In his latest, boorish provocation to Still-Archbishop Müller, Cardinal Maradiaga has made some statements to the tune that Cardinal Müller must take account of reality.
If you ask me, the Cardinal has piddled out of the urinal for at least two reasons. Let us see them.
Firstly, the idea that Church teaching is in utter contrast to the tendencies and inclinations of us wretched sinners is nothing new. It is, actually, the reason Christ founded the Church in the first place. The Cardinal must be a very uneducated man if he does not know that “reality” was always well populated with, say, concubines, illegitimate children, and moral trespasses of all sorts. The Church is called to operate in the world exactly because the reality of the world is one of sin. To claim that Church teaching and praxis must be adjusted to reality is to embrace the purest Religion of Man, and to deny the role of the Church in the first place.
I can vividly imagine Maradiaga listening to Christ and saying to him: “Loosen up, Bro. Look at the world around you!”
Secondly, from a different point of view it seems to me that Maradiaga is unaware or willingly forgetful of the fact that God and His Truth are the ultimate reality. What I mean by that is that in my book God's laws have a far more granitic quality, are infinitely more real than any ephemeral earthly weakness. God's rules existed before the first concubine was born, and will exist forever after the last one has died. Therefore, Truth is real, is the authentic “reality” of things in a way compared to which every earthly “reality” is but a transient phenomenon. By demanding that the “reality” he can observe around him shape the Ultimate Reality that is supposed to shape it, Maradiaga shows his utter neglect of that ultimate and superior reality he will have to face one day.
I can imagine that one day the following conversation will take place:
“But, but… Lord, why it's so warm here?”
“Loosen up, “Bro”. It's just the reality of which you were so fond”.
The Eponymous Flower has an interesting excerpt concerning another interview given by Archbishop Mueller.
Mueller states a couple of things that should go without saying, if we were not living in such disturbing times.
I leave it to others to reconcile the common sense of Mueller’s statements with the vague idea of giving more “doctrinal authority” to the Bishops’ Conferences. It is clear to every sound thinking Catholic that the thing cannot be done without causing grave damage to the very idea of the Church. Bishops’ Conference have no, and can never have any, doctrinal authority, and to introduce a principle of “local doctrinal authority” means to question and severely damage the principle of the One Church altogether.
Note that the Archbishop states the Bishops’ Conference already have some kind of “doctrinal authority” when, say, preparing catechism books; but it is clear here that this is not the autonomous exercise of a home-made authority, but merely the local implementation of universal rules. It is not a coincidence that, say, catechisms are never infallible.
Next October will be a time of great trial for the Church, provided of course the Extraordinary Synod still takes place. I can’t imagine that anything good at all could come out of it.
We should, I think, pray that this Synod never takes place.
Let’s keep this short: the culprit is Francis, and no other.
It’s very easy to see why.
1. Not even an old incapacitated nincompoop would shut up after the interview instead of immediately saying, very loud, “this interview does not reflect our conversation”. There is no way in hell Francis can escape his responsibility on this. He even received the draft of the interviews, for heaven’s sake. What was he doing, watching the photos of Ms Chaouqui?
2. Many have tried to depict Scalfari as the old man in his dotage. Very wrong. Firstly, it is clear to everyone who is not gaga that Scalfari isn’t. Secondly, it makes sense that Francis would demand that the interview would be made without a recorder or a stenographer. A recorder would have implied Scalfari does not trust the words of a Pope, and a stenographer would have recorded all the inordinate rambling of the man. Notice when Francis rambles we only get the doctored versions, in which charitable souls try to give some sense to the rambling nonsense. If we read the literal transcription of a 30 minutes Francis’ performance, I think the entire planet would be rolling on the floor, laughing.
3. Francis received a draft, and gave the green light to it. This has been admitted from Vatican sources, who had to invent the pathetic excuse it is not clear whether he read it after Repubblica had to say – confronted with the brazen attempt to deny reality – that he bloody well did. There can be no excuse. There is absolutely nowhere to hide. The emperor has no clothes. Period.
4. Scalfari is a journalist. He knows his trade. Whatever was agreed between the two, he will not reveal unless, perhaps, attacked personally. If Francis says “please no recorder, but do not say it was on my request”, Scalfari will make the interview with no recorder, and will not say this was on Francis’ request. Don’t insult your intelligence thinking – or worse, saying – he forgot his recorder home and is unable to take notes.
5. In part, Francis’ interview echo scandalous affirmations already made by him, and which he merely confirms (“And I repeat it here”). How many times is this man misunderstood, and since when has he become unable to read?
What has happened is that 1) Mueller has insisted that the interview be removed as far too obscene, as reported by the media, when he was informed – to his surprise – that it was still on the internet site, and b) Francis had to see it was better for him to have the thing taken down now, than for it to be left on the Vatican site as a permanent monument to his own heresy and incompetence.
He has nowhere to hide.
I have already said, and I repeat it here (see how it works?) that there is crushing evidence that Francis approved the interview, and there is no evidence Hitler ordered the Holocaust.
If you are so dumb as to think Francis did not want this interview as published, you can as well believe Hitler did not want the Holocaust as happened.
From the pleasantly surprising mini-essay of Archbishop Mueller (I know, I know…) concerning marriage, some rather interesting excerpts. Emphases mine.
Marriage can be understood and lived as a sacrament only in the context of the mystery of Christ. If marriage is secularized or regarded as a purely natural reality, its sacramental character is obscured. Sacramental marriage belongs to the order of grace, it is taken up into the definitive communion of love between Christ and his Church. Christians are called to live their marriage within the eschatological horizon of the coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.
Pastors are obliged, by love for the truth, “to exercise careful discernment of situations” […] And yet they cannot be admitted to the Eucharist. Two reasons are given for this: a) “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” b) “if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”.
Clergy are expressly forbidden, for intrinsically sacramental and theological reasons and not through legalistic pressures, to “perform ceremonies of any kind” for divorced people who remarry civilly, as long as the first sacramentally valid marriage still exists.
the faithful concerned may not present themselves for holy communion on the basis of their own conscience: “Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors … have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching”
The doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage is often met with incomprehension in a secularized environment.
Love is more than a feeling or an instinct. Of its nature it is self-giving. In marital love, two people say consciously and intentionally to one another: only you – and you for ever.
If remarried divorcees are subjectively convinced in their conscience that a previous marriage was invalid, this must be proven objectively by the competent marriage tribunals. Marriage is not simply about the relationship of two people to God, it is also a reality of the Church, a sacrament, and it is not for the individuals concerned to decide on its validity, but rather for the Church, into which the individuals are incorporated by faith and baptism.
in the case of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage we are dealing with a divine norm that is not at the disposal of the Church.
A further case for the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy. Given that Jesus himself showed solidarity with the suffering and poured out his merciful love upon them, mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church. Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfil them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father.
