Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith in the "Osservatore Romano"said that ny separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle ".
Vatican City (kath.net/KAP) The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reiterating that there should be no gap between teaching and pastoral care in the Catholic Church. "Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle," Mueller said in a speech, which was published by the Vatican newspaper "L'Osservatore Romano" on Tuesday. This would "obscure" the dynamics of the Incarnation, which is part of any "healthy theology", said Mueller. Christ had said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. Therefore, there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.
The occasion was the opening of the General Assembly of the International Theological Commission of the Vatican on Monday. Müller is the President of the Advisory Board of the CDF. Cardinal Müller had said several times in the the Synod of Bishops on the family, that there can be no change in the Church's practice in relation to the divorced and remarried, because thereby the indissolubility of marriage will be questioned. Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the CDF: Statements Synod of Bishops publish (engl.) Copyright 2014 Catholic News Agency, Vienna, Austria All rights reserved. Photo Cardinal Müller (c) Diocese of Regensburg
Link to Kath.net...
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Hmmm....this fellow is not much of a team player. Does he not know that 'truth' has many nuances? Perhaps there is a nice nuncio spot in, say, Madagascar open?
ReplyDeleteMueller, next promoveatur ut amoveatur, maybe Koln, card. Meisner is over 75, it will be the right solution, loss von Rom....
ReplyDeleteWho could have ever dreamed 10 years ago that Muller (Muller!) would one day actually pull a Becket?
ReplyDeleteTruly stunning how God works.
It's a 'manifestation' of a 'SUBTLE' heresy 'in principle'. Got to love these pervert fairysees!
ReplyDeletePrefect of the Congregation of the Faith in the "Osservatore Romano"said that any separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle
One wonders what outright heresy would be -- denying the perpetual virginity of Mary!?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_161_Muller_Virgin.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/in-charge-of-henhouse.html
Denying Christ died for our sins?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/04/christ-did-not-die-for-sins-of-people.html
Denying Jesus' miracles, resurrection and ascension?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_November/Cardinals_With_No_Faith.htm
Talk about re-arranging the deck chairs...
Thank you, Anonymous 11:08. I was going to post this exact bit of pot-calling-kettle-black myself but couldn't find the links you provided. So...thanks"
DeleteM has also abandoned his Karl Keatinglike hostility to the SSPX.
DeleteTancred,
DeleteI've noticed that Card. Mueller's "shift" in tone and speech has coincided with his dialogue with the FSSPX. I think that Mueller may have had to shift his thinking and thought process to talk to the FSSPX on the same "wavelength" and that it rubbed off on him.
Mueller was a mad lib in the past, no doubt, but if this is his "conversion" to orthodoxy then I welcome it with open arms. If Mueller lifts the suspension on FSSPX priests than we'll know something is up, the fact that it's even being rumored is quite surprising.
Give me a break. Muller is doing heroic work as Prefect of the CDF and you guys are pissing all over it. Shameful!
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed.
Deleteyeah, me too....that's why I said he's been pulling 'a Becket".
DeleteMaybe you should actually read the comments before you comment on them Michael.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe vatican 2 heretic cult is antichrist.Anyone partaking in her heresies is not Catholic!
DeleteI was intrigued how the expression on Muller's face changed when speaking about how "brotherly" things were among the Synod participants. That change of expression spoke volumes.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to one of the comments above knocking Mulller!
ReplyDelete"...and you guyS are pissing all over it. Shameful!"....plural.
DeleteA bad grammarian as well as a rage-filled vulgarian.
"that there can be no change in the Church's practice in relation to the divorced and remarried, because thereby the indissolubility of marriage will be questioned."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me with the drive by annulments and the divorced Ted Kennedy, Rudi Giuliani, Andrew Cuomo and all the European divorcees (like French Presidents) getting communion the practice has already changed. Just like w/birth control --88% of Catholics use it! And it was the Catholic Church that helped get it legalized -- working with planned parenthood to do so.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/catholics-and-contraception-boston-1965/?_r=0
Just like Sarge Shriver, the good Catholic, was the running mate of pro abort McGovern and like clockwork on Jan 22 1973 the Supreme Court overturned laws in 50 states to legalize abortion. "The people don't know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot."
