Collegiality
in Light of Tradition
Is Collegiality a Novelty of Vatican II or the
Traditional Doctrine on the Episcopate?
By
Robert J. Siscoe
Part I
Of all the controversial teachings of the
Second Vatican Council, collegiality, as taught in chapter three of Lumen
Gentium, is without question the one that is least understood. It
was also one of the most hotly debated topics during the Council, even requiring
a last-minute intervention by “a higher authority” (Paul VI), in the form of
a Nota praevia (clarifying note), the purpose of which was to
provide an authoritative explanation for how certain aspects of the teaching
contained in the chapter are to be understood. This clarifying note
had been occasioned, in part, by concerns expressed by the conservative Fathers
on the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, who feared that certain
individuals intended to interpret the text after the Council in a way that would
undermine the authority of the Pope. The Nota, which became part of the final
document, satisfied their concerns, and in the end, the teaching on the
episcopate was approved by a vote of 2515 to 5. [1]
Although the final text was approved almost
unanimously by more than 2500 bishops at an ecumenical council, the SSPX and
the Sedevacantists (many of whom were trained in SSPX seminaries) allege that
the teaching of Lumen Gentium (LG for short), according to which the body of
bishops together with the Pope “is also the subject of supreme and full power
over the universal Church” (Lumen Gentium, No. 22), is “heretical because
it is contrary to the teaching of Vatican I on the uniqueness of the Pope's
power” (Fr. Mauro Tranquillo, SSPX).[2] The
Society further maintains that this teaching of LG represents a “new
ecclesiology” and a “new definition” of the Church.[3]
Bishop Williamson, the former rector of the
SSPX seminary in Ridgefield, denounced the teaching as “a departure from
tradition,”[4] while
Fr. Gleize, current professor of ecclesiology at Econe, declared that it is
“impossible” to reconcile with pre-conciliar magisterial teachings, because, in
his words, it “contradicts” Pastor Aeternus (Vatican ).[5] Their
position, of course, originated with the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop
Lefebvre, who said: “…this doctrine of double supremacy,” as he characterized
the teaching of LG, “is contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I, and
to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum. The Pope alone has
supreme power.”[6]
The Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn,
former rector of the SSPX Seminary in Ridgefield, points to this teaching of LG as "proof" that Vatican II teaches a “new religion”:
“Vatican II changed the constitution of the
Catholic Church. … It says that the subject, or
possessor of the supreme power of the Church, is the college of bishops with
Peter as its head. … Christ did not confide to the college of bishops the
supreme authority of the Church. … Lumen Gentium founded a new religion.
… If we are to maintain the faith in this time, we must resist these changes of
Vatican II.” (Bp. Donald Sanborn)[7]
Are they right? Is collegiality a
“new ecclesiology” that contradicts Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) and changed the
divine constitution of the Church? If not, why have none of the
usual apologists for Vatican II even attempted to defend it? Even Archbishop
Vigano now claims that “collegiality" was "invented at Vatican II.”[8]
After years of hearing about the heresy of
collegiality, but admittedly never quite understanding it, I finally decided to
delve into the controversial topic to find out exactly what Vatican II taught
and why it is wrong. To my surprise, what I discovered is that collegiality, as
taught in Lumen Gentium, chapter III, and in the new Code of Canon law, is
entirely traditional from start to finish. There is absolutely nothing
novel about it, and nothing that conflicts in the least with Pastor Aeternus, or anything
else taught in Vatican I. Quite the contrary, as we will
see.
The Advice of Archbishop Lefebvre
During a Conference Archbishop Lefebvre delivered to his seminarians in 1983, the founder of the SSPX said he does not like hearing people say, “I have the same thinking as Msgr, Lefebvre.” He told his seminarians it was not his thinking, but the thinking of the Church that he was imparting to them. He then gave them some very wise advice which, he said, he often gave to his seminarians at Econe:
“I say always to the seminarians of Econe, that you have a big library, with all the books filled with the Tradition ... all these books are written before Vatican II. You can consult these books and see if I do not give you the doctrine of the Church. It is not my doctrine, it is not my ideas, that is very important because that is what gives us the Truth [.]" (Lefebvre, Conference St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 2, 1983).
In this article, we will do what Archbishop Lefebvre challenged his seminarians to do, namely, we will consult the manuals that were used to train priests before Vatican II, and other approved pre-conciliar books, to find out what was taught before Vatican II concerning the subject of supreme authority in the Church, as well as other aspects of Lumen Gentium, Chapter III, that the Archbishop and the SSPX denounce as erroneous or heretical.
Do the pre-Vatican II books teach, for
example, that the supreme power resides in the Pope alone, as Lefebvre taught,
or do they teach that it resides in the Pope and also in the body of bishops
together with the Pope, as LG teaches?
Do they teach that the episcopal “college” is something that the Pope
“brings into existence” every hundred years or so during a council, as the SSPX
maintains, or do they teach that the college of bishops is a permanent reality
that succeeds the Apostolic College, as Lumen Gentium teaches? And what precisely do the pre-Vatican II
books teach about the collegiate power?
Does it exist? If so, what is it and what is its nature and its purpose?
The Text of Lumen Gentium
We will begin by reading the
controversial text from Lumen Gentium concerning the subject (possessor)
of supreme authority, in context:
“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.” (Lumen Gentium, chapter III, no. 22).
Notice that the Pope possesses the supreme
power singly by virtue of his office, while the body of bishops, together with
the Pope, is also the subject of the supreme power. The Nota Praevia
clarifies that the subjects are 1) the Pope, considered separately, and 2) the
body of bishops together with the Pope. The bishops
considered without the Pope do not possess the supreme power. Hence,
when there is no Pope (during an interregnum), there is no supreme authority in
the Church.
Cardinal Journet on Collegiality (1941)
The first pre-Vatican II book we turn to
is The Church of the Word Incarnate, by Cardinal Journet, which
was originally published in 1941. I will be quoting from the
English translation that was published in 1955. Archbishop Lefebvre
served with Journet on Vatican II’s Central Preparatory Commission, and later
praised him as “a great theologian and deep thinker."[9] Cardinal
Journet’s cause for beatification has been approved and he currently enjoys the
title Servant of God.
In Chapter VIII of The Church of the Word Incarnate, Journet distinguishes between 1) the universal jurisdiction that the Pope enjoys by virtue of his office, 2) the particular jurisdiction that other bishops enjoy as the head of a diocese (or particular Church), and 3) the collegiate power. These distinctions are foundational for a proper understanding of the Episcopate, and specifically for the traditional doctrine now known as collegiality.
The Difference in Species between Universal and Particular Jurisdiction
Journet begins by explaining that the
difference between the universal jurisdiction proper to the Pope (as head of
the universal Church), and the particular jurisdiction proper to other bishops
(as the head of a diocese), is not merely quantitative; it is qualitative.
In other words, the Pope doesn’t merely have more jurisdiction
than other bishops, or a greater part of the same form of jurisdiction; rather,
the universal jurisdiction proper to the Pope is of a different species (form)
than the particular jurisdiction proper to other bishops. Journet
writes:
"The jurisdictional power is ‘proper’ both
in the Sovereign Pontiff and in the bishops. … However, it appears in the
bishops and in the Pontiff under forms that are clearly distinct.