I won’t lie to you and say every thing is as good as that. But most of the article is as good as that. Please let us leave aside for the moment the problems of the text and let us focus on what is means in this particular moment, when the Bishop of Rome blabbers about “mercy” and “pastoral care” clearly engendering the impression some big trouble might be in the making. I see the following possibilities:
1. Francis got scared of the messianic expectations of the liberal crowds, particularly after the Freiburg initiative has shown him what kind of problems are in the making when one opens his mouth without thinking (which is, I would say, every time he is not eating). Therefore, he has a rare moment of reasonableness and sends forth his lieutenant Mueller to calm down the nutcases, and explain he wants to be the Nelson Mandela of Catholicism, but not at the price of formal heresy. This makes sense, because it makes of Mueller, not Francis, the “baddy”. Francis remains, therefore, the good chap who would allow adulterers to receive communion. But the cruel men around him they will not, will not, will not allow him to. Everyone’s happy.
2. Francis wants to “make a mess”. His lieutenants, who have grasped the extent of the man’s subversive madness, start blocking him in purest Vatican style. They are saying “you can be as much as a nutcase as you please, but we won’t follow you where you give such a scandal”. Notice that Mueller’s opposition is presented in term that have to do with the nature it self of the Church and the sacraments, not pastoral care. The Church can’t allow adulterers to receive communion, full stop. He isn’t saying “I think this would be wrong”. He is saying “this can never, ever be right”.
I would, at this point, be happy to congratulate Archbishop Mueller for his defense of the most elementary Catholic truths. Forgive me if I don’t, as I think the time where a future cardinal, archbishop and head of the CDF is praised simply for stating the obvious should be completely forgotten. Archbishop Mueller surprises with his show of (V II; read the article well) orthodoxy. But he should certainly not be praised for saying it.
I am curious to see what will become of this. I would bet my half pint other prelates will intervene in the matter, repeating the points made by the Archbishop. If this happens I will, personally, read this as a preventative straitjacket put around Francis to prevent him from doing immense harm to himself and to the Church. It is good that the reiterations of simple Catholic truths start now, rather than waiting for October 2014.
You never know what a bunch of hippy cardinals, led by a hippie pope, could do instead.
Allow me, for the moment, to draw a brutally frank conclusion: there is reason to hope that either this pontiff has now reached the limit of his own incompetence, or his own men will take care he does not go beyond a certain – and extremely scandalous in any way – limit of incompetence; which they can do simply by publicly recalling the Truths of the faith in such definitive terms as to castrate from the start every attempt to impose a Che-Church (shall I patent this?) on the poor faithful.
Archbishop Mueller did his job today. In a very V II way, I admit, but he did it.
This makes news. Mala tempora currunt.
The Archbishop of Lima, Cardinal Cipriani, has criticised Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Mueller for the latter’s obvious sympathy for Liberation Theology. The (already) Cardinal called the soon-to-be Cardinal “naive”, and actually did it twice in one week.
The substance of the criticism is predictable: Mueller tries to recycle radioactive material, and it won’t wash. Instead, the Cardinal’s ruler descends with unmistakeable speed on Mueller’s fingers with the words
Mgr. Müller’s job is to defend the sound doctrine of the Catholic faith so he should stop being naive and be more prudent.
Note here that Cardinal Cipriani explicitly refuses to “read heresy through orthodoxy”, a game very much en vogue nowadays. He does not bend over backwards to explain that if we understand Liberation Theology as being something different from Liberation Theology, but still Liberation Theology, then Liberation Theology is fine. On the contrary, he sees unorthodox positions being represented and not only says it openly, but states very clearly that Mueller, in virtue of his job, is the very last (but one) who should indulge in such, ahem, Bergoglisms.
Archbishop Mueller had answered he was not upset at being called “naive” (which is rather strange, as the man is notorious for being very easily upset), so the Cardinal repeated it again in order for the words to sink in.
Archbishop Mueller is, as we have already abundantly seen last year (the search function is your friend: right hand column, below the “tag cloud”) one who takes it rather lightly even with dogmas and is therefore not likely to be impressed by the need to be orthodox. Do not expect, therefore, any change on his side.
Still, it happens so rarely that a Cardinal intervenes in favour of orthodoxy, and even has the guts to do so with a man he knows a protegé of the new Pope. Rarely indeed.
There is a saying in Italy: “to speak to the wife so that the mother-in-law understands”.
In this case, it might well be that the Cardinal criticises the wife (Mueller) so that the person he does not want to criticise, but must perforce get the message, understands the criticism is actually meant for him. Who the mother-in-law would be in this case, I do not need to tell.
Who knows. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with Circus Bergoglio is mounting, and signals are already sent in the right direction. Or perhaps I am an incurable optimist.
I had not been informed of the existence of Cardinal Braz de Aviz until a couple of days ago, when I wished to have remained in my blessed ignorance.
The Cardinal cried pretty loud about the tightening of screws at the LCWR (whom he clearly defends to a point) having happened without previous consultation, which is very, very bad. You know, collegiality, “we are the world” mentality and all that.
It is difficult to understand what the Cardinal might have had in mind with such move. The nuns are clearly under the Vatican’s (very soft) heel and a Cardinal with no competence in the matter and obviously no weight isn’t going to change anything in that. Perhaps the Cardinal wanted to accelerate the exodus of Catholics in Brazil, and if this was the intent then I must say the execution was brilliant.
The Cardinal has been, though, now forced to a rather humiliating back pedalling, with the usual press release now confirming the usual harmony and, crucially, that the heel – soft as it is – isn’t going to move a bit.
Did the Cardinal expect to advance the cause of the witches with this? I doubt, though I am sure a genius he is not. What I think more probable is that he has some personal animosity with Mueller – who, as yogurts go, must be rather sour when he wants – and/or wanted to make himself beautiful with Brazil’s “progressives” for some reason of his own. In both cases, it was well done of Mueller to force him to swallow a generous dose of Kefir.
As to this last, I still can’t wait for him to be replaced, which will hopefully happen soon. I am certainly not the only one to notice Mueller is very prompt in reacting to friends of the mad nuns, but is absolutely silent when his own compatriots make a dry run of a Schism and tell their own faithful that taboos can be broken, if they have some patience.
Braz de Aviz is Cardinal, Mueller is Archbishop and at the head of one of the most powerful congregation. That one might reasonably fear his successor might be even worse than him says a lot about the present crisis.
Still, this time the kefir was eaten by the right one.
The Pope today about the correct way to interpret scripture. Emphases mine, and the entire text on the usual Rorate.
The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church. The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the Community of believers, the Church of Christ, to nourish the faith and guide the life of charity. Respect for this profound nature of Scripture conditions the very validity and effectiveness of biblical hermeneutics.
What I think this means, is that when a theologian, in his love for novelty, comes to conclusions that are not in accordance with the living tradition of the Church, he is simply piddling outside of the W.C., and must stop at once, because if he doesn’t he leads his own vanity to confuse the faithful, or worse.
Please read it again before I proceed.
Do we agree?
Allow me, then, to put to your attention a pearl of stupidity of the very man at the head of the commission to whom the Pontiff has addressed his words today. Our Yogurtmeister here is talking of the, erm (cough…) dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
[The doctrine is] “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
It is only that I am a tad ill-disposed toward Mueller, or Pope Francis is sending a clear signal to him directly, present in the room and an extremely obvious example of the piddling habit I have mentioned above?
