Head of CDF calls SSPX stupid and claims God is the greatest liberal.

From: cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/cdf-head-hits-back-at-sspx-and-claims.html

Saturday, July 07, 2012
Head of CDF calls SSPX stupid and claims God is the greatest liberal.

Quoting roughly St Thomas Aquinas (see below). This is a long interview with the Mittelbayerische Zeitung- now complete

Relaxed and at ease, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller returns a week after his appointment as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Diocese of Regensburg. A series of interviews for journalists are on the agenda for Friday: liberation theology, the SSPX and the situation of divorced and remarried. Minefields for an ecclesiastic, who has moved to third place in the Vatican’s ecclesiastical pecking order.

Archbishop Mueller, first of all, congratulations on the new job. Since when did you know about your appointment?

I definitely knew it on 16 May, when the Holy Father has summoned me to his presence.

Did your commitment to the liberation theology endangers your appointment?

I do not know. If you know the Catholic faith, we know that to her essentially belong the social obligation, the responsibility for the world, the love of the poor. Liberation theology is a big word – but every Christian theology has something to do with the freedom of man. Also in South America in this context, it is about theological questions: Given the misery and indignity that many people around us can not imagine, given this glaring injustice, we can not simply go away with a pious raising of eyebrows about it. Faith and doing good go together. These are the two sides of a coin.

Are you then in agreement with the Pope?

Total agreement . Not even when he was my predecessor’s predecessor in the CDF did he put liberation theology in its entirety in question, but some aspects which I fully underline. Liberation theology is not a loose mix of communism and the Catholic faith. Theology, if it is to be Catholic, you must find out an answer from his own sources. The social teaching of the Catholic Church has proven to be far superior to the Marxist analysis. We do not want a society that is divided into rich and poor, and in which one has access to education, and not the other. Workers and employers must not act against each other as pure interest groups, but they must all be committed to the common good. Even against the rampant commercialization of all aspects of life we must be critical: the economy is there for people, not vice versa.

You have been declared, in respect of such words, to be among the liberals. Did that surprise you?

Oh well. Saint Thomas Aquinas says, “Deus maxime liberalis est – God is the Greatest Liberal”. (Cathcon- normally translated as “God therefore is in the highest degree liberal” to ensure that there is no conflation of the ideas of liberality with the practice of liberalism in any sense). In the original sense is liberalis is liberally and generously. ” In this sense, I love being a liberal.

(Cathcon- one waits for years for the Head of the CDF to quote St Thomas and he is now used in such a poor way)

You have always been very critical of the SSPX. Now, you are responsible as Prefect for the return of the fallen-away Society into the bosom of the Church. How difficult is it?

The negotiations of the Vatican with the SSPX brothers are friendly, Christian and humane, but clearly in formation. Who wants to become Catholic again must recognise the authority of the Pope and the bishops (Cathcon- the SSPX certainly think they both are Catholic and recognise the authority of the Pope. Big misunderstanding from Mueller which is at variance with various Vatican statements of recent years). No one should think that they can impose his own ideas of the Catholic Church. The talks in Rome are not negotiations between two parties. No religious fraternity may impose conditions of the church.

The negotiations between the SSPX with the Vatican have been going on since January 2009. How much more time is needed.

Eventually, the “point of no return” is coming and they must decide: Do they wish for the unity of the Church? This includes the acceptance of the form and content of the Second Vatican Council, and the previous and subsequent statements and decisions of the Magisterium. There is no other way. (Cathcon- he seems to be deliberately tearing up bridges that have already been built).

The main criticism of the SSPX is the Second Vatican Council’s- the permission for Masses in the local language instead of Latin. Is there any leeway?

What can be granted, is that which actually belongs to the diversity of the Catholic faith and life. The liturgical reform of Vatican II was factually correct and necessary. One cannot issue polemic against it just because there are abuses.

The SSPX have just designated you again as a heretic, that is, as one who has fallen from the faith.

I must not give an answer to every stupidity. (Cathcon- image what the response had been if the SSPX had issued a press release calling the Archbishop dumb. Mutual respect is needed for dialogue, as the Vatican is only too quick to point out in other ecumenical dialogues).

