I am utterly amused at reading around the usual, professional plate-lickers wannabe conservative journalists describe the new choice of the Evil Clown for the CDF (no idea whether the press will end up calling him Ladaria or Ferrer or both) as a “conservative” one. It cannot even be Pollyannism. It must be willed deception.
Look: Francis has been insistently, tirelessly insulting the “doctors of the law”; the “rigid”, “inflexible” clergy and laity and, in general, all those who do not support his heretical agenda. What on earth leads one to believe that he would choose exactly one of them to replace Müller?
If Francis' “rigidity” remarks had been only a very rare events one could, with a great effort, have had at least some hope that the man has interest in spreading nonsense himself whilst caring that a solid CDF chief keeps him out of trouble. But this is exactly what is not happening.
Firstly, Francis has stated on dozens of occasions what “qualities” a CDF chief should have. Secondly, the utter cowardice and complete silence of his Cadinals (even the meowing ones, of course) have persuaded him that… there is no need for prudence! Clearly, and bar some kind of miracle, he will not be challenged by his Cardinals; not now, and not ever.
After AL has remained unchallenged, there is nothing in his way to produce documents even less ambiguous in their heretical thinking. The downside is some more meowing at the most, and more than likely not even that (if the Four Cardinals dare to express more Dubia after the next encyclical I am afraid I will not be able to stop laughing for days).
It is utter nonsense to think that Francis may even consider the appointment of anyone but the most docile instrument of his destructive ideology. The evidence for this is overwhelming, utterly devastating.
To say that Ferrer is in any way, shape or form is pure nonsense, utter propaganda; it is Fake News, fake “c”atholic way.
The Evil Clown has appointed a Jesuit who believes that everyone will be saved as the new head of the CDF.
Can’t say I am sad. Actually, I was hoping for a bomb like this one.
Whilst some among the lesser endowed in the cerebral department might have believed that if Mueller is fine with Francis’ heresies, perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much after all, anyone who shows any kind of belief in this heretical tool will be able to be insulted without any hesitation; nay, he will out himself as a heretic with his very words.
Francis is now in full Maduro Mode. Once again, his stupidity has prevailed over whatever prudence has remained. He will stage such a spectacular road crash that any element of doubt will be forever removed from the mind of everyone who is not an obdurate enemy of Christ, or a heathen choosing to believe in a novel religion because it is easier for him than to defend Christ.
Also importantly, the Curia will lose face to such an extent that it will become more and more difficult for the SSPX to talk “reconciliation”. Mueller might still have been seen as an halfway acceptable partner. This one will have the SSPX delegates vomiting at his mere sight.
This is a Jesuit double-whammy. Who, with a brain in his head, will ever trust them?
Can’t wait for the two idiots’ next works:
& Co., & Co.
Thank you, Lord, for making everyone’s discernment so easy.
Remember, folks: oportet ut scandala eveniant. It is much better for sincere Catholics that this bubo explodes and forces everyone to confront its stink, than to have it growing and growing as the weak and stupid try to persuade themselves it is nothing so bad after all.
Cardinal Mueller's time at the head of the CDF has finally come to an end.
Can't say I am sad, or that the sack was undeserved.
Cardinal Mueller, never a paragon of orthodoxy himself but certainly fairly orthodox when compared to the Evil Clown, has presided over the most terrible pronunciations of various kind of a Pope, ever, and all he could do was to say in various ways “nothing to see here” or “heresy publicly proclaimed should be read as if it weren't heresy; because you see, otherwise it would be heresy”.
What has his cowardly silence got him? The sack. As it was clearly foreseeable.
I have had enough of people who, with their silence or cowardice or cover-up, help Francis to confuse the faithful. They are nothing more than a writing on the tin that says “this bleach isn't poisonous if drunk in the proper way or if you pretend it isn't bleach”.