We will see. If the Pontiff sends Archbishop Mueller back to his native dairies, it is clear he means what he says. If he doesn’t, it is clear he doesn’t.
Clearly, Archbishop Mueller wasn’t informed of the Holy Father’s plans.
He managed to anger both the Archbishop of Lima and the SSPX (he loves that) in just a few days.
The first with a letter with which he inelegantly walks over the Archbishop of Lima in the matter of the non-Catholic, non-Pontifical University of Lima (non-Catholic; where Mueller went every year; get that?).
The second is with the confirmation that some days ago an ultimatum was sent to the SSPX: either you accept to eat the yogurt within the 22 February, or we will try to do what we have tried to do these last 25 years: split you.
Isn’t it ironic that whilst Mueller was bullying left and right, the Holy Father was, Latin-German dictionary in hand, perfecting the message that would make Archbishop Mueller the lamest duck to walk along the Vatican corridors in a long time?
The Archbishop was really taken by surprise: would you send such letters if you knew just hours afterwards people would read them and laugh? Why would Cipriani be worried, when he can simply sit and wait for the man to pack his bags? And how credible must Vatican promises appear to SSPX priests – allegedly so easy to win over, or so does the Archbishop thinks – when the one who makes the promises doesn’t even know he’ll be an “unemployed man walking” in just a few hours’ time? How could anyone not see that now the cards will be reshuffled, and there is no saying whatever what kind of Pope will get out of the Conclave?
Archbishop Mueller’s inning at the CDF will almost certainly prove very short.
But one can’t say it wasn’t, in a rather tragic way, amusing.
And so the SSPX should be, one is informed, scared of the new Pope crushing them, and should have accepted the poisoned bread offered to them by a, erm, rather scheming Pope.
Should they? Really? I am not persuaded at all. Let us see why.
Broadly speaking, the new Pope can only be one of three:
1) a modernist like Schoenborn.
2) a so-so, V-II nuChurch Pope like, well, all of them since Pope Roncalli.
3) A traditionalist Pope.
If 1) happens, you’ll see an explosion of sedevacantism, and as a result of the prestige and position of the SSPX who, whilst not being sedevacantists, are in clear opposition to the antics of nuChurch. Whatever this new Pope may order to them, the Society will certainly apply the blessed “first rule of the Italian army”: gli ordini sbagliati non si eseguono, “wrong orders are not carried out”.
I can, in fact, not imagine anything more promising for the growth of the Society than an utterly disgraceful Pope. Please reflect the likes of the FSSP would all be silenced in no time, and told they are lucky if they can keep the Tridentine Mass, and the Society would soon remain, to all intents and purposes, the only traditionalist shop in town.
The SSPX would then be seen as the last and only bastion of orthodoxy, and rightly so. They have the people, they have the money, they have the faith and the determination. Depend on that, they won’t take stupid orders by any stupid Schoenborn, Pope or no Pope. Amen.
2) So-so Popes can bark – with great effort – but they can’t bite. Therefore, your typical V II Pope would engage in endless “dialogue” without ever coming to any conclusion, which is why they engage in “dialogue” in the first place (besides trying to split the Society). There would be a gesture here and its contrary there, a Bux here and a Mueller there (well, not really; the man will hopefully be gone for good soon); but in the end, nothing would happen.
“You must accept V II”, the Vatican would say. “You must wake up and repent”, the SSPX would answer. Not the stuff of agreements, and it is probably good so as long as this situation persists.
3) If we are blessed by a traditionalist Pope (an event we as Catholics have by far not deserved), then the problem would solve itself by itself. We’d soon have the SSPX in full communion and – in time – Fellay as Cardinal ( I have joked about that in another post, but in this constellation I can’t see any other outcome). Case 3) is not a problem, but the end of all problems, and is therefore not worth discussing much.
What can, then, an hypothetical new and angry Pope do against the Society? A fat nothing, is the answer. The Society exists because the Papacy is in crisis. They will not do the Pope’s bidding when the papacy is even more in crisis than it has been in the times of Paul VI.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the decision of the Pope to go away is in fact a vindication of the SSPX policy. He will soon be gone, and the SSPX is still there. With Benedict, Mueller will soon go (not immediately, probably; the successor will allow him a face-saving time before he picks his own man). If there had been a (bad) agreement, how long had it lasted? Months? If the new pope is bad, than the SSPX was even more right in not wanting lazy compromises, and insisting on guarantees of freedom of criticism beside operational autonomy.
If you are smart, you talk with the Vatican but you don’t trust your own existence to their mercy. Bishop Fellay is very smart, and every agreement would have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX priests, so expect no surprises from there.
So: Pope Benedict will soon be gone. Archbishop Mueller will follow him soon after. The SSPX is still there, as solid as a rock, growing like a mushroom colony, and not scared of anything but lazy compromises.
I wonder who won?
Archbishop Mueller really can’t stay away from journalists. Not only does he like them, but they like him. They sense the man is always good for something politically incorrect, or controversial, or simply short-tempered. He always delivers, and they know it.
This time, Archbishop Mueller has given an interview to the German so-called prestigious German weekly Die Zeit, reported in English by Vatican Insider. As Vatican Insider is part of La Stampa, a highly professional Italian daily newspaper, I will not check that the English rendition faithfully corresponds to the main points of the German text.
Yours truly, who likes Yogurt inordinately (though he prefers Weihenstephan to Mueller) would like here to make some comments himself. The points of the interview I’d like to say two words about are the following ones:
1. Systematic media attacks on the Catholic church.
The Archbishop doesn;t mince words (he never does, anyway) and compares the anti-Catholic atmosphere created in many Western countries to anti-Jewish pogroms. Now this is Germany, and in germany when you compare yourself to the persecution of the Jews it means you are really angry and people have to pay attention to what you say, because of the all-present Vergangenheit, the past. This Vergangenheit is a bit of a joker you can employ on pretty much everything: illiberal laws, the persecution of Kreuz.Net, and the creeping Nazi attitude of German homosexualists and their friends.
The Cardinal points it out in general, but does not say what in wrong in particular. In a country whose biggest Catholic site has been more or less forced to silence by the Nazi attitude of politicians, media and homosexualists, this is not good enough. Alas, it seems the Archbishop wants to play victim without mentioning the bigger victims, because he happens not to like them.
2. No to so-called same-sex unions.
Same yogurt here. Read to the translation of the Archbishop’s words:
“It is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept a relationship between people of the same sex, as such relations cannot in any way be considered equivalent to marriage,”
Notice he doesn’t say such “relationships” are evil, perverted, satanic. He says they are (and I quote) “not equivalent”. This is exactly like saying that the Church does not accept pears being called apples, because pears aren’t apples. Then Church officials complain they are attacked. But it is so surprising they are attacked as backwards and bigots, if they even renounce to say why they are so opposed to perversion? If I were to tell you all day that you simply should not eat pears, would that be enough?
I also notice the Church in Germany has kept, in practice, shtum when the German Government legislated against marriage with the civil partnerships, and that the Archbishop himself never openly attacks those colleagues of him, like the infamous Cardinal Woelki, who express themselves in favour of such abominations. One gets the impression Mueller is rather willing to bully the SSPX, but not so aggressive when his own colleagues and countrymen are involved; and that in this he fully reflects the attitude of the German clergy.
3. Priest celibacy.
For what it’s worth, I give full notes to the Archbishop here. He points out not only to the role of the priest and why celibacy is important, but also makes a very counter-cultural statement, that sexual activity (outside of marriage) is not a natural necessity. Bravo.
4. Criticism of the “dialogue” between lay people and priests in Germany
This is one of those things people who live outside of German can not even easily grasp. Germany is a country where the laity think they must “dialogue” with the clergy about issues like (you got it) so-called priestesses, and the clergy think they must engage in the “dialogue” with the laity and discuss those issues again and again. Come on, this is not even Catholicism anymore.
The Archbishop points out to this, and adds he thinks this must stop. Again, kudos to him.
5. (Umpteenth) Warning to the SSPX
This is another (predictable) serving of yogurt turned sour. It truly seems the Archbishop can’t open his mouth without expressing his anger at the SSPX, an anger which has personal besides Church-political reasons. It also seems to contradict what the Archbishop had said previously, then if memory serves (and it serves) it was Archbishop Mueller himself who declared the talks failed and the door closed, whilst Archbishop Di Noia insists in saying the door is still open (if you drink the poison of V II, that is). Now Mueller takes Di Noia’s position, “we are still waiting for your answer”, but his attitude is diametrically opposite to Di Noia’s one.
I frankly this the Archbishop needs a reality checks if he thinks this kind of message will have any effect whatsoever on the SSPX. More probably, he knows it won’t, but he says it anyway. It might have been wiser to say that there is a man specifically appointed to the task (Archbishop Di Noia) and he would therefore prefer not to touch on the subject. This would have been, methinks, the more diplomatic and intelligent answer, and the Archbishop would have looked much better without giving away an inch. But again, he is short-tempered.
After posting about the end of the Homo Masses in Soho, I received this very interesting comment from Misericordia:
Mundabor, I do not understand why everybody appears to be so jubilant about this news. It seems that the homosexual community who gather at Mass once a fortnight in Soho, are merely moving to the Jesuit Church at Farm Street , where before their social gatherings there, they may attend Mass at 6.30pm. So the Soho Masses will just become the Mayfair Masses! Archbishop Nichols is still giving his support to this, and in his letter to the organisers, has promised to be at Farm Street on March 3rd to greet them.
I found this comment so interesting as to deserve a post in answer.
Yes, I do think we should be jubilant about the news. We should do so for the following reasons:
1) Things have a symbolic meaning, besides having their own factual side. The “homo masses” were a scandal because they were clearly meant to be “particularly welcoming to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Catholics, their parents, friends and families”. They were, basically, a public platform for perversion under the umbrella and protection of (perverted) Catholicism, as abundantly clear in the video circulated several months ago. The ending of the Soho Masses will not end perversion, but it will end the scandal.
2) The “dating service” will continue (for now, if you ask me) in Mayfair; but again, it would be strange – and I think not even allowed to him – for ++ Nichols to forbid some (very) strange Jesuit to gather active sodomites around them, or for a group of militant faggots to go to Mass together. The suppression of the Mass certainly does not mean the suppression of those among the clergy who condone or approve or abet (or practice) sodomy. What it means is, again, the suppression of the idea that the Church can smuggle such activity as a charitable one. Take it from me, we will continue to have sodomites among the Jesuits for a while.
3) As always, no one knows the future. In theory, this decision could even spark a more vocal pro-homo activity: more playing victim, more barking, more queens in drags, in short: more scandal. In practice, it is fair to say ++ “Quisling” Nichols is now a person observed in the Vatican with a special attention, and he will not be allowed to play games on this. As a result, the (former) Soho Jesuits will be very well advised to keep a low profile, and ++ Nichols to act swiftly if they don’t.
4) We must consider how the Church works. The Church always tries to save everyone’s face. An exemplary rebuke of the pro-perversion Jesuits would have caused the loss not only of their face, but obviously of Nichols’ too. What they do instead is to throw a bone to the dog, and when the matter of principle (the existence of “gay masses” as such) is out of the table they will deal with whatever issue arises with much more freedom. We would all love to see Catholic orthodoxy openly and assertively upheld, but these are not the Popes and the Archbishops to do this. If Popes and Bishops were different, we would not have “gay masses” in the first place, and I have no knowledge of such masses during the reign of Pius XI or Pius XII.
What we have here is a Pope who thinks agnostics are good for Christianity appointing a chap who doesn’t really – on a practical level – believe in the dogma of Mary Ever Virgin to be the head of the CDF, with the latter reining in an Archbishop who thinks that homosexual couples are something good and worthy of protection provided you don’t call their living together “marriage”; an archbishop, mind, also appointed to his actual position by the above mentioned Pope.
The situation being what it is, I’d say the announcement about the Soho Masses justifies something rather akin to a very loud “yeeesss!!”, possibly accompanied by the uncorking of a good bottle. After which, of course, ++ Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will be just as bad, the sexuality of the relevant Jesuits just as questionable and the attitude of the queens just as disgusting. No one of them will disappear in thin air, but all of them might well feel the approaching of a rather cold breeze…
I have just reblogged a post of some months ago about the strange case of the two Archbishops at odds concerning the “Homo Masses” in Soho (or Sodom), London, England.
The BBC informs us today this abomination is now stopped as such masses are (says the BBC; no direct quotes)
not in line with the church’s (sic) central teaching on sexuality.
I feel like reading that 2+2=4; but truly, in this day and age these are real news.
Firstly, let me tell you that when something so beautiful happens we must be grateful to the men behind the decision, however questionable they can be in other matters.
Secondly, we must reflect whether Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has suddenly discovered the basics of Catholic teaching, or whether he has been “encouraged” to do so by his strange, irascible, theologically more than questionable but certainly unpleasant colleague in Rome.
Reading my reblogged post you will have no doubt as to what my opinion is. I must say the man might not be entirely useless after all.
Of course, this being England things are not going to be made in the right way in one go: the Catholic Herald informs us the Jesuits will continue to be the catalyst for a bunch of sodomites wanting to use Church organisations as a dating agency; or, as the Jesuits so suavely put it, “the pastoral care of the community will continue at the Jesuit Farm Street church in Mayfair on Sunday evenings”.
Particularly spicy seems to me the detail that
the church where the Masses took place will be entrusted to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
and I do not doubt the new priests will lose no time in causing the church to lose the bad odour it has had these six years.
So we have the proverbial two birds with one stone: the shameless parody of the homo mass is at an end, and the Ordinariate receives a church in a central position in London, optimally placed for Christian evangelisation. No thanks to the Archbishop, I am sure, but what counts is the result.
Next time you eat your yogurt, consider saying a short prayer for the man who made this possible.
