Rorate Caeli

The Bad Cop routine

From the interview granted by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Abp. Müller, to the Catholic Herald:

Archbishop Müller, who was appointed prefect in July this year, oversees reconciliation talks with the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in his new role. He told the Herald that “the SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith and its practice” as “disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ”.

He said: “The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”

He later continued: “Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? I want to say to people in extreme groups to put their ideology to one side and come to Jesus Christ.”
"Extreme ideology"

51 comments:

I am not Spartacus said...

In his Dec 23, 2005 address to The Curia, Our Holy Father stated:

By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions.

and isn't that the essence of what the SSPX claims - that Vatican Two "corrected" that which the SSPX thinks ought not to have been corrected?

And if the Magisterium can change the past (like in regards the infamous Rosmini Rehabilitation) what is to prevent it from continuing the continuity of change?

David S. said...

There is a difference between revising and correcting past decisions, and revising and correcting past doctrine.

Popes throughout history have revised and corrected. Pope St. Pius X himself approved a major revision to the Roman Breviary. Perhaps not the high point of his pontificate.

One of the little-known fruits of Vatican II is that it called for a restoration of the traditional Breviary hymns, undoing the changes made by Pope Urban VIII.

That is certainly "revising and correcting a past decision," and is also very much in keeping with the hermeneutic of continuity and reform.

stefangillies said...

“Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? I want to say to people in extreme groups to put their ideology to one side and come to Jesus Christ.”

...If I remember rightly St Pius X said the proponents of modernism would try to turn the ideological argument back on the faithful!
Archbishop Müller goes on to say that he had been an admirer of the current Pope since he was in seminary and used to read the Pope’s book - 'An Introduction to Christianity' during his formation. He said...

“It was a new book at the time and the concentrated theological insights are ever present in my mind today.”

...this is the same book that was banned by Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski in the Warsaw archdiocese in 1968 because of its modernist leanings!

Stefan Gillies

Francis said...

“Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? I want to say to people in extreme groups to put their ideology to one side and come to Jesus Christ.”

Muller would know about "cherry-picking points". After all he's the man that questioned the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, Transubstantiation and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus while promoting a modernist and relativist mindset when it comes to interpreting the novelties which came out of the Second Vatican Council like ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc. If it's anybody that has to "accept the fullness of the Catholic faith and its practice" it should be modernists like Muller and his ilk. The FSSPX, in my opinion, aren't the ones who have tried to change the meanings of two-thousand years of de-fide Catholic dogma to appease the world, false religions, and heretical sects.

Gerard Brady said...

An 'ideology' like Liberation Theology? How is anybody to take this man seriously?

Don M said...


The entire statement is surreal.
The king has no clothes sort of thing.
{ distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”}
PAlesse..Enough with that canard!
The Church from the top down, since the council and most dramatically the 1st 30 years. Tore down the Altars. Ignored Encyclicals on teaching Latin and Birth control. Tore apart the Holy Mass.Introduced a new theology; Smashed the Statuary/Sanctuaries.Emptied the libraries of anything that was Traditional Catholism . Persecuted Her own Children that still read and believed what the Holy Doctors of the Church taught. Introduced every novelty they could lay their hands on ALL IN THE SPIRIT OF VAT 2.
Now we get this garbage, as if we are all suposed to pretend that none of this really happened, and f it did well just an abuse here and there!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus have Mercy on us.

Libera Me said...

This brings to mind our Lady's message at La Sallette:

"Priests, my Son's ministers, priests, by their evil life, by their irreverences and their impiety in celebrating the holy mysteries, love of money, love of honor and pleasures, priests have become sewers of impurity. Yes, priests call forth vengeance, and vengeance is suspended over their heads. Woe to priests, and to persons consecrated to God, who by their infidelities and their evil life are crucifying my son anew! The sins of persons consecrated to God cry to heaven and call for vengeance, and now here is vengeance at their very doors, for no longer is anyone found to beg mercy and pardon for the people; there are no more generous souls, there is now no one worthy of offering the spotless Victim to the Eternal on the worlds behalf.

