Cdl. Müller: “We are experiencing conversion to the world, instead of to God”
June 26, 2018
In an exclusive CWR interview, the former prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith discusses tensions over the proposed reception of Holy Communion by Protestants, continued conflicts over the Church’s teaching about ordination, and homosexuality and ideology.
In an exclusive CWR interview, the former prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith discusses tensions over the proposed reception of Holy Communion by Protestants, continued conflicts over the Church’s teaching about ordination, and homosexuality and ideology.
This is an excerpt from Catholic World Report an interview with Cardinal Mueller. The whole interview is worth reading by pressing this sentence.
I firmly believe that all of this nonsense will in God's providence be resolved as it is being surfaced in a way never before seen in the last two pontificates. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is using Pope Francis' liberality to bring it out into the open for the next pope to purify? At least, that is my hope because Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, try as the devil may.
Catholic World News: Since 2014 there has been within the Church a steady stream of conflicts and tensions that involve many of the bishops of Germany. What is some of the background for this phenomenon? What is the source of these various conflicts over ecclesiology, Holy Communion, and related matters?
Cardinal Gerhard Müller: One group of German bishops, with their president [i.e., of the German Bishops’ Conference] in the lead, see themselves as trendsetters of the Catholic Church on the march into modernity. They consider the secularization and de-Christianization of Europe as an irreversible development. For this reason the New Evangelization—the program of John Paul II and Benedict XVI—is in their view a battle against the objective course of history, resembling Don Quixote’s battle against the windmills. They are seeking for the Church a niche where it can survive in peace. Therefore all the doctrines of the faith that are opposed to the “mainstream,” the societal consensus, must be reformed.
One consequence of this is the demand for Holy Communion even for people without the Catholic faith and also for those Catholics who are not in a state of sanctifying grace. Also on the agenda are: a blessing for homosexual couples, intercommunion with Protestants, relativizing the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, the introduction of viri probati and with it the abolition of priestly celibacy, approval for sexual relations before and outside of marriage. These are their goals, and to reach them they are willing to accept even the division of the bishops’ conference.
The faithful who take Catholic doctrine seriously are branded as conservative and pushed out of the Church, and exposed to the defamation campaign of the liberal and anti-Catholic media.
To many bishops, the truth of revelation and of the Catholic profession of faith is just one more variable in intra-ecclesial power politics. Some of them cite individual agreements with Pope Francis and think that his statements in interviews with journalists and public figures who are far from Catholic offer justification even for “watering down” defined, infallible truths of the faith (= dogmas). All told, we are dealing with a blatant process of Protestantizing.
Ecumenism, in contrast, has as its goal the full unity of all
Christians, which is already sacramentally realized in the Catholic
Church. The worldliness of the episcopate and clergy in the 16th century
was the cause of the division of Christianity, which is diametrically
opposed to the will of Christ, the founder of the one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church. The disease of that era is now supposedly the
medicine with which the division is to be overcome. The ignorance of the
Catholic faith at that time was catastrophic, especially among the
bishops and popes, who devoted themselves more to politics and power
than to witnessing to the truth of Christ.
Today, for many people, being accepted by the media is more important than the truth, for which we must also suffer. Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom for Christ in Rome, the center of power in their day. They were not celebrated by the rulers of this world as heroes, but rather mocked like Christ on the cross. We must never forget the martyrological dimension of the Petrine ministry and of the episcopal office.
27 comments:
Maybe some of these German bishops are secret communists, engaged by the Communists back in the 1950s and 1960s to undermine the Church from within. Bella Dodd, a former Communist who became Catholic, asserted this claim as fact. It would certainly explain some of the bizarre theological experssions we are seeing.
"Bella Dodd, a former Communist who became Catholic, asserted this claim as fact."
Did she name the names of the radicals she claimed to have sent to seminary or provide any evidence to support her claim?
Bella Dodd also testified before the House UnAmerican Affairs Committee, and we know how questionable the work of that Committee was.
BD:
"Bella Dodd also testified before the House UnAmerican Affairs Committee, and we know how questionable the work of that Committee was."
