"Tagle to replace Müller as CDF Prefect" ... Really???

Tagle singing at a concert, 2012
"En attendant Godot" (Rorate Caeli, February 23, 2017):

To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian "Pope Francis", the man seen by many as Francis' dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.

Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year, he will simply be retired long before turning 75.

Tagle's own theological oeuvre is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School's History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in "moderate" language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church.

Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable "CV" for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery.

In the two previous Februaries Don Pio Pace wrote for Rorate long articles on the growing Tagle candidacy for the next conclave, articles worth reading now more than ever:

"THE SUCCESSOR" - Rome in Pre-Conclave mood: What will come after the Bergoglio Papacy? (February 2015)

Exclusive Op-Ed: Pio Pace: "Conclave Preparations: Watch Out - Great Editorial Manoeuvres Signal Cardinal Tagle" (Feb. 2016) - See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/en-attendant-godot-tagle-to-replace.html#sthash.nFpUbXkI.dpuf

Your thoughts? Cardinal Müller dismisses need for 'fraternal correction' of pope

Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, recently stated that the Church is "very far" from a situation in which the pope is in need of "fraternal correction" because he has not put the faith and church teaching in danger.

Interviewed Jan. 9 on the Italian all-news channel, TGCom24, he reportedly stated that Pope Francis' document on the family, Amoris Laetitia, is "very clear" in its teaching.

Cardinal Müller is obviously a smart man. Given the fact that a brother cardinal of the stature of Cardinal Burke has, together with other cardinals, expressed various dubia and questioned the teaching of Amoris Laetitia on key points, one has to ask why the head of the CDF is saying this.

The CNS article concludes with some remarks that may suggest a possible answer. Cardinal Müller says that "everyone, especially cardinals of the Roman church, have the right to write a letter to the pope. However, I was astonished that this became public, almost forcing the pope to say 'yes' or 'no'" to the cardinals' questions about what exactly the pope meant in "Amoris Laetitia."

"This, I don't like," Cardinal Muller said.

Madrid archbishop bans Cardinal Müller from university because new book is "against the Pope"

From the Eponymous Flower (April 28, 2016):

(Madrid) Pope's confidant as a censor? Madrid Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra forbade Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the faith of the Catholic Church, to present his latest book "Informe sobre la esperanza" (State of Hope) at the Catholic University of San Dámaso present in Madrid. The reasoning? Because it was "a book against the pope."

...

In Madrid, the Spanish capital, the presentation was to take place at the Archdiocesan University San Dámaso, which doubles as a seminary of the Archdiocese of Madrid. But Archbishop Osoro banned the book launch. He wanted "nothing to do with a book against the pope" said Infovaticana.

CDF appoints SSPX Bishop Fellay as judge in a disciplinary case involving one of the Society's priests

In an interesting twist, as Vatican Insider reports (via Rorate), "the revelation came from the Superior-General himself a few days ago, in a sermon in a visit to Arcadia, California, and Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei confirmed it to La Stampa's Vatican Insider yesterday." Excerpts:

[Bp. Fellay] announced it himself during the course of a sermon at Our Lady of the Angels church in Arcadia, California, on May 10, 2015: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, as first-instance judge in a case involving a Lefebvrian priest. The former Holy Office is in charge of dealing with a number of “delicta graviora”....

What is new in this case is that the former Holy Office headed by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has decided to entrust the case to Mgr. Fellay himself, making him first-instance trial judge. An expression of attention. A sign that the path toward full communion with the Lefebvrians continues, as Archbishop Guido Pozzo confirmed in a statement to Vatican Insider. He archbishop, who is also Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said: “The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not imply that existing problems have been resolved, but it is a sign of benevolence and magnanimity. I see no contradiction here, but rather, a step toward reconciliation.”

Müller suggests new task for CDF: shoring up deficient "theological structure" of Francis Pontificate

In an interview with French Catholic newspaper La Croix, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, defined a new task for his office: providing the theological structure for the pontificate of Pope Francis. The Cardinal reportedly stated: “The arrival of a theologian like Benedict XVI in the Chair of St. Peter was no doubt an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis is also more pastoral and our mission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to provide the theological structure of a pontificate.”

