Rorate Caeli

The German Church


The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, has named Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Bishop of Regensburg, new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as well as the related positions of President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and President of the International Theological Commission), upon accepting the resignation of Cardinal Levada, who reached the age limit.

Bishop (now Archbishop) Müller was born in Mainz, by the Rhine. Our previous posts on Prefect Müller: 


- In charge of the henhouse? (The fox, we mean. Müller's most remarkable theological opinions.)

- Müller, as the local bishop of the area in which the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) is located in Bavaria, also threatened those involved in the 2009 ordinations with harsh words, that never really materialized. (Several posts, including this and this.)

Bishop Müller chatting with his friend Fr. Gutiérrez
Update: According to Rodari, Müller's nomination is also meant as a sign of a positive reevaluation of Liberation Theology, of which Müller is an enthusiast, in the Vatican - signaled by an article by Müller himself highlighting "positive" aspects of this dreadful movement published last December in L'Osservatore Romano. Which considering last week's news on the collapse of the Church in Brazil, the one most ravaged by Liberation Theology, probably means people in the Vatican simply cannot understand numbers... Or do they want those numbers?

155 comments:

Francis said...

Things just keep getting worse and worse in the Church. By Benedict appointing Muller as the new head of the CDF Pope Benedict XVI confirms that he is still a modernist doctrinally and will until his death be an apologist for the Second Vatican Council and its ambiguities, modernism and relativism which he helped to create as a peritus. I hope that I'm wrong, but I think this is the deathnail for any reconciliation between modernist Rome and the FSSPX for the near future. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

Bartholomew said...

I'm depressed.

O Mary conceived with out sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Matt said...

The Holy Father just rolled the Church back about ten,fifteen years! Oh, but Traddies are always being accused of wanting to "turn back the clock."

Voces Tubaram said...

Can you imagine the melodious German that will be ringing through the halls of the Apostolic Palace during those Friday meetings..

someone said...

P.K.T.P. it is still the Roman Church, the Christ Church. If we aren't sedevacantists or schismatics, we cannot call off our connections with Rome, even if there is Muller, even if there would be the next Alexander VI etc. The Church is ill, but it is still the Church. If your mother is ill, do you go out home, or just take care of her?

Manfred said...

I have been reading about the insanity in the Church for the last fifty years. My family and I are members of an FSSP chapel. Thank God! When Catholics read of the Supreme Court decision, the Church in Brazil or the CDF appointment, how are they expected to respond? It is obvious that we are being punished by God and I believe that in some way this goes back to the apparitions at Fatima. I await another known "Secret" of Fatima: the annihilation of nations. I believe only when this occurs will people begin to get serious.

Fr. A.M. said...

It is amazing that, when there is always - or nearly always - 'bad news', people are ready to through-in-the towel. It is a bit like the fox who could not reach the delicious fruit (grapes ?) on the tree - 'it probably would have tasted bad anyway'. No, let us remember that the the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. If FSSPX obtains canonical recognition, then this can only be for the good of the Church. We must not allow the 'bigger picture' to be obscured. Pray, pray, pray.

Martyjo said...

When one hears of such appointments it reinforces the belief that the Pope is not really interested in restoring Tradition to the Church.

Eyebrows were raised when Cardinal Levada was made Prefect of the CDF, and again when Bishop Roche was recently appointed Secretary to the Congregation for the Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments. But this latest move outdoes everything, and at the same time undoes everything. I really cannot see how the SSPX could work with a prelate like Archbishop Muller. I don't honestly see how any Catholic could work with such a controversial figure. Only God can sort this mess out. It is so disheartening!

One final point. It seems to me that Archbishop DiNoia's comments in yesterday's interview, together with the announcement today of Archbishop Muller's appointment, is a clear signal that the Holy See has now abandoned all hope of a reconciliation with the SSPX. Whether the Pope has reached this point voluntarily or whether pressure has been brought to bear on him to alter course matters little. Ultimately the buck stops with the Pontiff. This is what happens when democracy enters the Church!!

The liberals triumph once again and they'll soon be back to declaring the SSPX schismatic and disobedient. We'll be told how hard the Pope tried to reconcile with these "rebels" and how said rebels were too entrenched in their rigid post-conciliar mentality for there to be any hope of an amicable solution. Just watch and see what happens next when these heralds of the 2nd Pentecost get going!! Tragic times!

sam said...

This is a disastrous appointment, free of any guidance by the Holy Spirit. Lets pray that those in charge of the visible Church have a conversion of heart like St. Paul had on the road to Damascus through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

New Catholic said...

Sorry, PKTP, as justifiably angry as you may be, it is not the place of laymen to call bishops heretics in public.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sam said...

Here's a question for everyone: How can someone who denies the perpetual virginity of Virgin Mary and the Transubstantiation be head of the CDF?

Vox Cantoris said...

I'd like to think that this is a bit of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Well, I said, that "I'd like to think..." because the truth is, I don't know what the heck to think anymore!

Martyjo said...

Let us not forget also that appointments to high office in the Church today are much less to do with the suitability of the candidate and his personal holiness (or lack thereof). No, it's like a big conciliar chess board where each piece is placed to checkmate the other. The Church in Germany has been on the brink of formal schism for a long time. It will be hoped that Archbishop Muller's appointment to the CDF will calm the waters and enrich "dialogue." In the days before Vatican II, the Pope would just have censured (and excommunicated if necessary) those who rebelled against the Church's teaching. Now they "dialogue" with the devil in search of compromise. I half expect an Irish Bishop to be posted to the Vatican soon to help in the process of "dialogue2 with the 300 priests who are dissenting from the Church's teaching on celibacy. One truly could not make this stuff up!

Ceolfrid said...

You know, there are people out there who are trying, very hard, to see the good in this whole mess; that, somehow, the Pope really is trying to do the right thing, and that this is "just a phase" through which the Church is going, but that things are going to get better, sooner or later.

And then this happens.

P.KT.P. said...

And then there were the good priests in the 1970s. When the True Mass was replaced by a joke, they simply retired.

P.K.T.P.

The Postmodernist said...

I know we're all tired of hearing this, but let us continue to pray for the Pope. There is only little that we can do other than this. Pray. The only grave option, other than this is to commit sin. We the laity, and religious, can offer nothing greater than prayers WITH sacrifices to God - not for the SSPX, but for the entire Church. I know that our Rosary crusades, Veni Sancte Spiritus, will not be in vain. Let's trust God. He is in control. As one Protestant song truthfully declares "You have turned my mourning into dancing. You have turned my sorrows into joy." -Hillsong

Martyjo said...

P.K.T.P.

"This is a very good day for Bishop Richard Williamson."

This is no good day for any Catholic. It is a tragic day!

As for Bishop Williamson, it is thanks to His Excellency and a like-minded minority in the SSPX that this truly Catholic institution has come under a cloud of suspicion. It has to be said in all honesty that Bishop Fellay has the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre in respect to the Papacy and the Church, while Bishop Williamson displays a truly schismatic mentality. At least Bishop Fellay was willing to discuss matters with his Pope and ours. That he was let down by them is no shame on him. Better to have tried and failed than to have sought refuge in a fatalistic mindset!

Much has been learned from this experience. It has separated the true Traditional Catholics from the sedevacantists and schismatics. That is one comfort at least.

P.K.T.P. said...

Pray for the Pope? How about praying for the Church! And someone reminds us that Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ. Yes, and so was Alexander VI. Even worse, so was Paul VI. Even Paul VI, far worse for Holy Church than was Alexander VI, both were Vicars of Christ.

Yes, this Pope will recognise the S.S.P.X and probably unilaterally. He will recognise them and then try to lure them into more talks on canonical and theological regularisation. This will 'free' our Mass. But at what price?

Most Blessed Mary, EVER-VIRGIN, pray for us.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

When someone calls into question the perpetual virginity of our Lady, he attacks our Lady, and when someone attacks our Lady, he attacks the Church. Period.

P.K.T.P.

Hugh said...

The Rhine flows into the Tiber! Still!

Jonvilas said...

Wow, a lot of arguments ad hominem, a lot of 'love' expressed toward Holy Father. Well I just wonder, maybe that move is also not the worst. If I am not mistaken, certain V2 peritus Joseph Ratzinger was considered to be a liberal. However, after becoming Prefect of CDF he was named a Panzerkardinal. Maybe, just maybe, this could also be the case with G. Mueller. In any case, I agree with someone, who wrote very simply that it is still Roman Catholic Church, in which subsists the One True Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. And Benedict XVI is our pope, the vicar of Christ Jesus. Of course, if are not sedevacantists or schismatics... Cum Petro et sub Petro per Mariam ad Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen

Orestes said...

Disheartening. I became a Catholic under Benedict, and felt especially blessed to have done so; unlike some of the old hands in the traditional movement, I have never really had to look the crisis in the face.

All of our theories are just speculation. But I am trying to hope in Benedict's best intentions. So this is how I see it:

1. Benedict does not intend a deal, most likely because a schism in Europe might immediately follow.

2. He does not want to torpedo Fellay and harden the Society against a future reconciliation, either, so he is giving the Bishop a good exit from the proceedings.

Why? We must remember that the Pope is not exactly a Feeneyite, to say the least. I think it is fairly obvious that the Holy Father and the likeminded in the Vatican privately admit there is no great danger to the souls of priests of the SSPX or their followers simply due to their present canonical irregularity.

It does seem to me to be a dangerous gamble to leave this for the next pope in the hopes that the churches of Europe will be more docile to a reconciliation then.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

What a disaster! And its the SSPX that are not in full communion! How are we supposed to trust a pope who makes appointements like these!

Jonvilas said...

Martyjo, you talking about democracy in Church? What about democracy within FSSPX or the 1789 in the Society as one good priest has written? Stop accusing the pope if all this reconciliation fail. Those disobedient priests and bishops of FSSPX are to blame as well. And I am not sure whose fault would be bigger. Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro nobis.

Ignatius said...

This is not a time for despair, but for increased prayers. Our Lady has accomplished for us so much that was unimaginable ten years ago, so even if it is unimaginable that reconciliation of the SSPX will occur under this new prefect, we must pray all the same. This was never in our hands to begin with.

P.K.T.P. said...

Orestes:

No, again, believe it or not, I am confident that the Pope will now be 'able' to let the other shoe drop and recognise (but not regularise) the S.S.P.X. This will do all the good I have long prayed for, at least in terms of actions. The problem is that a recognition through a man like Müller is so tainted that it befouls the recipient of the recognition: it is not worth it to be recognised by this lot. Nothing could be worth it. This man, this appointee, not only called into question the perpetual virginity of our Lady but had the temerity to mention the sexual details in relation to our Lady's purity. I dare not be more specific than that. To see it in print brings vomit to the back of one's throat. This new man is a living attack against our Blessed Mother. He is intolerable. This is too horrible even to contemplate. I am completely devastated by this turn if events.

P.K.T.P.

Tradical said...

Yep this is a sad event as it means that the tipping point in this crisis is not a near as we thought.

At least things are now clearer for Bishop Fellay.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

At last, we are in total agreement. I have a feeling that traditionalists around the world will finally be united--united in disparagement of this appointee.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

The Volga flows into the Tiber. God help us.

Jason C. said...

Maybe, now that his Excellency isn't in charge of pastoral responsibilities in Germany, he will feel a bit more liberty in Rome, and perhaps be a bit more to our liking. Perhaps this is what happened with then-Cardinal Ratzinger when he went to CDF?

I'll take my wait-and-see approach.

GQ Rep said...

"Even Paul VI, far worse for Holy Church than was Alexander VI, both were Vicars of Christ. "

Alexander VI was a man of his age. The Renaissance was a highpoint in human civilization, but was as corrupt as hell....literally ...with regards t international politics and religion.
With regards to both politics and religion there was perhaps only 1 guiding light and a man of Faith , vision and integrity...Phillip II of Spain. He had his vices, but he was a far better ruler both religiously and politically than most of his time.

Alexander VI Borgia was a man of his time in that he was similar in his carnality and other excesses as was Henry VIII and other monarchs of the time. He was personally corrupt, but he did not destroy the Catholic Faith....he upheld it. He realized the serious problems....but as part of the problem and not the solution he did very little to correct the situation. But to give him credit, on more than one occasion towards the end of his life, he admitted his own personal immorality and sins, and feared judgement.

Paul VI on the oher hand was a man just like Benedict XVI. Very much a weak, indecisinve, highly malliable person who bent both ways to accomodate everyone....but Paul VI did much more to accomodate the liberals and next to nothing for the Catholics. Had he not been that way, we would not have had this problem now, almost 35 years after his death.

He allowed himself to be lead, guided, pressured by the liberals in mostly everything. So does Benedict XVI.
That is not a good characteristic for a Pope. So when Benedict XVI dies, his pontificate unfortunatly will probably bear the same grade as Paul VI did.... "F" for failure.

Prof. Basto said...

someone: ...even if there is Muller, even if there would be the next Alexander VI etc...

How dare you compare the the Holy Father Alexander VI to Bishop Muller!

Pope Alexander VI may have been a man of great personal failiures; as a Pope as well as before, he sinned greatly and publicly, and his sins as a Pope were of a shameful nature; so he failed to live out the requirements of the Catholic morals, but he never denied the Truths of Catholic Dogma!

While the present chief doctrinal officer of the Church has publicly denied the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and is a man that fails to hold to other essential Catholic truths.

I only stop short of using the H-word here out of deference to New Catholic, who, in the precedent of the removal of PKTP's post, decided (undestandably) that it would be out of order for us laymen to call a Bishop like Archbishop Muller what he really and trully is.

NIANTIC said...

I am deeply dismayed, like most traditional catholics, by this slap in the face. Now we have an even worse spirit of Vll modernist in charge of safeguarding the faith. Someone who has alien and erroneous theological opinions. How is it possible that the Vicar of Christ is willing to entrust the faithful to the decisions of this man.

As far as I am concerned now is not the time for the SSPX to accept or make a deal with Rome. The powers in Rome are way off the chart and like lions or wolves are laying in wait to entrap and devour the Society.

Of course, we know Our blessed Lord is still firmly in charge of His Church and His ways are not our ways. To me this all is a great mystery. Very sad, but we must remain strong and faithful and never give up hope. Lord have mercy!

Clayton Orr said...

Oh, quit worrying! Are you afraid that, under this Prefect of the CDF, the Church will suddenly abandon her infallibility, or that Pope Benedict is going to deny the Real Presence, or what? I'm not.

As for the SSPX, what this reveals to me is that many of those who are attached exclusively to the SSPX have lost the ability to relate to the living institutions of the Church, and as a result, are incapable of living in communion with it. The problem is that, because of the various preconditions that the SSPX has set with regards to Rome, the path back to reconciliation with Rome is almost impossible. Thus what they call an "extraordinary" situation has in fact become an ordinary one.

On a more practical note, Pope Benedict knows his reputation for a sort of "old world" orthodoxy. He also knows that it speaks for itself, and unlike his predecessor, he seems to be deliberately avoiding turning the CDF position into a sort of "vice-pope" job. I find this interesting.

Lily said...

This appointment explains why many SSPX priests in the U.S., announced yesterday in their masses, that the discussions are officially dead. I wondered why they were saying that. Now I see that this appointment had been leaked. Muller has frequently said that none of the ordinations under the SSPX are valid. How can he ever be expected to sit down with Fellay and negotiate? The non-Catholic beliefs that Muller holds are legendary. Bishop Williamson must be doing a jig this morning. Terrible news for the negotiations.

Prof. Basto said...

Oh, quit worrying! Are you afraid that, under this Prefect of the CDF, the Church will suddenly abandon her infallibility, or that Pope Benedict is going to deny the Real Presence, or what? I'm not.

No, I'm not worried that the Pope will deny the Real Presence, but I am worried that the CDF Prefect might do just that.

And if he did, he would cause confusion, and scandal, and error, in the minds of millions of simple Catholics.

His writings and speeches, like the one in which the Prefect denied the Perpetual Virginity of Mary most holy, will now be sold and read as the opinions of the chief doctrinal officer of the Church.

So, the simple Catholic man will think: "it is ok to hold that view, isn't it? I mean, not even the Pope's top doctrinal officer believes in the Perpetual Virginity, it surely is a docrine of the past...".

So, while I'm not concerned that the gates of hell will prevail, I am concerned that millions of souls will be lost.

Christ promised that His Church would not be defeated, but He never said that he would block entire Nations from losing the Catholic Faith and even the Catholic Hierarchy, as happened, for instance, during the Protestant Reformation.

So, no, I cannot quit worrying. The fox is in charge of the henhouse, and the salvation of souls is at stake.

Benedict XVI will have to explain this decision to his Judge. May the Lord have mercy on him!

Bartholomew said...

Here's the worst irony.

The Bishop of Rome appoints head of the CDF a man who questions the perpetual virginity of Our Lady on the FEAST OF THE VISITATION.

I think Our Lord is trying to tell us something.

Herman said...

"The Volga flows into the Tiber. God help us."

Why the Volga? Whatever their faults are the Russians don't deny the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.

Kumquat said...

I wish people would remember that Benedict XVI is the Pope of the ENTIRE Church, not just one part of her, be it liberals, conservatives, moderates, or modernists.

And dissent exists on the right, as well as on the left.

Benedict Carter said...

As Father Malachi Martin once said (I paraphrase):

"Rome is not interested in doctrine because that doesn't touch its power. But consecrate bishops without Rome's permission and the whole world falls on your head. That does touch Rome's power, directly and implicitly".

It would appear that the schizophrenia that has characterized all Popes since that Council has again triumphed.

May God help us all.

Criticalist said...

Prof Basto: On what grounds do you accuse him of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary? I've read the passage everyone is quoting, and I don't see how it can't refer purely to the birth of our Lord.

His supposed involvement with Liberation Theology remains a clear cut example of guilt by association. I agree that he should have nothing to do with them. But I don't see why he's so much worse than the rest of our current hierarchy.

Also, is it really impossible to interpret his comments on the Eucharist in an orthodox way?

Knight of Malta said...

I'm just wondering, did the reconciled Anglicans ever have to sign a "Doctrinal Preamble"?

GMMF said...

Regarding the perpetual virignity quote, it seems he is arguing against the idea that Our Lord beamed out of her womb, like light through glass (I think that is the expression often used).

has the Church judged this idea a necessary component of the dogma of the perpetual virignity of the Mother of God? (citations would be helpful). Thanks!

Ceolfrid said...

Here's an interesting report:

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-head-of-cdf-on-record-four-sspx.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FZMRq+%28Catholic+Church+Conservation%29

Maybe the Holy Father is actually trying to get Bp. Fellay to appeal directly to him, i.e. not through the CDF? Because, if this man (Bp. Mueller) has anything to say about it, it looks like he wouldnt even speak to Bp Fellay as a fellow bishop letalone facilitate the recognition of the FSSPX as Catholic.

David Werling said...

Yeah... I'm upset.

http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/2012/07/pope-turns-on-traditionalists-from-near.html

Knight of Malta said...

I know I'm a broken record, but I believe his Holiness could do one thing right now to put ultra-liberals like Casper the friendly ghost in his place: just lift the a divines suspensions. That is all.

Knight of Malta said...

Actually, I think when Kasper kicks the bucket, I don't think he will be a friendly ghost!

Gratias said...

Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez is the Marxist founder of Liberation Theology. Abp. Muller travels to Peru annually to render homage. Liberation Theology destroyed the Catholic Church in Latin America. This is a terrible appointment.

Francesco Colafemmina said...

