CDF Müller: Catholics ought to avoid extremes
#11
Don't go by what he says.  Go by what he does.
Reply
#12
(12-19-2012, 03:51 PM)jacobhalo Wrote: Don't go by what he says.  Go by what he does.
What he says is what he does.
Reply
#13
(12-19-2012, 12:44 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: ‘Catholics ought to avoid extremes’
Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, speaks exclusively to Mary O’Regan
By Mary O'Regan on Wednesday, 19 December 2012

[Image: muller_this1-440x295.jpg]

The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

HAHA is this clown serious!? :LOL: :LOL:

:jester:
Reply
#14
It is not accepting of the Catholic Faith for its [SSPX] priests to tell the faithful to break the First Precept of the Church,

and

It is not accepting of the Catholic Faith for their priests to blatantly disreguard an Ordinaries jurisdictional authority and set up shop in his diocese.
Reply
#15
(12-19-2012, 05:18 PM)Old Salt Wrote: It is not accepting of the Catholic Faith for its [SSPX] priests to tell the faithful to break the First Precept of the Church,

and

It is not accepting of the Catholic Faith for their priests to blatantly disreguard an Ordinaries jurisdictional authority and set up shop in his diocese.

The SSPX just need to sign on to the Ballamand Agreement.  :eyeroll:
Reply
#16
(12-19-2012, 04:48 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: HAHA is this clown serious!? :LOL: :LOL:

:jester:

Watch what you say against a man of the Holy Roman Church.  Since when was it traditional for Catholics to ridicule Churchmen as "clowns"?  All because he does not bow down to the insane drivel and nonsense of the Society?

How dare you elevate the Society and its teachings to such a position of grandiose importance in your own head that it would turn you to the ridicule of a Catholic prelate!
Reply
#17
(12-19-2012, 02:35 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: who gives a damn what this questionable prelate thinks?

Since when was it down to a layman to judge whether a prelate—the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith no less!—was "questionable" or not?  Sorry CC but with all due respect... keep your mouth shut and know your place.  Casting aspersions on a bishop of the Church is not what you should be doing.

Quote:the verbal diarrhea he has when a mic gets in front of him is astounding.

Nothing to the diabolical bile spewed out on this forum by yourself and others.
Reply
#18
The ugly head of extreme traditionalists rears itself again. The irony is delicious considering the content of the article. I guess it pierced a little too close to the heart. Where is the substantive discussion from this group on this very interesting article? I mean, it basically spells out the main bones of contention with the SSPX and what he means when he says they are in error. I think it is incredibly interesting that, in my opinion, a sleeping giant has arisen. Up to recent times, the SSPX has gotten away with what has mostly been a one-sided debate. The SSPX commanded the traditionalist movement. The Vatican was silent in many respects about the key points of the SSPX's objections. But with Benedict and the doctrinal discussions, a real head has been met, and I think there is a clearing up of any ambiguous interpretations the Vatican had of the SSPX's line. Meanwhile, the teaching of reform in continuity is gaining steam (see other thread) as some bright minds are exploring the Council for its anniversary. Trying to be objective, it seems like Benedict and his men have gained ground in this matter, and the SSPX stands by looking like they may be left in the dust, standing on the sidelines as Benedict restores vitality to areas which have not experienced it in the post-VII era. It's not meant as an SSPX bash. It just looks likes the SSPX movement is static and running on fumes, while Benedict's actions are stirring up men of good will little by little. Just one example given in the article is the Anglicans coming to the Church as a beacon of refuge in these dark times. Also Catholic News Roundup pointed out just a few days ago that the Latin Mass numbers have increased a lot in the US and UK, from this article: http://www.economist.com/news/internatio...vant-garde.
Reply
#19
(12-19-2012, 06:56 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 04:48 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: HAHA is this clown serious!? :LOL: :LOL:

:jester:

Watch what you say against a man of the Holy Roman Church.  Since when was it traditional for Catholics to ridicule Churchmen as "clowns"?  All because he does not bow down to the insane drivel and nonsense of the Society?

How dare you elevate the Society and its teachings to such a position of grandiose importance in your own head that it would turn you to the ridicule of a Catholic prelate!

Excuse me Smurf, he isn't a Catholic. He denies the Virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. That is heresy. A heretic can not be a Catholic. He is a clown, at best. And if you don't like that take it up with St Charles Borromeo one of those Mean Church guys.

Oh and another thing Smurfy I don't even go to the the SSPX. The society was wrong by playing footsie with the modernists. Catholicism can not reconcile with Rome as long as Rome remains in its modernist heresy.
Reply
#20
(12-19-2012, 07:23 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: The ugly head of extreme traditionalists rears itself again. The irony is delicious considering the content of the article. I guess it pierced a little too close to the heart.

No, what hits close to the heart is the fact that here is a supposed Bishop who denies the resurrection and Virgin Birth telling Catholics they need to except the fullness of the Catholic Faith. Give me a flipping break. Scriptorium and Smurf are you serious? He is the head of the CDF and he rejects basic tenets of the Faith not just Catholicism but of all Christianity. If you guys can't see what a crisis there is when a man who rejects basic Christian truths is promoted to be head of the CDF and he has the tenacity to tell those who are genuinely Catholic that they need to accept the fullness of truth what will convince you. Ultramontanists are so silly.  :rofl:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)