The Catholic Church Is Not the Pope’s Church and Catholics Are Therefore Not Papists but Christians: An Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I recently sent some questions to Cardinal Gerhard Müller regarding papal infallibility and the Cardinal’s recent words describing Pope Francis as having endorsed material heresy. The Cardinal was gracious enough to answer my questions in the following email exchange.

How would you describe the nature of papal infallibility? Under what circumstances does papal infallibility apply?

Cardinal Müller: The nature, conditions, and limits of papal infallibility as an expression of the infallibility of the whole Church are defined in Chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council (1870). With reference to the integration of the supreme authority in the college of bishops, of which he is the visible head, Vatican II declares:

The infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as the deposit of divine revelation (divinae Revelationis depositum), which must be purely preserved and faithfully interpreted, requires. (Lumen Gentium 25) The Origins of Totalit... Hannah Arendt Best Price: $8.49 Buy New $12.90 (as of 06:35 UTC - Details)

The German bishops, with the approval of Pope Pius IX, declared to the German Chancellor Bismarck, who wanted to misuse Vatican I to justify the destruction of the Catholic Church in the “Kulturkampf”: “…the infallible magisterium of the Church is bound to the content of Holy Scripture and Tradition as well as to the doctrinal decisions already given by the ecclesiastical magisterium” (Denzinger-Hünermann no. 3116). This is also what Vatican II says with the highest authority in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei verbum (Art. 10). It should be added that the faithful must render “religious obedience of will and understanding” to their bishops and in particular to the authentic magisterium of the Bishop of Rome, even if he does not speak by virtue of the highest magisterial authority (ex cathedra). This applies according to the emphasis placed on a particular doctrine, which must, however, be explicitly or implicitly contained in revelation.

What has the Church traditionally taught on the limits of papal authority? 

Cardinal Müller: According to the divine authority of Christ, the revelation of God Himself is the basis and limit of the Church’s teaching and pastoral ministry: “Go to all nations…and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). The approach to a Catholic ecclesiology is important. In Lumen Gentium, Vatican II did not begin with the Pope because, contrary to what traditional Protestant polemics believed, the Catholic Church is not the Pope’s Church and Catholics are therefore not papists but Christians. Christ is the head of the Church and from Him all divine grace and truth passes to the members of His body, which is the Church. But He has also constituted it sacramentally as a visible community of confession, of the means of grace and of unity in episcopal leadership. That is why the bishops and priests teach, guide, and sanctify the faithful in the name of Christ (and not at all in the name of the Pope). But Catholics are not the subjects of ecclesiastical superiors, to whom they owe blind caducal obedience as in a totalitarian political system. As persons in their conscience and prayer, they go directly to God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. The act of faith is directed directly to God, while the magisterium of the bishops has only the task of faithfully and completely preserving the content of revelation (given in Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition) and presenting it to the Church as revealed by God.

The magisterium is not above the word of God, but serves it by teaching nothing but what has been handed down, because it hears the word of God by divine mandate and, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, listens to it with reverence and preserves it sacredly and interprets it faithfully… (Dei verbum 10)

In a culture alienated from Christianity, it is important not to interpret ecclesial authority in terms of political power and media manipulation of opinion, but in the light of God’s revelation in Christ as the light that enlightens every human being and leads to eternal life (John 1:1-18). Even the cardinals of the Roman Church cannot promise absolute obedience to the Pope and sacrifice their conscience and expertise to a questionable agenda, as the British Vatican expert Christopher Lamb would like to argue against the so-called “inner-church opposition“ in his book The Outsider. Those who fall short of the faith and the discipline of the Church must be put back on the right path with spiritual means and ecclesiastical punishments. The absolute rulers who eliminated their unruly colleagues in a communist politburo or in the English royal Privy Council with banishment, deprivation of property, and show trials are no example to us. Papal history also offers us some unworthy spectacles of power triumphing over law. History of the America... Paxson, Frederic L. Buy New $15.87 (as of 04:01 UTC - Details)

Could you briefly describe some common opinions on different theological opinions concerning how to respond to a heretical pope and how widely accepted these opinions are among theologians and canonists?

Cardinal Müller: The fundamental problem arises from the distinction between the pope as the holder of the Petrine office with its specific powers on the one hand and the pope as an individual Christian in the pilgrim state, who can also lose sanctifying grace through mortal sin or who can inwardly and outwardly manifestly fall away from the faith, heretically contradict the doctrine of faith, or even schismatically separate himself from the Church. As far as apostasy, manifest heresy, or open schism of the pope as an individual is concerned, this is more of a theoretical question or the historical and theological evaluation of dubious figures in papal history (the best known is the question of the heresy and excommunication of Pope Honorius I). In his great work De Romano Pontifice (Book II, 30th section), the Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine summarized the theological opinions expressed up to that point on the possible heresy of a pope and his loss of office. In any case, the opinion that any ecclesiastical or even secular authority could depose the pope in legal proceedings is ruled out (especially against conciliarism, Gallicanism, etc.). He is indeed chosen by the cardinals as the person who is to occupy the Cathedra Petri. In reality, however, he is appointed by Christ if he has accepted the election and is Bishop of Rome by consecration and thus the successor of Peter. In the event of a blatant and notorious contradiction, which God forbid, to the teaching of Holy Scripture or the dogmatic definitions of the doctrine of faith, the faithful would no longer be obliged to obey him and he would, so to speak, lose his office himself. In practice, however, as in the late Middle Ages, this would divide the Church into different obediences, depending on who considers their pope to be the legitimate successor of Peter. We owe a detailed discussion of this thorny question to Prof. Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira (Se un Papa è eretico: che fare? Roma 2019; “Can a Pope be a heretic”). I myself have published a book on the entire theology of the papacy: Gerhard Cardinal Müller, The Pope: His Mission and His Task (Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC, 2021).

Read the Whole Article