A little more about Cardinal Mueller's wise words yesterday.
He describes the Bishop who has given the most recent description of Bergoglianism as "This great thinker and most worthy successor of the Apostles". This, I presume, is an allusion to the teaching of Vatican II about the Episcopate. But (people remind me from time to time that not all Americans understand Irony) His Eminence is using irony to suggest that this consecrated crack-pot is not in fact a reliable Successor of the Apostles.
Blessed John Henry Newman, so soon to be added to the catalogus Sanctorum, was "a formidable controversialist, as supreme a master of irony and satire as any in our literature" (words of the great Anglican Church Historian Professor Henry Chadwick). Other one-time Anglicans who were superb satirists include Dom Gregory Dix and Mgr Ronald Knox. I believe that one of the reasons why God called the Ordinariates into existence at this particular kairos of so great a crisis in the Church Militant is for us to use every literary and didactic means available, especially satire and irony and even plain sarcasm, to controvert the deadly heresy of Bergoglian ultrapapalism. And to do it eukairos kai akairos.
Mueller went on to describe these heretics as "such courageous friends who, with shameless half-education, undermine the Roman Primate, by abusing the Pope's authority for their anti-Catholic agenda. He who still yesterday was prominently defaming the predecessors [of PF] and purportedly congratulated Pope Benedict for his courage to retire, is completely untrustworthy ..."
And, in language uncannily like the analyses so often offered on this blog, His Eminence expresses his determination not to be intimidated by "ideologues with their ridiculous super-papalism which stands in direct contradiction to the First and Second Vatican Councils".
Gerhard Mueller has, surely, given there enough information for it to be possible to identify this particular episcopal "theological illiterate".
So who is he??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have asked on the best, and also very orthodox, Vaticanistas this very question, and await an answer this coming week.
Dear Father, Vatican Two and the principal of Non Contradiction:
Council Turning Point: A Day When Character of Church Begins to Change
58th General Congregation
October 30, 1963
The ecumenical council Fathers have voted overwhelmingly to give bishops a larger role in governing the Church and to restore the ancient order of deacons.
The Fathers’ Oct. 30 general meeting, guaranteeing a declaration of the collegiality of the bishops and restoration of the permanent diaconate, was a council turning point. Future historians may recall it as the day whose decisions began a change in the external character of the Church.
During the day the Fathers also stepped up the council’s pace. They closed debate on the fourth chapter of the schema on the nature of the Church, entitled “Call to Holiness in the Church.” That left only the schema’s new chapter on Our Lady, now being prepared, to be discussed and debate on the council’s most important and difficult schema would be completed.
It appeared well within the range of possibility that amendments on the schema on the Church could be presented and passed on before the end of the council’s second session on Dec. 4. While the chapter on Our Lady is being drawn up, the council was expected to take up the schema “On Bishops and the Government of Dioceses.”
The Fathers’ approval of the collegiality of bishops and the diaconate came as they voted on five questions. The vote was taken to guide the council Theological Commission in revising the second chapter on the schema on the Church which deals with the hierarchy.
The five questions, with the voting results, are:
1. Whether episcopal consecration is the highest grade of the Sacrament of Holy Orders: yes, 2,123; no, 34.
2. Whether every bishop, who is in union with all the bishops and the pope, belongs to the body or college of bishops: yes, 2,049; no, 104.
3. Whether the college of bishops succeeds the college of Apostles and, together with the pope, has full and supreme power over the whole Church: yes, 1,808; no, 336
4. Whether the college of bishops, in union with the pope, has this power by divine right: yes, 1,717; no, 408.
5. Whether the diaconate should be restored as a distinct and permanent rank in the sacred ministry: yes, 1,588; no, 525.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Two different subjects - The Pope and the College of Bishops - can not both have full and supreme power.
For the love of Diana Ross, didn't they know what Supreme meant?
Dear Father. When it comes to Pope Francis, Pascendi, long ago, described what sort of religious man he is and what he would do:
It is all there when it comes to Pope Francis, the false ideas about religion (#7) , the heretical claims of the revelation of the jungle (#8) , false ideas about the development of doctrine (#12, 13) , his embrace of the absurd claims of Islam ( #14) the idea that all religions are true (#15) the idea that climate change is paramount (#17) etc etc is all there but it is especially in #40 that Pope Pius X detailed the type of destruction that is being delivered by this arrogant modernist heretical deceiver;
To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep a sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren, to investigate the causes which have engendered it and which foster its growth. That the proximate and immediate cause consists in an error of the mind cannot be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced to two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to account for all errors. Such is the opinion of Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, who wrote: “A lamentable spectacle is that presented by the aberrations of human reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find the truth outside the Catholic Church wherein truth is found without the slightest shadow of error.”21
But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect. It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, “We are not as the rest of men,” and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind. It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority. Truly there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism. For this reason, Venerable Brethren, it will be your first duty to resist such victims of pride, to employ them only in the lowest and obscurest offices. The higher they try to rise, the lower let them be placed, so that the lowliness of their position may limit their power of causing damage. Examine most carefully your young clerics by yourselves and by the directors of your seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among them reject them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to God that this had always been done with the vigilance and constancy which were required!
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Catholic Hierarchy that trailed in the wake of this puissant Barque of Peter has utterly failed the entire Catholic Church by ditching the Oath against Modernism (but Paul Vi had his minions swear a personal oath of loyalty to him) and by allowing men like Bergoglio to complete his seminary training, to be given Holy Orders, to be recruited into the upper ranks in Argentina and then to be afflicted by the crummy Cardinals (Chosen by PP II and Benedict XVI) upon the Catholic Church with his haughty, heretical, and hateful praxis
"Other one-time Anglicans ... include Dom Gregory Dix ..." I was not aware that Dom Gregory ever left the Church of England.
Is there anything in what his Eminence said that would preclude his referring to PF himself?
Post a Comment