Rorate Caeli

Mgr. Bux on Müller: these complainers are just being "Capernaists"!
SSPX German District on Müller

1. Mgr. Nicola Bux says it is incorrect to extrapolate from a few excerpts of Abp. Müller's works.

Traditionalists on the attack on Müller

Don Nicola Bux analyzes the complaints about the new prefect:  "if one extrapolates from the context, it is easy to condemn anyone."

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO 

The naming of the Bishop of Regensburg Gerhard Müller as new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was preceded and was followed by the spread – first through anonymous emails and then in articles on the web, including the Italian site of the Society of St. Pius X – of small extrapolations from his writings that show questionable positions in matters of faith.  Are things truly thus? Vatican Insider interviewed on this matter theologian Nicola Bux, Consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In his book on Dogmatics, Müller writes that the doctrine of the Virginity of Mary "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a divine work that exceeds all understanding and human possibility. The Church professes the real and perpetual Virginity of Mary but does not enter into physical details; neither does it seem that the Councils and the Fathers stated otherwise.

In this line, it seems to me, along which what Müller wrote should be understood, [Müller] does not support a "doctrine" that denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but warns against a certain, as it were, "Capernaism", i.e. a way of reasoning "according to the flesh" and not "according to the spirit", that already appeared at Capernaum among the Jews at the end of Jesus ' discourse on the bread of life. [Jn vi]

In 2002, Müller, in his book "Die Messe - Quelle des christlichen Lebens" [The Mass - Source of the Christian Life], speaking of the Eucharistic Sacrament, writes that, "the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine." 

It was precisely in Capernaum that the terms used by Jesus, flesh and blood, were misunderstood as anthropomorphic and the Lord had to reiterate their spiritual sense, which does not mean that its presence is less real, true, and substantial. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding this. Saint Ambrose says that it is not the the element formed by nature, but the substance produced by the formula of consecration: its very nature is transformed, so body and blood are the being of Jesus. The Tridentine Council says that in the Eucharist Our Lord, true God and true man, is "substantially" present. He is sacramentally present with his substance, a mysterious mode of being,admissible on faith and possible from God.

St. Thomas [Aquinas] had said that the mode of "substance" and not the "quantity", characterizes the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The bread and wine as a species or appearances mediate our access to the "substance", something that happens especially in communion. All the same, the Tridentine Council sees no contradiction between the natural way of the presence of Christ in heaven and his sacramental being in many other places. All this was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, unfortunately forgotten. The senses are not enough, but faith is required from us. It is a mystery of the faith.

On Protestantism and the salvific unicity of Jesus, Müller said, in October 2011: "Baptism is the fundamental sign that sacramentally unites us in Christ, and which presents us as the one Church in front of the world. Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church."

St. Augustine defended against the Donatists the truth that baptism is an indestructible bond, which does not abolish fraternity among Christians, even when they are schismatics or heretics. 

Unfortunately today debate is feared in the Church, but moves on theses and ostracism of those who think differently. I refer to theology, of course, in which different opinions may be acceptable.

However, doctrinal development benefits from debate: who has more arguments, convinces. In the charges against Bishop Müller, there is extrapolation from the context: it is easy to condemn anyone like this. A true Catholic must trust the authority of the Pope, always. In particular, I believe that Benedict XVI know that he does. And I would like to renew to the Society of St. Pius X the invitation to trust the Pope. "

It has been said that the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would not have been up to now very favorable to the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

I am certain that he understands the reasons that have led the Pope to promulgate it and that he will act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Motu proprio. As for the extrapolations of which we spoke, those things written by Abp. Müller belong to his time as a theologian, and a theologian produces no doctrine, at least immediately. As a Bishop, he must instead defend and disseminate the doctrine that is not his, but of the Church, and I think that he has done this. As Prefect, he will continue to do so, under the guidance of Pope.


2. Father Matthias Gaudron, FSSPX (famous for his Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, published in English by Angelus Press), writes a general note in the name of the German District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX). He is also open to clarifications and hopes for a more positive attitude from the Prefect concerning the SSPX. On a sidenote, the text remarkably includes two notes from the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church and a passage from Lumen Gentium loved by many converts.


The Church has always considered it to be one of her most important tasks to faithfully keep the Deposit of the Faith, confided to her by Christ and the Apostles, and to defend it against errors in order to pass it on intactly to the coming generations. And thus, rightly so, the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is one of the highest offices in the Church.

The SSPX in Germany has therefore with astonishment taken notice of the fact that the Bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has been appointed to this office. The SSPX asks what suitability for this office can be found in a man that has gone against the Catholic doctrine on a number of occasions, both in his writings as well as in his public speeches.

The following things should be mentioned:

* Bishop Müller denies in his book "Die Messe - Quelle christlichen Lebens" [The Mass - Source of Christian life] the real transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Bread and wine remain, according to him, what they are; however, they become tools for integrating the faithful into the living community with the Father and the Son. This resembles the Calvinistic teaching, according to which bread and wine do not transform, but become tools of grace. [1]

* Contrary to Catholic doctrine, according to which the transformation of the gifts occurs with the pronounciation of the words of institution, "This is my body... This is the chalice of my blood" [2], Bishop Müller asserts that the question of the moment of transformation "doesn't make sense". [3]

* Bishop Müller denies in his "Dogmatik" [currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary while giving birth [4], and, therefore, the teaching that Mary gave birth to her son without violating her physical integrity. [5]

* In a eulogy for the Protestant bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich, Bishop Müller said on 11 October 2011: "Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully (!) incorporated/ integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ." This contradicts the integral Catholic tradition and especially the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici corporis.

* Against the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of a conversion to the Catholic Church, as is still proclaimed in the teaching of Vatican II [6], Bishop Müller characterizes in the same speech the so-called "ecumenism of return" as being "erroneous".

The Fraternity urgently appeals to Bishop Müller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Fraternity is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.

Since Bishop Müller has, in the past, not made a secret of his negative attitude towards the Society, the Society does not at first see in this a positive sign for the readiness to discuss its canonical recognition. Nevertheless, it hopes that the new Prefect - regarding discussions in the universal church - may achieve a more positive attitude towards the SSPX.

Fr. Matthias Gaudron, dogmatic theologian of the Society of Saint Pius X
[NOTES]
[1] "In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine." ... We have "now a community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver." Bread and wine thus only become "symbols of his salvific presence".(Die Messe – Quelle christlichen Lebens, Augsburg: St. Ulrich Verlag: 2002, p. 139).

[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1375, n.1377

[3] Die Messe – Quelle christlichen Lebens, p. 142.

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 499, n. 510

[5] "It is not so much about 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, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498) In fact, traditional doctrine is concerned precisely with such physiological details.

[6] "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen gentium, 14)


101 comments:

Mike said...

Thank you for running these. I am not competant to untangle the tensions here, though the first comment is totally correct, I believe, on the sacraments.

I am reading Muller's book on the Priesthood. About a third through it, and it really slams a Marxist/democratic understanding of the Church. It carefully shreds a woman theologian's book on why women should be deacons.

One remark about those who put the priest at the center of things is called "pre-conciliar", but I tend to think he's talking about a societal thing, and not demeaning the priesthood per se.

So far, I like the book a lot.

Praying for Tradition; praying for the Pope.

Joe said...

Abp Muller seems perfect for this position. He is tough against the extreme liberals such as We Are Church, and he is tough against the extreme conservatives such as the SSPX.

As soon as someone decides to wear a label, such as "I'm a liberal Catholic" or "I'm a traditional Catholic" - there could be danger.

I find it distressing that representatives of the SSPX are issuing these attacks against the new Head of the CDF, when the SSPX is supposedly contemplating a regularization of its situation within the church.

The SSPX doesn't seem ready to rejoin.

Maybe this appointment of Abp Muller is a sign that the SSPX wouldn't be good for the church, not good because of the SSPX's continuous attacks on the Second Vatican Council itself, and not merely on what was done in its "spirit."

I trust the Pope on this.

When the far left is outraged and the far right is outraged, then this looks like the right man.

New Catholic said...

When "right" and "left" are used for the Church, then this looks like the wrong analysis.

Jeff Culbreath said...

I have no definite opinion on the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or the consecrations. But I'm glad the SSPX is raising these very reasonable concerns publicly, and that they are being heard in Rome. It seems doubtful that they would be truly free to do the same if fully regularized. For the time being, perhaps it's best for things to remain as they are.

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

No, Joe, labels are good; labels are excellent. It was a ploy from the 1970s to eschew labels as inaccurate. Those who did this were the same twerps who misinterpreted Scripture to say "judge the sin, not the sinner", when that is not what the passage means.

