Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on July 11, 2012, 08:05:24 AM
-
The Neo-Cath apologists have now sprung into action...
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=983
Gerard Ludwig Müller: Another Faulty Traditionialist Condemnation
Archbishop Gerhard Müller—the brand new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—has also come under Traditionalist attack. A case in point is the July 9th Remnant Online blog entry, New Head of CDF Dissents from Certain Doctrines of Faith?, by “a concerned Catholic priest.” All this does is make me concerned for the priest.
Essentially this anonymous author, in his zeal to condemn Archbishop Müller for heresy, has gone to the extreme trouble of looking up information about his ideas on, well, Wikipedia. However, not all of the cited material is from the English Wikipedia page. The German-language page is far more extensive, but one problem is that the alleged damning quotations are somewhat difficult to interpret, and they are all translations.
Despite the fact that these quotations were clearly selected to alarm conservative Catholics, each one cries out to be read in the context of the larger work from which it was taken. Without this context, it is actually impossible to be sure of the specific point the Archbishop was attempting to make. But one can easily imagine several perfectly orthodox contexts in each case. With this in mind, let us take up each quote in turn:
On the Eucharist, from a book on the Mass in 2002: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
[Note: I pass over the expression “human person”, which is clearly either an inadvertent slip or a mistranslation. The intended distinction is between Christ's human body before the Resurrection and his glorified body.]
This statement does not in itself contradict the Real Presence. In fact it specifically affirms the presence of Christ under the appearance (signs) of bread and wine, though by itself it admits the possibility of a merely spiritual presence, which would be a heresy. But it seems to be speaking to a deeper question of the Real Presence, the question of what constitutes substance as opposed to accidents in a proper understanding of transubstantiation. Let us consider for a moment that the material components of Christ’s earthly body were changing constantly, and that we have no adequate conception of the material components of his transfigured body. Even from this simple point of view, there are interesting questions about this notion of presence. We definitely wish to know the question or quarrel that provided the context for this speculation.
In the absence of that knowledge, we might consider one possible context which makes the statement rather easy to resolve. When we refer to the “body” of Christ, we would be wrong to assert that the meaning of the word “body” is exhausted by the material components of Christ’s body. And when we refer to the “blood” of Christ, we would also be wrong to assert that what we mean is exhausted by the material components of Christ’s blood. For in fact we know by Faith that Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity in either Eucharistic species. And therefore, strictly according to the quotation in the dock, “material components” is not what “body” and “blood” actually “mean”.
I emphasize again that I do not know exactly what point Archbishop Müller wished to make in context, but we are a long way from proving heresy from this quotation.
Comment on Liberation Theology: “The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic and it teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from true faith.”
Here I have just two points to make. First, Archbishop Müller was at one time a student of Gustavo Gutiérrez, a very significant liberation theologian, and he remained a friend. In this context, I would tend to cut anyone some slack.
Second, however, consider what this quotation actually says: It says that purely in itself Gutiérrez’ mode of theology was orthodox in that it was primarily concerned to take our faith (as defined by Catholic doctrine, or orthodoxy) and teach us how to live out its demands in practice (orthopraxis). So in skeletal or paradigmatic form—“independently of how you look at it”—this is not unorthodox. But of course people may “look at it” the wrong way; they may introduce their own agenda, and twist the theological method in its actual results.
In any case, this was said of his teacher and friend. It is the kind of generous statement which I can live with, especially if Archbishop Müller’s experience of Gutiérrez was that of a man of deep faith. It may also be theologically more precise than some of us, after past battles, care to admit. In other words, quarrels with Gutiérrez were not primarily over doctrinal issues, but over how to practice the Faith.
Mariology, from the 5th edition of his Catholic Dogmatics in 2003: The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth..., but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
This one is even easier. If we presume that Archbishop Müller means to deny the physiological miracles associated with the Virgin Birth, of course, the quotation sets off loud alarms. But why assume what the quotation does not say? In fact, it admits the physiological miracles easily enough. All it says is that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is “not so much concerned” with the physiological miracles as with what it teaches us about the “healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior”.
The phrase “not so much concerned” may simply mean that the doctrine has a higher purpose than what meets the eye, exactly as most of Christ’s miracles did. In this context, the word “proprieties” (not, as some may think too quickly, “properties”) might be extremely significant. Perhaps Archbishop Müller is simply saying that the Divine purpose in these miracles was not so much to suggest a concern for propriety as to foreshadow and affirm the healing and saving influence of Christ. I would also love to see this in the original context of dogmatic theology, to see how this notion of the “healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature” is explicated and applied as a principle of theological interpretation (hermeneutic).
Advanced theology is hard work. Let’s not jump to unwarranted conclusions about the orthodoxy of a close friend and trusted colleague of Pope Benedict XVI, an archbishop who is overseeing the publication of the sixteen volumes of the Pope’s writings, a theologian who has spent his last ten years working in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Congregation’s new Prefect, whose views may have matured and refined themselves significantly during that time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also my related entry: Joseph Augustine Di Noia: A Faulty Traditionalist Condemnation.
-
Again, nonsense.
Mueller deliberately leaves out the word transsubstantiation, and calls Christ's presence in the 'medium of bread and wine', as if bread and wine still exist as such, which is no longer the case after the Consecration. Bread and wine are neither signs nor a medium for the 'presence of Christ', they become Body and Blood substantially.
Mueller's denial of the dogma of the perpetual virgnity of the Mother of God is far more clear, and was cited by De Galaretta. Mueller alleged that no physiological non-violation of the hymen was defined by the dogma, which is a heresy as the dogma does state this.
Add to this, the typical doublespeak and clouded words of the moderate modernists and their rejection of clear definitions, and modernism in their works becomes clearer and clearer.
The neocon modus of instant denial and go along with the powerful and papolatry is at work again. They cannot give up JP2 We Love You 2 and B16 Pop culture and cults after all. Reality is too harsh.
-
I wish Caminus were here. He excels at picking apart Neo-Cath tripe like this.
-
I wish Caminus were here. He excels at picking apart Neo-Cath tripe like this.
I hope he will pass by and do his trick then.
Clarity of mind, rational and logical argumentation and St. Thomas are feared by Modernists and their lackeys (neo-con neo-Caths).
-
The writer of the article makes a living from towing the Conciliar line, you'll never see people like him write otherwise than he did, or it would put him out of business.
-
Neo-Catholics are more loathsome then "out of the closet" modernists. Neo-Catholics continue to spread friendly fire at those who should be their allies. Rather they aid the modernist enemies of the Church.
-
On the Eucharist, from a book on the Mass in 2002: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
This statement does not in itself contradict the Real Presence. In fact it specifically affirms the presence of Christ under the appearance (signs) of bread and wine, though by itself it admits the possibility of a merely spiritual presence, which would be a heresy.
It doesn't contradict Catholic doctrine?
Christ Whole And Entire Is Present In The Eucharist
Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire.
-
On the Eucharist, from a book on the Mass in 2002: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
This statement does not in itself contradict the Real Presence. In fact it specifically affirms the presence of Christ under the appearance (signs) of bread and wine, though by itself it admits the possibility of a merely spiritual presence, which would be a heresy.
It doesn't contradict Catholic doctrine?
Christ Whole And Entire Is Present In The Eucharist
Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire.
To say that “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality...
presuming, of course, that words mean things, is to say that the body and blood of
Christ is not the body and blood of Christ.
"The material components of the human person of Jesus during His lifetime or in His
transfigured corporality" is precisely his body and blood. What else could it be?
Maybe Muller is Muslim. They don't think that what was crucified at Calvary was
really Jesus. They think it "appeared" to be Jesus, but that was an illusion. Muller
the Muslim? Muller Muslim?
Or, he could be Lutheran, because they deny that the consecrated host is the Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. They say, effectively, that the host subsists
in Jesus: the host is also other things, like wheat and air and stuff like that. Like
they now say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, because
they learned that through the teachings of Vatican II, because they say the
Church of Christ is also other things, like the Lutheran club of non-believers.
Or, like the new head of Ecclesia Dei, DiNoia, maybe Muller is Jєωιѕн. Jєωs deny
the Real Presence. But at least most of them are honest enough to admit it. So
that would make Muller a lying Jєω, if he's Jєωιѕн.
-
Consubstantiation and the impanation heresies are at work in his work too.
And unlike the Protestant heretics, who are clear and precise in defining their rejection of Catholic dogma, Modernists use blurred and vague language and words, in order to confuse and yet transmit their heresy.
Denying the transfigured corporality is a Modernist ploy, in order to "empty" Catholic dogma of its content.
It is denial by relativism, subjectivism and neologisms. Confuse, divide, conquer.
He equated the Real Presence of Christ, according to him "in the signs of the medium of bread and the medium of wine", with the presence of a lover's letter to his loved one. Such a written letter, according to Mueller, "makes present and makes corporal the adressing person (the lover) to his love one".
This comparison in the 2002 'Katholische Dogmatik' of Mueller actually is like Calvin's transsignification and even towards Zwingli's mere symbolism concept of the 'Holy Supper'.
Müller is careful to avoid the statement that the Body of Christ and His Blood are consumed, rather he formulated that "in the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine" Christ "becomes" present.
This is purely focused towards heretical meal (supper) concepts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the confection of the Most Holy Eucharist as a sacrament.
Avoiding orthodox dogmatic definitions clearly favours the modernist intention.
Mueller never repudiated his blurred and heretical writings, rather he defended himself that only the Conciliar church, pope and he as a Conciliar prefect of the faith can determine "who is an heretic". As if no dogma on the Most Holy Sacrament existed since the universal Council of Trent and long before.
His denial of the perpetual virginity and transformation of it into some mere symbol of salvation by God's grace, is close to the 'historical critical' denial of the Divine Incarnation itself, and suggesting Our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived by a man. This is pure blasphemy, but is a logical conclusion from the Modernist method applied to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady by the modernist Mueller and his doublespeak dialectics.
Today Mueller stated that the SSPX represents a "sect and off-split" from "the Church" (the conciliar sect) and that also "on the other side" (meaning more extreme modernist radical groups and liberal fanatical clergy) threats of "schism" remain.
G.L. Mueller was the most fanatical enemy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X, which is within the territory of his (former) diocese of Regensburg. In 2009 he appealed to the Vatican to forbid the priestly ordinations, attacked bp. Williamson, and the Vatican supported Mueller's view and attempt to stop the priestly ordinations.
Everything should be clear by now, even for the most stupid pro-agreement fanatics.
-
Consubstantiation and the impanation heresies are at work in his work too.
And unlike the Protestant heretics, who are clear and precise in defining their rejection of Catholic dogma, Modernists use blurred and vague language and words, in order to confuse and yet transmit their heresy.
Denying the transfigured corporality is a Modernist ploy, in order to "empty" Catholic dogma of its content.
It's a relief for me to see you say this, IE, because I wanted to, but I wasn't
confident enough. I would have used other words, anyway. Yours are more potent.
At work ... Protestant rejection ... confuse and yet transmit ... Modernist ploy ...
"empty" Catholic dogma of its content.
Great stuff. I really appreciate it!
It is denial by relativism, subjectivism and neologisms. Confuse, divide, conquer.
He equated the Real Presence of Christ, according to him "in the signs of the medium of bread and the medium of wine", with the presence of a lover's letter to his loved one. Such a written letter, according to Mueller, "makes present and makes corporal the adressing person (the lover) to his love one".
This comparison in the 2002 'Katholische Dogmatik' of Mueller actually is like Calvin's transsignification and even towards Zwingli's mere symbolism concept of the 'Holy Supper'.
Bravo!
Müller is careful to avoid the statement that the Body of Christ and His Blood are consumed, rather he formulated that "in the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine" Christ "becomes" present.
Jesus becomes truly present at the words of the consecration: Catholic dogma!
Anything else is heresy: at the elevation of the host because onlookers look at it,
after it is distributed to the recipients because they touch it with their hands, or
at the moment it is "eaten" and "drunk," which is the same thing as "consumed."
This is purely focused towards heretical meal (supper) concepts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the confection of the Most Holy Eucharist as a sacrament.
Avoiding orthodox dogmatic definitions clearly favours the modernist intention.
Anything to make it less objectionable to the madding crowd of non-believers!
Imagine if the Missionaries had that approach, or the Apostles! What a farce!!
Mueller never repudiated his blurred and heretical writings, rather he defended himself that only the Conciliar church, pope and he as a Conciliar prefect of the faith can determine "who is an heretic". As if no dogma on the Most Holy Sacrament existed since the universal Council of Trent and long before.
His denial of the perpetual virginity and transformation of it into some mere symbol of salvation by God's grace, is close to the 'historical critical' denial of the Divine Incarnation itself, and suggesting Our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived by a man. This is pure blasphemy, but is a logical conclusion from the Modernist method applied to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady by the modernist Mueller and his doublespeak dialectics.
And therefore, we know what he's about. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
Today Mueller stated that the SSPX represents a "sect and off-split" from "the Church" (the conciliar sect) and that also "on the other side" (meaning more extreme modernist radical groups and liberal fanatical clergy) threats of "schism" remain.
Funny: we need a translation from Modernist double-speak into intelligible
language, even if it's the same nationality! These creeps are really aliens!
G.L. Mueller was the most fanatical enemy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X, which is within the territory of his (former) diocese of Regensburg. In 2009 he appealed to the Vatican to forbid the priestly ordinations, attacked bp. Williamson, and the Vatican supported Mueller's view and attempt to stop the priestly ordinations.
I really hope you don't disappear, IE, because your knowledge and insight are
truly invaluable here. If you were an SSPX priest, you'd be packing your bags
and heading for the hinterlands. I'd love to see you face-to-face with +Fellay in
a padded cell! He would be squirming in his seat!
Everything should be clear by now, even for the most stupid pro-agreement fanatics.
Everything should be clear by now, even for the most stupid pro-agreement fanatics.
Everything should be clear by now, even for the most stupid pro-agreement fanatics.
Everything should be clear by now, even for the most stupid pro-agreement fanatics.
They probably have to hear it three times, like the mea culpa or the sanctus.
Otherwise, they'll think you don't really mean it.!
GTG: are you paying attention?!?!
-
You know, IE, if you're not in regular meetings with "the three" to at least give them
moral support, if not provide details for their use, then they're really missing out.
Tell you what: the next time you meet up with one of "the three," please give them
my regards, and let them know they're not alone. Thanks in advance.
When +ABL finally decided to consecrate "a bishop" he was going by what he had
discerned as two signs from God, one of which was Assisi I and the other I
don't claim to understand.
These two appointments of DiNoia and Muller ought to be discerned as two signs
from God that the Society CANNOT make a "deal" with Rome because Rome is
still entrenched in Modernism.
-
One small correction, Mueller stated that 'communion with Christ' is received through or "brought over by the eating and drinking of bread and the wine", and then continued to write about the "corporalizing" of the presence of a lover by a lover's letter to his loved one. It remains reduction of "bread and wine" to a mere "medium" for the "presence" (which is no Real Presence).
Again, the ambiguity and confusing choice of words signifies the Modernist intention to confuse, not to define, not to explain, not to precisely designate.
-
One small correction, Mueller stated that 'communion with Christ' is received through or "brought over by the eating and drinking of bread and the wine", and then continued to write about the "corporalizing" of the presence of a lover by a lover's letter to his loved one. It remains reduction of "bread and wine" to a mere "medium" for the "presence" (which is no Real Presence).
Dang. I was going to mention that but I got so busy I forgot. Point taken.
If he was using an analogy, it would be a weak one, for we don't really have any
apt analogy for transubstantiation in this world, as far as I know, other than the
very thing it mirrors, the Incarnation itself. The Incarnation of the Second Person
of the Blessed Trinity is so immensely buried in mystery, that it is only foreshadowed
by vague reference in the OT as a set of obscure hints, which no man could ever
have deciphered, and it took the actual reality, the Real Presence of the Word
Made Flesh, Himself, to give us what we need to believe its truth. It is a story and
a reality so thoroughly steeped in mystery that to compare it to a love letter is all
too short, and, dare I say, debase. For it mocks the infinite mystery of God.
Again, the ambiguity and confusing choice of words signifies the Modernist intention to confuse, not to define, not to explain, not to precisely designate.
I was probably afraid of going off on a tangent so I didn't even go there......
-
I didn't see any other thread with Muller's name in the title, and since this one has
the "u" missing (probably because the title software automatically omits some
characters like apostrophes, quotation marks, tildas, and umlaut vowels) I thought
that members might not have noticed that this one exists.
This thread did not get into most of Muller's track record of showing a dislike for
Tradition in general or for the SSPX in particular, because of its tradition, apparently.
But the fact that +Fellay is still making preparations to become subject to Muller's
authority makes him appear off his rocker, as they say. For example, if there were
a normalization and the SSPX were answerable to EDC, and the EDC is not made
into a personal prelature (answerable only to the Pope), then the SSPX would be
forced into obedience under Muller and could only appeal to the Pope through
Muller, as the SSPX is a society and not an individual person.
Presuming that could be part of the stipulations B16 is demanding of the SSPX,
then the sign of Muller being appointed only a week before the GC should have
raised a lot of red flags. Certainly the Fathers and bishops of the Chapter were
not sequestered from seeing that news before they went into their retreat or
before they voted in the Chapter meeting starting on July 9th.