Let Francis appoint a full-fledged idiot who will do his bidding to the end. It will be much easier for even the simplest Catholics to recognise truth from lie. Francis will propel himself against a wall of heresy and shame, because left to his devices he is just too darn stupid to do things in a subtle way.
We must welcome the dismounting of whatever alibi this ridiculous Curia still has. Let them do things their own way. They will expose themselves as heretical faggots in no time.
Good Riddance, Carninal Mueller.
Your yogurt was never any good anyway.
Barely believable, involuntarily comic interview given by Cardinal Mueller, and reported by One Peter Five.
It is as if the entire exercise took place in a parallel universe, in which those parts of reality we don’t like can simply be excluded at leisure and no one has to give any explanation for it.
Cardinal Mueller’s parallel universe is made this way: Pope Francis is orthodox, but for some strange reason we can’t fathom some bishops insists in interpreting him in the wrong way.
This is like the mother of the mass murderer who, as her son is clearly an angel, pretends to not understand the reason for all the police cars and the sirens outside.
Cardinal Mueller does earn a limited amount of brownie points because he reaffirms Catholic teaching in fairly clear words. But honestly, I don’t think he deserves more than a half chocolate cookie, considering that as the head of the CDF his jobs description includes correcting heresy when officially proclaimed, not denying that heresy has been proclaimed and then proceeding to criticise those who follow exactly the heresy that has been officially proclaimed. It makes me smile to think that this one here is supposed to be the heir to the Inquisitors. I can picture them looking at him from heaven, and shaking their heads.
Now, we know Francis is a ruthless scoundrel, and Cardinal Mueller would get his marching order very fast if he dared to be a full-time Catholic rather than go on mini-break every time Francis is involved in the discussion. Still, the man is deluded if he thinks he can go on with this kind of somersault for very long.
It is in the logic of heresy – and very much so in the bullying nature of Francis – that error be advanced one step at a time. At some point, Cardinal Mueller will be required to either endorse the heresy of Amoris Laetitia in the terms dictated to him by Francis, or go. Francis will not allow for very long to be contradicted by his own “orthodoxy enforcer” in an indirect way. It will be Francis way, or the highway.
This is what every bully does: he bullies only those he feels strong enough to comfortably intimidate and overcome, and targets his victims one at a time. Francis isn’t following any cunning plan. He is merely being his bullying self.
Francis was initially afraid of his bishops and backpedalled at the time of the first Synod. Then he saw he could get bolder, and proceeded to proclaim Amoris Laetitia. Then he started to whisper to Argentinian bishops that the heretical reading of it is the only possible one. Then he started encouraging bishops (Malta, Germany) to openly proclaim heresy as the new standard of orthodoxy. Only an idiot can think that this evil clown will stop there, and that he will not at some point – when he feels he is strong enough for it – demand that heresy be proclaimed and enforced centrally, from the CDF itself.
Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself.
We live in an age of cowardice, opportunism, and careerism only mildly mitigated by vestiges of fear of the Lord, or perhaps by fear of what would happen if Francis were to suddenly kick the bucket (it is allowed to daydream) and a halfway Catholic pope were to be elected in his stead; but this careerism is ultimately useless.
Triple somersaults will not work. Cardinal Mueller’s blindness is at the same time the reason why his words will remain heedless and more and more bishops will conveniently side with heresy, and the reason why he will land in Francis’ sights at some point. It would be better for him to choose the Church and his own salvation instead.
As it is now, his very willed blindness still makes of him merely the useful idiot of the enemies of the Church.
I have read around some rather astonishing comments, that might confuse if not solid Catholics at least doubting ones, and certainly Protestants who are perhaps thinking of conversion. The argument goes along the lines of “if the CDF, which are the guardians of the Faith, are proved to be in error, why should we believe in the inerrancy of a Church who can't even prevent their very own watchdogs from getting it wrong?”.
