Cardinal Müller: there can be no ‘paradigm shifts’ in the Church
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
God Bless Cardinal Müller. He is precise and his words show that the Church knows what it is facing regarding attempted changes. Thanks to the OP for posting this.
Ed
Ed
L
Luke6_37
Guest
In the original “First Things” article, Cardinal Müller writes this…
However, the historic reality is that Popes do contradict each other and it takes quite a bit of contortion to make the case that they are really saying the same thing…
This is absolutely true.
However, the historic reality is that Popes do contradict each other and it takes quite a bit of contortion to make the case that they are really saying the same thing…
So be prepared for big changes within the context of no change at all.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
There will be no big changes. None.
B
billy15
Guest
I know you’ve posted part of this quote before, but in the example that Fr. Murray provided for “papal contradiction”, he is taking Bl. Pius IX out of context. If a Pope contradicted another in terms of faith and morals, we have a big problem. I hope this is not what you’re suggesting, because such a notion is false, even if Fr. Murray believed it.
In any case, I fail to see how Bl. Pius is contradicting St. John XXIII. They’re both right. Look back and actually read what Pope Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius are actually saying. They’re not saying that people don’t have a right to choose their religion. Great theologians like Suarez, Ketteler and others all acknowledge the fact that people have the right to choose what religion they want. But the question also posed, including by men like George XVI and Bl Pius IX is this: what ought they do. St. Thomas Aquinas also spoke on the subject, who was both in agreement with Bl. Pius IX and St. John XXIII:
In any case, I fail to see how Bl. Pius is contradicting St. John XXIII. They’re both right. Look back and actually read what Pope Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius are actually saying. They’re not saying that people don’t have a right to choose their religion. Great theologians like Suarez, Ketteler and others all acknowledge the fact that people have the right to choose what religion they want. But the question also posed, including by men like George XVI and Bl Pius IX is this: what ought they do. St. Thomas Aquinas also spoke on the subject, who was both in agreement with Bl. Pius IX and St. John XXIII:
As for Cardinal Müller’s words, they are very topical, and I’m glad that he added his wise voice into this conversation. I’m glad to see he is giving an accurate portrayal of Bl. John Henry Newman’s words. I’ll be reading his article in more depth soon, but from just skimming it I can tell he put a lot of thought into it.
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I know you’ve posted part of this quote before, but in the example that Fr. Murray provided for “papal contradiction”, he is taking Bl. Pius IX out of context. If a Pope contradicted another in terms of faith and morals, we have a big problem. I hope this is not what you’re suggesting, because such a notion is false, even if Fr. Murray believed it.
In any case, I fail to see how Bl. Pius is contradicting St. John XXIII. They’re both right. Look back and actually read what Pope Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius are actually saying. They’re not saying that people don’t have a right to choose their religion. Great theologians like Suarez, Ketteler and others all acknowledge the fact that people have the right to choose what religion they want. But the question also posed, including by men like George XVI and Bl Pius IX is this: what ought they do. St. Thomas Aquinas also spoke on the subject, who was both in agreement with Bl. Pius IX and St. John XXIII:
I quote John Courtney Murray, because I think the situation back in 1965 and the battles fought during Vatican II over the development of the Church’s doctrine on Religious Freedom is highly relevant to the present time. Many of the same arguments and concerns that are raised over Amoris Laetitia were also raised with respect to the Church’s doctrine on Religious Freedom. The article I cite below states that:
“Both sides saw the question as a matter of speaking the truth about God and the church and morality; for these men, the stakes could not be higher.”
If you have the chance, you should read it:
The Fight for Religious Freedom: John Courtney Murray’s role in ‘Dignitatis Humanae’
Today we mark the 50th anniversary of ‘Dignitatis Humanae,’ the Second Vatican Council declaration on religious freedom.www.americamagazine.org
Cardinal Müller’s essays in “First Things” are nothing short of excellent and worth careful study.
P
pnewton
Guest
I see this could easily be reduced to begging the question of what is a paradigm shift and what is not. In other words, that which is too much and not allowable is a paradigm shift. That which is a need adaptation and is allowable, is not.
A
Annie
Guest
Well, I don’t like to go against a major theologian, but I carefully read NA and found that the discussion was about the civil right of a person to chose his religion, which means that the right to choose is opposed to a governments requiring a particular religion.One has to consider these things in context.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
What you are describing was once considered heresy. The official doctrine of the church prior to Dignitatis Humanae was that error had no rights - civil or otherwise. That was the context.
Last edited:
B
billy15
Guest
The “official doctrine of the Church prior to NA” is the same afterwards as well. Just because a country declares something is a right does not make it a right. Take the “bodily rights” of the mother here in the United States and other Western countries. Does the mother really have the right to have the child in her womb killed? Of course not. But she can do so because she has free will.
A
Annie
Guest
I don’t think that can be correct because the Church also taught that someone cannot be forced to become Catholic. I think the difference must be with the rights of people in all-Catholic countries versus countries which have a “mixed” group.
R
Raxus
Guest
Cool story, bro.
G
Genesis315
Guest
With regard to Bl. Pius IX and St. John XXIII, what Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura condemned as “insanity (deliramentum)” (note, this condemnation is cited in the footnotes of CCC 2109), is “an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”
That’s why St. John XXIII in Pacem in Terris rejects such absolute liberties and places these freedoms “within the limits of the moral order and the common good.”
The Catechism, with regard to religious freedom, shows the harmony of the Church’s doctrine on true religious liberty (the free act of faith between man and God) and the condemnations of false versions based on religious indifferentism and naturalism:
As for the common good, St. John XXIII himself in Pacem in Terris teaches that protecting and advancing the common good is why public authority exists (echoing his predecessors) and that:
That’s why St. John XXIII in Pacem in Terris rejects such absolute liberties and places these freedoms “within the limits of the moral order and the common good.”
The Catechism, with regard to religious freedom, shows the harmony of the Church’s doctrine on true religious liberty (the free act of faith between man and God) and the condemnations of false versions based on religious indifferentism and naturalism:
Far from absulote, the freedom is limited. And the limits have to be based on truth (not positivism) and include the supernatural good (not naturalist).
As for the common good, St. John XXIII himself in Pacem in Terris teaches that protecting and advancing the common good is why public authority exists (echoing his predecessors) and that:
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
- Status