Collegiality Quotes
Robert Siscoe
OVERVIEW
1) Supreme
Universal Jurisdiction is proper to the Pope by virtue of his office.
2) Particular
Jurisdiction is proper to Bishops by virtue of their office; and once
appointed, they possess it by divine law.
3) Supreme
Universal jurisdiction (collegiate power) is proper to the Episcopal
college. The episcopal college consists of the bishops, collectively taken, in
union with the Pope.
4) The
supreme jurisdiction that is proper to the Pope is identical to – one and the
same with = the supreme jurisdiction that is proper to the episcopal
college.
5) The
Pope receives his jurisdiction immediately from Christ when he is elected and
accepts.
6) Bishops
receive their ordinary jurisdiction directly from the Pope when they are
appointed.
7) Bishops
receive their participation in the collegiate power by episcopal consecration
(character = munera) and canonical union with the Pope (munera
becomes potentia); canonical union is realized by a canonical
determination, such as a receiving title to office (even a titular see), or by
public recognition as a member of the college.
(Grea says title is not per se required, as evidenced by the fact that
many of the first bishops had no title, yet they not only had, but exercised, the
collegiate power).
8) Various
terms used for the collegiate power: supreme authority, supreme power,
universal jurisdiction, supreme universal jurisdiction, full and supreme
authority over the entire Church, etc., but the meaning is always the same: the
authority to teach and govern the universal Church.
THE
PRIMACY
9)
The
Primacy is distinct from universal jurisdiction.
a) Apostolic and Episcopal sees are legally established particular churches with rights, duties, and privileges attached to them. (Franzelin)
10) The Apostolic See of Rome includes the Primacy of St.
Peter, which makes the bishops of Rome the Successor of St. Peter and bestows
upon him distinct privileges that are attached to the Petrine office. The
privileges of the Primacy include:1) “separate infallibility” and 2) supreme
universal jurisdiction singly, as well as 3) the right to establish particular
Churches; 4) restrict or expand the jurisdiction of those previously
established; 5) the right to depose bishops in charge of episcopal sees; 6) to
convoke such councils, to preside over them, and to confirm their decisions, 7) to select, appoint and consecrate bishops (or to
refuse those who have been proposed by others).[1] By
virtue of the Primacy, the Pope is: 8) the Vicar of Christ,9) the visible head
of the Church, 10) the Supreme judge (always has the final say in doctrinal
matters, even during a council), 11) is not subject to any coercive power on
earth (cannot be judged), and 12) has ordinary jurisdiction that extends over
each particular Church. 13) the Pope alone is the rock. (Mt. 16:18)
11) Because
of the Primacy: 14) the Pope alone has the “keys” (Mt. 16:19), is 15) the head
of the college of bishops; 16) each bishop must be in union with him to
be part of the college; and 17) the “college” properly so-called, does not
exist without him (Christ did not confer the supreme power on the Apostles
without the Pope, but on the Apostles together with the Pope); 18) the college
can judge any bishop except the Pope; the Pope, by himself, can judge any
bishop.
12) As
members of the Episcopal College, the bishops hold the supreme power
collectively, and can only exercise it with the consent (at least tacit) of the
Pope; the Pope holds it singly, and can exercise it without the consent of the bishops.
As members of the College, bishops share in infallibility collectively, but can
only exercise it corporately along with the Pope; the Pope possesses
infallibility singly, as a privilege of the Primacy, and can exercise it
without the consent of the bishops.
13) The
other Apostles had the privileges of personal infallibility and
universal jurisdiction as properly their own, as well as the right to found
particular Churches, but they nevertheless remained subject to St. Peter
because he alone held Primacy. (see, Journet, p. 144-5; Salaveri – quotation
below)
14) It
was to St. Peter alone that Christ say, ‘Feed My Lambs, Feed My Sheep,” showing
that his authority extends over all. St.
Peter alone received the “keys” (Mt. 16:18)
15) St.
Thomas makes this distinction between St. Peter and the other Apostles: He says
they are equal in carrying out Christ’s plan (in executione actoritatis), but
Peter alone has the structural authority to rule (auctoritas regiminis). Journet explains the same distinction by saying
all the Apostles had the power of founding the universal Church, like a
workman who lays the foundation of a building, but Peter alone had the
power to founding the Church like a rock upon which the weight of the
building rests. (ibid. p. 145). See Cajetan’s teaching in the footnote on
the same page.
I SSPX/Sede Quotes Against Collegiality
II Moral Body
II(b) One the three powers (munera)
II(c) Consecration
confers munere quotes and Society/Sede errors.
III Universal And Particular Jurisdiction
IV Further Clarification Concerning
How Universal and Particular Jurisdiction
is Received (Confirmation of Vatican II’s teaching in the Nota)
V Manning’s
Prediction of Vatican II and what it would teach
VI A. Phrase College of Bishops
B.
The term collegiality or a other derivative of college.
VII The Episcopate Is One – St. Cyprian
Quote
VIII Bishops Participate in A Council By
Divine Law, Not Merely Ecclesiastical Law (Contra The SSPX’s Objections To The
1983 Code Of Canon Law)
IX New Quotes
X Two Subjects of The Supreme Power
XI Scriptural Foundation for the Two
Subjects of Supreme Power
XII (A) Two Subjects Even When Dispersed
(B) Jurisdiction,
how to bishops receive it, what is it, what is munere?
XIII Why There Can Be No Conflict Between the Two Subjects:
XIV Peter Alone Holds the Primacy
a. Prerogatives
of the Primacy
XV Two Subjects of Infallibility
XVI Bishops are True Judges and Definitors
XVII Apostolic
College Succeeded by the Episcopal College
XVIII Ordinary
and Extraordinary privileges of the Apostles
XIX How
was Peter greater than the other Apostles who had universal jurisdiction?
XX Quotes from Grae’s book on the
Episcopate
XIX OTHER
I Quotes from SSPX (and others) Contra Collegiality”
Sanborn: “They invalidated the
rite or episcopal consecration, and this is owing to their heretical notion of
collegiality; that simply by being consecrated a bishop, you have the right to
rule the whole Church, together with other bishops in a type of congress or
synod. That’s a heresy. It was condemned by Pius VI back in the 18th
century. But they have changed the form, the essential words, of the episcopal
consecration, to reflect that heresy.
And it is a general principal in the Church, that if the form of a
sacrament is changed, in order to promulgate a heresy, in order to state a
heresy, it invalidates the sacrament. So they have invalidated the episcopal
consecration ceremony. … We must continue the Catholic episcopacy through these
times [i.e., by our illicit episcopal consecrations.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVb4TN2lRCk
Canon 336 codifies
the collegiality of Vatican II. The “college of bishops,” a
20th century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the
pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. (SSPX, Should we
accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law?)
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q8_1983_code_of_canon_law.htm
Lefebvre: “Another grave
problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon
Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.
“In the Council they
succeeded, for example, in avoiding the creation of two supreme powers in the
Church: the pope on the one hand, and on the other hand, the pope and the
bishops as two ordinary powers in the Church, which is contrary to the doctrine
of the Church. There is only one supreme ordinary power in the Church and that
is the pope. The pope communicates his supreme power in extraordinary cases
like a council, but the pope and the bishops are not an
ordinary power in Holy Church. Besides, it is contradictory because the bishops
could claim this power from the pope if the pope acts alone, saying: "We
also have supreme power with you, therefore you must consult us." The pope
could say, "But I alone have the power"—"Yes, but we have it
with you," and thus he would be in continual conflict with the bishops.
That is inadmissible. Our Lord did not found the Holy Church in such a way that
there would be a continual conflict between the pope and the bishops.”
(Lefebvre, Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to priests on October 29, 1984 at
Stuttgart, Germany, https://sspx.org/en/lefebvre-church-priesthood-and-indult).
Lefebvre:
“The new Code of Canon Law contains articles which are contrary to the mission
of the Church. When it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a Protestant [Lie
#1], it cannot be denied that is contrary to the mission of the Church. When the
affirmation is made that there are two supreme authorities in the Church
[Lie #2], it cannot be denied that this is contrary to the mission of the
Church. This definition of the Church as the People of God in which all of the
ministries basically can be found and in which there is no longer any
distinction between the clergy and the lay people [Lie #3], is contrary to the dogma.
All of this is contrary to the mission of the Church. The fundamental
principles of the Code of Canon Law are being destroyed! How are we expected to
submit and obey?” (Lefebvre, 20 Years of Struggle, September 1986 – VERY
IMPORTANT DOCUMENT: https://sspx.org/en/twenty-years-struggle)
Fr. Gleize: “there is
only one subject of the supreme power, and it is the Pope.” (Fr. Gleize, Une
Tentative De Justification 0De La Collegialite: Le Livre Du Pere F. Dupre La
Tour)
Gleize (could be Tranquillo): “For the Council, the apostolic ministry was instituted by Christ ad modum collegii seu coetus stabilis .
The mission entrusted to the Apostles, their authority, were not conferred on
singular subjects, but on a whole. … What should worry us in this number is
that it is said that Our Lord would have first established this College, with
the aim of preaching, sanctifying and governing; and afterwards he would have
put Peter at its head, ex iisdem electum .
Many passages from the New Testament are quoted to support this thesis. Now we
notice that in these passages only two speak of a promise or collation of power
over the Church or the flock of Christ, and these are Mt. XVI, 16 and Joan.
XXI, 15-17, which only concern Saint Peter alone. All
the other passages quoted, where a common mission is entrusted to the Apostles,
speak of the mission to evangelize the world, therefore a mission ad extra , towards the non-baptized, who
are not yet subjects of the Church. This
is more a matter of a common charge than of a collegial power: besides, one
does not see how a charge common to several people would constitute them into a
College, and even more so into a College having any power whatsoever. »
(Episcopate And Collegiality)
Gleize (could be Tranquillo): « The perpetuity of the
Episcopate (n. 20) «Number 20
explains to us that the mission entrusted to the Apostles continues thanks to
the Bishops. To be exact, the letter of the text makes it clear that the
Apostles transmitted their power to different ministers, among whom the Bishops
hold the first place: if this is true in a certain way for the power of
orders, we do not know not how it would be also for the power to
govern. » (Episcopate And Collegiality)
Gleize (could be Tranquillo): The
Council then affirms that the Bishops succeed the Apostles, that this munus
is transmitted like that of Saint Peter is transmitted to his successors. We
will come back to this analogy when it is taken up more explicitly in n. 22.
For the moment, let us note that to succeed the Apostles in the exercise (sic)
of the munus gubernandi Ecclesiam is the ordo sacratus Episcoporum . Now, if
this succession of Bishops to Apostles had been affirmed in a very generic way,
with reference only to the power of order, at the Council of Trent (DzS.
1768), it had been well defined at Vat. I: the ordinary and immediate
jurisdiction of Bishops is that “qua Episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu Sancto in
Apostolorum loco successorunt, tamquam veri pastores assignatos sibi greges
singuli singulos pascunt et regunt ” (DzS. 3061). It is quite different, as we
can see, to say that the Bishops succeed the Apostles as regards the power of
order, as the Council of Trent does, and that each Bishop succeeds the Apostles
for the fact that he governs with ordinary power his own flock, like Vatican I,
than to say that the episcopal order forever exercises the office of
governing the Church. How can an order be subject to this power? The
Council will tell us...(Episcopate And
Collegiality)
Gleize (could be Tranquillo): The
Sacramentality of the Episcopate (n. 21) Here we are at one of the two key points
of the problem. What has been said so far finds its explanation in this issue.
We have spoken so far of powers and succession, we will now see how these
powers are transmitted (n. 21) and what is their extension (n. 22).
“The power received from the Apostles and
transmitted to the Bishops is first said spirituale donum, and we see that it
is indeed this gift which is transmitted per impositionem manuum (…) in
episcopali consecratione . This consecration confers the plenitudinem
sacramenti Ordinis and imprints a character, LG tells us, thus wanting to
resolve the question of the sacramentality of the Episcopate. We are
willing to accept this thesis, which logically should lead the Council to the
opposite of the conclusions it pursues. In fact, if we look at Session XXIII of
the Council of Trent, we read there that the priesthood conferred by Christ on
the Apostles and their successors is called potestatem … consecrandi, offerendi
et ministrandi Corpus et Sanguinem ejus, nec non et peccata dimittendi and
retinendi (DzS. 1764); in particular the Bishops who in Apostolorum locum
successorunt … presbyteros superiores esse, ac sacramentum confirmationis
conferre, ministros Ecclesiae ordinare, atque alia pleraque peragi ipsos posse (DzS.
1768). So here are the effects of Ordination [priestly ordination, not
episcopal consecration] as they were described to us by the Council of
Trent: a power linked to the physical Body of Christ and to the sanctification
of souls, and in no way to the external government of the Church. LG, on the
other hand, explicitly states that episcopal consecration “ cum munere
sanctificandi, munera quoque confert docendi et regendi, quae tamen natura sua
nonnisi in hierarchica communione cum Collegii Capite et membris exercisei
possunt ”.
Tissier: “This is notably the case with the
three major teachings of the Council: religious freedom, collegiality, and
ecumenism. Not without reason, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre saw in these three
innovations a reflection of the three liberal values of the French
Revolution, formalized by the three terms of the motto of the French Republic:
liberty, equality, and fraternity.
– More precisely, through collegiality
, the “Church of the Council” has assimilated the egalitarian and democratic
model. The Church is no longer primarily hierarchical, founded on Peter and the
Apostles in whom it has its origin and constitution, but it is firstly the
“people of God” in whose bosom various functions are subsequently raised,
including that of governing, of which the pope and the bishops are
depositories. Certainly, the pope exercises the function of supreme power, but
the bishops are constituted in a college (we do not know by what authority),
whose head is the pope, and this college also enjoys supreme authority. The
authority of the pope alone is therefore counterbalanced by that of the college
under his head. The Church is therefore two-headed, it is no longer
monarchical. It was no longer appropriate for the Church to call itself
hierarchical and monarchical. It was necessary for it to acquire the democratic
“value,” so as not to be at odds with modern societies.” https://www.seldelaterre.fr/articles/sdt80/qu'est-ce-qu'un-concile-pastoral
Gleize (could be Tranquillo: “LG and the Nota
previa insist on specifying the plenitude of the powers of the Head, who can
act alone, freely and independently of the College, by summoning it or not: the
extension of papal power is absolutely secured. It is clear, however, that if the
Pope consents to a collegial act, the subject who
performs the act is the College: this is
clearly defined as a subiectum quoque supremae ac plenae potestatis in
universam Ecclesiam . There is therefore a second subject of absolute power in
the Church: the Pope does not confer power on her, he is neither the
formal cause nor the efficient cause of this power; it is simply the motive
cause for the exercise of this power. [Right!]
If LG took care, because of the pressures
of the minority, to safeguard the extension of the papal power, it was not
worried about preserving its uniqueness. 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: pretending to ignore that
if the Savior gave to all Apostles the power to bind and loose, he only gave
Peter the Keys, symbol of the source of this power, and Peter alone the order
to feed the flock. It is therefore useless to
establish any parallelism between the two passages, useless any quoque.
“We are in full
contradiction, and without issue, with Pastor aeternus (DzS.
3053-54): UNI Simoni Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi
pastoris et rectoris jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile dicens: “Pasce agnos
meos”, “Pasce oves meas”. Huic tam manifestae sacrarum Scripturarum doctrinae,
ut ab Ecclesia Catholica semper intellecta est, aperte opponuntur pravae
eorumssentiae, qui constitutam a Christo Domino in sua Ecclesia regiminis
formam pervertentes negant, solum Petrum prae ceteris Apostolis sive seorsum
singulis sive omnibus simul vero proprioque primatu flee a Christo instructum;
aut qui affirming, eundem primatum non immediate directeque ipsi beato Petro,
sed Ecclesiae et per hanc illi ut ipsius Ecclesiae ministro delatum futisse ”.
“On the contrary, for LG there are two
supreme powers in the Church: the Pope and the College (=Pope + Bishops). The
Pope can even be said to exercise his power in two capacities: vi muneris sui,
Vicarii scilicet Christi et totius Ecclesiae Pastoris and as Caput Collegii. By barely forcing the texts, we can even make them say
that there is only one power instituted by Christ, that of the College, which the Pope can exercise alone because he is its
Head and the representative (which falls under the condemnation of the second
part of the text of Pastor aeternus quoted above). We are quite the
opposite of the vision taught by Vatican I. (Ibid)
Gleize (could be
Tranquillo): Relations of Bishops within the
College (n. 23) This number is one of the useless chatter with which the
conciliar documents are full. It is said there that as each Bishop is a member
of a College having the supreme power, it follows that he is personally bound
to have concern for the universal Church and the proclamation of the Gospel.
What can be said, at different levels, of all Christians, without their needing
any authority for it (and indeed, to all the faithful, as Pius XI says in Rerum
Ecclesiae , applies the exhortation of Christ that Saint Celestine I addressed
to the Bishops of the Council of Ephesus, and which LG takes up to support his
thesis).” (Ibid)
NOTE:
The above teaching is simply a reiteration of what all the pre-Vat II
theologians say – See Journet.
Angelus Press's Edition of SiSiNoNo begins
a lengthy serialization of errors ascribed to the Second Vatican Council:
Part II: “An erroneous
notion of collegiality. This idea is juridically abnormal because it
recognizes, contrary to tradition and the Church's constitution, two subjects
of the supreme power of jurisdiction: the Sovereign Pontiff and the College of
Bishops with, at its head, the Pope, although only the latter can exercise it
freely (LG §22; also Nota Praevia). Moreover, this erroneous collegiality
entails the de facto disappearance of the personal responsibility of each
bishop in the government of his diocese, and its replacement by the collective
responsibility of the episcopal conferences (Christus Dominus [CD] §37), which
now also are ascribed legislative powers (CD §38), and even a wide autonomy in
numerous domains traditionally reserved to the exclusive competence of the Holy
See.” https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_March/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
John Daly:
“It concerns the resistance of the leading conservative bishops to the new
doctrine of episcopal collegiality taught in the constitution Lumen Gentium.
During the conciliar discussions…” https://romeward.com/articles/239751111/paul-vi-admonished-for-heresy-by-two-cardinals Also see what he wrote in his book against Michael Davies – Michael Davies, An
Evaluation.
“Lumen Gentium, by suggesting that the college of
bishops together with the Pope exercises supreme power in the Church has
introduced a new notion of collegiality, a democratization of the government
within the Church, destroying personal authority of the Pope over the
Cardinals, the bishops, and even the faithful.” (What is the Problem with
Collegiality? - Episode 11 - SSPX FAQ Series)
See 3:19 – 3:43: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcdfFbh33Rw
“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 a 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.”
(Sanborn)
“The doctrine of
Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the
subject 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.” (Sanborn).[2]
Rorate Caeli, FSSP
Priest: “We proceed to examine first a key text concerning collegiality, and
then the Note in question.
i) ‘… the Roman
Pontiff… has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church… Together
with its head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, it [the apostolic
college] is the subject of supreme and full authority over the Universal Church;
but this power cannot be exercised without the consent of the Roman Pontiff’
(Lumen Gentium 3. 22).
The Council, by
first stating (correctly) that the Pope has supreme and universal power over
the Church, and by then stating that the Bishops are, together with the Pope a
‘subject of supreme and full authority’ over the Church, suggests that not only
the Pope but also the ‘College of Bishops’ constitute a head of the Church, in
accordance with the moderate theory of collegiality which we have mentioned
above. This, however, is heterodox. For only the Pope possesses supreme and
full authority over the Universal Church, so that there can only be one
(visible) Head of the Church, and that Head of the Church is the Pope: :
‘If any-one shall say that the Supreme
Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and direction and not a full and
supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things
which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the
discipline and government of the Church spread out through the world… Anathema
sit’ 11. If the Pope therefore possesses a full and supreme power over the
Church, it follows that no other person or group of persons can do so: ‘The one
and unique Church… [has] not two heads, like a monster, but one body and one
head, namely Christ, and His Vicar, Peter’s successor…”[3]
Lefebvre: ““There
is no usual, permanent collegiality. It does not exist, it cannot exist
because that would defeat power. Who is the one who will exercise
power? The Pope with the Bishops, or the Pope alone? There cannot be
two parallel authorities, that is not possible. Our Lord did not make an
institution which is not viable ”(December 19, 1983).
SSPX,
Fellay: “1. 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) 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 is an open door to a decrease in the Sovereign
Pontiff’s power, or even to its being challenged, at the risk of endangering
the unity of 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. 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).[4]
SSPX,
Fellay: From these values of the world came the three great novelties
introduced by Vatican II: religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism.
4.
So on the authority of this immediate and universal rule of the revealed truth
that is the constant Magisterium, we contest the new doctrines that are
contrary to it. That is exactly the criterion given by St. Vincent of Lerins:
“The
criterion of truth and, moreover, of the infallibility of the Pope and of the
Church, is its conformity to Tradition and to the deposit of the Faith. Quod
ubique, quod semper—That which is taught everywhere and always, in space and in
time.” [9]
But
Vatican II’s doctrine on ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty is a
new doctrine, contrary to Tradition and to the public law of the Church,
which is itself based on divinely revealed principles, which are thus
immutable. We conclude from this that the Council, having wished to propose
these novelties, is deprived of a constraining magisterial authority, to
the very extent that it proposes them.” https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2014-superior-generals-letter-82-4128
CMRI: .
Q. What false
doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?
A. The teaching of
Vatican II concerning collegiality 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.[5]
CMRI: “The fourth
heresy is that of collegiality… 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.”[6]
Open Letter to
Confused Catholics: “The pope is described as the head of the College of
Bishops. We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council document Lumen
Gentium, according to which the College of Bishops, together with the pope,
exercises supreme power in the Church in habitual and constant manner. This
is not a change for the better; this doctrine of double supremacy is
contrary to the teaching and magisterium of the Church. It is contrary to the
definitions of Vatican Council I. The
Pope alone has supreme power; he communicates it only to the degree he
considers advisable, and only in exceptional circumstances. The pope alone
has power of jurisdiction over the whole world.”[7]
Lots of SSPX
quotes here: https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
Fr. Gleize: 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 and two modes of exercise, alone or collegiately; b)
that the collegiate mode is extraordinary; c) that the collegiate mode takes
place by order of the pope, and exclusively insofar as he decides by way of
authority. 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; b) that the collegial subject is ordinary and permanent; c) that the
action of the collegiate subject takes place at intervals, with the consent of
the pope. This consent of the pope is only required so that the College can
act, but it is not the pope who gives existence to the College to make it the
temporary subject of the exercise of his own power, by making it participate in
his acts.
SSPX: A New
Doctrine on the Prerogatives of the Bishops: … “The order of bishops that
is the successor of the College of Apostles in the Magisterium and pastoral
government, and in whom the apostolic body is perpetuated, united to its Leader
the Roman Pontiff, and never without this Leader, is also a subject of the
supreme and plenary power over the entire Church, a power that can only be
exercised with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. (LG §22)
“This is a
rather new claim for the dignity of the bishops, for it implies that
besides the pope, there is another subject (subjectum quoque) of the supreme,
plenary and universal power over the Church, even if the exercise of this power
remains, according to the text, closely dependent upon the pope, as in the
explicit case of the Ecumenical Councils.”[8]
SSPX on Bp.
Schneider: “He explains that “in the post-conciliar theological literature,
a new theory has emerged: that of two supreme subjects of power within the
universal Church, a theory that has nothing to do with divine Revelation, whose
source is in Sacred Scripture and the constant Tradition of the Church. Bishop Schneider insists: ‘Such a theory goes
against the divinely revealed structure of an hierarchy existing in the visible
body of this mystery, which is the Church’.”[9]
“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).
Bishop Williamson: “As for reconciliation
with Rome, that is impossible so long as Rome continues to aggravate its
dogmatic errors on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality, because
these errors mean the dissolution of any objective truth and so the death of
the Church. For Church leaders to pretend that such ideas are traditional is a
plain lie.” (Williamson Letters ).
from the Rector, Volume 2: The Winona
Letters, 1989 p. 68).
Bishop Williamson: “At Vatican II, in
accordance with that Council’s drive to democratize the Church, the document
Lumen Gentium introduced the famous doctrine of “collegiality.” It declared
that “the order of bishops is the subject of supreme and full power over the
universal Church” (#22), in other words the pope shares with the “college” of
bishops his supreme jurisdiction over the Church. Moreover their sharing in
his jurisdiction is conferred on them by their mere consecration as bishops!
Text of Lumen Gentium, #21: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office
of sanctifying” (power of Orders), “also confers the offices of teaching and of
governing” (power of jurisdiction)! This astonishing departure from Catholic
Tradition (Our Lord never said “You (plural) are Peter,” but “Thou
(singular) art Peter,” etc.) raised a storm of protest from the traditionalists
at the Council, and a corrective note was affixed by Paul VI to Lumen Gentium,
but that did not prevent the democratic novelty from being carried over into
the new Code of Canon Law. Canon 330: “...The Roman Pontiff, successor of
Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.” Canon
336: ‘The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff, is also the
subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church’. And for consecration conferring jurisdiction,
Canon 375: ‘By the fact of their episcopal consecration, bishops receive, along
with the function of sanctifying (power of Orders) also the functions of
teaching and of ruling...’ (power of jurisdiction). In fact the new Code of
Canon Law goes further yet: Canon 331: ‘The bishop of the Church of Rome…is’
(notice, firstly) head of the college of bishops,” (notice, secondly) ‘the
Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth;’ (notice) ‘therefore,
in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal
ordinary power in the Church...,’ as though it is being head of the Bishops’
College which confers on him his power, as though not the pope empowers the
bishops, but the bishops empower the pope!” (Williamson Letters, from the
Rector, Volume 2: The Winona Letters, 1992 p. 231).
Tissier: “But we
understand what Archbishop Lefebvre meant: “At the ecumenical council, the
pope communicates to the episcopal body a participation in his supreme and
universal power over the Church.” End of story! I think that is what we
will profess in the profession of faith we will make for the new canonical
recognition of the Society by Rome. And it will thoroughly irritate them,
believe me.
“The practical
side of collegiality: it tends to destroy the pope’s personal power, assisted
by the Holy Ghost, over the entire Church, ‘because the bishops can always
claim to exercise with the pope their supposed supreme and universal power, or
to oppose the pope’s decisions with a: “We were not consulted”.’” https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bishop-tissier-interview-la-porte-latine-14983
“The fact of Vatican II: new teachings contrary to Tradition: On at least four points,
the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical
contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional
Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with
the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s
Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken
the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the
unity of its object. These four points are as follows. … The
doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution
Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note],
contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the
subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus.”
(Fr. Gleize: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23680
)
Michael Davies.
See 25:45 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJT2F83-rO8
He doesn’t have any idea what collegiality is.
Tom Drolesky: “the Vatican II novelty of
episcopal collegiality.” http://www.christorchaos.com/HeavensAdvocate.htm
Fr. Albert: https://fatima.org/media/what-does-collegiality-mean-is-it-traditional/
Cekada: Three heresies of Vatican II: https://www.truerestoration.org/three-main-vatican-ii-errors/
Another Sede priest on collegiality: https://www.truerestoration.org/the-second-vatican-council-episode-9-the-laity-religious-and-collegiality/
Same priest as above on Lumen Gentium specifically: https://www.truerestoration.org/the-second-vatican-council-episode-14-lumen-gentium/
Sanborn on collegiality: https://www.truerestoration.org/season-ii-from-the-pulpit-episode-5-vatican-ii-part-5/
Sanborn: “The Lumen Gentium ecclesiology has to be
solemnly condemned. Collegiality has to be solemnly condemned.” https://www.truerestoration.org/interview-with-bishop-donald-sanborn-on-vatican-ii-the-sspx-and-the-motu-proprio/
___
Tissier’s biography of Lefebvre:
The Fight Against Collegiality
In
the minds of numerous conciliar Fathers, the object of the Second Vatican
Council was to be a counterbalance to the teachings of the First Vatican
Council. Vatican I had expounded the doctrine of the Pope’s primacy. In their
view, Vatican II ought to declare the right of the bishops to rule the Church
with him. The new schema for the constitution of the Church that replaced
the abandoned preparatory schema had been passionately debated during the
second session in 1963. Three rival theses clashed: the extreme
liberal thesis said that the bishops formed a college of which the Pope was
merely the head and which the Pope would consult before taking any decisions.
The moderate liberal thesis—Paul VI’s—claimed that the bishops formed a college
under the Pope who was their leader by divine right. Independently of the
college, the Pope retained his personal powers as defined by Vatican I.
Consequently, supreme power over the Church was exercised by two authorities:
the Sovereign Pontiff on one hand, and the episcopal college “with and under
its leader” on the other.
Faced with this mitigated liberal thesis, the
Coetus objected that by divine right the bishops could logically demand (when
they wanted or even regularly) that the Pope exercise this supreme power which
supposedly belonged to them by virtue of the divine constitution of the Church.
The supreme power of the Pope was thus in danger of being reduced accordingly. The
Coetus held to the thesis of Roman theology expounded by Fr. Berto[10]
in his draft schema and supported by Archbishop Lefebvre. Referring to
all tradition and history, it demonstrated that the Pope was the only leader of
the universal Church by divine right, and that in him alone resided the
plenitude of supreme power. As for the episcopal corps, it did not constitute
by divine right a college in the juridical sense of being the
subject of common action. It only acted collegially in the exceptional
circumstances of an ecumenical council, and had no authority over the universal
Church except that granted it by the Pope, as and when he wished and when
delegating part of his own supreme authority.” (Tissier, Biography of Lefebvre)
Vatican II’s original schema de
Ecclesia:
"Collegium Episcoporum quod
Collegio Apostolorum in magisterio et regimine pastorali succedit, immo in quo
Collegium Apostolorum continuo perseverat, quodque missionem lesu Christi eius-
demque doctrinam et leges continuo testatur, ima cum capite suo, Romano
Pontificeet numquam sine hoc capite, unum subjectumplenæ et supremæ potestatis
in universam Ecclesiam creditur. Potestas tamen huius Collegii, etsi ordinaria,
utpote officio inhaerens, nonnisi modo extraordinario et in devota
subordinatione lesu Christi Vicario in terris quando, quomodo et quousque eidem
id in Domino videtur expedire, legitime exercetur. Quod vero ad constitutionem
augusti huius Collegii attinet, omnes Episcopi residentiales in pace cum Sede
Apostólica viventes suo iure eiusdem membra sunt, et nemo Episcoporum, sive
residentialium sive aliorum, ad hoc Collegium pertinere potest, nisi dedita
opera vel consensu tacito a Successore Petri Vicario et Capite Collegii, in
idem assumptus sit"(/1D, Series II, vol. I, Periodus Prima,Pars IV, in Schenia
Constitutionis Dogmatices "De Ecclesia", p. 27, § 16)
___
Joseph Ratzinger Is Not
the Pope, by Jerry Meng
Lumen Gentium # 22: "However, the order of Bishops, which
succeeds the college of apostles in teaching authority and pastoral government,
and indeed in which the apostolic body continues to exist without interruption, is
also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church,
provided it remains united with its head ..."
This is one of the crass novelties generated by Vatican II's
Modernist contingent in this document - the heretical teaching of
collegiality. Lumen Gentium declares that the College of
Bishops possesses supreme and full power over the universal Church - a sort of
episcopalianism. If it were true, then it would mean that Christ did not
institute a single head in the Catholic Church in the person of St.
Peter. Instead, the Church would be governed by two heads. http://christorchaos.com/GuestColumnJosephRatzingerIsNotthePopeJerryMeng.html
____________
In the following, the Society defends
itself from schism by admitting that, according to V2, jurisdiction is not
given by consecration alone, but by consecration and hierarchical communion:
The following is from their defense of
Canonical and Theological Study on the 1988 consecrations.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/cstudy.htm
The
imaginary schism
Therefore,
the schism declared against Archbishop Lefebvre is not included in any category
known and recognized as schism. There is no schism in the formal sense; there
cannot be schism in the virtual sense. The judgment of condemnation of the Holy
See was fabricated from a "pseudo-category" on theological and
canonical planes. We find ourselves confronted with a monster. But such
arbitrariness always tries to defend itself as good law by using appealing
arguments which seem to have foundation. In our case, the monster uses two
arguments. We will proceed to give those two arguments here and then shoot them
down. Let us begin with the first:
1)
On the grounds that Vatican II has approved of a new concept of
collegiality, it is maintained that bishops receive at the moment of episcopal
consecration the power of jurisdiction (1983 Code of Canon Law, can.375, §2).
It follows from this that a consecration without mandate would be ipso facto
schismatic. In consecrating without mandate, the acting subject (i.e.,
Archbishop Lefebvre) would ipso facto confer on the candidates the power of
jurisdiction without mandate.(14) But if the power of jurisdiction is also
given, then there is schism. The fact that, once consecrated, the bishops were
not given effective jurisdiction by Archbishop Lefebvre would not prevail to
avoid schism objectively on account of Canon 375, §2 already cited.
We
answer that this argument is totally unacceptable. What in fact is the logic of
Canon 375, §2 of the new Code? Let's read it:
“By
their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of
sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by
their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of
the College and its members.”
This
canon contains two propositions; one principal and one relative depending on
it. The principal proposition states: "...Bishops receive, together with
the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of
ruling,..."(15)
The
age-old dispute, whether a bishop at consecration receives ipso facto the power
of jurisdiction or only at its exercise, seems to have been resolved by the
1983 Code of Canon Law in a way favorable to the thesis that maintains the ipso
facto position. In this matter the new Code has expressly applied the directive
of Vatican II, as appears in Lumen Gentium (§21) and in the Decree Christus
Dominus (§23).(16) The text of §21 of Lumen Gentium is taken word for word by
the 1983 Code:
“...Now,
episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, the
duty also of teaching and ruling, which, however, of their very nature can be
exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the
college....”
Note
that both Lumen Gentium (§21) and Canon 375, §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law
begin with the same primary proposition delineating the episcopal offices and
also include the same relative proposition regarding the exercise of those
offices: "which [offices -–Ed.], however, by their nature, can be
exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its
members."(17) The texts distinguish therefore
between the powers received with the consecration and their exercise. This is a
traditional distinction, that between possessor of a right (i.e., a power) and
its exercise.(18) The realization of this exercise
needs an act that authorizes it. It is not left to the whim of the
consecrated bishop. The exercise of episcopal "offices" must take
place "in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its
members," namely, in communion with the Pope and the members of the
College of Bishops. In practice that means as related in the nota praevia in
Lumen Gentium, that these powers can be exercised only "iuxta normas a
supreme auctoritate adprobatas." That means that communion is
"hierarchical" and requires for its "activation" respect
for the qualifications guaranteed by the canonical mission related expressly by
§24 of Lumen Gentium.(19)
Let us not enter into this arena on the merit of the
erroneous semi-Conciliarist conception of collegiality which Vatican II
attempted to introduce.(20) For our purpose, it is important to indicate the
following point: if the power of jurisdiction given the bishop at his
consecration must have also the "canonical mission" in order for that
power to be exercised [a mission which has not been completely abolished by
the 1983 Code of Canon Law -–Ed.], the canonical mission is always necessary
for the institution of a hierarchy. And since schism in the formal sense is, as
we have seen, the separation of oneself in order to institute the hierarchy of
a parallel church, then for formal schism to be had an illegitimate
"canonical mission" is always necessary, too. It is true that with
the system established by Vatican II, the qualification for "canonical
mission" has changed: from the act that confers a power (of jurisdiction)
is derived the act that confers the exercise of a power, which would already be
intrinsically present in the bishop from consecration. But, despite this
new system, for the purpose of the concept of schism there has been no change
because the "mission" always remains the pre-eminent schismatic act.
It is the "mission" alone which confers the exercise of that power of
jurisdiction from which a parallel hierarchy is derived. According to the
current Code, lacking such an act, as in the case of the consecrations carried
out by Archbishop Lefebvre, there is no schism.(21)
(…)
Footnote from the same article: “The bishops
consecrated as “auxiliaries” of the Society of Saint Pius X are not to be
included in the category of “auxiliary bishop” without “right of succession,”
referred to in Canon 403, §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These latter enjoy
the power of jurisdiction over the territory of a diocese, being placed
alongside [a latere] the diocesan bishop when “he is not able personally to
fulfil all the episcopal offices as the good of souls would demand” (Commento,
cit., p.241). It must be remembered that jurisdiction in actu supplita is
not the same as in actu expedita, referred to in §2 of the Nota Praevia affixed
to Lumen Gentium, this latter always resulting from a canonical mission. That
which justifies jurisdiction supplita in actu is especially the state of
necessity, in particular in the case of grave error and of heresy which have
been publicly spread, also and above all on account of a temporary cessation
of the authority of the official Church. In a similar situation, grave
necessity of the many which is effected by a danger of seduction to error is
equated by unanimous teaching to the extreme necessity of the individual as can
be had in the danger of death.”
21 Cf. Bertrams, op.cit.: “Insofar as it concerns the
office of teaching and of governing of the bishops, the Councils clear and
unequivocal distinction between its conferring, which is had in Episcopal
consecration, and its exercise, which can be had only in hierarchical communion”
(p.27; n.14); that is through canonical mission. In fact the power created
in Episcopal consecration (according to its substance) receives its juridical
constitution in canonical mission because specified in relation to the passive
subject” (W. Bertrams S.J., Il potere pastorale del Papa e del Collegio dei
Vescovi. Premesse e conclusioni teologiche giuridiche, Herder, 196, p. 26).
Fr. Gleize: “These
questions have been for the most part definitively resolved by the Magisterium
of the Church, well before Vatican II. … The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of
the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of
Vatican I.” https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3251-towards-a-doctrinal-agreement
Fr. Morgan: “Bishop Fellay … accepts the idea of
collegiality which Archbishop Lefebvre fought against at the council since it
undermines any previous notion of the Church's Magisterium, replacing it with a
sort of 'teaching democracy' in the form of the modern Bishops;” (Morgan, A
Letter of Entreaty to Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the British District, May
24, 2013)
Vigano: “And when in the
course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened
promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in
1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it
abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and
abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when
it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of
the pope to a mere ministerial function.” https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican-ii-marked-the-beginning-of-a-false-parallel-church/
Note: Pistoia was before
Vatican I, which taught the same as V2 on collegiality.
Vigano: “What we have for
years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the
highest Throne, we then find elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the
supporters of the present Pontificate: the democratization of the Church, no
longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the
synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family.” https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican-ii-marked-the-beginning-of-a-false-parallel-church/
Hesse: “The college of bishops doesn’t possess any
supreme authority; only the Pope does”.
(35:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9ojpgZXLQ
Father Le Guillou:
“Primacy designates the supreme universal jurisdiction as granted personally to
the Successor of Peter and exercised, as such, by him; but the College of
Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, and under his authority, collegially
possesses this same universal jurisdictionn collegially." (E
GUILLOU M. J., Les structures sacramentelles et collégiales de la communion et
de la mission,in l'Église en marche, Cahiers de la Pierre Qui Vire, Desclée de
Brouwer, Paris, 1964, p. 123)
"The Pope
alone can do all that the Pope can do with the College and, on the other hand,
the College without the Pope can do nothing. The Pope and the College of
Bishops are not two distinct powers, but one and the same power, all dependent
on Christ the Head; it is in this identity of power that the unity of the
episcopate consists and that the foundation of the whole episcopal structure is
found" (Ibid. p. 118).
“Far from opposing
the doctrine of primacy, collegiality complements it, and is assumed by it. It
does not destroy the doctrine of primacy; on the contrary, it brings it into
sharper focus. Primacy and collegiality are complementary to each other for the
service of the mission entrusted by Christ to his Apostles". (Ibid. 118)
Dom Antônio de Castro
Mayer ( who was one of the Fathers of the Second Vatican
Council, and therefore an eyewitness to the events):
“One
of the problems which most agitated the conciliar debates was the question of
“episcopal collegiality”. The modernist-minded press worked to create pressure
from public opinion in the direction of a modification by the council of the
structure of the Church, from monarchical, built as it is on one, Peter —
united, Petro —, in collegiate form, that is to say, governed jointly by the
episcopal body, composed of bishops from all over the world, who would have a
senate in Rome, which would be its representative, to share with the pope
ecclesiastical government.
After many amendments, the conciliar schema on the Church was modified, so that
it remained in the line dogmatically traced by the First Vatican Council.
Thus, the expressions which could have indicated a subjection of Saint Peter to
the College of the Apostles were suppressed. For example, where we spoke of
power granted to Saint Peter, as first of the Apostles and head of the College,
the expressions “like” and “head of the College” were eliminated, so as to
simply say that the power was granted to Saint Peter. , without being subject
to any condition on the part of the same Apostolic College, and, consequently,
without any dependence in relation to this College. We provide this example to
show to what extent there were really modifications in the schema, so as to
move away from this one the traces of modernism which were there. Nevertheless, these amendments did not yet seem sufficient
to the “Higher Authority” (to use the terms of the General Secretary of the
Council), which, in this instance, was the pope—the sole Authority superior to
the Council Fathers assembled there. And the Holy Father had an explanatory
note added which gave the meaning of the doctrine of the schema relating to the
Episcopal College. In this note, with clarity, and even with a certain
overabundance, the precise meaning of episcopal “collegiality” is underlined,
[expression] which cannot be taken in a strict sense, that is, that of a body
of many equals, [and it is specified] that the episcopal college from the
juridical point of view has power in the universal Church in union with the
pope only when it is summoned by him, and while remaining under his full
dependence. In its final version, with the
explanatory note which dispelled any doubt, the schema obtained an impressive
unanimity: only five Council Fathers voted against it in the concluding
session. We were therefore faced with a document of the teaching Church which
had to be respected with full and cordial acceptance by the whole Church.”
(Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer, Pastoral Instruction on the Church , March
2, 1965, p. 51-52; quoted by Bishop Fernando Arêas Rifan). https://archidiacre.wordpress.com/2020/05/04/dom-antonio-de-castro-mayer-sur-la-collegialite/ Bishop Rifan quoted it here: http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-09/09-20/Monseigneur_Fernando_Areas_Rifan.html#_ftnref96
Atila Sinke Guimarães:
C.
Conciliarism and Collegiality
The
Fifth Ecumenical Lateran Council (1512-1517) expressly condemned Conciliarism
as a heresy. Conciliarism is the theory that directly affirms that a council
has power to judge and depose the Pope. Indirectly, it also defends that the
ensemble of the Bishops retains the supreme power of the Church; the Pope is
essentially reduced to its delegate, even though he is considered the first and
the most important among the Bishops.
This
heresy was completely vanquished by the declaration of the dogma of Papal
Infallibility and the clear definition of the Petrine Primacy in Ecumenical
Council Vatican I (1869-1870).
Quite
the opposite, Vatican II with its doctrine of collegiality opened the doors
for the negation of Papal Infallibility and the Petrine Primacy and the
re-birth of Conciliarism. How is it possible to reconcile the Fifth Lateran
Council and Vatican I with Vatican II? Again, regarding the teaching of the
Papacy, there is no continuity but a blatant contradiction. https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f017ht_Rifan_02.htm
Atila Sinke Guimarães:
“Today
the Conciliar Church has already adapted many points directly or indirectly
related to the Faith to new situations:
· It
abolished the sacrificial character of the Mass and changed its rubrics, the
notion of Eucharist, and the doctrine of justification to please the
Protestants;
· With
collegiality, it changed the doctrine of the Petrine Primacy and Papal
Infallibility to please the Schismatics;
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/D004Inter_FindFaithn.htm
Part Two: Vatican II
opened the doors of reform of the Papacy
By Atila Sinke Guimarães,
Michael J. Matt, Dr. Marian Horvat and John Vennari
Dear Holy Father,
What is collegiality? The term refers to the College of Apostles, and, by
extension, to the College of Bishops, successors of the former. Our Lord
conferred certain powers to the Apostles in genere [in
general], while He conferred others to Peter in specie [in
particular]. …
In the opening speech of the second session of Vatican Council II, Pope Paul VI
introduced the concept of collegiality in the powers of the Pope. …
In the second session on October 30, 1963, the
directors of the Council submitted to a vote four questions about the College
of Bishops. The third one was this: Does the Body or College of Bishops, as
successor of the College of Apostles and always in communion with the Pope who
is its head, possess the supreme power of the Universal Church?" To
this question, 1,808 Bishops responded "yes" and only 336 said
"no." The fourth question was: Does this power belong to the College
by divine right? Here, 1,717 Bishops responded "yes," and only 408
said "no." (11)
These two votes meant
that already at the second session of the Council many Bishops gave their
adhesion to an erroneous notion of the supreme power of the Church. These
unexpected ruptures with the perennial Catholic Magisterium were among the most
expressive victories of Progressivism in Vatican II. …
To suppose that an essential fullness of the
power of the Church to teach and govern would be exercised by both the Bishops
and the Pope would change the very nature of this power. It would imply
that its source is not divine and that such power was not delegated by Christ
to one man alone: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my
Church" (Mt. 16:18). It would promote the notion that this power resides
in the College of Bishops. With regard to the power to govern, this would
deny the Papal Monarchy and would transform the Holy Catholic Church into a
Church in which the Holy Pontiff would be reduced in essence to the role of
either a president or a constitutional monarch, obedient to the norms that
issue from the College. This is unacceptable and condemned by Catholic
teaching. [in section 6B this will be further delineated[11]].
However, even though this has been condemned, it seems that this is, in
fact, what is now a desired objective in the proposed reform of the Papacy.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001May/may22urg.htm
6b
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001May/may29urg.htm
Sanborn against Fellay:
July 23, 2018 by Bp.
Sanborn
“Bishop Fellay’s
interview”
(…)
The fourth heresy of Vatican
II: Collegiality. This doctrine, also contained in Lumen Gentium, holds that
the subject (possessor) of supreme power in the Church is the college of
bishops. Listen to the Council:
“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.”
This is heresy. For the Catholic Church
teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church. Listen to the Council of Florence: “We likewise
define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy
throughout the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the
successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of
Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and
teacher of all Christians; and that the full power was given to him in Blessed
Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church;
just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred
canons.” (Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)
Pope Pius VI condemned this doctrine: “All the
bishops together and in one body govern the same Church, each one with full
power.”
Some try to save Vatican II from heresy by
saying that the Council states that the pope is the head of the college, and
that it cannot act without him. But this does not save it from heresy, because
the pope in that case simply becomes another member of the college of bishops, and merely a condition of their power, but not the
source of their power.
Others try to save the Council by pointing out
that the document asserts that the Pope is the head of the Church: “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.” This is a
futile attempt, however. No organization can have two heads, two supreme
legislators. For example, it is impossible that both king and parliament be
the supreme legislator. One must have the last word, to whom the other is
subservient. King Charles I of England lost his head by upholding the supremacy
of the king over parliament.
Yet others try to save the Council by citing the
Preliminary Note of Explanation (the Nota Prævia), but this is worthless, since
it is not part of the document accepted by the bishops. The modernist
theologian Yves Congar was swift to point this out when he was a peritus at the
Council. Besides, there is nothing in the Nota Prævia which cancels out the
conciliarist heresy in the document.
The Catholic doctrine is that the pope, as supreme head of the Church, may
invite the bishops into a general council, in which, by his consent, they
participate in his power to rule the Church. Apart from these general councils,
the authority of bishops is confined to their dioceses. The power to rule the diocese is from Christ, but
comes to them through the Roman Pontiff, who may remove the power from them
whenever he will. Pope Pius XII taught in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Yet
in exercising this office they [the bishops] are not altogether independent,
but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although
enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from
the same Supreme Pontiff.” (no. 42)
Bishop Fellay sells out to the Modernists on the
Council. About a year ago, the Vatican told the Society of Saint Pius X that
there could be no hope of reconciliation unless the SSPX accepts Vatican II and
the post-Vatican II magisterium. By saying that there is no heresy in Vatican
II, Bishop Fellay is saying that Vatican II is orthodox, that is, Catholic, and
is not offensive to the Catholic Faith.
https://inveritateblog.com/2018/07/23/bishop-fellays-interview/
____
SSPX “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 … 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…”.[12]
[Lumen Gentium, chapter
3, contains] a rather new claim for the dignity of the bishops, for it
implies that besides the pope, there is another subject (subjectum quoque)
of the supreme, plenary and universal power over the Church, even if the
exercise of this power remains, according to the text, closely dependent upon
the pope, as in the explicit case of the Ecumenical Councils.”[13]
Lefebvre: “Then, the new Canon Law professes above all collegiality…
is it not, in the reports? Collegiality is the relations between churches,
local churches and universal churches, and between authorities, between bishops
and the pope. Well, in the new Law, there are two supreme powers of
the Church. There is the power of the pope who has the supreme power, and then
the pope with the bishops.”[14]
Lefebvre: “The new Code
is designed to bring conciliar ecclesiology into legal and canonical language.
... And you now have two subjects of supreme power (Et vous
avez maintenant deux sujets de pouvoir suprême). Go and understand
something ... How can there be two subjects of supreme power? (Comment
peut-il y avoir deux sujets de pouvoir suprême ?). … Well, this canon law
is unacceptable. … So we will have to keep the old canon law by taking
the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new
canon law, just as we keep the Tradition to also judge the new liturgical books.
… it is impossible for us to accept canon law as a whole as it has been
edited, because it is precisely in line with Vatican II and in the line of the
reforms of Vatican II."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, January 18, 1983)”
Lefebvre: “The new Code of Canon Law is completely permeated with this
concept. The pope is described as the head of the College of Bishops [note:
Leo XIII says Peter was the head of the Apostolic College – see Satis Cognitum].
We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council document Lumen Gentium,
according to which the College of Bishops, together with the pope, exercises
supreme power in the Church in habitual and constant manner. This is not a change for the better; this
doctrine of double supremacy is contrary to the teaching and Magisterium
of the Church. It is contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I…”[15]
“collegiality invented by
Vatican II” (Vigano)[16]
“Thus the pope is sole
subject of supreme authority of jurisdiction in the Church. … the pope is the
one who brings into existence the College [of Bishops] 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.” https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9.
“The reader will note, however,
that [according to Lumen Gentium] the second collegial subject is an ordinary,
permanent subject and that its action occurs at intervals (and no longer in an
extraordinary manner). And although the consent of the pope is required, it is
only in order for the College to be able to act and no longer
in order for it to be able to exist as such.” https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
John Lane: “‘College of
Bishops’ is not a Catholic term. The Apostles were a college, and the cardinals
are a college, but the bishops are not. This was one of the notions introduced
by Rahner and co. at Vatican II as part of their heresy, collegiality” (John
Lane).[17]
Satis Cognitum: “"Hanc vero, de qua
dicimus, in ipsum episcoporum collegium postestatem, quam sacrae
litterae tam aperte enuntiant, agnoscere ac testari nullo tempore Ecclesia
destitit. Illa sunt in hoc genere eftata Conciliorum: Romanum Pontificem de
omnium Ecclesiarum prasulibus judicasse legimus, de eo vero quemquam judicasse,
non legimus (Hadrianus II, Allocutione III ad Synodum Romanam year. 869).”
Tanquerey:
“"Thesis rVa: “The successors of the
Apostles, in the power of teaching and government, are, by divine right, the
bishops grouped in collegiate form. We say: of divine right, because the
bishops are instituted in virtue of an ordination which is not human but
divine, contrary to what the – Presbyterians ,the Lutherans and also some
liberal Anglicans say, who maintain that the bishops were not instituted by
Christ or the Apostles, but that they have arrogated to themselves little by
little and without reason the power which they now enjoy. They are also said
to grouped in collegial form, for we do
not claim that each bishop is the successor of a particular Apostle, but we
maintain that the College of Bishops succeeds the College of Apostles, so that
the supreme power of teaching and governing belongs, not to each individual
bishop^ but to the whole College. This thesis is founded on Holy Scripture
and is also demonstrated by history." (A. TANQUEREY, cooperating J. WEBER,
Synopsis theologice dogmaticce fundamentalis,Pars prima, Desclée & socii,
Parisiis-Tornaci-Romæ, 1908, pp. 337-338.)
Fr. Fenton: “The great
ecclesiologists of the Golden Age, almost without exception, had insisted upon
the infallibility of the Holy Father’s definitive dogmatic pronouncements. They had pointed to the fact that his
decisions were irreformable of themselves, whether he spoke in concert with the
rest of the apostolic college, or alone in his capacity as
supreme teacher of the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Fenton, John Henry
Newman and the Vatican Definition of Papal Infallibility, AER, Vol. CXIII,
No. 4, October 1945).
Angelus, 2013: “Then the Vatican II
document Lumen Gentium appeared hinting at a new democratic structure of
government, according to which the College of Bishops together with the Pope
exercises supreme power over the Church in habitual and continual manner.
“It was a novel
idea of double supremacy that ran contrary to the definitions of
Vatican Council I and to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum.” (013
Angelus Essay ‘Fiddling while Rome burns’).[18]
The Angelus, 2013: “Then
the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium appeared hinting at a new democratic
structure of government, according to which the College of Bishops together
with the Pope exercises supreme power over the Church in habitual and continual
manner.
“It was a novel idea of
double supremacy that ran contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I and
to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum.” (013 Angelus Essay ‘Fiddling
while Rome burns’).[14]
Lefebvre: "My desire, my preoccupation is
to give to you and all the seminarians in all our seminaries the True Catholic
Faith, and the True Tradition. It is not my opinion. I do not like to hear
people says 'I have the same thinking as Msgr, Lefebvre' . .No. No. It is not
the thinking of Msgr. Lefebvre, but it is the thinking of the Church. It is the
ideals of the Church. Personally I have no ideal, I have no thinking, I am
nothing! I only have what the Church taught me in my seminary, during all my
life, the True Church's teaching, ... and no other preoccupation than this!”
"So, if there is something you
have some hesitation over, about what we must think, I give to you the answer
of the Church, i.e., what the Church thinks. You can read these things in many
books... I say always to the seminarians of Econe, that you have a big library,
with all the books filled with the Tradition, with all the books of the Fathers
of the Church, i.e., the Patrology, ...some 2^5 books of Patrology alone... you
can read what is the Tradition, what is the concepts of the Church. You have
all the books of Moral Theology ... all these books as written before Vat. 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 (i.e.. Church doctrine) and we are very
strong in our Faith” (Lefebvre, ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE April 2';, 1983 -
Conference with the seminarians of ST. THOI 3 AQUINAS SEMINARY).
Lefebvre: "Thus, we find ourselves in a case of
necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that
they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his
predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have
spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these
talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the
Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church
is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This
ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the
Faith of the Church, and is .in the process of destroying the Church.”
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm
Lefebvre,
Intervention at Vatican II, 1963: "Lefebvre: “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. As to the bishops, the successors of the Apostles,
as true pastors they feed and govern
their own flock entrusted to them, each bishop with a personal power, direct and complete, deriving from his
sacred consecration.”
Tranquillo:
The
doctrine of LG according to which consecration gives a power
of government is at least proxima haeresi, especially after the teachings of
Pius XII which we have quoted.
[Quote Lefebvre during V2 saying bishops derive their
power of government from their consecration]
Fr. Dominque Bourmaud,
SSPX:
Could
you please explain the position of the two main parties on the role of the
bishops’ College in the Church?
In
the traditional interpretation, the bishops’ College exercised supreme
authority merely by human right. Hence, the pope alone enjoyed supreme power
by divine right and there was no dual power.
Even
if he acted along with the episcopal college united in Council, he simply
extended his power to the College. The result was that there was properly a
single subject, whether exercised with or without the episcopal college.
By
contrast, 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—, bound in
conscience to follow the decisions of the college as their head and
representative. The pope’s action was limited to playing the policeman and
keeping order among the other members. Hence, the Church enjoyed a synarchic,
not longer a monarchic, power according to a thesis condemned by the Church.
https://www.angelus.online/angelus-online-january/february-2019/the-problem-with-collegiality
II – College is a moral
body
German theologian Pesch: "The
Apostles were not twelve particular persons, without any special link between
them, as if each had been constituted a divine legate independently of the
others. Butratherthey formedbody, in the moral sense of the word, one
magisterial collegeL They were designated by a collegiate appellation, and they
are collegially distinguished from the others. After their election they are
calledthe Twelve; after the death of Judas they are called the Eleven, after
the manner of the Twelve, for according to the will of Christ they were to form
the College of the Twelve There is no doubt that the Apostles formed one and
the same moral body, the Apostolic College." (2 C. PESCH, Jnsniutionespropadeutica,
Fribugi Br., 1915, vol. I, p. 163, n. 285).
Objection: Curzio
Nitoglia: “A college is different from a body. A college is a moral person which
has power inasmuch as it is a moral person. That is, the subject of power is
only the moral person, and not the singular physical persons which form the
college.”
Answer:
“Van Noort: “Granted that
fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is
apostolicity of government. For on no one but the apostolic college,
under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching,
sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple
power, therefore, necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those
who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate
successors. … It has already been established (see no. 34) that bishops
succeeded to the position in the Church originally filled by the apostles. But
as was pointed out, this succession does not mean that a particular
bishop succeeded to the job of a particular apostle—say that the bishop of
Bridgeport has taken over the job of St. Bartholomew. Rather, it means
that the college of bishops, viewed collectively, succeeded the apostolic
college, viewed collectively.”
Answer
2:
“A college is a moral body, whereby those chosen to belong to it are united
together by a social bond and are distinguished from others.” (Salaverri, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa 1b, p. 37).
Answer
3:
“Those who defend the twofold subject of infallibility inadequately distinct,
first of all urge that there is a twofold promise of infallibility made
directly and immediately by Christ—one to the person of Peter, but the other to
the moral person of the College of Apostles.”
Answer
4:
“Finally, it was declared that the opinions freely debated among theologians
was not touched by the Council: 1) concerning the subject of supreme and full
authority in the Church, whether the Roman Pontiff is the only subject, or the moral
body of Bishops under the Roman Pontiff is also another subject of supreme
power, distinguish ed only in adequately from the Roman Pontiff.” (Salaverri,
ibid, 476, p 179).
Answer 4: Tanquerey: “Thesis:
By divine right the Apostles' successors are the Bishops collectively
taken, as far as the powers to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the faithful
are concerned.
“This thesis is
historically certain; it is theologically de fide since it has been proposed to
faith through the ordinary magisterium of the Church. … We say Bishops
collectively taken, because only the college of Bishops was made the heir of
the Apostolic College.”
II (b) – Threefold power
(munera):
Salaverri, pp 537-540;
and 547-550
1317. Therefore, from these disputed
points we conclude that the three offices of Teaching, P rie sth o o d and R
uling, which the Church received from Christ, fo r m a lly between themselves
and sp ecifica lly are to be distinguished. However, they are not d iv id e d o
r s e p a r a te d in the subjects having them by divine right. For just as in
Christ the three messianic offices of Teaching, Priesthood and Ruling were
joined together, so also in the Pope and in the Bishops, successors of the
Apostles, the same offices are joined together, and in them the powers of
Teaching, Priesthood and Ruling are vivified and receive their power (Acts 1:8;
Rom. 15:13; 2 Tim. 1:7) from one and the same Spirit o f Truth (John
14:16.17.26; 15:26), o f H o lin ess (Rom. 15:16; 1 Pet.l:2) and o f U nity (1
Cor. 12:4-11; 2 Cor. 13; 13). Hence in the Church there are three o rd ers of
true and strictly speaking p o w er, which among themselves are fo r m a lly
and sp ec ific a lly different. If we wish to designate these three orders of
ecclesiastical power with characteristic notes whereby formally and
specifically they are different, we can call them the d o ctrin a l order, the
sa crificia l and sa cra m en ta l order, and the ju r id ic a l order, and so
we carefully distinguish doctrinal authenticity from merely ju r id ic a l
authenticity. However, in no way are we establishing th ree h ierarch ies, the
w a y by which offices in the Church are conferred is only twofold. 1318.
Scholium. 1. A rgum ents of the other opinion. The theologians defending a
bipartite division o f the powers o f the Church propose especially the
following argument: The Magisterium of the Church not only has the right and
duty o f proposing
gospel truth, but it also has the
faculty, regarding the baptized, of commanding an act of faith and of judging
about the causes of the faith. But commanding and judging are the proper and
specific acts of the power of jurisdiction in the strict sense. Therefore the
power of teaching is the power of formal and strict jurisdiction.[24] We
respond in form, according to the teaching proposed in this thesis, in this
way. I distinguish the major. The Magisterium has the faculty, regarding the
baptized, of commanding the act of faith and o f judging about the causes of
faith, that is, by command and doctrinal judgment or concerning the truth
itself of the proposition and directly touching the internal assent itself of
the intellect, conceded; by command and disciplinary judgment or concerning the
rectitude of the action and directly touching per se the external performance
of the act, denied. I also distinguish the minor. Command and disciplinary
judgment, that is, concerning the rectitude of the action and directly touching
per se the external performance of the act, are proper and specific acts of the
power of ruling, conceded; command and doctrinal judgment, that is, concerning
the truth itself of a proposition and directly touching per se the internal
assent itself of the intellect, are proper and specific acts of the power of
ruling, that is, of jurisdiction in the specific sense, denied.
1319. In order to understand this
solution, keep in mind the points that follow. The Magisterium agrees with the
power of ruling in the general notion o f power, namely, inasmuch as it implies
a right proper to itself and the obligation corresponding to this right.
However, the specification of powers is not derived from their generic notion,
but from the proper act andform al object o f each one which is directly
attained. And so the Magisterium indeed enjoys the faculty of commanding, but
doctrinally, that is, it has the right of demanding and also directly the
internal assent itself o f the intellect; it also enjoys the faculty of
judging, but doctrinally, that is, it has the right authentically o f deciding
on the conformity or deformity o f doctrine with the deposit of faith; but with
a form al object and proper act of this kind the command and judgm ent of the
power of teaching are really specified. But the power o f ruling absolutely has
the power o f commanding, but in a disciplinary way, that is, it has the right
of demanding directly the external performance o f the act; it also has the
power of judging, but in a disciplinary way, that is, it has the right of
deciding authentically about the rectitude o f the action, or about its
suitability regarding the intended end; but it is very clear that a formal
object and proper object of this kind, whereby the power of ruling is
specified, really and specifically differs from the formal object and proper
act by which the power of teaching is specified.
But the adversary insists: “A doctrinal
command is true jurisdiction, which is nothing other than the right of ruling
by commanding the act of subjects in a perfect society.” I respond with a
distinction: A doctrinal command is true jurisdiction in the strict and
specific sense, which is nothing other than the right of ruling with a
command..., denied; it is true jurisdiction in the broad or general sense,
which is also the right of teaching with authority..., conceded. Therefore,
although to teach formally and specifically is not formally and specifically to
rule, as is obvious, nevertheless to teach authentically implies the demand of
the assent of the mind or a certain doctrinal command formally and specifically
distinct from the disciplinary command of a ruler or governor. This doctrinal
command directly obligating the intellect itself, which is proper to the
authentic Magisterium as such, is founded on the saying of the Lord: “He who
hears you, hears me” (Luke 10:16), and similarly the jurisdictional command as
such, concerning directly the obligation only of the will, is founded on this:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18; 16:19). The
doctrinal command is “command over minds” which is mentioned in Vatican I
(n.1333).
1320. However, it
should be noted well that the command and judgment of the power of ruling in
practice often de facto is joined together with the command and judgment of the
power of teaching, since they are dealing with the same material object, which
both powers touch but under the proper formal nature of each power. This occurs
easily in the Church, because the subject of both powers is the same. Wherefore
in a decree that is materially one often a formally two fold act can and must
be distinguished—one being the doctrinal power of teaching, but the other being
the disciplinary power of ruling. The Theologian of Vatican Council I makes
this same point very well in the Notes to Outline II on the Constitution on the
Church[25].
“In the decrees of
the Council,” he said, “a prohibition or precept must be distinguished from a
definition or a judgment about doctrine. For in the first place the Church
defines that those opinions are wrong; then she prohibits them as such and
sanctions them with serious penalties. Indeed, the submission of the mind is to
the Church when she defines something, even if she attaches no precept to it;
for we are bound to listen to the Church teaching... The Church in decrees of
this kind by name prohibits only the external actions, because in her judgment
she can punish only those to which she has attached a penalty,” and this is
very clear from the formulas used in the Canons of the Councils: ‘If any one
says, etc. If anyone refuses to confess, etc.’”: D 125-126, 252-263,421-437,
1551-1630,3021-3043.
1321. The double
formal act— the one of the doctrinal power of teaching and requiring the
internal assent of the intellect, but the other of disciplinary power of ruling
and vindicating contrary external acts with punishments—is expressed
clearly in the formula of the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception
of the B.V.M.: D 2803-2804.
…
Salaveri:
1343. Scholium 3. The teaching of Father
Franzelin on the threefold power.
Protestants also hold the ancient twofold
division o f powers, but so that they include the Magisterium under the power
of Orders, as is clear from the words of the Apologia Confessionis Augustana,
cited in n.1292, and from Melanchthon.28 Against this interpretation of the
Protestants, Walter developed the doctrine on the tripartite division of the
powers, which then Phillips evolved further. However, undeservedly both
rejected the twofold division which was classical in the Scholastics.29
Franzelin treated this whole matter
according to the principles of Theology in a fundamental way, and he rightly
holds the following: 1) the twofold division, rightly understood, must by all
means be retained; 2) in it Jurisdiction must be understood in the generic
sense, and therefore in itself it includes two distinct species o f power, the
one o f ruling or “of jurisdiction said specifically, ” but the other of
teaching or o f Magisterium; 3) however, for theological reasons it must be
admitted that there is also a threefold distinct power, corresponding to the
threefold messianic office of Christ of Teacher, Priest and King; 4) finally,
the powers of Magisterium and Ruling are not divided, but joined together in
the subject on whom they are conferred, and so in the definition itself of the
supreme Magisterium the supreme power of Jurisdiction is also exercised,
concerning which all are bound by the office o f hierarchical subordination.30
It can be conceded that Franzelin had not
yet proposed the notion of the doctrinal command of the power of teaching
specifically distinct from the purely jurisdictional command of the power of
ruling, as we have explained it in n. 1319; but we think this notion is
required by the doctrinal authenticity itself of the Magisterium as such and
very well agrees with the whole doctrine o f Fr. Franzelin, who also carefully
distinguishes this doctrinal authenticity from juridical authenticity. In the
Vatican Outline the text speaks about “the command in the mind” which is proper
to the Magisterium (n.1333).
Anyone who attentively reads the thesis
of Fr. Franzelin and carefully compares it with our thesis will easily see that
both teachings are fundamentally the same.31 The main point of the
controversy concerns the formal and specific distinction of the powers of
teaching and ruling. But in order to avoid all confusion, which often
occurs in this matter, with Franzelin it is necessary carefully to keep three
things in mind:
1) The whole object of the Magisterium is
also the material object of the power of Governing; and therefore it must be
carefully noted in every act of power concerning doctrine, whether it is a
formal and specific act of the Magisterium, or a proper act of the power of
Governing, as we also with Fr. Kleutgen have taken care to point out in n.1320.
2) The word Jurisdiction is used in
two senses, namely, generic and specific, and therefore those texts of the
Vatican Fathers should not be interpreted in the specific sense, which they
understood in the generic sense. 3) It is very important to keep before
one’s eyes the proper and specific theological nature of the power of teaching;
and so that the supposition is false of those who think that, by the specific
distinction of the Magisterium from Governing, the properly and strictly
authoritative character of the office of teaching is denied, which the
defenders of the specific distinction absolutely hold and more accurately
explain.32
Anyone who examines carefully these three
points, which we have mentioned, and carefully considers not only the juridical
reasons, but rather the theological arguments, will easily see that, with
Franzelin, both distinctions of powers must be admitted— one having two
members, namely, Orders and Jurisdiction, but the other having three members,
namely, Magisterium, Priesthood and Kingship, since the one detracts nothing
from the other and the theological sources demand both.” (Salaverri, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa 1b)
II(c) Consecration confers munere and SSPX Errors
SSPX on the validity of
the New Rite:
2) The most contestable
point of doctrine issuing from Vatican II as regards the episcopacy is
collegiality. We know that Pope Paul VI himself was
obliged to insert a nota explicativa prævia (preliminary explanatory note)120
to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in order to avoid a heterodox
interpretation being given to the Conciliar text. Here is the passage of this
note that especially concerns us:
A person becomes a member of the
College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the
head of the College and its members. Cf. Article 22, §1, at the end.
In consecration is given an
ontological participation in sacred functions, as is clear beyond doubt from
tradition, even liturgical. The word functions is deliberately employed, rather
than powers, since this latter word could be understood as ready to go into
action. But for such ready power to be had, it needs canonical or juridical
determination by hierarchical authority. This determination of power can
consist in the granting of a particular office, or in an assigning of subjects;
and it is given according to norms approved by the highest authority. Such an
ulterior norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of
functions which must be exercised by several subjects working together by
Christ’s will in a hierarchical manner. It is clear that this “communion” has
been in the life of the Church according to circumstances of the times, before
it was, so to speak, codified in law.
Therefore, it is significantly stated
that hierarchical communion is required with the head of the Church and its
members. Communion is an idea which was held in high honor by the ancient
Church (as it is even today, especially in the East).
It is understood, however, not of a
certain vague feeling, but of an organic reality which demands a juridical
form, and is simultaneously animated by charity. Hence the Commission by
practically unanimous consent decreed that it must be written: “in hierarchical
communion.” Cf. Modus 40, and also what is said of canonical mission under
Article 24.
The documents of the more recent
Popes dealing with the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in the light
of this necessary determination of powers.121
Collegiality was taught
by the Council in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium in Articles 22 and
23. These paragraphs are not quoted in the Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis
Romani of June 18, 1968, promulgating the new rite, nor in the rubrics of the
first edition (1968). The second edition (1990), which contains much more
developed rubrics, refers to the collegiality of Lumen Gentium in the following
passages from the prænotanda:
No. 12: By virtue of episcopal
ordination and by hierarchical communion with the head and members of the
college, one is constituted a member of the episcopal college.
The order of bishops is the successor
to the college of the apostles in teaching authority and pastoral rule; or,
rather, in it [the episcopal order] the apostolic body continues without a
break.122 Indeed, as successors of the apostles, bishops receive from the Lord,
to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all
nations and to preach the gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain
to salvation by faith, baptism, and the fulfillment of the commandments (cf.
Mt. 18);123 the episcopal college, insofar as it is assembled under the one
head of the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, expresses the unity, the
variety, and the universality of the flock of Christ.124
In the new rite of
consecration itself, collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s
allocution:
Never forget that in the Catholic
Church, made one by the bond of Christian love, you are incorporated into the
college of bishops. You should therefore have a constant concern for all the
churches and gladly come to the aid and support of churches in need.
The specific errors
related to collegiality (the affirmation of a second supreme authority in the
Church, or the existence of a real power of jurisdiction received prior to
canonical mission) are not expressed in these passages. Therefore,
there is no proof that the redactors wanted to modify the rite with the
intention of doing something other than what the Church has always done when
ordaining bishops. Nevertheless, one could say that the will to affirm the
doctrine of Vatican II on the episcopacy constitutes a supplementary reason to
refuse this new rite: without denying its validity, one can deny its liceity.”
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
…
From the same study:
“2) As regards intention,
a final difficulty arises from the fact that the new rite was introduced for
the purpose of applying the new conciliar theology concerning the episcopacy.
Here is the comment of Canon André Rose expressed in an article published in La
Maison Dieu, No.98 (the journal of pastoral liturgy edited by Cerf
Publishing)13:
On June 18, 1968, the
Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio was promulgated,
approving the new ceremonial for the ordination of deacons, priests, and
bishops. The most striking change introduced by this document is undoubtedly
the introduction of a new consecratory prayer for ordination to the episcopacy.
The Roman document cites
the doctrine of the Constitution Lumen Gentium on the episcopacy as the supreme
degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders....It is to better emphasize the
doctrine of the Second Vatican Council that the formula of the consecration prayer
for episcopal ordination is now replaced by a new prayer, extracted from the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a document from the early 3rd century.14
Nonetheless, this ancient text has always been in usage to the present day, in
a more developed form, in the liturgy of the Copts and western Syrians.15
“This intention to apply
the conciliar doctrine could be disquieting when one knows that the Council
gave a heterodox teaching on collegiality, a doctrine that it was necessary to
correct by a nota praevia which is hardly mentioned in our day.
This disquietude could
increase from the fact that the ritual in use at the time was reproached for
having been modified in the 12th century in such a way as “to veil somewhat the
universal collegial power of the bishops over the entire People of God.”16
16. “From the 12th century a slightly
different formula was introduced at Rome, undoubtedly for fear of overshadowing
the exclusive power of the Pope over the whole Church: instead of saying “ad
regendam ecclesiam tuam et plebem universam,” henceforth was said “ecclesiam
tuam et plebem sibi commissam,”whichresultsinveilingsomewhattheuniversalcollegialpower
of the bishops over the whole People of God.” (Joseph Lécuyer, C.S.Sp., “La
prière d’ordination de l’évêque,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol.89, June 1967,
pp.602-3.) What Fr. Lécuyer regrets as a loss seems to us rather a
clarification: a simple bishop does not rule “the whole people,” even if he
must have a solicitude for the universal Church
Collegialite
(must be from Glieze)
https://fsspx.org/en/coll%C3%A9gialit%C3%A9
The principle of
collegiality is summarized in section 22 of Lumen gentium:
“The order of bishops... is also [in
addition to the pope considered alone] the subject of supreme and full power
over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with [una
cum] its head the Roman Pontiff and never without [numquam sine] this head.”
Section 21 states the
presupposition for this: the subject that succeeds the apostles in holding the
supreme authority of government is the sacred order of bishops. This is
explained by reason of a very particular concept of the sacramental character
of the episcopate, according to which episcopal consecration simultaneously
bestows the power to sanctify and the power to govern.
This twofold authority belongs to every bishop by the fact that he was
consecrated, and inasmuch as he is part of the College [of Bishops], and this
is true regardless of the later specification given by the hierarchical
authority [e.g., the pope or the metropolitan archbishop]; for the
bishop’s authority is received immediately from Christ through episcopal
consecration. It follows quite logically that the intervention of the
hierarchical authority has the sole effect of specifying the domain of the
application [of this authority]; its effect is not to cause that authority
essentially, to bring it into being.
Canon 336 of the new Code
of Canon Law synthesizes these two aspects as follows: “The head of the College
of Bishops is the Supreme Pontiff, and its members are the bishops by virtue of
their sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the
College and its members. This College of Bishops, in which the apostolic body
abides in an unbroken manner, is, in union with its head and never without this
head, also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.”
The traditional teaching
The Church is made up of
one and the same hierarchy; the members thereof, however, are invested with two
distinct powers. The 1917 Code states this clearly in section 3 of canon 108;
and canon 109 makes this distinction even clearer by indicating that there is a
difference in the manner in which these powers are acquired:
“Those who are taken into the ecclesiastical
hierarchy... are constituted in the grades of power of orders by sacred
ordination; [the pope is constituted] into the supreme pontificate, by divine
law itself upon the completion of the conditions of legitimate election and
acceptance; [the bishops are constituted] in the remaining grades of
jurisdiction, by canonical mission.”
This distinction is
confirmed a fortiori [with greater reason] if we admit that the episcopate is
one part of the sacrament of holy orders: in that case, it can produce only
what is signified by the form of consecration. Now the form necessary and
sufficient to produce the episcopate ex opere operato, as Pius XII defined it
in Sacramentum ordinis in 1947, implies without any possible doubt that the
episcopate produced by consecration corresponds to the episcopate as a power of
order, to the exclusion of the episcopate as a power of jurisdiction. We
know, moreover, that jurisdiction is conferred on a bishop by an act of the
pope’s will: this is taught by Pius XII in Ad sinarum gentem (1954) and Ad
apostolorum principis (1958), repeating the teaching of Mystici corporis
(1943). The very terms employed in the latter document are very clear and have
in mind a true conferral of power in itself, not merely a specification of the
power in its exercise.[3]
It follows from this
teaching that although all bishops—including the pope—receive their power of
order directly from God, by means of a rite of consecration, nonetheless the
only subject of the power of jurisdiction who receives it directly from God is the
pope. The other bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the pope, not
from God. And the pope, since he does not receive his
jurisdiction through the rite of consecration, can possess it even if he is not
yet vested with the power of episcopal order. It is clear that this is the case
when a cleric who has not yet been consecrated bishop is elected to the papacy:
the 1917 Code foresees that in this case the cleric elected is invested with
the papacy from the moment he accepts his election, even before having received
the power of episcopal order.
This very clear
distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction means
first that the bishops and the pope share equally the same power to sanctify,
and secondly it means that the bishops and the pope do not share equally the
power to govern and teach, since the bishops receive a subordinate authority
that is restricted to one part of the flock, whereas the pope receives a
supreme and universal power, the authority to feed the lambs and the sheep [cf.
Jn 21:15-17], in other words, the entire flock of the Church.”
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 (singuli singulos
sibi assignatos greges pascunt et regunt) while depending on one supreme pastor
(sub uno summo pastore).
Thus the pope is sole
subject of supreme authority of jurisdiction in the Church. …
The novelty of Vatican II
Section 21 of the
constitution Lumen gentium teaches that the power of jurisdiction is received
by all bishops in the same way, that is, directly from Christ; this can only
mean the supreme and universal power itself, the authority of which the College
is the subject. Logically, therefore, what can the pope
actually receive by his election if not an honorific authority of mere
precedence? Therefore, according to this new teaching there is one subject
of supreme authority, namely the College, of which the pope is only the
official spokesman.
This is the underlying
logic. It was checked during the Council at the moment
when it came up with a compromise text in section 22, where it 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.” (end)
III - UNIVERSAL AND
PARTICULAR JURISDICTION:
Meaning of jurisdiction:
Manning:
If we take jurisdiction to mean strictly and technically what lawyers call the
right jus dicendi inforo externo, then there can be no doubt that this
wholly and altogether comes from the Pontiff; for there can be no forum
externum without a flock, and no Bishop can have a flock assigned to him except
by the successor of Peter.
But
theologians do not strictly and technically confine the meaning of jurisdiction
within these limits. They use the word as Yasquez, Gregory de Valentia,
Ballerini, and Devoti do of the potestas regiminis, which they affirm to he
conferred upon the whole Episcopate immediately by Christ.
Here,
then, we have an equivocal term: and this ambiguity runs through many who write
on this subject.
This
twofold sense of the term jurisdiction leads to a further ambiguity. It
introduces the idea of two jurisdictions one in the whole Episcopate, and
another in each several Bishop. And a
still further ambiguity flows from this. A Bishop by consecration shares in the
jurisdiction of the Episcopate, but is said to have no jurisdiction as a
Bishop.
All
are agreed that by virtue of consecration a Bishop receives the potestas
ordinis. But that which makes the Episcopate superior to the priest hood is
not only the power of ordination, but the power of government.
Cardinal
Tarquini says that in consecration there is conferred a habilitas ad
Ecclesiam regendum (the ability to govern the Church). F. de Augustinis and F. Mazella call it an
exigentia (necessity/requirement).
The
two last writers are by far the most exact on this point.
If
a Bishop confirmed, but not consecrated, may exercise episcopal jurisdiction,
has he this habilitas before, and without consecration? What habilitas does he
then receive in consecration?
But
a simple priest also may exercise episcopal jurisdiction, as Prefects Apostolic
and Vicars Capitular. They must, therefore, either have this habilitas, or they
do not need it. If so, what does it confer upon a Bishop which they do not
possess?
The
same remark, more or less, might be made about the exigentia. Either the priest
and the layman have this exigentia, or they do not need it. What, then, does it
confer on the Bishop?
When
Gregory of Yalentia says that by consecration every Bishop receives the potestas
regiminis in potentia, but that for its actuality that is, for its exercise
in act the authority of the Roman Pontiff is necessary, no ambiguity
appears.
Such
also I conceive to be the meaning of Devoti, when he speaks of a jurisdictio
otiosa a Deo immediate collata. And the parallel he draws between the power
of absolution conferred upon every priest in ordination, mediately by the
Sacrament of Order, but immediately from God, seems to be an exact parallel.
Every priest has in him in potentia or potentially the power of absolution; but
no priest without faculties has jurisdiction over anybody. He may live and die
without faculties, but the power of absolution is in him. The Council of
Trent, in its fourth canon upon the Sacrament of Order, condemns under anathema
those who say that the words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum in the Sacrament of
Order are said without effect. But if they do not convey the power of
absolution to the priest and of government to the Bishop, how are they
not said in vain?
F.
Mazella says truly that this exigentia issues from, or is produced by, the
character impressed in consecration.
Therefore
it is something which. without consecration. neither cleric nor priest can
possess.
The
potestas clavium or the power of the keys, and the potestas regiminis
or the power of government, according to Ballerini, are equivalent.
The signification of the key of David as the government, or throne, promised to
the Messias, is sufficient proof. This we have already seen in the first and
second chapters.
Now,
S. Gregory the Great says : ' To all who know the Gospel it is plain that by
the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to S. Peter,
head of all the Apostles . To him it is
said: "Thou art Peter . . . and 99 to thee will I give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven," &c. See, he receives the keys of the heavenly
kingdom ; the power of binding and loosing is given to him, the care and
primacy of the whole Church is committed to him. '
The
power of the keys, then, includes the whole idea of government and of the
pastoral office, of which the power of binding and loosing is the essence. But
this is inherent in the successor of Peter and the united Episcopate.
Also
look up: JURISPRUDENTIAE ecclesiasticae
universae libri IX Venetiis, typis Simonis Occhi, 1787 Giovanni Poletpi (maybe pp 216-17)
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4U54fRBjqCEC/mode/2up?q=collegium
Also
see: Il buon uso della logica in materia di religione del canonico Alfonso
Muzzarelli
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=fXma2wGQWKIC&pg=GBS.PA58&hl=en pp. 48+
V. Tizzano,
Les conciles généraux: Les conciles d'Occident, Rome 1868 (see google ebooks):
On
the other hand, this transmission of the immense power given to the Apostles
had to in no way compromise the unity of government on which Our Lord had
founded his Church. Peter moreover, could not be separated from the Episcopal
Body, since he is its Chief. But if Peter remained the Head of the Church and
of the Apostles, that is to say of the Bishops, the unity of the governing
power given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and their Successors could only be
preserved through the union of the Bishops and their Chief, with whom they
constitute the Episcopal Body. The latter, in fact, was represented by the
Apostles united with St. Peter, at the moment when they all received together
from Our Lord the promise of his perpetual assistance: Ecce Ego vobiscum sum
omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem sæculi. Thus the unity of government
in the Church requires the union of the Bishops with the Pope. They then
together form this unique Episcopate, so well defined by S. Cyprien in the
following way: Episcopalus unus est, cujus in solidum a singulis pars tenetur.
And it is for this reason that Jesus Christ transmitted to the Apostles (and
consequently to their successors, the Bishops), united to St. Peter, all his
power over the Church. So this power resides in the Episcopate,
that is to say, in the Episcopal body having Peter for its Chief.
Therefore each Bishop, by the same fact of
his consecration, becomes a member of the Episcopal Body, provided that he is
united to the Head of the Church, and he necessarily enters into possession of the power transmitted by Our Lord to
the Apostles and to their Successors,
that is to say, to the Episcopal Body, or, let us repeat it again with S.
Cyprian, to this Episcopate which is one, et, cu jus in solidum a singulis pars
tenetur. Now, precisely by virtue of its essential character of unity,
this power applies to the universal Church.
Consequently, the Bishops, not isolated, but united with the Pope, and thus
constituting the Episcopal Body, possess authority over
all Church. And this is how this universal jurisdiction is explained,
which each Bishop possesses,
and in any General Council legitimately convoked, and
then is exercised by the Bishops, gathered together as we have just said,
this particular assistance of Jesus Christ, by virtue of which infallibility is
communicated to their decrees. After all that has been exposed up to now, it
results, as everyone sees, from the very foundation and constitution of the
Catholic Episcopate that the general power, that is to say this
universal jurisdiction that each Bishop (not isolated but forming part of
the Episcopal Body) possesses
over the Church, does not include, as a necessary and absolutely required
condition, jurisdiction over a particular Diocese.
It is because, in fact, this latter
jurisdiction [particular jurisdiction] has its source in the mission which the
Bishop receives to govern a portion of the flock of Jesus Christ and
consequently derives (either immediately or mediately) from the Pope, that is, from
the Head of the Church, to whom Our Lord has given authority over the flocks
and over the Pastors:
Pasce oves, pasce agnos. One thing is
different, we see, is the particular jurisdiction which the Bishop possesses over a
particular Church; another thing is the universal jurisdiction which he possesses over the whole
Church; one is the authority he has over his Diocese, another is that which he
has above [over?] all the Church, as a member of the Episcopal Body united to
its Head. The power and jurisdiction that the
Bishop has over his Diocese comes from the Pope; the power and jurisdiction that
the Bishop has as part of the Episcopal Body, of the bishops united with their
Head, for example, sitting in a General Council, comes from God.
To have jurisdiction over a Diocese, every Bishop needs a mission from the
Roman Pontiff; to give him jurisdiction over the universal Church, the
Episcopal character alone suffices [provided he is united to the head]. It follows from this that a Bishop in
partibus [with no particular jurisdiction] has the right to sit in a General
Council and has a deliberative voice there, since a General Council,
canonically gathered, represents the Catholic Episcopate of which St. Cyprian
speaks and to which Jesus Christ spoke [when He] conferred, (with the unity of
government), all power in the Church.
We will therefore conclude that it is
not by virtue of a privilege or a custom that bishops in partibus sit in
general councils and have a deliberative voice there, but rather by virtue of
the divine mission, which all Bishops in union with their Head [have] to govern
the Church of God.
This is perfectly explained in this text of St. Paul [St. Luke]: Atlendile
vobis et universo gregi in quo Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere
Ecclesiam Dei [Acts 20:28]. S. Cyprien employs three similes which serve
admirably to explain the unity of government established by Jesus Christ in his
Church; and although they relate to the universal
Church, they show us that what the Bishops are by virtue of their very
consecration, is what the Pope is by virtue of his Primacy; and finally what
the Bishops and the Pope are in relation to Jesus Christ, the divine Founder of
the Church.
[He quotes Cyprian at length, and
then writes: - translate it]
Thus the Episcopal Body, united to
its Head, constitutes that light which illuminates the darkness of error,
and which has its hearth [foundation? Existence?] in
Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Body, united to its Head, is that tree which
bears fruit in the Church, because it has its root in Jesus Christ. Finally,
the Episcopal Body, united to its Head, is this river, which divides into
streams to water and fertilize the Gospel field. In everything there is unity
in Jesus Christ: if one cuts off a branch of the tree, this branch will no
longer bear fruit; if we separate one of the streams from the source, praecisus
arescit; if we interpose an obstacle between a ray and the focus, the light of
this ray fails. So true is it that the Episcopate destined to govern
the Church is essentially founded on the unity of government, in which all the
Bishops concur, united with Peter, their Head, when they find
themselves gathered together with him in Jesus Christ, the source and origin
of all power: unum tamen caput est et origo una. Also S. Cyprien could say
in all truth: ‘The Episcopate is one.’
Pantaléon
and Opizon therefore had the perfect right to sit in the Second General Council
of Lyons. From all that we have seen we can deduce several truths, suitable to
clear up certain obscure points or misunderstood hitherto by many minds.
1.
° Bishops can be called, in all the force of the term, Successors of the
Apostles, when, united in a General Council, or even dispersed over the surface
of the earth, they act in concert, under the direction and under the dependence
of the visible Head of the Church, with whom they then constitute the Episcopal
Body.
2.
° A Bishop, as a Diocesan Bishop, cannot, properly
speaking, be called a Successor of the Apostles, because it is from the Pope
that he receives the mission and the particular jurisdiction to govern his
Diocese, and which must not be confused with the general jurisdiction which
every Bishop receives from God through Episcopal consecration. It
is this particular jurisdiction which makes, for example, the Archbishop of
Lyon successor to S. Pothin, the Bishop of Terni successor to S. Valentin,
etc. in the administration of the same diocese. [interesting point. A bishops succeeds another, only by virtue of
particular jurisdiction]
3.
It follows from this that a Bishop, if he is not united with the whole
Episcopal Body, himself united with Peter (in the sense explained above), can
never exercise general jurisdiction; for the Pope alone enjoys the Primacy, not only of honor,
but also of jurisdiction over the whole Church.
4.
The particular jurisdiction over a diocese, being entirely distinct
from the general jurisdiction possessed by any bishop by virtue of his consecration, does
not confer the right to sit in a general council with deliberative voice.
5.
° Every Bishop therefore necessarily possesses a general jurisdiction over the
universal Church, even if he does not possess a particular jurisdiction over a
determined Diocese; Whereas the Episcopate, as a divine institution, does not have
for its object a particular Church, but the universal Church.
7.
Since bishops alone have the right to attend general councils with a
deliberative voice, it is true that non-bishop cardinals, abbots and superiors
of religious orders can only be admitted to them by virtue of a privilege
granted by the Roman Pontiff.
8.°
Since Jesus Christ gave full authority over his Church, on one occasion to
St. Peter alone, and [Mt. 16:18] on another occasion to the Episcopal Body
(represented by the Apostles) [Mt. 18:18], united to and dependent upon St.
Peter, we see immediately the futility or rather the uselessness of this
question: Is the General Council superior to the Pope! Indeed, after Our
Lord made the government of his Church consist in a unity established under the
dependence of the visible Head of this same Church, it is impossible to
understand how a general Council could be superior to this Head.
9.
° Whenever the election of a Pope is doubtful and
this doubt is well founded and reasonable, the Episcopal body alone has the
right to set itself up as a supreme tribunal to examine the question and to
judge it without appeal.
We
will come back to these last consequences [check and see if he references Constance] and to
the reflections that flow from them, when in our third volume we deal with the
Council of Constance [Yep].
For the moment, we do not want to lose sight of the main goal that we have
proposed in this, in our undertaking to
demonstrate the right of bishops in partibus to sit in general councils;
consequently, we are going to examine whether the doctrine which we have just
expounded finds its confirmation elsewhere. We have pointed out that there
are two kinds of Episcopal jurisdiction: one general and possessed by every
Bishop, the other particular and possessed only by Diocesan Bishops. The
first has for its object the general government of the universal Church; the
second, the government of a particular Church. Now this
doctrine happens to be perfectly in accord with the rite of the consecration of
bishops [Contra Sanborn]. As the Catholic Church was to last
until the consummation of the centuries, it was necessary that the Episcopal
character be transmitted, so that the Bishops, succeeding each other in the
same See, under the dependence of the Successors of S. Peter, could continue
the mission of the Apostles and govern the Church of Jesus Christ. But for
this it was also necessary that the transmission of the Episcopal character be
effected by means of sensible signs; for just as the Church is visible, its
organization must be visible, and consequently, the rite of the
consecration of bishops must also be. This ritual goes back, moreover, as to
its substance, to Apostolic times. Now, in the transmission
of the Episcopal character by means of consecration, we find indicated, and at
the same time distinguished, the two jurisdictions of which we have spoken
above, one general, the other particular. Without
wanting to relate here all the prayers, and all the invocations and the
formulas used in the Episcopal consecration, we will limit ourselves to quoting
those which relate which relate most to our question. It will be well to
observe that these formulas, these invocations and these prayers were not
composed, or adopted by the Church, after some Theologians and Canonists began
to doubt whether or not the Bishops in partibus had the right to sit at the
General Councils.
The
most senior of the Bishops who assist at the consecration addresses to the
Bishop consecrating the following request: Reverendissimo Pater, postulate
Sancla Mater Ecclesia Catholica ut hunc praesentem Praesbyterum ad onus
Episcopalus sublevetis (Most Reverend Father, may this priest be added to the
episcopate the care of Holy Mother Church). Here no mention is made of the
Diocese, whether or not the elected Bishop is a Bishop with particular
jurisdiction. When a Bishop is consecrated in partibus, there is not a
single word changed in the Roman Pontifical, and the elect is made to take the
same oath as to Diocesan Bishops. The consecrating Bishop then declares
what are the Episcopal functions, without making
any distinction in the case where the elected would be Bishop in partibus: -
Episcopum oportet judicare, interpre tari etc. and in the Orison he addresses
the following prayer to God: Oremus, ut huic electo utilitali Ecclesiae
providens benignitas Omnipotentis Dei gratiae suae tribuat largitatem.
We already see
that by this prayer God is entreated to provide for the usefulness of his
Church by granting to the Bishop-elect, annular or not, gratiae largitatem. Here
again it is not a question of the Diocese, but of the Church in general. The
following Oration declares more explicitly what a Bishop, in partibus or not,
receives from God by the very fact of his consecration. The consecrator prays
as follows: Idcirco huic fa mulo tuo quem ad Summi Sacerdotü ministerium ele
gisti....da da...Domine claves regni coelorum, ul uta tur, non glorietur
potestate quam tribuis in aedif calionem non in destructionem. Quodcumque
ligaverit super terram sit ligatum et in coelis; et quodcumque solverit super
terram sit solutum et in coelis, et qui maledixerit ei sit ille maledictus,
etc. Tribes ei, Domine, Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendum Ecclesiam Tuam. (Here
again it is not a question of the Diocese but of the universal Church) et
plebem sibi commissam (here now is the Diocese, distinguished, as we see,
from the universal Church) Sis ei au cloritas, sis ei potestas, El C .; these
last words indicate the general jurisdiction which comes from God. From
the set of words which we have just quoted (and which would suffice if
necessary to resolve the question) it obviously follows that every Bishop, in his consecration, receives a Chair
(Cathedram) to govern the Church of God (ad
regendum Ecclesiam Tuam) and a designated people (in the case of
a Diocesan Bishop). He therefore receives (in the
latter case) two distinct jurisdictions: the first having for its object the
universal Church and the second a particular Diocese (plebem sibi commissam). The tradition of the ring made then to the Bishop
that also deserves to be noticed, especially by those who call the Bishops in
partibus, Annular Bishops, with the intention of depreciating their dignity, as
if the ring were not than a simple honorific sign. Here are the words which
accompany the handing over of the ring: Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet si
gnaculum, qualenus Sponsam Dei, Sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide
ornatus, illibale custodias. The ring is therefore, above all, a sign which
indicates the union of the Bishop with his spouse, the Church of Jesus Christ…”
(598-609).
Father Le Guillou: “Primacy
designates the supreme universal jurisdiction as granted personally to the
Successor of Peter and exercised, as such, by him; but the College of Bishops,
in communion with the Successor of Peter, and under his authority, collegially possesses this same universal jurisdiction collegially."
(E GUILLOU M. J., Les structures sacramentelles et collégiales de la communion
et de la mission,in l'Église en marche, Cahiers de la Pierre Qui Vire, Desclée
de Brouwer, Paris, 1964, p. 123)
Vatican I Directive
Congregation meeting:
In the ninth meeting of the directive Congregation on May 17,
1868, Monsignor Angelini, the recorder, among other proposals made the
following:
‘The reasoning behind the opposite opinion is based completely
upon the power of jurisdiction. Now the simply titular bishops have no
effective and actual jurisdiction. Hence they conclude that they lack the basis
on which the right to vote rests. ...
Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it
is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was
received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore,
it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the
governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the
Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop
acquires in the act of and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes
a member of the episcopal body, and consequently receives the right to govern
and teach the whole Church, when he is in union with all the others and forms
one body with them’. It is on this universal
jurisdiction that is common to all bishops, because it is received with
episcopal ordination, the right of to vote in councils is based; indeed,
residential bishops do not vote in councils from the 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. Such is the reasoning of Bolgeni, Cappellari who was
afterwards Gregory XVI of holy memory, Phillips, and others.[26]’” (Mansi, Sacrorum
Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection, 49, 1923, col. 495 f. Emphasis
supplied.)
(Senonche questa mancanza
totale di giurisdizion non sembra potersi ammettere, poiche e quasi impossibile
di non riconoscere che merce la imposizione della mani ossia la consarazione,
si riceva puranco una qualche giurisdizione.
Percio convien distinguere nel vescovo la giurisdizione particlare pel
governo di qualche determinate chiesa, che senza meno si riceve dal papa, dalla
giurisdizione generale ed universcale, che il vescovo ad esser membro del corpo
episcopale … Su questa giurisdizione universal commune a tutti li vescovi,
perche nasce dalla ordinazione episcopale, si basa il diritto di suffragio ne
concilf, et difatti ache li vescovi residenziali non votana nei concilij per la
giurisdizione che hanno sulle loro chiese particolari, ma come maestri o
governatori di tutta la chiesa in generale quando sono tutti tiuniti in corpo
col capovisibile della chiesa stessa.
Percio, sia pure che quanto alli vescovi titolari rimanga sospeso L’
esercizio del diritto di governo sulle relative loro chiese, perche cadute
nelle mani delgi infedeli o manco di suditi Cristiani o a quelli pochi che vi
fossero riserva as se la santa sede di provvedervi merce li suoi vicarj
apostolici, rimarra sempre fermo, che non sono aforniti di quella giurisdizione
generale, attinta colla loro ordinazione, ciso la discorre il Bolgeni, il
Cappelari poi Gregory XVI, di santa memoria, Pillips, ed altria.)
In a meeting of the same Congregation, March 14,
1869, the same topic is
addressed:
“… there is
another solid distinction between the particular jurisdiction over a given
diocese, which the titular bishops do not have, and the general and
universal jurisdiction, which is received by virtue of the ordination common to
all bishops. (Il di cui esercizio li vescovi titolari non hanno, dalla
giurisdizione generale ed universal, che si attinge in forza della ordinazione
stessa commune a tutti li vescovi,); the latter consists of the right
to teach and govern the universal Church, which is precisely what takes
place in a council, where the body of the bishops are united with the pope for
the affairs of the universal Church... In view of all these weighty
considerations, the aforementioned most eminent and most reverend Cardinals
have unanimously concluded that they do not see any way to
deny admission to the Council even to a portion of the above-mentions titular
bishops.’ [then it must be a divine right].” (Mansi, Ibid., 525 f. Emphasis
supplied)
(Il di cui esercizio li
vescovi titolari non hanno, dalla giurisdizione generale ed universal, che si
attinge in forza della ordinazione stessa commune a tutti li vescovi, e che
appunto consiste nel diritto di’ insegnamento e di governo su titta la chiesa,
che ha luodo appunto allorche ne’ concilj il corpo episcopale si trova riunito
col papa per gli affair universal della cheisa;)
The following about the
above point is from NOTE SUR LA COLLÉGIALITÉ ÉPISCOPALE, by Jérôme Hamer
(1960):
“It
contrasts the authors chosen by Fr. Delafosse with other theologians who
conclude in the opposite direction. In their eyes, bishops without jurisdiction
indisputably have this right, which Veuillot's friend disputes. Fr. Méric adds:
“If the bishops in partibus have the right to attend Councils, they have the
right to submit a memorandum to the judgment of the Pope and the Church. It is
more than their right, it is their duty” (6).
“For
the Central Commission, the problem had been settled since its meeting of May
17. However, when receiving the secretary of the Commission on March 8, 1869,
Pius IX expressed the desire not to admit all the titular bishops
indiscriminately because “among them there are several about whom there would
be much to say given the attitude 'they adopted' (7). The transcript of the
interview does not name anyone. It is probable that the pope was aiming at
Bishop Maret. On March 14, the Commission once again resumed consideration of
this question. His conclusion remained unchanged: it was appropriate to summon
them all. The secretary took care in his report to give all the reasons for
this decision (8). After having examined them with great attention, Pius IX approved
the Commission (9). The titular bishops were all admitted, without exception.
The pope treated them like the other bishops by extending to them also the
obligation to come to the Council or, in case of impediment, to send a
procurator.
II.
- The theological file
The sheet annexed to the report of the
session of May 17, 1868 of the Central Commission and the letters of Fr.
Delafosse and Fr. Méric allow us to establish the theological file of this
affair (10). The list in the leaflet is the most complete. The following are against the right to vote: Melchior
Cano, François Suarez[27] and
Franz Xaver Schmalzgrueber. On the contrary,
Reiffenstuel, Gonzalez-Tellez, Ferraris, Devoti, Phillips, Bolgeni and
Cappellari (the future Gregory XVI) are in favor of it. To this second
list, the sheet adds the indirect testimony of Benedict XIV in his letter to
Cardinal Deacon delle Lanze (August 4, 1747) at the time of his elevation to
the archbishopric in partibus of Nicosia and that of Pius VI in his brief May
10 [might be March 10) 1791) to Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld.
To
the first series, the letter from Fr. Delafosse makes it possible to add the
French canonist Bouix, the theologian Régnier and two references to Benedict
XIV.
To complete the
second, one will find in Fr. Méric the names of Thomassin, Fagnani, Bellarmine
and Andreucci. For our investigation, it will not be necessary to
analyze all these texts. Some concern only secondary aspects. Many are mere
repetitions. For our part, we will endeavor to grasp the main characteristic
positions in a few important authors.
The titular bishops have no jurisdiction. This
is the reason that we find in all the authors who refuse to these prelates the
right of suffrage. Among them Melchior Cano (1509-1560) expresses himself with
the greatest clarity: "The merely titular bishops, no more than the simple
priests, should be summoned to the Council because all the affairs which are
dealt with in an ecclesiastical Council are dealt with there, not by virtue of
the power of order, but by virtue of the power of jurisdiction. No one, in fact,
can without jurisdiction pronounce a sentence, bind or loosen. Now it is
constant that all the work of the bishops, gathered in Council, consists either
in giving the people disciplinary laws for the reform of morals or in judging
questions of faith, which can only be done by virtue of the right of to bind or
to loose" (11).
Not all theologians share Melchior Cano's
conclusions. We have seen it. A few lines before the text that we have just
quoted, Cano even declares bluntly about the titular bishops: “Sine causa in
Ecclesia sunt” (12). However, all will agree on the principle put forward:
"Totum quippe ecclesiastici concilii negotium non ordinis sed
jurisdictions potestate transigitur". Council activity is essentially
pastoral. It therefore presupposes the corresponding powers. She is
inconceivable without jurisdiction.
Also
the theologians and canonists of the second series all recognize in titular
bishops a certain jurisdiction. But they differ precisely on how to design it.
For a first group, it is a usual jurisdiction, also called radical or in actu
primo.
Here is how the canonist Lucien Ferraris (died
around 1763) expressed it: “Titular bishops also enjoy the same right of
decisive suffrage and must be called by right to general councils (...). They
keep real jurisdiction in actu primo over their titular dioceses.
If one day (...) these Churches are delivered
from the tyranny of the infidels, these bishops will have in actu secundo a
territory on which they will be able, like the other bishops, to say the right
to their own subjects” (14). On this usual bond which remains despite the
impossibility of administering the diocese, another canonist Prospero Fagnani
(1588-1678) founds the obligation of the ad limina visit for the titular
bishops. They probably have neither people nor clergy who recognize them. They
nevertheless remain responsible for the territory to which they have been given
the title. They must make every effort to restore there the reign of Christ and
freedom of religion. They must inform the pope and the Congregation of the
efforts they are making to this end (15). this effect (15). This usual link
exists (16). In his brief of March 10, 1791 to Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld,
Archbishop of Aix, Pope Pius VI recalled that “if it happens that the bishop
of the diocese abandoned by the people finds himself absolutely alone, this
pastor without a flock will still be a bishop; his church will nonetheless be a
cathedral: the bishop and his church will retain all their rights: this is what
happens for churches which are under the domination of Turks or infidels and
which are still often conferred the title to bishops” (17). But this link
must be considered differently depending on the case. It probably still remains
very narrow when it git, as in the brief of Pius VI, of a bishop who had just
been driven out of his diocese by the French Revolution. It is much looser
today when a titular bishop is assigned a see in the former empire of
Byzantium, in some Mediterranean island or in northern Africa. In each of these cases, these are territories
that have been without residential pastors for many centuries and which
frequently come under the jurisdiction of a missionary prelate.
It was on the other side that several
theologians and canonists followed Jean-Vincent Bolgeni (18). Despite the
opposition of their conclusions, Cano and Ferraris have an important point in
common: they seek the justification of the right of suffrage (to vote) in a
particular jurisdiction in a given territory. Envisaging only a current
particular jurisdiction, Cano denies this right to the titular bishops.
Considering on the contrary the possibility of a usual particular jurisdiction,
Ferraris recognizes this right.
This distinction of Bolgeni was well
received. We see Dom Maur Cappellari making it his own in a work which
was republished after his elevation to the sovereign pontificate under the name
of Gregory XVI.[28] A French canonist François Maupied
proposes it in his treatise on canon law and in a small work published on the
occasion of the Council.[29] An Italian theologian, Raffaele
Coppola adopted it in his turn in an article from 1868.[30] It is therefore not surprising
that the existence of this universal jurisdiction in each bishop is one of the
reasons put forward by the Central Commission to justify the advisability of
convoking all the titular bishops. The report does not hesitate to speak of
sodissima distinzione, of “very solid distinction.”
In the theology of the episcopate elaborated
by Bolgeni, four points deserve
particular attention.
1. We must consider the episcopal power both
in S. Peter and in the apostolic college directed by S. Peter. “Jesus did not divide his flock into portions, nor the
world into dioceses, assigning one to John, another to Andrew, a third to
Matthew. He conferred the episcopate on St. Peter in all its fullness,
universality and sovereignty; in the same way he conferred the episcopate on
the whole apostolic college still presided over by St. Peter. Each apostle had
full and universal authority over the whole Church, but always in subordination
to St. Peter” (23).
2. The apostolic college thus defined was
succeeded by the episcopal body directed by the successor of Peter. “Considered
not separately but together and always in union and under the authority of the
Pope their head, the bishops form what is called the episcopal body, which
succeeds the apostolic college, and which possesses the episcopate in all its
fullness, universality and sovereignty, as it was instituted and bestowed by
Jesus Christ. In fact, a bishop considered in himself, although he is judge of
faith, however, is not infallible in its learned decisions; and while he is a
legislator in matters of discipline, his laws have no force and do not oblige
outside his diocese. But when we consider the whole body of bishops
legitimately gathered together in a general council or dispersed in the Church,
then all the decisions of faith which emanate from this body are infallible
decisions and its laws of discipline bind the whole Church” (Quote from Bolgeni).
Becoming a member of the episcopal body, each bishop currently united with all
the others and forming with them a single organism accedes to the right to
govern and administer the whole Church.
3. This right to govern the universal
Church and this duty to provide to his needs, which belongs to the bishop as a
member of the episcopal body, is universal jurisdiction. After having
described the rights of the bishop within the episcopal body and by virtue of
his insertion in it, Bolgeni continues: “This is what I call universal
jurisdiction in each bishop; it is totally distinct from jurisdiction over
dioceses and populations” (25). Universal jurisdiction is linked to episcopal
dignity. “It is not necessary that it be linked to the particular jurisdiction
over any given population” (26).
4. This universal jurisdiction remains subject
to the supreme authority in the Church. A bishop can be suspended or deposed.
The history of the Church gives us examples of this (27).
This theology of Fr. Bolgeni requires a word
of explanation. We let us now leave the question of titular bishops, a
secondary problem, which has led us to the central theme of the universal
jurisdiction of bishops (28). It is the latter that interests us.
What is the originality of Bolgeni compared to
other authors that we discussed? Quite simply that it breaks the necessary link
that the latter establish between particular jurisdiction and conciliar
activity. For Cano as for Ferraris, it is the particular jurisdiction which
qualifies the bishop by conciliar suffrage. If these authors had been able to
define their position in relation to that of Bolgeni, they would no doubt have
said that the particular jurisdiction is (with the convocation of the Pope), the
basis of universal jurisdiction of which Bolgeni speaks. For this last, on the
contrary, the particular jurisdiction does not play this role at all. Universal
jurisdiction is not secondary to particular jurisdiction: particular
jurisdiction: it is on the same level. Bolgeni emphasizes the collective aspect of
succession (29).
The bishops are successors of the apostles.
However, all that is rightly attributed to the apostles is not necessarily
applicable to the bishops. The apostles saw the risen Christ. It goes without
saying that this personal experience cannot be transmitted by inheritance. Each
apostle received the personal assistance of the Holy Spirit and the power to
exercise in its fullness throughout the earth the power of the keys and the
power of doctrine. Considered separately, the bishops do not enjoy an
assistance of infallibility and universal powers. It is only as a body, as an
episcopate, that they succeed the apostles in the same quality of assistance of
the Holy Spirit and in the generality and plenitude of powers. These
prerogatives, therefore, they never exercise alone, but only as members of a
body, according to the organic and hierarchical structure of this body, in
concert with its head. It is impossible to speak of the universal jurisdiction
of bishops without underlining at the same time its collective character, its
solidarity of nature. In other words, this universal
jurisdiction of the bishops is essentially collegial. This is precisely what
distinguishes it from the universal jurisdiction proper to the Successor of
Peter. The expression “collegial
jurisdiction” removes all ambiguity.
If the position of Fr. Bolgeni is new in
expression, it is very traditional at heart. It is a valid theological
interpretation of the scriptural data. The power to bind and
to loose, granted first to Peter (Mat., 16, 19) is then given to the whole
apostolic college (Mat., 18, 18). A similar observation can be made in Luke:
“I prayed for you, so that your faith would
not fail; and you, when you have returned, strengthen your brothers” (Le, 22,
31-32). In Peter, therefore, perseverance in faith will have its principle. In
the Acts of the Apostles, when it comes to determining the discipline relating
to converts from paganism, we see the whole apostolic college at work: "It
has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts, 15 , 28). Moreover,
"the apostles are not, in the mind of Jesus, separate units, individuals
with no other link between them than being a group sent to preach him
everywhere. They form a body: there are not only twelve apostles, there is an
apostolic college” (30). The college of the apostles lives and subsists in
the college of bishops.
This theology of the episcopate leads to a balanced ecclesiology
which recognizes in the Church two subjects of supreme power: the sovereign
pontiff and the episcopal college headed by the Pope. In the new version of
the schema of Ecclesia Christi prepared by Fr. Joseph Kleutgen for the Vatican
Council, we read: “For it is certain that the binding and loosing of the
Pontiffs, which was given to Peter alone, is also attributed to the college of
the apostles, joined to its head.” (Illud enim ligandi et
solvendi pontificium, quod Petro soli datum est, collegio quoque apos tolorum,
suo tarnen capiti conjuncto, tributum esse statement”).[31] In the annotations which
accompany this project, after having indicated the role of the bishops in the
teaching and the government of the universal Church, and recalling the recent
definition of the primacy, the author adds: "Consequently this power
(supreme ) exists in a double subject, in the body of bishops united to the
Pope, and in the Pope alone” (33). As he again rightly points out, these
two subjects are not adequately distinct; any possibility of discord is
therefore excluded between the authority of the Pope alone and the collegial
authority of the bishops.
The pastoral significance of this doctrine is no less than its
theological importance. Episcopal collegiality is exercised not only in the
ecumenical council, but also in the ordinary and universal magisterium of the
bishops scattered throughout the world, who preach the faith as true doctors to
the faithful entrusted to their care. Although on a smaller
scale and in different ways, it is still at work in particular councils and in
episcopal conferences (35). It is on here that Pius XI and Pius XII based a great
missionary call.[32]
No bishop can escape the solicitude of all the Churches. Collegiality is this
openness to universality, to the whole of the Church, inscribed in the
episcopate of each pastor in communion with the episcopal body under the
authority of its head.[33] This is true, in a
special way, of the residential bishop.
The diocese is not only a part of the
universal Church, carefully separated from any similar part by well-defined
frontiers, it is also and above all the living presence in a given territory
and people of the catholicity of Church, its concerns, its calls and its hopes,
through the ministry of its bishop.[34] Awareness of this
collegiality gives pastoral care a new dimension.” (Jérôme
Hamer, Note Sur La Collégialité Épiscopale, Revue des Sciences
philosophiques et théologiques, January 1960, Vol. 44, No. 1 pp. 40-50).
The following is what
Dupre writes about the Vatican I commission:
During the
preparation of Vatican I, the Central Commission commissioned Bishop Angelini,
one of its consultors, to make a report on the question of whether the titular
bishops should be called to the Council. This report was presented and
discussed at the meeting of 17 May 1808.[35] The opinion of the
theologians and canonists on the Commission [was] far from unanimous. The question of titular bishops exercising
actual jurisdiction, as in the case of apostolic vicars, was resolved fairly
quickly, and the common opinion recognized their right to take part in the
Council. On the other hand, opinions were sharply divided on the
participation of Bishops without any present jurisdiction. The Central
Commission did not decide the problem on the legal level. it decided that all
the titular bishops should be summoned to question had
been put to the rapporteur [translation]
On 14 March 1869,
at the request of Pius IX, the Commission resumed its examination of this
question. Its conclusion remained unchanged: all the bishops should be
summoned.
However, the Secretary took care to give, in his report, the reasons for this
decision138 . After examining them carefully, the Pope approved the
Commission139. The titular bishops were all admitted, without exception. The
Pope treated them in the same way as the other bishops, extending to them also
the obligation to come to the Council140 .
The appendix141 ,
attached to the minutes of the session of May 17, 1868, which we mentioned
earlier, lists the authors and theologians who were opposed to the right of
suffrage for titular bishops and those who were in favour of it. Among the
former Melchior Cano, Suarez, Schmalzgrueber; among the latter,
Reiffenstuel, Gonzalez-Tellez, Ferraris, Devoti, Philips, Bolgeni and Capellari
(the future Gregory XVI). To this second list, Bishop Angelini's appendix
added the indirect testimony of Benedict XIV in his Letter to the Cardinal
Deacon delle Lanze (August 4, 1747) and that of Pius VI in his Brief to
Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld (May 10, 1791). Moreover, the position of Father
Bolgeni142was set out with praise. The latter considers that two jurisdictions
should be distinguished in the person of the bishop, one particular, the other
universal. Every bishop, as a bishop, possesses
and can exercise jurisdiction as a member of the Episcopal Body, in full union
with and submission to the Pope, head of that body. In virtue of this universal
jurisdiction, the bishop is entitled to participate in the Council.
When, at the
request of Pius IX, the problem was again examined 14 March 1869, the minutes
described as sodissima distinzione143 , the distinction between particular and
universal jurisdiction, which originates in the ordination common to all
bishops, and which consists precisely in the right to teach and govern the whole
Church144 .
This universal
jurisdiction, which each Bishop possesses in virtue of his
ordination, makes him capable, on the occasion of an Ecumenical Council, of
participating, in union with and under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, in
the government of the universal Church. The Central Commission, through the
mouth of its representative, Bishop Angelini, did not specify whether this
universal jurisdiction was conferred directly by God or whether it was given
mediately by the Supreme Pontiff at the very moment of the episcopal ordination
carried out in the Catholic communion, as J. B. Bolgeni also maintained.
III - 2. 2 The position of theologians in
relation to the jurisdiction of the bishops over the universal Church and its
origin.
It must be
recognized that few theologians of the years following the first Vatican
Council affirm, following Father Bolgeni, that if the particular jurisdiction
of the bishops is indeed directly and immediately pronounced by the Pope, on
the other hand, the universal or collegial jurisdiction of the bishops over the
universal Church is conferred upon them directly by God in virtue of their
consecration. We could quote Dom Gréa, who seems to recognize the existence of
this double jurisdiction in the person of the residential bishop, although his
position does not always seem to be uniform in his work:
"The
universal Church precedes, in the sight of God and in the order of His works,
the particular Church, which is only the appropriation of the whole to each of
its parts. The bishops, therefore, have a universal power which by its nature
extends over the whole Church. This power is the very communion of the
episcopal order and is distinct from their title, by which they are established
as the proper bishops of a particular people"145 .
This power will
belong to all bishops, even those who are not in charge of a particular Church.
Its most solemn manifestation is the Ecumenical Council. But, at the same time,
Dom Gréa distances himself from Father Bolgeni concerning the origin of
episcopal jurisdiction. For him, this unique virtue by which the episcopate
acts is communicated by the head to the members:
"The head
communicates all action to the members, and the members, receiving it from him,
unite and associate with him to act in his virtue which becomes their virtue,
teaching with him in the same magisterium the one doctrine of truth, commanding
with him by the same authority, making laws and passing sentences with
him"146 .
In England, C.
Augustine OSB, following J. B. Bolgeni, distinguishes in the residential
bishops a double jurisdiction:
“the particular
jurisdiction over their own diocese and the universal jurisdiction proper to be
exercised in a collegial way.”(Fr. Augustine,
Commentary on Canon Law!). [36]
According to C.
Journet,
"In addition
to the particular jurisdiction which they possess in their own right, the
bishops, taken collegially, in virtue of their close union with the Sovereign
Pontiff, participate in the universal jurisdiction which resides in the
Sovereign Pontiff in his own right....
The particular
jurisdiction of the bishops is distinct from universal jurisdiction; it is
added to it not to give more power,majus in potestate, but several powers,
plures potes- tatest.”
The distinction of two episcopal
jurisdictions, which would overlap in the person of the residential bishop, is
not, however, a common opinion among theologians of that time
There are many
theologians who will not follow Father Bolgeni on the question of the origin of
the jurisdictional power of the Episcopal Body and who maintain that the
supreme authority belongs to the Body of Bishops only because of its head. According to them, this head can associate all its members,
when it deems it appropriate, with the exercise of its supreme authority by the
communication of its power to them.[as Lefebvre taught], the authors think of the Ecumenical Councils, whose
decisions emanate both from the Episcopal Body and the Pope, who is the source
of all authority
The theologian Billot strongly advocates
the immediate origin of all episcopal jurisdiction, both particular and
collegial, from the Supreme Pontiff: “Since he is always the rock of the
Church, the one who confirms his brethren, and the shepherd of both lambs and
sheep, he is therefore the sole source and foundation of the supreme power of
government in the whole episcopal body.”
The theologian D.
Palmieri [who Fr. Tranqullo quotes] stands out as an opponent of the
theory of J. V. Bolgeni. For him, it is the Pope who attributes to the bishops
the power that they exercise in the Ecumenical Council. The divine right of
the bishops would only be, according to Palmieri, a kind of disposition that
makes the bishop capable of exercising the power over the universal
Church in union with the other bishops and under the dependence of the Pope.
He thus affirms:
“However, the
bishops, both individually and collectively, do not have in themselves this
power to make laws for the universal Church; they have not received it
immediately from God, but can only receive it from the Roman Pontiff, when he
summons them in virtue of his supreme power.
“The power to make
laws for the universal Church is an act proper to the suprema potestas;
therefore this power does not in itself belong to the bishops, either
individually or collectively. And such power is not conferred directly, which
is why we must reject the assertion of Bolgeni, that seeker of new opinions,
who maintains that universal jurisdiction is given immediately by Christ to the
bishops, not taken individually, but in so far as they constitute an episcopal
body united to its head, the Roman Pontiff.
Christ has given universal jurisdiction to the head alone, and through
it he communicates to the body, which is one with the head, the power to
participate in the exercise of universal jurisdiction" (D. PALMIERI,
Tractaius de Romano Pontißce, Editio altera, Prati, 1891, pp. 671-672).
Not without fear of wearying the reader
with an excessively long enumeration, we deem it appropriate to quote two more
authors, G. Wilmers and F. X. Wemz, who wished to react against the Bolognese
position, which seemed to them to jeopardize the primatial power of the Pope,
as it had been defined at the first Vatican Council.
The theologian G. Wilmers149, following in
the footsteps of Father Palmieri, formulated and developed in his work De
Ecclesia a proposal to refute the opinion of Father Bolgeni:
"Apart from the jurisdiction which
they receive from the Supreme Pontiff, the bishops do not possess any other
universal jurisdiction conferred by Christ even though the Apostolic College
continues in them as in its members"
In his turn, the
canonist F. X. Wemz considers the question of origin of jurisdiction of the
College of Bishops in his Jus Decretaliumin connection with the two chapters De
Episcopis and De Conciliis Oecumenicis. In essence, he rejects the doctrine of
universal or collegial jurisdiction conferred immediately by God. He sees in it
an incompatibility with the doctrine of the primatial power conferred by Christ
on Peter alone:
“The opinion of
Bolgeni, which holds that bishops only derives particular jurisdiction over
their dioceses from the Sovereign Pontiff, while a certain universal
jurisdiction is conferred upon them, together with the episcopal character,
immediately by God, not in an individual capacity, but as constituting one body,
must in no way be admitted. Indeed the doctrine held by Bolgeni cannot fail to
be called new (...). Finally, the Catholic
doctrine of the primacy of jurisdiction granted to Peter alone cannot be
reconciled with Bolgeni's assertions." (Wernz)[37]
He further states in his chapter on the
Ecumenical Councils:
"Still less
can one approve of Bolgeni's sentence that Christ has given the bishops
directly a certain jurisdiction over the universal Church, not in so far as
they are taken individually but in so far as they form one body with the Roman
Pontiff. For universal jurisdiction is conferred immediately by Christ on the
one Supreme Pastor of the Church, while the jurisdiction which the Bishops,
legitimately gathered in an Ecumenical Council, exercise over the universal
Church is given to them by the Roman Pontiff and always remains
subordinate to him." (Wernz) [38]
We take the
liberty of mentioning A. Tanquerey[39] and G. Van Noort[40] among the
theologians who do not recognize the existence of two episcopal jurisdictions, one universal,
which would be conferred directly by Christ at the moment of consecration, the
other particular, attached to a portion of the people of God, which would have
its immediate origin in the Supreme Pontiff
111 Does the College of Bishops possess
the power jurisdiction over the universal Church? 112 The Position
of authors interpreting the Primacy of Jurisdiction defined in Vatican I in a
maximalist sense.
The asserted
opposition of some theologians, such as D. Palmieri, to the theory of Father
Bolgeni, according to which the bishops enjoy a double jurisdiction, particular
on the one hand, conferred immediately by the Supreme Pontiff, and collegial on
the other, deriving directly from Jesus Christ, will have the consequence of
leading them to reject the doctrine of the College of Bishops as the subject of
the supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church. They admit at
most that, on the occasion of the Ecumenical Councils, the Pope associates with
himself the resident bishops who already administer a portion of the Church, as
well as the prelates or abbots of his choice, and confers upon them a sort of
participation in his supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church.
Thus, for D.
Palmieri the dual subject theory is not tenable: “
By the institution
of Christ, the potestas suprenia in the Church is not twofold, i.e., there is
no twofold subject of the supreme power over the universal Church, but, as the
Church is one, so is its head; moreover the supreme power (potestas suprema) is
the power of the Primacy, and its subject is one, namely the Roman Pontiff
(...). Indeed, the institution of the Primacy excludes the potestas suprema
from being exercised by all the Pastors"154.[41]
This theory of the
double subject seems to him incompatible with primacy, as it was defined at the
first Vatican Council. Moreover, it seems to him incompatible with the doctrine
of the immediate collation by the Supreme Pontiff of the power of jurisdiction,
which, according to him, is commonly taught (cf. pp. 52-53).
The canonist E X.
Wemz takes a similar position to that of D. Palmieri: he rejects any right of
participation of the titular bishops in the Ecumenical Council155 and makes the
Supreme Pontiff the source of all jurisdictional power in the Church
D. Palmieri concedes, however, that the
bishops can participate in the supreme power, insofar as this supreme power is
a prerogative of the head who communicates it to the bishops on the occasion of
the Councils:
"Indeed, it
is true that the supreme power is also found in the body of pastors in so far
as it belongs properly to its head; by the authority of the latter, it can be
that the other pastors contribute through it and with it to the exercise of the
supreme power (...). The bishops gathered in Council are therefore, by divine
right, fit to exercise this power, in such a way that they receive it from
their head, namely the Roman Pontiff" (D. PALMIERI, op. cit. p. 672.)
Regarding D.
Palmieri, Father Hamer[42] points out that
if this author had had all the documents relating to the work of the First
Vatican Council, his position would have been different. The Zinelli
Report, the Kleutgen Scheme, the Relatio Kleutgen seem to have been absolutely
unknown to him. It is good to know that the seventh volume of the Collectio
Lacensis, which contains the complete acts and works of the Council, among them
the report of Bishop Zinelli, appeared only in 1890; and, as we said in the
first chapter, the schema of Fr. Kleutgen was published in the Mansi
Collectiononly in 1927.
The positions of
authors such as D. Palmieri and F. X. Wemz, who were otherwise so deserving in
the field of sacred sciences, would have important repercussions on many
theologians and canonists in the following decades, especially because of their
authority and great fidelity to the Roman See. Thus, some have
maintained that the Ecumenical Council had only an authority delegated by the
Pope. In this regard, it should be noted that in the eyes of G. Alberigo[43], D. Palmieri and F. X.
Wernz are largely responsible for the divergence between a well-rooted
theological tradition and a one-sided and reductive interpretation of the
Primacy of Jurisdiction defined in the first Vatican Council.
III - 3.2 Evolution of theological thought
following publication of the Acts of the
First Vatican Council A - Position of Dom Gréa and L. Billot
It was not until
Fr. Antonius Straub159 , who was well acquainted with the Collectio Lacensis,
which he quoted in his work De Ecclesia Christi (1912), that the weakness of
the arguments put forward against the thesis of the double subject of the
supreme power of jurisdiction was finally shown. Contrary to
the opponents of J. B. Bolgeni, he is of the opinion that the immediate
communication by the Pope of the power jurisdiction does not prevent the Pope
alone, on the one hand, and the Pope united with the College of Bishops, on the
other, from being two inadequately distinct subjects of the supreme power.
Dom Gréa's position is also noteworthy:
“The power of the episcopate in the
government of the universal Church is exercised in an ordinary way by the
Council, and by the less conspicuous assistance which the scattered bishops,
always united in the dependence and under the impulse of their head, lend to
each other unceasingly for the maintenance of faith and discipline (...)
sovereign and principal action belongs to the Pope. But the bishops themselves, in so far as they
are associated with him as ministers of the universal Church, are called to take
part in it. They then appear to be clothed with a power which is not limited to
their particular flocks (...)"160
Dom Gréa also makes an interesting
comparison with the mystery of the divine processions in the Trinity:
“As the Father gives the Son to operate
with him, and as the operation remains entirely the Father's operation even
though he communicates it to his Son, so the Vicar of Jesus Christ, head of the
Church and of the episcopate, gives the episcopate to act with him and through
him, although the action remains entire and indivisible and is always his own
action in the principal capacity. The true greatness of the episcopate,
therefore, is not to share with its head and to divide the authority which is
indivisible, but it consists in receiving from him and exercising with him
this same and unique authority"161 .
This analogy with the mystery of the
Trinity, in spite of its imperfection, has the advantage of making us penetrate
the mystery of the Church. Dom Gréa also
speaks of hierarchical circumincession since the Head of the College always
lives and acts in the Body of Bishops, and even of mystical concelebration at
the Council between the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Bishops in the
irreformable declaration of a truth162.
The position of L. Billot on this problem
already shows a more advanced and systematic maturation. In his Thesis XXVII
dealingthe episcopate, he states:
"The monarchy of the Church is a sui
generis monarchy
Even though it
retains in all the integral foundations of monarchical law, it also implies the
jurisdictional power of each of the bishops, so that the episcopal body united
at its head is also recognized as suitable particular exercise of supreme
power"163 .
Then he explains
frankly:
"Moreover,
nothing is more explicit, from the beginning in Catholic doctrine, than the
dogma of the supreme power of the world episcopate, whether gathered in an
Ecumenical Councilor dispersed over the face of the earth. The words of St.
Cyprian in "De Unitate Ecclesiae" n. 5: "The episcopate is one,
in which each member participates jointly and severally in the whole, applies
perfectly to this collegial power of all the bishops united to the
Pope"164 .