[Hat tip to CMTV Headlines, 4/8/15 and CFN, 7/4/15]

Important: "Cardinal Müller: foundations for a return to the Magisterium - and the limits of Papal power"

Don Pio Pace, "Cardinal Müller: foundations for a return to the Magisterium - and the limits of Papal power" (Rorate Caeli, March 11, 2015):

God only allows evil so as greater good may be accomplished. The immense disorder of the assemblies of the Synod on the Family prompts beautiful professions of faith by high-placed prelates of the Church, who are signs of hope for the future of the Church.

The extreme-progressive French magazine Golias moreover notes with disquiet the "danger" that men such as Cañizares, Burke, Müller, Ranjith, Ouellet, Sarah, and other "young" Cardinals (around 65 years old) represent to their viewpoint, that is, in the perspective of a further liberalization of the Church's constitution, adding to them some over seventy-year-olds, such as Scola, Caffarra, Pell, among others.

Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the Cardinals who took part in the authorship of the book "Remaining in the Truth of Christ", along with his brothers Brandmüller, Burke, Caffara and De Paolis, has, for example, just made public a conference that he presented on the past January 13, in Esztergom, Hungary, on the "Theological nature of the Doctrinal Commissions [of the Episcopal Conferences] and the role of Bishops as Doctors of the Faith".

Church Militant TV reports from Rome

Related:

• Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith speaks: The Great Division - Müller rips the Synod Report: "Undignified, Shameful, Completely Wrong!" (La Repubblica, via RC, October 14, 2014).
• Robert Royal, "Synod Day 8 – A Bizarre Document and Process" (The Catholic Thing, October 14, 2014), with Fr. Z's commentary.
• Fr. Z, "Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?" (Fr. Z's Blog, October 14, 2014).

SSPX's Fellay interviewed on meeting with Müller, views on Kasper

[Disclaimer: Rules 7-9]

"Interview: SSPX's Fellay Speaks on Meeting with Cardinal Müller - Kasper's consistently following Spirit of the Council to its logical end" (RC, October 3, 2014). Two excerpts. The first on relations with Rome:

There is a new pope and a new prefect heading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And this recent interview shows that neither they nor we want a break in our relations: both parties insist that it is necessary to clarify the doctrinal questions before there is any canonical recognition. This is why, for their part, the Roman authorities are demanding the endorsement of the Doctrinal Preamble which, for our part, we cannot sign because of its ambiguities.

The second on Kasper:

Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent: he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism: there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church. He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism. Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.

"SYNOD AND TRUTH: Understanding In Depth the Grave Errors of Cardinal Kasper - A Major Article by Roberto de Mattei "

From Rorate Caeli (October 1, 2014):

KASPER’S MESS

The origins of the errors

For them, Christianity is praxis, not justice

Roberto de Mattei

Il Foglio

October 1, 2014

The upcoming Synod of Bishops has been preceded by a rumpus in the media which attaches to it a historical significance greater than its ecclesiastical importance as merely a consultative assembly in the Church. Some are complaining about the theological war the Synod promises to be, but the history of all the Episcopal meetings in the Church (such is the etymological significance of the term “synod” and its synonym “council”) has been made up of theological conflicts and bitter debates on errors and divisions that have threatened the Christian community since its beginnings.

           Today the subject of communion for the divorced [and remarried] is only the vector of a discussion that focuses on rather complex doctrinal concepts, such as human nature and the natural law. This debate seems to translate, on the anthropological level, the Trinitarian and Christological speculations which shook up the Church from the Council of Nicaea (325) to the Council of Chalcedon (451).  At that time,  discussions  were held to determine the nature of the Most Holy Trinity, Who is one God in Three Persons and to define in Jesus Christ the Person of the Word, Who subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. The Council of Nicaea’s adoption of the Greek term homoousios, which was translated in Latin to consubstantialis and, after the Council of Chalcedon with the words “of the same nature” of the Divine substance, to affirm the perfect equality of the Word and the Father, marks a never-to be-forgotten date in the history of Christianity and concludes an era of disorientation, confusion and drama of consciences similar to the one we are [currently] immersed in.

            In those years the Church was divided between the “right” of St. Athanasius and the “left” of  Arius’ followers, (the definition is by the historian of the Councils, Karl Joseph von Hefele). Between the two poles the third “party” of semi-Arians wavered, themselves divided into various factions.  The term homoiousios, which means “of similar substance” was set against the Nicean homoousios, which means “of the same substance”. This is not a question of nitpicking.  In the seemingly minimal difference between these two words, there lies an abyss: on the one hand,  Identity with God, on the other a certain analogy or resemblance which makes of Jesus Christ an ordinary man.

