The former Prefect of the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, has stated publicly the following claims :

Cardinal Muller:
“Yes, what is being done to Bishop Strickland is terrible, an abuse of the divine right of the episcopate.

“If I could advise Bishop Strickland, he should definitely not resign because then they can wash their hands of their innocence.

“According to the commandment of justice, a bishop can only be deposed by the Pope if he is guilty of something bad (heresy, schism, apostasy, a crime or totally unpriestly behavior), for example the pseudonym that insults God and cheats people of their salvation — Blessing of people of both or the same sex in extramarital relationships.

“Arbitrary removal as bishop of a diocese in which a bishop is appointed by Christ Himself as its own shepherd undermines the authority of the Pope, as has historically happened with the undignified office haggling under the Avignonese Papacy (This loss of trust was one of the main reasons for the separation of Reformation Christianity from the Catholic Church and its hatred of the Pope, who, with his arbitrary actions, had put himself in God’s place).

“According to Catholic teaching, the Pope is by no means the Lord of the Church, but rather, as Christ’s representative for the universal Church, the first servant of his Lord, who had to say to Simon Peter, who had just been destined to become the rock of the Church: “Get behind me (Italian Indietro, the true indietrismo), because you have in mind not what God wants, but what people want” (Mt 16:23).

“The Pope has no authority from Christ to bully and intimidate good bishops modeled on Christ the Good Shepherd who, in accordance with the episcopal ideal of Vatican II, sanctify, teach and lead the flock of God in the name of Christ, just because they are false friends denounce these good bishops to Francis as enemies of the Pope, while heretical and immoral bishops can do whatever they want or who bother the Church of Christ every day with some other stupidity.” [translation from the original German by Google Chrome]

The above statement by Muller contains several grave errors on papal authority.

1. The Church has always taught, as both the new and old codes of Canon law also assert, that the First See is judged by no one but God.

Cardinal Muller has no right to judge and publicly denounce the Roman Pontiff for the above alleged sins and errors. This behavior is scandalous to the faithful.

2. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge over all the faithful, including Bishops and Cardinals.

Muller has no right to judge a Bishop or set of Bishops to be “good bishops modeled on Christ”, thereby stating their innocence and holiness against any past or possible future judgment by the Roman Pontiff, who is the “supreme judge of the faithful”.

3. There is no appeal from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff, who rules by divine right.

The Roman Pontiff does have the right to remove a Bishop or Cardinal, according to his own judgment and authority, which admits no appeal.

First Vatican Council: “Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”

One cannot appeal to one’s own judgment, that the Pope is acting badly and the removed Bishop was a “good Bishop”, so as to negate the judgment of the Pope. The Pope is the supreme judge. This is true in matter of discipline, as well as doctrine. One cannot refuse, resist, or oppose a decision of the Roman Pontiff on doctrine or discipline by appeal to one’s own understanding of Tradition or Scripture, or one’s own understanding of a situation regarding a Bishop.

Muller’s claim that “a bishop can only be deposed by the Pope if he is guilty of something bad” has no basis in Catholic teaching, and contradicts the ancient constant teaching of the Church on the supreme authority of Peter and his successors. It is for the Roman Pontiff to decide whether or not to remove a Bishop, and no Bishop has any authority apart from or in opposition to the Roman Pontiff.

4. The Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith.

Muller cites Mt 16:23 (“Get behind me, Satan” etc.) as a way to undermine the authority of the Pope and to suggest that the Pope might err gravely in guiding the Church. To the contrary, the charism of truth and never-failing faith, taught by Jesus in Luke 22:32, and by the Church in Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4, n. 7, prevents the Pope from leading the Church astray. Jesus spoke those words from Mt 16:23 at a time before Peter became the first Roman Pontiff. As the First Council of Lyons taught, and as Pope Pius XII also taught, the Pontificate of Peter began with the Ascension. So the failings of Peter prior to that time cannot be used to suggest that the successors of Peter might err so gravely as to lead the Church astray.

5. Bishops have no authority apart from the Roman Pontiff.

Muller claims there is a “divine right of the episcopate” and that “a bishop is appointed by Christ Himself”. These claims are used by Muller to suggest that a Bishop can refuse to be removed by the Roman Pontiff. Such is not the case. Muller contradicts Vatican I:

“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

Notice that this authority of the Pope is “full and supreme”, includes both doctrine and discipline, and is “ordinary and immediate”. The Pope needs no special circumstance to exercise this authority; it is ordinary. And the Pope need not go through channels or through a court of the Church or through a body of Bishops or Cardinals. His authority is supreme, ordinary, and immediate over every Church (meaning the local Church of each See) and over each of the Pastors (which in this context means Bishops as well as priests). And while Vatican I speaks of the divine right of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, no divine right is attributed to individual Bishops in opposition to the Head of the College of Bishops, the Pope.

Vatican II, LG 22: “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.”

Even the entire body of Bishops, and therefore also individual Bishops,have “no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff.” Bishops have their authority not only from Christ, but from Christ through the Roman Pontiff and as part of the body of Bishops of which the Roman Pontiff is the Head.

Cardinal Muller asserted similar errors in an interview by email with LifeSiteNews .

Muller: “The religious obedience owed by all Catholics to the universal episcopate, and especially to the Pope, refers only to the supernatural truths of the doctrine of faith and morals….

“The Pope and bishops cannot demand obedience for their private opinions, and certainly not for teachings and actions that would contradict revelation and the natural moral law….”

“The Pope and bishops are bound to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition and by no means sources of additional revelation or of revelation which supposedly needs to be adjusted to be in accord with the present state of science.”

The previously quoted text from Vatican I asserts the authority of the Pope “not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church”, and issues an anathema against anyone who rejects this teaching. Muller errs gravely by claiming that the obedience the faithful owe to the Pope refers “only to the supernatural truths of the doctrine of faith and morals”.

Muller errs also by implying that the Pope or the body of Bishops with him might exercise their authority in contradiction to “revelation and the natural law”. This is impossible due to the charism of truth and never-failing faith as well as the indefectibility of the apostolic Church. It is also an implicit usurpation of the role of the Pope and the role of the body of Bishops led by the Pope for an individual Cardinal or Bishop to judge, against the Pope or Bishops, that one position is revealed truth and that another position, taught by the Pope or the Bishops with him, is contrary to revelation. No individual Bishop has such a role, except the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff.

This error of individual Bishops of judging that a certain understanding of doctrine is correct and is the unchanging truth of Tradition and Scripture, in direct opposition to the Pope or the body of Bishops with him, is a grave error. No such authority is given to individual Bishops. And if one asserts that the Pope and even the body of bishops with the Pope might err gravely on doctrine (!!!!), how can the next assertion be that one individual Bishop, or a small subset of dissenting Bishops, are teaching the truth with absolute certitude? If one asserts that the Pope or the Pope and most Bishops can err gravely (they cannot), how can the recourse be to trust in one’s own judgment as an individual Bishop, priest or layperson?

This error is like the error of fundamentalist Protestants, who reject the teaching of the Catholic Church on the correct interpretation of Scripture, but believe that their own understanding is not a fallible interpretation, but is simply the truth that Scripture teaches plainly. Such fundamentalists implicitly attribute to themselves a freedom from grave error given only to the Pope or the body of Bishops with him in interpreting Tradition and Scripture. Some Catholics fall into a version of this error, when they assert that their own understanding of divine revelation is absolutely true and cannot err, in opposition too the teaching of the Pope or the Pope and the Bishops. Christ founded the Church on Peter and his successors, and on the successors to the other Apostles led by the successor to Peter. Christ did not promise freedom from grave error to small groups of dissenting Bishops or dissenting clergy and laity.

Cardinal Muller makes a point of disagreeing with the decision of Pope Francis on the discipline of Communion for the divorced and remarried in Amoris Laetitia. He makes the usual error of assuming that persons who may be committing objectively grave sins are not in the state of grace. This is an error because the state of grace is lost to the baptized only with the full culpability of actual mortal sin (full knowledge, full deliberation, grave matter).

It is also ironic, in a sad and sinful way, since Muller may have committed the objectively grave sins of schism and heresy with his public statements opposing and undermining the authority of the Roman Pontiff as taught by Vatican I and II. IF it were the case that mere objectively grave sin, without the full culpability of actual mortal sin, deprived one of Communion, until one repents and confesses, then Muller and other obstinate opponents of the Roman Pontiff would have to refrain from Communion — not under the discipline of Pope Francis, but under their own proposed discipline for Communion.

I hope that Cardinal Muller and Bishop Strickland will rethink their opposition to Pope Francis and will repent of their public scandalous statements against the Pope.

Ronald L Conte Jr