This statement shows a dangerous confusion between the Truth and the organisation meant to protect it. The Truth comes from God, and the Church is run by men. The Church is Indefectible as an organisation, but Her organs are certainly not infallible in their actions; not even those who pertains to fundamental questions of truth and lie, orthodoxy or heresy.
St Joan of Arc was sent to die at the stake. Athanasius was even excommunicated. The Templars were disposed of with charges of heresy. There are, in the history of the Church, countless examples of wrong judgment or compliance to political pressures. The Church is not run by angels, and the actions of the men who run Her are liable to make pretty much all mistakes caused by their human nature, from ignorance to corruption to weakness to outright evil intent, with as only protection the very special one given to one man, the Pope, and in very exceptional circumstances only.
The CDF is not infallible. How could it be, it the men running it aren't the Pope and do not speak ex cathedra?
To idolise the Church to the rather, on reflection, extreme point that Her infallibility is extended to everything she does in matter of doctrine is to take Truth away from God, and to trust it in the hands of a bunch of men of more or less undeveloped moral integrity, doctrinal wisdom and, perhaps, intelligence. This thinking denies the very meaning of eternal Truth as it deifies the opinions of men. It just does not square with Catholic thinking.
The Church has given us a deposit of faith, accessible to pretty much everyone according to his lights, and such that if this person is honest with himself and, if necessary, seeks the counsel of wise priests or scours the Internet with sincere intent, he is pretty sure not to fall into grievous error.
Countless generations of simple, perhaps even illiterate Catholics could smell a doctrinal rat from rather far away, as they compared what they heard from, say, a strange preacher with the simple but coherent truths learnt from their parents and grandparents, heard in countless homilies and sermons, and integral part of the very culture in which they were immersed. They might not have been able to formulate why the rat was there; but the smell they could, as a rule, sniff rather fast. During the French Revolution, or in Italy in those same years, it was among illiterate peasants that you could find the staunchest defenders of the Faith.
Nowadays, admittedly, there aren't many priests around making instructive homilies and building people in the faith. But the nature of Truth is still such that no progressive priest can spread only half of it without devout and thinking Catholics realising the other half is unmitigated rubbish. The Internet gives access to a wonderful, endless list of orthodox priests and lay bloggers, whose truth will immediately resonate with the reader because it is not their individual truth, but the same Truth of our grand-grandmothers. The Internet and the now spread literacy will also give cheap access to a virtually unlimited quantity of Catholic treasures of the past, such that in former ages such a knowledge would have been accessible only to the most educated and, if laymen, to those from rather wealthy families.
We have, therefore, less good priests than our forefathers had, but more instruments at our disposal to discern with reasonable security whether, say, the CDF is making a mistake or not. We are also, as good Catholics, aware that worldly pressure and political thinking may corrupt every organisation made by humans, and that – particularly in these disgraceful times – this can very easily be the case for the CDF. We do not entrusts these mere humans with something that is simply not within their remit. Particularly if we know who their earthly boss is.
The CDF have made many mistakes, and many more will they make. But we do not start the Creed saying “I believe in the CDF, the Watchdog Almighty”. Truth rests with God. He gives us ways to avoid serious errors, and demands from us that we, according to our lights, instruct ourselves so that these errors will have it very difficult to enter our minds. He sends us people, situations, circumstances, and various graces allowing us to see when Truth is being betrayed.
We do not need to get excited and start to doubt because, say, a head of the CDF expresses himself in favour of communion for adulterers – which the next one will probably do – or subtly doubts the physical Resurrection of our Lord and the physical Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady – which the present one already does -. We know Truth is Truth. We measure those in charge of the CDF according to their adherence to Truth, not the other way round.
Fidelity to the Deposit of Faith is the first and foremost. Our Catholicism literally hinges on it. All the rest, from the Pope to the CDF, from Cardinals to Catechisms, is seen and judged – yes, judged – according to how smoothly it revolves around the hinge.
This is how our forefathers thoughts, and this is how we do it now.
