The following comes from a Feb. 25 posting by Carl Olson on Catholic World Report.
Who, exactly, is reassuring whom? And about what?
Those were my thoughts upon reading David Gibson’s spin-laden, cliché-soaked piece, “U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke: Pope Francis opposes abortion and gay marriage” (Feb 21, 2014), for Religion News Service. Gibson’s report was on an essay by Cardinal Burke, who is Prefect of the Sacred Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, titled “The Pope’s radical call to the new evangelization”, for L’Osservatore Romano earlier the same day.
Gibson’s first sentence immediately tries to stuff Cardinal Burke’s essay into a narrow, politicized framework:
As Pope Francis led the world’s cardinals in talks aimed at shifting the church’s emphasis from following rules to preaching mercy, a senior American cardinal took to the pages of the Vatican newspaper on Friday (Feb. 21) to reassure conservatives that Francis remains opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
Cardinal Burke, you see, isn’t so much interested in reflecting upon the words and actions of Pope Francis as he is in gently patting the furrowed brows of fretting, simplistic Catholics who might wonder if the Holy Father is, in fact, on board with the Church’s perennial teachings on issues of life, sexuality, and related matters. Or, more bluntly: Cardinal Burke is a politician first, and pastor second.
Gibson’s piece is an outstanding example of bad Catholic journalism—both as the work of a Catholic and in its representation of the topic at hand. Two rhetorical tactics are immediately evident: the skewed portrayal of Cardinal Burke as a disgruntled, even angry, reactionary and the use of Gibson’s favorite negative descriptive: “conservative”:
Cardinal Raymond Burke acknowledged that the pope has said the church “cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.” But in his toughly worded column in L’Osservatore Romano, the former archbishop of St. Louis blasted those “whose hearts are hardened against the truth” for trying to twist Francis’ words to their own ends.
Burke, an outspoken conservative who has headed the Vatican’s highest court since 2008, said Francis in fact strongly backs the church’s teaching on those topics. He said the pope is simply trying to find ways to convince people to hear the church’s message despite the “galloping de-Christianization in the West.”
For those who rely only on Gibson’s description, Burke’s essay sounds like the shrill manifesto of a man desperate—the term “conservative unease” is used twice!—to spin the words of Francis to his own, well, “conservative” agenda. In fact, it is Gibson who is spinning—slyly, if not shrilly—the words of Burke. To take just one more blatant example:
Burke said he was prompted to write his column after a recent visit to the U.S. in which he became alarmed that so many people wanted to know whether the pope’s statements about not judging gays and his stress on mercy and welcoming everyone augured a change in church doctrine.
Was Burke, in fact, “alarmed”? I guess that depends on whether or not you are willing to take him at his own word; for the sake of accuracy and fairness, I’ll do so here:
During a recent visit to the United States, I was repeatedly impressed by how deeply Pope Francis has penetrated the national conversation on a whole range of issues. His special gift of expressing direct care for each and all has resonated strongly with many in my homeland.
At the same time, I noted a certain questioning about whether Pope Francis has altered or is about to alter the Church’s teaching on a number of the critical moral issues of our time, for example, the teaching on the inviolable dignity of innocent human life, and the integrity of marriage and the family. Those who questioned me in the matter were surprised to learn that the Holy Father has in fact affirmed the unchanging and unchangeable truths of the Church’s teaching on these very questions. They had developed a quite different impression as a result of the popular presentation of Pope Francis and his views.
If there is a note of alarm here, I don’t see it. In fact, the piece is one of the best yet written about the thought and focus of Pope Francis, and it is all the more valuable because Cardinal Burke is a member of the Curia and is one of the most highly placed American prelates in the Church. That Gibson, whose affinity for trendy, dissenting causes is hard to hide, tries to paint the cardinal into the ideological corner says far more about Gibson and like-minded Catholics than it does about Burke. Much more. This is the same reporter, after all, whose (metaphorical) head nearly split in two when he wrote a rather humorous piece for The Washington Post in October 2009 that sought to cram Benedict XVI into the convenient but tired “conservative-liberal” bottle. (For even more of this nonsense, see my May 2009 Insight Scoop post, “Straw men by the left, straw men from the left”.)
To read the entire posting, click here.
1+1+1=3
1-inconsistent articles on gay rights and gay marriage-some opposed, many in favor
1+1-a editorial supporting euthanasia of children
1+1+1-an article criticizing the most pro-life cardinal, a totally faithful Cardinal and one of canon lawyers who interpret canon 915 as prohibiting the distribution of communion to pro-life politicans
3 strikes-I’m out.
