Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
#41
(10-05-2012, 08:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(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?

Martin Luther was just called a "Great witness of the faith" by Benedict.  How much closer, even in Benedict's mind, is Lefebvre to being fully Catholic (whatever that exactly means to him)?

And yet...

And yet he's a secret trad.
Reply
#42
(10-05-2012, 09:50 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 06:24 AM)Tim Wrote: Ze German Bishops are a real problem.
Is it true they threatened to apostatize were Rome to grant  the SSPX canonical status?

Let these Modernist 'bishops' apostasise. Let what is de facto become de jure for all the world to see in the bright light of broad daylight  .  .  .  .
Reply
#43
(10-06-2012, 12:39 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 09:50 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 06:24 AM)Tim Wrote: Ze German Bishops are a real problem.
Is it true they threatened to apostatize were Rome to grant  the SSPX canonical status?

Let these Modernist 'bishops' apostasise. Let what is de facto become de jure for all the world to see in the bright light of broad daylight   .   .   .   .
This will happen and probably very soon
Reply
#44
(10-05-2012, 09:06 PM)Gerard Wrote: Williamson doesn't deserve to be spoken of poorly, Mueller does.  Mueller has earned the scorn he should get.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that doesn't make it law. 

My point was giving them both the basic respect owed to them due to their positions and status as Catholic Priests.  If you were speaking to Archbishop Meuller in real life would you disrespect him to his face? Would you call him by his last name or turn to a friend and call him scum while he was standing there?

Let me clue you in, as a Catholic gentleman you shouldn't.  So why should it be any different online?
Reply
#45
My motivation in posting this thread was to show the hypocrisy of talk about +Williamson and +Mueller and I ended up being proved right. 

There was far more outcry over Mith calling +Mueller Modernist scum than there was about the head of the CDF saying a Catholic bishop in fact was not a Catholic bishop - something which is in far more error and has a much wider range.

Heck, we even saw an apologist for WHY +Mueller talks shit about +Williamson when he has a microphone nearby (of course, that poster popping his head in this discussion with that was about as surprising as a liberal NO priest).

LOL
Reply
#46
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll
Reply
#47
(10-06-2012, 11:28 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: My motivation in posting this thread was to show the hypocrisy of talk about +Williamson and +Mueller and I ended up being proved right. 

There was far more outcry over Mith calling +Mueller Modernist scum than there was about the head of the CDF saying a Catholic bishop in fact was not a Catholic bishop - something which is in far more error and has a much wider range.

I do not see how you are reaching that conclusion about this thread.  There were more posters complaining about ++Muller than +Williamson.  I counted 3 posters who seemed to focus more on negatives about +Williamson.    I suggest you go through the thread and actually count posts for various positions or perhaps set up a poll. 
Reply
#48
(10-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll

It's all clear now.
Reply
#49
(10-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll

And yet, in Pope Benedict XVI's mind, they wouldn't necessarily have to accept Vatican I (which occurred long after the schism of 1054) in order to place themselves in full communion with Rome: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.  When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more" (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198f.).

What does "unity of faith" mean to Pope Benedict, if not all of us -- if the Eastern Orthodox returned to full communion -- are required to believe all of the Church's dogmas?

Can anyone tell me if he has since abandoned or retracted this opinion?
Reply
#50
(10-06-2012, 11:28 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: My motivation in posting this thread was to show the hypocrisy of talk about +Williamson and +Mueller and I ended up being proved right. 

There was far more outcry over Mith calling +Mueller Modernist scum than there was about the head of the CDF saying a Catholic bishop in fact was not a Catholic bishop - something which is in far more error and has a much wider range.

Heck, we even saw an apologist for WHY +Mueller talks sh** about +Williamson when he has a microphone nearby (of course, that poster popping his head in this discussion with that was about as surprising as a liberal NO priest).

LOL

You can draw that conclusion if you'd like.  I haven't seen many people defend the Archbishop and I'm certainly not.  Old Salt even proved why ++Mueller was wrong.  But after reading your post I don't really expect anyone to actually listen to sense. 

As laymen we have no control over what the Princes of the Church call each other.  In the chain of command they're 2 Generals talking, and we're at the Private or Lieutenant level.  But as Catholic gentlemen we do have control over our own words and actions, and we have a duty to conduct ourselves better than this.   That was my pont. 

I'm begining to think people just want to be angry.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)