Archbishop Muller: “These are not criticisms, they are provocations.”
August 06, 2012 06:15 EST
By Carl E. Olson
Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the new head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recently talked with EWTN News about his new post and related matters. He spoke very highly of one of my favorite works of theology, written a few years ago by a certain German theologian:
Archbishop Muller still recalls the intellectual impact of Father Joseph Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity,” published in 1968 at the height of the campus rebellions across the western world. “He re-vindicated our faith and convinced us of the reasonableness of Catholic belief; he re-established our confidence in the Church,” the archbishop remarked.
He is now in charge of editing the writings or “Omnia Opera” of Pope Benedict XVI, a grand project that will stretch to 16 volumes.
He described Pope Benedict as “a great intellectual and an important thinker for today,” particularly when it comes to “explaining the depth and richness of our Christian faith” to contemporary society.
“It’s too early to speak about the legacy of this papacy, but in a certain sense we can compare our present Holy Father with the great intellectual pontiffs of history, such as Pope Leo the Great in 5th century and Benedict XIV in the 18th century.”
He also addressed some of the criticisms that have been leveled against his own theological works and views:
Archbishop Muller’s latest appointment, however, has been met with a degree of criticism from some who allege he holds unorthodox views on a range of issues – from the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, to the relationship of non-Catholic Christians to the Church.
“These are not criticisms, they are provocations. And not very intelligent provocations at that,” he said. “Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it.”
“Our Catholic faith is very clear,” he explained,“that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on.”
The Church is also equally clear on the “virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ,” Archbishop Muller stated.
As for inter-Christian relations, the archbishop noted that in his 4-5th century debates with the Donatists, St. Augustine underscored that the Church recognizes“everybody who is validly baptized is incorporated into Christ,” even if they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Read the entire piece: www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=5927
Carl E. Olson is editor of Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight.
Would St. Augustine have argued that a baptized person is automatically saved regardless of the life he/she lived? I don’t think so. It’s one thing to be baptized and quite another to live a life in accord with the commandments of God and His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church instituted by Christ. Archbishop Muller must be suffering from some form of dementia or, he is intentionally obfuscating the issue.
This is actually somewhat encouraging in that Muller seems to be walking away from some of his heterodox material. Him having to re-state transubstantiation and the virginity of Mary in such a way is probably as close to a retraction as you’ll see.
We’re seeing this as a result of pressure from the traditional community, the SSPX in particular.
I agree that it’s the closest thing we’ll see to a retraction. His preface of, “These are not criticisms, they are provocations. And not very intelligent provocations at that. Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it” is most disingenuous.
All of the criticisms of his statements have been from intelligent people who have read what he wrote, understood what he wrote, and have quoted him in full context in their rebuttals to his (hopefully former) heresies.
Appears to be a matter of pride, not encouraging to hear from the leader of the CDF. If he’s too prideful in this case, he’ll never back down from his statements about VC II being dogmatic.
I agree that it is encouraging on two points:
A. he is no longer calling (directly) the questions posed by the SSPX ‘stupid’.
B. he has reaffirmed in a clear and direct manner (refreshing for a change) some of the Dogmas.
The last little bit is disappointing regarding NFC (not full communion). More clarity would be nice with respect to the statements made by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis etc. But that kind of acknowledgement would clear up a great deal of the ecumenical fog since the council.
I guess we still have to wait and pray for that one.
A baptised person in mortal sin is still incorporated in Christ. However, a baptised person in willful schism or heresy is no longer incorporated in Christ.
Muller is again showing his ignorance by referencing St. Augustine’s debates with the Donatists. St. Augustine was arguing that baptised people who have renounced their heresy are automatically re-incorporated in Christ without having to be rebaptised. He was certainly not arguing that baptised heretics are still incorporated in Christ.
Samuel, do you have a source? I’d like to review this a little.
Jan B, this probably isn’t a source you were looking for, but having read it on another thread, I thought it quite a relevant rebuttal of Muller’s position:
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.”
