Cardinal Müller: No Elephant in Room…

Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes

by Christopher A. Ferrara
January 9, 2017

The article below is taken from the Fatima Center website

According to Stanze Vaticane, the blog for the Italian TV channel TGCom24, Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has ejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia (especially Chapter 8, ¶¶ 302-305) which prompted the four cardinals to present

Cardinal Müller

Cardinal Müller

their dubia to Pope Francis. Those passages of Amoris clearly open the door to Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in “certain cases” — as bishop after bishop is now declaring — while appearing to reduce exceptionless negative precepts of the natural law (including “Thou shalt not commit adultery”) to “general rules” and mere “objective ideals” rather than divine commands from which no one can claim an exemption.

But Müller’s choice of words is very curious.  As reported by Stanze Vaticane, during an interview with TGCom 24 (translations mine), Müller stated:

“Everyone, above all the cardinals of the Roman Church [sic], have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was astonished, however, that this became public, almost constraining the Pope to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I do not like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith as Saint Thomas has said. We are very far from a correction and I say that it harms the Church to discuss these things publicly.

Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine, and we can make out the whole doctrine of the Church on matrimony, all the doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history. Pope Francis asks for discernment of the situation of those persons who live in an irregular union, that is, not according to the doctrine of the Church on matrimony, and he asks for aid of these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the Sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I do not see any contraposition: on the one hand we have the clear doctrine on matrimony, and on the other the obligation of the Church to concern herself with these persons in difficulty.”

First of all, why is Müller “astonished” that the dubia became public?  The four cardinals state clearly in their accompanying letter that while their dubia were first submitted privately to Francis, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.” 

That is their right as cardinals, and indeed it is the right of any member of the faithful:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”  (Canon 212, § 3)

Secondly, why is a “possible fraternal correction” deemed “very far off” — meaning that there is a potential for one — when Müller says at one and the same time that Amoris presents the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and that there is no opposition to that doctrine in the call for “discernment” of the situation of people in “irregular unions”? If Amoris were really so clear, and there were really no contradiction between Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Francis’ call for “discernment,” Müller would say simply that a correction of Francis is unnecessary. He would not say a correction is “not possible at this moment…”

I am afraid Müller’s statement falls into the category of so much of what has come out of the Vatican over the past fifty years: artfully worded doubletalk that tries to have it both ways.

Now let us be serious. Cardinal Müller knows very well that Amoris is not only problematic, but a veritable H-bomb targeted on the foundations of Christian life. As the four cardinals note in their presentation to a stonily silent Francis, different bishops interpret Amoris differently — some pro, some con — regarding the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments (in “certain cases”) without a prior amendment of life. Müller also knows well that Francis has sided with the pro faction.  In his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires regarding their “guidelines” for the “implementation” of Amoris, Francis declared there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris than their guidelines, which provide as follows:

“If it is acknowledged that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).”

Accordingly, the four cardinals rightly note with alarm (while Francis stays silent) that interpreters of Amoris “come to different conclusions… due to divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life.”  Thus, as they conclude:

“In this sense, what is at stake in Amoris Laetitia is not only the question of whether or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can — under certain circumstances — be readmitted to the sacraments. 

“Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life. Thus, while the first question of the dubia concerns a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.

Indeed, the fifth question presented asks the Roman Pontiff, of all people, if following Amoris “does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, n.56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?”  In short: Is Francis — the Pope — authorizing departures from the natural law?

Müller knows all of this.  And he knows the whole Catholic world is in turmoil following the publication of Amoris, as some dioceses now regard as “mercy” what others still regard as a mortal sin: the reception of Holy Communion while living in adultery. There is no way he cannot know what is happening. Yet he has chosen to put on a blindfold in order to be able to say that a correction of Francis “is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”

Really? If not now, when?  After thousands and perhaps millions of souls have put their eternal salvation at risk by receiving Holy Communion while engaging in adulterous sexual relations?  After the already weakened faith in Holy Matrimony is completely destroyed in many by the spectacle of people who are not married being treated as if they were?  After the very concept of mortal sin is de facto abolished by the subversive notion, promoted by Francis in Amoris (¶ 303), that conscience can properly counsel the continuation of gravely sinful conduct as “what for now [!] is the most generous response which can be given to God… while yet not fully the objective ideal”?

What a sad day for the Church when the very head of its doctrinal congregation blinds himself to what is perhaps, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has observed, the greatest doctrinal crisis since the Arian heresy.  How sad as well that, in contrast to the four cardinals who confront the crisis with eyes wide open, we must say of Müller what Our Lord said of the Pharisees: “Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Matt 15:14)   

Comment:

Can you explain Cardinal Müller’s assertion that:  “…a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off.  It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”  

I read those words with a sense of incredulity.  Given that most of us can see  the elephant in the room (even those who are late to the circus) and can, moreover, see it hurtling around the the room causing havoc, how can Cardinal Müller deny the fact that great danger to the Faith has already been caused by Amoris Laetitia. What’s wrong with him?  No rudeness, mind, folks, keep the heid. Nobody’s asking you to say it with flowers, just don’t be rude 😀   

Update: 11 January – The mystery deepens

53 responses

  1. It is disgraceful of Cardinal Mueller to state “there is no danger to the faith”. Of course there is.

    Any observer who saw that the Church was doing something clearly different to what Jesus taught could reasonably ask – so who does the Church really say this Jesus was? Does it genuinely believe in His divinity? Surely not, if it openly disobeys Him?

    And it would not be a few persons who came to lose their faith in Christ as their thoughts progressed down this route, especially when they also recognised other modern faith-killing contradictions (such as communion in the hand).

    As for “whats wrong” with Cardinal Mueller, I think Christopher Ferrara gets it right when he mentions the familiar double-talk which wants to have things both ways. Its the ambiguity of the post-conciliar Church, coupled with the ambivalent nature of prelates who just want to be left to continue along in their quiet, overly comfortable lives. Its too much trouble to defend the faith, can’t we just pretend all is well and have another glass of wine?

    I would also say that, while Cardinal Mueller doubtless speaks fluent Italian, we are dealing with a English translation of an Italian interview with a German. And so I personally would not place any great weight on particular words or phrases such as “not possible at this moment…”.

    Translating from one language to another can cause a significant re-emphasis in even a simple sentence, quite by accident. I think Cardinal Mueller’s bald message is simply “nothing to see here”.

    It also seems clear he is one of those many prelates who subscribe to the protestant error of thinking that Christian doctrine and peoples lives are two different things and never the twain shall meet.

    • IMO, it’s not double-talk. I think someone told him that “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” (apologies to Harry Truman).

      That’s the most charitable way I can put it.

  2. Cardinal Mueller should have been asked plainly – if Francis’ document is not problematic, why doesn’t he answer the dubia?

    It really annoys me that these men, Francis included think then can “pull the wool over our eyes” by making these flawed statements which anyone could drive a coach and horses through.

    Or worse, by ignoring questions and pretending not to remember what he said before – as exemplified by Francis (who must lack the guile to think up even a flawed statement).

    They obviously have a real contempt for the intellect of the average Catholic.

  3. “Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has rejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia …” blah blah.

    Is one surprised? AL, for any semi-Modernist like Muller, is no doubt a seminal, even ideal document.

    I shall be so glad when all these German clerics are banished from the Vatican. They have played a pernicious role for far too long, and I include Joseph Ratzinger in that denunciation.

  4. Benedict Carter

    I absolutely agree with you re the German/Austrian influence in the Vatican, the quicker they are cleared out the better. The entire Vatican II revolution is thanks to the liberal Rhineland influence.

  5. I know Hilary White isn’t popular on here (I’m not a fan myself) but this article is useful because it gives quotes from Cardinal Schonborn saying Amoris is papal magisterial teaching, alongside quotes from Cardinal Burke saying it is not.

    The headline is disgustingly crude above an unfortunate picture of the Pope, but I’m not sure if that’s Hilary White’s fault or the editor’s. She is very raw in her writings, but if you get past the headline, I think you’ll all find the content very interesting.
    http://www.onepeterfive.com/many-fingers-francis-holding-now-amoris-laetitia-submission/

    • Thank you for posting it. I think Hilary is right on target with her analysis of the situation.