"The jurisdiction proper to the Pope is
universal. The jurisdiction proper to the bishops is
particular. These two forms do not differ only in a quantitative
way, according to more or less. They differ also in a qualitative
way, in species. The universal jurisdiction is not simply a
sum total of particular Churches, and the jurisdictional order of the universal
Church is not simply a sum-total of particular orders.”
"If therefore each bishop, in virtue of
his episcopate, possesses properly only a particular jurisdiction,
it follows that the sum of the bishops possess, in virtue of their episcopate
alone, only a sum-total of particular jurisdictions; which sum in no
wise amounts to a universal jurisdiction." (Journet, The Church of the
Word Incarnate, Sheed and Ward, 1955,p. 409)
He goes on to explain that this is why a
council without a Pope can never possess authority equal to that of the Pope alone.
Such an “imperfect council” would only possess the sum total of the particular
powers of the bishops present, which would not amount to the universal jurisdiction
that the Pope is vested with by virtue of his office. Bellarmine,
Cajetan, and many others use the identical argument to refute the heresy of
Conciliarism (i.e., that a Council has authority superior to the Pope).
Journet also explains that if all the bishops
of the world, excluding the Pope, were gathered in a council, the cumulative
authority of all bishops would not suffice for them to render judgments that
are proper to the jurisdiction of the Pope, such as issuing decrees that
regulate the universal Church. Universal jurisdiction
is required to render judgments that bind the universal Church.
One final point that should be noted is that
the Pope receives his jurisdiction directly from Christ when he is elected and
accepts the papacy. The Cardinal electors merely designate the person chosen to
be Pope, and then Christ bestows upon him the supreme
authority. Other bishops receive their particular jurisdiction
directly from the Pope when they are appointed to their office (i.e., to a
legitimately established particular church); but once it is received, bishops
possess their jurisdiction by divine law and will retain it even after the Pope
who conferred it upon them dies.
But what is important to note at this point, is
that the particular jurisdiction of all the bishops, taken collectively,
will never equal the supreme universal jurisdiction proper to the Pope,
since particular jurisdiction, even when all the particular
powers are combined, is of a different species than universal
jurisdiction.
The Collegiate Power
Journet goes on to describe the collegiate
power, which is qualitatively distinct from particular jurisdiction.
The collegiate power is the form of jurisdiction that the college of bishops
together with the Pope participates in habitually.
“I have mentioned the proper jurisdiction
of the bishops. It is distinct from the universal jurisdiction of the Supreme
Pastor. The first is ordered to the good of a particular Church, the
second to the good of the universal Church. And we know that the good of a
whole and the good of a part differ qualitatively as to species,
and not merely quantitatively, according to more or less. …
“But, besides this particular jurisdiction
which they possess as properly theirs, the bishops,
taken as a college, in virtue of their close union with the Sovereign
Pontiff, participate in the universal jurisdiction proper to the
Pontiff. …
“So, we must distinguish in the bishops the
power of particular jurisdiction which finds in each of them its proper subject,
from the power of universal jurisdiction which finds in each
of them a supplementary subject. I have said
that the particular jurisdiction of the bishops is distinct [in species] from
the universal jurisdiction of the Pope; it is superadded to it, not so as to
make up more (greater) power, ‘majus in potestate’, but many powers, ‘plures
potestates’. On the other hand, the collegiate jurisdiction of the
bishops is not numerically added to the universal jurisdiction, but is
one with it.” (Ibid. p. 411).
The collegiate power “is one with” (same species as)
the supreme universal jurisdiction that is proper to the Pope. The body of
bishops, considered collectively, are a “supplementary
subject” of the same universal jurisdiction that the Pope
enjoys singly, by virtue of his office. Since the collegiate power
is the species of jurisdiction that is ordered to the good of the universal,
the body of bishops are endowed with the capacity to act as “true judges and definitors” during
an ecumenical council, in matters that concern the universal Church.
The particular jurisdiction bishops possess as the head of a diocese alone
(which is only ordered to the good of a portion of the Church) would not
suffice for this.
This latter point was affirmed during a meeting of
the Directive Commission of Cardinals that took place during the preparations
for the First Vatican Council, in which it was said: “It is on the universal jurisdiction
which is common to all bishops” that “the right of to vote in councils is
based; indeed, residential bishops do not vote in councils from the
[particular] jurisdiction they have over their particular churches, but as
teachers or governors of the whole church in general when they are united as
one body with the visible head of the church.”[10] .
Cardinal Journet continues with his explanation
of the collegiate power:
“In other words, the power to rule the
universal Church resides first of all in the Sovereign Pontiff,
then in the episcopal college united with the Pontiff; and it can
be exercised either singly by the Sovereign Pontiff, or jointly by the Pontiff
and the episcopal college: the power of the Sovereign Pontiff singly and that
of the Sovereign Pontiff united with the episcopal college constituting not
two [supreme] powers adequately distinct, but one sole supreme
power – considered on the one hand in the head of
the Church teaching [the Pope], in whom it resides in its wholeness
and as in its source, and on the other hand as at
once in the head and in the body of
the Church teaching, to which it is communicated and in which it
finds its plenary and integral subject.” (Ibid., p. 412)
The supreme power to rule the universal Church resides in 1) “the Sovereign Pontiff,” and in 2) “the episcopal college united to the Pontiff.” This is the teaching of Lumen Gentium, and it is found all throughout the pre-Vatican II books, which is where Archbishop Lefebvre told his seminarians they should look to determine if what they were being taught in his seminaries was “the doctrine of the Church.”
It should be noted that the body of bishops do
not participate in the Primacy, “which is distinct from the
Episcopate,” as Cardinal Manning observes,[11] but
they do participate collectively in the same supreme authority
that he who holds the Primacy (the Pope), enjoys singly by
virtue of his office.
Cardinal Journet continues by providing the scriptural foundation for the collegiate power:
“…the regular, permanent, collegiate
power to rule the universal Church, is not solely, but certainly
comprised in Jesus’ promise to all the Apostles: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind
upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt. 18:18). These words had
previously been addressed to Peter (Mt. 16:19). They were addressed
now to the whole apostolic college. What does that mean if not that the
apostolic college was to share in Peter’s power, that it was to share with
Peter in the supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, and
that this supreme jurisdiction was to be given first to Peter and to his
successors, so as to devolve next on the Apostles and on their
successors?”[12]
He goes on to explain that the college is a permanent reality, which can act even outside the context of a council. One way he says the college can perform a collegial act outside of a council is by declaring a doctrine infallibly (Denz. 1683). The possibility of performing a collegial act outside of a council is another traditional teaching of Lumen Gentium that the SSPX rejects.