Our Pope is a humble and gentle soul. I am grateful for his child like qualities that he knows will only get him nearer and closer to Jesus.
“All past persecutors of the Church are now no more, but the Church still lives on. The same fate awaits modern persecutors; they, too, will pass on, but the Church of Jesus Christ will always remain, for God has pledged His Word to protect Her and be with Her forever, until the end of time.”
– Saint Don Bosco
“Obedience is not only the sum total of spiritual perfection, it is also the easiest, safest, surest, and quickest way of growing in holiness and gaining Heaven itself. The reason obedience is not carried out is because its great worth is unknown…. [We should] realize how much we lose each time we choose to follow our own whims, or every time we transgress a rule, neglect our duties, grumble, criticize, or disapprove of a superior’s judgment.”
– Saint Don Bosco
Mt 16:18 – “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” – JESUS.
Catholics must be obedient to Christ, and to the Doctrine of the Faith of His Church, as stated in the CCC.
Because the Church has watered down religion, the Holy Father has to speak and write in riddles in order not to offend people. What was once clear and simple, is now vague and complex. Our Lord told His apostles to say yes when they meant yes, and no when they meant no. Because we are not listening and following Christ’s words, there is much confusion. It is all part of the diabolical disorientation that has infected Holy Mother Church because of the liberals who took over the Second Vatican Council.
Father Karl yes I agree. Its a sad fact. I think that because of the way things are today, that we all speak in riddles too, just to try not to offend but still speak the truth. Perhaps the real fact is that its not about “offending someone” but its about not saying stuff that could cause complete suicide. Most people would feel safer to post here because its not face to face but think about it. If you decide to speak up against “gay” agenda’s, wow, you may have to dig up a hole for your funeral a lot sooner.
Jesus taught and some didn’t understand Him. But when He was known as the messiah. Well that was a sure way to get Him crucified.
If our prayers get answered, just wait and see, our Pope will finally get it and as time goes on, our prayers will give Him strength and protection enough for Him to grow more confident in His role as our Pope. Remember don;t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. In other words, don’t let the enemy know what our next move is, because its about saving souls.
It may just be that the time for martyrdom has come again, Father Karl. The ‘sleeping giant’ needs to be awoken by way of persecution and utter disgust at what we have become (or rather what many would have the Church become).
Pray God, we will be gifted with priests, religious, and faithful willing to speak the Truth despite fear of crucifixion. That grows the true Church.
Count me in the worried camp.
Quite a mess for the Holy Father to juggle. I pray he corresponds to every grace and LEADS us out of this confusion. What a blessing it would be for everyone’s yes to mean yes and no to mean no.
His appointments are not very comforting!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I’ll take some comfort in the old saying, “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.” That’s the only logic I can see behind certain appointments of Pope Francis. God willing, with our continued prayers and sacrifices, the Holy Father will engage grace to the maximum and stand firm when the bleep attempts to hit the fan.
Goodness knows, Paul VI’s being the author of Humane Vitae is still a stunner. Gives one hope.
Pope Francis has clearly stated the following:
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more, by reading and meditating on the Scriptures, studying the Catechism, steadily approaching the Sacraments.” – Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
and
“The Church never takes faith for granted, but knows that this gift of God needs to be nourished and reinforced so that it can continue to guide her pilgrim way.”….. “Read in this light, the prophetic text leads to one conclusion: we need knowledge, we need truth, because without these we cannot stand firm, we cannot move forward. Faith without truth does not save, it does not provide a sure footing. ….. These, then, are the four elements which comprise the storehouse of memory which the Church hands down: the profession of faith, the celebration of the sacraments, the path of the ten commandments, and prayer.
The Church’s catechesis has traditionally been structured around these four elements; this includes the CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, which is a fundamental aid for that unitary act with which the Church communicates the entire content of her faith: all that she herself is, and all that she believes. “ – Pope Francis (Encyclical Letter LUMEN FIDEI, 2013)
.
.
Why then did I feel like crying yesterday after reading about Cardinal Kasper’s opening speech at the synod on families? Pope Francis is a great admirer of his. My question is why even the pope is afraid to repeat Jesus’ words about marriage but instead just talks about mercy and not what is true.
Mercy is not true, Elizabeth?
Mercy, much like anything else, out of context is untrue, YFC.
YFC, that’s not what she said nor meant, and you know it.
YFC
Not that mercy is not true. I didn’t mean that. What I meant was that the truth about marriage from the words of Jesus Christ.
Sorry.
