Critics of the Holy Father seek to undermine

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The author of the title, with respect to Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s “manifesto” assumes that Cardinal Muller’s document is directed against Pope Francis, but the Cardinal never mentions Pope Francis and simply states long time Catholic teaching. How can that be in opposition to the Holy Father?
 
tafan2 said:
The author of the title, with respect to Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s “manifesto” assumes that Cardinal Muller’s document is directed against Pope Francis, but the Cardinal never mentions Pope Francis and simply states long time Catholic teaching. How can that be in opposition to the Holy Father?
Click to expand...
I am reminded of some words of St. Jerome.
When anything is written against some particular vice, but without the mention of any name, if a man grows angry he accuses himself. It would have been the part of a wise man, even if he felt hurt, to dissemble his consciousness of wrong, and by the serenity of his countenance to dissipate the cloud that lay upon his heart.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27101.htm

But in this case, the writer accuses Pope Francis by seeing the profession of orthodoxy as an attack on him.
 
Last edited:
Pope St. Agatho said the following, while at the same time approving the condemnation of his predecessor as a heretic:
…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

In general, the indefectibility of the Apostolic See, does not mean a Pope cannot err himself. Honorius did not sully the faith of the Apostolic See, because he did not make any definitive judgment that would be a condition for communion with said See. The requisite faith required for communion in the one Church remained untouched. It remained that faith with which all the other churches by necessity must be in agreement.

Those who defend this permanent faith defend the permanent authority of the Apostolic See. A Pope who were to seek novelties or ambiguous compromises (like Honorius did) is the one who does greater damage to his own authority and that of the office. St. Paul withstanding St. Peter to the face was a greater service to St. Peter’s authority than allowing St. Peter to continue engaging in scandalous behavior unchallenged. The scandalous behavior would have undermined his authority.
 
Last edited:
I pray for the Pope each night, that God and the Blessed Mother will protect him from those who contrive against him
 
In reference to that part (which is only one paragraph), the article says:
More recently, Cardinal Gerhard Müller has issued a doctrinal “manifesto,” which has been perceived as an implicit correction of alleged errors of Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
“Perceived.” “Implicit.” “Alleged.” These qualifiers should nullify any point made by them, lest one treat Cardinal Mueller with rash judgement.

Most of the article was pretty good though, and needs to be considered.
 
Last edited:
I think we agree. I had a problem with the part about Muller, the rest does deserve consideration.
 
pnewton said:
lest one treat Cardinal Mueller with rash judgement.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would be rash even without the qualifiers.

I read Cardinal Mueller’s manifesto. Everything that Fastiggi wrote in the LaStampa article seemed like legitimate criticism to me. There was something from the manifesto that stood out to me but was not mentioned by Fastiggi.
From the internal logic of the sacrament, it is understood that divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church, just as all those who are not disposed to receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully (CCC 1457), because it does not bring them to salvation. To point this out corresponds to the spiritual works of mercy.
Click to expand...
This is stepping on Pope Francis’ toes. Pope Francis has already made it fairly clear that things in the internal forum cannot be reduced this simply. Not to mention these are two of Cardinals Mueller’s and Burke’s favorite talking points regarding their differences with Pope Francis. So I don’t think anyone needs to go out on a limb in order to surmise that Cardinal Mueller felt it was necessary to write this manifesto because he thinks the Pope is going around confusing people.
 
Last edited:
I pray daily for the Holy Father’s intentions and also separately pray for the person of the Popes, both Francis and Benedict, for their protection and blessing, and that God will help them with particular issues.

I hope it helps.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
This is stepping on Pope Francis’ toes.
Click to expand...
If it is not Cardinal Mueller’s place to correct a Pope (and it is not), how is it your place or this author to correct a Cardinal? There seems some internal inconsistency if to believe, as you do, that this article is legitimate in its claim against Cardinal Mueller, and not recognize the difficulty of laity weighing in against other clergy. It is a little too mote v. beam.
 
I don’t think I have the same obligations to Cardinal Mueller as Cardinal Mueller has to the Pope. I don’t believe I’m obligated to give assent to Cardinal Mueller’s manifesto. I believe I’m free to criticize it. Criticizing the sincerity of the manifesto may be taking it too far, but those were my thoughts.
 
The manifesto reads like a rock solid sermon on Doctrine and Truth.

It should be required reading by every rcia candidate.
 
CradleRC58 said:
The manifesto reads like a rock solid sermon on Doctrine and Truth.

It should be required reading by every rcia candidate.
Click to expand...
Not when we have the Catechism. It was actually approved by a pope and compiled by more than one person.
 
Nothing goes against the catechism, but that point is not relevant. Nothing on Chili’s menu goes against the catechism, but you wouldn’t teach from it. The lack of contradiction does not make any document derived from the norm better that the norm, which is the catechism. He did add one point that is not in the catechism, which he says is understood from internal logic.
From the internal logic of the sacrament, it is understood that divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church, just as all those who are not disposed to receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully (CCC 1457), because it does not bring them to salvation.
Click to expand...
This too is true, that is that many people hold to this understanding. However, it is not in the catechism, that norm, nor was it defined this way by the Church. St. John Paul referred to it as a “practice” in 1981. From Familiaris Consortio:
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
Click to expand...
To this day, the Church does not all agree on whether this is doctrine, or not. Maybe it will be defined, in the near future.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Nothing on Chili’s menu goes against the catechism, but you wouldn’t teach from it.
Click to expand...
The Chili’s menu wasn’t written to inform and teach Catholics, Cdl. Mueller’s manifesto was.

As far as the Church’s position on divorced and remarried being in dispute, I thought that the fact that the Church does not recognize divorce would be a good position to start from when assessing whether divorced and remarried can receive Communion? See Mark 10, Matthew 5 and 19 and Luke 16 for the details.
 
We should stick with the Pope and in reference to his non-infallible teachings, a “religious submission of mind and will” is appropriate. However, there have been a few rare occasions where the Vicar of Christ has erred on non-infallible statements:
  1. St. Peter denying Christ
  2. St. Peter being wrong on circumcision
  3. Pope Honorius being wrong on Christ having 2 natures but only 1 will (monothelitism)
  4. Pope John XXII being wrong on when the departed had the Beatific Vision
My point: In regards to the Dubia…a clarification is needed, and it should not be considered “undermining the Pope” to ask / push for clarification because the Church suffers in times of ambiguity.

Aside from that, nobody should be questioning the authority of the Pope…He has it because Christ said so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top