Regarding the perpetual virginity of BVM:

Non posso fare a meno di menzionare l’importante opera di sant’Ildefonso di Toledo “Sulla verginità perpetua di santa Maria”, nella quale esprime la fede della Chiesa su questo mistero. Usando una formula precisa dice: “Vergine prima della venuta del Figlio, vergine dopo la generazione del Figlio, vergine con la nascita del Figlio, vergine dopo che il Figlio nacque” (S. Hildefonso da Toledo, De virginitate perpetua Sanctae Mariae, 1: PL 96, 60).

John Paul II, Homily in Saragozza, Nov. 6th 1982

David Werling said...

Well, GMMF, only if you can make someone a virgin without them being physically a virgin. That's easy for the post-conciliarists, though. They have been re-writing reality according to their ideology for decades now.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Criticalist

Read Bishop Mullers quote on the Blessed Mothers giving birth to Christ, carefully and slowly, and remember your Antomy 101 and you will see clearly why HE denied Our Ladies virginity.

I am so offended I cannot be any more explicit.

Sancta Dei Genitrix Ora pro Nobis!

David Werling said...

Ceolfrid, I don't think you are getting it... the Holy Father just told the SSPX to take a hike. We can make all the excuses we can conjure, but it really doesn't change anything. The Holy Father will give recognition to the Society only if the SSPX completely repudiates its criticisms of Vatican II.

Müller has been appointed to oversee the "take a hike" portion of the talks.

David Werling said...

'I'm just wondering, did the reconciled Anglicans ever have to sign a "Doctrinal Preamble"?'

Yes, they had to sign off a catechism of all things, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Francesco Colafemmina said...

Concilium Constantinopolitanum II, Sess.8, Canon 6:

"If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious,
and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that
she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation
of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born;
if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to
be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother
of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be
the Mother of God: let him be anathema."

New Catholic said...

Clayton, you will have to post your last comment again. WE DO NOT ACCEPT CONDESCENSION HERE. We never have. So your "I'm a traditionalist myself but you people lack the theological sophistication needed to understand the complex nuances of this neuroscientist-genius-turned-theologian" argument will not get you published here. Please rephrase.

NC

Bartholomew said...

Fr. Knox:

I direct you to Father William Most's essay:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/virbir.htm

sam said...

In response to GMMF:

In Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller's 2003 book he says: "not deviate from physiological particularities in the natural process of birth (such as something like the non opening of the birth canal, the non-injury of the hymen and not experiencing the pains of birth), rather it's in the healing and saving influence of the Grace of the Savior on human nature."


Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503: "If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."

Phil_NL said...

I must say that it never ceases to amaze me how enormously pessimistic the combox here can be. There are plenty of cases in which people will act their office rather than their intellectual preferences. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse (the US supreme court's most recent decision comes to mind). And here as in most cases, we need the CDF prefect to do his job; if he can do that, it matters little if he has some private oddities in his beliefs.

Let's give the archbishop a year or two before drawing conclusions (especially regarding the reconcilliation) and heaping accusations and gorging on dispair.

TDC said...

Oh how the enemies of the society (of any and all persuasions) must be rejoicing the last month or so! There is no return, reconciliation, approval, recognition, or whatever in the cards this round. Again. We wait.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

The only way this works for the SSPX (and all traditionalists, for that matter) is if PCED is independent of CDF again. Or if some kind of formal agreement is arranged with Archbishop DiNoia that gives DiNoia complete control over PCED without any meddling from Muller. Assuming DiNoia is in charge only goes as far as when Muller steps in.

Muller is a shocker from this pope, who generally has stayed away from far left or far right picks. Usually they are center-left or center-right -- at least for the major positions. On an otherwise enjoyable feast of the Visitation of the BVM (hopefully Muller has not denied that Marian subject as well) this is an absolute shocker. It is hard to find a theologian who has touched upon so many radically left issues than Muller -- always from the liberal perspective. And now he's in charge of enforcing doctrine?

This position is not a clerical typist. The enforcement has discretion.

Today's news almost makes me long for the days of when Cardinal Levada, as the head of CDF, delivered the homily at the FSSP's chapel dedication and spent most of it bashing traditionalists. Muller is far, far, far to the left of even Levada.

Then again, I am hoping today is all a bad dream. Is 2 July the Roman version of April Fool's Day?

Bartholomew said...

Phil:

Faith is never divorced from reason. Please don't ask me to put my intellect on a shelf and ignore the plain evidence in order to make excuses for the sorry state of Church leadership.

If you can imagine St. John the Apostle taking Bishop Muller's comments with the same "let's wait and see" attitude, you have a much more vivid imagination than what I possess.

Even Our Lord recognized his enemies.

Francesco Colafemmina said...

Please look at this review of a previous study of Muller (1989) on "questioned" perennial virginity of BVM:

http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geistundleben.de%2Fcomponent%2Fdocman%2Fdoc_download%2F3209-63-1990-3-226-231-steinmetz-0.html&ei=777xT6f7Nsja4QThiLjbDQ&usg=AFQjCNH6ly2a_rHkaKuKMvfNuZUaE4fdkg

Any translation would be appreciated!

Charles said...

Not that we should be surprised, but if the following means anything to anybody: Father Zuhlsdorf has placed a postive spin upon the Pope's CDF appointment in question.

Francesco Colafemmina said...

Please consider also this italian review:

http://www.latheotokos.it/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=15

In particular this point:

"The gynecological aspects, that case by case were evaluated in a different way, don't determine the content of this dogma of faith, but regarding the content of the faith, the true maternity of Mary should be expressed in such a way that her fundamental relationship with the Son of God that reveals himself cannot be annulled, that is weakened.
Thus her parturition in the complexity of its personal spiritual and corporal aspects is indeed fully natural."

Long-Skirts said...

h/t to Catholic Church Conservative
today May 18, 2012 said:

"Cardinal Koch accuses SSPX of anti-semitism"

"Cardinal Lehmann - "for many means all"

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/

“Christoph Schoenborn, Austrian Cardinal, OKs Gay Man For Parish Council”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/austrian-cardinal-christoph-schoenborn-oks-gay-man-florian-stangl-parish-council_n_1397407.html

“Müller says that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth [...], but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Ludwig_M%C3%BCller

TURNED
TABLES
OF
THE
LORD

In the land
Of Deutsch and Vaters
Races the Rhine's
All mastering waters

No other creed
Or freemasonry
Hate like the Vaters
Of Germany

One, two, three...
Four have spoke
Schoenborn, Muler,
Lehmann and Koch

Schoenborn talks
Lehmann's for all
Muler's global
Koch anti-St. Paul

An Alter Christus
Is for sinner and virgin
But the Rhine's vineyard reds
Let deviance burgeon

They will like you to death
With all their red fibre
And drown your soul
So you can't reach the Tibre

So in the land
Of Deutschland's waters
It’s time to dam
Rhine's polluted Vaters!

Please Blessed Mother help Bishop Fellay!!

rodrigo said...

Well, at least we now know what a Prefect of the CDF looks like in a jogging suit.

Martyjo said...

It is interesting that a prelate who embraces Marxist theology should be appointed head of the CDF on the Feast of the Visitation of Our Lady. The SSPX has just concluded another Rosary Crusade, around 12 million rosaries offered, for the triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. And what happens? Out of nowhere comes a Marxist theologian to take over at the CDF. Can anyone else discern a supernatural struggle presently raging in high places?

GMMF said...

Thanks sam, etc. who answered my question (I am assuming integrity refers to bodily integrity). I had always understood her perpetual virignity as primarily related to her holiness, like the ark which no man could touch or the gate described by Ezekiel, which once the Lord passed through, no one else could.

Ceolfrid said...

David Werling,

No, I get it. I'm just trying to see the silver lining to this thunderhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

I'm thinkin' there ain't one. I think that the Holy Father has been neutralized (humanly speaking, of course) and perhaps his heart really wasnt in the fight to begin with. Afterall, this is the pope who is supposed to be so friendly towards Catholic tradition, yet has never said a public TLM since his pontificate began, at least as far as I know.

I really want to be wrong about this whole thing, and that the Pope really is trying to do the right thing. But, how many times do you have to get kicked in the teeth by the Holy Father himself, before you give up trying?

Thorin said...

Phil in NJ is correct. The Pope knows and trusts Muller. That is enough for me.

Fr. Knox said...

Martyjo,

Mueller does not embrace Marxist theology and you have no evidence that he does.

I have a doctorate and studied under all sorts of people with whom I am friends but have rejected their errors completely. almost everyone on this site has friends and families that they love deeply but do not agree with.

Is he guilty by association?

GMMF said...

David Werling,

To be fair, the Church has traditionally recognized virignity as a moral virtue even when bodily integrity is not intact--if it was lost against one's will or from some innocuous, non-sexual trauma.

Likewise, one could lose one's virginity by consenting to sexual pleasure that did not damage bodily integrity.

Therefore moral virignity and physical virginity are therefore two different things, but it appears the Church has judged both to be present in the Blessed Virgin after the transferrance of Our Lord from her womb.

The head of the CDF should probably know better, but I am sure there are many people of good will who focus strongly on the great virtue of moral virginity and haven't even thought about any relevance the anatomical aspect might have regarding the life of grace.

Scott said...

I can only see this as a slap in the face to all Catholics, not just traditionalists. Most of the charismatic renewal would even call this man a heretic.

Perhaps God desires/allows a serious test of patience. And so be His Will.

MJ said...

Looking at what Mueller said in the links given above, I don't see any reason to conclude they amount to a denial of Christian doctrine.

Take this, for example: "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."

And isn't this true? St. Ignatius says Shrist "is the Son of God, truly born of a virgin." Her virginity is of interest because of what the miracle (and Mueller doesn't deny it is a miracle in the quote above) says about the identity of Jesus Christ, and not for what it says about the Virgin Mary's physiology.

Luca said...

Virgo Prudentissima
Virgo Veneranda
Virgo Praedicanda
Virgo Potens
Virgo Clemens
Virgo Fidelis

will be our prayer repair, every day

New Catholic said...