A rather astonishing news came in the last days from the Vatican. It appears Ecclesia Dei now say the SSPX needs more time, and the Vatican is ready to give it to them. Actually, they even mention ongoing discussions…
With all due respect: poppycock.
The SSPX has made very clear, in the most possible public manner conceivable, that further discussions are subject to the Vatican accepting certain conditions, without which there can be no fruitful discussion anyway.
Furthermore, the SSPX has made public that whilst one should never say never, they do not believe in any agreement during this pontificate, and I am rather sure they know why.
Moreover, the SSPX has decided that whatever (future) agreement with the Vatican is proposed, it will not be decided by a small troop of “leaders” (who then ask the other members to simply “obey”) but it will have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX members, thus making it utterly inconceivable that the ambitions of the one or the other may achieve the result of carrying the order with them.
In addition, Cardinal Mueller himself has immersed the negotiations in frozen yoghurt, making very clear he does not want to have anything to do with those bad, bad men who do not even indulge in simony, or encourage sexual perversion like his well-fed German Kollegen. (look at the graphic, please)
Once again: the SSPX has spoken, and unless there is a sudden change of mind from the Pontiff the only reasonable conclusion is that there’s nothing else to say for the time (and the Pontificate) being; then to talk is good, but to waste breath when everything has been said is not very smart.
Why, then, this sudden change of perspective from Ecclesia Dei, which even contradict their own immediate superior?
I can only imagine the following two hypotheses, but perhaps the readers will have other suggestions:
1) Someone at Ecclesia Dei would like to re-launch the discussions and – now Williamson is away – attempt to isolate Mueller, who is clearly an enemy of every sensible agreement. This might make sense because the press release comes from Ecclesia Dei rather than from the CDF itself, and the astonishing description of the discussions as ongoing is clearly an open contradiction of what the boss himself has said. Therefore, it might be Ecclesia Dei now simply pretend the discussions haven’t ended yet; which makes, in this perspective, a lot of sense, as an open offer to the SSPX to re-open them would be linked with some loss of face.
2) This is a very Italian, erm, Southern Italian message: a bit like saying, with a raucous voice, “you think you have spoken, picciotto, but I will pretend you haven’t; just for a while, whilst you reflect on the consequences… I am trying to help you before you get in serious trouble, mi capisci?“.
The second hypothesis is in my eyes less probable, as there would be no need whatsoever to do it in public in such a cryptic way, whilst in the first case the public – if not open – isolation of Mueller is probably the best message the people at Ecclesia Dei can try to send to the SSPX; it is reasonable to assume many at Ecclesia Dei want to see the SSPX reconciled, and could have made without the Pontiff’s sleight of hand when he last changed the text of the preambolo.
Far-fetched both of them, you may rightly say, and I would agree with you. On the other hand, it does not happen very often that both the SSPX and the CDF say “the matter is closed” and suddenly Ecclesia Dei comes out saying “ahem, we are still waiting for your answer then, aren’t we?”
We shall see. Perhaps it was nothing, merely someone at Ecclesia Dei has simply not been paying much attention… one is reminded of the revocation of the excommunication for the SSPX bishop without even knowing Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the Holocaust.
If this is not a case of insisted sleeping activity, I never cease to be amazed at the Vatican corridors: there must be more mines there than at the border with North Korea…
Strange news today with a mini-consistory announced and six new red hats to be created in November.
None of the new Cardinals is from Italy; five work outside of the Curia, and actually outside of Europe; only one appears – for what I know – to have a reputation of “liberal”; and one cannot avoid noticing both Nichols & Mueller have missed this train.
If I were to dare some reflections, they would be as follows:
A mini-consistory might indicate the Holy Father feels the time allotted to him might be coming to an end. I can otherwise not imagine why he would not wait another six months, perhaps twelve, and then have a more substantial Consistory. Perhaps he wanted to send a signal to countries where Christian are at risk of violent persecution. Perhaps, again, he feels his time is running out.
Archbishop Mueller has been left out. I am not very surprised as the man came to Rome mainly because he is a pal of the Holy Father, and has managed to make a lot of damage since. Whilst I am sure the Holy Father likes and protects him, there are clearly limits to the reputational damage he is ready and willing to bear.
No doubt, he plans to deliver for his Kumpel before long; Mueller certainly wishes him good health.
III) Nichols is also (provisionally) out and this is in my eyes more surprising, particularly considering the extreme prestige of his position and the fact he has been a Cardinal-in-waiting for w hile now. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is the notorious enabler of the dating service for sexual perverts usually going under the name of “Soho masses”. Rumours of action from Rome have been around for some days; I can easily imagine the two matters are linked, and the bad Archbishop is now asked to deliver at least in matter of blasphemous, openly practiced perversion.
I can also imagine the very tepid resistance put by “Quisling” Nichols to the “homo marriages” in the UK (Lord Carey is very active and the most recognisable face of this campaign; Nichols tries to be noticed as little as possible) might have not helped him much.
Again, this is a high-profile appointment of the current Pope, and a rather scarily young Archbishop of Westminster to boot. I find it entirely possible the Holy Father is now concerned about the way he will remembered, and a red hat for Nichols might – perhaps – be more than he wants to be remembered for.
IV) The news of the Consistory was leaked a couple of hours before the official announcement. If the leak was “steered”, there should be no excessive surprise at other, unwanted leaks happening; if it wasn’t, well it’ s worrying.
I will gather more information about the new six Cardinals in the next days. It seems to me, though, that all in all it could have been worse.
Archbishop Mueller may be ( no, let me correct this: is) a very confused theologian and an enemy of sincere and orthodox Catholics, but at least in matters of homosexuality he has to my knowledge not yet managed to say anything stupid.
There are now signs the man might go for a little confrontation with Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols in the matter of homo masses. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has not only been almost entirely silent in the matter of UK so-called “gay marriages” ( which are, let us remind ourselves, neither) but he has continued to allow “bespoke” masses for perverts (basically a dating service for lesbians and sodomites; it is difficult to imagine a more satanic abuse of the mass) without wincing, and merely ordering one of those never-ending “reviews” when a video revealed the extent of the mess.
It will be interesting to follow this battle of the heretic wannabe titans, with the irascible Mueller attacking our Quisling and the latter accusing his German colleague of not being “nuanced” and “pastoral” enough. On better reflection, though, such battle is unlikely to ever be fought, as Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols would probably prefer to get rid of the hot potato by announcing the retreat as the result of the “review” or, far more probably, hiding himself with the fag community behind the “orders from Rome”; a popular archbishops’ pastime, this (Abp Schoenborn has developed it to a high art) and apt to allow Abp “Quisling” Nichols to avoid trouble, save face and get rid of the queens.
Still, one should not refuse the good because it come from the bad, and if Archbishop Mueller manages to do something orthodox and put an end to this scandal he should get some kudos from us; as he will get them, I think, from the SSPX.
It has been (as Sir Humphrey would have said) “officially unofficial” since yesterday: V-II ecumenism has gone.
In a radio interview to be broadcast today Archbishop Mueller (the short-tempered, Liberation Theology sympathiser, and theologically challenged Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) has finally said very clearly what conservative Catholics all over the world wanted to hear: the Catholic Faith is non-negotiable.