According to
Cardinal Billot, since the authority of the College does not come from the sum
of the partial authorities, each bishop acting in communion with the others,
can and does, not because of his own virtue but because of the whole of which
the parts are unanimous, what the whole episcopate can and does. It is interesting to note that L. Billot
adheres to the doctrine of collegiality as conceived by the Fathers of the
Deputation of the Faith at Vatican I.
(End quote from Dupre’s book)
_______________________
Pope Gregory XVI, Trumph of the Holy
See (written before he was elected Pope, but published again after he was
Pope under the name Pope Gregory XVI):
LXVII
https://archive.org/details/IlTrionfoDellaSantaSedeEDellaChiesa/page/n191/mode/2up?q=schism
It would indeed be
a worse delusion than the one from which some district is agitated, the desire
that it is enough to be a member of the sovereign body to govern. If this could
be understood by some democratic or aristocratic society, they would all be destroyed
in a short time. Every citizen, every noble believer could have the right to
govern a castle, a city, a province, without any special destination, since he
would have in his supposed system a part of the sovereign power, that is, the
same indivisible sovereignty. Hence internal wars are inevitable, in order to
remove the respective government from the other's hands: here is humanity in
continuous violence: here is a state against nature: and here is the necessary
consequence of the distinction mentioned between the two authorities. The
sovereign body must therefore be considered as deputy the power of government
to those among its members destined to govern a specific population, and the
member destined for this, as dependent on the body that has entrusted him with
that particular regime, will be obliged to contain himself within those limits,
and to admit those reservations, which the sovereign council, and with the
authority derives from it, judged more convenient to the good order of the
government and its sovereignty. Not otherwise should Bishops distinguish this
double right, namely, the right to vote is one, and this in solidum, and the
other is to government, and this coming to them from the Superior, to whom they
are subordinate: and because this is the Pope of the universal Church, the
opposing argument falls in every way since in one case, as in the other, this
authority is not their own, original and absolute.
Similarly, in
Bishops we must distinguish this double right, namely, the right to vote ‘in
solidum’ (in a council), and the other, the right to govern, which they
receive from their Superior [the Pope], to whom they are subordinate. and because this is the Pope of the universal
Church, the opposing argument falls in every way since in one case, as in the
other, this authority is not their own, original and absolute.[44]
The right of to vote [in a council], which the Bishop has
as a member of the Church, is called by the illustrious Bolgeni universal
jurisdiction; he calls that of government, particular jurisdiction: and this
author clearly shows that in the episcopate (ch. 7) the first is immediately
communicated to the Bishops by God, but it does not suffice for
governing [a particular Church]; the other is communicated to them by the
Church, from the pope its head. The vast erudition with which he elucidates and
proves this distinction, does not allow us to transcribe all the facts in full,
which he shows us going back to apostolic times; and in which it is clearly
seen that it is given by the Apostles to bishops for the government of a
particular Church. (e nei quali chiaramente si vede dagli Apostoli ai Vescovi
demandata la giurisdizione particolare.)[45]
He observes that up to the fourth century it was the
custom to ordain bishops to honor (ad honorem), as in the case of the three
bishops, Barsè, Eulogius, and Lazarus, who were ordained without being
entrusted with the government of any diocese, although they had the
episcopal character, and as such could sit in council. Hence
it is that the power of order, which is the universal one, was always
distinguished from the other, the power of government, which indeed is
the only one that appeals to jurisdiction (che anzi suole appellarsi essa sola
di giurisdizione). He calls the first universal, ‘because each Bishop
in the act and in force of his ordination, becomes a member of the episcopal
body, and consequently has the right to govern and teach the whole Church, when
he is in union with all the others and forms one body with them’; this is the sense
in which we must understand the authority in solidum that St.
Cyprian says is conferred on the Bishops by God. (Epistle 51[46]).[47]
Billot
on Titular Bishops voting in a council:
The
reason for the assertion is that the general elections of those who are
appointed to rule the Church of God come under the name of ecumenical councils.
Such, as is evident from the foregoing, are all the ordinary local bishops. I
say further, and with equal title. For when they sit in the council as Catholic
bishops, not as the commissioners of their people, there can be no distinction
between the bishops of greater or lesser sees. But neither are the prerogatives
of primatial or archiepiscopal jurisdictions valid there, which were introduced
to fill the turns of control of the Holy See in a state of dispersion. And
therefore each and every one, from the least to the greatest , are given by
equal right under the common head of all, the supreme Pontiff.
But
it is controversial, as far as the strict right is concerned, regarding titular
bishops who are without the plebs, since these do not actually belong to the
ruling Church. But nevertheless, since they are undoubtedly marked by the
character that is ordered to the government of the Church, it must be said that
their convocation is at least consistent with the divinely instituted order, and
not contrary to it. And this is especially true of the apostolic vicars,
who, even if they are not ordinary pastors, still carry out in the regions of
the missions what pastors need.
Finally,
the simple priests, whose character does not indicate their attitude to the
office of governing, are more definitely excluded from the right to sit.
Although cardinals, abbots, and generals of religions are admitted by
privilege, as you will find widely declared in the canonists. As for the
princes, there can be no question, since it is well known above all that they
in no way belong to a hierarchical order. Wherefore, as Bellarmine says 1. 1 of
Conc. c. 17, they were once invited, both to defend the council, and also to be
witnesses and accomplices of the council's decrees, and afterwards to suppress
the transgressors and the disobedient by their power.
(Ratio
asserti est quia conciliomm oecumenicoriim nominee veniunt generalia comitia
eorum qui sunt positi regere Ecclesiam Dei. Tales antem, ut ex praemissis
constat, sunt omnes episcopi locorum ordinarii. Omnes porro dico, et titulo
aequali. Cum enim in concilio sedeant ut catholici episcopi, non ut mandatarii
plebium suarum, nulla esse potest distinctio inter episcopos maiorum minorumve
sedium. Sed nec valent ibi primatialium vel archiepiscopalium iurisdictionum
praerogativae, quae ad vices moderaminis Sanctae Sedis in statu dispersionis
implendas sunt introductae. Et ideo omnes et singuli, a minimo usque ad
maximum, aequali iure donantur sub communi omnium capite summo Pontifice. Controvertitur autem, ad strictum ius quod
attinet, de episcopis titularibus qiii sunt sine plebe, quoniam hi non
pertinent actu ad Ecclesiam regentem. At nihilominus, cum procul dubio
charactere insigniantur qui ad Ecclesiae regimen est ordinatus, dicendum quod
convocatio eorum est saltem consentanea ordini divinitus instituto, nedum ei
contrarietur.
Et
hoc quidem maxime valet de vicariis apostolicis, qui etsi ordinarii pastores
non sint, adhuc tamen in regionibus missionum ea quae pastorum suat
exsequimtur, Denique a iure sedendi certo certius excluduntur simplices
presbyteri, quorum character non dicit habitudinem ad regendi officium.
Quanquam ex privilegio admittantur cardinales, abbates, et religionum
generales, prout apud canonistas late declaratum invenies. De principibus vero
nequidem esse potest quaestio, cum satis superque notum sit eos neuaquam ad
ordinem hierarchicum pertinere. Unde, ut Bellarminus ait 1. 1 de Conc. c. 17,
invitabantur olim, tum ut Concilium defenderent, tum ut testes et conscii
conciliarium decretorum, postea transgressores ac contumaces sua potestate
comprimerent.
Bolgeni: “This universal
jurisdiction is annexed [attached] by the institution of Jesus Christ to the
episcopal character, and is immediately conferred by God on every bishop in his
ordination. [quoted by Phillips (below) p. 106]
Phillips: Page 105:
As well as the
primacy and the episcopate of the bishop of Rome, the episcopate of each bishop
is therefore of divine origin (4). By an immediate, primordial, and
supernatural institution, Christ placed a supreme head at the top of the sacred
hierarchy of his kingdom, and established the sacraments for the salvation of
all subjects; by a similar disposition, he then instituted the members of this
hierarchy, the dispensers of the sacraments; and such a power could not have
another origin, a human origin, like the temporal power (5). Thus, the
successor of Peter is obliged, by virtue of divine institution, to recognize in
the bishops the successors of the apostles, and to associate them in the
government of the Church. Thus it is the episcopate which governs the kingdom
of Christ (1[48]);
for he is invested with the power of the keys, with infallibility, and with
sovereignty over the Church. But in saying that to the
episcopate belongs the sovereign power in the Church, we must not forget for a
moment that not only is the bishop of Rome an integral part of the episcopate,
but also that, by virtue of his primacy, he resides above the rest of the
episcopate, and is essentially the main channel through which the three divine
powers are transmitted to the Church.
The
bishops are therefore the successors of the apostles, and it is from the
apostles themselves that they derive this episcopal character inseparably
inherent in their person.[49] They share it with
them; and like them, they have the priesthood, the doctrinal authority and the
governmental power; like them, they have not only been put in the place of the
patriarchs and prophets of the synagogue, but are invested with sovereignty
over all the earth; it is to them as to the apostles that the royal prophet
was addressing himself when he said: ‘Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii ;
constitues eos principes super omnem terram.’
However, the
bishops do not participate in all the prerogatives which had been shared by the
apostles. They were not, like them, the immediate witnesses of the life and the
resurrection of the Lord. This advantage lacks even the successor of Peter (1).
The apostles had, moreover, more than the bishops, the gift of tongues and
personal inspiration. By virtue of this privilege, they had the right to
establish new dogmas, to compose canonical writings, and even the successor of
Peter can do nothing which is in opposition to what the apostles have decreed
or regulated. The infallible authority of each of them in teaching did not
pass to each of their successors; the successor of him alone for whose
faith Christ prayed, that he might confirm the brethren, the successor alone of
Peter received this magnificent inheritance.
…
p. 114: All are unanimous in prescribing the bishops
to confine themselves each within the limits of their respective jurisdiction,
and thus not to establish a rule imposed by the requirements of the order, but
only to walk in the way opened by the apostles themselves (4 ) This was the slightest attack on this wise
economy painfully felt by the Church. Let us listen on this subject to the
complaints and prayers of Saint Chrysostom to Pope Innocent “Deploy,” said he
to him, “all that you have of force and authority to banish from the church the
impiety which has invaded it. You can see: For if these proceedings become a
precedent; if it come to be within the powers of all who wish, to invade other
provinces, however distant from their own, and expel whom they will, and to do
on their own authority whatever they will; be sure that everything will go by
the board, and implacable war will overrun the whole world. Every one will
expel his neighbour, and be expelled in turn.”[50] Thus reasoned Saint
Augustine when he said that he would regard as a ridiculous claim on his part
the mere idea of exercising episcopal rights outside his diocese of Hippo,
unless formally authorized to do so by permission or request. expressly from
the holder (1[51]).
Some particular facts are cited which seem to derogate from the principle;
for example, Saint Athanasius (2) and Eusebius (3) fulfilling episcopal
functions outside their dioceses; These are exceptional cases brought
about by extraordinary circumstances, and from which nothing can be inferred.
…
“Only the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, prince of
the apostles is, strictly speaking, the successor of an apostle. The
person and the dignity of Peter lives on in the bishop of Rome; but it is only collectively, as forming one and the same body,
that the other bishops are the successors of the apostles: the
episcopate replaces the apostolate; the college of the apostles lives on and subsists
in the college of bishops (1): neither Andrew, nor James, nor John, nor any
other, except Peter, live again in their successors (2). Moreover, the episcopate is precisely the episcopate only because it
includes the successor of Peter, the head of the whole Church; it remains such,
however, when this or that other individual successor of the apostles separates
from it; and however great their number may be, the bishops who
separate themselves from the successor of Peter (3), separate themselves ipso
facto from the true episcopate and hence from sacred body whose members
draw life from their union with the head (4). An episcopate separated
from the successor of Peter would only be an acephalous episcopate, deprived of the supreme power to bind and to loose, and
of infallibility and sovereign power. For it is with Peter, and through
him, that the episcopate governs the kingdom of Jesus Christ (5); with Peter,
and through him, that it announce to the human race the infallible doctrine; and
with Peter and through him, that it may open or close the gates of heaven. In order for the apostolate to present in its hierarchical
organization the image and the model of the future episcopate, Christ had
conferred the power to bind and loose on the apostles, in subjection to the
power of Peter, just as, for doctrine, he addressed him to them as their
guide and support. Thus, no bishop has the right to claim infallibility except
insofar as his faith is in perfect harmony with that of Peter (1); but on this
condition, the episcopate, whether united or dispersed, is infallible (2).
“So it is with governmental power: the bishops share with
Peter the general government of the Church; but individually they have
no immediate authority except over a determined part of the flock of Jesus
Christ, over the church specially entrusted to their direction (3) . Yes, the episcopate, like the body of the apostles, forms a college
invested with sovereign power (Oui, l'épiscopat, ainsi que le corps
des apôtres, forme un college investi du pouvoir souve rain) (4), by virtue of the power inherent in the episcopal character (5);
but no bishop, with the sole exception of the successor
of Peter, has the right to exercise it alone; the others enjoy it only as a
member of the episcopal body, acting in concert with their head. These two powers, one general, the other particular, far from
mutually excluding each other, are, on the contrary, associated in the most
intimate harmony, as we see in these words so just and so concise of Saint
Cyprian, which we have already mentioned: “The Episcopate is one and each has a
share in the whole in solidium.” The bishopric was
instituted to govern the Church; but each one governs only his own; only the authority
of the bishop of Rome extends over the universal Church; (Les eveques sont institues pour gouverner
l’Eglise; mais chacun ne gouverne que la sienna propre; il n ‘y a que
l’autorite de l’ eveque de rome qui s etende sur L’ Eglise generale). That of the
other bishops is restricted and limited according to the law currently in
force, and it can only be extended beyond the determined territory by virtue of
an express confirmation of the bishop of Rome.”
Now, if we only owe
contempt to the odious opinion of those who explains this state of things for
the purpose of usurpations of the successors of Peter, it is not the same with
that which presents the current position. bishops as the pure result of a
historical development. Who would deny that history has had a considerable
influence on the external and accidental constitution of the Church? This
consideration does not make it possible to reject, prima facie and without
examination, the opinion of which we are speaking. On the other hand, too great
an importance should not be attached to it either; for, even taking them into
account as far as it may be proper to do so, there would always remain to be
asked this essential question: What has been the influence of the institutions
of the Church on history? In other words: How did the regulations of the Church
act so powerfully on the facts, that one order of things prevailed rather than
another?
(Phillips, George,
Du Droit Ecclésiastique Dans Ses Principes Generaux. 1850, XXIII pp.
115-116)
Ibid: p. 111:
As regards the
original determination of the constitution of the Church, it is necessary,
above all and above all, to adhere firmly to the principle of Tertullian,
recalled above, and which posits, as a fact beyond dispute, that , in all that
they instituted , the apostles did nothing but conform to the instructions of
their divine Master , without drawing anything from their own will . At the
same time that he showed them in the future the rivalries and dissensions which
were to try to throw disturbance into the Church, Christ had indicated to them
and prescribed the means of establishing and making order reign. in her bosom. Our
Savior is essentially a God of order and peace; he did not shed his
precious blood on the tree of the cross to found and bequeath to the earth a
kingdom delivered up prey to war and anarchy. The
perpetuity of the primacy was therefore necessary in the bishop of Rome, the
perpetuity of the episcopate in the body of bishops; but the apostolate, in
order not to become a source of anarchy, should not pass to the bishops as the
apostles had exercised it (1). Called to lay the first foundations
of the Church, the apostles needed to be invested with extraordinary power,
accompanied and supported by no less extraordinary personal gifts (2). If,
without inheriting these extraordinary gifts granted to the apostles, the
bishops had nevertheless collected their power in all its extent; if each of
them had had the right to make laws for the whole Church, consequently to
modify its organization, that of founding here and there churches according to
its good pleasure, of instituting other bishops, of deposing them of his
private authority, the kingdom of God on earth would soon become the image of
disorder and chaos (1); all in the government of the Church would have become
tottering and uncertain, peace and concord would have been banished from its
bosom.
[ “Now, if one
owes only the reception of contempt to the odious opinion which explains this
state of things by the usurpers the successors of Peter, it is not the same that
which presents the current position of the bishops as the pup result of
historical development. Who would
to deny that
history had a considerable influence on the
external and
accidental constitution of the Church? This consideration does not make it
possible to reject, prima facie and without
review, the
opinion we are talking about. On the other hand, he
nor should too
much importance be attached to it;
for, even taking
it into account as far as it may be appropriate to do so, there would always
remain to be asked this question.
essential
question: What has been the influence of the institutions of the Church on
history? In other words; How have the regulations of the Church acted so
powerfully on the facts,
that one order of
things prevailed rather than another?
With regard to the
original determination of the constitution of the Church, it is necessary,
above all and above all, to]
It was therefore
necessary that the extraordinary power granted to the apostles died with them(2).
Jesus Christ had told them: “Go and teach all peoples;
the same mission passed to the episcopate (3), but not to each of its
members individually. In appointing a bishop, the apostles did not say to him:
“Go and teach all peoples; but: “Go and teach such a people; he became a member of the episcopate called to teach the
whole flock, but with a (personal) mission restricted to this or that a part of
the flock (4). When a bishops is instituted, as such, by title, and by episcopal
character becomes as a member of the episcopate, he is invested with general
power for the general good of the Church; but this power is, in its
exercise, is limited to the flock specially entrusted to his care , without
being able to extend to any other part of the great flock of Christ . This
order, it was the apostles, it is true, who established it; but who would dare
to claim that by doing so, they were doing anything other than executing the
will of the divine Master?
Destined in this
respect, as for all the rest, to serve as a model for the episcopate which is
to succeed them, we see them conforming to it themselves. They are dispersed
over different points of the earth (divisio apostolorum), and, although all are
clothed with unlimited power, each contains its evangelical action, if not
absolutely, at least as far as circumstances permit. in the part of the world
which falls to him, either to propagate the Gospel there, or to establish
churches there and institute bishops there. Peter himself, although primate of
the Church, does not allow himself to deviate from it; Peter himself is not,
under this relation, than the equal of the other apostles; he takes for
himself, as bishop, only the direction of a single church, which even, by far,
is not the most important, neither for the number nor for the extent. If he
exercises his action on the generality of the churches, it is by virtue of the
rights which he holds from his supremacy, which constitutes him head of the
episcopate (1).
p. 116:
The bishops did
not receive what was purely personal to the apostles, such as the inspiration
and personal assistance of the Holy Spirit, such as the power to exercise in
its fullness throughout the earth the power of the keys, the doctrinal power,
sacred jurisdiction. It is only as a body, as an episcopate, and united to the
successor of Peter, that they succeed the apostles in this general authority.
With the exception of the successor of Saint Peter, the particular bishops are
all restricted in their authority, both in relation to space and in the
exercise of their powers, within the limits assigned to their pastoral care,
and this quite simply by the reason that they also succeed to the apostles, as
subordinates to the head of the apostolic college. This subordination, which we
see even in the apostles, filled as they were with the Holy Spirit, and
although for them it had been established only because the primitive Church was
to present the perfect model for all times, this subordination, we say, was none
the less very real, although it in no way hampered the exercise of their
apostolic mission; for all that the apostles did was holy and perfectly
conformable to harmony and sacred order. But, in order that there should always
be in the Church this same order willed by Christ, the power of the bishops,
successors of the apostles, had still to be confined within less extensive
limits, and that which, according to the promise of Jesus - Christ, the
unshakeable foundation of the Church, the successor of Peter, alone preserved
over the whole earth, besides the primacy, which from the beginning was
exclusively conferred on him, the fullness of apostolic authority….
The precise
determination of the position of the successor of Peter vis-à-vis the
successors of the apostles in general.
“All bishops,”
says St. Jerome, “are equal to one another; the bishop of Rome is no more than
that of Bethlehem, this “he of Constantinople no more than that of Rhegium; all
clothed with the same şacerdocium , they all have the same dignity “( 1 ). They
all received from the apostles the episcopal character, and yet they have a
head, to whom they are subordinate, as the apostles were subordinate to Peter.
It is this very subordination which constitutes in their plenitude the health
and the beauty of the Church, which necessarily suppose, to speak like Saint
Leo (2), "the unity of the whole body, and require above all the harmony
in being the priests, equal among themselves, it is true, as to the order, but
unequal as to authority. This disparity in equality shows itself already among
the apostles themselves, all called by common election, and yet subordinate to
one of them as their head. Hence the distinction which “exists between the
bishops.”
If, then, we want
to get an exact idea of the position of the bishops vis-à-vis the successor of
Peter, we must establish a clear and precise notion of the position of the
apostles vis-à-vis Peter himself. If this point is not well fixed, one can
abuse in a very dangerous manner this incontestable truth, that the bishops are
the successors of the apostles. If we start from the false supposition that the
apostles were in all things equal and coordinated with Peter, or that Saint
Peter had only a simple honorary prerogative over them, it is obvious that then
the right of succession of bishops would change in nature and take on a
completely different meaning. It is therefore perfectly conceivable why all the
enemies of the primacy, namely the Gallicans and the Febronians, stop so
willingly, and affect to return constantly to this proposition: The bishops are
the successors of the apostles; for, understood in their sense, it would
constitute them individually in a sovereign independence. Sovereignty is, it is
true, in the episcopate; but she is there only through communion with Peter.
The apostles were
not simply a number of individuals equal in rights and independent of each
other; by the will of Christ, they formed a whole,
an organic unity, whose living center was
Peter, and it is in this whole that the bishops took their places (1). From the very institution of the episcopate, and until the
last collation which will be made of it and will give it its last member, in
all these innumerable series of bishops, not a single one who is otherwise than
by the subordination to Peter; no apostle being able to institute a
single bishop without establishing him over Peter [check
translation], the foundation of the Church (2). Every
bishop is therefore, by virtue of this title, a subject of Peter; every
bishop is the successor of the apostles, and, by that very fact, subordinate to
the head of the Church (3). If Saint Optatus said of the apostles that
the chair of Peter should be for them the center of unity, so that each of them
did not claim to possess his seat as his own property (4), what would he have
said of the bishops who succeeded the apostles? Until the fourth century,
there had been no metropolitan churches, properly so called, except the
patriarchates founded by Peter: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. All the
others, even that of Jerusalem, belonged to them. Each church founded on Peter,
acclaimed in its bosom as head of the whole Church by the apostle who
instituted it, found itself, by this fact alone, placed in the dependence of
the successors of Peter on the patriarchal sees of Rome, of Antioch and
Alexandria (5). Undoubtedly, the prodigious rapidity of the propagation of the
Church does not always allow us to perceive distinctly the immediate action of
the successor of Peter; but this purely historical point of view could not hide
this center of unity from view for a single instant, and prevent our eyes from
being constantly fixed on it. What more senseless pride than that of a bishop
who would pretend to place himself opposite the successor of the prince of the
apostles, for the reason that he the origin of his episcopate had derived from
the consecration of another apostle! To this pride, to this madness, there
would be to compare only the extravagant presumption of the one who, by
instituting a bishop outside the unity with Peter, would take it into his head
to make the unfortunate attempt of an all-human church (2).
The successor of Peter, then, is the center towards which
all bishops must have their eyes constantly turned. As pastors, they must
themselves form in the midst of their flock a center on which their lambs have
their eyes fixed, and thus subordinate themselves, in universal unity, to the
supreme pastor (3). It is for this reason that the Church has always endeavored
to maintain with vigor the principle of diocesan unity, and that Saint Cyprian
saw in the contempt of episcopal authority a source of heresies and schisms (4
) . Unity in the parts, imprinting on each one a tendency to harmony, leads
to unity in the whole, which is founded, in the Church, on the subordination of
all the bishops to the successor of Peter. It is this subordination which
marks the limit of the power of the keys conferred on the bishops, as
successors of the apostles; for they cannot untie everything; their
infallibility depends on the conformity of their doctrine with that of Peter,
and their jurisdiction has determined limits; but in
this same subordination to Peter, and in union with him, they participate in
his prerogatives, in his sovereign authority over the whole Church.
Now , from whom do
they derive this authority? Did each bishop immediately receive episcopal power
from God, or did he receive it from God only in a mediate manner and through
Peter?
This question is closely linked to that of episcopal
succession; it was the object of long and very lively discussions in the
preparatory sessions of the Council of Trent (1). They wanted to separate the
power of jurisdiction from the sacerdotal power, and to derive the first only
from the successor of Saint Peter; but it did not seem that this distinction
led to a solution which can satisfy. Undoubtedly we must distinguish in the
bishop the three powers of priesthood, of teaching, and of governing; but it is
not permissible to separate them to such a point that one can imagine the
bishop receiving by ordination only one or two of these sacred powers. Each
bishop is at the same time a pontiff, doctor and hierarch, and thus
participates in the general authority of the whole Catholic episcopate; it
can therefore only be a question for him of a greater or lesser part in the
exercise of this authority. There are cases in which the priestly power of
bishops is expressly restricted, cases reserved for the supreme power of the
keys of the sovereign pontiff; their doctrinal decisions are only provisional
as long as the consent of the apostolic see is lacking; their jurisdiction also
has its limits, in all of this, nothing authorizes or permits one essential
separation between the three powers. It may happen that a bishop does not
have a diocese; but the obstacle which then prevents the pontiff from
manifesting his characters of doctor and hierarch, is a purely material fact,
and which in no way relates to ordination. And even in this case,
without a special mission, he always participates in the general government of
the Church, insofar as he appears by right in the assembly of bishops united in
a general council (2).
There is an
ancient tradition according to which Jesus Christ would have conferred by his
divine hands baptism and episcopal ordination only on the apostle Saint Peter,
from whom all the other apostles would then have received these two sacraments
(1). If this were so, the question would be settled: St. Peter alone would be
the principle of the particular priesthood, as well as of the general
priesthood; each bishop would only receive mediately, and through the successor
of Peter, his intrinsic power; but this tradition does not have sufficient
guarantee to be authoritative in the eyes of science, and we cannot attach any
importance to it (2).
Now, here is what is certain: Jesus Christ instituted Peter and
the apostles; these were not the delegates of the prince of the apostles, but
of God himself: the entire episcopate with its head is therefore of divine
institution. But, just as the apostles, when instituting bishops, always did so
in union with Peter, and by submitting them to his supreme power, they were in no way his delegates (3), but the
delegates of God; likewise the bishops are not the delegates of the successor
of Peter, but of Jesus Christ himself.
Doubtless we must here take into account this circumstance, that no apostle
could institute a bishop without subordinating him to Peter; but the power he
exercised by instituting him nevertheless emanated from God and not from Peter.
For the same reason, the power thus conferred on the bishops, considered
either in its source, or in the whole of its constitutive attributions,
including the governmental power, otherwise called jurisdiction, was
immediately of divine origin, but affected with the obligation, also of divine
origin , to be and to remain subordinate to Peter , and consequently dependent
, as regards its exercise , on the assent of Peter and his successor ( 4 ) .
This way of
conceiving and envisaging the episcopate is justified even by the order of
things existing before papal confirmation was in force. This institution, so
eminently useful for the maintenance of order in the Church, had then its
equivalent in the subordination of the churches of the West to that of Rome (1)
, and of those of the East to the patriarchs and to the Roman pulpit, a
circumstance which evidently shows, as an indispensable condition of any
episcopal institution, the assent, at least tacit, of Peter or of his
successor. But, as we have already said, the confirmation, whether express or
implicit , of the successor of Peter , does not make the bishops his mere
delegates ( 2 ) . This is what Saint Gregory the Great seems to be expressing
when, to repress the pride of this patriarch of Constantinople who arrogated to
himself the title of universal bishop, he replied that he himself, Gregory,
bishop of Rome and head of the Church, would not claim such a qualification.
St. Gregory, as the rest of his words prove, assuredly did not claim to deny or
diminish the primacy of the see of Rome. The expression can therefore only have
this meaning: The primate of the universal Church, himself, cannot take the
title of universal bishop, that is to say cannot regard himself as the one and
only bishop, strictly speaking, cannot regard and treat the other bishops as
its mere delegates. These words : therefore seem to us , in the mouth of this
great pope , a positive recognition of the truth of this doctrine , that it is
from God himself that the bishops hold their episcopal authority directly ( 3 )
The pope's
confirmation in no way affects this divine origin; however, it remains no less
true to say that episcopal power cannot be exercised in a given diocese without
the tacit or formal consent of the pope; in other words, the legitimacy of the
mission of the bishops being subject to the recognition of the sovereign
pontiff (1), the latter is, by the very fact of this intervention, the
intermediary, and the intermediary born, obliged, between God, who transmits
the power, and the bishop who receives it. And let no one cry out against this
intervention, as being a lowering of the episcopal dignity. The august
character with which the bishop is clothed is conferred on him by the laying on
of hands (2); Has anyone ever thought of saying, even thinking, that it was
less sacred, less sublime, less divine? It therefore remains well established
that the bishops can exercise their divine powers only by remaining united and
subordinate to Peter and his successors; let us say more, that the whole
episcopate only fulfills its high mission and governs the whole Church of Jesus
Christ in this union and this subordination to its Head. However, is this order
of things so immutable that it can never be derogated from? For example, on the
death of the head of the Church, what becomes of the supreme power? Does it not
pass to the episcopal body? The question would answer itself if we could be
shown somewhere, either in the holy letters or in tradition, Jesus Christ
conferring on another apostle than Peter, or on the apostolic body, the title
of representative of his person and depositary of his sovereign power. But
Jesus Christ did nothing of the sort:
the powers that he deposited in his Church, he transmitted them
either to Peter, to the exclusion of all others, or to the body of the
apostolate, including Peter. Therefore no apostle, no bishop, no college of
apostles, no college of bishops has the title
to exercise sovereignty in the Church without Peter. To admit an exception
here, nothing less than a striking, irrefragable proof would be needed (1). But
this proof is impossible to provide it . …
As successors and
lieutenants of the apostles, by virtue of the episcopal character, the bishop
enters, by these titles, into the apostolic body with Peter, and, as
such, becomes a partaker of the plenitude of authority of the priesthood, of
doctrinal infallibility, of governmental sovereignty in the Church. The first
bishops were the apostles, who then instituted others as they founded new
churches. As long as they all lived, the need to create representatives did not
make itself equally felt everywhere; but, the Church daily taking on a new
extension, and the number of the apostles, successively removed by death,
diminishing little by little, it became day by day indispensable to provide for
their replacement. They had provided for it; at the death of the last of them,
the whole apostolic body saw itself revive everywhere, by virtue of the
vicarial succession (vicaria successione), in the bishops (vide $24, n° 46). Henceforth
each bishop is alone, and exclusively to every other, the center of unity for
his particular church, and forms for her the bond which attaches it to the
center of general unity, to the apostolic see. The apostles alone had received
from Jesus Christ all the divine powers; the bishops alone had inherited it
from the apostles. The apostolic institution of a large number of bishoprics is
beyond all dispute; in the very absence of all the other irrefutable proofs
which flow on this point by all the paths of history, it would suffice, in
order to establish it unshakably, to show the Fathers of the Church opposing
the heretics of their time, who could not deny the necessity of the perpetuity
of the episcopate, the series of bishops who had succeeded one another without
interruption on the different sees of the Church, and making it go back to the
immediate institution of the apostles (1) .
Phillips: The Visible Church, p. 139
Jesus Christ founded the Church and made
it his kingdom on earth; he appointed Peter his representative in the midst of
her. To the supreme head and to the apostles, his subordinates, he entrusted
the direction of this Church for the administration of the sacraments, the
propagation of the doctrine of salvation and the maintenance of external order;
finally, he provided for the succession by fixing the primacy in the see of
Rome, and the apostolate in the body of bishops. The Church therefore forms a
kingdom, where all those who believe in Jesus Christ are united in communion of
doctrine and sacraments, under Christ, their invisible Head., represented
visibly by the bishop of Rome, and under the other legitimate bishops (S II).
All these points relate essentially to the
idea of the Church, and must, especially at a time when she is attacked as a
whole and in each of her institutions, be vividly brought to light, such as her
characteristic qualities (1 ) . Baptism, it is true, impressing on those who
receive it an indelible character, and the distinctive mark that incorporates him
into the Church by its virtue.
All these points relate essentially to the
idea of the Church, and must, especially at a time when she is attacked as a
whole and in each of her institutions, be vividly brought to light, such as her
characteristic qualities (1). Baptism, it is true, impressing on him who
receives it an indelible character, is the distinctive mark of all those that
have been incorporated into the Church by virtue of it. But, although baptized,
those who refuse to recognize it for the kingdom of Christ are excluded from it
, excluded by their own act (1).
The Church is the kingdom of Jesus Christ
on earth; as such, it falls into the category of all the earthly kingdoms, and
is assimilated to them by certain general features. But if it has common
attributes with them, it also has particular ones, which give it its own
exclusive character, a character traced primordially by the hand of God
himself, then developing in history and developing history through history. his
turn . These special attributes form his physiognomy, and are the
characteristic signs by which she reveals herself as the Church, that is, as
the kingdom of God, distinct from every human kingdom. One kingdom of the Lord,
he is one. Placed under the scepter of him who is the source of holiness, it
is holy. Called upon to unite under his laws the universality of men, it is
universal (2). Founded by the apostles, it is apostolic. Such are the four
notes (3) assigned to the Church by the creed of Nicaea and Constantinople, and
which must be considered as its distinctive characteristics.
Cardinal
Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, 1955
2.
THE SUPREME JURISDICTION DOES NOT BELONG AS A “PROPER” POWER TO THE BISHOPS
A.
The Sum of Particular Jurisdictions Does Not Amount to the Universal
Jurisdiction
The
jurisdictional power is “proper” both in the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops.
It descends from the Sovereign Pontiff, who possesses it as its source, to the
bishops, who possess it as a proper power no doubt, but derivatively.
At
the stage of the sovereign pontificate as at the stage of the episcopate, the
jurisdiction is wholly spiritual, wholly ordered to the same supernatural
salvation of souls. So that whether it be found at the one stage or the other,
it keeps its profound generic unity.
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 Church 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.1
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 of particular jurisdictions; which
sum in no wise amounts to a universal jurisdiction. Supposing even, as Cajetan
does, that after the death of a Pope all the bishops in the world meet and
agree in a universal synod, there will then be a quantitative and cumulative
jurisdictional universality; but, between that and the qualitative and
essential universality of the supreme pastor there remains an abyss.1 No
decision, for example, belonging to the proper power of the Pope could be
taken, no truth implicitly revealed could be explicitly defined.2 And the
dissident Graeco-Russian Churches, whatever fragments of authentic jurisdiction
the Church in fact allows them and they still retain seem to admit, in their
own way, the justice of this doctrine by officially condemning themselves to
dogmatic stagnation.
B.
The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
We
must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal
power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to
the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope
dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal
jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.1 But she is not acephalous as are the
schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ
directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly
exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence,
any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented. But,
though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the
power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her
always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man
to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He
committed them to Peter.
3.
THE SUPREME JURISDICTION NEVERTHELESS “PARTICIPATED" BY THE BISHOPS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF AND FORMING THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE
A.
The Collegiate Jurisdiction of the Bishops United With the Pope
I
have mentioned the proper jurisdiction of the bishops. It is distinct
from the 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. How ever, the
jurisdiction proper to the bishops derives from the jurisdiction of the
Sovereign Pontiff. It is contained in the supreme jurisdiction as the lesser perfection
is contained in the greater. It can therefore add nothing to it intensively; it
can do no more than diffuse and refract its virtue; The power proper to the
bishops and the power of the Sovereign Pontiff are indeed many powers, but they
do not together make up a higher power: “Papa cum residuo Ecclesiae non
est majoris potestatis jurisdictionis spiritualis quam ipse solus . . . Papa
cum Ecclesia reliqua non facit majus in potestate, sed plures
potestates”, writes Cajetan.1[1] In
another field we should say similarly that the creation of the universe adds
nothing to the divine perfection, that it does no more than refract it; so that
after creation there is no more “being”, more perfection, than there was
before, although there are more “beings”, more existing subjects.
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.
And just as we distinguish, in the case, for instance, of a harp, the beauty of
the sound it gives out at the touch of the strings, from the spiritual beauty
lent it by the mind of the artist; or, in the case of a human arm, its
mechanical from its intelligent activity; or in the case of Socrates’ disciples
or Napoleon’s marshals, their own personal qualities from the added powers they
gain from the genius of their master; 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 them a
supplementary subject. I have said that the particular jurisdiction of the
bishops is distinct from the universal jurisdiction of the Pope; it is super
added to it, not so as to make up more 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.
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 powers adequately distinct, but one sole supreme power—considered
on the one hand in the head of the Church teaching, 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.2
B.
The Scriptural Basis
The
great words in which Jesus laid upon His disciples the duty of preaching the
Gospel to every creature were too pregnant with meaning to communicate all of
it from the outset, and time alone could bring out distinctly the multiple
powers they conferred. Apart from the transapostolic power promised to Peter
personally, they assured the Apostles of: (i) the extraordinary powers of
founding the Church; (2) the ordinary and transmissible powers of ruling her
(a) by collegiate participation in the universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign
Pontiff (b) by exercising a particular jurisdiction over the local Churches, as
these appear in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The
second 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 ”
(Matt, xviii. 18). These words had previously been addressed to Peter (Matt.
xvi. 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 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?1 The
same thing emerges from Luke xxii. 31-32: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath
desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee
that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Perseverance in the faith was therefore to find its principle in Peter and
thence to be communicated to the others. And so it was to be down the ages.2
Lastly, the Acts of the Apostles show us the whole of the apostolic college at
work, and solemnly assembled in the first Council. For the sake of the
universal Church they have to fix the discipline governing the reception of
converts from paganism. The decision is taken not by Peter alone, but simultaneously
by all: “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us ...” (Acts xv.
28). These are the words of the Apostles and the presbyters.
Thus,
the episcopate taken alone—for example during a vacancy of the Holy See, even
though all its members are assembled and all are unanimous —and on the other
hand this same episcopate in actual union with the Sovereign Pontiff to share
in the government of the universal Church, represent two specifically distinct
forms of the jurisdictional power. In the first the bishops perform only acts
of particular jurisdiction. In the second they exercise, conjointly with the
Pope, the acts of the supreme jurisdiction. They are not, as Melchior Cano
remarks, mere theologian-consultors.1 They have authority to decide. They
declare the speculative truth to be believed and the practical truth to be
observed by the whole Church.
The
episcopate—the orthodox and legitimate episcopate of course—has made frequent
pronouncements in the past on questions concerning the Life of the universal
Church; on many occasions, for example, it has defined the faith and imposed a
uniform discipline. The episcopate owed its oecumenical prestige throughout
history, not to its own proper power but to the virtue of the See of Peter, whose
authority, either tacit or express, never ceased to sustain it, lift it above
itself, enlarge it and enlighten it. This consideration, whose scriptural basis
we have seen, provides the key to the misconception into which those have
fallen who, neglecting the distinction between what the episcopate has of
itself and what it has from the See of Peter, have thought it possible to set
up an opposition between the power of the See of Peter and the power of
oecumenical Councils.
C.
The Episcopal College Dispersed Through the World: its Distinctive Signs
The
oecumenical activity of the episcopate in union with the actually reigning
Pope, can have (the difference is merely accidental) a double character:
regular when the bishops remain dispersed over the world, each in his own
Church; and exceptional, when the bishops are assembled in Council.
The
bishops scattered over the world rule their local Churches. They do more.
Because they are closely united to the Supreme Pastor and act with his tacit or
expressed consent, they contribute to the preserving and explaining of the
deposit of revealed truth all over the world, to the maintaining and
formulating of the rules of the common discipline, and, in a word, to the
ruling of even the universal Church. If, for example, there is question of
the declaratory power, the episcopal body, in so far as [it is] accordant with
the Sovereign Pontiff, becomes an organ by which the ordinary and daily
teaching of the Church can be given to the world with true and absolute
infallibility. The divine and Catholic faith, according to the Vatican Council,
embraces all truths contained in the word of God, whether written or
traditional, and proposed to our faith by the Church as divinely revealed,
whether by way of a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium,[2]
and Pius IX adds precisely that the exercise of the ordinary magisterium may be
found in dispersion all over the earth: “Divine faith is not to be restricted
to matters expressly defined by oecumenical Councils, or the Roman Pontiffs, or
the Apostolic See: but extends also to matters set forth as divinely revealed
by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world”
(Tuas Libenter). If now there is question of the canonical power [i.e., not
definitive teachings], the episcopal body, inasmuch as it is united to the
Sovereign Pontiff, will lay down in each epoch and each civilization, both
doctrinal points arising in connection with the revealed deposit, and authentic
moral and social duties; and it will establish customary usage.
But
by what signs are we to recognize the true episcopal body?
The
answer belongs to the treatise De Locis Theologicis. The most important
sign is communion with the Sovereign Pontiff—since Peter was made perpetual
head of the apostolic college.
Will
a majority of bishops be a sufficient assurance? It is clear in any case that
the majority as such is far from being a criterion of truth: “Scimus frequenter
usuvenire ut major pars vincat meliorem, scimus non ea semper esse optima quae
placent pluribus”, says Cano.[3]
Even in the case of a majority of bishops, good theologians think that they can
go astray, con tradict the Sovereign Pontiff, and even persevere in error. Thus
Cano, and also Benedict XIV: “From the fact that the bishops assembled in
General Council are true judges, it is not to be concluded that the Roman
Pontiff is bound to decide in conformity with the majority of the judges and to
approve their doctrine. For, as Melchior Cano remarks, if all the bishops are
true judges, the Lord Christ has nevertheless committed the final judgment to
His Vicar on earth and it is he who is charged with the duty of recalling all
who waver, whether few or many, to the true faith: I have prayed for thee that
thy faith fail not, and thou, being converted, confirm—not just this one and
then that, but whether a minority or a majority—confirm thy brethren. The four
hundred prophets of Achab did not prevail against the single prophet Micheas;
so also the Arian Council of Rimini did not prevail against Vincent of Capua
and those few bishops who remained faithful to the Bishop of Rome.”1 Clearly
enough, in the canon of orthodoxy of St. Vincent of Lerins, “In the Catholic
Church herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere,
always and by all”, the last clause, quod ab omnibus, must be understood only
of those who make up the flock of Christ under the guardianship of Peter. It
remains that, since the Church of Christ is always to endure, and since there
is no Church of Christ without an episcopal body, it is absurd to imagine that
the Pope can stand alone over against the bishops. Certain theologians even
consider that Christ’s promise to the episcopal body “Behold I am with you all
days even to the consummation of the world”, imply that the majority of this body
will never desert the Sovereign Pontiff: “It is impossible that a majority of
the bishops having jurisdiction in the Church, that is to say of the Catholic
bishops, should teach anything which the Sovereign Pontiff does not teach
either expressly or at least tacitly. It cannot therefore fall into error and
break with the Holy See.”2 As for the future, we may recognize that if this
eventuality does not appear “impossible” it seems at any rate highly unlikely.
The
day-to-day relations of the episcopal body dispersed through the world with its
head the Sovereign Pontiff, are now facilitated by the development of the means
of communication; our modern techniques, like the old Roman roads, being no
less serviceable for the expansion of the Kingdom of God than for that of the
powers of evil.
However,
the unity of the teaching Church is most effectively asserted when, exceptional
circumstances demanding it, the episcopal body assembles in Council; above all
in General or Oecumenical Council.3” (Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate,
pp. 409-416).
Contra Bolgeni:
1)
Dominic
Prümmer, Manuale Iuris Canonici, Q. 119. (Seems to be repeating Bioux)
https://archive.org/details/PrummerManualeIurisCanonici/page/n105/mode/2up?q=De+suprema+potestate
2)
Palmieri, Tractatus by Romano Pontifice , 1891
3)
Van
Noort
4)
Wilmers
(?)
5)
Wernz-Vidal
contra on receiving universal jurisdiction “from God.”
Cardinal Manning:
“The Commission of Direction
consisted of five cardinal presidents, with eight bishops, and a secretary, the
Archbishop of Sardis. Twenty-four Consultors were appointed for the Commission
of Dogma, nineteen for that of Discipline, twelve for the Commission on
Religious orders, seventeen for the Commission of Foreign Missions and the
East, and twenty-six for the Commission of Mixed or Politico-ecclesiastical
Questions. The entire number of Consultors was one hundred and two, of which
ten were bishops, sixty-nine secular priests, and twenty-three regulars: of
these eight were Jesuits, four Dominicans, two Augustinians, one Barnabite, one
Conventual Franciscan, one Minor Observant, one Benedictine, one Carmelite, one
Servite, one minister of the Sick, and one Oratorian. Of these hundred and two
thirty-one were from various nations invited to Rome.
The first question to be decided by the
Commission of Direction was as to who had the right of sitting in the
Council.
There could be no doubt as to the right of
the episcopate at large; but a question arose as to bishops who had no ordinary
jurisdiction such as vicars apostolic. There could, also, be no doubt as to their admissibility if
invited, nor of their decisive vote when admitted. But the question was as
to their right to be called. The decision arrived at was that it was
fitting that they should be called to the Council according to the
precedents and practice of the Holy See, and also lest their exclusion
should give rise to questions as to the œcumenicity of the Council. The
principle of this decision was that the Bulls by which councils have been
convoked call together "archbishops, bishops, &c.;" therefore the
axiom, "Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus,"
takes effect.
A letter of earnest and affectionate
invitation was then written "to all bishops of the Churches of the
Oriental Rite who are not in communion with the Apostolic See." This
letter was presented to the patriarch of the Orthodox Greek Church, but he did
not see fit so much as to open it. It was on that day, we are told, that four
millions of Bulgarians notified to the same patriarch their withdrawal from his
jurisdiction.
III FURTHER CLARIFICATION
CONCERNING HOW UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR JURISDICTION IS RECEIVED. Confirmation of Vatican II’s teaching – see
Nota Explicativa
Cardinal Manning, The Pastoral Office
(1883)
“The
next authority I will quote is Devoti, who was
Professor of Canon Law at the Roman Seminary in 1770, an intimate friend of Gregorio Chiaramonti,
afterwards Pius VII., to whom his works are dedicated, and under whose eyes
they were written. In the Prolegomena to
his Institutiones Canonice, he sums up the whole
subject of the Episcopate in these words:
‘The Universal College of Bishops, who, united with their
head, represent the Universal Church, has jurisdiction over the whole world; but the [particular] jurisdiction of each Bishop singly is not
extended to those nations over which no government has been committed to him. Therefore the legislation of each Bishop affects the particular diocese over which he is set, and
binds the subjects who are contained in it; but beyond his own
diocese, inasmuch as he has no subjects, he can have no jurisdiction. By
which fact may be solved, as it seems to me, the controversy with which even
the Fathers at Trent were occupied, but left still undecided, namely, whether
the jurisdiction of Bishops is mediately or immediately from Christ. I am of
opinion, indeed, that the jurisdiction which is attached to the Episcopate at
large [i.e., universal jurisdiction] is immediately from Christ Himself, and
the special jurisdiction which resides in each alone is mediately conferred. This,
which is too briefly stated, must be somewhat more carefully explained. It is certain that Christ instituted the Episcopate, and
placed in the whole College of Bishops, united with their head, the whole
administrative authority of the Christian commonwealth. I here
pass by whatsoever was said to Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles,
and I insist only on those places in the Gospels in which authority and
jurisdiction over the whole Church were given to the Apostles. But how
was the power given in these places? It is always given to all the Apostles
together with Peter, to no one of them separately, except to Peter alone, who
first, apart from the other Apostles, afterwards together with them, received
the power to govern the Church. Therefore the jurisdiction which the
whole College of Bishops, who succeed to the Apostles, possesses comes
immediately from Christ Himself .' 13
Further, he says:
'But if we consider the Bishops
singly, as the rulers of particular Churches, they have received no
jurisdiction immediately from Christ. All such jurisdiction arises
immediately from the Church, which distributes dioceses, in which each Bishop
singly is to exercise jurisdiction, and assigns to him certain subjects whom he
is to govern... End)
Manning
But
two observations are here necessary: 1. First, that between from Christ
and through Peter there is a wide distinction. It
is true to say ‘Omnia per Petrum in ecclesiam et in episcopos '- all comes
to the Church and to the Episcopate through Peter, but not as the primary
source from him. All is from the Divine Head of the Church. Whether immediately
or mediately given, the episcopal character and office are Divine. The munus of a Bishop is to be a ruler
of the Church of God. This comes by consecration, and is Divine. [Note: L.G. says: "Episcopalis autem
consecratio, cum munere sanctificandi, munera quoque confert docendi et
regend"] The exercitium muneris is
through and from Peter, inasmuch as the Supreme Pontiff assigns the subjects of
the Bishop. But the office [munera = function] 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 the office of a
Bishop is distinct from the exercise of that office. The exercise is indeed
wholly a Petro et per Petrum, but not the office itself. The power
of the keys—and it is of this that Suarez is treating — is in truth the radix
officii et regiminis. This is given to the Bishop in consecration immediately
from Christ. The office, therefore, is jure divino, the exercise
altogether jure humano; 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.
VI CLARIFICATION ON THE TWO SENSES IN WHICH
THE TERM JURISDICTION HAS BEEN USED.
“Now,
it is evident that the word jurisdiction has been used in two senses: sometimes
to denote the inherent power of government contained in potentia in the
power of the keys; and sometimes for the actual exercise of the power of the
keys upon subjects assigned by the Church. …” (Manning)
(…)
Manning: “F. de
Augustinis, in his excellent work De re Sacramentaria, 97 after affirming that
Bishops are superior to priests jure divino in respect to jurisdiction, goes on
to say that this does not mean that Bishops receive immediately from Christ a jurisdiction
complete and ready for exercise in act (in actu secundo). He distinguishes
jurisdiction into abstract and concrete. In the abstract, he says that it is
the pastoral power for the government of the Church residing in the Episcopate,
subordinate to the Roman Pontiff. In the concrete it is the same power, as it
resides in any particular Bishop. It is in the former sense that the episcopal
order is jure divino superior to the priesthood. He then says in the concrete
that is, as residing in each Bishop - it must be regarded in three ways : 1. as
to its exigentia ; 2. as to its actuality; 3. as to its exercise.
First,
as to its exigentia, i.e. the necessity of office. It is certain that it
is a power immediately from God, and therefore juir divino.
And the exigentia, or necessity of jurisdictional power, comes by virtue
of episcopal ordination, because by virtue of it a Bishop is immediately
constituted in the order of those who by Divine right are to be pastors and
rulers in the Church.
Secondly, as to exercise,
it is certain that this jurisdictional power of Bishops is wholly dependent on
the Roman Pontiff, who can diminish, extend, or take it away.
Thirdly, as to actuality
theologians have differed whether it be immediately from Christ or mediately
through the Roman Pontiff, who, as the immediate giver, though the secondary,
for Christ is the principal giver, confers it by his own authority.
He
then affirms the Episcopate to be a Sacrament, impressing a character and
conferring grace, and says that though certain older scholastics denied it, the
affirmative opinion is now the common one among theologians, so that Bellarmine
calls it most certain. Vasquez says that it cannot be denied without note of
censure, and Peter Soto that it is to be held by certainty of faith.
“In like manner,
F. Mazella, in his learned treatise De visibili Ecclesice Capite, discusses the
question Utrum Episcoporum jurisdictio procedat a Deo immediate an mediante
Romano Pontifice.
He also
distinguishes the abstract and the concrete jurisdiction. Of the abstract
jurisdiction he says, ‘That the power of
jurisdiction in the abstract that is, in the whole Episcopate is of Divine
right, and comes immediately from God, nobody doubts. And certainly neither the Supreme Pontiff or
other human authority could ever effect that the order of Bishops should not
exist in the Church; or that, existing, it should not rule the Church.
The whole question
is as to jurisdiction in concreto, i.e. in each Bishop.
He then draws the
same threefold distinction of 1. exigentia or aptitude; 2. actuality; 3.
exercise.
He says it is
certain that this necessity or aptitude comes from God: aptitudo enim ad
jurisdictionem Episcopalem immediate pullulat ex characters Episcopali eique
est per se aclnexa : sed character a Deo immediate proficiscitur : ergo et
exigentia ilia.
He
then states the question thus: the episcopal jurisdiction is either complete or
incomplete. The incomplete is that which is conferred on Bishops by Christ, the
chief and immediate giver of it, together with the power of order in virtue of
consecration; but this jurisdiction is without subjects, and cannot be validly
exercised without the authority of the Roman Pontiff. The complete is that
which has subjects, and is ready to exert itself in act (in actu secundo). The
only question undecided is whether this jurisdiction be immediately from Christ
or through the Supreme Pontiff, who, as the immediate giver, though not the
principal, confers the jurisdiction of his own authority.
The Council of
Trent refrained from deciding it; the Council of the Vatican did likewise.
F. Mazella
enumerates Victoria, Vasquez, Alphonsus de Castro, Collet, and others not a
few,
who maintained
that this jurisdiction is immediately from Christ. But he enumerates also a
larger number of names, and many of the greatest weight, who held that complete
jurisdiction comes mediately through the Roman Pontiff.
He sums up the
question as follows: According to this latter opinion, the disparity between
the episcopal and the Pontifical jurisdiction is better understood. The Pontiff
receives his jurisdiction immediately from Christ; the Bishops mediately from
(i.e. through) him.
Having thus stated
the question, F. Mazella enunciates the following proposition:
‘In virtue of
episcopal consecration, there arises in Bishops a certain (exigentia) necessity
or aptitude for ruling the Church; but the actual power necessary for this
(rule) is not conferred; for this, though it be (jure divino) by Divine right
in the episcopal body, is not, like the power of order, communicated to Bishops
one by one, except (mediante Romano Pontifice) mediately by the Roman Pontiff.’
Finally, he sums
up the chapter with these words: ‘That which the Roman Pontiff communicates to
Bishops is no authority derived from himself or having its origin in men. It is
that same authority which Christ reposed in him when He constituted him in whom
the fulness of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction should reside. If therefore the
entity of the jurisdiction be considered in itself, it is not a human power,
but a Divine.
In truth, it would
seem that the reason of this wise and anxious language has been a laudable
and necessary
prudence explicitly confessed by Bolgeni; and certainly, in the time of
Febronius and Scipio Pdcci it must have been wise to guard against all
equivocal terms. He says, I am of opinion that in the present times it is
necessary, or at least supremely advantageous, to abandon all expressions which
are equivocal and capable of insinuating false ideas, and to fix a language
which is one, constant, and common, so as to take away all equivocation of
words, and to unite all in the same mode of expression, so as to unite all in
the same way of thinking.” (Manning, The Pastoral Office).
How do Bishops Receive their Jursdiction?
From Dupre’s book:
For a very large
number of theologians of the period following the First Vatican Council, the
power of jurisdiction of the Pope comes immediately from Jesus Christ, while
the power of jurisdiction of the bishops is given through the intermediary of
the Supreme Pontiff. It suffices to quote, among many others, Dom Gréa and
Cardinal Journet:
"Hierarchical
communion, a perfect synonym for jurisdiction of moderns, is such, in fact,
that it is given by the head and received by the members. It is, in fact, the
very life of the whole body of the Church which proceeds from the centre and
spreads to the ends"130 .
“The Supreme
Pontiff, who is properly the head of the universal Church and the source of all
jurisdiction, is therefore, according to the language of antiquity, the head of
the communio ecclesiastica. These two expressions are absolutely synonymous,
and today we call jurisdiction what was formerly called episcopal
communion"131 .
For Dom Gréa, the
identification between jurisdiction and hierarchical or ecclesiastical
communion is perfect; this equivalence naturally leads him to consider the
Pope, the center of all hierarchical communion, as the unique source of all
jurisdiction.
“If it belongs to
the Supreme Pontiff, as the sole and universal source of all jurisdiction in
the Catholic, to confer the episcopate and to give to his brothers the stable
title of spiritual power, it belongs to him, all the more so, to exercise his
own jurisdiction in the whole world by mandates whose limits he himself
sets"132 .
As for Charles
Journet, he said: “To the Pope, (the power of jurisdiction) is given
immediately by Christ, immediately after the valid election. To the
bishops it is given through the Pope: the Savior^ says Cajetan again, spreads
his power first over the head of the Church, and thence over her body (...).
When the Supreme Pontiff, by himself or by others, invests the bishops, the
jurisdiction which they receive in their own right does not come to them
directly from God, it comes to them directly from the Supreme Pontiff, to whom
Christ gives it in a plenary way, and from where it descends to the bishops: a
little like the pulsations of life, which begin in the heart and which, from
there, are transmitted to the other organs.
And this is why the Supreme Pontiff should not be considered as merely
appointing bishops, who would receive their proper and ordinary authority
directly from Christ, but as conferring episcopal authority himself, after
having received it from Christ in an eminent form"133.[52]
Among the
defenders of this thesis, we could still list the illustrious names of Perrone,[53] Palmieri[54] ,Tanquerey[55] ,Van Nort[56] , Billot[57] etc...
In short, the
authors of this period maintain, almost all of them, that the jurisdiction
granted to the bishops is conferred immediately by the Pope who is like the
unique source of it. Eminent theologians
of the XVIe or XVIIe century, such as Cajetan, Soto, Bellarmin (...) are in
fact the theological references of our authors, who rely on them with all the
confidence that their reputation inspires.
· MANNING’S PREDICTION OF VATICAN II
“the
Council of the Vatican has defined his infallible magisterium, thereby
protecting the Primacy with a circle of definitions which are of Divine faith.
But the Vatican Council did more than this. It began to treat the doctrine of
the Episcopate. And though, prevented by the necessity which suspended its
work, the Council was unable to complete what it had begun …
It
is easy to deceive ourselves, but 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? The dependence of the Episcopate,
whether in or out of Council, upon the successors of Peter, the source of all
mission and actual jurisdiction, has been already defined by
Councils, and all episcopal exaggerations are as dead as the heresy of Aerius.
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 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 only for certain functions,
such as Confirmation, ordination, and consecration, transcendent as these are:
or, in a word, that the Episcopate is 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 .[Note: LG says: “But Episcopal
consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office
of teaching and of governing." "Episcopalis autem
consecratio, cum munere sanctificandi, munera quoque confert docendi et
regend" Lumen Gentium]. 2 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.”
Note:
Vatican II taught what Manning predicted, and the SSPX declares the teaching to
be heretical. The reason they claim it
is heretical is because 1) they mistakenly believe LG teaches that bishops
receive jurisdiction from their consecration, when what it actually teaches is
that they receive “an ontological participation in the function (munera) of
teaching and governing the Church (this is the effect of the episcopal
character), which, however, requires an additional “canonical determination”
before the function is a power that is ready to act (i.e., before the bishops
receives actual jurisdiction); and 2) because they mistakenly believe Pius
XII’s teaching concerning bishops receiving their jurisdiction directly from
the Pope is a dogma.
To
add to their confusion, they also fail to distinguish between particular
jurisdiction, which has been commonly been believed to come from the Pope, and
universal jurisdiction, which comes from 1) episcopal consecration along with “hierarchical
communion” with the Pope and other membership in the episcopal college.
Dupre:
“Bishop Philips
remark is interesting: ‘A comparison could be made here with the power to
forgive sins which is expressly given to the priest at the end of his
ordination, but which does not allow him to give absolution to a sinner
immediately. To hear confessions and absolve sins he must receive
"jurisdiction" (...). The canonical mission is nothing other than the
juridical forms of a good organization of the Community, an organization
postulated by the Sacrament itself" (G.PHILIPS, , L'Église et son mystère,
Tome I, Desclée, Paris, 1967, p. 275).
“This argument had
been used by Bishop Parente in the Relatio circa Chapter III nn. 22-27, in
response to the objections of the Minority: "Potestas, etiam
jurisdictionis, facultas agendi est, quæ cum ipso actu exercito confundi
nequit. Exempli gratia Sacerdos facultatem absolvendi peccata recipit in s.
ordinatione, quam quidem exercere nequit sine episcopi nutu, excepto periculo
mortis.” (Power, even jurisdiction, is the ability to act, which cannot be
confused with the actual exercise. For example, the priest receives the faculty
of absolving sins in s. ordination, which indeed he cannot exercise without the
bishop's nod, except in danger of death (Dupre, p. 135)
· PHRASE COLLEGE OF
BISHOPS
Optatus:
“They all — each in his own district —
make a great noise with wicked words . To some of their statements I may reply
when Opportunity arises. But we ha ve
foun d only one with whom it is possible to discuss these m a tters e ither by
corre spon den ce , or by the e xcha nge of trea tise s — Parmenia n our
brother, if indeed he will allow us to call him brother . Since they are
unwilling to b in communion , as we are, with the whole college of
Bishops throughout the world (Collegium episcopale nalunt nobiscum habere
commune), let it be freely granted that they are not colleagues , if
they re fuse so to be, but ( as we have already said), brothers they are.”
(Optatus Against the Donatists, circa 373).
Optatus: “Which of you will dare to say
that Macarius saluted the maple after the manner of Bishops Therefore, since he
neither saluted before he spoke, nor ventured to salute after having spoken ,
nor laid his hand on anyone, nor offered sacrifice to God with episcopal rite,
how can you say that the College of Bishops can have been
polluted, although you see that Macarius had nothing to do with any episcopal
duty.” (Ibid)
Bolgeni:
"The sovereign episcopate is found in
the Roman Pontiff alone, Successor of Peter, to whom every bishop is subject by
divine institution in the government of the Church; and it is found again in
the whole body of bishops considered collegially; this body must
always and necessarily include the Roman Pontiff who is its head." (Lepiscopaio oisia delia poienà di gavernare
la Chiesa, 2nd edition, pars I, cap. II, n. 69, p. 66).[58]
German theologian Pesch:
"The Apostles were not twelve
particular persons, without any special link between them, as if each had been
constituted a divine legate independently of the others. But rather they formed
body, in the moral sense of the word, one collegial magisterium. They were designated by a collegiate
appellation, and they are collegially distinguished from
the others. After their election they are called the Twelve; after the death of
Judas they are called the Eleven, after the manner of the Twelve, for according
to the will of Christ they were to form the College of the Twelve There is no
doubt that the Apostles formed one and the same moral body, the Apostolic
College." (2 C. PESCH, Jnsniutionespropadeutica,
Fribugi Br., 1915, vol. I, p. 163, n. 285).
Dupre:
“It is worth noting that the word college
used to designate the group of Apostles was already used in the Roman liturgy.
It is the Collect of the Mass of St. Matthias: “O God, who associated the
blessed Matthias with the College of your Apostles, grant us, we pray you, that
through his intercession we may always feel the effects of your mercy in our
regard, through Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (103 Missate Romanum, Collect for the
Mass of St. Matthias, February 24).
Tissier’s biography of Lefebvre:
The Fight Against Collegiality
In
the minds of numerous conciliar Fathers, the object of the Second Vatican
Council was to be a counterbalance to the teachings of the First Vatican
Council. Vatican I had expounded the doctrine of the Pope’s primacy. In their
view, Vatican II ought to declare the right of the bishops to rule the Church
with him. The new schema for the constitution of the Church that replaced
the abandoned preparatory schema had been passionately debated during the
second session in 1963. Three rival theses clashed: the extreme
liberal thesis said that the bishops formed a college of which the Pope was
merely the head and which the Pope would consult before taking any decisions.
The moderate liberal thesis—Paul VI’s—claimed that the bishops formed a college
under the Pope who was their leader by divine right. Independently of the college,
the Pope retained his personal powers as defined by Vatican I. Consequently,
supreme power over the Church was exercised by two authorities: the Sovereign
Pontiff on one hand, and the episcopal college “with and under its leader” on
the other.
Faced with this mitigated liberal thesis, the
Coetus objected that by divine right the bishops could logically demand (when
they wanted or even regularly) that the Pope exercise this supreme power which
supposedly belonged to them by virtue of the divine constitution of the Church.
