Before I get to the Society’s second fundamental error on collegiality, I am going to show how they respond to what I wrote in the last email. The reason I know how they will respond is because I wrote an article several years ago that contained the same information (link below[1]), and someone forwarded me an email exchange he had about it with Fr. Tranquillo, who is one of the Society’s experts on collegiality. In reply, Father did not object to anything I wrote, but instead claimed that the real issue is the source of supreme authority. In other words, how bishops receive supreme authority: Here is an excerpt from that email:
“I have read Robert Siscoe's article on
collegiality and he seems to have a point. Collegiality appears as completely
and perfectly traditional. So I want to ask you how does the SSPX respond to
that.
Fr. Tranquillo: “As I have often tried to
underline, the question is about the source of the supreme power. … You
can say, as some old theologians do, that you have in the body of bishops a subject
of the supreme power, but you have also to say that this power comes ex
Petro (from Peter), not ex Christo (from Christ). The power of the
college according to LG doesn’t come from the Pope (even if it is exerted cum
Petro et sub Petro) but from Our Lord. In the same way, according to LG the
power of jurisdiction comes to bishops from ordination, not from the Pope.
…
“In short, we do not think that the LG doctrine about the two subjects would be ‘exactly the same’ as the doctrine of some old theologians, the difference being the source of the power, which is not a small question.
As you can see. The argument switched from LG allegedly teaching a novel doctrine that “presents a new definition of the hierarchical constitution of the Church,” and contradicts Pastor Aeternus’ teaching of the unicity of the subjects of the Primacy, to: LG allegedly contradicts “the old theologians” by teaching that the supreme power of the college comes from Christ (rather than from the Pope), and 2) allegedly contradicts Pius XII’s teaching that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, by allegedly teaching that bishops receive jurisdiction though their ordination.
Now, without going too deep into it here, I should address one more point about Fr. Tranquillo’s reply. Notice that he said, “You can say, as some old theologians do, that you have in the body of bishops a subject of the supreme power.” What he means is that a subject of supreme power is the pope. The pope alone is the subject of supreme power, and because he is within the body of bishops, “you have in the body of bishops a subject of supreme power,” namely, the Pope. That is what he really meant, and the reason he meant that is because, as I showed in the last email, the Society conflates supreme authority with the primacy. Since the pope alone holds the Primacy, the pope alone is the one within the college who possesses supreme authority. “Possesses” is the key word, since the Society explicitly states that the pope alone is the one who possesses supreme authority. Keep that in mind when we see what the old theologians actually teach about who in the college actually possesses supreme authority (aka universal jurisdiction).
These are
the questions that are left to be answered:
1) Does Lumen Gentium teach that bishops receive their jurisdiction from their episcopal consecration?
2) Does Lumen Gentium contradict what Pius XII taught concerning how bishops receive their jurisdiction?
3) Do the old theologians teach that the power of the college comes from the Pope, and not from Christ?
4) Do the old theologians teach that the college of bishops is a subject (possessor) of supreme authority because the college includes the pope, who alone possesses supreme authority, or do they teach that each and every member of the college also possesses supreme authority? “Possesses” is the key word that cuts through the Society’s ambiguity, since they explicitly state that the only one who possesses supreme authority is the pope. The college is only a subject of supreme authority because the pope is part of it.
To answer the first two objections, we need to clear up the Society’s second fundamental error, which is, one again, due to their misunderstanding a misunderstanding of the word munus, or the plural, munera.
Second Error: Interpreting munera as jurisdiction
The Society’s second fundamental error is also due to misunderstanding a term. In this case, the word munera (plural of munus) – “munera of teaching and governing” - is misinterpreted as “jurisdiction” (actual jurisdiction). For an example of this error, see Fr. Tranquillo’s error-ridden video on collegiality in the Society’s Crisis in the Church Series podcast (see here).