In Germany, discussed the admission of remarried divorcees to Communion is discussed. What do you think?

The same as the Pope. The lesson is clear: A valid marriage between Christians is indissoluble, and includes the promise of lifelong fidelity. We also need to see the injuries to children of divorced parents. They are deeply shocked when suddenly a parent is away and a strange man or a strange woman sits in the apartment. We therefore need to scrutinize a mentality that sees the promise of marriage and family formation too loosely.

Are there no concessions?

We also recognize the difficult situation of the spouses in a mixture of guilt, which is not always equally distributed. The parish priest can see in the assessment of the individual situation of reasons how to respond. But the judgement would be wrong: If I cannot go to Communion, I am nothing in the Church. But this is not the whole Catholic faith. The central part of the Mass is the Eucharistic Prayer and the saving mystery of Jesus Christ. We are committed to the celebration of the Mass, but not every time to go to Communion, although the Frequent Communion is desirable and useful.

You strengthen the German faction in Rome. What does this mean for the national mix?

In the CDF, about 15 nations work together. We are the world church, so its a colourful little nation with many languages. The languages do not separate us after Pentecost not but lead us together in the spirit of God. I’m still grateful that God has so ordained it that I grew up into the German language and culture. But of course, this is not to be seen as naive patriotism – or as a rivalry in the sense of who is now better.

After your departure a successor is sought as Regensburg Bishop. Passau is also vacant. Will you play an open role or behind the scenes?

Episcopal appointments are an important matter. There is not a power struggle behind the scenes, in the way that it is often portrayed. When it comes to people, a discreet process is needed. This has nothing to do with secrecy. What qualities does a bishop of Regensburg need? For the Bishops must someone be found to be suitable or be considered fit. Although there can never be the ideal candidate, because we people always go through life as a mixture of ideal and empirical reality. But of course he must be clearly based in Catholic faith and belief and also able to proclaim this. He must have or acquire leadership skills. As a personality he must be able to give little something without getting a cold in every breeze. The bishops office also means conflict. The understandable human desire to be recognized by all as the nice uncle is not the best basis for a good appointment.

Do you expect a very long transition period in Regensburg?

I hope that it will be decided this year. In August and September are initially holidays, but after that the full procedure goes into action. Are there suitable candidates? They is no lack. One must also pay attention to the 2014 Catholic Congress in Regensburg . There is speculation over the Bishop of Eichstätt, Gregor Maria Hanke, the Augsburg Bishop Anton Losinger, the founding director of the Pope Benedict Institute, Rudolf Voderholzer and the Director of the Shrine of Maria Vesperbild, William Imkamp.

Who is favorite?

I would rather say nothing about names. I am also not the person appointing the new bishop. That happens via the Nuncio in Germany. But of course they will ask me. It is important that continuity is maintained. There are objective guidelines, which were started by my predecessor, Bishop Manfred Müller – whether in the field of schools, the cathedral choir, in the many charitable organizations, or in our activities for the disabled. That cannot be wound back in any way.

In the interim, Provost Wilhelm Gegenfurtner is undertaking “the role of the bishop during transition” . Were you surprised by his election by the chapter?

I think we were all surprised.

Finally, personal questions: How did it happen that the pope gave you his old cardinal’s apartment in Rome?

I think there that all were amazed. But the Pope has given it spontaneously, entrusting me the appartment – even the books that are still there, and some other things. These will be made available in accordance with his wishes to our “Benedict Institute” in Regensburg, which is responsible for publishing the works of Joseph Ratzinger.

Can he visit you in his old apartment?

I will ask about that

Do you remain despite your move to Rome, a Regensburger?

I am Bishop Emeritus of Regensburg. In this respect, this is my home Diocese. When I come to Germany, it’s my first stop.

You’re a big football fan and have been sighted many times at the games of the SSV Jahn in Regensburg .

Are you looking for a new club in Italy – how about the Lazio?