The synod is in October. This was a speech to the Cardinals.
https://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400852.htm
It’s a run up to the synod.
At one time, before Vatican II, Catholic doctrine and teachings were crystal clear. You either accepted yet, or like the Protestant heretics, you didn’t. Now, in a bid to make it palatable, it is about as clear as muddy water. Just look at the German bishops, all ready to change 2000 years of Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. For what reason? Just to make a few people happy?! You change this and they will expect ALL Church teaching to change. Dark times indeed. Domine, miserere nobis. +JMJ+
St. Joseph is the protector of the Church and protector of the family.
March is the month of St. Joseph.
Clinton, the teachings of the Church are still very clear.
Read a Catholic Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” and ignore articles, bad Bishops, and personal opinions.
Save your own Soul and those of your family and friends.
Thank goodness for the grace received, Dave, in having been educated to turn to the CCC Second Edition for clarity. Thanks to for education to discern the difference between what constitutes a ‘bad’ bishop and what qualifies as a ‘personal opinion’ – often attached to the aforementioned bishops.
Even the Bible, Catholic editions included, requires a well formed, informed, Catholic conscience to yield that which is Catholic. That’s why we are supposed to look to the Church for help as much can be misinterpreted. And that, I believe, is what Clinton is lamenting. The seemingly epidemic lack of consistency and clarity in practice from those in positions of authority – not the lack of written instruction when comparing pre versus post VII.
And as actions do speak louder than words, it is the action of the Bishops regardless of what is written that will teach louder than anything.
“… all things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works; for they talk, but do nothing.” Matthew 23:2-3
Sadly, it is often what the hierarchy ‘says’ in formal writing that needs to be obeyed and not what they actually say or do. But not everyone, including many of our young, are so firm in the Faith as yet to follow what the CCC says in lieu of what they see, hear, and are inclined to believe because it feels better or sounds kinder.
God bless.
Ann,
Very well put!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Church teachings have changed. The Vatican, prior to Pope Francis, after years of study and discussion, made clear that the teachings on salvation for the Roman Church and Protestant churches is the same. Watch the entire Youtube on the Pope’s message to evangelicals, where he refers to them as brothers in Christ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5TwrG8B3ME. The question raised by the German Bishops and confirmed in the recent survey of Catholics around the world, is why should a divorced Catholic never be allowed the grace of Communion again, and why should their children be denied the grace of God. This is going to be really deep discussions ahead of the Synod.
Divorced Catholics can receive communion. Divorces and remarried Catholics cannot unless the first marriage is annulled. Their children are not effected by it unless the couple does not present them for baptism. The reason for this is in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12.
It looks like Germany is going the way that England went in the Reformation. One Bishop, St. John Fisher held the Faith when the rest folded!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
…nobody is denying the grace of God to divorced and remarried Catholics’ children, Bob One. A divorced and remarried Catholic, if they are generous with the Lord and honest with acknowledging their own culpability with regard to their situation, stands in a particularly cherry position to teach love of God, love and true belief in the Blessed Sacrament, the true sanctity of marriage, and what it means to embrace the cross. And not just for their own children. Often for an entire parish.
Instead of looking to the immense treasure that can result from those sins of which we repent sincerely, there are those who would make things ‘easier.’ But at what cost? GRACE, my friend. Grace for the sinner, for the new spouse, for the children, for the Church.
Sacrifice is the proof of love, not feeling like you’re a part of the community and being able to receive Communion. And what the Church needs today is those who love God. Those who are willing to sacrifice for Him. Out of love and desire. But how to steep love or desire when even the Bishops are too sheepish to take the hard road of teaching the real WHY behind denying divorced and remarried Catholics communion. But perhaps that is because the Bishops no longer understand that why – that LOVE.
It is not the quantity of the gift, but the quality that lends it value. And if all we ‘give’ Our Lord is the tepid focus on our needs, what then? Will the gift be love of God or love of self?
I was hoping that Pope Francis would witness outside any abortion mill in Rome.
I am still hoping that one day—-any Pope—would witness outside a Planned parenthood abortion mill anywhere in the USA.
I was hoping that the Pope and the cardinals would have commented on euthanizing children in Belgium.
Reading the signs of the recent convocation of cardinals is as dangerous as predicting the weather, but there are troubling signs nonetheless. Father Karl puts it very well when he says this Pope ‘speaks in riddles’ when the doctrine is clear. Elizabeth also is on target when she says she is disturbed by the contradictory address of Cardinal Kaspar. At one point in his address,, Kaspar uses the phrase “abandoned spouses,” but that is not usually the main common reason for the large number of divorces. He also speaks about ‘no’ to sacramental communion, and instead, the divorced should have spiritual communion. Sounds good? But then he says if they are permitted to have spiritual communion, then why not sacramental communion? Notice how the question is phrased in a way that you could only answer yes to it.
Kaspar’s use of double-speak is very classic Vatican 2-talk (he was an expert there at that time) just like his teacher Karl Rahner. But if the root word of Cardinal means “hinge”, as in a firm hinge for the church doctrine, this cardinal and others Are unhinged.
Interesting dialogue here about mercy vs. doctrine. Pope Francis
I still see confessionals in our Churches so my take is we still need mercy. Pope Francis is looking at the laity holistically, that there is a penitent behind the sinner. Everyone has their story about how and why they miss the mark set for us as Christians and Pope Francis is all ears. Far different approach than we have had in recent decades of a harsh doctrinaire approach with warm and fuzzy touches to it.
Pope Francis will meet destiny this fall when the Synod on the Family convenes in Rome. Will the widely ignored Birth Control teaching be the first to go under the microscope?
But when all the talking, emoting, relating, understanding is done, what then, good cause? Does the actual truth about what is required of us ever get spoken? Do we as a people ever acknowledge that we have missed the mark and lament over our ‘stories’ or do we absolve ourselves by trying to deny and or kill the Truth that we have missed? A Truth we increasingly dismiss in favor of excuses…albeit very compelling excuses. Such an attitude leads a body to not even seek absolution via sacramental confession. Because we have been convinced by an excess of warm and fuzzy that we do not need it.
So, yes, Pope Francis will meet his destiny as we all will. I hope that we cling to Truth, even when we fall short of the mark. Acknowledging our weakness instead of justifying it.
The latter will just have us cursing the Church all the louder in Hell for not warning us.
I still don’t understand what Cardinal Kasper has against all these unhappy people seeking annulments.
Many, very many faithful Catholics cried when Kasper was elevated to the Sacred College, and they are now crying more now that he seems to be rising in the Popes pontificate!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
I don’t want anything from this Pope other than to obey the request of our (his) Blessed Mother at Fatima. Common sense alone should tell us that unless he obeys, everything we fuss and fume about won’t matter.
As a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium, I suspect that Cardinal Burke, like many other true Catholics, is, with the best of intentions, making excuses for a pope who, while not explicitly teaching error, routinely teaches confusion.
Don Guillermo,
Right on!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Maybe this is the most explosive quote from Card Kasper’s recent address 2/21/14 to the extraodinary consistery of cardinals (the “official” text still is not yet available–ten days later):
“…The Church today finds itself in a similar situation to what it was in after the last Council, the Second Vatican Council. Back then too, there were encyclicals, pronouncements and decisions issued by the Holy Office on questions such as ecumenism and religious freedom, which seemed to preclude other possible solutions. The Second Vatican Council opened some new doors without violating the Church’s sacred dogmatic tradition. So the cardinal wonders whether in a similar manner, this cannot be taken further, extending change to the situation of remarried divorcees but without wiping out the core tradition of the faith.” (reported by Andrea Tornelli, “Vatican Insider”, La Stampa.it)
I thought it amazing that Card Kasper admitted that the double-talk of Vatican II (i.e., what the documents actually say vs. how the documents were in fact implemented, “opening new doors” without “wiping out the core tradition” How nice of him not to wipe out the core.). We now know that certainly was not so in the most demonstrable area of Catholicism, namely the liturgy. The Mass of Trent was not abolished by any documents of Vat2, Pope John XXIII actually reaffirmed the use of Latin “forever” in the liturgy (Veterum sapientia, 1962), and there was no provision at all for a Consilium-derived “New Order of the Mass”
A correction: Card. Walter Kasper was a student of Card. Karl Lehmann, the former Chair of the German Bishops’ Conference. It was Card. Lehmann who was at Vatican II and was the actual assistant to Fr. Karl Rahner while Rahner and he were at Munich, 1964-1967 (prior to that Lehmann was studying in Rome). But the connection is still accurate and true: Kasper is a protege of Card. Lehmann (who was one of Kasper’s co-consecrators).
In 1993, Kasper as then bishop, signed a “passssstoral letter” allowing divorced and remarried German Catholics to return to the sacraments, an action that was vigorously and directly corrected by then-Card. Ratzinger. Does anyone have any doubt where Kasper’s, and his mentor Lehmann’s, sympathies lie?
“Only those who remain faithful to Tradition (that certainly does not mean following Kasper) will survive” The Blessed Mother at Akita, Japan.
St. Paul thoroughly warns us about the likes of itching ears Kasper!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
United Nations vs. the Vatican (FRC – Family Research Council)
A committee working under the auspices of the U.N. has recently chided the Vatican for its failure to properly implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Church. A panel will examine the implications of this committee report as well as the dangers of U.N. overreach in the area of religion.
The report goes well beyond abuse and cites the need for the Roman Catholic Church to reexamine its teachings on moral issues such as abortion
. Come join FRC as we discuss the U.N. treaty Convention on the Rights of the Child and its potential a a catalyst for religious discrimination in the context of this fight between the Vatican and the U.N.
Austin Ruse is President of C-FAM, which monitors and inform international bodies on social policy. Ruse and his team have participated in every major UN social policy negotiation since 1997 including the multi-year negotiations that created the International Criminal Court.
He has briefed members of the U.S. House and Senate on U.N. matters, as well as briefing White House and National Security Council staff.
Pat Fagan is Senior Fellow and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), which examines the relationships among family, marriage, religion, community, and America’s social problems, as illustrated in the social science data. A native of Ireland, Fagan earned his Bachelor of Social Science degree, a professional graduate degree in psychology (Dip. Psych.) as well as his Ph.D. from University College Dublin.
https://www.frc.org/upcomingevents/united-nations-vs-the-vatican
2/27/14, Pope Francis speaking to the Sac. Congregation of Bishops:
“On February 27, 2014 the The Pope discussed the type of Bishops he is looking for:
‘ “Since faith comes from proclamation we need kerygmatic bishops. … Men who are guardians of doctrine, not so as as to measure how far the world is from doctrinal truth, but in order to fascinate the world … with the beauty of love, with the freedom offered by the Gospel. The Church does not need apologists for her causes or crusaders for her battles, but humble and trusting sowers of the truth, who know that it is always given to them anew and trust in its power. ‘”
Er, what, PF? Should Card. Newman have been silent, St. Alphonsus Liguori was too “apologetic”, and was St. Dominic wasting his time, preaching and defending the essence of true belief?
Crusaders and apologists for the faith need not apply!
–
https://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400842.htm
Where did you find that version of what His Holiness Pope Francis said? Your source say that he said “The Church does not need apologists for her causes…”; the National Catholic Reporter says that he said “The Church does not need apologists for it’s causes….” which has a similar meaning. This is the quote from the source above:
“The church doesn’t need apologists for their own causes, nor crusaders for their own battles, but humble sowers who trust in the truth … bishops who know that even when night falls and the day’s toil leaves them tired, the seeds in the field will be sprouting.”
The Vatican website does not have an English translation of the official statement.
Passing on the Faith vs Passing- on the ‘faith’…
Consider the following two links – for some real analysis:
https://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-03
NAPCIS – The National Association of Private Catholic and Indpendent Schools
https://napcis.org/
Michael excellent recommendations in those websites you have inserted here for all. Pretty neatO! I will keep handy for any parent that asks. God bless the VORTEX!
This is what Pope Francis told the Bishops – “BISHOP BLASTER” 03-04.
https://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-03-04
DOTTIE God bless you! Yesterday I had my prayers and personal conversation with our Lord. Your post was an answer to my prayers. Thank you for your faithfulness to the magisterium, to Christ and His church. For posting this link. : )
Its interesting how “gossip” tends to travel all over here in the USA about our Pope. Even FOX news reported some ill filled gossip about our Pope. There is so much misinformation and people often times tend to gossip and judge ill-fully our Pope without really knowing him. Our Pope does not seem to understand how crooked and twisted the media is because they have tried to twist his words to mean something that best suits their liberal views.
We need to keep our Pope in our prayers. I hope all who are concerned and who are honest and loyal, to write to our Pope. It doesn’t matter if no one hears back, but at least we can put it in God’s hands and trust Him. After all what a speck as me and many others in the USA can do, Our Pope is unreachable for us to personally talk to him, well at least for me, I don’t think I could ever afford a trip to the Vatican (well with God nothing is impossible) and who am I, for the Pope to allow me to pay him a visit. So if we pray, at least our Lord knows our hearts and our Lord is powerful.
So the major councillors to PF these days seem to be the Card. Kasper (chosen for the cardinals’ consistory address Feb, 2014), and the increasingly outspoken Card. Gerhard Muller, another progressive. Card Muller’s positions are as extreme as some of Card. Kasper’s, and more directly documentable.
For example, in his 2003 book “Catholic Dogmatic”(pub. in German), Muller stated a belief that the virginity of the BVM was not an actual physical fact but merely a symbolic concept (“[The virgin birth is] not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of grace of the Savior on human nature.”] This goes directly against what the Lateran Council of 649 declared stating such a position as anathematic. (Lateran Council/649: “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.” )
Then there is the Cardinal’s position on the Eucharist: in his 2002 book (in German, my translation): “The Mass: Sources of Christian Living”, he absolutely stated that we should avoid using the term “body and blood” in reference to the Eucharist. It seems the dear Kardinal is offended that this might refer to the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (he says it: you read it for yourself). The dear Kardinal wants only a symbolic memorial. Wait, there is more.
“These were not so much criticisms as baseless provocations aimed at discrediting me, but everyone can read what I have written in context and systematically. Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary? I have written whole books in defense of these doctrines.” Cardinal Muller
Read more: https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings#ixzz2v2QNZ8yN
Card. Muller’s position on his definition of the Catholic Church? He includes other Christian Churches (he specifically cites the “Evangelical Churches”) as full members (2011 Address, Katholische Akademie in Bayern): “Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches one beside the other — these are rather divisions and separations within the one people and house of God.”
He went on to say that the other Christian churches who have denied a “valid episcopacy” are not denied full Catholic status (it is tortuous near-Ratzingerian speech, but that is where he was going on this matter), no doubt about it.
So. “Other Christian Churches” are full-Catholic status Churches, according to Muller, but he has declared at least some trad Catholic groups “schismatic” (specifically the SSPX). Oh, this is going to be fun to watch, with PF’s advisers like these.
Cardinal Muller is defending the church’s teaching on indissolubility of marriage here:
https://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400809.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cardinal-mueller-ignorance-about-marriage-is-no-reason-to-change-doctrine
Another interesting argument, a false one, is the ‘mercy’ argument. This is that we must ‘show mercy’ to those who (for example) wish to be divorced and remarried. So what does Jesus and the New Testament?
Jesus at least 50 times in the NT uses the Greek word or derivatives for mercy. What’s also interesting is to look at the number of times He speaks of ‘hell’ (something we use to believe existed) and judgement in the New Testament. Hell, ‘hades’, etc and gehenna are used about 50 times in the NT: 17 times by Jesus, more than by any one else in the New Testament.
Now when you get to ‘judgment’ and related derivatives, ‘to pass judgment’ or ‘to condemn’, Jesus uses the word 81 times—far more than half of all its total citations in the NT. So to balance out Our Lord’s true message, yes, the clear message from Christ is the offer of mercy, but there is also far more time He spent by comparison warning of hell, a judgement, and a punishment.
Let those who will hear, hear.
MATTHEW 19:10-12 — 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.(A) 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
IN OTHER WORDS, JESUS KNEW (MUCH BETTER THAN OUR CRABBY BUDDY STEVE PHOENIX) THAT EACH PERSON HAS A DIFFERENT SITATUION, A DIFFERENT CROSS TO CARRY, AND A DIFFERENT WAY TO DEAL WITH THOSE PROBLEMS…
Pointing out truth and reality doesn’t qualify one as being crabby, Anonymous. An excess of caps usually does.
The Bible verse you quoted is,however, a very good one as it goes to show that not everyone is called to the same state in life. It doesn’t mean that cheating is okay or gay sex is okay or do what you want ‘provided you can accept it’.
It means if you get married, inherent in choosing is accepting what is required. Lifetime commitment in the case of marriage. Otherwise, the Apostles wouldn’t have responded. “Then it isn’t expedient to marry.”
God bless.
Card. Muller, our new defender of the Faith, clearly states in his own book: [The virgin birth is] not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of grace of the Savior on human nature.”] (Catholic Dogmatic, 2003) Muller’s position is that he doesnt belief in a real, physiological virgin birth (his words), but a symbol of grace. We are required to believe in a real physical virgin birth, Card. Muller—you are wrong. It doesnt get any clearer than this, and he has never gone back to correct himself on his writings.
Card. Muller when speaking of the Eucharist never [to my knowledge] uses transubstantiation, but similarly employs symbolic-memorial language. It is clear his position is the Eucharis is a “remembering”, not the traditional actual Artistotleian/Thomistic change to a physical Christ’s Presence.
So, note how Muller uses curious indirect language in denying his statements: “Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary?” He never actually asserts the dogmas–classic double-talk. It is like the double-talk of the late Fr. Schillebeeckx, who in over 750 pp’s in his book “Jesus”, spends all the time talking of a human Jesus who was later made to be divine by the Gospel writers—but in the last chapter, he refers to Jesus as true God and true man in His earthly life. It was clear someone told him, “You better put that in there to counter the criticisms.”
Pope Benedict XVI would not have made Cardinal Muller prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith if he didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
“Pope Benedict XVI would not have made Cardinal Muller prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith if [Muller] didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.” Mar 6, 2014 post.
This kind of lame assertion deliberately avoids the actual facts that have been presented. Why doesnt one have the guts to go ask Muller to assert the classic dogmas (virginity of BVM, traditional language of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and the definition of Church) which Muller so clearly avoids? It also a lame ploy to set someone up against P Benedict XVI because one has been presented a critical analysis that cant be answered on its merits. Instead, make one out “to be attacking P BXVI.”
Paul VI, JP2 and BXVI all chose some very, very bad prelates—a reason the Church is in a shambles now. Does anyone deny this? Or why are we in the pickle we are in? Weakland, Mahony, Ziemann, and you should see the list in Europe, but no one knows about them here. This is balderdash. Go face the facts of what Muller, and Kasper, and Lehmann, and Dopfner of Germany have stood for, and prepare yourself to be shocked Get the blinders off.
Did you get your claims from SSPX or traditionalist websites?
This article discusses this:
https://www.hprweb.com/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-ludwig-muller-and-the-virgin-birth/
Another effort to avoid the facts — smear the messenger. Get the blinders off.
How could you have read the article that fast? You must be Evelyn Wood.
I realize that you must work for the website as it is claimed.
Too funny for words: Cal Catholic wouldnt appreciate that (No, Mr. Phoenix works for a Higher Authority, and not for Cal Catholic, a point of which I am sure they are relieved).
Again, Anonymous clanners, if you cant face the argument, if you cant answer the facts,if you try to change the subject, and attack the messenger, why not admit you are defeated: what do you think and believe? Use your head and save your soul.
Defeated? Were we fighting? I still don’t know where you got the information. I assume on the world wide web? I still think your assessment of 3 sentences which don’t actually say what you are interpreting them to say makes a strong case against someone who Pope Benedict trusted to lead the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Well, OK the website doesn’t actually say that you are employed here.
https://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/person?personId=2104559916&targetid=profile
It is NOT pastoral, or showing mercy, to confirm anyone in Mortal Sin.
In fact it is aiding and abeting in the Mortal Sin.
CCC: “1868 Sin is a personal act.
Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers. ”
Jesus forgives sin with the following provision – repent and go and sin no more.
He did not say repent – and continue sinning.
3 of the Spiritual Works of Mercy are: Admonish sinners; Instruct the uniformed; Counsel the Doubtful.
It almost seems like Cardinal Kasper and some others have forgotten their Faith.
They also need to read the CCC which they are required to adhere to.
The East Bay editions of the ‘Trying Times’ Completely Censored this story from print – in places where the Vanilla (clueless suburban voters / taxpayers) are not as ‘enlightened’ about such issues, and must be kept like Mushrooms -in the dark & Fed Media.
Note what was Censored from Today’s East Bay ‘news’ Paper – although a long AP (Part of the Digital / Singleton Syndicate) story did Attack Pope Francis at length over not doing enough quickly about the Pederast (the media avoids that term) Attack on the Boys of the Church – (“Pope forms panel to advise him on child sex abuse By Associated Press) – But No Story on Icon of ‘happy’ behaviors
The ‘Trying Times’ policy is to keep the ‘Vanilla’ (clueless suburban voter / taxpayers) in the Dark about Major Stories like the LARRY BRINKIN Racist Toddler Rape-Porn Ring and Brinkin’s Sentencing for a Felony…
I was there in the Court and Hall afterwards when the KGO Camera interviewed members of the S.F. Child Abuse Prevention Center = talking about the “Moral Turpitude” scam that Brinkin’s Attorney says allows him to keep his big pension as an ‘in-human-rights’ commissioner..
.
Because all this Must have Begun Only After Brinkin had a whole week named in his honor, Right?
Compare the Coverage by CNS to our Lamesteam Media
: San Francisco’s Gay Icon Larry Brinkin Guilty of Felony Child Porn Possession
– See more at:
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn
The criticisms against Muller are not “SSPX” or “conservative” or whatever: they are classic Catholic theology. They are in the Denzinger index. Read it. Know it. Love it. It is a Catholic theological critique of Muller’s deliberate avoidance of stating (for example) that the Virgin birth was a physical reality. Someone of the Anonymous-clan above cites an excellent example in trying to discredit this critique which in fact as presented by a writer (Michael A. Miller) cited, it illustrates exactly Muller’s approach and that it depends on a Rahnerian “system” — exactly the point!