The supreme power of the Pope was thus in danger of being reduced accordingly. The
Coetus held to the thesis of Roman theology expounded by Fr. Berto[59]
in his draft schema and supported by Archbishop Lefebvre. Referring to
all tradition and history, it demonstrated that the Pope was the only leader of
the universal Church by divine right, and that in him alone resided the
plenitude of supreme power. As for the episcopal corps, it did not constitute
by divine right a college in the juridical sense of being the
subject of common action. It only acted collegially in the exceptional
circumstances of an ecumenical council, and had no authority over the universal
Church except that granted it by the Pope, as and when he wished and when
delegating part of his own supreme authority.” (Tissier, Biography of Lefebvre)
Vatican II’s original schema de
Ecclesia:
"Collegium Episcoporum quod
Collegio Apostolorum in magisterio et regimine pastorali succedit, immo in quo
Collegium Apostolorum continuo perseverat, quodque missionem lesu Christi eius-
demque doctrinam et leges continuo testatur, ima cum capite suo, Romano
Pontificeet numquam sine hoc capite, unum subjectumplenæ et supremæ potestatis
in universam Ecclesiam creditur. Potestas tamen huius Collegii, etsi ordinaria,
utpote officio inhaerens, nonnisi modo extraordinario et in devota
subordinatione lesu Christi Vicario in terris quando, quomodo et quousque eidem
id in Domino videtur expedire, legitime exercetur. Quod vero ad constitutionem
augusti huius Collegii attinet, omnes Episcopi residentiales in pace cum Sede
Apostólica viventes suo iure eiusdem membra sunt, et nemo Episcoporum, sive
residentialium sive aliorum, ad hoc Collegium pertinere potest, nisi dedita
opera vel consensu tacito a Successore Petri Vicario et Capite Collegii, in
idem assumptus sit"(/1D, Series II, vol. I, Periodus Prima,Pars IV, in
Schenia Constitutionis Dogmatices "De Ecclesia", p. 27, § 16)
Wernz-Vidal:
“bishops
together with the Roman Pontiff constitute another subject of supreme authority
in the Church, only inadequately distinct from the Roman Pontiff. For although
bishops receive the power of jurisdiction to be exercised in an ecumenical
council, not immediately from God, but from the Roman Pontiff (12), the subject
that truly judges in ecumenical councils, whether it defines the laws of the
faith or establishes disciplinary laws, is also the college of bishops (collegium
Episcoporum). (Wernz, Ius canonicum, 1905, Vol. I No. 180, p. 259.)
Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum:
“This power over
the Episcopal College (episcoporum collegium) to which we refer, and which is
clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the
Church. This is clear from the teaching of General Councils.”
(Hanc vero, de qua
dicimus, in ipsum episcoporum collegium potestatem, quam sacrae litterae tam
aperte enuntiant, agnoscere ac testari nullo tempore Ecclesia destitit. Illa
sunt in hoc genere effata Conciliorum)
Giovanni Devoti:
“III. The Universal
College of Bishops (Collegium quidem universum
Episcoporum), who, united with their head, represent the Universal Church,
has jurisdiction over the whole world; but the jurisdiction of each Bishop
singly is not extended to those nations over which no government has been
committed to him. Therefore, the legislation of each Bishop affects the
particular diocese over which he is set, and binds the subjects who are
contained in it; but beyond his own diocese, inasmuch as he has no subjects, he
can have no jurisdiction. By which fact may be solved, as it seems to me,
the controversy with which even the Fathers at Trent were occupied, but left
still undecided, namely, whether the jurisdiction of Bishops is mediately or
immediately from Christ.[1] I am of the opinion,
indeed, that the jurisdiction which is attached to the Episcopate at large is
immediately from Christ Himself, and the special jurisdiction which resides in
each alone is mediately conferred. This, which is too briefly
stated, must be somewhat more carefully explained. It is certain that Christ
instituted the Episcopate, and placed in the whole College of Bishops, united
with their head, the whole administrative authority of the Christian commonwealth.
I here pass by whatsoever was said to Peter alone, apart from the other
Apostles, and I insist only on those places in the Gospels in which authority
and jurisdiction over the whole Church were given to the Apostles. But how was
the power given in these places? It is always given to all the Apostles
together with Peter, to none of them separately, except to Peter alone,
who first, apart from the other Apostles, afterwards together with them,
received the power to govern the Church. Therefore the jurisdiction which the
whole College of Bishops, which succeed to the Apostles, possesses, comes
immediately from Christ Himself.” (Ius canonicum universum publicum et privatum, Vol.
I, Rome, 1803, p. 115-116).
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ml6iPwuGW6cC&pg=GBS.PA114&hl=en
IV. “But if we
consider the Bishops singly, as the rulers of particular Churches, they have
received no jurisdiction immediately from Christ. All such jurisdiction arises
immediately from the Church, which distributes dioceses, in which each Bishop
singly is to exercise jurisdiction, and assigns to him certain subjects whom he
is to govern.
“But it may even
be granted and conceded that the jurisdiction, not only of the whole College of
Bishops, but even of each singly, proceeds immediately from God Himself. For to
the fountain we must return. A distinction is to be drawn between the
jurisdiction itself and the act and use of it in exercise. The
jurisdiction, indeed, may be derived immediately from God; but all act and use
of it is from the Church, which gives the use of it (i.e. the right of using
it) to each Bishop, when it assigns to him his subjects, on whom he may
exercise this jurisdiction, which is itself of Divine right; but so long as it
has no subjects it remains an otiose jurisdiction. So in ordination a priest receives the
power of for giving sins; but unless he have subjects assigned to him by the
Church he cannot use it.”
[From Devoti’s
Book] IV. But if we consider the
Bishops individually, as rulers of particular Churches, they themselves did not
directly receive any jurisdiction from Christ. All this jurisdiction arises
directly from the Church, which distributes dioceses, in which individual
bishops are to exercise jurisdiction, and assigns certain subjects whom they
govern. Outside this diocese there are no individual subjects, and no
jurisdiction. But if the jurisdiction which each individual bishop has separately
depends entirely on that of certain subjects, and on the assignment of a
certain region, and if this assignment is made by the Church, it is manifest
that individual bishops obtain jurisdiction directly from the same Church, or
from its Roman Pontiff .
Indeed, it is a
divine right that there should be a college of bishops, who together with their
head refer to the whole Church; but the fact that one or the other is a bishop
has nothing to do with the divine right, nor with the establishment of the divine
church, and nothing is deducted from the establishment of the episcopate, if
one or the other bishop is removed, so long as the whole college of bishops
remains. Thus, when the boundaries of any diocese are contracted, the bishop
who presides over it is contracted, and the jurisdiction is narrowed; it is so
true that it depends entirely on the discretion of the Church. But whether this
bishop has a wider or narrower diocese, he will certainly have more or less of
that jurisdiction than each individual bishop has separately; but in the
college of all the bishops, of which he is the head, he will have the same
power as the rest of his colleagues (1). Therefore there is one jurisdiction
which individual bishops possess, another which is present in the whole college;
and indeed this, but not that, proceeds immediately from God.
V. It is true that it is possible, and may be granted that not only the jurisdiction of the entire College of Bishops, but also of each
one individually proceeds directly from God himself; however, we must return to same way. For it is necessary to distinguish the jurisdiction itself
from the act, and the practice of exercising it; indeed, it can be directly
reclaimed from God, but every act and use is from the Church, which grants it
to each bishop, when he assigns to him his own subjects, over whom he may
exercise the jurisdiction sought by divine right, but still without the same
subjects. Thus, in ordination, the Priest obtains the power to forgive sins,
but he cannot use it unless he has subjects from the Church. This is more clear
in the very ordination of bishops. For let two bishops be ordained; nor to the
other, as are the Bishops whom we call Titulars. From the same ordination,
jurisdiction descends upon both bishops, which is of divine right; but not the exercise of the same.
In those, 8 he
says, which pertain to Divine Law, the power and jurisdiction of both bishops
is exactly the same, but still the condition of the said mile is; since the one
only obtained jurisdiction, which belongs to the divine right, the other also
the jurisdiction itself, and the faculty of exercising it, which is conferred
by the Church, on certain subjects. When Paul ordained Titus and Timothy
bishops, he certainly conferred on them the jurisdiction attached to the
episcopate by divine right, but this jurisdiction would have been abstract and
idle, had he not assigned to both of them their own subjects, in which they
should exercise the same. To the apostles of the sun Christ also gave them
jurisdiction, and at the same time the use of jurisdiction, when they go into
the whole world to preach the Gospel to every creature. The use of these words
is granted to all creatures that are in the whole world. But this extraordinary
mission to the whole world was peculiar only to the Apostles, to whose jurisdiction
all men ought to be subject. But the bishops, who succeeded the apostles only
in the ordinary right of the episcopate, and not also in the extraordinary
apostleship, could not have this same authority so widely open, and therefore
the subject of their jurisdiction had to be only a definite and definite part
of the world. Christ did not establish anything about this matter, but allowed
the whole to be decided by the Church, whose task it was to distribute the
individual parts of the world among the bishops, that is, to assign to each of
them the subjects over which they had the exercise of jurisdiction. Thus Paul
assigned Titus the Cretans to Timothy the Ephesians, and other Asians; and thus
these people became subject to the episcopal jurisdiction, Titus and Timothy,
each of whom had the same jurisdiction attached to the episcopal ordination by
divine right, but no one had the use of that jurisdiction outside the
boundaries established by Paul's will.
6. These things
being so, it does not require much ingenuity to understand that the exercise of
the jurisdiction of each bishop can be more strictly restricted by the Church,
or by its head, the Roman Pontiff. For since everything depends on him, and is given
by him, who doubts that he can also go against his will? Of course, it is not
only customary for the Pontiff to institute new episcopates, or to restrict
those already instituted to narrower limits, but also almost daily. Is it not
so that the subjects of one bishop are taken away, so that they are assigned to
another, and with that agreement? the use of that jurisdiction is diminished,
and the part withdrawn from it is transferred to another? For that reason, the
Supreme Pontiff, for the supreme power he has over the whole Church, can
reserve certain cases for himself, as defined by the Synod of Trent (1), in
which way the Bishop is prohibited from exercising any jurisdiction in the same
cases. But in fact there are certain rights deeply attached to the Episcopate,
and ingrained, which are called original, or primordial, and which cannot be
taken away from it, and cannot be separated. But what are these original and
original rights? They are certainly those which Christ ascribed to bishops, and
which he himself willed to be inherent, and as it were innate in the
episcopate. But these are all things, that together with the one head of all,
and the center of unity, the whole Church governs and moderates. It is true
that individual bishops have certain subjects whom they govern; and thus they
enjoy the practice and the act of jurisdiction, that is all ecclesiastical law,
and cannot be referred to those which proceed directly from God, the original
and primordial rights of the episcopate. The original right of ruling the
Church is equal and completely similar to that which the Bishop, the
Metropolitan, and the Patriarch have; and yet all these, though in that respect
they are quite alike in law, yet they are dissimilar in the practice of
jurisdiction, since the authority of the Patriarch is the most extensive of
all, and the power of the Metropolitan is less; In short, the bishop who
governs only one diocese is inferior to these two. All these have the
jurisdiction, which is annexed by divine right to the Episcopate. Why is there
so much dissimilarity in the same exercise; Why is the Bishop of the
Metropolitan, and both of them subject to the Patriarch? Because the whole
thing depends on the will of the Church, which unless it is explained, the
jurisdiction of the individual Bishops is idle, but when it is explained, it
shows what kind and how much it is. Would it have been permissible for the
Church to distribute the jurisdiction between the bishops, who are all equal by
divine right, so that one is superior to another, another inferior, if the
jurisdiction of individual bishops was used by divine right, and it belonged to
the original right, to be removed and diminished? In the same way, not only
Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils, but also Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and
Provincial Councils use this practice; which certainly could not have been done
if it had been divinely appointed.
VII. Moreover, the
cradles of the Church were hardly distributed among the dioceses themselves,
and were given to each individual bishop? the power of these began to be
contracted, and to be bound by certain laws, Christ had sent the apostles into
the whole world with the most extensive power of binding and loosing, and he
did not limit the extent of his power here. But after the distribution of the
dioceses, Paul, who had ordained Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Crete bishop,
immediately diminished the episcopal authority in those very matters which
chiefly belonged to the episcopate. For what is more characteristic of a bishop
than ordination? And yet he himself, from Paulus, is forbidden to initiate the
novices into orders (1); and moreover it is ordered to receive an accusation
against a priest only under two or three witnesses (2); although the Bishop
could, at his own pleasure, use against the Presbyter, who is more subject to
him by divine law, a method which seemed more convenient and expedient in judgments.
Since the matter of which has been mentioned, let us see in it not a dark and
sketchy, but a clear and expressed image of what has been said. As we have
said, the apostle creates Timothy as a bishop, and confers on him, by
ordination, all the jurisdiction which is annexed to the episcopate by divine
right. But where did Timothy get the
exercise? The apostle was not such that, by right of the extraordinary mission,
which had been given to the apostles, he could produce the jurisdiction sought
by the organization for the whole world; but there was only one bishop who had
to use them not all over the world, but only in certain regions. And so the
same apostle who had ordained Timothy, and had made him a partaker of the
jurisdiction inherent in the episcopate; he also gives its use and exercise
by the assignment of subjects, that is, of all those who are contained in the
region of the Ephesians. (Itaque idem Apostolus, qui Timotheum ordinavera,
eumque participem fecerat jurisdictionis insitae in Episcopatn; dat etiam ejus
usum, et exercitium per assignationem subditorum, eorum scilicet omnium? qui
Ephesiorum regione continentur) Thus Timotheus, who had received the
subjects from Paul, obtained the use of the jurisdiction which he had acquired
by ordination. But Paul judges that its practice, which he had given at the
beginning, should be universally restrained by certain laws, and orders that
the bigams and neophytes should be removed from it. Whether Paul opposes this
coercion of divine law; Or is anything taken away from them, which they had
obtained by divine right? Of course not. Paul had not received any use of
jurisdiction from ordination; and here indeed he was able to establish laws and
regulations at his discretion. The same must be said about the other bishops
who were ordained by the apostles.
(Ibid)
(jurisdictio otiosa a Deo immediate
collata.)
Van
Noort: “Catholic teaching holds that Christ Himself established a sacred authority
in His Church, and that this authority, invested first in the apostolic
college, was uninterruptedly perpetuated, and in fact perdures today in
the college of bishops. (…) the
apostolic college was succeeded by the college of bishops or the episcopate. This proposition is a dogma of faith.
See the Council of Trent, Session 23, ch. 4 (DB 960).” (Van Noort, Christ's
Church, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1959, p. 32; 33.)
Van
Noort: “the Catholic episcopate, when united to the pope, is endowed with
infallibility in teaching matters on faith and morals. Although these arguments
speak formally of an ‘ecumenical council,’ they are equally applicable to the college
of bishops dispersed throughout the world.” (Ibid. 331)
Lefevre: “There is no usual,
permanent collegiality. It does not exist, it cannot exist because that would
defeat power. Who is the one who will exercise power? The Pope with the
Bishops, or the Pope alone? There cannot be two parallel authorities, that is
not possible. Our Lord did not make an institution which is not viable
”(December 19, 1983 – quoted by Gleize).
· THE EPISCOPATE IS
ONE – St. CYPRIAN QUOTE
“The Episcopate is one, of which each one
has a share “in solidium” (Episcopatus
unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur)
Authors who address this quote:
a)
Pope
Gregory XVI
b)
Manning
c)
Thompson
d)
Giovanni
Devoti: Ius canonicum universum…, V. I, Rome, 1803, p 116
e)
Bolgeni
f)
Billot,
De Ecclesia 1,
g)
Phillips
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 the
ecumenical council, or even dispersed throughout the world. And this collegiate authority of all the
bishops together with the head Peter, is how the saying of St. Cyprian (De
Unit. Eccl. n. 5) is to be understood: ‘The episcopate is one, of which a part
is held jointly by each.’ (Billot, De
Ecclesia, Thesis XXVII p. 572)
Manning: “The Pope then gave a further order that a circular letter
should be sent to a number of the bishops of all nations, selected for their
knowledge in theology and canon law and for their experience in the government
of the Church. In this Pius the Ninth called to his aid those who were set as
doctors by Christ Himself to teach the Church of God. Every bishop is, in
virtue of his office, a doctor or teacher of the faith. It matters not how
large or how small his diocese may be, whether it be in the Catholic unity
or in partibus infidelium, whether
he have a flock under his jurisdiction or not.
The bishop of the least see in this is equal to the bishop of the greatest. He
has been constituted a guardian of the faith by a divine commission, and his
testimony as a witness is not greater or less in weight because the city over
which he rules is greater or less in magnitude. It is the same in all. St
Jerome says that in this all bishops are equal, and that the episcopate of the
Bishop of Rome is no greater than that of the Bishop of Eugubium. We shall
hereafter see the value and application of this principle.” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_True_Story_of_the_Vatican_Council/Chapter_1
· BISHOPS
PARTICIPATE IN A COUNCIL BY DIVINE LAW, NOT MERELY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (Contra
the SSPX’s objections to the 1983 Code of Canon Law):
Tranquillo: In reality, as we observe by comparing the [Old] Code to the Council,
neither all nor only the sacred Bishops are invited de jure: can. 223 prescribed that Cardinals, even non-bishops,
residential Bishops, even if they were not yet consecrated, the Abbots and
Prelates nullius, the various
Superiors of Orders or exempt clerical Congregations, should be summoned to the
Council with deliberative vote; while titular bishops had no deliberative voice
unless granted. So when the Pope convenes the Council, which should be the
most striking action of the College, he does not convoke the members of this
so-called College, but those whom he wants; people whom he chooses on the basis
on positive law, not the members of a Body instituted by Christ. » (Episcopat Et Collegialite)
Salaverri: “575.3:
The nature of the right or of the power of an Ecumenical Council is formal
succession. For, the College of Bishops formally succeeds the College of
Apostles, which therefore is also the Body of the Heads, that is, being
composed of the Head, the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, and the
member Bishops as successors of the Apostles. Bishops exercise their office
under the Roman Pontiff, either in the ordinary way dispersed throughout the
world, or united together in an extraordinary way in an Ecumenical Council. By
divine law, therefore, there are two essential elements in the College and
consequently in a Council: The first is the Head, who is the successor of St.
Peter in the Primacy; the second is the Body, which is constituted by the Bishops,
successors of the Apostles, and they are this by
right {de iure) physically all of them,
but de facto all morally. [check translation]
576.4 The idea. An Ecumenical Council is, therefore, a legitimate
assembly of all the Bishops gathered together under the Roman Pontiff in
order to deliberate and make decrees on ecclesiastical affairs. Bishops, who
come together in a Council by their own right, are the residential
Bishops or the successors of the Apostles; all must come together either physically
or morally, according as the meeting is understood to be either by right or de
facto. Briefly: An Ecumenical Council is a
hierarchical body of the Bishops of the Church brought together under the
Primate (see D 660). 577. 5)
577: The convocation of an Ecumenical
Council requires: a) concerning the Head, that it is acknowledged that the
right of convoking it pertains to the Roman Pontiff alone (D 1445); b)
concerning the Body, that the invitation to attend is extended to all the
Bishops who are ordinary pastors of the Churches in communion with the Supreme
Pontiff. By Ecclesiastical law others can also be invited, but not on the basis
of their own right (D 2610).
Van Noort, p. 332: “Requirements for an
Ecumenical Council. Two things are necessary by divine law to have such a
council: (a) that all bishops who are ordinaries of dioceses throughout the
world be summoned and that a sufficient number from different parts of the
world actually attend so that, morally speaking, they are judged to represent
the entire episcopal college. 5 Given such a representation, those bishops who
are actually absent from the council are judged to yield their own right and to
agree tacitly to all decrees which may be handed down.
“Titular bishops need not, apparently, be
summoned to an ecumenical council. They can, of course, be invited and if
present possess a deliberative vote. On them and other invited clerics J the pope, out of the fulness of
his own power of jurisdiction, confers a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction for the
occasion.”
Billot: “But now, an institution initiated
in the apostolic college it is scarcely necessary to demonstrate that it ought
to have been perpetuated in the episcopate until the end. And, of course, the
testimonies presented in the Gospel undoubtedly regard the perpetual 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 the
ecumenical council, or even dispersed throughout the world. And this collegiate authority of all the
bishops together with the head Peter, is how the saying of St. Cyprian (De
Unit. Eccl. n. 5) is to be understood: ‘The episcopate is one, of which a part
is held jointly by each.’ (Billot, De
Ecclesia, Thesis XXVII p. 572)
New Quotes (recently added):
Bishops can only be consecrated with title:
"According to the present ecclesiastical discipline no bishop can be consecrated without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops, the residential, or diocesan or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction, in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope. Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction, in and over their titular sees." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
Manning, The Pastoral Office: “4. The government of the Church is in a strict and true sense, a monarchy; it is the kingdom of Jesus Christ. There is only one visible head; one only who has the twofold plenitude of jurisdiction and of doctrinal authority; one only who is independent of all authority on earth; one on whom all authorities in the Church depends; one supreme legislator, one supreme judge. He is sovereign and final, and, in the exercise of his office as the supreme pastor and doctor of the faithful, infallible in faith and morals. He alone stands in two supreme relations, which belong to no other: the one, of Vicar to the Divine and invisible Head of the Church in heaven; the other, of pastoral jurisdiction over the whole world.
5. Peter was both Apostle and Bishop before all others, and, in a way and measure, above all others. S. Cyprian says, the Apostles were what Peter was; 10 but he means that they were all Apostles, Bishops, and pastors; he did not mean that they were all primates, nor all independent of Peter, nor each supreme over his fellows. In the apostleship and Episcopate they were equal to Peter; but in his primacy Peter stood alone, independent of them all; and all were dependent upon him. The power of sacrifice, that is, of priesthood was given to them all alike; the power of absolution, both to exercise and as Bishops to communicate to others, all alike received; the universal mission of the Apostolate was given equally to all. All this they received with Peter, and in dependence on him; for to him alone were the keys first given, and to him alone were spoken the words Feed My sheep, by which the whole flock was committed to his charge.
6. The Apostolate of the eleven in no way limited the primacy of Peter, and the primacy of Peter in no way limited the Apostolate of the eleven, save only that they exercised their power in dependence on their head. Their powers contained the full Apostolate and Episcopate and priesthood of the Church. The government of the Church did not cease to be a monarchy, because the primacy and the Apostolate were one vital and organic whole under one head.”
Dupre:
“That the College of Bishops is subject to the supreme power is for our authors a fact now taken for granted: Father U. Betti, in his work Constituzione dommatica "Pastor aternus" del Concilio Vaticano I, takes Zinelli's assertions and recognizes that the supreme power of jurisdiction of the College of Bishops is exercised over the universal Church:
‘If it is true, in fact, that the bishops, either in scattered form throughout the world, or gathered in Ecumenical Council, exercise the supreme power of jurisdiction, this happens only insofar as they are united to their head, the Pope, who retains over them all his full and immediate authority.... Moreover, the Supreme Pontiff can exercise supreme power over the Church, even in a personal form (da solo), - independently of the concurrence or consent of the episcopate"217.[19]
Father Le Guillou makes an interesting distinction between primacy and jurisdiction:
‘Primacy designates the supreme universal jurisdiction as granted personally to the Successor of Peter and exercised, as such, by him; but the College of Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, and under his authority, collegially possesses this same universal jurisdiction"218.[20]
Father Le Guillou: "The Pope alone can do all that the Pope can do with the College and, on the other hand, the College without the Pope can do nothing. The Pope and the College of Bishops are not two distinct powers, but one and the same power, all dependent on Christ the Head; it is in this identity of power that the unity of the episcopate consists and that the foundation of the whole episcopal structure is found"221 . Far from opposing the doctrine of primacy, collegiality complements it, and is assumed by it. It does not destroy the doctrine of primacy; on the contrary, it brings it into sharper focus. Primacy and collegiality are complementary to each other for the service of the mission entrusted by Christ to his Apostles"222[21]
__
Professor Ludwig Ott, in his compendium of dogmatic theology, presents the collegiality of the episcopacy as a sententia certa:
Ludwig Ott (post Vatican II edition): “The concept of a college according to the Nota Explicativa Prævia (no. 1) must not be taken in a strictly juridical sense, to be a group of equals who have asked for their power from him who presides, but in the sense of a permanent group (coetus stabilis) whose structure and authority must be deduced from revelation.” (Italian post-Vatican II edition, Marietti, page 486.)
Lefebvre: “ There is no usual, permanent collegiality. It does not exist, it cannot exist because that would defeat power. Who is the one who will exercise power? The Pope with the Bishops, or the Pope alone? There cannot be two parallel authorities, that is not possible. Our Lord did not make an institution which is not viable ”(December 19, 1983).
Dupre: The existence of the College is permanent, the Nota explicativa prœvia clearly states: “Collegium semper existât (the College always exists)”343 . During the conciliar debates, many of the Minority Fathers wanted to conceive of the existence of the College only at those times when the Pope would call upon it to act collegially. In response to the many amendments proposed in this sense, the Doctrinal Commission stated on three occasions that it was not possible to alter the text in a way that would deny the College a permanent existence:
1. To modum 67, which explicitly requested that the expression Collegium... auctoritatem non habet be replaced by Collegium... non est, the Commission replied:
“This change contradicts the text, in which it is assumed that action follows from being, and not the other way around. For this can only be done "in hierarchical communion", that is, according to the norms approved by the supreme authority, as it is explicitly stated later, at the end of number 22. Nor does it follow that the college is always "in full action.” ("Hæc mutatio contradicit textui, in quo supponitur quod agere sequitur esse, et non e converso.Ex quo tamen non sequitur Collegium semper motu proprio ad exercitiumtransire posse.Hoc enim facere non potest nisi "in hierarchica communione", id estsecundum normas a suprema auctoritate approbatas, ut postea explicite dicitur, in fine numeri 22. Neque sequitur collegium semper esse "in actu pleno". Cf. Nota explicativa prcevia sub n. 4" (AS III, vol. VIII, pp. 69- 70).
2. In modum 77 the Doctrinal Commission recalls that:
"The text clearly affirms that the apostolic body continues and perseveres in the episcopal body, even if that body, as was said in the answer to mode 67, does not always act, or indeed at rare intervals acts, strictly collegially (Textus clare affirmat corpus apostolicum continuo in corpore episcopali perseverare, etiam corpus illud, ut in responso ad modum 67 dictum est, non semper, vel immo raris intervallis, stricte collegialiter agat). (/IS III, vol. VIII, p. 71).
3. Finally, in modum 106, the Doctrinal Commission reaffirms: “The College of Bishops, together with its Head, has supreme power, even when it does not actually exercise it.” (Collegium Episcoporum una cum Capite suo supremam potestatem habet, etiam quando eam actu non exercet).5 (AS III, vol. VIII, p. 78).
Ludwig Ott: 2. Collegiality of the episcopate.
The bishops as successors of the Apostles together form a college, headed by the Pope as Peter's successor. Sent. certain.
The Second Vatican Council declared: "Just as Saint Peter and the Apostles constitute, by the will of the Lord, a single apostolic college, in the same way the Roman pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the apostles, are united among themselves. The order of bishops, which succeeds the college of Apostles in the magisterium and in the pastoral regime, in which, indeed, the apostolic body is perpetuated, together with its head the Roman pontiff, and never without this head, is also subject to supreme and full power over the whole Church, although this power cannot be exercised without the consent of the Roman pontiff. "(De Ecclesia, n. 22)
The concept of "college", according to the "Preliminary Explanatory Note" (n. I), must not be understood in the strictly juridical sense of a group of equals, who have delegated their authority to their principal, but in the sense of a stable group (coetus stabilis, corpus, ordo), whose structure and authority must be deduced from revelation.
The Apostles form among themselves a well-defined group of people, "The Twelve" (Mt. 20, 17; 26, 14. 17 par ; Jn. 6,71 [Volg. 72]; 20, 24; Acts 6, 2 ; 1Cor 15: 5). Christ conferred on them all the power to bind and loose (Mt 18, 18), he transmitted his mission to them (Jn 20, 21-23), he gave them the task of teaching and baptizing all peoples (Mt. 28, 19 s .; Mk 16, 15; Acts I, 8) and promised them his assistance until the end of the world (Mt 28:20). In place of Judas, Matthias was hired in the apostolic college, designated by the Lord by lot (Acts 1:26). The Apostles direct the primitive community of Jerusalem together and meet with the priests in the apostolic council (Acts 15, 6 ff.). According to Ap. 21, 14 the twelve Apostles are "the fundamental stones" of the Church of Christ. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the "consultative assembly (synedrion) of the Apostles" (Magn. 6, 1).
Tradition attests to the collegial character of the episcopate by means of the friendly relations of the bishops among themselves and with the Roman pontiff and by means of their meeting for consultations in particular and ecumenical councils. (Ludwig Ott, Compendio Di Teologia Dogmatica, Marietti, 1969, page 486) http://www.fratiminoriosimo.it/s0/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Ott_compendio_di_teologia_dogmatica.pdf
Kleutgen: “There is no doubt, indeed, that the episcopate is of divine institution .And it is instituted not only that the bishops may sanctify the Church of God, but also that they may govern it. Thus, even though they receive jurisdiction by election or confirmation from the Roman, the divine constitution of the Church includes not only a Supreme Pontiff who assumes the office of pastor of all the faithful, but also a body of bishops succeeding the College of the Apostles, who govern the Church with a proper and ordinary power (...)" (Mansi 53.321. a)
Ludwig Ott: “3. Conferral of episcopal power.
Episcopal consecration together with the power to sanctify also confers the power to teach and govern. Sent. certain. (theologically certain)
The Second Vatican Council declared: "Episcopal consecration also confers, with the office of sanctifying, the offices of teaching and governing, which, however, by their nature, cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college "(De Ecclesia, n. 21). "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body by virtue of sacramental consecration and through hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with the members" (ibid., N. 22).
The motivation results from the liturgical tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches. In the prayers of episcopal consecration, the grace of God is not implored only for the exercise of the priestly office, but also for the doctrinal and pastoral office. See Sacramentarium Leonianum: tribuas eis cathedram episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam tuam et plebem universam (ed. C. MOHLBERG 120).
According to the "Preliminary Explanatory Note" (n. 2), an ontological participation in the offices of Christ is conferred in episcopal consecration. To indicate this, the term "office" (munus) was chosen in the constitution and not "potestà" (potestas), because the latter could be understood as a free power to exercise. But in order to have such free power, canonical or juridical determination by the hierarchical authority must have access. This determination may consist in the granting of a particular office or in the assignment of subjects, and is granted according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. The documents of the recent Roman pontiffs about the jurisdiction of the bishops must be interpreted of this necessary determination, eg. a declaration of Pius XII in the Enc. Mystici Corporis (1943), second which "the bishops have an ordinary power of jurisdiction, which has been conferred on them directly by the pope" (D. 2287 [DS. 3804]). (Ibid)
Ludwig Ott:
The episcopate is a sacrament. Sent. certain.
The Council of Trent declared that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, belong to the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the main (praecipue) and that when they confer ordination they do not say in vain: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum (D. 960, 964 [DS. 1768, 1774]). The Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum ordinis of Pius XII presupposes the sacramentality of the episcopate. The Council Vatican II explicitly teaches: "With the episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of orders is conferred" (De Ecclesia 21,2). The two steps 2Tim. I, 6 and 1 Tim. 4, 14 refer directly to the episcopate. Ordination occurs through the laying on of hands and prayer. (Ibid)
Pesch: “Moreover, bishops are said to be successors of the apostles, inasmuch as the episcopal college is succeeded by the apostolic college. For not every bishop is formally the successor of a determined apostle. g. of John, Bartholomew, or Matthew but only of that pastoral function, which once was among the apostles as a subject, is now in the bishops as a subject. Hence, although the bishops of some church, never having been interrupted by the succession of a certain apostle, did not arrive until our times, yet the power of that apostle had not passed over them rather than the other apostles; and materially. In this sense he rightly said *S. Cyprian: "There is one episcopate, of which a part is held jointly by each individual" (De Unit. Eccl. 5). The only exception is the Roman Pontiff, who is the successor of Saint Peter as head of the apostolic college (cf. Suarez, De fide disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4 25). (Pesch, COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE DOGMATICAE, Vol 1, Cap. 6, art. 1)
(Praeterea episcopi dicuntur successores apostolorum, quatenus collegium episcopale successit collegio apostolico. Neque enim quivis episcopus formaliter est successor determinati apostoii, v. g. Ioannis, Bartholomaei vel Matthaei ; sed solum illud munus pastorale, quod olim in apostolis erat ut in subiecto, nunc est in episcopis ut in subiecto. Unde etsi alicuius ecclesiae episcopi a certo apostolo successione numquam interrupta usque ad nostra tempora pervenissent , non tamen illius apostoli potestas potius quam aliorum apostolorum in eos transiisset, sed in ratione potestatis episcopalis haec successio pure accidentaliter et materialiter se haberet. Hoc sensu recte dixit *S. Cyprianus : «Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur» (De unit. eccl. 5). Excipitur solus romanus pontifex, qui est successor S. Petri ut capitis collegii apostolici (cf. Suarez , De fide disp. 10, sect. i,
n. 4 25).
Zapelena: “The episcopal college, the successor to the Apostolic College, is infallible in proposing
revealed doctrine or things connected with revealed teachings, as we saw in the preceding thesis [on ecumenical councils]. But this College is not less present in the ordinary and scattered teaching of the bishops, than in the extraordinary and conciliar. Therefore the bishops are no less infallible when they teach in unison by their ordinary magisterium, than when they exercise the solemn or extraordinary magisterium...
“The agreement of the scattered episcopate, since it is by no means as solemn as that of a council, is not so easily perceived; the same is true of the intention to teach from the fullness of the magisterial power. Hence, since in accordance with the norm of Canon Law, 'No matter is to be understood as dogmatically defined unless this fact is manifestly evident', this makes it difficult to discern with certainty in regard to a particular dogma from the Ordinary Magisterium alone. Nevertheless, suitable means are not lacking by which it can be known sufficiently: for example, from catechisms published for the use of the people and approved by the bishops, from encyclicals and pastoral letters, from the decrees of particular councils; or from the fact that the doctrine, everywhere in the world, in sermons to the people, is habitually preached as Catholic, or condemned as heretical ... [sic] Finally, even disciplinary laws and liturgical usages contribute in their manner in showing this agreement.” (Timotheus Zapalena, S.J. De Ecclesia Christi, pars altera, Rome, 1940, p. 67. Translated by James Larrabee.)
The College of Bishops Succeeds the Apostolic College
“The theologian Herbigny does not hesitate to support the same assertion: “the College of Bishops succeeds the Apostolic College or rather is one with it.” (126 M. D'HERBIGNY, Theologica De Ecclesia II, Beauchesne, Parisiis, 1928, n. 374 - "Collegium Episcopale succedit Collegio Apostolico, vel potius idem est cum illo )
From Dupre’s book:
The theologian Zapelena, in his work De Ecclesia Christi, devotes a whole chapter to the question of the succession of the Apostolic College: “Of the College of Bishops which succeeds the College of Apostles.” (T. ZAPELENA, De Ecclesia Christi, Pars Altera, Romae, Apud aedes universitatisgregonans, 1932, Thesis XIV,pp. 7-11: De Collegio Episcoporum succedente Collegio Apostolorum).
He explains how the bishops succeed the apostles in potestate ordinis in a full and perfect manner; they succeed the apostles in potestate magisterii in an imperfect manner: only in so far as they are authentic teachers of doctrine. The prerogative of infallibility is not personal to them as it was to the Apostles, although it belongs to them collegially since the College of Bishops succeeds the College of Apostles, even in their prerogative of infallibility (Ibid. p. 10). Finally, taken separately, they succeed the Apostles in potestate reginiinis, only insofar as they have ordinary and proper power over a certain portion of the flock which is the Church.
However, according to T. Zapelena : "The College of Bishops succeeds the Apostolic College; indeed the bishops, taken collectively under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, have a universal jurisdiction which they exercise, in the first instance, when they are assembled in an Ecumenical Council" (Ibid. p. 10)
Zapelena: “Whence comes the argument: These words were immediately directed to all the apostles at the same time, but in the praised words there is contained a promise of supreme jurisdiction. Therefore all the apostles are the immediate subject of a sure power.
Ans. I Dist. The major. These words are directed to all the apostles, taken one by one; denied; considered collective (collegialiter), conceded. I dist. also the consequent: All the apostles are the subject of supreme jurisdiction (subiectum iurisdictionis supremae) with Peter and under, conceded; without this subordination to Peter, denied. (Dist. etiam conseq. Omnes Apostoli sunt subiectum iurisdictionis supremae cum Petro et sub Petro, C; sine hac subordinatione ad Petrum, N).
You will perhaps say in the text that I did not mention this kind of subordination; that I willingly concede, if, however, there is a discourse concerning this one of Christ. But the text must agree one with another in such a way that harmonies cohere among themselves. Moreover, from the words of primacy, whether promised or conferred, it is certain that Peter is one of the keys of the Church and the ston of the pope; The power therefore granted to the other apostles cannot be independent of the will and power of Peter, who closes and no one opens...
But the subject of supreme legislative power is the same in the Church as the subject of supreme judicial and executive power. But this supreme judicial power is conferred on the whole Apostolic College, as is clear from the words of Christ: that if he will not listen to the Church, he will be to you like a heathen and tax collector. Therefore...
Ans. I distinguish the minor. The supreme judicial and executive power is granted to the whole Apostolic College hierarchically organized under Peter, conceded; democratically organized, denied.” (De Ecclesia, p, 304-305)
Grea: “The power of the episcopate in the government of the universal Church is exercised in an ordinary way by a council, and by the less brilliant competition that the scattered bishops, always united in dependence and under the impulse of their head, lend unceasingly for the maintenance of faith and discipline […]. The sovereign and principal action belongs to the Pope. But the bishops themselves, insofar as they are associated with him as ministers of the universal Church, are called to take sides, they then appear invested with a power which is not limited to their particular flocks.” (At Gréa, On the Church and its divine constitution, Paris, Société Générale de Librairie Catholique, 1885, p. 209.)
Dom Grea: “122 Cf. Dom GREA, op. cit. pp. 186-187. According to Dom Grea, "as regards the reestablishment of the Churches, the Apostles at the beginning, and after them their first disciples, acted in virtue of this general mission: 'Go and teach all nations' (Mt 28:19). This is obvious since the Gospel gives them no other. Now, this general mission constantly concerns the episcopate. It was properly given to the College of Bishops, since its efficacy was to last until the end of the world, in accordance with what follows in the sacred text:And behold, I am with you until the consummation of the ages" (Mt 28:20). This is the doctrine of St. Augustine, and it has never been contradicted... This mission preceded the foundation of the [particular] Churches which were later to be assigned to each member of the College" (op. cit., p. 211).
Cardinal Billot:
Thesis XXV: For the sake of the unity that he commended to his Apostles at the Last Supper, when he prayed,: “Ut sint unum, sicut et nos, ut in nobis unum sint, ut sint consummati in unum.’ (that they may be one, as we are, they also may be one in us, that they may be made perfect in one,’) Christ ordained as a perpetual and unchangeable institution the Apostolic College, united with Peter its chief, that it should participate with him in the supreme power. Hence the monarchy of the Church is a monarchy sui generis, which, while in retaining the full and undiminished form of legal monarchy in all things, yet allows a régime of particular rulers to be joined to it, in such a way that the one and indivisible supreme authority can be wielded by an episcopal body cohering with its head.” (…) [Red part is a good translation]
(Verumtamen ad commendandam illam unitatem de qua in ultima coena pro apostolis orans dicit: ‘Ut sint unum siciit et nos, ut in nobis unum sint, ut sint consummati in unum,’ stabili perpetuaque institutione disposuit Christus ut collegium apostolicum prout unitum principi Petro, consors esset supremae potestatis. Hinc monarchia Ecclesiae est monarchia sui generis, quae cum plenam minimeque diminutam monarchici iuris rationem per omnia retineat, adhuc tamen particularium antistitum regimen sic coniunetum habet, ut etiam inindividuum summae auctoritatis exercitiiim adniittat cohaerens cum capite episcopale corpus.)
[Lefebvre praised Billot: “Le Floch, like many of his fellow Spiritans, was an avid af supporter and a great friend of Billot. Though Billot never taught Lefebvre, he was closely tied to Le Floch and Billot regularly visited the French National Seminary where he was revered.113 Lefebvre remarked that Billot “was an eminent professor of the Gregorian, an extraordinary professor. His theological books are magnificent.” He considered Billot “one of his masters.”[22] What Lefebvre especially appreciated was that “[Billot] was an upright man: no compromise with error, firm in the truth and the battle against errors, liberalis… (Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J. (1846–1931): Thomist, Anti-Modernist, Integralist – saved in my “Favorites”)
Cardinal Billot: “Nothing in the Catholic faith is more clearly established since the beginning than the dogma of the supreme authority of the episcopate taken in its totality, either reunited in ecumenical council, or scattered throughout the world.” Billot’s De ecclesia, 1:564.
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 Prince 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.”
But neither can it be denied that there are powers (plural). In fact, it is necessary to admit it accordingly to what has been said in the preceding proposition, that the power of Peter, and the power of the episcopate of each of the apostles were several powers, namely, in the same way that God and Creatures are more beings, in the same sense of the existence of beings after creation than before, but not of being (1). 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. Furthermore, if one or more of the subordinate powers are considered to be added in any way, they can contribute nothing at all to the supreme power, because nothing of the lower order ever adds to the interests of the higher order; however, an addition is supposed to be protracted to infinity. Therefore, the power of the college is adequately distinguished from the sum of the particular powers of the individual members of the college.”
“One thing therefore remains to be said: It was by Christ's institution, that 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, but the position of Peter as Head remains intact. Hence, 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." Secondly, Peter, in the Apostolic College, is not like the President in a Parliament, simply the first among equals; but being always the Rock of the Church, and the Confirmer of his brethren, and the Pastor of sheep and lambs alike, he is himself the one fount and reason of the supreme authority of the whole Apostolic College cohering with him. Thirdly, Peter is in no wise subject to the Apostolic College, while the other Apostles are subject to the Senate of which they form part. Hence, lastly, the Apostolic College invested with supreme power is nothing else than the whole body of subordinate Prelates as assumed to the Head, Peter, into 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 of His true Church.
“Therefore, since these things are so, it is not to be inquired why the exercise of supreme authority was enrolled in the whole apostolic college, when the same supreme authority already resided full and entire in Peter; For Christ's design emerges very clearly from the Gospel itself, where immediately after the words, directed to the apostolic community, he binds them in whatever way. etc., are read those things which they do to emphasize unity and concord:” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis XXVII 569-572) part of the translation is from American Ecclesiastical Review, 1925
Billot Ibid, p. 572: “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.” [23] (cf. Pius IX Tuas Libentur). 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.’ Not that each individual bishop possesses, by himself, the total power of the universal episcopate; for this would be ridiculous. But because in each one we must distinguish the between the head of a particular church, if indeed he heads a particular church, and insofar as he participates in the indivisible unity of the universal Church. [retranslate this] In the first way he is nothing more than an individual bishop: in the other, he is a member of the ecumenical college of bishops (oecumenici episcoporum collegii). And because the authority of this college is one and undivided under and with its head - which authority does not consist of the sum total of the individual particular powers, as was said above - when each is acting in communion with the others, they can do and indeed do - not indeed for his own sake, but for the sake of the whole, which is why the parts are united as a whole exist -, whatever the entire episcopate can do.
“We have hitherto defined the ecclesiastical hierarchy according to which it was originated [instituted?] in Peter and the apostles. It remains now to discuss the successors of the apostles more closely, and first about the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.” (Billot, De Ecclesia, Solid p. 572)
(Verumtamen dihgenter considerare oportet quod potestas collegii apostolici collegialiter sumpti nequaquam consurgit ex summa potestatum membrorum collegii. Etenim potestas collegii est potestas suprema : potestas autem singulorum praeter Petrum apostolorum, non erat nisi potestas particularis et subordinata. Porro una vel plures subordinatae potestates quocumque tandem modo additae cogitentur, nihil omnino conferre possunt ad potestatem supremam, quia ad rem superioris ordinis nihil unquam facit additio rerum ordinis inferioris. quantumvis additio in infinitum protrahi supponatur. Itaque potestas cohegii adaequate distinguitur a summa particularium potestatum quae in membris collegii erat.
Nevertheless, it must be carefully considered that the power of the apostolic college taken collegially does not arise from the sum of the powers of the members of the college. For the power of each of the apostles, except for Peter, was only a particular and subordinate power. Furthermore, one or more subordinate powers, in whatever way they may be thought of as added to it, can contribute nothing at all to the supreme power, because the addition of things of a lower order can never add anything to a higher order, even if the addition were protracted to infinity. And so the power of the council is adequately distinguished from the sum of the particular powers of the individual members of the college
Billot, Thesis XXX: “But if one considers it well, the origin and root of the whole error stands in the false concept of the supreme power which is proper to the Ecumenical Council, as if this supreme power would result from the union of two contradictory powers, a congregation of bishops on one side, and a Pontiff on the other. For hence arises the question of dualism, to which even there is no solution consisting in itself. But whoever has kept in mind the principles set forth in the preceding question, will have understood how the words of Christ to the apostles (Matt. 18-18) are not directed to the headless college, but to the college united to Peter as its head, which is the very reason that the supreme power exists in the college, "for the apostolic college invested with the highest authority is nothing else than the body of subordinate bishops as assumed under the head of Peter in the unity of one agent or one who commands." And he will see that the suppositum of the whole system of the adversaries has vanished entirely.
[Billot quotes Zinelli] ‘We concede that in the ecumenical council, whether among the bishops, jointly with their head, that there is supreme and full ecclesiastical power among all the faithful.... But all the words of Christ ought to consist. If from the fact that he promised that he would be with Peter and his successor to the apostles (Matt. 28-20), it appears that there was full and supreme power in the church (regent) attached to his head: in exactly the same way, because similar promises were made to Peter alone and that his successor (Matthew 16, Luke 22) must conclude that full and supreme power had been given to Peter and his successors, even independently from the action shared with the other bishops. Two things can be settled amicably without the dualism that brings confusion into the Church. This would have a final disadvantage if two truly full and supreme powers were admitted, distinct and separate from one another.
But to separate the head from the members is the property of those who submit to the pope to be elected by the bishops, or those represented by the general council. For then it follows that sometimes the Pontiff can stand on one side, even in the quality of the supreme Pontiff himself, and the bishops on the other. On the contrary, we admit that truly full and supreme power exists in the Supreme Pontiff as the head, and that the same truly full and supreme power exists even in the head united with members, namely, in the Pontiff with the bishops, without prejudice to what we have already warned before. In this way the misfortunes can never happen, that bishops are separated and severed from the head. For if the Supreme Pontiff exercises his truly full and supreme power as a head, and even independently from the concurrence of others, all the members must immediately, not arrogate to themselves a judgment on the exercise of such power, but concord with their head; supreme power.
‘If, on the other hand, the Supreme Pontiff, together with the bishops, either scattered or assembled, exercises truly full and supreme power in full, there is no possible collision. Since there is no truly full and supreme power in a body separated from the head, individual bishops, as many as there were while the pope is absent, could by no means exercise a truly full and supreme power without the head; while, as we have said, the supreme Pontiff can exercise his supreme authority as head, even independently of the concurrence of bishops. These principles are in no way to be developed, but rather I ought to ask pardon from the venerable audience, if I have lingered too long in this argument.’
Thus, the Bishop of Tarvisinus (Zinelli) argued wisely in the presence of the Vatican Fathers, in the name of the Deputation of the same, whose speech is recorded in the acts of the Council, in the place cited above.” Billot, pp. 633-634.
(Caeterum si quis bene consideret, origo et radix totius erroris stat in falso conceptu supremae potestatis quae oecumenico Concilio propria est, quasi nempe suprema haec potestas resultaret ex coniunctione duarum potestatum contradivisarum, congregationis episcoporum ex una parte, Pontificis ex altera. Hinc enim dualismi exoritur quaestio, cui etiam nulla solutio datur secum ipsa consistens.
At quisquis mente retinuerit principia in Quaestione praecedenti exposita, intellexeritque qualiter verba Christi ad apostolos (Matth. XVIII-18) nequaquam diriguntur ad collegium acephalum, sed ad collegium unitum Petro, qui monarchicam praerogativam per prius acceptam (Matth. XVI-19) immobiliter in se retinens, est ipsa ratio supremae potestatis exsistentis in collegio, 'pro quaanto scilicet collegium apostolicum summa auctoritate investitum, nihil est aliud quam corpus subordinatorum antistitum prout assumptum ad caput Petrum in unitate unius agentis seu imperantis': is etiam intelliget pure imaginarium esse dualismi phantasma, videbitque suppositum totius systematis adversariorum de integro evanescere.
‘Concedimus, in concilio oecumenico sive in episcopis coniunctim cum suo capite, supremam inesse et plenam ecclesiasticam potestatem in fideles omnes.... At verba Christi omnia consistere debent. Si ex eo quod apostolis cum Petro et successorihus affuturum se esse promisit (Matth. XXVIII-20), apparet plenam et supremam potestatem esse in ecciesia (regente) cum suo capite coniuncta : eadem prorsus ratione, ex eo quod similes promissiones factae sunt Petro soli et eius successorihus (Mattli. « XVI, Luc. XXII), concludendum est plenam et supremam potestatem traditam esse Petro et eius successoribus, etiam independenter ab actione communi cum aliis episcopis. Quae duo amice consistere possunt, quin dualismus qui confusionem parit introducatur in Ecclesia. Hoc postremum incommodum obtineret, si duae ab invicem distinctae et separatae vere plenae et supremae potestates admitterentur.
At separare caput a membris est proprium illorum qui subiiciunt Papam episcopis coUective sumptis, aut repraesentatis a concilio generali. Tunc enim sequitur posse ex una parte stare aliquando Pontificem, etiam in sua qualitate Pontificis summi, et ex alia parte episcopos. E contrario nos admittimus vere plenam et supremam potestatem exsistere in summo Pontifice veluti capite, et eamdem vere plenam et supremam potestatem esse etiam in capite cum membris coniuncto, scilicet in Pontifice cum episcopis, salvo semper et inconcusso quod prius admonuimus.
Hoc modo nunquam potest evenire casus, ut episcopi separentur et divellantur a capite. Nam si exercet summus Pontifex suam potestatem vere plenam et supremam veluti caput, et etiam independenter a concursu aliorum, omnia membra statim debent, non iudicium sibi arrogare de exercitio potestatis huiusmodi, sed cum suo capite concordare, nam aliter in eo non ecognoscerent vere plenam et supremam potestatem. Si contra, summus Pontifex una cum episcopis vel dispersis vel congregatis, vere plenam et supremam potestatem in solidum exercet, nuUa possibilis collisio. Xam cum vere plena et suprema potestas non sit in corpore separato a capite, episcopi singulares, quotquot essent, dum abest Papa, nullo modo sine capite vere plenam et supremam potestatem exercere possent ; dum, ut diximus, summus Pontifex ut caput, etiam independenter a concursu episcoporum, supremam suam auctoritatem exercere potest. Enucleanda liaec principia nullo modo sunt, sed potius a venerando consessu veniam petere debeo, si diutius in hoc argumento immoratus sum.
Ita sapienter coram Patribus Vaticanis, nomine Deputationis de lide, disputabat episcopus Tarvisinus, cuius oratio exstat in actis Concilii, loco supra citato)
[Zinelli: Moreover, if one considers well, the origin and root of the whole error lies in the false conception of the supreme power which is peculiar to the ecumenical council, namely, as if this supreme power resulted from the union of two contradictory powers, the congregation of bishops on the one hand, and the Pontiff on the other. For from this arises the problem of dualism, to which no solution is given that is consistent with itself.
But whoever retains in his mind the principles set forth in the previous question, and understands how Christ's words to the apostles (Matthew 18-18) are by no means directed to a headless college, but to a college united to Peter, who had previously accepted the monarchical prerogative (Matthew 16-19) immovably in holding back, is the very reason for the supreme power existing in the college, 'for which the apostolic college invested with the highest authority, is nothing but a body of subordinates opposed as assumed to the head Peter in the unity of one agent or commanding': he will also understand that the phantom of dualism is purely imaginary , and he will see the supposition of the whole system of adversaries vanish entirely.
We grant that, in the ecumenical council or in the bishops in conjunction with their head, there is supreme and full ecclesiastical power over all the faithful.... But all the words of Christ must stand. If from the fact that he promised the apostles that he would be with Peter and his successors (Matt. 28-20), it appears that full and supreme power is united in the ecclesia (regent) with his head: exactly the same reason, from the fact that similar promises were made to Peter alone and his successors (Matthew 16, Luke 22), it must be concluded that full and supreme power was handed over to Peter and his successors, even independently of joint action with the other bishops. These two things can coexist amicably, without dualism, which breeds confusion, being introduced into the Church. This latter disadvantage would obtain if two truly full and supreme powers distinct and separate from each other were admitted.
But to separate the head from the members is proper to those who submit the Pope to bishops taken collectively, or represented by a general council. For then it would follow that the Pontiff, even in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff, can stand on the one side at one time, and the bishops on the other. On the contrary, we admit that truly full and supreme power exists in the Supreme Pontiff as head, and that the same truly full and supreme power exists also in the head united with the members, that is, in the Pontiff with the bishops, always safe and unshakable as we have previously reminded.
In this way it can never happen that the bishops are separated and torn from the head. For if the supreme pontiff exercises his truly full and supreme power as the head, and even independently of the concurrence of others, all the members must at once not arrogate to themselves the judgment of the exercise of this kind of power, but agree with their head, for otherwise they would not recognize in him the truly full and supreme power If, on the other hand, the Supreme Pontiff, together with the bishops, either dispersed or assembled, truly exercises full and supreme power in a solid, there is no possible collision. For since the truly full and supreme power is not in a body separate from the head, individual bishops, however many there may be, while the Pope is absent, could in no way exercise truly full and supreme power without the head; while, as we have said, the Supreme Pontiff as head can exercise his supreme authority, even independently of the concurrence of the bishops. There is no way to elaborate on these principles, but rather I must beg the pardon of the venerable assembly if I have dwelt longer on this subject.
Thus wisely before the Vatican Fathers, in the name of the Deputation on the matter, did the bishop of Tarvisius argue, whose speech is found in the acts of the Council, in the place quoted above]
…
Billot: Sed quia in unoquoque distinguere oportet rationem capitis unius particularis ecclesiae, sive in quantum ecclesia particularis est, sive in quantum participat individuam Ecclesiae universalis unitatem. Primo modo nihil pluis est quam singularis antistes: alio modo est membrum oecumenici episcoporum cohegii. Et quia una indivisibihsque est huius coljegii sub suo capite et cum suo capite auctoritas, utpote quae nequaquam coalescat ex additione singularium potestatum, ut dictum est supra, ideo unusquisque in communione caeterorum agens, potest et facit, non quidem ratione sui, sed ratione totius cuius pars unanimis exsistit, quidquid facit et potest episcopatus universus.
For this reason it is necessary distinguish in each the head of a particular Church, if indeed he is the head of a particular Church, and as individual who participates in the unity of the whole. In the first way he is nothing but a singular bishop; in the other way he is a member of the ecumenical council of bishops. And since the authority of this college is one and indivisible, under and with its head (which authority does not consist of the sum total of the individual particular powers, as was said above), each one when acting in communion with the others can and does do - not indeed for his own sake, but for the sake of the whole, which is the reason the union of all the parts exist - whatever the entire episcopate can and does do. [good translation]
…
Billot: “Whether episcopal jurisdiction is immediately from God, or immediately from the Roman Pontiff, was bitterly disputed in the Council of Trent, and nothing was defined at that time. In the Vatican Council, the question was not even proposed, chiefly because in practice, it is nearly indifferent, whether one or the other opinion is accepted. For even those theologians who hold that episcopal jurisdiction is derived immediately from God, also say that without a doubt it is conferred by God with a true and full dependency on the Supreme Pontiff.“ (Quest XV, pp. 691).
Cardinal Journet, Theology of the Church:
“The collegial jurisdiction of the bishops united to the pope. In addition to the particular jurisdiction they possess as individuals, the bishops taken collegially, in virtue of a close union, participate in the universal jurisdiction that resides properly in the supreme pontiff. They exercise, conjointly with him, the acts of the supreme jurisdiction. In ecumenical councils, they are not mere theological consultors. They have the authority to make decisions. They declare for the entire Church what is to be believed and practiced.
“The supreme and universal jurisdiction wholly resides first of all in the sovereign pontiff, whence it is communicated to the episcopal college united to him: a little as the life that is in the heart is communicated, from there, to the whole organism. This jurisdiction may be exercised uniquely by the pontiff; it may also be exercised by him in union with the episcopal college dispersed throughout the world (ordinary Magisterium) or united in a council (solemn Magisterium). The power is one but has two dwelling places (two subjects – check the Latin): one proper to the supreme pontiff, the other participated in by the episcopate taken collegially.”
(…)
“Now, as we have said, Christ gave immediately to Peter alone a regular, transmissible transapostolic power, which made of his person the foundation of the Church, which inserted him as a rock of foundation into the essential structure of his Church. That is to say that Peter received the care of the entire flock, the power of a supreme and universal jurisdiction. He to whom Peter transmits this power—as indispensable to the Church as the foundation is to the house that it sustains—is the pope, his successor in the chair of Rome.
“The use of the particular power of the bishops is regulated, and at times limited, by the universal power. Being the depositary of the universal jurisdiction, which he receives immediately from Christ,40 the supreme pontiff confers on the bishops their own jurisdiction.41”
(…)
Journet:
Perhaps it would be possible to clarify these statements further by referring to the works of Fr. Bertrams.49 You will recall that, according to the Constitution, episcopal consecration confers along with the office (munus) of sanctifying, the twofold office of teaching and governing. The function (munus) of sanctifying, which can always be put into action validly, is in itself and by its very nature a power (potestas). The function (munera) of teaching and governing consists of an internal and ontological quality—dependent, we might say, upon the second species of “quality”, the potentia of the ancient philosophers, which is ordered to action. This latter function does not bring about per se any communion with the episcopal body and its head; nor does it concretely determine its subjects. For it to be able to take effect, to be exercised validly, and to become a power (potestas), this function must also be “recognized” by the hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the Church.50 This recognition, which adds an exterior, canonical element to its interior, ontological nature, is required by divine right because of the very nature of the Church. It seems that some progress has thus been made in understanding the charism of the episcopate. (Journet, The Theology of the Church, pp 359-360.
Indellible Character – the Matter
Bilot: “Accordingly, it is not to be understood that the power of jurisdiction depends on the power of the episcopal order, as if it were the same as property necessarily arising from it. Nay, nor in such a way as to stand at all, unless the power of order first came to nature; for this again is easily excluded, especially according to the present form of discipline, in which the investiture of jurisdiction is not even concurrent with the consecration, but usually precedes it in time. It is true that this dependence must be acknowledged, which is of course attended to in the genus of the material cause, as a dispositive habit that constitutes the subject of the form, just as it corresponds to the appointment of the native episcopal order to the government of the Church, which even the mere property of the name clearly demonstrates.
(Proinde, non sic intelligendum est dependere potestatem iurisdictionis a potestate ordinis episcopalis, quasi esset instar proprietatis necessario ab ea fiuentis. Imo neque ita ut nullatenus consistat, nisi natura prius ordinis potestas accesserit; nam id rursus facile excluditur, praesertim iuxta praesentem disciplinae formam in qua iurisdictionis investitura ne concomitanter quidem se habet ad consecrationem, sed eam tempore etiam antecedere solet. Verum ea demum dependentia est agnoscenda, quae utique in genere causae materialis attenditur, tanquam formae a dispositione habilitante subiectum ad formam: habilitante tamen, non ad hoc ut forma simpliciter in subiecto sit aut esse possit, sed ad hoc ut in eo sit reguNew Quotes
Billot:
[The Church’s divine constitution absolutelky requires that it be governed by bishiops,]
https://archive.org/details/deecclesiaesacra02bill/page/308/mode/2up?q=consecratio+episcopalis
P. 307: By divine right, the episcopate excels above the simple presbyterate especially in the power of government, although the jurisdiction of particular bishops is not conferred on them immediately by God, but descends from the plenitude of the authority of the supreme apostolic bishop who presides over the whole Church in the See of Blessed Peter.
§ i-
Here the principal prerogative of bishops is touched upon, for if you consider only the power of order, most things are common to them and to priests, especially with respect to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is sacred par excellence, and to which orders are principally ordained, as is said in Suppl. Quaest. 37, a. 1 to 3. But now in the power of government there is an unalloyed and simply privileged condition of the episcopal rank, according to that of Cyprian: “Our Lord, whose “precepts and admonitions we must observe, arranging the honor of a bishop and the “reason of his Church, speaks in the Gospel and “says to Peter: I say to you that you are Peter, etc.” From there, through the changes of time and succession, the order and the reason for the Church run, “so that the Church is established above the bishops, and all the acts of the Church are governed by the same superiors” (r). But when it is now said that bishops by divine right precede presbyters in the power of jurisdiction, the sense is that only the episcopal rank was instituted by God for the ordinary government of the faithful, and that the divine constitution of the Church absolutely requires that it be governed by bishops as by ordinary pastors. Not that it is repugnant to the existence of a true bishop without jurisdiction, but because the episcopal rank in general demands the authority of government of both courts, and conversely the ordinary authority of this government can reside only in the episcopal rank per se.
First of all, it should be noted that the very name bishop implies superintendence or the power of governing, according to Acts XX28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops to govern the Church of God.” Indeed, the Greek word £7tlt/.ot:o; has passed into the Church, says Baronius (x), with its own meaning and property. For by such a name, as Suidas is the author, were called the inspectors and guardians whom the Athenians sent to the cities under their jurisdiction to know and establish the state of things, of whom there is frequent mention among Greek historians. To whom Cicero also alludes when he says to Atticus 1. 7: "He wants me to be Pompey, whom all this Campania and the sea coast have as bishop." And Augustine on the City of God 1. 19, c. 19: "Episcopate... is the name of a work, not of honor. For it is Greek, and the word derived from it, that he who is presided over, supervises those to whom he is presided over, namely, taking care of them: 67« because super, cv»o-o; but the intention is. Therefore £-igx.q« 7T£'.v, if we wish, we can say in Latin to superintend». But it is determined by the Apostle above, for the office of feeding or governing: …
p. 310: “It remains therefore certain that the reason signified by the name of episcopate (by divine right) belongs only to the highest degree of the hierarchy of order. Now, however, this can be understood in two ways, either because the episcopal character formally includes the authority to govern, or certainly because it is receptive of this authority by divine institution. But the first is not admitted, both because outside the Catholic Church there are true bishops as to the power of order, although outside the Catholic there can be no true authority to govern; and also because in the Catholic Church itself, bishops who have been deposed or resigned have always been regarded as true bishops, as well as bishops consecrated to honors (r), or even coadjutor bishops or vicars in pontificals (2). It remains therefore to be said that the episcopal rank is designated by divine right for the ordinary power of government, as was declared above, and in this way the preeminence of bishops over priests as to jurisdiction comes from the institution of Christ itself: namely, insofar as divine right commands that the Church be governed by bishops, and not by priests. Hence the Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, chap. 4: "The sacred Synod declares that, besides other ecclesiastical degrees, the bishops who succeeded the apostles belong primarily to this hierarchical order, and are placed, as the same apostle says, by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God, and that they are "superior to the presbyters, etc."."
Nor do you say that the presbyteral degree also requires jurisdiction, insofar as the presbyterate is ordained by divine right to administer the sacrament of penance, which cannot be performed without jurisdiction. For in the first place, this requirement is not for that power of government in either forum, which simply includes the power of governing and feeding. Moreover, it is not for ordinary jurisdiction, since jurisdiction delegated by the prelate suffices. « Every power, says St. Thomas, Suppl. Quaest. 40, a. 4, which cannot be put into effect, « unless certain ordinations are presupposed, depends on that « power which makes those ordinations. But a priest cannot absolve and bind, unless there is a presupposed right of prelature by which those whom he absolves are subject to him... And thus it is clear that "there must be episcopal power over priestly power" (x).
Moreover, that it is equally by divine right that over all bishops throughout the whole world presiding over particular flocks one alone should reign with supreme and universal jurisdiction, is widely demonstrated in the treatise on the Church, and is elegantly shown by St. Thomas 1. 4 c. Gent. c. 96, in these words: "It is clear that "although peoples are distinguished by diverse dioceses and cities, " yet as there is one Church, so there must be one Christian people. Just as therefore in one special people of one Church " one bishop is required to be the head of the whole people, so in the whole Christian people it is required that one be the head of the whole Church... And because (Christ) was about to withdraw his bodily presence from the Church, it was necessary that he should entrust it to someone who would take care of the universal Church in his place." Moreover, he is the only one to whom the appellation of Apostolic Doinni truly belongs, because in him alone, by virtue of the law constituting the Church, the same power and mission remained in number, conferred directly by Christ on the prince of the apostles, concerning whom it is therefore not necessary to ask by what way and reason he obtains his jurisdiction, because as soon as the conditions required for the succession of Peter are verified, the elect is invested with the power of the Lord's ordination, which will be valid in perpetuity: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep (T), and again: You are Peter..., and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven (2).
Therefore, the only question that can remain is how ordinary power of governing comes to the other inferior bishops. But we say: Not from God directly, but by derivation from the plenitude of power which is in the supreme apostolic prelate. In this matter it is necessary to abstract from the present mode of institution, as from all accidental and changeable forms, but what the immutable constitution of the Church itself brings, it is necessary to look at.
[Iure divino episcopatus supra simplicem presbyteratum excellit potissimum potestate regiminis, quamvis iurisdictio particularium episcoporum non immediate a Deo eis conferatur, sed descendat de plenitudine auctoritatis summi apostolici Antistitis qui in Beati Petri Sede toti praesidet Ecclesiae.
§ i-
Hic tangitur principalis praerogativa episcoporum, nam si solam potestatem ordinis spectes, pleraque sunt eis et presbyteris communia, praesertim vero respectu sacramenti Eucharistiae quod est sacrum per excellentiam, et ad quod ordines ordinantur principaliter, ut dicitur in Suppl. Quaest. 37, a. 1 ad 3um. Nunc autem in potestate regiminis exsors et simplieiter privilegiata episcopalis gradus conditio est, iuxta illud Cypriani: « Dominus noster cuius « praecepta et monita observare debemus, episcopi honorem et « ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, in Evangelio loquitur et « dicit Petro: Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, etc. Inde per tem« porum et successionum vices ordinatio et Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, « ut Ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus Eccle« siae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur » (r). Cum autem nunc dicitur episcopos iure divino antecellere presbyteros potestate iurisdictionis, sensus est, solum gradum episcopalem fuisse institutum a Deo ad ordinarium regimen fidelium, et divinam Ecclesiae constitutionem omnino requirere ut ipsa per episcopos tanquam per ordinarios pastores regatur. Non quod repugnet dari verum episcopum sine iurisdictione, sed quia gradus episcopalis in generali exigit auctoritatem regiminis utriusque fori, et vicissim ordinaria huius regiminis auctoritas nonnisi in gradu episcopali per se residere potest.
Prae primis notandum quod ipsum episcopi nomen importat superintendentiam sive regendi potestatem, iuxta illud Act. XX28: « Attendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus San« ctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei ». Transiit quippe in Ecclesiam, ait Baronius (x), cum sua significatione atque proprietate vox graeca £7tlt/.ot:o;. Tali enim nomine, ut auctor est Suidas, dicebantur inspectores et custodes quos Athenienses in suae ditionis urbes, ad statum rerum cognoscendum atque instituendum mittebant, quorum apud graecos historicos frequens mentio est. Ad quos etiam alludit Cicero dum ait ad Attic. 1. 7 : « Vult « enim me Pompeius esse, quem tota haec Campania et maritima « ora habeat episcopum ». Et Augustinus de Civit. Dei 1. 19, c. 19: « Episcopatus... nomen est operis, non honoris. Graecum « est enim, atque inde ductum vocabulum, quod ille qui praefici« tur, eis quibus praeficitur superintendit, curam eorum scilicet « gerens: 67« quippe super, cv»o-o; vero intentio est. Ergo £-igx.q« 7T£'.v, si velimus, latine superintendere dicere possumus ». Determinatur autem ab Apostolo ubi supra, ad munus pascendi sive regendi :
…
P 269: Now, therefore, the merit of the name Order itself is inquired into. It must therefore be known that according to the first meaning of the name, order is a relation existing between those things which have some mode of priority and posteriority. Which is why wherever there is something before and after, there must also be some order, either according to position, or according to time, or according to origin, or according to some other reason. Furthermore, in the present, our consideration is concerned with the social constitution. In a society as such, priority and posteriority are considered according to the precedence of the one who has power, and the subjection of the one who is subject to power. There, therefore, order consists in the relation of superiors to inferiors, and vice versa. However, when the sacrament of Orders is discussed, order is not taken for the relation itself, which is as much in superiors as in inferiors, but for the power, or eminent degree which is the cause of the relation, and establishes the relation by which those to whom it belongs to minister divine things, and those to whom it belongs to receive them, are mutually related in the ecclesiastical society. Hence St. Thomas: « It must be said that the name of order is taken in two ways. For when it signifies the relation itself, and thus it is both in superiors and in inferiors..., and so it is not taken here. Sometimes
« however, it is taken for the very degree which makes order accepted in the first way. And because the reason (that is, the cause) of order as it is a relation,
« is found where something first occurs above another, therefore here
« a degree eminent through spiritual power is called order » (r).
Collegiality Quotes:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.sodalitium.eu/sodalitium_pdf/Soda-F59.pdf
In this chapter I want to explore in more depth the connection between the “old” thesis on the origin of episcopal jurisdiction, which we have just examined (demonstrating it in opposition to the ordinary magisterium of the Church), and the doctrine on episcopal collegiality17 Abbé Dulac (left) among the fathers of the Coetus taught by Vatican II. It is clear that these are two distinct doctrines, but they have an intimate connection that does not consist only in the fact that Lumen gentium made them both its own.
We have seen that for the minority at the Council of Trent, followed later by the Gallicans, the Febronians, the various schismatics, the Bishop would receive his power to govern and teach (jurisdiction) at the same time as the power of order itself, by episcopal consecration, and therefore by immediate divine right, even before any intervention by the Pope (necessary in the strict sense for the exercise of a power which, in any case, does not come from him). Among the supporters of this theory, a certain number therefore considered titular Bishops, deprived of a diocese and therefore of jurisdiction, as an anomaly to be eliminated, since the consecrated Bishop has, by that very fact, the power to govern. Alberigo explains on the other hand how it is precisely the existence in the Church of titular Bishops which has allowed the passage from one doctrine to the other. The “old” theory on the immediately divine origin of episcopal jurisdiction concerned in fact the authority of the Bishop over a particular Church, his diocese. But if consecration necessarily gives jurisdiction, where will be exercised, for example, the jurisdiction of the titular Bishop who does not have a diocese? For Alberigo, the titular Bishop (and this is logical in the system: he too is consecrated) also has by that very fact a jurisdiction, and if it does not apply to a particular Church (diocese) it must then apply to the universal Church (the so-called “solicitude for the universal Church”). Naturally, this does not only concern the titular Bishop, but all the consecrated Bishops, with or without a diocese: they would all have jurisdiction over the universal Church. And this power being common to all, it must be exercised by all collegially. Here we are thus arrived at the famous collegiality. But is not this power over the universal Church the proper property of the papal primacy? Is not the Pope superior to the Bishops precisely because he has jurisdiction over the whole Church, and the Bishop only over a part?
Collegiality and Primacy: Collegiality or Primacy?
That the doctrine on Episcopal Collegiality taught by Vatican II in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium can be understood as being in opposition to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church, it is not necessary to demonstrate, since, as we will see, it was necessary to insert an “Explanatory Note prævia” precisely to avoid this interpretation. [Therefore, it cannot be understood in such a way precisely because the Nota clarified the meaning] This “Explanatory Note”, Alberto Melloni, the historian of the school of Dossetti seems to have forgotten when he declares ex cathedra: “Today whoever believes that the college of bishops does not have the power to govern the universal Church with the Pope (not only to advise the Pope) is not in the doctrinal line of the Catholic Church” (47). In fact, the Episcopal Collegiality includes the affirmation that the College of Bishops is a stable subject of supreme and plenary power over the universal Church. Now, we think that the only stable subject of supreme and plenary power over the universal Church is the Pope, by virtue of his Primacy. [And that is your error] It was only to Peter, in fact, separately from the Apostolic College, that it was said: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”; it was only to Peter, to the exclusion of the other Apostles, that it was said: “Confirm your brothers”; it was only to Peter, to the exclusion of the others, that it was said: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep”; and we never see the Apostles acting collegially in the Church, especially after their dispersion (48). A few years before the Council, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII wrote: “The divine Redeemer governs his mystical Body visibly and ordinarily through his Vicar on earth”: by his Vicar, not by the episcopal college: …
« When, during the conciliar debate on collegiality, Alberigo wanted to find antecedents to his episcopalian theories, he had to carefully avoid a family portrait that was a little too compromising, at least after the First Vatican Council. He therefore unearthed two theologians of the 18th century whom he called with the beautiful title of “Romans”, that is to say defenders of the Primacy: Martin Gerbert von Hornau (1720-1793), abbot of Saint-Blasien, and the ex-Jesuit Giovanni Vincenzo Bolgeni (1733-1811). The first, a friend of Febronius although more moderate, obviously defends the thesis according to which the jurisdiction of the Bishop comes from consecration; he denies the papal monarchy, invokes a return to the first millennium of the Church, finally teaches that – in the event of a conflict between the Pope and the Council – the Council should be preferred (Alberigo himself reports this on p. 249 (it.), as if reluctantly, because this is where the problem lies). It is the ecumenical theologian Mölher who will exhume this Martin Gerbert (p. 252).
Bolgeni, like Martin Gerbert, maintains that consecration gives the Bishop not only diocesan jurisdiction, but also universal jurisdiction to govern the Church with the Pope and below him (this is already collegiality). And yet Bolgeni was “Roman”, very Roman (he was in fact anti-Jansenist)… it’s a pity that Alberigo doesn’t say that once the Jacobins reached Rome, his Roman theologian had the weakness to write in defense of the civic oath of hatred to the monarchy imposed by the Roman Republic (and the monarch in question, who was the Pope, was not at all happy about it!). One of his posthumous works (Dei limiti delle due potestà, ecclesiastica e civile) [On the limits of the two powers, ecclesiastical and civil] was placed on the Index in 1850. The slight authority of such ancestors made their thesis on collegiality very difficult to support, to the point that the authorized canonists Wernz and Vidal – behind Bouix and Palmieri – refuted Bolgeni's opinion as a new doctrine, [and they were refuted by Cardinal Hamer] a doctrine already condemned as to the origin of episcopal jurisdiction, and finally a doctrine which cannot be reconciled with the fullness of the power of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. the critique of ALBERIGO, pp. 445-454).
Certainly, it would not be correct to attribute to Lumen gentium the errors of all the authors cited so far: in the meantime, there was Vatican I with the definition of the Primacy and the meticulous condemnation of Gallicanism, a condemnation that made it impossible to repeat, as such, errors that were now proscribed. But, according to the testimony of Congar and Chenu, Vatican II wanted to rebalance Vatican I: hence the recovery of all the episcopalian arguments that I have already spoken about. And after collegiality, we can glimpse a later reform, the “reform of the Primacy”.” (“Sodalitium” Periodico n°59, Anno XXIII n°2 2007)
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.sodalitium.eu/sodalitium_pdf/Soda-F59.pdf
__
To the Society’s claim that the power Christ conferred on the Apostles was only to be exercised over those ad extra, and not those in the Church, Tanquerey wrote:
“In both cases we are treating of a power which is to be exercised upon the Church rtself, but not upon those who are without the Church : “ I will build the Church and I will give to thee the keys ”’. So also, when we consider the power conferred upon the Apostles, the Church is first of all to be kept in mind : “ Speak to the Church; but if he will not hear the Church...’’ Wherefore this kind of power is not improbably distinct from the power of baptizing, which is exercised upon those who are without, in order that they may be brought into the Church.” https://archive.org/details/manualofdogmatic0002adta/page/294/mode/2up?q=In+both+cases+we+are+
Moreover, the jurisdiction is only over the baptized.
__
Christ was at first the head of the Apostolic College:
“So go far confining ourselves to Our Lord's teaching hierarchy, before His Passion and Death, we observe that He drew a clear distinction between (i) the body of the faithful, (2) the seventy-two disciples, and (3) the twelve Apostles. As long as He remained upon earth, He Himself was the visible Head of this Apostolic College. But as His stay was to be brief, He took care on every occasion to declare that after His departure one of their number was to preside over them and over the whole Church, in His stead ; and that that one was to be Simon, whom He surnamed Peter. This privilege of St. Peter will be treated of later on in a separate chapter. …
I. In the first apparition to the Apostolic College, recorded by St. John (xx. 19, 29), our Lord conferred upon them the same authority which He Himself possessed and had exercised: "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." "As Thou hast sent Me into the world, I also send them into the world" (ibid. xvii. 18). These words are not a mere statement or promise ; they actually constitute the Apostles as Christ's successors. " Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He added, for this work to which He appointed them. Hence, in virtue of the powers there and then bestowed upon them, He continued: " Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them." The mission is not, however, restricted to the forgiveness of sins, but is universal, as was His own mission from the Father ; and it is confided to the Apostolic College and their successors (cf. " And after that He was seen by the eleven," i Cor. xv. 5 ; cf. "the eleven disciples," Matt, xxviii. 16).” (Scheeben: https://archive.org/details/manualofcatholic02scheiala/page/298/mode/2up?q=college )
lari et connaturali modo prout congruit nativaeilli ordinis episcopalis ad Ecclesiae regimen destinationi, quam vel sola nominis proprietas aperte demonstrat.)
X TWO SUBJECTS OF THE SUPREME POWER
G. Alberigo
After
mentioning Father Kleutgen's relatio to the Constitutio secundo "De
Ecclesia Christi", G. Alberigo comments as follows:
“The relatio (of Kleutgen)
had taken pains to illustrate this assertion, maintaining that no one could
question the fact that the bishops have a share in the government and
magisterial office over the universal Church, and concluding that henceforth -
after the definition of the Primacy of Jurisdiction – it necessary to
speak of a double subject of this power, according to the best tradition of the
defenders of the Papacy. This definition of the Primacy did not deviate
in any way from Tradition and was therefore entirely in harmony with the
formulation then proposed by Kleutgen. Moreover, this most authoritative
theologian was so convinced of the authenticity of the doctrine concerning the
supreme power of the College of Bishops that he did not hesitate to define it
as a dogma of faith (fidei dogma certissimuni).
In conclusion, the most theologically
qualified reporters of the First Vatican Council, Gasser, Zinelli and Kleutgen do
not hesitate not only to admit but also to maintain the existence of a
collegial power of the episcopate over the universal Church; a power which
constitutes in their theological system the very point of reference for
determining the nature and content of the Pope's personal prerogatives, the derivation of this power, they affirm
that the traditional doctrine that this
power is conferred immediately by God, without the intervention of the Pope can
also continue to be perfectly accepted, without any prejudice to the definite
truths concerning the primacy and infallibility". (ALBERIGO, LO
Sviluppo della dottrina sui poteri nella Chiesa Universale, Conienti essenziali
tra il XVI e XIX secolo, Herder, Roma-Freiburg, 1964, pp. 443)
For Father Jerome Hamer:
"The College
of Apostles lives and subsists in the College of Bishops. This theory of the
episcopate leads to a balanced ecclesiology which recognizes in the Church two
subjects of the supreme power: the Sovereign Pontiff and the College of Bishops
with the Pope at its head".[60]
Eugene Grand Claude: “Our
Lord Jesus Christ entrusted to Saint Peter and to the apostolic college the
care of governing his Church, and thereby invested them with supreme power over
the religious society; he therefore constituted depositaries of the spiritual
sovereignty, either the natural person Saint Peter, or the moral person, the
apostolic college united to Peter” (Eugene Grand Claude, Du pouvoir souverain
dans V Eglise et du droit de siéger dans les conciles oecuméniques, in « Rev.
Sc. Eccl. », 2 série, 8 (1868), p. 482.)
(Notre Seigneur J. Christ
a confié a Saint Pierre et au collège apostolique le soin de ouverner son
Eglise, et par là même les a investis du pouvoir suprême dans la société
religieuse; il a donc constitué dépositaires de la souveraineté spirituelle ,
soit une personne physi que Saint Pierre , soit une personne morale , le
collège apostolique uni a Pierre)
https://archive.org/details/a584483100granuoft/page/n237/mode/2up Vatican
I: Gasser: “Now it must be admitted, as Bishop Zinelli, the relator, conceded,
with the Florentines (and Vatican) Councils definitions, and with the opinion
of many theologians, that the Supreme Pontiff with all the bishops forms one
college, which is the subject of supreme ecclesiastical power. Yet he who
teaches this must also admit, lest he should contradict the Council of Florence
(and the Vatican), that the Supreme Pontiff is also per se one subject
of supreme ecclesiastical power, so as to asserts that there are two
subjects of the supreme power not entirely distinct.”
P.
159: (Iam concedi debet et a Roman Episc. Zinelli , deputationis relatore,
plane conceditur , cum Florentini ( atque Vaticani) Concilii definitione
conciliari posse sententiam multorum theologorum , Summum Pontificem cum
omnibus Episcopis unum formare collegium , quod sit supremae potestatis
ecclesiasticae subiectum. Is tamen, qui hoc docet, ne Concilio Florentino (et
Vaticano) contradicat, etiam Summum Pontificem per se solum supremae potestatis
ecclesiasticae subiectum esse fateri debet , ita ut asserat, esse subiecta duo
supremae potestatis incomplete distincta).
“But
those amendments can hardly be explained in such a way. They seem rather to
suggest that there is only one subject of supreme power, which is formed by the
Supreme Pontiff and bishops together in a similar manner, that in some
aristocratic monarchy state the greatest power to pass laws is in the hands of
the king and the senate of nobles, neither of whom alone can pass laws. It is
evident, however, that this doctrine cannot be reconciled with the definition
of Florentine, that the Roman Pontiff, in blessed Peter, the full power of
feeding and governing the universal Church has been handed down by our Lord
Jesus Christ.. Therefore, Cardinal Billio rightly wished, in order that the
doctrine already defined might more effectively guarded against errors, by the
addition of this canon, the definition of the Florentine Council should be proposed
even more clearly.” (Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecumenici concilii
..., Parts 30-37, Pars II. Const. de Eccl. Cap. II. Commentationes de aliquibus
locis, p. 160)
https://archive.org/details/a584483100granuoft/page/n237/mode/2up One
Subject Opinion: Vatican I (above), Gasser: “But even if the
infallibility itself cannot be transferred in itself, it is not repugnant to it
to be transferred by reason of another by reason of their supreme jurisdiction
and power of teaching. As we will note below, it is a controversy whether there
are two subjects of the supreme power of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff and
the whole college of bishops conjoined with the Supreme Pontiff, or only one,
the Supreme Pontiff. But if there is only one subject, the Supreme Pontiff: in
this supposition here, when the Council convokes with him to exercise his
supreme power, he makes the bishops called together not only share in the
supreme power, so that all g. in defining the doctrine in a truly solid sense,
let them give the final and definitive sentence with the Supreme Pontiff as
true judges, but also share in the infallibility. For here the act of
pronouncing the sentence must be kept immune from error. And this act, not only
the Supreme Pontiff, but all the bishops united with him as head solid physical
activity. Therefore, those who follow the opinion also assert that there is
only one subject of supreme power, that there is only one privilege of
infallibility, which is not communicated to another in itself, but by reason of
the supreme power. (Ibid. p. 190)
(Verum etiamsi
infallibilitas ipsa in se transferri nequit , non repugnat tamen , eam
transferri ratione alterius , sc. ratione supremae iurisdictionis et potestatis
docendi. Ut infra notabimus 1 , controvertitur , utrum duo sint subiecta
supremae potestatis Ecclesiae , Summus Pontifex et totum collegium Episcoporum
cum Summo Pontifice coniunctorum, an unum solum, Summus Pontifex. Quodsi unum
solum subiectum est, Summus Pontifex : in hac suppositione hic, cum Concilium
ad supremam potestatem secum exercendam convocat, Episcopos convocatos
participes facit non solum supremae potestatis, ita ut omnes v. g. in doctrina
definienda vere in solidum ultimam et definitivam sententiam cum Summo
Pontifice tanquam veri iudices ferant , sed etiam participes infallibilitatis.
Hic enim ipse sententiae ferendae actus servandus est ab errore immunis. Hunc
autem actum non solus Summus Pontifex, sed omnes Episcopi cum eo tanquam capite
uniti in solidum exercent. Qui igitur sententiam sequuntur , exstare unum solum
subiectum supremae potestatis , affirment etiam necesse est, unum solum habere
privilegium infallibilitatis, quod non ipsum in se, sed ratione supremae
potestatis cum alio communicetur.)
“There
are some who say that the supreme power of the Church exists in two subjects:
that it is integral to the Supreme Pontiff and even the entire college of all
bishops conjoined with the Supreme Pontiff, whether they are assembled in the
Council or scattered throughout the world. This opinion is not denied in the
Constitution, more fully by the bishop. [He then quotes Zinelli [
“we readily concede that bishops gathered in a council…” etc.]
Zinelli:
On July 5, 1870, in the council chamber,
Federico Zinelli, on behalf of the Deputation of the Faith, replied to certain
proposals for amendments made on the outline of the Constitutio dogmatica prima
de Ecclesia Christi. The fathers who had advanced them wanted the Council to sanction
the principle that all the supreme ecclesiastical power does not reside in the
Supreme Pontiff, but only in the Pontiff with the bishops133
Zinelli replied, arguing that the
correction could not be accepted, because it is contrary to Scripture,
Tradition and the definitions of the councils. However, he could not invite the
Fathers to reject these amendments, without giving a positive explanation of
the role of the episcopate in the government of the Church. Zinelli admitted
'libenter' that a supreme and full ecclesiastical power over all the faithful
resides "in episcopis coniounctim cum sua capite"; and continued:
"Igitur episcopi congregati cum capite in council œcumenico, quo in casu
totam Ecclesiam repraesentant, aut dispersed, sed cum capite of him, quo casu
sunt ipsa Ecclesia, vere plenam potestatem habent" 134
(https://archive.org/stream/ASIII.1/AS%20III.1_djvu.txt)
Bishop Zinelli, in his
official capacity as spokesman for the Deputation De Fide, during the relatio he
delivered on Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus:
Response to the aforementioned
objection that the Council should not teach that the Pope possesses supreme
authority by himself.
Bishop Zinelli: “We likewise
willingly concede that in an ecumenical council, or in the bishops taken
together with their head, resides the supreme and full power of the Church over
all the faithful. Of course, when the Church is joined to her head, there exists
the greatest congruence. Therefore, the
bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—in which case
they represent the whole Church—or dispersed, but with their
head—in which case they are the Church—truly have supreme
power. But the words of Christ should make
everything clear. If by the fact that he promised to be with the Apostles and
with 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,
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, even independently of their acting in
common with the other bishops.
These two facts can very well be reconciled without
introducing into the Church a dualism which would engender confusion. This
would indeed be the case, if these two 'supreme powers' were 'distinct and
separate' from each other; to separate the ''head from the members'' is, on the
contrary, the characteristic of those who submit the Pope to the bishops' taken
collectively or gathered in a general council; for then it would follow, that
the Pope could be placed on one side, even in his quality of Supreme Pontiff,
and the bishops on the other side. Quite the contrary! We admit
that a truly full and supreme power exists in the Supreme Pontiff as in the
head, and that the same truly full and supreme power is
also in the head in conjunction with the members, that is, in the Pope with the
bishops (provided that what we have established above remains safe and
unshakeable). In this way, there can never be a case in which the bishops are
separated and torn from their heads. For if the Supreme Pontiff exercises his truly
full and supreme power in his capacity as head and even independently of the
concurrence of the others, all the members must immediately agree with their
head and not arrogate to themselves (the right) to judge the exercise of such
power. Otherwise, they would not
recognize in him this truly whole and supreme power". (2 MANSI 52, 1109 D-
1110 A)[61]
“If the Supreme Pontiff with the bishops, either dispersed
or gathered, exercise the supreme power ‘In Solidium,” no confusion is possible.” For since the truly full and supreme power is
not found in the body separated from the head, if the Pope is lacking, the
isolated bishops, however numerous, can in no way exercise this sovereign power
without their head. Whereas, as we have said, the Supreme Pontiff in his
capacity as head, even independently of the concurrence of the bishops, can
exercise his supreme authority" (2 MANSI 52, 1109 D- 1110 B).
Zinelli (from Dupre’s book):
It is not superfluous to recall
the words of Archbishop Zinelli on the occasion of the 84èmeGeneral
Congregation of July 11, 1870, in which he specifies how the fullness ofthe
power of jurisdiction in the Sovereign Pontiffis reconciled with that of the
Ecumenical Council. We quote some excerpts from it:
“no reason to doubt the fullness
of the power of jurisdiction which belongs to the Roman Pontiff in all its
extent, nor to have the slightest scruple, as if, by attributing to the
Sovereign Pontiff all the fullness of the power jurisdiction, we could in some
way harm the dignity of the Ecumenical Council. Indeed, the explanations I gave
in the last General Congregation concerning the full and supreme power of the
Ecumenical Council remains valid. With all the conditions and explanations of
which I have spoken, this doctrine, rightly understood, remains the only one
compatible with the Doctrine of the Faith, which confesses the total fullness
of supreme power in the Supreme Pontiff"20 .
Bishop Zinelli had already
responded on July 5, 1870 to an amendment proposed by Bishop Dupanloup as
follows:
“It follows from the very nature
of the primacy that the power enjoyed by the Supreme Pontiff extends not only
to the bishops taken separately but also over the whole, since, according to
all Catholics, it belongs to the Supreme Pontiff to convoke General
Councils, to preside over them, to confirm them, in such a way that, if
confirmation is lacking, the Councils are worthless. It is clear,
therefore, that the power of the Pope extends not only to pastors individually
but also collectively." (9 MANSI 52, 1106 B)
Thus the superiority of the Pope
over the Council is once again implicitly affirmed, as had already been
declared in numerous documents of the Magisterium, especially the Councils of
Florence40 and Lateran V41 . As explained by U. Betti in his work42 La Consütuzione
dogmatica < Pastor aternus" dei Concilio Vaticano Z, and J. P. Torrell
in The Theology of the Episcopate in the First Vatican Council43[62] ' it is clear that it is
not possible to conceive of the slightest part of ecclesiastical power that is
not also at the same time that of the Pope.And so the specification that the
Pope does not simply havethe principal part of this power is nothing other than
a clarification ofthe concept already used of plenitude of powerThere is no
question, then, of considering thePope's potestas of jurisdiction as tempered
by another potestas on the pretext of exalting and defending the rights and
potestas of the bishops.
Cardinal
Mazzella, De Religione et Ecclesia: praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae
(1905):
“If we compare the testimonies of Scripture and all of tradition,
we find, as it were, an inadequately distinct double subject of
supreme power (supremæ potestatis); that is to say, Peter alone -
'whatever thou (singular) shall bind' etc. (Mt. 16:19) and the body of Apostles with Peter - 'whatever you (plural)
shall bind' etc. - Mt. 18:18). But when a council is held without a pope, by neither
[Scripture or Tradition] is it considered the subjects of supreme power.”
(Mazzella De Religione et Ecclesia: praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae,
No. 985 pp. 767-768).
Journet, Charles
Cardinal. Theology of the Church:
“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. Why this twofold exercise
of the same power? The reason, without a doubt, is to be sought in the strict
unity, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in the universal catholicity
that the Savior wished to give to his Church, which is everywhere one and
everywhere present.”
Fr. Wenz, Ius Canonicum
(1905):
“On
the contrary, bishops together with the Roman Pontiff constitute another
subject of supreme authority in the Church, only inadequately distinct from the
Roman Pontiff. For although bishops receive the power of jurisdiction to be
exercised in an ecumenical council, not immediately from God, but from the Roman
Pontiff (12)[63],
the subject that truly judges in ecumenical
councils, whether it defines the laws of the faith or establishes disciplinary
laws, is also the college of bishops.” (Ius Canonicum, pp. 259-60)
(e
contra Episcopi cum Romano Pontifice constituunt alterum subiectum supremae
auctoritatis in Ecclesia, utique inadaequate tantum a Roman Pontifice
distinctum . Quamvis enim Episcopi virtutem sive iurisdictionem etiam in
Concilio oecumenico exercendam non immediate a Deo, sed a Romano Pontifice
accipiant (12), tamen subiectum , quod in Conciliis oecumenicis vere iudicat
sive leges fidei definit aut leges disciplinares condit, est etiam collegium
Episcoporum.)
In the revised and
updated edition of the same book (1938), which was prepared by Fr. Vidal after
the 1917 Code was promulgated, we find the same teaching in the following
criticism of the Protestant jurist, Paul Hinschius:
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum (1938) Vol I. p
160-161: Also in Wernz, Ius canonicum, 1905, Vol. I
No. 180, pp. 106-107): “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, both in an ecumenical
council and outside of it.” (Ius Canonicum (1938) Vol I. p 160-161) Also in Wernz, Ius
canonicum, 1905, Vol. I No. 180, pp.
106-107.)
-(At Hinschius C.
t. III p 764 aq. vera et falsa miscet et praesertim non attendit Concilium
oecumenicum et Romanum Pontificem etiam post Concilii Vaticani definitionem
esse duplex subiectum supremae potestatis ecclesiasticae, non
adaequate, sed inadaequate distinctum. Quae inadaequata distinctio sane
illud efficit, ut nequaquam dici possit unicum esse
subjectum supremae potestatis tum in Concilio oecumenico tum extra
illud.)
Cardinal Manning, The
Pastoral Office (1883):
"No author has drawn out with greater fulness and
precision the nature of the Episcopate than Bolgeni in his refutation of the
Febronianism and Regalism which infested Italy in the last century; and the
opinions of Bolgeni may be safely held as sound and Roman. … The doctrine of the Episcopate thus stated
and defended by Bulgeni is fully developed in the following passage:
'Returning to the
superiority of S. Peter, we have said and proved that in him the episcopal
power was lodged by Jesus Christ in all its fulness and sovereignty in
distinction from the other Apostles, in whom it was indeed lodged in all its
fulness, but with subordination and dependence on S. Peter. This is true if
each Apostle be considered alone and by himself; but if the Apostles are
considered as a college or body having S. Peter as head, then this body, united
with its head, possesses the Episcopate not only in its fulness, but also in
its sovereignty. Let it be noted that Jesus Christ in the act of conferring the
universal Episcopate, and of giving mission to His Apostles, said to them, all
united together, “Go and teach all nations; preach the Gospel to every
creature.” Pope Celestine I. notes this circumstance excellently when he says
that all Bishops ought to execute this commandment of preaching the Word of
God, which was given in common to all the Apostles: Christ "wills that we
all should do what He thus commanded in common to all (the Apostles) . It was
not possible that each individual Apostle should go throughout the world to
preach the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. That was fulfilled by
the Apostles taken all together; and it was immediately fulfilled by means
of the disciples who did so. The Episcopate therefore, considered in
its division into many persons, carries in itself its restriction” (i.e. of
offices), as Bossuet has told us ; but, considered as a college or body of
persons , it resumes, I say, its sovereignty. In fact, we see in the
constant practice of the Church this point of doctrine clearly expressed. No
Bishop by himself, nor many Bishops united together, possess the privilege of
infallibility in matters of dogma, nor can make laws in matters of discipline,
which oblige out of their own dioceses. And yet when the Bishops meet
legitimately in a body representing the whole Episcopal College, that is, in a
General Council, the dogmatic decisions which emanate from this body are
infallible, and the laws of discipline bind the whole Church. In this body
there is to be clearly seen the full, sovereign, sole, and indivisible
Episcopate, of which a part is possessed fully by each.
But
every reader already well understands that the Bishops, in howsoever great a
number they may be assembled, can never form the body, or represent the
Episcopal College, if they have not at their head S. Peter in his successor.
The episcopal body is not headless (acefalo); but, by the institution of Jesus
Christ Himself, has a head in the person of the Roman Pontiff. A body without a
head is not that (body) to which Jesus Christ gave the Episcopate full and
sovereign. He conferred it on the College of the Apostles, including S.
Peter, who was made superior to all the Apostles. The Episcopate, which is one
and indivisible, is such precisely by reason of the connection of the bishops
among themselves, and of their submission to one sole bishop, who is universal
and sovereign. Therefore, the full, universal, and sovereign power
of governing the Church is the Episcopate, full and sovereign, which exists in
the person of S. Peter and of each of his successors, and in the whole
Apostolic College united to S. Peter, and in the whole body of the Bishops
united to the Pope.
' (Bolgeni cap. ii. sect. 23)’
Vatican I, (second) Draft of the Second Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church of Christ, c. 4:
“But bishops are not
without the supreme role of teaching and governing the universal Church. For that pontifical role of
binding and loosing which was given to Peter alone was also given to the college of
Apostles, only in union with
their head, in the words of the Lord: ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in
heaven’ (Mt 18:18). For that reason from the beginning of the Church, the
decrees and statutes of ecumenical councils have quite rightly been received
with supreme reverence and a like submission by the faithful, as if they were
the judgments of God and the decisions of the Holy Spirit.”
Kleutget’s relatio of the above:
“From what was seen in the chapter concerning the part which bishops
have in governing the universal church, and what follows from this concerning
the authority of the councils: there seems to be no difficulty in itself.
[check translation]. 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, which decrees possess
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
it is equally clear, from what was defined in the canons of Chapter III of the
First Constitution of the Church (Pastor Aeternus), that the Roman Pontiff also
has not merely the greater part, but the
total plenitude of supreme power: the consequence is, that this power resides
in a double subject, in the body of the bishops together with the pope, and in
the pope alone. "27 (25) (Sed quoniam non minus constat, et in
constitutione prima de ecclesia per canonem capitis tertii definitum est, in
Roman Pontifice non potiores tantum partes, sed totam plenitudinem supremae
potestatis in esse: consequens est, hanc potestatem in duplice subjecto esse,
in Episcoporum corpore papae conjuncto, et in papa solo.) [”(Mansi 53, 321
BC].
“If this seems to be difficult. It is not,
however, new, but is admitted in common by those also, who, after the
controversy arose at the Councils of Constance and Basel, defended the part of
the Roman Pontiff: concerning which it is sufficient to cite the evidence of
Bellarmine. Is: [See De Concilii I, cap 13] …
“Some have seemed to oppose this doctrine,
because they believe that by the two subjects of supreme power we mean on the
one hand the pope, on the other the body of the bishops: hence, it is supposed
that if the body bishops thought otherwise than the Pope, it would conflict
with the harmony and unity of the Church, with both sides battling with the
same supreme power. In reality, as we have already said, the supreme
authority is not attributed to the body of bishops simpliciter, but to the body
of bishops united to the pope; now between the pope, and the pope with the
council there can be no conflict or discord. If only the bishops in a
legitimate council issue a decree that the Supreme Pontiff does not approve,
this decree does not represent the mind of the supreme authority; and if the
Supreme Pontiff afterwards does not approve, but proposes the contrary, as
happened in Ephesus II and Constantinople, under Hadrian I, the bishops are
bound to submit themselves.
Vatican I quotes Pope Innocent:
https://archive.org/stream/a584483100granuoft/a584483100granuoft_djvu.txt
Zinelli,
relatio:
In
the scheme it is said: It was said to one Peter: Whatever you pay, etc., and
also to the Apostles Matt. 18 it was said: Whatever you will pay...; it was
said to one Peter: You are Peter, etc.; and it was also said to the apostles
that they are the foundation: They were built upon the foundation of the
apostles. . .; one Peter is said to have been told: Feed the sheep, etc., but
to the other apostles also it has been said: As the Father has sent me, so I
send you; teach as they go. . . Therefore the corrector concludes: that
everything may be well connected, and that every difficulty may disappear, it
is necessary to explain clearly in what relation (note, this is the difficulty)
these promises of Christ to Peter and to the Apostles are to each other; which
he cannot achieve, unless the Apostleship and the Primacy are also discussed at
the same time. But no one will dare to assert that the whole reasoning of the
editor and the orator, whose strength was diminished by me. For this reason he
proposes a formula which begins: Anywhere etc.
True,
Emi and Rmi Fathers, these only have the appearance of difficulty, which since
his time has been reduced to nothing by Innocent III. the letter
which begins from the Apostolic See, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, where,
having read those words: Peter is yours, etc., he says:
"It was said to Peter without others and not others without
Peter, so that it may be understood that this kind of power attributed to him,
so that others cannot be without him, he can be without others because of the
privilege conferred on him and from the fullness of power granted to him. To
Peter without the other Apostles, certain things were said to the Apostles, but
not without Peter. What are these? Those three most famous testimonies: You are
Peter ... Confirm the brothers ... Feed the sheep and the lambs ... they
contain the main things that were said to Peter without the Apostles, but in
the presence of the Apostles. What the corrector proposes, namely: Whatever you
have learned... Go teach, etc., they look at what was said to the Apostles, but
not without Peter. In what relation then are they to each other? This is what
he asks modifier: the relation is clear from the context.
Indeed,
in the words of Christ's gift, the Apostles are not named unless obliquely and
implicitly; in the name of building up the church and uniting the kingdom of
heaven, especially the apostles come. Since then the Church is to be built upon
the foundation rock of Peter; it follows that the relationship between Peter
and the apostles in this text is the relationship between the foundation and
the building. The foundation supports the building, it is not supported, it
governs and is not governed; in a word, the building absolutely depends on the
foundation, not vice versa. Therefore, the relation of the Apostles to Peter,
as far as the matter itself is concerned, is a relation of absolute dependence.
The
same can be said about the second testimony of Luke. 22: Behold, Satan has
sought you. . . strengthen your brothers To the apostles present, Christ
foretells the greatest temptation of Satan against them, and then adds: I have
indeed prayed for you that your faith may not fail; in Peter's personal
charisma. And what relation to the Apostles? He adds: You, conversely,
strengthen your brothers. Therefore the relation of Peter to the Apostles is
the relation of a superior to his subordinates, since without contradiction
what is less confirmed by the superior. And in our case it is the relationship
of the teacher to the students, it is again of absolute dependence.
Nor
do the words of the third testimony give another meaning: Feed the sheep. All the apostles were present
at the seashore. Christ demands from Peter a threefold pledge of love before
all the Apostles present, no one excepted; and afterwards confers on him the
promised supreme power over all: Feed the sheep, feed the lambs. Therefore, the
relationship between Peter and the Apostles, from this third testimony, is the
relationship between the shepherd and the sheep, this is all-round
subordination. What is clearer? What more does an editor want? And from this it
is understood, Eiii and Rmi Fathers, that the most wise economy was the injury
of Christ our Lord, which, when he had handed over full and supreme power to
Peter without others, as Innocent III says. "later he confirms the same
to others, but not without Peter. The apostleship, therefore, and in the
episcopate itself, is directly and by divine right from the institution of
Christ, not to impose a limit, but to cooperate with the supreme and full power
of Peter in the building of the Church, which Christ acquired with his own
blood And this is expressly confirmed by the evidence which the editor
opposes.
Indeed,
Christ says to all the Apostles: As you go, teach, etc. He says: He who does
not believe will be condemned; with which words he appointed both Peter and the
other apostles as pastors and teachers over all nations. But these words are
narrated in the last chapter of Matthew, in the last verse, and as St. Mark adds,
after these words to them the seer was taken up into heaven. Therefore, before
he constituted the apostles shepherds and teachers, not without Peter, he had
already said: Feed the sheep, feed the lambs; and therefore, before appointing
shepherds and teachers, he had already appointed Peter the shepherd of the
shepherds, the teacher of the teachers, so that by appointing a head not only
schism, but also the occasion of error would be removed.
(In
schemate dicitur: Uni Petro dictum est : Quodcumque solveris etc, atqui etiam
Apostolis Matth. 18 dictum est: Quaecumque solveritis...; uni Petro dictum est:
Tu es Petrus etc; atqui etiam Apostolis dictum est, quod sint fundamentum :
Aedijicati super fundamentum Apostolorum . . .; uni Petro dicitur dictum: Pasce
oves etc, atqui caeteris etiam Apostolis dictum est : Sicut misit me Pater et
ego mitto vos; euntes docete. . . Igitur concludit emendator : ut bene omnia
cohaereant, et difficultas omnis evanescat, necessarium est, ut exponatur
clare, in qua relatione (notate, haec est difficultas) sint ad invicem hae
Christi promissiones ad Petrum et ad Apostolos; id quod consequi nequit, nisi
de Apostolatu simul et de Primatu etiam pertractetur. En tota emendatoris et
oratoris ratiocinatio , cuius robur fuisse a me imminutum nullus certe audebit
asserere. Idcirco ipse proponit formulam, quae incipit: Quainvis etc, in qua
scilicet fit mentio tum de textu fundamentum Apostolorum, tum de aliis.
Verum,
Emi et Rmi Patres, ista nonnisi speciem habent difficultatis, quam inde a suo
tempore in nihilum redegit Innocentius III. epistola, quae incipit
Apostolicae Sedis, ad Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum, ubi expendens illa
verba: Tii es Petrus etc, inquit:
"Petro
dictum est sine aliis et non aliis sine Petro, ut intelligatur sic ei attributa
potestas huiusmodi, ut aliis sine ipso esse non possit, ipsi sine aliis esse
possit ex privilegio sibi collato et ex concessa sibi plenitudine potestatis
Itaque ex laudatis verbis quaedam dicta sunt Petro sine aliis Apostolis ,
quaedam dicta sunt Apostolis, sed non sine Petro. Quaenam sunt haec? Tria celeberrima illa testimonia: Tii es Petrus . . . Confiryna fratres . . . Pasce oves et
agnos . . . praecipua illa continent, quae dicta sunt Petro sine Apostolis, sed
in praesentia Apostolorum. Quae vero emendator proponit, scilicet: Quaecumque
alUgaveritis . . . Euntes docete etc, respiciunt ea, quae dicta sunt Apostolis,
at non sine Petro. In quanam ergo relatione sunt inter se? Hoc est, quod
quaerit emendator : relatio patet ex contextu.
Equidem
in verbis donationis Christi Apostoli non nominantur nisi in obliquo et implicite; nomine Ecclesiae
aedificandae et regni coelorum adunandi, praecipue veniunt Apostoli. Cum ergo
Ecclesia aedificanda sit super petram fundamentalem Petrum ; sequitur, quod
relatio inter Petrum et Apostolos in hoc textu sit relatio inter fundamentum et
aedificium. Fundamentum sustinet aedificium, non sustinetur, regit et non
regitur; uno verbo, a fundamento aedificium absolute pendet, non viceversa.
Ergo relatio Apostolorum ad Petrum quantum ad rem ipsam est relatio absolutae
dependentiae.
Idem
dicendum de secundo testimonio Luc. 22: Ecce satanas expetivit vos . . .
confirma fratres tiios. Apostolis praesentibus Christus praedicit maximam
tentationem satanae contra ipsos, tum subdit : Ego autetn rogavi pro te ut non
dejiciat fides tua; en charisma personale Petro. Et quaenam relatio ad
Apostolos? Subiungit: Tu conversm confirma fratres tuos. Ergo relatio Petri ad
Apostolos est relatio superioris ad subordinatos , quippe absque contradictione
quod minus a maiori confirmatur. Et in casu nostro est relatio magistri ad
discipulos, est iterum dependentiae absolutae.
Nec
alium sensum praebent verba tertii testimonii loan: Pasce oves. Praesentes
erant omnes Apostoli ad litus maris. Christus expostulat a Petro triplex pignus
amoris prae omnibus Apostolis praesentibus, nemine excepto ; et postea confert
illi supremam potestatem promissam super omnes: Pasce oves, pasce agnos. Ergo
relatio inter Petrum et Apostolos ex hoc tertio testimonio est relatio inter
pastorem et oves, hoc est omnimoda subordinatio. Quid clarius? Quid quaerit
amplius emendator?
Atque
inde intelligitur, Eiiii ac Rmi Patres, sapientissimam esse oeconomiam lesu
Christi Domini nostri, qua, cum tradidisset plenam et supremam potestatem Petro
sine aliis, ut loquitur Innocentius III. "postea eandem confirmat aliis,
sed non sine Petro. Apostolatus ergo, et in ipso Episcopatus, immediate et iure
divino est ex Christi institutione, non ad imponendum limitem, sed ad
cooperandum supremae ac plenae potestati Petri in aedificationem Ecclesiae,
quam Christus acquisivit sanguine suo. Atque id expresse confirmatur a
testimoniis illis, quae emendator opponit.
XI Scriptural Foundation for Two Subjects of
Supreme Power
Van Noort:
“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 by reason of the privileges conferred upon him by the Lord and
by reason of the fulness of power which had been granted him.’ (Innocent III,
Van Noort, Christ’s Church, p. 67-68).
Innocent III quote: “To him, moreover, you
have often heard and read in the Gospel, "Whatsoever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven;" and “whatever you loose on earth will be loose
in heaven.” And if you find that it was said to all the apostles at the same
time; You will know, however, that the ability of binding and loosing is not
attributed to others without him, but to him without others; so that he could
not do others without him, himself without others, through a privilege
conferred on him by the Lord and a fullness of power granted to him. ..."
(Huic praeterea dictum in Evangelio et audisti saepius et legisti: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram,
erit ligatum in coelis; et quodcumque
solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis. Quod si omnibus etiam
apostolis simul dictum esse reperias; non tarnen aliis sine ipso, sed ipsi sine
aliis attributum esse cog nosces ligandi et solvendi a Domino facultatem; ut
quod non alii sine ipso, ipse sine aliis posset ex privilegio sibi collate a
Domino et concessa plenitudine potestatis. ...") Epistle 209 to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, Nov 12, 1199.) http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxv Denzingers 775.
Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate
(1955)
“The great words in
which Jesus laid upon His disciples the duty of preaching the Gospel to every
creature were too pregnant with meaning to communicate all of it from the
outset, and time alone could bring out distinctly the multitude of powers they
conferred. Apart from the transapostolic
power promised to Peter personally, they assured the Apostles of: (1) the
extraordinary powers of founding the Church; (2) the ordinary and transmissible
powers of ruling her (a) by collegiate participation in the universal
jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff (b) by exercising a particular
jurisdiction over the local Churches, as these appear in the Acts of the
Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse.
The second 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?”[64]
Lefebvre: “ There is no usual, permanent
collegiality. It does not exist, it cannot exist because that would defeat
power. Who is the one who will exercise power? The Pope with the
Bishops, or the Pope alone? There cannot be two parallel authorities, that
is not possible. Our Lord did not make an institution which is not
viable ”(December 19, 1983).
Edward Healey Thompson, The Unity of the
Episcopate (1845):
“In contrast with this,
I will state the Catholic doctrine. That doctrine is, that Christ conferred the
episcopate, i.e., the full and universal power of governing His Church, as I
have said, not individually, but corporately, not separately, but collectively. To the apostolic body with Peter as its
head succeeds the episcopal body with the Pope his successor as its head. The episcopal body thus indissolubly united, possesses
all that full and sovereign power which the apostles possessed. In this sense it is that the bishops are
the successors of the apostles; every bishop, as a member of the episcopal
body, has part in the sovereignty of the episcopate. And although he cannot exercise it apart from
the episcopal body, yet in its nature it is inalienable, and though suspended in schism , cannot be lost.
“It is in virtue of this
[sovereign] power that every bishop sits and judges in general council, decides
in matters of faith, and legislates for the whole Church, together with his
assembled brethren. Bishops in
partibus, and even suffragan bishops who are without diocese, possess this
power as inherently belonging to their episcopal character. This power is exercised also in another shape , when by the unanimous consent of Catho- lic bishops , not assembled in council , but dis- persed throughout the world , the mind of the Church makes known itself in some general judgment of doctrine and discipline.
But besides the powers
which are inherent and inalienable from the episcopal character, every bishop,
when he is placed over a diocese, receives particular jurisdiction over
it. This jurisdiction, which according
to Mr. A.’s view, must be a limitation of that [universal] power which he
possesses by divine right … is, according to the Catholic view, not a
restriction of what he already possesses, but a fresh power which is conferred
upon him – a power in its nature not supreme, but subject to that authority
which confers it; not universal, but restrained within limits. The sovereignty
of the episcopate residing in its unity, and that unity being a corporate
unity, it cannot belong to that power which is particular and individual. Bishops, therefore, considered individually,
and as they possess particular jurisdiction, are not sovereign and independent:
it is the episcopate which is sovereign and independent.
The Catholic doctrine, therefore, does not render necessary the self-contradictory expedient of limiting divine rights by human laws , and controlling supreme and independent power by a power which is consequently its inferior. The Catholic doctrine leaves the divine rights of bishops free and uncontrolled, while the theory which Mr. A. advances, in reality coerces and neutralizes them. The powers which are inseparable from the episcopal character, being divine, cannot be restricted or taken away; whereas the particular power which a bishop has over a limited district, not being inherent in the episcopal character, but conferred upon him by ecclesiastical authority, can be withheld, contracted, and even altogether withdrawn. It may be objected, however, that the power of the keys, i.e. of binding and loosing, which is conferred in consecration, is a jurisdictional power, and that, therefore, jurisdiction is inseparable from the episcopal character. To this I reply, that the Catholic doctrine is, that every bishop receives in consecration a capacity to exercise such jurisdiction, but not the jurisdiction itself; since jurisdiction is a relative idea, implying not only capacity to exercise power, but subjects over whom that power can be exercised. As in consecration no subjects are assigned to a bishop as an individual, jurisdiction is therefore not conferred upon him therein, but a separate act is necessary in order that he may receive it. If jurisdictional power were inseparable from the episcopal character, its acts, even when illegal, would be valid. But the Catholic Church has never esteemed them to be so, but has always drawn the strongest distinction be- tween the validity of acts belonging to the episcopal character, even when illegally performed, and the utter nullity of jurisdictional acts done under similar circumstances.”
XII TWO SUBJECTS (and
existence of the College) EVEN WHEN DISPERSED
Lefebvre: “There is no usual, permanent collegiality.
It does not exist; it cannot exist because that would defeat power. Who is the
one who will exercise power? The Pope with the Bishops, or the Pope alone?
There cannot be two parallel authorities, that is not possible. Our Lord did
not make an institution which is not viable.”(December 19, 1983).
Obiection:
Tranquillo: “No. 19 of the second schema on the Church [at
Vatican II], spoke of the magisterium of the bishops in these terms:
‘Although
that each bishop, taken individually, does not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, however, when dispersed throughout the whole world and yet
remaining united in a collegial manner (collegialem nexum handmaids), they
teach authentically with the Pope and transmit the revelation as witnesses of
the faith; if this teaching is unanimous, they affirm the doctrine
infallibly. This takes place in an even more obvious way, when, united in
an ecumenical council, they fulfill with the Pope their role of teachers and
judges in the faith and customs vis-à-vis the universal Church: their
definitions must be received by everyone in all sincerity’.
In
the eyes of the fathers of the Coetus, this text was faulty since there could
be no actual collegial act, emanating from the dispersed episcopate.” (Episcopate
And Collegiality)
Salaverri:
561. 2) The infallibility of the ordinary
Magisterium of the Bishops teaching outside of an Ecumenical Council is proved.
For, Christ, when he sent the Apostles into the whole world to preach the
Gospel, at the same time promised the assistance of infallibility that would
continue until the end of the world, and he conferred such authority in
teaching on them that all men, under the danger of salvation, are obligated to
give their assent (Matt. 28:18- 20; Mark 16:15). But these are the endowments
of the ordinary and infallible Magisterium of the Apostles and of their
successors dispersed throughout the world. Therefore, the ordinary Magisterium
of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world is infallible.
562.3) This last conclusion is confirmed.
For, Christ attributed perennially to the College of Apostles infallibility
without any restriction and for the ordinary direction of the faithful. But
this would not be true if the College of Bishops were infallible only in an
Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the College of Bishops is also infallible
outside of a Council, or when it exercises the supreme Magisterium in the
ordinary way.” (…)
574.2) The theological foundation of the
Ecumenical Council is the divine institution of the College of Apostles. For,
Christ instituted the College of Apostles as a Body of Heads, that is, composed
of St. Peter the Head and the Apostles as members, in order to continue his
work on earth in an effective way. The Apostles exercised their office under
Peter, either in the ordinary way dispersed throughout the world, or united
together in an extraordinary way, namely, in the Council of Jerusalem: Acts
15:6-35.
575.3) The nature of the right or of the
power of an Ecumenical Council is formal succession. For, the College of
Bishops formally succeeds the College of Apostles, which therefore is also the
Body of the Heads, that is, being composed of the Head, the Roman
Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, and the member Bishops as successors of
the Apostles. Bishops exercise their office under the Roman Pontiff, either in
the ordinary way dispersed throughout the world, or united together in an
extraordinary way in an Ecumenical Council. By divine law, therefore, there
are two essential elements in the College and consequently in a Council: The
first is the Head, who is the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy; the second
is the Body, which is constituted by the Bishops, successors of the Apostles,
and they are this by right {de iure) physically all of them, but de facto
all morally.
576.4) The idea. An Ecumenical Council is,
therefore, a legitimate assembly of all the Bishops gathered together under the
Roman Pontiff in order to deliberate and make decrees on ecclesiastical
affairs. Bishops, who come together in a Council by their own right, are the
residential Bishops or the successors of the Apostles; all must come together
either physically or morally, according as the meeting is understood to be
either by right or de facto. Briefly: An Ecumenical Council is a hierarchical
body of the Bishops of the Church brought together under the Primate (see D
660).
Van Noort: On p. 329, he says, that the
college of bishops is infallible, even when dispersed, is “of faith.”
Van Noort: “Just as it
was a question above of the apostolic college, so is it now a question of the
college of bishops; for the present proposition does not assert that each
single bishop is the successor of an individual apostle, but rather the
apostolic college was succeeded by the college of bishops or the
episcopate. This proposition is a
dogma of faith. See the Council of Trent, Session 23, ch. 4 (DB 960)[5]
Manning: “These, then, are reasons for judging that a dogmatic
decision on the infallibility of the Pope would not be opportune. Let that
suffice which has been already declared, and has been believed by all; namely,
that the Church, whether congregated in Council, or dispersed throughout the
world, but in the Successor of Peter always one, is always infallible, and that
the Supreme Pontiff, according to the words of the Council of Florence, is 'the
teacher of the whole Church and of all Christians.' But as to the mysterious gift of infallibility, which
by God is bestowed upon the Episcopate united to the Pope, and at the same time
is bestowed in a special manner on the Supreme Pontiff, and by which gift the
Church, whether in an Œcumenical Council or by the Pope without a Council,
guards and explains the truths of revelation, it is not expedient to make
further declarations unless a proved necessity demand, which necessity at
present does not exist.” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Petri_Privilegium/II/Chapter_2
XII (B) Jurisdiction,
how to bishops receive it, what is it, what is munere?
Official
Relatio at V2:
Bishop Parente in the Relatio super Caput
III:
“The Pope possesses this power in a habitual and immediate way (habitu et
actu), but the bishops possess it only in a habitual way (tantummodo habitu)
and this power in them cannot be put into action independently of the Roman
Pontiff.” (Relatio circa caput III, in Conc. Vat. II Syn. p. 2071).[65]
W.
Bertram:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=YnshJ76WeOAC&pg=GBS.PA454
By
episcopal consecration, bishops are united in a specific way to Christ the Lord
and through him to each other, insofar as they are consecrated to the Lord and
configured to feed his flock, as well as obtain a participation in his power
for this purpose, that is, to be able to feed his flock (by teaching and
ruling). In the episcopal character, therefore, the sacramental foundation of
the communion of bishops is held to feed the Lord's flock. This sacramental
communion is in itself spiritual, invisible, internal, so that it cannot act
socially as such. - - - This communion, so that it can act socially, must also
be established externally, or rather, to speak more accurately (because the
communion of bishops also exists socially and juridically since the apostles):
A consecrated bishop needs, as we have already said, to be incorporated into
the existing communion. Incorporation into the communion of bishops is
effected by a legitimate consecration, that is, accomplished in this
communion, so that a legitimately consecrated bishop is constituted a member of
the communion of bishops, to whom the Lord has entrusted the feeding of the
Church. In other words: a legitimately consecrated bishop is appointed by
himself in the Church to feed the flock of the Lord, exercising the office of
teaching and governing; He is established in the Church when he has a
sacramentally conferred participation in Christ's power to represent the Lord
Christ by teaching and ruling. From this it is clear that he himself no longer
enjoys, in this sign of reason, a power established in concrete or prepared for
action, of teaching and ruling, because such power, in order to be established
concretely, needs coordination with the power of other bishops. For this
reason, the determination of the passive subject (to which), as well as the
causes (to which), the power extends, is required, so that such power is to be
exercised personally. (Under this aspect, there is some difference from the
constitution of the fundamental rights of the supernatural order, which are
mentioned in can. 87. In so far as these faculties of action, ex. gr. choosing
freely the state of life, as well as demanding, ex. gr. the sacraments,
according to the substance and the internal structure is conferred
sacramentally, that is, by baptism, by the incorporation of the baptized into
the Church through the profession of faith and communion with the hierarchical
Church - also juridically, that is, by which rights, they are constituted.
personal. Now the faculties of teaching and governing conferred in the
episcopal consecration are brought together to this end, so that they may be
exercised in the Church for the good of the ecclesiastical community. Hence, by
incorporation in the hierarchical communion, the faculties of teaching and
governing juridically, that is, as juridical power, have not yet been
constituted. For this purpose the nature of the matter requires the
determination of juridical power, that is, the limitation of the passive
subject and the causes. Compare: De relation, 33 s. ) This coordination is also
required so that the sacramentally conferred power can be exercised in common,
that is, on the part of the communion of bishops in a particular church or
particular churches 14 . As regards the power of the entire communion of
bishops in the universal Church, the body of bishops with the head always
exists as the subject of this power; We will deal with the concrete exercise of
power below. From this it is clear that the bishops have the power and exercise
it as well as the members of the communion 15: they not only form the communion
sacramentally, but also juridically, insofar as they have and exercise
coordinated power under the communion (all the bishops with the head successor
of St. Peter) socially juridically established or within the objective order,
in which the bishops are united among themselves socio-legally by the very word
of the Lord (in so far as the Lord gave the apostles instructions regarding the
exercise of power) and that is further specified by the common law of the
Church to exercise magisterium and government in the Church. We have already
noted that a particular church, which is entrusted to each bishop, can be not
only a diocese, but also ecclesiastical province and patriarchate (Eastern).
Bishops, therefore, by reason of the office of shepherding (mastership and
government), each by virtue of their own respective canonical mission 16 (by
which the pastors of the diocese, respectively of the ecclesiastical province
or patriarchate) are constituted an organically composed body, in so far as
they are considered, in addition to the Metropolitan Bishops and Patriarchs;
this body has the supreme Shepherd of the Church as its head.
Accordingly,
particular churches are entrusted to the care of bishops, in so far as they are
members of this body. For to this body Christ the Lord entrusted the feeding of
the Church. The same must be said of the supreme Shepherd of the Church, as the
Church itself
the
feeding of the universal is entrusted to the extent that it is a specific
member, that is, the head of this body.
From
this we have the principle: Just as the successor of St. Peter is endowed with
the office of supreme Shepherd, in so far as he is the head of the body of
Bishops, so Bishops (and Patriarchs) enjoy the office of shepherd of their own
particular church, in so far as they are members of this body. This supposition
raises the question of the meaning and structure of episcopal and primatial
power, about which the Council states the following: the principle and
foundation of communion. "Lumen gentium", 18. "The Roman
Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the permanent and visible principle and
foundation of unity, both of the bishops and of the multitude of the
faithful." But the individual bishops are the visible principle and
foundation of unity in their particular Churches, formed in the image of the
universal Church in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church
exists. "Lumen gentium", 23 Now, if the Bishop of his own church, and
the supreme Shepherd of the universal Church, presides as a member,
respectively as the head, of the body of Bishops, how are they the principle
and foundation of the unity of the Church, respectively, of a particular
church? If indeed, as we have said, the body of bishops exists by its nature
(not in time) prior to the individual bishops, it is not that they themselves
feed the particular church in the name of the body of bishops, so that they are
not the beginning and foundation of the unity of the proper particular church,
because this would simply be a part of the universal church ? Equally, in this
supposition, does not the supreme Pastor of the Church simply feed the
universal Church in the name of the college of Bishops, so that he personally
is not the subject of power over the universal Church, but only has the
exercise of the power that belongs to the body of Bishops as the sole subject
of this power?
ON
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BISHOP AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE UNIT OF THE PARTICULAR
CHURCH
However,
this conclusion does not take into account the completely proper nature of this
body of bishops. Without a doubt, Christ the Lord entrusted this body to feed
the Church in his name, so that the episcopate constitutes the vicarage of the
Lord in the Church, representing him and acting in his name. It must be
emphasized that individual bishops are consecrated and conformed to the
episcopal character of high priest, teacher, and pastor; thus they enjoy the
participation of his power as his instrument. The Lord Himself in the
episcopate holds the office of priest, teacher, and shepherd. For bishops are
not only sanctifying, but also teaching and ruling, informed by the Spirit of
Christ to carry out the work of such a ministry. Accordingly, they can obtain a
particular church only in communion with others, that is, as members of the
body of bishops; however, they have to feed such a church (by teaching and
ruling) in the name and power of Christ, given to them sacramentally by the
Lord Himself, so that they are directly the vicars of Christ. It is true that
the sacramentally conferred power is not such as to be expedient for the act. Even
if the bishop is incorporated into the body of bishops by the legitimacy of his
consecration, in order to be ready for the act, he needs a legal determination.
Given this, the causes of the episcopal consecration "to the extent that
it confers this power, extends to the creation of its external structure, so
that this power is established in concrete terms in relation to such a
particular church, socially and juridically. Therefore, the power itself as
regards substance and internal structure is sacramentally conferred. Of
course, the ontological participation in the power of Christ the Lord - by the
incorporation into the body of the Bishops as well as the juridical
determination - is not only not changed, but it itself, creating a
"body" for itself, becomes a social-juridical power in concrete and
therefore prepared for action. , even if it is held in a member of the body of
bishops as such, it is not held nor exercised in the name of this body. power
on the part of other bishops, so that a juridical determination of this power
is required). The power with which bishops feed their own church is not only
not delegated, but ordinary, and indeed it is not ordinary vicarious (of course
not vicarious of the body of bishops), but ordinary proper 18. Bishops are
neither delegates nor vicars of the body of bishops.
This
must be said because they have power to be exercised directly by the Lord and
in his name; and therefore they are directly the vicars of Christ. From this it
follows that the bishop is truly the visible head of his church; on the
contrary, he is truly the beginning and foundation of the unity of his own church,
of his own people, inasmuch as he directly represents Christ to the Christians
of his church, which is Christ's. However, since this church does not exist by
itself, since this church is organized by its nature to constitute one holy
church together with all the other particular churches, the bishop as the head
of the particular church in the union in which all the particular churches form
one holy church, is the type of member of the hierarchical communion cannot not
have. For if the Bishop is not the head of a particular church, insofar as he
is a member of a hierarchical communion, the particular church will not be
coordinated and cannot always, as it should, be coordinated with other
particular churches. And this, as is clear, is required, so that the particular
churches form one Church. Now the coordination of the particular churches can
only be had by the coordination of the bishops, since the bishops are the head
of the proper church and as such the beginning and foundation of the unity of
the proper church. It is true, therefore, that bishops should preside over the
members of the hierarchical communion of their own church, so that thus the
universal Church may always be one. For the bishops have the power they have
directly from the Lord (sacramentally), and therefore in the sign of reason
prior to the hierarchical communion (since the sacraments are the vicarious
actions of Christ). But this sacramentally conferred power is established
juridically, and indeed as the vicarious power of Christ, in the sign of reason
as a consequence of incorporation into hierarchical communion. For this reason,
bishops are really the vicars of Christ in their own churches. However, the
members of the hierarchical communion have the particular church coordinated and
coordinated with other particular churches, so that the universal Church not
only really coalesces as one of all the particular churches, but is also one in
all the particular churches. And this is therefore obtained by the fact that
the bishop, the head of a particular church, is a member of the body of
bishops, which, together with the supreme shepherd, has to feed the universal
church.