I am a member of the Curia, but not Bishop of Rome, so I do not have to support the Italian teams.

When I visit home, I remain faithful to the SSV Jahn.

You have been Archbishop for week.

When will you become a Cardinal?

Only the Holy Father knows that.

End of interview

Get AQ Email Updates

35 comments on “Head of CDF calls SSPX stupid and claims God is the greatest liberal.

  1. tradical on said:

    ” … I must not give an answer to every stupidity …”

    This is not an answer it is an accusation or at best a ‘non-answer’. He missed an excellent opportunity to allay the SSPX’s concerns about his Orthodoxy. Too bad.

    ” … acceptance of the form and content of the Second Vatican Council, and the previous and subsequent statements and decisions of the Magisterium. There is no other way. ”

    In other words, go straight to jail do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    However, when speaking about divorced / ‘remarried’, he decides to answer this ‘stupidity’ by attempting to “recognize the difficult situation of the spouses in a mixture of guilt, which is not always equally distributed.”

    I wonder if we have reached or are in the midst of the fulfillment of the following prophecy:

    “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” Our Lady of Akita 1973

  2. This is satire right? Seriously, it’s not real is it?

    I was LOL at “The main criticism of the SSPX is the Second Vatican Council’s- the permission for Masses in the local language instead of Latin. Is there any leeway?:

  3. Some of the answers made me wonder if it was legitimate also. But, the way things are going lately, it may be all too real.

  4. Ah, generosity! Typical “new boy” megalomania. The Romanitas of which the Archbishop spoke years ago has gone to Mueller’s head, in the Modernist form, of course: “Welcome to sunny Roma, fratres! Stroll the piazzas! Take in the galleries! You’ll have a little vino? Of course! Now, hands up!”

    This may not end well.

    One thought that has sustained me over the years is the tale told in one history of the popes in which some particular pontiff had excommunicated some city state or another in his day ( there were so many, who could possibly keep count or recall which one it actually was, this week? ) and found himself and his huge traveling retinue in a patch of bad weather up in the hills. Well, the only place of shelter available just happened to be the very town he had consigned to hell in a handbasket. What to do? What to do?

    I know, I’ll lift the excommunication! ( Scribble, scribble… now, take this with you, Lorenzo, and ride ahead like a good chap to give ’em the happy news! Galloping hoofbeats go off and up, up, up the hill…. ) Magnifico!

    Lorenzo returns. Happy un-excommunicated townsmen in toe. Viva Papa! Grazie, Papa!

    Papal consort enters city gates. Parades! Singing! Cheers! ( It’s good to be the Pope, si? )

    Lovely dinner. Good night’s rest. Weather lifts.

    Time to go!

    Thundering papal herd exits on the dawn. Townsmen still happily asleep.

    Pope thinks…. thinks, again…. ( Scribble, scibble…. Lorenzo, ride back and give ’em this, will you? )

    BANG! Excommunication reinstated!



    And, by way of welcoming Herr Mueller und die Soldaten auf Roma….

    Vilkommen, Herr Panzerkardinal!


  5. Show me one liberal who honestly believes in the Real Presence and I’ll eat my Hanes boxers without salt or pepper. And yet, the liberals and dissenters are “in full communion” while the SSPX are not only schismatic but stupid too. What is wrong with this picture?

  6. Vilkommen, St. Elmo! Vilkommen!

    The official luncheon menu has been changed over at CDF. Now, only BRATwurst is served.

    Of course, this will do nothing to deter the accordistas from racing pellmell onto a new and sunny future, will it?

    Hope the indigestion will remind them in the morning of the price of their feasting with Modernistas under a leaden night sky. It is not as if good men have failed to warn them.

    And, about all of which a certain canonized Pope had something or other to say, oh, what was it… 104 years ago or so?

  7. tradical on said:

    “accordistas ”

    On the level of principles where do you see the ‘accordistas’ racing pellmell?

    When I last checked +Fellay demonstrated good faith and a docility to work within the confines of Divine Providence and demonstrate his belief in the authority of Pope Benedict XVI by proceeding step-by-step as far as he could without compromise.

