CDF Müller: Catholics ought to avoid extremes
#41
The title of this thread should read: Catholics should avoid Mueller.
Reply
#42
Terrible interview.  No substance whatsoever.  The Archbishop is slick.  He makes assertions against the SSPX with no backing.  There are no complaints about "progressives" holding theological errors or the millions of "faithful" who are "united" who are the very ones in "full communion" and implementing the "abuses which are not founded in the documents"  Hah! Roger Mahony was a master at quoting the texts of both Vatican II documents and any other official documents in order to justify his "abuses."  But I think the Archbishop probably doesn't use the word 'abuses" in the same sense that we use it.  

Oh and I love the "we're perfect because we're not the extremes" nonsense.   The traditionalists say 2+2=4.  The progressives say 2+2 equals whatever they want but not exclusively 4.  So, we must be right by saying that 2+2 does equal 4 but not merely 4, it  implies a relationship with all the other numbers and even letters and when properly understood it's not merely just a rigid mathematical formula but an experience of life!  

Can you imagine what trying to figure out the tip at a restaurant would be with a guy who thought like this about math?   Well. that's what we've god with this hippy generation and our religion and their rebellious attitudes towards the binding character of truth.

If a heretic set out to undermine moral certitude about the faith, he would not have to do anything different than this archbishop, the current Pope and many others in the hierarchy that have evoked this crisis with their foolish and or malevolent ideas.  
Reply
#43
(12-19-2012, 09:23 PM)Dellery Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 09:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Please read more carefully. I said like some karmic wave. All that means is that our acts set in motion chains of events which play out throughout all time. It was not a support of any non-Catholic teaching on action and consequence. Call it butterfly effect or fill in another analogy if you want.

No, this is an instance where you mistakenly shewed your fangs. The context of your entire post history on this site has been a series of unorthodox opinions in the name of orthodoxy - the same kind of double speak St. Pius X warned us you filthy modernists consistently take advantage of. Taken together with the nature of your posts, it's quite unbelievable that you innocently used that analogy. You have also shown in the recent  past to be familiar with ,and a proponent of, pacifist, and new age ideas. Thankfully, as we have just seen, what is hidden in the dark will always come to light.

*Disclaimer - Please don't take my word for truth, I implore all to carefully look at Scriptorium's contradictory and convoluted post history for themselves.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=showPosts


My Friend, Script has been on these forums for a long time.  It is very interesting to me that you think him making a statement about Karma should have him incur the  that we should just dismiss everything he says, and that it revels his fangs, which seems to imply to me that you think he is a malicious person.

I disagree with Script on many things (especially recently) but do appreciate the fact that even when we do disagree he tries hard not to quarrel.  Often times when he admonishes someone it is because they have accused another person of evil (like heresy, apostasy, homosexuality etc) and he points out that they should not make those statements.  I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
Reply
#44
No to extremes except in the love of God.
:) :) :)
Reply
#45
(12-19-2012, 09:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: mrose,
good post.   

also, consider Mueller's preoccupation with sspx errors, and consider, relatively, how little of the faithful their "errors" affect. 

then wonder why he spends so much time fighting them.
This needs to be ruminated upon. A most prescient point. The SSPX has how many affiliated laity? Heck, how many concerned trad laity are there who pay close attention, even outside of those who attend SSPX Chapels? Now compare that number to the number of average pew-sitters in average Novus Ordo parishes around the globe. We are a drop in the bucket.

It is a tacit admission that there are serious issues at stake. The SSPX is the biggest perceived threat to the project of the Council, the Novus Ordo, and turning the Faith upside down.
Reply
#46
(12-19-2012, 09:40 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Well, I have a dedicated reader! My pacifistic questions have been with me my whole life. I didn't become a police officer because I didn't see myself being able to shoot someone. I was a Buddhist and taught others not to kill anything willingly. And since coming back to the Church, I have attempted to square the teachings of peace and non-resistance witht the teachings of just war and self-defense. I own a gun and am ready to use it if need be. I train in eastern internal martial arts.

What Qigong do you practice, if you don't mind me asking?
Reply
#47
Who are all these new posters? When did FE become Catholic answers? I haven't been too  active here these last couple of of months, but I can't believe there is this much defense of the  heretical Archbishop Mueller. You can quibble all you want about his interpretation of this doctrine or that doctrine, but there is no way you can dispute Mueller's absolute embrace of the heresy of Liberation Theology. The man pals around with Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez for crying out loud.
Reply
#48
“There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”


There is nothing there that is provocative or out of line.

Reply
#49
(12-20-2012, 03:10 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: Who are all these new posters? When did FE become Catholic answers? I haven't been too  active here these last couple of of months, but I can't believe there is this much defense of the  heretical Archbishop Mueller. You can quibble all you want about his interpretation of this doctrine or that doctrine, but there is no way you can dispute Mueller's absolute embrace of the heresy of Liberation Theology. The man pals around with Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez for crying out loud.

This isn't CA.  CA doesn't allow street punk - like bashing of Roman Catholic clergy like you see here.
Reply
#50
(12-20-2012, 03:31 AM)Whitey Wrote: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”


There is nothing there that is provocative or out of line.

The fundamentals of everything, which touches every trad, and even this website, is the Council? Is it orthodox, or is it flawed. Even if he signed the documents, Archbishop Lefebvre, probably the most prominent traditional Catholic in history, said "I accuse the Council."

Not the spirit or common interpretation of the Council.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)