The best historical reconstruction of this period is the one by Cardinal John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (tr.It. Jaca Book, Milano, 1981) an in-depth study which brings to light the culpability of the clergy and the courage of “the common people” in maintaining the orthodoxy of the Faith. Athanasius, as a deacon and champion of orthodoxy, afterwards a bishop, was forced as many as five times to leave his diocese, to walk the way of exile.

In 357, Pope Liberius excommunicated him and two years after the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which constituted a sort of great Ecumenical Council, representative of the West and the East, abandoned the Nicene term “consubstantial” and established an equivocal middle way, between St. Athanasius and the Arians. It was at that time St. Jerome coined the expression according to which  "The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian". 

            Athanasius and the defenders of the orthodox Faith were accused of being stuck obstinately on words and of being quarrelsome and intolerant.  These are the same accusations made today against those, inside and outside the Synod Hall, who want to raise a voice of uncompromising firmness in defense of the Church’s doctrine on Christian Marriage, like the five Cardinals (Burke, Brandmuller, Caffarra, De Paolis and Muller), who after having expressed themselves individually, gathered together their statements in defense of the family in a book which by now has become a manifesto: Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, just published by Cantagalli of Siena,  Another fundamental text, Divorced “Remarried”, also owes its publication to Cantagalli. The praxis of the primitive Church, by the Jesuit Henri Couzel,  

 

The writers in the “Corriere della Sera” and “La Repubblica” have been rending their garments at the “theological row” now in progress.  On September 8, Pope Francis himself, urged newly nominated Bishops “not to waste energy in contrasts and clashes”, forgetting that he had personally assumed the responsibility of the clashes when he entrusted the job of opening the Synod “dances” to Cardinal Walter Kasper. As Sandro Magister noted, it was actually Kasper with his report on February 20, 2014, (made available by “Il Foglio”), who started the hostility that triggered off the doctrinal debate, thus becoming, far from his intentions, the standard-bearer of a party. The oft-times reiterated formula by the German Cardinal is: what has to change is not the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, but pastoral [praxis] for the divorced and remarried. This has in itself a devastating significance and is the expression of a theological concept tainted at its roots.

            So as to understand Kasper’s thought, we need to go back to one of his first works, perhaps the main one, “The Absolute in History in the last Philosophy of Schelling, published in 1965 and translated by Jaca Book in 1986. In fact, Walter Kasper belongs to the school of Tubinga, which, as he writes in this study, “started a renewal in theology and in all of German Catholicism with the encounter of Schelling and Hegel” (p.53). The metaphysics are Schelling’s (1775-1854), “a solitary giant” (p.90), whose Gnostic and pantheistic character the German theologian tries in vain to free himself of.  In his last work Philosophie der Offenbarung (The Philosophy of Revelation), in 1854, Schelling opposes historical dogmatic Christianity. “Schelling – Kasper comments – doesn’t envision the relationship between the natural and the supernatural in a static, metaphysical and extratemporal way, but rather in a dynamic and historical one. The essentiality of Christian Revelation is really this, that it is history.” (p.206).

For the record: latest update on SSPX status assumes "full communion" but "imperfect reconciliation," says commentor

[Disclaimer: Rules 7-9]

Details come from Fr. Claude Barthe, "La Fraternité Saint-Pie-X en état de « réconciliation imparfaite »" (L'Homme Nouveau, September 24, 2014), translated HERE (RC, September 24, 2014).

CDF's Müller excoriates second-marriages theories

Sandro Magister, "Müller: 'These Theories Are Radically Mistaken'" (www.chiesa, July 29, 2014), notes that the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refutes the ideas of those who want to permit second marriages with the first spouse still alive, observing that he is backed up by Cardinal Sebastián, who also disagrees with Cardinal Kasper, and asks, "But whose side is Pope Francis on?"