St Paul wouldn't have moved one inch if an angel had come down from heaven and had started to proclaim some novel idea; it is not clear to me why a modern Catholic should plunge in a major crisis because of Cardinal Müller, or any of his successors.
We truly must start to think of these things – to think in terms of hinge – more often, because we will be forced to recur to this thinking more and more frequently in future.
Let us strenghtem our faith and our allegiance to the immortal Truths of the Church now, because we may have need for them before long.
One is at a loss to say whether Cardinal Maradiage is more arrogant, or Bishop Francis more incompetent. What seems clear to me is that both are masters of their respective discipline; this,very charitably assuming Francis does not actually want these public controversies. The Cardinal allows himself a level of familiarity and public defiance that can only be called boorish, and no doubt he does so because he feels his new appointment to “Turbo Cardinal” lets him think he can play the MiniMe of the Bishop of Rome unpunished.
Francis, though, created or encouraged every bit of this very public mess. In June last year he said to the progressive nuns dressed in everyday clothes they shouldn't be worried about what the CDF writes to them, thus clearly and publicly undermining the authority of both the office (the CDF) and the person (++ Müller). In Brazil, he invited the faithful to “make a mess” like a teenager overcome by revolutionary hormones. Moreover, with his appointment of the “Gang of Eight” he has created a power central – again, a very public one – whose members now feel entitled to exploit their position of prominence even in matters not pertaining to the specific reason of their appointment: administrative reform.
Francis is the one who has fathered this mess also in other, very grave ways. His continued attacks (as in: attacks) to Catholic orthodoxy encourage the worst among his followers to do the same, and to do so in the certainty not only of impunity but of overt or covert approval. Furthermore, Francis' obsession with public utterances and his tragic inability to keep his mouth shut – which he would do if he had some fear of The Lord – encourages others to do the same. As a result, disagreements among Cardinals are now – if the one who disagree is a chap like Maradiaga – carried on very publicly, in a very aggressive way, taking liberties not even politicians would allow themselves to take. In the reign of Francis, now degenerated to a shameless quest for popularity, it is not surprising that internal disagreements have become popularity wars.
“Loosen up, Bro” is the public and explicit message Maradiaga sends to Müller.
What an arrogant boor. And what a fitting man for this Papacy.
More is emerging concerning the senseless talk of the Holy Father to a confraternity of religious from South America.
This time, it emerged the Pope said to the present that perhaps a letter from the CDF should arrive, “telling you that you said such or such thing… But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward”.
In case you still aren't worried, there's more.
“Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up”.
These words are astonishing in their kindergarten shallowness, and that they come from a Pope – and from a Pope who seems to like such stunts, and find them just the ticket – is very telling about the degradation the Pontiff is throwing on the Bride of Christ.
I leave it to the professionally blind and to the compulsive Clericalists to try to find some twisted interpretation of these words which might let the Holy Father appear desirous to preserve Catholic orthodoxy; but as for myself, I won't buy it.
The Pope has clearly undermined the very office of the CDF, because in his world doctrinal matters are secondary to “doing something where life calls for it”. One truly believes he is listening to some “worker priest” of the Seventies talking of a brave new world where spontaneous “doing something” is what comes first, and the proper observance of God's rules – and, unavoidably, their intact transmission – must take second place. This, three months after his election. One cannot but imagine what he will do in three years, or in thirteen.
It seems to me increasingly more probable that this Pope wants a sort of “permanent revolution” within the Church, a sixty-eight-type “ferment” in which Catholic world order takes second place to what in Italy is called “azionismo”, the exaltation of “doing” for the sake of doing, and of a cult of what is “spontaneous” and allegedly “good hearted” that takes precedence over old, “stuffy” concepts like proper praying, proper thinking, proper liturgy, proper theology, and proper obedience -to his lieutenants -.
