(Rome) In recent interview with the Herder Korrespondenz Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the CDF, described the closest adviser of Pope Francis as "heretical".
In the June issue of Herder Korrespondenz (issue 6/2006) reaffirmed the Cardinal Prefect, that "no one" should relativize the doctrine of the papacy as a divine institution, for that would mean, wanting to "correct God." Some time ago, there was someone who was presented by "certain media" as one of the "closest advisers" of the Pope, the Cardinal said. This consultant has opined that there would be no problem in transferring the seat of the Pope to Medellin in Colombia or elsewhere, and the various Curia offices could be shared among the various local Churches. This, says Cardinal Müller, is fundamentally wrong and "even heretical". On this subject, it is sufficient to read the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" of Vatican II in order to identify the ecclesiological nonsense of such mind games. "The seat of the pope is Peter's in Rome."
The cardinal added that it is the express commission of St. Peter, to lead the whole Church as her supreme pastor. This commission was transferred to the Church of Rome and its bishop by Peter. This is not just an organizational question. The general aim was to preserve God-given unity. This also applied to the task of the high clergy of the Roman church, the cardinals who assist the Pope in the exercise of his primacy.
Victor Manuel Fernández: Chief consultant and ghostwriter of the Pope
With the Prefect in his allusion "aimed his sights," said the Vatican expert Sandro Magister, it is not hard to see: it is the Titular Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández , the Rector of the Catholic University of Argentina .
Fernández was already the preferred speech writer of the then Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires. Fernández was then, and still is, the confidence theologian and the ghostwriter of the Archbishop, and now, the papal documents of Evangelii gaudium to Amoris laetitia . In the particularly controversial Apostolic Exhortation can be found verbatim, whole passages from [crap] essays Fernández published ten years ago.
Cardinal Müller did not call the Pope's advisers by name. But what he said is unambiguous. Likewise, the word, which the Faith Prefect leveled: "heretic".
The Cardinal had in view an interview of Fernández in Corriere della Sera of 10 May 2015 where the speechwriter of the Pope explained, "the Vatican curia is not an essential structure. The pope could live outside of Rome, have a dicastery in Rome and another in Bogotá, and to connect, for example, by videoconference with liturgy experts in Germany. That which is around the Pope, in the theological sense, is the college of bishops to serve the people. [...] Even the Cardinals could disappear in the sense that they are not essential."
Fernández's attack against Cardinal Müller
Fernández attacked the Faith Prefect even directly because of this in a March 29, 2015 in La Croix , the daily newspaper of the French Bishops' Conference where he had said in the published interview, the pontificate of Pope Francis was essentially a "pastoral" pontificate, making it the object of the CDF was to "restructure theologically" this pontificate.
"Papa's favorite grumbles," Jürgen Erbacher wrote for ZDF Fernández's reply:
"I have read that some say that the Roman Curia is an essential part of the mission of the Church, or that a Prefect of the Vatican is the safe compass which preserves the Church from falling into a Light-thinking; or that this prefect ensures the unity of the faith and the Pope guarantees a serious theology. But for Catholics who read the gospel, knowing that Christ has assured the pope and all of the bishops as a guide and a special enlightenment, but not a prefect or other structure. When you hear say such things, it seems almost as if the Pope is one of their representatives, or one who has come to interfere, and must be controlled."
More than a year has passed since the Argentine aimed his arrows against the Prefect. Arrows that do not need for the Pope to have approved them but which have not bothered him since Fernández is still the chief advisor at Francis' side.
Fernández in his sights, but did he mean the Pope?
The conflict between Pope and CDF is heating up more and more, and with each new document with ambiguous formulations which Pope Francis publishes with the active help of his Argentine prompter, Cardinal Müller seems to be more irritated.
With his criticism in Herder Korrespondenz the cardinal prefect strikes close to the Pope according to the Interpretation mess of Amoris laetitia. So close that he has accused the pope's closest staff member as a "heretic." It's a verdict that is meant for Fernández, but also radiates to the Pope, because of a "theologian of little brilliance" (Sandro Magister) in Argentina would hardly draw the attention of a Prefect of the Congregation.
The German cardinal is a clever man. He knows that his frontal attack against the right hand of the Pope, will bring his reputation with Francis to the point of freezing. A "risk", Cardinal Müller obviously approvingly obviously takes into account. He knows that Francis has in fact sidelined, the CDF and cares precious little about the work of this curial authority and its documents. Just as he had been in June 2013 when recommended to the Bureau of progressive confederation of Latin American and Caribbean religious.
Redefining the understanding of the office of the Prefect of Faith?
Cardinal Müller seems to work on a new definition of his role as head of the CDF. As mere collaborator of the Pope, he can hardly make a difference. The pope made him to know only a few days ago , when he hinted that the authentic interpretation of Amoris laetitia was not about Müller's grueling effort, to somehow bring the controversial papal Fernandezian theses in harmony with the ecclesial tradition, but the interpretation of Vienna's [evil] Archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.
