Although the new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is optimistic about reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, he says that the teachings of the Church, including the dogmatic content of the Second Vatican Council, will never be up for re-negotiation.
“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller told EWTN News July 20. “But we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; that is impossible. An ecumenical council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”
As prefect of the congregation, Archbishop Muller is also the president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X.
The commission is currently awaiting an official reply from the society to an offer of reconciliation that would give the traditionalist group personal prelature status within the Church. In return, the society would have to accept a “Doctrinal Preamble” proposed to it by the congregation, including full adherence to the dogmatic content of the Second Vatican Council.
In a July 19 statement, the society said it had “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” at its recent general chapter gathering, but added that it still rejected “all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors,” as well as “the reforms issued from it.”
“This is simply not possible,” said Archbishop Muller in response. “No one who claims to be Catholic can take such a position. This was precisely the position taken by Martin Luther in 1519, who argued that ‘even councils can err.’”
He added, however, that between various texts of the Council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the Council’s document on social communications, Inter Mirifica, which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
“Whatever is dogmatic can never be negotiated,” he said, while still expressing hope that the members of the Society of Pius X “can overcome their difficulties, their ideological restrictions, so that we can work together to proclaim Christ as the Light of the world.”
Although the 64-year-old German is new to his current post at the Vatican, Archbishop Muller has had extensive dealings with the Society of St. Pius X in the past. As archbishop of Regensburg in the Bavaria region of Germany for the past decade, his diocesan territory included a seminary operated by the traditionalist group.
A key problem for Rome in recent discussions seems to be the perception that the Society of St. Pius X often speaks about errors in the conciliar texts themselves.
“The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.
Instead, the Vatican believes a distinction should be made between what the Second Vatican Council actually said and the sometimes problematic interpretations and applications of its teaching.
“We can all come together and avoid ideological positions if we accept the word of God present in the doctrine of the Catholic Church,” he said.
The Vatican’s willingness to continue dialogue was indicated last month with the deployment of a high-ranking American archbishop to the commission responsible for the discussions.
On June 26, Pope Benedict switched Rome-based Archbishop Augustine Di Noia from his post as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship to vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.”
Archbishop Muller, who took up office in Rome earlier this month, said he is fully committed to working for the reconciliation of all separated Christians. “Our aim and our task is clear: to promote the unity of all the disciples of Christ in the one Church under the leadership of Jesus Christ and in communion with his vicar, the Successor of St. Peter.”
Mark Brumley: Aren't You Ashamed?
Edward Pentin: English Translation of Pope's Discourse to Rome Clergy
Comments
Post a Comment
Is there a list somewhere of the dogmatic teaching that the SSPX allegedly disputes? After a couple years of doctrinal talks between the Vatican and the SSPX, one would think the differences would be clear, but I have never seen a point-by-point inventory.
There are errors in the constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. If you google Gleize SSPX you will find a well-written (that is, not too dense for lay persons) description of the exact words, as well as the Catholic tradition they compromise. Please don’t think SSPX is being too picky on these issues, because it so happens that the doctrine in question protects the interests of working people, the most vulnerable poor, and women and children. The media does not take the time to understand the relationship between doctrine and practice. What Vatican II did is relativize morality (all in the name of sixties-style false ‘love’) and that unleashed, besides the destruction of what we commonly think of as morality, also the predatory lending and hiring and firing practices of the last fifty years that have pauperized our families and our country.
It cannot be true both that councils cannot err and that councils can change doctrine. The onus on Rome is to prove that what seems to millions to have been change actually is in conformity with and needs to be understood in the light of previous teaching. It is unconvincing to state bluntly that councils cannot err when it seems to many that Vatican II changed everything. If it can be rationally demonstrated that Vatican II is consistent with traditional doctrine, the Vatican would do well so to demonstrate. “You are wrong. Councils cannot err,” is not a convincing argument.
That being said, we really don’t hear what actually is being said in the dialog. The SSPX may be irrationally obstinate but we aren’t hearing what the Vatican is saying to convince them of their error.
There are many errors in the Second Vatican Council. GOOGLE THEM.
Better to be DIVIDED IN TRUTH than UNITED IN ERROR.
What has to be clarified is the vague language of the 16 Vatican II documents, as a well known Bishop named Schneider himself is called for a couple of years ago. He called for a “Syllabus” on the misinterpretations and this bishop is fully in the Church and in the Faith. Other Vatican prelates have said the same. Bishop Mueller needs to take the plank out of his own eyes because he seems to be in favor of Liberation Theology (among other strange ideas on dogma) and here he is telling the SSPX that they “must accept the Council” which by the way was only “PASTORAL” not DOGMATIC.This means that any novelties or abuses or things this Council call for that seem to clash with previous Councils (including Trent and Vatican I) does not have to have the assent of the Faithful as I understand. The CDF and EDC need to tread carefully that they have NOT been clear in the last 50 years since the council was called or the role of the so called Theological advisors known as the periti from mostly Germany Holland Austria and Switzerland.
John XXIII said it was a pastoral council, Paul VI said it was a pastoral council. Does a pastoral council have dogmatic teaching?
Can we trust Archbishop Muller? If there is nothing wrong with V II what caused the train wreck all the way back to V II. If the interpretation is at fault why wasn’t it been revised and clarified? Why, why why?
Archbishop Muller states about the post Vatican ll era, “and sometimes problematic interpretations and applications.” SOMETIMES?! It doesn’t seem like it was sometimes, it was most of the time. Which is why the SSPX has found it their mission to correct the abuses, and not at a snails pace for sure. As they have said “souls are at stake here.” What can be more valuable than souls eternal fate. The Holy Father a few years ago asked the SSPX not to set up a second magisterium. Some of the demands of the SSPX certainly sound like the setting up of a second magisterium. I believe the Society should drop such a demand and go with the great idea of a New Congregation in Rome to uphold Tradition, as they suggest.
Archbishop Muller has said some things that are somewhat confusing. He said we must completely accept all of Vatican ll. He also made this statement, “different texts of Vatican ll hold different levels of authority, and distinctions should be made between pastoral pronouncments and authorative doctrinal statements.” It seems Archbishop Muller may be a victim himself of the vast confusion in the Church. I was disturbed by the appointment of Muller by the Pope, but I trusted his judgment as he is the Vicar of Christ. Its no secret that the Holy Father loves to debate. With the appointment of Muller, the debates are revving up. Perhaps this was the intention of His Holiness.
Considering the inconsistencies of Vatican II documents with the past 2000 years of Church Councils, I would say that church teaching is up for grabs and apparently whatever the Bishops want it to be to suit themselves.
Stories abound of problems at Vatican Council ll. There were liberals that caused many problems. One of the Council Fathers suggested the Church be torn down completely, and started anew. He was reprimanded and silenced by Pope Paul Vl. Another, 300 Council Fathers gathered at the Basilica of St. Domitilla in Rome and signed something to the effect that after the Council all titles would be dropped, such as your Excellency, your Eminence, Monsignor ect… There are many such stories. Bl. John XXlll after the first session is said to have called his closest Cardinal collaborators to think of a way to gracefully end the Council, as he seen trouble ahead. He died before it was done. St. Padre Pio pleaded with one of the Council Fathers who visited him, to please end the Council as quick as possible. Before the Council, all the heresies already existed, they did’nt happen at the Council. Could the Council have been a showdown between the errors of modernism and the Truth? If the Council did not take place what would the Church be like today? I believe the modernists would have prevailed or rather the gates of hell would have prevailed. What we have failed to see is that V2 was absolutly necessary. It was a battleground, and the Truth prevailed. The Council did’nt end in 1965, it is ongoing and the Documents of V2 should be read and used as a weapon against the errors of modernism. God the Holy Ghost did in fact guide the Council, He defeated the errors of modernism, through his Bishops who were Holy and opposed errors. Servant of God Pope Paul Vl Ora Pro Nobis!
VATICAN II’S AMBIGUOUS AND CONTROVERSIAL JURIDICAL NATURE —-
First of all, Pope John XXIII’s address opening the Council on October 11, 1962, and the Notificatio, read publicly on November 5, 1965, define the juridical nature of Vatican II as “pastoral,” not as “dogmatic”. The Council’s “pastoral” nature is confirmed by the fact that it did not define any dogmas nor condemn any errors.
Second, although two of the Council’s “Constitutions,” Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), are named “dogmatic” and concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, they are dogmatic only in name, i.e. in a solely descriptive sense. The Council did not define any new dogma for anyone to believe in.
Third, Vatican II’s deliberate and willful refusal to define or declare itself a “dogmatic” council, forces Catholic theologians faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to legitimately and reasonably question the orthodoxy of the sense in which Vatican II texts can be and have been arbitrarily interpreted and the manner in which it has been ruthlessly imposed by self-proclaimed Council partisans.
Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “heretics.” NOWHERE!
Nowhere does Vatican II teach that those who happen to disagree with its pastoral, non-dogmatic suggestions are “schismatic.” NOWHERE!
Nowhere does Vatican II or in the subsequently produced Catechism of the Catholic Church is it taught that acceptance of Vatican II, or of a self-proclaimed “pastoral” council such as Vatican II, an “Article of Faith” or necessary for salvation. NOWHERE!
Nowhere does Vatican II suggests, command or authorize its self-proclaimed partisans to attack, bully, coerce, intimidate, persecute, offend or threaten Catholics otherwise faithful to the Church’s Magisterium to violate their informed conscience in order to accept Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions. NOWHERE!
Is it not evident that bullying, coercing, intimidating or persecuting otherwise committed and faithful Catholics to force them to violate their informed conscience and agree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic proposals and pastoral suggestions; is itself a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II?
It should be very, very clear that those who use Vatican II as a wedge to divide the Church not only commit a great disservice to the Church, but they also DISRESPECT, DISOBEY, and commit a great DISSERVICE to the very letter, spirit, purpose and declared intent of the Second Vatican Council.
Self-proclaimed Vatican II partisans: PLEASE! STOP DISRESPECTING and DISOBEYING Vatican II! You need to stop using a council whose self-proclaimed purpose and desire was for UNITY among all men, as a wedge to DIVIDE, DISUNITE, DISTRACT, and sow DISCORD among Catholics loyal and faithful to the Church’s Magisterium.
Bishop Muller started off strong with an iron fist in dealing with the SSPX. Bishop Muller’s favorite University in Peru has been officialy stripped of Papal recognition and of the name Catholic by Pope Benedict XVl and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Should this not have been the job of the CDF. Did the Pope perhaps not have enough confidence in the CDF. And now the SSPX has officialy called on Bishop Muller to accept the Second Vatican Council! There is even a call by Catholics to write to Bishop Muller and ask him to accept all Church teaching and to accept Vatican Council ll. It seems strange that Muller can reject Church Dogma, say and do what is contrary to the Council, and yet make the demand that the SSPX accept V2. Ironic and strange.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.