Actually I don't know. Tell me about it, especially in view that she told Alice von Hildebrand that she had met at least 4 cardinals at the Vatican working for the Communist party. Is it not strange that Vatican II did not condemn in any way the greatest menace to the Church at the time, the so-called Communists? The Soviet Communists were quite successful in corrupting the Russian Orthodox church through infiltration.
Kavanaugh,
Actually, Eugene McCarthy, a close friend of the Kennedy family, was right and as always, the left-wing loons wrong. You really need to catch up history.
"Is it not strange that Vatican II did not condemn in any way the greatest menace to the Church at the time, the so-called Communists?"
Well, guess what? The Vatican did.
See: Nostris et Nobiscum 1849
Quanta Cura 1864
Rerum Novarum 1891
Decree Against Communism 1949
From: http://wikibin.org/articles/metz-accord.html
"The Metz Accord was an agreement of principle made between the Holy See and the Russian Orthodox Church at Metz, France, on 13 August 1962, in which, according to some traditionalist Catholic writers, the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to send observers to Second Vatican Council and in return, the Vatican would specifically refrain from denouncing Communism. Traditionalist Catholic writer Malachi Martin called it a renewal of the previous pacts of 1942 and 1944 concerning the , although the term "Ostpolitik" is usually associated with initiatives not of Pope Pius XII (1939-58), but only of his successors, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI."
My summary:
The Church sold out to get observers who were never going to convert or return to the Church to attend a Council that has been both damaging and an embarrassment.
BTW, thanks for publishing this Father. The CWR interview with Muller is both illuminating and redolent with some hard truths most Catholics don't want to hear.
Bella Kavanaugh,
EPIC fail. Vatican II, to its disgrace, ignored the threat of Aetheistic Communism. As a matter of fact, Paul VI removed Cardinal Mindzenty in the years following the Council to appease the Commies. To his credit, John Paul II threatened to renounce his position as Pope and return to Poland in solidarity with his people to fight the Communists.
I wonder what Archbishop Cupich will do about this continuing disgrace to the Catholic Church in Chicago?
http://abc7chicago.com/father-pfleger-to-shut-down-dan-ryan-demand-end-to-chicago-violence/3696571/
Maybe Pfleger should show solidarity with his congregation and give up HIS armed body guards
Vatican II condemns communism.
Gaudium et spes, The Church in The Modern World:
#21: "In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated (16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence."
==================================================================
In #21, footnote 16:
16. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), pp. 65-106; Pius XII, encyclical letter Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958: AAS 50 (1958) pp. 601-614; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra May 15, 1961: AAS 53 (1961), pp. 451-453; Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 651-653.
==================================================================
The above referenced Papal condemnations of communism.
Again, Vatican II, via the document Gaudium et spes, condemned communism.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The story that the 1962 A.D. "Metz Agreement" prevented the Church from having condemned communism is nonsense.
Two years later, in 1964 A.D., via his fist Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Blessed Paul VI declared:
Communist Oppression
101. "It is for these reasons that We are driven to repudiate such ideologies as deny God and oppress the Church - We repudiate them as Our predecessors did, and as everyone must do who firmly believes in the excellence and importance of religion.
"These ideologies are often identified with economic, social and political regimes; atheistic communism is a glaring instance of this."
=======================================================================
Then, in 1965 A.D., three years following the "Metz Agreement," via the document Gaudium et spes, Vatican II condemned communism.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, dead wrong. There are many treatises on the subject which you should have found when searching for non sequiturs to cut and paste
The Metz Agreement was about the Second Vatican Council. It did not cover the pope's own initiatives outside of the Council.
The excerpt from Gaudiem et spes nicely describes communism, however it fails to explicitly name communism.
I respectfully disagree with your challenge. (However, even if I disagree, I promise not to come to your table and harass you if I see you in a restaurant.)
Mark Thomas - Welcome to "Epic Fail Land," the space that exists only in TJM's mind...
If my memory is correct wasn’t Cardinal Muller the one who basically “saved” the Pope during the Synod on the Family when a good number of bishops were going to walk out. I remember reading that he went and met with Pope Benedict and some kind of compromise was reached which allowed a document to pass. Of course Pope Francis then published AL which then caused all the confusion. So basically a large responsibility for the mess the Church is in is because of Cardinal Muller. Instead of standing up for the Faith he was being a team player who was trying to save the pope from public humiliation, which he did, only to be betrayed in the end. So I guess when a Cardinal doesn’t have any backbone and puts Church politics before the Faith he ends up being betrayed, publicly mocked, left without any position. So my question is why bother now? He basically got what he deserved.
Mr Thomas:
As Cletus Ordo points out, nowhere do Vatican II documents explicitly use the word "Communism" or its cognates. Reluctance to do so not only supports TJM's point that the Council placated the Russian Orthodox Church which by that time (after Stalin) was basically a branch of the Soviet government. It also adds weight to Bella Dodd's position that the Catholic Church was well infiltrated by the Communists with their agenda, even at the Vatican. Most importantly, Communism is strongly linked philosophically to the Modernism of the 20th century, that same Modernism which effectively took over the Council, and which is now devastating the Church.
Bella, I have noticed a space that exists only in your mind as well...
Of course, we are all a bit spacey at times—over time our personal agendas tend to do that to us. Very important to recognize that and speak/behave accordingly, True dialogue requires it.
Victor,
If you really want to connect the dots, Communism is just one of the many "fruits" of freemasonry. Freemasons have long sought to infiltrate the Church and if the approved messages of La Salette over 100 years ago are right, they've done an excellent job
"As Cletus Ordo points out, nowhere do Vatican II documents explicitly use the word "Communism" or its cognates."
As if that made any difference.
Nowhere do the documents of the New Testament explicitly us the word "Trinity" or its cognates.
Yet, we know that the New Testament teaches the Trinity.
What else is not explicitly condemned in Vatican Two...? Bank robbery, computer hacking, sexual assault, check bouncing, the list is nearly endless.
That these crimes/sins are not condemned by the explicit use of the words or their cognates does not in ANY way indicate that the proponents of these crimes/sins were in cahoots with Vatican officials.
Victor said..."As Cletus Ordo points out, nowhere do Vatican II documents explicitly use the word "Communism" or its cognates."
Hello, Victor.
Throughout WWII, Pope Venerable Pius XII/Vatican denounced Nazism/Nazi policies without the explicit use of the word "Nazi."
Pope Venerable Pius XII/Vatican referred to the genocide that the Nazis inflicted upon Jews without explicit use of "genocide/Jews."
Catholic teachings — Purgatory, for example — are found in Sacred Scripture despite the absences of explicit references to said teachings.
=============================================================================
#21 of Gaudium et spes is linked (footnote 16) to four Papal condemnations of communism.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bella Kavanaugh
Then refute what I said or naff off
#21 of Gaudium et spes:
"In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated (16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence."
In turn, footnote 16 referenced four Papal condemnations of communism:
16. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), pp. 65-106; Pius XII, encyclical letter Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958: AAS 50 (1958) pp. 601-614; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra May 15, 1961: AAS 53 (1961), pp. 451-453; Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 651-653.
===============================================================================
#21 of Gaudium et spes is linked to four Papal condemnations of communism.
#21 of Gaudium et spes is not linked to four Papal condemnations of lollipops, ice cream cones, or the National Hockey League.
But let me get this straight...
The four Papal condemnations of communism linked to #21 of Gaudium et spes are not condemnations of communism?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM- See Mark Thomas post.
MT,
No, you are wrong. Your cutting and pasting non sequiturs are meaningless. Go back to grade school and learn some basic research. Take a look at the following 2 articles and then grow up:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/12/10/why-did-vatican-ii-ignore-communism/
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/revealed-lost-vatican-documents-condemn-communism-a-false-religion-without-god/117058.htm
TJM et al. seem to buy into the sort of narrative about Vatican II’s alleged failure to condemn communism illustrated (created?) by sources such as the following:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/12/10/why-did-vatican-ii-ignore-communism/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-iis-lost-condemnations-of-communism-revealed-to-public-for-first-ti
The first source claims:
“As the Church celebrates the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, there is one lesser-known—and some would argue highly disturbing—aspect of the Council that has tended to be overlooked: the absence of any reference to, or condemnation of, Communism in the Council’s documents, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was at that time at the height of its powers.”