Therefore, there will now be an end to the endless ecu-maniacal dialogues. As it has been pointed out already, this means the end for the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, for the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews, for the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, for the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with Muslims, for the U.S. Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue, and for all the countless institutions, both local and Vatican, “negotiating” about the faith.
It cannot be anymore. Speaking of the Catholic faith, the Archbishop says “there will be no compromises here”.
An astonishing U-Turn, nicht wahr? Who would have thought that a man in more than odour of heresy would finally decide to defend the Catholic Faith after so much ravaging?
Still, this is what he said!
But wait: has he?
We must pray for this very confused man.
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.
And so it came to pass – and to be leaked – that the exclusion of bishop Williamson from the General Chapter of the SSPX was approved by an overwhelming majority of the capitularies now gathering in Écône.
Some say this does not mean much, because Williamson is certainly not as dangerous to Fellay’s leadership than the other two I do not say rebel, but at least critical bishops.
Allow me to say why I disagree:
1. Without attributing to certainly very honest men less than honest qualities, it must be evident that if Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Galarreta had intended to openly challenge bishop Fellay’s leadership, they would not have started by asking their supporters to go against Williamson. Not for reasons of duplicity, but simply for reasons of ordinary prudence and political common sense. If, on the other hand, the two bishops do want to mount a challenge but cannot have their men rallying in Williamson’s defence, then they are clearly not nearly strong enough to challenge Fellay’s leadership.
2. It seems to me that, with some exceptions, most f the SSPX members have seen – if I may say so; I think I may – through the Vatican’s game of dividing them trying to cause separations within them and the creation of “splinter” groups; a game already played, most notably in 1988 through the FSSP; a move which seems to me to have been certainly approved – if not altogether engineered – by a Cardinal… Ratzinger.
3. By all disagreements, the cold shower from the Vatican has certainly showed bishop Fellay is not willing to be strong-armed by the Vatican (cow)boys, and no vague threats of (what exactly? Declaration of 2000 years of Catholicism as “schismatic”, perhaps?) “retaliation” will move him to do any concession. Bishop Fellay is, in fact, amply outsmarting the Vatican, being able to present himself as a safe custodian of Catholic orthodoxy – as, make no mistake, I am sure he is; though I have been known to be very wrong in the past, most notably concerning Popes… – whilst the Holy Father shoots himself in the foot by appointing a mediocre, irascible, apparently even interview-addicted pal of his to the main chair in this controversy (three interviews already in just a few days, if memory serves; and not coming well at all out of any of them).
Obviously, during the weekend I might prove to be spectacularly wrong, and I will make a suitable act of contrition if it were to be so; but I do not think bishop Fellay is one of those types preferring the womanly option and saying “if there is dissent against me I prefer to go, so that everyone can see how badly hurt I am”. I think we can safely say the Lord carved the man out of different wood than that.
Therefore, this morning’s
announc leak persuaded me all is – considering the circumstances – rather well within the SSPX. There will be no splits, nor ferocious lamentations; there will be some expression of dissent, largely expected but not threatening the SSPX’ stability; and there will be a show of unity having with special addressee the Vatican. Hic sumus, et hic manebimus optime.
In the end, Fellay must well know his position is much more solid than Archbishop Mueller’s. If he only wants, Fellay will be at his place – Deo volente, of course – for the next six years at the very, very least; Archbishop Mueller can’t even know whether (as the Italian saying goes) he will eat his panettone as the head of the CDF. It may be cynical to say so, but it is the reality on the ground, and it doesn’t really make sense to ignore it.
The appointment of Archbishop Mueller to the CDF was the signal for the Modernist troops to start an attack in defence of the money they cash from the not-so-faithful in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
This time, the openly heretical assertions come fromt he youngest Cardinal, Woelki, an appointment of Pope Benedict both as Archbishop and Cardinal.
Woelki, whose diocese lies in Berlin (last time I looked, the city in Europe with most lesbians compared to the population), is reported by the Tablet as follows
Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships. “We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching,” he said.
I do not know whether the Cardinal really said (the Tablet might have twisted his real words) about perverts “trying to take responsibility”, which is as intelligent and as Christian as to say that a paedophile is trying to take responsibility for the child he rapes, or a zoophile for the dog he screws. I do not doubt the Cardinal’s concept, as truly expressed, were alarming enough. But the words literally quoted are of the same heretic content: in the view of the Cardinal, it is not people who have to conform their actions to church teaching, but the church teaching which must be conformed to their actions; they can, otherwise, evidently “not live”.
This is another brilliant appointment of Pope Benedict. This man will contribute to the election of the new Pope. The Vatican – this man is a Cardinal, remember – is rapidly becoming a theological madhouse, with particularly the German prelates doing whatever they can in order not to lose the money of the Kirchensteuer, which makes of the German church the wealthiest on the planet.
I sincerely hope the Cardinal (who according to Wikipedia had a rather good start as Archbishop, saying that homosexual acts are against the order of creation: which is obvious, but in these times not automatically said) will now correct the “Tablet” and either point out to their mistake and interpretation errors, or else make it very clear that he is true to the line. Possibly without V -II quibbles and explanations as to how freedom is slavery, and war is peace.
Otherwise… otherwise, what? Can you imagine Archbishop Mueller really forcing this man to orthodoxy? Really?
It may well be that Pope Benedict has plunged us in the most serious crisis in the history of the church. This new phase of the crisis might develop with assorted – mainly German-speaking – Cardinals expressing themselves in the usual duplicitous, slimy way – see above – against every Church rule and doctrine staying between them and the money of their poor sheep. The Vatican would, then, do nothing beyond the usual feeble meowing every now and then, in order to hide behind the fig leaf of pretended orthodoxy whilst allowing the German (and other) Cardinals to be perceived to be “modern” and “on the side of the people” by their sugar daddies.
The Holy Father will in the meantime, no doubt, work on his next book.
The latest events have persuaded me that an important attempt could be made to promote understanding between the Vatican and the SSPX: that is, to promote… understanding.
What if it was decided that Archbishop Mueller is sent to Zaitzkofen on an extended holiday (what a luck! In his very old diocese!) to, erm, deepen his understanding of Catholic doctrine?
During a stay of, say, six months (which could be extended to twelve if the need should arise) he could be properly instructed in a German-speaking, idyllic, understanding, error-free environment, where every enormity he says will be lovingly corrected and met with an understanding smile – he was a pupil of Lehmann, poor man – and a pat on the back.
After the six months, he could come back to his duties and resume his office – and the negotiations with the SSPX – starting from a new footing, made of real understanding.
What do you think?
Writing about the impressive (as always) reaction of the SSPX to the astonishing appointment of the goat as head-gardener, Christopher Gillibrand of Catholic Church Conservation (a fountain of wisdom and useful information these days, I have already mentioned his blog posts more than once) has, almost as an aside, a most useful observation.
