Archbishop Mueller Still Hasn’t Explained Anything

The new guardian of the hen-house continued to give interviews….

Archbishop Mueller has a couple of problems: the first one is that he cannot avoid giving more or less arrogant interviews (well, ok: more); the second is that he has been invited from the SSPX to say how he reconciles his strange idea of a non-virginity which is a virginity, but hasn’t done it; instead, he thinks he can put the controversies over his own embarrassing ignorance of the basics of Catholicism (or worse) by just saying “I believe in that in which I am supposed to believe, therefore you must be wrong”.

On the first problem, it is clear the Archbishop should go back to school with very rigid SSPX teachers; that he knows it very well; and that it hurts. Once again, he reacted angrily to the (perfectly legitimate, and still unanswered) questions openly posed to him from the SSPX by saying that those who disagree with him either aren’t very intelligent, or haven’t read him, or couldn’t understand him. Congratulations, with such arguments he would have great success with a group of drunken friends at the pub.

Simply put,  either the SSPX is populated by cretins, or Archbishop Mueller is a 1a cretin himself. Reach your own conclusions.

On the second problem, I notice that the Archbishop still hasn’t answered (at least as far as the Blessed Virgin is concerned; on other matters things seems clearer) to the criticism levelled against him. To say “I am orthodox” is rather easy; to say whether you think you were wrong in what you stated and why is quite another.

I could tell you whatever crap gets through my mind, and then react to every criticism saying “yours are provocations, and not even intelligent ones at that. I am right and orthodox, you just don’t read or can’t understand me”. Would you let it pass? Thought not…

Why, then, is the Archbishop allowed to (factually) deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and get away with it by just saying “I believe in the dogma?” I could tell you – if I were a theologian burning to say something new and revolutionary to further my career – that the dogma really means, say, that the Blessed Virgin liked baby blue in preference to sage green. When I, then, say that I believe in the dogma I do not do anything else than to repeat that I believe in what I have already stated I believe. Similarly, Mueller has already said that to him “virginity” does not really mean… virginity.  Therefore, when he says that he believes in Mary Ever Virgin he has retracted absolutely nothing, because he must first persuade us that he got what virginity is.

The rest of the interview is the usual rather embarrassing blabla: I really didn’t want to become de facto Number Three; I mean, not really really, but the Holy Father told me I could not refuse (the Pope allowed Monsignor Wagner to refuse, though. I wonder why?); I will talk with the mad nuns because the only ones I consider cretins unable to read are the SSPX priests; I do believe in my heresies concerning Protestants and I will not back pedal about them; but I really, really have to back pedal about transubstantiation, otherwise I am in serious trouble; and so on.

The man is a walking embarrassment for the Church: a man dangerously prone to choler (he can’t avoid insulting the SSPX even in his interviews; just imagine what he must be in private), theologically shamed by every properly instructed ten years old boy circa 1910, and so much in love with himself he reminds one of Usain Bolt, without the achievements or the talent.

May God forgive the man who put him in such an important place because he has edited his own books.


Posted on August 8, 2012, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Oh dear. On top of this, and the dreadful news this morning (I don’t know if the Pope really said this or if the news is twisting it):

    I really don’t know what to do. it seems to me that heresy is gnawing all over the Church, I dare not say the Holy Father, but our German yoghurt-named friend at the CDF is as big a heretic as Pelagius or Arius, and worse, he’s accepted by the Church!
    I wrote a little, quite flippant song about this, to the tune of ‘It’s a long way to Tipperary’. It’s very flippant (and brazenly pro-SSPX. As excellent as the humble Benedictine monk who instructed me is, I am having enormous qualms about the Vatican at the minute), but it might raise a laugh in these grim times:

    It’s a long way to the SSPX
    It’s a long way to go,
    It’s a long way to the SSPX
    And the only Church I know!

    Goodbye, Ludwig Mueller!
    Farewell Kirchensteuer!
    It’s a long, long way to the SSPX
    But my heart’s right there!

    • Duns,

      I have looked for the news you mention but have not found it.It is not the first time the “Homo Telegaph” and others twist the words of the Holy Father before discovering they have done a mews of things once again.

      Having said that, the Pope is obviously responsible for all the heresies – overt or, more often, covert – of his lieutenants, then he is the one who has put them there, and doesn’t discipline them.


    • RE: BXVI Daily Telegraph Report. It is a re-hash of what he said some time ago and is related to a biography to be published. Not absolutely what it appears to be, but why Oh Why do theologians ever get themselves into such messes.

    • Ah, you mean that mess of a couple of years ago about the homosexual using condoms…

      Yes, it showed the extreme superficiality of the media,and the great imprudence of the Pope in choosing the worst possible example… albeitconsidering what has happened in germany in the following two years, I wonder whether there was ot the intention of launching some subliminal message here…

      Duns, you were not following the Catholic matters then I believe, but in short the Pope said even a sodomite prostitute who starts using condoms shows the beginning of consideration for others; the press (also the BBC; they had to backpedal furiously) started to say “Vatican says condoms are all right in certain circumstances”, showing what kind of superficial amateurs they are as a category…

      But the Pope was also imprudent: if he had said, say, “the torturer who starts to kill his own victims without torturing them etc” no one would have said “Vatican approves of murder in certain circumstances”.

      We live in times of incompetent theologians, bad journalists, and Popes not respected even by their own butlers.

      I wonder if at least some of these elements aren’t linked…


    • Besides, in my post about the Homo Mafia at the telegraph I have already shown what kind of faggotry has overtaken the once “torygraph”, now “sodograph”. And you haven’t followed the blog then: you would have been confronted with “cute” homosexual MPs, and the like…


  2. How can there be mediation if the mediator is so aggressively biased from the outset? Further, the German Bishops’ Conference, as a collegialy whole, is furious as to any possible rapprochement with regard to SSPX.

    • Ah, but Mueller is clearly interested in saying that he wants an agreement, and achieving none… how could he admit people who (rightly) question his dogmatic positions to be i what they call “full communion”?

      I console myself thinking this is probably not for long, and unless the next Pope is one of the his ilk I think he’ll have to pack his bags rather sharp.



%d bloggers like this: