Skip to main content

Cardinal Müller’s Letter and His Non-Renewal as Head of the CDF - sspx.org

+
JMJ

Well, as you may have noticed I've gone a little rogue with lots of posts since I took my oral exam.

I'm going to try and pull back to a more reasonable pace over the next few weeks while I try to finish off another series on obedience as well as prep for a presentation.

The following is the official SSPX notification of the new / old demands from Rome.  The mantra is definitely in place.



I particularly like the last line:
Confronted with these questions, those having a pythonical [prophetic] spirit (Acts 16:16) will make predictions. For our part, we will be content to wait for the facts and to look at their effects.
So, what can we say except:

P^3


Courtesy of SSPX.org



Two events marked the beginning of summer in Rome: a letter from Cardinal Gerhard Müller to Bishop Bernard Fellay and his replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) by Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer.

On June 26, 2017, Müller Once Again Imposed the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration

On June 26, 2017, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), received from Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated June 6 of this year, in which the German prelate—with Pope Francis’s approval—spelled out the conditions necessary for a doctrinal declaration, the indispensable prerequisite for any canonical recognition of the Society. There are three conditions:
“1) It is necessary to require members of the SSPX to adhere to the new formula of the 1988 Professio fidei. Consequently, it is no longer sufficient to ask them to pronounce the 1962 Professio fidei.

“2) The new text of the Doctrinal Declaration must contain a paragraph in which the signatories declare explicitly their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, by granting to those doctrinal statements the degree of adherence that is due to them.

“3) The members of the SSPX must acknowledge not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.”
On June 30, Bishop Fellay sent this letter to all the priests of the Society, with the following commentary: “We are again in a situation similar to the one in 2012. Whereas Archbishop Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, used quite different language last March concerning the criteria of catholicity that should or should not be required of us.”
He went on to recall his statement at the conclusion of the meeting of Major Superiors of the Society in Anzère, Switzerland, on June 28, 2016:
“The Society of Saint Pius X does not seek above all a canonical recognition, to which it has a right because it is Catholic. The solution is not simply juridical. It depends on a doctrinal question that it is imperative to express.
….
Divine Providence does not abandon its Church, the head of which is the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is why an indisputable sign of this restoration will be the express desire of the Supreme Pontiff to grant the means with which to reestablish the order of the priesthood, of the faith and of Tradition, which moreover is the guarantee of the necessary unity of the family of Tradition.”
This letter from Cardinal Müller is no surprise to those who followed closely the history of the complicated relations between the Society and Rome. Already during a conference that he gave in Port-Marly, France, on October 8, 2016, Fellay underscored a contradiction between the remarks of Cardinal Müller and those of Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:
“All of a sudden they go and tell us that what was produced by the Council but is not dogmatic, in other words, all the Declarations are not criteria for being Catholic, according to Archbishop Pozzo. What does this mean? ‘You are not obliged to agree in order to be Catholic.’…Archbishop Pozzo actually gave several interviews on the subject. I quoted for you the one in April (La Croix, April 7, 2016), then there were the ones in July (Zenit, July 4, 2016, and Christ und Welt, July 28, 2016). Between these two dates, in June, his superior, Cardinal Müller, said the contrary (Herder Korrespondenz, June 2016)....Cardinal Müller insisted, saying: ‘No, the Society must accept the whole Council!’ And he even spoke about unrestricted commitment with regard to ecumenism. But not only that.... He speaks about the liturgy, about religious liberty. And afterwards his subordinate repeats the contrary, in July. What disorder! Whom are we to believe?” (See DICI no. 432 dated October 14, 2016)
The Pope, for his part, said in an interview with La Croix (May 16, 2016), that before any canonical solution for the Society, it was necessary to have “a fundamental agreement with them. Vatican Council II has its importance.” This means that a doctrinal document is a prerequisite. More recently, while traveling back from Fatima on May 13, 2017, the Supreme Pontiff answered journalists on the airplane: “The feria quarta of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…their meeting—they call it feria quarta because it takes place on Wednesdays—studied a document, and the document has not yet reached me. I will study it.” In other words, once again, a doctrinal declaration is necessary, prior to any canonical recognition. (See DICI no. 356 dated May 26, 2017)  But what must the exact content of this declaration be? The terms imposed by Cardinal Müller or those proposed by Archbishop Pozzo?

As of July 2, Cardinal Müller is No Longer Prefect of the CDF

What was truly surprising was the non-renewal of Cardinal Müller at his post. At the conclusion of five years at the head of the CDF, Pope Francis decided not to renew his term of office, which ended on July 2, 2017. The Supreme Pontiff appointed as his successor Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, a Spanish Jesuit, who had been Secretary of the CDF since 2008.
According to a report by InfoCatho dated July 1, this decision “is said to be part of a delicate, crucial context. Cardinal Müller had gone on the record with his refusal to interpret Amoris Laetitia from a perspective of discontinuity with the Roman Magisterium. Some think that this is the reason for his non-renewal.”
As Zenit noted on July 1: “His departure before the canonical age of retirement is causing a lot of ink to be spilled, whereas all former prefects had remained at this post at least until they were 75 years old.” And it ventured a new explanation: “The initiative occurs also a few months after the resignation of the Irishwoman Marie Collins from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM).” In her letter of resignation to the Pope, Marie Collins denounced “the lack of cooperation, in particular on the part of the dicastery most involved with the question of sexual abuse” as “shameful.” She regretted “the constant setbacks” due to the “resistance” of “some members of the Curia.” Zenit writes: “Some, reading between the lines, saw in this a criticism of the heavy bureaucracy of the CDF.”
Whatever theories may be devised concerning the reasons for Cardinal Müller’s departure, we can observe that the Pope did not think it necessary to keep him at his post in order to bring to a successful conclusion the decision to make the SSPX return to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. Considering this, all that can be done is to ask several questions:
In openly manifesting a viewpoint different from that of his hierarchical superior on the subject of the “criteria of catholicity,” was Abp. Pozzo acting motu proprio [on his own], or did he know that he was supported by someone ranking higher than Cardinal Müller? What is his future at the Ecclesia Dei Commission?
What will be the role of Archbishop Ladaria, a Spanish Jesuit with a much less overactive personality than that of the German Cardinal? Being more inclined to obedience as a member of the Society of Jesus, he describes himself as a “moderate conservative.” As the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will he be a moderately conservative influence?
Confronted with these questions, those having a pythonical spirit (Acts 16:16) will make predictions. For our part, we will be content to wait for the facts and to look at their effects.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae