Author Topic: Mller on the SSPX and His Controversial Writing (Read 3026 times)

Tony Snow · « **on:** October 04, 2012, 06:18:13 PM »

Interview by NCR - Müller
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?

"Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop"

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings/#ixzz28NK78jAe

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** October 04, 2012, 07:59:44 PM »

How? he was appointed by the Pope...and he has the grace of state...of a heretic

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 04, 2012, 08:49:32 PM »

Muller, the gift that keeps on giving!

In case you weren't sufficiently hacked off, here's his latest pompous lecture on religious liberty. This guy is unbelievable.

The SSPX and some traditionalists in communion with the Church have trouble reconciling the fact that we’ve had popes in the past who have categorically stated teachings that appeared to be refuted by the Council, religious freedom being one example. What do you say in response to this concern?

That is not true — it’s a false interpretation of history. In the 19th century, the freemasons or liberals interpreted religious freedom as the freedom to reject the truth given by God. It was this false notion of religious freedom that the popes of the 19th century rejected, and the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to himself or herself and act according to his or her own conscience.

Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself — that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. We cannot say today, “Jesus is the Son of God, he has a divine nature,” and then tomorrow accept what the Arians said [that Christ was distinctly separate from God the Father]. That would be a real contradiction.

What they [SSPX] are proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:18:36 PM »

When it comes to religious liberty, there are plenty of words to show contradiction, and more importantly actions. The Faith is not just words but actions.

Which is whu modernism's slippery double-talk can't make any on hard facts.

And of course there are many admissions from the former Cardinal Ratzinger himself as to how things have changed.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:21:52 PM »

Doesn't this make you sick? Look at the rest of the interview. He pompously lectures Traditionalists.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:23:20 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Doesn't this make you sick? Look at the rest of the interview. He pompously lectures Traditionalists.

Well what else is he going to do?

He has to lecture someone. He doesn't have anyone else to criticize, they're not Catholics.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:25:57 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Which is why modernism's slippery double-talk can't make any impression on hard facts.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 PM »

Did you read the interview? Just skim it. Look at his answers. He truly pompously believes we are all idiots. I know it shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I can't believe the head of the CDF is so absolutely hateful of Tradition. At least Levada kept mum most of the time. This guy is too much. And Trads are too busy shooting each other to aim at this guy in unison.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:32:54 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Did you read the interview? Just skim it. Look at his answers. He truly pompously believes we are all idiots. I know it shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I can't believe the head of the CDF is so absolutely hateful of Tradition. At least Levada kept mum most of the time. This guy is too much. And Trads are too busy shooting each other to aim at this guy in unison.

They think believers are idiots.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:40:04 PM »

Quote

But if it does present such a comprehensive view of ecclesiology, why are there groups such as the Society of St. Pius X who want to stick to “frozen tradition,” as it were, rather than come into full communion? Does this suggest errors in this comprehensive vision?

We have breakaway groups, not only on the traditionalist wing, but also on the liberal wing. I think that some have developed sets of ideas, which they have formed into an ideology, and then they judge all things in the context of this one set of ideas. The traditionalists, for instance, focus heavily on the liturgy. But we cannot say that there is only one form in which the liturgy can be celebrated, that the extraordinary form is the only form of the Mass. We also cannot change the content of the holy Mass — it’s the same content — but some elements of the liturgy have developed. We have had a lot of rites, Roman, Byzantine, etc., and all are valid, and all have had a certain growth.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:40:45 PM »

Quote

The 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council also takes place Oct. 11. Some would argue that the Church has been hampered in its mission to evangelize by the confusion that followed the Council. Will there be initiatives during this Year of Faith to help remove some of that confusion?

The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution.

But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good]. But the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accuмulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council. Partly because of this coincidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church.

The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to lose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources — the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church — and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:43:56 PM »

Quote

What stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?

I wouldn’t call it a dialogue between two Church partners. This was a brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine. This authentic interpretation is guaranteed by the Pope. The SSPX must accept the Holy Father, the Pope, as the visible head of the Church. They have a great respect for Tradition. They must, therefore, accept the position of the Pope as stated in the First Vatican Council. They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope.

Part of the problem is that, after 30 or more years of separation from the Church, some groups or persons can be very closed in their own dynamic, in their own groups, and very fixed on these points. I believe that these questions will be resolved in the long term.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:44:41 PM »

Quote

Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?

Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the nαzιs had done against the Jєωιѕн people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.

They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #13 on:** October 04, 2012, 10:15:05 PM »

Muller is obviously no Catholic.

Francisco · « **Reply #14 on:** October 04, 2012, 10:38:33 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Doesn't this make you sick? Look at the rest of the interview. He pompously lectures Traditionalists.

Well what else is he going to do?

He has to lecture someone. He doesn't have anyone else to criticize, they're not Catholics.

And Fellay is going to have to do some real belly dancing to take the SSPX into Muller's belly!