Cardinal Müller will have to understand his role in serving the Vicar of Christ on earth as Prefect, regardless of the current incumbent's understanding and exercise of that office. He may not really "theological structure" this pontificate, but he may strengthen the faith of 1.3 billion Catholics. And eventually this pontificate will also end.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL / Herder correspondence (Screenshot)
Image: MiL / Herder correspondence (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred email@example.com
The Kardinal's remarks strike me as "too little, too late." Maybe he is covering up for a miscalculation of a couple of years earlier.
And it chafes me to say, in spite of his kissing-obsessed self, the Abp raises an important question: What happens when the Moslems take over Rome and turn St. Peter's into a mosque? Even Paul and John Paul had contingency plans in the event of de facto Russki takeover of Italy.
It is said how can the good apologists Mons. Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr. John Hardon be wrong ? How can the popes, cardinals and bishops be wrong and only you be correct?
I have said hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions in the present times to all needing to be formal members of the Church, with faith and baptism. Since hypothetical cases cannot be objectively seen, they are not known personally in the present times. I cannot meet someone saved or about to be saved with the baptism of desire.On this point Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam agrees with me. He has not corrected me.Similarly Christopher Ferrara also agrees that theoretical, abstract cases cannot be 'practical exceptions' to all needing to enter the Church to avoid Hell in 2016.Michael Matt knows that hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.So all the traditionalists today,I assume agree with me on this common sense point. It is common knowledge that a possibility known to God cannot be a defacto case,personally known for us in 2016 i.e if someone is saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, he cannot be a defacto-presence for us human beings.
Now we have three public statements by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay.They indicate that hypothetical cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This was the same mistake made by the apologists Mons. Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr.John Hardon.
Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam knows this.He has not denied it. Yet in public he will not write about it.Instead he acts as if comments on this subject are spam.
There is no comment from the CDF/Ecclesia Dei office nor from that of the SSPX Superior Generals, over the last few years.
Archbishop Victor Fernandes and the other advisors of the pope make the same error as the traditionalist, Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the Neo Catechumenal Way. It is the same with the Franciscans at Medugorje.
The Art of Kissing cardinal is behind Francis's exhortation meant to open the doors to faggotry. I am shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
Btw, Francis is heretical, too.
Here is heresy.
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
CARDINAL MULLER, ARCHBISHOP DI NOIA AND BISHOP FELLAY USED AN IRRATIONAL PREMISE AND CONCLUSION TO REJECT THE DOGMA EENS AND TO RE-INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AS BREAK WITH THE DOGMA.THEY DID THIS BY ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE OBJECTIVELY KNOWN.THIS IS FALSE.HOW CAN HYPOTHETICAL CASES BE EXPLICIT? YET SEE THEIR STATEMENTS ABOVE.
Card. Mueller has got his oneway ticket to Germany in his own hands and the plumber, so good in the art of kissing, is on the right side, close to the tyrant, intelligenti pauca.
Speaking of heresy:
the heretic speaking on heresy...that's good.
And how very kind, fatherly, and Christian of him to take a pointed shot across the bow at C. Sarah, the one seemingly decent Cardinal left standing. 'pope' says, 'anyone who actually believes completely and dogmatically the Catholic Faith and the words of Christ is a heretic'...'anyone who says "this or nothing" (as in Sarah's book title "God or Nothing" is a heretic'.
Yeah...he's a real peach.
Bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal: where have we heard that before?
In the Akita prophecy.
The Cardinal Ratzinger said that Akita and the 3rd Secret of Fatima are "essentially the same".
Then no wonder about the true content of the 3rd Secret: It is ongoing under our eyes. The nightmare has already begun: The apostasy AT THE TOP of the Church.
Due to obedience Catholic religious, priests and nuns, cardinals and bishops, do not say that the magisterium made a mistake and there are no hypothetical cases, known in real life, in person, concrete, defacto.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay made a mistake to assume that a theoretical possibility,was an actual exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam will not say if there was a mistake made by Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay.He refuses to touch the subject perhaps due to obedience.I wouldn't know.
Image result for Photo of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
Even priests like Fr.John Zuhlsdorf will not comment, on hypothetical cases being exceptions to EENS ? Did the magisterium and the SSPX make a mistake?
I know some priests who have answered this question and whom I have quoted on this blog,were cautioned by either the Vicariate in Rome or the Vatican.Two of them 'suddenly' left Rome one for India the other for Brazil.The one from India was working for Cardinal Tauran's office for inter religious dialogue.
There is a grand deception on Catholic doctrine. Even blogs,including Rorate Caeli, are not touching the subject.
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay have made a doctrinal mistake in public but Edward Pentin who has been cautioned before, will not bring up the subject of EENS again.Nor will he be allowed to discuss if Vatican Council II was really Feeneyite all this time.