Of course such a one would stage Pinocchio masses. Of course he would downplay or even refuse to contemplate hell for those who die in their atheism (hey, they “do good things” too…). Of course he would refuse obvious signs of Catholic orthodoxy like the Mozzetta. Of course he would suggest that people “not worry” if they are being heterodox. The true Jesuit.
This is '68 all over again.
I hope this Pope remains in charge only as long as it takes to move he cardinals to think “never again!”, and then resigns and moves off to some favela. Alas, he will largely appoint cardinals who think and act like him, so one hopes the resignation comes before he has had he time to damage the Church for a very long time to come.
Is the Pope Catholic? The question doesn't appear very rhetorical anymore, and it has been only three months.
Fasten your seatbelt, and pray.
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.
“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.
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.
Everyone knows “open” is the way diplomatic circles use when they want to say a discussion has been totally useless. The same diplomatic tones are used by the Vatican to describe the meeting with that bunch of failed men going under the name of “LCWR”. This tells us the ladies were as bitchy as can be reasonably expected from them.
This would be in itself not really news, and my esteemed readers could well wonder why I waste their time in mentioning this.
I do, actually, because it appears the diplomatic niceties had a less diplomatic “tail” in the declaration of William Levada after the fact. The otherwise perfectly useless Fishwrap reports the story, and one could almost think – if one would not know the way the Vatican works – that the Vatican is now preparing to bite.
Cardinal Levada said it very bluntly: if the LCWR does not change their ways, the Vatican will simply withdrawn from them official recognition, basically not allowing them to say they represent the leaders of communities of so-called religious sisters.
One is pleased at the fact the Cardinal even mentions some form of sanction; but one cannot avoid thinking the following:
1) mere weeks after the decision to start with the “re-education” of the witches, the possibility of the success of this undertaking is openly doubted by the same people who are responsible for them. This might show an always welcome realism, but also the silliness of thinking the re-education might have worked in the first place.
2) the “sanctions” ventilated by the Cardinal are against the organisation, not against the people who have created today’s mess. Put in crude terms, the sisters would be able to continue abusing Church resources and living at the expense of decent Christians (both living and dead); there’s no talk of excommunication, or of kicking the worst among them out.
3) Taking away official recognition from the LCWR would not make any very big change: the organisation would remain, and would continue to boasts of their rebellion. The liberal media would pet them like it’s going out of fashion.
I wonder how the Cardinal think his strategy would work.
Still, this might be the beginning of the beginning of a Vatican change of attitude toward the Magisterium of Nuns. After 40 years of heresy, one would say acting might be appropriate.
This blog post from Queen Of Martyrs Press is now everywhere, but I think the excitement is very probably undeserved.
I do not read the letter that you can see by clicking on the link as saying that Mass attendance at an SSPX chapel is now not in order anymore.
If you read the letter attentively, you will see the question is very short and very dangerous:
[…] would a Catholic fulfill his Mass obligation by assisting at Holy Mass by attending this “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel called __________ Roman Catholic Church in _______,_______?
Mind: a “chapel” of “friends” of the SSPX. Now by definition a friend of the SSPX is not a member of the SSPX. If a priest is a member he is a member, not a “friend of”.
Who are, then, these “friends” of the SSPX? For what we – and the CDF – know, it can be any sedevacantist group on earth, as I assume many of those – and many of those attending by them, possibly in perfect good faith – would define themselves without any great difficulty as “friends” of the SSPX. Are they enemies of the SSPX? Certainly not. Do they think they would refuse an invitation to lunch from an SSPX priest? I don’t think so. Granted, you will find Sedevacantists saying they are not friends of the SSPX because they support a usurper etc., but in real life I think it far more probable even the majority of Sedevacantists would express their disagreement with the SSPX, but still consider them “friends”. This is in my eyes confirmed by the well-known episode of Archbishop Lefebvre adopting the Missal of 1962 to avoid having the SSPX chapels invaded by Sedevacantists, a clear sign the SSPX’s acceptance of the Pope as the head of the Church would not have stopped the Sedevacantist “friends” of the SSPX from filling their pews!
