Cardinal Müller: bishops should not give ‘contradictory interpretations’ of doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Cardinal Müller said that nobody could alter the way the sacraments work
Click to expand...
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Vatican’s doctrinal chief, has said that local bishops cannot reinterpet Church teaching subjectively.
Click to expand...
In an interview with the German magazine Rheinische Post, Cardinal Müller said it was “not his style” to criticise publications by bishops. However, he added, “I do not think it is particularly beneficial for each individual bishop to comment on papal documents to explain how he subjectively understands the document.”
Click to expand...
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/cardinal-muller-bishops-should-not-give-contradictory-interpretations-of-doctrine/
 
Hopefully this is a good sign for establishing clarity. A potential change in moral doctrine is bad enough, but the lack of consistent interpretation and teaching has been extremely detrimental to the Church; I know it has shaken me, and I’ve never been one to harbor doubts in the past.
 
Well said by Cardinal Muller. We can always count on the Church of Rome, even when other churches stumble.
 
  1. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.
AMORIS LÆTITIA
 
We should not give contradictory answers on doctrine
What is doctrine, can you clarify?
No, that would not be pastoral…
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
We should not give contradictory answers on doctrine
What is doctrine, can you clarify?
No, that would not be pastoral…
Click to expand...
Doctrine is fluid, a matter of individual experience really. Catholicism in 2017 is Protestantism for the last 500 years but with lots of expensive buildings and art work. Who knew ecumenism meant that the Church needed to come into the fullness of protestant truth?

We’re all popes now.
 
JPUSC said:
  1. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.
AMORIS LÆTITIA
Click to expand...
Haaa! Nice silk purse you have their! Relativism and subjectiveism all balled up into one.

Aultery is adultery in every culture. The Body and Blood of Christ are the same in every culture. The fullness of truth has already been revealed. 🤷
 
I like it, although I wonder how many of the bishops who do this will listen.
 
JPUSC. You have expressed your dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church in other posts.

This post of your seems to me to be more implicit criticism given the context of the thread.

If I’m wrong, just correct me.

I’ll admit it, and try to look at whatever OTHER reason you brought up the quote you did. I’m OK with that. I’ve been wrong before.

JPUSC here you are quoting AL (with emphasis mine) . . . .
Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not ALL discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.
Click to expand...
If you are suggesting that there are issues with wanting, needing, or not needing clarity on AL it isn’t going to work (the Church will decide if more clarity is needed. Right now we are watching that process work out. But I am confident the Church will decide if and when, and how much more AL clarity is needed).

You are NOT going to be able to use this (or any other teaching) against the Church.

Of course “all” doctrinal issues don’t need to be settled by a magisterial level teaching.

It is clear that we should NOT expect “all” teachings to be defined that way.

(Otherwise for example, if a person has a moral crisis in his life, now he can just look for where there wasn’t a specific magisterial proclamation, and rationalize away his illicit behavior because it wasn’t explicitly flushed out in this area of his moral crisis and all the interior turmoil associated with that moral crisis.)

Just because “all” doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues do not “need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium” doesn’t mean “SOME” doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues can’t or shouldn’t settled by interventions of the magisterium.

None of the complaints you have leveled against the Church (sometimes they have been implicit, other posts of yours, the criticism has been more explicit) here or any other post of yours, stand up to scrutiny.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
O GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly, union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
 
Does that meant that all the statements and interpretations re: AL issued by the world’s bishops thus far should be withdrawn? Then the individual priests and individual laity are free to interpret the AL document each according to his or her own conscience?

Thus no contradictory writings = no contradictory interpretations
Thus no contradictory writings = no confusion and no division
Nothing in writing except AL itself = unity and agreement for all

Is that what Cardinal Muller is suggesting?
 
I think the failure of the Church to correct the erroneous teaching and spreading of same coming from AL follows as ‘error’ on the errors contained in the document itself. Meaning I see the Church’s failure to act as enabling, complicit in the error. How can this not be?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Excellent. Glad to see this. I am not clear on the hierarchy of the Church in terms of issuing a formal correction to AL and/or the Pope. Does Mueller have the authority to issue such a correction? If not, who does?

It should be done - for the record.
Click to expand...
Well based on the interviews with Cardinals I have heard on youtube, I would say it is with in their grasp to issue a correction. What the process is, I don’t know, but it sounds like they do.
 
esieffe said:
Well based on the interviews with Cardinals I have heard on youtube, I would say it is with in their grasp to issue a correction. What the process is, I don’t know, but it sounds like they do.
Click to expand...
I believe it has to be done. We’ll deal with the consequences later. The Church is obedient to divine law. Period.
For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): ‘It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.’ His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone. (2a2ae q. 104 a. 5 co.)
Click to expand...
St. Thomas’s point here is that the limitation of the duty of obedience that is admitted by a pagan philosopher to belong to slaves a fortiori applies to the limitation of the duty of obedience in general. Nor does St. Thomas think of obedience as a virtuous form of personal asceticism. He does not hold that obeying a command we dislike is better as such than obeying a command we are happy to fulfil. Indeed, since a rightly directed will seeks the common good, a good person will be glad to carry out any suitable command, since such commands and obedience to them both exist for the sake of the common good. Obedience does not for St. Thomas occupy the central moral role that it does for Counter-Reformation theologians. He does not consider that all good acts are motivated by obedience to God, because he considers that there are virtues the exercise of which is prior to obedience – such as faith, upon which religious obedience depends (cf, 2a2ae q. 104 a. 7 ad 3). Obedience is simply an act of the virtue of justice, which is motivated by love of God in the case of divine commands and love of neighbour in the case of commands of a human superior. These loves are both more fundamental and broader than obedience. Since obedience is founded on justice rather than vice versa, obedience to a human being is primarily to the law and only derivatively to the person of the superior. But obedience to law requires understanding of the law; hence abdication of personal thought and understanding precludes true obedience, rather than forming part of it.
Click to expand...
 
I suspect the Burke bashers in the media are about to acquire a new target.

And wait…I feel the spirit of prophecy descending on me…Cardinal Muller will ***not ***be prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith for very much longer…
 
Ghosty said:
Hopefully this is a good sign for establishing clarity. A potential change in moral doctrine is bad enough, but the lack of consistent interpretation and teaching has been extremely detrimental to the Church; I know it has shaken me, and I’ve never been one to harbor doubts in the past.
Click to expand...
Me either. I have always struggled with practising the faith, failing here and there and returning, but this is the first time I have genuinely questioned whether the Church was really the church. Nothing ever shook my belief before the Ccommunion for the remarried and AL saga.
 
To refresh your memories Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery. I have only been studying scripture for 4 years but it seems to me that superceeds anyones opinion. We can argue about the Holy Father’s intent but he certaintly would not go against Jesus. Yes, if the Cardinal and Bishops don’t agree with Jesus words the should just be silent and pray some more.
 
hadulzo said:
To refresh your memories Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery. I have only been studying scripture for 4 years but it seems to me that superceeds anyones opinion. We can argue about the Holy Father’s intent but he certaintly would not go against Jesus. Yes, if the Cardinal and Bishops don’t agree with Jesus words the should just be silent and pray some more.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top