Vatican (kath.net) With the last plenary assembly, the negotiations and democratic votes of the so-called “Synodal Way” have been concluded. The majority vote decisions are now to be implemented. However, the resolutions do not meet with the unanimous approval of Rome and the Pope, both of which represent the universal Church and thus 1.3 billion Roman Catholics, and both of which are responsible for guaranteeing the unity of the two-thousand-year-old Church in the truth of Christ.
The resolutions have, in fact, been criticized not only by German Catholics, but also worldwide. The decisions of this reform process, which claim legal validity, are apt to move away from the principle of unity that has guaranteed the continuity of the Church for two thousand years. The abandonment of the principle of unity has far-reaching consequences. We spoke about this with Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a dogmatist and dogma historian.
Lothar C. Rilinger: Many texts were adopted a few days ago at the “Synodal Way” in Frankfurt and we can only focus on some of them. But first of all, in principle: How much of the traditional teaching, for example on the priesthood or on homosexuality, may a Catholic question before he ceases to be Catholic?
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller: The sacrament of ordination, one in its origin and essence, in the three degrees of deacon, priest and bishop, has its foundation in the calling and commissioning of the apostles by Jesus Christ, the Son of God himself. Against the objection of spiritualist groups and ultimately the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, that the sacrament of Holy Orders was not part of the substance of the Church, the episcopal-papal Magisterium (especially in the Councils of Trent and Vatican II) has worked out the Christological origin and ecclesiological place of this sacrament, in which the hierarchical, i.e. sacramental, constitution of the Church is also founded (cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium 18- 29).
Therefore, whoever denies the essential elements of this ordination, instituted into the Church by Christ, as a commissioned 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 (cf. Vatican II. Lumen gentium 14). What is constitutively Catholic is therefore 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 entirety of Catholic bishops, with the Pope as the perpetual principle of the unity of the Church, in the truth of the definitive revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The heretical objection to Revelation and its conceptual wording in the binding Creed of the Church disguises itself, as it already did with the ancient Gnostics, as a further development of the actual meaning, or, as it did with the so-called modernists of the 19th century, as a necessary adaptation to the limited or contemporary comprehension capacity of the addressees.
Against the mainstream of the Western world, they maintained, one could no longer say what the purpose of the human nature created by God in two sexes was. And sexual activity outside the legitimate marriage of man and woman one could no longer call sin without exposing oneself to social ostracism or incurring the supposedly just punishment through the judiciary, which has to watch over socially permitted thinking, speaking and acting in a totalitarian way. To put it plainly: it is nothing other than the dictatorship of relativism.
Rilinger: There are three degrees of ordained ministry (deacon, priest, and bishop) but it is a single sacrament. So it would indeed be discrimination, as Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer warned in Frankfurt, if women were to be admitted only as deacons, but not as priests or bishops. What problems does one become entangled in when demanding a diaconate for women?
Card. Müller: There is indeed only a single and indivisible sacramental ministry in the three degrees of bishop, priest, and deacon. Therefore, its essential elements apply to all three degrees of ordination. This realization is rooted in the faith tradition of the Church, has prevailed even in the face of heretical objections, and has therefore matured to the point of a magisterial definition that binds every Catholic in conscience.
Rilinger: Last time, a text was adopted according to which extramarital sexual relations should be deemed positive. Now another text has been adopted that is supposed to facilitate celebrations of blessings for sexual relationships of all kinds, but also for civilly divorced and remarried people who live in violation of their indissoluble sacramental marriage. Only two years ago, precisely these blessings of non-marital sexual relationships had been declared impossible by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. What does this attitude say about the Church in Germany, about the German bishops, but also about Rome, if there is no immediate intervention?
Card. Müller: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on behalf of the Pope, has clearly emphasized the Catholic doctrine of the two human sexes. In his most recent interview (March 2023) with the Argentine newspaper La Nación, Pope Francis lucidly distinguished between pastoral care for persons who struggle with erotic attraction by the opposite sex, and the most dangerous colonization of the world by the completely unscientific gender ideology, which is to be imposed on everyone – including poor countries – by the corresponding billionaire lobby. If a country refuses, the lobby threatens with the capping of development aid and thereby deliberately accepts hunger and impoverishment.
This is already evident in the pseudo-scientific 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, needs to be morally managed as well, in regards to the morally good, which comes to perfection in love.
The Catholic Church is, in fact, the only institution in the world that unconditionally upholds the dignity of the human person because, according to God’s commandment, it calls the harmfulness of sin for what it is and at same time imparts to every sinner the grace of repentance and conversion, and thus presents him with 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 revealed 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 realization that could relativize His word: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning” [the reason in which the purpose of the Creator’s will manifests itself] “made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. ” (Mt 19:4-6).
Even with the most sophistical twisting of words, contemporary exegetes cannot conceal the revealed truth that the denial of God results in the lie about the right relationship of man and woman and that consequently the sexual intercourse of people of the same sex contradicts the two-sex natural disposition of man and thus constitutes a grave sin (cf. Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9f). Neither the shitstorms in the mainstream media nor the fines and prison sentences imposed on faithful Christians in ideological dictatorships are able to change this, even if the relevant laws aim to be formally democratic in appearance.
Rilinger: Another text called for facilitating lay preaching, lay baptism, and lay assistance in marriage ceremonies. Besides the fact that, semi-legally at best, this is already the case in some German dioceses, what is the need for permanent deacons?
Card. 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 neither can be present, the deacon.
A layperson can administer an emergency baptism only in a case of emergency, when the individual salvation of the baptismal candidate’s soul is at stake – but not the solemn baptism in the visible mass community. Lay persons, commissioned and theologically trained by a bishop, may say a spiritual word in non-Eucharistic services and thus participate in preaching on the basis of the common priesthood, if they have qualifying documentation.
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 agent of the Church, confirms the marital covenant on their behalf. As early as the beginning of the second century A.D., Ignatius of Antioch writes to his episcopal brother Polycarp of Smyrna: “But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God,” [cf. 1 Cor 7:39: “marriage in the Lord”] “and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honor of God.” (Ch. 5). Pushing priests out of the liturgy of marriage therefore is a step in the wrong direction.
Rilinger: During the press conference at the conclusion of the “Synodal Way”, Bishop Georg Bätzing told the opponents of the reforms: “What are we taking from you with the decisions we are making?” He continued, “Go on and live what is important to you, and we are not taking that from you.” How would you respond to that, speaking for ordinary Catholics, as it were?
Card. Müller: That is sheer cynicism along the lines of the slogan “Stop thief!” Faithful Catholics will not allow themselves to be defamed as opponents of “reforms”, certainly not by bishops who – in complete contradiction to the episcopal ideal of Vatican II – should not be slapping others in the face with their anti-Catholic propaganda. Faithful Catholics are guided by the apostle’s word about the reform of the mind in Christ: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom 12:2).
The resolutions of the “Synodal Way” rob faithful Catholics of the “truth of the Gospel” (Gal 2:5), only to replace it with the cheap lentil pottage of a sex-fixated ideology, the true center of gravity of the German “Synodal Way”, a kind of nihilistic materialism that is a mockery of God who created man in His image and likeness as male and female.
Rilinger: How do you explain the fact that in each case more than two thirds of the bishops voted in favor of texts that evidently contradict the traditional teachings of the Church? How can a bishop vote in favor 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 have, in fact, declared that they will do exactly that.
Card. Müller: This is a serious violation and an inexcusable abuse of the episcopal authority, just like the majority of bishops forcibly imposed the Arian heresy, i.e. the denial of the divine nature of Christ, in the Eastern Roman Empire, or like the Donatist bishops, who had developed a sacramental theology deviating from Rome, outnumbered the Catholic bishops in North Africa at the time of St. Augustine. In their defense, they cannot claim ignorance, fear of persecution by anti-clerical dictatorships, or seduction by brainwashing propaganda. They must be familiar with the anthropological teaching of Vatican II on marriage, family and sexuality, especially also on the unity of body and soul in the human person (with self-awareness and freedom). They were also publicly called out on their serious errors by the Pope himself, by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.
Rilinger: Those bishops who voted against the approved reforms are now under massive pressure. This pressure is factored 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 recommendations do you have for your brethren? How would you proceed in this situation?
Card. Müller: In the course of the past few years, this play of media dictatorship was staged, which in itself already proves the godlessness of these campaign operators, reaching even into the institutions that are paid by the bishops. This godlessness betrays itself in the inhumane and unchristian agitations against decent and competent representatives, be it bishops, priests and laymen, always according to the principle: if there are no arguments, try personal insult.
Rilinger: The sacraments are still valid, even if a priest or bishop fully backs the resolutions of the “Synodal Way”. But is it advisable for the faithful to receive the sacraments regularly from such clergy, or should they perhaps be willing to travel further, to receive Holy Communion on Sundays in another place, for instance?
Card. 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 by these sacraments. But one should also avoid these persons who lead so many of the sheep of Christ entrusted to them on the wrong path. Incidentally, many Fathers of the Church have also been severely persecuted by heretics, e.g. Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Pope Martin I, and others.
The so-called blessing of same-sex couples is a labeling fraud. 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 in order to justify the frivolous transgression of God’s commandments (which always save us from the calamity of sin) with the love of God. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.” (1Jn 5, 3-4)
Rilinger: Within the ramifications of the “Synodal Way” – just like in a political party – it has been decided by majority vote what German Catholics are to believe and what Catholics worldwide should 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 a majority vote according to political directives, especially when a large part of the members is theologically uneducated or only rudimentarily educated?
Card. Müller: This assembly, which presumptuously calls itself “Synodal Way”, even though there was not the least sign of any discussion being open and guided by the Word of God, has no foundation in the sacramental constitution of the Church. It is merely a forum for the – albeit unsuccessful – exchange of opinions. The “Synodal Way” is by no means (as was stated in complete theological ignorance) the sovereign of the national German Church in lieu of God, which can give the bishops the order to abandon the revealed truths in favor of a materialistic world view or even to diametrically oppose them.
To the bishops who agreed to these unbiblical texts or cowardly abstained from voting, in full contradiction to their divine mission, namely to present and defend the Catholic faith in all its truth and fullness, the word of the evangelist applies that “many even of the authorities believed in him”, but did not openly confess him, merely out of fear of being expelled from the synagogue [today: the political correctness of woke barbarism]: “for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (Jn 12:42-43).
Rilinger: 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 that is not democratically legitimized make decisions for all German Catholics?
Card. Müller: The “German-Synodal Way” is not part of the sacramental church constitution and 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 faithful obedience to God. They represent no one but themselves. Even if they had been delegated to this body as representatives by the majority of German Catholics in some kind of general and free election, they would have no authority which could bind the individual German Catholics or their entirety in their conscience of faith. Even the numerical majority of bishops cannot oblige anyone to obedience towards statements contrary to faith or orders contrary to morality.
Unlike the apostles, the bishops are not infallible bearers of Revelation, which was completed by the end of the apostolic era and is available in its entirety in Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. They only enjoy infallibility (as an authentic interpretation of the depositum fidei) in their entirety, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff, if they adhere to the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2. 42) (Vatican II, Dei verbum 7-10).
Rilinger: The Central Committee of Catholics (ZdK) claims to represent the interests of the Catholic laity in its entirety, even though the members of the ZdK were not elected to this body by German Catholics. The ZdK can therefore only be seen as the semblance of representation. Does this body then have the legitimacy to represent the interests of the entire German Catholic laity?
Card. Müller: The arrogant claim to represent the interests of Catholics is in itself an indication of the horrendous theological illiteracy of the authors of these monstrous “Synodal” texts. Who are the baptized members of the Body of Christ going to approach to declare and enforce their interests, if they are concerned with the salvation of the world in Christ, rather than their purely worldly lust for power?
Incidentally, the pilgrim Church has no worldly interests at all (Vatican II, Lumen gentium 8). “Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served.” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 3).
Rilinger: Eminence, we thank you for your arguments, which are grounded in the dogmatics of the Roman Catholic Church and thus take into account the long theological tradition of the Roman Church.
Editor’s note: This essay was first published in German at kath.net and is posted here with kind permission of Mr. Rilinger. The essay was translated by Frank Nitsche-Robinson.
Related at CWR:
• “The Catholic Church in Germany after the Synodal Way: Three Scenarios” (February 23, 2023)
• “The Church in Germany is on the path into total insignificance” (February 6, 2023) by Birgit Kelle
• “A view from Germany: The Synodal Way abuses the Catholic Faith” (March 17, 2023) by Anna Diouf
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We all have but one of two choices: You can give witness to the Truth OR you can give witness to Lies. You cannot do both at the same time or over the same matter. Similarly, our choices can be virtuous or they can be sinful.
We have only to ask ourselves two questions: Is this truthful or is this a lie; and, is this virtuous or is this sinful.
A most timely and useful interview — thank you!
A threshold appears at hand in Germany’s Synodale Weg regarding the disaster of Apostasy. Reading through Card Müller’s responses that seems evident. Example, Rilinger begins with the key question, “How much of the traditional may a Catholic question before he ceases to be Catholic?”. Card Müller, “Whoever denies the essential elements of this ordination can no longer call himself Catholic Lumen gentium 14”. Card Müller isn’t quite as definitive in respect to homosexuality. However, he does imply Apostasy, “Even with the most sophistical twisting of words, contemporary exegetes cannot conceal the revealed truth that the denial of God results in the lie about the right relationship of man and woman”.