In the video, Fr. Tranquillo accuses Lumen Gentium of heresy (not merely an error, but heresy) for allegedly teaching that bishops receive the jurisdiction to teach and govern from their episcopal consecration, which, he claims, contradicts Pius XII’s non-definitive teaching that bishops receive their jurisdiction, not from their consecration, but “directly from the Roman Pontiff” (Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 42). Fr. Tranquillo also deceives the viewers by falsely claiming that this teaching of Pius XII is a “defined” teaching, which he knows is not true, because he admits it in one of his articles. Here is how Fr. Tranquillo explains the alleged heresy in the podcast:
“Lumen Gentium states very clearly
that jurisdiction – the power of government and teaching - is
given by the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by episcopal consecration,
which means you receive it directly from our Lord, because, you know, the
Sacrament is the act of Our Lord. … it
is Our Lord giving the fullness of the episcopacy… the power of sanctifying, the power of
governing, and the power of teaching, all together. You understand that this is problematic
because it is exactly the opposite of what we have been taught by the previous
popes. Exactly the opposite.” (21:55 – 22:57).
To further clarify the problem, he explains that there is a distinction between the Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction, which is true. Holy Orders (episcopal consecration), he says, does confer the power to sanctify (i.e., to administer sacraments), but it does not confer the jurisdiction (or power) to teach and govern, since bishops receive that directly from the Pope.
When asked to elaborate on why a
Catholic should reject this teaching of Lumen Gentium, he said: “If you believe
that, then you say (profess) heresy, something against the doctrine of
the Church … because it is defined.”[2]
He went on to say that this teaching of LG is the foundational heresy of Vatican II, which leads to all the others, such as the heresy that: 1) bishops possess supreme authority; 2) that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the visible hierarchical society that is the Roman Catholic Church, but also “subsists” outside of her visible boundaries (which Vatican II does not teach); 3) the heresy that sects with bishops who were “illicitly and sacrilegiously consecrated” (his words), and which are separated from the Church’s juridical structure (which is a perfect description of the SSPX and other Trad sects!) are part of the Catholic Church; which, he said, eventually leads to the heresy that all religions are more or less joined to, or part of, the Catholic Church.
All these heresies (and more), according to Fr. Tranquillo, flow from Lumen Gentium’s fundamental heresy that episcopal consecration confers the jurisdiction to teach and govern. Yet for some reason, Fr. Tranquillo never bothered to quote the text of Lumen Gentium that teaches this foundational heresy. That’s a pretty big omission, wouldn’t you say? And as coincidence would have it, when The Fatima Center and Fr. Albert put out their error-ridden video against collegiality (which only addressed the same alleged heresy of LG), they too failed to quote the actual text. Any idea why they didn’t quote it? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it doesn’t teach what they claim. Nowhere Lumen Gentium, or any other document of Vatican II, teach that bishops receive the jurisdiction - or the power - to teach and govern from their consecration. Here is the actual teaching of LG that Fr. Tranquillo and Fr Albert are referring to:
“The Sacred Council teaches that … Episcopal
consecration, together with the office (munus) of sanctifying, also confers the
office (munera) of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very
nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the
members of the college.” (Lumen Gentium, No. 21)
What Lumen Gentium says is conferred at episcopal consecration is a triple munera (to teach, govern and sanctify). The terms jurisdiction and power are nowhere to be found, which either means Fr. Tranquillo (and Fr. Albert) never read the actual text themselves and were just repeating what they had been told, or else they had read it and were lying.
What are the munera? The munera that are conferred at episcopal consecration are “internal ontological qualities”[3] that are attached to the episcopal character, the purpose of which is to deputize a person to perform the sacred functions of sanctifying, teaching, and governing, which are proper to the office of bishop. The triple munera ontologically equip the person “to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28) in the Person of Christ the Head, by configuring him to Christ in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king. The munera of teaching and governing are potential powers (potential jurisdiction), which relate to the exercise of the power of the keys in the external forum. They are not actual jurisdiction.