It is interesting to note that Fr. Tranquillo,
one of the Society’s experts on the alleged heresy of collegiality, criticized
Lumen Gentium for referencing Matthew. 18:18, along with Matthew 16, as the
scriptural basis for the two subjects of supreme power. He wrote: “Like the
worst Gallican Episcopalians, the Council is not afraid to cite Mt. XVIII, 18
(putting it in parallel with Mt. XVI, 16) in support of its thesis.” (Fr.
Tranquillo, SSPX, Episcopat Et Collegialite).
This criticism is surprising since
virtually all the Catholic theologians before Vatican II (and after Vatican I),
reference these passages when speaking of the two subjects of supreme power, just as Cardinal Journet did above. What this objection of Fr. Tranquillo indicates,
is that he has not read what the pre-Vatican II theologians
taught about the episcopal college. What else is indicative of this omission on his part, is every other argument that he uses
against the teaching of Lumen Gentium, since they are all answered in the
pre-Vatican II books.
Before continuing, let us summarize the salient points we have seen thus far:
Summary of Salient Points
· The Pope is vested with
supreme universal jurisdiction by virtue of his office (as part of his ordinary
jurisdiction.
· Other bishops are vested with
particular jurisdiction (ordinary jurisdiction), as the head of a diocese.
· The Pope receives his
jurisdiction directly from Christ when he is elected and accepts.
· Other bishops receive their
particular jurisdiction directly from the Pope when they are appointed, after
which they possess it by divine law and retain it even after the Pope who
conferred it upon them dies.
· Universal jurisdiction is not
a sum total of the particular jurisdictional powers, but is qualitatively distinct,
according to species, from particular jurisdiction.
· The collegiate power is identical to
(same species as) the supreme jurisdiction proper to the Pope.
· The Pope enjoys the supreme
universal jurisdiction, singly, by virtue of his office; the other bishops share
in it collectively, as members of the episcopal college. The supreme
authority exists in the College (second subject), and the College consists of
the head (Pope) and body (bishops). As such, if there is no Pope (during an
interregnum), there is no college, properly so-called, and hence there is no
supreme power. If the bishops were to gather in a council without at least the
tacit consent of the Pope (or when there was no living Pope), they would not be
able to exercise the supreme power. This, in fact, is what makes an
“imperfect council” imperfect. The perfection that it
lacks is the supreme universal jurisdiction.
More Pre-Conciliar Teaching on the Two Subjects
of Supreme Power
“Chapter 3 of the constitution Lumen Gentium
presents a new definition of the hierarchical constitution of the
Church, better known by the name of ‘collegiality’. … According to
this new ecclesiology, however, in the Church there is a numerical
distinction between two subjects of the same supreme authority, and
this distinction is found between 1) the pope alone, considered
apart from the college and without it and; 2) the college, still
including its head…” (Society of St. Pius X).[13]
Van Noort discusses the two subjects of supreme
power in his dogmatic manual, Christ’s Church, which was originally
published in 1920. In the following quote, he is replying to the
objection of those who maintain that because all the Apostles received “the
full and supreme jurisdiction” to bind and loose on earth (Mt. 18:18), nothing
special was given to St. Peter when he was promised the same (Mt. 16:19).
Here is Van Noort’s reply:
“It may readily be granted that the power of
binding and of loosing anything whatsoever implies the fullness of
power, but the words, ‘whatever you bind,’ etc. are addressed not to each of
the apostles individually, but to all of them together as a
group. And so one cannot legitimately conclude that each of the
apostles [individually] was promised fullness of jurisdiction. The
conclusion is rather that this power was promised to the whole
apostolic college, including Peter. A comparison of Matthew 16 with Matthew 18
shows that there will be in Christ’s Church a twofold subject, not too
sharply distinct, of full and supreme jurisdiction: Peter alone,
and the Petro-apostolic college. And this is the Catholic teaching,
as Innocent III, among others, testifies:
‘But should you discover that it was spoken to
all the apostles together, still you will recognize that the power of binding
and loosing was bestowed not upon the others without him
[Peter], but that it was given to him apart from the others so
that what the others could not do without him, he could do without the others;
and this because of the privileges conferred upon him by the Lord, and because
of the fulness of power which had been granted him’ - Pope Innocent III.” (Van
Noort, Christ’s Church, p. 67-68).
The “full and supreme jurisdiction” resides in
the Pope, and also in the body of bishops together with the Pope, just as Lumen
Gentium taught forty years later. And Van Noort references Mt. 18:18 and Mt. 16:18 as the
scriptural basis for the doctrine.
Only St. Peter was given the “keys” (Mt.
16:19), but the Apostles together with St. Peter were given the same supreme power
that St. Peter received along with the keys.
There is an identical
parallel between the two subjects of supreme universal jurisdiction and
the two subjects of infallibility.
In both bases, the Pope enjoys the prerogative singly, by virtue of the
Primacy, and the body of bishops participate in
it collectively, as members of the episcopal college.
During the First Vatican Council, all acknowledged
that the entire episcopate – Pope together with the bishops - enjoyed the
prerogative of infallibility. The question that was disputed is whether the Pope
enjoyed it singly, or "separately". The
Gallicans believed he did not. They maintained
that the one subject of infallibility was the entire episcopate. Hence, they held that if the Pope defined a
doctrine ex-cathedra, it would only be irreformable (infallible) if it was
accepted by the entire episcopate – what they believed to be the one subject of infallibility. This error was condemned in the last sentence
of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which declares: “Therefore, such definitions of
the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church,
irreformable” (Pastor Aeternus, cap IV, n. 9)
Hence, just as Van Noort teaches that there are
two subjects of supreme jurisdiction, so too does he teach that there are two
subjects of infallibility:
Van Noort:
“The special discussion of the subject of infallibility fits more
conveniently into the second of this treatise.
Suffice it to mention here, in anticipation of the fuller discussion, that
the subject is both the body of the Church’s rulers together with their
head, in other words, the Roman Catholic college of bishops, and the
supreme ruler of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff.” (Van Noort. Op.
cit. p. 104)
The Pope enjoys supreme authority and infallibility singly, by virtue of the Primacy, and the body of bishops together
with the Pope possesses both privileges collectively, as members of the Episcopal College.
In Ius Canonicum (1905), the
esteemed canonist, Fr. Franz Xavier Wernz, teaches that “bishops together with
the Roman Pontiff constitute another subject (alterum
subiectum) of supreme authority in the Church, only
inadequately distinct from the Roman Pontiff.”[14] Earlier
in the same book, he writes the following in reply to the Protestant Canonist
Paul Hinschius:
But Hinschius confuses the true and the false,
and most importantly does not consider that an Ecumenical Council and the Roman
Pontiff, even after the definition of the Vatican Council, are two
subjects (duplex subiectum) of supreme ecclesiastical
power, not adequately but only inadequately distinct. Since this
distinction is indeed only inadequate, it cannot possibly be said that
there is only one subject of supreme power, whether in an ecumenical
council or outside of it.”[15]
In De Religione et Ecclesia (1905), the
eminent Cardinal Mazzella, who held the chair of theology at the Gregorian
during the Pontificate of Leo XIII, says all of Tradition confirms
that there is a double subject of supreme power:
“If we compare the all the testimonies
of Scripture and tradition, we find, as it were, an inadequately distinct double
subject of supreme power (supremæ potestatis); that is to
say, Peter alone - 'whatever thou shall bind' etc. [Mt. 16:19]
and the body of Apostles with Peter - 'whatever ye shall
bind' etc. – [Mt. 18:18].” (Mazzella De Religione et Ecclesia, 1905).
