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

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.