test 2

01 Januar, 2014 / 9:43 AM

Cardinal Müller, many texts were adopted at the synodal way in Frankfurt a few days ago. We can only comment on some of them. But first of all, on a fundamental level: how much of the traditional teaching, for example on the priesthood or homosexuality, may a Catholic question before he ceases to be Catholic?

Müller: The sacrament of ordination (in the three degrees of bishop, presbyter and deacon), which is one in its origin and essence, has its basis in the calling and empowerment of the apostles by Jesus Christ, the Son of God himself. Against the objection of spiritualist groups up to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that the sacrament of Holy Orders did not belong to the substance of the Church, the episcopal-papal Magisterium (especially in the Councils of Trent and Vatican II) worked out the Christological origin and ecclesiological place of this sacrament. In it is also founded the "hierarchical, i.e. sacramental, constitution of the Church (cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium 18-29).

Therefore, whoever denies the essential elements of this ordained ministry instituted by Christ in the Church as an empowered ministry of Word and Sacrament, and whoever does not recognize the bishops and priests as the shepherds appointed by the Holy Spirit, can no longer call himself Catholic. What is constitutively Catholic, however, is not determined by the state registry office or the Central Committee of German Catholics or any other ecclesiastical organization of purely human right, but in the last instance only by the totality of Catholic bishops with the pope as the principle of the unity of the Church in the truth of the final revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The heretical contradiction to the revelation and its conceptual version in the binding creed of the church disguises itself, as already with the ancient Gnostics, as a further development of what is actually meant or as a necessary adaptation to the limited or time-conditioned comprehension capacity of the addressees - as with the so-called modernists of the century before last. One could no longer say against the mainstream of the homosexualized Western world what the meaning of the human nature created by God in two sexes was. And one could no longer call sexual activity outside the legitimate marriage of man and woman sin without exposing oneself to social ostracism or incurring the supposedly just punishment on the part of the judiciary, which has to watch over the socially permitted thinking, speaking and acting in a totalitarian manner. Banally said: It concerns nothing else than the dictatorship of the Mediokrität.

As for the ordained ministry, there are three levels - deacon, priest, bishop - but it is a single sacrament. So it would indeed be discrimination, as Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer warned in Frankfurt, to allow women only as deacons but not as priests or bishops. What problems are we getting into if we demand a diaconate for women?

Müller: In fact, there is only one ordained ministry. Therefore, its essential elements apply to all three ordinations. This realization has grown in the faith tradition of the Church, has prevailed even in the face of objections, and has therefore matured to the point of a magisterial definition that binds every Catholic in conscience.

Previously a text was approved saying that homosexuality should be viewed positively. Now another text has been adopted to allow celebrations of blessings for homosexual unions, as well as for civilly divorced and remarried people. Only two years ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had declared precisely these blessings of homosexual unions impossible. What does this behavior say about the Church in Germany, about the German bishops, but also about Rome, if there is no immediate intervention?

Müller:  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on behalf of the Pope, has clearly stated the Catholic doctrine of the bisexuality of man. In his recent interview (March 2023) with the Argentine newspaper La Nación, Pope Francis lucidly distinguished between pastoral care for persons with difficulties in erotic attraction by the same sex and the most dangerous colonization of the world by the totally unscientific gender and homo ideology. This is already evident in the nonsensical talk of a "biological man." As if the sexuality of man were something other than a biological fact, which, however, in the body-soul unity of man is also to be morally mastered in relation to the morally good, which comes to perfection in love. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only institution in the world that unconditionally upholds the dignity of the human person because, according to God's command, it both names the harmfulness of sin and imparts to every sinner the grace of repentance and conversion, thus holding out the prospect of a new life in the love of God.

Beyond the most original and therefore most progressive and beneficial definition of man, which Jesus, the Son of God, definitively reveals to us as the will of the heavenly Father and Creator of the world and of man (cf. Mt 11:25-27), there is no human knowledge that could relativize His word: "Have you not read that in the beginning [the reason in which the meaning of the Creator's will is revealed] the Creator created men as male and female, and that He said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. They are therefore no longer two, but one." (Mt 19:4-6). Even with the most sophistical twisting of words, so-called modern exegetes cannot conceal the revealed truth that the consequence of the denial of God is the lie about the right relationship of man and woman and that, as a consequence, the sexual intercourse of people of the same sex with each other contradicts the two-sex natural disposition of man and thus constitutes the grave sin of fornication (cf. Rom 1:18- 32; 1 Cor 6:9f). Even the shitstorms in the mainstream media or the fines and prison sentences against believing Christians in ideological dictatorships cannot change this, even if the corresponding laws give themselves a formal democratic veneer.

Another text called for lay preaching, lay baptism and assistance in marriage to be made possible by lay people. Apart from the fact that this is already the case in some German dioceses, at best semi-legally, what is the need for permanent deacons?

Müller: These options have their reason not in a lack of priests and deacons in Europe or in a special emergency of endangered salvation, but in the urge of full-time lay people in pastoral ministry to exercise priest-like functions in order to increase their own social prestige. The actual minister of baptism is the bishop or priest and also, if they cannot be present, the deacon. The layman can administer emergency baptism only in an emergency, when the individual soul-salvation of the candidate for baptism is at stake - but not solemn baptism in the visible congregation of worship. Episcopally commissioned and theologically trained lay persons may say a spiritual word in non-Eucharistic services and thus participate in the proclamation by virtue of the common priesthood, should there be a qualified witness. In Western theology - which would need to be discussed in more detail - it is the spouses who administer the sacrament of marriage to each other. The bishop or priest, as representative of Christ and representative of the Church, confirms the marriage covenant on their behalf. "It behooves men and women to enter into their union with the consent of the bishop, so that marriage may be according to the Lord [cf. 1 Cor. 7:39: "marriage in the Lord"] and not to lust. Let everything be done for the glory of God!", writes already at the beginning of the 2nd Christian century Ignatius of Antioch to his episcopal brother Polycarp of Smyrna (ch. 5, 2). So it is going in the wrong direction if priests are pushed out of the liturgy of marriage.

Bishop Georg Bätzing told the opponents of the reforms at the press conference at the conclusion of the Synodal Way, "What are we taking away from you by the decisions we are making?" He continued, "Please live what is important to you, and we won't take that away from you." How would you respond by speaking for ordinary Catholics, so to speak?

Müller: This is eyewash according to the slogan "Stop the thief." Faithful Catholics will not allow themselves to be defamed as opponents of reform, certainly not by bishops, who should not throw their propaganda around the ears of others, but should keep in mind the word of the apostle and ponder in their hearts, "Do not conform yourselves to this world, but reform yourselves and renew your minds, so that you may test and discern what is the will of God: what is pleasing to Him, what is good and perfect." (Rom 12:2). The resolutions of the "Synodal Way" take away from faithful Catholics "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:5) to replace it with the cheap lenticularism of a homosexualized ideology, the true gravitational center of German Synodalism - a reprehensible ideology which in its crass materialism is a mockery of God who created man in His image and likeness as male and female.

How do you explain the fact that more than two-thirds of the bishops in each case have agreed to texts that are obviously in contradiction to the traditional teachings of the Church? How can a bishop agree or abstain - an abstention was counted as a vote not cast - if he sees only some positive passages in the texts, but considers others problematic? Some bishops, after all, have stated that they will do just that.

Müller: It is a serious violation and an inexcusable abuse of episcopal authority, just as in the Eastern Roman Empire the majority of bishops advocated Arian heresy, that is, the denial of the divine nature of Christ, or as in North Africa at the time of St. Augustine the Donatist bishops, that is, bishops who had developed their own ecclesiology different from Rome, outnumbered the Catholic bishops. For their excuse, one cannot point to ignorance or fear of persecution by anti-clerical dictatorships or seduction by brainwashing propaganda. The anthropological teachings of Vatican II on marriage, family and sexuality, especially also on the body-soul unity of man in his person (with self-consciousness and freedom) must be known to them. They have also been publicly pointed out to their serious errors by the Pope himself and by the two competent prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Bishops.

Those bishops who voted against the approved reforms are now under massive pressure. This pressure has been calculated in by the reformers, as one could also gather from Bätzing's remarks at the press conference. You were once Bishop of Regensburg yourself. What do you recommend to your confreres? How would you proceed in this situation?

Müller: Throughout the last years this game of media dictatorship has been played, which in itself proves the godlessness of these campaign operators up to the institutions paid by the bishops, which betrays itself in the inhumane and unchristian agitations against decent and competent representatives, be they bishops, priests and laymen. Always according to the principle: if there are no arguments, try personal insults.

(Die Geschichte geht unten weiter)

The sacraments are still valid, even if a priest or bishop is fully behind the decisions of the "synodal way". But is it advisable for the faithful to receive the sacraments regularly from such clergy, or should one perhaps travel further distances to receive Holy Communion on Sundays in another place, etc.?

Müller: Yes, the sacraments are valid even if they are administered by a schismatic or heretical bishop - but only if he merely intends to do what the Church understands those sacraments to be. But one should also avoid these persons who lead so many of Christ's sheep entrusted to them on the wrong path. By the way, many Fathers of the Church have also been severely persecuted by heretics, such as Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Pope Martin I, etc. The so-called blessing of same-sex couples is a fraudulent label. The appearance of the gesture of blessing does not correspond to any reality of the helping grace communicated by God. It is a grave sin to invoke the name of God to justify the frivolous transgression of God's commandments, which always save us from the mischief of sin, with the love of God. "For the love of God consists in our keeping His commandments. His commandments are not difficult. For everything that comes from God defeats the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world: our faith." (1 John 5:3f.)

Within the framework of the "synodal way" it has been decided by majority vote - as in a party - what German Catholics are to believe and what Catholics worldwide are to believe. Is it compatible with the Bible as well as with the teachings and tradition of the Church that decisions of faith are bindingly determined by vote according to political guidelines with a majority, especially since a large part of the members is theologically uneducated or only rudimentarily educated?

Müller:  This assembly, which calls itself self-empowering, usurpatory, "synodal way", although there was not in the least an open discussion oriented to the Word of God, has no foundation in the sacramental constitution of the Church. It is only a forum for the - albeit unsuccessful - exchange of opinions. The "synodal way" is by no means - as it was said in complete theological ignorance - instead of God the sovereign of the national German church, which can give the bishops the order to abandon the revealed truths in favor of a materialistic world view or even to contradict them diametrically. To the bishops who, in full contradiction to their divine mission, namely to present and defend the Catholic faith in all its truth and fullness, agreed to these spiritually confused texts or cowardly abstained, the word of the evangelist applies that the "leading men" came indeed to believe in Jesus, but did not openly confess him, merely out of fear of being expelled from the synagogue [today: the political correctness of woken barbarism]. "For they loved reputation with men more than reputation with God." (Jn 12:43).

The "synodal way" claims to represent German Catholics in a legally binding way, suggesting that it is entitled to this legitimacy. Can an extra-ecclesiastical body, which has no democratic legitimacy, make decisions for all German Catholics?

Müller: The "German Synodal Way" does not belong to the sacramental church constitution, but is nothing more than an informal body. There can be no question of a legally binding representation of Catholics. The members of this body, sent by the ZdK or appointed by the bishops, represent the Church neither to the state nor to society nor to history, and certainly not to Catholics in their obedience of faith to God. They represent no one but themselves. Even if they had been sent to this body as representatives by the majority of German Catholics in a kind of general and free election, they would have no authority which could bind the individual German Catholics or their totality in their conscience of faith. Even the numerical majority of bishops cannot oblige anyone to obey statements contrary to faith or orders contrary to morals. Unlike the apostles, the bishops are not infallible bearers of revelation, which is completed with the end of the apostolic second and which is fully available in the Holy Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition. Infallibility (as an authentic interpretation of the depositum fidei) accrues to them in their totality under the leadership of the Roman pope only if they adhere to the "teaching of the apostles" (Acts 2:42) (Vatican II, Dei verbum 7-10).

The Central Committee of Catholics (ZdK) claims to represent the interests of the Catholic laity as a whole - but without the members of the ZdK being elected to this body by German Catholics. The ZdK can therefore only be seen as a sham representation. Does this body therefore have the legitimacy to represent the interests of all German Catholic laity?

Müller: The arrogant claim to represent the interests of Catholics alone shows the horrendous theological lack of education of the authors of these monstrous synodal texts. With whom do the baptized members of the body of Christ want to declare and enforce interests, if they are concerned with the salvation of the world in Christ, instead of their purely earthly lust for power. Moreover, the pilgrim Church has no worldly interests at all (Vatican II, Lumen gentium 8). For she is determined by "no earthly will to power, but only this one thing: to carry on, under the guidance of the Spirit, the Comforter, the work of Christ himself, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served." (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 3).