    When a compromise was required, he refused and walked away.

    It is (surprisingly) as simple as that.

    • +Fellay,
      “But we are not alone” in working to “defend the faith,” the bishop said. “It’s the pope himself who does it; that’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it.”

      +Fellay imagined (for that is what he did) a Benedict XVI that was working to “defend the faith” and that wanted the SSPX to come back to “full communion” (really the only kind there is) in order to help him to defend this same faith.
      When in reality, he wanted +Fellay and the SSPX to return to “full communion” in accepting and promoting the errors of Vatican II.
      gpmtrad is correct, it was a “pell-mell” race into an imagined “sunny future.”
      Dictionary: adv.: In frantic, disorderly haste; headlong.

      • tradical on said:


        +Fellay’s step by step approach does not coincide with the definition.

        More so since in his ‘disorderly haste’ he did not fall ‘headlong’ into agreeing with a modified doctrinal declaration.

        Note also that he (+Fellay) introduced the doc. declaration in order to move past the deadlock they had reached with the ‘preamble’.

        None of these actions belie a lack of prudence.

        Any ‘Pell Mell’ actions, I’m afraid, are result of your personal (and perhaps biased ) judgement of the process and results.

        BTW: I’m looking for the reference. I can remember where I was standing when I read it, and noting that it was interesting and made sense in terms of the relationship of a person who identifies himself as Catholic vs a person who does not.

      • tradical on said:

        Also Michael, the question I asked was:

        On the level of principles where do you see the ‘accordistas’ racing pellmell?

        • Ok, “pell-mell” was over the top. I should have said: Marching methodically and blindly towards an agreement.
          On the level of principles: My response is: on three false principles:
          1. Benedict XVI is working to “defend the faith” and wanted/needed the SSPX’s help in doing so.
          2. Rome can be trusted to abide by any agreement made between themselves and the SSPX.
          3. That Rome was willing to let the SSPX come back in to “full communion” without having to accept the Council.
          These were the “principles” spelled out by +Fellay in his promoting of the eventual accords with Rome.
          I still can’t believe that Rome didn’t accept the “preamble” document signed by +Fellay. It was Divine intervention that prevented the Bishop and the SSPX from falling into this trap.

          • tradical on said:

            Hi Michael,

            Again: Blindly? Then he would’ve agreed to the modifications.

            With respect to 1,2,3 – these are not actually principles – they are judgments based on information.

            More later!

            • “Blindly”; because no one is so blind as he who refuses to see.
              They are “principles”; principles that moved +Fellay to reverse himself on the policy that he and the SSPX had publicly taken, to not make a practical accord with the Vatican, until a doctrinal accord had been reached.
              Just to add: all three of them turned out to be false.

              • tradical on said:

                Hi Michael,

                I meant like ‘guiding principle’, as defined as:

                1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
                2. A rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior.

                In this case the principle that +Fellay put forth was (as noted earlier):
                If the Pope, (ie Vicar of Christ) asks you to do something that doesn’t compromise the faith, you don’t have a choice…

                This is the principle that he used as a guide in the discussions about a ‘practical accord’ prior to a doctrinal agreement.

                The three items that you identified were not put forth as principles that +Fellay was using to guide the Society’s engagement in the discussions.

                The first is simply a statement, that at best appears to have been proven false in light of the recent events.

                The second is closer to a principle, however you appear to have implied that +Fellay was following this principle.

                I don’t recall him saying that we can trust them absolutely, I do recall him saying “I’d like more time to see things more clearly ” and in reference to the principle noted above that it was the Pope’s wish only that was driving this forward.

                Given that he (as well as the SSPX) know what has transpired with all the traditional congregations that have signed up, he proceeded with caution, the guiding principle noted above as well as the ‘no compromise on the faith, liturgy etc’. So again, +Fellay referred to his guiding principle as the touchstone for each step in the process.

                The third item is also a ‘statement’ that +Fellay had reason to believe was true until he walked into the offices of the CDF. Once the statement was proved false by Cardinal Levada, referring to the aforesaid prinicple, he didn’t “sign” etc. What did he do? He walked away.

