by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 30, 2017
John Allen has written an interesting piece on a recent interview of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo.
During the Arroyo interview, Müller continues in the same line I have noted previously on these pages: that of literally pretending that Pope Bergoglio has no intention of overturning the bimillenial Eucharistic discipline of the Church barring public adulterers in “second marriages” from receiving Holy Communion; that Amoris Laetitia (AL) is a perfectly orthodox, non-problematical document; and that the bishops are to blame for their false interpretation of AL as permitting what the Church has always forbidden. Müller simply ignores Pope Bergoglio’s explicit approval of precisely that “false” interpretation of his own document.
Hence, as Müller declared to Arroyo: “It is not good that the bishops’ conferences are making official interpretations of the pope. That is not Catholic. We have this document of the pope, and it must be read in the context of the complete Catholic tradition. We don’t have two magisteria, one of the pope and another one of the bishops. I think it is a misunderstanding, a bad misunderstanding which causes damage, could cause damage for the Catholic Church.”
Allen, rightly incredulous, observes that “the thrust of Müller’s commentary is to suggest that — read in light of tradition — Amoris Laetitia does not actually authorize opening the sacrament to divorced and civilly remarried believers.” Except that it does, according to Francis himself, who told the bishops of Buenos Aires that “there is no other interpretation.”
During the same interview, Müller denied that Pope Bergoglio has any intention of introducing “female deacons” into the Church: “No. Impossible. It will not come.” Just as impossible as Francis authorizing Holy Communion for public adulterers!
Allen notes that despite Müller’s bold declarations concerning Pope Bergoglio’s real intentions, there has been no response from the Vatican: “There’s no hubbub, no ferment, no rattle and hum of conflicting interpretations and analyses. For all intents and purposes, it’s as if it hadn’t happened.”
This silence, Allen surmises,
“illustrates how much things have changed in the Pope Francis era. Once upon a time, the earth shook when prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith spoke. That’s simply not the case under Francis, who perhaps has not quite ‘sidelined’ the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but who certainly does not rely on it as his primary touchstone for assessing the doctrinal implications of his decisions. When Francis wants a theological assessment of something, it’s clear that he’ll rely more on informal advisers such as Argentine Archbishop Victor Fernandez than on Müller, part of this pope’s general strategy of preferring to work around people who aren’t quite in sync with his agenda than to formally replace them.”
In other words, Pope Bergoglio could not care less what Müller has to say concerning doctrine, just as he could not care less what Cardinal Sarah has to say about the liturgy. He prefers to rely on such advisors as — Heaven help us! — Archbishop Victor (“Tucho”) Fernandez, whose “contributions” to Catholic doctrine include his absurd and revolting tome entitled “The Art of Kissing.”
And so, as Allen reasonably concludes, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been reduced to “another voice in the conversation, someone to be respected for his senior position and theological credentials, but certainly not a pipeline to what the pope may be thinking or planning.”
As for what Pope Bergoglio is thinking or planning, we have already seen enough to know that it represents the most acute phase yet of the now half-century-old ecclesial crisis foretold in the Third Secret of Fatima. Given that the Arian crisis of the 4th century lasted some sixty years, perhaps the end of this madness is near at hand. This means — please, God — that the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart is near at hand.
We can only pray that the Consecration does not take place amidst the post-apocalyptic scenario depicted in the Third Secret vision, which the blind guides of the Vatican bureaucracy would have us believe represents merely 20th-century events. Meanwhile, they suppress the Virgin’s explanation of the vision in favor of the nonsensical “interpretation” of Cardinal Sodano, negated by Benedict XVI before his mysterious and unprecedented “renunciation” of the “ministry of the successor of Peter.”