Clayton, his statement on that specific matter was anything BUT nuanced. If anyone spoke that way about certain physical aspects of our own dear mothers, who certainly did not conceive or bear us spotlessly, we would still be justified in reacting violently and at the very least bringing such person to court for grievous offense. The statement on that matter regarding the Ever-Virgin Mother of God is at the very least careless and deeply offensive of the honor of the Most Holy Virgin, and not at all nuanced, but rather spoken as if he were some kind of theological Ob/Gyn practitioner.

I wish it were a matter of nuance...

As for your comparison, it just does not make sense. Precisely because there is no nuance involved, he is rather quite clear in his statements.

NC

Prof. Basto said...

Prof Basto: On what grounds do you accuse him of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary? I've read the passage everyone is quoting, and I don't see how it can't refer purely to the birth of our Lord.

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity includes several aspects, including the physical aspect denied by Archbishop Muller.

The doctrine holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a Virgin before the conception of Our Lord; that the conception of Our Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit was also not detrimental to that Virginity; that the Virgin Mary thereafter continued ever Virgin; that the childbirth resulting in the Nativity of Our Lord also DID NOT AFFECT, miraculously, the external elements that usually, in women, denote virginity (those elements, miraculously, remained intact "before and after"); and that the Blessed Virgin Mary further continued to live a virginal life for the rest of her life.

The physical integrity of the elements denoting Virginity in the birth of Jesus is an integral part of the dogma, and as such Muller's denial contradicts the dogma.

The Lateran Council of 649 was not an Ecumenical Council, but the Pope was present and approving of the definition under anathema. The definition is quoted by Sam above, and includes the words "and without loss of integrity brought Him forth" referring to the moment of childbirth.

Also reffering to the miracle that preserved the Virgin Mary intact upon childbirth, bl. Pope John Paul II in a General Audience of Jan 28, 1987 cited this text: "Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as 'ever virgin', and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that 'the mother of God...Mary...conceived [her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact".

And, in Lumen Gentium, even the Second Vatican Council teaches: "This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it". And then Lumen Gentium contains a footnote at this point, making reference precisely to the Lateran Council of 649: Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.

Bartholomew said...

Clayton

Both "transfinalization" and "transignification" were condemned by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei.

Your observations concerning the perpetual virginity of Our Lady are simply wrong; please see Father Most's essay on the subject as cited above.

Anchorite said...

Latin Masses in the Diocese of regensburg according to http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=BayerN
It seems to me Bp. Mueller has more TLM than many of our big US archdioceses.

84082 - Grafentraubach - Pfarrkirche St. Pankratius
freitags um 19.00 Uhr
Information: Pfarramt Tel.: +49 87 72 / 91 53 97
Diözese Regensburg

84175 - GERZEN - Pfarrkirche St. Georg Kirchstr. 4
Montag: 7.30 Uhr
Informationen: Pfarramt Gerzen Tel. +49 87 44 / 2 30
Diözese Regensburg

84069 - SCHIERLING - Priesterseminar Herz-Jesu, Zaitzkofen
werktags : 7.15 Uhr u. 17.15 Uhr
In den Seminarferien: Sonntag: 9.00 Uhr werktags : 7.15 Uhr
Sonntag: 8.00 Uhr u. 10.00 Uhr
Tel.: +49 94 51 / 12 25 u. 36 59
FSSPX

84183 - NIEDERVIEHBACH - St. Anna Kapelle Kirchenweg 6
Jeden Montag um 8.00 Uhr Stille hl. Messe
Diözese Regensburg

92637 - WEIDEN IN DER OBERPFALZ - St Sebastian Sebastianstraße 24
an einem Sonntag im Monat
jeden Herz-Jesu-Freitag um 19.00 Uhr Eucharistische Anbetung mit sakramentalem Segen
Diözese Regensburg

93047 - REGENSBURG - Pfarrkirche St. Rupert (bei St. Emmeram), Stadtzentrum;
Von Ostern bis Allerheiligen: Sonntag 17.00 Uhr außer 1. Sonntag 7.30 Uhr
Diözese Regensburg

93047 - REGENSBURG - Basilika St. Emmeram
Von Allerseelen bis zur Karwoche : Sonntag 17 Uhr ausser 1. Sonntag 7.30
Diözese Regensburg

93047 - REGENSBURG - Maria Schnee
Jeden Mittwoch um 17 Uhr
Diözese Regensburg

93093 - DONAUSTAUF - Pfarrkirche St. Michael
Jeden Samstag um 8.30 Uhr Hl. Messe, vorher Rosenkranz
Vom 28. Juni bis 16. August 2008 entfällt die hl. Messe.
Diözese Regensburg

Carl said...

What I said about Di Noia seems to go double for Muller:

Let's not forget that "Cardinal Ratzinger" entered the conversation as a nubbie outsider. Traditionalists were very (understandably) skeptical of what a onetime liberal Conciliar peritus could possibly bring to the table. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger could only praise his involvement in the 1980s discussions. He was a careful listener, an intelligent and pertinent discussion partner, and the agreement fell through because of no fault of his own. The current discussions are much the result of his own initiative. He showed remarkable intelligence and sensitivity to recognize and concede the Society's "conditions" not as attmepts to blackmail the Holy See, but genuine acts of good faith, reparation of trust, magnanimous concessions for the good of the entire Church. If you read "the Rhine flows into the Tiber" back in 1966 or 1967, you would never have guessed "Fr. Ratzinger" would prove as much a friend of tradition as he has.

Can we afford a few prayers for Archbishop Muller?

Bartholomew said...

Anchorite,

That tells me nothing. Cardinal Timothy Dolan has more traditional Masses in new York than most other diocese; he and his Chancery despise it.

The devil quotes Scripture; that tells me...........what?

Mike Ortiz said...

I just ordered about the only work by Mueller in ENGLISH I could find on Amazon, on the priesthood.

Here's a blurb on Amazon:

"Muller offers us an irrefutable case, based on theological sources, for the Church's teaching and practice since the time of the Apostles of conferring the sacrament of Holy Orders on baptized males only."

--Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., Editor, Homiletic & Pastoral Review

I think we need to read more by this man, and not rush to judgment.

Barbara said...

Phil L said:"I must say that it never ceases to amaze me how enormously pessimistic the combox here can be."

Well Phil, sometimes there is quite a bit of pessimism in the comboxes - but after an appointment like this - what on earth do you expect? This is terrible news and I agree with everyone who is upset and worried - I am very VERY shocked - mostly with the Holy Father whom I have always defended here. I do not understand our Pope anymore.

I was also very unhappy with the Archbishop Di Noia interview and spent some time in composing what I though to be a well-thought-out comment - only to scrap it - thinking it presumptious of me to contradict an Archbishop of the Catholic Church. I wish I hadn't. I am sick and tired of the double-talk and lack of clarity from our Church leaders! And now this - what a nightmare of a man to head the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith! How dare he affront Our Holy Mother like that? It is utterly scandalous!

Mr. Kenneth J. Wolfe said: "Then again, I am hoping today is all a bad dream." I feel the same way.

O Mary conceived without sin , pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Dearest Mother, "our tainted nature's solitary boast" intercede for us now and at the hour of our death!

Barbara

Bartholomew said...

Mr. Ortiz:

Bishop Muller also believes in the office of St. Peter. What does that have to do with what we have been addressing here?

I can assure you that Father Baker would be just as appalled at Bishop Muller's views on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady and the Eucharist as most of the rest of us on this board.

R. John said...

Let us "pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome". (Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerick)

Divine Mercy's beggar said...

Divine Providence is placing this soul before us granting him the highest Mercy - the focused, sacrificial prayers of concerned Catholics.

Let us respond accordingly and PRAY FOR MERCY FOR HIS SOUL - NOW!

The Apocalypse is a dramatic time. This appointment has served to usher us a step closer toward the intervention that the Holy Trinity's Providence will grant WHEN WE have suffiently PRAYED.

May the Mother of Incarnate Wisdom calm her children who are beset by the ravaging wind and waves of the "storm" by her gentle "awakening" of her Son to our needs.

He is OMNISCIENT but desires that we kneel before Our Mother's Throne begging for her to intercede for Mercy. Let us respond accordingly.

Jason C. said...

it is not the place of laymen to call bishops heretics in public.

Well, he's not the only one. (I hope they're both wrong!) "It is not acceptable that the leader of the congregation holds a heresy," said Auxiliary [sic?] Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta.

Beefy Levinson said...

Charity demands that we assume Muller's basic orthodoxy, i.e. not publicly tar him as a heretic. Otherwise he strikes me as the urPost-conciliar prelate: his statements are so sloppy and ambiguous as to create serious doubt in the mind of any fair minded listener.

This is pure speculation on my part so take it with a boulder of salt. I believe the Holy Father really did and does want reconciliation with the SSPX. But he saw the writing on the wall: bringing them in would probably drive most of Europe into formal schism.

The Holy Father has immediate and supreme authority over the Church from Rome to Tokyo to the Pampas... at least on paper. In practice, his authority seldom extends beyond whatever room he happens to be in.

Jason C. said...

Judging by the comments in that NcR article, Muller is an excellent choice! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

B. said...

I'm from Germany, so perhaps I can add something to this discussion. IMO there are a lot of misconceptions about Bishop Müller in this thread.

Some people think that Bishop Müller is a died-in-the-wool liberal and the candidate of the German Bishop's conference. That is certainly not the case. Bishop Müller was an outsider in the conference. He was the only bishop in Germany to push through a reform of the authority of lay parish councils in order to bring it in conformity with the CIC. He was in open conflict with the German Bishop's conference on other topics as well. He publicly denounced the Central Committe of German Catholics (a powerful lay organization) and defunded them. He denounced "We are Church" as well as groups clamoring for the female deaconate.

On the other hand, there are those, who think his liberation theology tendencies are "guilt by association", or that there is no proof about his problematic views. Unfortunately this is also not the case.
Bishop Müller has written that liberation theology is "unreliquishable, both in its regional context and in the worldwide theological dialogue". He has written one of the handbooks of Liberation Theology together with Fr. Gutierrez: "On the Side of the Poor: Liberation Theology".
Regarding his problematic views, I think the remarks on the Blessed Virgin Mary are the least problematic.
I cannot comment on his views on the Eucharist as they appeared in his book "Die Messe – Quelle christlichen Lebens". They surely sound problematic to say the least, but I have not read the original and it is possible that the SSPX has taken them out of context.

His views on Protestantism are a matter of public record. Here is the laudatio that he held for protestant bishop Friedrich, when Friedrich received the "Ecumenical Award of the Catholic Academy of Bavaria"
We as catholic and protestant Christians are already united in what we call the visible Church. There are - to be precise - not several Churches existing side by side, there are only ruptures and divisions inside the one People of God and the one House of God.
[...] The Catholic Magisterium does not in any way say that the "Churches and ecclesial Communities" (UR 19) are not Churches, this in regards to Church as a Communio with God in grace. Because also those Christians, which are not in full Unity with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, sacraments and apostolic-episcopal constitution are justified by faith and baptism and fully integrated into the Church of God as the Body of Christ.



So Bishop Müller is not your typical liberal, but not a conservative by any means as well. What is for sure (and said by all sides) is that he is a very authoritarian character, who goes after everyone who disagrees with him. He fights We are Church as well as the SSPX ("The only dialogue with the SSPX we need is to give them Catechism lessons", "They should retire their bishops, close down their seminaries and disband"). He is also completely unable to admit any error on his side.
In 2004 he appointed a pedophile priest, who had been convicted for sexual abuse of a boy in 1999, as parish priest. When the priest promptly abused another boy for years, Müller denied any wrongdoing and blamed it on the courts, because they had given probation.
This is the man who is now responsible for handling sexual abuse cases.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

Mike Ortiz wrote: "I think we need to read more by this man, and not rush to judgment."

Okay, you find some conservative Catholic positions/actions/thoughts from Gerhard Ludwig Müller and most everyone here will applaud them.

In the meantime, simple searches on the archbishop seem to only be turning up extremely leftist positions. We can't make up facts. Give us some good stuff from him to read.

New Catholic said...

B. : "but I have not read the original and it is possible that the SSPX has taken them out of context."

We do not have to blame the SSPX for that: these famous quotes are matter of record in German and Italian sources, and, in English, in this very blog. Not at all related to the SSPX.

B. said...

Anchorite: The Masses that exist in the diocese of Regensburg (most of them not on sundays) exist in spite of Bishop Müller, not because of him.
here is what he thinks of us (about the Good Friday Prayer):
I think it has been proven that it is not about giving concessions to such groups, or giving them a right of residence in the Church. Instead it is about dissuading them from their wrong opinions and by doing so having them rejoin the Church. Of course, the Catholic Church as it is in 2010, not as it was in 1962, before the reform of the liturgy.

Mike Ortiz said...

Priesthood and Diaconate: The Recipient of the Sacrament of Holy Orders from the Perspective of Creation Theology and Christology [Paperback]

St. Michael the Archangel's supplicant said...

PRAYER, PENANCE and PERSEVERANCE will evoke the Providencial moment when the Holy Father and H.E. Bishop Fellay convene. There is NO CHURCH without the Highest Papal Authority. There is NO ERROR in the True Teachings of the Catholic Church despite human failings/frailties of application.

May ALL who have "ears to hear. . .hear" and awaken to the following reality. H.E. Bishop Fellay is being guided by the Holy Spirit through Divine Providence to the Vicar of Christ. There, in the time that Our Father Wills, he will be the humble instrument to receive the official recognition of the SSPX as wholely amongst the Catholic Church. From that point, governed by Divine Providence through obedience beholden to the Sovereign Pontiff, the Commandments of God and the Commandments of the Church, this Apostolic Bishop and ALL faithful Catholic Children that he shepherds will assist the Holy Father in his Apostolic mission to defend the Church against the barrage of Beelzebub. Visibly joining the other orders and individuals who are tenaciously adherent to the Commandments of God, the Commandments of the Church and the Authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, the strengthening of the Church Militant will enable the Holy Father to lead the Church AWAY FROM THE ERRORS that have pervaded her ranks. The errors will be burnt up in the Apocalyptic smoke while souls weep in confusion but the Church will continue as guaranteed by Christ with the Holy Father at the helm surrounded by the Faithful singing: "Alleluia! for the Lord, our God Almighty, now reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice, and give glory to Him"

We are prepared for these monumental Apocalyptic moments by prayer, penance and precise performance of our duty of state that our souls. Eternal Wisdom perfectly times Divine Providence to bring these moments to fruition providing the faithful with increased Divine "pressure" to prepare. "Alleluia! salvation and glory and power belong to our God. For true and just are His judgments."

Where does Bishop Muller enter into the Providential scene? His soul was created by the Holy Trinity for Their Honor and Glory. With his sanctification dependent on Divine Grace, he is prominently placed before us urgently in need of our prayers by Divine Providence's conditional demand. Let us pray for Bishop Muller who will be held accountable before the same Divine Judge as we all shall prostrate ourselves before.

May St. Michael the Archangel surround the Sovereign Pontiff and H.E. Bishop Fellay, escorting them with St. Joseph, "Terror of Demons" and the Queen of the Angels to her Son's Apocalyptic Throne that they may behold all things from His Omniscient perspective.

Waterloo said...

Have faith! It is not only the Feast of the Visitation, it is the "Year of Faith". My feeling is that, like Hitler, having been thwarted on the right he is now going to turn and attack Russia (i.e. try to eat the Protestants (esp. the Lutherans)).

New Catholic said...

B. Provide the whole quotes and translate them and there will be a point in this, otherwise it is just worthless and endless discussion. "This needs context, I don't trust it without context": well, then, the quotes themselves are accurate, the actual publications are... public. So if YOU assert they are not trustworthy or that the context modifies their plain text, then please do provide the wider context that would exonerate the unclear passages. Otherwise, this becomes a side issue that will never end.

LeonG said...

While I would like to see a really traditional Roman Catholic bishop appointed one has to ask oneself, thus, who is there really to do the job required?

John McFarland said...

May I offer a few thoughts:

1. I don't understand the scandal over Bishop Mueller. Theologically, there isn't much difference between him and the Pope. The Pope's views of such things as the incarnation and the resurrection are cut from the same piece of cloth. In his new job, you probably won't hear much of this stuff, as when Professor Ratzinger became Bishop and then Cardinal Ratzinger -- except perhaps in his work as a "private" theologian, as with the Holy Father's two-volume Jesus book.

2. Liberation theology is as dead as Caesar. Nowadays Brazil, the traditional bastion of LT, has become yet another U.S. ideological and economic puppet, notwitstanding being ruled by Lula, who not long ago was viewed as a mad-dog leftist by friend and foe. Any throb that +Mueller has for LT is to be chalked up to eccentricity and/or nostalgia.

3. Regularization was always a long shot. Read or reread +Fellay's statements on and since February 2. He obviously never ruled out that the possibility of a no-strings regularization was too good to be true, and so it was. One can be disappointed that the Holy Father was not prepared to compromise V2., but one can hardly be surprised. 85-year-old men rarely turn their backs on the convictions of a lifetime.

4. Bishop Williamson has not triumphed. His status in the SSPX is hanging by a thread, and lately he seems determined to cut it. Assuming that regularization is indeed dead, and given the apparent unwillingness of the German authorities to continue prosecuting him, "politically" this week's chapter would be an excellent time to prepare the ground for +W to be put on official notice that he has to start obeying orders or face dismissal.

TenkaiStar108 said...

In all this anger at his appointment, do not forget to throw some prayers for AND against Muller. Pray FOR him that he will become orthodox enough to be fit for his office, and AGAINST him that until that happens, whatever moves he may make that are influenced by any unorthodox tendencies will be foiled.

Long-Skirts said...

Here is something very recent about Bishop Muller...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/09/21/uk-germany-priest-idUKL2185061620070921


God have mercy

Steve Mosquera said...

Now that he is in this new position will this make Archbishop Muller papabile???
I'm not asking out of hope....

Inquisitor said...

Another horrifying thought is that not only does this new appointee seem to embrace heterodox views, but given the high profile of his new appointment, he will almost certainly receive a red hat.

The bishop is still said to take courses every year from his mentor, a liberation theologian Gustavo Guttierez. Will this poison begin to seep back into the the Church? Will Marxist influence flow down from the CDF? May it not be so.

Our Lady Help of Christians, pray for us.

JP the Deuce said...

Bp. Müller has stated that the SSPX seminary in Germany should be closed and that the four SSPX bishops resign in any reconciliation scenario.

JFM said...

"I must say that it never ceases to amaze me how enormously pessimistic the combox here can be.... it matters little if he has some private oddities in h is beliefs"

AND it never ceases to amaze others how impossible it seems top find clerics who will offer clear straight talk in support of Tradition and keep their oddities to themselves. Granted Muller seems to very much toe the line in terms of male priesthood, but all this other stuff... Good grief. Sounds a bit like Rahner. At least Kung is reportedly horrified, though, so there may be more good here than first appears.

New Catholic said...

Deuce, he said that in 2009 at the height of the Swedish TV interview crisis, so it is not how matters currently stand.

GQ Rep said...

"The Holy Father has immediate and supreme authority over the Church from Rome to Tokyo to the Pampas... at least on paper. In practice, his authority seldom extends beyond whatever room he happens to be in."

LOL!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thank you, Buddy, you made my day!!! Especially with Benedict XVI, how true! :)

I'm off on an ovrseas trip tomorrow for a photo shoot and am rushing around like a madman with last minute packing, schedule changes etc. Anybody ever been to Sri Lanka?

But I like to check in on this blog 3-4x per day. Won't be able to for three weeks.

