Rorate Caeli recently published a translated excerpt taken from an interview of Cardinal Gerhard Müller that was originally published on the website of the German Bishops’ Conference:
Question: It has been strikingly quiet recently regarding the Society of Saint Pius X. Are the attempts to find an agreement suspended or postponed?
Mueller: Regarding this question, there is no substantial new development. The Holy Father wishes that we keep trying: “con tenacia e pazienza” – “with decisiveness and patience.” The precondition for a full reconciliation is the signing of a doctrinal preamble in order to guarantee a full agreement in the essential questions of the Faith. In the past months, there were encounters of different ways which are meant to strengthen the mutual trust.
While some may find in this exchange a reason for guarded optimism, there truly is nothing to be found here but bad news.
Let’s take a closer look…
First, let’s be very clear: The Society of St. Pius X does not deny even one, single, solitary article of the Holy Catholic Faith – not one. That their priests and bishops are denied jurisdiction is a profound injustice for which men like Cardinal Müller and his boss-in-white will one day have to answer before the throne of the Almighty.
In truth, there are no “essential questions of the Faith.” Matters concerning the essence of the faith are rather well known by all who wish to know, and to profess, the one true faith as the SSPX most certainly does.
In the Rome of today, by contrast, many “essential questions of the Faith” exist, such as:
– Are the Jews saved by virtue of the Old Covenant in spite of their rejection of Christ?
– How can Christian unity be attained for non-Catholics apart from their conversion?
– How many heretical communities are used by Our Lord as a means of salvation?
– Does the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ still exist?
– Does man enjoy a God-given right to choose his religion, and change it, according to the dictates of his conscience?
I could go on (trust me on that), but the point is simply this:
The only people that have “essential questions” concerning the Faith (such as those mentioned above) are those who are hell bent on behaving as if the Second Vatican Council effectively trumps all that preceded it. Such persons no longer hold the Catholic faith whole and entire.
The SSPX doesn’t have this problem; “Rome” does.
That being the case, one can only marvel at the stubbornness of men like Cardinal Müller who seem to imagine that it is those who hold to every, single, solitary article of the Catholic faith as it was taught without confusion prior to the Council who stand in need of “full reconciliation.”
The question that looms is reconciliation with what?
The answer is obvious: The anthropocentric “faith” of newchurch as embodied in the malleable, imprecise, and ecumenically dialogical text of Vatican II.
When Cardinal Müller speaks of a “doctrinal preamble,” all indications are that he is referring to an agreement predicated upon the condition for so-called “full communion” that was set by Pope Benedict XVI; namely, the Society must embrace the laughably false notion that Vatican Council II is an “integral part of the Tradition of the Church.”
Upon what basis can “mutual trust” possibly be established between authentic Catholics and those who would make such a demand?
It seems to me that the only reason some traditional Catholics still harbor optimism about the Society’s future under the current pontificate is that Pope Francis has refrained from actively seeking their utter destruction as he did in the case of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (which is far more a reflection of the Society’s irregular canonical status than it is an indication of genuine papal affection).
Look, far from signaling a ray of hope, this latest statement from Cardinal Müller indicates rather clearly that the relationship between “official” Rome and the Society is actually in far worse condition today than it was when the formal doctrinal discussions ended several years ago.
Before the advent of the Franciscan Reign of Terror under which Catholics currently suffer, even though the last several pontificates were disastrous in their own right, no one in their right mind would have ever imagined that the pope would convene both an extraordinary, and an ordinary, Synod to debate immutable doctrine and discipline as if they constitute “essential questions of the Faith” that remain open.
Even less would one imagine the pope approving of the publication of that shameful interim report attributed to the former.
Cardinal Müller, therefore, is dead wrong when he says, “there is no substantial new development.”
Pope Francis is a substantial new development, and it ain’t exactly a positive one!
This being the case, perhaps you will forgive me for taking no comfort whatsoever from the idea that the “Holy Father wishes that we keep trying: ‘con tenacia e pazienza.’”
May God in His mercy prevent him from succeeding.
For what it is worth. I accidentally ran into Bishop Fellay on the second or third Sunday after Easter. Both in his homily and in a casual conversation after mass he stressed that the SSPX is staying where it is. Now, he doesn’t know me from Adam, so I doubt whether he would tell me what he was really thinking. What was interesting was that during the homily (he spent approx. 1 hour speaking about the situation with Rome) he explained the schizophrenia that permeates his relationship with the members of the Roman Curia. Card. Muller was presented as the bad cop (trying to get Francis to get medieval on the Society) while Archbishop Pozzo was the good cop. Card. Muller was also presented as a schemer, so it is plausible that this quote is just a bit of mischief on the part of the “theological structurer”.
Color me cynical, but I doubt acceptance of the SSPX will happen, NOT in light of who is running things. Those in control will not make compromise, they know they are wrong, but stubbornly refuse to give ground. Its like expecting the devil to show consideration or compassion—-won’t happen. That is my view, wish it were not true.
I’m an SSPXer and I am convinced that when Rome accepted the false precepts of Vatican II, God withdrew His Sanctifying Grace from Rome and placed it with the SSPX. Nothing Rome has done since that tine has carried with it the Sanctifying Grace of God. Additionally, I’m convinced it will take a “Road to Damascus” experience for Francis [or his successor] to wake up and Consecrate Russia to Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart as God commanded by the Great Fatima Message / Miracle.
It won’t happen because the pope answers to the freemasons and SSPX would have to pledge allegiance to the Great Architect in order to get on board. I’m not really joking, I’m just apoplectic. Another day, another outrage.
Dear Ken Harris,
We understand the things that prompted your comment, but –
and without pretending to understand the many philosophical teachings about it– the Church does teach that Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural gift from God which is given to intellectual creatures (angels and men), as opposed to being a comodity or substance granted to (or withheld from) a city like Rome.
–If it is a sharing in the Divine Life which has a permanent affect on the soul, which once gained, can only be lost by mortal sin and then restored before death by sincere Confession; God would not unjustly take it from any soul not in a state of mortal sin, or withhold it.
–There seem to be enough bloggers reporting from Rome about their anguish at what they see going on there, to believe it would not even be accurate to assume there are no longer any souls living there who could be in that state of Grace. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
-Not saying God doesn’t or won’t send chastisements because of the wicked and evil being tolerated–but that’s another matter.
Dear Mr. Harris,
what you are saying is tremendous….but perhaps too presumptuous. You are likening “the false precepts of Vatican II”, and therefore the event of Vatican II itself, to other watershed moments in Salvation and Church history, such as
i) the incident of the Golden Calf when the old priesthood was replaced by the Levitical Priesthood;
ii) Solomon’s son King Rehoboam alienating the 10 northern tribes of Israel, which rebelled against the two Kingdoms in the South, Judah and Ben;
iii) Our Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, which inaugurated a new priesthood and brought an end to the Levitical one;
iv) Possibly — but arguably not— the schism of 1054 between the Latin ‘Catholic’ Church and the Greek ‘Orthodox’ Church;
v) the Protestant Revolt which inaugurated protestant sects of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism…etc…etc…
All these — except possibly the Schism of 1054 — one may argue resulted in temporal and spiritual jurisdiction that lacked Sanctifying Grace. But these — and there may be others the expert and trained theologian may know of —- all differ in degrees and consequences.
Not to mention two other traumas experienced by the Church, namely the Avignon Papacy (i.e. the ‘Babylonian captivity’ metaphorically speaking) and the Great Schism of 1378 to 1419.
Again, Mr. Harris, of these 7 examples above, each of which all differ in degrees and consequences, where would you place “the false precepts of Vatican II” and the inauguration of the SSPX? Why, indeed, at all, would the SSPX seek temporal jurisdiction from Rome?
I do not understand why Bp. Fellay has anything to do with Jorge Bergoglio, given that he rapidly identified him as a “genuine modernist” nearly two years ago.
Consider the following statement from The Catholic Encyclopedia (on “Papal Elections”):
“Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.”
If Bp. Fellay suspected the pope was a woman, would he still feel obliged to defer to the discernment of the College of Cardinals, or whomever else? What if they elected Francesca Chaouqui?
Seriously, I would like to know what he would do. We are long past the stage of dismissing hypotheticals as “per impossibile“.
The modernists are still not quite satisfied with Francis because “he’s still got a blind spot regarding women……and he won’t change the Church’s stance on homosexual marriage”. This I heard from the lips of Boston College extraordinaire Dr Richard Galliardetz. The modernist are “all on board the Francis train” but he’s still short of the mark to implement the all the “reforms” of the Council.
I’m not an intellectual but I can assure you that Bishop Williamson agrees with me. And, if Bishop Fellay signs an agreement with apostate Rome [Newchurch] I will not waste any time joining the Resistance.
That would be because Jorge Bergoglio is the pope (all instances of subjective judgment being irrelevant).
If the Society chose to have “[nothing] to do with” a valid, canonically-elected pontiff, they would then be schismatic, and no longer the guardians of Catholic Tradition that they are.
I have moral certainty that that will never occur.
(As the theologians, including Bellarmine, taught, the relevant determination of heretic or schismatic must be that of the Church, not any individual.)
Superb commentary as usual, Louie.
Indeed, it seem it is exactly the Society’s “irregular canonical status” that saves them from destruction at this moment – and a better example of the First Cause bringing good out of evil escapes me at this moment!
I agree, Catholic Thinker. It seems to me that the Society’s canonical status is it’s refuge and protection.
Excellent point, Dumb Ox. Likewise, if a woman was ‘elected Pope’, how many ‘Catholic’ churches would hang a picture of her on their walls? The parallel is perfect. No one would, which shows the intellectual and spiritual dishonesty of all who do.
PS. Catholic thinker, since the Church teaches that no manifest ‘heretic, schismatic, woman’ can ever ‘validly’ be elected, there is no way the SSPX could be said to be schismatic from the POV of the Faith. Certainly, because the SSPX keeps insisting that the VII heresiarchs are ‘valid’, then the logic is that they (the SSPX) are most certainly in schism from those they proclaim have jurisidiction (which is why sedevacantists say the SSPX position is so unreasonable). The problem all goes away if the SSPX manned-up and said, these people are not Catholic – manifestly, obviously, blatantly – and therefore are without any authority to pass any judgement on the jurisdictional quality of any Catholic clergy. After all, it would be absurd to say satan has a right to validly pass judgement on the authority of Christ. ERROR HAS NO RIGHTS – I wish the SSPX would concede this.
Here’s the translated version of Muller’s comment: “The [Serpent] wishes…for a full [submission to the Serpent]…the signing of a doctrinal preamble in order to guarantee a full agreement in the essential questions of the [the VII/Novus Ordo doctrine of ‘non serviam’ towards God]. In the past months, there were [the seductions of iniquity, the operation of error, to believe lying and consenting to iniquity, which receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved] which are meant to strengthen the mutual [deceit/conceit].”
Those who behave “as if the Second Vatican Council effectively trumps all that preceded it” – belong to the ‘trump’, not that which precedes it. VII does and must ‘trump all that preceded it’ if one affords to that ‘serpent’ a jurisdicition in the Church of Christ. It must and will continue to.
2 Thess: 1 For an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer. Seeing it is a just thing with God to repay tribulation to them that trouble you: And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power: In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power…2 Thess: 2 …And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity…Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle…2 Thess: 3 …And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”
I wish the SSPX would completely “withdraw themselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us”.
This is Cardinal Mueller trying to foment more internal strife within the ranks of the SSPX. That’s all.
… and they have title to all their property!
I disagree that there is nothing here of good to see. For whatever reason, Pope Francis rejects a direct attack on the SSPX, and seems to actually be protecting it from those who truly hate it, and want to simply excommunicate it and destroy it. This could end at any time I understand, but I see in it the workings of the Holy Ghost. God save the Society and who in the Catholic Church continue to fight the good fight.
God save and the true soldiers of Christ..and humiliate the Judases.
PS. I reckon we should all be really circumspect about ‘seeing the workings’ of the Holy Ghost in the doings of those whose words and deeds are so consistantly an attack on the manifest teachings of the Holy Ghost, as given to us over so many centuries through Christ’s Bride. Bergoglio’s approach to the SSPX is twofold; one the one hand, he attacks everything the SSPX exist for; on the other hand, he has no ‘intention’ of attacking the SSPX directly…
Over at the Eponymous Flower blog, this just appeared citing Card. Muller:
“When asked whether the “unification efforts were suspended or postponed,” since “recently” the Priestly Society of St. Pius X had “become noticeably quiet,” said Cardinal Müller that there was “no substantial news in this issue.” “The Holy Father wants us to keep at it: with ‘determination and patience.'” In the “recent months”, there were “encounters of various kinds, which should enhance mutual trust.” “A prerequisite for a full reconciliation” said the Cardinal again, “is the signing of a doctrinal preamble, to ensure full compliance in the essential matters of faith.” The Prefect’s response suggests that this singing the Preamble of 2012 is not required.”
The SSPX will not sign an agreement if it means any compromise whatsoever. Either things will continue as they are or MAYBE in the future Rome will regonize the SSPX as they are.
Only a manifestly formal heretical pope looses the chair. The stength Robert Bellamane’s argument is the fact that you cannot head of that which you are not. However material heretics are part of the Church. The Roman Catechism which is part of the Ordinary magisterium says that one only becomes a heretic and outside the Church (as in a formal heretic) when one ” disregards Church Authority”. unless you can prove that these Popes say heresy knowing what the Church says and with disregard of Church Authority you cannot declare them not to be Popes. In other words these Popes are not obstinate or pernicious.
Pertaining to the ongoing crisis in Rome:
Gloria tv.commented (regarding yesterday’s general audience, in which Pope Francis said remarried divorcees should not be treated as if they were excommunicated.”)
“It is not clear what Francis meant as, at present, the big problem in the Church is not that such people are treated as excommunicated, but rather that their adultery is belittled and the fact that they are living in mortal sin is ignored.”
Don’t miss the excellent Rorate Caeli article which addresses this ongoing catastrophe regarding the failure to teach the importance of serving Christ our King. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/obergefell-treason-of-catholics-and.html
“.. the Catholic Church has.. with an ever-lessening resistance, bought into the errors of the secularized and liberal West far more than it has successfully resisted them in the name of natural and revealed truths—the very truths that were preached from our pulpits only a few generations ago…
” … “If the kingship of Christ is not understood to have profound, immediate, and uncompromisable political and economic ramifications for all mankind, including Americans, then it is not understood at all.” ..” it has been domesticated, defanged and declawed by the self-worshiping modern State—a Catholicism rendered harmless as a vague spirituality to which none can object as long as it has no worldly consequences. This purely subjective feel-good “religion” is not the incarnational confession of the Son of God by the Church of God, stretching from the first Adam to the last man before the trumpet sounds…
I totally agree, Bishop Fellay,Bishop Tessier de Mallerais,Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, know exactly what is going on they are our true shepherds, and very wise.