TWO CARDINALS WHO REPRESENT THE SCHISM DEVELOPING IN THE CHURCH, ONE POINT OF VIEW CAN BE FOUND BY ANYONE IN THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW CAN ONLY BE FOUND BY THE KNOWLEDGE A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, CLERGY AND LAITY, HAVE:
WE ARE WELL ON THE WAY TO SCHISM AND IT WILL BE AN ACTUAL SCHISM UNLIKE WHAT THE FSSPX ARE DOING WHICH ISN’T A SCHISM BUT A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE AND IRREGULARITY…
Cardinal Mueller is certainly on the side of the school of theology of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. This distinguishes His Eminence from Pope Francis and those in the Curia who promote the reigning pope’s agenda.
The two schools of thought, each held by a pope, are diametrically opposed to one another.
I support the Benedict school as everyone knows. Why? Because you can discover there all the teachings of the Catholic Church which are out in the open for anyone to find if they have time.
Pope Francis’ school seems neo-gnostic to me. By that I mean new teachings arise by listening to the culture that is opposed to God and Catholicism as it has been understood officially up to and through Pope Benedict’s papacy.
The German Synodal way wants to change the Church into a different Church. This is what Cardinal Grech has very recently said about the Universal synod, and Pope Francis has said the same thing, both confirm that the Synodal Way’s purpose is to create not a new Church but a different Church. By the way, we have hundreds if not thousands of Protestant sects, especially the new non-denominational ones, that are different churches. You can read Cardinal Grech’s recent interview published by America by pressing HERE.
When you read Cardinal Mueller’s commentary based upon the Deposit of Faith and the perennial Magisterium of the Church and then you read Pope Francis’ agenda which Cardinal Grech recently enunciated you see a position of clarity from Cardinal Mueller and then you read Cardinal Grech, representing Pope Francis’ theology which makes you scratch your head and realize that anything is possible even a different Church unlike the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You can read Rorate Caeli’s publication of Cardinal Mueller’s interview by pressing the title below. A money byte of what the cardinal answered is below:
The whole Church has followed with attention and concern the steps of the German Synodal Way. What do you think of the decisions of the IV Assembly of the German Synodal Way?
In theatrical language, one would not know exactly whether to speak of tragedy or comedy with regard to this event. All the texts, very abundant but not very profound, do not deal with the renewal of Catholics in Christ, but with a surrender to a world without God. The only theme among all the themes is sexuality. However, it is not understood as God’s gift given to human beings as created persons in our male and female nature, from which derives the responsibility to participate as father and mother in the work of God’s creation and the universal will of salvation for one’s offspring, but as a kind of drug to numb a basic nihilistic feeling with the maximum satisfaction of pleasure.
Both Cardinal Marx and Georg Bätzing supported the texts that asked the pope for a change in sexual morality, the ordination of women, and the evaluation of homosexuality. What do you think?
There are two errors in this regard that only theological ignoramuses can make. First, the pope has no authority to change the teaching of the Church, which is rooted in God’s revelation. In trying to do so, he would exalt himself as a man above God. Second, the apostles can only teach and ordain what Jesus commanded them to teach (Mt 28:19). It is precisely the bishops, as well as their ongoing successors, who are called to the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) in Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the irreformable doctrinal definitions of previous papal ex cathedra decisions or of ecumenical councils. “The Roman Pontiff and the Bishops…do not accept any new public revelation as belonging to the divine deposit of faith” (Lumen gentium 25; cf. Dei verbum 10).
3 comments:
Cardinal Muller woefully misunderstands Lumen gentium 27. Hopefully it is a translation issue or possibly input from the translator/publisher Kwasniewski.
He is correct that LG 27 explicitly states that bishops are not vicars of the Pope and that they do not recieve their power, authority and sanctifying power from the Pope. The error that he repeatedly makes and attributes to the teaching of LG 27 is that the pope does not have supreme authority over jurisdiction.
The pope has supreme authority over jurisdiction as he is the one who places the bishop into his mission or diocese. It is the Pope who can remove him from public ministry. LG 27 says "This power, which they [bishops] exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although it's exercise is ultimately regulated by the Supreme authority of the Church [Pope], and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful." It is quite obvious here that the error Cardinal Muller was talking about prior to Vatican II wad the idea that bishops receive their power and authority from the Pope. Vatican II makes this clear that it is not the case and that they are not vicar of the Pope because the power and authority they exercise are proper to them as bishops...it is from the nature of being a bishop. However, Vatican II makes abundantly clear in LG and even in the cited LG 27 by Muller that bishops recieve their jurisdiction from the Pope and can have that removed. If Cardinal Muller thinks that the Pope does not have the power of giving and removing a bishops jurisdiction then he woefully misunderstands the Church's hierarchy, teachings and tradition.
I was very disappointed with his response on that topic in his interview.
For further reading see LG 24 for it says, "The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the Supreme and universal authority of thr Church, or by laws made or recognized by that authority, or directly through the successor of peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office."
This quote from LG 24 is referencing other customs such as those in the east where the selection of bishops is fulfilled by the local church and they are assigned a diocese by the local church...but if the Pope refuses or denys communion with that bishop, that bishop has no office or jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.
Carter thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. I do agree with you about jurisdiction and I am surprised that Cardinal Mueller would make this kind of mistake. Perhaps it is a translation issue with an ax to grind. What I am more concerned about with Pope Francis is the elevating of pastoral theology to a doctrine. My 1970’s seminary emphasized this to a great extend and I was and am very appreciative for that. But often it is based upon feelings and opinions and very much couched in the 1970’s fad of “I’m okay; you’re okay” pop psychology and sociology of the day. But pastoral theology has its place and is local, meaning diocesan and parochial.
It appears to me that Pope Francis is following the Anglican Communion and its synodal process which has led to such division there, opened the way to dumping natural law as a basis for anyone to grasp God’s design for the world He created and the possibility of changing doctrine and dogma as it concerns Holy Orders and Matrimony with its social and historical underpinning based upon gender, male and female, wife, husband and fecundity.
Meanwhile, in Joe Biden's America, we have this:
BUCKS COUNTY, Pennsylvania (LifeSiteNews) – A well-known pro-life author, sidewalk counselor, and father of seven was the latest victim of a U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored SWAT raid and arrest — for supposed “FACE Act” violations — at his rural home as his children looked on “screaming.”
Sounds like the FBI has become like the Stasi or Gestapo. American bishops: crickets.
Post a Comment