Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on July 07, 2012, 06:59:05 AM
-
Bishop Mueller:
an SSPX analysis
Bishop Gerhard Mueller, the former bishop of Regensburg, Germany, has just been appointed Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Benedict XVI.
Fr. Matthias Gaudron, a priest of the SSPX specializing in dogmatic theology and author of the book, Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, recently published some remarks on the SSPX's German District website concerning certain statements made by Bishop Mueller in the past. Fr. Gaudron's comments conclude with a request to His Excellency.
The Church has always considered it to be one of her most important tasks to faithfully keep the Deposit of the Faith, confided to her by Christ and the Apostles, and to defend it against errors in order to pass it on intactly to the coming generations. And thus, rightly so, the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is one of the highest offices in the Church.
The SSPX in Germany has therefore with astonishment taken notice of the fact that the Bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, has been appointed to this office. The SSPX asks what suitability for this office can be found in a man that has gone against the Catholic doctrine on a number of occasions, both in his writings as well as in his public speeches.
The following things should be mentioned:
Bishop Mueller denies in his book Die Messe: Quelle christlichen Lebens [The Mass: Source of Christian Life] the real transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Bread and wine remain, according to him, what they are; however, they become tools for integrating the faithful into the living community with the Father and the Son. This resembles the Calvinistic teaching, according to which bread and wine do not transform, but become tools of grace.[1]
Contrary to Catholic doctrine, according to which the transformation of the gifts occurs with the pronunciation of the words of institution, "This is my body... This is the chalice of my blood"[2], Bishop Mueller asserts that the question of the moment of transformation "doesn't make sense".[3]
Bishop Mueller denies in his Dogmatik [currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary while giving birth[4], and, therefore, the teaching that Mary gave birth to her son without violating her physical integrity.[5]
In a eulogy for the Protestant bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich, Bishop Mueller said on October 11, 2011: "Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully(!) incorporated/integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ." This contradicts the integral Catholic tradition and especially the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
Against the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of a conversion to the Catholic Church, as is still proclaimed in the teaching of Vatican II[6], Bishop Mueller characterizes in the same speech the so-called "ecuмenism of return" as being "erroneous".
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
Since Bishop Mueller has, in the past, not made a secret of his negative attitude towards the Society, the Society does not at first see in this a positive sign for the readiness to discuss its canonical recognition. Nevertheless, it hopes that the new Prefect - regarding discussions in the universal church - may achieve a more positive attitude towards the SSPX.
Footnotes
1
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. ...We have "now a community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver." Bread and wine thus only become "symbols of his salvific presence". (Die Messe: Quelle Christlichen Lebens, Augsburg: St. Ulrich Verlag: 2002, p. 139).
2 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1375, n.1377
3 Die Messe: Quelle Christlichen Lebens, p. 142.
4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 499, n. 510
5 "It is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ...it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498) In fact, traditional doctrine is concerned precisely with such physiological details.
6 "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium, 14)
sspx.org © 2012 home contact
-
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
More newspeak from the Ministry of Information.
These are not "controversial statements." They are heresies, professed by a heretic.
Let's call a spade a spade and quit beating around the bush.
I remember a time when the SSPX used to do that.
-
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
More newspeak from the Ministry of Information.
These are not "controversial statements." They are heresies, professed by a heretic.
Let's call a spade a spade and quit beating around the bush.
I remember a time when the SSPX used to do that.
Indeed.
Where is the SPINE of the Society???? Who do they care about more -- Jesus Christ and His teachings, the profession and conservation of the true faith and the salvation and protection of souls, or a person professing heresy? I'd sure be personally aversed to anyone professing heresy, especially someone in a position to contribute to the corruption of the souls of those I care about. Profession of heresy = eternal damnation!!!
Society: Are you or are you not for God and the protection/salvation of souls? If the answer is YES, then act like it!!!!! Are you afraid God won't help you if you are on His side?
What happened to Let Your Yes be Yes and Your No Be No. Are we now in the land of Maybe?????? If you are, then be careful. Those are the ones He said He would vomit out of His mouth.
Jesus Christ used just FOUR words to get the point across: "Get behind me Satan." He didn't "urgently appeal" to anyone or ask ANYONE to "comment" on "controversial statements" aka HERESIES. The man has written books. So has God.
CHOOSE.
-
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
More newspeak from the Ministry of Information.
These are not "controversial statements." They are heresies, professed by a heretic.
Let's call a spade a spade and quit beating around the bush.
I remember a time when the SSPX used to do that.
Compare that to what Bishop Galarreta said:
"that the Bishop of Regensburg, Bishop Muller, was named yesterday (30 June) to be the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith, even though he denied Mary's perpetual virginity. It is not acceptable that the leader of the Congregation holds a heresy".
-
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
More newspeak from the Ministry of Information.
These are not "controversial statements." They are heresies, professed by a heretic.
Let's call a spade a spade and quit beating around the bush.
I remember a time when the SSPX used to do that.
Indeed.
Where is the SPINE of the Society???? Who do they care about more -- Jesus Christ and His teachings, the profession and conservation of the true faith and the salvation and protection of souls, or a person professing heresy? I'd sure be personally aversed to anyone professing heresy, especially someone in a position to contribute to the corruption of the souls of those I care about. Profession of heresy = eternal damnation!!!
Society: Are you or are you not for God and the protection/salvation of souls? If the answer is YES, then act like it!!!!! Are you afraid God won't help you if you are on His side?
What happened to Let Your Yes be Yes and Your No Be No. Are we now in the land of Maybe?????? If you are, then be careful. Those are the ones He said He would vomit out of His mouth.
Jesus Christ used just FOUR words to get the point across: "Get behind me Satan." He didn't "urgently appeal" to anyone or ask ANYONE to "comment" on "controversial statements" aka HERESIES. The man has written books. So has God.
CHOOSE.
Yes, Mueller has wriiten books. One does not write a book, like one makes a comment. Books are well thought out.
re: the Blessed Mother of God, the true faithful, and false bishops (like Mueller)
From: The Liturgical Year by Abbot Dom Prosper Gueranger
It was then that Satan produced Nestorius, crowned with a fictitious halo of sanctity and knowledge. This man, who was to give the clearest expression to the hatred of the serpent for the woman, was enthroned in the Chair of Constantinople amid the applause of the whole East, which hoped to see in him a second Chrysostom. The joy of the good was of short duration. In the very year of his exaltation, on Christmas Day 428, Nestorius, taking advantage of the immense concourse which had assembled in honour of the Virgin Mother and her Child, pronounced from the episcopal pulpit the blasphemous words: 'Mary did not bring forth God; her Son was only a man, the instrument of the Divinity.' The multitude shuddered with horror. Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety. Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of this grief-stricken Church, launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say: The Only-begotten Son of the Father and the Son of Mary are different persons.' This generous attitude was the safeguard of Byzantium, and won the praise of Popes and Councils. When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the faith are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals. Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circuмstances when religion itself is at stake.[/b] The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.
[/
-
The Society urgently appeals to Bishop Mueller to comment on these controversial statements, or to correct them. The motivation for this attitude of the Society is not one of personal aversion, but only the wish for unadulterated proclamation of the doctrine.
More newspeak from the Ministry of Information.
These are not "controversial statements." They are heresies, professed by a heretic.
Let's call a spade a spade and quit beating around the bush.
I remember a time when the SSPX used to do that.
Compare that to what Bishop Galarreta said:
"that the Bishop of Regensburg, Bishop Muller, was named yesterday (30 June) to be the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith, even though he denied Mary's perpetual virginity. It is not acceptable that the leader of the Congregation holds a heresy".
It's hard for me to understand Mueller's appointment to the CDF at this time?
I heard from a reliable (hard-liner) SSPX source that the CDF is the Pope's most trusted bureacracy. During his tenure in the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger probably hired everyone in the group. They will not betray him.
Now, why would the Pope put such a hard-liner modernist in charge of the CDF to negotiate with Bp. Fellay? From all appearances, Mueller will be treating Bp. Fellay like a monkey on a leash. He's going to look comical in his efforts to please Mueller and all his Vatican II acceptance demands.
What does this mean? Is the Pope losing his mental and political judgement?
Could Mueller be a form of Divine providence that will queer the prelature deal? Is this "end-game" for Msgr. Fellay as the SSPX Superior General ?
In the meantime, does anyone have any updates on the SSPX General Chapter meeting? Are there security cameras and Brownshirts guarding the entrances?
-
Could Mueller be a form of Divine providence that will queer the prelature deal?
I suppose you meant quell. and my answer is Yes, that is the way I saw it when I first saw the news, God's hand is in this appointment, a Divine warning to Bishop Fellay (and all his followers) not to proceed any further.
-
Could Mueller be a form of Divine providence that will queer the prelature deal?
I suppose you meant quell. and my answer is Yes, that is the way I saw it when I first saw the news, God's hand is in this appointment, a Divine warning to Bishop Fellay (and all his followers) not to proceed any further.
That's how I saw it too. Sad state of affairs when God has to use someone with a heretical understanding of some of His teachings to keep intact those supposed to be supporting Him.
If this doesn't make it black and white I don't know what does.
-
Now, why would the Pope put such a hard-liner modernist in charge of the CDF to negotiate with Bp. Fellay?
Because the Pope is a hard-liner modernist with a traditional veneer. His mental acuity is just fine, and Mueller's appointment is no accident.
-
Gerhard Mueller is almost as bad as the head of the CDF was under JPII :sad:
-
Could Mueller be a form of Divine providence that will queer the prelature deal?
I suppose you meant quell. and my answer is Yes, that is the way I saw it when I first saw the news, God's hand is in this appointment, a Divine warning to Bishop Fellay (and all his followers) not to proceed any further.
No, I meant "queer".
It an old salesman's term for an objection that prevents the closing a
delicate sale.
-
Now, why would the Pope put such a hard-liner modernist in charge of the CDF to negotiate with Bp. Fellay?
Because the Pope is a hard-liner modernist with a traditional veneer. His mental acuity is just fine, and Mueller's appointment is no accident.
Oh, I guess I asked for it.
Well what you say is true. I just thought the Pope was still trying to keep up some pretense of gentle negotiations.
-
May I suggest you all spread this link across your traditional Roman Catholic friends?
The appointment of Mueller (of Regensburg) is nothing new. It is a 'continuity' of 'moderate' modernists.
Here in 1994, about Ratzinger himself:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1994_June/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVI.htm
SSPX in 1994: "A prefect without Faith [Ratzinger], at the Congregation for the Faith"
This article says it all.
But it seems SSPX and other Roman Catholic resistance clergy against Modernism are ignorant about the reality of the theologian Ratzinger and his written 'heritage'?
It seems everything is politics now and power. And orthodoxy is unimportant, heterodoxy is seen as without consequences. But in reality, heterodox (heretics) do not belong to the holy apostolic Catholic and Roman Church, and cannot hold any office (if public heretics and not merely private). :geezer:
So spread this link around the net: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1994_June/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVI.htm
-
MODERATE COMMUNIO MODERNISTS VS. RADICAL CONCILIUM MODERNISTS
Is it simply by coincidence if "the theological chairs are presently dominated by Concilium’s fellow workers?" (30 Giorni, December 1991).
Is it not Ratzinger the Prefect who leaves them undisturbed? And all this corresponds perfectly to the' modernists' concept of authority as described by St. Pius X in Pascendi and which Msgr. Montini also outlined in his interview with Jean Guitton (cf. Courrier de Rome July- August 1993). As far as the modernists are concerned - St. Pius X declares -the doctrinal evolution of the Church "is like a result from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation." The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in Tradition; Tradition "is represented by religious authority" while the progressive force is there to stimulate evolution.
It is therefore "logical," according to modernistic logic, that those Concilium ultra-progressives as well as Communio moderates should have divided the tasks among themselves, the Concilium collaborators acting as the progressive force laying claim to the universities, the field of theological research, religious authority as well as ecclesiastical supremacy.
No room, therefore, for self-delusion: today, there actually exists no struggle whatsoever between liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics; the true "conservatives" have been effectively wiped off the official ecclesiastical map.
The sham struggle is between modernists who have gone to the very limits of their erroneous principles and their cousins, the moderate modernists who wish to go in the same direction albeit more slowly; it is not at all a question of a fight to the death, but rather of insignificant skirmishes, or more exactly, "of party maneuvers or ploys."