Fr. Zuhlsdorf on Cardinal Muller

[3_Dog_Night]

It is a cause and effect relationship. Disagreement usually results in inconsistency. Consistency means the practice in Malta is the same as the practice in San Diego is the same as the practice in Poland is the same as the practice in Philadelphia. Inconsistency means the practices differ region by region. I said “usually” above because there can be inconsistency about complimentary matters – and what is being stated is congruent and complimentary and adds deeper meaning. However, that isn’t the case here

Are you now going to make the argument that the sacraments of Marriage, Communion and Reconciliation are not matters that are central to the doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church? That these are unimportant, secondary and discretionary matters? Would anyone like to argue that 180 degree divergent and opposite interpretations are really one in the same? Does this mean the Pope is now going to answer the Cardinal’s dubai and clear up all the confusion?

 

[Brendan]

Impeachment?

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

Ok…
…

It is a verb that means 'to call into question"

While it term is used in English common law, it is not exclusive to it. For example a person’s honor might be impeached if they engaged in a dishonorable act. Or a scientific theory might be impeached if contradictory evidence is found. No court systems involved.

 

[Vouthon]

It is a verb that means 'to call into question"

While it term is used in English common law, it is not exclusive to it. For example a person’s honor might be impeached if they engaged in a dishonorable act. Or a scientific theory might be impeached if contradictory evidence is found. No court systems involved.

I understand but the way in which the other poster phrased it led to think that he might be implying it in the strict legal sense vis-a-vis the Pope.

Perhaps I just got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[LiamQ]

Amen. After this whole fiasco, I am never going to take them seriously again. Credibility lost indeed.

It is sinful to take scandal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I will be very interested to see how far this goes.

After all, the Dubia were addressed to both Cardinal Muller and to the Pope.

It seems that Cardinal Muller is responding that Catholic teaching has not changed.

So those who are ‘now’ permitting divorced-and-remarried-without-decree’ couples to approach the Eucharist without living as brother and sister are going against the Magisterium, against Pope St. John Paul II, and against AL itself as it is to be understood, being in continuity with authentic Church teaching, and they must now correct themselves or face sanctions for disobedience. After all, being disobedient to the above is exactly the same as being disobedient to the Pope. . .

 

[Vouthon]

I will be very interested to see how far this goes.

After all, the Dubia were addressed to both Cardinal Muller and to the Pope.

It seems that Cardinal Muller is responding that Catholic teaching has not changed.

So those who are ‘now’ permitting divorced-and-remarried-without-decree’ couples to approach the Eucharist without living as brother and sister are going against the Magisterium, against Pope St. John Paul II, and against AL itself as it is to be understood, being in continuity with authentic Church teaching, and they must now correct themselves or face sanctions for disobedience. After all, being disobedient to the above is exactly the same as being disobedient to the Pope. . .

I’m not sure that’s the case.

Cardinal Muller stated the above in a personal interview, not in a magisterial document signed by the Pope.

The Argentine Bishops have already received papal approval for their interpretation - indeed the Holy Father contended that their interpretation was the “only one”.

So, I don’t think we can say anything at the present hour

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not sure that’s the case.

Cardinal Muller stated the above in a personal interview, not in a magisterial document signed by the Pope.

The Argentine Bishops have already received papal approval for their interpretation - indeed the Holy Father contended that their interpretation was the “only one”.

So, I don’t think we can say anything at the present hour

Yes, but the problems are (supposedly) coming from interpretations which are not Catholic teaching and based on a footnote, not on the Pope’s actual teaching. And the Papal approval was not in a magisterial document. I’m still hoping. After all, the Cardinal is the Prefect for the CDW and he isn’t exactly speaking as a ‘private matter’.

 

[pnewton]

…, and they must now correct themselves or face sanctions for disobedience. After all, being disobedient to the above is exactly the same as being disobedient to the Pope. . .

We shall see. It is possible that the Holy Father does not see this as disobedience. We shall see. It is too early. I also note that Pope Francis has not addressed the Malta proposal yet.

 

[pnewton]

After all, the Cardinal is the Prefect for the CDW and he isn’t exactly speaking as a ‘private matter’.