Notice the claimed “absence of any reference to” Communism in the Council’s documents.
Perhaps the intended meaning is “explicit” reference. Omitting that word, however, creates a misleading impression that there is no kind of reference to Communism at all in the Council documents, which is clearly false. The claimed “absence of any . . . condemnation of Communism” is addressed in the discussion if the second source.
The second source claims:
“The schemas condemning communism and Marxism were never considered. What remained was only a timid critique of atheism in the document Gaudium et Spes, with an oblique reference in a footnote to previous condemnations to communism by the popes.”
Later on, after discussing various alleged machinations and politicking at the Council, the second source refers to a “vague, almost indiscernible reference to communism.”
Notice the characterization of Gaudium et Spes as providing only “a timid critique of atheism” and “an oblique” footnote reference to previous papal condemnations of Communism.(Later on, after discussing various alleged machinations and politicking at the Council, the second source refers to a “vague, almost indiscernible reference to communism.”)
Now let’s look carefully again at the relevant language in Gaudium et Spes:
“21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.”
Is calling a doctrine or action “poisonous” a “timid” critique? Is an “[unceasing] repudiation” of such “poison” a “timid” response? Not on any normal understanding of the word “timid” surely. Moreover, the very first document cited in the footnote mounts an absolutely_scathing_critique of communism.
[continued]
Well, so much for “timid.” What about the alleged “oblique” footnote reference? Here we must concede that the text does not identify Communism by name, and perhaps the intended meaning of “oblique” is “indirect.” But it can also mean “obscure.” Using the word “oblique” rather than “indirect,” however, creates a misleading impression that the reference is obscure, which again is clearly false.
And here we must ask: How would everyone at the time have understood the reference? Wouldn’t everyone at that time—which is much closer to the relevant cited documents than we are—have understood precisely which particular “poisonous” doctrines and actions were being referred to, especially given the immediately preceding language at the end of section 20?:
“Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing man's hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental power they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.”
Could the form of modern atheism “which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation” have been understood as referring to anything other than the ideologies of Communism and Socialism, especially given the prior discussion in the section of the various other forms of atheism?
So, yet again, we see the importance of situating words in their context and not simply engaging in proof-texting.
All this said, I am unclear about the significance of the 1949 Decree Against Communism which Wikipedia describes as follows:
“The Decree Against Communism was a 1949 Catholic Church document issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and approved by Pope Pius XII, which declared Catholics who professed Communist doctrine to be excommunicated as apostates from the Christian faith.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism
Can anyone shed further light on the status, implications, and ultimate fate of this Decree or of other related documents referenced at the end of the Wikipedia article?
Mr Thomas:
Vatican II was not being threatened with an invasion by the Soviet Communists. Pius XII (and the Vatican) was in danger from the so called Fascists and Nazis, and so had to be careful with the language he used. Mussolini and his friend Hitler would not have tolerated otherwise. This just further confirms the idea that because there was no danger in using the word "Communism" or its cognates in the Vatican II documents, and these specifically refer to the greatest danger (in its demonic seductiveness) for the Church at the time, something was very fishy with the Council on this. I propose that many of the Modernists that took over the Council were sympathetic to the ideology of Communism, as were the liberation theologians that were let loose as a result of the Council not explicitly condemning this atheistic ideology. We can see the devastating effects on the Church today from Cultural Marxism, a derivative of Modernism.
Victor,
The left-wingers like MT who post here simply don't care about the truth. FYI, it was common knowledge that Cardinal Villot, Paul VI's, Secretary of State, may have been a communist when he was a young priest in France. He certainly had communist sympathathies and many high ranking Churchmen, like Marx, have bought into Marxiasm.
Post a Comment