Hello N.,
I am a little late to the discussion, but I just read through your article and the subsequent email exchanges. I’m going to address the two fundamental errors I see in your (and Fr. L.’s) defense of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society. The two errors are:
1) A lack of understanding of the nature and structure of the Roman Catholic Church, thanks to the errors and heresies of Archbishop Lefebvre. The consequence of these errors in ecclesiology is that hundreds of heretical and schismatic sects (i.e., SSPV, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI, Independent, Sedevacantist, Sedprivationist, etc.), not only mistakenly believe they are part of the Catholic Church, they also believe they are (collectively) the true Catholic Church. I will be referring to this ecumenical conglomeration of heretical and schismatic sects as The Counterfeit Church of Tradition.
2) The second underlying error is not realizing that Archbishop was not the great defender of the faith and adherent of Tradition that he claimed he was. On the contrary, his doctrinal errors, heresies and specious arguments (which can only be described as diabolically disoriented), are as numerous and grave as they are little known. These errors are the foundation of the movement that has produced and is The Counterfeit Church of Tradition. A related error is not seeing through the veritable tsunami of false accusations, lies, and specious arguments that the Archbishop (and all the priests ordained in any one of his seminaries) constantly level against their one common enemy, namely, the Roman Catholic Church (which the Archbishop preferred to call the “Conciliar Church,” so as to more easily deceive the faithful) – which, along with the damage done by the Liberal enemies within, have disfigured the face of the Church and convinced hundreds of thousands of Confused Catholics that the indefectible Church founded by Christ has become a New Church that teaches a New Religion, which is exactly what the Protestants heretics of the 16th century and the Anglican heretics of the 18th century claimed.
Note: This email ended up being much longer than I anticipated, so I will be sending it out in multiple parts. I will begin by spotlighting some of the doctrinal errors, heresies, and quite frankly absurd reasoning of Lefebvre (and, by extension, of the entire Traditional movement) and then delve into his errors and heresies in ecclesiology specifically.
I’m going to begin with the errors concerning collegiality, which are rooted in the misunderstanding of two terms: supreme authority and the munera of teaching and governing. Every other error is the logical result of misunderstanding one or both of these terms. The Archbishop’s errors concerning collegiality are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but they are enough to prove that he was not the great defender of the faith, and “the only bishop holding to Tradition,” that he claimed to be. The result of these errors is that hundreds of thousands of Confused Catholics have been deceived into believing that a revealed truth that has been taught by an ecumenical council, and which was declared to be an “explicit dogma” by Cardinal Billot seven decades earlier (Tractus de Ecclesia, 1898), is a heresy, which must mean Billot believed it had already been infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium before Vatican II taught it..
I’m glad you included Fr. L. in these emails, since I have always considered him to be one of the clearest thinking Society priests. Hopefully he will engage me on collegiality, since I can very easily clear up all the Society’s errors and answer any objections he has. An added benefit of understanding collegiality (i.e., the Church’s teaching on the Apostolic/Episcopal College) is that it will clarify exactly why the Society is not, in any way, a part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Collegiality
First Error: Equating Supreme Authority (or universal jurisdiction) with the Primacy
The Society’s first fundamental error is interpreting supreme authority (sometimes referred to as universal jurisdiction) as the primacy, and if these two terms refer to one and the same thing. In a private email, Fr. Gleize, one of the Society’s so-called experts on collegiality, confirmed that this is indeed what he believes. He said all three terms (supreme authority, universal jurisdiction, Primacy), have one and the same meaning and refer to one and the same thing (one and the same quiddity, as he put it). This error necessarily prevents the Society from being able to get to first base in understanding collegiality, as their “scholarly” against collegiality prove.
Another consequence of this error is that the Society mistakenly believes the following passage from Lumen Gentium, No. 22, teaches that the bishops together with the Pope (college of bishops) is a subject (possessor) the Primacy.
“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).
By mistakenly assuming that “supreme and full power over the universal Church” is one and the same thing as the Primacy, the Society falsely accuses Lumen Gentium of contradicting Pastor Aeternus, ch. III, which teaches that the Pope alone holds the Primacy. But don’t take my word for it. Take it from the Society’s “experts.” For example:
Bishop Fellay: “The expression
“subjectum quoque” [is also subject] (LG, 22) 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).[1]
“There are three major differences
here between the text of Lumen gentium clarified by the Nota praevia and the
Tradition. Tradition teaches: a) that there is only one subject of the primacy…
Lumen gentium 22 clarified by § 4 of the Nota states: a) that there
are two subjects of the primacy, the pope alone and the college
with the pope as head;” (Fr. Gleize, Collegialite).
Fr. de Jorna, Rector of the SSPX
seminary at Econe: “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].” (Intervention delivered during the 2012 General Chapter of the
SSPX)
“Lumen gentium no longer affirms
that the successor of Saint Peter is the sole subject of the primacy.
The permanent subject of the primacy is twofold: on
the one hand the pope alone; on the other, the college with the pope who is its
head.” (Fr. Gleize, Collegialite)
“The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of Vatican I.” (Fr. Gleize, Major SSPX Clarification: Towards an Agreement with Rome)
Contrary to the Society’s assertions, supreme authority (or universal jurisdiction) is not the same thing (same quiddity) as the Primacy. The two are entirely distinct, as proven from the fact that all the Apostles possessed the extraordinary gift of universal jurisdiction singly, not merely collectively as is the case with the bishops who succeeded them as members of the college, yet they were nevertheless subject to St. Peter because he alone held the Primacy. Salaverri addresses this in point in Sacrae Theologiae Summa:
“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 1B, N. 278).
All the Apostles possessed universal jurisdiction (supreme authority) singly, but only St. Peter held the Primacy, which would not be the case of universal jurisdiction and the Primacy were one and the same thing, as the Society mistakenly believes.
Supreme authority. Vis-à-vis the primacy
Supreme Authority: In the Church of the Word Incarnate (1955), Cardinal Journet explains Supreme authority (or universal jurisdiction) is authority that is ordered to the good of the universal Church. It is qualitatively distinct (in species) from the particular jurisdiction that each bishop enjoys over a diocese. Supreme authority is what allows a bishop to act as a true judge during an ecumenical council in matters that pertain to the universal Church. Just as a bishop cannot govern a diocese without possessing particular jurisdiction over it, neither can a bishop act in the capacity of a true judge in matters that pertain to the universal Church, without possessing the species of jurisdiction that extends of the universal Church, namely, “supreme and full power over the universal Church,” (LG), also referred to as “supreme authority.”
The Primacy: The Primacy is entirely distinct from supreme authority. The Pope certainly enjoys supreme authority by virtue of the Primacy, but the Primacy includes numerous other privileges as well. These additional privileges that the Pope alone enjoys due to the Primacy, prove that the Primacy and supreme authority are not one and the same thing, as the Society maintains.
These privileges include: 1) “separate infallibility,” 2) supreme authority singly, 3) the right to establish particular churches, 4) and to restrict or expand the jurisdiction of those already established; 5) the right to depose bishops, 6) to convoke councils, to decide what will be addressed, and to confirm or reject their decisions. The right to 7) select bishops, or approve or reject those nominate by others, 8) to appoint bishops, 9) and to consecrate bishops. By virtue of the Primacy, the Pope alone is: 10) the Vicar of Christ, 11) the visible head of the Church, 12) the Supreme judge (always has the final say in doctrinal matters, even during a council), 13) is not subject to any coercive power on earth (cannot be judged), and 14) has ordinary jurisdiction that extends over each particular Church and each member of the universal Church. The Pope alone is 15) the rock (Mt. 16:18), 16) who alone received the “keys” (Mt. 16:19), and 18) to he alone did Christ say: “feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (Luke 21), apply. Due to the Primacy, 19) the Pope alone is the head of the college of bishops, and 20) each bishop must be received by him to be a member of the college; 21) the “college” properly so-called, does not exist without the Pope (Christ did not confer the supreme power on the Apostles without the Pope, but on the Apostles together with the Pope); 22) the college can judge any bishop except the Pope; while 23) the Pope alone can judge any member of the college by himself.
Those are 23 differences between the Primacy and supreme authority.
Two subjects of supreme authority taught before Vatican II
The doctrine according to which the body of bishops in union with the Pope (the episcopal college) is a subject of supreme authority is taught all throughout the pre-Vatican II theology manuals, as well as in the Acts of the First Vatican Council itself.
Van Noort discusses the two subjects of supreme power in Christ’s Church, which was originally published in 1920. He explains that supreme jurisdiction was promised to St. Peter singly (Mt. 16:18), and also to the Apostles collectively with St. Peter (Mt. 18:18). He writes:
“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:” (Van
Noort, Christ’s Church, p. 67-68).
“The Catholic teaching” is that “full and supreme jurisdiction” resides in the Pope (Mt. 16:18), and also in the body of bishops together with the Pope (Mt. 18:18), just as Lumen Gentium would teach 45 years later. Indeed, this is a matter of Catholic apologetics 101. Eugene
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.” (Wernz, Ius Canonicum p. 259-60). Earlier in the same book, he teaches 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.” (Ius Canonicum Vol I. p 160-161)
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 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).
What Cardinal Mazzella declared to be the testimony of all of Scripture and tradition, the Society declares to be a heretical novelty of Vatican II that results in a new definition of the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
“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).
Vatican II’s Original Schema on the
Church
The Archbishop always praised the orthodoxy of Vatican II’s original schemas, which were prepared by Vatican II’s Central Preparatory Commission that he took part on. This is what he wrote about the original schemas in Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
“I was nominated a member of the
central preparatory commission by the Pope and I took an assiduous and
enthusiastic part in its two years of work. The central commission had the
responsibility of checking and examining all the preparatory schemas which came
from the specialist commissions. I was in a good position therefore to know
what had been done, what was to be examined, and what was to be brought before
the assembly.
“This work was carried out very
conscientiously and meticulously. I still possess the seventy-two preparatory
schemas; in them the Church's doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They
were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and
discretion.” (Open Letter to Confuse Catholics, chapter 14)
In light of the Archbishop’s endorsement of the original schema, let us see what it explicitly stated about the subject of supreme authority:
“The College of Bishops,
which succeeds the College of the Apostles in teaching authority and pastoral
government, and in which indeed the College of the Apostles continues to live
on, and which continuously bears witness to the mission of Jesus Christ and to
his teaching and laws, is believed to be, along with its head, the
Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the one subject (unum
subiectum) of full and supreme power over the whole Church.”
Notice that. The original schema teaches that the college of bishops, along with its head, is the “one subject” of supreme authority, which is the view that the Society denounces as the extreme liberal theory of the “ultra progressives” during Vatican II. To quote Fr. Bourmaud: “the most liberal interpretation considered that the subject of the supreme power was the College of bishops together with its head, the pope. The latter was simply primus inter pares—first among equals.” (The Problem with Collegiality, Interview with Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX). Yet the Archbishop praised the original schema as being absolutely orthodox.
Thankfully, the original schema was replaced by Lumen Gentium, which teaches the traditional doctrine. This shows just how confused Abp. Lefebvre was on the theology of the Episcopate. He condemned Lumen Gentium for teachings that the body of bishops together with the pope is also (in addition to the pope alone) a subject of supreme authority, and praised the original schema which that the “extreme liberal” view that the college of bishops with the Pope is the only subject of supreme authority. Now we know why the Society never mentions the original schema in their articles against collegiality.
The Acts of Vatican I
To further prove that the teaching of Lumen Gentium does not contradict Pastor Aeternus’ teaching that the Pope alone holds the Primacy, let us turn to the Acts of the First Vatican Council. During the official relatio on Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus, the official relator for the Deputation De Fide, Bishop Zinelli, affirmed that the body of bishops in union with the pope possess supreme authority over the universal Church – the same supreme authority that the Pope alone possesses by virtue of the Primacy. In his own words:
Bishop Zinelli: “We willingly agree
that supreme and total ecclesiastical sovereignty over all the
faithful resides also in ourselves [bishops], gathered in an
ecumenical council, in ourselves, the bishops, united to their head. Yes,
this perfectly fits the Church united to the head. The bishops
gathered with their head in an ecumenical council - in which case
they represent the whole Church - or
dispersed [i.e. not gathered in a council], yet in union
with their head - in which case they are the Church herself
- truly have supreme authority. But the words of Christ
should make everything clear. If by the fact that he promised to be
with the Apostles and with and their 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 [one subject]; by the same reason, from
the fact that similar promises were made to Peter alone and to
his successors, we can conclude that this same truly full and supreme
power was given to Peter and his successors [another subject], even
independently of their acting in common with the other bishops.” (Zinelli,
relatio on Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus)
The supreme power resides in “the bishops, united to their head,” when they are gathered in a council and when they are “dispersed,” and “the same truly full and supreme power” also resides in the Pope. Obviously, this does not contradict the doctrine that the Pope alone holds the Primacy, since that doctrine is taught in the very chapter that Zinelli was discussing.
We find the same teaching in the official relatio on the Second Dogmatic Constitution (on the Episcopate), which, unfortunately, was never approved due to the Council being suspended due to the Franco-Prussian War. Nevertheless, this is what the official relator for the Deputation De Fide, Bishop Kluetgen, said when explaining Chapter IV of the Constitution:
Bishop Kleutgen: “What is stated in
Chapter IV [of the Second Dogmatic Constitution of the Church] concerning the
part played by the bishops in the government of the universal Church and
the authority of the Ecumenical Councils does not in itself give rise to any
difficulty. For when bishops are called by the Supreme Pontiff to
participate in a council, they are not merely counselors, but together with the
Pope they issue decrees as true judges and definitors;
and these decrees are of the highest authority, and bind the whole Church:
hence, there is no doubt that bishops have a part in teaching and
governing the universal Church. But since it is no less clear, from
what has been defined in the canons of Chapter III of the First Constitution of
the Church (Pastor Aeternus), that the Roman Pontiff does not merely have the
greater part, but the whole plenitude of supreme power, it follows
that this power exists in two subjects: in the body of the bishops
conjoined with the pope, and in the pope alone.” (Kleutgen, relatio notes
for Vatican I’s Second Dogmatic Constitution, Tametsi Deus)
“The whole plenitude of supreme power … exists in two subjects: in the body of the bishops conjoined with the pope, and in the pope alone” – just as Bishop Zinelli, Van Noort, Fr Wernz, Cardinal Mazzella, and numerous other theologians I could cite, affirm, and just as ecumenical council (Lumen Gentium) has now authoritatively taught.
Unfortunately, not only did Archbishop Lefebvre reject the traditional teaching by insisting that “The Pope alone has supreme power” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 101). but he also rejected the new Code of Canon Law because it incorporated the traditional teaching 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?”[2] “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.”[3]
Fr. L. pointed to John Paul II’s scandalous act of kissing the Koran to justify the Society’s existence extra ecclesia (legally separated from the Roman Catholic Church); but what is worse: kissing the Koran one time in the 1980’s (perhaps impulsively, without reflection), or spending 50 years falsely accusing the Church of teaching heresy at an ecumenical council, and then rejecting canon law because it teaches the traditional doctrine?
Lefebvre’s Error and its Unintended
Consequence
Due to the error of equating supreme authority and the Primacy, the Archbishop denied that Christ instituted the Apostolic/Episcopal College as a permanent part of the Church’s divine constitution, whose members possess supreme authority for the government of the universal Church. Because of this, the Society only acknowledges the Primacy, that the Pope alone holds, and particular Churches (diocese), which are governed by individual bishops.