But I thank you for giving me a laugh on a bad day!
Too bad what you say is true....but that's the weak kind of guy our Pope is! Paul VI No.2!
(And I wans't even alive under PaulVI but I heard about him...UGH!)

P.K.T.P. said...

Someone here mentioned that Bishop Müller had been kind to tradition in his Diocese of Ratisbon. No, he allowed those Latin Masses only to keep the S.S.P.X out. His Diocese and area has a very strong S.S.P.X presence, owing to a strong traditionalist minority in that very liberal part of southern Germany. Before S.P., these chapels were ignored. But after S.P., Müller saw them as a threat, so he tried to put them out of business through competition.

I note that S.P. was very successful in Germany from 2007 to 2008. Before S.P., only one-third of the German dioceses had every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses. By 2009, all but Essen, Erfurt, Magdeburg and Görlitz had them. In the case of the latter three, they are large dioceses that oare overwhelmingly Lutheran, and the Catholic population is dispersed (nort-east Germany is Lutheran). In the case of Essen, the F.S.S.P. has an aposolate but its Masses are celebrated on Sundays just outside the diocesan boundaries, in a neighbouring see.

No, he has not been kind to tradition and has no interest in it. His aim has been to drive the S.S.P.X right out of Germany, whether by ecclesiastical action or through civil law, by having them condemned as right wing by the Government.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.P. Deuce:

The German bishops, unlike those in other countries, have actually tried to have the civil authorities expel the S.S.P.X from Germany. The idea is to have them be found guilty of 'anti-semitism', thereby violating German law. I don't think that they will stop trying. But this is one reason +Fellay was so angry with +Williamson in 2009. Williamson's remarks on Swedish t.v. pose a danger to the S.S.P.X in Germany.

P.K.T.P.

JackGrimes said...

Here is an illuminating comment left on the website of the National catholic Reporter:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/german-friend-liberation-theologian-named-vatican-doctrinal-czar

Submitted by Bernie Aurin (not verified) on Jul. 02, 2012.


I am writing from Germany and I am not happy about this appointment. Bishop Müller is very conservative and out of touch with the faithful. He is against the ordination of woman. His views often times are decidedly pre-Vatican II. He sees all bishops and priests as being surrogates for Christ (only them, not the lay people). In ecumenical matters has not sought common ground, but polarized instead.

His record as bishop of Regensburg is one of intolerance and authoritarianism. On his web site he states: "We should not allow any room for anti-Roman blabber and these stupidities ... Any activities directed against the truth of the Faith and the unity of the Church will not be tolerated" (http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/download/borMedia1612905.PDF)

The German grass roots organization "We Are Church" points out in its press release today, that he has created a climate of servility and fear, reviling and disciplining those holding divergent opinions and that his handling of sexual misconduct in his diocese has been fatally misguided. (http://www.wir-sind-kirche.de/index.php?id=128&id_entry=4116)

P.K.T.P. said...

Jack Grimes:

We be Church will want to depict Müller as a conservative because they want nothing less than full-blown Marxism NOW. So anything Benedict XVI does will be opposed by them. Tell us something we didn't already know.

P.K.T.P.

Carl said...

PKTP writes, "Let us consider that this appointment is not the only blow to reconciliation here. There is also the rebuffing of Bishop Fellay's April statement; and Archbishop Di Noia's position on the status of councils, and his intention to reform the 1962 Missal."


This is very well said. I perceive a very mixed-message in Archbishop Di Noia's statements about whether one can say there are errors in the documents of Vatican II. On the one hand he admits that Gaudium et Spes was overly optimistic, a cryptic way of saying it erred in its view of the world and expectations for the future. He admits that, in Catholic tradition, "error" can have multiple meanings. Yet he seems to insist that we cannot in any respect say that the Council erred without in some sense ceasing to be Catholic. It seems like he might be staking too much on semantics.


That said, the distinction between an accusation of a prudential error and a doctrinal error is very important. To accuse the Magisterium of the former is a very different manner than to accuse it of the latter. And not all in the Society respect this distinction, even though I'd like to think the Society itself does respect it.

I am also troubled by Di Noia's lack of clarity about the authority of the Council. He seems to recognize and concede that there are no Canon 749 doctrines (i.e. dogmas in the strict sense) in the Council. But he seems to think there are, variously, Canon 750.1 doctrines (i.e. dogmas in a looser sense), Canon 750.2 doctrines (i.e. quasi-dogmas), Canon 752 doctrines (i.e. not dogmas), and then obsolete statements with no real authority. Yet he gives no indications of what is what. Does he think statement X on ecumenism is "overly-optimistic" and able to be disregarded, or does he think it is a dogma in a loose sense?


My own impression was that the disputed aspects of the Council fell under Canon 752. I would have placed some of the sounder Dei Verbum statements, Lumen Gentium 25, the Chapter on Mary into Canon 750 categories (which I don't think any traditionalist would dispute). But I wouldn't have dreamed of putting statements on religious liberty, ecumenism or even collegiality into such categories. LG 22 and collegiality (understood in the sense clarified by the Nota Previa) might fall into Canon 750 categories, but I don't think the Society has an issue with collegiality in that sense.

Archbishop Di Noia has either a very different understanding of the Council than I do or he is ignorant of the Society's problems with the Council. Maybe both. I don't feel betrayed by the Holy Father, but I at a loss to understand his appointments. In light of recent leaks, I suspect (and hope) these men were chosen for their loyalty to the Holy Father, rather than because he shares all their stated positions.

Texana said...

Tears are fallin and I'm feelin down--Many thanks to Longskirts and NC for all your contributions! As a good holy priest has lamented, the Vatican may not wake up until Russian tanks are in St Peter's Square! We must trust in Jesus and in our Blessed Mother through all that is surely to come. Please pray that we keep the Faith!

Marty Jude said...

Whilst I agree with most comments on here, with grave concern, at this appointment by the Holy Father...perhaps there may just be a fundamental matter at stake here for Pope Benedict...with all the recent problems, with 'Vatileaks' etc., perhaps, just perhaps, His Holiness needs someone he can trust in the Vatican? With all those Italians and their somewhat dodgy behaviour/scruples/desires, Papa may need a friend.

Perhaps this is nonsense, but it just occured to me. Perhaps he needs that support, even if he knows things aren't totally well with Muller?

Maybe it's a political move [and he's proved good at that so far in his Pontificate] - perhaps to avoid schism in Europe [Germany] and try to moderate things?

Just thoughts - sorry if I'm waffling with total nonsense...!!!

Oremus ad Deum.

OutsideObserver said...

Steve Mosquera:

No, a second German pope in a row is highly unlikely.

Texana:

Russian tanks? Russia is not Catholic but neither is it still the Soviet Union. The greater danger to the Vatican is from the European Union itself and its secularist elite.

Timothy Mulligan said...

I believe in the Body and Blood of Christ, and in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy.
Amen.

St. John Bosco, pray for us.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bernie B. said...

Jack Grimes, When did you come back from the dead? Much has transpired in the past twenty years, but basically it's still the same old stuff!

New Catholic said...

Mandrake, you must have been reading a different blog. In what world is merely mentioning someone's words and acquaintances "condemnation"? We made quite clear from the beginning that it is unacceptable for laymen to publicly condemn a bishop - regardless of his presence in the curia or not.

And that is why your comment will remain in limbo - another place that does not exist.

NC

xavier rynne said...

I wish God would miraculously put Pacelli back in charge. I can't take this anymore.

It seems like 500 years ago when he was in charge, instead of 60.

Joe Potillor said...

It seems to me all the right people are pissed off about this appointment, Kung, NCR, so I think the CDF will be fine.

Woody said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3t35bSBBRQ&feature=fvwrel

Nothing for it now but to pray to the power of Love (skip the ad after 5 secs).

grogger said...

Long live our Pope!
Love live the Gospel of Peace which brings delight to the heart.
"Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God."

jon said...

I just can't help associating the circus in Rome with the beautiful but sad Irish song-The Last Rose of Summer. Has the Catholic CHurch hit bottom yet? :'(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nc55QYn970&feature=related

Long-Skirts said...

New Catholic said...

"Mandrake, you must have been reading a different blog. In what world is merely mentioning someone's words and acquaintances "condemnation"?"

Absolutely, New Catholic! Lord I have had enough...I'm gonna' go say our Novena to the Holy Ghost for the SSPX Chapter meeting with my family and then I'm gonna' go watch The Bachelorette!

Prof. Basto said...

I have a confession to make.

Twice today I considered the possibility of giving up.

I feel beaten. Defeated. Exausted. Dejected.

In your kindness, please pray for me!

Erik said...

I think it's just a political chess game myself. Let's see who the Holy Father replaces Muller with with back in his German diocese. There is probably more going on here than meets the eye...

Gratias said...

Benedict XVI has appointed Abp. Mueller and he is the Prefect the Church will have to work with for the rest of this pontificate. Our Pope is a very wise man and the very best person we could have hoped for for the restoration of tradition. We must place our hope that his was a choice inspired by the Holy Spirit. We cannot change this appointment now by complaining in the internet (as I did in a posting above). The Pope needs people of his confidence near him, just look at the recent Vatican leaked documents.

Traditional Catholics seek the restoration of the Church as an institution for the ages. We have been given Summorum Pontificum and are now building a small remnant that will ensure the Faith can be preserved for future generations.

As for the SSPX, Benedict XVI has already offered them the very best chance to join. He devoted a large part of his pontificate to bringing the SSPX back on board. If desired, they can just sign the Preamble. Abp. Di Noia would be very able to set up a satisfactory Prelature should they accept that VC2 happened. It will be a sad lost opportunity if they do not, but time is running out with respect to the start of the Year of Faith in October.

Evidently the Holy Father wants to celebrate VC2 positively, not with the different view that we share here in Rorate. Remember that we Latin Mass faithful are a tiny fraction of present-day Catholics. However, thanks to the Holy Father we are gradually becoming an accepted part of the Church. The Church is a big tent and the Pope must hold all of us, including Anglicans, in it.

Hopefully the soon to be Cardinal Mueller will prove a faithful servant of the Church and our Holy Father will enjoy his efforts for many years to come. On our part, we will have to redouble our individual efforts rebuilding the Traditional Latin Mass.

Matt said...

Francis said "Things just keep getting worse and worse in the Church. By Benedict appointing Muller as the new head of the CDF, Pope Benedict XVI confirms he is still a modernist doctrinally and will until his death be an apologist for the Second Vatican Council and its ambiguities, modernism and relativism which he helped to create as a peritus ( not to mention the resulting detrius). I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is the [death knell] for any reconciliation between modernist Rome and the FSSPX for the near future. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us."

You're right, Francis. I think it would be better for everyone to acccept the fact Rome and the Church in Her present state is what it is, liberal/modernist/relativist. Those in power do not think and appreciate the Church from whence She came but that She has devolved into this modernist free-for-all (for themselves and not for the sake of God or the Faithful).

Never say never when it comes to God, but I, too, no longer have the enthusiasm for the Reunion I did a couple of weeks ago, not that I don't want it to occur, but with all of this Curial upset and these bizarre appointments of the Holy Father, what else can one think of.

I'm beginning to hear from different quarters all of this Preamble routine was just a trick to lure the SSPX back into the Church and then disband them, along with a possible restriction or banning of the Tridentine Mass. How this squares with Summorum Pontificum (a moot point) has yet to be explained, but as it is being rumored, it's a rat-trap moment for the SSPX. We need to pray for them most ardently this isn't true; and if it is, that they steer clear of the trap.

We also need to stop being the Neville Chamberlains of the Faith and realize the present Magisterium (in whatever form one may wish to call it) is not going to be appeased by appeals of rational level-headedness for Sacred Tradition. Obviously level-headedness has not worked. It seemed like it up until two weeks ago but we ended up with the same thing, a nice hot bowl of jack!

Mar said...

One of the most insightful accounts that I have read in recent times about Our Lady's
virginity and its defense is by Fr. Geiger. No, he is not a traditionalist, quite the
opposite from what I can tell. I was able to find only one article of his relating to the matter, although if memory serves me right there is another much more concise one.

So in the article on the following website you will find other things included as well.

http://dawneden.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/virgo-redacta-christopher-west-and.html

The most significant part of this article is as follows.

"Our Lady is the Ark of the Covenant. A bit of advice of all Uzzah’s of the world: Don’t touch the Ark (cf. 1 Chronicles 13:10). Leave it behind the veil. God is not likely to strike anyone dead, but some things are too holy to be violated by our paltry eyes and hands. (And no that does not mean I think our eyes and hands are evil, just not worthy to unveil the Blessed Mother.)"

Any clinical details about Our Lady's physiology should not be up
for general discussion, especially not a public discussion. Yes, leave it behind the veil out of deep reverence for that which is most holy and out of respect for the the profound mystery of the Incarnation.

Benedict Carter said...

One point nobody has made is that now, fifty years after the theological and liturgical Revolution really got underway, there won't be a single Bishop who does NOT share the Modernist's obsession with changing the meaning of dogma and doctrine, emptying each of their clear meaning and substituting an innovation in its place.

All of them have come through nu-Church's seminaries and hierarchical ranks. There is, humanly-speaking, NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of a man being appointed head of the CDF nor of any other Congregation who does NOT share the Modernists' theology (or lack of it).

This man's red line seems to be a clerical and lay discipline very much within Vatican II limits: it's fine to trash doctrine, question and re-formulate it; but don't push on priestesses or the Pope's prerogatives.

I like Rorate Caeli blog very much indeed, and have learned a lot here (including from this thread) but I have to say that most contributors are filled, it seems to me, with a wholly-false optimism. Anyone who has read a good number of this Pope's books can see the neo-protestant and Modernistic threads that run through all his work. Quite why so many people thought he would "restore all things in Christ", starting with the Church, is beyond me.

The appointments of Mueller and Roche, the hopeless and even heretical Bishops he has appointed, the scandalous treatment of the SSPX during the latter stages of recent discussions, show that:

a) the pool of orthodoxy is so low now that he has to accept the fact that appointments have to be made from those whose heterodoxy is less than others;

b) he has reached the point of giving up worrying about doctrine and instead aiming whatever disciplining is possible (given nu-Church's conciliarism and commitment to non-condemnation) to those Bishops whose immorality and/or administrative-financial incompetence can't be ignored;

c) the warfare in the Curia is so great that he will appoint anyone at all who is personally loyal not to the Faith per se but to himself personally.

This Pope will go down as another Paul VI: Paul VII, as Mundabor on his blog suggests.

I for one no longer trust Benedict XVI at all.

LeonG said...

The main reason why some are disappointed or even angry at the pope over this issue is because they do not understand him and how he thinks. As I said before, once we read his works, look at his public actions and know his career path, then it relatively easy to follow his logics in use.

Catholic Belgian said...

I think you should look at it in this way.

The Holy Father is a great chess player. This is the final blow to the modernist church.

Do the modernist bisshops really think that they can win new seminarians, if they question the basic Thruths of the Catholic Faith?

If the potential seminarians will realize that even the top of the modernist church are 'protestants', then all of the believíng, Catholic youth, will 'desert' to Pius X!

Good move by the Pope! This is the final blow to the modernist church and its bishops!

Somebody like Mueller has lost all authority in advance!

O Resistente said...

Hermann,

By "Volga", Rodrigo probably meant the liasson between D. Muller and the communist Liberation Theology.

I would have said the Orenoco and the Rhine are flowing into the Tiber.

Martyjo said...

Prof. Basto,

Don't get too downhearted. Many of us are disappointed, even at the point of dejection with the state of the Church and the failure of the Pope to see the true cause of it (Vatican II). Every time Sacred Tradition appears to be making inroads some high ranking liberal comes along and halts the progress.

But the thing is, no matter how bad it looks and no matter how dark the days become for Tradition, God is in charge of all. When the time comes, and I suspect it will be very soon now, Almighty God will work the great miracle of restoration through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Vatican II's 2nd Pentecost was a mirage, a con based on the very sickness condemned by St. Pius X. We now see the poison so widespread through the veins of the Church that it's beyond human hope. That's why we now need the Divine physician to intervene, which I sincerely think will happen sooner rather than later.

Hope and trust in God, then, for the Gates of Hell will not prevail. All we can do in the meantime is pray for the Pope, as did the early Christians when the first Peter was imprisoned by Herod. The chains of Modernism that bind our Popes today are way more threatening to the Church than the shackles that held St. Peter. Divine help will come in due time if only we keep the faith and keep up the fight against liberalism on all fronts.

Valerie said...

What business did Muller have discussing something so physically personal and holy as the virginity of the Blessed Mother in the first place?!? And to do so in such a way as is described by the commenters here is UNACCEPTABLE! What do you think Saint Joseph would do to him had he heard him speak that way? I know what he'd do. That staff he carries would be put to immediate good use. That is why he carried that weapon of his day. He wasn't a shepherd, you know.

He had absolutely NO BUSINESS even thinking of Our Lady in so personal a way. It wasn't as though he was a pope praying and meditating on the subject because he was about to proclaim the Dogma. Shame on Muller!!!! No excuse for his even thinking about this topic in such a way! SHAME!

P.K.T.P. said...

Gratias:

You cannot be serious. Bishop Fellay's April version of the Preamble has been rejected by the outgoing Levada and company, and by the Pope himself. Fellay has already made it public that he plans to explain to his Chapter why he cannot accept the Pope's version. In addition, +Fellay openly admitted that he was about to accept a personal prelature which would have required episcopal approval for all new Society apostolates.

There is nothing there. Now ++Di Noia affirms that the Holy Ghost will not allow doctrinal error in conciliar teaching, a view not supported by tradition at all.

I see no hope for any agreement. There does remain hope for the Pope to make a unilateral declaration that they are Catholic and then bind them to more talks. But to whom would they talk? To the new liberation communologist in the C.D.F.? They could agree to disagree with him about ... everything, right down to how long it takes to boil an egg.

The new men of the New Theology are subjectivists: each thinks that he can mould his own truth and then move in to it and live there. Traditionalists believe that what is true for one man is true for all. I see no common ground. Again, we can only hope that H.H. will declare that they are Catholic, and that this has certain limited canonical effects. He might do this simply because, should he not do so, this entire affair will be a failed papal project.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Joe Potillor:

I submit that you don't realise how liberals work. If a liberal gets what he was hoping for, he pretends to have a temper fit: he pounds his fists on the ground and bawls that it's no fair; he pulls out his hair and lets out an ear-piercing screech. He screams that this is all unjust.

The reason for this reaction is because the liberal always wants more. Once they legalise the decapitation and dismemberment of unborn babies, he screams that inverts should be allowed to marry. Once the inverts are allowed to marry, he screeches that its no fair that he cannot euthanise granny. Then he bellows that only universal communism can bring justice.

But when a liberal gets defeated, he pretends that nothing happened at all. To admit defeat would be dangerous because, to a liberal, perception is everything. Sir Humphrey got it right: Truth is irrelevant, only appearances count. It all makes sense for subjectivists, for they believe that we really create our own truth, so there is no truth independent of appearances.

No matter how bad Müller is, therefore, miscreants such as Küng will bitch that he's no liberal but actually a conservative. Küng wouldn't be satisfied if an abortionist were put in charge of a Catholic hospital. It wouldn't be enough.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Prof. Basto:

I felt exactly the same way. I have rarely felt this low. But remember that they engineered it so that we would feel this way. Our faith is now imperilled and our charity seems barren, but we still have hope. Let's just hope that the other shoe will drop. What else can we do?

P.K.T.P.

PKTP Fan said...

Can't we make PKTP Pope? That would solve our problems. Pius IX would have nothing on Peter!!

Mary Jane said...

"Can't we make PKTP Pope? That would solve our problems."

Oh puh-lease.

I'm really disheartened by a lot of the comments here.

The Holy Father isn't stupid. The Holy Father isn't trying to "trap" the SSPX.

I'm not yet sure what to make of the appointment, but I think a (very) few commenting here had it right - pray, pray, pray.

New Catholic said...

Mary Jane, I am pretty sure that comment was a joke...

Mary Jane said...

New Catholic - the comment about making PKTP the pope? I hope it was! That's what I thought at first, but with an alias of "PKTP Fan", I wasn't sure.

Gratias said...

P.K.T.P., I am serious.

The SSPX will not be able to redefine VC2. They could join by signing a general Preamble of principles acknowledging that VC2 did happen and that differences of interpretations might exist. They cannot get something for nothing. First submit to Rome and then join the big tent that is the Church. More will be achieved from the inside.

The FSSP can be built up and probably given bishops and a Prelature if the SSPX decides to stay on the outside.

Traditionalists will now have to work with Abp. Mueller and the Holy Father. The appointment has been made. The Church has greatly improved under Benedict XVI and I for one will offer all the support I can.

Carl said...

P.K.T.P. - I'm not sure what you mean when you say ++Di Noia's view of Councils being free from doctrinal error is not supported by tradition at all. Here, we are speaking of course of Ecumenical Councils lawfully convoked and approbated by the Pope. Obviously he is not talking about local synods, never approbated synods like the Ephesian Latrocinium or Pisa, or elements of a legitimate Council that the pope refused approbation, such as that canon from Chalcedon that St. Leo I rejected.

The notion that Councils lawfully convened and approbated by the Pope may contain doctrinal error: Where is the basis for that in Tradition?

Allow me to put it in a syllogism.
1) Documents of Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the pope are endowed with the Church's authority.
2) Doctrinal error has no authority.
3) Documents of Ecumenical Councils are free from doctrinal error.

What's wrong with this argument?

I want to be clear that I am NOT asserting that ecumenical councils are necessarily, always and in every respect free from expressive, prudential or other non-doctrinal errors. Also, I am NOT denying that such non-doctrinal errors can sometimes be authoritative.

GMMF said...

Valerie,

If her bodily integrity during and after the birth is integral to the dogma, then like all dogmas it must be publically professed, preached, taught, explained, etc. I don't see how one can get around that just because it is a sensitive subject. We don't have a problem publically celebrating the circumcision of Our Lord, for example.

sam said...

There are two types of books currently used in Theology formation (I speak from experience): The ones by Pope Benedict XVI (pre and post papal election) (Conservatives); and The ones based on Raymond E. Brown (both liberals and conservatives.)

Neither of the above authors or those that based themselves on them can be considered Orthodox in Apostolic Traditional sense. Both authors in their works deny some or most of the miraculous events in the NT.

PS. There are other authors, but the above ones are popular.

A. M. D. G. said...

The N.O. Church doesn't really celebrate the Circumcision of our Lord. Remember, they changed the name of the January 1 feast to the Solemnity of the Mother of God (in an effort to give deference to an older feast). Even under the John XXIII rubrics the name of the feast was simply the Octave Day of the Nativity.

Marty Jude said...

Matt said...

"I'm beginning to hear from different quarters all of this Preamble routine was just a trick to lure the SSPX back into the Church and then disband them, along with a possible restriction or banning of the Tridentine Mass. How this squares with Summorum Pontificum (a moot point) has yet to be explained, but as it is being rumored, it's a rat-trap moment for the SSPX. We need to pray for them most ardently this isn't true; and if it is, that they steer clear of the trap."

Hi Matt, any chance of pointing me in direction of these comments/viewpoints? It feels like anything could happen at the moment, and not for-the-better-good either!

I find it hard to believe mind that it is a trap - the Society, as I see it, have nothing to lose by seeing how far they can go with Rome, even to signing the preamble/or/and/prelature...if something so sinister is going on, and they were to be unable to negotiate something more appropriate, then, they could just walk away, explaining how things are unacceptable...perhaps back to '88...unless Rome is trying to prove in some way that the Society is not only schismatic, but also heretical. Who knows, with these devious and sometimes evil Modernists...???!!!

Marty Jude said...

GMMF said...

"...We don't have a problem publically celebrating the circumcision of Our Lord, for example."

Is that so? Wasn't the Feast was removed from the '62 Missal, and isn't in the N.O. ?!

P.K.T.P. said...

From 1988 to 2009, for the first twenty-one years of its twenty-four, the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" was a free-standing body, subject directly to the Pope. In 2009, it was incorporated into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (C.D.F.) so that the Prefect of that Congregation became its President ex officio. It briefly had a Vice-President in the person of Msgr. Camille Perl and now has one again.

If you consider the text of John Paul II's motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", 2 July, 1988, No. 6a, and then compare it to "Summorum Pontificum", 7 July, 2007, Articles 11 and 12, and "Universæ Ecclesiæ", 30 April, 2011, Articles 9 to 12, it becomes clear that the P.C.E.D. has four related functions. The first is to reconcile the S.S.P.X and similar unapproved groups; the second, to provide oversight for regularised traditionalist groups, such as the F.S.S.P.; third, to implement "Summorum Pontificum"; and fourth, to consider revisions to the 1962 Missal (cfr., e.g., Articles 24-28 of U.E.).

Given the actions of Archbishop Müller in regard to the S.S.P.X ordinations which took place in his see in 2009, and given the sensitivity of the relations between Rome and the S.S.P.X at this point, and given the diversity of these functions, I suggest that the Pope separate the P.C.E.D. from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and make it yet again a free-standing Commission directly subject to the Pope.

It might then include four or more committees charged with performing these various functions. In the case of the relations with Menzingen, what is needed right now is a friendly face for the Society on the part of a Commission president, assisted by Archbshop Di Noia as Vice-President, and others. Note that ++Müller was appointed President of the International Theological Commission, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, President of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all posts which were passed to him yesterday from Cardinal Levada. That should be enough responsibility to keep him busy. If he is a theologian, responsibility for the Theological Commission should engross him. Assuming that the Pope wants a reconciliation with the S.S.P.X, he might ask himself if Archbishop Müller would be the best man for the job.

Assuming that the P.C.E.D. were once again made a free-standing Commission (or promoted to a Pontifical Council), this would not cut out ++Müller altogether. All the curial cardinals would still have a say in any proposed arrangements or reconciliation, particularly the one charged with safeguarding (well, um) doctrine. So Müller would still have an effect, although so would Cardinals Cañizares Llovera and Burke and others.

Just a thought.

P.K.T.P.

Carl said...

PKTP - It seems to me that Benedict XVI thought it necessary to put PCED under CDF because of SSPX's insistence on doctrinal discussions. Under CDF is the proper place for such discussions. I don't think it can be separated out while the doctrinal preamble remains in limbo. If you want to throw it out, find a practical agreement and then continue doctrinal discussions from within the Church in the normal way, it might make sense to separate PCED. Likewise, if both sides can find a doctrinal preamble that satisfies one another's concerns, it might make sense to separate PCED. But until the preamble is either agreed upon or abandoned, I think PCED has to remain under CDF. You can't have one agency doing the work of another, especially the lower agency doing the work of the higher. At the same time, I oppose separating PCED from CDF precisely because such a move goes back to relativizing the doctrinal concerns of traditionalists, pretending the whole movement can be reduced to nostalgia for bells and lace. I understand and respect that you're trying to limit the damage ++Müller might do to such a delicate relationship, but I think he simply has to do his job.

I think you are right about the mandated functions of PCED - thank you for putting it so succinctly - but it seems to me that the fourth is really out of place. I'm not simply saying that because I oppose revisions to the 1962 Missal (unless we are talking about rolling back the Pian reforms). Rather I'm saying that this really ought to be the function of CDW. Why is PCED not competent to, on its own, engage in doctrinal discussions, but nevertheless competent to consider changes in ritual?

In my opinion, considerations of changes in ritual require even greater and more careful sensitivity, study and focus than doctrinal discussions.

Mar said...

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

We live in a world where morbid curiousity of all kinds is the norm. The clinical
preoccupation with bodily functions and morbid physiological conditions is the subject of reality TV. Police dramas abound where intricate forensic situations are examined 'under the microscope' and in grisly detail; in brutalising and desensitising depictions the human body is treated as a piece of meat, at best a forensic curiosity. Then
again 'educators' argue the case for engaging a child's interest by the use of toilet humour, and so forth. The list is long.

At the same time very much out of vogue are such things as a sense of balance, a sense of proportion, a sense of decorum, a sense of what is fitting and proper, along
with a host of attitudes such as restraint, tact, deference, reticence, poise, good taste etc. This list is also long, and consists of things that once upon a time were woven right into the very fabric of catholicism and were part and parcel of its ethos
in all its depth and richness.

Custody of the mind, custody of the eyes, custody of the hands, custody of the body were in the catholic world accepted as self-evident, as were the notions of intimacy and interiority, seen as necessary for guarding some of the human person's deepest treasures.

Now, even in the Church, anything is up for grabs, and matters most needing protection because of their profoundly inexpiable and inviolable nature, are plucked
from their moorings with no regard for their integrity, and are bandied about in the global media like a football on a football field.

Here is what Dietrich Von Hildebrand has to say:

"The irreverent man can never remain inwardly silent. He never gives situations, things and persons a chance to unfold themselves in their proper character and value. He approaches everything in such an importunate and tactless way that he observes
only himself, listens only to himself and ignores the rest of being. He does not preserve a reverent distance from the world."

How much more should we preserve a reverent distance from things of Heaven and in the case of Our Lady act more like angels than the proverbial fools, not laying hands
upon the most sacred treasures.

Barbara said...

That is an excellent comment Mar!
You have captured so well what is my concern:

"Now, even in the Church, anything is up for grabs, and matters most needing protection because of their profoundly inexpiable and inviolable nature, are plucked from their moorings with no regard for their integrity, and are bandied about in the global media like a football on a football field."

This is tragic - and makes you want to cry.