ON
THE SACRAMENT OF THE CHURCH OF THE SALVATION OF MAN
To those who have just been said about the
common and hierarchical priesthood, it is shown that the Church constitutes a
unity both social and supernatural. For the intentional union of the faithful
and the shepherds is held by the fact that they themselves admit the word of
the Lord (to believe, to do, to deliver). In this way, the faithful and the
pastors establish an intentional union in the very word of the Lord admitted
and acted upon by faith, hope, charity, pastoral care, etc. However, the Holy
Spirit himself, a gift given sacramentally to the faithful and (for this
purpose also specifically) to pastors, is the author of such intentional
relations, he informs their implementation in the life of the Church, that is,
in the work of the faithful and pastors. In this way, all the activity of the
faithful or of the pastors proceeds from the Holy Spirit, by which the life of
the Church is generated, preserved, developed, ordered, and perfected.
Accordingly, the internal structure of the Church is made up of intentional
relations, in so far as these are directed to actuate various supernatural
goods; under this aspect the intentional union of the faithful and the pastors
as well as this intentional activity is informed by the Holy Spirit. By
affirming the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church, the
supernatural character of the Church, a truly human society, is emphasized. The
external structure of the Church manifests its internal life externally, that
is, visibly; external activity has internal life as its end. For the external
structure of the Church is related to the internal structure, the external
structure is determined by the internal structure. All the external activity of
the Church serves the internal life. It proceeds from the inner life and is
designed to preserve and increase this inner life. Hence the external structure
and activity of the Church has the internal life to manifest, to represent, to
effect, to protect, to promote, to complete.
The
church must therefore be considered a social union that is both charismatic and
institutional, and indeed so, as institutional elements, indeed all that is
"human" should be held to contribute, increase, and perfect the life
of the Spirit in the people of God. From this it becomes clear in what way the
Church is the sacrament of the salvation of men ("Lumen gentium", 1).
Christ the Lord, by his life, suffering, and resurrection, is the cause of the
salvation of men. His human activity, by which he satisfied God the Father for
the offense caused by sin, and earned "salvation" for men, that is,
he earned for them the gift of the Holy Spirit, has infinite value, because the
subject agent of this activity is the person of the Word. The Church has and
can continue the salutary activity of the incarnate Word, because the Holy
Spirit is present in her and works, so that even here, even if there is no
hypostatic union - human activity, because eventually sometimes it proceeds
from the Holy Spirit, has value and effect "above" natural, at least
indirectly, insofar as this activity is organized for such an effect. - - It is
on this basis that the Church, human society, works for the
"salvation" of men; she is the "sacrament" or sign and
medium by which the salvation of men is promoted. The Church can do this
because it exists as a human society in which the Holy Spirit himself is
present and works (to the analogy of the presence and operation of the person
of the Word in the human nature of Christ, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit
of Christ), in other words, because it is social of the Church, its internal
structure (consisting of intentional expressions) has a supernatural character.
Now
the external structure of the Church sets the internal structure to the
outside, so that both elements together (to the analogy of the soul and the
body in man) constitute a unity, one thing: a supernatural social union, the
Body of Christ, which is the Church. To act follows from being: the Church can
provide for the salvation of men or it can act supernaturally, because it
itself has a supernatural being ¹º.
Note: On page 253, Bertram says the “power” (to teach and govern)
is established sacramentally, but it requires legal recognition to become a
power ready to act. A sacramental power,
but one that requires an external legal office or mission. This corresponds to the internal and
external structure of the Church.
Bertram.
P. 392: “Consequently, in this case, in the metaphysical order, power is
indeed established as regards substance (spiritual being) and internal
structure; however, it is not constituted as to the "body" or
external structure. The sacramentally conferred power is not merely a
passive power to receive the power to govern, which would become actual power
through recognition on the part of the Church, but the causality of the
sacramental power to govern as to the substance constituting it with the
recognition of the consecrated person on the part of the Church extends by
itself also to establish the external structure of the power to govern. On the
other hand, due to the continuing lack of recognition on the part of the
Church, the power is indeed established in terms of substance and internal
structure, but it lacks that it is established in juridical order, an essential
element, namely the external structure. - Consequently, the recognition of
episcopal consecration on the part of the Church has the aspect of canonical
"form", that is, of the essentially required condition or formality,
to the extent that the legitimacy of episcopal consecration depends on it as
regards the power to govern in the Church as a juridical society. In the
absence of this "canonical form" of episcopal consecration, which is
therefore in the juridical order, the power cannot fully form itself.[66]
(Consecratione
episcopali Episcopi uniuntur modo specifico Christo Domino et per ipsum inter
se , quatenus Domino consecrantur et configurantur ad pascendum gregem eius
necnon participationem in eius potestate ad hoc obtinent , scilicet ut eius
gregem pascere ( docendo et regendo ) valeant . In charactere epi- scopali
igitur fundamentum sacramentale communionis Episco- porum ad pascendum Domini
gregem habetur . Haec communio sacramentalis in se est spiritualis ,
invisibilis , interna , ita ut ipsa qua talis socialiter agere non possit . - -
— Haec communio , ut ipsa socialiter agere possit , etiam externe constituenda
est , vel potius , ut magis accurate loquar ( quia com- munio Episcoporum inde
ab Apostolis etiam socialiter - iuridice exsistit ) : Episcopus consecratus
indiget , sicuti iam diximus , ut huic communioni exsistenti incorporetur .
Incorporatio in com- munione Episcoporum consecratione legitima , scilicet in
hac communione peracta , peragitur , ita ut Episcopus legitime con- secratus
membrum constitutum sit communionis Episcoporum , cui Ecclesia pascenda a
Domino concredita est . Aliis verbis : Epi- scopus legitime consecratus
constituitur eo ipso in Ecclesia ad gregem Domini pascendum exercitio muneris
docendi et regendi ; ipse constituitur in Ecclesia cum sacramentaliter collatam
habeat participationem in Christi potestate ad repraesentan- dum Christum
Dominum docendo et regendo . Inde autem elucet ipsum non iam in hoc signo
rationis gaudere potestate in concreto constituta seu ad actum expedita ,
docendi et regendi , quia talis potestas , ut sit concrete constituta , indiget
coordina- tione cum potestate aliorum Episcoporum . Hac ratione , deter-
minatio subiecti passivi ( ad quod ) , necnon causarum ( ad quas ) , potestas
se extendit , requiritur , ut talis potestas personaliter exer- cenda habeatur
. ( Sub hoc aspectu aliqua habetur differentia a constitutione iurium
fundamentalium ordinis supernaturalis , de quibus in can . 87. In quantum hae
facultates agendi , ex . gr . eli- gendi libere statum vitae , necnon exigendi
, ex . gr . sacramenta , secundum substantiam et structuram internam
sacramentaliter , scilicet per baptismum , conferuntur , incorporatione
baptizati in Ecclesia per professionem fidei et communionis cum Ecclesia etiam
hierarchica — etiam iuridice , scilicet , qua iura , constituun- tur . Hic enim
agitur de iuribus singulorum baptizatorum in or- dine ad propriam perfectionem
personalem . Iamvero facultates docendi et regendi in consecratione episcopali
collatae conferun- tur ad hoc , ut in Ecclesia pro bono communitatis
ecclesiasticae exerceantur . Hinc incorporatione in communione hierarchica fa-
cultates docendi et regendi iuridice , scilicet qua potestas iuridica, nondum
sunt constitutae . Ad hoc requiritur ex natura rei deter- minatio potestatis
iuridica , scilicet circumscriptio subiecti passi- vi et causarum . Confer : De
relatione , 33 s . ) . Haec coordinatio etiam requiritur , ut potestas
sacramenta- liter collata in communi exerceri possit , scilicet a parte com-
munionis Episcoporum in ecclesiam particularem vel ecclesias particulares 14 .
Quod attinet potestatem totius communionis Episcoporum in Ecclesiam universalem
, corpus Episcoporum cum capite sem- per tamquam subiectum huius potestatis
exsistit ; de potestate concrete exercenda infra agemus . Inde elucet Episcopos
potestatem habere et exercere tam- quam membra communionis 15 : ipsi non tantum
sacramentaliter communionem efformant , sed etiam iuridice , quatenus potesta-
tem habeant et exerceant coordinatam infra communionem ( om- nium Episcoporum
cum capite successore S. Petri ) socialiter- iuridice constitutam seu intra
ordinem obiectivum , quo Episcopi inter se socialiter - iuridice uniuntur per
ipsum verbum Domini ( in quantum Dominus Apostolis mandata dedit quoad potesta-
tem exercendam ) idque ulterius specificatum iure communi Ecclesiae ad
magisterium et regimen in Ecclesia exercendum . Iam notavimus ecclesiam
particularem , quae singulis Epi- scopis concreditur , posse esse non tantum
dioecesim , sed etiam . provinciam ecclesiasticam et patriarchatum ( Orientalem
) . Episco- pi itaque ratione officii pascendi ( magisterio et regimine )
unicui- que proprii vi respectivae missionis canonicae 16 ( qua constituun- tur
pastores dioecesis respective provinciae ecclesiasticae vel pa- triarchatus )
corpus organice compositum constituunt , quatenus praeter Episcopos
Metropolitae et Patriarchae habentur ; hoc corpus habet supremum Ecclesiae
Pastorem tamquam suum caput .)
…
This
next part is referring exclusively to synods, as opposed to an ecumenical
council.
“The
function and power which is exercised in the Synod by the Bishops, as to its
substance, is conferred by Christ the Lord, insofar as the function of
"teaching and ruling" is sacramentally conferred, so that it may be
exercised in the Church as a hierarchical society within the limits of the law
established by the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, through the
Apostolic Letters themselves, "Apostolic solicitude" the function and
powers of the Synod are circumscribed by the Supreme Pontiff as a function and
power to be exercised in the name of the entire episcopate for the good of the
universal Church. These two things are held together here: The role and power
of the Synod in the institution of the episcopate and the college of bishops
founded by the Lord himself; the canonical determination of this power in
concrete. For this reason this office and this power must be considered
ordinary. Compare with respect to the concept of ordinary power B. OJETTI, S.I.
, Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Book Two, De Personis, can. 145-214,
Rome 1931, 165 s. With regard to the constitutive elements of the power of
teaching and governing of Bishops, compare the work cited 12 ff. , respectively
10 ss. Applying what we said there, we say that the Synod does not only have
power delegated by law, but that it has ordinary power, because it is
permanently or stably constituted with this concrete structure
“We
do not say that the Synod has ordinary jurisdiction, but we say that ordinary
power belongs to it, yet do not deny it [that it has ordinary jurisdiction].
Truly, no abstract concept of jurisdiction can be established, so that it can
be said that the power of the Synod does not correspond to this concept.
Rather, the concept of jurisdiction in the Church must proceed from the
theological data itself. Truly, the supreme power of the Church has been
conferred by the Lord on the college of bishops with the Roman Pontiff as its
head, so that there are various ways in which the college can influence the
exercise of supreme power, even if the Roman Pontiff acts personally as a
subject of this power. Among such methods there is also the authoritative
advice of the college in order to the act of government of the Roman Pontiff
for the universal Church. Accordingly, we are dealing here with the power of
the college of bishops, which is specific to the constitution of this college,
with such a structure and relationship to the supreme Shepherd of the Church,
through Christ the Lord, which is not considered elsewhere in this way. For
that reason, the concept of jurisdiction in the Church must take into account
the specific structure of this college, but this structure cannot be judged
according to the concept of jurisdiction previously established.
“On
these suppositions, we therefore say that the office of the Synod of giving
counsels constitutes a power, and indeed an ordinary one, inasmuch as this
office confers on the Synod an authoritative character proper to the counsels
given. Further, this function of the Synod is established canonically, so that
it is itself an aid to the supreme Shepherd in the government of the universal
Church. There is, therefore, in the Synod a certain way in which the college of
bishops exercises the office conferred upon it by the Lord, for the government
of the Church, namely, according to the canonical determination of this office.
(Compare the prologue litt. Ap. "Ap. soll."). Finally, the fact that
religious who are not bishops have a part does not prevent the power of the
Synod, that it may be ordinary. On this account the same must be said as of the
Ecumenical Council, which certainly has ordinary power, although religious who
are not bishops also have a part there. This is not the place to discuss these
questions further. We note that in the Ecumenical Council as well as in the
Synod of Bishops, the principal part constitutes the Bishops. They approach the
religious as an accessory, so that the accessory follows the principal.
Munus
et potestas , quae in Synodo ab Episcopis exercetur , quoad substantiam a
Christo Domino confertur , quatenus munus << docendi et regendi »
sacramentaliter confertur , ut in Ecclesia societate hierarchica exerceatur
infra limites iuris a suprema Ecclesiae auctoritate statuti . Vere , per ipsas
Litteras Apostolicas « Apostolica sollicitudo » munus et po- testas Synodi a
Summo Pontifice circumscribitur tamquam munus et potestas nomine totius
episcopatus exercenda in bonum Ecclesiae universalis . Haec duo igitur simul
hic habentur : Munus et potestas Synodi in institutione episcopatus et collegii
Episcoporum per ipsum Dominum fundata ; determinatio canonica huius potestatis
in concreto . Ea de causa hoc munus et haec potestas habenda est ordinaria .
Confer quoad notio- nem potestatis ordinariae B. OJETTI , S.I. , Commentarium
in Codicem Iuris Canonici , Liber secundus , De Personis , can . 145-214 ,
Romae 1931 , 165 s . Quoad elementa constitutiva potestatis docendi et regendi
Episcoporum confer opusculum citatum 12 ss . , respective 10 ss . Applicando
illa , quae ibi diximus dicimus Synodum non habere tantum potestatem delegatam
a iure , sed ipsam habere potestatem ordinariam , quia in perpetuum seu
stabiliter constituitur cum hac structura concreta.
Si
non dicamus Synodo competere iurisdictionem ordinariam , sed di- cimus ipsi
competere potestatem ordinariam , illam tamen non negamus . Vere , non potest
statui aliqua notio abstracta de iurisdictione , ut dicatur potestatem Synodi
huic notioni non congruere . Potius notio iurisdictionis in Ecclesia procedere
debet ab ipsis datis theologicis . Vere , collegio Epi- scoporum cum Romano
Pontifice tamquam capite a Domino collata est suprema potestas Ecclesiae ita ,
ut varii sint modi , quibus collegium influere possit in exercitium supremae
potestatis , etiamsi Romanus Pon- tifex personaliter agit tamquam subiectum
huius potestatis . Inter tales modos habetur etiam consilium auctoritativum
collegii in ordine ad actum gubernationis Romani Pontificis pro Ecclesia
universali . Proinde agitur hic de potestate collegii Episcoporum , quae est
specifica ex constitutione huius collegii , cum tali structura et relatione ad
supremum Ecclesiae Pa- storem , per Christum Dominum , quae alibi hac ratione
non habetur . Ea de causa notio iurisdictionis in Ecclesia in structura
specifica huius collegii rationem habere debet , non autem potest haec
structura diiudicari secundum notionem iurisdictionis a priori statutam . Hisce
suppositis , igitur dicimus munus Synodi dandi consilia consti- tuere
potestatem , et quidem ordinariam , quatenus hoc munus Synodo proprium
consiliis datis confert indolem auctoritativam . Ulterius hoc munus Synodi
canonice constituitur , ut ipsa auxilium sit pro supremo Pastore in regimine
Ecclesiae universalis . Habetur igitur in Synodo ali- quis modus , quo
collegium Episcoporum munus , sibi a Domino collatum , pro gubernatione
Ecclesiae , in concreto exercet , scilicet prouti hoc munus canonice
determinatur . ( Confer prooemium litt . Ap . « Ap . soll . » ) . Tandem
potestati Synodi , ut sit ordinaria , non obstat factum , quod partem habent
religiosi , qui non sunt Episcopi . Hac ratione eadem dicenda sunt ac de
Concilio Oecumenico , quod certo habet potestatem ordinariam , etsi ibi etiam
partem habent religiosi , qui non sunt Episcopi . Non est hic locus , ut de
hisce quaestionibus ulterius agatur . Notamus tantum in Concilio Oecumenico
necnon in Synodo Episcoporum partem principalem consti- tuere Episcopos .
Accessorie accedunt religiosi , ita ut accessorium sequa- tur principale .
From
Dupre’s Book:
X- 2.1. Unity of
the supreme power.
The supreme power
considered in itself, even if it is manifested in the Church according to a
double mode, personal or primatial mode by the Pope himself or collegial mode
by the College of Bishops, loses nothing of its uniqueness It is always the
same supreme power which is exercised sometimes by the Pope alone, sometimes by
the College of Bishops. As Archbishop Parente pointed out in the official
report on Chapter III, in response to the difficulties raised by some in the
face of the new doctrine proposed:
‘the potestas
remains unique ()And the two difficulties disappear, if one realizes correctly
that the potestas of the Church, which Christ conferred on the entire Apostolic
College (that is to say, on Peter and the other Apostles), is not twofold but
unique.’[67]
It is worth noting
that an act will be considered collegial insofar as it is the fruit of a common
action of the Episcopal Body and insofar as the Head of the College has decided
to make it his own.
For such an act to be feasible and therefore valid, it is required that the
Pope retain the initiative or at least sanction it as valid. It is clear that
we are not dealing with two powers (the power of the Pope and the power of the
College) which compete with each other or are in competition with each other,
but with one and the same power which is exercised in different ways.[68] It seems that the
Thomistic distinction between the integral and the potestative adequately
accounts for this uniqueness of the supreme power exercised either by the Pope
alone, or by the College of Bishops who participate in this power.
Concerning the sacrament of order, we read in the Supplement to the Summa
Theologica of St. Thomas:
‘The distinction
of order is not that of the integral whole in relation to the parts, nor that
of the universal whole, but that of the potestative whole. It is proper to the
latter that the whole which is found in one subject according to its complete
reason, is found in another according to a certain participation.’
By analogy, in the
case of the government of the Church, the bishops with the Pope at their head
do not constitute an integral whole (that is, a whole in which power is shared
among all its holders placed at the same level, like a parliamentary assembly or
a College in the juridical sense of the word), but a potestative whole, i.e. a
stable group in which the supreme power of the Pope is exercised both
collectively (or in solidum) and hierarchically (i.e. with the greatest respect
for the primatial authority which remains) by the members of the College who
effectively participate in the single power.” [I don’t like this explanation]
W. Bertram (From Dupre’s book):
W. Bertram: “Therefore,
the munus to be exercised by the Synod of Bishops has its foundation in the
Lord himself, inasmuch as through this munus - which is exercised in the name
of the whole episcopate, the College influences the government of the universal
Church. Through the activity of the Synod of Bishops, the College of Bishops
exercise the munus they have received from Christ in order to participate the
government of the universal Church.” (W.
BERTRAMS, Commentarium in Litteras Apostólicas
Apostolica sollicitudo in Periodica 55, 1966, p. 124).[69]
The munus
"edocendi et consilia dandi" (the office of informing and teaching),
which is exercised in the Synod of Bishops is a proper and ordinary power, and is
none other than that possessed by the bishops with regard to the universal
Church. W. Bertrams sums up his position as follows:
“Therefore the
"potestas" of the Synod of Bishops is ordinary. It is also
proper, because the College of Bishops is endowed by God with this office
(munus) and is able to participate in the government of the universal Church.
Moreover, the bishops exercise in the Synod the "potestas", which in
substance has been conferred on them sacramentally and has been specified for
them by the canonical determination.” (W. BERT RAMS, op. cit., pp. 125-126)
XIII Why There Can Be No Conflict Between The Two Subjects:
Kleutgen:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=l6fRuhCaJDAC&pg=GBS.PP1&hl=en (page 321)
First
Vatican Council (Kleutgen): “What is stated
in Chapter IV 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 a double subject, in the body of the
bishops conjoined with the pope, and in the pope alone.
"It this
seems difficult, it is not new. It was commonly admitted by those who defended
the superiority of the Pope over the Council during the controversy raised during
the Councils of Constance and Basel. Let it suffice to quote Bellarmine: “Those
who teach that the Pope is superior to a Council celebrated without him are the
same who teach that there is equal authority as to intensity (intensive
authority) in the Pope alone and in the Council united to the Pope, though from
the point of extension (extensive authority) it is greater in the
Council. Therefore, the Pope cannot be judged or condemned by such a Council
because an equal has no power over an equal. (Bellarmine, de Cone., 1. 2, c.13)”
[make sure this paragraph is located in
the proper place. Dupre places it before
the previous paragraph, which I believe is wrong.]
And if in a
council, even one legitimately convoked, the bishops alone formulate a decree
that is not approved by the pontiff, this decree cannot be considered as a
decision of the supreme power (“non est sententia summae potestatis”); and if
the Supreme Pontiff not only does not approve, but proposes the contrary, as
happens in Ephesus II and Constantinople, under Hadrian I, the bishops would be
bound to submit.
Finally, it should
be noted that, if the expression "episcopal body" does not mean the
bishops gathered in council, but the dispersed bishops, it will never happen
that this body is of a sentiment opposite to that of the pope in things in
which the Church cannot err or fail. This follows first from the divine promise
that the Church will last forever; but it would perish if the body were
separated from the head. It is then inferred from the divine assistance
promised to the body of the apostles as to Peter by the words: ‘I will be with
you all days’ etc. In fact, just as the promise made to Peter would be lacking
if the Roman pontiff speaking ex cathedra was mistaken. Likewise the promise
made to the college of the apostles (would fail) if the whole body of bishops
fell into error. Finally, what is established against the truth or against
justice and holiness cannot be ratified in heaven. Now the Lord said to all the
apostles: ‘whatever you bind’ etc. So it cannot be that all bishops either by
teaching deviate from the truth or by ruling deviate from righteousness and
holiness.
"All these
explanations have been given in order to resolve any difficulties that might be
experienced in trying to reconcile the doctrine of canon III of Pastor Aetemus
with that of this decree, for as we have noted, the doctrine of our
chapter perfectly states a certain dogma of faith (per se ipsum fidei dogma
certissimum enumiat)"78 ." (Kleutgen, relatio on Tametsi
Deis, Mansi 53.321 A-B)
Finally, Fr
Kleutgen explains why the third paragraph of Chapter IV refers to the primatial
function of the Supreme Pontiff:
“Why, some may
ask, should this constitution again speak of the primacy of the Pope over the bishops?
We reply: 1. Since
in the constitution it is necessary to speak of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,
it was obviously impossible, according to the very sure opinion of many
Fathers, not to speak of the supreme hierarch. 2. But in addition to the
general declaration of the subjection of the bishops to the Pope, it was
desired to emphasize in a few words two particular points: the rights of the
Pope, on the one hand, over the particular Churches and, on the other, over the
Ecumenical Councils. These two points are not dealt with in the first
constitution, except implicitly in the general doctrine of primacy. Moreover, what is said here about the rights
of the Pope over the particular Churches had been requested by an amendment to
chapter III of the constitution Pastor Aeternis. The Council, at the request of
the rapporteur, had decided (...) to refer this to the second constitution on
the Church" (53.321 B-C) (END)
Dupre commenting on Kleutgen’s
teaching:
“There can be no competition between the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and
the power of the Body of Bishops united to the Pope. As Fr. Kleutgen says, the
two subjects of supreme power are not to be conceived separately. It is for the
Pope to decide in what form he wishes to act. Whether he chooses to act
personally, i.e., separately, without reference to the episcopate, or whether
he chooses to act collegially, i.e., by involving the bishops in his decisions,
the fact remains that he remains the arbiter of final decisions, since nothing
can be decided without his consent or approval.
…
In the new version of the schema of Ecclesia Christi prepared by Fr.
Joseph Kleutgen for the Vatican Council, we read: “For it is certain that the
binding and loosing of the Pontiffs, which was given to Peter alone, is also
attributed to the college of the apostles, joined to its head.” (Illud
enim ligandi et solvendi pontificium, quod Petro soli datum est, collegio
quoque apos tolorum, suo tarnen capiti conjuncto, tributum esse statement”).[70] In the annotations which
accompany this project, after having indicated the role of the bishops in the
teaching and the government of the universal Church, and recalling the recent
definition of the primacy, the author adds: "Consequently this power
(supreme ) exists in a double subject, in the body of bishops united to the
Pope, and in the Pope alone” (33).
Another translation of Keutgen:
Kleutgen:
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, but there can be no doubt that bishops have a part
in governing the universal Church. ... But... supreme authority is not
attributed to the body of bishops simpliciter, but to the body of bishops
conjoined with the pope; but between the Pope and the Pope there can be no
conflict and discord.
[This may be a better
translation of the next sentence In fact, the episcopal body does
not exist as a subject except in its union with the pope. And if in a
council the bishops formulate a decree that is not approved by the pontiff,
this decree cannot be considered as a decision of the supreme power]. That only bishops in the
council, whether it be legitimate, issue a decree, which the Supreme Pontiff
does not approve, this decree of this kind is not the opinion of the supreme
authority; and if the Supreme Pontiff does not approve, but proposes the
contrary, as happens in Ephesus II and Constantinople, under Hadrian I, bishops
are bound to submit themselves. But it should also be noted that, if bishops
are not meant to assemble in the council by the bodies of bishops, but scattered
all over the world, it could never happen, even in those things in which the
Church cannot err and fail, as the body of bishops, that is, all or almost all
They will disagree with the Pope.
“It should also be noted that if by ‘body of bishops’ we do not
mean the bishops gathered in council, but all scattered on the earth, it can
never happen, in those things in which the Church cannot wander nor fail, that
the body of bishops, that is to say all or almost all, are in disagreement with
the Pope. This follows first from the divine promise that the Church will last
forever; but it would perish if the body were separated from the head. It
is then inferred from the divine assistance promised to the body of the
apostles as to Peter by the words: ‘I will be with you all days’ etc. In fact,
just as the promise made to Peter would be lacking if the Roman pontiff
speaking ex cathedra was mistaken. Likewise the promise made to the college
of the apostles (would fail) if the whole body of bishops fell into error.
Finally, what is established against the truth or against justice and holiness
cannot be ratified in heaven. Now the Lord said to all the apostles: ‘whatever
you bind’ etc. So it cannot be that all bishops either by teaching deviate from
the truth or by ruling deviate from righteousness and holiness. "26
(24)
But some seem to be offended by this opinion, because they think
that by those two subjects of supreme power is understood in the Pope, and the
body of bishops; It is supposed that if at any time the body of bishops felt
otherwise than the pope, they concluded that it would be an act of concord and
unity of the Church, since the same supreme power would contend on both sides.
But, as has been said above, the supreme authority is not attributed to
the body of bishops simplicitur (absolutely), but to the body of bishops joined
to the pope; but between the pope and the pope there can be no conflict and
discord with the council
“Some have seemed to oppose this doctrine,
because they believe that by the two subjects of supreme power we mean on the
one hand the pope, on the other the body of the bishops: this being said, if
the body bishops thought otherwise than the Pope, it would be detrimental, they
infer, with the harmony and unity of the Church, since both sides would fight
with the same supreme power. In reality,
as we have already said, the supreme authority is not attributed to the body of
bishops without the Pope, but to the body of bishops united to the pope; now
between the pope, and the pope with the council there can be no conflict or
discord. "27 (25) (M. 53, 321 D)
Offendi vero hac sententia nonnulli ideo videntur, quod
existimant, per duo illa subjecta potestatis supremae intelligi hinc papam,
inde corpus episcoporum: quo posito, si quando corpus episcoporum aliud
sentiret quam papa, actum fore inferunt de ecclesiae concordia et unitate, cum
utrinque pugnaret eadem suprema potestas. Verum, ut iam dictum est, suprema
auctoritas non attribuitur corpori episcoporum simpliciter, sed corpori
episcoporum pape conjuncto ; inter papam vero et papam cum concilio pugna et discordia
nulla esse potest)
…
What follows in the chapter concerning the part bishops have in
governing the universal church, and from the authority of councils: in itself
seems to have no difficulty. For since the bishops, summoned by the pontiff to
take part in the care, are not mere counselors, but issue decrees together with
the pope as true judges and definers, but these decrees are of supreme
authority, and bind the whole church: it cannot be doubted that the bishops
in teaching and governing let the whole church have some part.
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 a double
subject, in the body of the bishops conjoined with the pope, and in the pope
alone.
Quod iam in capite e parte, quam habeant episcopi in gubernanda
ecclesia univesa, et de conciliorum auctoritate sequitur: per se ipsum
difficultatem nullam habere videtur. Cum enim episcopi, a summon pontifice in
partem sollicitudinis vocati, non sint meri consiliarii, se una cum papa
decreta tanquam veri iudices et definitores edant, haec vero decretal supremae
sint auctoritatis, totamque ligent ecclesiam: dubitari non potest, quin
episcopi in docenda et gubernanda universa ecclesia partem aliquam habeant.
Sed quoniam non minus constat, et in constitutione prima de
ecclesia per canonem capitis tertii definitum est, in Roman Pontifice non
potiores tantum partes, sed totam plenitudinem supremae potestatis in esse:
consequens est, hanc potestatem in duplice subjecto esse, in Episcoporum
corpore papae conjuncto, et in papa solo.
Et hoc videatur difficile esse.
Neque tamen novum est, sed communiter admissum ab iis quoque, qui in
controversia, post concilia Constantiense et Basileense orta, Roman Pontificis
parts tuebantur: de quo satis fuerit Bellarmini testimonium afferre.
Some have seemed to oppose this doctrine,
because they believe that by the two subjects of supreme power we mean on the
one hand the pope, on the other the body of the bishops: hence, it is supposed
that if the body bishops thought otherwise than the Pope, it would conflict
with the harmony and unity of the Church, with both sides battling with the
same supreme power. In reality, as we
have already said, the supreme authority is not attributed to the body of
bishops simpliciter, but to the body of bishops united to the pope; now between
the pope, and the pope with the council there can be no conflict or discord.
That only bishops in the council, whether it be legitimate, issue a decree,
which the Supreme Pontiff does not approve, this decree of this kind is not the
opinion of the supreme authority; and if the Supreme Pontiff does not approve,
but instead proposes the contrary, as happens in Ephesus II and Constantinople,
under Hadrian I, bishops are bound to submit themselves. But it should also be noted that, if bishops are
not meant to assemble in the council by the bodies of bishops, but scattered
all over the world, it could never happen, even in those things in which the
Church cannot err and fail, as the body of bishops, that is, all or almost all,
will disagree with the Pope."27 (25) (M. 53, 321 D) )
…
Vatican I, Draft
of a Second Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, c. 4: But bishops are not without the supreme role
of teaching and governing the universal Church. For that pontifical role of
binding and loosing which was given to Peter alone was also given to the
college of Apostles, only in union with their head, in the words of the Lord:
‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven;
whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18). For that
reason from the beginning of the Church, the decrees and statutes of ecumenical
councils have quite rightly been received with supreme reverence and a like
submission by the faithful, as if they were the judgments of God and the
decisions of the Holy Spirit. (See also there,
Kleutgen's report on the revised draft; pp. 321-23 Source: https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/lg-draft-ch-4-2013.pdf
Second Draft of the Second Constitution of
the Church at Vatican I was called Tametsi Deus. It was written by Kleutgen.
Mansi, 53:308-332
But primacy was given to Peter alone, so
the Church of Christ and the chair are together one, the other prelates are
subject to the Roman Pontiff, both as to individuals and in administering their
own churches, and to all in managing the common affairs of the Church. For
it pertains to the chief hierarch to institute new churches, to limit or
abolish those already instituted by other territories, or to elect their own
pastors to each to elect the elect, to expand and restrict the ordinary power
of these people, to judge the acts of individuals or of synods, and to
remove the prelates themselves, where necessary, from office. Nor are these for
the whole Church they can arrange or decide anything, except from the reign of
the Pontiff, in call for anxiety. (Same source as above)
("At quoniam primatus Petro datus
est, ut uiia Ecclesia Christi et cathedra una monstraretur, Romano Pontifici
ceteri praesules subiecti sunt, tum singuli in propriis ecclesiis
administrandis, tum universi in communibus Ecclesiae negotiis gerendis. Ad
summum enim hierarcham pertinet, novas ecclesias instituere, iam institutas
aliis finibus circumscribere aut prorsus abolere, singulis proprios pastores
vel eligere vel electos conjirmare, horum potestatem etiam ordinariam ampliare
et restringere, acta sive singulorum sive synodorum subjdiiudicare, ipsos
quoque praesules, ubi opus est, a munere removere. Neque hi pro universa
Ecclesia quidquam disponere vel decernere possunt, nisi a regnante Pontifice,
in partem sollicitudinis vocat( (Ibid)
…
Tametsi Deus: "Mansi 53.310: “verum
etiam supremi muneris docendi et gubernandi universam ecclesiam episcopi
expertes non sunt.” (but even in the supreme office of teaching and governing
the whole Church, bishops are not excluded)
Mansi 53.321“Cum enim episcopi, a summon
pontifice in partem sollicitudinis vocati, non sint meri consiliarii, sed una
cum papa decretal tanquam veri iuduces et definitiores edant … Se quniam non
ninus constat, et in constitutione prima e ecclesia per canonem capitis tertii
definitum est in Romano pontifice…
(For the bishops, summoned by the pontiff
to take part in the solicitude, are not to be mere advisers, but together with
the pope issue decrees as true judges and definitors ... Since it is not
established by anyone, and in the first constitution of the church it is
defined by the canon of the third chapter in the Roman pontiff
[These (the bishops) cannot dispose or
decree anything concerning the universal Church if they have not been called by
the reigning Pontiff to share his solicitude; and though, brought together by
him, they carry dogmatic decrees and disciplinary laws like true judges, it
belongs to the Roman Pontiff not only to convoke or dissolve their general
Councils, but also to direct and confirm them. – Gleize version in French]
… totam plenitudinem supremae potestatis
inesse: consequens est, hanc potestatem in duplice subject esse, in Episcoporum
corpore papae conuincto, et in papa solo. (For when bishops, summoned by the
Pontiff, are part of the concern, they are not mere counselors, but together
with the pope they issue decrees as true judges and more definitive. … there the total plenitude of supreme power
exists: the consequnce is, that the
power is in two subjects, in the body of bishops united to the pope, and in the
pope alone ...
"totam plenitudinem supremae
potestatis in esse: consequens est, hanc potestatem in duplice subject esse, in
Episcoporum corpore papae conuincto, et in papa solo. (the total fulness of the
supreme power in being: it follows that this power is in a double subject, in
the body of bishops united to the pope, and in the pope alone.)
"…and to govern the churches
entrusted to him with his own and ordinary power. Accordingly, each one in his
own church and assembled in Synods decide on doctrine and discipline, make
laws, exercise judgment... The other prelates are subject to the Roman Pontiff,
and each one in administering the churches on his behalf , as well as everyone
in conducting the common affairs of the Church (MANSI 53, 310 Tametsi)
("atque ecclesias sibi commissas
propria et ordinaria potestate regere. Itaque et singuli in sua quisque
ecclesia et congregati in Synodis de doctrina et disciplina decernunt, leges
ferunt, iudicium exercent... Romano Pontifici ceteri praesules subiecti sunt,
tum singuli in pro priis ecclesiis administrandis, tum universi in communibus
Ecclesiae negotiis gerendis (MANSI 53, 310 Tametsi – full name: Schema
constitutionis dogmaticae secundae de ecclesia Christi secundum
reverendissimorum partum animadversiones reformatum.)
Lefebvre: “Another grave problem now
undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very
serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.
“In
the Council they succeeded, for example, in avoiding the creation of two
supreme powers in the Church: the pope on the one hand, and on the other hand,
the pope and the bishops as two ordinary powers in the Church, which is
contrary to the doctrine of the Church. There is only one supreme ordinary
power in the Church and that is the pope. The pope communicates his supreme
power in extraordinary cases like a council, but the pope and the bishops are
not an ordinary power in Holy Church. Besides, it
is contradictory because the bishops could claim this power from the pope if
the pope acts alone, saying: "We also have supreme power with you,
therefore you must consult us." The pope could say, "But I alone have
the power"—"Yes, but we have it with you," and thus he would be
in continual conflict with the bishops. That is inadmissible. Our Lord
did not found the Holy Church in such a way that there would be a continual
conflict between the pope and the bishops.” (Lefebvre, Conference of Archbishop
Lefebvre to priests on October 29, 1984 at Stuttgart, Germany, https://sspx.org/en/lefebvre-church-priesthood-and-indult).
Zinelli (Will’s translation):
178. In the fourth place, it is asked: Is that
supreme jurisdiction, which is understood to be in all the bishops united with
the Roman Pontiff, distinct from the supreme jurisdiction that resides in the
Roman Pontiff alone?
I reply: It is certain that such a distinction can in no
wise be maintained, if it be taken to mean that, by the jurisdiction of the
bishops united with the Pope, something greater can be effected than by the
supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff alone. For, if that were
true, the supreme Pontiff would merely have the greatest share of the supreme
jurisdiction, and not its entire plenitude; which is a well-known
heresy. The only legitimate question, then, is if, by Christ’s
institution, there be a double subject of this supreme power: namely, the Roman
Pontiff taken alone, and the same Roman Pontiff together with the other
bishops, above all when they are gathered in an ecumenical
council. Now, if the second opinion be granted that we have
explained in the preceding question (1), there does not seem to be anything
that would prevent us from replying to this question in the affirmative.
In fact, this was the opinion of many of the Fathers of the [First] Vatican
Council, in whose name the most Reverend Zinelli, bishop of Treviso, the
spokesman of their party, gave the following allocution: “We likewise willingly
concede that in an ecumenical council, or in the bishops taken together with
their head, resides the supreme and full power of the Church over the
faithful…Therefore, the bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical
council—in which case they represent the whole Church—or else
dispersed, but with their head—in which case they are the
Church—truly have full power. But 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 united with her
head, by the same reason, from the fact that similar promises were made to
Peter alone and to his successors, we can conclude that a truly full and
supreme power was given to Peter and his successors, even independently of
their acting in common with the other bishops. These two facts can go together quite harmoniously,
without this introducing a kind of dualism into the Church that would generate
confusion. Such would indeed be the result, if we were to admit of
two truly full and supreme powers that were distinct and separate one from
another; as do those who try to separate the head from the members, so as to subject
the Pope to the bishops taken all together or represented in a general Council;
for then it follows, that the Pope could be placed on one side, even in his
quality of Supreme Pontiff, and the bishops on the other side. Quite the contrary! For 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 [second subject], that is, in the Pope together with the
bishops, keeping always safe and inviolate what we expounded previously”
(Quoted from Granderath, Constitutiones dogmaticae [sacrosancti
oecumenici concilii] Vaticani, p. 223). See also what the
same most reverend spokesman said in the eighty-fifth general congregation,
July 16 (ibid., p. 164).
___
Zinelli: “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, 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, even independently of
their acting in common with the other bishops."
These two facts can go together quite harmoniously, without this introducing a
kind of dualism into the Church that would generate confusion. This would
indeed be the case if these two 'supreme powers' were 'distinct and separate'
from each other; to separate the 'head from the members'’ is, on the contrary,
the characteristic of those who submit the Pope to the bishops' taken
collectively or gathered in a general council; for if such were the case it
would follow, that the Pope could be placed on one side, even in his quality of
Supreme Pontiff, and the bishops on the other side. Quite the
contrary! We admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in
the Supreme Pontiff as in the head, and that the same truly full
and supreme power is also in the head in conjunction with the members,
that is, in the Pope together with the bishops, keeping always safe and
inviolate what we expounded previously.” (Vatican I, relatio on chapter III of Pastor
Aeternus).
These two facts can go together quite harmoniously, without
this introducing a kind of dualism into the Church that would generate
confusion. This would indeed be the case if
these two 'supreme powers' were 'distinct and separate' from each other; to
separate the 'head from the members'’ is, on the contrary, the characteristic
of those who submit the Pope to the bishops' taken collectively or gathered in
a general council; for if such were the case it would follow, that the Pope
could be placed on one side, even in his quality of Supreme Pontiff, and the
bishops on the other side. Quite the
contrary! We admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in the
Supreme Pontiff as in the head, and that the same truly full and
supreme power is also in the head in conjunction with the members,
that is, in the Pope with the bishops, keeping always safe and inviolate what
we expounded previously.” …
Lefebvre: “Another grave
problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon
Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.
“In the Council they
succeeded, for example, in avoiding the creation of two supreme powers in the
Church: the pope on the one hand, and on the other hand, the pope and the
bishops as two ordinary powers in the Church, which is contrary to the doctrine
of the Church. There is only one supreme ordinary power in the Church and that
is the pope. The pope communicates his supreme power in extraordinary cases
like a council, but the pope and the bishops are not an
ordinary power in Holy Church. Besides, it is
contradictory because the bishops could claim this power from the pope if the
pope acts alone, saying: "We also have supreme power with you, therefore
you must consult us." The pope could say, "But I alone have the
power"—"Yes, but we have it with you," and thus he would be in
continual conflict with the bishops. That is inadmissible. Our Lord did
not found the Holy Church in such a way that there would be a continual
conflict between the pope and the bishops.” (Lefebvre, Conference of Archbishop
Lefebvre to priests on October 29, 1984 at Stuttgart, Germany, https://sspx.org/en/lefebvre-church-priesthood-and-indult).
XIV PETER ALONE HOLDS THE PRIMACY:
Vatican I (second) Draft of the Second Constitution
of the Church (Tametsi Deus):
“But primacy was given to
Peter alone, so the Church of Christ and the chair are together one, the other
prelates are subject to the Roman Pontiff, both as individually in
administering their own churches, and collectively in managing the common
affairs of the Church. For it pertains to the chief hierarch to institute
new [particular] churches, to limit or abolish those already established by others,
to elect the pastors to rule them, and to expand and restrict the ordinary
power of those already established, to judge the acts of individuals or of
synods, and to remove the prelates themselves, when necessary, from office.
Nor are these for the whole Church they can arrange or decide anything, except
from the reign of the Pontiff, in call for anxiety. (Tametsi Deus, Mansi,
53:308-332)
(At quoniam primatus
Petro datus est, ut uiia Ecclesia Christi et cathedra una monstraretur, Romano
Pontifici ceteri praesules subiecti sunt, tum singuli in propriis ecclesiis
administrandis, tum universi in communibus Ecclesiae negotiis gerendis. Ad summum
enim hierarcham pertinet, novas ecclesias instituere, iam institutas aliis
finibus circumscribere aut prorsus abolere, singulis proprios pastores vel
eligere vel electos conjirmare, horum potestatem etiam ordinariam ampliare et
restringere, acta sive singulorum sive synodorum subjdiiudicare, ipsos quoque
praesules, ubi opus est, a munere removere. Neque hi pro universa Ecclesia
quidquam disponere vel decernere possunt, nisi a regnante Pontifice, in partem
sollicitudinis vocat.)
Supreme authority –
universal jurisdiction - is distinct from the Primacy.
Proof: The apostles
possessed universal jurisdiction (as well as personal infallibility), yet
remained subject to Peter because he alone held the Primacy:
Salaverri:
“278. 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.”
[My comments] Proof 2:
Because of the Primacy, the Pope enjoys the supreme authority by virtue of his
office, as ordinary jurisdiction, and hence can exercise it singly, and at
will. The other bishops possess supreme
authority collectively, not singly, and can only exercise it with the explicit
or tacit consent of the Pope.
Proof 3: By virtue of the
Primacy, the Pope can establish particular Churches, which other bishops
cannot. The Apostles enjoyed the
authority to establish particular Church, as an extraordinary gift.
Therefore, since these
things are so, it is not to be inquired why the exercise of supreme authority
was enrolled in the whole apostolic college, since this same supreme authority
already resided full and entire in Peter; For Christ's design emerges very
clearly from the Gospel itself, where immediately after the words, directed to
the apostolic community, he binds them in whatever way. etc., are read those
things which they do to emphasize unity and concord:
(Unum ergo dicendum
restat: de Christi institutione fuisse ut ipsissima suprema potestas quae tota
erat in uno Petro, esset quoque in eo prout cum aliis subordinatis senatus
apostolici membris, unum efficiente corpus, unum tribunal, unumque plenarium
atque amplissimum subiectum auctoritatis. In quo quidem subiecto, non ex aequo
venit Petrus et reliquus apostolorum coetus, sed ubique immobilis perseverat
habitudo capitis ad membra de qua Mattli. XVI, loan. XXI, et etiam Luc. XXII,
cum dictum est Petro: Confirma fratrest nos. Hinc primo, sine Petro nulla est
in collegio suprema auctoritas, quia collegium acephalum non ipsum est cui a
Christo fuit dictum: Quaecumque alligaveritis, etc. Hinc secundo, Petrus in
collegio non se habet ut praeses in parlamento, primus inter pares. Sed cum sit
semper petra Ecclesiae, et confirmator fratrum, et pastor tam agnorum quam
ovium, ipse unus est fons et ratio supremae totius coetus auctoritatis. Hinc tertio, ipse idem nullo pacto est
subditus collegii, dum reliqui omnes singillatim sumpti eadem ratione subsunt
iurisdictioni senatus cuius pars exsistunt, qua singuli in parlamento deputati
ligantur legibus quae a toto coetu edicuntur. Hinc denique quarto, collegium
apostolicum suprema auctoritate investitum nihil est aliud quam totum corpus
subordinatorum praelatorum, prout assumptum ad caput Petrum in unitate unius
agentis seu gubernantis, idque in commendationem et manifestationem compactae
illius connexionis per omnem subministrationis iuncturam, quam suae Ecclesiae
propriam tesseram perpetuumque miraculum esse voluit Christus. Quae igitur cum ita sint, non est quaerendum
cur supremae auctoritatis exercitium fuerit adscriptum toti apostolico
collegio, cum haec eadem suprema auctoritas plena atque integra iam resideret,
et quidem per prius, penes unum Petrum.
Consilium enim Christi satis elucescit ex ipso contextu evangelico, ubi
statim post verba ad communitatem apostolicam directa, quacumqiie alligaverits.
'etc, leguntur ea quae ad unitatem et concordiam commendandam faciunt.)
Teaching and Governing
are included under the Primacy?
Manning: “The magisterium, or teaching office, or doctrinal authority, is
contained in the primacy. The supreme ruler is also supreme teacher. The
primacy contains two things, the fulness of jurisdiction, and a special
assistance in the exercise of it. Now, under jurisdiction is contained
the office of teaching. To deliver the law is to teach. The assistance
of infallible guidance is attached to the magisterium or teaching office, and the magisterium is contained in the primacy. The infallibility is therefore attached to
the primacy. It is not a quality inherent in the person, but an assistance
inseparable from the office. It is therefore not personal, but official. It
is personal only so far as the primacy is borne by a person. The primacy is not
held in commission, as the office of Lord Treasurer or of Lord High Admiral. It
is personal, therefore, only in the sense that the successor of S. Peter is a
man and not a body of men—he is one and not many.” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_True_Story_of_the_Vatican_Council/Chapter_5
Pastor Aeternus:
“Moreover, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church
confirms, and Ecumenical Councils also have declared -- especially those in
which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity -- that the
supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic primacy which
the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses
over the whole Church.”
Salaverri: “1340. However,
on our further question, namely, whether the powers of teaching and ruling are
included under the Primacy as parts of one specific primatial power, or as two
distinct species contained under the generic power of the Primacy, the
Fathers of the Council were in disagreement. Cassiliensis held for the oneness:
“The power,” he said, “of teaching, as it seems, is part of the Primacy and
should be shown as part of the Primacy, and at least it would be better not to
present it as distinct... Wherefore the words should be omitted, together with
the pastoral office, because the duty of teaching is part of the pastoral
office, not something together with it”: D 3072 (Msi 53,257b.258a.260a-c). It
seems that the same point was admitted by Gasser (Msi 52,1218d). And only these
two defended the oneness.
1341. b) But a strong
advocate of Pontifical authority, Joseph Valerga, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
defended the specific distinction of the powers of teaching and ruling as
included under the generic power of the Primacy: “There is a twofold power of
the Pontiff, one of Ruling and the other of Teaching; each one has its own
proper object and tends towards its own effects, and each one in its own order
is fully asserted by the Fathers of Lyons II and Florence, and no Catholic has
doubts about this... The power of Ruling is ordained to securing external
obedience... But the power of Teaching in matters of faith is ordained not to
securing merely extrinsic obedience, like the power of Ruling, but to exacting
internal and sincere assent of the mind, whose formal reason is not found
anywhere else but in the authority of the Magisterium” (Msi 52,358c-359b).
Cardinal Rauscher
insisted on the same distinction: “Since in the Outline it is asserted that, in
the supreme power of jurisdiction, the supreme power of Magisterium is also
included; above all I wish to point out that, between the power of ruling the
Church or of Government and the power of teaching the faithful or of the
Magisterium, a distinction must be made... He would err who thinks that the
obligation correlative to the right of the Church to govern in no way is
referred to the sense of the mind, but principally and proximately demands the
external act of obedience; but the total efficacy of the Magisterium depends on
the internal act of assent” (Msi 52,725a-b). The Archbishop of Granada answered
him: “These words did not please the Eminent Speaker, because he says, in this
paragraph the power of ruling is confused with the power of teaching. But it is
clear that these powers are not confused in this paragraph, but are joined
together, because both the power of ruling and the power of teaching are really
joined together in the Roman Pontiff’ (Msi 52,823c-824c). In this answer, as is
clear, the distinction of both powers is maintained.
1342. c) Moved by the
reasons presented especially by Valerga, the Bishop of Paderbom proposed to
correct the formula which he had composed. In the new redaction the word
Jurisdiction disappeared: “The supreme power of Teaching is also included in
the apostolic Primacy” (Msi 52,1122c). With this change the revised Outline was
“very pleasing” to all (Msi 53,264c.265a-c). This formula was approved
definitively: D 3065. When the discussion was over, seven days before its
solemn proclamation, the Secretary, Bishop Gasser, explained it, saying: a)
“The Supreme Magisterium of the Pontiff is a part of his Jurisdiction, for his
Jurisdiction is manifested by his two keys, that is, by the key of knowledge
and by the key of power” (Msi 52,1218d). How are these two to be
understood? About two parts making up the same species, or about two species
included under the same genus of power? It seems that the Secretary himself
gave the answer somewhat further on, saying: P) “We deduce from the Primacy
the supreme power of teaching, as a species from its genus, and from the
supreme power of teaching, paying respect to its purpose and to the promises of
Christ, we deduce the infallibility. Therefore actually no vicious circle is
present” (Msi 52,1220d.l221a).26
A – Prerogatives of the
Primacy
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
From 1911 Catholic
Encyclopedia article on “The Pope”
In virtue of his office
as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every
department of the Church’s life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights
and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear
that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme
control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is
only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is
possible, since the pope is the universal source of all ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will
confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.
1. As the supreme teacher
of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the
faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the
faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:
a. it is his to set forth
creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall
be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
b. it is his to prescribe
and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for
example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
c. The pope alone can
establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically
erected Catholic university;
d. to him also belongs
the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is
fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
e. It is his to prohibit
the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine
the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
f. his is the
condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of
some minor degree of censure, and lastly g. he has the right to interpret
authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or
unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of
usury, etc.
2. With the pope’s office
of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of
God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere
very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus
a. the pope alone can
prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should
occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the
point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise
prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this
way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
b. At the present day the
institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent
time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
c. The solemn
canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that
this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every
permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise
reserved to his decision.
d. He alone gives to
anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said. 2
e. He dispenses the
treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to
him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the
sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by
Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him;
f. he can give to simple
priests the power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of
catechumens, and
g. he can establish
diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.
3. The legislative power
of the pope carries with it the following rights:
a. he can legislate for
the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
b. if he legislates with
the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its
deliberations, to confirm its acts.
c. He has full authority
to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by
his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and
stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
d. he can dispense
individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can
grant privileges and exemptions in their regard.
e. In this connection may
be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God
renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to
bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows
reserved altogether to the Holy See.
4. In virtue of his
supreme judicial authority
a. causae majores are
reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great
moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
b. His appellate
jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be
noted that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae
minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess.
XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,
c. he can inflict
censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without
need of such sentence.
d. He further reserves
certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the
Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in
which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.
5. As the supreme
governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its
public offices. Thus
a. it is his to nominate
to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give
confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another,
can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to
deprivation.
b. He can establish
dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new
one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
c. He can approve new
religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of
local ordinaries.
d. Since his office of
supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite
that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may
obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the
present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad
limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585
(Constitution, “Rom. Pontifex”), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740
(Constitution, “Quod Sancta”).
e. It is to be further
observed that the pope’s office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it
jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful.
The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore
an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the
Vatican Council (Constitution, “Pastor Aeternus,” cap. iii). To the pope
likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church.
f. He alone can, where
there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus,
e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under
Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands
during the spoliations of the previous reigns.
g. The pope has further
the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical
purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.). https://stmichaels.org/doctrine-class/pdfs/19-02-12-Jurisdictional-Rights-and-Prerogatives-of-the-Pope.pdf
XV - TWO
SUBJECTS OF INFALLIBILITY
CHAPTER II
On the perennial subject of the
infallible Magisterium Article
Article I
On the Infallibility of Bishops
Thesis 13. Bishops, successors of the
Apostles, are infallible when in agreement with the Roman Pontiff they impose
on the faithful a doctrine to be held definitively, whether in a Council or
outside of a Council.
Connection. In the preceding thesis we proved that Christ
instituted in the Church an authentic Magisterium that is infallible and to
last forever. Now we are asking what the subject is of this infallible
Magisterium. Knowing from thesis 8 that the Bishops by divine law are the
successors of the Apostles in their ordinary office, we deduce in this thesis that
the College of Bishops is the subject of the infallible Magisterium.1 …
543. We say that the Bishops are concordant, who in handing
on the doctrine are in agreement among themselves, not only materially but also
formally, that is, so that either explicitly or at least implicitly they are
aware of their agreement.
The bishops teach under the Roman
Pontiff, who, moved by the due affection of subordination towards him, propose
some doctrine for their faithful, so that at least implicitly they know that
they are adhering to the same doctrine, which the Roman Pontiff also teaches.
Therefore, in addition to their subordination, consensus is required, which can
be explicit, but it is sufficient if it is tacit.
The Bishops teach a doctrine to be
held definitively, who with the highest grade of their authority, require
that the faithful give an irrevocable assent.
544. One way of exercising the Magisterium
is extraordinary and the other is ordinary. The extraordinary way is that in
which they exercise their Magisterium when they are united together in a
Council under the Roman Pontiff. But the ordinary way is that in which the
Bishops, continuing in communion with the Roman Pontiff, exercise the
Magisterium while dispersed throughout the world in their own dioceses. …
547. State of the question. We are attributing infallibility
to the Bishops, not to all, but to the residential; not to individuals, but as
constituting a College and taking the place of the College of Apostles; not to
those independent of the Head, but to those obedient to the Roman Pontiff and
agreeing with him; not to those teaching in just any way, but to those agreeing
formally among themselves and with their Head; not to those exercising just any
kind of authority, but to those binding all the faithful to an assent that is
completely firm and irrevocable. But the way in which Bishops exercise their
own infallibility can be either ordinary, that is, outside of a Council and
dispersed throughout the world, or extraordinary, that is, united together in an
Ecumenical Council.
548. Adversaries. Besides those whom we mentioned in the
preceding thesis 12,1) Luther expressly denied the doctrine of our thesis
(D 1477-1480; see D 1247-1251)
550.2) The infallibility of the Bishops
in an Ecumenical Council is defined: a) Implicitly, because the Councils
themselves with supreme authority impose on all the faithful doctrine to be
held or believed and they back up this obligation by damning under anathema
those who think or believe otherwise: …
The infallibility of the ordinary
Magisterium, or outside of Councils, and of the extraordinary Magisterium, or
in Ecumenical Councils, implicitly was defined in Vatican Council I (D 3011). …
592.
“Connection. We have proved that the College of Bishops as formally
succeeding the College of Apostles enjoys the prerogative of infallibility.
Now we ask further whether or not the Roman Pontiff as the formal successor of
St. Peter in the Primacy over the whole Church possesses the same prerogative
of infallibility. In the thesis we answer in the affirmative.”
636. Scholium 1.
Is there one subject of infallibility or two? The question is about the
immediate subject of active infallibility in defining matters of faith and
morals. Among the authors this question is controversial. 1. In this matter
three things must be held as absolutely certain: 1) The Roman Pontiff, as
the public person of the supreme Pastor and Teacher of the whole Church, is
infallible; 2) the Bishops, as the College of the whole teaching Church,
under the Roman Pontiff agreeing in proposing a doctrine to be held and
believed by all, are infallible; 3) the College of Bishops, as a subject of
infallibility, is not adequately distinct from the Roman Pontiff, because in
order to be such a College, necessarily and essentially it must include its
head, which from the institution of Christ is the successor of St. Peter in the
Primacy. We have demonstrated these three points in the preceding theses.
645. Scholium 2. Is there one or are
there two ways in which the Pope exercises infallibility?40 In the Constitution
on the Catholic faith of Vatican Council I there is this definition: “All those
things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in
the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in
solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are
proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed”: D 3011. From this
definition of the Vatican it is inferred that the teaching Church or the College
of Bishops constituted under the Pope can exercise infallibility in two
ways— one extraordinary and the other ordinary: in the extraordinary way, when
in an Ecumenical Council it defines something with a solemn judgment; in the
ordinary way, when, dispersed throughout the world, the Bishops propose some
doctrine to be held absolutely by all the faithful.”
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 Roman
Catholic college of bishops, and the supreme ruler of the whole Church, the
Roman Pontiff.” (Christ’s Church, p. 104)
Just as there are two subjects
of supreme authority, so too are there two subjects of
infallibility. In both cases, one
subject is the Pope personally, and the other is the Pope together with
the bishops collectively.
Tanquerey:
“This privilege (i.e., infallibility) belongs to the College of Apostles
and likewise to the College of Bishops, but not to
individual bishops singly. … It is
historically evident that Christ established the Church as a society properly
called; as a hierarchical society which was to be ruled by an infallible College
of Bishops.” (Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Volume I, New York:
Desclee Company, 1959, pp. 114, 131).
Salaverri:
36. Scholium 1. Is there one subject of infallibility or two? The question is
about the immediate subject of active infallibility in defining matters of
faith and morals. Among the authors this question is controversial. 1. In this
matter three things must be held as absolutely certain:
1) The Roman Pontiff, as the public person of the
supreme Pastor and Teacher of the whole Church, is infallible; 2) the Bishops,
as the College of the whole teaching Church, under the Roman Pontiff agreeing
in proposing a doctrine to be held and believed by all, are infallible; 3) the
College of Bishops, as a subject of infallibility, is not adequately distinct
from the Roman Pontiff, because in order to be such a College, necessarily and
essentially it must include its head, which from the institution of Christ is
the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy. We have demonstrated these three
points in the preceding theses.
637.2. The disputed question is this: Whether the
College of Bishops with the Pope and under the Pope on the one hand, and on the
other hand the Pope himself as a public person— are they two immediate subjects
of infallibility inadequately distinct; or is the immediate subject of all
infallibility of the Church the Roman Pontiff alone, through whose mediation
infallibility is derived to the body of Bishops as coming from the head to the
members? 638. 3. Opinions o f the authors: 1) These hold that there is one
immediate subject of infallibility, the Roman Pontiff: Palmieri, Billot,
Straub, Wilmers, De Groot, Muncunill, Michelitsch, Zapelena, Lercher, Dublancy,
and many others. 2) These defend the view that there are two immediate
subjects of infallibility inadequately distinct Cercia, Pesch, Mazzella,
Kleutgen, Franzelin, Schneeman, Hurter, Scheeben, Spacil, Bainvel, Dorsch, De
Guibert, Maroto, Stolz, Zubizarreta, Ruffino, and many others. 3) The
following do not take a position: D ’Herbigny, Schultes, Felder, De San, Van
Laak, Van Noort, Vellico, Dieckmann; however, the latter author says that he
leans more to the opinion of one subject of infallibility.35
639.4. In Vatican Council I both opinions were freely
defended. For, the Secretary for the faith, Bishop Gasser, in the General
Congregation on July 11, 1870, said: “The decrees on the faith published by the
General Council are not infallible unless they have been confirmed by the Pope.
The reason for this matter is not that which, and I say this with sorrow, has
been declared from this pulpit, namely, as if all infallibility of the Church
is situated in the Pope alone and is derived from the Pope in the Church and
communicated to her... But how could infallibility be communicated? This I do
not understand.” Hence Gasser held for the twofold subject of infallibility
(see Msi 52,1216).
In the same Vatican Council, in the General
Congregation on July 16, that is, two days before the first dogmatic
Constitution on the Church was promulgated in the solemn fourth session, the
other Secretary for the faith, Bishop Zinelli, after mention of the twofold
opinion of the authors concerning the subject of infallibility, and in the name
of the Committee for the faith, declared: “This is not the place to proclaim
anything completely determined about this matter, but it must be openly
stated... that in no way has a decision been made about this question, nor can
an anathema be applied to those who hold either one of these opinions” (Msi
52,1314).
640.5. Therefore both opinions, even after the Vatican
Council, can be freely maintained. In my view the opinion holding that there is
one subject of infallibility can be defended better with speculative arguments,
but the positive arguments favor rather the opinion about the twofold
subject of infallibility.
Those who hold that there is only one subject of
infallibility, say that the absolute firm faith from Christ can be predicated
of Peter alone, and therefore that the decrees o f a Council obtain their
absolute value only from the confirmation of the successor of Peter. However,
speculating further on the nature on the unique supreme power on earth of the
Vicar of Christ, and stressing the meaning of the metaphors of the rock, of the
key bearer, of the pastor of all and of the one who confirms his brothers, they
conclude probably that this supreme office in the Church by its very nature
demands that only through his mediation can infallibility itself be attributed
to others (see Matt. 16:18; John 21:15; Luke 22:32).36
641. Those who defend the twofold subject of
infallibility inadequately distinct, first of all urge that there is a twofold
promise of infallibility made directly and immediately by Christ—one to the
person of Peter, but the other to the moral person of the College of Apostles.37
Hence they conclude that one must hold that both promises obtain their effect
with equal immediacy, lest the meaning of Christ’s words to the Apostles might
seem to be weakened. Furthermore, they argue that the opinion of the twofold
subject of infallibility is more in harmony with the sense of the Church and of
the traditional way of conceiving this matter, as the history of the Ecumenical
Councils daily makes more clear. Finally, the Orientals, erring in good faith,
are opposed to the opinion of one subject of infallibility and especially
turned away from the desired union with Catholics, since this view is not
easily reconciled with the historical facts, nor does it explain sufficiently
why the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council are said to be not mere counselors,
but true judges of the faith.38
642. 6. On the supposition of the twofold promise of
Christ, infallibility as such depends totally on the divine assistance. But the
assistance of God seems to touch in an equally immediate way both the Pope
speaking ex cathedra and the Council agreeing with the Pope in defining some
dogma. Therefore, given the twofold promise, it is easy also to admit a
twofold subject of infallibility inadequately distinct.[71] Therefore, by reason of
the immediacy of the assistance of God, the infallibility of the Pope and the
infallibility of the teaching Church must be said to be the same thing, as it
seems will be made clear from the following analysis, when we have considered
the act, cause, assistance and meaning of the infallible definition of both
subjects.