John Paul II’s Codex of Canon Law 751 defines Schism as the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff [or communion with members of the Church]. 751 defines Apostasy as the total repudiation of the Catholic Church.
It can be argued that Germany’s Synod is heading toward schism as the article headlines. Although canon 751 apparently describes what’s occurred in Germany is now, at least Schism. Apostasy, total repudiation of the Catholic Church seems arguable if we consider examples. Large swaths of German Catholicism sided with Luther during the Reformation, key doctrines were obstinately denied, Heresy [canon 751], refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, Schism [751].
We may compare German Catholicism siding with Luther to the Greek Orthodox Church which fell into Schism. Both retained much of what was consistent with Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, the German Church that sided with Luther was judged Apostate. A complete repudiation of the Catholic Church. Doesn’t the Synodale Weg resemble the Lutheran break with Catholicism rather than the Greek Orthodox?
Additionally, we have the Synod on Synodality heading in similar direction as the Synodale Weg. That highlights the significance of the Roman Pontiff’s direct intervention in the German Synod in preventing further damage to the universal Church.
“… the most dangerous colonization of the world by the completely unscientific gender ideology, which is to be imposed on everyone – including poor countries – by the corresponding billionaire lobby.”
This calls to mind the previous phase of the colonisation of the third world in the late 20th century, when the insertion of a quota of IUDs, the establishment of abortion clinics, and widespread sex ed were the price of development monies. Interestingly, those who decry imperialism (a valid concern) never utter a peep about this sort of steamrolling of local cultures. Both the Beijing and Cairo conferences sponsored by the Vatican highlighted the tragedy.
As an aside, did the Cardinal really say “shitstorms”? Well, with that helpful cue…
Yes. The complete sentence, in German: “Daran können auch die Shitstorms in den Mainstreammedien oder die Geld- und Gefängnis-Strafen gegenüber gläubigen Christen in Gesinnungsdiktaturen nichts ändern, selbst wenn sich die entsprechenden Gesetze einen formaldemokratischen Anstrich geben.”
die Shitstorms?! LOL. Amazing how a typically vulgar shorthand captures much of the essence of what is happening, and the role of many in the media to help bring about more and more of these particularly destructive messes.
What I particularly like about Cardinal Müller is that he almost always teaches with straightforward no-nonsense clarity as befits a very good Catholic bishop. In doing this, he also rightly opposes the harmful ‘make a mess’ modus operandi that too many of his brother bishops have proudly adopted in their dummkopf modernist efforts to recreate the Church in their own image.
Perhaps he has been spending too much time around Papa! It has been said he has a salty tongue! Is it a case of taking the bouncer out of the pub, but not being able to take the pub out of the bouncer?
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 5:4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Colossians 3:8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
Yo, Brian, get with the program! Is “shitstorm” really a corruption (Eph 4:29), or filthiness (Eph 5:4), or obscene (Col 3:8)? Or is it an accurate rendition of what happens when we synodally walk too close in the “smell of the sheep”?
I recall some decades ago when William F. Buckley was still with us and described in print a shitstorm argument he had in public with Gore Vidal. Vidal had been outed as a homosexual and demanded an apology from Buckley’s followup. To which Buckley wrote in his column that he wondered why it was acceptable to engage in sodomy while it was not acceptable to put one’s objections in words.
As an apology, he then suggested a drink together, and concluded the article with: “bottoms up!” Lacking today is our former delight in humor and good rhetoric…it’s biblical!
Genesis 21:6 “And Sarah declared, ‘God has brought me laughter. All who hear about this will laugh with me.’”
Job 8:21: “He will once again fill your mouth with laughter and your lips with shouts of joy.”
Dear Peter:
The eminent William F Buckley. Did you listen to his discussion with the excellent Fulton J Sheen? Two noble and encyclopedic minds with resolve to leave the listener in better standing!
Yet, as we stir up our exchange, you leave nothing to chance in trying to vanquish your unworthy opponent! A discordant note, real or perceived is latched unto with gusto by my worthy antagonist.
Would anyone other than a sycophant suggest that Papa “has the smell of sheep on him”? But, to your point, anything that is uncouth coming from a senior churchman is unseemly. Christ bought us at a price and the Holy Spirit works to conform us into His image. Though I fail in many ways (confession upon confession) an effort is made to show Christian witness.
Why not try these on for size and see if they better suit you. Perhaps a well cut glen-check, an end on end dark blue shirt and a Hermès foulard. An architect conveys style as a bishop communicates godliness!
1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Matthew 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
God bless you,
Brian
“Uncouth”? Not at all, but yes a bit earthy…
“You blind guides, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24).
Hence Muller’s theological and vernacular precision about Germania swallowing too much, and then a trip to the shithouse.
Also this: “Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. “Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated [uncouth horrors!]?” (Matthew 15:16-17).
Here’s another biblical thought about camels. Would one really strain a camel through the eye of a needle? Read somewhere that in Aramaic the word for camel is the same word as for rope. The hyperbole still stands but makes more sense–a rope passing through the eye of a needle. The enigmatic jots and tittles of sola Scriptura!
Good CWR Readers:
Remember that Fulsome Brian Young is an apostate from the One True Faith, and he is a dedicated Protestant. Pray for his conversion back to the One True Faith, but in the meantime do not be deceived by him. He comments on CWR pages in an effort to promote more Protestantism, and he lavishes sycophantic praise on Carl Olson so he can continue to do so.
However, to show you yet another example of how much of what he sets forth should simply be rejected or taken with a large grain of salt, note how he uses a false bible (Protestant English Standard Version that is rightly not recognized as legitimate by the Catholic Church) to present unjust personal attacks on Cardinal Müller:
What Ephesians 4:29 actually sets forth via the Revised Standard Catholic Version is the following:
“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.”
The words of Cardinal Müller are not evil talk in any way, shape, or form, and they are indeed edifying. As such, citing this passage via the illegitimate Protestant version to make it look like the good Cardinal’s words are “corrupting” and unworthy is an unjust personal attack on Cardinal Müller by Brian Young.
Next is Ephesians 5:4. According to the Revised Standard Catholic Version, it reads:
“Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.”
The illegitimate English Standard Version is close to the Catholic version in this regard but no matter. The use of die Shitstorms does not come close to the meaning of filthiness that pertains to living/acting in moral depravity. It is also not silly talk, nor is it levity. Hence a second unjust personal attack on Cardinal Müller by attributing things to him that are flat out wrong and quite despicable.
And to complete the trifecta, the Revised Standard Catholic Edition renders Colossians 3:8 as follows:
“But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.”
Again the illegitimate Protestant version comes close, but not close enough. Foul talk, in context, pertains to talk about acting immorally concerning sexual behavior. die Shitstorms has nothing to do with any of this.
3 erroneous and completely out-of-context passages from an illegitimate bible presented by Brian Young to falsely attack Cardinal Müller for some things he did not even come close to doing. Of course, quoting out of context is extremely unjust, but it is a long-time practice employed by Protestants of various stripes in order to wrongly criticize things they do not like while pretending to take the high ground.
4th unjust personal attack on Cardinal Müller by Brian Young:
“It has been said he has a salty tongue! Is it a case of taking the bouncer out of the pub, but not being able to take the pub out of the bouncer?”
Young’s rhetorical question is simply uncalled for and outrageous, but it reflects the real Brian Young that he veils well enough so many do not see through his ongoing efforts to corrupt the faith of as many Catholics as he can, courtesy of CWR comboxes.
Good Readers of CWR:
If Brian Young responds to this comment, watch for all sorts of fake humility, fake sincerity, denial spinning, perhaps some fake apologies, playing the victim (why are you criticizing little o me, boo hoo? why don’t you like me, boo hoo?), and whatever else he decides to employ to try to put his mask back on. But if you check a dozen or more of his comments posted under a variety of articles, you will see his real agenda frequently in play. In this combox he insidiously hopes to persuade people that the good Cardinal Müller should be roundly criticized based on the false and ridiculous premise that the use of die Shitstorms is a violation of biblical principles. In other comboxes, similar tactics are repeated so he can attack various Catholic beliefs, and so on. Don’t let him get away with it no matter how much he employs the Mr. Nice Guy persona to hide at least part of his real agenda.
“Fulsome Brian Young is an apostate from the One True Faith,…”
If Brian has stated that he is former Catholic, I missed it. It would be good to know if, in fact, that’s the case. Thank you.
“He comments on CWR pages in an effort to promote more Protestantism, and he lavishes sycophantic praise on Carl Olson so he can continue to do so.”
I agree completely that Brian has an agenda, and is, in the end, meant to undermine the Catholic Faith. I’ve engaged with him in good faith, and have finally given up, as he simply won’t address the fundamental questions about his flawed approach to Scripture, authority, the Church, etc.
Moderating comments here is, to be frank, the most thankless of tasks at CWR. I’ll just note that many of Brian’s recent comments have not seen the light of day, as they are clearly meant to not only undermine discussions, but to do so in the sort of passive-aggressive fashion for which I have little patience or time.
Dear Carl:
It comes as a relief to know you are more conscious of my “agenda” than I am myself. Assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is beyond parallel or any sort of criticism, how could one begin to “undermine the Catholic faith”?
If anyone cares to know what my “agenda” is, it is to proclaim Christ crucified. Unless grossly mistaken, that too is the focus of the Church of Rome. One may ask, what is my “flawed approach to Scripture”?
Any follower of Christ recognizes the attack on the church. If I say I am with you, then I am not against you.
You are to be given credit that you allow divergence of opinion. The strength of Jesus Christ is my quest.
Mark 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.
Blessings,
Brain.
Behold, thou doth exacerbate. And slandereth–A few comments below, we are treated to a gratuitous and cleverly backhanded false witness (8th Commandment): “Until recently there was little if any written queries [pl?] as to whether Bregoglio [sp] is a homosexual […].”
To post such as this on a website with tens of thousands of readers is a very public action. And, prescinding from the deception of the Fundamental Option, it is a very grave matter and, if done with full knowledge and will—is it close to being a mortal sin separating one from the “Christ crucified” whom we all “claim to proclaim”?
Thee also coverth thine ass-umptions thusly, “If I say I am with you, then I am not against your,” but there is also the scriptural (!) other half of the riddle: “He that is not with me is against me [!]; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt 12:30).
Or this: “but if he does not even listen to the Church, he should be for you like a pagan and a public sinner” (Mt 18:15-17).
Or this: “If you have once or twice warned a man who errs in the faith, then avoid him” (Titus 3:10).
Or, “If somebody lives in disorderly conduct [public slander?] and does not remain in the tradition [not limited to sola scriptura] handed down by us, we command you, brother, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from him” (2 Th 3:6).
So, as for the “shitstorm” for which you pontificate so sanctimoniously from thine lofty perch, and as for the gratuitous and globally-public slander, we beseech thee to cease wiping thy sole on this website.
Prithee, by thine own actions, do not exclude thyself from future CWR discourse.
Unasked in this interview: why has the Pope himself sat on his hands and failed to bring in these Bishops for a direct and pointed conversation?? Or provide them a clear warning that they are stepping dangerously over the line? Having the Pope filter and mute his thoughts via word salad communication through a second party, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is a major cop-out. Oddly, he has no similar trouble slamming those who prefer the Latin Mass for example. But he seems unable or unwilling to put the Germans in their place before they split the church with schism and begin a new Christian liberal sect. This sect will NOT teach the Lord’s WAY, but simply the German Synodal Way, which is nothing more than what is in current secular fashion. It IS in fact his JOB to “judge” and it would be better for all if he did it sooner, rather than later.
“Why has the Pope himself sat on his hands and failed to bring in these Bishops for a direct and pointed conversation?? Or provide them a clear warning that they are stepping dangerously over the line?”
Only one explanation. He agrees with what they’re doing, plain and simple. He’s been more vocal against faithful Catholics than false shepherds.
Until recently there was little if any written queries as to whether Bregoglio is a homosexual! A concern people have been ignoring or have been afraid to discuss until his deafening silence on recent developments in the German Church.
People are saying that he is unsuited to his role and should resign, either of his own accord or by proxy.
Cdl. Muller is always worth listening to.
(Maybe somebody should tell him “shitstorm” is not a particularly elegant word in English. OTOH, maybe what seems to be an accepted term in German could be adapted for use in English in this case).
Actually, Gilberta, German culture picked up on adopting the English “shitstorm” quite a few years ago, and it is preferred over a more precise German translation.
At a time in which an enormous and relentless effort is being made to sow confusion, it must be a burden for Cardinal Müller to have to be as deeply unconfused as was Cardinal Ratzinger, but he has risen to the occasion.
Meanwhile, in progressive dioceses in the U.S., we are on the way to Synodaler Weg outcomes without the synodality. Yesterday at Easter Mass, we had heretical hymns, a lector who inserted emphatic gestures and commentary, a homily on how to be nice and inclusive “like Jesus,” ad-libs throughout the Eucharistic Prayer, communal prayers for “victims of gun violence” and “victims of the war in Ukraine” (fine, but zero mention of innocent aborted babies and victims of radical gender ideology and victims of drug overdoses due to a cartel-run southern border). At my parish, and generally in my archdiocese, the Church acts as a regime-affirming puppet, not a witness to the Gospel or to the Good, True, and Beautiful as informed by the Apostles and Tradition. Who needs den Synodalen Weg when progressive bishops can achieve nearly the same ends without the overhead of meetings, etc.?
Your reference to ad-libs throughout the Eucharistic Prayer is reminds me of this thread:
ASK FATHER: Father omits both “for all” and “for many” from the consecration of the Precious Blood. Wherein Fr. Z rants.
The Revelation 11 “Two Witnesses’ are the Jewish and Catholic Churches.
42 months, 1260 days, 3.5 years, is symbolic for the period of time between the exile and Fall of Israel, and the rise of Zion, aka ‘The New Jerusalem’, aka the post Apocalyptic Catholic Church atop God’s Holy Mountain. The Rise of Zion is the Second Coming of Jesus to reside in the Body of the Catholic Church. Jesus will Rule with and through the Catholic Church, which will be 24 Catholic and Jewish combined elders, under Messianic Reign on earth, in Jesus’ Kingdom Come on free willed earth. All Spiritual Blessings and Sacraments of absolution of sin flows from heaven to earth through the Catholic and Jewish Churches, who are the ‘Two Witnesses’.
Revelation 11:5
If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and devours their enemies. In this way, anyone wanting to harm them is sure to be slain.
Revelation 11:5 is Catholic Anathema and Jewish Kareth.
Revelation 11:7
When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the abyss will wage war against them and conquer them and kill them.
Revelation 11:7 is Satan, coming up from hell to kill and destroy the Catholic and Jewish Churches, and all their teachings from the Holy Spirit over the past 2500 years. The Jewish Church was killed by Satan at the time when they handed over their Messiah Jesus Christ to be crucified. If the whole Catholic Church goes the route of the German Synodal Path, then we can clearly see that the Catholic Church will have been killed by Satan. When the Synodal Path takes over, then all the work done by faithful Catholic leaders and Catholic Saints will be finished, with no further guidance of the Holy Spirit to be used by the Catholic Church, only the secular lbgt and any fleshly desires and whims of those inputting into the Synod on Synodality.
Then, in Revelation 11, Jesus’ Second Coming, Comes and God blows new life into the Jewish and Catholic Churches, who are the ‘Two Witnesses’, and the Revelation 21 ‘New Jerusalem’ is born on free willed earth. This will be the Resurrection and Restoration of the ‘Two Witnesses’, who are the combined Jewish and Catholic Churches on free willed earth, in the post Apocalyptic Catholic Church, New Jerusalem. The Revelation 11, ‘Come up here’, as Satan is cast down to earth, is Jesus taking over as King and Ruler of the world, as God authorized secular power, which is presently ruling the world as a punishment from God, are removed as God’s selected rulers over Israel and the world. Jesus will Rule on earth with and through His Church, the Catholic Church.
Revelation 11:11
But after the three and a half days, a breath of life from God entered them. When they stood on their feet, great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them, “Come up here.” So they went up to heaven in a cloud as their enemies looked on. At that moment there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell in ruins. Seven thousand people* were killed during the earthquake; the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. The second woe has passed, but the third is coming soon. The Seventh Trumpet. Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet. There were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world now belongs to our Lord and to his Anointed, and he will reign forever and ever.” The twenty-four elders who sat on their thrones before God prostrated themselves and worshiped God and said: “We give thanks to you, Lord God almighty, who are and who were. For you have assumed your great power and have established your reign.
Jesus will Rule with and through His Church, the Catholic Church, which will be the combined authority of the 24 Catholic and Jewish elders.
Acts of the Apostles 1:6
When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
An absorbing and provocative commentary from your chair. That you strive with this complex aspect of eschatology is needed! Hopefully this will generate further discussion from those with far more knowledge than myself.
Blessings
Well Thank you Brian.
May 24 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a faithful “Instruction” on the role of the Catholic theologian and it threw up a strong opposition. Ratzinger discusses it in his little book The Nature and Mission of Theology -Part 3. He said that the “controversy” was “vehement” and a complete contradiction to the purpose and positioning of the Instruction. In effect what we could call a flamewar, hate slinging. Interesting how Germans and Latins singled out themselves, back then!
“Yet theologians, especially in German-speaking countries, together with a group of Latin American theologians, claimed to see in the text the precise opposite – a constriction of theological inquiry which posed a threat to its authentic nature. ….. Individuals like Hunermann and Mieth engaged in fierce polemic. Nor is commentary undersigned by a good one hundred Latin American, exactly delicate in its appraisals when it condemns the Instruction as ‘ incriminatory ‘ and ‘ intellectualistic ‘ .”
Edit: * Latin American theologians *
“Love one another as I have loved you.”
Not
“Regulate one another to death as I have regulated you to death.”
* Women are human beings and make all the human beings,not boots on the ground.
* Black people are human beings.
* Gay people are human beings.
* Exceptional people are human beings.
* “he and him” are only two pronouns and are rendered meaningless when used exclusively. Stop it.
It’s not clear to me but you seem to be reacting to Ratzinger and trying to make what he said redundant as opposed to admitting it for regulation.
You also seem to be trying to establish regulations of some sort but it’s not developed.
The pronouns actually can only be used exclusively. That’s just the way that is.
Natural metaphor allows us to call our homeland “fatherland” or a ship “she”, etc. -as opposed to “it”.
When you want to make unnatural things acceptable what you are doing is attacking the dignity of the human being and the teaching of the faith. It’s not possible to reverse this by saying “But they’re all human beings” and “It serves the faith”.
Mercy encompasses the moral law for the sake of man and the moral law encompasses mercy to the glory of God.
DocVerit above – I gather that German adopted the word “shitstorm” from English but I’m not aware of wide use in (polite) English. I do think borrowing it back has merit in the context Cdl. Muller is describing.
(Who knew etymology could be so much fun!)
Gilberta: We don’t need to borrow it back. It remains in use and will appear every now and again in various forums.
DocVerit – Obviously I’m going to have to expand my literary sources.
To Carl Olson regarding his inquiry presented in his comment of earlier today, April 11, 2023 at 9:51 AM.
Greetings, Carl:
I don’t know if Brian Young has come right out and said that he is a former Catholic, but consider the following he wrote in a combox on March 10, 2023 under the March 8, 2023 article by George Weigel on the “New Ultramontanism and the Dissing of Vatican II”:
First in response to Ronald Cook who mentioned being an altar boy in the fifth grade, Young writes:
“It is a special honour to give service as an alter boy (server). The feeling of being close to God is something well remembered.”
Later that same day in response to Mark Beaulieu, Young first makes an absurdly false claim about the history of the bible, and then states the following that also contains some absurd conclusions:
“It has been may (sic) years since reading Deuterocanonical Books, however they brought nothing new and in some cases were contradictory to the widely accepted 66 books that make up the bible (as I recall).”
Putting both of these statements together strongly suggests that he was a one-time altar boy and had also read from a Catholic Bible, so I have gone with the assumption that he is a former Catholic. However, I am ready to give up this conclusion if Brian Young does not equivocate in any way and states definitively that he has never been a Catholic.
________________________
Perhaps more importantly, I have a recommendation that might help a bit in your fun-filled task of being a moderator:
It is clearly stated on this website that “Catholic World Report is a free online magazine that examines the news from a faithfully Catholic perspective.”
If you do not want to prevent people like Brian Young from being able to comment despite his mission to not present things from a faithfully Catholic perspective, one thing you can add to the comments’ requirements in the yellow box above is something along the following lines:
‘As Catholic World Report is deeply committed to presenting things from a faithfully Catholic perspective, any comments that include biblical quotations from any bible that is not an approved Catholic Bible will not be published. Even though some non-Catholic translations of the Bible contain passages with terminology that is very similar to what is found in approved Catholic Bibles, there are still too many passages presented in non-Catholic bibles that can easily lead people astray from the proper teaching found only in approved Catholic Bibles. We at Catholic World Report would be remiss in our duty to faithfully uphold and present the truth of the Catholic Faith if we published any comments that also quote, paraphrase, or even summarize biblical passages from non-Catholic bibles.
(You might also consider providing what should be a fairly short list of the approved Bibles accepted by CWR, and that way, no snake or anyone else can claim that he or she is quoting from X approved Bible when such is not the case.)
Of course, by adding this reasonable requirement in order to comment in a decidedly Catholic journal, taking things out of context by many insincere commenters will not, of course, be prevented, but at least you will spare all good Catholics and others from being fed words that in and of themselves will frequently contain errors. In short, you put a stop to a major aspect of bogus Protestant preaching frequently being done in the CWR comboxes.
DocVerit,
You raise an interesting point about Brian’s memory of being an “alter boy (server),” but because of his sloppy spelling and apparent unfamiliarity, maybe he is not actually talking about himself. Or maybe, at the same time, he is also trying to cross-dress the altar server’s sacramental fact of closeness into his own “Evangelical Christian” (recently announced) and non-sacramental orbit.
On the question of an “agenda,” what are we to make of his much earlier misstep in revealing that his purpose is “to influence Catholics”? (Or, was it possibly to “guide,” or to “educate”?) Very smooth insinuatations along the way? But, then, to cloud the picture further, Brian has also confided twice that he suffers from COVID brain fog.
Perhaps a mixed bag of motives and actions. Not all of his entries are tainted. But, overall, if he is water-resistant to good-faith engagement with Carl Olson–and “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck”…
Peter:
As I set forth, if Brian Young unequivocally states that he has never been Catholic, I will back away from my current assumption that he once was.
As for “Covid brain fog,” this never interferes with what he wants to get across, so this is indeed quite dubious.
And of course as you know from some of your own engagements with him, Young has repeatedly attacked a variety of Catholic doctrines, and he frequently calls for Catholics to reject the doctrines regarding the Papacy. He has made false claims regarding the Catholic canon of scripture, and for this article, he unjustly attacked Cardinal Müller. By the bye regarding the good Cardinal, Young’s alleged “brain fog” didn’t prevent him from remembering an irrelevant part of his past as a young man that Young made use of to take another cheap shot at him.
Bottom line: The evidence one can gather by checking a dozen or more comments by Brian Young reveals his ongoing efforts to undermine the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Faithful in their adherence to the Faith. The recommendation I offered to Carl would at least prevent Young and any other person from attempting to preach their non-Catholic heresies, etc., while setting forth passages from their non-Catholic collections of the Scriptures in an online Catholic journal to support their anti-Catholic efforts.
Regarding the last line of your comment, Brian Young has quacked often enough to reveal that he is indeed a duck intent on muddying clear Catholic waters with Protestant bilge that must always be rejected.
Categorically and without question, I have not been a Roman Catholic. My parents were raised in the Church of England as I abided as a child. Was a member of the servers guild (alter boy) and it was a blessing. Each Sunday the congregation would recite the following words including the full Creed:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
Discussing nihilism, agnosticism, substandard philosophy or prolix discourses are too difficult to wrap my head around (the aftereffects of Covid, yes it is real).
Seeing you are attentive to my words, nowhere will you find me advocating anyone leaving the Church of Rome. On the contrary, I have encouraged people to stay and fight the good fight of faith.
To clarify, it was Bergoglio who was a bouncer prior to entering Catholic studies. I have a great deal of admiration Muller, let us give honour to the man!
Allow me to ask, if the Catholic Church is unassailable, why upset at a lone protestant offering Holy Scripture?
Indeed, you are challenged to find any substantial difference between the Revised Catholic Bible and the ESV for example. Over the past years Catholic exegesis has made important strides in elucidating God’s truth, as the New Vulgate demonstrates.
Further, when someone has done good work is it out of place to compliment them? Example, Paul and Barnabas!
These words are offered in the spirit of godliness and edification. Once again, I bear no animus to any faithful follower of Christ.
BYoung: “Categorically and without question, I have not been a Roman Catholic.”
DVerit: Okay, Brian. One more thing remains in this regard to be crystal clear. We know that you have not been a Roman Catholic, but have you ever been a Roman Catholic at any time in your life?
BYoung: “Seeing you are attentive to my words, nowhere will you find me advocating anyone leaving the Church of Rome. On the contrary, I have encouraged people to stay and fight the good fight of faith.” (Spinnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: What you have been rightly accused of is Undermining the Catholic Faith and trying to persuade Catholics to give up some of their doctrinal beliefs. Contrary to your spin, this is NOT fighting the good fight as you wrongly claim. Instead, you are spreading malevolent poison as not only I but others have also pointed out, and you want some people to stay in the Catholic Church in the hopes that if they get buffaloed by you even a little bit, they will also help in your malevolent mission to undermine Christ’s One and Only Church: the Catholic Church.
BYoung: “I have a great deal of admiration Muller, let us give honour to the man!” (Spinnnnnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: You filled up an entire comment wrongly and unjustly attacking the good Cardinal. As such, this particular snake oil you are now presenting to try to cover up your unjust attack on Cardinal Müller will not sell.
BYoung: “Allow me to ask, if the Catholic Church is unassailable, why upset at a lone protestant offering Holy Scripture?” (Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: First, nobody has claimed that the Catholic Church is unassailable as a general proposition, but this is a Catholic website dedicated to promoting the One True Faith, not your Protestant heresies. If a Protestant entered a Catholic Church, he would be welcome so long as he was respectful. If he stood up and started preaching Protestant claptrap as you do here, he would be rightly escorted out. This may still happen to you here, and it would be most appropriate and just to do so. As such, I suspect that you will fulsomely praise Carl yet again for so far letting you get away with spreading your anti-Catholic errors by blowing smoke up his …, and telling him how great he is to let you spread your lies, though of course you will spin it differently and claim it’s about different opinions, and so on. Secondly, the way you present Holy Scripture is seriously flawed since it comes from a bogus Protestant bible and bogus Protestant interpretations. Thirdly, you frequently offer passages of Scripture completely out of context to promote more false Protestantism, and, again, in order to undermine the Catholic Faith.
BYoung: “Indeed, you are challenged to find any substantial difference between the Revised Catholic Bible and the ESV for example.” (Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: You just can’t stop spinning. For starters, the extremely flawed ESV lacks all of the deutero-canonical books that are completely legitimate and ignorantly excluded from the ESV and from other Protestant bibles. This in and of itself is an extremely substantial difference between legitimate Catholic Bibles and illegitimate Protestant Bibles such as the ESV. Moreover, as I clearly set forth, many passages in the New Testament will be similar among various versions of the Bible, but there will also be some passages in the ESV that are problematic just in their wording alone. I pointed out one such wording difference between the ESV and the RSVCE in your false use of Ephesians 4:29 to personally and unjustly attack Cardinal Müller. I am sure there are others as well, but such is of course secondary to the most important fact, and that is the many errors of interpretation of Scripture from the Protestant perspective. Even when Protestant renditions get it right, Protestant interpreters often read it wrong. One of the most glaring illustrations of Protestant interpretation incompetence that continues to plague Protestantism is the infamous failure to properly interpret and reconcile James’ “faith without works is dead” with Paul’s “saved by faith.” Catholic exegesis gets it right. Protestant exegesis never does, but it remains very proud of its sola fide absurdity.
B. Young: “Over the past years Catholic exegesis has made important strides in elucidating God’s truth, as the New Vulgate demonstrates.” (Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: As you have clearly demonstrated a serious lack of biblical understanding, such a claim is patently absurd. The Catholic Church has, ever since it began, continued to make improvements in its exegesis as befits the One True Church. Along the way it has demonstrated the many errors found in Protestant exegesis, successfully smashing any and all new errors whenever they rose up to challenge Christ’s One True Church. As for the New Vulgate, it is a translation used in and for special circumstances, such as regarding the liturgy of the Mass. There is nothing “new” or an “important stride” in terms of basic Catholic Church exegesis and doctrine arising out of the New Vulgate, so this is just another bogus claim made by you.
Your penultimate paragraph is a big Duh and has no real application to what’s involved here, so on to your final spin.
B. Young: “These words are offered in the spirit of godliness and edification. Once again, I bear no animus to any faithful follower of Christ.” (Spinnnnnnnnnnn)
DVerit: Yowza! I can ‘see and hear’ someone singing “How Great Thou Art,” but it is you doing the singing while looking in a mirror. For your own sake, get off that hellish high horse you are riding.
When ongoing efforts to undermine the One True Faith are purposely undertaken In the Midst of a Dedicated Catholic Home of sorts, the spirit overseeing such malevolence is not one of godliness and edification. Rather, it is a spirit of deception and monstrous pride in wrongly assuming that you, in a presumptuous spirit of godliness (what a crock!), can edify faithful members of the One True Church, especially when a significant portion of your faux edification is to try to persuade faithful Catholics to give up some important aspects of the Faith that was given to them as a gift from Christ Himself.
1 Peter 2:23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.
1 Peter 3:9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
These words guide me, so I send you and others blessings that honour Jesus Christ.
LOL. Here we go again with ‘apostate’ Brian Young now proudly assuming that he is like Jesus who was wrongly persecuted when He (Jesus) did no wrong, and also unjustly declaring that rightful criticisms of him (Young) are evil. In short, he is playing his oft-employed phony victim card in yet another proud ‘holier-than-thou woe is me but I will rise above it’ rubbish attempt to gaslight the unwary.
But…good fellow Catholic Readers of CWR, again I implore you to pray that Brian gives up his malevolent anti-Catholic efforts, and that he also returns to the One True Faith, but in the meantime, do not let him deceive you by his misquoting and misapplying the Scriptures to ultimately serve his anti-Catholic purpose.
Carefully consider the following:
First properly quoting from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (RSVCE) of the Bible as opposed to the flawed Protestant English Standard Version (ESV) used by Young on this Catholic website, 1 Peter 2:23 reads as follows:
“When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.”
The passage from the seriously flawed ESV is quite close to the RSVCE, but once again in play is the disingenuous Protestant deception of quoting out of context, and also leaving out clarifying passages. As I briefly mentioned above, the quoted passage actually pertains to imitating Christ’s suffering ….WHEN Unjustly attacked. Returning to Peter’s epistle as set forth in RSVCE, note the following more complete picture left out by Young:
1 Peter 2: 19-23: 19 For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.”
None of the above applies to Brian Young and his ongoing efforts to undermine the Catholic Faith on this Catholic website. He has not suffered unjustly by being rightly criticized for his undermining efforts, and he does not get credit for any kind of suffering brought about by his wrongdoing. Also note how Saint Peter specifically mentions that Jesus committed no sin and no guile was on his lips, and this also does not apply to Brian Young.
As such, the short passage presented by Brian Young is not applicable to him in any way when read in proper context, yet he falsely pretends that it does, and that he is simply following Jesus’ example. However, and somewhat ironically, by quoting the single passage as he does, he exhibits significant injustice toward those who rightly criticize his destructive efforts. In essence, he is virtually declaring that he, like Jesus, has been wrongly criticized, yet he will rise above it, which is pure hokum on his part.
Next passage cited via the RSVCE:
1 Peter 3:9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Again we see that the flawed ESV rendition is virtually the same as the RSVCE, but note here how Brian Young is painting a bogus picture that he has been the victim of evil and reviling, but (also applicable to the other quoted passage) reviling or to revile as used in Scripture pertains to being attacked with evil and unjust words, none of which applies to him. Once again he plays the phony victim card while unjustly declaring that he has been wrongly attacked, but he will rise above it. Such sinful pride masquerading as humble righteousness is not simply wrongheadedness; it’s flat out pathetic, and even worthy of some pity, but not to the extent that we can ignore or give him a pass for his dedicated mission of undermining the Catholic Faith and abusing the Catholic Faithful in the process.
Lastly, Brian Young’s declaration that what he cited guides him can be taken at face value, BUT once again, it is based on his significantly false application of the passages to portray himself as a wronged innocent victim while at the same time falsely accusing others of rightly calling him out for his malevolent anti-Catholic efforts in the comboxes of Catholic World Report.
Hey, it’s not about you and your pious self-purity, wrapped predictably in a reasoned default into rote scriptural citations. It’s about your obvious and entangled agenda.
If it was only about Brian himself we might be quoting G.K. Chesterton and his definition of a madman:
“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason [….] that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle, but, through it is quite as infinite, it is not so large” (“Orthodoxy,” written in 1924, still twelve years before the author converted).
“Self piety”. No, I confess my sins daily. Only the Lord is holy and it is with joy I acknowledge His excellence and wise council, through means of his word and amidst prayer.
My “agenda” is honouring the Lord. Can one suggest anything more noble? Your proclivity is to diminish His word, allow me to say, I celebrate it. Who then is correct?
Chesterton, was a man of intellect, superior to yours truly. Yet, I promulgate Jesus Christ. Is He not the head of the church and to be given the utmost accord? Hoping you also find comfort in the following?
Psalm 37:5 Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act.
Psalm 31:5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.
Psalm 10:14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless.
Exercise thin eyes…the word is “self-purity”–not self-pity…And, then thou generously announce that those other than thyself “diminish His word”! But, the view must be great all by yourself, a quote collector, up there in the front row!
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get'” (Luke 18:10-12).
Can individual bishops declare other bishops excommunicated with them or in a state of “impaired communion”?
Maybe when individual bishops say “sorry German clergy you ain’t recognized here” will they start to realize the implications of what they’ve done (besides I’m starting to wondering if the German bishops have the right understanding of the priesthood to have the proper intent to ordain).
A question regarding veneration of the Blessed Virgin not having scriptural basis was raised recently among the current ‘keyboard warriors’ [Pope Francis’ description not mine though I don’t discount my keyboard participation] involved in indefatigable polemical battles.
A more than interesting topic because veneration of Mary is what distinguishes Catholicism within the three monotheistic religions. Catholicism has its roots in Christ’s revelation to the Apostles. And is the source of vital theology on women, and the family. Tradition, especially Apostolic has an acknowledged place in Catholic theology and moral doctrine. We may add spiritual development among its members. Is there a scriptural root to Marian devotion?
Christ’s words from the Cross, Woman, there is your son. There is your mother. Those words from the cross delineated in terms of mother, son signify more than an ordinary mother son relationship because they are commands. As commands they acquire purview beyond the ordinary. Woman replacing mother means ‘this woman Mary’. To the Apostle John, There is your mother without naming him means all are her sons. She, the new Eve, Theotokos, Mother of the Church [Christ’s Mystical Body] assumes Motherhood for all men male and female.
Furthermore, Marian devotion engenders a spiritual refinement among the faithful, a sensitivity to things spiritual and beautiful enhancing a person’s humanness.
Thank you Brian Young for your candour in allowing us to know your denominational profession. Before now, your postings at CWR confined the reader to the framed limits apart from any other specified reality; leaving the reader to guess at the inspiration, the meaning (or content) and the end.
I think your not having told about the Anglicanism before now, was bound to work against your good intentions.
As with many Christians, you uphold your religion according to what you have received. Maybe in future posts we can delve into the niceties of our differences according to faith.
For now I’d like to note what I tell Anglicans, high and low.
Anglicanism is rooted in the Act of Supremacy passed by the English Parliament on behalf of Henry VIII. Politically and legally, this was an anomalous development and contradiction, in the unfolding Parliamentary democracy.
First, it positioned a power for the Parliament not arising in the people. Of course, even to today no Parliament ever has any such power, not even the UK/English Parliament. The people is enslaved to this since that time.
Second, it sealed the undermining of the supremacy of the Monarch. Strange as it is, Henry VIII surrendered his authority to the arch-rebel Cromwell and the rule of cabal by laws; and England thereafter never was the same.
Both items have had lasting effects on English and UK political culture. In particular, the Monarchy is always in a mode of asserting, re-crafting and restating Crown sovereignty inside of this, appearing as both subject and object.
But the effect also is on the practice of faith. This can be observed on two fronts. If you review what I have just described, you will see that there is unnaturalness and heresy at work constantly making life to second it.
On the other hand, at the very core of the Monarchy and the English establishment are the Lodge and Rosicrucianism. They are by their own definition all about themselves and are intrinsically, and irredeemably, against faith.
I find no pleasure to know of it. One mourns for the British Isles and England.
Dear Elias:
Thank you for your thoughts. Today, i consider myself to be non-denominational. The Anglican Church still calls to me, yet the liberals have done a thorough work in trying to destroy her. The liberals in the Catholic Church are attempting that same nonsense and as you may gather, I deplore this as well! Despite some well held differences, we both want the Catholic Church to prosper and share Jesus Christ with the world.
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
John 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.
John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
God bless you,
Brian
Brian Young, sometimes we can misdirect ourselves in an exchange. Take the time when a discussion came up between the owner of a 7-11 type metro-mart grocery store and a family member. After some analysis of products the family member recommended to the owner, stocking a popular brand of coffee which the store never carried. It had good margin too.
The owner replied that the coffee tasted burnt compared to other brands; and preferred to avoid it. Of course the point was that if it would sell it would be worth stocking it; however the owner superimposed an irrational idea to decide against it.
Fortunately in that instance it proved easy between them for the wrong notion to be dispelled!
Take note, there is nothing in scripture or Tradition appointing anything to Protestants; nothing making the monarch of a country, the head of the Catholic Church or faith in that country; nothing supplanting the Holy See.
Nice to hear back from you Elias:
Looking at your last paragraph, allow me to respond with some scripture! No you won’t be surprised. 🙂
The British monarch is but a titular head of the Anglican Church. The actual head would be the Archbishop of Canterbury .
1 Peter 2:17 Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor.
With reference to the See of Rome, is there any scriptural decree giving him such wide authority? A few verses to ponder!
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Jeremiah 23:11 “Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their evil, declares the Lord.
Isaiah 22:22 and I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Matthew 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
God bless you,
Brian
Those are not confusions for the faithful. They are confusions for the unfaithful.
WESTERN SCHISM II
1. “The Western Schism” is the name that historians givee to a split within the Catholic Church lasting from 1378 to 1417 in which bishops residing in Rome and Avignon both claimed to be the true pope, and were joined by a third line of Pisan claimants in 1409.
2. I think “Western Schism II” might be the name given to the period commencing with the Vatican II Council, a period, lasting about 60 years now so far, in which several different versions of the Catholic Faith battled it out for settled recognition as the True Faith.
Gus,
Methinks you’re really onto something here. History books are sold by reducing complex situations to a synoptic phrase or chapter heading. Such as the Classical Period, or the Roman Empire, or the Dark Ages, or even the Protestant Reformation…
In the future, surely there are millions to be made from a best seller, and even an entire genre entitled the “Inclusive Shitstorm: the Meaning of what IS, is.”