      St. Hilary of Poitiers, pray for your namesake and the Church!

  6. “…It does not involve a danger to the faith..”

    So the profanation of the Holy Eucharist and Matrimony, breaking the 6th and 9th commandments, scandalizing people, the loss of souls and eternal damnation are no danger to the faith. And I suppose Napoleon Bonaparte is King of England too? (sarcasm)

  7. If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: ‘Chase yourself to the Jews'” John Vennari quoting Luther in his article on “The Diabolical Disorientation of Luther” in The Fatima Crusader (issue 117, Winter, 2016).
    It seems to me, that if the The Ten Commandments are to be seen as suggestions, why not do away with the 6th and 9th Commandments altogether?

  8. I got the distinct impression that Cardinal Muller was trying to avoid being fired by our Merciful Pope.

    • I have to say that I have never really understood the desire for power in the Church. It is I suppose a very human thing but the idea of ambition, to be a bishop or cardinal, does not sit well with what should be the humble disposition of a priest. And once one has such power and the status that comes with it then it is hard to let it go. But when it comes to choosing status over truth as is perhaps the reason behind the overwhelming silence from the hierarchy, then one does wonder what has happened in the souls of men who presumably started out as young devout seminarians. The notion that all power corrupts is sadly all too true in the Church these days…from the top down.

      • Elizabeth,

        Your post went into moderation because you are following Theresa Rose’s bad example of typing the wrong name or email address at log in.

        In your case, you had typed Elizabetg instead of Elizabeth, so the system thought you were a new blogger, and a new blogger without an avatar.. Worry not, however, moi to the rescue!

        On topic: I agree with you that it is a mystery what happens to priests who presumably start out as good seminarians. It’s also extremely sad.

  9. There isn’t an elephant in the room; there’s a large herd. I am sick and tired of these “so-called” Catholic hierarchy bending over backwards, sideways and topsy turvy to deny the OBVIOUS!

    • Therese,

      LOL! And it appears we are the ones left to clean up behind them, if you catch my drift…I wonder which traditionalist organization will be the first to distribute brooms and pooper scoopers….

  10. I’ve just added an update to the blog article, but thought I would also post it here in case anyone misses it – Christopher Ferrara has further examined Cardinal Müller’s denial of the elephant in the room… Click here to read more – and for those tempted not to bother reading more, here it is in your face! Note, however, that links in the article below do not appear. You really ought to visit the source…

    More on Cardinal Müller’s Blindfold

    The excellent Edward Pentin, writing for EWTN’s National Catholic Register, has just (January 9) published a revealing behind-the-scenes account that perhaps explains the mystery surrounding Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s seeming capitulation regarding the unprecedented crisis provoked by Amoris Laetitia — a capitulation that extends to public criticism of the four cardinals who have addressed the crisis by publishing the dubia they submitted to Müller, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), as well as to Pope Francis.

    Pentin reports that “it has emerged the CDF had clear misgivings about the document [Amoris] before it was published — concerns which were never heeded. One informed official recently told the Register that a CDF committee that reviewed a draft of Amoris Laetitia raised ‘similar’ dubia to those of the four cardinals.”

    Note well: Pentin reveals that Müller himself submitted the equivalent of the cardinals’ dubia even before Amoris was promulgated. Now, however, he takes the position that there is nothing amiss with the document — that it presents no danger to the faith, and that he is “surprised” by the cardinals’ actions.

    Pentin also recalls, as was first revealed by the French journal Le Figaro back in April, that the CDF — meaning Müller — submitted no fewer than 20 pages of corrections to Amoris before publication. Twenty pages of corrections to a document Müller now claims is perfectly in harmony with Church teaching! It appears that Francis and his team of ghostwriters adopted none of those corrections.

    As Pentin further reveals, a senior Vatican official has just informed the Register that the CDF “submitted many, many corrections, and not one of the corrections was accepted…” Moreover, the official added, Müller’s current position, as expressed during the TGCom 24 interview I discussed here, “is exactly the contradictory of everything which he has said to me on the matter until now.” The same official believes that Müller’s about-face suggests “someone who was not speaking for himself but repeating what someone else had told him to say.”

