Posted on 07/09/2012 4:28:17 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Relaxed and at ease, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller returns a week after his appointment as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Diocese of Regensburg. A series of interviews for journalists are on the agenda for Friday: liberation theology, the SSPX and the situation of divorced and remarried. Minefields for an ecclesiastic, who has moved to third place in the Vatican's ecclesiastical pecking order.
Archbishop Mueller, first of all, congratulations on the new job. Since when did you know about your appointment?
I definitely knew it on 16 May, when the Holy Father has summoned me to his presence.
Did your commitment to the liberation theology endangers your appointment?
I do not know. If you know the Catholic faith, we know that to her essentially belong the social obligation, the responsibility for the world, the love of the poor. Liberation theology is a big word - but every Christian theology has something to do with the freedom of man. Also in South America in this context, it is about theological questions: Given the misery and indignity that many people around us can not imagine, given this glaring injustice, we can not simply go away with a pious raising of eyebrows about it. Faith and doing good go together. These are the two sides of a coin.
Are you then in agreement with the Pope?
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.co.uk ...
The guy is an idiot.
Ping for later
And Catholics here on FR keep wanting to dispute how liberal the Church is.
Third in the pecking order, peddling liberation theology.
But the Church isn’t socialist. Noooooo.
I don’t deny it- and it has been getting worse, but I would never leave The Vatican.
The vanguard it plays on a larger scale is unfathomably important to the free world; as has it been.
High ranking yes, but one man only and certainly no Lord.
CLASSICAL LIBERAL...as in our founding fathers...YES I AGREE!
Yep - I’m sure God would throw himself out of our schools and government. :)
“Liberation theology is a big word”
That caught my eye, too. Wow.
I served as an altar boy back when the Mass was celebrated in Latin...can still recite “the sucipiot”. Three years later the church abandoned 2000 years of history and adopted English for the Mass. That, and because I couldn’t afford the indulgences at the going rate, I left the church and am now a card-carrying agnostic.
The sheep go astray, exactly as Christ tells us they will, and this makes you an agnostic?
Logic makes me agnostic.
I agree, if we’re talking about true liberty I agree that Jesus is the greatest liberal ever.
After all, we all have the freedom to do our own thing....and to face the consequences if we do the wrong thing.
If we’re talking modern liberalism....well he’s free to face the consequences of his beliefs.
Does logic tell you why Christ’s tomb was empty?
>>>That, and because I couldn’t afford the indulgences at the going rate,...>>>
Indulgence? Payment? I’ve been a Catholic all my life and have NEVER had to pay for indulgences. Indulgences are gained through prayer, or prayer and fasting.
Logic tells me to trust only that which I see. As a student of history I read the views of numerous historians...and even dabbled in eastern religions 40 years ago. I am what I am...as are you. Be well.
I’m referring to history...kind of a joke. Look it up, you may be amused...probably not, though. Be well.
And as a student of history you also trust that which others have seen.
In a way he is right, but his application is completely wrong.
Heaven is a socialist utopia, no private property, no rich and poor, not upper class and lower class, etc.
The problem is that the only person who’s just enough and good enough to be worthy of running such a place is God.
Earthly socialism is trying to establish this utopia on earth with man running such a place. Hence it places man in a position where only God deserves to be, and is idolatry.
Well.
Let’s look at the issue without blinders on.
God gives man what he needs. (a conservative action)
Lucifer(Satan,The Devil, whatever) gives man what he wants. (a liberal action).
The conclusion is obvious.
No, I don’t. I have to consider their voracity and decide who’s word I’m willing to “put my faith” in.
These two reasons cause you not to know if God exists or not? I could see if you left the church and either joined another denomination or just called yourself a Christian, but for acts of men to make you not sure if God exists, isn’t logical. Jesus Christ had to put up with invalid acts of pious men too and so did every believer you’ve read about in the Bible, and that didn’t make them doubt if God existed.
I am so thankful for people like you who are willing to tell me what I feel.
It wasn't 'his' tomb , it was ordered by Joseph of Arimathea and he hadn't paid for it yet.
Logic makes me agnostic.
No, logic doesn't make you an agnostic. Your experiences on this mortal coil, and how you interpret them, along with your emotions make you think you are agnostic.
Trust me on this fact: you have an appointment with the creator of both you and this universe. That creator gave you some clues on how to act before that meeting. His Son, and the Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) are where you find the clues. Try and "look" your best for the interview.
I wish you well.
5.56mm
God wants to steal our money against our will and spend it on government programs designed to keep people dependent on government?
God wants abortions on demand?
God wants the ACLU to remove God from all public sector institutes?
These are what liberals want, so if God was a liberal...
Yes, indeed. It’s actually two words, but what do we know?