But how can bishops act as true judges in matters that pertain to the universal church, for example, during a council, if they lack supreme authority that extends over the universal Church? According to the Archbishop, the pope temporarily communicates his supreme authority to bishops during a council. “The pope communicates his supreme power in extraordinary cases like a council, but the pope and the bishops are not an ordinary [subject of supreme] power in Holy Church.” (Lefebvre).[4] Bishop Fellay says the same:
“Only the pope holds in a habitual and constant manner the supreme power, which he communicates only in special circumstances to councils, when so doing appears opportune to him.” (April 2014 - Superior General's Letter #82).[5]
Fr. Tranquillo repeats this teaching in his article Episcopat Et Collegialite. He insists that when a Pope convenes a council, he does not gather together the members of an alleged “college,” or body instituted by Christ whose members possess supreme authority, but merely chooses the bishops he wants and then communicates his supreme power to them: In his own words:
Tranquillo: When the Pope convenes a Council, which should be the most striking action of the College, he does not convoke the members of this alleged College, but the people whom he wants; he chooses them on the basis of a positive right; not because they are members of a Body instituted by Christ [i.e., the episcopal college]. In practice, the Pope alone possesses supreme power over the Church (cf. DzS. 3060), which he communicates according to his good pleasure.”
But here we run into a glaring contradiction. If
supreme power and the Primacy are one and the same, as the Society claims, and
if the pope communicates his supreme power to the bishops during a council, as
the Society also claims, that would mean the pope communicates to the bishop gathered
at a council his Primacy. But the Primacy includes numerous
privileges that cannot be separated from it. Consequently if the Pope
communicated his primacy to the bishops at a council, every bishop would immediately
become be the vicar of Christ on earth, the head of the universal Church, the
supreme judge, etc., which would result in the pope becoming, not the
“first among equals,” but “equal among equals,” at least until he
withdrew his Primacy from the other “Popes.”.
But as the Archbishop surely knew, the Pope cannot confer his Primacy with all its privileges on others. The Primacy is held by the Pope alone, as the Successor of St. Peter. Perhaps what the Archbishop meant is that the Pope communicates to the bishops, not the Primacy with all its privileges, but only “supreme power” (one aspect of the primacy), since that alone would suffice for them to be capable of acting as true judges in matters pertaining to the good of the universal Church? But if that is what the Archbishop meant, it would mean supreme power (over the universal Church) is not the same (same quiddity) as the Primacy after all, but is distinct from it. Which of course it is. It’s too bad the Archbishop, and every single priest formed in one of his seminaries, did not realize this and apply it accordingly when interpreting Lumen Gentium. This would have saved them from the extremely grave sin of publicly accusing an ecumenical council of heresy for teaching what it does not teach.
The Church is a Monarchy Sui
Generis (of its own kind)
As mentioned above, due to the Society fundamental error of equating supreme authority and the Primacy, they are necessarily forced to deny the existence of the Apostolic/Episcopal College, whose members share in supreme authority, as a perpetual part of the Church’s divine constitution, since in their mind this would contradict Pastor Aternus’ teaching that the Pope alone holds the Primacy. They also believe the existence of such a college would be contrary to the Church’s monarchical form of government, since in a monarchy supreme authority resides only in the head. What they don’t realize is that the Church’s government is an entirely unique form of monarchy. Because supreme authority resides in the entire episcopal college, the Church is a monarchy sui generis (of its own kind), as Cardinal Billot explains:
“In order to emphasize the unity of the Apostles, for which he prayed at the Last Supper, when he said, 'That they may be one, as we are one, that they may be perfect as one,' Christ arranged the apostolic college as a stable and perpetual institution, united to St. Peter, to share in the supreme power. Hence the monarchy of the Church is a monarchy of its own kind, and while it retains without limitation the full character of a monarchy in all respects, yet the government includes individual bishops joined to it, so that the bishops forming one body may exercise the supreme authority joined with their 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 there was the fullness of ecclesiastical authority, so too was it in the
whole college, considered collegially.
But how this can and ought to be understood,
must be explained in a little more detail, by a comparison between the
institutions established in St. Peter on the one hand, and in the entire
college on the other.
“First of all, from the force of the
words of the Gospel, there is not more power in the college than in Peter
alone. The reason is evident and clear, since it is said to Peter: ‘Whatever
you shall bind whatever you shall loose.’ (Quaecumque alligaveritis,
quaecumque solveritis). The college
has the same term and the same form: ‘Whatever you bind, whatever you
loose’. In addition, if in both cases it is evident that the power of the
college does not add to the supreme power of Peter alone, because to that which
is full, in the order in which it is considered fullness, nothing at all can be
added to it. …
However, it must be carefully
considered that the power of the apostolic college, taken as a college, does
not arise from the sum of the powers of the members of the college. For the
power of the college is the supreme power; but the power of each of the
Apostles without Peter, is only a particular and subordinate power. …Therefore,
the power of the college is adequately distinguished from the sum of the
particular powers of the individual members of the college.
“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.” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis XXVII 569-572)
That is the traditional teaching on the Apostolic/Episcopal College, which is now known as episcopal collegiality. Unfortunately, the Society’s error of equating supreme authority and Primacy necessarily prevents them from understanding this doctrine, since, in their mind, if the body of bishops in union with the pope possessed supreme authority, it would contradict Vatican I’s teaching that the pope alone holds the Primacy.
As a direct result of misunderstanding the meaning of supreme authority, the Society, and indeed the entire Counterfeit Church of Tradition, not only deny that Christ instituted the episcopal college in perpetuity as a subject of supreme authority, but they accuse Vatican II of heresy – and of allegedly teaching a novelty that alters the Church’s divine constitution - for teaching it! Yet what they call a novelty and accuse Lumen Gentium of heresy for teaching, is precisely what Cardinal Billot declared to be an explicit dogma seven decades earlier. Needless to say, teaching an explicit dogma is not heresy. Denying an explicit dogma, on the other hand, is.
Questions for Fr. L.
1) Do you agree that the Primacy and supreme authority are not one and the same?
2) Do you agree that the Society
has erred for 50 years by accusing LG of teaching that there are two subjects
of the Primacy, when what LG really teaches is two subjects of
supreme authority?
3) Do you agree that the
Archbishop and the Society are guilty of a serious crime against Christ and his
Church for falsely accusing LG of contradicting Vatican I’s teaching that
the Pope alone holds the Primacy, and for convincing hundreds of thousands of
confused Catholics of the same?
4) Do you agree that the
doctrine according to which the Pope, and the Pope together with the bishops,
are two subjects of supreme authority is not a “new definition of the
hierarchical Constitution of the Church,” as the Society claims, as evidenced
by the quotes I cited?
5) Do you agree that the Society and its priests, each and all, have a grave moral obligation to retract their false claims about collegiality as taught by Lumen Gentium, and admit that they were all deceived by Archbishop Lefebvre?
In the next email I will address the sacramentality of the episcopate, and the Society’s second fundamental error, namely, interpreting munera as meaning jurisdiction.
[1] https://academy.smac.edu/en/publications/letters/april-2014-superior-generals-letter-82-4128; Also here: https://fsspx.org/fr/publications/avr-2014-lettres-aux-amis-et-bienfaiteurs-ndeg82-36125
[2] "(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference at Ecône,
January 18, 1983)”
[3] (Lefebvre, Ecône, March 14, 1983)
[4] https://sspx.org/en/lefebvre-church-priesthood-and-indult).
[5] https://academy.smac.edu/en/publications/letters/april-2014-superior-generals-letter-82-4128