As the Holy Father is now in Castelgandolfo to reflect about his self-inflicted troubles and the Vatican activity comes more or less to a halt, I think Gillibrand’s suggestion would make an excellent summer reading for the newly appointed Archbishop
Goat Bock Mueller.
I give below the suggestion verbatim. I merely allow myself to notice the insistence of the author for a word with which the newly appointed guardian of Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy seems not to be very familiar, not even after the extensive research one imagines necessary before publishing a book with one’s name on it: dogma.
Text as follows:
I can always send the new CDF a copy of Mariologia by Father Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach OP. It has three extensive chapters on these matters.The first beginsDogma fidei est Matrem Dei fuisse Virginem ante partem et in ipsa conceptione Filii sui(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin before birth and in the Conception of her Son.The secondDogma fidei est Matrem Dei esse virginem in partu(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin at birth)The thirdDogma fidei est Matrem Dei esse virginem post partum(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin after birth)In summary!Triplex Virginitas Mariae scil ante partum, in partu, et post partum est de fide.He can return it only if a a letter is attached saying that he gives assent to the teaching of the Church in all ages but our own
Let us imagine (it is theoretical; but not so much) that someone came to me saying that he is thinking of converting to Catholicism, but in light of the most recent developments he is now in doubt whether to continue on this road.
What I would say to him? Would I be able to give to him some words of encouragement? Would I suggest to him that he goes on along the chosen path and toward conversion to a Church led by the likes of Archbishop Mueller?
Yes of course I would. I would in the most decided of ways. Let me explain why, so that the one or other friendly Proddie thinking of taking the best decision of his (eternal) life may not be tempted into falling back into heresy and, perhaps, perdition.
Out of my sleeve, the arguments I would use are described below. I invite the readers to add other arguments in order to help our imaginary (but not so much) friend.
As the need to help this imaginary (but not so much) friend might be rather pressing and I have no time to revisit my books on the matter, si sbalio mi corigerete… I would, therefore, argument as follows:
1. The Church is the Truth. The Church (as the eternal institution, the Bride of the Lord) can simply not be separated from the Truth. You cannot think the Church as separated from being the Truth more than you could think of water as separated from being wet.
2. “Church” is a very complex word. The building where the mass takes place is called “church”, but the members of that parish are also called “church”. A family (even a nuclear family) is called “church” (ecclesia domestica). A diocese is also called “church”. The faithful in that diocese are called church, too. The different rites of Catholicism are all called “churches”. Then there is the Church who is, on earth, the visible manifestation of the Bride of Christ. But it does not stop there, as Church is intended, in its ultimate meaning, as a heavenly organisation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus refers to this last one. To belong to the Church means to belong to the heavenly Bride of Christ, not to agree to the more or less heretical blabbering of bad priests, bad bishops and bad popes.
3. The Church representatives are (here on earth) not always right, and at times plain wrong. I have given my take about infallibility, and reading the blog post might help the one or the other. But the fact that we must always, always keep in mind is that the Truth that the Church is is not less true because God allows her representatives (as he did Judas) to wound her. This is not the protestant church down the street, whose raison d’être for the faithful ceases the moment they stop agreeing with the pastor.
4. The Church has the right to our obedience even when we are forced to disobey to her representatives. If the bishop asks me to participate to some Friday service of some Muslims, I say “no” and don’t care two straws if he says to me that I must do it to promote ecumenism, or to give testimony of my Catholicism, or for “peace and understanding”, or because he orders it. The “first rule of the Italian army” applies: wrong orders are not executed. I do this, because I owe obedience to the Bride of Christ before I do to the bishop. As always, Archbishop Lefebvre explains this much better than I ever could.
5. The Church is not questioned, she is simply obeyed. As to her representative, the way they will be obeyed (or esteemed) will depend from the way they do their job. This is the reason why even among popes – as among bishops, etc. – some are considered wonderful, some very good, some so-so, some positively mediocre, and some unmitigated disasters. Still, Padre Pio’s saying still stands, that we must love the Church even if she kills us.
In my eyes, a person of prompt intellect and ripe understanding will draw from these arguments enough energy to not only weather the present storm, but be sufficiently prepared for a life of storms, as other one or two or three generations of this madness might be the lot the Lord has allotted to us, probably to punish us for our sins, and perhaps also so that we may train our virtues.
The fundamental step is, in my eyes, the abandonment of the purely Protestant thinking based on which an institution loses credibility if we happen to think their leaders are behaving badly.
Petrus did behave badly, though he recovered in the end. He had to be publicly rebuked by Paul, even, then Paul was no retiring wallflower, and did not suffer under clericalism.
The Church will be with me forever, and I will be with her forever. I will be faithful to her until my last breath, and if the Pope begins to dance in his tutu on St. Peter Square to promote understanding among the people this will not change my allegiance to the Church. Not-one-bit. It would be better for me to die of a horrible death before reaching that point, than to live 120 years of purest unalloyed happiness after deciding that I do not need the Bride.
I hope this helps.
- Benedict is surrounded by wolves – he’s an innocent lamb fearing for his life
- Benedict is a victim of “The Vatican” – he can only appoint whom the Vatican bureaucrats tell him to appoint – he has no real authority
- Benedict is going senile or off his meds
- Benedict is weak and can’t resist the peer pressure
- Benedict is in a liberal dream – we need to pray for him to wake up
- Benedict doesn’t know Mueller is a heretic – how could he possibly be expected to ensure the man he appoints as watchdog of orthodoxy is orthodox himself?!
- It’s all a big mystery – no one knows what any of this means
- Who are you to accuse someone of heresy?
- Just because Mueller is a heretic doesn’t mean we can know he’s a heretic
- Just because Mueller makes heretical statements doesn’t mean he actually believes what he says
- Mueller isn’t a heretic until Benedict says he is one — and since Benedict will never do that, Mueller can never become a heretic
- Mueller isn’t a heretic – he’s just way smarter than all you simpletons put together.
I am no sedevacantist, and can therefore not accept the Pope be no Pope just because he makes mistakes, and at times serious ones. Many Popes before him have done, many will do. My duty as a Catholic is to bear all this with patience, do what I can to react against it, and hope that the day I die this will be counted in my favour.
But there is no denying the shocking amount of denial going on particularly among the laity. Religious know a Pope can even have heretic opinions (and reputed theologians think some did), he will merely not proclaim them in a dogmatic way. Many among the laity, on the other hand, seem to think that if the Pope were wrong then Catholicism would be wrong, and must therefore try to find any kind of excuse to explain how what is wrong is, in the end, right.
If you ask me this is not even clericalism anymore, but simple papolatry.
“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables”. (2 Tim 4:2-4)
St. Paul was the kind of man who did not hesitate to rebuke a Pope, and a Pope appointed by Christ Himself. He was keenly aware of how easily the faithful look for teachers ready to teach to them “according to their own desires”, and by this way end up “turning away their hearing from the truth”.
We see this happening in an extreme fashion in Germany today. “Reprove” and “rebuke” having disappeared from the language of the hierarchy in everything which does not concern the Society of St. Pius X, a huge pressure has built up to give the German faithful (?) what they want to hear.
Promptly, the teachers of our times try to accommodate them as much as they can, as they try to accommodate pretty much everything under the sun as much as they can; with the exception, again, of the Society of St. Pius X and very few others.
If you read German, you have followed the growing climate of understanding created in Germany for all those who refuse Church teaching. This climate is created – generally – not by officially opposing the teaching, but by a shift of the centre of gravity in the discussion: not the Truth of Christ is extolled, but the “suffering” of those who do not follow it.
Of course, we all know the Church has compassion – as we all must have – for all those who have strayed from the truth and struggle – another fashionable word; more like, “refuse to follow” – with Catholic truth. But a grave disservice is made to them when they are reminded of their suffering, without telling them very clearly where this suffering comes from, and where it will lead to.
Alas, the Holy Father went down this road himself, when he addressed himself, speaking to German faithful, to those divorced and remarried Catholics some weeks ago. As I see it, this wasn’t sound teaching but merely appeasement, and appeasement never works.
If you tell a divorced and remarried Catholic that he is “suffering” oh so much, without telling him what he has to do to put an end to the suffering, his “suffering” will unavoidably be understood as the fruit of an injustice. Which is what German divorced and remarried “Catholics” punctually continue to do.
As (almost; see Archbishop Mueller) always, the problem is not in the literal meaning of what is said: every bad religious can be oily enough to slip in the usual veiled reference to sound Catholic teaching allowing them to say to the critics: “see? I have told them!” whilst making sure the crowds will be pleased with his message. The problem is in the climate of understanding that these utterances unavoidably create.
I always suggest – and will do it today – to think of what our grand-mothers, or even our grandmothers for the less young among us, would have said of such phenomena: would they have complained about the irreligiousness of their times in case of such events – say: explosion of divorce and remarriage among Catholics – or would they have put under the spotlight the “suffering” of those who so behave?
But you see, in those times people did not fabricate their own theology at home, nor did they have priests ready to give to them such stale food. They heard it straight, and repeated it as they had heard it. The idea that everyone has the right to be accommodated was just not there.
How the times have changed.
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.
The Mary Ever-Virgin blog post of the day micro-award goes to EF Pastor Emeritus, a Catholic priest running a blog with a remarkable knack for punching posts.
His blog post, very aptly titled, contains the following statement:
I look forward to reading how the new prefect will explain his apparent or alleged denial of “Ex intacta Virgine” when speaking of Mary and Christ.
and in fact, I wonder what kind of convoluted reasoning will be necessary to explain to us that virgin is not virgin, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strenght. He might persuade some contemporary German, but if we had been in the XVI century and I had been his defender I would have suggested him to plead mental insanity.
I have resigned myself to the fact that the Vatican II doublespeak will only cease when those who promote and continue to promote V II have gone to their more or less pleasant reward.
For the moment, it is consoling to read a priest write the following words:
The Doctrine of infallibility does not, of course, apply to appointments made by a Pope. D.g., and an appointment is not a teaching. I therefore with good conscience continue to accept Papal teaching in both the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium despite some stupid appointments made by popes throughout history.
Kudos to E F, Pastor Emeritus with a knack for truthfulness.
In case you are still lulling yourself in the easy illusion that the Holy Father might have chosen Mueller so that he paves the way for an agreement with the SSPX, you may want to read what Catholic Church Conservation has to say on the matter; or, better, what the man himself felt obliged to put on record not a long time ago.
The following are, verbatim, his words (emphases mine):
The SSPX must fully return to the ground of the Catholic Church and recognise the authority of the Pope, the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and recognize existing canon law. If they do, they also accept that the seminary of Zaitzkofen falls under the supervision of the Diocese of Regensburg. The seminary should be closed and the students should go to seminaries in their home countries – if they are suitable for this purpose.
Zaitzkofen is a seminary of the SSPX in the diocese of… Regensburg.
I have written a letter to the Vatican and asked for the legal status of the seminary of Zaitzkofen to be verified. Even the Constitution of the SSPX should be critically considered by canon lawyers.
The illegal Episcopal consecration cannot lead to a receipt of office. The bishop is a minister of unity. The four Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops do not have the aptitude for this office.
The four bishops of the SSPX should all resign and in political and no longer comment on ecclesiastical policy issues. They should lead an exemplary life as a simple priest and chaplain as part of the reparation for the damage that the schism has caused.
This is the man the Holy Father has put at the head of the congregation in charge not only of defending Catholic truth, but to negotiate with the SSPX.
I rest my case. Paul VII, and no mistake.
From Rorate Caeli, an interesting selection of flowers from the very colourful garden of Archbishop Mueller. The flowers are many, all of them extremely poisonous, but I would like to draw your attention to this one:
In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
Please read this again, and a third time, and tell me whether language can be ever distorted at the point of not letting this words mean what they clearly want to mean.
The person who is expressing this is not being misunderstood; this does not come from a blog post written in haste, or from a chat with a journalist all too ready to misunderstand for the sake of the headline. This comes from a published book, gone through the usual painful process of reading and correcting, rethinking and re-writing. This is not about pressing the “delete” button once whenever one wants to have the text go more or less away. Scripta manent.
No, the meaning of this cannot be misunderstood: forget Mary Ever-Virgin, we are Germans.
No doubt, we will soon be regaled with the usual crap concerning the proper interpretation of what is already as clear as the sun. We will be told that if we read the words in a certain very smart way, then “white” can really be understood as to mean, so to speak, in a sense, possibly, no doubt, black. Bollocks. If one writes “white”, what he means is the contrary of black. If one denies that Mary was Ever-Virgin, what he means is that he is a heretic, and proud to be one.
Now: as I have already written in the past, heretics come in two flavours: the friends of the Pope, and those who aren’t. Cardinal Policarpo belongs to the second category, and therefore he is forced to back pedal and promptly (but don’t worry: very mildly) rebuked when he allows himself a journey into Heresyland. But Cardinal Schoenborn, a well-known protege’ of the Pope, can support Medjugorje and (covertly) do all he can to help the heretics in his own home, and nothing will ever happen to him as long as his buddy Pope Benedict lives.
In this matter I also suspect an even less noble motive: last time I looked, Germany was the single biggest contributor to the Vatican coffins, whilst Austria and Switzerland certainly also did their part. One who doesn’t trust Pope Benedict’s motives (I certainly don’t; nor will I ever again) is certainly authorised to suspect that the big spenders should be appeased by giving to one of them some very important position, in order to show them how much listened to they are, and how important they are to the great machine. Who cares if they are a bunch of heretics.
I will not – today – go into the other blasphemous, proto-communist or simply stupid antics of Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Mueller. This is for another day. Today, I would like to attract your attention on the phrase opening this blog post. No wait, let me repeat them here, just in case you should think this is just a couple of badly spoken words:
In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
How bad can such a person be? And how can the man promoting him to the top of the CDF pretend to be any better?
Let us not beat around the bush here: people like Archbishop Mueller would have, in Christian times, been put at the stake, and deservedly so. Today, they get to become the theologian in chief, by those who should protect the faithful from people of this kind.
Ahhh, the beautiful world of Vatican II.