Thus, if it is not permissible to think of the Mystical Body of Christ as being a separate reality from the hierarchically constituted Church on earth, how can heretics and schismatics who are not in communion with the Church be considered to be “incorporated into Christ.”?
Unless of course one can be “incorporated into Christ” without belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ…..but I imagine you would have to be able to think like a modernist to get your head around that one.
Another good resource is Pius XII encyclical Mystici Corporis. Some aspects were challenged by theologians and resulted in the encyclical Humanae Generis reaffirming some of the statements.
Deacon Augustine, are you comfortable using the Council as a source for a teaching about who’s in and who’s out of the Mystical Body? I probably shouldn’t say anything about it, and maybe it’s not germane at all, but when I read your comment, that’s what I was thinking, that perhaps this was yet another ‘spin’ on the traditional teaching. If there are any Catholics left capable of performing an analysis in a hundred years, sometimes I think we will find so very many buried hexes and spells in the constitutions of the Council. There were dedicated modernist zealots at that ill-fated meeting.
St. Augustine’s work on Baptism Against the Donatists is available here: carm.org/augustine-baptism-donatists-book1
That heretics and schismatics are cut off from the Church, and are not merely dead members (as are mortal sinners), is a constant teaching of the Church in numerous places.
That the Church is identified with the Mystical Body of Christ is taught in Mystici Corporis and Humanae Generis.
Thank you, Samuel. I’ll take a look at that, as well as at the other sources offered here. This has been a fine discussion.
I am convinced of that which he has now stated, but I am not convinced he did not have his fingers crossed, behind-his-back, when making the said statement.
I swear, he makes me want to show him some provacation.
Some more food for thought…
Stephen Dupuy POSTED: 8/8/12
REMNANT COLUMNIST
______________________
(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) In an August 6 EWTN News/CNA article, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), makes his first brief, but substantive public response to doctrinal criticisms from Traditionalists. Ironically, in attempting to clarify his positions, the Archbishop may end up demonstrating (intentionally or unintentionally) the mind of the Modernists towards dogma.
In Pascendi, St. Pius X explains that the Modernists separate Faith and science in an effort to appease rationalists. While the Modernists will recite the language of Catholic dogma and profess belief in it, it is always with the understanding that dogma itself is an expression or a symbol of a divine reality that only has true relevance when it is adapted to the faith or “religious sense” of the believer. In our present day this “faith or religious sense” must always take into account our present rationalistic and agnostic world which questions the very idea of the supernatural. Does Archbishop Müller demonstrate this view in his responses?
On August 6, Archbishop Müller defended his view of Church teaching on the Eucharist by stating: “Our Catholic faith is very clear…that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on.”
So what is the “whole substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” according to Archbishop Müller? He explains in his 2002 book, “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens”:
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.
The Archbishop also defended his view of Church teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary stating, “The Church is also equally clear on the ‘virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ.’” However, the Archbishop has previously made clear that the word “virginity” used in the formula he cites, does not necessarily include bodily integrity as it has always been held to mean by Catholic Tradition. In his 2003 work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” Müller claims that the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity 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.
Thus, despite the Archbishop’s reciting of the Catholic definitions, the question remains as to whether the Archbishop interprets the words of those definitions to have the exact same meaning as the Church has always taught. For even if certain interpretations of dogmas are well adapted to the “religious sense” of the modern believer or the philosopher or the scientist, those interpretations lose all value if they are not clearly and unambiguously consistent with the unchangeable original meanings given to them by the Church.
As St. Pius X warns us in Pascendi:
…the philosopher regards it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical…since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer does not lay too much stress on the formula, as formula, but avail himself of it only for the purpose of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express but without ever succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer make use of the formulas only in as far as they are helpful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium shall provide otherwise.
Link to article: www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=5927
“However, the Archbishop has previously made clear that the word “virginity” used in the formula he cites, does not necessarily include bodily integrity as it has always been held to mean by Catholic Tradition.”
Gee, many a young lady has argued the same thing upon occasion. Not myself, of course. I swear.