Cdl. Gerhard Müller: Neither "the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it"

[Ginny89]

"ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Cardinal Gerhard Müller is affirming that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must pledge to remain continent before being admitted to the sacraments and that not even the pope can remove this indispensable condition.

The Italian magazine II Timone recently asked the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) if the stipulation that such couples “strive to live in continence” prior to reception of confession and Holy Communion — as required by Pope St. John Paul II — was still required. The Vatican’s chief doctrinal watchdog responded, “Of course, it is not dispensable.”

The cardinal emphasized that the Church has no ability to alter this law. “[N]o power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”"

churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-mueller-no-communion-to-civilly-remarried-divorcees

 

[Ginny89]

More

He advised those bishops, whom he said “are talking too much,” to first learn the Faith themselves before attempting to teach others. “I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate.” If bishops don’t become well-informed themselves, then they may “fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind.”

Asked if personal conscience could ever trump Church teaching on faith and morals, the cardinal flatly rejected the possibility. “No, that is impossible,” he replied. “For example, it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to co-exist with sanctifying grace.”

So those who have been insinuating that people who resist the idea that it is ever legitimate for the church to permit reception of the Eucharist or penance without first demanding a renunciation of the objectively sinful action by the persons were “dissenting” we now have the person charged with correcting doctrinal errors for the pope saying exactly the same thing in absolutely clear terms. He also says the same thing we have been saying about the pope. His authority does not involve altering the church tradition on this. This is also not an alterable practice nor a mere discipline for it were, the church could change it.

Unless the pope fires him too, it is clear that those claiming the opposite are the ones off on their own trail from the beaten path of the church.

 

[rcwitness]

Glad to hear him uphold this. He seems to speak very plainly and faithfully, unlike those who take the opposing position. They try to use big words with condescending attitudes.

 

[RPRPsych]

"ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Cardinal Gerhard Müller is affirming that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must pledge to remain continent before being admitted to the sacraments and that not even the pope can remove this indispensable condition.

The Italian magazine II Timone recently asked the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) if the stipulation that such couples “strive to live in continence” prior to reception of confession and Holy Communion — as required by Pope St. John Paul II — was still required. The Vatican’s chief doctrinal watchdog responded, “Of course, it is not dispensable.”

The cardinal emphasized that the Church has no ability to alter this law. “[N]o power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”"

churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-mueller-no-communion-to-civilly-remarried-divorcees

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This is excellent. I hope this thread remains open (given the source) as this is something Catholics need to read.

My only fear is that Cardinal Muller will not remain long as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith after this interview.

NB: the interview was almost immediately followed by guidelines published by German bishops allowing Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees.

 

[Vouthon]

Jimmy Akin has just commented on this interview by Cardinal Muller:

jimmyakin.com/2017/02/cardinal-muller-on-amoris-laetitiae-12-things-to-know-and-share.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jimmyakin%2FHPRf+%28JIMMY+AKIN.ORG%29

**10) Since Cardinal Muller is the head of the CDF, does this mean his remarks can be taken as an authentic (authoritative) interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae?

No. Authentic interpretations by the CDF are issued in documents published by the Congregation and approved by the pope.

They are not made in interviews with apologetics magazines.**

1. Could we see Cardinal Muller’s remarks as an unofficial response to the questions submitted by the four cardinals? I.e., that the pope doesn’t want to respond officially at this time, so he asked Cardinal Muller to give an unofficial response?

This is not likely. If we knew nothing else about Pope Francis’s views on the interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae, this would be a reasonable conjecture. However, we do know more.

We have significant evidence that Pope Francis has a different view (as acknowledged even in this piece by Fr. Raymond de Sousa, which is perhaps the most optimistic I have read).

However, thus far Pope Francis has not issued an authentic interpretation of the disputed points in Amoris Laetitiae, nor has he authorized the CDF to publish one.

It therefore appears that Cardinal Muller is giving his own views about how the document should be interpreted and that these views differ from the way Pope Francis would like to see the document interpreted.

1. For the pope and the head of the CDF to disagree on a point like this seems very serious. What should we do?

Pray for them both—and for the Church as a whole.

I raised these points yesterday.

 

[Pulvis]

This is excellent. I hope this thread remains open (given the source) as this is something Catholics need to read.

My only fear is that Cardinal Muller will not remain long as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith after this interview.

NB: the interview was almost immediately followed by guidelines published by German bishops allowing Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees.

I truly hope I am wrong, but it seems that we, The Church, are moving into Arian land. Priest vs Priest, Bishop vs Bishop. The confusion in regards to A.L. needs to be definitively settled. Cardinal Muller has given the proper statement on this. Now I pray the Holy Father will publicly back him on this.

 

[Vouthon]

I truly hope I am wrong, but it seems that we, The Church, are moving into Arian land. Priest vs Priest, Bishop vs Bishop. The confusion in regards to A.L. needs to be definitively settled. Cardinal Muller has given the proper statement on this. Now I pray the Holy Father will publicly back him on this.

I think it would be wrong for we laity to side with specific Bishops or Cardinals until something definitive on the interpretation is said by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Magisterium.

 

[rcwitness]

I think it would be wrong for we laity to side with specific Bishops or Cardinals until something definitive on the interpretation is said by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Magisterium.

I’m not “taking sides”. I am taking the past position, which has existed historically, and JPII and Benedict took and Taught. It is telling that Pope Francis has not officially spoke. Why does he allow this division to grow?

I believe the Pope’s job is to clarify and speak Ex Cathedral when division like this occurs.

 

[pnewton]

Jimmy Akin has just commented on this interview by Cardinal Muller:

jimmyakin.com/2017/02/cardinal-muller-on-amoris-laetitiae-12-things-to-know-and-share.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jimmyakin%2FHPRf+%28JIMMY+AKIN.ORG%29

I raised these points yesterday.

And I raised this one:

I find this response somewhat puzzling. There may be a problem with the transcription or translation of the question or answer.

First, it is obvious that sometimes people’s consciences contradict Church teaching. In this situation they have what is termed an erroneous conscience.

I assume that Cardinal Muller means that there cannot be a contradiction between a person’s conscience and the Church’s teaching unless their conscience is in error.

Second, the Church holds that three conditions must be met for a mortal sin to be committed: It must have (1) grave matter and be committed with both (2) full knowledge of its moral status and (3) deliberate consent in spite of this knowledge.

Here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1040344

This equating of the act of a mortal sin with the mortal sin that cannot coexist with sanctifying grace pretty much damns all non-Catholics, does it not? If the act of the mortal sin (rejecting the Catholic Church, not attending Mass) is the same as the state, then isn’t this in contradiction with what the Catechism teaches about three things being necessary for mortal sin? Does this also mean that all non-Catholics who remarry go to Hell? All Catholics who remarry who got an annulment, but an incorrect annulment, and remarry go to Hell?

I think the context of interviews leave much to be desired for exactness, so I will not panic yet.

I am glad J. Akin addressed this. I did not get an answer at the time of posting. I need to remember that all we have is parts of a translation of an interview in Italian.

 

[rcwitness]

Jimmy Akins points are taken. But I’m not taking the Cardinal’s statements as a final answer. But it’s the position I already understand.

I acknowledge that we could be wrong. But it doesn’t seem likely. What seems likely, is that Francis got himself into a bind, unfortunately.

I just hope he clears things up soon!

 

[rcwitness]

Unless the pope fires him too, it is clear that those claiming the opposite are the ones off on their own trail from the beaten path of the church.

I agree. This would be the most authoritive statement at this point.

The thing is, is that we should not side with a change in a teaching, unless a very clear and official Teaching allows for that change. Especially when many of the faithful (from laity to the Cardinal prefect of the CDF!) are under the impression that it is an unchangeable Teaching.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I truly hope I am wrong, but it seems that we, The Church, are moving into Arian land. Priest vs Priest, Bishop vs Bishop. The confusion in regards to A.L. needs to be definitively settled. Cardinal Muller has given the proper statement on this. Now I pray the Holy Father will publicly back him on this.

My own impression (for what it’s worth) is that Cardinal Muller first made a point of not backing the course the 4 cardinals took of making public the Dubia, hence of not taking up a stance that could be seen to be in opposition to the Holy Father. Then his own interview was couched in terms that make it quite clear that the only acceptable interpretation of AL - which will correspond to the interpretation given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Father - is that which reaffirms traditional Catholic doctrine on the problematic passages. In other words, Cardinal Muller has taken upon himself to speak, albeit unofficially, on behalf of the Pope.

This will oblige Pope Francis to respond - he cannot continue to remain silent, not when his second-in-command tells the world what he himself means by AL. Pope Francis will have to speak plainly on the issues raised by AL. Quite clever actually.

 

[Casilda]

I’m not “taking sides”. I am taking the past position, which has existed historically, and JPII and Benedict took and Taught. It is telling that Pope Francis has not officially spoke. Why does he allow this division to grow?

I believe the Pope’s job is to clarify and speak Ex Cathedral when division like this occurs.

Exactly. Meanwhile, there are folks jumping ship. Episcopalians did when their church admitted gay clergy, evangelical Lutherans are about to (slippery slope from admitting women clergy) and we all know the elephant in the room regarding the Roman Catholic clergy. Relaxing or changing the everlasting rules will only hurt the body of Christ.

 

[Casilda]

jimmy akin has just commented on this interview by cardinal muller:

jimmyakin.com/2017/02/cardinal-muller-on-amoris-laetitiae-12-things-to-know-and-share.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed%3a+jimmyakin%2fhprf+%28jimmy+akin.org%29
.

Newspeak

Newspeak is a variation of english, created by george orwell in the novel nineteen eighty-four (published in 1949), that is, in orwell’s words, “designed to diminish the range of thought.”

 

[Wesrock]

I think Cardinal Mueller is correct, but I understand I’m only part of the laity. Whatever is the Truth, even if it means my personal views are wrong, I pray for Pope Francis to exercise his role and lead the Church to clarity and unity over the Truth on this issue.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

How many times can we say: “Perhaps there is a problem with the translation of Italian to English” and “I have yet to see a full copy of the interview translated into English”? Then Jim Akin provides us a “traditional interpretation and explanation” of Catholic teaching.

Alice Still Lives in Wonderland: Words mean whatever we want them to mean.
The interview doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t “official” Catholic teaching.

And by the way, if the 4 Cardinals who raised the dubai hadn’t done so, then we wouldn’t be having any issue or discussion at all. No questions; no problems. I am not reassured. The silence of the Pope in refusing clarification screams out above all the noise.

 

[pnewton]

And by the way, if the 4 Cardinals who raised the dubai hadn’t done so, then we wouldn’t be having any issue or discussion at all. No questions; no problems.

The discussion here has not let up since Laetitia Amoris was released.

 

[rcwitness]

How many times can we say: “Perhaps there is a problem with the translation of Italian to English” and “I have yet to see a full copy of the interview translated into English”? Then Jim Akin provides us a “traditional interpretation and explanation” of Catholic teaching.

The interview doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t “official” Catholic teaching.

Just because it’s not official, doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean anything.

 

[JPUSC]

My own impression (for what it’s worth) is that Cardinal Muller first made a point of not backing the course the 4 cardinals took of making public the Dubia, hence of not taking up a stance that could be seen to be in opposition to the Holy Father. Then his own interview was couched in terms that make it quite clear that the only acceptable interpretation of AL - which will correspond to the interpretation given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Father - is that which reaffirms traditional Catholic doctrine on the problematic passages. In other words, Cardinal Muller has taken upon himself to speak, albeit unofficially, on behalf of the Pope.

