Head of CDF on record: Four SSPX bishops should resign and close their seminary
#31

God help us all to become nearer to his heart.
Reply
#32
(07-03-2012, 02:43 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 02:33 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 02:31 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:20 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:19 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:12 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:05 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: To be fair to +Müeller this interview dates from the beginning ot 2009. Three and a half years is enough time for one to change their view on the SSPX bishops. Just saying.

I eagerly await public statements on his newfound love for the SSPX then.

I'm not asserting that he's done a 180, but it is possible that he does not hold such harsh views of the four bishops.

Since three years ago?  C'mon.  Stop being ridiculous.

He isn't some naive little boy.  He's a 60-something year old bishop. 

These are grown men and adults.  Stop coddling them for the things they do.

I don't know ... has anything happened in the last three years that might lead a Catholic to think differently about the SSPX?

Can't think of anything?
Define Catholic?
Or at least your description of "Catholic" in the above context..

Any Catholic. SSPX, liberal, neo-cath, Eastern, non-SSPX trad, sede.  They all have reason to re-consider their views of the SSPX given talks with Rome. 

I fit into one of your categories, but I still won't reconsider my view of the SSPX until they reconsider their relation with modernist Rome! It is absolutely absurd and contradictory.
Reply
#33
(07-03-2012, 09:07 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: ggreg, I have never been an optimist, at least when it comes to human actions. I merely pointed out that this interview happened 3 1/2 years ago, and that it was possible +Müeller's views have changed. Not that it was likely, only that it was possible. Regardless, I was more concerned that a date was not given with the interview. Some lurkers might think that Bp. Müeller gave this interview recently, which is what I was primarily worried about.

It is possible that B16 woke this morning in Rome having had a visit from an Angel overnight. By noon he will announce the long awaited consecration will be done. Possible, yes. But vanishingly unlikely.

I will operate on the assumption that this Bishop and the Pope are still modernists and that the Falkland Islands will be British for the rest of this year.

You may wish to increase your post count telling us all the other possibilities.
Reply
#34
(07-03-2012, 02:31 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:20 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:19 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:12 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:05 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: To be fair to +Müeller this interview dates from the beginning ot 2009. Three and a half years is enough time for one to change their view on the SSPX bishops. Just saying.

I eagerly await public statements on his newfound love for the SSPX then.

I'm not asserting that he's done a 180, but it is possible that he does not hold such harsh views of the four bishops.

Since three years ago?  C'mon.  Stop being ridiculous.

He isn't some naive little boy.  He's a 60-something year old bishop. 

These are grown men and adults.  Stop coddling them for the things they do.

I don't know ... has anything happened in the last three years that might lead a Catholic to think differently about the SSPX?

Can't think of anything?

If you're referring to the lifting of the excommunications, that happened BEFORE +Mueller shot his mouth off on the SSPX and seminary and ordinations.

if you mean the doctrinal discussions, then those were on-going with the SSPX and the Vatican.

So, no, not much has substantially changed.
Reply
#35
(07-04-2012, 12:46 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 02:31 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:20 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:19 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:12 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:05 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: To be fair to +Müeller this interview dates from the beginning ot 2009. Three and a half years is enough time for one to change their view on the SSPX bishops. Just saying.

I eagerly await public statements on his newfound love for the SSPX then.

I'm not asserting that he's done a 180, but it is possible that he does not hold such harsh views of the four bishops.

Since three years ago?  C'mon.  Stop being ridiculous.

He isn't some naive little boy.  He's a 60-something year old bishop. 

These are grown men and adults.  Stop coddling them for the things they do.

I don't know ... has anything happened in the last three years that might lead a Catholic to think differently about the SSPX?

Can't think of anything?

If you're referring to the lifting of the excommunications, that happened BEFORE +Mueller shot his mouth off on the SSPX and seminary and ordinations.

if you mean the doctrinal discussions, then those were on-going with the SSPX and the Vatican.

So, no, not much has substantially changed.
THIS
Reply
#36
(07-03-2012, 04:04 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: I think it is a bit unfair to use the picture of Bishop Müller in a shell suit as a portrait. Whatever you think of him, he is decidedly not a bishop who dresses as a civilian. He decided to participate in an art project that photographed people once in their "uniform" and once in civilian clothes. In the accompanying interview he explicitly said that he thinks it is important to wear clerical garb and that he only wears the shell suit in the evening when he does not expect any visitors. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO, and it's unfair to use the one picture without the one that normally goes with it.
Here are several photos from the art project.


