We have noted in previous commentary on the impending SSPX episcopal consecrations that conciliar Rome betrays a knowledge of the true faith, which, though disdainful of it, finds it a useful tool with which to beat those traditionalists who still believe in it.1 Hence, Cardinal Fernandez did not blush in citing the papal prerogatives regarding episcopal consecrations and his supreme jurisdiction to govern the universal Church as defined at Vatican I (even as his every day efforts to implement synodality and collegiality undermine the very notion of the Petrine primacy).
Likewise, in a fresh interview with Communio, Cardinal Muller resorts to a similar tactic, recalling traditional Catholic teachings which receive scant mention in the conciliar church, such as eternal damnation, the necessity of communion with the Church and Peter for salvation, the gravity of excommunication, mortal sin, etc., applying them all as warnings to the SSPX, in an attempt to dissuade them from the planned episcopal consecrations (or failing this, to combat the suggestion of doctrinal unorthodoxy implicit in the need to consecrate bishops without papal mandate).
Although the interview in toto represents an apologia in defense of the entire conciliar religion, which we encourage the reader to peruse, we wish here only to respond to certain of Muller’s comments directly pertaining to the planned consecrations, in order to hold out for scrutiny the doctrinal correctness and veracity of his contentions on that subject.
Muller: “No one can demand of the Pope that he live in unity with them and their like-minded associates. Rather, the opposite is true: a true Catholic lives in unity with the Pope and the bishops in hierarchical and sacramental communion with him.”
Yes, this is certainly true, if these recent claimants were valid popes (as the SSPX claims, with a dogmatic certitude).
Muller: “Excommunication for this grave offense against the unity of the visible Church also entails, as a mortal sin, the exclusion from the life of grace, from communion with God and from the hope of eternal life. Hopefully, the Superior of the SSPX, along with his co-responsible leaders, is aware of this connection.”
Excommunications are honored by God only on the condition they are just, since it would be an act of injustice on the part of God to damn those unjustly censored by ecclesiastical authority. The undeniable and obvious proof of this is the example of St. Joan of Arc: Excommunicated unjustly, she is officially venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church (which could not be the case if she were damned).
Muller: “They cannot excuse themselves before God by claiming a state of emergency, since none of their followers is deprived of the sacraments of baptism and penance, which are necessary for salvation.”
Although sacramental deprivation can certainly be a cause of grave general spiritual necessity, sacramental access does not preclude all other causes.
The cause of grave general spiritual necessity for Catholics in the post-conciliar era is the spread of heresy by the putative hierarchy
Grave general spiritual necessity is present whenever: 1) Many faithful; 2) Are threatened in spiritual goods; 3) Of great importance for salvation (e.g., faith and morals); 4) And are without hope of help from their lawful pastors.
For a good treatment of this topic, see this article.
Muller: “It is not a state of emergency that, without illegally consecrated bishops, their priestly society would not be able to continue.”
No, that is not the emergency. In some places the SSPX has unfortunately omitted to explain why the disappearance of its congregation -at least in its independent and traditional form- cannot be allowed to happen: Because the orthodox and traditional Catholic faith is no longer taught by the putative hierarchy! If the largest body of traditional priests is allowed to be extinguished, then the light of the true faith remaining in the world is proportionately dimmed.
Muller: “What God wants to say to the SSPX, in view of the advanced age of their two remaining bishops, is to turn away from the wrong path of distancing themselves from the Church and self-isolation amongst like-minded people, and to entrust themselves with confidence to the guidance of the Successor of Peter, to whom the Lord of the Church has personally entrusted the care of his flock.”
Indeed? Archbishop Lefebvre conceived a rather different interpretation of the duty God imposed upon us in these times: “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”2
Muller: “Speaking personally and fraternally, I am confident that, with Pope Leo XIV, a good and just, but also dogmatically sound solution can be found.”
On the one hand, I’m curious how Cardinal Muller can make this statement in light of Cardinal Fernandez’s comment to Fr. Pagliarani that “while it would be possible to engage in dialogue about the Council, its texts could not be corrected.”3
On the other hand, if this is all Kubuki Theatre (i.e., this drama is all playing out according to a script whereby both sides are giving the appearance of holding their respective lines to mollify their own constituents, but behind closed doors have already reached an agreement that is slowly being unveiled), then unfortunately Cardinal Muller’s comment could be construed as preparing the terrain for that very outcome.
Muller: “The unity of the Church cannot be bought at the price of truth through mere diplomatic skill.”
Agreed, but I wonder about the Cardinal’s sincerity in saying such a thing in light of the secret GREC meetings (which explicitly sought to “regularize” the SSPX through diplomatic means, by coming to a merely practical accord, while overlooking the doctrinal differences between conciliar Rome and the SSPX)?
And have not Rome’s absorption/reconciliation efforts always been primarily diplomatic in the beginning, only to wear down doctrinal resistance over time (e.g., promising all these groups they could continue to be traditional, only to later insist on concelebration, acceptance of Vatican II, etc), as transpired in Campos, Le Barroux, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and the Fraternity of St. Peter, among others?
Muller: “An episcopal consecration without the express permission of the Pope or in manifest denial of his authority as the successor of Peter, appointed by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be justified before God and man by anything or anyone.”
This contention is historically untenable: The reservation of episcopal consecrations transpired belatedly in the history of the Church (11th century), and even then, only in the Latin Church. That could not be the case if it were true that “an episcopal consecration without the express permission of the Pope…cannot be justified before God and man by anything or anyone.”
Historical examples subsequent to the reservation of episcopal consecrations to the Pope after the 11th century without the express permission of the Pope also abound (e.g., clandestine consecrations behind the Iron Curtain).
And finally, one can point to the episcopal consecrations of Cardinal Slipyj in 1976, not only without papal permission, but in direct opposition to the policy of Paul VI. Upon the “Pope’s” discovery, no penalty was declared, which could only be the case if necessity dispensed the Cardinal, since canonically a latae sententiae excommunication was incurred.4
Muller: “Whoever administers and receives episcopal ordination without permission is indeed validly ordained [sic], but the Holy Spirit bears witness against him, because he does not act out of love but according to his own judgement.”
This is false: A bishop who, constrained by necessity, consecrates another bishop against the “no” of the pope is under a moral compulsion (which the contrary command of the pope cannot alleviate) in both justice and charity to come to the aid of souls: He could not obey the pope without sinning gravely, since his power of order obliges him to come to the rescue of those who, but for his intervention, would likely be damned by loss of faith.
For a full exposition of this doctrine, read here.
The fact that Rome reveals this knowledge of true Catholic doctrine throws a significant monkey wrench into the theological gears of those R&R Catholics who advance the theory of “mentevacantism” in order to avoid concluding a papal vacancy (i.e., the notion that the conciliar claimants are so imbued with liberalism that they do not realize they are contradicting Catholic doctrine, and therefore cannot be accused of formal heresy, thereby validly retaining their papal offices).
For more on “mentevacantism,” see this article at the WM Review.
Lefebvre, M. Spiritual Journey, p.13 (Angelus Press, 1991).
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-fernandez-tells-sspx-superior-that-vatican-ii-documents-cannot-be-corrected
In the 1917 CIC, the penalty for consecrating a bishop without papal mandate was suspension latae sententiae, but because of the problem in China, this penalty was increased in 1951 to excommunication latae sententiae.
And we 're supposed to assume the credibility of a man who questioned the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth? Puh-leeze!
So when it suits these wicked men, they dust off the old tomes of Catholic theology, which they had stored away years ago, and suddenly they start quoting Vatican I, Mortal Sin (abolished at Vatican II); excommunication, etc. etc. as a club to attempt to convince the SSPX and its faithful to "return to the vomit" of the Conciliar Church. What unmitigated hypocrisy.