    Put these facts together with the order from Francis that Müller immediately dismiss three orthodox priest-theologians who for many years were key contributors to the CDF’s work but were known to be critical of Amoris and other decisions by Francis. As reported by the respected Vaticanist Marco Tosatti, Müller, dismayed by the order — for which no reason had been given — sought and obtained an audience with Francis, who informed him “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave” and then abruptly ended the audience with a wave of his hand.

    Thus it seems that none other than Francis has placed Cardinal Müller’s blindfold upon his head. Müller will either see no evil or he will see the end of his tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, joining all the other victims of the various Bergoglian purges. Meanwhile, the CDF has been rendered toothless in the defense of doctrine. In like manner, the Congregation for Divine Worship has been rendered toothless by the purging of its entire membership save its head, Cardinal Sarah, who, along with Cardinal Müller, stands in helpless isolation while Francis — who speaks incessantly of decentralizing authority in the Church — does whatever he pleases whenever he pleases.

    The doctrines of the faith and the sacred liturgy are now entirely at the disposal of Francis and a coterie of handpicked ultra-progressives. There must be no resistance. As LifeSiteNews has noted: “Tosatti speaks of an ‘autocratic fever that seems to have broken out in the Vatican.’ Interestingly enough, this authoritative step [dismissing the three priests] is in seeming contradiction with Pope Francis’ hailed ‘mercy’ and his supposedly gentle ways of dealing with people.”

    “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions.” These are not the words of the “merciful Pope” the Vatican public relations apparatus has created for public consumption with the aid of the adoring mass media. They are the words of an autocrat for whom the Petrine office is not a sacred trust but a tool for the imposition of his will.

    No one can depose a Pope, for he has no judge on earth. But a tyrant can be resisted — even a papal tyrant, as some of the Church’s greatest theologians, beginning with Saint Thomas Aquinas, have made clear. All it would take in this case is for a sufficient number of cardinals to join the four who have stepped forward to declare publicly that Francis is on the wrong path and that he must regain the right path — the path of Tradition — for the good of the Church and the eternal welfare of souls.

    Even a Pope will find himself unable to abuse his authority when his subordinates unite in rightly standing up to the abuse. There are only so many heads Francis can chop off before he destroys his own credibility as a humble pastor close to the people. And, in the end, the Church is the household of the faithful, not a prison camp run by a warden.

    May the Princes of the Church, invoking the assistance of the Mediatrix of All Graces, find the courage to tell the King that he cannot go on this way any longer!

    Our Lady of Fatima, come to our aid! Source

    • Editor,

      You beat me to it – I had just noticed that there was asecond update from Mr. Ferrara on this subject, whereas this morning there had been only one! Talk about prolific! Maybe he’s on sabbatical from his day job….

      • RCA Victor,

        I have all these wonderful Americans alerting me to this stuff. Where would I be without y’all….

        I do wonder how Chris Ferrara finds the time to write as much as he does, but, hey, I’m not complaining. Keep ’em rolling, Chris!

    • RCA Victor,

      I have just finished reading that very same article.

      2017 being the 100th anniversary of Our Lady appearing to the three children at Fatima, it might well be a tumultuous time.

      “May the Princes of the Church, invoke the assistance of the Mediatrix of all Graces for her aid”.

    • I read that – it’s fantastic! Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are essential reading for everyone.

    • Yes, I see it in the moderation box. Will go in and fix it now. No pay deducted for these two mishaps but three strikes and you’re OUT!

  11. Here is about half of an e-Newsletter I just received from The Fatima Center:

    Making a Mess As Papal Policy
    Much of our energy is spent in trying to establish and maintain order in our lives. Purposeful action is impossible without it. We teach this to our children and hope they will eventually incorporate in their maturity the discipline we imposed upon them in their early years. So it may strike some as rather puzzling that Pope Francis has famously counseled the young to “make a mess.” (See: “Pope closes South America trip urging youths to ‘make a mess’”.)
    The young are only too willing to oblige, for their exuberance demands an outlet and, failing a constructive channel, will often express itself in random and even destructive acts. Riots occur on college campuses, not in retirement homes. And tearing things down is much easier than building them up: one can see the immediate results of demolition and feel that something has been accomplished, even if it has the negative value of having turned an orderly structure into a formless wreck.
    But why would the head of the Roman Catholic Church urge the young to “make a mess?” What does he intend?
    His counsel to make a mess came during his 2015 South American tour in which he denounced “unfettered” capitalism, in keeping with his preference for scatological metaphor, as “the dung of the devil.” He assigned the sufferings of the poor to the spreading of this “dung” over the economic field, so to speak. His message to the young has to be understood in this context. It is unreasonable not to see it as an exhortation to economic revolution: to fling the dung of capitalism back into the faces of the demonic rich.
    Francis even used a Christmas homily to say that the established economic order in the West deprives young people of the opportunity for “genuine” work, whatever that may be. (See: “For 2017 More of the Same: Leftist Politics Wrapped in the Language of Catholic Piety”.) This is due to the culture of “exclusion” and “privilege” that the Christ Child was supposedly born to overthrow. So now even the Nativity has been subsumed into Francis’ project of enlisting the Church, especially the young, into his crusade against capitalism and for… what, precisely?
    Francis may not provide a clear vision of what he thinks the Church should become, but there can be no mistake that he is eager to dispense with much of what he thinks the Church has been. (See: “What Religion Is This?”.) Francis sees traditional Catholicism as self-absorbed, self-righteous, concerned with individual salvation rather than social justice, which he apparently regards as the primary mission of the Church. But even on its own terms, this aberrant vision of the Church’s mission is not joined to any practical program and amounts to little more than amorphous sentiment.
    How will making a mess succeed in overthrowing capitalism? It’s not clear, of course. Little in what this pontiff says is clear, but his general meaning is unmistakable: the rich, with the acquiescence of the Church, have exploited the poor. The Church must now align itself with the poor through some social upheaval that will change the established order and make it more equitable or egalitarian. The Pope is calling upon the young to be the change agents in both the Church and the world. And they can only bring about change by first destroying the established order. How should they go about this?
    Every revolution begins by breaking things and killing people, then rebuilding on a new plan. The Pope is not explicitly advocating violence, but it is difficult to see how making a mess of the present social and economic order so that it can be radically reconstituted will not leave some bodies in its wake, along with much collateral damage which will hurt the poor it is intended to help. And what is to take the place of the overthrown economic order? The Pope counsels the mess-makers to “tidy up” afterwards, but he is short on specifics, to say the least. Perhaps Cuba and Venezuela can provide a model.
    He simply tells the young that making a mess will “free” their hearts, create “solidarity” and give rise to “hope”. But from what will their hearts be freed? What exactly is the supposed nature of their present bondage? And what is to be done with this freedom? “Solidarity” is a term used to describe the uprising against communism in Poland in the 1980s, but that can hardly be what is meant in this circumstance, for the Pope is not urging anyone to cast off the yoke of state socialism; quite the opposite. And “hope” in what? Hope can be a vague term with a positive flavor, which is why politicians like to use it. It commits them to nothing. But a Pope should use the term hope either in its theological sense, or be precise in what it is he wishes people to cherish as a realizable ideal in this world. Francis’ “hope” is as amorphous as his “solidarity”. Much of what he says can only be regarded as vacuous rhetoric.
    But the Pope’s counsel to make a mess has assumed new importance as he is now being hailed by some in the media as the “leader of the global left.” (See: “How Pope Francis Became the Leader of the Global Left”.) This may be what the Pope has desired and what he views as the proper role of the Roman pontiff. But his words may have unintended consequences as Western society moves toward greater polarization and an intransigence that may foreshadow violent confrontations.
    To conflate the mission of the Catholic Church with a political agenda has always proven disastrous for both Church and state. Yet, the lessons of history appear to be lost on Francis and his admirers, as they move toward yet another confusion of religion and politics that cannot end well. If the Pope wishes for a mess, he is likely to get his wish.

    • Lupine22,

      I think it is self-evident that he does support them, but if you mean will he publicly do so, I think that would be seen by all concerned as probably detrimental to the Cardinals’ case. People would then point to Bishop Fellay’s support as evidence of their “schismatic” spirit. Truly, you couldn’t make it up!

  12. I saw, in DICI recently, a paragraph which seemed to indicate the SSPX was supportive of the Cardinal’s case.

    • Lupine,

      As I said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t support them. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but it would be a very strange thing indeed if, having described Pope Francis as an “outright Modernist” (very early in his papacy) and having said that he’s made the crisis in the Church ten thousand times worse, that Bishop Fellay would not thoroughly welcome the four cardinals.

      Maybe I’m not getting it, but is there any reason why, in your view, he wouldn’t support them?

      • I cannot see any reason for him not to support the four Cardinals.I had hoped that a public statement would have come out from Bishop Fellay himself putting the Society 100% behind them and scoured the net for such a statement and found a paragraph on DICI , but that was all.

  13. Has Opus Dei got anything to say on this subject? Apart from the four Cardinals and perhaps Bishop Schneider the silence is deafening. These are simple yes or no questions which HAVE (in my honest opinion) to be answered.

    • Opus Dei is a waste of space. They’ve always been at the back of the queue in this crisis. Frankly, I never give them a thought, these days.

      • I often wondered over the years WHY the Vatican could put up with just about every variation on a theme with absolute respect offered to all other religions, sects etc but just could not “tolerate” the Society within their own ranks, even by just humouring them over the years. But the hammer has been down for years and it is now obvious that this little group has been a serious threat and an impediment to plans and reforms previously set in motion (i.e. Liturgical Time Bombs and so forth)…so the Society is and always has been an obstacle that could not be marginalised no matter how hard they tried. As regards Opus Dei …I thought that was Latin for “doing God’s work”!

        • Lupine22,

          I can’t speak about Opus Dei, but the reason the SSPX cannot be marginalized is that they have, as you have suggested, kept the Faith intact, whereas those in control of the Vatican since 1958, and esp. since the original Vatican II schema were discarded at Session I, have been busy “razing the bastions” to prepare the way for an entirely different “faith.”

          • RCA Victor,

            I completely agree and I think that there is a strong feeling in the air that this year is going to take us to the brink of this new “faith”. By ignoring the dubia and bad mouthing the four cardinals, Pope Francis is saying that he is going ahead with his new Church. Remember him saying that the Church shouldn’t be a “museum”? That must be how he thinks of tradition.
            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-synod-idUSKCN0RZ0PP20151005

      • Editor,
        re: “Opus Dei is a waste of space”, I do not think that they are any great lovers of the true Catholic faith. One of our faithful worked very hard to persuade an aquaintance to attend the SSPX. She succeeded in getting him to attend for ONE SUNDAY before some of his Opus Dei friends convinced him that the SSPX were outside the Catholic Church, and that their Masses should not be attended. Well, maybe not that exactly, but the message was: “don’t go near SSPX, they are not in the Church.” The usual…
        I haven’t had time for Opus Dei or its members since. Anyone who unjustly criticises the SSPX is no friend of mine!

    • Editor,

      I just read Christopher Ferrar’s article, thank you for posting it. It is unbelievable that Pope Francis should have disregarded the 20 some pages of corrections from the CDF!

      Why is it only 4 Cardinals have made public their concern for the good of souls? And I am confused – is Cardinal Muller on the side of Church teaching? It looks like he was not happy with Amoris.

      • Jobstears,

        I think Cardinal Mueller spoke out about concerns about Amoris Laetitia at the beginning – i.e. he was on the side of Church teaching on marriage, but has suddenly about-turned. Some wonder if he is worried about being put out of his job at the CDF.

      • Archbishop Lefebvre wrote a detailed analysis of objections to the NO. He lobbied Cardinals to sign their names to it. Many of them agreed, including Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

        Somehow it got leaked out, and all but 2 Cardinals – Ottaviani and Bacci – publicly supported it. To this day it is known as The Ottaviani Intervention.

        The more things change, the more they stay the same.

        • Margaret USA

          There were many prelates and theologians involved in the writing of the famous critique of the New Mass that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci presented to Pope Paul VI. Archbishop Lefebvre did not write it on his own and it wasn’t leaked, it was always a very public document. In fact, I believe it actually states that it is the work of many prelates, theologians and pastors of souls, or something to that effect. For that reason I don’t think it is comparable with the present “Dubia” of the four Cardinals.

          As for Cardinal Müller, sounds to me like someone has reminded him of the office he stands to lose unless he goes with the flow. The only other alternative is that he has taken leave of his senses.

          • Thank you for the information – I didn’t know that was the case re The Ottaviani Intervention.

            Re your second paragraph: I don’t think Cardinal Mueller has taken leave of his senses. Your first observation seems on target to me.

            • Margaret USA,

              Yes, I agree that the first observation re Cardinal Muller is the more likely. It’s absolutely lamentable.

    • “Cardinal Burke: On dubia, I’m more concerned about Last Judgment than losing my title”

      That’s fabulous! That is SO what we need to hear right now!

      I’d love to know who the 30 cardinals are. That looks hopeful.

  14. Editor,

    Regarding the website poll, I think “authoritarian” is much too kind a word for Pope Francis. Words like “despotic” and “tyrannical” come to mind….

  15. It is a while since I have heard Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara discuss specific topics. But Amoris Laetitia will not go away, especially since the four Cardinals presented their Dubia to Pope Francis. Of course we know that Pope Francis has no intentions of answering yes or no.

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2984-blessing-adultery-christ-the-judgmental-vs-francis-the-humble

    How can Pope Francis imply that there are exceptions to “Divine precept thou shalt not commit adultery”.

  16. “…a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith…”

    Really?

    Compare the above from Cardinal Muller with this extract from todays Torch of the Faith: (by-the way, extract has typo – Malta and Goa should read Malta GOZO)

    Maltese Idolatry
    .
    How disgracefully sacrilegious that the Bishops of Malta and Goa, headed by Archbishop Charles Scicluna, have put out the most clearly-worded adoption of Amoris Laetitia-inspired mass-sacrilege to date.

    Their claims that sexual activity may be impossible for some to avoid says more about their own hearts, and the quality of their own vows, than about the reality of the human person; at least when aided by God’s redeeming and sanctifying grace. Put simply: it owes more to Sigmund Freud and Martin Luther than it reflects anything to do with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    Let us compare their un-Catholic garbage with the perennial teaching articulated in the Council of Trent.

    These sacrilege-enabling Maltese and Goan Judas-bishops write: ”If a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”

    Now enlighten and inform your consciences with Trent: specifically Council 11, 13th Session, October 11th, 1551, regarding the worthy reception of Holy Communion: Those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, no matter how contrite they may think they are, first must necessarily make a sacramental Confession – If anyone presumes to teach, or preach, or obstinately maintain, or defend in public disputation the opposite of this, he shall by the very fact be exommunicated.

    And so, to Archbishop Scicluna, and other sorry Bishops who have signed up to this sacrilegious travesty which so offends Our Lord, rends the unity of His Church, and leads countless souls with all of you toward the very pit of eternal damnation in Hell, and to Pope Francis who has thus far led the Church to this demonic impasse, we address those timeless words of Humphrey Bogart: Here’s Lookin’ at You Kid!

    ALL OF THIS PROVOKES THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD: REPENT WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME!

    Look Up and Lift Up Your Heads – For Your Redemption is Nigh (Luke 21:28) End of extract.

    So then, EXCOMMUNICATION APPLIES HERE.
    ODD THAT ST. PIUS X EXCOMMUNICATION OF MODERNISTS (SEE PRAESTANTIAE SCRIPTURAE) SEEMS TO BE EITHER IGNORED OR FORGOTTEN.

    The synthesis of all heresies – and another synod and world youth day on the horizon.
    DOMINI, LIBERA NOS A MALO.

%d bloggers like this: