Card. Brandmüller speaks bluntly

Over at LifeSite there is a post about remarks made by His Eminence Walter Card. Brandmüller.

Cardinal Brandmüller: Advocates for changing Catholic teaching on marriage are ‘heretics’ – even if they are bishops

April 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has been among the leading voices critical of proposals stemming from the Vatican’s Synod on the Family

CLICK TO BUY!

that risk subverting Catholic teaching on the sacraments and morality. He was one of five cardinals who contributed to the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ, which focused on criticizing Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to open up Communion to those in irregular sexual unions.

LifeSiteNews contributor Dr. Maike Hickson interviewed Cardinal Brandmüller last month.

LifeSiteNews: Could you present once more for our readers clearly the teaching of the Catholic Church, as it has been consistently taught throughout centuries concerning marriage and its indissolubility?

Cardinal: The answer is to be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1638-1642.

Can the Church admit remarried couples to Holy Communion, even though their second marriage is not valid in the eyes of the Church?

That would be possible if the concerned couples would make the decision to live in the future like brother and sister. This solution is especially worth considering when the care for children disallows a separation. The decision for such a path would be a convincing expression of the penance for the previous and protracted act of adultery.

Can the Church deal with the topic of marriage in a pastoral manner that is different from the continual teaching of the Church? Can the Church at all change the teaching itself without falling herself into heresy?

It is evident that the pastoral practice of the Church cannot stand in opposition to the binding doctrine nor simply ignore it. In the same manner, an architect could perhaps build a most beautiful bridge. However, if he does not pay attention to the laws of structural engineering, he risks the collapse of his construction. In the same manner, every pastoral practice has to follow the Word of God if it does not want to fail. A change of the teaching, of the dogma, is unthinkable. Who nevertheless consciously does it, or insistently demands it, is a heretic – even if he wears the Roman Purple. [That is the red color that Cardinals wear.]

Is not the whole discussion about the admittance of remarried to the Holy Eucharist also an expression of the fact that many Catholics do not believe any more in the Real Presence and rather think that they receive in Holy Communion anyway only a piece of bread?

Indeed, there is an indissoluble inner contradiction in someone who wants to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and to unite himself with Him, while in the same time he disregards consciously His Commandment. How shall this work? St. Paul says about this matter: ‘Who eats and drinks unworthily, is eating and drinking his judgment…’ But: You are right. By far not all Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated host. One can see this fact already in the way many – even priests – pass the tabernacle without genuflection.

Why is there nowadays such a strong attack on the indissolubility of marriage within the Church? A possible answer could be that the spirit of relativism has entered the Church, but there must be more reasons. Could you name some? And are not all these reasons a sign of the crisis of Faith within the Church herself?

Of course, if certain moral standards that have been valid generally, always, and everywhere are not any more recognized, then everybody makes himself his own moral law. That has as a consequence that one does what one pleases. It can be added the individualistic approach to life which regards life as a single chance for self-actualization – and not as a mission of the Creator. It is evident that such attitudes are the expression of a deeply rooted loss of Faith.

[…]

You can read the rest there.

Please share!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Card. Brandmüller speaks bluntly

  1. RJHighland says:

    Thank you Card. Brandmuller for saying what needs to be said by a Cardinal about these wolves in sheeps clothing that are Cardinals and Bishops in the Church. Everybody so easily calls the SSPX schismatic when you have Cardinals, Bishops and priests that are outright heretics and few people say anything and never call them what they are. You have to be obedient, not to heretics! Thank you Card. Brandmuller and the few true shepherds that are still present in the Church, there might be a few St. Nicholaus’ and St. Athanasius’ in the heirarchy yet, most of them contributed to “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, may God bless them and protect them from the lavander wolves.

  2. Latin Mass Type says:

    Our Lady of Akita, pray for us.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

    For our part, let us pray and do penance.

  3. Supertradmum says:

    More than the spirit of relativism…demonic attacks, as Satan hates the Church so much, of course.

    I wish the Pope would ask us all for a rosary crusade against the powers of evil which we cannot see.

  4. Gerard Plourde says:

    But is there really a danger of the Church allowing people committing adultery to the sacrament?

    Let me posit a scenario – a couple present themselves for confession. They are married outside the Church. Each had previously been married but the marriage ended in divorce. They confess their adultery and promise to no longer engage in conjugal relations. Can they be admitted to the Eucharist? If not, should they be since they will no longer be committing the sin?

  5. Pingback: Card. Brandmüller speaks bluntly | Deaconjohn1987's Blog

  6. Traductora says:

    “Is not the whole discussion about the admittance of remarried to the Holy Eucharist also an expression of the fact that many Catholics do not believe any more in the Real Presence and rather think that they receive in Holy Communion anyway only a piece of bread?”

    To me, this sums it up.

  7. Landless Laborer says:

    I’ll say it again. The Church no longer has an office which places the heretic outside the fold. That turned out to be a major coup for the enemy, and efforts should be undertaken to restore that office.

  8. Justalurkingfool says:

    What do marital vows mean? Do they mean, merely, that I will NOT sleep with another? Or do they mean something else?

    What sort of repentance is it when vows have been long violated by both unjust separation and adulterous living and spouses, truly married to their long abandoned spouses, come to realize(I do not know how they did not know this from the beginning) that their relationship is indefensible but want it to continue and that it can, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, as long as they stop sleeping with their lover?

    Is this repentance?

    What about their sacramental, first marriages? What of the children of those sacraments? What of those who know of their adultery and have long been scandalized….like their children and like the children of their adultery? Godparents? In-laws? Their abandoned spouses, perhaps?

    How does a “brother and sister” relationship with another person, honor their sacramental vows? Are vows only “thou shalt nots?” Is/are there no positive obligation(s) that is/are owed in justice?

    So, because they have children from their adultery, this makes it ok to completely abandon their vows, as long as they stop sleeping together?

    If someone had taken the time to carefully explain to me, specifically how unjust and cruel, the “brother and sister” accomodation truly, in practice as I have seen it up close and personally, is or would be applied, I would not have married in the Catholic Church.

    I think it is a scandalous injustice that marriage preparation classes do not emphasize the consequences of this accomodation? This accomodation, I believe beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a strong incentive for the destruction of many marriages. I think that failure to advise people contemplating marriage of such, very likely possibilities, should, itself, be a basis for nullity.

  9. Imrahil says:

    is a heretic

    To my knowledge, the actual question – which is:
    “can, in a person living in a stable sexual relationship hindered from marrying his partner by the existing bond, any circumstance be assumed to mitigate the sinfulness of sexual intercourse so that it would no longer be grave sin?”
    has not been decided by the Magisterium by a dogma. So we can’t speak of a heretic really.

    (To enter into a remarriage after divorce or any such partnership is, in any case, grave sin; St. Paul explicitly forbids it.)

    By the way, the stand of the German bishops is, in that actual issue on the principle, only marginally different* from that of many Christians counting themselves into the “orthodox camp”, who tell the divorced-remarried: “I pity you for the hard situation you’re in. Give witness to the insolubility of the marriage-bond by refraining from Communion. You never communicate and still appear in Church every Sunday? Oh, I think you are very devout. Well, at least you can make a spiritual Communion.”

    [*Rather different in policy, though. I’m not saying that it’s “only a policy”. But even should we assume it ceased to be grave sin after some time in some case (because it would be too hard to break up), it might still make much sense to have a policy that makes the remarriage – which, as I mentioned, as such certainly is gravely sinful, see St. Paul – something hard to bear and not reduce the marriage bond to something that might be objectively there but in practical life does not matter.

    But let’s face it: this is not the problem at all. The real battle is fought about the sinfulness of the act, per se.]

    Is not the whole discussion about the admittance of remarried to the Holy Eucharist also an expression of the fact that many Catholics do not believe any more in the Real Presence and rather think that they receive in Holy Communion anyway only a piece of bread?

    Er, no. I think Cdl Brandmüller is a great man, but I don’t think he is right here.

    Sure: faith, conscious faith, in the Real Presence has suffered, and suffered enormously.

    But for a’ that and for a’ that, the craving of the divorced-remarried for Communion is a rather strong sign that subconsciously people do realize the importance, and (in parts) meaning of Holy Communion; even though, yes, they might not be able either to state the Church’s belief in the Real Presence correctly or to add an “I believe so” to it.

    If they assumed It to be nothing else than a piece of bread, people simply wouldn’t care.

    They don’t complain about being excluded from the Church’s banquet (or anything like that). They don’t even so really complain about being denied the sacramental Communion, and the union with our Lord Himself which it brings. What they really complain about is – I shall put it colloquially – being denied Heaven.

  10. ConstantlyConverting says:

    “By the way, the stand of the German bishops is, in that actual issue on the principle, only marginally different* from that of many Christians counting themselves into the ‘orthodox camp’, who tell the divorced-remarried: ‘I pity you for the hard situation you’re in. Give witness to the insolubility of the marriage-bond by refraining from Communion. You never communicate and still appear in Church every Sunday? Oh, I think you are very devout. Well, at least you can make a spiritual Communion.'”

    This hits the nail on the head. Actually, the good old Poles came out (I think I saw on Rorate) with something about proper disposition for spiritual communion.

    Marriage is a sign of the Trinity. Constantly moving towards unity in no way looks like brother and sister; although I do ache for deserted spouses and the loneliness that comes along with that.

    Any impediment to healing a marriage, visible OR invisible, is a wall that must be softened. It is way easier to point out divorced and remarried than it is to search the hearts of people involved.

  11. Justalurkingfool says:

    To ConstantlyConverting:

    Thank you. This man of both Polish and German heritage applauds you.