Cardinal Mueller interviewed by Vatican Radio.
[The book on the table is the new book he has published about 'the two popes' - an act which, of course, I find totally unnecessary as it can
only mean unconditional praise for the current pope, otherwise, let's face it - the book could not have been published. (Just as, I suspect
very strongly, the recent Benedict XVI book-length interview with Peter Seewald started off with the Emeritus saying nothing but good things
about his successor (obviously he cannot be saying bad things even if he thought them), some of which statements I thought totally unnecessary
as long as he did not say anything offensive which, of course, he didn't and wouldn't).
You would think that with virtually the whole world now simply and painlessly taking it for granted that there are two living popes – one reigning,
the other retired – it is pointless to bring up the ‘two popes’ question again, but for some reason, the Prefect of the CDF does, even
suggesting that the issue must be confronted ‘theologically’. That goes beyond even the most severe critics of the very expression ‘two popes’,
who have heretofore argued on purely canonical grounds that a retired pope cannot be considered a pope any longer, but these critics do not,
of course, dispute that he is an ex-pope... For some reason, this item has not been reported or even commented on in the Anglophone media.
Beatrice on her Francophone site introduced the Mueller interview by writing:[/9pt]
Antonio Socci calls recent statements by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller ‘sensational’ because in it, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly refers to the existence of ‘two legitimate living popes’, a phenomenon unique in the Church’s bimillennial history which, Mueller claims, ought to be confronted ‘theologically and spiritually’. Socci sees in this a proof that “Benedict’s Petrine ministry continues to this day”, thus casting a shadow on the role – and the legitimacy – of the reigning pope.
But the title given to the RV interview suggests a very different interpretation – in which one finds the inevitable
‘paean’ to Francis by one of his Curial officials and clearly rejects any attempt to oppose the two popes to each other. One could say this is all obligatory for Mueller, and that one must read between the lines.
Note the final question of the RV interviewer who, after enumerating the multiple seemingly unprecedented talents of the reigning pope, suggests this could perhaps be a little scratch on the Commandante’s statue [if I am not mistaken, the reference is to the stone figure that plays such an important part in Mozart’s ‘Don Giovanni’].
Cardinal Mueller on the ‘two popes’
Interview by the German service of
VATICAN RADIO
October 27, 2016
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller warns against all attempts to pose one pope against another, in the case of Benedict XVI and Francis. In an interview with the German service of Vatican Radio, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says “we must accept the fact that both of them have different histories and personalities; that both the reigning pope and the emeritus pope are in the service of the same Christ”, and any serious consideration should “see this coherence and not seek to create a rupture”.
Müller: For the first time in the history of the Church, we are experiencing the presence of two living popes. Obviously, only Pope Francis is pope, but Benedict is the emeritus pope, and as such, he is still in a certain way linked to the papacy. [Isn’t that also obvious? He was once pope – how can he not be linked to the papacy, as all previous popes continue to be?] We must surmount a situation that is unique of its kind and consider it from a theological and spiritual point of view. There are different opinions on how to do this. I have shown that despite all the differences that obviously exist between their personalities and character, one can also show a more intimate relationship.
What does such an intimate relation between the two popes consist of – in fact, among all popes?
It has to do with the profession of faith in Jesus Christ: that is the ratio essendi, the reason for being of the Papacy, so that the Church may be kept and drawn together in the unity of Christ. But each of the two popes do this, starting from their own origins. Pope Benedict does it starting from his early career as a university professor and as an extraordinary theologian. Pope Francis, with his South American experience, has broadened our view and calls our attention to the poor, to those who live on the margins, towards the peripheries. All of this is clear to us in theory, but that he brings it to common consciousness because of his own life experience is a providential disposition, a nod from the Holy Spirit, that we welcome thankfully. [It is so infuriating when even someone like Mueller talks as though no pope before this had ever thought about ‘the poor’, or as if any specific thing done by Bergoglio necessarily means ‘a nod from the Holy Spirit”!]
This year, the two popes have spoken in public about each other a number of times – not just Francis talking about Benedict, but also the other way around. As at the little ceremony to mark the 65th anniversary of Benedict’s priestly ordination, or in his recent interview-book. They have both expressed much mutual eteem which seems to be a response to something. What do you say about Catholics who are uneasy and wish to underscore the difference between the two popes?
There are two extremes. Some underscore the differences to the point of opposition. Others say there are no differences at all. I think both sides exaggerate. For a serious interpretation, one must see the coherence between them and not invent a rupture. And also to admit that the two have different histories and different personalities, that they have different spiritual mentalities. Many Catholics tend to conclude from these differences that the two are opposite.
I am often asked what I think distinguishes the two popes, and whatever I answer, each side sees an argument in its favor. But it is my task to simply and purely reject both extreme positions. We should not seek at all costs to highlight their differences and their common points, but say instead that both are in the service of the same Christ, and only of Christ. [Hard to say that of Bergoglio who, to suit his purposes, habitually changes the words and deeds of Jesus as the Gospel reports them (and as the Church has interpreted them for more than 2000 years).]
What do the two popes together offer the Church?
Both of them exercise a ministry which they did not impose on themselves, which they cannot even define for themselves, because Jesus himself had ‘defined’ the papacy, as it has been understood in the Church’s consciousness of the faith. And each one carries out his pontifical ministry, as with every ecclesial ministry, as a great responsibility that one cannot carry except with the help of God’s grace.
Every human being would feel humbled to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. But each of them brings to the Petrine ministry, in the way that is proper for each of them, their own personal charism, with their own personality and history. One should not set them up against each other nor seek to compare them – who is better, who brings larger audiences to the Vatican. That is a bad approach. One must deal here with the theology of individual charisms.
In faith, we are convinced that Francis was ‘installed’ where he is by the Holy Spirit – it is true he was chosen by the cardinals, but the conclave is only the instrument of this choice. [Joseph Ratzinger, of course, had a different view of Conclaves and the role of the Holy Spirit in the choice of a pope.]
In effect, the pope is put in place by Christ himself],[ and this pope, as he is, with his Latin American origin, his political and social views, his experience of the poverty among large strata of the population, has been connected to the development of the Church in Latin America in the past 50 years – Medellin, Puebla, Aparecida [the cities where the Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Bishops have met between 1980-2006], various intellectual and spiritual movements and ‘revolutions’ – all of which have left a mark on his personality.
What he possesses in particular is that through his personality, he is able to introduce the Church into the life of the universal Church! [Come again! Is Mueller saying that none of the earlier contemporary popes ever ‘brought the Church into the life of the universal Church’??? Is it not putting the cart before the horse? The popes represent the universal Church which presides over the life of the faithful that compose the Church – who are not properly ‘the Church’ as ‘the mystical body of Christ’ without the unifying power of the pope as Vicar of Christ.]
That is why it is more important to consider this: what it is that the two popes have to say to us, and how both of them have served and are serving the Church, instead of comparing them while denouncing one or over-evaluating the other.
When I am asked, I am obviously forced to answer that Benedict is above all a theologian – not to distinguish him from other popes but to characterize him – because this is a fact no one can deny. [Yes, but it also sounds as if Mueller is greatly delimiting his capacities for other tasks other than being a theologian, i.e., an abstract occupation rather than more concrete attributes.] This gift was not given to him by God not to magnify him at the expense of others but to exercise humbly. In the same way, Francis must exercise his own gifts humbly without being magnified at the expense of others. To do otherwise would be counter-productive for the Church. Paul has given us the image of a body with numerous members, a multiplicity that does not destroy but edifies the ensemble.
[Interviewer]:[In Francis, we have for the first time, a pope with a lot of attributes. John Paul II was a poet by accessory, Benedict XVI a theologian. [A false analogy to use a secondary attribute of one pope with the primary attribute of another!] Francis, alongside his pontifical ministry, is visibly much more: a confessor, a parish priest, a church tribunal, social worker, diplomat, etc. Do you think that this multiplicity – which makes this pope non-papal in many ways - bothers many Catholics?
Each pope must also seek to overcome the partisanships brought on by his personal history. Benedict XVI did not simply deal with doctrinal issues. For example in Deus caritas est, he treats of Catholic charity as an institution and promoted it as such. But Francis has not been given a single all-purpose label, which is perhaps all to the good because to do so would be a restriction. Perhaps he deliberately does not wish to be given a particular tag, so he can be free to be what he wants. [I can easily think of one all-purpose tag for Bergoglio: anti-Catholic, in which he can be as free as he wants to be because, as it is with his secular anti-Catholic bedfellows, anything goes if it means to weaken Catholicism.]
Here is Socci's commentary on the above.
Resounding new statements by Cardinal Mueller:
Are these part of moves by Benedict XVI and his allies to prevent
new derailments of the faith by Francis and avoid schisms?
Translated from
Oct. 28, 2016
Winston Churchill said that the Kremlin during the Communist era was “a dilemma wrapped in a mystery enclosed in an enigma”.
We could say the same thing of the Vatican. Perhaps due to the aura of secrecy – beyond the solemnity and beauty of the location – that even a banal and surreal TV series like ‘The young pope’ has had such success. But far more fascinating than fiction are the mysteries of the real Vatican. Where, for the first time in history, a pope – after months of neavy attacks [NOT TRUE IN THE CASE OF BENEDICT XVI, of whom Socci is speaking! The ‘heavy attacks’ were long past – they took place in 2010 over ‘priestly sex abuse, redux’ –and Vatileaks in 2012 was a manufactured ‘scandal’ that effectively ended with the conviction of Paolo Gabriele for pilfering the pope’s desk of documents he turned over to journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi. But Socci is all too eager to cite anything, even if dubious like this, to lend support to his conviction that Benedict XVI was forced to resign by pressure(s) from a shadowy entity or entities that Socci has not even deigned to identify generically],, ‘resigned’ for obscure reasons but really remaining pope.
A Vatican in which today two popes co-exist, without anyone explaining why this is possible, since we have always been taught that there can only be one Successor of Peter. [But that argument is senseless since it arises from Socci’s erroneous premise that Benedict's resignation was not valid and therefore, the election of a successor was not valid.]
Unfortunately the media have for some time seemed uninterested in real information about the Church and the Holy see, perhaps because they have been too caught up in celebrations and hosannahs for this pontificate[and how it is perceptibly damaging the one true Church of Christ, to the obvious delight of the secular ultraliberals who dominate media and shape global opinion].
And that is why it seems that no one – at least in Italy – seems aware of an explosive interview given by the Number-2 man in the Church, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [Socci says in parentheses that this was the role of Cardinal Ratzinger under John Paul II, but though the future Benedict XVI may have been considered the #2 man in the Church at the time because it was obvious he was the pope’s righthand man, the same thing obviously cannot be said of Mueller today, when the #2 man in the church of Bergoglio is either Cardinal Parolin or CardinalPell, depending on how much power remains with Cardinal Pell, in direct relation to how much power Cardinal Parolin has regained.]
Benedict XVI named him to head the CDF after his first CDF Prefect, Cardinal William Levada, retired, and it fell to this pope to retain him as CDF prefect and make him a cardinal. Of course, the profound divergences between them on the doctrinal changes Francis intended in convoking his two’family synods’, have substantially isolated Mueller from Bergoglio’s governing circle. [Not that he was ever there, to begin with. I maintain that Bergoglio is keeping Mueller on conveniently to trump critics of his doctrinal-via-pastoral changes, because Mueller continues to insist that Bergoglio has not changed Church doctrine in any way. He has not changed anything formally, obviously, but in every other way, yes. In which sense, Mueller is erring on the side of canonical ‘rigor’ as to what constitutes ‘changing’ doctrine, to give a pass to Bergoglio’s unmistakable doctrine-changing maneuvers. ]
Mueller, who is also the general editor of Joseph Ratzinger’s Opera omnia, gave an interview tothe German service of Vatican Radio, in which for the first time, a ranking member of the Curia looks at the problem of the ‘coexistence of two popes’, in which he reveals in passing that this is being debated in the Vatican and in which he sees a surprising scenario.
He said:
For the first time in the history of the Church, we have a case of two legitimate living popes. Of course, only Pope Francis is pope right now, but Benedict is emeritus pope and therefore, still linked to the papacy. This unprecedented situation must be confronted theologically and spiritually. There are differing opinions on how this is to be done. I have shown that with all their natural differences in personality and character, [b their internal link must be made visible. . [And what ‘internal link’ might this be, and what difference does it make? There can only be one pope at a time, and no amount of argumentation a la Socci or wishful thinking on the part of anyone, will change the fact that Benedict XVI is no longer pope – that is why he is called ‘emeritus pope’.
The interviewer asks just what is this ‘internal link and Mueller answers’: quote]It is about professing faith in Jesus Christ which is the reason for being, the true foundation of the Papacy which hold the Church together in unity with Christ.
It seems like an abstract theological response, but they really refer back to is earlier words,
giving us to understand that Benedict XVI’s Petrine ministry continues still. .
[No, what Mueller said textually was that Benedict as emeritus pope is still linked to the papacy, which, of course, he is, in the same way that all previous popes, who stopped being pope when they died, are still ‘linked to the papacy’ – they were popes, each in their own time, and that fact is not cancelled by their death.] Which is confirmed in the rest of the interview.
Indeed, the interviewer asks Mueller: “What do two popes together offer to the Church? Answer:
Both exercise a ministry that they did not impose on themselves and that they cannot even define because the office is one that had been ‘de-fined’ by Christ himself, as it is understood in the the conscious belief of the Church. And each one experiences in the papal ministry – as in other ecclesial offices – a weight which can only be borne with the help of God’s grace.
[What a singularly unhelpful answer which does not clarify anything!On the other hand: In practical terms, Benedict XVI could continue serving the Church in prayer even if he had chosen to revert to being simply ‘Father Joseph Ratzinger’. Being emeritus pope has nothing to do with his prayer service, except that God probably gives his prayers ‘more weight’ because he had been pope. Isn’t it likely that he chose to be called ‘emeritus pope’ because, knowing the ways of the world, even as the Church hierarchy adopts those ways, then he could at least preserve the dignity of the office in his person as long as he lives, without everyone simply trampling down a Father Joseph Ratzinger. It’s the same rationale he made Georg Gaenswein an archbishop so that the hierarchy cannot just trample him down as they could if he remained Georg Gaenswein, monsignor by papal honor but not a consecrated bishop.]
These are surprising words.
Because Mueller is not saying here that Benedict XVI is substantially no longer pope, he does not say that he is now a mere retiree who has no role in the Church, and does not say, as Pope Francis does, that a pope emeritus is similar to a bishop emeritus. [Come now, Socci! He said textually, “Of course, Pope Francis is the only pope right now, but Benedict is the emeritus…” That is saying that Benedict XVI is substantially no longer pope.
And he says that this unprecedented situation, of
‘two legitimate living popes’] [Mueller is simply saying both popes were legitimately elected, unlike in previous ‘two-pope’ situations when one of the two popes was not legitimately elected. Here, both were, but now, one is pope, the other ex-pope, and Mueller in this interview calls Benedict XVI the emeritus pope, i.e., ex-pope]], “must be confronted theologically and spiritually”.
[Just because he says so does not mean it is necessarily so. If we leave it at the simple practical and factual level that Bergoglio is the reigning pope and Ratzinger the ex-pope, there ought to be no theological or spiritual problems. But what is there to gain if Mueller wants to create a problem where there should be none? Only Socci and his fellow conspiracy theorists will be with him.]
Mueller seems to be taking the same direction as Mons. Georg Gaenswein in his controversial statements last May 21 at the Pontifical Gregorian University about an ‘expanded Petrine ministry’. On that occasion, which had an upsetting effect at the Vatican (even if the Italian media ignored it), Gaenswein said:
Before and after his retiremeny, Benedict intended his task going forward as a participation in the Petrine ministry. He did leave the Chair of Peter, but with his renunciation announced on February 11, 2013, he did not, in fact, abandon this ministry. Instead, he integrated the personal ministry of the pope with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost like a ministry held in common…
Thus, since the election of his successor on March 13, 2013, there are not two popes, but de facto, an enlarged ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member. That is why Benedict XVI did not renounce his papal name nor the white cassock. That is why the correct address for him is still ‘Holiness’, and why, moreover, he did not retire to an isolated monastery but to one withib the Vatican, as though he had merely stepped aside to make way for his successor and a new stage in the history of the Papacy.
Thus, Benedict did not step back but only stepped aside [Let’s not be literal here: for all practical purposes, stepping aside to give way to your successor is stepping back!]
Gaenswein’s statements were significant but it was a couple of months before there was a direct reaction from the Vatican [???? Bergoglio himself answered it shortly after, returning from Armenia!] – an interview with a Curial canonist, entitled “There cannot be a shared Papacy”, in which Gaenswein’s name never came up. But Bergoglian semi-official spokesman Andrea Tornielli, who did the interview, began his article by pointing out that Pope Francis himself had said, not long after Gaenswein’s statements, “There is only one pope. Benedict XVI is emeritus pope”, on his return flight from Armenia, when he was asked about the idea of a ‘shared papacy’. [There you are, Mr. Socci - that answer was not given a couple of months later!]
So if the pope had already answered this question, what was the need to bring it up again with a canonist? Was it because the issue was not considered closed? Maybe because, as Mueller now says, there are different opinions? In effect, Gaenswein’s statements, taken with Mueller’s two days ago, indicate that the question remains open.
But above all, it is Benedict XVI himself who opened it up, not just by choosing to be emeritus pope [even if he did not choose to be called ‘emeritus Pope’, he would still be ‘emeritus pope’ in fact!], in his last General Audience address (Feb. 27, 2013) when he explained that the Petrine ministry was one that was ‘for always’ and that “my decision to renounce the active eexercie of the ministry does not revoke this”..
And in his recent best-seller “Ultime conversazioni”, Benedict dedicated a page to explain his present situation in a few words that are in perfect consonance with what Gaenswein said last May and what Mueller said the other day. He says his resignation was not “an escape, but another way of remaining faithful to my ministry” and that he continues to be pope “in a more profound and intimate way”.
Now, Mueller says that ‘the internal link’ between the two popes which links them to protecting the deposit of the faith, namely, the defense of the Catholic faith, ‘should be made visible’.
Perhaps it is a safety raft that Benedict is offering his successor, to help him carry on his task as pope but staying within the track of orthodoxy, thereby keeping him from erroneous decisions and tragic schisms. [Surely, Socci cannot be saying this seriously! Considering Bergoglio’s singlemindedness on getting what he wants when he wants it, why should any such indirect and concretely insubstantial statements deter him in any way???]
In this light, one can better understand the ‘collaborative’ tone that Benedict seems to take when he talks about his successor in the new book, as well as Mueller’s own new book entitled Benedetto & Francesco. Successori di Pietro al servizio della Chiesa (Benedict and Francis: Successors of Peter in the service of the Church).
[Socci was one of those who surprisingly shrugged off Benedict’s seeming expressions of all-out support for his successor in the most recent interview-book because he, Socci, was much more concerned with what B16 said that Socci considers supportive of his dubious hypotheses that 1) Benedict was forced to resign, and 2) that Benedict still considers himself pope.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 07/11/2016 03:37]