15 February 2019

Without the Father ... Cardinal Mueller's Manifesto (1)

I have now withdrawn from public view the piece I wrote about Pope Honorius, together with its thread. I had been genuinely irritated at the constant stream of "of course" comments from angry sedevacantists, and thought I would give them the opportunity of answering specific questions. It certainly did winkle them out of their shells, didn't it? Enough hot air to affect disastrously our Global Warming (no; I will not accept comments on Global Warming), but nothing as vulgar as actual answers to my actual questions. Henceforth, no comments will be published from those who want to make my blog an instrument for promoting Sedevacantism or Invalidism.

Now, I think, we must move on.

Silence can say more than a million words. Conan Doyle's dog, for example, that did not bark in the night. I think the most striking thing about the Manifesto given us by Gerhard Cardinal Mueller was what it did not mention ...

 ... the Papacy.

Just consider the amount of controversy the question of the Petrine Ministry created at the time of Vatican I; how much controversy there has been between Catholic and non-Catholic polemicists. Consider the Personality Cult which has surrounded popes since, I think, roughly the last part of the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX. A cult that treats the Roman Bishop like a demi-god or a pop star. I have written about it several times. I think it is sentimental and mawkish, sickly, corrupt and corrupting. It was certainly not invented by PF and his cronies, but it has reached a new theological peak in this pontificate. Curial cronies tell us that the Holy Spirit speaks through PF's mouth; the English bishops write letters to inform him that the Holy Spirit was responsible for his election and guides him daily; a Fr Rosica, incredibly, explains to us that the pope is free from the encumbrances of Scripture and Tradition. It is what I have called 'Bergoglianism'. I think it is not only sick in itself, but is a dangerous poison of rare toxicity within the Church Militant.

Yet, despite all this, Cardinal Mueller did not even mention this enormous elephant in a tiny room, even in passing.

I have not felt so refreshed for a long time.

To be continued.


Unknown said...

Thanks be to God that the dog is silent. It has been barking far too long. Everyone forgets the first pope was a coward and would not admit he even "knew the man". And this from one who had walked, talked and ministered with him. The Truth resides within the last 2000+ years into eternity, not sound bits from any one pontificate.

Fr PJM said...

Fr Paul McDonald here.
Cardinal Müller has written a big, scholarly tome in German on the Petrine ministry.

fatty said...

Amen and thank you.

Calvin Engime said...

I know the first paragraph is not an invitation to reopen that discussion, but I did think that the link one person posted (together with a very rude personal accusation of schism and invalid orders) to Fr Bégin's lecture "Le Pape Honorius et le monothélisme" was very to the point and well within the mainstream of Catholic thought.

Of course, even if it is increasingly difficult to make a convincing case that PF professes the Catholic faith, and therefore that he is in full communion with the Catholic Church—even Fr Z could not defend the document on human fraternity against the charge of haeresia without censuring it as saltem male sonans—one should condemn the sedevacantists' practice of departing from what still appears to all to be the same Mystical Body of Christ to form small, scattered communions, hoping they will be miraculously reunited under one shepherd in future. The same Catholic doctors who teach that to fall from Peter's faith is to fall from his chair teach also that the Church is a visible society by her divine constitution, and it is easy to tell which church is the true one; and they repose the authority to declare the fact of the pope's lapse into heresy, if God should ever permit such a calamity, in an imperfect general council or the College of Cardinals.

John F. Kennedy said...

"...what it did not mention ... the Papacy."

Are you implying there is no one in the Chair?

Tom Broughton said...

I am confused as to why you would delete your post about Pope Honorius. That is interesting historical information that I would not otherwise know. Admittedly, I am uninformed on those areas. Nevertheless, thank you for all you do.

DeHereticoComburendo said...

This papacy is now so compromised - doctrinally, morally, and disciplinarily, that Cardinal Müller did not have to mention PF by name. All he had to do in order to incur the ire of attack-dogs like Beans Fagioli was to quote from the Catechism. Come on, you gotta laugh!

Edward Short said...

My sentiments exactly. Why remove such a good post simply because the comments in response to it happened to be dippy.

Anathematization is the only solution to the Pope Bogus problem.

stephen cooper said...

Unknown said that Saint Peter was a coward. I disagree.