Rahner’s system is existential and “signification”-based (“transcendental”): virtually everything is a “sign” (call it a symbol) of meaning—there is no basis in actual reality. Rahner, like many of the moderns, does not believe we actually comprehend reality (vs Aquinas: “the knower intends the known”). By this mistake, Rahner believes we cant really know anything, if you carry it to its logical conclusion. It becomes an intellectual “sign”, “symbol”.
Rahner, when challenged at Vat 2 on trying to substitute “transignification” for transubstantiation was defeated by the Council Fathers—but Muller is an avowed Rahnerian and this is the point: for him there is no definable reality. No actual virgin birth (He eschews a “physological” virgin birth and tries to mock it by talking of hymen not being broken, etc) and re-directs it to a “saving reality” (What is that?). Nonsense. It is either real or it is not.
And while we are at it, Anonymous-clanners, stop attacking everyone who states Catholic-based dogmas (as for example in the Denzinger Index, at least the one prior to Card. Muller) as being a covert SSPX’er! Do you realize what you are saying—that Catholic teaching is only held by the SSPX? Is that what it has come to? Where do YOU stand? Are you a Mullerian, or a time-tested, Aquinas-based Catholic?
Go ahead, follow a modern process-thought symbolic non-real system—but dont say you werent warned it is philosophically and theologically invalid. Use your head and save your soul.
If you feel attacked because someone posted a link to an article that discusses what you are discussing, well….
You never answered the questions on your sources.
With regard to Muller’s now-famous speech to the Katholische Akademie Bayern commencemenct address in July, 2011, there are many things that stand out as remarkably not-Catholic teaching: dont blame the SSPX who first brought it to everyone else’s attention.
In this carefully prepared speech, Muller breaks down almost any difference between evangelical Christian Churches and the Catholic Church (“We no longer define our relationship to each other through the actually existing differences in doctrine , life and constitution of the Church , but [our] common foundation.” (Wir bestimmen unser Verhältnis zueinander nicht mehr über die tatsächlich existierenden Differenzen in Lehre, Leben und Verfassung der Kirche, sondern über das Gemeinsame, das zugleich das Fundament ist, auf dem wir stehen. Einen anderen Grund.) He derides fundamental Catholic teaching as defined in Mortalios Animos (1928, Pius XI), “return ecumenism” he calls it mockingly (Genauso abwegig wie eine “Rückkehrökumene”). He leads up to his main point, that the Protestant Churches and Catholic are one: “We are Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians so well already combined in what we call the visible Church .” (Wir sind als katholische und evangelische Christen also auch in dem schon vereint, was wir die sichtbare Kirche nennen.) “For the Christian Churches who are not in full communion with the apostolic episcopacy of the Catholic Church are in fact justified in faith and baptism in the Church of God and fully incorporated into the Body of Christ.”
[Now you have to be satisfied with my German translation, but that is not the problem: I have taken pains to show several areas of Card Muller’s remarkable view that Evangelical Christian Churches are now essentially in full Catholic communion — or just about.
But I find it quite interesting indeed to have a Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith who has already decided that Evangelical Christian church are fully incorporated into the Catholic Faith, when they do not hold [what is left of our belief] in sacramental Eucharist and Real Presence, doctrine of justification, the need for sacramental Catholic confession, and too many other things to list here. But traditionals, and [Muller says] the SSPX are schismatic. And there is no contradiction there?
Steve Phoenix, thank you for posting to try to explain.
I think you may be misunderstanding what the Cardinal was trying to say but I cannot tell because the sentences taken out of context do not make sense. I don’t see anywhere that he says they are in full communion (he says they are not). He does not say they are fully incorporated into the Catholic Faith. I think you are misunderstanding the term Body of Christ?
Fourth Effect Of Baptism: Infused Virtues And Incorporation With Christ
This grace is accompanied by a most splendid train of all virtues, which are divinely infused into the soul along with grace. Hence, when writing to Titus, the Apostle says: He saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. St. Augustine, in explanation of the words, poured forth abundantly, says: that is, for the remission of sins and for abundance of virtues.
By Baptism we are also united to Christ, as members to their Head. As therefore from the head proceeds the power by which the different members of the body are moved to the proper performance of their respective functions, so from the fullness of Christ the Lord are diffused divine grace and virtue through all those who are justified, qualifying them for the performance of all the duties of Christian piety.
Catechism of Trent Pope St. Pius V