Fr. Zuhlsdorf on Cardinal Muller

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pulvis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pulvis

Guest
The cardinal said that nobody, not even a pope, could change the teaching set down by Pope St John Paul II
Click to expand...
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Vatican’s doctrinal chief, has made one of his strongest statements yet on the controversial question of Communion for the divorced and remarried.
Click to expand...
In an interview with the Italian magazine Il Timone, Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether Pope St John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris Consortio is still valid.
Click to expand...
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/cardinal-muller-communion-for-the-remarried-is-against-gods-law/
 
No, that is impossible. 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 coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.
Click to expand...
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 do not know about the Argentinian bishops implementation of Amoris Laetitia, but I had a feeling the Malta bishops’ implementation might need addressing.
 
Pulvis said:
wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/card-muller-weighs-in-on-amoris-laetitia-informally-answers-the-five-dubia/

“The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is doing his job. His Eminence Gerhard Ludwig Card. Müller, has given a long interview to the Italian Catholic monthly Il Timone. Title: “You don’t negotiate Truth.” He comments on the relationship of personal conscience, ecumenism and the interpretation of the controversial, confusing Amoris laetitia.”
Click to expand...
👍
 
See:

christiantoday.com/article/divisions.deepen.in.catholic.church.over.communion.for.remarried.couples/104332.htm
**The cardinal, who is from Germany, spoke out as a group of his fellow German bishops endorsed Communion for the remarried.
Click to expand...
In a new statement reported by the Catholic Herald, agreed by the permanent council of the bishops’ conference, the bishops say that the remarried can receive Communion without resolving to live “as brother and sister”. They say this is possible through “differentiated solutions which are appropriate to the individual case”.
Click to expand...
An accompanying statement says the solution will be found through “a decision-making process, accompanied by a priest”, the Herald reports.**
Click to expand...
 
Does this mean that if the church has annulled a previous marriage it’s not really annulled?
 
Tobin44 said:
Does this mean that if the church has annulled a previous marriage it’s not really annulled?
Click to expand...
No, an annulment recognises that it was never a true marriage in the first place (but does not impute any sin to those who had lived as man and wife).

As it stands, the Bishops are divided worldwide on this issue.
 
Cardinal Muller:
“All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations.”

That is how I have always understood it. Truth with Charity.
 
Inconsistency is the basis for impeachment. Credibility has already been lost. We are back to Pilate’s question to Jesus: “What is truth?” And perhaps we might expand upon that to say, “Is there (absolute) truth?” True for me and true for you. Your truth may not be my truth (and vice versa). If you believe it, it is true. If you don’t believe it, it isn’t true. In other words: “each of us is the decider of truth” and “you do you, and I’ll do me.”

If you live in Malta, live as a Maltese. If you live in Philadelphia, live as a Philadelphian. There is no authority save human opinion. That is what has been at stake with the marriage, divorce, and remarriage debate. As I have said before, there is no reason for any Catholic to convert to Protestantism because we are all Protestant now. Ambiguity and confusion reign supreme. And perhaps some might reasonably ask, “is any of it true?”

Individual conscience and private judgment – that’s what the Protestants do. Awesome. (Not.) And we are also back to the serpent’s question to Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say?” The correct answer to that doubt would have been, “Yes, He did.”
 
3_Dog_Night said:
Inconsistency is the basis for impeachment. Credibility has already been lost.
Click to expand...
Impeachment?

You are invoking a principle originally imported into the secular American legal system from English common law as applicable to the Church?

Ok…
…
 
3_Dog_Night said:
Inconsistency is the basis for impeachment. Credibility has already been lost. We are back to Pilate’s question to Jesus: “What is truth?” And perhaps we might expand upon that to say, “Is there (absolute) truth?” True for me and true for you. Your truth may not be my truth (and vice versa). If you believe it, it is true. If you don’t believe it, it isn’t true. In other words: “each of us is the decider of truth” and “you do you, and I’ll do me.”

If you live in Malta, live as a Maltese. If you live in Philadelphia, live as a Philadelphian. There is no authority save human opinion. That is what has been at stake with the marriage, divorce, and remarriage debate. As I have said before, there is no reason for any Catholic to convert to Protestantism because we are all Protestant now. Ambiguity and confusion reign supreme. And perhaps some might reasonably ask, “is any of it true?”

Individual conscience and private judgment – that’s what the Protestants do. Awesome. (Not.) And we are also back to the serpent’s question to Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say?” The correct answer to that doubt would have been, “Yes, He did.”
Click to expand...
Amen. After this whole fiasco, I am never going to take them seriously again. Credibility lost indeed. 😏
 
Thanks be to God. Hopefully this puts an end to all the angst surrounding Amoris Laetitia, and we can all move on as one happily united Church again.
 
How does this apply to the pastoral guidelines implemented in Rome ITSELF by the Cardinal Vicar, which does foresee those in invalid marriages receiving under certain circumstances? Or the guidelines implemented by the Argentine bishops which the Pope himself praised? Or is the Cardinal only condemning the more “extreme” interpretation of, say, the Maltese bishops?
 
3_Dog_Night said:
Inconsistency is the basis for impeachment. Credibility has already been lost.
Click to expand...
You are mistaking disagreement for inconsistency. There have always been areas of disagreement within the Church in areas that have not been defined as doctrine, or even in areas some believed have been defined and others do not. It started with the early Church over whether or not converts to Christ had to also convert to Judaism. Peter could be said to have been inconsistent, at least at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. Then the Church moved on after an agreement was reached. Sure Paul had to call down some folks here and there afterward, but by then the doctrine was established.
 
twf said:
How does this apply to the pastoral guidelines implemented in Rome ITSELF by the Cardinal Vicar, which does foresee those in invalid marriages receiving under certain circumstances? Or the guidelines implemented by the Argentine bishops which the Pope himself praised? Or is the Cardinal only condemning the more “extreme” interpretation of, say, the Maltese bishops?
Click to expand...
I think the latter point may be the case but I don’t really know.

Pope Francis has stated quite clearly that, in his opinion, the Argentine Bishops’ interpretation is the only one.

If Cardinal Muller is not merely correcting the interpretation of the Maltese Bishops, then…🤷

I haven’t read the original transcript of the interview so it is difficult for me to judge.
 
pnewton said:
You are mistaking disagreement for inconsistency. There have always been areas of disagreement within the Church in areas that have not been defined as doctrine, or even in areas some believed have been defined and others do not. It started with the early Church over whether or not converts to Christ had to also convert to Judaism. Peter could be said to have been inconsistent, at least at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. Then the Church moved on after an agreement was reached. Sure Paul had to call down some folks here and there afterward, but by then the doctrine was established.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top