Neither was it an official statement. It was an interview.

 

[Pulvis]

My takeaway from Cardinal Muller is that what has always been held on divorce, remarriage and presenting for Communion is still valid. That means Malta, Germany, Argentina and some dioceses in the US are in error. Now the ball, so to speak, is in the court of H.H. Pope Francis. He must clarify His position. If not, the Catholic Church will fracture by country and diocese. Unity is at stake. This is serious.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Neither was it an official statement. It was an interview.

Ah but here’s the rub. If the Cardinal is simply restating that “The Church teaches X”, it does not have to be a dogmatic statement.

Every time that a bishop or cardinal or Pope says things like, “The Church teaches that God is a Trinity” (has always been taught)" in an interview, or on a plane, nobody says, “Wait, are you sure?”

Cardinal Muller is stating that AL must in fact be read in context with authentic Church teaching. He specifically stated (and ‘footnoted’ if you will by mentioning the document of Pope St. John Paul II) that AL is to be read in context with that, and not otherwise, therefore, since the Church teaches that divorced-and-remarried-with-no-decree-of-nullity must, if they wish to be in a state of grace and not in a state of adultery, live as brother and sister. That is what the Church has taught (also with the ‘no scandal’). Cardinal Muller does not have to come out with an official statement, because this is already the position of the Church.

 

[Constantin]

There is a good chance cardinal Muller will have to look for a new job before long

 

[pnewton]

Ah but here’s the rub. If the Cardinal is simply restating that “The Church teaches X”, it does not have to be a dogmatic statement.

Every time that a bishop or cardinal or Pope says things like, “The Church teaches that God is a Trinity” (has always been taught)" in an interview, or on a plane, nobody says, “Wait, are you sure?”

I didn’t say “Wait, are you sure?” I only pointed out that what we have is a news interview. Yes, dogma restate is still dogma. That is not a rub. It is a circular statement.

 

[pnewton]

There is a good chance cardinal Muller will have to look for a new job before long

He might. It might involve a white zucchetto, as far as we know. Predicting the future is fruitless.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

After all, the Cardinal is the Prefect for the CDW and he isn’t exactly speaking as a ‘private matter’.

You are absolutely incorrect. Cardinal Sarah is prefect of the CDWDS. Cardinal Müller is prefect of the CDF.

This interview is as much a private affair as Cardinal Sarah’s lecture in London.

In their roles as prefects, they are mere extensions of the person of the Vicar of Christ. All authority exercised by a dicastery derives from the Pope.

 

[JPUSC]

it is sinful to take scandal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You are absolutely incorrect. Cardinal Sarah is prefect of the CDWDS. Cardinal Müller is prefect of the CDF.

This interview is as much a private affair as Cardinal Sarah’s lecture in London.

In their roles as prefects, they are mere extensions of the person of the Vicar of Christ. All authority exercised by a dicastery derives from the Pope.

Ah, I KNEW I would get the initials wrong but I had to go start dinner and was in a hurry. Thank you, Father for the correction. I appreciate it.

But it’s still the case that making a statement that the Church teaches what it does regarding the passage in Familiaris Consortio etc. does not require an ‘official announcement’ that ‘this is official teaching’, right?

 

[Vouthon]

You are absolutely incorrect. Cardinal Sarah is prefect of the CDWDS. Cardinal Müller is prefect of the CDF.

This interview is as much a private affair as Cardinal Sarah’s lecture in London.

In their roles as prefects, they are mere extensions of the person of the Vicar of Christ. All authority exercised by a dicastery derives from the Pope.

Thank you for the clarification Father!

 

[exnihilo]

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’m not sure I get what you are saying. The result of a mortal sin is the loss of sanctifying grace in your soul if it was present when you committed the mortal sin. The issue of whether a particular sin is mortal in a particular situation is separate.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Did Jesus teach in such a way that the disciples needed an entire team of canon lawyers following them around to provide interpretation as to the basic commandments? I think not.

If taking scandal is a sin, then giving scandal is just as much, if not more, of a sin. The lack of response from PF speaks volumes. As I stated earlier: “Credibility has already been lost.”