Thanks for giving us this information.  It is most unfair to use one photo without the other.

It's even more unfair not to include this:

"In the accompanying interview he explicitly said that he thinks it is important to wear clerical garb and that he only wears the shell suit in the evening when he does not expect any visitors."

I agree that priests shouldn't have to wear their clericals at home, though I think I'd wear a cassock, seems they'd be comfortable yet still clerical, in case of unexpected visitors.


I've never studied German but the title seems to say something like "Do the clothes make the man?"  Is that correct?




Reply
#37
Which job belongs to which man?
Reply
#38
(07-03-2012, 01:33 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 01:24 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Of course.  I don't know many 60+ trads.  But mine wasn't a rhetorical question at all.  Maybe it's considered common knowledge that this is not news.  I'm still new to this, though.   

Gotcha.  

Are you familiar with the 2008-2009 "scandal?"  Basically, Bishop Williamson was a dumb dumb, gave his opinion on the Holocaust to a TV reporter.  +Williamson said "don't broadcast this, it'll get me in trouble."  Reporter broadcast it.  (This was what, late 2008 when the interview was recorded?  And then broadcast in 2009?)

Then in 2009 the Pope lifted the excommunications of the 4 bishops of the SSPX.  

And in 2009, +Mueller shot his mouth off in this interview with Die Zeit, because the Jews got their panties in a wad because +Williamson gave an opinion they didn't like.  Which of course makes him basically Hitler reincarnate.  Which means the media in Germany also got their panties in a wad, because the Germans have been beaten morally ever since World War II (which is a pity, although the younger generations don't give a damn, in my experience.  And by younger I mean 40s and below).  

The other interesting part about this 2009 ordinations business (Regensburg is the diocese where the SSPX seminary is, and where the ordinations for that year would have taken place) is that the Vatican seemingly had no issue with the ordinations, but +Mueller was creating a big show about things because of his opposition to the SSPX (saying that the four bishops should resign and disappear and they should shutter the seminary is pretty big, if you ask me), and then the Vatican was "OK" with SSPX transferring the ordinations to Menzingen.  


What do you mean that the Vatican had no issues with the ordinations?  According to the Vatican any SSPX clerics shouldn't be administering sacraments...of course it's an issue with the Vatican...
Reply
#39
(07-04-2012, 05:17 PM)lumine Wrote: What do you mean that the Vatican had no issues with the ordinations?  According to the Vatican any SSPX clerics shouldn't be administering sacraments...of course it's an issue with the Vatican...

This is what I was referring to when I said the Vatican had no issues with the ordinations.

http://rorate-coeli.blogspot.com/2009/03...nique.html
Quote:Statement
Communiqué of the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X



At the request of the Holy See, we decided to move the ordinations of subdeacon who were scheduled Zaitzkofen, Germany, this Saturday, March 28. They will be the seminary of Ecône, Switzerland, on the same date.

This decision is intended as a conciliatory gesture after the lifting of unjust convictions hanging over the bishops of the Society and the violent reactions that followed. In fact, we regret that some bishops have the opportunity to lead in an open revolt against the Pope. We are particularly disgusted by the attitude of the German episcopate that has not stopped us from manifesting its hostility stripped of charity and for his continual trial, treating us "hatefully, without misgiving or restraint," as the rightly found the Holy Father in his letter of March 10.

We know our situation, under the law of the Church, is imperfect. This is not new and is intimately linked to the crisis in the Church and the state resulting need. Therefore, it is useless to invoke the right to try to stifle the life of our priestly society. Other ordinations will take place as planned and he never has been matter of deleting them. Indeed, the gracious act of the Holy See can not be interpreted as an attempt to suffocate the Society of St. Pius X.

We stick to the timetable specified by the decree of January 21 which provides for "maintenance required" about the Second Vatican Council and its novelties. We reiterate the Holy Father assured of our prayer that these doctrinal discussions spring up full light of the whole truth.

                                                                                                      Menzingen, March 24, 2009

         + Bernard Fellay
Reply
#40
(07-03-2012, 10:38 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(07-03-2012, 09:18 AM)PatrickG Wrote: Oh, dear. This really can't get any worse can it?

What!?  This is the best thing ever.We know now that Rome is still the whore of Babylon and no deal would be beneficial or real.Great developments here.

:popcorn:

Exactly Rome and Benedict are showing their true Apostate colors. Hopefully the SSPX will stick to Catholicism and stay away from the pedophile Conciliar Heresy.

"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ" Our lady of La Sallette.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)