Saturday, July 01, 2017

Müller and Ladaria



The bombshell news this week is that Pope Francis is not renewing the five-year appointment of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Müller is being replaced by Spanish Jesuit Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, who was Secretary of the CDF.

* * * *
I confess I'm no expert on Archbishop Ladaria, but given the fact that many had assumed the prefecture would be filled by Cardinal Schönborn, Ladaria seems to be not a terrible choice. His work with Ecclesia Dei is commendable, as was his role in reaching out to the SSPX during the doomed talks of 2009. Still, he seems to be a middle-of-the-road sort of "mutual enrichment" theologian, who views the way forward as a kind of Hegelian synthesis between traditional elements and modern interpretations - Ladaria does not view reform in terms of a strict return ad fontes, but rather a kind of ressourcement approach typical of Danielou, de Lubac and the Nouvelle Theologie. But...whatever. Let's see how he does. Given the fact that we could have wound up with Cardinal Schönborn, I'll take Ladaria. 

* * * *

I also want to say that I am proud of the job Cardinal Müller did. When Müller was first appointed in 2012, many Traditionalists were skeptical. He had made some comments about Protestantism and other subjects that had ruffled some trad feathers. I don't know about his personal views, but honestly, Müller has done what a CDF Prefect is supposed to do—state the faith plainly and consistently in the face of challenges from within and without the Church. Forget being a theologically conservative prelate; just being a prelate with any sort of theological consistency whatsoever during the Francis papacy must be extraordinarily frustrating. Müller showed considerably fidelity and bravery in the face of what must have been enormous social and institutional pressure during the 2014-2015 synod and especially in its aftermath with Amoris Laetitia. Whatever rifts he may have had with traditionalists in the past, I for one will always remember him as speaking the truth in a dark moment. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21).

* * * *
In case anyone has not read it, you really ought to check out the interview with Father Julian Carron, head of Communion and Liberation ("If you don't think Francis is the cure, you don't grasp the disease", John Allen, Crux, June 21, 2017). Carron is the successor of the renowned Father Luigi Giussani and talks frankly about the crisis in the Church, Francis, and what it means to have faith in the contemporary world.

The interview is very unsettling; Carron essentially says the reason conservatives struggle with understanding Pope Francis is because they blind themselves to the truly revolutionary import of the pope's sayings and gestures—that the revolution Francis wants is much bigger than most conservative Catholics are ready to accept. I would actually grant Carron this point, but that is where my agreement ends, as he goes on to suggest that conservatives need to embrace the Francis revolution—and that if we do not, it's because we don't "really understand" what Francis is trying to do and what the problems in the Church are. He also talks a lot about faith essentially being an "encounter" or "experience", which is really at the heart of what Fr. Giussani has been traditionally criticized for. 

I have often promoted the works of James Larson on this blog—not because I necessarily agree with everything Larson says, but because he absolutely gets to the heart of all the problems in the modern Church when he identifies them as a deficient view of faith. I highly recommend reading Mr. Larson's extensive essays at War Against Being.
* * * *

At Mr. Larson's site, you will see Mr. Larson proposing a theory that I believe is absolutely accurate but that traditionalists have been very slow to latch on to: Benedict XVI, far from being a theologically conservative counterweight to the progressive movement in the Church, is actually himself an extraordinarily progressive figure. Whether we are discussing Ratzinger's view of the Trinity, of faith, of creation-evolution, of the love, or liturgy or whatever, Ratzinger is a thoroughly progressive, liberal theologian from the school of Teilhard de Chardin. Many traditionalists want to deny this; they want to see Benedict as a kind of solidly traditional counterbalance to Francis. This is not born out by reading Benedict's actual writings. He is not a traditionalist; he is a progressive who has a sort of nostalgic appreciation for some of the forms and symbols of tradition. 

In the article from Fr. Carron linked above, Carron will make the same argument. Carron, speaking of comparisons between John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis, said:

After Benedict, it once again seemed there would never be anyone else like him. Instead, a pope arrived who, for me, is a radicalization of Benedict. He says the same thing, but in a way that it gets across to everyone in a simple way through gestures, without in any sense reducing the density of what Benedict said. 

Francis is nothing other than a "radicalization" of Pope Benedict XVI. This is true. Everything done by Francis can be found in seed form in Benedict and even John Paul II. Pope Francis' agenda is what happens when we follow the trajectories set by JPII and Benedict to their logical conclusions.

* * * *

So, Pope Francis has said he wants the change he is creating to be irreversible. It remains to be seen whether Archbishop Ladaria will stand up to Francis' novelties in the same manner as Cardinal Müller. I have to believe that Francis would not have chosen him were this the case. And it should also not be forgotten that Ladaria is a Jesuit like Francis. I don't know what import that has, but I have to believe it's not irrelevant.

Some are saying that with the departure of Müller, the last bastion of faithful opposition to the Franciscan agenda within the hierarchy has fallen. The Müller CDF was very isolated within the Curia. The opposition of the four cardinals—which is already drawing opposition from other parts of the hierarchy—now seems even more marginalized. I would not be surprised if the remaining years of the Franciscan pontificate witness an even more alarming increase in the scope and speed of novelties being introduced.

One more thing—Francis has suggested in the past that he does not want to have a very long pontificate and that he is open to resigning after he has made his mark on the Church. I predict that he does not resign. Francis is an autocrat. He is in love with power and adulation. He has completed the task begun long ago by John Paul II of turning the papacy into a cult of personality with himself as the Leader. Given his personality and mode of leadership, there's just no way he will ever step down. No way. He's going to cling to the power he has amassed until death rips it from his fingers.

9 comments:

Catholic Mission said...

JULY 2, 2017

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j made factual errors in two ITC theological papers which were politically correct
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-made-factual.html

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Brother Boniface. The sad thing that seem impossible to be overcome is the adulation with which a majority of soi disant trads love Ratzinger to such an absurd point that they routinely dismiss his repeated public statements that he freely resigned.

Most trads can not be convinced that Jesus is, has always been, and always will be the head of His Church and so they given themselves liberty pos conscience to abandon His Church for sedevacanstism or various schisms.

Because Jesus is the head of His Church, one may not abandon it in search of safer pastures especially considering how it is quite likely He is allowing this degeneration and feting filthiness to happen as a chastisement.

If one is a sinner- ABS certainly is - one must stay in communion with His Church as each one of us suffers his own Gethsemane.

The other option is to let the cup pass your by and refuse to suffer but who wants to be that insufferable coward, crowing from outside the Church?

Boniface said...

Very true, ABS, very true. The idea that Ratzinger didn't *really* resign freely is absurd. The man punked out and quit. That's all there is to it.

And agreed...the only option is to remain in the Church. There's no other choice.

Augustine Pinnock said...

I agree concerning Cardinal Ratzinger (for that is his proper title now). While he was helpful to traditionalists and has seemed to at least partially repent of his role at the Council, he still professes the three main errors of the Council. Whilst Summorum Pontificum has been very helpful, it also contains nonsense. How the Novus Ordo Missae and the traditional Mass are two forms of the same rite I cannot fathom. We should also remember Summorum Pontificum's requirement of the acceptance of the Council as a whole and also of the New Mass. Neither did he when Pope wear the tiara which was generously given to him nor did he cease to practise oecumenism (I mean the false oecumenism which involves praying with heretics etc.). This comment may be too radical for some, but I do not mean to spurn his generosity to us after so many years of insults. I simply mean to state the facts.

Boniface said...

Thank you for your comments.

I think the real nonsense in Summorum is that he wants the NO and the EF to "mutually enrich" each other - like, what from the NO does he want brought into the EF?

That being said, I accept the total legitimacy and validity of the NO, the Council, and everything else.

Augustine Pinnock said...

I accept the validity of the NO and the majority of the Council. As to the legality of the NO, I am agnostic, as I am not a canon lawyer, but know enough of the history to know that Church law has been bodged for the past fifty years.

thewarourtime.com said...

I reproduce a comment I made on Eponymous Flower
***
There is a process to appoint a Bishop Cf. How Bishops Are Appointed - http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/appointing-bishops.cfm
***
It is clear the enemy has infiltrated the Church all the way up to the top. I would cut Popes St. John Paul II and BXVI some slack. After all Monsignor Luigi Capozzi (cf. recent news on Vatican gay orgy), secretary to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio has been put forward by the latter to Pope Francis as a candidate to the Episcopate.

Mark said...

I still remember when Cardinal Muller was newly announced to be head of the CDF, traditionalists were all up in arms about how he denied transubstantiation and the virgin birth.

It's all really disturbing to see how men like Muller and Ratzinger are now regarded as theological conservatives. It just goes to show you how far we've gone down when these men are considered orthodox defenders of the faith, when point of fact they were actually tepid and just held to the bare basics (if that at all; recall Benedict XVI's ambiguous comments on gay prostitutes using condoms).

Philosoraptor said...

I read some of Larson's work, and was thoroughly unconvinced. He cherry picks things from Ratzinger's works and divorces them from their context and seems to deliberately interpret them with no thought to form.

A simple example: in his work on dogmatic theology, Ratzinger says that transubstantiation is and has been meaningless for a long time now. That is ambiguous, and requires clarification. What he meant is that due to the advent and triumph of modern philosophy, really engaging with the tradition is hard. He provides a perfectly adequate defense of transubstantiation later on in that book. Larson ignores that and calls him a modernist who doesn't affirm the Real Presence. Silly errors like that are everywhere - like saying Gregory of Palamas destroys the simplicity of God and turns reality into pantheism.

I don't deny that Ratzinger was a theological progressive back in the 60s. Times change, and so did his opinions. Witness the editing of his work on the ordination of women. He borderline affirmed it back in the Spirit of Vatican II days, and did a 180, excising it from his published work. I'm not saying he's perfect (his use of Teilhard annoys me, but he doesn't use it in a way that denies the Faith, or so I conclude from what he read about it), but calling him a closet modernist is silly. His work on the gospels and the sacred liturgy speak for themselves.