Jan-Heiner Tück: Cardinal Müller, you were already involved with the SSPX as Bishop of Regensburg in the years 2002-2012. The International Sacred Heart Seminary Zaitzkofen lies within the diocese. During your time as bishop, deacons and priests were ordained there without the necessary permission – how did you, as the local ordinary, respond?
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller: The conflict over the unauthorised ordinations of priests and deacons in Zaitzkofen came to a head when, following the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops illicitly ordained by Mgr Lefebvre (2009), the Holocaust denial of one of them, namely Bishop Richard Williamson, became publicly known. There were inquiries from the press and from the Jewish community as to whether such scandalous views would be tolerated within the Catholic Church. Therefore, as the responsible bishop, I had to declare that the SSPX cannot speak for the Catholic Church, because it is in a state of schism. This remains true even though the Pope intended to initiate a process of reconciliation with the Catholic Church by lifting the excommunication. The SSPX itself subsequently severed ties with Bishop Williamson. However, since Holy Orders continue to be administered in Zaitzkofen without the permission of the local bishop and the Holy See, the schismatic intent of this group was evident. By rescheduling the ordinations in Zaitzkofen to the same day as the priestly ordination in Regensburg Cathedral (25 kilometers away), the church-critical media were handed a ready-made opportunity to gloat over an alleged Catholic disunity – much to the annoyance of the faithful.
Tück: As Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, you were then responsible for leading the high-level talks with the Society of St. Pius X on behalf of Popes Benedict XVI and Francis. The aim was to resolve doctrinal differences. What were the main issues at stake – apart from an unhistorical understanding of tradition?
Müller: The real problem does not lie in the liturgy – that is, in the classical (post-Tridentine) and renewed (post-Vatican II) ritual form, but in the doctrine of the faith, which they believe to be compromised in the renewed liturgy. Certain formulations of the Second Vatican Council are subject to dubious interpretations, such as the idea that Muslims, like Christians and Jews in the tradition of Abraham, recognise the Creator and adore the one God along with us. In this, they see a form of history-of-religions-based relativism that posits a common religion of humanity beyond God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. What is overlooked here is the classical Catholic teaching that human reason is, in principle, capable of recognizing the existence and unity of God, while the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation are revealed only in supernatural faith (Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles I, 2 and 6; Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Canon I, 1: DH 3026). In recognition of the sincere pursuit of God’s truth, all can attain to salvation, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but allow themselves to be guided by the grace of God and strive to do what is good and true, which is always a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Lumen Gentium, Art. 16). When the statements of the Second Vatican Council – which the Society of St. Pius X criticises – are read in the context of the Church’s entire tradition, a relativist interpretation becomes untenable. This applies equally to so-called progressives, who reduce revelation to general religious history and deny its supernatural character and the uniqueness of Christ as the Saviour of the world. Nor, with regard to ecumenism with non-Catholic Christians, Christian communities and the Orthodox Churches, did the Council in any way call into question the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation or its full identity with the Church of the Apostles. And when it comes to religious freedom, it can be said that the Church has not changed its position in terms of content, provided one considers the respective context in which the ambiguous term was used in various situations and in relation to whomever it was used. Bishop Wilhelm von Ketteler had already presented religious freedom during the Kulturkampf as the right of every human being – naturally rooted in the spirit and freedom of the person – to defend oneself against state interference in one’s conscience, just as the Second Vatican Council did in the declaration Dignitatis humanae (speech at the Generalversammlung der Katholiken Deutschlands in Freiburg im Breisgau on 1 September 1875). One is the right of every person to choose and practice his religion free from external coercion or internal manipulation, according to his conscience, and the other is, on a supernatural level, God’s call in the Word of His revelation in Jesus Christ, to whom, with the help of grace and in the light of the Holy Spirit, one must respond in the obedience of faith, offering the full submission of intellect and will (Dei verbum, Art. 5).
More Catholic than Rome?
Tück: Pope Benedict XVI has made great concessions to the SSPX through "Summorum Pontificum" (2007) and the remission of the excommunication of the four traditionalist bishops (2009), whom you have already mentioned. At the time, there was the expectation that agreement could now also be reached on the controversial questions of doctrine. How did you perceive the theological arguments put forward by the Society’s theologians?
Müller: Unfortunately, the society did not thank Pope Benedict XVI for this concession, even though he had, through his magnanimity, exposed himself to smear campaigns by opposing extremists. For the greater good of unity, they were allowed to celebrate the sacraments in the old liturgy, which is quite legitimate and has precedents in historical reunifications of churches separated from Rome. In matters of doctrine, in my opinion, it is a question of pretextual arguments designed to avoid fully subordinating themselves to the Pope’s authority, which they must, however, recognise in theory in accordance with the primacy of teaching and jurisdiction defined by the First Vatican Council, if their claim to be more Catholic than Rome is to have any meaning at all. Precisely when the Society of St. Pius X invokes the tradition of the Church, it must also be taken into account in its entirety and in its historical development as a response to new challenges, as the foundation of Catholic theology. A distinction must also be made between the Apostolic Tradition as the source and principle of theology and the ecclesiastical traditions and mere contemporary habits and even styles of liturgical vestments.
Tück: The Society of St. Pius X advocates a hermeneutic of rupture or discontinuity. The Second Vatican Council is said to have broken with the doctrinal tradition of the Church; it is called “the greatest misfortune in the history of the Church” (Marcel Lefebvre). Why is this interpretation problematic?
Müller: Personally, I have been active in scholarly theology for 60 years. Drawing on my own life experience, I can therefore compare the teaching of the faith during my childhood and youth with that of the Second Vatican Council and the orthodox theology that followed. In my conscience of truth, I cannot detect any break in the continuity of doctrine nor any negation or even diminution of an article of faith as it was and is laid down in Sacred Scripture, developed in the Apostolic and Church Tradition, and proposed to me by the Magisterium – for the sake of my salvation – to be believed firmly and unwaveringly. That is why I insisted in the conversations with the SSPX that their criticism of certain statements of the Second Vatican Council would only be justified if the Council had in fact taught what they imputed to it. But it is not the phrase "Even councils can err", which Luther uttered to Johannes Eck at the Leipzig Disputation in 1519 and thus completed the break with the Catholic Church, that is a possible attitude towards the Magisterium for a Catholic. Rather, those are mistaken who ascribe grave errors in faith to the legitimate Second Vatican Council, contrary to the proven Catholic hermeneutics, which the Doctor of the Church Irenaeus of Lyon had already developed in detail against the Gnostics. At many councils there were disputes about the orthodox interpretation of individual terms and arguments; consider, for example, the Homoousios of Nicaea (325), the title Theotokos for Mary at Ephesus (431) or the hypostatic union of the Council of Chalcedon (451) – council decisions which led to the schisms of the Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites. But it also became clear that, ultimately, it is the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of St Peter, who is responsible for determining the validity of the Councils and their authentic interpretation (e.g. Pope Pelagius I, Letter Relegentes autem: DH 447). It cannot be the Donatists in North Africa (the pars Donati) who ultimately decide on the faith of the universal Church, nor can it be the Old Catholics who, with an adventurous chain of succession by a Jansenist bishop, preserve the old Catholic Church – as Ignaz von Döllinger said – against a Church newly created by Vatican I. The fact that the universal Church cannot err and that a small group can by no means be right against the universal Church was a motive that led John Henry Newman to the Catholic Church. It was not Rome that separated from England, but the Church of England that separated itself from the universal Church, which has its principle of unity in Rome: Securus iudicat orbis terrarum – St. Augustine cried out to the Donatists (Contra epistulam Parmeniani III, 4). To all those who are in doubts about this, a visit to the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome should be recommended. The epitaph of the great controversial theologian against Protestantism, Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579), speaks to the conscience of every divisive spirit: "Catholicus non est, qui a Romana ecclesia in fidei doctrina discordat – He is not a Catholic who deviates from the Roman Church in matters of doctrine."
The Society of St. Pius X in the pouting corner
Tück: The doctrinal preamble, which was presented to the Society of St. Pius X to reach an agreement on doctrinal questions, was not signed by the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, at the end of the talks. Why not, exactly?
Müller: The SSPX considered its objections to religious freedom, ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to other religions – as set out in the relevant conciliar documents – as the very measure of Catholicism, and demanded, that the Church – with all its bishops and the Pope as the Successor of Peter – admits that the Council had presented false and ambiguous teachings and that the highest doctrinal authority had erred in matters of faith and morals and thus intentionally or negligently deceived the faithful and endangered their salvation. To admit this would not only be wrong in terms of content, but also the hermeneutical self-destruction of the "Church as the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). The turmoil that has repeatedly beset the Church over the centuries, whether through heresies or moral decay has been overcome from within by figures such as Athanasius, Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Catherine of Siena, Robert Bellarmine, John Henry Newman, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger, and not by retreating into the pouting corner of a "Church of the Pure", into a last bulwark of Orthodoxy, which wants to force every attempt at its full reintegration into the Catholic Church by converting the Church to their own conventicle.
Tück: Pope Francis pursued a pastoral strategy during the Jubilee Year of Mercy (2015). Without pressing further for doctrinal agreement, he granted the clergy of the SSPX the faculty to administer the sacrament of confession; later he asked the bishops of the universal Church to entrust traditionalist priests with the assistance at marriage as well (2017). Looking back, how do you assess this concession?
Müller: If the fundamental issues remain unresolved, even a gesture of goodwill on a personal and friendly level will not resolve the impasse. Pope Francis’s intention with these faculties was to assist individual believers in their moral distress. It cannot be that a marriage is invalid merely because the canonical form has not been fully observed (here due to lack of understanding on the part of individual faithful Catholics). He was not of the opinion that his joviality could bridge the distance between the SSPX and the Catholic Church.
A Council at reduced prices?
Tück: In recent years, voices have repeatedly been heard that the Second Vatican Council was a "pastoral council" that did not define dogmas. Unlike the Dogmatic Constitutions, the decrees and declarations are said to have only a low degree of binding force – for the sake of peace, one could surely exempt the Society of St. Pius X from recognising Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis humanae. How do you regard such a hermeneutics of the Council?
Müller: The thing about the alleged Pastoral Council is more of a media characterisation and is dogmatically without any meaning. An Ecumenical Council is the highest authority in the Catholic Church in matters of faith and discipline. And the doctrine of the faith is not a theoretical edifice beyond pastoral care, in which the pastors of the Church lead the faithful to the pasture of the Word and grace of Christ. Christ, as the Teacher of Truth and the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep so that we may receive God's life in abundance, is one and the same person. Of course, there is a hierarchy of truths, ranging from the belief in the Trinity and Incarnation, which is necessary for salvation, to the legitimacy of the veneration of images, which, whilst not necessary for salvation, certainly fosters piety. What the Church proposes for belief must be determined in its graded authority by the context of the doctrine and by the intended meaning of the bishops and the Pope. Although Nostra Aetate is, in terms of literary genre, merely a declaration, the statements of this conciliar document are binding like a dogma, for example when it is stated that all people form one single community and have their origin and goal in God (NA 1). When the Council refers generically to the disputes between Christians and Muslims, it is only a historical fact, without the individual Christian being obliged to interpret the historiography in a magisterial way. That Christians and Jews worship the same God is a binding doctrine of faith and, with the anti-Marcionite decision, a binding doctrine of the Church since the 2nd century. That God is the author of the Old and New Testaments was also emphasised by the Council of Trent, which therefore cannot be invoked against the Vatican II. The Council derives a moral admonition regarding responsibility for the death of Christ, namely that it contradicts the truth of the Christian faith if anyone were to accuse the Jews as a whole and individual Jews living today of complicity and thus sin before God. The Council in its entirety must be accepted by every Catholic, and in each case according to the intention of the statement as an explanation of dogmatic truth, moral instruction or as an indication of measures necessary today; such as dialogue with people of other faiths, the contemporary education and upbringing of children and adults, the task of theology in engaging with modern philosophies and their conceptions of humanity, as well as the natural sciences and technology (e.g. artificial intelligence) and the resulting living conditions of people in the modern world. Only the revealed faith is to be given unconditional assent, not the cultural, political, world-view constellations in which the Church found itself and to whose changing conditions it must respond in order to proclaim the Gospel of Christ to the people of all times and places.
Tück: The Catholic Church in Western Europe is in crisis, but the SSPX is growing. In your opinion, does the criticism of the traditionalists also reflect shortcomings in the reception of the Council?
Müller: The Catholic Church is only in crisis where those responsible (bishops, parish priests, theology professors, religious teachers and catechists and lay people leading the public) give the people stones of agnostic ideologies instead of giving the bread of the Word of God and the grace of the sacraments. Where people dabble around in sociology and psychology and remain silent about Jesus as the only Savior of the world, on whom we can rely completely in life and death; here one cannot hope for relevance. But where the existential questions are answered in the light of Christ, interest arises, there – with the help of the grace for which we pray every day – the life of God grows within us, there people come to be baptised and Catholics who have become lukewarm rediscover the transforming power of the liturgy, when it is truly the worship of God and not cheap entertainment (such as carnival masses or atheistic rainbow flags in the sanctuary, which obscure the view of the Lord crucified for us). The SSPX has every right to denounce such liturgical abuses and dogmatic errors, but everything remains fruitless criticism if it is merely preached from the moral pedestal of self-righteousness. It is better to be treated unjustly by the Church authorities than to leave the communion of salvation sulking – that was the motto of St. Hildegard of Bingen, whom we venerate today as a Doctor of the Church.
Tück: In February, the Superior General of the Society, Davide Pagliarani, announced that he would consecrate bishops on 1 July, even if necessary, without a papal mandate. This prompted an immediate reaction from the Roman Curia. Cardinal Fernández's offer to resume talks on doctrinal differences and to discuss the different degrees of adherence required by the conciliar documents, but to suspend the episcopal ordinations, was surprisingly quickly rejected by the General Council of the Society. Is there now a danger of a schism?
Müller: The talk of a graded assent to the Council is somewhat problematic. What can be meant is only the objective assent in the sense of the classical doctrine of the theological degrees of certainty and not that an individual or a group chooses according to subjective criteria what they wish to accept or reject, so that the Magisterium no longer has the final say on what is Catholic or heretical. 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. Everyone brings schism upon themselves through the free decision not to recognise the Pope’s authority, either in theory or in practice. Canonical disobedience is not made any better by asserting that one is not opposing the Pope, even if one claims one must consecrate bishops for the sake of the salvation of souls. This also has nothing to do with the right intention, which is necessary for the valid administration of the sacraments. For one is the intention of a validly ordained bishop to want to confer episcopal ordination on a suitable candidate, which – formulated anti-donatically – is valid and (ex opere operato) effectively confers grace in the ordained person. But the other is the fact that here a sin is committed against the communal character of the episcopal authority, which is guaranteed by the Pope as the perpetual principle and foundation of the unity of the Catholic Church. 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. 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. It is not a state of emergency that, without illegally consecrated bishops, their priestly society would not be able to continue. For Jesus Christ promised the continuation of the Church until the end of history only to the universal Church, which he built upon the rock of Peter, to whom he also handed over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and, together with the other Apostles, the power to bind and loose. 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. Speaking personally and fraternally, I am confident that, with Pope Leo XIV, a good and just, but also dogmatically sound solution can be found.
The legitimacy of the Council
Tück: Given the heated situation, a few sympathisers of the SSPX are now speaking out, stating that they do not regard the announced episcopal consecration as a schismatic act. With a touch of polemics, Dom Alcuin Reid recently described those as "Vatican II fundamentalists" who demand the unreserved recognition of Vatican II from the SSPX – as if the text corpus of the Council were a "super-dogma". What do you think of that?
Müller: These are the sort of church-political games and sophistry that rob Catholic theology of all seriousness. There is no such thing as ‘conciliar fundamentalism’, nor are there ‘super-dogmas’ or ‘sub-dogmas’, as if the doctrine of the faith depended on the psychological predispositions of its representatives. The Second Vatican Council was legitimately gathered in the Holy Spirit. Its teachings are none other than those of the Catholic faith for the past 2000 years, as it is founded in Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, and is presented in a binding manner by all preceding councils and clearly interpreted by all the Doctors of the Church. What differs is only the manner of proclamation, and what is new is the intention that the human being of today – in the wake of the Enlightenment, the criticism of religion, the atheistic political ideologies and the agnostic and secularist anthropologies – is addressed and pointed to God as the origin, meaning and goal of life, who offers his truth and his life to all people in the Church of Jesus Christ.
Tück: Pope Leo XIV, who as Roman Pontiff is entrusted with the care of the unity of the Church, is now under considerable pressure. Can he still build bridges in the face of seemingly irreconcilable differences? What leeway does he have to avert the emergence of an episcopally constituted parallel church, so that we do not end up with one altar pitted against another?
Müller: The unity of the Church cannot be bought at the price of truth through mere diplomatic skill. It is no longer necessary to demand what is dogmatically indispensable for the unity of the Church. Under no circumstances can the Church allow itself to be forced or coerced into believing the misinterpretation of Vatican II, with which the SSPX tries to justify its de facto disobedience to the Successor of Peter. 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. Whoever administers and receives episcopal ordination without permission is indeed validly ordained, but the Holy Spirit bears witness against him, because he does not act out of love but according to his own judgement. Where one altar is set against another, it becomes a scandal for the people of God. But woe betide those who are responsible for it. May all those involved, in this hour of examination of conscience before the living God, take to heart the words of St Augustine: "But those are wanting in God’s love who do not care for the unity of the Church; and consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be said not to be received except in the Catholic Church. (De baptismo 3,16).
Translation: Johann Laffert, Vienna