"God will strike in an unparalleled manner. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth! God will exhaust His anger, and no one will be able to escape so many evils at once. The heads, the leaders of the people of God, have neglected prayer and penance, and the devil has darkened their minds; they have become those wandering stars which the ancient devil will drag with his tail to destruction. God will permit the ancient serpent to sow divisions among rulers, in all societies and in all families; both physical and moral punishments will be suffered. God will abandon men to themselves and will send chastisements one after the other for over 35 years.

"Society is on the very eve of most terrible scourges and greatest events; one must expect to be governed by a rod of iron and to drink the chalice of God's wrath."

God Have Mercy on Your Church!

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

... says the new Chief Cherry Picker himself!

LeonG said...

Therefore, Cardinal Mueller you oiught to know that pope St Pius X roundly and clearly condemned the liberal modernist idology which you represent. This is the cacopany of ideologies supporting novelty and change which has prokoked appalling division in the church so robust and healthy when Pope John XXIII opened the disastrous councils. However, we can see the mess that 50 years of revolution have caused. We also note the new paradigmatic structures that have undermined the Sacred Liturgy and rendered ineffective pastoral amd missionary processes today.

Indeed, the modernist contemporary church is ideology itself. Read about your philosophy in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane. They point an accusatory finger at you.

David Joyce said...

Teachings, or policies, that contradict former pronouncements of the Church of a higher order cannot be the Church’s teachings. Especially when they have resulted in such great damage and confusion.

Don M said...

Listen to what Archbishop Müller says " Which is more important: an ideology or the faith" There it is!
Not Ideology Bishop Muller but Apostolic Catholic teachings that give us a love and TRUE understanding of our Faith. Not this false ecumenism garbage with knee jerk comments like" Which is more important: an ideology or the faith"

The champions of Vat 2 are not turning back, and the Church they buried must not be allowed to be reborn. They can see what they created, and even if they repent of their errors ;they know that a return to our Holy Traditions and Apostolic teachings wil just divide the Church further. The Horror of it all!
The SSPX cannot be allowed to come home unless they surrender everything before the council, or if you will the Church of our Catholic forefathers.
They cannot be allowed to bring the fullness and Beauty of the Holy Catholic Church with them.
Truly a nightmare which is sure to get worse.
They CANNOT allow the restoration of the Church as so-called Traditionalists pray for. Division would be everywhere.
Franciscan would feel pressured to embrace the Rule of St. Francis again
The Jesuits would have to go back to St Ignatius again
Many Nuns and other orders would have to cover over their labyrinths
Division Division Division
The chaff is so thickly sowed that they dare not correct it.
Woe to us Catholics
Deo Gratias

Inquisitor said...

The problem is that the Church admits that Catholics have a right debate doctrines which have not been definitively taught by the magisterium.

Ergo, since the Vatican won't clarify what parts of Vatican II must be definitively held, the position of Archbishop Muller doesn't really hold water. If the Church doesn't say that you have to believe something then aren't you free to cherry-pick until the Church does define it? Is their a defined dogma in VII that is being rejected by the SSPX's cherry-picking?

The burden of proof is on the papacy to show/declare what parts of VII Catholics are bound to believe, before it can condemn the SSPX for "heresy".

(The accusation of the SSPX being in heresy is strongly implied by the archbishop in his statement about cherry-picking doctrines. (After all if you're cherry-picking doctrines from the Deposit of Faith, that suggests there are Catholic doctrines that you are not holding. The implication of +Abp Muller's statement is that whomever is talking about does not hold the entire Catholic Faith inviolate and are thus heretics.)

The odd thing is that if the Vatican is so confident about its position on the SSPX having to accept VII, then why doesn't the Vatican/papacy directly and clearly declare what is defective about the SSPX's faith and morals? Why doesn't the pope define a syllabus of errors for VII?

Sixupman said...

++Muller is magnificent in his ineptitude, how was he able to rise through the ranks?

Helen said...

What a perfect summary in a few sentences!

LeonG said...