More to the point, however, after reading about some financial peccadillo(s) at the Vatican Bank this spring, I started following links and threads in European newspapers about recent goings-on of the Church in Europe.... especially in Germany, where I can read German papers in German.
There’s some serious issues afoot in the Church in Germany, folks. People might want to start paying close attention there. It isn’t just liberation theology or some economic policy issues... I’m talking about the positions of people like Rainer Maria Woelki on gays and people who have been divorced umpteen times being given communion, etc.
I didn’t say anything about what you “feel”.
You used a term - agnostic - and said you became one because your church switched to saying Mass in English and because you could not afford the cost of indulgences. These two things caused you to say you are now agnostic. Agnostic means you are not sure whether God exists.
If you used agnostic incorrectly, and that is not what you meant, correct yourself. I fail to see how these two events would make a person unsure of God’s existence, as there are no logical connections between them and whether God exists.
Imagine if one could assemble a gathering including a representative of every different religion all of whom are willing to die for their beliefs. At MOST, only one of them would be right. Seems pretty presumptuous to me.
It's all in your head.(the logic).
On another note, mostly because you are being attacked by those who haven't even bothered to look up the definition of agnostic (nor even ask you what you mean by it), logic is the basis for agnosticism.
It is not that they don't believe in GOD, it's that they don't think any one religion has the answer, based on the fact that they all pretty much have different answers. Also, agnostics believe that GOD and the Universe are way beyond our comprehension at this time.
They are right.
The Christianity (for example) we have today is nothing like the Christianity we will have in 200 years, and even though it may be closer to the 'truth', it will not be the absolute truth.
GOD and the UNIVERSE are far greater than we 'can' imagine.
My altar boy story, while totally accurate, was meant as a joke. Those events did not cause my agnosticism, logic did. I just don't know, not for lack of searching. Be well.
We’re speaking about the same tomb. It was empty three days after the Crucifixion.
All students of history necessarily trust that which others have seen, and more often they necessarily trust that which others have written about what others have seen:
“Based on the current archaeological records, the analysis supports that the book of Acts is credible and records historic events that actually happened. This is concluded at the 99.9% confidence level. Paul had to actually travel the roads and be in various locations to record such unique details that have been confirmed by archaeology.”
http://www.harvardhouse.com/correlate_1.htm
No. They don't.
What would logic suggest is the proper way to live your life when you are uncertain whether God exists? Be as specific as you like. I’d be interested in the syllogism sequence.
Everybody has an agenda. Anyone that bothers to write down an observation has a bias. A student of history should start with that assumption. I am searching for the truth as much as, or more, than the next guy.
Do you believe the historical record which claims to document the life of Julius Caesar and that of Alexander the Great? I do.
If so, then your standards for veracity will be met regarding the historical record on Jesus Christ, and on the ministry of the apostles after Christ’s resurrection.
I’m probably more moral and honest than the vast majority of my compatriots. It no doubt has a lot to do with my early Catholic upbringing, I admit that. I’m a firm believer that our culture is circling the drain. It may be people just like me causing it, but I doubt it.
I like the ones who tell me what I am thinking. I am amazed at their psychic powers.
I pray you find what you need to believe in God. The problem you may find however is that logic can’t do it all,if it did, you’d have no need for faith. Not saying you have to blindly accept things,but logic and reasoning should be able to be in harmony with God’s Word - not necessarily man’s unbiblical religious traditions and unbiblical doctrines. Hope you keep searching.
Please do not be threatened by the question: what is the best explanation for the empty tomb of Christ?
“...can still recite “the sucipiot”.
.
No you can’t — it is the sucipiAt.
Perhaps you should go back to basics and recite the Confiteor.
I believe that all of that history is rooted in some degree of fact...that whole leap to God’s son is where I’m having some continuity issues.
maybe I should...good lord, I spelled it wrong...but I CAN still recite it. Give me a phone number and I’ll call you and recite it.
Oh Great. Thanks a lot. Now everyone will know. You were supposed to keep this type of info under your hat.
I think not.....or Sodom and Gomorrah would still be around.
“....I agree that Jesus is the greatest liberal ever.”
.
Nope.
I don’t think that there is one liberal in the whole world who is willing to be crucified for the truth.
To a liberal, the truth goes into many different directions simultaneously.
I don’t know, I wasn’t there. The only info I have is over 2000 years old.
Thassalright. Bless you.
Actually, that is not quite what it means, if we are going by 'definition'. If we are going by YOUR understanding, then at least make that clear.
Possibly you could achieve more by asking Agnostic what he means by the term, instead of trying to tell him what it means.
Um, my question was not how moral you are. My question was what sequence of logic determines for you the right way to live when you are uncertain whether God exists. I don’t mean to be a pest, and if you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. It’s up to you.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.