Well, there have been billions of people in this world, and I have had the good fortune to know a few thousand of them, and I have known some very brave people, and Saint Peter was braver than any of the brave people I have met. He stayed as close as he could to Jesus, and although, technically, he "denied" Jesus ---- and I say this as a sinner who has known many good people --- although, technically, he "denied" Jesus, I have never once in my life met a single person - and I have known some saintly people - who has the right to say they know, and can criticize, what was going on in Saint Peter's heart. As for me, I think he was trying his best to stay near Jesus, without being caught, so that he could perform some act of great bravery at the right moment.

I believe in my heart of hearts he was one of the least cowardly people who ever lived, much less cowardly than anyone I have ever known, much less cowardly than any Pope of my lifetime, exponentially so, and it hurts every time I hear someone mock him for his attempts to stay close to Jesus, even if he did say things that were not exactly true. His failure was a philosophical one, at worst, I believe, and friends never criticize friends for philosophical failures, except in the most kind way.

I grew up being told that Paul VI was a wonderful person. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Canonizations are no longer what they used to be, thanks to the modernists, and so I can say that I am not sure I would be proud if me and my wife were parents to that particular "saint". I have many faults, but the fact that I am not sure I would be proud to have a specific canonized saint in my family is not my fault.

You want to know what I think about these awful times? This is what I think. I rejoice to live in a time where God is kind enough to show us, in all its frightening Emma Bonino and Macielian and post-Macielian horror, what the punishment of Papolatry is. God does not want us to suffer, and better times are in our future.

Unknown said...

"Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is “free from disordered attachments.”" Fr Rosica, 31 July 2018

How does Fr Rosica know that Pope Francis is free from disordered attachments? Did Pope Francis tell him? Is Fr Rosica Pope Francis' confessor? If not did Pope Francis' confessor tell Fr Rosica this?

What does Fr Rosica mean by "free from disordered attachments"? Not having a sexual partner?

Even if PF was "free from disordered attachments" at one point in time it would not follow that he would be free from them at all times.

What has being "free from disordered attachments" got to do with breaking Catholic traditions?

Unknown said...

Dear Stephen, it was not my intention to offend you or anyone with the term "coward"...I do apologize. We have had 266 Popes in the 2000+ years of the Reign of Christ the King. It was Our Lord who Himself did say "I am with you until the end of time". Many of those popes' earthly office ended in martrydom especially in the early centuries and St. Peter was one of them.

As time has worn on we increasingly experience what St. Francis did when he left the friars to convert the Sultan (or die trying). When he returned what did he find? There were factions between friars and the vision given Him from God had been pretty much thrown out.

In my opinion, when we deviate from the Truths that have stood the test of time, we end up with the moral turpitude we have today in His Sullied Bride. Again this is my opinion.

stephen cooper said...

Unknown -Thanks for reading, and No apology needed, of course - to be clear, as I was writing my previous comment, I felt that I was being a little less than friendly , in the respectful friendly way a Christian should be, in discussing, in what might have seemed an argumentative way:
in discussing, and making further observations, building on your good-hearted comment with my observations, take them or leave them, on my rather personal respect (in addition to the universal respect we all feel) for Saint Peter,.

But I do not like to write long comments, so I did not say that "with all due respect, I see this a little differently" .... I should have been a little more polite!

I for one know what it is to be a coward - I have been one in the past and likely will be one in the future, unless my continual prayers are answered. Saint Peter has never reminded me of me. Even when I was a little child, a little afraid of death and also afraid of all sorts of other even more innocuous difficulties, Saint Peter never reminded me of me. I would love to think I would not have gotten on a horse and rode as fast as I could from Jerusalem on Maundy Thursday, the night before Good Friday, but, unlike Peter, I probably would have, if I could have ..... !

Anyway, I don't mind being called a coward but I don't think it is accurate to call Saint Peter a coward....
If I say it that way, I hope I am being more clear. And if I am not clear, that is my fault.

Fr M. Kirby said...

Fr Hunwicke,

While I don't think my theological position (it is theoretically possible for a pope to lose either his office de jure by heresy or at least his magisterial authority de facto) was your exact intended target, I did address your questions because it seemed to me that your arguments attempted to prove too much. So, as it stands, I am not sure whether my points were considered irrelevant or offensive or both by you. Given that you seem to be saying no answers were given at all, I am left with the impression that you considered my thoughts beneath contempt. And it may be that they are.

But I would have preferred you to tell me why they were so than simply annihilate the thread. That way I would know whether my musings are within the range of permissible expression or not on this weblog, and whether I had crossed some line. While I enjoy reading and making a very occasional contribution to this site, I do not want to be the person who is just considered am unwelcome pest or troll.