There have been lots of garbled interpretations, and misinterpretation, of what Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller has been saying recently. It is well worth actually reading what he has to say for himself.
Edward Pentin has a two part interview on the National Catholic Register with him, here and here.
In the last few years there seems to have some good stuff coming out of the CDF; the Ordinariate, negotiations with SSPX, for example but I can't help thinking we need a very clear, rather tough Germanic mind there. For all the criricism, much of which isn't really justified I think Müller is the right man, theologically, he spans the broad middle ground.
I remember some people complaining about the last Germans appointment in the early days.
I think we might find him a bit of a ...
21 comments:
ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-gerhard-muller-assumes-that.html#links
POPE JOHN XXIII, POPE PAUL VI AND POPE JOHN PAUL II NEVER IDENTIFIED THE VISIBLE DEAD SAVED MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH CAME FROM THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY ERA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/pope-john-xxiii-pope-paul-vi-and-pope.html#links
CM.
I can't read your blog, the print is too small.
I don't see anything like your claim in the original article, am I missing something?
As I say read the text!!!
Appointing Archbishop Muller was an excellent move. His critics are wildly off-based. In fact, I find his ideas and explanations of theology to be very much the product of being a student, in perhaps a loose sense of the word, of the Holy Father (arguably the greatest theologian of the 20th century). This would be the 2nd Curial appointment that I personally have noticed this. H.E. Raymond Cardinal Burke's appointment to the Apostolic Signatura would be the other; I think this would hold true for other appointments as well.
I loved the Nat. Catholic Register interview.
Fr.,
What a nice dog. It looks so friendly.
By the way, I also read the interview, which seems perfectly alright to me in spite of my being a rabid mainstream, middle of the road, ordinary Catholic in the pews.
One thing that did strike me was that he is arguably in agreement with the recent call by Bishop Schneider for a “Syllabus of Errors” covering misinterpretations of Vatican II, e.g., when asked if an encyclical from the Pope would clear up the lack of clarity in interpretation of the Council,
“Yes, we need an authentic interpretation of the Magisterium of the Council”.
Seems clear! So let’s hope the Holy Father does just that.
"...It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop [Bp. Williamson] ... denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable ..." (Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, *National Catholic Register*, October 4, 2012)..."
Rome now believes the 'Holocaust' has replaced Christ's crucifixion in matter of fact.
"The Holocaust is the New Golgotha" --- Pope John Paul the Great.
Some of us Catholics do not accept this new dogma and doctrine of Rome; it is not a part of the teachings of the Magisterium.
*
Pablo,
No, it thinks Bishops should have good manners and stay out of areas where they have no expertise.
p.s.
Pablo,
JPII said the same thing about abortion.
What he meant was wherever there is sin Christ suffers.
Do you see that as problematic?
If the future vindicates Richard Williamson, it will do so after a chastisement.
"...Do you see that as problematic?.."
Yes.
Liberalism leads people to establish many 'Truths'.
This always leads to loss of Faith.
It is like the man that God walks away from so many times, when God finally abandons him, the man does not notice. Or care.
He now has his many 'Truths' to save himself.
*
"...If the future vindicates Richard Williamson, it will do so after a chastisement..."
Sadie Vacantist,
I believe you are right.
In the meanwhile, we must evangelize; the errors of Modernism and the work of Satan need to be combated.
In the face of Roman Apostasy we must speak Roman Catholicism.
As a good Bishop once said:
"We have to build, while the others are demolishing. The crumbled citadels have to be rebuilt, the bastions of Faith have to be reconstructed; firstly the holy sacrifice of the Mass of all times, which forms saints; then our chapels, our monasteries, our large families, our enterprises faithful to the social politics of the Church, our politicians determined to make the politics of Jesus Christ – this is a whole tissue of Christian social life, Christian customs, Christian reflexes, which we have to restore."
We must promote Catholicism.
*
Pablo,
That is why God gives Catholics the Pope
and that is why Protestants reject such a gift.
Robert, again, read his actual words!
essentially, Pablo is a Protestant.
CM
I'm not publish that guff, it is simple detraction based on no hard evidence, only your own (deliberate?) misunderstanding of a basic doctrine.
Will see how the year of New Evangelization goes, which like the anniversary of Vatican 2, starts this month. If it will be a spread of Novus Ordoism, or a return to tradition. Allot of stuff coming from Rome about the Liturgy. I wonder if the coordinators of the LA Liturgical Congress, are listening, or will they ignore and spread their own form of "new evangelization", involving large pagan looking incense bowls, techno music, dancing deacons, and girls in scantily dressed cloths (we call them sluts), dancing in front of Archbishops, promoting their sexuality vs their faith, if they really have one. And as usual getting away with it, because they are the largest Archdiocese in the country here in the US. And no one tells the lay leadership of experts what to do, not even the Pope. But hey this is liturgical development!!. Maybe I'll add to it and dance in my underwear next week at Mass. And it will be just as valid as the Extraordinary Form, because it's development. Will see how well this CDF does, with people like the LA liturgical congress coordinators and their influential lay leadership, who has more power than the Pope, and does what they please. you may even see the CDF dancing up the aisle next year, promoting the New Evangelization. Heck we can see how not so well the Ordinariates are doing under the tutelage of Cardinal Donald Wuerl here in the US. Yes Cardinal Wuerl is holding Monsignor Steenson , like a puppet, and telling him what to do. Will see if they prove me wrong and return to authentic Catholic tradition. Or will we be like the Church of England. anything goes, except for "frozen tradition"!.
For a person with any pretensions to education to deny the Shoah . which is accepted by all respectable historians, attested to by a great volume of evidence including even now eye witnesses, and believed by all German Bishops including the Pope, must surely be the result of culpable ignorance or of a deep seated unchristian hatred of the Jewish people. Either state should render unacceptable anyone wishing to exercise a teaching office.
Independent
Any educated person with non ideological interests would admit that the bishop has admitted that there were many killed in the Holocaust. He only denied the figure politically accepted by the Left and he denied the existence of gas chanbers. He has not denied that the Shoah happened.
He has also said in an interview with the Catholic Herald ,U.K that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to hate and that he does no hate Jews. He also mentioned that once as a Rector of the SSPX seminary in Argentina he invited a Rabbi to address the seminarians.
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre could have ended the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX ) problem before it arose, if they had just observed that the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra eclesiam nullla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation.
They did not realize that all who are dead and saved are implicit for us and never explicitly known. So there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nullas salus.
We acknowledge the baptism of desire etc but they are not exceptions. So Vatican Council II is saying there is no salvation outside the church .
Here are the two premises with their logical conclusions.
Premise 1: The dead saved are visible to us.
Premise 2: The dead saved are not visible to us.
Conclusion with Premise 1: There is salvation outside the church.
Conclusion with Premise 2: There is no salvation outside the Church.
Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council Ii says there is salvation outside the Church.(LG 16-invincible ignorance etc)
Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council II says there is no salvation outside Church. (LG 16 is not explicit but implicit).
Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council ii is in accord with Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors. It does not contradict them.
Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council II is modernist.
Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council II is traditional.
I leave you to judge which premise was being used by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The SSPX have just to inform Ecclesia Dei that they affirm the second premise. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican cannot fault them for rejecting Vatican Council II and not affirming traditional values on other religions. etc. They are not rejecting the Council but only useing a different interpretation.
If the cardinal and archbishop understood and used the second premise, there would be no excommunication.
continued
continued
APPLY IT TO VATICAN COUNCIL II
ATherefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. B.Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.
Conclsuion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.
A.Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door...B.Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.
Conclsuion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.
A. Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7
B. '...let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows.-Ad Gentes 7
Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.
Conclusion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.
This same analysis can be done with other passages in Vatican Council II.
If VII (always want to sing theword 'schneider' after that) was rming the historical necessity of the Church why have things come to an - any god or no god'll do, so long as we offend each other impasse?
Ps. Denying, even mitigating the 'existence', of the gas chambers is an example of the advancing ahistoricity that the second Vatican council was trying to address, no?
CM The figures are accepted not only by the Left,(if indeed they are by Galloway, Livingstone, and the Iranian Government) but by all experts on German History.(You might try Ian Kershaw who is respected not only in Britain but in Germany.) They also accept the existence of Gas Chambers, as do the survivors among the victims and perpetrators of the mass murder. Williamson has merely a first degree in English Literature. One might listen to him with limited respect on that subject with perhaps reservations were he even to discuss the "Merchant of Venice". You sound very ideological!
Post a Comment