"....our enemies are glad to see our Church in a certain confusion".

Oh, c'mon Cardinal Müller, surely you can do better than that. Stop being a politician and give straight answers to these questions:

1. *What* is the confusion?
2. *Who* created the confusion?
3. *Why* does the confusion persist?

You can't have it both ways and call the dubia 'legitimate questions' and then absolve from all blame the person to whom they were addressed and who is yet to respond EIGHT MONTHS LATER. What price honest and logical thinking?

Exactly what I was thinking as I read the interview. However....

Cardinal Muller is a very intelligent man and has a difficult task. He must be faithful to the Church and, for the sake of the Church, must keep his job. I'm sure he knows, if he says what he thinks about the Pope he'll be fired and replaced by one of the Pope's stooges. How would we like it if Maradiaga was put in Cardinal Muller's place? Working in the Vatican these days is no walk in the park. Let us pray for Cardinal Muller and all other faithful bishops and priests that the Lord will protect them from the ravages of Satan.

He is neither hot nor cold...so what good is it to have him in that position anyway? A politician dancing on the fence does not stand up for the Truth. This is evil and the fact that this interview went on EWTN to the world just helps to confuse more people and obfuscate the truth.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."
The Apocalypse Of Saint John (Revelation)
Chapter 3 verses 15-16

"This is evil...."

We all need to start calling this what it is. Demonic and evil...

"Cardinal Muller... has a difficult task."

What would that "difficult task" be, but trying to be a modernist heretic while pretending to be a Catholic at the same time. That is a tough assignment indeed.

" “Overpopulation of the world could be a problem [sic], but we cannot resolve it with the killing of the half of mankind.”
I checked the world abortion count and we are at 1.4 billion abortions worldwide since the 1970s. And let's face it, killing them prevented more life to be born.
So, technically we wiped out several generations. Which elevates 1.4 billion to 5.0 billion, conservatively speaking.

The hierchy of our catholic church now sees "fruit" by dining with it's schism. The hierchy are now salesman to a degree.

A parable for modern mankind would be something as: If the "flock of sheep are healthy, strong, they will jump over the fence. If the flock of sheep are timid, small, weak, they will crawl under the fence. The Fence is the Catholic Church and the sheep are wandering BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HERE THE MASTERS VOICE.

I'm sorry, I am simply to old to have any patience with people who are unwilling to state politically incorrect truths.

Michael,

As cs says directly above my post, in his position, Cardinal Müller should have Truth as his focal point and his generosity/compassion in spinning or tiptoe-ing around the pope's dismantling of Church teaching is seriously misplaced. Athanasius knew there would be unpleasant temporal fallout as a result of his actions but that didn't deter him from speaking out boldly and letting the consequences run their course.

Exactly! In all true charity, it is important to boldly speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks be to God, Athanasius has boldness and courage and speaks the truth.

So you guys think Cardinal Muller will be more influential in exile than as head of the most important congregation in the Curia. Strange thinking. To come to that conclusion means one has to overturn all the rules of logic and common sense.

The end does not justify the means. The end you seem to want is for Cardinal Muller to remain in his position so that he can help save the Church from further evil. Yet, by what means and at what cost should this end be achieved!?! If the means, to keep his position to "help save the Church", is to obscure the truth and confuse the issues, then the means are evil and that evil is never justifiable even if it's rationalized that it is done in order to achieve a good end. No good end can come of evil means.
As far as his influence, he's using it in the wrong way if he does not come out and clearly and whole heartedly defend the Catholic faith. The problem is especially made worse by the fact that he is one that many people expect to solidly and strongly protect the true faith, so they put their trust in him. Unfortunately, in this recent interview, even his own words show that he is playing the politician on both sides of the fence. Truth suffers.
Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Trust in God. God does not want His ministers or shepherds to avoid telling the truth! He wants the truth always. He is Truth. If we have to die for Truth, so be it! The Truth will set you free.
Remember it was Pontius Pilate who asked, "What is truth?"!!!
So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?”Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world,
to testify to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
John 18:37-38
The Catholic Church needs strong leaders who are not afraid to testify to the truth. The shepherds of the Church need to lead by telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Pray for the leaders/shepherds of the Catholic Church to always do God's will. The truth will set you free.

Would have nothing to lose & freedom to speak. St. Paul's most joyous / influential epistles written from prison cell.

I agree- with so much confusion Truth needs spoken clearly, boldly. The world with Satan is making this battle serious and no amount of gentle acceptance by means of " accompaniment " will bring souls from a path toward hell t heaven. This is too dangerous!!! I've never seen this work- it is a subtle way to accept sin as the evil one desires. Oh my, Precious Lord please send us courageous bold leaders who can speak Trurh with clearity and love!!!!!!🙏🏻

I understand the "pull" to take the position you have articulated. But what you're effectively accomplishing is inverting the Two Great Commandments -- which is the chief mark of the post-conciliar Church. God and His prerogatives must come first; human considerations are secondary. If we don't get God right,we won't get humanity right.

Exactly. Just another double-speaking novus ordo phony conservative.

Now, let EWTN bring on Cardinal Sarah and ask him the exact same questions.

yes

Why? All you are going hear is more double-speak. Vague criticism of AL and then an absolution of Francis of any responsibility.

you must not know Cardinal Sarah

I know all about him. He is just a lot slicker than Mueller. Here is Sarah praising Francis and Vatican II.
"this mystical and spiritual renewal that is therefore missionary in
character, which was intended by the Second Vatican Council, to which
Pope Francis is vigorously calling us"
http://www.catholicworldrep...

You took the Cardinal's statement completely out of context to score some rhetorical points. Bad form.

Here's what you left out...

"Many priests testify that this is a stimulating task, because they are conscious of working for the liturgical renewal, of contributing their own efforts to the “liturgical movement”, etc."

It is called double speak. Just like I said. Throw some meat our way and then negate it by praising Francis. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth like a politician. Why didn't he sign the dubia?

Cardinal Sarah: A weak and incompetent neo-con hero
https://akacatholic.com/car...

Is that a sedevacantist site? Scraping the bottom of the barrel now, aren't you?

It may interest you to know Cardinal Sarah doesn't have the authority to tell anyone how to celebrate the Mass.

Yup, do it EWTN.
Mathew 5:37 comes to mind. The bishop of Rome despises this verse.
The good Cardinal Mueller seems to value his job more than the clarity necessary to save souls.

Is this man serious? I had no idea the man was so deluded in his thinking.

"When Raymond Arroyo asks Cardinal Müller about the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia
and the confusion stemming from it, the cardinal first states: “It is
absolutely impossible that the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, the
Vicar of Jesus Christ for the Universal Church, [would] present a
doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.”

No it is not impossible. It is impossible that he could bind the Faithful to believe it but that he could never 'present' a doctrine or throw the teaching of the Church into confusion is not impossible. Cardinal Muller is simply attempting to defend the indefensible.

First the article says "In Müller’s eyes, the pope intends with Amoris Laetitia “to
help, to have in his sight,” all those people who live “in the
secularized world” and “who do not have a full understanding what is a
Christian life.” “He does not want to say: ‘Either you accept absolutely
all from the beginning or you are absolutely out.’” Then this. "His desire, Cardinal Müller says at the conclusion of the interview, is to “help to overcome secularization,” i.e.,
the “life without God.” In the face of his burdens as the Prefect of
the CDF, Cardinal Müller insists that “with the help of Grace, we can
confront all these questions.”

Such confused thinking. The interview shows somebody attempting to defend the pope a all costs while carping at those cardinals who have had the temerity to do his job!

Cardinal Mueller, me thinks, has his head in the sand. "Impossible" for a Pope to present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ.? In A.L. clearly Francis did this very thing. So........the only other conclusion to be had, is that 'maybe' he is not even a valid Pope. I'm sorry, but there is no way that A.L. is a document that coincides with 2,000 years of Church teaching!!

I'm thinking Cardinal Mueller has fallen into Ultramontanism here. He thinks a pope cannot present a doctrine against the words of Christ so he does all he can to spin them in an orthodox way... It's a pretty common error these days, but it's a bit disheartening that the head of the CDF has done so.

The Pope is infallible ONLY under the exact conditions laid down by Vatican I. If ALL the conditions are not met, then the charism of infallibility doesn't come into play.

AL is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is NOT infallible.

Is anyone else more confused by this interview of Cardinal Muller?

“Everybody wants to win the battle against the other.” But, says Cardinal Müller, “the Revelation of God unites” and “it is not our task to unify in a totalitarian way.” It is wrong, according to Müller, to think “everybody must think like me.”

His statement troubles me greatly. First of all, just who is trying to win the battle against the other.......Cardinal Burke??? Is that what Muller is implying? Second, " Revelation of God unites"??????? Does Cardinal Muller forget, under all his degrees, what Revelation is? And third, the good cardinal needs to understand that everybody must have the mind of God, which the Church used to promote and defend.

To hear this statement from Cardinal Muller, only makes me realize more fully, that our Church has been thoroughly hijacked by an anti-Gospel, anti Church powerful group of prelates, and some do not even realize it.

He speaks the same language as PF, you can take whatever meaning you like from it. gibberish

Gibberish. Pure and simple. No Hegelian Dialectics were harmed in the production of this interview. All I can see in my mind, though I have not watched the interview is Raymond Arroyo's headshot with slightly pursed lips and slightly raised eyebrows, a la the Kasper interview.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Please Cardinal Muller you mention our enimies would be delighted to see our confusion please Cardinal can you elaborate on these enemies and does Pope Francis also consider them enemies?

Hahaha! Now that is a find! Perfect! The best. Go Arroyo!

I can never avoid thinking he looks like a kewpie doll - something about the eyes and the eyebrows. For the record, I regard him very highly, especially because of his more recent interviews about AL.

I like Arroyo also but I have always thought Pee-Wee Herman.

Yes! That's it...thank you! (I like him too; smart & courageous)
Also, kind of, ventriloquist's dummy? Absolutely not meant in a bad way.

I assume this was taken from the Cardinal Muller interview of recent.

Nah, these are classic Arroyo reactions I've had in a folder for a long time. I drop them into comment threads occasionally.

Well, it gave me a good chuckle, which I could use about now.

Thanks.

Excellent!

James, a deviation from the subject of this thread, but I don't know how else to get this to you.

I have not seen my message to Fr. Hunwicke on his blog, so here it is:

Fr. Hunwicke, it is not disputed that the Pope has not uttered a single formal 'From The Chair' heretic syllable. He's much too smart to leave himself open to being deposed. What he has done is enable heresy *and applauded it* once it has come to pass. The dioceses in Argentina, Malta in Germany and the Diocese of San Diego, California, and who knows where else, are giving Holy Communion to public adulterers. That is a gross deviation from the constant 2000 year teaching of the Church and clear heresy and schism. It could not have happened without the well-crafted Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia and the Pope's approving rheoric.

Can there be any doubt that document had the complete approval of the Pope? When one insists the 'jot and tittle' standard is the only legitimate one by which to assess the actions of the Pope, you may have a case. May have, but somehow I don't think Our Lord will accept it when He, and most of the rest of us, <know> a bedrock principle of Catholic doctrine is being violated and the Pope has engineered it.

Is it not the obligation of the Bishop of Rome to defend the Catholic Faith and her doctrines? Is it not his obligation to clarify doctrinal ambiguities, especially when such clarification is sought from him? The Pope is seriously deficient in this matter across the board. Is that heresy? I don't know, but I know it's in that category.

Your erudite defense of him, and it is a defense, lacks discernment and avoids reality. It is the Pope who is responsible for the giving of Communion to unrepentant adulterers. That is clearly on the books and it is heresy.

Ferde Rombola, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA

Are we taking bets as to whether your comment will be published on that other web site? Call me a cynic, but I'm betting not. Your writing is clear and articulate and, I suspect, a tad bit "too truthy" for comfort. (More than a tad bit -- major truth and major discomfort.) You are uncovering denial and cognitive dissonance with logic and persuasion. As such, it will not be allowed or acknowledged. If it gets published, then I will eat my words.

If you hadn't published the same comment on 1P5, no one would ever know that you had written to challenge the Father's defense of Francis. The problem: at some point those who defend Francis to the point of irrationality end up (sooner or later) losing their own credibility. And those who remain silent are complicit and approving of Francis' innovations (which are contrary to 2000 years of church teaching) by their silence.

I'm betting with you, Susan, which is why I posted the message here. Thanks for your kind words.

Excellent. Fr. H is a convert, and none of them (at least I've found none) truly understand the fullness of Catholic theology and tradition. I've tried to post challenges to his point of view before; he's reluctant to publish damning research to his premises.

Bergoglio has also effectively established the Anglican Communion type of ecclesial structure. Church teaching now differs and contradicts from Bishops Conference to Bishops Conference and even from diocese to diocese. The Mark of Unity of the Church is under assault. Please indulge these citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Some false notions of unity

All admit that unity of some kind is indispensable to the existence of any well-ordered society, civil, political, or religious. Many Christians, however, hold that the unity necessary for the true Church of Christ need be nothing more than a certain spiritual internal bond, or, if external, it need be only in a general way, inasmuch as all acknowledge the same God and reverence the same Christ. Thus most Protestants think that the only union necessary for the Church is that which comes from faith, hope, and love toward Christ; in worshipping the same God, obeying the same Lord, and in believing the same fundamental truths which are necessary for salvation. This they regard as a unity of doctrine, organization, and cult. A like spiritual unity is all the Greek schismatics require. So long as they profess a common faith, are governed by the same general law of God under a hierarchy, and participate in the same sacraments, they look upon the various churches — Constantinople, Russian, Antiochene, etc. — as enjoying the union of the one true Church; there is the common head, Christ, and the one Spirit, and that suffices. The Anglicans likewise teach that the one Church of Christ is made up of three branches: the Greek, the Roman, and the Anglican, each having a different legitimate hierarchy but all united by a common spiritual bond.

True notion of unity

The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself. . . . All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith, and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed, their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external. All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches. Accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.

Thanks for the citations. Of course, with Bergoglio in the Chair all bets are off regarding the "True notion of unity."

Received with appreciation. Well crafted. I can’t understand why he didn’t let it through. It deserves his reading and it would be fascinating to see his response. I learn a lot from him, despite the fact that I share your grave misgivings on that specific series. Any time I’ve tried to post a comment over there I can’t make it register. I’m certain that he never sees my attempts – I wonder if yours did not meet with the same fate mine do.

I got a note that the message was being held awaiting approval from on high. Not those words, but you get the gist. Did you ever see such a message?