INTERVENTION AT EXTRAORDINARY CONSISTORY OF CARDINALS
Cardinal Gerhard Müller
Rome, 26 June 2026
1. I thank the Holy Father for reaffirming the fundamental role of the College of Cardinals for the universal Church. From Irenaeus of Lyons to the First Vatican Council, the primacy of the Pope was not spoken of as though it belonged to an isolated individual, but rather as the primacy of the Church of Rome, whose Bishop is at the same time the visible head of the entire Catholic Church. This served to avoid isolating him from the Church. As Bishop of Rome, he is always the head of the college of the suburbicarian bishops, as well as of the Roman presbyters and deacons. There exists, indeed, a broad external collegiality of the Pope with the bishops of the other Churches; but there also exists an internal collegiality, insofar as every bishop is always in communion with his own presbyterate, as Ignatius of Antioch affirms. A portion of the Roman clergy was institutionalized in the College of Cardinals, not for the pastoral care of the Diocese of Rome, but as an instrument which the Pope employs in the governance of the universal Church.
From this perspective should one likewise reflect on the manner in which a consistory is conducted. In every depiction and photograph of the councils, the plenary discussion is shown. Accordingly, the free exchange of views, preceded by carefully prepared interventions, ought to precede group work and should be accorded greater space than is presently the case. In any event, further reflection should be given to the new method, taking into account the nature of an ecclesial assembly of cardinals and bishops with the Pope, as well as that of the bishop with his presbyterate and the lay councils.
2. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X has sent an open letter to all the cardinals. It is our duty by virtue of our office, both individually and as a college, to reject the scandalous accusation that the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic faith. In the face of the schismatic act of episcopal consecration carried out without the prior grant of communio with the Pope, there must be no ambiguity. In pastoral and liturgical matters, one may proceed with pastoral sensitivity.
I propose the establishment of a commission, along the lines of the former Ecclesia Dei, to enable those who have embraced this schismatic position to return to full communion with the Pope.
But the boundary into schism is definitively crossed when the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, as the visible principle and enduring foundation of the Church’s unity in revealed truth, is violated. During the Council of Trent, the distinguished Polish Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius said to the Protestants of his own day—and his words apply equally to the Lefebvrists of our own time:
Catholicus non est, qui a Romana ecclesia in fidei doctrina discordat.
He is not a Catholic who is at variance with the Roman Church in the doctrine of the faith.
3 comments:
I am not surprised that Cardinal Müller has opted for a "hardline" response to the nonsense that the SSPX espoused recently via the SSPX's open letter to the Cardinals.
Cardinal Müller long ago denounced the SSPX. He has long taken a hardline approach in regard to the Society.
Therefore, not surprisingly, Cardinal Müller has called for a firm response to that which he has termed the SSPX's "scandalous accusation that the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic faith."
Cardinal Müller has also called for a firm response to the SSPX's insistence that the Society is justified in regard to its Satanic determination to consecrate bishops without Papal mandate.
However, the reality is that the Society could not care less as to that which
Cardinal Müller, let alone Pope Leo XIV, has to say about the SSPX.
Father Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General, issued the following claim:
"In an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation."
Father Davide Pagliarani, as Cardinal Müller, has noted, is convinced that Pope Leo XIV has departed from the Faith.
But then, Archbishop Lefebvre had insisted that Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as each bishop in communion with the Church of Rome, had embraced apostasy.
Anyway, I imagine to Cardinal Müller's delight, Pope Leo XIV has made it clear that the supposed "coddling" of the SSPX by Popes Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, is ancient history.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Müller: "I propose the establishment of a commission, along the lines of the former Ecclesia Dei, to enable those who have embraced this schismatic position to return to full communion with the Pope."
That notion will meet with resistance among various trads/SSPX sympathizers.
On Diane Montagna's page, for example, the commenter box included opposition to the establishment of an Ecclesia Dei-like commission.
When Pope Francis suppressed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, even such radtrads as Rorate Caeli had noted that there were positives associated in regard to the Commission's suppression.
Example: Rorate Caeli had opined upon the Commission's suppression:
"One very positive aspect of the motu proprio, in its specific reasons given for the text, is the papal acknowledgement that, "the Institutes and Religious Communities that celebrate regularly in the Extraordinary Form have reached today a proper stability of numbers and life..."
The revival of such a Commission would be viewed as an attempt to contain trads, as evidenced by the commenter on Diane Montagna's page who described Cardinal Müller's suggestion in question as "a new containment operation...Ecclesia Dei 2.0 offers and solves nothing."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It is interesting that you only mention resistance among some who support the old Mass and nothing about the resistance among those who oppose it. I do not support the episcopal consecrations but there is fault on both sides. The only reason the SSPX exists in the first place is that bishops refused to ordain perfectly good candidates but who were perceived as "too conservative" or opposed to Vatican II. Why should there be any restrictions on the form of the Mass that the Roman Rite has used for 1500+ years?
Post a Comment