Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
#11
(10-05-2012, 12:35 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Over in the "No More SSPX Talks" thread, there has been pro-Mueller outrage-fest because Mithrandylan dared to state, clearly, that Abp. Mueller is a modernist. 

Well, where the hell is the outrage on what Abp. Mueller has said about Bishop Williamson?  This has a LOT more effect and consequences than anything a FishEaters poster will ever say.

I object to Mith calling him scum, more than I object to "modernist".  A person might honestly believe ++Muller is a modernist, but the use of "scum" seems to indicate a wish to be offensive.

Still, I find ++Muller's comments regarding +Williamson far more troubling.  A man in the Archbishop's position has a lot more responsibility to speak prudently than Mith does.  In effect, the Archbishop declared people excommunicated who are explicitly not excommunicated.  At the very least, that will cause confusion.

It does not quite reach outrage, but I am significantly upset.
Reply
#12
One piece of further irony to me about the whole SSPX-Rome business, and these ridiculous comments by ++Mueller about +Williamson, is that it is not like any of these Vatican prelates throwing sand at the SSPX care if anyone else is Protestant. +Fellay recently gave a conference on the negotiations, wherein he summed them up as "Rome says the SSPX is Protestant, the SSPX says the Roman authorities are Modernists." Since when do these Roman authorities give a rip about someone being Protestant? Aren't they in invisible semi-partial quasi-Communion, on a different path, and shouldn't we solely focus on the good of our "separated brethren?"

Observing the Rome-SSPX situation of late more and more makes me want to leave Ecclesia Dei communities behind for the SSPX.
Reply
#13
(10-05-2012, 01:00 PM)OldMan Wrote: Novus  Ordo = Holocaustianity

I'm not sure how much of it is a Novus Ordo thing and how much is German influence.  As a nation, they are characterized by unclear thinking on this subject.  It is all emotional reactions rather than logic.
Reply
#14
I see Mith's point, though I don't love the descriptor "scum."  There is a huge double standard involved here.  Any bishop can apparently openly dispute the church's teachings on any number of issues and not be censured for it.  Bishop Williamson opens his mouth on a political issue and paints a bulls eye on his rear end. Now I do think Williamson's comments were ill thought out and a bad, bad idea.  But, it seems as though the church needs to get its house in order and address issues that matter far more - like renegade bishops endorsing gay marriage and calling the church narrow minded.  Instead of a big stick being used to beat the SSPX (which is at least orthodox) and its bishops, +Muller needs to use that stick on the bishops who are opening teaching views contrary to the teachings of the church from a position of authority.  Kick the buggers out I say.
Reply
#15
(10-05-2012, 01:15 PM)MRose Wrote: One piece of further irony to me about the whole SSPX-Rome business, and these ridiculous comments by ++Mueller about +Williamson, is that it is not like any of these Vatican prelates throwing sand at the SSPX care if anyone else is Protestant. +Fellay recently gave a conference on the negotiations, wherein he summed them up as "Rome says the SSPX is Protestant, the SSPX says the Roman authorities are Modernists." Since when do these Roman authorities give a rip about someone being Protestant? Aren't they in invisible semi-partial quasi-Communion, on a different path, and shouldn't we solely focus on the good of our "separated brethren?"

Observing the Rome-SSPX situation of late more and more makes me want to leave Ecclesia Dei communities behind for the SSPX.

Yes, very strange.

It seems that some people in the Church thinks that rules only apply to the ones that care about them... that would explain the focus on FSSPX. Another, could be, they don't want to lose prestige if a Council suddenly is being questioned openly from official stances... another thing, would be, some really see the CV II as superdogma.
Reply
#16
(10-05-2012, 01:15 PM)MRose Wrote: One piece of further irony to me about the whole SSPX-Rome business, and these ridiculous comments by ++Mueller about +Williamson, is that it is not like any of these Vatican prelates throwing sand at the SSPX care if anyone else is Protestant. +Fellay recently gave a conference on the negotiations, wherein he summed them up as "Rome says the SSPX is Protestant, the SSPX says the Roman authorities are Modernists." Since when do these Roman authorities give a rip about someone being Protestant? Aren't they in invisible semi-partial quasi-Communion, on a different path, and shouldn't we solely focus on the good of our "separated brethren?"

It is weird, isn't it?

I mean, then Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Inquisition and Dean of the College of Cardinals, had no problem giving Frère Roger of Taizé communion at John Paul II's funeral.

When was the last time a diocesan bishop or Vatican bureaucrat used the forceful language of Exsurge Domine, for example?
Reply
#17
Well, he is not saying Williamson isn't Catholic; he is denying that legitimately functions as a Catholic Bishop, which is true, as he lacks jurisdiction and faculties.
Reply
#18
(10-05-2012, 02:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Well, he is not saying Williamson isn't Catholic; he is denying that legitimately functions as a Catholic Bishop, which is true, as he lacks jurisdiction and faculties.
I noticed that.
Archbishop Muller does not say Bishop Williamson "is not Catholic".
He seemingly does not believe in the validity of his episcopal consecration.
Reply
#19
(10-05-2012, 04:00 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Well, he is not saying Williamson isn't Catholic; he is denying that legitimately functions as a Catholic Bishop, which is true, as he lacks jurisdiction and faculties.
I noticed that.
Archbishop Muller does not say Bishop Williamson "is not Catholic".
He seemingly does not believe in the validity of his episcopal consecration.
i think you two need to read it again.  Huh?
Reply
#20
(10-05-2012, 04:57 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 04:00 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Well, he is not saying Williamson isn't Catholic; he is denying that legitimately functions as a Catholic Bishop, which is true, as he lacks jurisdiction and faculties.
I noticed that.
Archbishop Muller does not say Bishop Williamson "is not Catholic".
He seemingly does not believe in the validity of his episcopal consecration.
i think you two need to read it again.  Huh?
i read the interview.
The pertinant quote from the Archbishop is:

"....of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not —"

He says nothing about Bishop Williamson, himself, not being a Catholic, but rather says he is not a Catholic bishop and then goes on to  give his reasoning why he is not a Catholic Bishop.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)