                Conclusion: The over arching principle that +Fellay used in guiding the discussions with Rome was not contained in your three ‘principles’. The principle used is still is good, and proven to be effective on a number of levels.

                • Tradical,
                  No problem with your definition of “guiding principles”; and I would argue that my ”three” fit perfectly under your #2 definition: ei. “a rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior”

                  What was his “personal behavior” up until recently? Seek a “practical agreement with Rome”. But, +Fellay’s belief in my #’s 1,2 and 3 where the basis for his personal behavior in seeking to reach a practical accord with Rome in spite of the doctrinal gulf that still divided them from the SSPX . These were the reasons he explicitly gave.
                  I could have added your “guiding principle” (if the Pope asks us to do something…) also, but I think my #3 pretty much says the same thing in different words.
                  Would he have gone forward with the negotiations if he held the contrary positions?:
                  1, Benedict is a modernist who is trying to subvert the SSPX and the Catholic faith.
                  2. Rome cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement they make with a traditionalist group (see E.D.C. Letter to the IBF, treatment of Fr. Bisig and the FSP etc. etc.).
                  3. There would be a demand that +Fellay accept Vatican II.
                  He would never have proceeded at all with the negotiations if he held these three contrary principles.

                  Your argument that he wasn’t aware of my original #3 until the CDF presented him with the final proposition, is true, and I agree; therefore my “blindness” comment. There were plenty of warnings coming from both Rome (including the Pope), his fellow trad bishops, and even the other “rallied” groups,as well as recent history, telling him what the true situation was, but he choose to ignore them. Fine, he made a mistake, we all do. Just come out and say: “My bad, it wont happen again”.
                  This would go a long way to calm the anxiety that many trads feel about his recent actions.

                  • tradical on said:

                    And yet none of the other elements noted over rules the principle stated earlier.

                    Your perspective is (IMO) a little skewed. As the over arching principle means that you must respond positively if you believe Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ – up to the point where you would have to compromise.


                    Because if you don’t respond positively in good faith then you have moved from being critical of the crisis in the Church to being cynical. A critic has hope, a cynic has none.

                    • Ok, I guess we can go around this topic a hundred times and not agree.
                      I will save my fingers for our next argument.

                    • tradical on said:

                      Hi Michael,

                      Ok save you fingers, I’ll keep typing with the one that I slit open yesterday while cutting onions.

                      I think the biggest difficulty I have with your point of view is that I see it as a dead-end.

                      If you always assume that an agreement can’t be worked out and don’t go to Rome when asked. Then an agreement will never be worked out.

                      It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

                      The assumptions built into your assertions are biased in this way, becaues you don’t believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ.

                  • +Bishop Fellay’s recent experience has proven that Benedict XVI was not acting in good faith. Many people including the other three trad bishops tried to warn him of this and he turned a deaf ear to them. Events have proven that he was wrong; and his true friends were not the men at the Vatican, or the people who urged him to try to make a deal; but those who warned him about the mistake he was making.

  8. Show me one liberal who honestly believes in the Real Presence and I’ll eat my Hanes boxers without salt or pepper.

    Could someone please find at least one liberal who believes in the Real Presence? I really want to see St. Elmo do this.

    What’s sad, is he took a good bet, we won’t find any -ESPECIALLY regarding Roman prelates.

    People on this thread think what this man says must be a joke. In a way it is. It’s hillarious, but paradoxically horrifying.

    Reading about these appointments – I can’t take it anymore. Someone make it stop.

    • tradical on said:

      Hi Serv,

      I wish it was a joke, but it seems like a nightmare.

      A prelate has been appointed to a high position and appears to have previously espoused views contradicting Church Teaching and his only response when questioned is:

      ” … I must not give an answer to every stupidity …”

      Wish I could wake up …

    • tradical on said:

      I just realized something,

      I know a liberal who at least espouses belief in the Real Presence. Determining if he honestly believes in the Real Presence would be a little bit difficult to demonstrate – but I could make inquiries, I should see him in August.

  9. Bishop Mueller said, “The talks in Rome are not negotiations between two parties. No religious fraternity may impose conditions of the church.

    Unless that fraternity is the Jews.

  10. Reading all of these comments from Bishop Muller, I’m rather relieved.

    This man seems to be a dumb, goofball, in the mold of Levada, who is incapable of doing much harm to the Church.

    In fact, the appointment sets up an excellent opportunity for the SSPX to run circles around the Curia. What you see happening is Providence defanging the wolves in the Vatican.

    • In fact, the appointment sets up an excellent opportunity for the SSPX to run circles around the Curia.

      Heck, any average AQ member can run circles around these people.

      Some of our posters actually have to be convinced that these articles aren’t satire.

  11. Someone needs to do a proper analysis of the teachings of Archbishop Müller, based on his writings.

  12. sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/the-holy-father-on-bishop-gerhard-ludwig-muller/
    The following is a full translation of the salutation written by Pope Benedict XVI for a Festschrift celebrating the 60th birthday of Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller.
    Dear Bishop Gerhard Ludwig,
    I wanted to contribute at least a salutation to the Festschrift for your 60th birthday. I well remember our first meeting when you gave me your dissertation on the Sacraments in the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. That was an ecumenical work of a unusual kind; everyone thinks that they know at least the main theses of that great Protestant thinker, but you showed surprising aspects of his thought, thereby inviting an encounter of a special kind. In the year 1995 you sent me your Dogmatic Theology. As far as I can see it is the only handbook of our field on the market written by a single author. It is thus able to reveal the whole structure of the world of the Catholic Faith in its inner unity. It also has the particular advantage of being limited to a size which makes it suitable as a text book for students. You thereby sent an important signal; theology, and even the field of dogmatic theology, is in danger of dissolving into specializations which obscure the greater whole, but every part of our Faith is only really intelligible in the light of the whole.
    These encounters were primarily literary, but we became personally close in the years in which you were a member of the International Theological Commission, of which I (as prefect of the CDF) was president. We were all deeply impressed by your comprehensive knowledge of the whole history of dogma and theology, which your interventions always showed, and which was the foundation of your ever-reliable judgment. In everything we sensed that your theology was not just academic learning, but that it was and is – as the essence of theology demands – a thinking-with the word of the Faith, thinking-with the “we” of the Church as the communal subject of the Faith. You took care to make the work of the International Theological Commission better known in Germany, and in all those years you continually published important contributions on the pressing theological questions of the day. You made great efforts to explain the true meaning of the document “Dominus Jesus” which had so often been distorted in the reduction to a few slogans. As bishop of Regensburg you took the foundational biblical expression “Dominus Jesus: Jesus is the Lord” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3) as your motto, and by so doing you determined your agenda: Christ stands at the center of the episcopal ministry; He is the center of our Christian existence. At the time of your episcopal ordination, when the debate about the document beginning with those words was raging, your motto was a reminder that the Magisterium wanted thereby to call us back to the center of our Faith.
    Now it has already been five years since the See of St Wolfgang was entrusted to you. You have had to endure many storms and more will surely come. But during this time no one could doubt that you wanted only the one thing: to give witness to Jesus Christ, in whom God has turned His Face toward us and opened His Heart for us. And so on your 60th birthday I hope pray that the Lord might help you to always remain His faithful witness and thus to be a “co-worker of our joy” (cf. 2 Cor 1:24)
    Given at Rome on the Feast of St Hilary, 2007
    Benedictus PP. XVI
    d so on your 60th birthday I hope pray that the Lord might help you to always remain His faithful witness and thus to be a “co-worker of our joy” (cf. 2 Cor 1:24)

    Given at Rome on the Feast of St Hilary, 2007

    Benedictus PP. XVI

    • Just in case somebody was to opine that the Pope doesn’t really know who this man is and what his opinions are.
      “Sacraments in the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer”
      Really? The “thoughts of this heretic, on the Sacraments? Wonderful.!

      • And a heretic he was, Michael. What follows is a clip about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And it’s written by an ex-Catholic!

