Yesterday, some traditionalist Catholic blog sites were in full attack mode against CDF Prefect Gerhard Mueller for having said in a German radio interview that the Vatican dialog with the FSSPX is over - he was even accused of being "sweet on Protestants, while hostile to the Lefebvrians". I do think it was premature and rather thoughtless of him to make the statement on German radio before the Vatican has even received the 'final' reply from Mons. Fellay.
From what I have read of Mons. Mueller's statements since he became CDF Prefect, he is hardly the most tactful when speaking about the FSSPX, especially in the light of his open hostility to them and the activities of their seminary in Zaithofen near Regensburg when he was Bishop of Regensburg. But even if some of his own statements about his personal positions as a theologian are not always as clear as when his defenders seek to clarify them, he is capable of making clear and tactful statements, as he does in this interview, with specific reference to the FSSPX.
Mons. Mueller on the FSSPX
and what he has said
about Mary and the Eucharist
Interview by EDWARD PENTIN
Oct. 4, 2012
In the second part of an EWTN interview with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the new CDF prefect discusses the latest on efforts to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with the Church, the current situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and responds to what some saw as controversies over some of his previous writings on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and on the Eucharist.
What stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?
I wouldn’t call it a dialogue between two Church partners. This was a brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine. This authentic interpretation is guaranteed by the Pope.
The SSPX must accept the Holy Father, the Pope, as the visible head of the Church. They have a great respect for Tradition. They must, therefore, accept the position of the Pope as stated in the First Vatican Council. They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope.
Part of the problem is that, after 30 or more years of separation from the Church, some groups or persons can be very closed in their own dynamic, in their own groups, and very fixed on these points. I believe that these questions will be resolved in the long term.
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem from this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this?
[It is not a question of cold-heartedness on the part of Williamson - it is his own ideological blindness to historical fact because he is himself anti-Semitic, and he expresses that by denying the most devastating historical fact to the Jewish people.] It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [the FSSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and
everything that was said in the Councilis therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels.
[I think Mueller means "everything stated in the Council documents", because "all that had been said at the Council" contained often diametrically opposing views, which the Council Fathers decided one way or the other by voting on the final document drafts presented. Positions not contained in these documents were obviously not adopted, so how can they even be binding?]
We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic.
Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.
In view of all this, are you nevertheless confident and optimistic there will be reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X?
I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church. The FSSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity.
[Except that none of them has had the balls to break away to become a fully autonomous group as the FSSPX has!]
We must work for unity, and so it is also my task to invite all to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, which is led by the supreme shepherd, the Pope — who is the Vicar of Christ.
If they [the FSSPX] do come back, what positive aspects could they bring to the Church?
They could underline what Tradition is, but they also must become broader in their perspective, because the apostolic Tradition of the Church is not only about a few elements. The Tradition of the Church is large and wide.
[More importantly, Tradition with a capital T refers to a body of beliefs and practices that have accrued over the centuries around the primitive faith transmitted by the Apostles - I do not know if the Church formally defines a time limit for this accrual, which is also a way of evolving - but theoretically, it continues to be gradually built over time.
Ecumenical councils have made dogmatic decisions that the Church = and her Tradition - have accepted and abided by. The councils could have easily decided the opposite, and the Church would still have abided by such decisions which would have accrued to Tradition. If, for instance, the Council of Chalcedon had decided that Christ had only one nature - the divine - as the monophsyites claimed, that decision would have entered into the Tradition and doctrine of the Church, and would have been part of that Tradition of which the FSSPX claim to be the 'only zealous custodians'. Fortunately, the Councils appear to have been under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, and so, not one has come out with any decisions that are 'counter-intuitive' to Revelation and the original apostolic teachings. Not even Vatican-II, even if the progressivists, invoking an arbitrary 'spirit of Vatican II' in an obvious and strange disregard for the Holy Spirit who inspires the Church of Christ, have sought mightily to 'establish' as the beginning of a new Church. That in itself is a measure of how their much-invoked 'spirit' has gone to their heads, to the point that they are capable of thinking a Council can 'establish a new Church' instead of merely orienting the human course of the Church that Chirst established.]
On the other hand, there must also be a renewal in the celebration of the liturgy, because we have had a lot of abuses of the liturgy, which have damaged the faith of many people.
Could they perhaps help correct some of the abuses?
That is not their task, but ours. One extreme cannot be the equivalent of the other. The extremes must be corrected by the center.
There were some controversies surrounding your appointment regarding your previous teachings on Mary and the Eucharist. Could you tell us more about this?
[Editor’s note: On the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Archbishop Müller wrote that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
On the Eucharist, he stated: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”]
These controversies were not so much criticisms as baseless provocations aimed at discrediting me, but everyone can read what I have written in context and systematically. Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary? I have written whole books in defense of these doctrines.
Concerning miracles, we have to remember that the primary object of our faith is the action of God; the secondary object is what God did inclusively in the material dimension. It is not enough to say that miracles are an inexplicable action — something totally exceptional within the material world — that prove God’s existence. Rather, the miracles performed by Jesus reveal that he is our divine Savior who came to heal a world wounded by sin.
So, for instance, when Jesus performed a miracle, such as the healing of the sick man, the first aspect to look at is not the mere suspension of the natural order. The first priority is to examine the fact that God has healed this person who needed to be healed; the suspension of the laws of nature are a consequence of this divine intervention. Often, people don’t understand this perspective of the faith.
Some have suggested you were trying to push the boundaries, to come up with new thinking, as scholars often do. Does this have something to do with the controversy?
Look, the basis of our faith is revelation. But we need theological explanations, interpretation, to explain the historical truth of revelation and to present and defend it against errors and heresy. So, for instance, the Christological dogmas of the early councils were absolutely necessary to explain in another way the truths about Christ witnessed to and contained in the New Testament. If you want to conserve the content of the truth in other contexts, you must sometimes explain it in other categories.
In the Gospel, Jesus said: “This is my blood; this is my body.” What is the meaning of this? It refers to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but in the New Testament, you don’t find this expression — “Real Presence.” It is a later theological term used to explain the truth contained in the Gospel.
Then, in the context of the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church had to defend the doctrine of the Real Presence, and she did this by expressing it in philosophical terms to explain the difference between substance and appearance. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation — a word which you will not find in the New Testament but which was necessary in order to explain and defend what had been revealed in the New Testament. Often, people do not understand the relationship between revelation and theology.
Finally, what is the situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)? The congregation recently issued a doctrinal assessment calling for a renewal of this American organization. Is there a continuing struggle between the CDF and the organization?
There is no struggle between the Holy See and this organization, but we do want to help the LCWR in its renewal of religious life — precisely because of the importance of religious life for the Church. In our times, such renewal will only be possible if there is a renewed commitment to the three vows [chastity, poverty and obedience] and a new identification with our Catholic faith and life.
We cannot fulfill our mission if we are split, everyone speaking against one another, working against one another, or accepting ideas from outside that don’t belong to our faith. And we cannot accept doctrines about sexuality that don’t respect the fundamental essentials of revealed anthropology. So we must find new ways to serve the society of today, not waste our time with “civil wars” inside the Catholic Church. We must work together and have confidence.
But it is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been “anti-Rome.” Setting oneself up against “Rome” has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church.
[The 'successful' movements have broken away cleanly to set up their own shop and did not persist in the vain attempt to bring down the Church or even to impose their ideas of what the Church ought to be..]
Only through a renewed commitment to the full teaching of Christ and his Church, and through a renewed spirit of collaboration with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him, will there be renewal and new life in the Catholic Church and a new evangelization of our society.
Preaching the Gospel of Christ to a weary world so desperately in need of its liberating truth — this must be our priority.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/10/2012 18:44]