The big news today is that Bishop Gerhard Müller has been appointed as the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to succeed Cardinal Levada. This appointment has occasioned a certain amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth, from both traditionalists and liberals.
Some time ago, Rorate Caeli summarised the concerns of traditionalists: In charge of the henhouse? This summarises some problematic statements. I would find it difficult to support what he said on the Eucharist (though I do not have access to the context of what was part of a lengthy dogmatic treatise) but there has been perhaps too much panic about what he said on the Virginity of Our Lady.
As long ago as 1952, the theologian Albert Mitterer, discussed the question of the doctrine of Our Lady's virginity in partu (Dogma und Biologie der heiligen Familie. Vienna, 1952.) His discussion is reported by Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (page 205). Ott comes down on the side of physical integrity "on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine" but the alternative explanation was never condemned. Essentially, as Müller said, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is
not not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs)He says that it is concerned rather "with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature." I would certainly want to add there that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, pre partum, in partu et post partum, affirms as a matter of faith that the conception of Christ was not through the union of Our Lady and St Joseph in the marriage act. That needs to be said unambiguously. (Again, I do not have Müller's 900 page book to hand and for all I know, he may well have affirmed this.) The question of Our Lady's physical integrity was discussed by Tertullian. Writing against the docetists and in favour of Christ's true humanity he argued against physical integrity and in favour of a normal birth.
In summary, Bishop Müller's theological opinion on the relationship of physical integrity at birth to the doctrine of the virginity of Our Lady in partu is not heretical, even if most devout Catholics would want to go with the general teaching of the Fathers and St Thomas.
Annoyance at the appointment of Bishop Müller can be found from quite different sources. John Allen's article in the NCR about the appointment has a comment from a German correspondent who accuses Bishop Müller of authoritarianism and of "reviling and disciplining those holding divergent opinions."
The clearly annoyed liberal links to a sermon Bishop Müller gave earlier this year, including his translation of one offending passage. The Bishop said:
"We should not allow any room for anti-Roman blabber and these stupidities ... Any activities directed against the truth of the Faith and the unity of the Church will not be tolerated"My guess is that German readers might well pick up other quotations and anti-Müller comments in similar vein from the Wir Sind Kirchecrowd.
LifeSite news views the appointment positively: Levada out; New head of Vatican’s CDF is Bishop who corrected dissident groups, citing Bishop Müller's action to halt Church funding to pro-abortion groups that claimed to be Catholic, and his suppression of various other organisations that dissented from Catholic teaching. Deacon Greg Kandra has also picked up on an interview in which Bishop Müller affirmed the impossibility of the ordination of women to the diaconate
"So OK...", I hear some of you say, "Fr so-called Hermeneuticalness, sit-on-the-fence, rather suspect theological logic chopper Finigan - where do you STAND?"
Sitting on the fence at the moment.
19 comments:
"Sitting on the fence at the moment".
That must be very painful!
As faithful of the german blogozese I've read a good statement about the promotion of His Excellency to the Proprefect of the CDF (my correspondinly translation):
"The lefties rant, the righties rant, the Pope seems to have hit the bullseye with Müller."
Bishop Müller had a fight with the councilists and the ZdK and he dealed with the seminary of the FSSPX in Zaitzkofen on the territory of his former diocese.
We will have to see, how he will position himself in the CDF-chair.
Thanks for this moderating and balanced post Father. After all the doom and gloom merchants, I feel better already!
Re Mueller and the SSPX:a recent interview with Gus DiNoia on his appointment to Ecclesia Dei is of interest. DiNoia said that the HF is set against interpreting Vatican II according to the hermeneutic of break (i.e. it has to be recognised as a Council of the Church) and that the HF is determinedly set against anti-semitism.Can the majority of SSPX live with this? Hope so.
As to the Virgin Birth Father, I don’t have a problem with the miraculous nature of it or what the physical properties were. But I have been struck by something God said to Eve after The Fall in Genesis 3:16 “…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…”
It makes you wonder how childbirth was originally conceived (no pun intended!) by God and how The Fall changed that. As Our Lady was preserved from Original Sin, she would have been in the state God originally intended for men and women. And we really don’t know what that was. Perhaps all births would have been physically ‘miraculous’ in that state? But since then, only one was.
As to Bp. Mueller, I just trust the Holy Father’s judgment.
I'm sitting on the fence to Father. Many fellow traditionalists also complain about his views on celibacy. But for me who understands both the East/West story. Greeks married/Latins not. Well it's not an issue to me. The Orthodox are doing fine, and no massive call for womens ordination on the eastern front.
Fr
Do you think this appointment helps the cause of SSPX recognition?
Yes, but Father, that "unity of the Church" to which he refers, according to same, includes Protestants within the visible Church. That is not even Modernist-double speak, that is crystal-clear rank heresy!
He said this, at a ceremony giving an ecumenical award to a protestant "bishop":
"We as catholic and protestant Christians are already united in what we call the visible Church. There are - to be precise - not several Churches existing side by side, there are only ruptures and divisions inside the one People of God and the one House of God.
[...] The Catholic Magisterium does not in any way say that the "Churches and ecclesial Communities" (UR 19) are not Churches, this in regards to Church as a Communio with God in grace. Because also those Christians, which are not in full Unity with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, sacraments and apostolic-episcopal constitution are justified by faith and baptism and fully integrated into the Church of God as the Body of Christ."
And this, about the already-ambiguous Dominus Iesus:
“The assertion that the Ecclesial Communities that have not upheld valid episcopacy … are not Churches (plural) in a proper sense is not translated theologically correctly by the bold statement that ‘the Evangelical Church is not actually a Church’."
Matthew,
"Among Christians, fraternity is not just a vague sentiment, nor is it a sign of indifference to truth. As you just said, Bishop, it is grounded in the supernatural reality of the one Baptism which makes us all members of the one Body of Christ. Together we confess that Jesus Christ is God and Lord; together we acknowledge him as the one mediator between God and man, and we emphasize that together we are members of his Body." (Pope Benedict XVI to Representatives of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, Cologne, August 2005)
Mr Underscore
re quotes by Matthew and Mr Underscore.
At first a little
thought- provoking but on reflection, really quite simple.
As baptised Christians, Protestants,et al, sects and ecclesial communities, come within the jurisdiction of Christ's one true, instituted Church, the Catholic Church. If they are obstinately (as opposed to, in error in good faith, a quite different matter), in denial of Catholic doctrine, then they are heretics, albeit still under the jurisdiction of the Church, and as such, and although they are in a state of excommunication, they can still be said to be members,in a sense, of Christ's body.
Hello Father.
Here's a good one for Bishop Müller to explain:
How is is that "those Christians who are not in full unity with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, sacraments and apostolic-episcopal constitution are justified by faith and baptism and fully integrated into the Church of God as the Body of Christ", while at the same time, "The SSPX must fully return to the ground of the Catholic Church". (Quotations are from an interview with Zeit Online, 2009.)
So they are already "fully integrated", but "must return to the ground of the Catholic Church"? Well, I'm no theologian, but, with the greatest respect, this is utter rubbish.
Worse still, he says that if the SSPX fully returns to the Catholic Church and recognises "the authority of the Pope, the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and recognize existing canon law, they must also accept that the seminary of Zaitzkofen falls under the supervision of the Diocese of Regensburg. The seminary should be closed and the students should go to seminaries in their home countries - if they are suitable for this purpose."
This is appalling and thuggish language and clearly designed to discourage any attempt at a reconciliation.
As regards doctrine, you may be right on the Virgin Birth, but on the Eucharist and ecumenism, he has taken unmistakeably heterodox positions. One really wonders in which direction the Doctrinal Preambles should be travelling...
I am no theologian and have never been accused of being one. But I would like to think that having received my secondary education at Our Lady's High School, Motherwell, I have a firm grasp of at least the basics of my Faith. After all, OLHS produced more priests than any other school in the so-called British Isles. Alumni include Cardinal Tom Winning and Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ, Rector Magnifico Emeritus of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and founder of the Centro Aletti. (English Catholics of a sporting bent will also be pleased to learn that our alumni also include the first Briton to put his hands on the European Cup, Billy McNeil, and his team mate Bobby Murdoch.
As a faithful Catholic who hopes that he harbours not heresy in his breast, I was troubled by both the substance and tenor of Matthew's comments. Before I was born -- in my mother's bed in a tenement building in Motherwell in 1952 -- my father had been warned that there was a very real possibility that (a) my mother might die in childbirth (b) I might be stillborn (c) either or both might occur.
As it transpired, I was OK, though wee, and my mammy, though very ill and having immediately to be removed to the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow, survived. I was removed to my Granny Murphy's and was taken care of by her for three or four months.
However, after my delivery, and after all required tidying up had been seen to, our GP, Dr Marie McMillan, went into her handbag, got out her Rosary beads and got the ladies present (granny, aunties and neighbours; the men were elsewhere; a euphemism for the Railway Tavern) on to their knees for a quick, therapeutic decade.
I have recently had it confirmed that Dr Marie didn't feel it necessary to conduct an "emergency baptism". A truly wonderful lady and a devout Catholic, had it been necessary I wouldn't have chosen to be baptised by anybody else other than her.
However, had she been a Protestant and the only one keeping her head in the circumstances, and had the circumstances, for me, been more serious, then she could still have legitimately baptised me. She might have been a Presbyterian, or a Scottish Episcopalian, or a Methodist, or a Wee Free, or, indeed, a Baptist BUT Canon Law would still have recognised her as a Christian and my baptism by her to be entirely valid. I could not have been later re-baptised in the chapel (or the Cathedral of Our Lady of Good Aid, to give it its full entitlement).
So I cannot quite understand Matthew's objection to Archbishop Muller having said: "We as Catholic and Protestant Christians are already united in what we call the visible Church."
Hughie, I am no theologian either, but, whatever else one may say about ties between Catholics and Protestants, surely one thing we absolutely CANNOT say is: "We as Catholic and Protestant Christians are already united in what we call the visible Church."
I do find it astonishing, Father, that we are even having the debate regarding the orthodoxy of the new prefect of the CDF. Shouldn't the orthodoxy of a candidate for the job be beyond reproach? Shouldn't he be the judge of the faith of others? If we are doubting his credentials on such basic matters, who do we - as Catholics trying to be faithful to mother Church - trust? We are truly building the future of the government of the Church on sand. The crisis in the Church appears set to continue for some time.
Lamentably Sane and myself are, alas, both right and wrong. We Protestant and Catholics are not in the same "Church", but we are in one and the same "visible Church". I can't remember the exact quotation, but it is something like "Christian my name, Catholic my family name."
I hear Hans Kung is against the appointment. Mustn't be that bad then.
Sorry, Hughie, I can't accept that.
"We Protestant and Catholics are not in the same "Church", but we are in one and the same "visible Church."
This has no discernible meaning whatsoever. Sorry to be so blunt.
Fr, I'm afraid the problems are more serious than that, the new prefect has also questioned the real presence and 'outside of the church there is no salvation' in ways that allow for no orthodox interpretation. He has made his career studying unorthodox and even heretical theologians such as Karl rahner, embraced their ideas and been involved in the liberation theology movement. See http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/mulling_over_archbishop_mueller_7-9-2012.htm he may not be a heretic but he is by no stretch of the imagination orthodox. I remain unconvinced by what you say regarding the bvm and regardless the opinion he holds is rash and offensive to pious ears. As for what it will do regarding the sspx, that is simple enough, scuttle them completely.
Let's be honest, the new prefect has spent his whole career studying and being influenced by unorthodox theologians and heretics, whether its Karl rahner, protestants or liberation theology. He himself has denied the real presence and claimed protestants and catholics are in the same church. The appointment is a disaster and something that the pope will have to answer for at the judgment. As for its effects on the SSPX well apart from its unorthodoxy, which will repel them, he's criticised them, back in 2009 calling the ordinations 'a provocation' and so on. The talks with Rome over and I can't see then starting again till theres a new pope.
Post a Comment