For these potential powers to become powers (potestates) that are ready to act, something more is required than episcopal consecration, namely, actual jurisdiction, which requires “canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority.” This is clearly explained in the Nota Praevia:
“In his consecration a person is
given an ontological participation in the sacred functions (munera); this is
absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word
"functions (munera)" is used deliberately instead of the word
"powers (potestates)," because the latter word could be understood
as a power fully ready to act. But for this power (the munera) to be fully
ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination
through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in
the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is
done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority.” (Nota Praevia)
If the munera of teaching and governing were jurisdiction, they would be powers that are ready to act, which the Nota Praevia explicitly says they are not. Now, if you are wondering how the Society can continue to interpret the munera as meaning actual jurisdiction when the Nota explicitly says they are not powers that are ready to act, the answer is that the Society does not accept the clarification given in the Nota. On the contrary, they attempt to prove that the Council’s own authoritative explanation of the meaning of the term is wrong.
To conclude this point, whereas Fr. Tranquillo said, “Lumen Gentium states very clearly that jurisdiction – the power of government and teaching - is given by the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by episcopal consecration,” what it LG really teaches is that “the munera of teaching and governing is given by the Sacrament of holy Orders, by episcopal consecration.” Neither jurisdiction nor power are found in the actual text, and the Nota Praevia explains precisely why the word power (potestate) was intentionally not used.
The
Nature of the Munera
Why would a bishop need an internal, ontological power in addition to actual jurisdiction to teach and govern, when teaching and governing are not sacramental acts? When a bishop teaches/governs, he does so with more than just authority. When a bishop authoritatively binds and loose, he does so in Personna Christi Capitiis (in the Person of Christ the Head) and Christ binds and looses through him.
The munera of teaching and governing are similar to the “power” to absolve sins that a priest receives through ordination. In both cases, the sacrament of Orders confers an indelible character, which includes a physical quality that relates to the exercise of the power of the keys: in the case of a priest, by binding and losing in the confessional (in the internal forum); for a bishop, by binding and loosing through the office of teaching and governing (in the external forum).[4] But in both cases, actual jurisdiction must be received before the “powers” (ontological qualities) attached to the indelible character become “powers that are ready to act”.
In his book on the Sacrament of Penance, Suarez provides an explanation of the nature of the potential power that a priest receives through ordination (attached to the indelible character) to absolve sins, which can be applied analogously to the munera that a bishop receives through consecration to teach and govern. I will quote Cardinal Manning summary of Suarez’ teaching:
“Suarez, in answer to the question, ‘whether
the power of absolution be a power of order or of jurisdiction,’ says that
the power of order is nothing else than the sacramental character, inasmuch as
by Divine ordination a person is thereby deputed to be a judge of souls in the
forum of Penance; he then adds that this character is a true quality
inhering in the soul, not, he says, a physical power: the character is a
physical quality, but the power inherent in it is moral. And this moral
power of being a judge in the forum of Penance is, as he says, that which
is given to the priest in his ordination.
“He then refutes the opinion that this
inherent moral power or deputation to the judge of conscience gives also jurisdiction,
and also (refutes) another opinion which asserted that it gives at least an
inchoate jurisdiction; and he affirms and defends an intermediate opinion which
asserts that while the power of absolution is given in ordination, the
jurisdiction over souls, without which it cannot be exercised, is given by a
superior, that is, by the Bishop to the priest, and by the Roman Pontiff to the
Bishop.
The (potential) power to absolve sins, which is attached to the indelible character, is given through ordination, but the exercise of this power requires actual jurisdiction, which is given by a superior when he assigns subjects. Subjects over whom jurisdiction can be exercised are the matter of actual jurisdiction. No subjects = no actual jurisdiction. This identical to the munera (of teaching and governing) that a bishop receives at consecration.
Just as the priestly character includes the inherent (potential) power to judge and absolve sins (to bind and loose in the internal forum) in Persona Christi, so too does the episcopal character include the munera to teach and govern (to bind and loose in the external forum) in Persona Christi Capitis.
In both cases, Christ works with a human agent through a power attached to the indelible character, in such a way that when the priest pronounces the words of absolution, Christ acts by absolving the penitent, and when a bishop binds and looses on earth in the external forum clave non errante (keys not erring), Christ acts by binding and loosing in heaven. In both cases, actual jurisdiction is required before the potential powers attached to the indelible character become “powers that are ready to act.”
Cardinal Manning explains the same point by distinguishing between the internal munus (office) to be a ruler of the Church of God (i.e., the munera of teaching and governing), which a bishop receives through his episcopal consecration, and the exercise of this munus, which he receives from the pope when he assigns him his subjects (i.e., gives him actual jurisdiction).
Cardinal Manning: “The munus (office) of a Bishop is to be a ruler of the Church of God. This comes by consecration, and is Divine. The exercitium muneris (exercise of the office) is through and from Peter, inasmuch as the Supreme Pontiff assigns the subjects of the Bishop. But the office that is exercised is Divine. The exercise is not the office itself. Munus and exercitium are neither equivalent nor identical. The power of absolution, and the exercise of that power in a priest, are not one and the same thing: so too the office of a Bishop is distinct from the exercise of that office. The exercise is indeed wholly a Petro et per Petrum (from Peter and through Peter), but not the office itself. The power of the keys … is in truth the radix officii et regiminis (the root of the office of government). This is given to the Bishop in consecration immediately from Christ. The office, therefore, is jure divino (of divine law) the exercise altogether jure humano (of human law); and yet the office in its origin, in itself (entitative), and in its effects clave non errante, is Divine. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven; and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.”
Notice that Cardinal Manning did not say the office of a bishop is to sanctify the Church of God, and only the power to sanctify comes from consecration. No, he said the office of bishop is to rule the Church of God – “the Holy Ghost has place you bishops to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28) – and this office, namely, the ruling powers of teaching and governing (as well as that of sanctifying) comes by consecration, which is exactly what the SSPX accuses Lumen Gentium of heresy for teaching.
Manning also explains that a bishop
receives the exercise of the munus from the pope when he assigns a
bishop his subjects. That is what Pius
XII meant when he said bishops receive their jurisdiction – that is, “the ordinary
power of jurisdiction” that a bishop enjoys “his own diocese” - from the Pope (Mystici
Corporis Christi, No. 42). Since subjects
are the matter of actual jurisdiction, and since bishops receive their
subjects when they are appointed to office, it follows that bishops receive
their actual jurisdiction (in actu secundo) from the pope when he appoints them
to office.
To conclude, Lumen Gentium does not teach that episcopal consecration confers jurisdiction to teach and govern; therefore, it does not contradict Pius XII’s teaching that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope.
Once again, the Society is guilty of publicly accusing an ecumenical council of heresy for teaching what it does not teach. Fr. Tranquillo’s entire video is, unfortunately, another barrage of false accusations of heresy and strawman arguments against the Roman Catholic Church, due to the Society inexcusable misinterpretation of terminology. Yet, in spite of the entire video being full of errors from start to finish, it was praised to the skies in the comment section. Here is a sampling of the enthusiastic praise it received:
“Outstanding explanation by Fr Don Tranquillo - a brilliant
theological explanation oozing truth, clarity and precision in the great
confusion of our times made manifest by the errors of the documents of The
Second Vatican Council including Lumen Gentium. Well well done Fr.”
“Thanks as usual for another enlightening episode. I am always impressed with the collective clarity of the SSPX.”
“Great video and very illuminating!”
“The Crisis in the Church Series has been immensely helpful to me! Especially this episode, which answered some questions I've had for years.”
“Wow! absolutely fascinating. This series of talks has been really educational, many thanks.”
“Enlightening and life changing. Thank you.”
“The SSPX is living proof of the intellectual excellence of the true faith.”
What this shows is that, if there is one thing Catholics with itching ears appreciate during today, the “great revolt” (2 Thess. 2:3),[5] it is being deceived and led into heresy by a priest who wears a cassock and celebrates the old mass.
Will the Real Heretic Please Stand up
Now, although Lumen Gentium does not teach that bishops derive the power (potestate) to teach and govern their flocks (actual jurisdiction), from episcopal consecration, there was a Prelate during Vatican II who did teach this doctrine. Before revealing his name, let us read what he taught during a public intervention that he delivered in October of 1963, during the conciliar debate over collegiality:
“The Holy Council of Trent, basing itself on these sacred traditions, confirms that the Roman Pontiff alone possesses in his own person a full, ordinary episcopal power over the universal Church [i.e., universal jurisdiction]. As to the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, as true pastors they feed [teach] and govern [rule] their own flock entrusted to them, each bishop with a personal power, direct and complete, deriving from his sacred consecration.”[6]
Bishops derive the power (jurisdiction) to teach and govern their own flock from their sacred consecration? Who was this Prelate who taught what Fr. Tranquillo declares to be the foundational heresy of Vatican II? It was none other than Archbishop Marcell Lefebvre! You can read the entire intervention in Chapter 2 of Lefevre’s book, I Accuse the Council, which the Society has proudly kept in print since 1976.
In light of the Crisis Series Podcast on Collegiality, perhaps the Society should include a note in the next printing of Lefebvre’s book warning the reader that this teaching of the Archbishop is the foundational heresy of Vatican II.
What does the Original Schema of Vatican II teach?
As we saw in the last email, Vatican II’s original schema on the Church (De Ecclesia), which the Archbishop praised along with the other original schemas as being “absolutely orthodox,” not only taught that the episcopal college is a subject of supreme power, which the Society accuses Lumen Gentium of heresy for teaching, but it taught that the episcopal college is the “one subject” of supreme power, which the Society denounces as the worst of the three opinions – that of the ultra-progressives – that was discussed during Vatican II.
The question now is: what does the original schema teach about episcopal consecration? Does it teach that a bishop only receives the power to sanctify through his episcopal consecration, which is what Fr. Tranquillo (and the entire SSPX) maintains, or does it teach that “together with the office of sanctifying” episcopal consecration “also confers the munera of teaching and governing,” which the Society accuses Lumen Gentium of heresy for teaching? Let’s find out. I will begin by quoting Lumen Gentium so the two texts can be compared:
Lumen Gentium: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office (munera) of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.” (Lumen Gentium, No. 21)
Original Schema: “Although ordination to the highest level of the Priesthood [i.e., episcopal consecration], together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices (munera) of teaching and governing, which constitute jurisdiction, nevertheless, Bishops do not receive the exercise of jurisdiction from their sacred ordination itself, but in virtue of a mission…” (Draft, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, No, 14).
The original schema teaches exactly what the SSPX publicly accuses Lumen Gentium of heresy for teaching. Actually, the original schema is “worse,” since it says the munera of teaching and governing “constitute jurisdiction.” Does that mean the “absolutely orthodox” original schema contradicted the teaching of Pius XII?
No, the original schema does not contradict the teaching of Pius XII. As Cardinal Manning explains in his book on the Episcopate: “the word jurisdiction has been used in two senses: sometimes to denote the inherent power of government contained in potentia (in potency) in the power of the keys [which are conferred at consecration]; and sometimes for the actual exercise of the power of the keys upon subjects assigned by the Church.” The original schema is obviously using the word jurisdiction in the former sense (aka, as potential jurisdiction), whereas Pius XII was clearly using it in the latter sense (aka, as actual jurisdiction). It is also worth noting that a licit episcopal consecration does confer actual jurisdiction, or rather “supreme and full power over the universal Church,” since a licit episcopal consecration incorporates a person into the episcopal college; and the members of the episcopal college all share in the supreme authority over the universal Church.
Fortunately, however, due to the ambiguity of the word jurisdiction, not only did the revised schema (Lumen Gentium) remove the word from the text, but it went further by explaining, in the Nota Praevia, that the munera of teaching and governing are not per se powers that are ready to act, thereby preventing any heretics from later interpreting the “munera” as actual jurisdiction, and then accusing the council of heresy for allegedly contradicting the (non-definitive) teaching of Pius XII (needless to say, contradicting a non-definitive papal teaching is not heresy). Unfortunately, their efforts were to no avail, since the Society both interprets the munera of teaching and governing as meaning actual jurisdiction, and accuses LG of heresy for allegedly contracting Pius XII’s non-definitive teaching.
Everything the Society rejects concerning Lumen Gentium’s teaching on “collegiality” is in the original schema. The only difference is that, according to the Society’s own arguments, the wording used in the original schema is worse. Yet, the Archbishop assured us that the original schemas were “absolutely orthodox,” since they were prepared by Vatican II’s Central Preparatory Commission that he proudly served on
What this shows is that the Society would have accused Vatican II of heresy even the council had promulgated the original schemas.
Cardinal
Manning’s Prediction
I will end this email with a prediction of Cardinal Manning.
In his book The Pastoral Office (1883), Manning predicted that the next council would pick up where Vatican I left off (after being cut short due to the breakout of thee Franco Prussian War) by defining that episcopal consecration not only confers the office (munus) of sanctifying, but also confers the munus of governing, which is precisely what Vatican II did, and what the Society rejects.
Cardinal Manning: “…may we not reasonably
believe that the next time
the Church meets
in Council, whether by
the reassembling of
the Council of the
Vatican, or in
any other way,
the first duty will
be to take
up the work
already prepared, and to
define the Divine
powers of the
Episcopate, and its relation
to its Head? ... But
the language of
certain schoolmen and others
has made it
necessary that the Episcopate
should be not
only implicitly, as it
already is, but explicitly defined
to be by divine law (divino jure), superior to
the priesthood, and
in itself an
order of Divine institution,
and a Sacrament
which impresses a character
and confers a
sacramental grace for
the government of the
Church; not an
office (munus) only for
certain functions, such
as Confirmation, ordination,
and Consecration [i.e., functions that relate to the munus of
sanctification], transcendent as
these are: or,
in a word, that
the Episcopate is “the priesthood of Christ placed by the
Holy Ghost to rule the Church” (sacerdotium
Christi ad regendam Ecclesiam
a Spiritu Sancto
positum).
It will, I believe, be defined that in virtue of consecration every Bishop receives the apostolic power of the keys, and that in this Divine grant resides the power of governing the Church (cf. Ballerini, De Potest. SS. Pontiff, c. i. s. 1). The potential jurisdiction of governing is as full in every Bishop by consecration, as the potential jurisdiction of absolving is in every priest by ordination. The Bishop may never hold a diocese, and may never receive actual jurisdiction; the priest may never receive faculties, and may never absolve a soul. But the Divine power is there, and to deny it will, I believe, be noted as rash and erroneous at least.”
What Manning predicted that the next council would teach is exactly what the next Council did teach, and what the SSPX – and the other sects that belong to the “Church of Tradition” - publicly accuses the council of heresy for teaching.
Just as the Society is guilty of falsely
accusing Lumen Gentium of heresy for allegedly contradicting Pastor Aeternus,
due to the error of equating supreme authority and the Primacy, so too is the
Society guilty of falsely accusing Lumen Gentium of heresy for allegedly
contradiction the non-definitive teaching of Pius XII, due to their
error of interpreting munera of teaching and governing as actual
jurisdiction. Both false accusations against the Roman Catholic Church are due
to the Society’s misunderstanding Catholic terminology.
[1] https://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/collegiality-part-i.html
[2] (33:00
– 33:30).
[3]
Journet, The Theology of the Church, pp 359-360.
[4] A
priest exercises the power of the keys by judging and absolving in confession.
A bishop exercising the power of the keys, not only by absolution, but also by
binding and losing in the exercise of his office of teaching and governing.
[5] It is also
worth noting that if you dig into the meaning of the great revolt that St. Paul
speaks of, which precedes the coming of the Antichrist, what you find is that
it almost certainly refers to a “great revolt” against Rome – not temporal
Rome, but spiritual Rome, namely, the Roman Catholic Church, or as the
Archbishop preferred to call it, the Conciliar Church. And what else becomes
clear based on the Fathers explanation of the Greek is that the ones who are revolting
are the schismatics, who St. John calls antichrists – those “who went
out from us” (1 John 2:18-19). The revolt
of the mini-antichrists (schismatics) paves the way for the coming of the
Antichrist. What is The Counterfeit
Church of Tradition? It is hundreds, if
not thousands, of schismatics sects of “antichrists” who are revolting against
the “Conciliar Church,” which is none other than the Roman Catholic Church. But that is another topic.
[6] https://fsspx.news/en/collegiality-excerpt-i-accuse-council-31340