The reason the two subjects are only
inadequately distinct is because the Pope – the head of the college – is
included in both.
Now, in a private email, Fr. Gleize (SSPX), the
Society’s premier experts on the alleged heresy of collegiality, attempted to
explain away the above quotations from Fr. Wernz and Cardinal
Mazzella by claiming that what they taught is that the two subjects of supreme power were only
inadequately distinct, whereas Lumen Gentium, he insisted, teaches that the
two subjects are adequately distinct. He said the teaching of two inadequately distinct subjects
of supreme authority “is the traditional teaching”!
When I asked him to explain why he believes Lumen
Gentium teaches that the two subjects are adequately distinct, he didn’t reply. I will allow Cardinal Journet to reply to Fr.
Gleize’s objection…
After Vatican II, Cardinal Journet wrote two
Appendixes (1965 and 1966) to be included in the next printing of his
book, The Theology of the Church (1958). As luck would have it, one of the
Appendixes was dedicated to Chapter III of Lumen Gentium. Here is what the
Servant of God wrote about Lumen Gentium’s teaching on the two subjects of
supreme authority:
“The supreme jurisdictional authority over the
universal Church (the power to teach and to govern) resides, by the will of
Christ and thus by divine right, in a twofold subject: (1) in the
pope alone and (2) in the pope together with the episcopal college.
Hence, for one and the same power there are two subjects, two
exercises, which can be distinguished only inadequately since the presence
of the supreme pontiff is required in either case.” (Journet, The Theology
of the Church)
Lumen Gentium does indeed teach two
inadequately distinct subjects of supreme authority, which Fr. Gleize himself
admitted “is the traditional teaching.”
Fr. Gleize's Error on the meaning of two subjects "only inadequately Distinct"
The reason Fr. Gleize rejects the teaching
of Lumen Gentium is because he doesn't understand what is meant by an inadequately
distinct double subject of supreme authority.
The thinks it means the Pope alone is the subject that possesses supreme authority; that is, the Pope is the subject of supreme authority when he is by himself, and he is also the
subject of supreme authority when he gathers with the other bishops. That is what he thinks the older theologians mean when they speak of two inadequately distinct double subjects. But if that were the case, there would only be one subject of supreme authority, not two, since in either case the Pope alone is the subject who possesses it. The Pope is
also the subject of supreme authority when he says a public Mass, but that
doesn't make the faithful who attend his Mass an inadequately distinct subject
of his authority.
Unfortunately, not only did Archbishop Lefebvre - and every priest that has been formed in one of his seminaries - reject the traditional teaching by insisting that “The
Pope alone has supreme power,”[16] but
he also rejected the new Code of Canon Law because it incorporated the traditional
teaching on the episcopate into the Church’s canonical language:
“The new Code is designed to bring conciliar
ecclesiology into legal and canonical language. ... you now have two
subjects of supreme power. Go and figure something ... How can there be two
subjects of supreme power? ... "(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference
at Ecône, January 18, 1983)”
Again, from Lefebvre:
“It is impossible for us to accept the Canon
Law as it stands, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in line
with the reforms of Vatican II. The pope himself says so. He is in this new ecclesiology,
which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly
affects our faith, and is likely to lead us, at least in a number of essential
points of law, to heresies, favoring heresy.” (Lefebvre, Ecône, March 14, 1983)
The priests formed in Archbishop Lefebvre’s seminaries (SSPX, Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationist, Independent, Resistance, etc.) have been surprisingly successful in convincing Catholics that this traditional teaching on the Episcopate is heretical.
One of their victims is Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former priest of the diocese of Rockford Illinois, who fell into the Sedevacantist heresy and left the Church in 2009. In a public letter that Fr. Oswalt wrote to his former diocese to defend his actions, he pointed to the “heresy” of collegiality as proof that the Roman Catholic Church has become an “Imposter Church.” The following excerpt from Fr. Oswalt’s public letter is taken, verbatim, from numerous articles found on Sedevacantist websites. He writes:
“The fourth heresy is that of collegiality which
alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she
was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the
1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the
supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with
the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence
and of Vatican I.” (“Rejecting the Imposter Church,” Fr. Michael Oswalt).[17]
After leaving the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Fr. Oswalt joined the CMRI, which is a non-Catholic Sedevacantist sect that was founded by one of the first (of many) Sedevacantist Antipopes, Francis Schuckardt aka Antipope Hadrian VII. In 1971, Mr. Schuckardt was ordained to the priesthood and then consecrated a bishops (one day later) by a married bishop of the Old Catholic church (communicatioi in sacris). Schuckardt eventually split from the CMRI that he founded when it was discovered that he had been abusing drugs and having inappropriate sexual relations with his male seminarians. And Fr. Oswalt thought he was leaving an Imposter Church!
The Church is a Monarchy of Its Own Kind (Sui Generis)
The SSPX and Sedevacantists maintain that if the
college of bishops participate in the supreme authority, the Church would not
be a monarchy, but rather a democracy or an aristocracy. On the
contrary, as Cardinal Billot explains, the supreme authority residing in the
whole college does not prevent the Church from being a true monarchy, but it
does make the Church's government a monarchy of a unique kind – a monarchy sui
generis. Christ established the Church this way, says Billot, as
a means of manifesting and achieving that perfect unity for which He prayed for
the Apostles at the Last supper. The following is taken from Billot’s
De Ecclesia Christi, which, in 1963, Fr. Fenton called “the best
theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred
years.”
De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. I, Thesis XXVII: “To
emphasize the unity for which he prayed for the apostles at the Last Supper,
when he said, 'That as we are one, they may be one in us, that they may
be perfect in one,' Christ arranged the apostolic college as a stable and
perpetual institution, united to Prince Peter, to share in the
supreme power. Hence the monarchy of the Church is a monarchy of its
own kind (sui generis), which, while retaining without limitation the full
character of a monarchy in all respects, yet has a régime of individual bishops
conjoined to it (coniunctum), so that the one indivisible supreme authority may
be wielded by the body of bishops united to its head.
The truth of this assertion is clear from Mt.
28-20, John 20-21, and even more clearly from Mt. 18-18, where Christ, in
addressing the entire community of the apostles, said, ‘Amen I say to
you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ These words,
previously spoken to Peter alone, imply the exercise of the fullness of power,
as has been explained above, Thes. 25 § 1. Therefore, just as in Peter
(one subject) there was the fullness of ecclesiastical authority, so too is it
in the whole college (second subject), considered collegially.” (Billot,
De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. 1, 1909).
The same supreme authority that resides in
Peter also resides in the whole college. To prove it, Billot references Mt. 16:19 and Mt 18:18, and notes that the binding and loosing power that was
given to Peter “has
the same term and the same form” as that which was given to “the college.” In both cases, he says, the “power is
signified in the genus of unlimited ecclesiastical power (potestatis
eccleiasticae illimitata).” (Ibid.) He goes on to explain, as Carinal Journet did
earlier, that the collegiate power is not the sum total of the particular
powers of all the bishops. Rather,
because “the power of the college is the
supreme power,” the “power of the college is adequately
distinguished from the sum of the particular powers of the individual members
of the college.”
He then explains why, despite the entire
college possessing the identical supreme authority as the Pope, the
other bishops are not to be considered as equal to the Pope. His
answer shows the relation between the Primacy and the Episcopate:
“One thing, therefore, remains to be said: By
Christ's institution, the identical supreme power which was
wholly in Peter alone, should also be in him together with the subordinate
members of the Apostolic Senate, which constituted one body, one tribunal, and
one plenary and fully competent subject of authority, yet in
this body, considered as the depositary of supreme authority, Peter and the
rest of the Apostolic College are not to be regarded as on equal terms, since
the position of Peter as Head always remains intact, according to Matt. XVI,
John XXI, and Luke XXII. First, without Peter and
apart from Peter there would be in the Apostolic College no supreme authority
at all; for it was not to a headless body that: Christ said ‘Whatsoever
you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc.’ (Mt
18:18). Secondly, within the Apostolic College Peter is not
like the President in a Parliament, simply the first among equals; but is
always the Rock of the Church, the Confirmer of his brethren, and the Pastor of
both the sheep and lambs alike; he is also the one fount and reason of the
supreme authority of the whole Apostolic College cohering with him. Thirdly,
Peter is in no way subject to the Apostolic College, while the other Apostles
are subject to the Senate of which they form a part. Lastly, the
Apostolic College invested with supreme power is nothing else than the whole
body of subordinate Prelates as assumed into their Head, Peter, for the unity
of one governing agency, and this for the manifestation of that
unity of “the whole body . . . compacted and fitly joined together by which
every joint supplieth" which Christ willed should be the touchstone and
everlasting miracle of His true Church.” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis
XXVII 569-572).
Even though “the fullness of ecclesiastical
authority” resides in “the whole college, considered collegially,” the Church is
a true monarchy in all respects, due to the divinely established privileges that the Pope enjoys
by virtue of the Primacy, which he alone holds.
Cardinal Billot goes on to explain that the
Apostolic college will be perpetuated in the episcopal college until the
end. He then declares that “the supreme authority of the whole episcopate”–
which is the doctrine that the SSPX and Sedevacantist declare to be heretical -
is an explicit dogma of the Catholic Faith:
Now, it is hardly necessary to demonstrate that the institution which began with the apostolic college should be perpetuated in the episcopate until the end. And, of course, all the quotations we have seen from the Gospels testify that it is undoubtedly the perennial and perpetual state of the Church. Moreover, there is nothing more explicit in the Catholic faith from the beginning than the dogma of the supreme authority (suprema auctoritate) of the whole episcopate, whether united in an ecumenical council or dispersed throughout the world. It is concerning this collegiate authority of all the bishops together with Peter their head, that the teaching of St. Cyprian (De Unit. Eccl. n. 5) is rightly understood: ‘The episcopate is one, of which each has a share in Solidium’." (Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia, Thesis XXVII” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis XXVII).
“The supreme authority residing in the whole episcopate,” even when the bishops “are dispersed throughout the world” is “the perennial and perpetual state of the Church.” That is the doctrine of LG that the Society and Sedevacantist priest accuse the Roman Catholic Church of heresy for teaching at an ecumenical Council.
It is interesting to note that in a report Fr.
Gleize wrote to his fellow priests in reply to the book, Le synode des
Evêques et la Collégialité (which is a defense of collegiality), he admitted
that Cardinal Billot taught that bishops participate, by divine right, in the same
supreme power as the Pope. “Billot says it clearly,” wrote Fr. Gleize. What Fr Gleize failed to mention, however, is
that Carinal Billot, who Archbishop Lefebvre called “one of his masters,” and
praised as “a true disciple of St. Pius X,” said the doctrine (that the SSPX
rejects) is an explicit dogma!
Vatican I on the Two Subjects of Supreme Power
If we turn to the Acts of Vatican I, we find the same "explicit dogma" taught in numerous places.
For example, after the council approved Pastor Aeternus, which
defined the prerogatives of the Pope and the Primacy, the Council Fathers began
work on a Second Constitution on the Church, which was to define the
prerogatives of the Episcopate. Unfortunately, the council was suspended due to
the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War before the Constitution could be
completed, but not before two schemas had been drafted.
The first schema (Supremi Pastoris),
which had been written by the Preparatory Commission before the Council began,
was not well received by the Fathers as a whole. Therefore, the renowned theologian, Joseph
Kleutgen, who had been the principal redactor of the revised schema De
Fide Catholica, which later became the Constitution De Filius,
was entrusted with the task of preparing a revised text, which would take into account the objections that had been raised by the Fathers against original schema. In the relatio that
accompanied the revised schema, Kleutgen said,
“the total plenitude of supreme power … resides in a double subject, in
the body of the bishops together with the pope, and in the pope alone. " (relatio,
Tametsi Deus, Mansi 53, 321).
Kleutgen went on to explain that “the supreme
authority is not attributed to the body of bishops simpliciter, but
to the body of bishops together with the pope” which is the same clarification that
the Nota gives concerning the second subject of supreme power.
The teaching of Lumen Gentium that the Society
insists “contradicts” Pastor Aeternus (along with the identical clarification that is given in the Nota), was taught during Vatican I after
Pastor Aeternus had been approved and promulgated.
The teaching of the two subjects of supreme
power was also taught by Bishop Zinelli, during the relatio he
delivered on Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus. In reply to
a Council Father who believed the entire episcopate together with the Pope, possessed
greater authority that the Pope alone, Bishop Zinelli, his official capacity as
the spokesman for the Deputation De Fide, replied as follows:
“We willingly agree that supreme and
total ecclesiastical sovereignty over all the faithful resides
also in ourselves [bishops] as gathered in an ecumenical council, in
ourselves, the bishops, united to their head (second subject). Yes,
this perfectly fits the Church united to the head. The bishops
gathered with their head in an ecumenical council (second subject) - in
which case they represent the whole Church - or
dispersed, yet in union with their head (second subject) - in which case
they are the Church herself - truly have supreme
authority. But all the words of Christ
should make everything clear. If by
the fact that he promised to be with the Apostles, with Peter and his
successors, and granted other such things, we can infer that this truly
full and supreme power is in the Church [bishops] united with her head (second subject), by
the same reason, from the fact that similar promises were made to Peter alone
and to his successors, we can conclude that truly full and supreme power was
given to Peter and his successors (first subject), even independently of their
acting in common with the other bishops.
(…)
We admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in the Supreme Pontiff as
in the head (one subject) and that the same truly full
and supreme power is also in the head joined to its members, that is, in the
Pope with the bishops (second subject) [.]” (Mansi, 52.1109).
The same “supreme and total ecclesiastical
sovereignty over all the faithful” that resides in the Pope, said Zinelli, also resides
in the body of bishops united to the Pope, even when they are dispersed.
Countless more quotations could be cited, but in
light of what we have seen, suffice it to say that the teaching, according to
which the college of bishops, together with the Pope, is a subject of supreme
authority, is not a “departure from tradition” (Bishop Williamson), or a “new ecclesiology”
of Vatican II that altered the monarchical constitution of the Church and “founded
a new religion” (Bp. Sanborn); nor is it a “heresy” that “contradicts” Pastor
Aeternus (Fr. Tranquillo, Fr. Glieze). On the contrary, it is the traditional
teaching of the Church – a revealed truth - that the great Cardinal Billot did
not hesitate to call an explicit dogma!
In fact, even Vatican II’s original schema
– the one prepared by the Central Preparatory Commission that Archbishop
Lefebvre took part on - teaches that “the college of bishops" together with the Pope, is the
“subject of full and supreme power over the whole Church.” (Vatican II, Draft
of A Dogmatic Constitution on The Church, No 16.)
Everything the Society objects to concerning Lumen Gentium’s
teaching on collegiality is taught in the original schema on the Church, which Archbishop Lefebvre praised as being "absolutely orthodox" (Open Letter to Confused Catholic, chapter 14).
Foundational Error
Equating the Supreme Authority with the Primacy
This foundational error of the SSPX is equating
supreme authority (or universal jurisdiction) with the Primacy, and then interpreting
Lumen Gentium as teaching that there are “two subjects of the Primacy”. Based on this they conclude that Lumen Gentium
contradicts Pastor Aeternus, since it teaches that the Pope alone holds
the Primacy. And they don’t merely equate the two terms in their mind and
then draw the false conclusion: they explicitly state that their error is
what Lumen Gentium teaches. Here are just two examples out of many:
“Lumen Gentium [no 22] … says that there
is a twofold subject of the primacy, on the one hand,
the pope and on the other hand the college together with its head. … Moreover
the College, the second subject of the primacy, is
presented—to use the precise wording—as being ‘with’ the pope and not
as being ‘under’ the pope or ‘dependent on’ its head, the pope.”
(SSPX, General House)[18]
Bishop Fellay: “After having shaken the
Church’s unity of Faith, the texts of the Council also disturbed the Church’s
unity of government and hierarchical structure. The expression “subjectum
quoque” (LG, 22) [i.e., “is also the subject”] means that the college of
bishops united to the Pope as to their head is also, besides the Pope alone,
the habitual and permanent subject of the supreme and universal power of
jurisdiction in the Church. … This idea of a permanent double
subject holding primacy is, in fact, contrary to the Church’s
teaching and practice, especially to the constitution Pastor Aeternus of
Vatican I (DS 3055) and Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum.” (April 2014 -
Superior General's Letter #82)
They do the same when referring to Pastor
Aeternus. Instead of saying Pastor Aeternus teaches
that the Pope is the unique subject of the Primacy, they say it teaches that he
is the unique subject of supreme power. For example:
Fr. Glieze: “The doctrine on
collegiality, as expressed in n ° 22 of the constitution Lumen Gentium,
including n ° 3 of the Nota praevia, contradicts the teachings of the
First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power
in the Church, contained in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus.” (Fr.
Gleize) [19]
The Primacy and supreme authority are distinct,
just as the Primacy and the Episcopate are distinct; and because they are
distinct, the bishops can participate in one (supreme authority) without
participating in the other (the Primacy). This is evident from the
fact that all the Apostles had universal jurisdiction
(and no Apostle had particular jurisdiction
over a diocese until later in their ministries), yet they nevertheless remained
subject to St. Peter because he alone held the Primacy.
In fact, many theologians maintain that the
other Apostles had universal jurisdiction, singly (not only collectively), as
an extraordinary privilege, yet even so, as Salaverri explains, they would still
have been subject to St. Peter because he alone held the Primacy:
“Therefore, having supposed also the
extraordinary universal jurisdiction of the Apostles, their power can be aptly
reconciled with their subordination due to St. Peter by reason of the Primacy,
according to this principle: although by reason of the Apostolate they were
equal to St. Peter, still by reason of the Primacy they were subject to St.
Peter, and indeed not only indirectly, but also directly.” (Salaverri, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa I B, n. 278)
Lumen Gentium itself clearly distinguishes
between the Primacy and supreme authority, and it explicitly teaches that the
Pope has the Primacy “over all,” which includes the bishops.
“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 (i.e., bishops) and faithful, remains whole and intact. …
the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of
their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own
faithful, and indeed of the whole Church…” (Lumen Gentium, No. 22)
In the quotation above from the SSPX, the
author says Lumen Gentium presents the bishops “as being ‘with’ the pope and
not as being ‘under’ the pope.” In reality, as we
just saw, Lumen Gentium explicitly teaches that the Pope’s power of Primacy is
“over all, both pastors (Bishops) and faithful.”
So, the SSPX accuses LG of teaching what
it does not teach (two subjects of the Primacy), and of not teaching
what it does teach (that the Pope’s primacy is over all.)
In April of 2012, Bishops Fellay, then Superior General of the SSPX, signed a doctrinal agreement with Rome, which professed the following:
“We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”
This 2012 Declaration, combined
with the fear that the SSPX may join the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which "there is no salvation nor forgiveness of sins," is what eventually
led to the split within the SSPX that resulted in the various “Resistance”
groups.
During the Society’s General Chapter meeting, which took place later that year, Fr. de Jorna, Rector of the SSPX Seminary at Econe, and considered one of the Society’s best theologians, rose up to explain why the SSPX cannot accept the doctrinal agreement signed by Fellay. Here is what he said:
“We cannot accept the doctrine of ‘Lumen Gentium’ chapter III. Even understood in the light of the Nota previa, no. 22 to ‘Lumen Gentium,’ it retains all its ambiguity because it still implies that there is in the Church a double subject of the Primacy (the Pope alone, AND the Pope with all the bishops) and opens the door to the denial of the teaching of Vatican I (DS 3054).
“Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this error on the occasion of the publication of the new 1983 Code of [Canon Law]. … Archbishop Lefebvre would never have signed these statements and (moreover) there is no reference to ch. III of ‘Lumen Gentium’ in the1988 Protocol of agreement.”
The Society’s best theologian rejects the
traditional teaching on the Episcopate (approved almost unanimously by over 2500 bishops at an ecumenical council, including Lefebvre himself), because he does not understand the difference between supreme authority and the Primacy and errs by equating the two.
After rejecting the Doctrinal Declaration signed by Fellay, the General Chapter promptly voted him out and replace him with a new Superior General. Here is what the soon-to-be Superior General, Fr. Pagliarani, said immediately after Fr. de Jorna’s criticism of the text signed by Fellay:
"Dear colleagues! We are surely not going to give a slap in the face to our superior by demanding a retraction from him! This will be done implicitly in the final Declaration of the Chapter."