La Domenica, the Society of St. Paul, Sunday Mass leaflet in Italian, has its prayer intentions censored.It cannot say, 'Let us pray for non Catholics, who according to Vatican Council II are on the way to Hell ,if they do not enter the Catholic Church'. The Vatican will not give them permission.Similarly it cannot be said that there is a mistake in the magisterium and SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Lay people do not have a vow of obedience to follow.Yet LifeSite, Church Militant TV and the Remnant will not discussed this issue.They expect the bishops to discuss it but they will not do so.LifeSites and CMTV would want to be accepted by the Diocesan bishop and the Vatican.The Remnant,Louie Verrecchio, John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara would not want to offend the SSPX.
Recently Louie Verrecchio was critical of Michael Voris for not commenting on the Vatican Document on inter religious dialogue with the Jews but he did not mention that the SSPX also did not comment on this controversial document.
Cardinals want to be prudent too like lay persons.I spoke with Cardinal Arinze during the controversy of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.I quoted him.The next time I saw him at the Vatican I got an angry stare.
The other day I come across an old video of Cardinal Arinze being interviewed by John Henry Weston.LifeSites would dare not ask Cardinal Arinze if Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay made a mistake.As if it is not already obvious LifeSites will not comment on this issue. There are some subjects which are censored.Patrick Archbold knows it.-Lionel Andrades
Oh shut up.
It's easy to say Card.Muller is in heresy but what about Bishop Fellay?
Sorry I do not toe the SSPX line here.It's not what you would like to read.
Why cannot I accept EENS without the irrationality used by Cardinal Muller, Archishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay? : to indicate invisible cases are visible is a lie
Susan would you be able to say that Bishop Fellay too is in heresy?
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on hypothetical cases being explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
To have a theology based on nonsense ( hypothetical cases being visible in 2016) and then applying it to salvation theology, the Social Reign of Christ the King, Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed,Tradition...is a little bit too much ?
The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. Just when they think they have won and things become so bad that it will appear that they have won Our Lady will triumph and their humiliation will be complete. Yours in Christ.
Is Bishop Fellay in heresy? In the comments section of this blog commenters are ready to say that Cardinal Muller or Archbishop Fernandes are in heresy - but, what about Bishop Fellay? It is unthinkable or un-sayable for them.
Christopher Ferrara has commented on an article in the Remnant Newspaper by Kelly Michaels titled On Using the "H" Word ( it all depends on what this 'this' is).
Kelly Michaels lists some of the things Pope Francis has said which would qualify for the H (heresy) category.But what about Bishop Fellay?
The link from my blog has probably been removed by the Remnant editor since doctrinal criticism of Bishop Fellay would not be tolerated.But Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with exceptions.The Catechism also mentions exceptions(846,1257). The exceptions are there based on hypothetical cases being objective in 2016.This is heretical.Yet this is their reasoning when they say there are exceptions in salvation theology, relative to EENS.Mentioning this in the Catechism was a mistake.It was a mistake made by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.They assumed there were exceptions, in other words, explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc.
If Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt were directly asked : 'Are hypothetical cases objective in 2016, are there objective cases of the baptism of desire for example?'.They would answer 'NO'.
Yet like Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, they assume there are exceptions to EENS and Vatican Council II.They infer hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.To be an exception something has to be visible or known in the present times.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.
This is the mistake they all make.Since, they have all, like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It made an objective error. It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Letter is magisterial, but irrational and heretical.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia (Adjunct) Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) have clearly interpreted Vatican Council II with exceptions.This is an innovation.The result has to be heretical.
It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium which also accepted the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) - but as referring to implicit cases, and not explicit, known people.
Instead today BOD, BOB and being saved in I.I are considered objective cases, so they become exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This is the difference between pre-Council of Trent and post Council of Trent times.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit. They refer to invisible cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
So the contemporary magisterium is in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS with explicit exceptions and rejecting Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions as compared to my interpretation without any explicit exception..
So the doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012.It affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.
No one to defend Bishop Bernard Fellay : Heresy
No one is able to defend Bishop Fellay among the traditionalist bloggers since he made a doctrinal error based on an objective mistake. He mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known in the present times. Then he concluded that these invisible cases were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He actually assumed references to invisible cases,in Vatican Council II, were explicit. He mixed up what is subjective as being objective.
Bishop Bernard Fellay's conclusion was heretical.
The mistake is there also on the SSPX website when it is assumed that the baptism of desire refers to an objective case.1.The SSPX may say that the fault was there with the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is magisterial. True.But Bishop Fellay is using this irrational reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. If he does not assume hypothetical cases are explicit, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
The SSPX website says 'The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma,"Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."' 2 Yes without the baptism of water there is no salvation is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no one in the past or present could know of someone saved without the baptism of water.For Bishop Fellay there are known exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. So he is critical of the Council.
Here is the SSPX website with the error.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."2
I repeat it:
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water."
O.K. Hypothetically. Speculatively.But this is not a concrete case. It is not a personally known case.The SSPX website mentions it since for Fr.Laisney it is an objective case.He has made the same error as Bishop Fellay.
Lionel, seriously, what the hell's wrong with you?
Boniface already took you to the woodshed and kicked you out, now you're spewing double time here. How much time do you have on your hands?...lots of volunteer work to be done my friend.
Post a Comment