Labels are mostly deliberately general and are meant to be. We need labels as useful abbreviations to understand others. If we did not have them, we could say almost nothing about anyone. That would please the devil very much: he doesn't want to be recognised. I despise people who eschew labels. Let us call a spade a spade, and a communist a communist.

P.K.T.P.

Edward said...

Joseph he better be tough against the extreme liberals because they are the problem 100% of the time, the extreme conservatives, the SSPX as you call them are not even in the church so he better be welcoming before he gets tough. Apparently he was put in the position to try to prevent a formal break from the church by "catholics" in Germany and Austria. Remember it was the Novus Ordo crowd who committed all these sexual scandals in the church, not a single sexual scandal has been done by the SSPX and the FSSP priests.

RogerThat said...

Ladies and Gentleman, please, welcome one more post with more than one hundred comments.

xavier rynne said...

Ok I'm very confused now. Is the consecrated the host the true body and blood of Jesus, or just his "presence." It's hard to believe this is coming into question or confusion but it seems to be. I sense a growing movement to deny that He is truly present physically, but only in some vague sense. Can someone enlighten me on this? Do we recall the Miracle of Lanciano?

Gederson Falcometa said...

""St. Augustine defended against the Donatists the truth that baptism is an indestructible bond, which does not abolish fraternity among Christians, even when they are schismatics or heretics"".

This really is an extrapolation. If the bond of baptism is indestructible, then the baptized do not go to hell. I doubt that St. Augustine has advocated such nonsense, then he said that:


"In many places the heretics are with me, not elsewhere, but because of these few points that separate themselves from me, they will not do anything to be with me throughout the rest" (St. Augustine, In PSAL. 54th, n. 19, PL 36, 641).

sam said...

Point (1) highlights the belief that we are all simple-minded and ignorant.

Point (2) highlights the belief that we are Catholic and have the ability to understand our faith.

rodrigo said...

Joe appears a little confused. One can disagree with the private theological opinions of a man appointed to head the CDF - especially a man whose opinions are, if not at odds with Church teaching, certainly hard to understand in a manner consistent with it - and still be a Catholic in good standing. Whether or not the SSPX like the new Prefect of the CDF's private theological opinions has precisely

ZERO

bearing on whether they should be considered "ready to rejoin" (a false spin in any case, since the matter is one of canonical regularization; no-one claims the members of the Society are outside the Church.)

KenD said...

P.K.T.P.

Can you expound upon the passage reference "judge the sin, not the sinner".

Thanks,
Ken

JFM said...

I am with J Culbreath oh this: God Bless the SSPX, and maybe they are best positioned to do their work beyond the bounds of The Church, given the linguistic puzzles being set forth. The Pope and Ferllay both seem like stalwart Christian soldiers,a nd my prayers are with both of them.

KenD said...

totally unrelated to this blog, but directed at blogger.com.. I totally understand the need to eliminate robots.. but really? a fuzzy image followed by a vague series of letters which are supposed to mean something.. if I wanted that I'd read the documents of VII.. I kid...
KenD

Mike said...

I suggest the Summa, of course, on the Eucharist, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Both rock-solid.

Secondly, a wonderful book that explores/summarizes both, "A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist", by Abbot Vonier. This work came out in the 20s, I think, and is very solidly orthodox.

Our Lord is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in a sacramental manner apprehended only by the eyes of Faith, but really there, not "extended" in a material way, but in a more real manner, substantially, as ONLY the accidents, the material appreances, of the bread and wine exist after Consecration, held miraculously there by God.

Adore, it is really Him.

David said...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit.

Any schoolboy knows that the physical aspect of virginity has nothing at all to do with conception or even the introduction of human seed into the womb. The Church doesn't enter into the physical details out of respect for the Blessed Virgin, but the details are well known. Thus we understand that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a miracle wrought by God, a supernatural suspension of natural processes. Bishop Müller is trying to make the truth of Mary's perpetual virginity palpable to an age that has ceased to believe in miracles. Perhaps he has ceased to believe in miracles himself.

juliano said...

Xavier,

The Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That does not mean that he is physically present: for physicalness imply that the accidental attributes are present there, and surely they are not, since the accidents are the Bread and the Wine. Thats why its called "transubstantiation" and not "transformation". Substantia divine is under the appearances (physical accidents) of the sacramental material.

No need to wonder why its not possibly understandable: its a mystery the manner in wich this is possible or how it happens, lets say, from "within".

Gederson Falcometa said...

What St. Augustine, read Don Bux?


"He therefore that is baptized in heresy does not become the temple of God; but does it therefore follow that he is not to be considered as baptized? For neither does the avaricious man, baptized within the Church, become the temple of God unless he depart from his avarice; for they who become the temple of God certainly inherit the kingdom of God. But the apostle says, among many other things, "Neither the covetous, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:10 For in another place the same apostle compares covetousness to the worship of idols: "Nor covetous man," he says, "who is an idolater;" Ephesians 5:5 which meaning the same Cyprian has so far extended in a letter to Antonianus, that he did not hesitate to compare the sin of covetousness with that of men who in time of persecution had declared in writing that they would offer incense. The man, then, who is baptized in heresy in the name of the Holy Trinity, yet does not become the temple of God unless he abandons his heresy, just as the covetous man who has been baptized in the same name does not become the temple of God unless he abandons his covetousness, which is idolatry. For this, too, the same apostle says: "What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" 2 Corinthians 6:16 Let it not, then, be asked of us "of what God he is made the temple" when we say that he is not made the temple of God at all. Yet he is not therefore unbaptized, nor does his foul error cause that what he has received, consecrated in the words of the gospel, should not be the holy sacrament; just as the other man's covetousness (which is idolatry) and great uncleanness cannot prevent what he receives from being holy baptism, even though he be baptized with the same words of the gospel by another man covetous like himself. On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book IV) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm

The Postmodernist said...

A very good approach by Fr. Matthias - that of inquiry and request for clarification to His Eminence. I'm with the SSPX's on this: Go to the top Prefect i.e. Mary, then to the Pope!

Erik said...

Perhaps this will give the Pope an excuse to open up more public doctrinal discussions, instead of the behind the scenes closed door stuff. We still haven't seen the doctrinal preamble -- I wish we could at least read it.

Lady Marchmain said...

On the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, with relevant citations from the Councils of Trent and Florence:

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/is-jesus-christ-physically-present-in-the-eucharist/

Introitus said...

"Bishop Müller denies in his 'Dogmatik'[currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary while giving birth"

Bishop Mueller does no such thing. No where in the passage being quoted out of context does he claim the Blessed Mother was not physically a Virgin, only that the physiological aspects of her virginity were not the principle concern of the council fathers. Furthermore, Msgr. Bux doesn't dismiss "complainers" as Capernaists, as the title of this post insinuates. Bux uses the story of Capernaum to put Mueller's quote in context, something all of us should be doing before we convince ourselves Mueller is guilty of heresy.

Long-Skirts said...

TWO
TRUTHS

To the Nuclear
Plant I went
With wafered host
I was hell-bent.

Exposed un-Consecrated
Wafered host
To radiation
Now nuked toast.

Offered Bishop
"Taste and see."
"Oh no!" He cried
"That's not for me!"

"But look," I said,
"Nothing’s changed
A still white wafered
Host arranged."

"Though looks the same,
Could do much harm!"
Bishop said
With much alarm.

As Catholics know
Spiritual radiation -
Daily at Mass
The Transubstantiation!

David Werling said...

I'm really beside myself. I can't believe this. I can't believe it at all.

Now we are supposed to re-define the word "substantial" to make Müller OK? I have to call up all my philosophy professors and tell them they were wrong. Substantial no longer means pertaining to an actual, individuated, real thing. The term now means that something is be understood in a "spiritual" way, in a way that agrees with the gnosis of the Vatican intelligentsia.

...beside myself, utterly beside myself.

Lucius said...

Mike, what is the title of Abp Mueller's book on the priesthood? Thanks.

David Werling said...

juliano,

Everything that is physically inseparable from the Person of Christ is present, whole and entire, in the Eucharist. This includes everything inseparable from His animate, and glorified Body, including the Blood that courses through His glorified veins. Coupled with His Body and Blood and Soul, His blessed Humanity and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, all is present, whole and entire. EVERYTHING! in both species of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

Transubstantiation, which is a way to explain the true conversion of the terminus a quo into the terminus ad quem, in which the terminus a quo ceases to exist altogether, but retaining the accidents of the terminus a quo.

Transubstantiation does not change the dogma, or speak of the "physicality" of Christ. The dogma is as is stated above. Christ is there, in the hands of the priest, whole and entire (for that's what "substantial" means, for crying out loud!). Period.

Do we really need to debate Ratramnus and Berengarius all over again? Bux and Müller, and apparently people commenting here, are parroting Ratramnus. This is crazy!

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

Luke 1. 34-35

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Perpetual virginity of our Lady is quite clear. "I know not man." What need was there for Muller to further comment? – unless he wanted to muddy the waters?

Juliano said...

Lady Marchmain,

Its very difficult to talk about this, since the word physical has several connotations. Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament fully, that is, even in its accidental "parts" that belong to his human nature, but not in the fashion of non-glorified bodies, but spiritualized.

Since, we have no precise understanding of how a resurrected body is, we can only say that it is a real body - consequently, material body - but I think words like physical are not unambiguously placed talking about the transubstantiation. Their bodily accidents are there, but in the manner of the substance, thats why someone can affirm or deny that He is physically present there depending on what of the several connotations of physical one is taking in consideration. It suffices for us to affirm that He is there fully in His body, even if we can't understand this difficult questions.

Its of real importance for our souls not to rashly judge someone who talks about this high issues as long as he does not deny something clearly defined and the "physicality" is not defined in these senses we may be talking. As the Holy Spirit said in Scripture and S. Thomas - if De Modo Studendi is really not apocryphal -, "altiora ne te querens": don't search what is behind your understudying (because, says Scripture, pride has made many fall on this account).

Last but not least, I took your intervention here as a opportunity to talk about this, not implying that you hold or don't hold the things I warned about here.

Gratias said...

This communication strategy of the Vatican though press interviews is a grave mistake. First Di Noia, then Müller, now Bux. This is counterproductive, the eternal city cannot sink to the daily news cycle. The Vatican is Holy for Catholics and to enter in a debate with the SSPX on the Internet is to reduce the sanctity of Church organization. The Church has managed to govern the entire Catholic world from the Apostolic Palace. Vatican prefects should not get into the weeds arguing with dissidents, let alone in public. We do not need to discuss what Prefect Müller thinks, for he now speaks for the Pope. Granting these interviews demeans the office and the Church. It plays into the hands of those that have now to decide what side they are on. Their Chapter will likely decide to ignore the offer of Benedict XVI, but the offer comes from the Vicar of Christ not Monsigniors Müller or Di Noia who were not even appointed when the genuine offer of reconciliation was done. The Vatican should not sink to the level of interviews, which are effective for SSPX but not The Vatican. Better to use the Pope himself, Osservatore Romano or if needed the Vatican Website.

Miles Dei said...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit.


Sorry for the latin but here says all the contrary (is only a example from a lot) Saint Ildefonse answer who say that virginitas was not phisycally conserved in Partu:

Ut ergo asseris, Omnipotentis divinitas non profuit virginitati, sed obfuit; quia dum virgineum decus nascendo violavit, summam virginitatem destruxit; ac per hoc ipsum astruis Virginem deturpasse nascendo, quam decoraverat ipse creando.

...

cum conceptu virgo, per conceptum virgo, in conceptu virgo, post conceptum virgo; per partum virgo, cum partu virgo, post partum virgo. Virgo cum nascituro, virgo cum nascente, virgo post filium natum.

...

Non matrem virginitatis deserit decus, non virginem maternus impedit partus; et virginem nobilitat foetus, et matrem habet pudor virgineus. Sicque matris et virginis nomina nullis dissociata sunt casibus, nullis impedita difficultatibus, nullis laesa proventibus, nullis dubia rebus. Indiscreta utraque, inseparabilia utraque, indissecabile totum, indivisibile totum.

Saint Ildefonse of Toledo
"De Perpertua Virginitate Sanctae Mariae."

I remain in that faith. The fatith of our fathers and saints. Sorry for be catholic but that is what I am.

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

Really, we needn't get into the theology of Müller. Like others of his tribe, his purpose is to undermine faith, not to contradict it. We judge a man by what he writes and says and by his associations, like Gustavo Gutiérrez, whom Müller visits every years for 'lessons' on liberation theology.

It doesn't matter much, though. The Society bishops will not make a theological deal with Müller or even Di Noia on the principles and criteria of doctrinal interpretation, let alone the doctrinal disputes themselves. The Pope can begin a process of reconciliation by affirming in a declaration what Rome has never denied: they are Catholic. This will have the important canonical effect of making their Masses count for the Sunday obligation and THAT is what matters most; it matters more everything else combined. So far, we have private admissions to that effect for the last ten years. They have no standing in law except for the addresses of letters from the P.C.E.D. So the step needed could be small and have only small effect short term, but great effect long term.

The Pope could save face by making the needed declaration, binding the Society to ongoing negotiations, and then getting back to Vatileaks and actually appointing some bishops. He has appointed almost no diocesans since Spy Wednesday, on 2nd April. He's setting a new record here for how not to run the Church.

P.K.T.P.

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

David hits the nail on the head. God is omnipotent and, for Him, achieving a miracle, a suspension of His own natural laws, is as easy as it is for us to brew a cup of tea. The teaching of Trent on transubstantiation is sufficient. Going beyond it to 'explain' how the mystery cannot mean this or that makes one wonder about the commentator's own faith.

P.K.T.P.

JabbaPapa said...

The only statement of Müller quoted in this article that is likely illicit is the following :

In a eulogy for the Protestant bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich, Bishop Müller said on 11 October 2011: "Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully (!) incorporated/ integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ." This contradicts the integral Catholic tradition and especially the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici corporis.

... and ONLY in his use of the adjective "fully" that you have quite rightly drawn attention to.

Then again, it's a homily -- not a doctrinal statement, and such errors as these can occasionally creep into even the most well meaning of declarations.

The statements do show the Archbishop to be on the more liberal fringe of the orthodoxy, but to call him a "liberal" as such on the basis of these statements would clearly be an exaggeration.

Most of the disputed statements concern Catholic Mysteries, that are doctrinally defined as *questions* not as *answers* -- so that a multiplicity of personal opinions may exist concerning these Mysteries of the Faith, without affecting the orthodoxy of whichever opinion holders, provided that they never descend into formal heresy of course.

I *would* call this a storm in a teacup -- except of course that he is the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and is therefore naturally subject to a finer detail of perfectly justifiable scrutiny than just your common or garden Prince of the Church.

Brian said...

Mike,

Thank you for your succinct reference to Abbot Vonier. The only thing that I would add to your excellent comment is:

"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." John 6: 53-56

someone said...

that respond would be perfect, if the Church weren't be talking during centuries that Holy Virgin Mary was a virgin not only because of the no sexual contacts, but also She was still a virgin after birth of Our Lord. If she was still a virgin after the process of birth, which is not a sin against the virtue of purity and isn't a sexual contact, the virginity of Her must be understand in also in physical aspect. If the dogma didn't tell about being a virgin after birth, abp Müller would be right.

Barbara said...

Thank you for your comments Mr. Werling, especially this:

"Everything that is physically inseparable from the Person of Christ is present, whole and entire, in the Eucharist. This includes everything inseparable from His animate, and glorified Body, including the Blood that courses through His glorified veins. Coupled with His Body and Blood and Soul, His blessed Humanity and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, all is present, whole and entire. EVERYTHING! in both species of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar."

I don't know what or who Ratramnus and Berengarius are - must look it/them up.

sam said...

Brian, I would avoid quoting anything from the Gospel of St. John. According to the scholars and theologians of the VII Church, his Gospel is "High Christology". For them anything "High Christology" is an invention of the Early Christian Community (i.e. for which this Gospel was being addressed -- the audience) which has no relation to Christ or the Apostle St. John. So they consider the Gospel of St. John to only include spiritual piety, but nothing substantial that can be used in supporting the historicity of the events and the included sayings by Christ.

Thorin said...

Gratias' post is exactly right.

I am not Spartacus said...

It seems doubtful that they would be truly free to do the same if fully regularized...it's best for things to remain as they are.

Dear Mr. Culbreath. Msgr Gherardhini is in communion with the Pope and he is at liberty to ask his questions and raise his concerns.

I find it odd that so many think severing one of the Bonds of Unity (Worship, Doctrine, Authority) is for the best; and if it is for the best to sever the Authority Bond, then why would it not be for the best to sever the Worship Bond; why would it not be best to sever the Doctrine Bond?

And if one has severed the Bond of Authority that what moral ground does he have to criticise those who sever one of the other Bonds?

Has the Divinely-Constitued Authority of The Pope and the Bishops in union with him been so trivialised in the past forty years that it can now be considered "for the best" to engage in a praxis that has, effectively, eviscerated that authority?

Milton Freeman famously said, "We are all Keynesians now" and so one waits for one to declaim, "We are all protestants now," if Divinely-Constituted authority can be so cavalierly sloughed-off

Mike said...

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


Lady Marchmain is right:"but in the manner of the substance".

Our Lord's body, his hair, his limbs, everything, is in the Sacrament, but in the manner of substance, not with its "accidents" manifest to our senses.


That's Trent, that's Thomas.

Picard said...

@ Introitus et al.:

As said elsewhere yet, at least re Virginity it is not out of context (or the context does not make it better) - I have the work of Müller just on my desk, inthe original German!

For contrary, the context makes it much worse: you see that (like in his whole work) he is totaly influenced by modern philosophy, and all things, that tradition understood in a litteral sense and f.e. as a real miracle in time and space, with physical consequences Müller re-interpretes in a "spiritualistic", "personal", "existential", non-concrete-material way, totaly changing the traditional meaning of the words and concepts.

- He totally "spiritualizes" the "virg. in partu": it does only mean that there was the "heeling and redeeming influence of grace" - not more, period, no extraordinary physical effect.!


So the context makes that much much clearer, and even more, if you know a little bit of modern transcendental-philosophy, existentialism-personalism, immanentism and historicism.

- but the translation is not accurate here, that´s the only problem. The original German is different:

Müller did NOT say:
it is not so much about...

In this case you were right, then he would not totaly deny and reject any physiological effect.

But he really says:
it is not about....

or perhaps better:
"it does not deal with..."; "it is not re..."; "does not mean..."
German:
"Es geht nicht um..."
(that´s clear, he says that it is not at all some physical aspect, but only the "heeling influence of grace")

He excludes and rejects ever physiological aspect at all.

The following context on p. 498 makes it even clearer - as just said above - , culminating in the sentence also quoted by Fr. Matthias Gaudron:

The content of this doctrine of faith is not re physiologically and empirically verifiably somatical details

So again, wrong translation.
He says not only ...is not so much about pyhsiolgically and empirically verifiable somatic details
but
itis not re physiologically and empirically...

- so he says that it is not at all re somatical details.
And not only not about details, in the whole text, and very clear also in the first quote, he says that it is not at all re physics, somatics and physical extraordinarities!

Miles Dei said...

Bishop Müller asserts that the question of the moment of transformation "doesn't make sense"

-------------------------------------
Lamentably they score a goal on this matter when the aprobation of the anaphora of Addai-Mari under autorithy of Pope and of that time Prefect: J. Ratzinger. This is an anaphora that has not the words of the memmorial.

Picard said...

So the crucial text of Müller re Virginity in partu [Kath. Dogmatik, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1995 (²1996), S. 498] in a corrected, adjusted translation:

"It is not re anomalous physiological extraordinaries in the natural process of birth (as f.e. the non-opening of the birth canal, the non-violating/injuring of the hymen and the non-occurance of birth-pains), but re the healing and redeeming influence of grace of the Redeemer onto the human nature that had been "injured" by Original Sin"

Gerard Brady said...

St. Paul states that a bishop should be beyond reproach. How much more then should a bishop in such a high position as the head of the CDF. I find the tendency of some respondents here to believe that he is being quoted out of context annoying. He is certainly experienced enough to know what he says and the effects his words have.

Supertradmum said...

Thanks and I am happy I did not worry about this appointment. I am sure the Pope knows what he is doing and this article is superb.

And, I need to read Muller against the Marxists. I would really enjoy that...

A Sinner said...

Merriam-Webster's defines "physical" as:

"having material existence: perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature"

Are Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist "perceptible through the senses" or "subject to the laws of nature"?? No. Hence, here is a good case, for saying the presence is not "physical."

They are present, but in the mode of a substance. A material substance, yes, but not as extended accidents. This is the sacramental manner of the presence.

The Capernaism he refers to would seemingly imagine just such a "physical" presence, and thus a HUGE "Ick" or "Ewwwww" factor, as well as thus being literal cannibalism (obviously impermissible).

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common misunderstanding of the teaching among both Catholics and Protestants today.

I partially blame Lanciano. While Medievals at the time would have understood it, Aquinas and others admit that such miracles could be confusing, because they lead people to believe that a bloody circle of flesh is what the eucharist "really is" or "really looks like" "underneath" the accidents of bread and wine.

But this is inaccurate. What is really sustaining the accidents (inhering in no subject) of the bread and wine...is the entire resurrected Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity. Not some excised little circle of fleshy tissue.

Therefore, what we are seeing at Lanciano are merely ANOTHER set of non-inherent accidents created to hint at the reality, but still not being a proper way to "imagine" the reality. (The miracles where Christ appeared as a full body standing alive on the altar are much closer to the truth).

To me it's obvious that this is merely what Muller is pointing out.

Picard said...

above: "healing", not "heeling", of course (sorry!)

Peterman said...

"however, they become tools for integrating the faithful into the living community with the Father and the Son. "

Saint Michael, please come with your flaming sword and clean house. Amen.

JB said...

Thank you for feedback. I'm an amateur but it does seem to me that the German mind suffers from an excessive rationalism. There is a tropism to over-analyze perhaps, reduce things to what can be known according to the five senses. I think the pope actually remarked on this once.

A Sinner said...

Now, as to the virginity question, we have to speak of that delicately.

Again, I think the interpretation of Bux and others here is correct: he's not denying a physiological virginity in partu, but he's emphasizing that the physical mechanics of the process are not the spiritual "content" of that truth. We must definitely affirm the physical sign (because we are a Sacramental religion), but the dogma isn't about biology.

For example, look at the thread that developed on New Theological Movement here:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.ca/2011/12/virgin-birth-of-christ-what-church.html

Now, NTM insists on a very traditional imagining wherein Christ passed out of His mother as a "subtle body", "like light through glass" (or, as other people say, "beaming down.")

That's all well and good and one is free to believe it as traditional.

However, there is some weird over extension in the logic. For example, some theologians and Fathers apparently thought that Mary's virginity being preserved in partu also necessarily implied that Christ never "opened the womb" and thus felt like they needed to explain the sacrifice of the turtle-doves at His Presentation in the Temple (which was only supposed to be for males who opened the womb.)

Of course, this makes one wonder how naive these men were or are about female biology. The cervix is not the same as the hymen, of course, and only the latter is generally considered to have anything to do with virginity (even physically).

So, yes, we have to insist that Mary's physical virginity remained intact during Christ's birth. At the very least the "seal" remained unbroken.

But there are a lot of other questions that speculative theologians have danced around about after-birth, about "womb opening", about whether Christ passed out as merely a "subtle body" or whether He actually passed through the birth-canal (miraculously without rupture)...that are, frankly, mechanical details that don't matter, and which are of concern only to a fleshly mind.

Sacramental signs can only be specified so much. In baptism you need water. It can be hot or cold, salt or fresh, living or stagnant, pure or cloudy, even melted ice or snow. People might find "better symbolism" in using cool, living, fresh, clean water...but this is beyond the minimum of the signifier demanded by dogma.

Likewise, for the eucharist, wheat bread and grape wine are enough. Type of wheat or grape don't matter, level of alcohol content or exact chemical composition don't matter, shape and size don't matter, leavened or unleavened don't matter. The various ritual churches may have different disciplines and liturgical traditions on these matters (especially East vs West, leavened vs. unleavened) which they may imbue with a particular symbolism. But this is beyond the minimum of the sign necessary for validity.

When it comes to Mary's virginity in partu, the important spiritual truth is that she remained a virgin. That is the ESSENTIAL IDEA necessary for the truth of the dogma and its spiritual relevance. How that played out mechanically re: other physiological questions about the birthing process...is something beyond essential, and really a rather prurient concern.

To be blunt, when we contemplate the glorious truth of the Virgin Birth...we're NOT supposed to be contemplating Our Lady's lady-parts!

If that's how you think of the doctrine, if that's what you think it's "about"...you're missing the point and, I think, would rightly be called of fleshly-mind and a Capernaist.

Belgian catholic said...

Bishop Mueller is a follower of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

Don Nicola Bux: "if one extrapolates from the context, it is easy to condemn anyone."

Funny how this sort of thing rarely happens with men like Cardinal Burke.

Yes, it must be all about "the context."

Steve said...

Can someone tell me how Msgr. Bux can say this:

"The Church professes
the real and perpetual Virginity of Mary but does not enter into
physical details; neither does it seem that the Councils and the
Fathers stated otherwise."

When The Lateran Council States this:

"Can. 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even
after His birth, let him be condemned" [Denzinger/Ferarri, No. 256]

??????????????

Picard said...

@ A Sinner et. al.

You are right that we need to fix the definitions.
And your own explanation then is sound and in accord with Thomas and tradtion as far as I can see.

But it is not what Müller said.

He could have said it in this clear way like you, in a clear language, making the necessary distinctions.

BUT HE DIDN`T!!

That´s the problem, as I also stated in my las comment yet (that hopefully will be published and not deleted!):

His language is not clear and thomistic but confusing new-style-philosophical and theological, at least promoting heresy, being "captious"

So: Your explanation is sound (and understandable).
His own not!


(It is totally different. Please re-read it!! Perhaps his example of the letter is the worst thing in it, besides other confusing expressions -- every 13-year-old girl in any fsspx-parish would have not used such an example! There is no way to excuse this and his other no-clear ambiguous utterances)

Martyjo said...

Archbishop Muller's statements touching on three dogmas of the Church are typical products of the Modernist mind. Instead of confirming what Catholics hold as most dear statements of infallible fact, the faithful are left in confusion and doubt by His Graces' musings.

If Archbishop Muller did not outrightly deny the dogmas concerning Our Lady's perpetual virginity, Transubstantiation and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he certainly did a fantastic job in muddying the waters.

The following proposition, which fits Archbishop Muller to a tee, is taken from St. Pius X's Syllabus of Modernist errors.

"The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false OR DOUBTFUL is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves."

I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that anyone from the German Episcopate could be considered worthy of the highest doctrinal office in the Church. That Archbishop Muller has an aversion to "We are Church" merely means that he is opposed to outright public apostasy. It by no means automatically qualifies him as an orthodox prelate fit for such high office as Prefect of the CDF. I think many Catholics have been stunned by this appointment, the more so because the Archbishop is so notoriously anti-SSPX. That position alone must surely cast doubt on his orthodoxy.

Who knows, maybe the Pope thinks saving the German Church from entering into formal schism is more important at this stage than regularising the SSPX. It's surely the only reason why he'd have chosen a German Archbishop of such dubious beliefs. If such was the motive, then I have to say that I believe it to be very shortsighted.

someone said...

Ups, sorry- letter of Pope Leon to Falvius:

" Conceptus quippe est de spiritu sancto intra uterum virginis matris, quae illum ita salva virginitate edidit quemadmodum salva virgninitate concepit."

My previous theory nay be wrong.

Red said...

Look guys, Our Lady has been disgraced and called into question by one of Her own. If at all possible please make the first Five Saturdays devotion this Saturday in reparation for the Sins committed against Her and which She Herself has asked that reparation be made. One of these offenses is the attack on Her perpetual virginity.

Miles Dei said...

Please stop confuse people speaking about the mode of the eucharistic presence. It is obvious that it is not physical and that is not the question in this matter.

Mon. Müller does not seems speak about the mode of presence. He speak about the presence itself. In the spanis edition of his work i have (Ediciones Cristiandad 2004) he says at page 153:

"En realidad, el cuerpo y la sangre de Cristo no significan los elementos materiales del hombre Jesús durante su vida terrena o en su corporalidad transfigurada."

He says that the Body and Blood of Our Lord does not significate the biological parts of Christ in his terrenal life or in his life in Glory.

To say in a scolastic manner: He does not include the accidens with the substance of Christ in the "Res et Sacramentum" of the Eucharisty. That is against Trent and against Theological reason and against the Tradition itself.

Now you can read clearly Saint Thomas:

"Accidentia autem corporis Christi sunt in hoc sacramento mediante substantia, ita scilicet quod accidentia corporis Christi non habent immediatam habitudinem neque ad hoc sacramentum, neque ad corpora quae ipsum circumstant. " (S.T. III, 76, a.7, c.)

The accidens of the Body of Christ are in this Sacrament by the substance, in a manner that the accidens of the Body of Christ have no relation neither this Sacrament neither bodys that surround them


What I put in black letters is what the bishops deny about Eucaristic presence. The other part is the explanation of the form of presence to avoid caphernaism.

Mon. Bux is putting a Smoke Courtain to calm people with the caphernaism and the change to the mode of the presence. But the problem is in other place after the smoke. The problem is in the Protestant view of the Eucharistic presence itself entering the catholic mind via modern philosophy and ecummenic will.

Red said...

I don't understand the confusion on the Eucharist. The appearance of the host after the consecration is a veil hiding the reality. It's a miracle that you don't see Christ standing there when the Priest holds up the Eucharist. He is there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity: Skin, blood, hair, eyes, heart, Soul, intellect, memory, will, omnipotence etc..

Picard said...

@ A Sinner:

Again here re Virginity in partu you are clear and sound [most parts, at least].

But it is NOT what Müller says, that´s the problem also here again.

You are right - as also Ott denotes - that not all details here are de fide.
But you are - als also Ott is - also right that:
So, yes, we have to insist that Mary's physical virginity remained intact during Christ's birth. At the very least the "seal" remained unbroken.
We must definitely affirm the physical sign (because we are a Sacramental religion)

But that´s exactly what Müller denies, he denies all physical aspects, every extraordinariy physical effects - see the text (correct translation provided by me above in the comments!)

Again, I think the interpretation of Bux and others here is correct: he's not denying a physiological virginity in partu, but he's emphasizing that the physical mechanics of the process are not the spiritual "content" of that truth

Nice if you think so - but it does not matter what you think but what the text of Müller says. He rejects physical aspects at all (and expressely the not-wounding of the hymen!).

See in the text itselfe!!

Allison said...

I agree with David Werling. I am beside myself too. Most people do not know how frequently the SSPX Germany has been criticized by Bishop Muller. So it makes perfect sense to me that Father Gaudron has penned this letter. Bishop Muller has openly said that the SSPX is not Catholic. Now this person will sit down with Bishop Fellay and come to an understanding? It cannot possibly be. Msgr. Bux sent an"open letter to the SSPX priests" begging them to come back to Rome. He acknowledged "darkness in the Church since Vatican II" which could be overcome with an infusion of tradition. His overwhelming support for Fellay and now Muller is contradictory.

Am I missing something? said...

Could the Pope not ask Archbishop Mueller to sign a "Preamble" in which the Archbishop assents to a few basic doctrines such as Transubstantiation and Our Lady's Virginity, etc.? Now that "Preambles" are the order of the day, it would seem like the obvious thing to do, no?

JFM said...

"...a follower of Dietrich Bonhoeffer."

Yes, who was cut in the cloth of a Karl Barth.

Back in the day when Catholicism was an identifiable entity, Frank Sheed criticized the theology of Bonhoffer. I can't imagine any official cleric today caring enough about theology to even begin to think of voicing a negative word about the GErman martyr. The very thought cuts against the reigning zeitgeists of LoveIsAllUNeed.

Sixupman said...

Could someone please explain why any theologian should ponder the physiological aspects of the Blessed Virgin - what on earth is the point, somewhat weird I would say. Perhaps +Muller should have spent more time on matters diocesan and the problems therein.

Sometime ago, on an SSPX supporting forum, the perennial issue of womens' slacks came up. One guy was so descriptive of their effect, I thought, boy have you got a problem. It is somewhat analagous to the above comment.

Is it not the position that all modern theologians tend to be self-important? Otherwise, why question and attempt to explain anew, that which has been settled for aeons.

rodrigo said...

The fact that the Prefect of the CDF wrote a study of Bonhoeffer does not make him a "follower" of Bonhoeffer. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a study of the nouvelle théologie. Pope Benedict wrote a study of liberation theology. People can, and do, write about theologies and theologians with whom they disagree.

Whatever legitimate concerns may exist about ~Müller, this is surely not one of them. Don't undermine genuine complaints by mixing them with silliness.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Allison. BIshop Mueller was not the only Bishop who thought as he did. Here is Bishop Bruskewitz:


EXTRA SYNODAL LEGISLATION
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz
Statement issued by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (published in Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996)

All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Planned Parenthood
Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)
Hemlock Society
Call to Action
Call to Action Nebraska
Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel
Freemasons
Job's Daughters
DeMolay
Eastern Star
Rainbow Girls
Catholics for a Free Choice

Miles Dei said...

A sinner, I think you tells a nice story about the Semper Virgo dogma, but you hide the fact that Theology came to detail about thos dogma when the heresy rises to deny it in detail. Just as it was with the Eucharistic presence.

After all, again we are in a curtain of smoke to cover the place of discussion. The protestants says Mary is just another woman and not the most perfect creature of God. In the best of case, they could say She is a great creature, but She is oversized in catholic theology and liturgy. The alarm about the biological facts rise in this context of ecumenical will. So the speech says now "She is not so great" "There is not miracles on Her besides the spiritual virginity" "Yes She is a Virgin, yet we are catholic, but we can understand you, because we think and believe the same".

And finally could you explain why the Roman Cathechism adds "without pain" when it speaks about the virginity "in partu". Was this the work of a Caphernait?

Miles Dei said...

he's emphasizing that the physical mechanics of the process are not the spiritual "content" of that truth
------------------------------------

Yes they are contained only as a efect is contained in its cause.

This would guide us to that kind of truth directly conected with the dogma and that is no speculation. At least not in that part of absence of pain.

Roman Catechism adds "without pain"

And that was because in the ESSENTIAL of the virginitas in partu was not only that she was intact, but the supernatural act of God assiting the born of Jesus as before assisted His conception so the redemption of grace show in perfection of nature in the reality. "Fecit Mihi Magna qui potens est"

R said...

I always thoughts that the purpose of *theology* (as opposed to magisterial teaching) was to construe, interpret, elucidate, and/or expand upon the credal and doctrinal bedrock of our faith, not simply to parrot it. For this reason, theologians are accorded a certain amount of latitude in expressing themselves, since their work necessarily takes them outside of the "safe" confines of precise doctrinal formulae. The very existence of the CDF/Holy Office presumes such a state of affairs: it's job is to monitor theological speculation and to make clear when it has wandered too far from its object, so to speak.

Call me crazy, but I can't get overly worked up about these few quotes of Abp. Mueller, at least not yet. Who's to say that, given the chance, he wouldn't formulate them slightly differently. Speaking about God always demands revision of this kind, because one could always do it better. Some, of course, are satisfied to "look up the answers" in Ott et al...

Tradical said...

Gratias noted " ... We do not need to discuss what Prefect Müller thinks, for he now speaks for the Pope. ..."

The thought that ++Muller will not be influenced by his understanding of Theology and Doctrine in his role as the head of the CDF is naive.

Tradical said...

“Ecumenical doesn't mean that one must give up one's own belief, rather, that we give our Catholic understanding in a way that it is understood from other sides,” he (++Muller) said.

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=5746

What ++Muller thinks is very important and it is reflected in what he says.

What is he saying here? I am concerned that this reflects the core of indifferentism.

Tradical said...

Hi Miles Dei,

Another useful content to this is the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"... that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, ..."

There are other references in Ott.

Suffice to say that it is difficult to deny that ++Muller assertion is puzzling if it is not in contradiction to the pre-V2 doctrine found in councils, Papal declarations as listed by Ott.

I believe that the request for clarification by the SSPX is warranted for someone who holds such a high office within the Church.

Allison said...

I am not Spartacus:
I could have listed several instances of Bishop Muller's public comments against the SSPX Germany and much more recent than 1996. When the excommunications against the SSPX were lifted, it so happened that shortly thereafter was the scheduled ordination of priests and deacons in Germany. Bishop Muller was not happy that the excommunications were lifted. Because of this, the pope asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations to Econe as a favor to him. It was moved out of respect for the pope. Many more examples could be posted.

Miles Dei said...

Lets quote the Roman Cathecism again for more clarity about what is conected with dogma:

"Sed quemadmodum conceptio ipsa naturae ordinem prorsus vincit; ita in ortu nihil non divinitum licet contemplari."

But just as the conceptio fully exceeds the ordination of nature, in the same way at the born is not licit to contemplate something that is no divine itself.


So all the matters at the born of Christ are supernaturals or divines. In the Catechism is explained in the usual way of the light and glass and the exit of Christ of the Tomb or the enter to the disciples with th doors closed. The Catecshim adds with no pain.

We must conclude that is not licit to contemplate a natural biology of the process or a spiritual virginity with a natural biology.

I think that J. Ratzinger said as Prefectus that the Roman Catechism was still valid. So?

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Allison. Try to imagine a Governor of a State remaining indifferent to a man who declares the US Constitution confers upon him the power to govern due to this or that emergency and then that "governor" takes it upon his own self to "elect" legislators for that state who will tell their subjects to ignore the current state laws because of thus or such reason.

That would be no no way to run a state and what the sspx has been doing is no way to run tradition.

Carl said...

I always admire the effort to understand someone's words in the best possible sense. And in this case, we are talking about a Bishop, speaking privately as a theologian. When a Bishop has the presence of mind to set his authority aside in order to explain an opinion he himself deems debatable, this expresses humility, the very opposite of "pertinacity" or "obstinacy." In my opinion this is all that really needs to be said to exonerate Archbishop Müller of the very serious charges levied against him.

But Mgr. Bux wants to go further and exonerate not just his disposition in asserting problematic opinions, but to exonerate the opinions themselves. In the first case, I think he succeeds. He's right: The disputed quote specifies a PRIORITY OF CONCERN, it doesn't actually DENY anything. To be "not so much concerned with X" doesn't mean X is false. It doesn't even mean that X can be false. It means something else is more important than X.

In the second case, Mgr. Bux is not successful. Müller has denied that COMPONENTS of Christ's HUMAN PERSONHOOD are MISSING from the Eucharist! Such an opinion cannot be defended, therefore, the best way to defend him is to say he misspoke, he was wrong, he asserted this without any authority or personal obstinacy.

In the third case, Mgr. Bux is also not very successful. One can perhaps make a case that at the moment of Baptism or for sometime afterward, the newly baptized (or at least those who have not attained the age of reason) are fully and visibly incorporated in the Church. But even that is an uphill battle. Ironically, Vatican II itself contradicts Müller's claim. Lumen Gentium 14 proposes, "The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion." If Müller thinks SSPX should accept the teaching of Vatican II, perhaps he should as well.

In the fourth case, Mgr. Bux's defence is cold comfort. It over-simplifies matters. It substitutes "understanding reasons" and "acting in accord" with being FULLY ON BOARD. The discussions between the Holy See and the Society seem extremely sensitive and both sides need to have a strong desire to Get. This. Done. Has anyone seen any evidence that ++Müller has such a desire? The best outcome seems to me that Müller will stay out of the way, let ++Di Noia do the heavy lifting, and then work on post facto damage control among incensed European bishops.

David said...

The content of this doctrine of faith is not re physiologically and empirically verifiably somatical details ...

What sophistry!

The "content" of the doctrine Mary's perpetual virginity is that Our Lady remained physically a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord. We needn't have a purient interest in the "somatical details" to affirm that those details are implicit in the content of the doctrine.

David said...

Someone should just ask him, flat out: "Do you affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained physically and literally a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord? Yes or no?"

I'd be fascinated to hear the answer.

Tantumblogo said...

I am shocked and dismayed at Msgr. Bux's evasive and dismissive commentary. His arguments, such as they are, are founded in error, either ad hominem, appeals to authority, or creation of straw men. He doesn't answer the real issues raised, he steps around them. I can see why he did so......he would have a very difficult time indeed rationalizing these statements from Muller with Catholic belief.

Carl said...

PKTP - In the last paragraph of Paster Aeternus, Vatican I concludes, "Therefore such definitions [that possess infallibility] of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church IRREFORMABLE." I add the stress on the word "irreformable" to point out that it doesn say merely "free from error." On that subject the Council has already DEFINED that the "this See of St. Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by ANY error." And, "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors ... so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error." Thus "freedom from error" does not belong to the special category of indefectibility that we call infallibility (inability to be corrected) but purveys the whole, even non-infallible doctrines (which may be corrected in the sense of reformulations that are consistent with the underlying meaning). Again, we focus on the ALWAYS and ANY which your theory would seem to transform into SOMETIMES and/or SOME.

Having established the general freedom from error that purveys the entire teaching authority of the Pope (paragraphs 6-7), the Council focuses on the specific definitiveness (irreformability, infallibility) of some papal teachings (paragraphs 8-9). As everyone knows, saying something true is very different from saying something perfectly.

All this said, I think "inerrant" is the wrong word to describe the See's general freedom from error. When applied to texts, this term "inerrant" really ought to be reserved for the inspired Scriptures, which are alone the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. I think Vatican II said it exceptionally well when it wrote that the Sacred Writers "as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted." Dogmas represent definitive interpretations of the truths transmitted by Scripture, not additions to the Scriptures. It's not as though the Church is saying, "Well, if God had really gotten it right, he would have written DOGMA X." In referring to the general freedom from error in the Church - of which infallibility is an exceptional expression - I would call it not "inerrancy" but "doctrinal indefectibility."

Matt said...

Why is Bux being the mouthpiece for Müller? Shouldn’t Müller be explaining his own work, thus giving the clearest interpritation?

Müller wrote, "The body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine."

Okay, the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ whole and entire. How does this square with what Müller wrote?

The Tridentine Council says in the Eucharist Our Lord, true God and true man, is "substantially" present. He is sacramentally present with his substance, a mysterious mode of being,admissible on faith and possible from God… St. Thomas [Aquinas] had said that the mode of "substance" and not the "quantity", characterizes the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The bread and wine as a species or appearances mediate our access to the "substance", something that happens especially in communion. All the same, the Tridentine Council sees no contradiction between the natural way of the presence of Christ in heaven and his sacramental being in many other places. All this was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, unfortunately forgotten. The senses are not enough, but faith is required from us. It is a mystery of the faith

Again, a contradition. What Müller wrote and what the Council of Trent said are still two different things. If there is no doubt about the Eucharistic reality then Müller has to be asked why he brought up the issue in the first place. This is what liberals do; caught in the act and then obfuscate about it saying the two are the same.

…And the Holy Father thinks this guy is the best one for the job. Just great.

A Sinner said...

"I don't understand the confusion on the Eucharist. The appearance of the host after the consecration is a veil hiding the reality. It's a miracle that you don't see Christ standing there when the Priest holds up the Eucharist."

Not quite. The miracle is His substantial presence. However, it is not a physical presence, so it is not an additional miracle that you don't see Him, because the mode of the presence (ie, as a substance sustaining accidents of bread and wine which in themselves inhere no longer in any subject)...would just prevent that naturally.

In fact, if/when the accidents were to collapse...then there would be no longer any Presence, because it is only by association with those accidents (ie, in being the instrument or cause of their being sustained) that the substance of Christ is present. He is not present in the manner of extended accidents Himself, and as such the presence isn't "local" like that.

Meaning, remember: location is also one of the accidents. As such, the altar does NOT become Christ's own inherent accident of location. Christ's own inherent accident of location remains "heaven" (just like His own inherent shape remains that of a body, etc etc).

The accident of location "This church and altar" becomes associated with Him, He becomes sacramentally present, only inasmuch as His body has been made by God the cause of the accidents of the bread, which used to be there, being sustained (even though they no longer inhere in any subject of their own).

As an article from the Real Presence Association explains:

"Another question noted earlier asked whether the accidents are 'hiding' the substance from our gaze, so that their removal would be like drawing back a curtain, allowing us to see Jesus' body. If one is tempted to say yes, a moment's reflection should show that the right answer must be no. A substance can't be seen or tasted or experienced by any of the senses. To think otherwise would reduce substances to the status of accidents, thus making it impossible to see what the dogma of transubstantiation means, and inevitably leading one into bewilderment when trying to explore the teaching."

A Sinner said...

Picard:

I don't think your "new translation" of Muller actually denies the physiological virginity. Rather it says it is not the content of the dogma. This is true.

For example, the incarnation implies that even Christ would have had to defecate and urinate, surely. That is NOT the content of the dogma, however, that is not the "Truth" of the incarnation, in fact it is simply an accidental material "fact" that must have gone along with it, that is logically implied, but not at all the subject of an Article of Faith IN ITSELF.

Likewise with the Virgin Birth or Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is NOT "The Dogma of Our Lady's Hymen" and anyone who constructs it in their mind as such is being of carnal mind.

That is a material fact logically implied by the dogma, but also accidental to its essence. The Article of Faith, its content, its substance, is "The Perpetual Virginity." NOT "the integrity of a certain piece of skin in her nether-regions" anymore than the content of "The Incarnation" as an article of Faith is "Christ had toenails or stomach acid."

He did, but that's merely a fact logically adjunct to the dogma, it is not the essence of the Truth of the dogma qua dogma.

Carl said...

Just to follow up on an earlier statement: ACCIDENTS are not COMPONENTS OF PERSONHOOD. They are "appearances," aspects of a reality that describe not what something IS but how something APPEARS. This is how the term got off track so that in popular usage it almost always means something unintended. Normally our actions reveal our will, but "accidents" APPEAR to reveal a different will than that which actually exists. This is misleading, because we are using to word to describe only MISTAKEN APPEARANCES, when the term really means APPEARANCES.


This is what is so troubling about ++Müller's claim about the Eucharist. I can sympathize with and defend his EFFORT to explain the difference between the physical appearances, all the "stuff" that can be examined by the physical sciences. But once he starts talking about missing COMPONENTS OF PERSONHOOD, how can such a statement be defended? If parts of X are missing, the whole of X cannot be present, and here X = "the personhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity"! The most charitable thing is to say there's a translation problem or that he misspoke badly. Physical accidents are not components of personhood.

David said...

It is the modus operandi of the Modernist, not to deny the doctrine of the faith outright, in the manner of a heretic, but rather to finesse the doctrine down to nothing.

Matt said...

Bux said, "However, doctrinal development benefits from debate: who has more arguments, convinces."

Oh, I see. Doctrinal development is based on who wins the argument with more or better arguments, not that the arguments are upholding or are arriving at the truth itself. Liberal playbook.

"In the charges against Bishop Müller, there is extrapolation from the context: it is easy to condemn anyone like this. A true Catholic must trust the authority of the Pope, always. In particular, I believe that Benedict XVI know that he does. And I would like to renew to the Society of St. Pius X the invitation to trust the Pope."

Okay, so give the SSPX reasons to trust the Holy Father rather than throw last-minute wrenches at them when those very matters supposedly already have been worked out. Another liberal tactic. Always making problems someone else's fault.

"As a bishop, he must instead defend and disseminate the doctrine that is not his, but of the Church, and I think that he has done this. As Prefect, he will continue to do so, under the guidance of the Pope."

It strikes me as silly when people speak for others in what they will or won't do.

Hugh said...

It is reassuring to note that The Confraternity has resumed normal service in condemning liberal modernist chicanery for what it is.
Regularisation and what price?

Neo said...

Don't worry about Bux or Muller. Nothing to see here, folks. They're in "full communion."

Peterman said...

"Someone should just ask him, flat out: "Do you affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained physically and literally a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord? Yes or no?"

That statement got me to thinking. Here in my diocese I used to attend the weekly bone throw TLM on Sunday morning at 12:30. The priest is the right hand scholar of the very liberal bishop here in Florida. During one Sunday homily he mentioned Jesus's brothers, he said it again the following week. I guess in all his theology books he never read that there was no word for cousin in Aramaic. This took an ignorant layman (me) all of about 5 minutess of research time on google and yet this ivory tower, "learned" theologian of the diocese didn't believe, care, or understand.

I see a pattern of the "learned men" of the Church to deny our Lady's everlasting virginity. Just like that heretic Nestorius all those centuries.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. Perkins. According to the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X, the members of the sspx are not to be considered as catholics.


8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?

A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

10 Q Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?

A.The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

Long-Skirts said...

I am not Spart said:

"Try to imagine a Governor of a State remaining indifferent to a man who declares the US Constitution confers upon him the power to govern"

The US Constitution is man-made the Roman Catholic Faith is of God.

Spart goes on:

"... due to this or that emergency"

The Church's "emergency" is about losing souls.

Spart also says:

"That would be no no way to run a state and what the sspx has been doing is no way to run tradition."

It is "no" way but it's God's way!

Definition of KLEPTOCRACY:

...government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed.

THE
TRUE
FORT

Such names they call us
That's not what we are
We are true Roman Catholics
At the front of the war.

Some just go AWOL
Others defect
Copying our stance
Then say we’re a sect.

A lot like in England
Saint John Fisher's day
When his brothers said, "yes"
This Saint replied, "nay"

Alone in the Fort
St. John Fisher stood
Preserving, defending
For the whole all that's good.

Not just for himself
Those attached to what's old
Or reformers reforming
Pretending they're bold.

We're simply preserving
Once again the True Fort
While those with new orders
Relinquish support.

And with promises made
To men hungry for power
They mock stand and point
From their all-approved tower.

Hoping for all
Catholic democracy --
When in fact they’re a collegial
Kleptocracy.

Frank Rega said...

xavier rynne said...
Ok I'm very confused now. Is the consecrated the host the true body and blood of Jesus, or just his "presence."

This is clarified by St. Thomas in the Summa, Part III, Q 76, Art. 1
"By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the nerves, and the like."

A Sinner said...

Carl, as far as I can tell, he never denied the "parts" were present. But they aren't present AS parts, they're present as the Whole. The accidents are present but only in the manner of a substance, but they are not extended.

Again, imagining the eucharist as a little circle of excised flesh, or as a chalice filled with liquid blood...is misleading. Christ is not cannibalized in the Eucharist.

Miles Dei said...

And now go to the Cause:

In principio erat Rahner,
et Rahner erat apud Concilium,
et Concilium erat Rahner.


You must read now: "De virginitas in partu" of Karl Rahner and learn how you can destroy a dogma without denying it. All that is affirmed by Muller or Bux is in Rahner's revisionism of the dogma.

Is the same for the others matters.

Matt said...

KenD asked, "Can you expound upon the passage reference 'judge the sin, not the sinner.'"

This is my take. That passage really refers to the state of the person's soul despite his sins. Only God knows that and where the person may end up. It predicates how we treat each other regarding sin. We are all sinners and in peril of our own souls lest we ardently strive to remain in the state of Grace, but we have to go by theologically obejective standards also, i.e., abortion is a mortal sin, so is missing Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, adultery, fornication, etc.

Carl said...

Not Spartacus: There you go again. In what way do you suppose the members of SSPX not obeyed the Pope? Please be specific. I want you to show us a lawful command of the Pope that the members have one and all disobeyed.

Let me help you: I believe you can try to point to two: the 1975 ordinations and the 1988 consecrations. Neither was done by the "members of the sspx" and both were necessitated by the circumstances of the crisis in the Church. These are the only two times I can think of where the Pope said, "Society do or don't do X" and the Society ignored him and did what they had to do.

Now that the Holy See has said that the traditional Mass was never abolished, SSPX has been implicitly exonerated. SSPX ignored not a papal command but unintelligible noise. "You may preserve the traditional Mass as long as you don't take any action necessary to actually preserve the traditional Mass." The pope might as well have "commanded" the Society: "Fishes and balloons object to the red pie's grandmother and moon." You don't have to obey unintelligible nonsense. It's actually not even possible.

Hugh said...

I am not spartacus

Unfortunately for this definition it applies to normal pre-Conciliar Roman Catholicism. You should have noticed by now that the church is guided by an entirely new paradigm based on liberal modernism - for that read with utmost attention "Pascendi" and "Lamentabile Sane".
The Society is doing a maginificent opus in proecting Sacred Tradition - the very cause Pope St Pius X worked for.

Carl said...

A (Fellow) Sinner - You can't say the "whole" is present if "components" (compositional elements or ingredients) are missing. It would be like saying "I have a whole Supreme Pizza, except for the crust, cheese, tomato sauce, pepperoni, sausage, green peppers, olives and onions. Except for all that, I have the whole pizza." To say something is "wholly" present means that it is present in ALL its "components."


This is why I alluded to the possibility of defending Müller's statement on the grounds that "components" is a mistranslation of a German word that doesn't mean quite the same thing as the English "component." Once you remove even one component, the whole is compromised. When we say, "Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity" we are using shorthand that beneath the accidents, all of Christ's "components" are present: absolutely nothing is missing. When we say the Body and Blood of Christ, we mean the material components with which he lived and walked the earth and which ascended with him into heaven are there beneath the veil.


What's "misleading" about imagining Christ as a little circle of "excised" flesh is that it also separates the Eucharist from the WHOLE, it turns the Eucharist into a compenent. The Chalice IS filled with liquid Blood, but if that's "misleading" it is because it seems to preclude that the body, soul, divinity -- the whole Christ -- is there in the Chalice. It seems to suggest that it is ONLY his Blood, which would be false. Likewise, what's wrong with the cannibal reference is that cannibals eat the body and blood of of corpse. What we consume is no corpse, but the living and active Word of God, the soul's only food, the Incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Born of the Virgin Mary, Who suffered, died and is risen. Whatever "components" there are to Christ, there are to the Eucharist. What is different are the ACCIDENTS. One cannot correctly say "components of the human person" are missing. Perhaps even more troubling are the Nestorian implications of calling Jesus a "human person": personhood is usually theologically defined by origination, which in Jesus' case is not human but divine. This is why you never see Jesus called a "human person" but only referred to as a "divine person" in Magisterial documents.

Carl said...

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not accusing Müller of anything except misstatement. I am not accusing him (or anyone else who uses the phrase "human person" with reference to Christ) of Nestorianism.

I sympathize with his struggle to explain the obvious physical (i.e. biological, chemical, molecular) differences between the Eucharistic and the historical forms of Christ's Body, but wandering outside of traditional dogmatic language of substance and accident doesn't seem a promising route for explaining this difference to today's audiences. We must explain the traditional language, not abandon it because of the baggage these terms have accumulated through centuries of technically inaccurate popular use (e.g. "the substance felt slimy," "he accidentally stepped on my foot," etc.).

We don't need to fight to suppress such usages from popular language, but we do need to constantly reclaim the technical meaning. It is not outside the ability of "John Q. Modernman" to understand that sometimes the same word has multiple meanings. Even very young children understand this. My three year old son knows the difference between "doing something right" and his "right hand." So why can't people be expected to understand that "substance" and "accident" can have more than one meaning?

People aren't as dumb as our "theologians" often seem to enjoy thinking they are. (Perhaps also our "theologians" aren't as intelligent as they often seem to enjoy thinking they are)

David said...

Rahner ... the Modernist par excellence.

A theology professor said...

"Miles Dei" is absolutely right. Msgr. Bux is throwing out a smokescreen to cover up the scandalous heterodoxy of Archbishop Mueller's statements about Mary's virginity 'in partu' and Christ's Eucharistic presence. Msgr. Bux's attempt at 'damage control' is all the more dishonorable, given that, as the price of defending Mueller, he has to misrepresent and calumniate the latter's critics. For he resorts to tarnishing them with 'guilt by association' with the "Capernaists" in John ch. 6.

The mistake of the original 'Capernaists' was to assume that Jesus' words about eating his body and drinking his blood were to be understood in a natural sense i.e., eating and drinking the body and blood with their substance joined normally to their natural accidents. That of course would be cannibalism.

But those of us who are profoundly scandalized by Archbishop Mueller's opinion are not falling into that error - or anything like it. The central fallacy in Msgr. Bux's attempt to justify Mueller's thesis is its implicit confusion between two concepts that must be carefully distinguished: "natural" and "material". Thus, when Mueller denies that we eat and drink the "material components" of Jesus' "transfigured corporality" in the Eucharist, Bux whitewashes this shocking assertion by implicitly reducing it to the obvious truism that we don't receive Jesus in a merely natural mode of eating and drinking, in which his Body and Blood would be perceptible as such to our five senses. For that scenario was precisely what disconcerted the 'Capernaists' in Galilee.

And why, then, is the new CDF Prefect's assertion so shocking? Because to deny that we receive in Holy Communion the "material components" of Jesus' "transfigured corporality" is to deny that we receive his true Body and Blood – period! For human body and blood are, in their immutable essence, material realities, whether in their natural, earthly modality, or in their supernatural, heavenly, transfigured modality, in which condition they become substantially present under the sense-perceptible characteristics ("accidents") of bread and wine.

In short, a "non-material" "body and blood" of Christ would simply not be his body and blood at all! For according to the primordial dichotomy within created reality professed at the beginning of our Creed (and defined at Lateran Council IV) - the dichotomy, that is, between the visible and the invisible, matter and spirit - anything that is not matter (or its convertible modality, physical energy) is ipso facto spirit. And the real body of any human being, whether in this world or the next, is most certainly not spirit. To say that it is would amount to a heretical redefinition of man as an angel - a pure spirit.

Now, Archbishop Mueller is not implying that sort of redefinition of man. He recognizes that the risen Christ's corporality has "material components". But in denying that we receive these "material components" in the Eucharist, he is denying that we receive Jesus' true body and blood there. Rather, as he himself says, the words "body and blood", as used in a Eucharistic context, actually "mean" nothing more than his (undefined) "presence" in "the signs of the medium of bread and wine".

The Pope should now require Archbishop Mueller, as a condition of his remaining in office - and indeed, of remaining in communion with the Catholic Church! - to publicly profess his full and sincere adherence to Paul VI's contrary assertion in the 1968 'Credo of the People of God' (i.e., that the bread and wine "have ceased to exist" after the consecration).