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

[rcwitness]

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

It has nothing to do with AL

 

[TMC]

This seems like a very extreme position for Cardinal Muller to take, if the reporting is accurate. It seems to me that he is saying that his interpretation of this particular aspect of the deposit of faith not only trumps the Pope, but would trump an ecumenical council. That is a bit of an extreme place to stand, seems to me.

 

[rcwitness]

This seems like a very extreme position for Cardinal Muller to take, if the reporting is accurate. It seems to me that he is saying that his interpretation of this particular aspect of the deposit of faith not only trumps the Pope, but would trump an ecumenical council. That is a bit of an extreme place to stand, seems to me.

What if he is simply convicted that the issue has already been established as unchangeable by past Pope’s and Teaching? What if he has discussed this with Francis, and knows that Francis accepts it?

Extreme doesn’t necessarily imply error. Jesus was extreme. Faith demands us to be extreme sometimes. I think he is showing a bold stance, and I am curious to hear the Pope’s position.

 

[TMC]

What if he is simply convicted that the issue has already been established as unchangeable by past Pope’s and Teaching? What if he has discussed this with Francis, and knows that Francis accepts it?

Extreme doesn’t necessarily imply error. Jesus was extreme. Faith demands us to be extreme sometimes. I think he is showing a bold stance, and I am curious to hear the Pope’s position.

Its not about whether he is right or wrong. He is declaring that he must be right, and that no one else can possibly be right, even an ecumenical council or angels in heaven. That is what is extreme.

 

[rcwitness]

Its not about whether he is right or wrong. He is declaring that he must be right, and that no one else can possibly be right, even an ecumenical council or angels in heaven. That is what is extreme.

Yes. And if the Pope officially confirms his statements, he will be admired. But if the Pope rejects his statements and fires him, he will look foolish.

I believe he will be confirmed… eventually.

 

[TMC]

Yes. And if the Pope officially confirms his statements, he will be admired. But if the Pope rejects his statements and fires him, he will look foolish.

I believe he will be confirmed… eventually.

I think he will be neither confirmed nor fired. I think the Pope disagrees with him, but is not willing to fire him over the disagreement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This seems like a very extreme position for Cardinal Muller to take, if the reporting is accurate. It seems to me that he is saying that his interpretation of this particular aspect of the deposit of faith not only trumps the Pope, but would trump an ecumenical council. That is a bit of an extreme place to stand, seems to me.

No, he is stating that this is the teaching of God Himself and he (the Cardinal) is only reporting it as such. Since God has taught it, no ecumenical council or even the angels could change it, even if they desired to.

Just like the Trinity. Can’t change it to a Fab Four or Dynamic Duo, even if proposed by hosts of angels and all the bishops on earth with the Pope. Just can’t be done, and if I were to say so, <> would not be ‘upholding my position’ or saying that ‘my interpretation trumps all’, would I? To state that the Trinity is the Trinity and cannot be changed?

That’s my take.

 

[rcwitness]

No, he is stating that this is the teaching of God Himself and he (the Cardinal) is only reporting it as such. Since God has taught it, no ecumenical council or even the angels could change it, even if they desired to.

Just like the Trinity. Can’t change it to a Fab Four or Dynamic Duo, even if proposed by hosts of angels and all the bishops on earth with the Pope. Just can’t be done, and if I were to say so, <> would not be ‘upholding my position’ or saying that ‘my interpretation trumps all’, would I? To state that the Trinity is the Trinity and cannot be changed?

That’s my take.

That’s true. It’s not as though he is speaking on his own authority. He is convicted it’s not open to debate, such as the ordination of women.

 

[TMC]

No, he is stating that this is the teaching of God Himself and he (the Cardinal) is only reporting it as such. Since God has taught it, no ecumenical council or even the angels could change it, even if they desired to.

Just like the Trinity. Can’t change it to a Fab Four or Dynamic Duo, even if proposed by hosts of angels and all the bishops on earth with the Pope. Just can’t be done, and if I were to say so, <> would not be ‘upholding my position’ or saying that ‘my interpretation trumps all’, would I? To state that the Trinity is the Trinity and cannot be changed?

That’s my take.

I know that is what he is stating, but think about what else he is saying. He is saying that he has the power to discern what the teaching of God is, and that the Pope and even an ecumenical council do not. The extreme nature of his comment is his assertion that he personally can make this determination over and above an ecumenical council.

This is hardly on the same level as the Trinity. We are talking about the administration of a Sacrament, not something that is enshrined in the Creed. (Even so, a council or a Pope has the teaching authority to further explain or develop the doctrine of the Trinity.)

 

[TCEL]

This is hardly on the same level as the Trinity. We are talking about the administration of a Sacrament, not something that is enshrined in the Creed. (Even so, a council or a Pope has the teaching authority to further explain or develop the doctrine of the Trinity.)

Sacraments mean something though, and reflect truths about God. Marriage (and by extension the family) is an icon of the Trinity. The Eucharist has nuptial significance.

Is this really too quaint?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know that is what he is stating, but think about what else he is saying. He is saying that he has the power to discern what the teaching of God is, and that the Pope and even an ecumenical council do not. The extreme nature of his comment is his assertion that he personally can make this determination over and above an ecumenical council.

