"They believe the pope is infallible when he speaks privately, but then when the popes throughout history have set forth the Catholic Faith, they say it is fallible".
Lifesite News provides an elegant English translation of a fine article by Gerhard Cardinal Mueller. The sentence above encapsulates the root problem of Bergoglianity ... its papolatry, its corrupt hyperueberultrapapalism, its gleeful insistence on rupture within the Church's sacred continuities.
Mueller's article is about Luther and the Reformation. You must not miss it. You will not read anything better in this "Luther Year". And it is particularly apposite as we approach what some, appallingly, call Reformation Day.
Luther was evil. His legacy has been even more evil. And it has corrupted the daily teaching of PF, largely because he does not understand it.
I beg you also to read my own paper explaining all this in Luther and his Progeny, Angelico Press.
There are a lot more fine articles, too, by even finer writers, in that volume!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm not so certain Francis doesn't understand Luther's message, but I agree with you on the rest. It's about time Müller spoke with clarity. We need a lot more of it.
CCC 1697
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Cardinal Mueller added his name to the fraternal correction (which (hopefully is coming soon)? His support would add much weight given that he was once head of the CDF.
Dear Fr. H - on this topic, I just read a kind of fiendishly clever article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/27/the-war-against-pope-francis?CMP=share_btn_tw
In the Guardian about PF. I’d be interested in your comments. The author has all the facts, but no faith, so he is blind.
I was particularly fascinated by his categorization of “introverts” and “extraverts”.
Andrew: I trust you are not the Andrew Brown who wrote this 'fiendishly clever article'. It is so full of errors of fact and erroneous ideas about the Church that one does not know where to begin. But why bother?
Andrew: Mr Brown's categorisation of “introverts” and “extraverts”. It seems that the introverts are those who endeavour to clean up their own act whilst the extroverts are those who rush around trying to clean up everyone else's acts whilst not caring tuppence about their own personal behaviour.
Mr. Belford - Alas, I am not the author of the piece. However, while I find his perspective distorted and wrong-minded, I have to say I was impressed by the fact that his facts are mostly accurate, and his analysis of the realpolitik of the current church remarkably on point.
I think the article is a substantial piece and deserves a thoughtful analysis.
His view of change in the church, for example, as well as his categorization of introvert/extravert. There is something there, and that is why I find it fiendish.
What I find interesting, as an introvert, both in reality and his classification, is that if I really believed what he wrote about church change, I would not follow the ins and outs of such an organization. I would wash my hands of it as a false church, and if I were so inclined, I would denounce it as a large scale fraud, Richard Dawkins style. A church that claims the power of infallibility and declares self-contradicting beliefs to be truths is far worse than any Protestant sect.
Luther was evil
Amen brave and good Father
Andrew: Mr Brown's article contains the sentence:
"The teaching on remarriage after divorce is not the only way Catholic sexual teaching denies reality as laypeople experience it, but it is the most damaging. "
This is the core of his article: If everyone does something then it must be right.
Incidentally the article stars by saying the Pope is 'hated'. Hatred has taken on a new meaning in modern newspeak. If person A is offended by what person B says then person A's purely subjective view that he is hated by person B is proof that person A is guilty of hate speech and hates him.
geneticallycatholic said: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if Cardinal Mueller added his name to the fraternal correction...?"
Alas, it does not look like Card. Muller will do it. Quite to the contrary, he has just authored a preface to a book by R. Buttiglione, reproaching the attitude of the authors of dubia and 'corrections'. He basically now suggests that AL is alright, if at some passages not clear enough. About the controversial footnote he suggests:
"In the case of a conversion at a mature age (of a catholic being such only through possessing a baptismal certificate), it can be that a christian is convinced in his conscience that his first union, even having the form of the marriage in church, is not valid as sacrament and that his current quasi-matrimonial union, gladdened by children and with common life with the partner, matured by time, is an authentic marriage before God. Maybe this cannot be proven canonically [...] If the second union would be valid before God the marital relations of the two partners would not be grave sin, but rather only a [...] transgression of canonical order and, therefore, a light sin." This is very similar to the Kasper thesis.
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/ita/vaticano/comunione-ai-risposati-mller-nella-colpa-possono-esserci-attenuanti-uK39UZsbZ580Xv9cVK2kUP/pagina.html?zanpid=2360028187750523904
Pulex: This is a very lengthy preface and with my limited knowledge of Italian I would hesitate to analyse a very dense text. However following the bit about 'an authentic marriage before God' the Cardinal says something like:
'It is possible that the tension here that occurs between the public-objective status of the "second" marriage and the subjective fault can open, under the conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and Holy Communion, passing through He addresses the mercy of God with a humble heart and prays "Lord, have mercy on me sinner." Here the pastoral accompaniment and the practice of the virtue of penance as an introduction to the sacrament of penance has a particular importance.'
So the Cardinal is suggesting confession before communion. What is it that the person is to confess?
Without an accurate translation and time to study this I remain as confused as before!
Post a Comment