There is absolutely no coincidence but remarkable synchronicty with what Mueller is saying and the French Interior Minister Manuel Valls. The latter has recently made a public statement against Civitas and The SSPX as organisations under possible state scrutiny for extremist religious pathologies. Anybody with eyes can see the agenda hiding behind the ecumenical & interconfessional wall.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear David S. Do you know that for sure?

I think what he said is in continuity with the radical change he instituted as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisorial disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfiled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

Well, so much for former Popes and their authoritative decisions which everyone thought permanent; however, the then Cardinal was serving as his own sapper of Magisterial Authority was he not?

If he can zap what everyone thought were irreformable teachings then what is putatively permanent about V2 decisions which are pastoral, not dogmatic, decisions?

HeWhoExaltsHimself said...

Does the faith change for "modern" man:

"The flight from responsibility, which degrades human persons, and even more so the killing of a defenceless and innocent being, will never be able to produce happiness or peace. Indeed how could one claim to bring about peace, the integral development of peoples or even the protection of the environment without defending the life of those who are weakest, beginning with the unborn. Every offence against life, especially at its beginning, inevitably causes irreparable damage to development, peace and the environment."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/14/pope-truce-peacemakers-defend-human-life-from-abortion/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+(LifeNews.com)

Not to mention that it KILLS the body of someone and produces eternal death for those who sin - but don't catch St Paul VI, St John Paul II, or St Benedict XVI preaching the ten commandments, judgment or hell to "modern man". But does the faith change because these popes have chosen an ideology over belief in the Word of God about how to pr(t)each? Every generation (including Moses and Jesus) has faced the same scoffers and unbelievers. In the face of moral corruption, following the example of Jesus Christ (and all the prophets who came before him), the Church preached repentance and turning back to God (Jesus made divorce, lust, anger, etc. illegal). Until John XXIII -

P.S. how has benedict or his bishops defended the unborn? I hear a few U.S. bishops crying that their successors might be imprisoned and calling on catholics to protest for "religious freedom". Unfortunately, 56 million (almost = to the number of U.S. catholics) people have been SLAUGHTERED over the past 40 years and not one bishop has even resisted to the point of arrest. Ghandi & MLK went to jail and engaged in hunger fasts so that blacks / Indians could sit on a bus and drink out of a "white" drinking fountain. Where is the "civil" disobedience for the unborn (perhaps Cardinal Dolan could issue a comment)?

cyrillist said...

IANS: "If he can zap what everyone thought were irreformable teachings then what is putatively permanent about V2 decisions which are pastoral, not dogmatic, decisions?"

It's the fact that the V-II decisions are pastoral that makes them hard to counter. When a directive is clear, you know where you are and can address it accordingly. When a directive is vague, it can mean something different to each person, and there's nothing definite to react to, except the fact of the vagueness itself. If this vagueness was deliberate, it was a masterstroke of the V-II architects.

Beefy Levinson said...

We must distinguish between abuses and what Vatican II actually said? Alright your Excellency, I can agree to that. I would appreciate it if you could meet me halfway and make bold declarative statements about what Vatican II said and crack down on said abuses instead of leaving ignorant laymen like me to have to constantly duke it out with progressive clergy and laity.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Cyrillist. That's a keen insight. Dealing with such vagueness is nettlesome; and, after fifty years of V2 one would think that one Magisterial Document (perhaps a Tweet) could end this endless speculation about what is and isn't the irreformable doctrine (does such a truth even exist anymore?) of V2 for if the great and consequential decisions of many of the great past Popes can be subjected to defenestration or evisceration, then what in V2 could possibly be claimed to be irreformable?

But what was not vague was this Encyclical by Pope Saint Pius X( Noted in "war against being" by Mr. Larson) . I do not know how the reader of it can reconcile it with its radical rejection by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of The CDF.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm

I happily confess my low brow intellect so I would greatly appreciate it if one of the smart set can silence the ears of my soul which keeps hearing the obvious conflict screaming at it; that is, how is continuity preserved when the teachings of this great and holy Pope can simply be vacated by a Prefect of The CDF?

If this be continuity that word now has a definition that is so elastic it can shroud Holy Mother Church.