http://www.quora.com/How-did-Richard-Nixon-pull-off-a-landslide-victory-when-he-was-re-elected-as-President
Same with Faggot marriage. Sr. Grammick is very good working to get faggot 'marriage' passed in Maryland: "My superior went up to him [Ratzinger] and said, 'Sr Jeannine is a very good sister. We're very afraid she's going to get excommunicated'. And he replied, 'Oh, no no... it's not that level of doctrine'," she laughs, admitting that her miracle had happened on the plane.
http://www.newwaysministry.org/ArtMalta.html
These N.O. do not believe divorce & remarriage or abortion or homosexuality are on the level of doctrine that would excommunicate -- i.e. they would bring the Lutherans back in (and the Eastern 'churches') divorce or no divorce.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Q001_Justification.htm
Of course they want to keep 'traditionalists' also for your money not your soul. Keep funding the fairysees, but don't be surprised when you wake up in hell.
Here's Muller in September -- sure changing doctrine is impossible, but you can still have an annulment!
ReplyDelete"This does not prevent us, however, from speaking, as we must, about the problem of the validity of many marriages in the present context of secularization. We have all attended a wedding at which you could not tell whether the intention of the couple contracting marriage really was to “do what the Church does” in the rite of matrimony! In theory, we all know the criteria or classical conditions for being able to contract marriage; especially that the will to consent not be vitiated but rather should be free and that there be sufficient personal maturity. Nevertheless, this current situation described earlier makes us reflect, and, as pastors, we are worried about the fact that many people who contract marriage are formally Christians, since they have received baptism, but are not practicing the Christian faith at all; not just liturgically, but also existentially.
"Benedict XVI issued an insistent call to reflect on the great challenge posed by baptized non-believers. Consequently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took up this concern of the pope and set a good number of its theologians and other collaborators to work on the problem of the relation between explicit and implicit faith. What happens to a marriage when even implicit faith is lacking in it? It is certain that when implicit faith is absent, even though it was celebrated libre et recte [with free consent and with the proper form], it could be that it was invalid. It leads us to think that besides the classical criteria for declaring the invalidity of a marriage, it is necessary to reflect more on the case in which the spouses exclude the sacramentality of marriage. At the moment we are still in the process of working, with calm but persistent reflection, on this matter. I think that it would not be good to propose hasty conclusions, since we have not yet found a solution, but this does not prevent me from pointing out that in our congregation we are making great efforts to give a correct answer to the problem posed by implicit faith in the contracting parties....
"Faith is an essential part of the sacrament. Nevertheless, we have to clarify the juridical question posed by the invalidity of the sacrament because of an obvious lack of faith. A famous canonist, Eugène Corecco, used to say that the root of the problem is specifying the degree of faith necessary to bring about sacramentality. The classical doctrine assumed a minimalist position, requiring a merely implicit intention: “to do what the Church does.” Corecco added that in today’s globalized, multicultural, and secularized world, where the faith is something that cannot simply be taken for granted, it becomes necessary to require a more explicit faith of the contracting parties, if we really want to save Christian marriage. Nevertheless, I emphasize again that this question is still being studied. To establish a valid and universal criterion in this regard is not a trivial question. In the first place, because persons are constantly developing, in matters pertaining both to the knowledge they acquire over the years and also to their faith life. Learning and faith are not static data! Sometimes at the moment when marriage is contracted, a person was not a believer; but it is also possible that a conversion process took place in his life, through which he experienced a sanatio ex posteriori [a “healing” or validation after the fact] of what was a serious defect of consent at the moment when it was given.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/09/will-catholic-teaching-on-marriage-change
These fairysees are masters of deception. Unfortunately, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
If a substantial number of people are being married in the Church but without the necessary intention to be truly married, as in open to all children, etc., then the Church is responsible for allowing this sacrilege to happen, for colluding in the subversion of marriage, and a holy sacrament. It is a most egregious sin on the part of any cleric cooperating in such fraudulent activities - a direct attack on holy matrimony, Christ and His Holy Church.
ReplyDelete"Cardinal Müller: Separation of Theory and Praxis Would be a Heresy"
ReplyDelete## The HF separates them all the time.