Cardinal Müller: Catholics Have No Obligation to Celebrate Protestant Revolt

Cardinal Müller: Catholics Have No Obligation to Celebrate Protestant Revolt

[Tell that to FrankenPope, Cardinal Koch and the USCCCP]

Posted by Tancred at eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/03/cardinal-muller-catholics-have-no.html
3/29/16

Edit: thanks to Infocatolica and Chiesa, we located this excellent piece by Cardinal Müller who is reading Catholicism through Francis. Of course, Cardinal Müller would probably never use such polemical language as “Protestant Revolt”, but this is a start. In addition to taking on those who would use a statement by Francis out of context to justify a massive relativization of Catholic moral teaching, he has this to say about the Protestantization of the Church:

PROTESTANTIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Strictly speaking, we Catholics have no reason to celebrate October 31, 1517, the date that is considered the beginning of the Reformation that would lead to the rupture of Western Christianity.

If we are convinced that divine revelation is preserved whole and unchanged through Scripture and Tradition, in the doctrine of the faith, in the sacraments, in the hierarchical constitution of the Church by divine right, founded on the sacrament of holy orders, we cannot accept that there exist sufficient reasons to separate from the Church.

The members of the Protestant ecclesial communities look at this event from a different perspective, because they think that it is the opportune moment to celebrate the rediscovery of the “pure Word of God,” which they presume to have been disfigured throughout history by merely human traditions. The Protestant reformers arrived at the conclusion, five hundred years ago, that some Church hierarchs were not only morally corrupt, but had also distorted the Gospel and, as a result, had blocked the path of salvation for believers toward Jesus Christ. To justify the separation they accused the pope, the presumed head of this system, of being the Antichrist.

How can the ecumenical dialogue with the evangelical communities be carried forward today in a realistic way? The theologian Karl-Heinz Menke is speaking the truth when he asserts that the relativization of the truth and the acritical adoption of modern ideologies are the principal obstacle toward union in the truth.

In this sense, a Protestantization of the Catholic Church on the basis of a secular vision without reference to transcendence not only cannot reconcile us with the Protestants, but also cannot allow an encounter with the mystery of Christ, because in Him we are repositories of a supernatural revelation to which all of us owe total obedience of intellect and will (cf. “Dei Verbum,” 5).

I think that the Catholic principles of ecumenism, as they were proposed and developed by the decree of Vatican Council II, are still entirely valid (cf. “Unitatis Redintegratio,” 2-4). On the other hand, I am convinced that the document of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith “Dominus Iesus,” of the holy year of 2000, not understood by many and unjustly rejected by others, is without a doubt the magna carta against the Christological and ecclesiological relativism of this time of such confusion.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/03/29/cardinal-muller-catholics-have-no-obligation-to-celebrate-protestant-revolt/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

9 comments on “Cardinal Müller: Catholics Have No Obligation to Celebrate Protestant Revolt

  1. No obligation??????……………….No kidding Sherlock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. When I was in 8th grade, we learned of what was known as “fog count” in the writings and speeches of the psuedo-intellectuals -basically meaning they talked and spoke so far above the level of the common man that their message was completely hidden. As for His Eminence, perhaps he should say: the Reformation was a rupture, pure and simple, and best be forgotten not celebrated.

    • A little shout-out to Mueller and the Strolling Bones
      ______________________________________________________

      I ain’t got no obligation

      I ain’t got no obligation

      ‘Though Frank tries and he tries and tries

      I ain’t got no, I ain’t got no

      When I’m kneelin’ in my pew

      And some lib steps to the podium

      And he’s tellin’ me more and more

      About ecumania’s titillations

      Supposed to fire my imagination
      I ain’t got no, oh no no no

      Hey hey hey, that’s what I say

      I ain’t got no obligation

      I ain’t got no obligation

  3. On the other hand, I am convinced that the document of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith “Dominus Iesus,” of the holy year of 2000, not understood by many and unjustly rejected by others, is without a doubt the magna carta against the Christological and ecclesiological relativism of this time of such confusion.

    www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_March/Note_on_Dominus_Jesus.htm

    si si no no: Note on Dominus Jesus

    Many Catholics rejoiced at the publication of Dominus Jesus (2001) which reaffirmed the “subsistit in” of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church and the principle according to which the Catholic Church is the only one to possess the “fullness” of the means of salvation. Nevertheless, in order to conform to the perennial deposit of faith, the Declaration would have had to state that the Church of Christ subsists solely in the Catholic Church, rather than say-in complete agreement with LG and UR—that “the Church of Christ, despite the divisions that exist among Christians, continues to exist fully [emphasis added] only in the Catholic Church,” and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth…,” that is, “in those Churches and ecclesial communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church” (DJ § 16).

    It is the adverb “fully” which does not fit since it means that the Church of Christ has existed and continues to exist even if not fully in some “elements” which, although they are found outside the Catholic Church, nevertheless confer salvation. And it is exactly this idea that contradicts the 2000-year-old dogma of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

    … Vatican II’s error has remained in the DJ. It continues to teach that the heretical and schismatic communities would be part of the “Church of Christ,” although enjoying supposed means of salvation presenting “deficiencies,” and thus less full, and for this reason finding themselves in a position of inferiority in relation to the Catholic Church. But this inferiority would be without influence on what concerns obtaining salvation, and so totally theoretical. All this is absurd and incoherent, and represents the negation of the truth of divine and Catholic Faith according to which only the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, immutable and faithful through the centuries, outside of which there is no salvation. -Cononicus

  4. Better yet Muller could’ve just read this excerpt from the letter of the Holy Office to the English Episcopate dated Sept. 16, 1864:
    “Surely, Catholics desire nothing so much as the disappearance from among Christians of all schisms and dissensions, and that all should be eager to keep unity of the spirit in the bond of peace . That is why the Catholic Church prays and invites the faithful to pray to Almighty God that all those who have left the holy Roman Church may be converted to the true faith, may abjure their errors, and return in grace to her fold, outside of which there is no salvation. Moreover, she prays and orders prayers that all men may come, with the help of God’s grace, to the knowledge of truth. But that Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated by heresy, this is absolutely impossible to tolerate.”

  5. No obligation? I’m skeptical. Seems to me if you don’t celebrate this nauseating reformation, you might be guilty of disobeying the Second Vatican Council and the commendable interfaith examples of our most recent three popes.

  6. Müller nowhere says “no obligation.” (One commenter at the site picked up on this and proceeded to get a bit rough with Tancred.) He said, “Strictly speaking, we Catholics have no reason to celebrate October 31, 1517 …” Note the “strictly speaking.” As we all know, there are more ways of speaking in Rome than Janus has faces, and here the Cardinal doesn’t disappoint. Where he ends up is V-II, of course, and we all know how he scourged the SSPX with that. He mentions the “supernatural revelation to which all of us owe total obedience of intellect and will.” So, there is something of obligation here.

    What I think the Cardinal is saying, based on his plugging V-II and Dominus Iesus, is that the “subsistence” doctrine is binding on all of us plebes unfortunate enough to be his subjects, while other imperfect communions (to coin a phrase) obtain their subsistence allowance of saving grace without any such obedience. Furthermore, if you don’t go along with this, then you’re not in full communion, and worse, you might actually lose your soul, unlike those Prot types whom he can’t harangue.

Leave a Reply