Patrick Langan said...

They the modernists know where their extreme ideology is leading and they point the finger at orthodox Catholics ? They have been uncovered and their errors will be laid bare

Truth Seeker said...

I think we ALL have our favorite doctrines in the Church.

For me my favorite doctrines are the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, other doctrines seen as ancillary to these: devotion to the Theoetokos, faith in the Apostolic success, and the like.

The others I believe, but basically let them go. If others here are honest, they do the same.

But this is why the Church is Catholic. There are doctrines and devotions that appeal to and answer the spiritual needs of everyone.

One can do this without getting accused of being a "cherry picker."

Didimaya said...

Quote from Archbishop Mueller:

"Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church's teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology."

How many trads have thoughtfully and honestly examined themselves to see if they if they are indeed cherry-picking points in order to support a particular ideology? From reading the comments here so far, It seems that none have done so. I think that all trads should seriously consider this question. Though it's far easier to condemn the man, rather then consider what he says.

Tom said...

The FSSP obeys the Apostolic See's rules. It would be nice if the Society of Saint Pius X did the same.

Tom

The Rad Trad said...

A marvelous example of how the resolute, unchanging mind of modern Church leadership has confuses Catholic belief about something, Hell in this case, to the point where it can become an item of parody in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568590-hundreds-years-hell-has-been-most-fearful-place-human-imagination-it

Note in the second and fourth the implication that the Church no longer believes Hell to be an actual place or outcome, just a state of being alone, a watered down and thankfully modernized version of an absurdly ancient concept. Will we heard a peep about this error from the head of the CDF, or even His Holiness? I'd wager the odds of my tennis shoes turning into black holes are higher.

John Fisher said...

Muller is talking the same old double talk worthy of a politician or Public Relations man. 1/The abuses following Vatcian II continue and are institionalised. What Muller is really stressing is that VERY German emphasis on authority. He has not examined or accepted the TRUTH that those in authority are responsable for the abuses in the Church. The doctuments of Vatican II are woffle. They ramble and have no overall precision. Following orders is what has lead to where we are. Authority musy have its own mode of operation and Muller should not dictate like a little Hilter of Dr Goebbels what the correct party line is.

John L said...

This is horrifying. There is no question that the SSPX accepts the fullness of the Catholic faith. The contentious points about Vatican II that they reject have not been solemnly defined as teachings of the faith and have not been infallibly taught in any other fashion (to put it mildly). They are thus not parts of the Catholic faith; any demands that they should be believed can only be based on their possessing some lesser level of authority. It is thus obviously false to claim that the Society does not possess the fullness of the faith. And, in fact, this has never been claimed in any of the previous disputes with the Society; never under Paul VI or John Paul II. You don't have to be an expert theologian to know this.

Filipino Catholic said...

The Jesuits have just played a leading role in getting the Philippines to pass its highly immoral "Reproductive Health Bill", and their coddler the Cardinal of Manila winks and does nothing. And yet the CDF can see nothing better to do than to continue hammering on the SSPX, which actually played a disproportionate role in trying to fight this bill in the Philippines.

cyrillist said...

Dear Pseudo-Spartacus: Merci! I'd also add that if the V-II vagueness was not deliberate, the situation might be even worse, since it's easier to combat outright malice than inadvertence... ;-)

Btw, your soi-disant "low brow intellect" would appear to have a bit in common with that of Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, who has been plaintively and submissively requesting papal clarification of controversial V-II teachings for quite some time! (http://www.dici.org/en/news/vatican-council-ii-a-debate-that-has-not-taken-place-by-msgr-brunero-gherardini/)

Jim Larkin said...

Reading the documents of Vatican II carefully, with a grounding in history or theology or logic reveals some of them to be ambiguous and self-contradictory at best. As our Holy Father, Pope Benedict said, "there is much that is good and beautiful to be found in the documents, but whether the council is fruitful remains to be determined." (slight paraphrase)

But to pretend that there are not tremendous problems in (some) of the documents themselves is to ignore logic, language, history, and revelation.

Something is gravely amiss when a multitude of dissenters from essential tenets of the faith are welcomed while those who cry out that something has gone wrong in the past two generations are ostracized.

NIANTIC said...

It is becoming more and more clear that this man should never have been appointed to the position he currently holds. Very sad.

OutsideObserver said...

So, this is supposed to be a "Bad Cop" routine. Wonder what the Good Cop routine is supposed to look like -- soothing words from Abp. Di Noia or Msgr. Bux?

The problem with a "Bad Cop-Good Cop" routine is that it implies either of two conclusions, both of which reflect badly on the Vatican:

1) The dealings with the SSPX (if we can still call them that) are all about luring them into unity using whatever means necessary.

2) The Holy See really is divided and cannot speak with a united voice.

Inquisitor said...

How many trads have thoughtfully and honestly examined themselves to see if they if they are indeed cherry-picking points in order to support a particular ideology? From reading the comments here so far, It seems that none have done so. I think that all trads should seriously consider this question. Though it's far easier to condemn the man, rather then consider what he says.

Didimaya, I think that the problem is NOT that "traditionalists" are trying to "cherry-pick" doctrines to fit their ideology. (They are not Cafeteria Catholics by nature.) The whole basis of the "traditionalist" mindset is built upon the idea that one must conform themselves to what the Church has always taught. For a traditionalist, their Faith IS their ideology. Thus their ideologies must conform to the Faith and not the other way around.

Thus if a "traditionalist" perceives that the Church has definitively taught a certain doctrine, then the "traditionalist" will conform himself to that doctrine, as long as the Church can demonstrate to him that the Church has always taught the said doctrine, and that nothing in the infallible magisterium says otherwise.

A "traditionalist" will not intentionally cherry-pick doctrines. A traditionalist by the very definition of tradition, feels bound to hand down that which they have received in its entirety, as they understand it. Do you see what I mean? For a traditionalist, the Faith IS their ideology. Thus a traditionalist will not KNOWINGLY cherry-pick because cherry-picking is changing the faith.

If ++ Archbishop Muller wants to convince the "traditionalists" of his argument, he will have to demonstrate to the "traditionalists" that his claims about the nature of the documents of Vatican II are in line with the dogma that the Church has always and infallibly taught it. So far the Church has not authoritatively done this.

Though I agree with you that everyone should honestly examine his conscience to see if it conforms with the Deposit of Faith as the Church has taught it, I just wanted to a point out once more that a traditionalist will not knowingly cherry-pick doctrines, because cherry-picking dogma to change the Faith is effectively a form of modernism.

chaimbeul said...

Outside observer wrote:

"The Holy See is divided and cannot speak with a untited voice."

And traditional Catholics here are united in condemning a man who is a lawful servent of the Church, appointed by the vicar of Christ. Those who seek to influence or control the traditional movement in the Church will have much to answer for, in that they have intentionally sown discord, which is the work of Satan. May God have mercy on you who promote division by exploiting weak minds.

Anonymous said...

OutsideObserver said...

2) The Holy See really is divided and cannot speak with a united voice.

----------

There is another option:

Modernists don't accept the principle of non-contradiction (which says that the affirmation and denial of the same thesis cannot be), but only tolerate those who accept the principle of self-contradiction (say one thing today, and another tomorrow, and if they disagree, what the hell!)

Sincerely,

Roman Observer

Long-Skirts said...

Jim Larkins said:

"Something is gravely amiss when a multitude of dissenters from essential tenets of the faith are welcomed while those who cry out that something has gone wrong in the past two generations are ostracized."

UPON THIS ROCK

Weary, weary,
On this earth
Shielding souls
Beyond their worth.

Few are grateful
Some regress
Others proud
They won't confess

When the waves
Break on the shore
Warning them
What is before.

Established
You stand on this rock
'Gainst the gales
'Fore those who mock

Facing squalls
They cannot see
But all behold
Your bended knee.

Few will follow
Some deny
Oblivious
They won't comply.

Then a blue moon
Saffron sun
Come together
Almost one.

Fingers blessed
With Holy Oil
You lift the Light…
Sun moon recoil.

Blinding many
Opening eyes
Contradiction
Most despise.

But on this rock
Eroded-rife
You stand your ground
Opposing strife.

Between the storms
And sheep you block
The tempest winds
That hurt the flock.

With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux

Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
Catholicity.

john said...

These types of comments from ++Muller are becoming non-events because they say nothing new and nothing much. He huffs and puffs but the house just stands. Is it possible the dwelling is built on Rock not sand? Are the statements intended to mitigate the impact of inevitable recognition? Or some other weighty communication that might be comming from the Holy Father?

I am not Spartacus said...

And traditional Catholics here are united in condemning a man who is a lawful servent of the Church, appointed by the vicar of Christ. Those who seek to influence or control the traditional movement in the Church will have much to answer for, in that they have intentionally sown discord, which is the work of Satan. May God have mercy on you who promote division by exploiting weak minds.

Dear Chaimbeul. You write as though you posses the charism of afflatus when you impute malign motives to others.

I think legitimate questions are being asked by sincere and strident Catholic Traditionalists who have great zeal for the House of The Lord and who are reluctant to continue in quietism when obvious contradictions are being described as continuity.

I am the same age as Israel and I was born into a Church that was rock solid and which Church taught with clarion specificity and which Church was clearly an enemy of the world, the flesh, and the devil and I now find myself in a Church which has undergone radical and fundamental changes (from Mass to Sacraments to Doctrines) and which now has a voice that is muted, temerarious, and fuzzy; that is, it is clearly a different Catholic Church than the one I was born into and everyone knows that it is a different Catholic Church even if the Prefect of The Sacred Congregation of the Everything is Different, Nothing Has Changed Commission, keeps claiming continuity.

And writing just for my own self, I insist that my intent is not to sow discord but, rather, to discharge my Confirmational Duties as a Catholic Militant.

And, finally, I do not think there is one blessed thing wrong about asking my Father in Rome - with whom I have always maintained the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority - to address what are, objectively, obvious contradictions twixt the Catholic Church I was born into and the Catholic Church of today.

Oh,one last thing; will one of the smart set please tell me the time in our 2000+ year history that such sudden and dramatic changes were imposed so that it appeared that the Catholic Church had completely changed and that what we are experiencing has happened before in Ecclesiastical history and , failing that, would they be kind and courageous enough to confess that these radical novelties are not only obvious but destructive.

Whats Up! said...

"The odd thing is that if the Vatican is so confident about its position on the SSPX having to accept VII, then why doesn't the Vatican/papacy directly and clearly declare what is defective about the SSPX's faith and morals? Why doesn't the pope define a syllabus of errors for VII?"

Triple Yes!

Sixupman said...

The Vatican are unable to identify any defects in SSPX Faith and Morals, that is why they attempt the 'Potemkin' ploy elevating Vatican II, in its entirety,to De Fide status.

Plus the 'Disobedience' angle and SSPX clergy operating whilst devoid of 'Faculties' from the Local Ordinaries. Which Ordinaries will include many who do not even adhere to the basic tenets of Mother Church.

Picard said...

Not-Spartacus (IANS):

touche,
touche,
touche
and
touche!

I am not Spartacus said...

Long before his election, the great Pope Saint Pius X used to read, and re-read, the writings of the great French Cardinal Pie who issued this 1864 caution in a sermon:

"Hear this maxim, O you, Catholics full of temerity, who so quickly adopt the ideas and the language of your time, you who speak of reconciling the faith and of reconciling the Church with the modern spirit and with the new law. And you who accept with so much confidence the most dangerous pursuits of what our age so pridefully labels "Science," see to what extent you are straying from the program set out by the great Apostle, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so-called" (I Tim. 6:20). But take heed. With such temerities, one is soon led farther than he first had thought. And in placing themselves on the slope of profane novelties—in obeying the currents of so-called science—many have lost the Faith.

Have you not often been saddened, and taken fright, my venerable brothers, on hearing the language of certain men, who believe themselves still to be sons of the Church, men who still practice occasionally as Catholics and who often approach the Lord's Table? Do you still believe them to be sons, do you still believe them to be members of the Church, those who, wrapping themselves in such vague phrases as modern aspirations and the force of progress and civilization, proclaim the existence of a "consciousness of the laity," of a secular and political conscience opposed to the "conscience of the Church," against which they assume the right to react, for its correction and renewal? Ah! So many passengers, and even pilots, who, believing themselves to be yet in the barque, and playing with profane novelties and the lying science of their time, have already sunk and are in the abyss. "

And now read this declaration from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. "World" is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. The consciousness of being a detached group that existed in the Church viewed this spirit as something separate from herself and, after the hot as well as cold wars were over, she sought dialogue and cooperation with it.

++++++++ end of quotes +++++

Would someone please tell me how these two views of how Catholics ought manage their relationship with their ancient enemy, the world, is indicative of continuity.

Reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation with our ancient enemy the world. Really?

This is Catholic Tradition?

The plain and simple truth is that Ecclesia Docens has been superseded by Ecclesia Dialogus; and that ain't kosher.

cyrillist said...

"...it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789."

In other words, the French Revolution (of all things) rendered the World fit for Catholic consumption? Although it's been said, many times, many ways, "Wow. Just wow."

Seraph said...

This coming from the man who embraces the heresy of Liberation Theology. Archbishop Muller pals around with Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez for crying out loud.

Clerics who embrace heresy have no business holding the offices they do. We have a legion of Catholic clerics holding heresies in the hierarchy who do the work of the devil. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Fritz the Cat said...

Long-Skirts,

Great to see that you're still pumping out the doggerel!

John said...

Morality and Church - State relations were of much different quality in 1965 than in 2012. It may have appeared to the Council that respectful relations with the secular world were possible.

Not so today. The Church is on the run and its members including parts of the Magisterium have been co-opted by the world. As the present Holy Father predicted in the future the Church will be much smaller. It already is.

The reform of the Reform strategy has been rejected by modernists. It matters because they are in charge everywhere.

Hidden One said...

It is by no means wise to lightly throw scorn and insults at the Successors of the Apostles, both of St. Peter and otherwise.

Picard said...

IANS:

Again: touche

But as you wrote:
"You write as though you posses the charism of afflatus when you impute malign motives to others.
I think legitimate questions are being asked by sincere and strident Catholic Traditionalists who have great zeal for the House of The Lord and who are reluctant to continue in quietism when obvious contradictions are being described as continuity."


- then this must be also preaching for the preacher, needn't it?!

Oh IANS, seest thou only the mote in your brothers eye...?!

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Picard. Brother, thou knowest that trees the size of the ancient cedars in Libanus fill my eyes but pride in knee jerk papal loyalty blinded those like my own self who are now arriving late to reality.

Mea culpa...

Picard said...

Dear IANS,

brother in CHRIST, I wish you all the best - blessings & grace of our LORD, the CHRIST, and the intercession of his holy Mother for the rest of this holy advent-time and then especially for CHRISTmass. You will be in my prayers!

Yours
Picard

Beatitude said...

Inquisitor:
Well said. I was thinking along those lines, myself.
My Ideology is the Teachings of Jesus Christ, The Magisterium and The Tradition (with a CAPITAL T). of The Church.

I WILL cherry-pick anything not in conformity with THAT. eg:
Ecumenism?
"I am the Way, The Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" John 14:6.
I WILL "cherry-pick" the ideology of ecumenism since it does not seem to conform with Christ's words.
He did not "dialogue" with those who found His Words: "Amen, Amen I say to you: He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will have Life Everlasting" John 6:55 instead "many of His disciples turned back and no longer went about with Him." John 6:67. He did not dialogue, even with His Apostles "Do you also wish to go away?" John 6:69
and on and on, with "other" "ideologies", etc.

Abp. Müller says: “Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? …."
It seems he has this backwards. It is NOT "cherry-picking" from the Church's teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology, What it IS, is "cherry-picking" from ideologies for the sake of the Church's Teachings; (for the sake of the Faith.)