        “Of his theology that too still remains controversial to many Bible scholars.

        Some even openly credit him with the popular liberation Marxist theology that so many Christians admire and promote today.

        Did he not question and doubt the virgin birth; that Christ was not sinless during His earthly ministry; that Christ is not the only way, and what were his views on Genesis?. Were they more Darwinian than Divine?

        Was all of this a crisis of faith that he could no longer hide or contain any longer?

        After all friends who knew him well when he pastored in Forest Hill London remembered his preference for crime films and detective stories. Maybe he was just a failed actor, who somehow relished the role of impersonating a secret agent during the long years of the war. If so how dangerous for himself and his family. Had he all along just been deluding himself and others?

        In one of his last letter from his prison cell he could surmise:

        “God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics and science has been surmounted and abolished, the same thing has happened in religion and philosophy.”

        From this dirge of perhaps self-pity or abiding fear of what is to be inflicted on him in prison, was perhaps born this heretical and apostate conception of Almighty God.

        In conclusion I have to ask, in all sincerity, has Bonhoeffer’s radical theological influence permeated to the “modern church,” the communist WCC, NCC and her sister denominations?

        Unfortunately I have to say, YES!”
        Ex-Catholics for Christ

        The author appears to be an ex-Catholic partially due to hearing the following at a parish hall (Catholic) meeting:

        “I have listened very intently to what father has told us. However my son is a journalist covering the Council in Rome and is accredited with the press briefings at the end of the numerous Councils meetings. His personal reading of the churches long-term plans are as follows. The Tridentine mass, in its present shape, will be discontinued and instead it will be said worldwide in the vernacular of each country. There will be, because of the new Anglican connection, a downplaying of the role of the Virgin Mary, also the rosary and the 40-hour devotions. This, it is hoped, will placate all other non-Catholic religions to follow into the unity movement. One popular debate will be on the role of priestly celibacy and its future (this would be withdrawn from the debate by Pope Paul VI.) Papal infallibility is to be looked at (it was looked at but that was all), and the role of collegiality – something on the line of the apostles in the early Catholic Church (this would bear no resemblance to the church in the acts of the apostles.) It is hoped that the defunct role of deacons (P.D.) will be activated. What were they? My son also sees an ongoing battle between the progressives and the traditionalists. This will increase as all future sessions go on. It is also felt that all future decisions must be ecumenically based. This will see a downgrading of the mass.”

  13. Say good night, Gracie.

    “Good night, Gracie!”

    Oy! ( Which expression, by the by, may be coming to a Nervous Ordeal/TLM hybrid parish in your neighborhood, any day now! )

    Mount up, boys. Head up for the high plains and keep a sharp eye……

  14. Yes, the articles are already appearing warning of this new N.O./ Trad Mass, is already in the works.

  15. Well, if a vain, sacreligious effort to mix the divine with its opposite ( protestantized, concessionary worldly grouptihnk ) would “muddy” things, yes, I suppose it could be put that way.

    The core issue is Catholic faith, whole and intact, dogmatically expressed always and everywhere according to the holy Councils and Popes, the Doctors and Fathers and always in the same meaning and in the same understanding.

    And it is on that ground that every modernist, whether in Rome or on the Riviera, falls completely on his face.

    I submit that, while often farcical in its manifestations, the Revolution is an entirely serious matter with eternal consequences.

  16. tradical on said:

    I see three possibilitys – good, bad, ugly.

    Good: New feasts and variable prefaces aligned with the current contents of the 1962 missal. – I’m not holding a lot of hope for this one.

    Ugly: Explicit introduction of Novus Ordo innovations in the Mass. Because they’re explicit, easily recognizable for what they are and just plain ugly.

    Bad: Only a small change in the core of the Mass, but not something that you’d notice right away. Here I am concerned about a ‘thin edge of the wedge’ tactic being used by prelates that have no love for orthodoxy or the liturgy.

    So in this case – muddy is actually the worst thing that can happen as it isn’t necessarily clear that the ‘change’ is a bad thing.

Leave a Reply