Now put yourselves in the shoes of the members of the CDF who had to answer the question as it was posed: if they had answered yes, a simple open claim of friendship with the SSPX would have been enough to consider the attendance at such masses fulfilment of the Sunday mass obligation.
Is it so surprising the CDF answered the question in the negative?
EDIT: from Rorate, the confirmation from the US District of the SSPX the chapel in question (deleted in the letter, but known to them and clearly to the CDF) is not among their “friends”. Therefore, they simply call themselves – or were called by the writer of the letter – in that way. Which is, understandably, not enough. Even if they had been, I would still say there is a difference for a faithful Catholic whether he attends to a SSPX chapel or to a chapel of friends, but not part of the order.
From the UK site of the SSPX:
a) the press release of the Vatican Press Office
Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:
“As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.
In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.
Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly”
Last Updated ( Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:48 )
b) the comment of the Society’s District Superior of Italy:
Comment by Fr Pierpaolo Petrucci SSPX, District Superior of Italy
on the CDF Press release :
“…the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made public today (May 16) a press communique. In the text, on the one hand, the will is displayed of moving forward in “further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X”, on the other, it is affirmed, in reference to the letter of the three bishops, that, “regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly”.
“This way of acting clearly manifests the intention of dividing our Priestly Society in its highest representatives. For this reason, we invite all the friends and faithful to intensify their prayers and, in particular, the Holy Rosary, in the Crusade called by our Superior, so that the Society of Saint Pius X may remain united in the battle against the errors infiltrated in the Church.
Fr. Pierpaolo Maria Petrucci
I leave it to the readers to make an opinion as to the degree of plausibility of Father Petrucci’s reflections. I for myself have no doubts.
Swiss religious news agency APIC confirms the official delivery by Cardinal Levada (in French/ in German), but no real new development is added, other than the confirmation that “the pope can now directly decide the outcome of the discussions with the Lefebvrists or can wait for ‘new developments’ on the doctrinal questions wished by the members of the CDF.”
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this (in case you ask: on Rorate Caeli, of course).
Please make yourself a chamomile tea and read it again: (some) members of the CDF wish that the Holy Father “waits for new developments”.
Your humble correspondent is at a loss to understand what sensible (not V II) meaning can be given to this. The SSPX do not “evolve” their doctrine, and there is no way they can “evolve” it to make it, say, nearer to the wishes of a Cardinal Schoenborn. The august prelates know this very well. They know it, because this is what they have witnessed these past several decades, and know the SSPX has retained all the stubborn orthodoxy of its founder.
Which means, some of the members of the CDF suggest the Pope simply do nothing and let the thing die quietly, possibly accusing the SSPX when they inevitably make some remarks about the decision which seems never to come. What is more worrying is that this opinion is represented strongly enough as to form part of the CDF’s report to the Pope. In plain English, the report reads “we know you want this, but please reflect one last time whether it would not be better to reconsider”.
In three words: true to form.
There are rumours the Bishop of Regensburg, Mueller, might become the next Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The Bishop is well-known for his sympathies towards the infamous Liberation Theology and is, we are told, a friend of the Holy Father.
One is instantly reminded of another prelate rather close to the Holy Father, Cardinal Schoenborn.
Both of them, in plain English, heretics.
It appears to be a friend of the Holy Father tends to have two consequences:
a) heresy remains unpunished;
b) nice career opportunities present themselves.
The appointment (if it happens; we don’t know) would also be interesting in that two prominent exponents of the various heresies and “ferments” in Mitteleuropa would sit together as members (one, Prefect) of the congregation in charge of… the defence of doctrinal orthodoxy.
O how much we need the SSPX.
On the usual Rorate Caeli, the translation of a rather saucy leak from the Vatican corridors: the Pope had the text of the SSPX’ reply to the Preambolo Dottrinale beforehand, and did not raise any objections.