This is hardly on the same level as the Trinity. We are talking about the administration of a Sacrament, not something that is enshrined in the Creed. (Even so, a council or a Pope has the teaching authority to further explain or develop the doctrine of the Trinity.)

No he is not. He is simply repeating the teachings of the Church. He isn’t saying, "I am discerning this’. He is not saying, "This is my personal opinion.’

Honestly it is no wonder that the world is in the state it is in. People no longer communicate clearly (this is not a dig a you personally nor am I claiming to be the only person in the world who does communicate clearly).

 

[TMC]

Sacraments mean something though, and reflect truths about God. Marriage (and by extension the family) is an icon of the Trinity. The Eucharist has nuptial significance.

Is this really too quaint?

I agree. You are missing my point, which is that I think it extreme for the CDF head to declare his understanding to be perfect and above that of a Pope or an ecumenical council.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree. You are missing my point, which is that I think it extreme for the CDF head to declare his understanding to be perfect and above that of a Pope or an ecumenical council.

But wouldn’t it seem poor, if the Cardinal prefect for the CDF didn’t know if this was a doctrine or not? Would he be good at his position if he said, “I don’t know if it is doctrine or not”?

I just believe that he knows what he is talking about, and that he isn’t saying it because it’s his own interpretation.

 

[TMC]

No he is not. He is simply repeating the teachings of the Church. He isn’t saying, "I am discerning this’. He is not saying, "This is my personal opinion.’

Honestly it is no wonder that the world is in the state it is in. People no longer communicate clearly (this is not a dig a you personally nor am I claiming to be the only person in the world who does communicate clearly).

How can he state anything without first discerning it? He is expressing his thoughts on a Church teaching, whether his personal opinion, his professional opinion, or his understanding of another’s opinion. No problem there, that is part of his job. The thing I think is extreme is that he is saying that no others, including the Pope or an ecumenical council, are competent to disagree with him.

 

[TCEL]

I agree. You are missing my point, which is that I think it extreme for the CDF head to declare his understanding to be perfect and above that of a Pope or an ecumenical council.

I’m not missing that point, I’m just not commenting on it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How can he state anything without first discerning it? He is expressing his thoughts on a Church teaching, whether his personal opinion, his professional opinion, or his understanding of another’s opinion. No problem there, that is part of his job. The thing I think is extreme is that he is saying that no others, including the Pope or an ecumenical council, are competent to disagree with him.

You see, I don’t ‘hear that’ at all.

If I state, “the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman”, I have in a sense ‘discerned that’ way back when I first read it in the catechism and was taught, right? But if I repeat it later, now, and say, “This is the Church’s teaching, and no Pope, no ecumenical council, nor the angels in heaven can change it”, am I saying that the Pope and ecumenical councils etc. are not competent to disagree with me?

 

[pnewton]

I just believe that he knows what he is talking about, and that he isn’t saying it because it’s his own interpretation.

But it kind of begs the question, “What is he talking about?” As it has been pointed out by Jimmy Akin, at least one thing that was said needs a little context or unstated assertion, or maybe things that were elided from the article or even lied about, or else we have a contradiction with the Catechism’s requirement for mortal sin. This is an interesting news story, but it is still just journalism. While Church doctrine does not change, journalist are far from perfect.

 

[TMC]

But wouldn’t it seem poor, if the Cardinal prefect for the CDF didn’t know if this was a doctrine or not? Would he be good at his position if he said, “I don’t know if it is doctrine or not”?

I just believe that he knows what he is talking about, and that he isn’t saying it because it’s his own interpretation.

Again, that is not what I am saying. It is not odd or extreme for him to say and believe that he is right. What I am saying is that it is extreme for him to declare that no one is competent to say that he is wrong, even the Pope or an ecumenical council.

 

[rcwitness]

But it kind of begs the question, “What is he talking about?” As it has been pointed out by Jimmy Akin, at least one thing that was said needs a little context or unstated assertion, or maybe things that were elided from the article or even lied about, or else we have a contradiction with the Catechism’s requirement for mortal sin. This is an interesting news story, but it is still just journalism. While Church doctrine does not change, journalist are far from perfect.

I don’t think so. He is clearly drawing on Pope’s JPII and Benedict, and the Catechism, which all address the very thing he says is unchangeable.

I agree that journalism can play tricks. So that much is possible. But according to what is reported, he sounds very orthodox and justified.

Again, that is not what I am saying. It is not odd or extreme for him to say and believe that he is right. What I am saying is that it is extreme for him to declare that no one is competent to say that he is wrong, even the Pope or an ecumenical council.

Again, he is drawing on decisions and teachings already addressing the issue. He is not raising a new issue. Is anyone, including the Pope, saying it is not a Church Teaching?

 

[TMC]

I don’t think so. He is clearly drawing on Pope’s JPII and Benedict, and the Catechism, which all address the very thing he says is unchangeable.

I agree that journalism can play tricks. So that much is possible. But according to what is reported, he sounds very orthodox and justified.

Again, he is drawing on decisions and teachings already addressing the issue. He is not raising a new issue. Is anyone, including the Pope, saying it is not a Church Teaching?

I think it is a fair reading of AL to say that there are circumstances under which a remarried person can be readmitted to the sacraments without pledging to remain continent. Certainly a number of bishops have said as much, and the Pope appears to at least allow that reading.