Vatican-II Church have given us: ambiguous, oily, always flirting with heresy, and harsh only when he talks about the SSPX. He does it, of course, to appear “modern” and “with it” to the millions of horribly misinformed and, alas, loud bellowing German Catholics who still constitute the biggest spenders of the Church.

I don’t know how you call this, but I do.

I have just reblogged an old post of mine dealing with both a blog post from Ite ad Thomam concerning Modernism and Neo-Modernism, and the simple fact that modern liturgy and Catholic thinking as listened to in many parishes every week has become simply unrecognisable as such for a Catholic of the past.

Coming more to the point of our hero, let us see what the writers of Ite ad Thomam have to say about neo-Modernism. Emphases always mine.

The post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie.  It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional ‘formulas’: dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the ‘needs of modern man’.  This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism.  It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the ‘formulas’ of faith that must be abandoned–they use the term ‘formula’ to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutablemeanings.  Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times.  In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be ‘dynamic orthodoxy’: supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville’s mission statement).  

I will save you now the umpteenth repetition of the “courageous” theological statements of the innovative Archbishop now everywhere on the net.

I will, instead, invite you to compare this with a revealing expression of our new guardian of Catholic theology:

The 1965 reorganisation of the dicastery placed this positive aspect in its heart. It is about the promotion of theology and its basis in Revelation, to ensure its quality, and to consider the relevant intellectual developments on a global scale. We cannot simply and mechanically repeat the doctrine of the faith. It must always be associated with the intellectual developments of the time, the sociological changes, the thinking of people.

This, my friends, is pure NuChurch-ese, and bollocks of the most dangerous sort. You can’t say it is openly heretical, but it is not difficult to understand what he is aiming at.

Of course, the Church must adequate the way it communicates to the changing times: two thousand years ago a sermon might have entailed the growing of the crops; together rather a car, or an Iphone. But the Archbishop says much more than this. He says that the doctrine must not be repeated “mechanically” (clearly implying what was good yesterday will not be good tomorrow) and talks of things which become increasingly more dangerous, namely:

a) the “intellectual development of the time”. This is a rather novel concept, to my knowledge unknown before V II: if the intellect of men develops, when will the time come when one says that certain truths of the Faith must now be adapted to the developed intellect of men? Of course doctrine (slowly) develops, but it is an organic development, and it is certainly not the fruit of the development of the human being as such, but of the harmonic growing and flowering of those immutable truths, which are themselves immutable because the human being, in his essence, is immutable himself.  

b) the “sociological changes”. I read here “the fact that we are full of divorced people whose money I want”. Once again, if the doctrine must be “evolved”, and be that only in the way it is presented, in harmony with the “sociological changes” we’ll soon have a “theology of divorce and remarriage”, courtesy of Archbishop Mueller. Make no mistake, this is no man likely to be afraid, as he does not hesitate in tampering with the Blessed Virgin’s hymen. But millions of Germans will be thankful to him. Cha-ching…

c) the “thinking of people”.  This is scary, and amazing even for a German Bishop. Catholic doctrine can’t be repeated mechanically; no. it must be “associated” with “the thinking of people”. If you think like this, you can say the most absurd things: like… like… that Protestants are part of the same “church”, or even try to give an interpretation of transubstantiation acceptable to Protestant, because it stinks so much of consubstantiation. The possibilities are limitless…

As always, if you really, really want to give to his words a halfway orthodox interpretation, you can. Perhaps, it was all innocently said; perhaps, the Archbishop simply means that you mention the Ipod instead of the wheat crop; perhaps, he simply means that one must pay attention he captures the attention of the people. But does he, really? Is this the history of the last 50 years of German episcopacy? Is the the way he wants to be understood? 

Amazing, what being friends with the Pope can do for you…

Let us wake up, say I, and look at the problem in the face: under the wake of Pope Benedict, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church not from a fissure, but from the main entrance; and has blackened the ceilings of the Vatican all right.


Posted on July 5, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Love your language and imagry. I love that you call him “oily”. There is an English word, “unctuous” that means the same thing, but isn’t as deliciously florid. And to envision the smoke of Satan making the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel dingey is terribly upsetting–you ought to write screenplays in both English and Italian! M., I pray that this appointment does not do too much damage. If it’s as bad as you describe, we are in for a hell of a ride.

    • Ah, in Italy we have the delicious expression “oleoso e scivoloso”, “oily and slippery”, but yes, we have “untuoso” too… 😉 The image with the smoke is actually Paul VI’s, I am merely, as you say, apply to it the vivid imagination of my people… 😉

      I think the good (?) Archbishop will be reined in at some point, or will understand the wall of Catholicism is too hard for his stubborn V II-head (another piece of imagery, right?). The Pope will probably not live long and his successor might well put a rather rapid end to his Roman holiday. Or not, as the case may be. Be it as it may, I think he’ll make a lot of damage anyway.

      The Pope chose him. On his head be it.


  2. Does anyone remember ‘The Rhine flows into the Tiber’ by Ralph Wiltgen? a selfidentified ‘liberal’. the author dispassionately tells the truth about the way the german bishops and theologians (within the first 90 minutes, some hold) destroyed the work of the preparatory commissions and imposed their neo-modernist leaning schemas on the rest. It was all prepared, years before…. Those same people now wear mitres and dictate to the Catholic Church what and how we must now think. Does anyone know Joseph Ratzinger’s background? Might it explain some of this?

  3. Mundabor,
    I really do not want to imagine a Bishop tampering with the Virgin’s hymen. This is fittingly disgusting in every possible way. So let me change the topic slightly:

    Modernism is heresy. But what is Neo-Modernism? It is always very careful to dress up as orthodox. There is always some orthodox interpretation, as you have said. Being so familiar with it, Germans have a special word for Neo-Modernism. We cannot call it “heresy”. We simply call it “Quatsch”. 😉

    • I fully agree with your feelings, Catocon. You can imagine my sympathy for the man.

      As to Neo-Modernism, the fact it is not so obviously heretical makes it, in fact, so much more dangerous. It is as if the enemies of the Church had become more cunning, and now intended to take the fortress not by destroying the walls, but by persuading the defenders to let them in as friends.

      The writers of Ite ad Thomam say it very aptly:

      Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old ‘formula’ that “there is no salvation outside the Church” must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church; people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that “there is no salvation outside the Church” means that there is salvation outside the Church. Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those “reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.” (Humani generis 27).

      “Thus, to them the dogma that “there is no salvation outside of the Church” means that there is salvation outside of the Church. Similarly, Mery ever-virgin means Mary-not-ever-virgin. I could go on…


  4. Mundabor,
    my comment is admittedly a debating reply. Of course, deep down, Neo-Modernism is heresy too, just in a superior disguise. But if you call it heresy, you have five hours of angry discussion oabout judging and all this on your hands. Just call it nonsense, and nobody without a degree in theology from a liberal university could possibly disagree even for one second. So, yes, you are completely right, as are our friends at “Ite ad Thomam”. Neo-Modernism is extremely insidious. But being nonsense it can be discredited very effectively in the eyes of nearly everyone. Just show the snake-like movements of their minds and how they contort their arguments in order to justify their heresies using “orthodox” language, and everyone (even non-believers who could not care less about heresy and orthodoxy) will just laugh at them and discount their every word…

%d bloggers like this: