The Pope Is Silent, But Cardinal Müller Speaks. Who Responds To the "Dubia" This Way

To him too, in addition to Pope Francis, cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner had sent their five “dubia” on the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia,” seeking “clarity.”

And neither he, Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, nor much less the pope had responded until now to the questions of the four cardinals.

To make up for this, however, now Müller is bringing clarity, and how, in an extensive interview that is coming out today in the magazine “Il Timone,” conducted by editor Riccardo Cascioli and by Lorenzo Bertocchi:

In the interview, the cardinal does not use the word “dubia,” but he says “apertis verbis” precisely what the four cardinals were asking to have clarified.

And he does not fail to lash out against those bishops who with their interpretive “sophistries” - he says - instead of acting as leaders for their faithful are falling “into the risk of the blind leading the blind.”

A: No, that is impossible. For example, it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.

Q: This is a question that is being extensively discussed with regard to the debate surrounding the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

A: “Amoris Laetitia” must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church. [...] I don’t like it, it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting “Amoris Laetitia” according to their way of understanding the pope’s teaching. This does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate. The bishop, as teacher of the Word, must himself be the first to be well-formed so as not to fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind. [...]

Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must strive to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?

A: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” with the clear doctrine of the “intrinsece malum.” [...] For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.

Q: How can one resolve the chaos that is being generated on account of the different interpretations that are given of this passage of Amoris Laetitia?

A: I urge everyone to reflect, studying the doctrine of the Church first, starting from the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, which is very clear on marriage. I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings, above all that according to which if love dies, then the marriage bond is dead. These are sophistries: the Word of God is very clear and the Church does not accept the secularization of marriage. The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity. One cannot refer only to little passages present in “Amoris Laetitia,” but it has to be read as a whole, with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage and the family more attractive for persons. It is not “Amoris Laetitia” that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it. All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations.

This interview reinforces long established doctrine while pretending Amoris Laetitia had no part in causing confusion.
Rather, only the “lazy interpreters” caused the confusion.

As long as the doctrine is settled and unchanged, I don’t care about the finger pointing.....as it is obvious where the problem lies.

>>divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must strive to live in continence.<<

OK genius, how is anybody going to a) know whether or not they are living in continence (s/b abstinence)? and b) how would you enforce it?

No, Jesus didn’t say, “Will you also leave me?”, in John 6:67, after many of his disciples no longer followed him, in the wake of his saying, “I am the bread of life, unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life within you”. Instead, he must have said something we can accept, like, “come back, I was only speaking symbolically, metaphorically, the Eucharist is only a symbol”. And when he said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another is committing adultery, he obviously must have been speaking in vague terms, because of how lacking in compassion it is for us to deny communion to those who are not living the life to which they’re called in chastity. And so, it cannot be acceptable to us the Revelation 21:27 states, nothing impure will ever enter heaven, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. We should have been there thousands of years ago to open the eyes of those narrow-minded reactionaries.

At this point, I’m praying to God for my Church, my family, peace, myself, and the pope’s imminent, merciful death.
It’s ironic that Muller accuses others of casuistry and sophistry.
Lose the “Jesus is bridegroom” metaphor and speak clearly, Muller.

>>>It is not “Amoris Laetitia” that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpretations of it.<<<<

Hmm. Bait and Switch here. On One hand say “Doctrine” is sacrosanct (true) without a peep about “Discipline” (application of the Doctrine).

Section 301 and footnote 351 of AL are the intentionally inserted controversial passages that leads to direct confusion on “Discipline” (application of the Doctrine).

So don’t attack the good 4 Cardinals with this “Bait and Switch” technique. Answer the Dubia questions (they won’t - it would prove AL is in great error in “back dooring” interpretation on “Discipline”).

I'm concerned that Mueller has placed himself in a situation where he's going to be removed by Francis for saying as little as he did here, without having gone all the way and explicitly condemned Amoris Laetitia when he had the chance, when he had the soapbox to do it.

It's his job to be beating up the German and Maltese bishops, as well as San Diego, Chicago, Washington D.C., and Vorarlberg. He's only doing half a job here.

Word salad.

Admittedly, much is over my head but Mueller having obviously thrown in with the pope has mastered ambiguity, addresses none of the contradictions and expresses no charity whatsoever toward the scandalized faithful.

We are seeing Bergoglio insult and chastise Burke & Company for posing the same questions as the people, while he is at the same time lauding bishops and priests who are offering Holy Communion to the disobedient divorced remarrieds who have no annulment, on some arbitrary condition of their personal conscience.

Recall the Lutheran woman who received the Pope’s consent to partake of Holy Communion, on the basis of her “conscience”.

THIS “praxis” is ridiculous and defies precedent.

Now what? WHERE is the College of Modernists... I meant “Cardinals”.

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.