Some excerpts:

"The theories you have pointed out seek to make Catholic doctrine a sort of museum of Christian theories: a sort of reserve that would be of interest only to a few specialists. Life, for its part, would have nothing to do with Jesus Christ as he is and as the Church shows him to be. Strict Christianity would be turned into a new civil religion, politically correct and reduced to a few values tolerated by the rest of society. This would achieve the unconfessed objective of some: to get the Word of God out of the way for the sake of ideological control over all of society.

Jesus did not become flesh in order to expound a few simple theories that would tranquilize the conscience and ultimately leave things the way they are. The message of Jesus is a new life. If anyone were to think and live by separating life from doctrine, not only would he deform the doctrine of the Church by turning it into a sort of idealistic pseudo-philosophy, but he would also be fooling himself. Living as a Christian means living on the basis of faith in God. Adulterating this arrangement means realizing the dreaded compromise between God and the devil."

AND

"The facts of Scripture reveal that, in addition to mercy, holiness and justice also belong to the mystery of God. If we were to obscure these divine attributes and trivialize the reality of sin, it would make no sense to beg for the mercy of God on behalf of persons. This makes it understandable why Jesus, after treating the adulterous woman with great mercy, added as an expression of his love: “Go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). The mercy of God is not a dispensation from the commandments of God and from the teachings of the Church. It is entirely the contrary: God, in his infinite mercy, grants us the power of grace for the complete fulfillment of his commands and so as to reestablish in us, after the fall, his perfect image as Father of Heaven."

This is fascinating, as our underground correspondent, Guy Noir - Private Eye, observes: "Mueller sounds quite on target and on fire here. And like he is working for a different clearing house than the one in the news for the past year! I am impressed.... And mystified. The signals from Francis sound nothing like this. And Mueller himself has in his comments sounded like anything but a friend of Traditionalists.... The Modern Church. Quite the mystery."

[Hat tip to JM]

CDF Prefect Müller: V-II liturgical reform helped stem tide of de-Christianization of West

"CDF prefect praises liturgy reform and Vatican II" (Tablet, December 13, 2013):

Without the Second Vatican Council’s liturgy reform, dechristianisation might have forged ahead far faster than it has, Archbishop Müller said at a 50th anniversary commemoration of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [ITAL]Sacrosanctum Concilium[UNITAL] at Würzburg.

See Louie Verrecchio for comparisons to " strikingly similar ... dismissive proclamations of those global warming freaks who claim the matter settled even as it’s being reported that Antarctic sea ice has been growing at a record pace."

Still, he recognizes that the comments are no laughing matter:

Make no mistake, he isn’t simply expressing his personal opinion here; he is letting us know that “the mind of the Church,” read, the mind of those now running the show in Rome, has changed. No longer do we have a pope who recognizes, as Pope Benedict did, that the so-called “reform” of the sacred liturgy following Vatican II has been a disaster.

In other words, no longer is the state of the liturgy understood as a problem to be solved, it’s considered the solution, and more than this, you can be sure that this presumed “success” of the liturgical reform will form a substantial part of the bedrock upon which the “reform” of the Church’s structures to come will be constructed.

CDF contra Medjugorje

Fr. Z, "CDF directs clerics, faithful not to attend conferences favorable to Medjugorje" (November 6, 2013).

CDF Prefect wants to break all contact with the SSPX?

From Rorate Caeli (July 7, 2013):

German weekly FOCUS reports this Sunday that Archbishop Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wants to break contact with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). A statement to that effect is about to be published, according to a source of FOCUS within the CDF.

The reason for ending contacts with the SSPX is the recent declaration of the three SSPX Bishops, in which they not only criticize the texts of Vatican II, but also the Magisterium, "a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas". Furthermore, they state that the church is "imbued with this liberal spirit which manifests itself especially in religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the New Mass."

According to FOCUS's source, the reaction of Archbishop Müller was: "That's it!" ("Jetzt reicht's!", i.e., "enough!")

(Tip: Reader; First source: Focus; Second source: Pius.info)

Rorate note: what exactly happened one year ago, anyway? What caused the unbelievable turn between April and June 2012? We will try to explain it in a specific post on the matter [See previous post below].

Interview with Archbishop Gerhard Müller

The indefatigable Mary O'Regan has just garnered an exclusive interview with the recently-appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller. The conversation is warm and personable, and politic; and may be of interest to some of our readers. The whole interview is published under the politic title of "Catholics ought to avoid extremes" (Catholic Herald, December 19, 2012).

