Home » Vatican News » New Vatican doctrinal chief talks about SSPX, LCWR discussions
New Vatican doctrinal chief talks about SSPX, LCWR discussions
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
German Archbishop Gerhard L. Muller
Asked about how he would handle the most controversial cases he inherited, the new head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office said, “For the future of the church, it’s important to overcome ideological conflicts from whatever side they come.”
German Archbishop Gerhard L. Muller, named prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in early July, told the Vatican newspaper that the congregation’s discussions with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and with the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious would focus on the fact that being Catholic means believing what the church teaches.
Although he has been a member of the congregation for five years, Archbishop Muller told L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, that it would take him some time to get up to speed on all of the details of the congregation’s work.
But, in the interview published July 25, the archbishop was asked what he thought about the ongoing discussions aimed at bringing the traditionalist SSPX back into full communion with the church and about the congregation-ordered reform of the LCWR, the organization that brings together the superiors of most religious orders of women in the United States.
Apparently referring to the talks with the SSPX, which rejects certain reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Muller said, “One cannot make reference to the tradition of the church and then accept only parts of it.”
In an apparent reference to the LCWR, he said, “One cannot profess the three religious vows (poverty, chastity and obedience) and not take them seriously.” [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
31 Comments
Excuse me, what is wrong with ordaining women? Oh, Jesus didn’t do it! Jesus didn’t marry either. Are you married Jim?
Ann — for the answer to your question, research the Church’s response to your question. It is God Himself Who assigns vocations to people; if He wanted you to be ordained, He would have made you a man. Frankly, you are a misogynyst — the fact that you feel inadequate as a woman because you can’t be ordained implies you think the role of women is inferior to men — but I don’t share your negative view of the roles God has assigned to women.
Wouldn’t it be funny if God is answering the prayer of the Chruch for an increase in vocations to the priesthood, by gving women then vocation and the men just aren’t listening.
The ways of the Lord are indeed strange.
And yes, Ann, I am married for a long, long time.
I will say this only once and I will never bring this up again. I am not a law unto myself. The charges were dropped against Bill Ayers, look up why. He went on to make a contribution to education. I hope to judged by the good that I do, not my wild youth.
Michael — according to the Wikipedia article on Ayers, which quotes a story done on him in 2004, he would not admit that bombing buildings was wrong. He was not a youth in 2004, so he, as a mature man, remains unrepentant. And, whether or not the charges were dropped is irrelevant — he himself admitted to being involved (I don’t remember the exact details) in the bombings, at least in their planning or their support, if not being the actual perpetrator himself. Anyone who refuses to admit this gross kind of error is not a good man. “By its fruits, you will know it” — and the fruits of Ayers are support of terrorist bombings for which, at least as of 2004, and very likely today in 2012, he has never apologized. Look at Psalm 1:1, Michael — it tells you very directly you should not be hanging out with people like Ayers. Even if you don’t physically hang out with him, you are providing social support for him, and that does not speak well of you.
Jim, As I’ve noted before about your comments like these that are actually attacks against another commenter and not on the issues at hand…they aren’t acceptable here at CathNewsUSA. We expect and invite constructive disagreement on issues and heated debate is welcome but the constant harassment of another commenter such as you have continued to do here is entirely unacceptable and–to use your own words from a comment you made in April 2012– “uncharitable.” Of course it isn’t surprising that you do all this from behind the cover of only using a first name online while the person you’ve attacked uses their actual name. I imagine it is easier be so judgmental and bullying when you’re anonymous. Suffice it to say, you’re welcome to continue to comment as long as you stop this harassment. Otherwise we will simply have to block you. I’d also like to suggest that in the future you have the courage of your convictions and stand behind your comments using your actual name instead of your current anonymous status. The approach you favor now is nothing if not cowardly.
editor
CathNewsUSA
Editor — so, will you have the same standard for me? When I am called a “closeted homosexual” or “psycho” or other very uncharitable comments? I have been called many many names such as these on this website, and where are you? And, the people calling me names also almost always are anonymous — so this is an absolute double standard you are applying. And, for you to suggest I am a coward, judgmental, and a bully — wow. Not very nice, not very charitable comments — will you block yourself from your website if you continue?
Jim, you like to argue, good for you. But please don’t play the victim here, it really doesn’t suit you at all given that you are the single biggest commenter on the site and make it a point to endlessly engage, correct and challenge every person you possibly can. Let’s face it you’re really more of a bully dressed up as an apologist.
It’s certainly unfortunate that people have attacked you personally on this site. We don’t condone that. And we also encourage people to be as transparent as possible about their identity, though, unfortunately that is a practice that has yet to become standard on the web.
We rarely step in to moderate comments (this is the first instance in over a year) however your constant references to Bill Ayers when addressing another commenter here crosses the line. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand and yet you continue to beat the issue to death.
As we’ve said numerous times, we welcome vigorous debate and disagreement but we also encourage that it be done in the spirit of Christian charity. By that measure as well, the discussion often falls well short but to continue to beat the dead horse as you’ve done with this Ayers issue is beyond the bounds of decency.
Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), Base communities in Latin America, Liberation Theology as tought by Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, and Medellin (CELAM), Catholics for Choice, and the struggle for Gays and Lesbians for fully recognition represent the best of Catholic teachings. The orthodox position is the same ideology that supported an ancient order of repression. Support of Franco in Spain for example.
So Michael, I should listen to you, right? And not listen to the authentic teaching of the Church, the MEN appointed by God to lead the Church, who God promised He would inspire to be inerrant in proclaiming dogma. Give me a break, Michael — you have no authority to teach, but the bishops do, and they oppose everything you support. By extension, I’m sure they’d oppose what Bill Ayers did, and therefore they’d oppose your 2008 public support of him.
The church cannot “bully” one into “believing” something that in their conscience is unfair and unjust to them.
Indeed, Recovering — and Jesus Himself will not “bully” you into asking forgiveness for your sins and accepting His offer of mercy — you are free to choose Hell for yourself. I hope you make the right choice.
This is copied-and-pasted from the source article: “The Vatican strongly and formally teaches that the church cannot change the male-only priesthood because Christ chose only men to be his apostles.” My, oh my, oh my — now, where are all my colleague bloggers who keep saying this is not doctrine and is open for discussion? Where are you, Concerned? Quit hiding under your desk and be a stand-up guy.
Jesus also chose only Jewish men, only white men, and both married and single men to be his apostles, and the paternalistic culture of his day influenced his chosing only men.
Right, Recovering — so, somehow, the Church that Jesus Christ started, the Church that He promised would be inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail — somehow, the wheels feel off and the Church is lost and drifing. Let’s look at it logically, Recovering: either you’re wrong, the Church is wrong, or you’re both wrong. I’ve got all of my money on the Church. After all, Jesus did not say He would inerrantly guide YOU, Recovering — He said He would inerrantly guide His Church, which is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Roman Catholic Church. You can keep fighting your battle, Recovering, but it will just lead to continual disappointment for you. “As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord.”
Who is Jesus church according to your understanding? Jesus or the Holy Spirit guided the wrong doing of so many priests and bishops too?
Mary; At the corner of my street there is a traffic signal, Red means Stop, Green means Go, and Yellow means caution. If I do not obey these signals – it is I, not the signal that is in error – I have the freedom to obey or disobey – I have a God given freedom to obey the “Teachings of Christ” and the “Holy Catholic Church” or to disobey these teachings.In other words I have the freedom to sin, if I that is what I want to do.
Jesus did not marry either? Are you married Jim? How can you be married, when Jesus wasn’t? Again, why can’t women be ordained? A tad sexist, don’t you think?
Wow, look at what Archbishop Muller said: being Catholic means believing what Church teaches — PRECISELY what I’ve been saying over and over on this blog. Either you believe what the Church teaches or you don’t. If you don’t, YOU’RE NOT CATHOLIC. Sound familiar, Tony? Your Church and mine is finally saying what needs to be said. Will you too now abandon the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church? “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Jim,
The church cannot “bully” one into “believing” something that in their conscience is unfair and unjust to them. A duty to follow conscience trumps.
Not true, Recovering — read the Catechism. It clearly states that one must follow their conscience, but it also clearly states that their conscience must be properly formed. The fact that you take issue with dogmatic teaching of the Church is prima facia evidence that your conscience is malformed — so, you would be wise to ignore it in this regard, and listen to the authentic teachers appointed by Jesus Christ Himself.
I’m glad to see the Church appointed another German to this very important position. We need the steadiness and rationality and uncompromising nature Germans bring to the table. We need all nationalities of course — but that includes the Germans and the gifts they bring. This is precisely what the world needs now, when it is totering on chaos.
Tony — no, the LCWR does NOT believe all the Church teaches. The head (Sr. Janet?) recently said she thought there was room for “discussion” (that’s what women do) on some issues. No there’s not, “Sister” — there is no discussion. You can and should listen to the Church; you can ask questions to clarify issues and enhance the accuracy of your understading of what the Church teaches; but there is NO room for “discussion” of the veracity of Church Magisterial teachings. These sisters are just dressed-up heretics. They invite speakers to their conferences that teach things diametrically opposed to the Magisterium; and — by their own admission — although they decided years ago to no longer publicly advocate for women’s ordination, privately many of them still hold onto this hope. That’s funny — I never heard of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta or St. Faustina or the Blessed Mother or St. Catherine of Siena or St. Claire or St. Bernadette or St. Teresa of Avila advocating for ordination of women. These LCWR sisters are NOT holy — they often are enemies of the Church.
Saint Therese, the Little Flower, wished that she could be a priest.
Weird, Tony, as I read a good portion of her Autobiography of a Soul and don’t remember reading anything like that. I’d like to know exactly what she said, and what the context was — because she was a truly obedient soul.
I think she says it to one of her letters to her Sister Marie. It is in her autobiography no question abot it.
Okay, Tony, tell me what page it is on — I want to check it myself, and I want to see the context and her ultimate resolution of the issue.
I read the Msgr Knox translation look it up
I hate to break the news to Muller but the LCWR does believe all that the church teaches especially the teachings of Social Justce issues as articulated by the popes and councils since Leo XIII.
BTW, Tony, that’s ARCHBISHOP Muller — have some respect for the legitimate leaders of Jesus’ Church on Earth.