Wow! This one is convoluted and much depends on semantics, nuances & interpretations.
At a SUPERFICIAL level one can argue, somewhat persuasively, on both side, BUT it gets tricky when you really start drilling down.
ONE of my initial reactions was: “NO ONE but BUT NO ONE, on earth, has authority over the pope“. Can we all agree on that? As long as he is ensconced within the Vatican State he is unimpeachable, totally powerful, ABOVE THE LAW, untouchable & even infallible in certain scenarios (particularly when it comes to dogma, i.e., basically Church teaching). So, to say the pope doesn’t have the AUTHORITY is confusing. He might NOT, but who can legitimately challenge that? That is the question. Cardinals can spout their own opinions but they have NO POWER. Talk about being impotent. All talk, no trousers. Muller can asset anything in words, BUT he can’t do DIDDLY in terms of action.
So, my first contention is: ‘so, who can refute the pope, meaningfully & LEGALLY, on earth?‘ I don’t think there is anyone who can, BUT PLEASE correct me.
Then there are precedents. Many popes played a pivotal role in defining today’s teaching as to the Trinity! That is pretty basic & we only got to where we are today thanks to the hands-on involvement of a number of popes. Check out the whole ‘filioque‘ controversy. It was popes that made the determination.
Then there is the ‘Assumption of Mary‘. A couple of popes made that real.
Then there is Paul VI, birth control & Humanae vitae. That is pretty fundamental & far reaching Church teaching.
Then we also have papal infallibility. Wow. That absolves popes, in matters of dogma, on possible errors in doctrine! I am really not sure whether Muller got this one even vaguely right.
Tell me what you think. MY initial druthers is that Muller is not 100% correct on this.
Click image to access the Motu Proprio at the Vatican site.
Click to ENLARGE. My take on the current Catholic Church.
Click to ENLARGE & read here. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholicism
Click to access my June 3, 2021 post in my OLD Blog. So, I had addressed this issue earlier.
Since Friday I have been asking a few of my Catholic friends to explain what possessed the pope to go ahead with this. It appears unnecessary. Overkill. They have tried, gallantly, but I am still at a loss.
So, I am going to take a crack at it myself. This is MY take. I am also going to start off by throwing a bunch of thoughts at you in ‘bullet point’ form. You work them out. If you pull them all together, you might find a satisfactory explanation.
>>If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
>> Don’t try to fix something that isn’t totally broke & end up breaking it.
>> Francis has thrown a stick of dynamite into what was but a crack claiming that he was trying to stop the crack from spreading.
>> The ‘Latin Mass’ was the least of the problems facing the Catholic Church & the pope — but focusing on it was a ‘shiny object‘ (à la Donald Trump) to distract the media & the ‘followers’.
>> The Latin Mass per se was never going to be the sole basis for a schism. There are bigger/better issues that could lead to a split such as the so called ‘German Schism‘.
>> Francis is NOT an intellectual, far from it — he may be a Jesuit (albeit an Argentinian one), but he only has ‘street smarts’ as opposed to intellect. He is the least intellectual pope is 100-years IF not of modern-times!
>> Probably not coincidental to my point directly above, Francis is also the LEAST educated of recent popes — again one has to go back a long time to find one less academically blessed. He, atypically for a modern prelate, let alone a pope, does not have a postgraduate degree.
>> Prior to becoming pope he, again extremely uncharacteristically for a pope, had spent virtually NO TIME in Rome, at the Vatican or with the curia. He really was the consummate outsider. His experience of the Church was limited to that of Latin America.
>> In marked contrast to prior popes, starting at Benedict XVI & going back to Pius XII, Francis has come across as shallow. He can be shrewd at times, but most of the time he is ‘Mr. Smiling Nice Guy‘ rather than ‘Mr. Cerebral‘.
>> At 84, & not in the greatest of health, his thinking, never his strong suit, cannot be that acute or astute. That is am sure, is one of the reasons, for this decision. Francis did not make a very good decision. He didn’t think it through.
>> This Motu Proprio (despite it meaning ‘on his own impulse’) was NOT written by Francis. That is pretty clear. This would have been beyond him. A committee, possibly appointed by him (but maybe even NOT), wrote this in HIS name. This could have been the work of the ROGUE-CURIA who bamboozled the old pope to put his name on it.
>> Like Trump Francis, since becoming pope, has just loved the attention — especially the media attention. It, as was with Trump, has become the cornerstone of his papacy. Media attention.
>> As with Trump, with Francis it has all become: “ME”, “ME”, “ME”.
>> As with Trump, Francis will say & do stuff just for attention. I think this Motu Proprio falls into that category. A shiny object to get & gold attention.
>> As with Trump, Francis is not that bothered with future consequences. Francis too likes to be pope as if he is starring in a reality TV show.
>> This level of severe restrictions was not needed, not necessary.
>> Francis has thrown a stick of dynamite into what was but a crack claiming that he was trying to stop the crack from spreading.
>> Ahead of the 2013 conclave there was much talk that St. Malachy’s infamous ‘Prophecy of the Popes‘ & its ‘Peter the Roman‘ claim was about to come to pass. ‘Peter the Roman’ would destroy the Church by undermining it. At that time, I was adamant that ‘Peter the Roman’ was tripe. I might have been wrong.