Here are some excerpts I found interesting:

In 1977, [Müller] submitted a dissertation on the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s sacramental theology. In 1985, so that he would be eligible to be a professor of theology, he wrote a second doctoral thesis on Catholic devotion to the saints. The “Karl Rahner connection” is that Archbishop Müller’s doctoral supervisor for both his theses was Professor Karl Lehmann, who received his doctorate under Karl Rahner.

... One thing in particular from his priestly formation guides him to present day: he recalls that he read Joseph Ratzinger’s book Introduction to Christianity when he was a seminarian. “It was a new book at the time, and the concentrated theological insights are ever present in my mind to this day,” he said....

As Prefect of the CDF, Archbishop Müller is responsible for the implementation of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. He was keen to talk about the great benefits which have come to the Church through the inclusion of these communities of Anglicans, with their pastors, into Catholic life. Commenting on the ecumenical dimension of the personal ordinariates, he said: “It’s not only the will of the Holy Father, but it is the will of Jesus Christ that all the baptised are drawn together into full visible communion. In this way Anglicanorum Coetibus is both a fruit of the ecumenical dialogues of the last 40 years and an expression of the ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement.

“What we notice particularly from the clergy who are applying for ordination in the various ordinariates is that there has been a rediscovery in some Anglican and Protestant circles of the importance and the necessity of the papacy in order to maintain the authentic link with biblical Christianity against the pressures of secularism and liberalism. Many of those who have entered into full communion through the ordinariates have sacrificed a great deal in order to be true to their consciences. They should be welcomed wholeheartedly by the Catholic community – not as prodigals but as brothers and sisters in Christ who bring with them into the Church a worthy patrimony of worship and spirituality.”

One of Archbishop Müller’s trickier tasks is overseeing the reconciliation process with the Society of St Pius X. When I probed to get an idea of the current situation between Rome and the SSPX, Archbishop Müller answered pithily: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”

... Focusing on a difficulty experienced by ordinary Catholics in parishes, I asked his advice on what to do when one is stuck in the middle between traditionalists and progressives.... Archbishop Müller responded: “Catholics must avoid these extremes, because such extremes are against the mission of the Church. In the world of politics, you have extremes of Right and Left. But the Church is united in Jesus Christ and in our common faith. We must avoid the politicisation of the Church.”

There is a great deal more, but I shouldn't wonder if here alone is sufficient grist for the mill.

For the record: Cardinal Levada - Bishop Fellay

• "Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X" (Rorate Caeli, June 14, 2012).
• "Holy See Press Office communiqué" (Rorate Caeli, June 14, 2012).
• "What is a Personal Prelature?" (Rorate Caeli, June 14, 2012).
• "Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: 'The irregularity is that of Rome, a Modernist Rome.'" (Rorate Caeli, Jun 13, 2012).
• "Rome-SSPX - New updates" (Rorate Caeli, June 13, 2012).
• "Rome-SSPX - Decisive moments? Pope's response to be delivered to Bp. Fellay today [Updated]" (Rorate Caeli, June 13, 2012)

Update: "SSPX-Rome divinations" (Rorate Caeli dvises: to be taken with large quantities of salt, June 15, 2012)

Theologian John Lamont on Rome vis-à-vis SSPX

A THEOLOGIAN'S QUESTIONS

by John R. T. Lamont

Source: Sandro Magister, www.chiesa (April 13, 2012):

In a communiqué of March 16th 2012, the Holy See has announced that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X, FSSPX, has been informed that the Society's response to the Doctrinal Preamble presented to them by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been judged to be "not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society" (in the original French of the press release, "n’est pas suffisante pour surmonter les problèmes doctrinaux qui sont à la base de la fracture entre le Saint-Siège et ladite Fraternité.") The press release does not make clear whether this judgment is made on the part of the CDF and approved by the Pope, or is the judgment of the Pope himself. The judgement is the latest step in a process of discussion on doctrinal issues between the CDF and the FSSPX. The nature and seriousness of this judgment raises important questions for a Catholic theologian; the purpose of this article is to ask these questions.

The secrecy of the doctrinal talks in question makes comment on the judgment difficult. The reason for this secrecy is hard to grasp, because the topics of discussion do not concern practical details of a canonical settlement – which would clearly have benefited from confidentiality – but matters of faith and doctrine, that concern not only the parties involved but all believing Catholics. However, enough has been publicly stated about the position of the FSSPX to permit an evaluation of the situation. There are two things that need to be considered here: the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX that has been produced by the doctrinal problems in question, and the nature of the doctrinal problems themselves.

In a response to a study of the doctrinal authority of the Second Vatican Council by Bp. Fernando Ocáriz, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize FSSPX has listed the elements of that council that the FSSPX find unacceptable.

"On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

"These four points are as follows.

"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

Fr. Gleize participated in the doctrinal discussions between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities, as did Bp. Ocáriz himself. We may reasonably take his statement as a description of the doctrinal points upon which the FSSPX will not compromise, and that are taken by the Holy See to inevitably give rise to a rift.


Vatican II as the reason for the rift?


The first question that occurs to a theologian concerning the FSSPX position concerns the issue of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. The article by Bp. Ocáriz discussed by Fr. Gleize, which was published in the December 2nd 2011 issue of "L'Osservatore Romano," seems to claim that a rejection of the authority of Vatican II is the basis for the rift referred to by the Holy See. But for anyone familiar with both the theological position of the FSSPX and the climate of theological opinion in the Catholic Church, this claim is hard to understand. The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The FSSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the FSSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following assertions of that council:

"Dei Verbum" 11:

"Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted."

"Dei Verbum" 19:

"The four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."

"Lumen gentium" 3:

"As often as the sacrifice of the cross in which Christ our Passover was sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried on."

"Lumen gentium" 8:

"But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element."

"Lumen gentium" 10:

"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."

"Lumen gentium" 14:

"Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church."

"Gaudium et spes" 48:

"By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown."

"Gaudium et spes" 51:

"Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."

The vast majority of theologians in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. These theologians are followed by the majority of religious orders and a substantial part of the bishops in these areas. It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. The texts above are only a selection from the teachings of Vatican II that are rejected by these groups; they could be extended to many times the number.

Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself.

The first question that the communiqué of the Holy See raises for a theologian is thus: why does the rejection by the FSSPX of a small part of the teachings of Vatican II give rise to a rift between that Society and the Holy See, while the rejection of more numerous and important teachings of Vatican II by other groups in the Church leave these groups in good standing and possessed of full canonical status? Rejection of the authority of Vatican II by the FSSPX cannot be the answer to this question; the FSSPX in fact shows more respect for the authority of Vatican II than most of the religious orders in the Church.

It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the FSSPX are accepted by the groups within the Church that reject other teachings of that council. One might then suppose that it is these specific texts – on religious liberty, the Church, ecumenism, and collegiality – that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole. The rift does not arise with the groups outside the Society that reject far more of Vatican II, because these groups accept these particular elements. But if this is the case, the first question simply reoccurs with greater force.


Problems with Catholic doctrine?


If the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX does not arise from rejection of the authority of the Second Vatican Council by the Society, it could be the case that the rift arises from the doctrinal position of the FSSPX in itself. There are after all two sides to the position of the FSSPX on Vatican II. One side is the claim that certain statements of Vatican II are false and should not be accepted; this is the side that refuses the authority of the council. The other side is the positive description of the doctrines that should be accepted in the place of these supposedly false statements. This latter side is the more important aspect of the debate between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities. After all, the purpose for the existence of magisterial teachings is to communicate true doctrines to Catholics, and their authority over Catholics stems from this purpose. This side of the FSSPX's position consists in positions on the doctrines that Catholics should believe, positions that do not in themselves make claims about the content or authority of Vatican II. We must consider whether these positions can give rise to a rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX.

In judging the doctrinal position of the FSSPX, it must be remembered that there is an essential difference between the position of the FSSPX on Vatican II and the position of those elements within the Church who reject the teachings from "Dei Verbum," "Lumen gentium," and "Gaudium et spes" listed above. The latter group simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop. The FSSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

The positive doctrinal position of the FSSPX, then, consists in upholding the teachings of part magisterial pronouncements. The most important of the pronouncements in question are listed by Fr. Gleize: Gregory XVI's encyclical "Mirari vos," Pius IX's encyclical "Quanta cura" and his "Syllabus," Leo XIII's encyclicals "Immortale Dei" and "Satis cognitum," Pius XI's encyclicals "Quas primas" and "Mortalium animos," Pius XII's encyclicals "Mystici corporis" and "Humani generis," and the First Vatican Council's Constitution "Pastor aeternus." These are all magisterial pronouncements of great authority, and in some cases they include infallible dogmatic definitions – which is not the case with the Second Vatican Council itself.

This raises the second question concerning the position of the Holy See on the FSSPX that suggests itself to a theologian: how can there be any objection to the FSSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?

This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection. If the position of the FSSPX on doctrine itself is to be judged objectionable, it must be claimed that this position is not what these magisterial pronouncements actually teach, and hence that the FSSPX falsifies the meaning of these pronouncements. This claim is not easy to sustain, because when these earlier pronouncements were promulgated, they gave rise to a very substantial body of theological work that aimed at their interpretation. The meaning that the FSSPX ascribes to them is derived from this body of work, and corresponds to how these pronouncements were understood at the time they were made.

This fact gives more point and urgency to the third question that occurs to a theologian: what do these pronouncements actually teach, if it is not what the FSSPX say that they teach?

The answer that many will offer is that the real meanings of these pronouncements are given by, or are at least in harmony with, the texts of the Second Vatican Council that the FSSPX rejects. We can accept this answer as true, but that will not help in answering the question. The texts of Vatican II do not offer much explanation of the meaning of these previous pronouncements. For example, "Dignitatis humanae" simply states that its teaching "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." This offers no explanation of the content of this doctrine.

The inadequacy of this answer leads to the fourth question, which is: what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the points that are in dispute between the FSSPX and the Holy See?

No doubt the doctrinal discussions between these two parties involved an examination of this question, but the confidentiality of these discussions leaves the rest of the Church in the dark on this subject. Without an answer to this fourth question, there is no prospect of an answer to the fifth question, which is: why do the doctrinal positions of the FSSPX give rise to a rift between the Society and the Holy See?

But this fifth question, significant as it is, does not have the importance of the fourth question. The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the FSSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.

John Lamont holds a degree in philosophy from Oxford and in theology in Ottawa with the great Dominican theologian Jean-Marie Tillard. He lives in Australia and teaches in Sydney at the Catholic Institute and at the University of Notre Dame, with the canonical mandate of the archdiocese for the teaching of theology.

His previous articles include:

• "Why the Second Vatican Council Was a Good Thing and Is More Important than Ever," New Oxford Review (July August, 2005), pp. 32-36.
• "What was Wrong with Vatican II," Blackfriars (Vol. 88, 2007).

Updates on the CDF-SSPX discussions may be found HERE.

For the record: CDF - SSPX update

Alessandro Gnocchi & Mario Palmaro, "The SSPX and the Holy See: what now?" Il Foglio, January 27, 2012), in English translation at Rorate Caeli (January 28, 2012).

Related: A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny, "Bishop Fellay to Rome: 'We are ready.'" (Rorate Caeli, February 5, 2012).

For the record: preamble update

Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli's source in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provides him the following information (published in today's La Stampa - translation by Vatican Insider, corrected according to the Italian original), from Rorate Caeli, January 17, 2012.

For the record: Universae Ecclesiae

The Vatican Instruction and clarification of the import of Pope Benedict's earlier Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum (2007), was signed on April 30th, the memorial of Pope St. Pius V under the new calendar, and released by Cardinal Levada of the CDF earlier today on May 13th, Feast Day of Our Lady of Fatima -- certainly no coincidences.

A translation in English (and several other languages) can be found on the blog, Rorate Caeli.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorff today posted a podcast worth listening to, if you have the time, "PODCAzT 119: Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae” (WDTPRS, May 13, 2011), as well as a likewise lengthy written summary, "RELEASED: Instruction 'Universae Ecclesiae'” – the text and my initial observations (WDTPRS, May 13, 2011).

For what it's worth, one of my esteemed colleagues, a professor of theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, points out that in no. 21, we are told that "Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite." He then comments: "I notice that the Latin text (which I assume is normative) has 'Ordinari enixe rogantur ...' The 'enixe' shows that the Ordinaries are 'earnestly' or 'vehemently' asked to offer their priests and seminarians these possibilities for training in the EF."

And here is "Rorate's suggested Application of Paragraph 19 of the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae" for you all-too-serious guys: