The unthinkable happened at noon today [2nd July]. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller who himself publicly dissents from certain Doctrines of the Faith. He does not believe in Our Lady’s Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the accompanying footnote 10). Müller’s reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of “grace . . . on human nature” is the classic demythologizing tactic.
Even more astonishingly, Abp. Müller also apparently holds a doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that is Lutheran (at best): the consecrated Species are not the true Body and Blood of Christ in his transfigured (risen) corporality; rather, the Lord just becomes “present” in what remains bread and wine.
Müller’s view seems impossible to distinguish from that condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent (cf. Dz 884 = DS 1652). Pope Paul VI insisted on this dogma in his 1964 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, and again in what he considered the most important document of his pontificate, the 1968 Solemn Profession of Faith. Here the Holy Father proclaimed: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine.”
This perennial Catholic doctrine is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ##1374-1377. This is to say nothing of Müller’s sympathies for the liberation theology of his close friend Gustavo Gutierrez, or his reported statement that “Protestants are already members of the Church” – a position that would be clearly contrary to Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis as to what constitutes “real membership” of Christ’s Church.
The following is taken from Müller’s Wikipedia entry.
Eucharist: In 2002, Bishop Müller published the book “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens” (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In the book, he says : “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
Liberation Theology Müller was also a pupil of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the “father” of Latin-American liberation theology, with whom he has a long and close friendship. Commenting on Guitierrez, Müller stated: “The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic and it teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from true faith.” It is important to note that Gutiérrez’s thoughts were never censured by the Holy See although it was asked that he modify a few of his writings.[5]
Mariology: In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller says that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth […], but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
May Heaven preserve the Church against the gates of Hell in this dark hour.
(Taken from The Remnant, and written by ‘A Concerned Catholic Priest’, whose identity I know and of whose reliability I have no doubt)
July 4, 2012 at 12:52 am
Hasn’t Fr Finigan written something about that last point? I gave my copy of Ott away (what was I thinking?) some years ago, but I seem to remember him saying what Fr F. says he says on this point.
Anyway, this is Wikipedia. Quoting him in translation. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions.
July 4, 2012 at 10:39 am
I find Ott very puzzling on this point. He suggests that the Fathers may have misinterpreted the doctrine of our Lady’s perpetual virginity owing to a defective knowledge of biology.
July 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm
I have often heard Fr John Saward protest against an excessive reliance on Ott precisely because of his unorthodoxy on this point. The ‘defective knowledge of biology’ thing is absurd. Presumably the authors of LG were similarly confused.
July 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Well, not having Ott I say cannot.
July 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Saying that the doctrine of Our Lady’s virginity in partu is not primarily concerned with physiological questions, doesn’t necessarily deny that it is also concerned with them. Though of course he might think that. The Holy Father has said that Müller’s judgement in theological matters is “ever reliable.”
July 4, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Yet the doctrine just is about a physical miracle. That is what it means. Of course, it has a spiritual significance, like all miracles. However, I shall take Berenike’s sage advice now and keep silence..
July 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm
True. That is what it is about. But it is a smaller error to mistake what the doctrine is primarily about than to deny the doctrine altogether.
July 5, 2012 at 10:24 am
Bishop Bogus Smirk is overjoyed (as I am sure will be “Catholic Voices”) –
http://bishopsmirk.blogspot.com/2012/07/benedict-xvi-sees-sense-at-last.html
I think only of the terrible effect of this kind on “nuancing” on the people in the pew, and especially the young.
July 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Sorry – ‘OF “nuancing”‘.
July 9, 2012 at 12:09 am
The sooner it is understood that neither the Pope nor his appointees possess Magisterium credentials, but that the entire Church is what is infallible, the sooner this feculent cesspool that sports itself as the See of Peter will be brought to what Christ founded, not what well-fed, ermine clad, dunces pronounce in ignorance if Scripture.
July 9, 2012 at 12:34 am
And how do you propose to identify what the ‘entire church’ has infallibly pronounced?
July 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm
The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II according to the doctrinal preamble-they must ask Di Noia and Muller to accept the Council with implicit, known only to God LG 8 and LG 16
I have been asked in a comment by I Am Not Spartacus on the website The Bellarmine Report (Cardinal Levada Muffs Pope’s Agreement with SSPX ) to explain an earlier comment of mine.
I Am Not Spartacus
I am sorry, but I do not understand what is being claimed here.
Dear Mr Andrades. In plain and simple language can you write what you think the SSPX is accepting in Vatican Two and what it is objecting to in Vatican Two?
Lionel:
What is the SSPX accepting in Vatican Council II?
The SSPX accepts Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
What is the SSPX objecting to?
The SSPX is really objecting to Lumen Gentium 8 and Lumen Gentium 16 being considered exceptions to AG 7 and to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX assumes that LG 8 and LG 16 contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
I am not Spartacus
Are you claiming that Vatican Two essentially teaches Feenyism?
Lionel:
Yes. Vatican Council II is in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In this sense it is in agreement with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
If LG 8 ‘elements of sanctification’ and LG 16 (invincible ignorance and a good conscience) are considered implicit and known only to God, they do not contradict the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on outside the church there is no salvation.
For Archbishop Di Noia LG 8 contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He mentioned this to Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II according to the doctrinal preamble-they must ask Di Noia and Muller to accept the Council with implicit, known only to God LG 8 and LG 16.
-Lionel Andrades