This will oblige Pope Francis to respond - he cannot continue to remain silent, not when his second-in-command tells the world what he himself means by AL. Pope Francis will have to speak plainly on the issues raised by AL. Quite clever actually.

This should be a foreshadowing of what’s to come :

Cardinal Sarah asks priests to start celebrating Mass facing east this Advent

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/cardinal-sarah-asks-priests-to-start-celebrating-mass-facing-east-this-advent

CARDINAL SARAH’S VERY PUBLIC SLAP-DOWN SHOWS POPE IS WILLING TO USE HIS AUTHORITY

When it comes to those he disagrees with, Pope Francis’s approach is to avoid direct confrontation, preferring instead to ignore them and get on with his job. But in the case of Cardinal Robert Sarah he has made an exception.

Last week the 71-year-old Guinean prelate unilaterally announced that priests should start to turn their backs on the congregation and face east to say Mass - something which liturgical traditionalists often call for as it is how the priest celebrates the Old Rite Latin liturgy.

This is all part of an agenda described as a “reform of the reform” which would make the Mass ordinary Catholics attend on Sunday more like the one celebrated before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. It means more latin, more chant and less participation from the congregation.

Soon after the cardinal made his remarks, however, the Vatican released a statement saying there will be no changes to this part of the liturgy and, crucially, that this had been “expressly agreed” during a recent audience between the cardinal and the Pope. It added that the phrase “reform of the reform” should be avoided.

It is highly unusual for the Vatican to publicly slap down a Prince of the Church, yet not entirely surprising given how Cardinal Sarah has operated since his appointment to lead the Holy See’s liturgy department.

There have been a series of incidents that reveal the cardinal is part of a faction making life difficult for this Pope: take, for example, the fact it took Cardinal Sarah’s department more than a year to implement Francis’ simple request that women should be included in the Holy Thursday foot-washing ritual.

thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/930/0/cardinal-sarah-s-very-public-slap-down-shows-pope-is-willing-to-use-his-authority-

No Need to Face East: Cardinal Sarah corrected by Pope Francis

Well that didn’t take long.

As you’ve seen all over the internet, the Pope slapped down Cardinal Sarah quite strongly, with only a bit of face-saving spared him (as if he had been misunderstood – yeah, right). Now we know what the Saturday meeting between Francis and Cardinal Sarah was about.

No new directives for ad orientem celebration this coming Advent.

More significant, it seems to me, is the phrase “it is better to avoid using the expression ‘the reform of the reform’” – not least because it is an expression Pope Benedict XVI explicitly approved of in his introduction to Alcuin Reid’s book The Organic Development of the Liturgy.

So I gather that the Pope hadn’t asked Cardinal Sarah after all to begin studying a reform of the reform, as he claimed the Pope had done in April.

Association of Catholic Priests
associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2016/07/no-need-to-face-east-cardinal-sarah-corrected-by-pope-francis

Catholic News Service: Pope says critics won’t stop him from pursuing vision for church

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Francis said he will continue pressing for a church that is open and understanding despite opposition from some clerics who “say no to everything.”

“They do their work and I do mine,” the pope said when asked, “What is your relationship with ultraconservatives in the church?”

The question was posed by Joaquin Morales Sola, a journalist for the Argentine newspaper La Nacion, in an interview published July 3. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published a translation of the interview July 5.

Most of the interview focused on issues related to Pope Francis’ home country and his relationship with Argentine President Mauricio Macri — “I have no problem with President Macri,” the pope said in the interview.

But Morales also asked about internal church matters, including criticisms of the pope.

“I want a church that is open, understanding, that accompanies families who are hurting,” Pope Francis said.

Some church leaders do not agree with his approach, but “I continue my course without looking over my shoulder,” he said, adding that he does not try to silence them. “I don’t cut off heads. I’ve never liked doing that.”

Besides, he said, he’s the pope. “You remove nails by putting pressure on the top. Or you set them aside to rest when they reach retirement age.”

cnstopstories.com/2016/07/05/pope-says-critics-wont-stop-him-from-pursuing-vision-for-church