And indeed it was. Here is the implicit retraction in the final Declaration of the Chapter:
“For this reason, it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth;”
What do you think Cardinal Billot would say about this doctrinal Declaration of the SSPX, which contradicts what he called an explicit dogma?
Consequent Error:
Denying that Bishops Possess the Collegiate Power
Now, since the SSPX is
acutely aware that Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) teaches that the Pope
alone holds the Primacy, their foundational error of equating supreme authority
with the Primacy necessarily forces them to deny that bishops possess
supreme authority (universal jurisdiction).
In their mind, to admit that bishops possessed supreme authority is to deny
that the Pope alone holds the Primacy.
Consequently, the SSPX
only recognizes 1) the particular jurisdiction that bishops enjoy as the head of
a diocese, and 2) the universal jurisdiction that the Pope enjoys by virtue of
his office. This can be seen in the following quote from an article by an SSPX
priest (whose name is not given):
“The First Vatican Council summarizes
this state of affairs (i.e., the divine constitution of the Church) by means of
a very expressive formula: each bishop individually pastures and governs the
particular flock that has been assigned to him. Thus the pope is the sole
subject of the supreme authority of jurisdiction in the Church.”
Notice, that this Society
priest only recognizes in bishops the particular jurisdiction they enjoy over
their particular flock and then concludes (signified by the word “thus”) that
“the Pope is the sole subject of supreme authority of jurisdiction in the
Church.” This is the logical result of their foundational error of equating supreme authority (collegiate power) with the Primacy.
Since the SSPX believes
the Pope alone possesses supreme authority, they conclude that the “collegiate power”
is really “a collegiate manner” in which the Pope can
exercise his supreme authority: he can exercise his authority
alone, or he can exercise it “collegially” in the presence of
the bishops. They refer to the
two ways in which the Pope can exercise his authority (i.e., alone or
with the bishops) as two “subjects of the exercise of his authority”.
But however he exercises it, whether alone (one subject) or in the presents of
the bishops (second subject), they insist that Pope is the only one who possesses the
supreme authority, and therefore is the only subject in which the supreme authority resides. This is seen in what the author of the
article quoted above writes next:
“There is at most a duality at the
level of the manner in which this authority is exercised: alone
or collegially. The collegial manner corresponds to the holding of councils,
and it is extraordinary; … the pope is the one who brings into existence the
College, in order to make it the temporary subject of the exercise of his
own authority, by causing it to participate in his own acts
as Supreme Pontiff. … a distinction should be made between two modes by
which the same subject [the Pope] exercises the same supreme authority.”
Since the Society believes
the collegiate power is really a collegiate manner in which the Pope can
exercise his authority, they believe the “college” is something the Pope “brings
into existence,” every hundred years or so, so he can exercise his authority collegially. They deny that the college is a permanent
reality, just as they deny that bishops possess the collegiate power (universal
jurisdiction).
We will conclude with a historical example of a bishop who not only possessed the collegiate power, but possessed it and exercised it outside of a council
St. Eusebius Exercises the Collegiate Power During
the Arian Crisis
The historical example of a bishop who possessed and exercised the universal power outside of a council is St. Eusebius, who did so
during the Arian crisis, by consecrating bishops and “installing pastors” in
dioceses other than his own. In fact, Eusebius is the historical
precedent that the Society appeals to to justify the illicit episcopal
consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre, yet they claim
Eusebius acted by virtue of the nebulous and all-encompassing power of
“supplied jurisdiction,” and not by the universal power, which they deny that bishops possess. Let
us begin by seeing how the Society presents the case of Eusebius.
The book that the Society references for the
case of Eusebius is Dom Grea’s De l’Eglise Et De Sa Divine Consitution,
(1905), which is a fantastic book on the Episcopate, or what today we would
call “collegiality.” The specific page that the Society references is p. 218,
but interestingly, they never quote more than partial sentences from Grea’s
book. Before seeing what Grea actually says on the page, let us see how
the Society presents it.
The following is taken from the Society’s
Theological Study of the 1988 Consecrations, under the heading “The
doctrine on ‘supplied jurisdiction’ is applied regarding a bishop who in an
extraordinary necessity consecrates another bishop”:
“Dom Grea, whose attachment to the pope is
above all suspicion testifies (De l’Eglise Et De Sa Divine Consitution,
vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity
of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the
episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional
limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required "even
more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of
episcopal power (ibid., p.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the
current necessity of the Christian people" (ibid. and ff.), for
whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from
the pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is also
at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is
universal" in episcopal power "comes directly to the
aid of souls" (ibid., p.218): ‘Thus in the 4th century St.
Eusebius of Samosata is seen passing through the Oriental Church devastated by
the Arians and ordaining Catholic Bishops for them without having any special
jurisdiction over them.”
Here is how the Society present the same events in the
book, Is Tradition Excommunicated:
In the history of the Church there are any
number of cases of bishops who, in extraordinary circumstances, when they found
themselves in some of the same difficulties as these of the early centuries
and, consequently, where the necessity arose of using their episcopal powers in
all their fullness, consecrated bishops without adhering to the disciplinary
norms of the time. They did so by virtue of this "law of supply
[Ecclesia supplet]" which exists in the Church, as it
does in all organizations, when the functioning of necessary and indispensable
organs becomes endangered. Thus in the 4th century, St. Eusebius of Samosata
travelled throughout the Eastern Churches laid waste by the Arians and
consecrated and installed Catholic bishops [84].
Footnote 84 references Grea’s book.
Now, since the Society included the phrase “Ecclesia Supplet” (the Church supplies = supplied jurisdiction) in brackets after the phrase “law of supply,” with you may have assumed that "law of supply" is an archaic phrase that Eusebius himself used in place of supplied jurisdiction, and that Dom Grae simply quoted the phrase that Eusebius used. After all, why would the Society have put the phrase in quotations marks and then referenced Grea’s book, if Grea didn’t use the phrase? Well, if that’s what you thought, you were mistaken. Nowhere in the book does Grea speak of supplied jurisdiction or “the law of supply.”
What Grea is explaining in the chapter that the
Society references is that bishops possess the general mission
the Apostles receive, which includes universal jurisdiction
without territorial restriction, in addition to the particular jurisdiction
they have over a particular Church. On the page the Society references
(p. 218), Grea is explaining the extraordinary cases in which bishops exercised
this power during the early centuries. He says there are only two cases
that Bishops can exercise the power singly: 1) When they are in an area in
which no particular Church has been established; in the early years, bishops
were allowed to exercise the power by founding particular Churches. 2) When
they are in an area in which a particular Church, which had been established,
has been laid waste by persecution, heresy, or some other grave event that
either destroyed the local hierarchy or impeded them from acting. Here is
the quotation from Grea’s book, in context:
“In the founding of the church, the apostles
and their first disciples (bishops) acted by virtue of this general (universal)
mission: “Go, make disciples from all the nations” (Mt 28,19) … this mission
belongs to the episcopate; it has been given properly to the episcopal
college, which is to endure until the end of the world,
according to the sacred text, “I will be with you all days, even until the end
of the world” (Mt 28, 20). …
This [general and universal] mission was given
before any delimitation of territory and before any bishop had a particular
power over a determinate people. It preceded the founding of [particular]
churches, and therefore necessarily belongs to each member of the college; for
the bishops have received, in the persons of the apostles, the primitive and
general mission of proclaiming the truth of the Gospel to the infidel nations.
…
“But it is not only in the establishment of the
Church that the properly apostolic and the universal power of
bishops, which is always subordinate in its substance and in its exercise to
the vicar of Jesus Christ, has manifested itself. There is another way it has
been manifested, even more exceptional and more extraordinary still. …
"...when a particular church has been
overthrown by persecution, heresy or some other grave event that impedes the
action of their pastors; this is the rarest case in which the extraordinary
intervention of the episcopate comes to the aid.
"For, as we have already said, one
conceives, that in the absence of particular pastors, that which is universal
in the powers of the hierarchy remains alone, and that the universal Church, by
the general powers of her hierarchy and of the episcopate, holds, so to speak,
the place of the particular Churches, and comes immediately to the aid of
souls. We see this in the fourth century, when Saint Eusebius of
Samosata traveled the churches of the East, which had been devastated by the
Arians, and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular
jurisdiction over them. Those are truly extraordinary actions, like the
circumstances which have given occasion for them. But these manifestations of
the universal power of the episcopate being exercised in
places where the local hierarchy had already been established, and had not
entirely perished, have always been very rare.”
"First, this universal power of the
episcopate, although habitual in its substance is extraordinary in its exercise
upon a particular Churches, and its use is not permitted as
long as the order of these Churches has not been destroyed. Second, for
the exercise of the power to be legitimate, it is necessary that recourse to
the Sovereign Pontiff is impossible…” (Grea, De l'Église Et De Sa
Divine Constitution, Vol. I, 1905.)
Eusebius is defending the very doctrine that
the SSPX accuses Vatican II of heresy for teaching, namely, that the members of
the episcopal college, together with the Pope, possess “the universal power of
the episcopate” (collegiate power), as well as particular jurisdiction over a
diocese. The teaching of Grea refutes every objection that the
Society raises against the two subjects of universal jurisdiction, since St.
Eusebius, who was part of the “second subject,” not only possessed the
“universal power of the Episcopate” (which the SSPX claims bishops
to not “possess”), but he possessed it and exercised it outside
of a council (while dispersed), thereby proving that the college is a permanent
reality. This is what Cardinal Billot referred to as an evident
dogma.
Billot: “Moreover, there is nothing more
explicit in the Catholic faith from the beginning than the dogma of
the supreme authority (suprema auctoritate) of the whole episcopate,
whether united in an ecumenical council, or dispersed throughout the world.” (Op.
cit.).
The explicit dogma is what the SSPX and
Sedevacantist priests have managed to convince virtually all Traditional Catholics
is heresy.
Beware of the errors on the Right. They are
more dangerous than those on the Left for at least three reasons:
1) They are more difficult to detect;
2) They masquerade under a very thin veneer of orthodoxy,
since the priest who spread them wear cassocks, celebrate only the traditional
Mass, and they all claim to be ‘defending the faith’ by speaking out against
the alleged “heresies of Vatican II” (such as the “heresy” of the supreme
authority of the whole episcopate, which Billot calls a dogma);
3) The errors on the Right don’t merely cause someone to
believe what is false; they cause them to leave the Church, since one of the
chief error on the Right is a false notion of the Church – a notion of the
Church that is identical to the Protestant concept of the
Church.
I will
conclude with questions for the Society’s experts on collegiality.
Questions
for the SSPX
1) Does the Society acknowledge that the supreme authority to
govern the universal Church is distinct from the Primacy?
2) Does the Society acknowledge that Lumen Gentium never
teaches that there are two subjects of the Primacy?
3) If the SSPX believes the supreme authority is one and the
same with the Primacy, what prerogatives does the SSPX believe the Episcopate
possesses?
4) What role does the Society believe bishops play at a
council?
5) If the SSPX believes bishops act as true judges and
definitors, how is this possible without each bishop at least temporarily
possessing universal jurisdiction?
6) If each bishop temporarily possesses universal
jurisdiction, and if universal jurisdiction is one and the same with the
Primacy, why would the Pope not be "the first among equals" during
a council?
7) Considering that Fr Gleize acknowledges that the two
inadequately distinct subjects of supreme authority “is the traditional
teaching,” why does the SSPX believe Lumen Gentium’s teaching on the two
subjects is heretical, when it too teaches that the subjects are only
inadequately distinct (Cardinal Journet).
8) Does the SSPX acknowledge the episcopal college is a
permanent reality, and not something that the Pope “brings into existence” when
he convokes a council, and that the members of the college participate in the
collegiate power habitually, even when dispersed?
9) Does the SSPX believe the bishops together with the Pope
can perform a collegial act outside of a council, as LG teaches? If not, why?
10) Does the SSPX acknowledge that the college of bishops succeeds the Apostolic college, as LG teaches? If not, why?
11) Does Fr. Tranquillo acknowledge that Catholic theologians regularly appeal to Mt. 16:19 and Mt. 18:18 as the scriptural basis for the two subjects of the supreme power? If so, why does he accuse LG - and hence those who approved the document - of acting like “the worst Gallican Episcopalians” for doing the same?
In Part II
we will address another alleged heresy that the SSPX accuses Lumen Gentium –
and by extension the Roman Catholic Church - of teaching, namely, that bishops
received their jurisdiction from Christ through the episcopal
consecration.
In
responding to this accusation, we will in turn address one of the heresies
of Archbishop Marcell Lefebvre and
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais which seems to be the official teaching of the
Society of St. Pius X to this day. Stay tuned.
* Bullet Point Notes for Collegiality
[1] Rhine flow into the Tiber, p. 240.
[2] “LG's doctrine of the two supreme powers, in spite of
the Nota praevia, is heretical because it is contrary to the
teaching of Vatican I on the uniqueness of the Pope's power.” (Fr. Tranquillo,
Une Tentative De Justification De La Collegialite: Le Livre Du Pere F. Dupre La
Tour.
[3] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[4] Williamson Letters, from the Rector, Volume 2: The
Winona Letters, 1992 p. 231
[5] https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-msgr-ocariz-22405
[6] Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 101.
[7]http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/BishopSanbornSermonArchive/BpSan_ErrorOfCollegiality_01-28-96_1329.mp3
[8] https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican-ii-marked-the-beginning-of-a-false-parallel-church/
[9] https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Infiltration-of-Modernism-in-the-Church.htm
[10] Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection,
49, 1923, col. 525 f.
[11] Manning, The Pastoral Office, p. 15
[12] Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 413
[13] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[14] Wernz, Ius Canonicum p. 259-60
[15] Ius Canonicum Vol I. p 160-161)
[16] Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 101.
[17] https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/rejecting-the-imposter-church-letter-to-the-clergy-of-the-diocese-of-rockford/
[18] https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-msgr-ocariz-22405
[19] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[20] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[21] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[22] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
[23] https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
