Supporter of liberation theology named next head of CDF July 2, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, horror, Papa, sadness, scandals.
When I first heard of this, I prayed it would not come to pass. I’ve been praying for it since. Apparently, my prayers were not availing. Archbishop Gerhard Muller has been named the next Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, has named Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Bishop of Regensburg, new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as well as the related positions of President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and President of the International Theological Commission), upon accepting the resignation of Cardinal Levada, who reached the age limit.
Bishop Muller was a student of, and some indications say even a disciple of, Fr. Gutierrez, the man who concocted the disastrous notion of liberation theology in the first place. Rorate Caeli has noted a number of other extremely concerning beliefs of Bishop Muller, unassociated with the, by itself, very concerning liberation theology:
In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is “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), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature). [Even more concerning is the sort of “aside” statement regarding the birth pangs. The Adam and Eve portion of Genesis reveal that the sufferings of birth came to women through Original Sin. Mary is sinless, and, thus, escaped those pains.]
In 2002, bishop Müller published the book “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens” (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In this book, he speaks of the Sacrament of the Altar and warns against using the terms “body and blood” in this context. These terms would cause “misunderstandings”, “when flesh and blood are considered to mean the physical and biological components of the human Jesus. Neither is it simply the transfigured body of the resurrected Lord that is being designated.”
Bishop Müller continues: “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.”[So……the Blessed Sacrament is just a “symbol.”]
Holy Communion transmits according to Müller a “community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver.” Bread and wine thus only become “symbols of his salvific presence”. [Symbol, again, and, more important, the “community meal” aspect of the Blessed Sacrament]
That is how Mgr Müller explains a “change of being” in the Eucharistic gifts:
“The essential definition of bread and wine has to be conceived in an anthropological way. [No. No, it doesn’t. It has to be considered in a supernatural way. It has always been considered in a supernatural way, for it is the greatest miracle in the history of the universe.] The natural essence of these offerings [bread and wine] as the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, as the unity of natural and cultural products consists in clarifying the nourishment and sustenance of man and the communion of the people in the sign of a common meal […]. This natural essence of bread and wine is transfigured by God in the sense that the essence of bread and wine is made to consist exclusively in showing and realizing the salvific communion with God.”
Well…….that’s just a bunch of modernism. I read one report describing Muller as a theological “conservative…….” Compared to whom? Rahner? Kung? There is much more troubling information at Rorate both at the link above and here.
Now, Cardinal Levada was hardly devoid of modernist beliefs, but I don’t believe he was so “out n’ proud” about it as this guy seems to be. I don’t know what that means. As I mentioned in the post below, socialism almost universally equates with the death of faith. And yet, “liberation theology” attempts to “meld” Christianity with communism. In practice, that has led to the collapse of the Faith, in countries like Brazil, which was 95% Catholic in 1960 and are now about 60% Catholic (and even that is a gross overstatement, for the number of true, believing Catholics is likely in the single digits, percentage-wise). Supposedly, Pope Benedict XVI chose this Muller because he is “comfortable” with him. Again, I’m not sure what that means, but it could be, perhaps should be, very troubling.
And now, this man will head the former Holy Office, with a huge influence on deciding what constitutes orthodox belief, or not. I believe this move will likely kill the reconciliation with the FSSPX.
Well, at least he’s German.