This has been largely anticipated, and in fact it would have been rather inconceivable, and against the most elementary rules of prudence, that Bishop Fellay would give his official answer without having received unofficial confirmation that the Pontiff had given his green light. In the end, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know perfectly well a theologian Pontiff does not need the CDF – composed in part of individuals like Schoenborn – to know whether the answer his acceptable. Still, the fact itself the matter was leaked makes it rather intriguing.
Why then, will you ask, the three weeks of waiting to examine the document, and then the big meeting, and the big decision everyone knows has already been taken?
If you ask me, this is nothing to do with the Pope wanting to know what the CDF thinks on the matter, but about the Pope forcing the CDF to toe the line on the reconciliation. The CDF is expected to say what they think beforehand, but they also clearly know what they are expected to say. If they criticise the SSPX’s answer, they will be silenced by the Pontiff and exposed as irretrievable tambourine-men. If they approve, they’ll have to shut up afterwards.
All in all, it could be this procedure isn’t all bad after all…
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked Cardinal Schoenborn to “explain” his recent decision to reverse the decision of one of his priests, who has annulled the election of a Gemeinderat (parish council member) because one of the “elected” was not only homosexual, but an unrepentant sodomite even living in a registered civil partnership. Now, people like Vincent Nichols would obviously look the other way and pretend (insulting our intelligence, and endangering his soul; if he believes in its existence, that is) one should be “nuanced” in these matters; but the priest in question was a tad more Catholic and had annulled the vote.
Enter the Cardinal, who couldn’t wait to show the Austrian “Catholics” what a friend of perverts he is, and reversed the decision.
This is, in case you don’t know, the same man who doesn’t do anything beyond the strictly obligatory to counter the heresy in Austria. The reasoning of the (hopefully heterosexual) Cardinal is always the same: I want to look good, let Rome look bad, and try to appear to my local heretics as the good man who tries to defend their stance as good as he can. Alas, one is a Cardinal and has a job to do; but his heart goes out to them,and feels with them…
This time, it appears he will have to endure some slight unpleasantness. The CDF – up to now not really aggressive in the matter of the heresy – has now decided to pat him on the cheek and tell him the least audible of the “naughty boy” imaginable. The Cardinal is invited to say why he reversed the decision (which, clearly, everyone already knows) and if he does not answer to the letter (this detail shows a clear sense of self-esteem from the members of the CDF; they basically invite him to ignore them for the time being) he will be asked to confer next time he is in Rome.
Also note the “Standard” says it appears the Cardinal will not be asked to reverse his decision. That would be too harsh, surely…?
If you do not find this terrifying, I can’t blame you and Schoenborn, who is himself a member of that august congregation, will probably not find his sleep much troubled.
Still, if I were the ineffable, oh so modern and oh so vain Cardinal, I’d start to be slightly worried anyway.
Everyone knows Schoenborn is a former pupil and protegé of the Pontiff, which circumstance certainly goes a long way in keeping him away from big trouble even when he most deserves it, which is rather often (Medjugorje also comes to mind; and the laser Masses; and the Western Masses; the man is a real piece of work, or you would say of Sachertorte). As long as Pope Benedict lives, nothing worse than a letter of the CDF in which the latter expects to be ignored will happen to him. But the Pope is becoming increasingly more frail, and I doubt he will stay with us for, say, another decade. When the successor is elected, the good Cardinal could find himself in the Sachertorte up to his very neck, and if this happens I doubt he would be able to chew all of it.
One is reminded of another protegé of a Pontiff, called Marcial Maciel. The death of JP II was basically the end of the road for him.
Schoenborn might not be a pervert, but he certainly makes everything possible to help them, so I wouldn’t say he is much better than Maciel anyway. He is probably worse, because Maciel did not give scandal.
I wonder what the Cardinal thinks of the reconciliation with the SSPX?
Rorate Caeli has a very interesting double post, in which a recent interview of Bishop Fellay is linked to an interview given by Mgr Pozzo of Ecclesia Dei. Both interviews contain what in my eyes are very interesting points.
Looking first at the interview with Pozzo, there is an expression that will probably make some waves (emphasis mine):
It does not seem conceivable that a call into question of the Second Vatican Council may happen. Therefore, where do these discussions might lead? To a better understanding of this?
Mgr Pozzo’s Answer:
They concern a clarification of points that detail the exact meaning of the teaching of the Council. It is what the Holy Father started to do on December 22, 2005, by interpreting the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity. Nevertheless, there are certain objections of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that do make sense, because there has been an interpretation of rupture. The goal is to show that it is necessary to interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church.
Note that Mgr Pozzo says that SSPX and CDF are working together at seeing whether a shared understanding of V II can be achieved. It will not be a dismissal of V II as a cretinous thing to do in itself (shame, ndr), but it might lead to the same thing, that is: the rigorous exam of V II so that every interpretation not in rigorous continuity with the pre-V II Church is clearly and unequivocally rejected. This would lead, in a word, not to a formal dismissal of the V II documents, but to their thorough re-interpretation in light of Catholic orthodoxy. Basically, it means exposing all their shortcomings, misleading formulations and wrong interpretations by still saying that, apart from the shortcomings and the misleading formulations, they were never meant to be interpreted wrongly in the first place.
This seems to me a clear indication that the distances are reducing, as the explicit words of Mgr Pozzo about the SSPX’s objections “making sense” further underscore. In a situation where no word is said casually, I think this is worth noticing.
Even more worth noticing is the interview given some days ago by Bishop Fellay, which Rorate Caeli reports under the same link. Fellay allows himself very interesting words (emphasis mine):
I believe that, at some level, the Good Lord linked us with this crisis, because we work for the restoration of the Church, but this may still last for a decade, maybe two. It is necessary to have lots of courage and perseverance. This can be resolved tomorrow, this may be resolved the day after tomorrow. All is in the hands of the Good Lord.
Unless I am totally mistaken, there are two important points here:
1) Fellay sees something like one or two papacies as the maximum wait before a full reconciliation. He talks like one who can see from the development of the talks that time is on his side. Basically, he seems to imply that there are some toads that have been clearly recognised, but that the Vatican will not be ready to swallow until the Council has been pushed further into a historic (and less emotional) dimension and the generation who has lived it has proceeded to – hopefully – greener pastures.
2) The first point seems to me further stressed by the revealing words that I have emphasised. I do not know about you, but to me these words seem an extremely emphatic assertion that the distance has now become very small, and the Vatican must decide not the if, but merely the when of the formal steps leading to a full reconciliation. At any rate, I can’t imagine Fellay using such words unless he is persuaded that every big obstacle has been removed from the way.
Not for the first time, I get the impression that the only thing now necessary before the SSPX is in full communion again is the death of the generation who has lived the Second Vatican Council, and the possibility to put things straight from a more relaxed, less controversial historical perspective.
You can read on Rorate Coeli (you’ll have to scroll down to the 21st December) the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on trivialization of sexuality” (American spelling, apparently. Fair enough…).
This is nothing less than an official statement about Condomgate. If you take the few minutes to read it, you’ll notice that the arguments it makes are not in the least different from the comment made on this and other orthodox blogs at the time of the controversy.
What one notices is that at least here in the UK the media have chosen to completely ignore this statement in the same way as they had – once it became clear that they had once again pissed outside of the pan – conveniently decided to move to other topics.
As a result the truth didn’t get one hundredth of the media attention given to the lie and untold non-churchgoer Catholics must be somewhat under the impression that after all the Church can change Her teaching and therefore, well, must change it in order to become, ehem, more similar to them.
This is further prove that the media landscape of this country – largely dominated by champagne liberals, liberals who can’t afford the champagne and socialists who think they’re liberals – is not interested in information, but in manipulation of the (license-paying) public.