Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As in, “Whatever”…

CDF Head “Cardinal” Müller on the Dubia: “Cannot get involved in the Dispute”

muller-francis_med-2

In an interview published on Dec. 1, 2016, by the German Dom Radio, the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith, “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, has weighed in on the ongoing controversy over Amoris Laetitia, specifically the five “doubts” (dubia) submitted by “Cardinals” Burke, Caffarra, Brandmuller, and Meisner.

Due to time constraints we are not able to translate the entire interview, but we will give you the most important parts:

[Müller:]

This letter [of the dubia submitted by the four “cardinals”] was addressed to the Pope himself and contained questions regarding the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cannot get involved in the dispute. It speaks and acts with the authority of the Pope. Its competence concerns the Church’s doctrine on faith and morals. It is the highest apostolic tribunal with regard to delicts against faith and morals as well as against the holiness of the sacraments. The Pope can direct us ad hoc to arbitrate [help reconcile] the dispute.

At the moment it is important for each one of us to stick to the facts and not to allow ourselves to polarize [the controversy] or even fuel it. What matters is that truth be victorious, not that power should triumph…

…At the same time, the Holy Father wants to help marriages and families in crisis to find a path in accordance with the all-merciful will of God. We can certainly take for granted the fact that the just and merciful God always desires our salvation, no matter what hardship we find ourselves in. The Magisterium does not have the power, however, to correct [sic] Divine Revelation or to make the imitation of Christ comfortable.

…It is never permitted to put aside the binding declarations of the Popes, of the Councils of Trent and Vatican II, and of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the essential marks of matrimony and the condition[s] for the fruitful reception of the sacraments in the state of sanctifying grace, under the pretext that matrimony is only an ideal that can only be attained by the fewest [people].

…In any case, it is not possible to interpret Amoris Laetitia in such a way that would render as no longer valid the prior statements of the Popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, including that of their official response to the 1993 Joint Pastoral Letter of the three bishops of the Upper Rhine area [in Germany] regarding the reception of Communion by Catholics in a marriage not recognized by the Church.

(“Wir beteiligen uns nicht am Streit der Meinungen”, domradio.de, Dec. 1, 2016; our translation.)

So now the Novus Ordo Sect has yet another answer that isn’t an answer, and isn’t even meant to be one but yet says plenty. Another mouth has opened, another text has been produced, but ultimately nothing is resolved. In other words, it’s business as usual. “Whatever” is a good way to summarize it all.

The fact that 50+ years after Vatican II, the Modernist Sect will not even unequivocally condemn adultery anymore — with all the consequences that follow from this for reception of the sacraments, etc. — and instead dances around all the issues, never giving a straight answer, says all you need to know.

This never-ending controversy over Amoris Laetitia, which, remember, was supposed to be the document clarifying the official Vatican position on the matters discussed at the two “Synods on the Family” in 2014 and 2015, is dividing even firm Novus Ordo adherents into two camps. You have the Mark Sheas and Steve Kellmeyers on the one side, the Carl Olsons and Tim Haines’ on the other, and the Jimmy Akins and Tim Staples’ still trying to squeeze themselves in between somewhere.

If Francis makes good on the not-so-veiled threat to strip the four “troublemakers” of their Novus Ordo cardinal status, this will add lots more fuel to the fire. That intra-NovusOrdo schism we’ve been predicting for a while now is getting closer and closer to becoming a formal reality.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show: The Vatican II Sect is in the process of demolishing itself.

Popcorn, please!

deer-popcorn

13 Responses to ““Cardinal” Müller: “Not getting involved in the Dispute” over Dubia”

    • Nick Pastore

      They will no doubt mount some kind of fence straddling operation unless a clear victor should emerge at which time they will side with them.

  1. Sonia

    Muller: “It is never permitted to put aside the binding declarations of the Popes, of the Councils of Trent and Vatican II…” R&R…what say ye?

    The ridiculousness needs to be pointed out ad nauseum – in the hope that the falsifiers will simply get sick of lies:

    Christ is to Trent as Judas is to VII. Can the Mullers of the N.O. really be so thick as to be blind to the chasm between Christ and belial? Or do they really expect the scattered and shattered sheeple to be that thick?

    The nominal Qath-Masses say it doesn’t matter, except it does. The ‘operation of error’ is the religion of Muller and his Nopes, and all the pop-caths for whom the ‘cultural blankey’ of nominal Qatholicism fills out their CV/Resume/sleep at night.

    “Vouchsafe that I may praise Thee, O sacred Virgin: give me strength against Thine enemies.”

    • Nick Pastore

      If one understands just how clear and unequivocal it was during the course of His public ministry that Jesus was the promised Christ, and yet was rejected by the Jewish authorities in that time, it becomes much easier to understand why so few accept the obvious fact that the men who occupy the Vatican aren’t Catholic and have no authority in the Catholic Church, but instead are the servants of Satan.

  2. turn2

    “The fact that 50+ years after Vatican II, the Modernist Sect will not even unequivocally condemn adultery anymore…”
    ……………………………
    In fact, not only does the Novus Ordo not condemn adultery, it doesn’t even seem to use the word at all. Müller acts as though it’s verboten to even say the word as he didn’t utter it even once in the interview. Instead, he prefer “crisis in the marriage”, which makes him sound more like a social worker than a cleric–therapist or marriage counselor is probably a more apt job description for him than anything that smacks of a real man of the cloth!

      • turn2

        Very true. Notice that one of the first changes of Vatican II was to change terminology from solid Catholic to something nebulous and/or heterodox: the Church became “people of God”; the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transformed into a “memorial supper”; priest to “presider”; Blessed Sacrament to “Eucharist”; offertory to “preparation of the gifts”; confession to “reconciliation”; extreme unction to “anointing of the sick”; etc.

        Always change wherever one looks, change for no reason but to foist a new religion on gullible Catholics.

  3. bartmaeus

    “storm in a teacup” “Angels on the head of a pin” No importante – Dogmatic questions!

    What is important, however, is that we rescue all the poor migrants from Africa and Asia, and safely pack them into Europa, where they’ll be well looked after by the domesticated subjects who have been bereft of sanctifying grace by the negligence of their good shepherds over the decades.

  4. Novus Ordo Watch

    Welcome, Sir! Just to clarify: We typically use the term “Novus Ordo” not to refer to liturgical rite (unless this is specifically stated or clear from the context) but to refer to adherence to the Vatican II Church, which we also call the Novus Ordo Church.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.