643. An act of pontifical infallibility is a solemn
judgment o f the person o f the Pope speaking ex cathedra. The cause of this
infallibility is the assistance o f God, who by his providence brings it about
that the Supreme Pontiff correctly conceives and aptly expresses the truth of
faith or morals which he defines ex cathedra. Therefore, the assistance of God
must touch immediately the person alone of the Pope and terminate in his act
alone of judging ex cathedra. The meaning, therefore, o f a doctrine so defined
must be drawn from the words used by the Pope and the intention had by the Pope
himself in making the definition. (Salaveri)
Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code: The
ordinary and universal
teaching body of
the Church consists of the pastors
together with their
head, the Roman Pontiff,
no matter where
the former are
found, whether scattered over
the globe, or
sitting united in St.
Peter's Dome. This
is called the
active subject of the
infallible magisterium (subicceum
activae infallibilitatis).
To this
teaching body corresponds
the believing body
of the faithful, which
latter, however, being
the subiectum passivae infallibilitatis, cannot
be separated from
the teaching body or
be opposed to
it. For the
teaching office or authority
is the cause
of the infallibility
of the Church, and
both bodies are
one in the
same faith.
There is, however,
a distinction, though
not quite adequate, between the
teaching office of
the Sovereign Pontiff alone, and
the body of
teachers or the
teaching Church united to its head,
i. e., the
Pontiff. Without the
latter, or, worse still,
in opposition to
the latter, there
can be no teaching
body, whilst the
authority of infallible
teacher is embodied in
the Roman Pontiff
alone. Both the
Pontiff alone and the
body of teachers
united with him,
enjoy the power of
teaching infallibly.
The
universal and ordinary
magisterium consists of the
entire episcopate, according
to the constitution
and order defined by
Christ, i. e.,
all the bishops
of the universal Church, — dependently
on the Roman
Pontiff.9 Priests and
deacons do not, …
belong
to the hierarchy of
jurisdiction, and therefore,
are not, properly
speaking, judges in
matters of faith
and morals, nor can
they be, hire
ordinario, bearers of
infallible teaching.
However, they exercise
a certain teaching
authority by divine right,
inasmuch, namely, as
they are helpers
and co-workers of the
bishops, from whom
they receive delegated mission, and
preach and testify
to the faith
preached and expounded by
the episcopate. They,
too, in a
wider sense partake of
the assistance of
the Holy Ghost.”
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1629/mode/2up
OUM
Infallibilty
Pius XII: “And, since we were dealing
with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it
opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and
authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal
statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter ‘Deiparae
Virginis Mariae,’ a letter in which these words are contained: ‘Do you,
venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the
bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma
of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?’
12. But those whom ‘the Holy Spirit
has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God’(4) gave an almost unanimous
affirmative response to both these questions. This ‘outstanding agreement of
the Catholic prelates and the faithful,’(5) affirming that the bodily
Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since
it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal
authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same
doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely
certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God
and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse
to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this
teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the
protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error,
carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed
truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents
them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For,
as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest
new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and
might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the
deposit of faith."(8) Thus, from the universal agreement of the
Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof,
demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which
surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as
far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of
God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and
consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all
children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts,
"all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which
are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are
proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and
universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."(9)
1917 Code of Canon Law:
Fr. Augustine, A Commentary
on the new code of canon law
CANON 1323
§
1. All those
truths which are
contained in the
written word of God,
or in tradition,
and proposed to
our belief as divinely
revealed either by
a solemn proclamation or by
the ordinary and
universal magisterium of the
Church must be
believed by Divine
and Catholic faith.
§
2. To pronounce
a solemn judgment
of this kind
appertains either to a
general Council or
to the Roman
Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.
§
3. Nothing is
to be taken
as dogmatically declared
or defined, unless it
is manifestly known
to be such.
The material
object of faith
(objectum materialc fidci), or
that which is to be
believed, is contained
either in Holy Writ,
as accepted by
the Church, or
in tradition, as
preserved by the Church.
However, as Holy Writ
itself, without the acceptance
of the Church,
would be merely
a material or indifferent
book — though
perhaps sacred on account
of its venerable
age and contents
— so tradition would lack
sacred character and
obligation but for the
infallible judgment of the
Church. This infallible judgment is
embodied in the
teaching office of
the Church, and constitutes a
special prerogative granted
to the Church
by Christ, in virtue
of which she
cannot deceive nor
be deceived in matters
of faith and
morals.8
Our text distinguishes a
solemn ex cathedra
judgment and the ordinary
magisterium of the
Church. But there is
no intrinsic difference
between the two,
as they derive from
the same source,
vis., the divine
promise and providence,
and have the
same object and
purpose. The object is faith
and morals; the
purpose, to protect
the faithful from error.
The
ordinary and universal
teaching body of
the Church consists of the pastors
together with their
head, the Roman
Pontiff, no matter
where the former
are found, whether scattered
over the globe,
or sitting united
in St. Peter's Dome.
This is called the
active subject of the
infallible magisterium (subicctum
activae infallibilitatis).
To this
teaching body corresponds
the believing body
of the faithful, which
latter, however, being
the subiectutn passivae infallibilitatis, cannot
be separated from
the teaching body or
be opposed to
it. For the teaching office or
authority is the
cause of the
infallibility of the Church,
and both bodies
are one in
the same faith.
There is, however,
a distinction, though not
quite adequate, between the
teaching office of
the Sovereign Pontiff alone, and
the body of
teachers or the
teaching Church united to
its head, i.
e., the Pontiff.
Without the latter,
or, worse still, in
opposition to the
latter, there can
be no teaching body,
whilst the authority
of infallible teacher
is embodied in the
Roman Pontiff alone.
Both the Pontiff sole
and the body
of teachers united
with him, enjoy
the power of teaching
infallibly.
The “universal and
ordinary magisterium" consists of
the entire episcopate,
according to the
constitution and order defined
by Christ, i.
e., all the
bishops of the
universal Church, —
dependently on the
Roman Pontiff.9 Priests and
deacons do not, jure
divino (by divine law), belong to
the hierarchy of
jurisdiction, and therefore,
are not, properly
speaking, judges in
matters of faith
and morals, nor can
they be, hire
ordinario, bearers of
infallible teaching.
However, they
exercise a certain
teaching authority by divine
right, inasmuch, namely,
as they are
helpers and co-workers of
the bishops, from
whom they receive
delegated mission, and preach
and testify to
the faith preached and
expounded by the
episcopate. They, too,
in a wider sense
partake of the
assistance of the
Holy Ghost.
This
teaching authority, then,
proposes what must
be believed by divine
and Catholic faith.
It is indeed true that
what God has
revealed may and
must be believed with
divine faith and that
what the Church
proposes as part of
divine Revelation, may
and must be
believed with divine and
Catholic faith, or,
shortly, with Catholic
faith.
But the material object
of divine faith
comprises more than the
object of Catholic
faith, and besides
there is something in
Catholic faith which
is not so
clearly ex- pressed or conspicuous
in divine faith.
For the former is offered
by the living
word of the
Church with a
precision and determination that
leaves no doubt
as to the supernatural origin
and medium through
which it is
conveyed. This Catholic faith
then commands our
assent and obedience to
the full extent
of a childlike
belief, but from the
motive of divine
veracity and truth.10
The term
proposed means not
merely an official
or authentic formulation
of a given
object or article,
but an authoritative promulgation
of a law
or rule contained
in revelation, commanding our
full interior and
exterior assent.11 [Daly’s error refuted]
§
2 defines, according
to Vatican Council,13
the solemn judgment of the Church
in contradistinction to her ordinary and
universal magisterium, not as if
the office of the
Supreme Pontiff were
extraordinary, in the
strict sense, but because
this means of
proposing an infallible truth is
uncommon. Such a solemn pronunciamento or proclamation may
be made either
by a general
council or by the
Pope. That a council
cannot be ecumenical without the
head, is evident,
as explained in
our Vol. II, where
the other requisites
are also discussed.1*
The
Pope alone, after
having been duly
elected and having accepted
the election, is
the lawful head
of the Church, and,
in virtue of
his primacy of
jurisdiction, is the supreme
pastor and teacher
of the whole
Church, as the Vatican
Council has defined.1*
As such he may
define, or issue
decrees on, points
of faith and
morals, binding the whole
Church. His decisions
do not receive their
obligatory force from
the consent of
the Church, as the
Gallicans asserted,15 but
embrace the whole
extent of the object
of the infallibility
inherent in the
teaching Church. The term
ex cathedra means:
(a) that the
Pope proclaims a dogma
as the supreme
teacher and pastor
of the Church; (b)
that it be
a matter of
faith and morals, not
of history or
politics disconnected with
the former; (c) that
he pronounce an
authoritative and final
sentence with the manifest
intention of obliging
(d) the entire Church, i.e.,
all individuals as
well as the
whole body of the
faithful.10 A
commentary on the new Code of the canon law (all volumes) : Dom Charles
Augustine Bachofen, O.S.B., D.D., 1872- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming
: Internet Archive
XVI - Bishops are True
Judges
“From the fact that
bishops assembled in General Council are true judges, it is not to be concluded
that the Roman Pontiff is bound to decide in conformity with the majority of
the judges and to approve their doctrine.
For, as Melchior Cano remarks, if all the bishops are true judges, the
Lord Christ has nevertheless committed the final judgment to His Vicar on
earth…” (De Synodo Diocesana, lib III, cap ii, 3., cited by Journet, loc cit,
416.)
Vatican I (second) Draft of the Second Constitution of the
Church (relation on Tametsi Deus):
“From what was seen in the chapter concerning the part which
bishops have in governing the universal church, and what follows from this
concerning the authority of the councils: there seems to be no difficulty in
itself. [check translation]. 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, which decrees possess 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 it is equally clear,
from what was defined in the canons of Chapter III of the First Constitution of
the Church (Pastor Aeternus), that the Roman Pontiff also has not merely the
greater part, but the
total plenitude of supreme power: the consequence is, that this power resides in a double subject, in the body
of the bishops together with the pope, and in the pope alone. "27 (25) (Sed
quoniam non minus constat, et in constitutione prima de ecclesia per canonem
capitis tertii definitum est, in Roman Pontifice non potiores tantum partes,
sed totam plenitudinem supremae potestatis in esse: consequens est, hanc
potestatem in duplice subjecto esse, in Episcoporum corpore papae conjuncto, et
in papa solo.) [”(Mansi
53, 321 BC].
Salaverri: 641.
Those who defend the twofold subject of infallibility inadequately distinct,
first of all urge that there is a twofold promise of infallibility made
directly and immediately by Christ—one to the person of Peter, but the other to
the moral person of the College of Apostles.37 Hence they conclude that one
must hold that both promises obtain their effect with equal immediacy, lest the
meaning of Christ’s words to the Apostles might seem to be weakened.
Furthermore, they argue that the opinion of the twofold subject of
infallibility is more in harmony with the sense of the Church and of the
traditional way of conceiving this matter, as the history of the Ecumenical
Councils daily makes more clear. Finally, the Orientals, erring in good faith,
are opposed to the opinion of one subject of infallibility and especially
turned away from the desired union with Catholics, since this view is not
easily reconciled with the historical facts, nor does it explain sufficiently
why the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council are said to be not mere counselors,
but true judges of the faith.38” (Salaveri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1b)
XVII - Apostolic College
Succeeded by the College of Bishops
Fr. Augstine, Commentary on the New
Code:
Those who must be
called are the
bishops, be they patriarchs, primates,
archbishops, or simple
bishops, provided they are
residential, and not
merely titular. The reason
why the residential
bishops must be
called lies in their
twofold character of
pastors and teachers.
This double office they
exercise in a
twofold way: (i) As successors of the
Apostles they share
in the government
of the universal Church
and form a
body analogous to the
college of the
Apostles, with whom
Christ remains until
the end of
time. (2) As
residential bishops they
exercise their office in
a determined district
or diocese, which,
however, is part and
parcel of the
universal Church.8 This power
is jurisdictional in
a particular sense,
while the power they
exercise over the
whole Church is
jurisdictional in a general
sense, so far,
namely, as they
convene in council under
their legitimate superior. …
The next
question would be,
whether the right
of a bishop to
be called to
a general council
depends on episcopal consecration or
jurisdiction. The Vatican Council
doubtless took the
view that it
is a right
emanating directly from jurisdiction.
This is implicitly also the standpoint of
our Code, otherwise
a bishop confirmed
by Rome but not
yet consecrated, could
not be called.
The point is palpably
illustrated by the
debate concerning the admission of
titular bishops. After
long deliberation the commission of
cardinals entrusted with
the investigation of the
matter decided that
such bishops are
to be called, as
they are bound
by the oath
"vocatus ad synodutn venxam" The
quaestio iuris the
commission would not
touch.* Our
Code says, §
2, " etiam
episcopi titulares, vocati ad
concilium." The delicate
question could, of course,
be solved only
by answering two
others : ( 1 ) Is the
magisterium an act
of jurisdiction or
of spiritual power based
on the power
of orders? and
(2) Is episcopal
jurisdiction derived
directly from God by virtue
of consecration, or from
the Pope? The
commission would not solve
the problem, as
the time was
too short. It
only took the historical
point of view,
by which it
was safely guided, thus
making the council
what it ought
to be; * concilium
episcoporum est" as
the Council of
Chalcedon says.6” https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary_djvu.txt
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 those
whom he wants, people that he chooses on the basis of a positive right; not
the members of a Body instituted by Christ.
In
practice, the Pope alone possesses supreme power over the Church (cf. DzS.
3060), which he communicates according to his good pleasure. The residential
Bishops are not a Body (si non latissimo sensu),but a group of people
who have the same function: their office is of divine institution, their
jurisdiction is ordinary and exercised in their own name and not by delegation,
but it is given by him who has the fullness of it on earth. The sum of these
particular powers does not give a universal power.” (EPISCOPAT ET COLLEGIALITE).
Verumtamen ad
commendandam illam unitatem de qua in ulitma cocna pro apostolis orans dicit:
Ut sint unum sicut et nos, ut in nobis unum sint, ut sint consummate in unum,
stabili perpetuaque institutione disposuit Christus ut collegium apostolicum
prout unitum principi Petro, consors esset supremae potestatis. Hinc monarchia Ecclesiae est monarchia sui
generis, quae cum plenam minimeque diminutam monarchici iuris rationem per
omnia retineat, adhuc tamen particularium antistitum regimen sic conjunctum
habet, ut etiam in individuum summae auctoritatis exercitium admittat cohaerens
cum capite episcopale corpus.
“In order 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.”
American Ecclesiastical
Review (Read the actual texts. The following excerpts are not
sufficient):
Letter
From Rome:
It
has been my privilege to have worked since September, 1960, as a member of the
Preparatory Theological Commission, to have been a peritus
of the Council from the very beginning, and to have been made a Consultor to
the Doctrinal and the Mixed Commissions of the Council. I followed the
discussions of the first series of meetings of the Council very closely indeed.
Without any danger of violating the secret of the Council, I can say very
plainly that I have never encountered a bishop who was in any way amazed or
astonished at the part played by the bishops of the various Oriental rites in
the Council.
Furthermore
it is completely false to state that there are any theological truths or
conclusions which the theologians of the Latin rite " had been years in
discovering through hard research and fear, and for which they had had to fight
strenuously with the authorities in Rome.” The doctrinal authorities in Rome do
not stand and have never stood in the way of the discovery or the statement of
theological truth. It is a completely gratuitous insult to the Holy Father and
to the men who have given their lives to aid him in his doctrinal function
within the true Church to state or even to imply that Rome opposes the accurate
theological teachings of its own writers.
There
is not one theological truth with reference to which M's diatribe against Rome
is justified. If M were justified in saying what he has said, he would
certainly have adduced some sort of evidence to back up his claims. As it is,
he must be judged guilty of completely irresponsible and malicious calumny
against the highest authorities within the Catholic Church.
It
is easy to see how M's opposition to the Roman Curia and to Roman and
Roman-trained churchmen in general spills over into manifest insults against
the Vicar of Christ himself. Here is what M has to
say about one of the actions of Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council.
‘The notion, for example, of the collegial character of the
organization of the Church based on the original body of Apostles was everyday doctrine
among the Melchites, Greeks, Syrians, Chaldean and Lebanese Catholics. It was
frowned upon by the Roman curialists. Actually this doctrine had been well
stated and insisted upon at Vatican Council I, in the preparatory schema
concerned with the nature of the Church. It was to have been
considered in connection with the definition of papal infallibility, before
that doctrine was ripped from its context by the maneuverings of a clique of
cardinals and bishops, led by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning with the assistance
of Pope Pius IX. Yet this doctrine of the collegiality
of the bishops was hardly given recognition by the Preparatory Theological
Commission in its schema on the Church prepared in 1961-62 under the
chairmanship of Cardinal Ottaviani.14
Of course, the blame for this must rest, in M's mind, with Pope John XXIII himself. In the early part of
this same first chapter of the Letters M informs his readers that, “ In
preparing for the Council, Pope John kept an invisible but firm hand on the 800
theologians and experts called to Rome to prepare the agenda .”'15 If M's
charge were at all true, if the Theological Commission avoided a doctrine which
was commonly taught in the Church, and which had been included in the schema
that was to have been acted upon by the First Vatican Council, the fault,
according to M's own words, would have been that of the never-to-be-forgotten
Pope John XXIII. But of course, as everyone who
knows anything about the Council and its work knows very well, M's charge is
completely and ridiculously false.
(A)
It is completely false to say that the Roman
Curialists or any other responsible group within the Catholic Church reacted
against the teaching about the Church set forth in the projected schema on the
Church drawn up by the theological commission of the First Vatican Council. What M seems to be trying to say is that the schema for the
First Vatican Council recognized the fact that the bishops of the Catholic
Church, with and under their visible head, constitute the apostolic collegium.
That is and always has been and will be the teaching of Catholic
ecclesiologists. It is not honest to say or to imply that any
“Roman" group is interested in working against this fundamental
theological teaching. …
M's
antagonism to the Roman See has led him into a very serious theological blunder
in the passage cited above. As we have seen, it is M's contention that Our Lord
“organized His Church through the college of Apostles. ” According to M, Our
Lord "gave to each Apostle equally a commission to preach and teach and
baptize all men everywhere, and then spoke of Peter's function rather as
serving his brethren.”
In
the first place M entirely omits any consideration of the first of the basic
Petrine texts, the one from the Gospel according to St. Matthew . These are the
words that Christ spoke to St. Peter.
And
I say to thee : that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.20
According
to Our Lord's own teaching, then, the true Church militant of the New Testament
was actually founded upon Peter. The Church is not
only hierarchical but genuinely monarchical in its divinely given constitution.
The function of Peter and of his successors in the
Church is not simply to aid the other members of the apostolic college, but to
serve as the foundation or the basis of the unity of the Church itself. The Apostles did not all receive equal power. One, the
Prince of the Apostolic College, was given the sole commission to be the rock
upon whom the Church was to be founded, and was given the responsibility of
providing for the spiritual welfare of all the other pastors and all the
faithful within the true Church.
XVIII – Ordinary and Extraordinary powers
of the Apostles.
See Franzelin’s book.
C. Journet (C. JOURNET,
op. cit., pp. 136 & seq.) says about the powers of the Apostles: "This
distinction between extraordinary and permanent jurisdiction, for which we are
trying to give an explanatory reason, is manifest to all eyes by a double
fact.it appears to be absolutely certain that the Apostles possessed privileged
powers which were to be extinguished after them: power, for example, to
communicate new revelations or to write inspired books On the other hand, it
appears absolutely certain that the Apostles were the first to possess a power
to teach the nations which was to pass to their successors and continue until
the end of time.
Billot speaks of a double mission of the Apostles:
In apostolatu duplex missio includebatur:
una quidem ad initiandam et plantandam Ecclesiam, alia vero ad eam gubernandam
et conservandam et etiam dilatandam in eadem forma quam semel accepisset, usque
ad consummationem sæculi. Porro missio prior ex natura sua extraordinarium
munus erat, et ad tempus fundationis necessario restringebatur, ut in terminis
evidenter liquetPosterior e contra, ex propria sua ratione importabat munus ordinariumet
nusquam exstinguendum quamdiu ipsa stabit EcclesiaUnde statim consequitur, aliquid
esse de apostolatu quod cessavit cum illis Apostolis per excellentiam dictis
quos immediate elegerat et miserat Christus
(The apostolate received a double mission:
one indeed to initiate and to plant the Church, but the other to govern and
preserve it and also to expand it in the same form that it was once, until the
end of the world. Further, the previous mission by its very nature it was an
extraordinary task, and was necessarily restricted to the time of its
foundation, as is evidently clear from the terms ordinariness will never be
extinguished as long as the Church itself stands, so that it immediately
follows, that there is something about the apostleship that ceased with those
apostles by virtue of whom we have said He had chosen and sent Christ
immediately.)
Dupre
quotes Grea as follows:
Dom
Gréa (Dom GREA, op. cit., p. 221): "We do not pretend to deny, however,
that the Apostles did not receive from Jesus Christ special gifts which are not
included in the treasure of the episcopate.
Modern theologians distinguish in them the Apostolate properly so called
from the episcopate which they had to transmit." Dom Gréa quotes Suarez, Bellarmin, Zacaria,
Gerdil and especially Pius VI as references: "Dogma catholicum est
Apostolos, tametsi extraordinaria praeditos potestatequæ data personis cum
ipsis personis interiit, fuisse Petro subjectos...., et subesse plenitudini
potestatis Romani Pontificis... omnes episcopos, qui extraordinaria potestate
Apostolorum destituuntur"(Pius VI, Brev. super Nunciat. c. III, sect.
I).
Dom
Gréa (op cit^ p. 223) does not hesitate to break down the gifts received
from the Apostles in their mission into two elements: "On the one hand,
the power which they were to transmit to their disciples, who had become their
brothers in the episcopate; on the other hand, the personal privileges which
were to end with their lives"
Dupre continues:
The second function, extraordinary, was to
promulgate in its totality the Revelation, received directly from Christ or
from the Holy Spirit, and to found the Church on certain institutions willed by
Christ This extraordinary function was accompanied by an equally extraordinary
gift: a special assistance which made each individual Apostle infallible in his
teaching and in the execution of his apostolic tasks This personal
infallibility enjoyed individually by each Apostle was necessary as L. Billot:
in order to establish the Church infallibly, in accordance with the institution
of Christ, so that it remains, until the consummation of the centuries, such as
they founded it in the beginning106 .
C. Journet devotes about twenty pages of
his work107to the explanation of the apostolate or privileges of the Apostles;
they had the task of promulgating certain sacraments, enjoyed an exceptional
prophetic knowledge the substance of Revelation, as we have already said, were
endowed with that infallibility which is necessary for the manifestation of
Revelation by means of teaching and, moreover, were in possession of an extraordinary
charism of government intended to lay the foundations the Church. Moreover,
they were granted the power to perform miracles as if in profusion, in order to
confirm the faith they preached108 . Finally, it is commonly admitted that the
Apostles shone by their holiness and that, since Pentecost. According to Dom
Gréa: The Apostles were confirmed in grace; they had the gift of miracles,
inspiration, personal infallibility by a special assistance of the Holy
Spirit109. C. Journet, quoting St.
Thomas, expresses himself in the same sense:
‘It was fitting,
says St. Thomas, that the Apostles, at the time of Pentecost, should be
confirmed in grace, "for they were to be as the foundation and base of the
whole ecclesiastical edifice, and it was necessary that they should be
stable"110 . In Christ, confirmation in grace excluded the intrinsic
possibility of sinning; this was not the case with the Apostles (...). The
divine protection intervened to prevent them from succumbing to any temptation.
Nevertheless, even then, the Apostles sinned venially. At Antioch, Peter, the
most blessed of the Apostles, gave way, and Paul had to rebuke him"111 .
These extraordinary powers, these strictly
apostolic privileges, were attributed to the Apostles in order to found the
Church and to implant it in the world. Being by their very nature
non-transferable, they had to disappear with them.112 (END)
A. Tanquerey says that “the Apostles, as
founders of Churches, even as individuals, enjoyed universal
jurisdiction (without prejudice to the primacy of Peter): but this power of
universal jurisdiction was not transmitted to their successors.” (113 Cf. A.
TANQUEREY, Synopsis theologùe dogmatise fundamentalis. Pars prima. Edition
revised and corrected by J. B. Bord, Desclée & socii,
Parisiis-Tornaci-Romæ, 1942, p. 438)
.
(…)
Dom Grea: “122 Cf. Dom GREA, op. cit. pp.
186-187. According to Dom Grea, "as regards the reestablishment of the
Churches, the Apostles at the beginning, and after them their first disciples,
acted in virtue of this general mission: 'Go and teach all nations' (Mt 28:19).
This is obvious since the Gospel gives them no other. Now, this general
mission constantly concerns the episcopate. It was properly given to the
College of Bishops, since its efficacy was to last until the end of the world,
in accordance with what follows in the sacred text:And behold, I am with you
until the consummation of the ages" (Mt 28:20). This is the doctrine of
St. Augustine, and it has never been contradicted... This mission preceded
the foundation of the [particular] Churches which were later to be assigned to
each member of the College" (op. cit., p. 211).
XIX – How was Peter greater than
the other Apostles who had universal jurisdiction?
From Dupre’s book:
Dom Gréa in his chapter IV, De l'action
extraordinaire de l'Episcopat114 , grants this exceptional power of universal
jurisdiction to the Apostles, but expresses a reservation with regard to
theologians who have perhaps given too much extension to this privilege, to the
point of making the apostolate a sovereign power exercising itself with a sort
of independence over the universal Church, as extensive in certain respects as
that of the vicar of Christ, and like him, divinelyinstituted with the
characteristics of plenitude and sovereignty. Dom Gréa recalls how Marc-Antoine
de Dominis, starting from the acquired fact of the universal sovereignty of the
Apostles, came to give to the episcopate the principal authority in the Church
and to each bishop a universal and sovereign power. This is why the Sorbonne condemned
the following proposition of this author: ‘the bishops, not only taken in
common, but also considered separately, inherit the power of universal
jurisdiction.’ (Anton, de Dominis, Rep. eccl. I. ni, c. 1).
C. Journet115perceives the difficulty of
recognizing a supreme power of jurisdiction to each of the Apostles and at the
same time of affirming their dependence on Peter. How can we understand that
the Apostles possessed a supreme power, if they depended on Peter and were
unequal among themselves? He recalls with pertinence the thesis of Marsilio
of Padua condemned by John XXII in 1327: “The Blessed Apostle Peter was not
more head of the Church than any of the other Apostles; he had no greater
authority than that which the other Apostles had.” 116 .
Saint Robert Bellarmine, quoted by C.
Journet117, offers an element of response in his treatise De Romano Pontifice: “
The supremepotestas ecclesiastica was not
given to Peter alone, but also to the other Apostles (...).But it was given to
Peter as the ordinary pastor called to receive perpetual succession; and to the
others as delegates, withoutintended succession.” (Lib. I, cap. 9).
“The Apostles received the supreme power
of jurisdiction as Apostles or legates, but Peter received it as ordinary Pastor
“ (Lib. I, cap. 9)
This prerogative did not prevent the
Apostles from ranking themselves among the sheep of Christ with Peter as their
visible shepherd.
In this regard, Leo XIII, in the
Encyclical Satis Cognitum of June 29, 1896, leaves no room for ambiguity:
"That the
keys here denote the supreme power, the Biblical usage and the unanimous
consent of the Fathers do not allow [not sure if the following is part of the
quote – check Dupre’s book in French]
There is no doubt
about it. And one cannot interpret
otherwise the powers which were conferred, either on Peter separately, or on
the Apostles jointly with Peter. If the power to bind, loose and feed the flock
gives the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, the right to govern with
true authority the people entrusted to each of them, surely this same power
must produce the same effect in him to whom God himself has assigned the role
of feeding the lambs and sheep. Peter was not only appointed shepherd by
Christ, but he was constituted shepherd of shepherds. Peter, therefore,
shepherds the lambs and he shepherds the sheep; he shepherds the little ones
and he shepherds the mothers; he governs the subjects, he governs the prelates,
for in the Church, apart from the lambs and the sheep, there is nothing. Hence the Fathers of old use those peculiar
expressions which designate Blessed Peter, and which evidently show him to be
in the highest degree of dignity and power. They frequently call him: Principem
coetus discipulorum, sanctorum Apostolorum Principem (...)*2
Thus the power of supreme jurisdiction
which the Apostles enjoyed over the universal Church is not to be understood in
the same sense with regard to the person of Peter and the persons of the other
Apostles. C. Journet118[72] relies on S. Robert
Bellarmine, who affirms that the Apostles had the fullness of power in such a
way that Peter was their head, and that they were in his dependence, not vice
versa (De Romano Pontifice, lib. I, Cap. XI). St. Peter had jurisdiction over
each of the Apostles and could command them, even though the Apostles could,
wherever they went, preach, institute bishops, and found churches. None of
them, taken separately, could decide on the universal order of the Church, nor
could they found laws that would bind the whole Church; therefore Peter's power
exceeded that of the other Apostles.
Among the reasons given to explain the
Apostles' possession of this extraordinary jurisdiction, Dom Gréa invokes the
necessities of the Gospel, which required that the power of the Apostles be
exercised to this extent in the early days of the Church. The absence of any
established Church, of any particular jurisdiction, implied, because of their
ministry, the exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction in the universal
Church. Dom Gréa explains how this freedom of jurisdiction was without danger
for the Apostles. They used it in complete safety, because it was guaranteed
against deviations and abuses by divine assistance and the personal gifts of
holiness and inspiration which they enjoyed119.[73]
XX - Quotes from Dom Grae’s book on the
Episcopate
https://archive.org/details/delgliseetdesa00gr/page/8/mode/2up?q=Bolgeni
Dom Adrien Gréa – L’Église et sa
divine constitution
Chapter XXI
The extraordinary act
of the episcopate
Of what it consists
The power of the episcopate in the government of the
universal Church exercises itself in an ordinary way through the councils and
through the less splendorous assistance which the dispersed bishops, always
united in the dependence and under the impulse of their head, give without
ceasing for the maintenance of the faith and of the discipline.
But this power of the episcopate has also had in history
extraordinary manifestations of which it is important to be brought back to the
same subordination and to be submitted to the same essential laws of the
hierarchy.
We want to speak here primarily of the authority deployed by
the apostles, their disciples, and the bishops of the first times, their
successors, to announce everywhere the Gospel and establish the Church, and
secondarily of the extraordinary actions by which, subsequently, one saw
bishops not hesitate to remedy the pressing necessities of the Christian people
and to lift up again, by the use of a power quasi apostolic, Churches brought
into extreme peril by the infidels and the heretics.
These facts have been abused to pull out of proportion the
authority of the bishops and to give them a sort of primitive and independent
sovereignty.
It is thus necessary to overthrow this fundament of error.
We will do so in simply recalling the doctrine exposed in our second part,
principally in chapter 8, where we have treated of the relations of essential
dependence that unite the particular Churches to the universal Church, and in
bringing back these facts to the laws already known of the hierarchy, laws
which, everywhere and always, establish the complete subordination of the
bishops to their head.
And first, it is good to recall that the universal Church,
preceding in everything the particular Churches, possesses before these and
guards always sovereignly the mission of preaching the Gospel everywhere and of
saving souls.
It follows from there that the hierarchy of the universal
Church, who is not deprived of her immediate authority over souls even by the
establishment of particular Churches, remains alone charged with the salvation
of men when these are defunct, and deploys her powers to assure them this
benefit.
This hierarchy is that of the Pope and the bishops. It is to
the Pope that belongs the sovereign and principal action. But the bishops
themselves, since they are associated with him as ministers of the universal
Church, are called to take part in it. They appear thus vested with a power
which is not carried out on their particular flocks and which exercises itself
in places where there are not yet founded particular Churches and titular
bishops established, and in those where the local hierarchies, having been
established, are harmed in their existence or struck with impotence.
This extraordinary power of the episcopate is always and by
her essence itself absolutely subordinate to Jesus Christ and to His Vicar,
since the bishops are nothing in the universal Church outside of this
dependence which is their charge itself.
If we call extraordinary these manifestations of the
universal power of the episcopate under her head, the vicar of Jesus Christ,
contrary to that which takes place in the councils where the exercise of this
power is ordinary, it is because the necessity which gives room to them is not
an ordinary and regular state of things.
The establishment and the full activity of the particular
Churches is, in effect, the normal and habitual state of the Holy Catholic
Church. She lives of their existence and rejoices in their health; she suffers
from their weakness and receives a damage when they perish; because the
particular Churches are not an accidental institution and can never be replaced
in a durable way by the apostolate or the work of the missions. The apostolate
has no other object than of establishing these Churches; and when they are
formed, it ceases and makes place for their ordinary government.
But if the defection of particular Churches calls for the
immediate action of the universal Church and can give an opening to this
extraordinary action of the episcopate, it is manifestly on two occasions:
Primarily, when the particular Churches are not yet founded,
and it is properly the apostolate;
Secondarily, when the particular Churches are as overthrown
by persecution, heresy or some grave obstacle which annihilates completely and
suppresses the action of their pastors; and it is the rarest case of the
extraordinary intervention of the episcopate coming to their aid.
We modestly propose here our sentiment; and, wholly
respecting those authors who seek to explain these facts of history through
other means, we think that the power of the episcopate, power flowing upon it
from it’s head and acting in this dependence, suffices to fully give the
reason.
We think that below the sovereign authority of Jesus Christ
conferred fully on His vicar, there has never been in the Catholic Church other
hierarchical power than that of the episcopate, which was that of the apostles;
and we do not believe it useful to acknowledge, even to these, a particular
sovereignty placed outside of the holy hierarchy, as we are going to expose.
Foundation of Churches
Primarily, for that which regards the establishment itself
of Churches, the apostles in the beginning, and, after them, their first
disciples, have acted by virtue of this general mission: “Go, make disciples
from all the nations” (Mt 28,19); this is manifest, since the Gospel does not
give them any other. Thus, this mission constantly regards the episcopate. It
is, in effect, properly to the episcopal college that it has been given, since
the efficacy of it had to endure until the end of the world, conform to that
which follows in the sacred text: “And I will be with you always until the end
of the world” (Mt 28, 20). It is the doctrine of Saint Augustine, and it has
never been contradicted.
But this mission was given before all delimitation of
territory and before that any bishop had a particular power over a determinate
people. It has preceded the foundation of Churches which, it follows, had to be
attributed to each of the members of the college; and so the bishops have
received in the person of the apostles a mission veritably and primitively
general of announcing the Gospel to the infidel nations.
Thus, these words enclosed the precept at the same time that
they conferred the power; and, like it is by virtue of this first mission that
the apostles went sowing the Gospel in the world and founding the first
Churches, it appears well that in this they acted veritably as bishops, and by
virtue of the powers conferred on the episcopate and that one cannot by
consequence restrain to their sole persons, the powers enclosed in this mission
itself and expressed by it.
But, if they did not emanate from the rank and the limits of
the episcopate through the apostolic mission, far from exercising in this a
sort of sovereign power, of not relying on any superiour here below and of not
having to render an account but to God Himself of their works, they were, by
that itself and as bishops, constituted fully and perfectly in all dependence
to Saint Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, dependence which is the essence itself
of the episcopate.
They remained thus always completely in submission to Saint
Peter, their head, who held the place of Jesus Christ in the midst of the
Church at birth: they had to render an account to him of their works; they owed
obedience to him, and received his directions and his approbation, “from fear
of running for naught”, says Saint Paul (Ga 2,2). And, if they made use on the
outside of a greater liberty, it is because Saint Peter, their brother at the
same time as their head, let them act thus for the good of the world.
And let it not be objected here that they had all been like
him chosen and instituted by our Lord Himself, as if their dependence had in
this to be diminished; for this changes nothing to the bottom of things. The
source of their authority, which is Jesus Christ, having been nevertheless and
for all time indivisibly placed here below in the vicar to whom it is given,
this authority, which flew down originally from Jesus Christ, did not by this
cease flowing down habitually and continually alike upon them, like upon the
other bishops whom they consecrated, from the vicar of Jesus Christ; and it is
because of this that this vicar, in his unity with Whom he represents, is
called “the origin of the apostolate”.
This is so true that Saint Peter has been able, from the
beginning, to institute a new apostle in the place of the traitor Judas (Ac 1,15-26);
he has been able to institute him alone and by his full power, says Saint John
Chrysostom, even though, through pure condescendence, he had called the
assembly to take part in the designation of his person; and this apostle,
established by Saint Peter, would be in nothing inferiour in authority to those
whom Jesus Christ has established Himself.
For just as well, to return to a comparison which we have
already proposed, into the ranks of the inferiour hierarchies there is no
difference between the cleric instituted by the bishop or the one whom the
vicar of the bishop institutes: the institution of the one and the other is
equal and submits them equally to the bishop and to the vicar of the bishop, as
to a sole and indivisible power.
And notwithstanding, if we propose for the second time this
comparison, we feel well that the terms of it are not fully equivalent and that
all advantage rests here on the vicar of Jesus Christ.
The institution of episcopal vicar is in effect always
precarious; it is purely accidental, so to speak; the particular Church is not
founded upon it; it has nothing of necessity; institution purely human, it
depends always on the will of men.
Solely, the vicar of Jesus Christ possesses his title by
divine institution, which is eternal and without repentance; and this
institution is still the principal institution in the Church, the fundament
upon which reposes all edifice and upon which it elevates itself without
ceasing “to mount unto the heavens”; it is permanent, like the Church herself
whom it must sustain, and it is because of this that it is by excellence the
ordinary institution; it is because of this that the Sovereign Pontiff, even though
he be truly and purely a vicar and the vicar of Jesus Christ, is, in all the
plenitude and in every manner of understanding, “the Ordinary” of the universal
Church.
For the rest, the apostles in submission to Saint Peter, who
held before their eyes the place of Jesus Christ, were not exposed to the peril
of subtracting from themselves in this dependence. For, like they were
confirmed in grace and holiness by a personal privilege, they were also
singularly confirmed in his communion, which is inseparable from sanctity and
which essentially brings with it this dependence.
And, if one wants to research why they acted with more
influence, which the bishops their successors did not do, even though it
suffices to know, as we have said above, that they had for this the consent of
their head, one can give for it several manifest and considerable reasons.
In the first place, it was fitting that the power of the
apostles exercised itself with all that broadness in the first days of the
Church, by reason of the necessities of the Gospel.
In the second place, no restriction was brought upon it to
that time; the earth was to be conquered. The apostles had then all the rights
of the first occupants, at the same time that they had a need of every liberty
to found religion there. In the lands which they traversed and which traversed
their first disciples, there was not yet any Church founded, any particular
jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the universal Church exercised itself
solely through their ministry. They acted, not as particular pastors, but
uniquely as ministers of the universal Church.
In the third place, this liberty was without peril, and they
made use of it with every security, because it was guaranteed against
aberrations and abuses by the divine assistance and the personal gifts of
holiness and of inspiration which had been made to them.
Finally, one can still say that this great latitude and this
full exercise of power had yet this advantage of honouring within the Church
before the peoples and before the eyes of the ages to come their singular
vocation and the special graces which Jesus Christ had attached to it.
They were nevertheless the powers of the episcopate itself
which, relieved by these singular gifts, declared themselves with such
splendour and plenitude. And it is because of this that the apostles, who could
not transmit the personal gifts, have been able to communicate these powers to
the first bishops their disciples, to the apostolic men named in Scripture,
Saint Marc, Saint Titus, Saint Timotheus, and many others accordingly, and to
send them preaching to the infidel nations.
The first successors of the apostles inherited this mission.
“Many others still, and more than these,” says Eusebius, “were famous in this
epoch, possessing the first rank of the succession of the apostles. Magnificent
disciples of such men, they edified upon the fundaments of the Churches what
the apostles had begun to establish in all places; they increased more and more
the predication and sowed the salutary seeds of the kingdom of heaven in all
the broadness of the inhabited earth.
In effect, a very great number of disciples from then,
struck in their souls by the divine Word of a very animated love of philosophy,
accomplished first the counsel of the Saviour in distributing their goods to
the destitute; then, leaving their country, they accomplished the work of
evangelists, with the ambition of preaching, to those who had not yet heard of
it, the word of faith and of transmitting the books of the divine Gospels. They
placed solely the fundaments of the faith in some foreign places, then they
established there other pastors and entrusted them with the care of cultivating
those whom they came to introduce (into the Church). After which, they departed
again to other countries and other nations with the grace and the help of God,
for the numerous and marvelous powers of the divine Spirit acted through them
still in those times… It is impossible for us to enumerate (and to cite) by
their names all those who thus, from the times of the first succession of the
apostles, became pastors or evangelists in the Churches of the world.”
[Note by translator:
the above citation of Eusebius is a translation of a translation; therefore due
care should be taken when reading it, and it is advisable to seek out the
original or an official translation. The source of the French translation used by
Dom Gréa is the following: “EUSÈBE DE
CÉSARÉE, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.
3, c. 37; PG 20, 291-294; trad. BARDY (SC, 31), pp. 151-152.”]
Thus with the episcopate the mission of spreading the Gospel
and of founding the Churches transmitted itself. It was a common fact at the
cradle of religion: and, being that the establishment of Churches in the whole
world was rendered bit by bit to more rare occasions, the episcopate did not
cease to make use long after, subsequently, of this liberty. It is thus that
one saw exiled bishops profiting from their exile for preaching the Gospel to
the barbarians.
It is nevertheless true that, since the first times, at the
side of these enterprises of apostolic men founded upon the common power of the
episcopate, power emanated in it’s depth from Saint Peter and completely in
submission to his sovereignty, appeared in the foundation of Churches express
delegations conferred by the Sovereign Pontiff.
Saint Peter and the first Popes have sent veritable legates
amidst the infidel nations. Saint Peter delegated the first bishops of Spain;
Saint Clement or Saint Peter himself gave an express mission to the first
bishops of the Gauls.
But these explicit delegations, however frequent one would
suppose them, do not suffice to explain naturally and without forcing anything
all the facts of history. Many apostolic men could not have recourse to them,
and one must return for them to the simple episcopal power.
Subsequently, the examples of it became always rarer. To the
measure that the foundation of the particular Churches, succeeding to the
evangelical conquest, applied this power to those particular flocks, it
restrained by that itself the field of that more general activity which regards
the peoples to be conquered and which must cease with the establishment of
local hierarchies.
There is nothing elsewhere in this explanation of the
primitive facts which could disturb order; for in this like in all the rest the
episcopal power is, by essence, entirely subordinate, in it’s exercise as in
it’s source, to the head of the Church, sole center and principle, sole
sovereign and independent regulator of all legitimate power in the Church. In
the plenitude of his sovereignty, he has been able in the first times to leave
to this power all that latitude, like he has been able to restrain it subsequently
and to bind it at his will.
The first bishops, in succeeding to the apostolic power for
spreading religion and preaching the Gospel, remained thus entirely in
submission to him in this ministry; and, so that no incertitude would come to
obscure this dependence, it has been placed in all of it’s splendour by the
restrictions which with the times the Sovereign Pontiffs have made to the
exercise of the episcopal predication in the work of the missions, redrawing
and reserving to themselves universally the charge of announcing the Gospel to
the infidels.
Little by little, in effect, the examples of bishops
preaching to the infidels by the simple authority of the episcopate and as
ministers of the universal Church became rarer, to the measure that it became
easier to receive expressly from the head of the Church powers and directions.
Little by little, the preachers of the Gospel were commonly, under the titles
of nuncios, legates, vicars or apostolic missionaries, vested with the quality
of envoys of the Sovereign Pontiff, quality which had already appeared since
the time of Saint Peter, until at last the Holy See reserved to itself in
ordinary times all the work of missions, for the good itself of the apostolate,
and for the sake of rendering the action of missionaries more efficacious and
better ordered.
By this reservation, which is since long the constant and
general law of the apostolate among the infidels, the vicar of Jesus Christ has
henceforth generally bound in it’s exercise the power of bishops for the
propagation of the Gospel, even though this power remains, in it’s core, the
habitual property of the episcopal college; and the effect of this reservation
could not be suspended but by the express will of the Sovereign Pontiff, or, in
the impossibility of consulting him, by circumstances and extraordinary
necessities which bring with them the certain presumption of his consent.
And what regards the right which belongs to him of binding
at his will the exercise of all the powers of the members of the hierarchy
without harming it in it’s essence and without touching upon the core itself of
it’s powers, we limit ourselves to recalling the doctrine that we have exposed
in our second part.
Case of necessity
But it is not only in the establishment of the Church that
the properly apostolic and universal power of bishops, power always subordinate
in it’s core and it’s exercise to the vicar of Jesus Christ, has declared
itself. There is a second order of these manifestations, rarer and more
extraordinary still.
In the bosom itself of the Christian peoples, one has seen
at some times, in pressing necessities, bishops, always dependent in this as in
all things to the Sovereign Pontiff and acting by virtue of his communion, it
is to say, receiving from him all their power, using this power for the
salvation of the peoples.
Following from the calamities superiour to all the
provisions of the laws and the violences which one could not remedy through the
common ways, the action of the local pastors having been made entirely defunct;
one found oneself thus reduced to the conditions where the apostolate had
exercised itself for the establishment of Churches and in which thus the local
ministers were not yet constituted. 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.
One saw thus, in the IVth century, Saint Eusebius of
Samosata traversing the Churches of the East, devastated by the arians, and
ordaining orthodox pastors for them, without having special jurisdiction over
them.
Those are truly extraordinary actions, like the
circumstances which have given occasion for them.
These manifestations of the universal power of the
episcopate also, exercising itself in places where the local hierarchies have
been established and have not entirely perished, have always been very rare.
The most often, in these extreme cases, the Sovereign
Pontiffs have been able to provide for the necessities of the peoples
themselves by the sending of legates or apostolic administrators; and like, in
the plenitude of their principal and sovereign power, they have reserved to
themselves with the times the work of missions, so have they applied themselves
to secure through this same authority, always immediate, the languishing
Churches.
If, then, history shows us bishops themselves filling this
office of ‘healer’ of failing Churches, she tells us at the same time the
imperious conjectures which have dictated this conduct to them. To render it
legitimate, necessities of a kind where the existence of religion itself was
engaged were required, where the
ministry of particular pastors was entirely annihilated or rendered powerless,
and where one could not hope for any possible recourse to the Holy See.
In cases equally extreme, the apostolic power which has
appeared in the beginning for establishing the Gospel reappeared as if to
establish it again: for it is giving equivalently a new birth to the Churches
and preserving them of a total ruin and being their saviour.
But, outside of these conditions, and as long as the
legitimate hierarchy of the particular Churches is standing, there would
manifestly be abuse and usurpation in the act of a bishop carrying the sickle
into the harvest of his brother, and overthrowing the borders of local
jurisdictions placed by the Fathers.
Thus, in the first place, this universal power of the
episcopate, habitual in it’s core, is extraordinary in it’s exercise upon the
particular Churches, and does not take place as long as the order of these
Churches is not destroyed. In the second place, it is furthermore necessary,
for the exercise upon them to be legitimate, that recourse to the Sovereign
Pontiff be impossible, and that there can be no doubt on the value of the
presumption by which the episcopate, fortified with the tacit consent of it’s head
rendered certain by the necessity, supports itself upon it’s authority always
present and acting on it.
But, it must be acknowledged, these conditions do not always
verify themselves with their necessary rigour in the diverse facts reported by
the history of the first centuries; and one is not obligated to justify them
all on this basis. There have been in this abuses and usurpations.
If the conduct of Saint Eusebius which we have cited above
has been lauded without restriction, who could excuse the mixing of the bishops
of Alexandria into the affairs of Constantinople and of the East, or the action
of Saint Epiphanius celebrating an ordination at Constantinople?
The Holy See, which, in these circumstances, has oftentimes
made use of condescendence in the judgement of persons, has always maintained
the principles and reproved these enterprises.
Also, bit by bit these excesses have become more and more
rare, and they have been more severely punished to the measure that the
circumstances rendered them less excusable. One could no longer accord them
indulgence today.
The Church, in effect, by the grace of God, is henceforth
sufficiently well established in the world, and the relations which unite the
members to the head are assured so that there is no more occasion for this
extraordinary action of the episcopate. The voice of the vicar of Jesus Christ
makes itself heard to the extremities of the earth (Ps 18,5). All are able to
interrogate him, all the Churches are able to turn to him in their needs.
Also, like he has reserved for himself the work of missions,
he has incontestably and very justly, since long, entirely reserved for himself
the charge of providing for the extraordinary needs of particular Churches and
for the defection of pastors and local hierarchies. He carries, with a vigilant
charity, the weight of the languishing and weaknesses of all the suffering
members of the body of which he is the head. “Who are the sick of whom he does
not feel the infirmity with a tender compassion? Which are the scandals that do
not kindle his zeal?” (cf. 2 Co 11, 29). It suffices him alone to strengthen
all his brethren; and if the future reserves for the Church trials which reduce
her to the difficulties of the first ages, if the perils of the last times must
go to this excess, this same voice of Saint Peter will still make itself heard
in that extremity, and, when she will call the bishops to the last combats, she
will unbind, if she must, from among the powers of the episcopate those which
will have to be unbound for the salvation of the people.
Constitutive gifts of
the apostolate
It results from this whole exposition that the episcopate
has inherited in all it’s plenitude from the ordinary and transmissible
jurisdiction given to the apostles in the universal Church, jurisdiction
essentially and fully dependent on the vicar of Jesus Christ, and that, in the
rigour and all the broadness of the terms, the bishops are the successors of
the apostles.
We do not pretend to deny, however, that the apostles had
received of Jesus Christ special gifts which are not comprised in the treasure
of the episcopate. The modern theologians distinguish in them the apostolate,
properly said, from the episcopate which they had to transmit.
We voluntarily admit this distinction; but, in our opinion,
the privilege of the apostles and the incommunicable gift which was made to
them did not comprise the ordinary mission of preaching the Gospel and of
establishing the Churches, since they communicated this mission to the first
bishops, their disciples, but the admirable prerogatives with which they were
honoured by the divine operation and which were necessary in them at the
foundation of the Church.
And firstly, the apostles were confirmed in grace; they had
the gift of miracles, inspiration and personal infallibility through a special
assistance of the Holy Ghost.
These illustrious gifts were a great help to them for the
establishment of religion; but they do not have the character of a hierarchical
institution.
The authority conferred on the Church by her divine Spouse
does not bring with it, in effect, personal sanctity, the gift of miracles, nor
inspiration in her ministers, but it extends itself even over these gifts
themselves.
It is to the Church that it appertains to declare with
authority the inspiration of the sacred authors and to fix the canon of the
Scriptures; it is to her that it appertains to assign the miraculous character
to the extraordinary facts and to discern the works of the divine power from
the prestiges and the illusions; it is to her alone that it appertains to
recognise and to affirm the sanctity of the servants of God and to canonise the
saints.
That is the ordinary and truly hierarchical power of which
she is the depositary, and this power extends itself, we dare say, even over
the writings and the miracles of the apostles themselves.
For the rest, to these extraordinary marks of holiness and
of the divine assistance, the apostles joined still the charge of promulgating
from the part of God the truths revealed by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost,
and those same of which Jesus Christ had said: “I have still many things to say
to you, but you cannot bear them now. When He will come, He, the Spirit of
truth, He will conduct you toward the truth entirely… for it is of My goods
that He shall receive and will show it to you to take part in.” (Jn 16, 12-14).
It is assuredly a singular and magnificent privilege, which
they possessed solely, because they were alone the first witnesses of the word
of God and as the source whence the flood of the tradition had to go forth to
flow in all the ages.
Thence the immense moral authority with which they were
vested in the supernatural order and in relation to the Church at it’s birth.
This moral authority extended itself over their disciples whom they had
elevated to the episcopate and rendered in this their equals in the
hierarchical order. They remained their directors by a sort of august paternity
and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost which the whole Church revered in them,
and the disciples could not refuse to obey the oracles from their mouth divinely
inspired.
Such is, in our opinion, the apostolate insofar that it is
distinct from the episcopate in the person of the apostles, that is to say the
whole of the incommunicable privileges and gifts which they had received and
which they must not to transmit to their successors, the bishops.
But, we repeat it, we do not understand in these gifts the
mission itself of announcing the Gospel and of founding Churches; for they had
to transmit this mission. They have communicated it during their lifetime to
their disciples who had to be their successors, and it reposes, in our opinion,
from that time in this treasure of the episcopate which conserves itself in
it’s integrity until the end of times.
It is by virtue of this mission, it is in quality of first
bishops, in all the plenitude of this title and in all the submission which it
brings with it in relation to the vicar of Jesus Christ, that the apostles have
exercised their ministry without other limits of territory than those which
they had imposed upon themselves since Saint Peter distributed the world to
them, and of which speaks the apostle Saint Paul when he declares that there is
no longer any place for his apostolate in the places where the Christ had been
announced (Rm 15, 23).
Thus the gifts received by the apostles in their mission
decompose themselves into two elements: on the one hand, the power which they
had to transmit to their disciples, become their brethren in the episcopate; on
the other hand, the personal privileges which had to finish with their lives.
Certain modern theologians have perhaps given too much
extension to these last privileges. They have made of the apostolate a
souvereign power exercising itself with a sort of independence over the
universal Church, just as extended, in certain respects, as that of the vicar
of Jesus Christ, and, like him, divinely instituted with it’s characteristics
of plenitude and souvereignty. The apostles, according to this sentiment, sent
by the Son of God, like Saint Peter, were not submitted to the latter by the origin
and the essence itself of their mission, but solely by a positive disposition
of the Saviour and for the good of unity. Suarez also asks himself whether
those from among them who lived longer than Saint Peter owed obedience to his
successors, from that time simple heads of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and
stripped of the halo of the personal privileges which remained to them in
themselves. He resolves the question in the affirmative; but in his eyes, it is
lifted up by the nature of the apostolate itself such as it conceives it.
It was, in this system, one easily sees it, of the least
importance to distinguish a power so extended of the episcopate itself. It was
necessary to resist the abuse which, on this fundament, the adversaries of the
Holy See and the disturbers of the hierarchy went to make of the title of
successors of the apostles, constantly given to the bishops by tradition.
Marco Antonio de Dominis, starting, like from a conceded
point, from the universal souvereignty of the apostles, gave to the episcopate
the principal authority in the Church, and to each bishop a universal and
souvereign power, monstrous error which was condemned by the Sorbonne.
The great discussions which took place, in the epoch of the
Council of Trent, on the origin of the Episcopal power, engaged still to
separate further the cause of the apostles from that of the bishops. For
establishing the dependence of origin which binds all power of the same to the
vicar of Jesus Christ, they distinguished their mission from that of the
apostles, and they accorded, too easily in our opinion, that the same, emanated
directly from Jesus Christ, did not proceed in any way from Saint Peter. We
think, on the contrary, that all the power of the apostles depended actually on
Saint Peter, whom it flew down from habitually and in it’s exercise, through
there itself from where it had it’s source in Jesus Christ, the vicar, in our
eyes, not having to distinguish himself from Him whom he represents fully and
all that concerns the economy and the distribution of power. For the rest, the
distinction established between the origin of these two missions did not find a
solid fundament in the example of the apostles; for it was quite necessary,
aside from this particular power of the apostolate, to accord to them also the
episcopate, and to convene that they had not received it from Our Lord less
immediately than the apostolate itself.
But if this apostolic power was declared souvereign by it’s
extension, and of divine origin like the hierarchy itself, nevertheless
distinct from the same, instituted collaterally and destined not to be
confounded with it, it’s nature remained more obscure, and the same theologians
have varied in the notion which they have given it.
The great Bellarmine makes a simple delegation of it,
independent of all power of order, conferred upon the apostles before their
episcopate, and similar by it’s essence to the delegated powers of legates of
the Holy See and of apostolic vicars.
Others, on the contrary, make of it a power truly ordinary,
which must not extend itself absolutely in the Church, and which has
perpetuated itself in a real way in concentrating itself in the Souvereign
Pontiff, sole successor of an apostle distinctly, and, in this quality, sole
hereditary of the apostolic college in it’s entirety.
These systems offer, in our opinion, several grave
inconveniences. According to the first, the entire hierarchy, the episcopate
with it’s most sublime gifts, would have been, in the Church at it’s birth,
submitted to the souvereignty of lay messengers placed outside of all
pontifical or sacerdotal consecration: for it would be as simple disciples and
before all institution of their priesthood that the apostles, though
subsequently vested elsewhere with the episcopal character, would have
received, to then exercise it with such great empire, the magisterium of the
doctrine and the authority of the spiritual government, and that they would
have founded the Churches.
As for the second system, it multiplies without usefulness
the entities within the hierarchy, contrary to the axiom of philosophy, in
supposing in the Souvereign Pontiffs a power which has no useful application.
In effect, all their acts in the government of the Church draw their force from
their title of vicars of Jesus Christ; they have no need of another quality,
and it is not convenient to add some foreign element to the souvereignty even
of Jesus Christ which they exercise, as if it missed something in it’s power;
for this souvereignty suffices to explain the extension of their power without
limits.
Elsewhere, for establishing in fact the existence of this
other distinct authority which they wish to attribute to the Popes, it would be
necessary to find, which they will never do, in history one circumstance, be it
unique, where the Popes, exercising the souvereign jurisdiction over the
universal Church, were acting distinctly, not simply as heads of this Church
and vicar of Jesus Christ, but as inheritors of the apostolic college.
To the inconveniences of these systems, if one wishes to go
to the core of the matters, are added other difficulties which are not few.
And first, it would be necessary to find in the Gospel this
power of the apostles distinct from the episcopate, instituted by Our Lord in
their persons. All the texts which regard their mission apply themselves to the
episcopate and regard in them the bishops, their successors. It is to the
bishops, in their persons, that Jesus Christ has said: “Go, from all the
nations, make disciples… and I will be with you forever even to the end of the
world” (Mt 28, 19-20).
It is to the bishops in them that He has said, after that He
had first given the power to bind and loose to Saint Peter: “All that you will
bind upon the earth will be bound in heaven, and all that you will loose upon
the earth will be loosened in heaven” (Mt 18, 18). And thus the bishops are in
them subordinated to Saint Peter in this ministry; for “that which follows does
not overthrow the beginning”, says Bossuet, and the word first spoken to Saint
Peter has ranked them under his conduct. Finally, it is of the bishops in their
persons that it is said to Saint Peter: “Confirm thy brethren” (Lc 22, 32), and
they are all placed in them under the principal authority of his magisterium
and confirmed by him in the faith.
Tradition regards the things in the same manner. The
Fathers, though they celebrated to envy the admirable privileges of the
apostles, did not distinguish, in the matter of jurisdiction properly said, an
apostolic power and an episcopal power; and Cardinal Gerdil agrees with it, all
while pretending to find this itself back in the monuments of history.
For us, we think that the veritable distinction between the
apostolic privilege strictly understood and the episcopal power of the apostles
must repose upon an other fundament.
In our opinion, the apostolic privilege comprises the
personal gifts, which we have mentioned above, with all their consequences and
the immense authority which these gifts carried with them in the eyes of the
Church at birth, and we bring to the episcopate all that which is properly of
jurisdiction.
For the rest, we do not understand, by this doctrine, to
render the bishops souvereign in the universal Church because they are the
successors of the apostles, but quite on the contrary, to bring all the
authority of the apostles to it’s just subordination in relation to their head
Saint Peter, because they are the ancestors of the bishops.
They are also not only that, says Saint Gregory the Great:
“Paul, Andrew, John, what are they, if not that which the bishops, heads of
each of the particular Churches are?” By consequence they do not have any power
but in the full and entire dependence of the vicar of Jesus Christ.
And firstly, they are submitted to him in their mission
itself and by the origin of their power.
The mission itself is not an act posed once and which does
not perpetuate itself but in it’s effects, but it is a permanent relation, a
communication without repentance of the power which flows from a divine and
inexhaustible source.
The creation of inferiour beings itself perpetuates itself
by the conservatory act of God, and the creature depends at each moment on the
divine power which does not cease, in conserving it, communicating to it all
the being which it has first received from it.
It is the same with these communications of a superiour
order by which Jesus Christ gives to His apostles and His bishops the power
which He has received from His Father. Remaining Himself inviolably united to
this Father from whom He receives eternally all His substance and His divinity,
He perpetuates by a permanent act that which He has communicated in the
beginning, and His hierarchs do not cease to receive from Him in all that
follows that which He had given them a first time.
This same Jesus Christ, having thus in the beginning sent
and instituted the apostles, does not cease communicating to them all the
substance of their mission. But like henceforth, since His glorious Ascension,
He will be rendered present here below in the person of His vicar, it is in
this vicar that is henceforth placed and rendered visible the source whence
habitually and indivisibly flows down upon the apostles the mission and all the
authority which they have received originally from the mouth of the Son of God.
They are not debased by that, neither will the bishops their
successors be after them; for it is all one reception of that which they have
from Jesus Christ speaking on earth and in His own humanity, or speaking
through the organ of the vicar whom He has instituted to represent Him.
So verifies itself in the hierarchy this magnificent law of
the divine society where all order is established upon the procession of
persons and upon the relations of origin. Seemingly, in the work of Jesus
Christ here below, all dependence reposes and is founded upon the mission which
is like a following from and an imitation of the divine processions. The
bishops depend on Jesus Christ and on the vicar of Jesus Christ, because they
proceed indivisibly and as from one sole source from Jesus Christ and from His
vicar: and the apostles themselves do not rely on Saint Peter by the fact of a
simple economy of convenience or of utility, but by the necessities themselves
of the origin of their power, which comes continually to them from this head
and in the communion of this head, because she comes from Jesus Christ rendered
visible in this head, presiding in him alone in the government of the new
people, and spreading from this unique summit all the diverse powers which are
necessary for it’s life and for it’s increase.
Also, in all which follows from their ministry, the apostles
appeared submitted to Saint Peter and Saint Peter acted as their head.
Saint Paul, at the beginning of his apostolate, is
consecrated bishop by the disciples of the apostles in the communion of Saint
Peter (Act 13, 2-3); he begins on this fundament to evangelise the peoples. But
it is necessary that he comes to Jerusalem to render an account to Saint Peter
himself of that which he has undertaken; he has need of his approbation for the
past and for the future, “in order not to travail in vain” and build outside of
the fundament (Ga 1, 18; 2, 2).
Saint Peter confirms him in his mission and gives him the
special charge of evangelising the Gentiles (Ga 2, 7-10).
We cannot doubt that, in their apostolic assemblies, the
other apostles had maintained the same conduct as Saint Paul, like also the
dividing of the world among them has not taken place without the authority of
the prince of their college.
Saint Peter exercises his supreme jurisdiction without
hesitation upon the whole Church and upon his brethren themselves. His
judiciary power appears in the condemnation of the memory of the only
prevaricating apostle, Judas (Act 1, 15-22).
In their turn, his successors did not doubt for an instant
their souvereign power, since they broke the rules established in Asia by the
authority of the apostle Saint John on the subject of the paschal feast. It is
in vain that they invoked this authority to them, she did not stop them, and
they regarded themselves always as depositaries of a power to which that of the
apostles, like that of all the bishops, is equally submitted.
For the rest, we have already said it, the extraordinary
gifts made to the apostles, far from subtracting them from this supreme
authority of the hierarchy, fell themselves under the competence of the power
conferred to the Church and principally to her head.
It is the ordinary and permanent authority of this head who
decides and who judges these extraordinary gifts, who judges the inspiration of
the sacred authors and fixes the canon of the Scriptures, who canonises the
Saints, regulates and authorises the cult of the apostles; and, thus, added to
this, the apostolate, in place of appearing to us as independent of the
hierarchy, relies in it’s most excellent gifts on the authority of which it is
the depositary.
After this, we will not dispute certain more splendorous
manifestations of the power of the apostles. They have founded the Churches;
they have even sometimes governed them, be it by the divine ascendancy which
the Holy Ghost gave to them with the bishops their disciples established by
them in the more illustrious cities, be it, if one wishes to see in it a
veritable jurisdiction, by virtue of a delegation from their head Saint Peter.
We cannot, in effect, refuse to this the right of extending as much as he wants
it, by his mandates and his simple consent, the circle of powers which depend
on him; and we will not contradict in this the opinion of Bellarmine, who made
of the superiour power of the apostles a delegated power, on the condition
nevertheless of attaching indivisibly this delegation to Saint Peter as to
Jesus Christ Himself, in order not to derogate in anything from their just
subordination towards their head, in place of attaching it solely to Jesus
Christ, with a sort of exclusion from His vicar, by an institution special and
independent from that of the souvereign pontificate of Saint Peter.
We expose here our sentiment with the reserve which convenes
us, and we guard to the great theologians with whom we differ in anything all
the respect which is due to them.
It seems to us that our sentiment brings out better the
grandeur and the beauty of the work of the Church, that divine masterwork. She
appears to us proceeding from the mouth and the Heart of the Son of God with
her pure constitution, and this constitution suffices her from the first days.
She has no need of foreign helps to the powers themselves of her hierarchy, and
no other authority than this hierarchy itself ever exercises upon her it’s
empire.
For the rest, whatever be the doctrines of these great
theologians on the nature of the apostolic power, they do not go to the bottom
to the point of bringing into question the theory of the constitution of the
Church in the way that we have exposed it in this treatise, founded on the
princedom of the vicar of Jesus Christ and the episcopate; for the apostolic
power, which they suppose distinct from the episcopate, does not enter into
this constitution, has nothing of permanence, and is no more part of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy than that the mission of the prophets under the ancient law entered
into the hierarchy of the synagogue. Also, the reader, even when he would not
take part in our sentiment on this particular point, should not reject because
of this the whole of the doctrine which we propose to him in these pages.
“THE CHURCH Now this first and ineffable hierarchy of
Father and Son appearing in the mission of Christ is the origin and type of all
that follows in the work of the Church. The Father sends the Son; in his turn,
the Son sends the apostles and constitutes in them the college and the
episcopal order, that is to say truly the universal Church, which subsists in
this college as in its principal part. He sends them with a mission similar to
the one he received: as my Father sent me, so I send you.”
(L EGLISE Or, cette première et ineffable
hiérarchie du Père et du Fils apparaissant dans la mission du Christ est
l'origine et le type de tout ce qui suit dans l'œuvre de l'Eglise. Le Père
envoie le Fils; à son tour, le Fils envoie les apôtres et constitue en eux le
collège et l'ordre épiscopal, c'est-à-dire véritablement l'Eglise universelle,
qui subsiste dans ce collège comme en sa partie principale. Il les envoie par une mission semblable à
celle qu'il a reçue: comme mon Père m' a envoyé, moi aussi je vous envoie)
…
communionem Ecclesiœ
P. 108: Also the ordination which makes one enter the hierarchy confers in the plenitude of its effects the Order, the communion and the title. Ordination, even illegitimate, always confers the Order and its bare powers. Legitimate ordination always confers communion, because it places the one who receives it in the hierarchy of the universal Church. The title may, it is true, not be conferred at the time of legitimate ordination, and this may actually only give the only hierarchical communion in the universal Church. But, in this case, if the title is subsequently received by the subject, or even if the title, after having been lost, is recovered by him, it does not leave, at any time that it is conferred, to rest on the communion and on the Order and to go back there to the ordination, like a late fruit, but already contained in germ in the branches and the root.
It can even be conferred before ordination and in view of it.In this case. he expects his perfection and solidity from ordinationsubsequent, on which it depends in advance. It remains precarious until then.and will annihilate itself if ordination fails. Thus
the elected bishop can receive the institution, that is to say the collation of
his title, before his episcopal consecration: the priest, the minister, can
likewise receive the institution of the title before the collation of the Order
and in view of it. They will later be ordained for this title already received
in advance: and. if the ordination is lacking, the title will lapse. Positive
law has determined the periods which it tolerates and the term which the title
cannot exceed without perishing or receiving from ordination its force and its
essential foundation.
Book I, p. 44, III: “It is good, indeed, to recall it: by the creation of the titles and their development, the presbytery, for keeping its unity and remaining a single body around the episcopal chair, saw the exercise of the powers which belong to it usefully distributed without schism nor division; and the faithful people in their turn, without ceasing to form the whole of the same Church and to belong indivisibly to the bishop and to the priesthood of this Church, found in this sharing the help of a pastoral activity made more vigilant, and more effectively implemented. at his door.
First book:
p. 110: “As we have explained, hierarchical communion and title are, therefore, each in their own way, the actuality and full blossoming of legitimate ordination, on which they depend. Perhaps these notions should serve to
understand the expression, so common among the ancients, of illegitimate
ordinations annulled, when the title or even the hierarchical communion were
alone withdrawn or refused to the subject. The ordination was truly annulled,
not in the totality of its effects, but in those of its effects which can be
destroyed; not insofar as ordination is the collation of the bare Order, but
insofar as it is at the same time the collation of the hierarchical communion
or of the legitimate degree in the universal Church and the collation of the
title in the particular church.
Page 111:
The hierarchical communion is not, like
the Order, absolutely inadmissible. The cleric may deserve to lose it, and by a
just judgment of the Church he may be cut off from the hierarchy. As we have
already indicated, this judgment can remove the communion of the higher degrees
while leaving intact that of the higher degrees, leaving intact that of the
degrees of the minister, the priest to that of the lower orders, and all the
clerics to the lay communion. But nevertheless the hierarchical communion,
which is not inadmissible, is given and received in perpetuity by its very
nature, and it is only by the rigor of a Judgment and against its institution,
disturbed by the unworthiness and the fault of the subject, that it may be
lost.
Finally, the title itself is always
conferred without time limit, even though it can be recalled, like hierarchical communion, by
the sentence of the judge, and even, absolutely, the subject can be released
from it by the higher authority. , as seen in cases of resignation or
resignation; in these cases, in fact, the cleric, who cannot take away his
title from himself or break the bond which unites him to his Church, loses this title only by the intervention of the authority of
the superior. who alone can break this bond.
[ (out of place) Such, then, is
the stability of our hierarchy. She admits as three degrees: the character of
the Order is absolutely inadmissible; the common hierarchy in the universal
Church persists as long as the subject is not declared unworthy; title in the
Church kdiereesl itself constituted without holding „i time limit, and it
persevere as long as the sentence of the judge or the disposition of the
superior doesn’t stop it.]
Let us add to these three immutable and
endowed elements, each in a just proportion, with the perpetuity which suits
them, the movable element of the exercise of jurisdiction, and we shall have in
these four outfits: 1: Order, hierarchical communion, title, exercise of
jurisdiction, all powers and activities of the hierarchical body. It is also all that is more commonly included
today under the two terms of Order and jurisdiction, distinguishing in the
latter various degrees or species, according to whether it is habitual, actual,
ordinary, delegated, restraint. The studious reader will be able to establish
the exact correspondence of these various terms and apply them to the various
activities of the hierarchy as we have described them.
(La communion hiérarchique n'est point,
comme l'Ordre, absolument inamissible, Le clerc peut mériter de la perdre, et
par un juste jugement de l'Eglise il peut être retranché de sa hiérarchie.
Comme nous l'avons déjà indiqué, ce jugement peut enlever la communion des
degrés supérieurs en laissant intacte celle des degré superieur en laisant
intacte celle des degres du ministre le petre a celle des Ordres inferieurs, et
tous les cleres à la communion laïque. Mais toutefois la communion
hiérarchique, qui n est point inamissible, est donnée et reçue à perpétuité par
sa nature même, et ce n'est que par la rigueur d'un Jugement et contre son
institution, troublée par l'indignité et la faute du sujet, qu'elle peut être
perdue.
Enfin, le titre lui-même est toujours
conféré sans limite de temps, enore qu il puisse être relire, comme la
communion hiérarchique, par la sentence du juge, et que même, absolument, le
sujet puisse en être dégagé par l'autorité supérieure, comme on le voit dans
les cas de démission ou de résignation; dans ces cas, en effet, le clerc, qui
ne se peut ôter à luimême son titre ni rompre le lien qui l'unit a son Eglise,
ne perd ce titre que par l'intervention de l'autorité du i supérieur, qui seul
peut briser ce lien.)
Ajoutons à ces trois éléments immuables et
doués, chacun dans une juste proportion, de la perpétuité qui leur convient,
l'élément mobile de l'exercice de la juridiction, et nous aurons dans ces
quatre tenues: 1: Ordre, la communion
hiérarchique, le titre, l'exercice de la juridiction, toutes les puissances et
les activités du corps hiérar(i)
P. 187
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church,
conforming to the divine type of the society of God and of his Christ, of God,
Head of Christ, is formed of a Head, who is Jesus Christ, and, under this Head,
of the body priestly, of the College of Bishops, proceeding from him and in
whom is mystically enclosed the whole assembly of the faithful.
We have completed with the first
part of this book the study of this hierarchy in the person of its head; we
have learned to know the Vicar in whom he makes himself visible; then we have seen
this Head represented in the various parts of the Church by the institution of
patriarchs and metropolitans, and imprinting on these parts the form and
analogies of universal government. It remains for us to consider the Episcopal
College, and, in this College, the body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and
the bride of which he is the husband and to whom he communicates his goods, his
power and his majesty.
We must not yet consider the bishops as
the head of their particular Churches, which will be the subject of the
following book, where we will study the hierarchy of these Churches, but only
as associates between them in the solidarity of the Church. episcopate, they
form the College and the senate or "the presbytery of the universal
Church".
Page 187 (Ce qu'ils
sont en cette
qualité qui regarde
l'Eglise universelle,
précède en eux,
par la nature
des choses, ce
qu'ils sont comme chefs
le hiérarchies qui
leur sont propres
; car, ainsi
que nous l'avons L'avous dit plus haut. L'Eglise
universelle précède, dans
la vue de Dieu
et dans l'ordre
de ses ouvrages,
l'Eglise particulière, qui n'est
que l'appropriation du
mystère du tout
à chacune des parties.)
The bishops
therefore have, before any other conception of their pontificate, a universal
power, which by its nature extends over the whole Church. This power is in the communion of the episcopal order,
and it is distinct from their title, by which they are established as bishops
of a particular people.
By recalling these notions, we do
not hesitate to affirm, as well as that we have established in the first book
of this work, that this power, being by its essence anterior to the title, is
independent of it, and belongs equally to all the bishops who have the
communion of their order, that is to say -say to all Catholic bishops, whatever
their see, and even though they would not currently have the title of any
particular Church.
This universal power of the episcopate,
distinct from the power that each bishop possesses over his particular flock,
this power by virtue of which they are all equally teachers and pastors of the
entire Catholic Church (2), has its most solemn manifestation when they sit at
the Ecumenical Council.
There appears in all its truth and
simplicity the mystery of the hierarchy; Jesus Christ present in his Vicar and
communicating to his Church, contained in the Episcopal College, a mysterious
flow of his sovereign authority (3).
At the General Council, the bishops define
with the Sovereign Pontiff, make laws with him, judge with him, and then
declare to the world all that their leader is and all that they are with him
and in him. …
The fourth condition (pie requires the
Ecumenical Council
look at the cooperation of the body of the
episcopate.
The whole episcopate must be called there,
and, if all the bishops do not come there, all at least can take a session, and
they have the right to do so by divine institution, that is to say by what he
There is something divinely instituted in the episcopal order and in the
prerogatives of their college, and by virtue of the very essence of the
hierarchy.
We cannot therefore share the opinion of
those who refuse to include the bishops without title, and even the titular
bishops of the Churches occupied by the infidels, among the number of bishops
admitted to the Council by the divine constitution of the Church and as called
by God himself to take session.
Those alone, according to those who
maintain this doctrine, may sit by divine right who currently exercise
jurisdiction over a particular flock, so the right to sit in the Council
depends on that very jurisdiction.
We cannot allow this to be so. And
in the first place this opinion has against it the ancient tradition and the
constant practice of the Church.
At the first Council, held by the apostles
at Jerusalem, which was to give form and serve as an example to all the others,
Saint James alone held a particular Church; all the other apostles were
untitled bishops. The right of untitled bishops is thus declared in their
persons and inscribed by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.
And as for the bishops said in partibus or
simply titular, their condition seems still more favorable, since, in the very
sense of this opinion, they occupy an episcopal office.
How can we maintain, in fact, that a
bishop, violently expelled of his seat, loses, by the very fact of persecution,
his quality of member of the senate of the universal Church? But, if the
expelled bishop retains this quality, is it not manifest that his successors
will have no less right than him, since they will be all that he himself was,
receiving both from him the double heritage of his title and his exile?
It is certain that the exercise of the
jurisdiction attached to their title and retained by them in substance, most
often rendered impossible by the tyranny of the infidels, is moreover currently
forbidden to them by the Sovereign Pontiff, who has reserved [to himself] the
work of the missions in the infidel countries. But this reservation can only be
understood in the strict sense and does not concern the conciliar action.
We wanted, it is true, to soften the
opinion that we are fighting, by restoring the right of session to those of
these bishops who have offices or mandates of administrators or apostolic
vicars; but the inconvenience is great to make an ordinary right of this
importance depend on a purely delegated power, and to make the first and most august
of the divine rights of a bishop come from a simple commission and a purely
human and human constitution. ecclesiastical.
But, if we go to the bottom, we will see
that this opinion, at least such is our opinion, overthrows the true notion of
the universal Church and its essential relations. The universal Church is not, in fact, simply the confederation of the
particular Churches and the result of their aggregation, but she precedes them
in the divine plan and communicates to them what they are, far from receiving
from them what she is herself. Jesus
Christ, sending the first bishops into the world, said to them: Go, teach
all the nations. He thus makes them doctors of the universal Church even
before they have begun to form particular flocks; and it is by virtue of this
word received indivisibly, before the establishment of the various Churches, by
the whole episcopal College and without distinction of the particular bishops,
that this College, in the continuation of all the centuries, will teach the
faith in the Ecumenical Councils. The universal Church was already
founded in them before they established any particular Church, and
they were teachers of the whole world by divine institution before they
attempted to erect any distinct episcopal chair of their own. to each of
them.
Moreover, the bishops at a Council make so
little use of the titles of their particular sees, that they all have the same
right of suffrage in the perfect equality which suits them as the members of
the same College of the universal Church; and the sentence of the patriarchs of
Alexandria or Antioch, confounded with those of their brethren, weighs no more
in the decision than that of the bishop of an obscure see or of an unimportant
city.
Attempts have been made, it is true, to
undermine this principle of the equality of bishops sitting in the Council and
forming the College of the universal Church.
Formerly, at the Council of Chalcedon, the
bishops of Egypt, terrified at the memory of the recent tragedy and the
violence of Dioscorus, claimed to subordinate their suffrage to that of the
patriarch of Alexandria, and claimed the right to abstain until the election of
him whose power they feared, and whose direction they wanted to expect. But
this claim was unanimously rejected without finding a single defender (i).
Nowadays, a sort of ill-defined
preponderance has been demanded for the bishops of large cities or of large
nations, for those who, it was said. in more immediate contact with the
movement ideas and the requirements of modern societies, were better acquainted
with the needs of minds and the necessities of the times. They also compared,
to make it an advantage, the number of the flock entrusted to the crook of the
pastors, as if the bishops had sat as representatives or agents of the
multitudes.
It is because the opinion we are fighting
against, which makes the bishops' right of session dependent on their actual
jurisdiction over a distinct flock, does present a danger on this side.
Basically, if the bishop only sits on the Council because he currently
exercises responsibility for a particular people, it will be logical to give
greater authority to the pastor of a larger flock. The number that is below
will authorize the prelates instead of the pure mission that comes from above,
and the hierarchy will be wounded in its very essence.
However, if we affirm the absolute
equality of bishops in the Council and their right of suffrage prior to the
particular jurisdiction of their see and independent of it, we do not claim to
dispute that the bishop of an illustrious see between the others could be at
the Council a more considerable witness to the tradition of which his chair
keeps the deposit with more brilliance. His testimony will be of greater weight
in the discussion of the attacked or obscured dogmas that must be defined.
Likewise the pastor of a large people, or. if you like, he whose solicitude
extends to a society more deeply uneasy and disturbed by the agitations of the
times, will bring a livelier expression of these needs of souls in the assembly
which must bring the remedy to them.
But, until then, those bishops who seem no
longer authoritative appear only as witnesses; until then they confine
themselves to providing and proposing the elements of the judgment. But it is
reversing all notions to confuse in this august tribunal discussion with
sentence, the aptitude of witnesses with the authority of judges. The bishops,
unequal in the value of their testimonies, are equal in their authority as
judges of faith and discipline.
Also, when it comes to definitions and
decrees, these bishops, who, so to speak, have descended from their seats to
appear as witnesses and to present their opinions, immediately remount them and
become judges again.
(Les
évèques ont donc,
avant toute autre
conception de leur
pontificat, un pouvoir universel,
et qui s'étend
par sa nature
sur l'Eglise entière. Ce
pouvoir est la
communion même de
l'ordre épiscopai, et
il est distinct
de leur titre,
par lequel ils
sont établis évèques propres
d'un peuple particulier.
En
rappelant ces notions,
nous n'hésitons pas
à affirmer, ainsi que
nous l'avons établi
dans le premier
livre de cet
ouvrage, que ce pouvoir,
étant par son
essence antérieur au
titre, en est
indépendant, et appartient également
à tous les
évèques qui ont
la communion de leur
ordre, c'est-à-dire à tous les
évèques catholiques, quel que
soit leur siège,
et alors même
qu'ils n'auraient actuellement le titre
d'aucune Eglise particulière.
Ce
pouvoir universel de
l'épiscopàt, distinct du
pouvoir que chaque évèque
possède sur son
troupeau particulier, ce
pouvoir en vertu duquel
ils sont tous
également les docteurs
et les pasteurs
de l'Eglise catholique tout
entière (2), a
sa manifestation la
plus solennelle lorsqu'ils siègent
au Concile œcuménique.
Là
apparaît dans toute
sa vérité et
sa simplicité le
mystère de la hiérarchie
; Jésus-Christ présent
en son Vicaire
et communiquant à son
Eglise, contenue dans
le Collège épiscopal,
un mystérieux écoulement de
son autorité souveraine
(3). )
Page 192:
This immediate authority of the Sovereign Pontiff as Vicar of Jesus Christ over the particular Churches, defined by the Council of Vatican, is properly episcopal (i); for there is no part of the episcopal authority which does not essentially belong to him and which he cannot always exercise. The preaching of doctrine, the administration of the sacraments, the pastoral government, the collation of ecclesiastical power, judgments, all those functions which form the field of episcopal power, are also, without any possible restriction, the object of the power of the Sovereign Pontiff in each Church.
But, if this authority is properly episcopal in its object, it has, vis-à-vis the episcopate, a character of sovereignty and excellence by which it prevails over it. It is indeed the episcopate, but in its source and in its head. Also all his acts have a character of independence and sovereignty to which the bishops themselves in their Churches cannot claim. And as the bishop himself, in the functions of the priesthood, acts with a higher dignity than the priests, although with an equal efficiency, so also the Sovereign Pontiff, exercising this episcopal power in the Churches, does it in all majesty. and the sovereignty of his principality. All his acts therefore have a character of independence andsovereignty to which the bishops themselves in their Churches do notcan claim. Moreover, it is not only by his excellence that the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff prevails over that of the bishops, but still because it precedes it in the order of the ministry of the hierarchy* Before belonging to their bishops, Christians belong to Jesus Christ and his Vicar; before belonging to the particular, they belong to the universal Church. The Universal Church precedes everywhere, in the sight of God and the fulfillment of his purpose, the particular churches; and when these were formed, they were not able to harm previous relations which already had attached the faithful to Jesus Christ and his Vicar, nor to the bond primordial who had submitted them to him in advance.
By this, the Sovereign Pontiff is really by essence and even by his authority the Ordinary of the whole world, and he can always exercise at all times, either by himself or by his mandates. authorities, the jurisdiction which belongs to him as such.
This form, no doubt, has not always been
followed, but the source of episcopal power was never displaced by its adoption,
and the substance of things could not change.
What, then, was the form of the episcopal
institution from the first third centuries, and through what manifest and
authentic channels did the ecclesiastical power descend from the divine source
placed in Saint Peter to all parts of the Catholic Church?
At the beginning, the Sovereign Pontiff,
as we have mentioned in this treatise, "imprinting the form of Peter"
on all the parts of the universal Church, and distributing it into great
regions and provinces by the institution of its representatives, the
metropolitan patriarchs, at the same time who! conferred on them. prerogative
to be known to other lin-me in their circumscriptions, he gave them the power
to institute in his name their brothers in repiscopate. According to this
order, the patriarchs institute the metropolitans, the metropolitans institute
their suffragan, to the Pope alone it belongs to institute the patriarchs.
Nothing more simple at first glance than
Ile dilrihution of the hierarchical mission.
The Pope alone is immediately instituted
'I God', as we have said above. This institution is invisible and immediate(a).
Authority descends to him from the very
throne of God, and is then transmitted to the extremities of the body of the
Church through by the visible channels which he has instituted within the
fullness of his sovereignty.
But, in practice, it is necessary to
distinguish in this visible transmission several different modes applied
according to the circumstances.
The most natural mode, the one that
appears first, is ordination.
"The metropolitans," says a
Greek canonist, "have the right to ordain bishops, and they themselves are
ordained by the patriarchs to whom their sees are subject. » (1)
As we have seen,
ordination, when it is legitimate and produces all its effects, does not confer
the bare character of the sacred order alone, but adds to it, like its natural
effects and the final end
of the indelible power, viz, of communion of order in the
universal Church and even of the title of a particular Church.[74] (mais elle
y ajoute, comme
ses effets naturels
et les actes derniers
de cette puissance
inamissible, la communion
de l' ordre dans l'Eglise universelle
et même de
titre d'une Eglise particulière.)
The collation of communion and
that of the title can however be separated from ordination, and the form
proper to the matter of the institution. (La
collation de la
communion et celle
du titre peuvent
toute fois être séparées de
l'ordination et forment
proprement la matière
de l'institution.) But they alone give
ordination its legitimacy and its usefulness [legitimate use] (Mais seules
elles donnent à
l'ordination sa légitimité et
son utilité.) It is therefore in
communion and title that the mission consists principally. This is what is important to receive through an authentic
transmission from the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
And here we believe we should make a
passing remark.
The ordination of bishops is unique in
that the minister who confers it is not of a higher order than the one who
receives it.
The bishop ordains priests because the
episcopate is the source of the priesthood. Jesus Christ, whose supreme
pontificate is the sole source of the episcopate, having returned to the
splendors of his eternity, wishes to be supplemented in the ordination of the
bishop by the episcopate itself, insofar as this ordination confers the
episcopal order; the bishop receives the character of this order from a bishop
who are his equal. There is here, in the divine liturgy, something like a
mysterious application of the principle that we explained in our first book, by
virtue of which the members supply the absent of the head by his power and by
his virtue, which is communicated to them.
But Jesus Christ who, so to speak, is
absent here below to order, is not absent as to jurisdiction. He is present in
his Vicar; and in the ordination itself, for it to be legitimate, appears this
Vicar, who, no longer as a simple bishop, but as Vicar of Christ and Head of
the episcopate, gives in his person or through his representative the
legitimacy to ordination and the authentic mission to the consecrated.
But Jesus Christ who, so to speak, is
absent here below to the order, is not absent as to jurisdiction. He is present
in his Vicar; and in the ordination itself, for it to be legitimate, appears
this Vicar, who, no longer as a simple bishop, m. read as Vicar of Christ and
Head of the Episcopate gives, in his person or through that of his
representative, legitimacy to the ordination and authentic mission to the one
consecrated.
The liturgical laws have expressed these
mysteries by calling many bishops to celebrate episcopal ordinations: and,
although a single bishop is fully sufficient, because the episcopate is
entirely possessed by each of the bishops, it is fitting that the College be
shown in some way in this action as the minister secondary to which it belongs
to supplement the sole principal minister in whom is the son of the episcopate,
the head of the episcopal order, the absent Christ.
However, if the episcopal order is thus
conferred by the College, only the metropolitan in the ordination confers on
the new bishop the fullness of the effects of ordination itself, that is to
say, jurisdiction and mission. And that
is why, in the text that we quoted above and in the common language of
antiquity, although the patriarchs and the metropolitans are not the only ones
to ordain their suffragans, only the patriarchs and the metropolitans are
spoken of as those with the right to confer the legitimate mission in
ordination: “Metropolitans have the right to ordain bishops, and they must
themselves be ordained by the patriarchs to whom their sees are subject.” (2)
This is assuredly the most
natural and simplest mode of transmission of episcopal power. In the ordination
performed by the Pope, the patriarch or the metropolitan, the visible head of
the episcopate, by himself or his representatives, by giving the ordination its
legitimacy, adds to the episcopal character, which is the bare effect of
ordination, all the effects of this legitimacy, that is, communion and episcopal title, or
in other words mission and jurisdiction.
…
p. 245:
We have explained in our first book that
from apostolic times, and for long centuries, what is called today
jurisdiction, as opposed to the order itself and the naked character conferred
by the sacrament, was called by the name of Communion. It is that hierarchical
communion distinct in each degree, and which must never be confused with
that other widely understood communion which is only the part of life that the.
believer receives through his incorporation into the mystical body of Jesus
Christ.
Thus, to give hierarchical communion or to refuse this communion is
indeed, for the superior, to confer or to refuse jurisdiction; to withdraw this
communion is indeed to depose the inferior and to withdraw from him his share
of jurisdiction.
Ainsi
que nous l'avons
vu, l'ordination, lorsqu'elle
est légitime et produit
tous ses effets,
ne confère pas
le seul caractère
nu de l'ordre sacré,
mais elle y
ajoute, comme ses
effets naturels et les
actes derniers de
cette puissance inamissible,
la communion de
l'ordre dans l'Eglise universelle
et même le
titre d'une Eglise
particulière.
La
collation de la
communion et celle
du titre peuvent
toute fois être séparées de
l'ordination et forment
proprement la matière
de l'institution. Mais seules
elles donnent à
l'ordination sa légitimité et
son utilité. C'est
donc dans la
communion et le
titre que la
mission consiste principalement. C'est
là ce qu'il
importe de recevoir
par une transmission authentique
du Vicaire de
Jésus-Cbrist. …
Et
ici nous croyons
devoir faire en
passant une remarque.
L'ordination des
évêques a ceci
de particulier que
le ministre qui la
confère n'est point
d'un ordre supérieur
à celui qui
la reçoit.
L'évêque
ordonne les prêtres
parce que l'épiscopat
est la source de
la prêtrise. Jésus-Christ,
dont le pontificat
suprême est la source
unique de l'épiscopat,
étant rentré dans
les splendeurs de son
éternité, veut être
suppléé dans l'ordination
de l'évêque par
l'épiscopat lui-même, en tant
que cette ordination
confère l'ordre épiscopal;
et l'évêque reçoit
le caractère de
cet ordre, d'évèques
en cela ses égaux.
Il y a là, dans
la divine liturgie,
comme une application mystérieuse du
principe que nous
avons exposé dans
notre premier livre, en
vertu duquel les
membres suppléent au
chef absent par sa
puissance et dans
sa vertu, qui
leur est communiquée.
Mais
Jésus-Christ qui, pour
ainsi dire, est
absent ici-bas quant
à
la 'ordre, n'est point
absent quant à
la juridiction. Il
est présent dans son
Vicaire; et dans l'ordination
même, pour qu'elle
soit légitime, apparaît ce
Vicaire, qui, non
plus comme simple
évêque, m. lis comme Vicaire
du Christ et
Chef de l'épiscopat,
donne en se personne
ou en celle
de son représentant
la légitimité à
l'ordination et la mission
authentique au consacré.
Les
luis liturgiques ont
exprimé ces mystères
en appelanl plusieurs
évêques à célébrer
les ordinations épiscopales
: et, encore qu'un
seul évoque v
suffise pleinement, parce
que l'épiscopat est tout
entier possédé par
chacun des évêques,
il convient que
le Collège soit en
quelque sorte montré
dans cette action
comme le ministre secondaire
auquel il appartient
de suppléer le
seul ministre principal en
qui est la
sonne de l'épiscopat,
le Chef de l'ordre
épiscopal, lé^is Christ
absent.
Mais
toutefois, si l'ordre
épiscopal est ainsi
conféré par le
Collège, le seul métropolitain
dans l'ordination confère
au nouvel évêque la
plénitude des effets
de l'ordination même,
c'est-à-dire la juridiction et
la missiqn. Et
voilà pourquoi, dans
le texte que
nous citions plus haut
et dans le
langage commun de
l'antiquité, encore que les
patriarches et les
métropolitains ne soient
pas seuls à ordonner
leurs suffragants, il
n'est parlé que
des seuls patriarches et des
seuls métropolitains en
tant qu'il s'agit
du droit de
conférer dans l'ordination la
mission légitime :
« Les métropolitains ont droit
d'ordonner les évêques,
et ils doivent
eux-mêmes être ordonnés par
les patriarches auxquels
leurs sièges sont
soumis. » (2)
Voilà
assurément le mode
le plus naturel
et le plus
simple de la transmission de
la puissance épiscopale.
Dans l'ordination accomplie par
le Pape, le
patriarche ou le
métropolitain, le chef
visible de l'épiscopat, par
lui-même ou ses
représentants, donnant à
l'ordination sa légitimité, ajoute
au caractère épiscopal,
qui est l'effet
de l'ordination nue, tous
les effets de
cette légitimité, c'est-à-dire la communion
et le titre
épiscopal, ou en d'autres termes
la mission et la
juridiction.
And so as Jesus
Christ is whole in each of the parts of the Church, and the Church is whole in
its whole and whole in each of its parts.
Et ainsi
Jésus-Christ est tout entier dans chacune des parties de l'Eglise, et l'Eglise
est tout entière dans son tout et tout entière dans chacune de ses parties
From his book, Vol 2 pp. 9-12:
It is necessary here to remark that what
we say of the decadence and destruction to which the particular Churches alone
are subject, cannot derogate from the divine right on which they rest.
We have, in fact, sufficiently established
elsewhere, that the constitution of the particular Church belongs to the
mystery of the hierarchy, and therefore belongs to the divine right and
immutable right which is in it.
It is by this divine right of hierarchy
that the Church rests on the foundation of the episcopate; it is by this divine
right that the bishop is the head of his Church, it is on this divine right
that the essential relations of the bishop, of the priests, of the ministers,
of the faithful are established.
Positive law cannot suppress this order:
this order is willed by God and has been established by him; it is substantial
and holds to the very depths of the mystery.
Also, as we have said elsewhere, the state
of the missions, where this order does not yet exist, can never be a perfect
and definitive state; it must serve as a preparation and introduction to the
sacred regime of the Churches; until then, religion is not fully established;
and this is why the Sovereign Pontiffs have nothing so much at heart as to
introduce the hierarchy into the regions recently evangelized.
When they make these solemn creations,
they believe they greatly honor their reign; the universal Church celebrates
with holy transports the establishment of new episcopal sees and the birth of
new Churches, like that of so many daughters, the fruit of her eternal
fruitfulness.
And if it is objected to the divine right
of the particular Church this fact that Churches can fail and perish, we will
answer that it is with each of them as it is in another order of human
families. These have received from God a form of divine right in marriage and
paternal authority; and this constitution remains, even when particular
families violate it or perish. And these dissolutions of particular families
cannot prejudice the divine right on which they all rest, and which alone can
constitute them.
The constitution of the universal Church
and that of the particular Churches are therefore equally of divine right; and
yet there is this difference between them, namely, that the universal Church
cannot perish, while the particular Churches are able to fail.
There are thus two degrees in the
application of divine right to the new humanity: and the reason for this is
manifest.
The universal Church cannot cease to
exist, because the divine decree itself unites its existence and essence,
especially since this Church, being unique, would have no application if it
were to fail. The particular Churches will be born over time and will pass away
it; but they can only be born and subsist in accordance with the type that divine
right has predetermined for them.
Moreover, this necessary distinction has
been shown in the very institution of the hierarchy.
Jesus Christ has in fact established only the universal Church, and,
remaining her sole Head, he has given her all lawful form and existence by
instituting his Vicar in the person of Peter, and the College of Bishops in
that of the Apostles. In this institution of the universal Church was implicitly
contained all the particular Churches, not however in themselves, but in their
origin and their type, for Jesus Christ did not wish to establish any
particular Church: he entrusted to the apostles after him the care of bringing
them out from source in which he had enclosed them all. And, because he
wanted to follow this order in his work, he contented himself, at least in our
opinion, with instituting bishops containing in their character all the lower
degrees; for he himself did not ordain priests of the second order nor ministers
whose offices more properly concern the Churches particular, but he left it to
the apostles to bring it out after him, by establishing the sacred orders of
the diaconate and the priesthood. Thus the particular Churches indeed depend in their
institution on the universal Church and participate in her divine origin, but
they were not immediately and singularly established by Christ, as she was.
((Il est nécessaire
ici de le
remarquer: ce que
nous disons de la
décadence et de
la destruction auxquelles
les Eglises particulières seul sujettes,
ne saurait déroger au droit divin sur
lequel elles reposent.
Nous avons,
en effet, suffisamment
établi ailleurs, que
la constitutione del L’
Eglise particulière tient
an mystère de la
hiérarchie, et appartient par
conséquent au droit
divin et immuable
qui est en elle.
C'est par
ce droil divin
dé la hiérarchie
que l'Eglise repose
sur le fondement de
l'épiscopat; c'est par
ce droit divin
que l'évêque est le
chef de son
Eglise, ci c'est
sur ce droit
divin que sont
établies les relations essentielles
de l'évêque, des
prêtres, des ministres,
des fideles.
Le droit positif
ne saurait supprimer
cet ordre: cet
ordre est voulu de Dieu et a été
établi par lui;
il est substantiel
et tient aux
profondeurs mêmes du mystère.
Aussi, comme
nous l'avons dit
ailleurs, l'état des
missions, où cet ordre
n'existe pas encore,
ne saurait être
jamais un état
parfait et définitif; il
doit servir de
préparation et d'introduction au
régime sacré des Eglises;
jusque-là, la religion
n'est pas entièrement
établie; et c'est pourquoi
les Souverains Pontifes
n'ont rien tant
à cœur que d'introduire la
hiérarchie dans les
régions récemment évangélisées.
Quand ils
font ces créations
solennelles, ils croient
honorer grandement leur règne;
l'Eglise universelle célèbre
dans de saints
transports l’établissement
des nouveaux sièges
épiscopaux et la
naissance des nouvelles Eglises,
comme celle d'autant
de filles, fruit de son
éternelle fécondité.
El si l'on
objecte au droit
divin de l'Eglise
particulière ce fait
que des Eglises peuvent
défaillir et périr,
nous répondrons qu'il
en est de chacune
d'elles comme il
en est dans
un autre ordre
des familles humaines. Celles-ci
ont reçu de
Dieu une forme
de droit divin dans le
mariage et l'autorité
paternelle; et cette
constitution demeure, alors même
que des familles
particulières la violent
ou périssent. Et ces dissolutions des
familles particulières ne
sauraient préjudicier au droit
divin sur lequel
elles reposent toutes,
et qui seul
peut les constituer.
La
constitution de l'Eglise
universelle et celle
des Eglises particulières sont donc
également de droit
divin; et toutefois
il y a entre elles cette dilférence
que l'Eglise universelle
ne peut périr
et que les Eglises particulières
sont sujettes à
défaillir.
Il y a ainsi comme
deux degrés dans
l'application du droit
divin a la nouvelle humanité: et
la raison en
est manifeste.
En
effet, non seulement
l'essence, mais l'existence
même de l'Eglise universelle
est de droit
divin, tandis que
l'essence suele et la
forme des Eglises
particulières, mais non
leur existence individuelle, appartiennent à
ce droit.
L'Eglise
universelle ne peut
cesser d'exister, parce
que le décret divin
unit en elle
l'existence et l'essence,
d'autant cpie cette
Eglise étant unique, il
n'aurait point d'application
si elle venait
à défaillir.
Les
Eglises particulières naîtront
avec le temps
et passeront avec lui; mais elles
ne pourront naitre
ni subsister que
conformément au type que le droit
divin leur a
prédéterminé.
Du
reste, cette distinction
nécessaire a élé
montrée dans l'institution même de
la hiérarchie.
Jésus-Christ n'a
proprement établi en
fait que l'Eglise
universelle, et, demeurant son
Chef unique, il
lui a donné
tout à la
lois la forme et
l'existence en instituant
son Vicaire en
la personne de Pierre,
et le Collège
des évèques en
celle des apôtres.
Dans
cette institution de
l'Eglise universelle était
bien renfermée et comme
impliquée celle de
toutes les Eglises
particulières, non pas toutefois
en elles-mêmes, mais
dans leur origine
et leur type,
et Jésus-Christ n'en voulut
établir aucune en
particulier: il confia
aux apôtres après lui
le soin de
les faire sortir
de la source
où il les
avait toutes renfermées. Et,
parce qu'il voulut
suivre cet ordre
en son ouvrage, il
se contenta, du
moins à notre
sentiment, d'instituer des évèques
renfermant dans leur
caractère tous les
degrés inférieurs, et il
n'ordonna pas lui-même
des prêtres du
second ordre ni des
ministres dont les
offices regardent plus
proprement les Eglises particulières; mais
il laissa aux
apôtres la charge
de faire paraître après lui,
en établissant celles-ci,
les ordres sacrés
du diaconat et de
la prêtrise.
Ainsi
les Eglises particulières
dépendent bien dans
leur institution de l'Eglise
universelle et participent
en elle à
sa divine origine, mais
elles n'ont point
été immédiatement et
singulièrement établies comme elle
par Notre-Seigneur luimême.
One
can find some analogy, if you will, to this sequence of things in the order of
the old Adam.
God,
by consecrating the marriage of our first parents, certainly instituted in it
all those who were to follow until the end of time; and Jesus Christ,
instituting the universal Church, included in it the institutions of all the
particular Churches. But there is this great difference, that the marriages
which were to be celebrated among men, although they had their type in that of
Adam, could not depend on it in their actual existence; whereas, on the
contrary, the particular Churches depend entirely on the universal Church, not
only in that they proceed from her virtue, but in that they are only an
interior application, so to speak, of this virtue which cannot flow outside; in
that they can subsist only insofar as they remain in her: in that they live
from her own substance and have exist only from her existence, which is
communicated to them.
As
soon as they withdraw from this center, they must die. Hence the vissitudes
which reach the parts of the universal Church without affecting the universal
Church herself.
As
we see a living body gradually expelling from its organism the exhausted
elements and renewing itself by new elements, so the Church, which is the body
of Christ, keeps its purity by separating what is degraded from what is noble
and holy (i); she remains in her integrity by rejecting from her bosom the dead
parts, and unceasingly replaces what she has apparently lost by incorporates
new peoples.
On
peut trouver quelque
analogie, si l'on
veut, à cette
suite des choses dans
l'ordre de l'ancien
Adam.
Dieu,
en consacrant le
mariage de nos
premiers parents, institua bien
certainement en celui-là
tous ceux qui
devaient suivre jusqu'à la fin des temps; et Jésus-Christ, instituant
l'Eglise universelle, y renferma
toutes les institutions
des Eglises particulières. Mais
il y a cette
grande différence, que
les mariages qui
se devaient célébrer parmi les hommes, encore qu'ils
eussent leur type dans celui d' Adam, n'en devaient pus
dépendre dans leur
existence actuelle; tandis qu'au
countraire les Eglises
particulières dépendent entièrement de l'Eglise
universelle,
non
seulement en ce qu'elles
procèdent de sa vertu, mais en ce qu'elles ne sont qu'une application
intérieure, pour ainsi dire, de cette
vertu qui ne se peut ecouler au dehors; en ce qu'elles ne
peuvent subsister qu'autant qu'elles demeurent en elle: en ce qu'elles vivent de sa propre substance
et qu'elles n'existent que par sa propre existence quileur est communiquee.
Des
qu'elles se retirent de ce centre,
il faut qu'elles
meurent. De la ces vissitudes
qui atteignent les parties de
l'Eglise universelle sans
l'atteindre elle même.
Comme on
voit un corps
vivant expulser peu
à peu de
son organisme les éléments
épuisés et se renouveler par des
éléments nouveaux, ainsi l'Eglise, qui est le corps du Christ, garde sa
purete a en séparant ce qui est avili de ce qui est noble et saint» (i);
demeure en son intégrité en rejetant de son sein les parties mortes, et
répare sans cesse ses pertes apparentes et s'incorporant de nouveaux peuples.
III
But
if, among all the Churches, none is assured by the common law to remain in its
integrity until the end of the world, there is one however which, derogating
from this law, possesses by a singular privilege this assurance and to which
the promise made.
This
Church is the Holy Roman Church. Guardian of the chair of Saint
Peter, she must preserve the heritage of the Vicar of Jesus Christ as a sacred
deposit for which she is responsible to the whole world until the end of the
centuries.
The
destiny of this holy Church is thereby closely tied to that of the universal
Church; it participates in the promises that have been made to it, and to
her perpetual indefectibility.
It
is even by means of it that the promises made to the universal Church have
their fulfillment; and the firmness of Peter, that is to say the unshakable
stability of the Roman Church which is the chair of Peter, is his own firmness.
Mais
si, parmi toutes
les Eglises, aucune
n'est assurée par
la loi commune de
demeurer dans son intégrité jusqu'à
la fin du monde, il
en est une
cependant qui, dérogeant
à cette loi,
possède par un privilège
singulier cette assurance
et à laquelle
la promesse en faite.
Cette
Eglise est la sainte Eglise
romaine. Gardienne de la chaire de
saint Pierre, elle doit
conserver l'héritage du
Vicaire de Jesus-Christ comme
un dépôt sacré don’t elle est
responsable au monde entier jusqu'à la fin des
siècles.
La destinée
de cette sainte
Eglise est par
là étroitement lice à celle de l'Eglise
universelle; elle participe aux
promesses qui ont
été faites á celle ci, et à sa perpétuité
indéfectible.
C'est
même par son moyen que les promesses faites à l'Eglise universelle ont leur
accomplissement; et la fermeté de
Pierre, c'est- à-dire
l'inébranlable stabilité de
l'Eglise romaine qui est la
chaire de Pierre, est sa propre fermeté.
It is because the opinion
we are fighting against, which makes the bishops' right of session dependent on
their actual jurisdiction over a distinct herd, does present a danger on this
side. Basically, if the bishop only sits on the Council because he currently
exercises responsibility for a particular people, it will be logical to give
greater authority to the pastor of a larger flock. The number that is below
will authorize the prelates instead of the pure mission that comes from above,
and the hierarchy will be wounded in its very essence.
(C'est qu'en
effet l'opinion que
nous combattons, qui
fait dépendre le droit
de séance des
évèques de leur
juridiction actuelle sur un
troupeau distinct, offre
bien, de ce
côté, un danger.
Au fond, si l'évèque
ne siège au
Concile que parce
qu'il exerce actuellement
la charge d'un peuple particulier,
il sera logique
de donner une
plus grande autorité au
pasteur d'un troupeau
plus nombreux. Le
nombre qui est en
bas autorisera les
prélats au lieu
de la pure
mission qui vient d'en
haut, et la
hiérarchie sera blessée
dans son essence môme.)
https://archive.org/stream/delgliseetdesa00gr/delgliseetdesa00gr_djvu.txt
The great discussions which took place at the time of the Council of Trent,
on the origin of the episcopal power, engaged still further in separating the
cause of the apostles from that of the bishops. For establish the original
dependency that binds all the power of these to the Vicar of Jesus Christ,
their mission was distinguished from that of the apostles, and it was granted, too easily in our opinion, that the latter,
emanating directly from Jesus Christ, in no way proceeded from Saint Peter. We think, on the contrary, that all the power of the
apostles actually depended on Saint Peter, that it habitually flowed from him and in its exercise,
by the very fact that it had its source in Jesus Christ, the Vicar, in our
opinion, not having to distinguish it from that which it fully represents in
everything that concerns the economy and the distribution of power. Moreover, the distinction established between the
origin of these half-missions found no solid foundation in the example of the
apostles; for it was necessary, alongside this particular power of the
apostolate, to grant them the episcopate as well, and to agree that they had
not received it from Our Lord immediately but the apostolate itself. But if
this apostolic power was declared sovereign by its extent, and of divine origin
like the hierarchy itself, distinct however from it, instituted collaterally
and destined not to be confused with it, its nature remained more obscure, and
the same theologians have varied in the notion they give of it. The great
Bellarmine makes it a simple delegation, independent of the power of order,
conferred on the apostles before their episcopate, and similar in its
essence to the delegated powers of the legates of the Holy See and the vicars
apostolic.
Others, on the contrary, make it a truly
ordinary power, which was not to be absolutely extinguished in the Church, and
which was really perpetuated by being concentrated in the Sovereign Pontiff,
the only distinct successor of an apostle, and, in this capacity, sole heir of
the entire Apostolic College.
These systems offer, in our opinion,
several serious disadvantages.
According to the first, the entire
hierarchy. the episcopate with its most sublime gifts, in the nascent Church,
was submitted to the sovereignty of lay envoys placed outside of any pontifical
or priestly consecration: for it would be as simple disciples and before any
institution of their priesthood (3) that the apostles, although subsequently
invested with the episcopal character, would have received, to exercise it
afterwards with such great empire, the magisterium of doctrine and the
authority of spiritual government, and that they would have founded the
churches.
As for the second system,
it multiplies the entities in the hierarchy without utility, contrary to the
axiom of philosophy, by supposing in the Sovereign Pontiffs a power which has
no useful application. Indeed, all their acts in the government of the Church
draw their strength from their title of Vicars of Jesus Christ: they do not
need any other quality, and it is not appropriate to add some foreign element
to the sovereignty even of Jesus Christ, whom they exercise, as if something
lacked in his strength; for this sovereignty suffices to explain the whole
extent of their unlimited power. Moreover, to establish in fact the existence
of this other distinct authority which one wishes to attribute to the Popes, it
would be necessary, which one will never do, to find in history a circumstance,
were it unique, where the Popes , exercising sovereign jurisdiction over the
universal Church, would have acted distinctly, not simply as heads of this
Church and Vicars of Jesus Christ, but as heirs of the Apostolic College.
To the disadvantages of
these systems, if we want to get to the bottom of things, are added other
difficulties which are not less.
And first of all, we must
find in the Gospel that power of the apostles distinct from the episcopate,
instituted by our Lord in their persons. All the texts which look at their
mission apply to the episcopate and look in them at the bishops, their successors.
It is to the bishops, in their persons, that Jesus Christ said: " Go,
instruct all the nations, behold, I am with you until the consummation of the
ages" (1); it was to the bishops that he said in them, after he had first
given the power to bind and unbind to Saint Peter: "Whatever you bind will
be bound, and whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven." » (2) And thus
the bishops are in themselves subordinated to Saint Peter in this ministry: for
what follows does not reverse the beginning, says Bossuet, and the word said
first to Saint Peter placed them under his guidance (3). Finally, it is of the
bishops that it is said in their persons to Saint Peter:
And first of all, we must
find in the Gospel that power of the apostles distinct from the episcopate, instituted by our Lord
in their persons. All the texts which
look at their mission apply to the episcopate and look in them at the bishops,
their successors. It is to the bishops, in their persons, that Jesus Christ
said: " Go, instruct all the nations, behold, I am with you until the consummation
of the ages" (1); it was to the bishops that he
said in them, after he had first given the power to bind and unbind to Saint
Peter: "Whatever you bind will be bound, and whatever you loose will be
loosed in heaven." » (2) And thus the bishops are in themselves
subordinated to Saint Peter in this ministry: for what follows does not reverse
the beginning, says Bossuet, and the word said first to Saint Peter placed them
under his guidance (3). Finally, it is of the bishops that it is said in
their persons to Saint Peter: [confirm the brethren] and they are all placed in
them under the principal authority of his magisterium and confirmed by him in
the faith.
Tradition understands things the same way. The Fathers,
although they celebrated at will the admirable privileges of the apostles, did
not distinguish, in matters of jurisdiction properly so called, between an
apostolic power and an episcopal power; and Cardinal Gerdil agrees, while
claiming to find the thing itself in the monuments of history. For us, we
think that the true distinction between apostolic privilege strictly understood
and the episcopal power of the apostles must rest on another foundation.
In our opinion, the
apostolic privilege includes the personal gifts which we have mentioned above,
with all their consequences and the immense authority which these gifts brought
with them to the wishes of the nascent Church, and we bring back to the episcopate
all that which is proper to the jurisdiction.
Moreover, we do not mean,
by this doctrine, to make the bishops sovereign in the universal Church because
they are the successors of the apostles, but on the contrary to bring back all
the authority of the apostles to its just subordination vis-à-vis their leader
Saint Peter, because they are the ancestors of the bishops.
They are just
that, says Saint Gregory the Great: Paul. André, Jean, what are they, if not
what are the chief bishops of each of the particular Churches? (3) Consequently
they have no power except in full and complete dependence on the Vicar of Jesus
Christ. [check translation]
And first of all, they
are subject to him in their very mission and by the origin of their
power.
The mission
itself is not an act once performed and which is perpetuated only in its
effects, but it is a permanent relationship, a communication without repentance
of the power which flows from a divine and inexhaustible source.
The creation of inferior
beings is itself perpetuated by the preserving act of God, and the creature
depends at every moment on the divine power which never ceases, while
preserving it, to communicate to it all the being it has received from it.
first of all.
It is the same with those
communications of a superior order by which Jesus Christ gives to his apostles
and to the bishops the power which he has received from his Father. Remaining
himself inviolably united to this Father from whom he eternally receives all
his substance and his divinity, he perpetuates by a permanent act what he
communicated at the beginning, and his hierarchs do not cease to receive from
him throughout what follows. he gave them a first time.
This same Jesus Christ,
having therefore in the beginning sent forth and instituted the apostles, does
not cease to communicate to them the whole substance of their mission. But
since henceforth, since his glorious Ascension, he will be made present here
below in the person of his Vicar, it is in this Vicar that the source from
which the apostles will usually and indivisibly flow is henceforth placed and
made visible. mission and all the authority they originally received from the
mouth of the Son of God.
They are not lowered
thereby, any more than the bishops their successors will be lowered after them:
for it is one thing to receive what they have of Jesus Christ speaking on earth
in his own humanity, or speaking by the organ of the Vicar which he instituted
to represent him.
Thus is verified in the hierarchy this magnificent law of
divine society where all order is established on the procession of persons and
on the relations of origin. Likewise,
in the work of Jesus Christ here below, all dependence
rests and is founded on the mission which is like a continuation and an
imitation of the divine processions. The bishops depend on Jesus Christ and on
the Vicar of Jesus Christ, because they proceed indivisibly and as from a
single source from Jesus Christ and his Vicar: and the apostles themselves will
not come under Saint Peter by the fact of a simple economy of convenience or
utility, but by the very necessities of the origin of their power, which
continually comes to them from this head and in the communion of this head,
because it comes from Jesus Christ made visible in this head, presiding in him alone over the government of the new people, and
spreading from this single summit all the various powers which are necessary
for its wisdom and growth..
Also in all the
continuation of their ministry, the apostles seem subject to Saint Peter and
Saint Peter acts as their leader. Saint Paul, at the beginning of his
apostolate, was ordained bishop by the disciples of the apostles in the
communion of Saint Peter (i); he begins on this basis to evangelize the
peoples. But he must come to Jerusalem to give an account to Saint Peter
himself of what he has undertaken (2): he needs his approval for the past and
for the future, so as not to work in vain. and build wood from the foundation:
ne in vaciuim currerem aut eucurrissem. Saint Peter confirms him in his mission
and gives him the special task of evangelizing the Gentiles.
We cannot doubt that in
their apostolic assemblies the other apostles did not have the same conduct as
Saint Paul, just as the division of the world between them did not take place
without the authority of the prince of their College (5).
Saint Peter exercises his
supreme jurisdiction without hesitation over the whole Church and over his
brothers themselves. His judicial power appears in the condemnation of the
memory of the only prevaricating apostle, Judas.
In their turn, his
successors will not doubt for a moment their sovereign power, When they break
the regulations established in Asia by the authority of the apostle Saint John
on the subject of the Paschal feast (i). It is in vain that we allege this authority
to them, it will not stop them, and they will always regard themselves as the
depositaries of a power to which that of the apostles, like that of the
bishops, is equally subject. Moreover, as we have already said, the
extraordinary gifts given to the apostles, far from removing them from this
supreme authority of the hierarchy, were themselves within the province of the
power entrusted to the Church and principally to its Head.
It is the ordinary and
permanent authority of this head who decides and who judges these extraordinary
gifts, who judges the inspiration of the sacred authors and
fixes the canon of the Scriptures, who canonizes the saints, regulates and
authorizes the worship of the apostles; and thus, on this side again, the
apostolate, instead of appearing to us as independent of the hierarchy, relies
in its most excellent gifts on the authority of which it is the depository
(relève dans ses dons les plus excellents de l'autoritédont elle est
dépositaire.).
After that we will not
dispute certain more striking manifestations of the power of the apostles. They
founded churches; they even sometimes governed them, either by the divine
ascendancy which the Holy Spirit gave them, with the bishops their disciples established
by them in the more illustrious cities, or, if one wants to see in it a true
jurisdiction, by virtue of a delegation of their leader Saint Peter. We cannot,
in fact, refuse to the latter the right to extend as much as he wishes by his
mandates and his simple consent around the powers which depend on him: and we
will not contradict in this the opinion of Bellarmine, which makes the superior
power of the apostles a delegated power, on the condition, however, of
attaching this delegation individually to Saint Peter as to Jesus Christ
himself, so as not to derogate in any way from their just subordination with
regard to their head, instead of attaching it to Jesus alone. Christ, with a
sort of exclusion of the Vicar, by a special institution independent of that of
the sovereign pontificate of Saint Peter.
In their turn, his
successors will not doubt for a moment their sovereign power, When they break
the regulations established in Asia by the authority of the apostle Saint John
on the subject of the Paschal feast (i). It is in vain that we allege this authority
to them, it will not stop them, and they will always regard themselves as the
depositaries of a power to which that of the apostles, like that of the
bishops, is equally subject. Moreover, as we have already said, the
extraordinary gifts given to the apostles, far from removing them from this
supreme authority of the hierarchy, were themselves within the province of the
power entrusted to the Church and principally to its Head.
It is the ordinary and
permanent authority of this head who decides and who judges these extraordinary
gifts, who judges the inspiration of the sacred authors and fixes the canon of
the Scriptures, who canonizes the saints, regulates and authorizes the worship
of the apostles; and thus, on this side again, the apostolate, instead of
appearing to us as independent of the hierarchy, relies in its most excellent
gifts on the authority of which it is the depository.
After that we will not
dispute certain more striking manifestations of the power of the apostles. They
founded the churches; they even governed them sometimes, either by the divine
ascendancy which the Holy Spirit gave them with the bishops their disciples
established by them in the more illustrious cities, or, if one wants to see in
it a real jurisdiction, by virtue of a 'delegation of their leader Saint Peter.
We cannot, in fact,
refuse the latter the right to extend as much as he wishes by his mandates and
his simple consent the circle of powers which depend on him:
and we will not
contradict in this the opinion of Bellarmine, who makes the superior power of
the apostles a delegated power, on the condition, however, of linking this
delegation individually to Saint Peter as to Jesus Christ himself, so as not in
any way to derogate from their just subordination owed to their head, and not
of attaching it to Jesus Christ alone, with a sort of exclusion from the Vicar,
by a special institution independent of that of the sovereign pontificate of
Saint Peter .
We here expose our
opinion with the reserve which suits us, and we keep for the great theologians
from whom we differ in something all the respect which is due to them.
It seems to us that our
feelings bring out the grandeur and the beauty of the work of the Church, this
divine masterpiece. She appears to us to proceed from the mouth and from the
heart of the Son of God with his pure constitution, and this constitution is
sufficient for him from the first days. She has no need of help foreign to the
very powers of her hierarchy, and no authority other than this hierarchy itself
ever exercises its empire over her.
Moreover, whatever the
doctrines of these great theologians on nature "the apostolic power"
may be, they do not really go so far as to call into question the theory of the
constitution of the Church as we have exposed it. in this treaty, founded on
the principality of the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the episcopate; for the
apostolic power, which they suppose distinct from the episcopate, does not
enter into this constitution, has nothing permanent, and is no more a part of
the ecclesiastical hierarchy than the mission of the prophets under the ancient
law. did not enter the hierarchy of the synagogue.
Also the reader, even if
he does not share our opinion on this particular point, would not have to
reject for that the whole of the doctrine that we propose to him in these
pages.
Next Chapter:
All that we have said so
far of the episcopate associated with its head Jesus Christ, makes us see it
established in such an eminent dignity in the universal Church (Y), that one
cannot conceive of a more high except for that of its leader.
Under this head and above the whole body of divine work, the bishops receive from Jesus
Christ the fullness of the priesthood. He Himself possesses the plenitude from
which all receive what suits them; it belongs to him as to the source: it is
the principal and sovereign plenitude. But it gives to the bishops a plenitude of participation, a
secondary and dependent plenitude, ready in its turn to spread below in the
diversity of the lower ministries.
Now, whoever says
plenitude says what nothing can be added to, and a more abundant communication
of the priesthood cannot be conceived. The episcopate therefore cannot be
enlarged; and as, on the other hand, this plenitude received from Jesus Christ
and dependent on him alone constitutes his essence, nothing can be detached
from it either, because then it would no longer subsist.
Thus the
episcopate is one and simple; it subsists equal in all the bishops, wholly in
each as a solidary and indivisible good.(Here he references St.Cyprian).
Hence the
bishops, as members of their College, are all essentially and necessarily equal
to each other as to the substance and substance of their authority.
Les grandes discussions
qui eurent lieu, à l'époque du Concile de Trente, sur l'origine du pouvoir
épiscopal, engagèrent encore à séparer davantage la cause des apôtres de celle
des évèques. Pour établir la dépendance d'origine qui rattache toute la puis
sance de ceux-ci au Vicaire de Jésus-Christ, on distingua leur mission de celle
des apôtres, et on accorda, trop facilement à notre avis, que celle-ci, émanée
directement de Jésus-Christ, ne procédait aucunement de saint Pierre.
Nous pensons, au
contraire, que toute la puis sance des apotres dépendait actuellement de saint
Pierre, qu'elle en découlait habituellement et dans son exercice, parla même
qu'elle avait se source en Jésus-Christ, le
Vicaire, à nose veux, ne ce devant pas distinguer de celui qu ‘il
représente pleinement en touy ce qui concerne l'économie et la distribution de
la puissance.
Du reste, la distinction
établie entre l'origine de ces demi missions ne trouvail pas de fondement
solide dans L'exemple des apôtres; car il fallait bien, a cote de cette
puissance particulière de l'apostolat, leur accorder ausii L’épiscopat, et
convenir qu'ils ne l'avaient pas reçu de Notrenre-Seigneur immédiatement que
l'apostolat lui même.
Mais si cette puissance
apostolique était déclarée souveraine par son étendue, et d'origine divine
comme la hiérarchie elle-même, distincte toutefois de celle-ci, instituée
collatéralement et destinée I no point se confondre avec elle, sa nature
demeurait plus obscure, el les mêmes théologiens ont varié dans la notion
qu'ils en oui donnee.
Le grand Bellarmin en
fait une simple délégation, indépendante de tont pouvoir d'ordre, conférée aua
apôtres avant leur épiscopat, er semblable par son ssence aux pouvoirs délégués
des légats du Saint-Siège et des vicaires apostoliques
D'autres, au contraire,
en font un pouvoir vraiment ordinaire, qui ne devait point s'éteindre
absolument dans l'Eglise, et qui s'est perpétué réellement en se concentrant
dans le Souverain Pontife, seul distinctement successeur d'un apôtre, et, en
cette qualité, seul héritier du Collège apostolique toul entier.
Ces systèmes offrent, à
notre avis, plusieurs graves inconvénients.
D'après le premier, la
hiérarchie tout entire. l'épiscopat avec ses dons les plus sublimes, en ssent
été, dans l'Eglise naissante, soumis a la souveraineté d'envoyés laïques placés
en dehors de toute consecration pontificale ou sacerdotale: car ce serait en
tant que simples disciples et avant toute institution de leur sacerdoce (3) que
les apôtres, bien que revêtus d'ailleurs postérieurement du caractère
épiscopâl, auraient reçu, pour l'exercer ensuite avec un si grand empire, le
magistère de la doctrine et l'autorité du gouvernement spirituel, et qu'ils
auraient fondé les Eglises.
communication
sans repentance de la puissance qui coule d'une source divine et intarissable.
La création des êtres inférieurs elle-même se perpétue par l'acte conservateur
de Dieu, et la créature dépend à chacrae moment de la puissance divine qui ne
cesse, en la conservant, de lui communiquer tout l'être qu'elle en a reçu
d'abord. Il en est de même de ces communications d'un ordre supérieur par
lesquelles Jésus-Cbrist donne à ses apôtres et aux évoques la puissance qu'il a
reçue de son Père. Demeurant lui-même invio- lablement uni à ce Père dont il
reçoit éternellement toute sa substance et sa divinité, il perpétue par un acte
permanent ce qu il a communiqué au commencement, et ses hiérarques ne cessent
de recevoir de lui dans toute la suite ce qu'il leur a donné une pre- mière
l'ois i . Ce même Jésus-Cbrist, ayant donc au commencement envové et institué
les apôtres, ne cesse de leur communiquer toute la substance de leur mission.
Mais comme désormais, depuis sa glorieuse Ascension, il sera rendu présent ici-bas
dans la personne de son A icaire. c'est en ce ^ icaire qu'est désormais placée
et rendue visible la source d'où découlera habituellement et indivisiblement
sur les apôtres la mission et toute l'autorité qu'ils ont reçue originairement
de la bouche du Fils de Dieu. Ils ne sont point abaissés par là, non plus que
les évèques leurs successeurs ne le seront après eux : car c'est tout un de
recevoir ce qu'ils ont de Jésus-Cbrist parlant sur la terre en sa propre
humanité, ou parlant par l'organe du Vicaire qu'il a institué pour le
représenter.
Thus, in the august
Trinity, the Father is the sole principle of all power and all operation
communicated to the Son; and, in the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ, her divine
Head, is in turn in himself and through his Vicar the only principle from which
all bishops receive their authority, and who himself borrows nothing from
bishops. and receives no increase by their help.
(Ainsi, dans
l'auguste Trinité, le
Père est l'unique
principe de toute puissance
et de toute
opération communiquée au
Fils ; et,
clans l'Eglise catholique, Jésus-Christ,
son divin chef,
est à son
tour en lui-même et
par son Vicaire
le seul principe
duquel tous les
évêques reçoivent leur autorité,
et qui lui-même
n'emprunte rien des
évêques et ne reçoit
aucun accroissement par
leur concours.)
____________-
In this unique mystery,
she is in the universal Church and through her, the always unique spouse of
Jesus Christ; i this title, fdle receives t. ois his lions, s,, him. his
baptism, his sacraments, his body and his blood, his t'spiil: he extends his
authority and his tender solicitudes over her, and he is her pastor, always the
only pastor of the universal Church and of particular flocks.
The particular Church,
constituted by the episcopate of its bishop, therefore receives through him all
that belongs to the universal Church and all that constitutes her. What we are
saying here must be understood of the gift made to the Church, that is to say
of all that constitutes the new creature, and of all its riches, but not of the
stable and indefectible possession of these gifts and of these riches; this
stability. guaranteed to the universal Church, is not guaranteed to each of the
particular Churches. The universal Church cannot perish, each particular church
can fail and perish. None of them is necessary as a particular Church. The
Roman Church alone is infallible and imperishable, not by virtue of her quality
as a particular Church, but by virtue of a special privilege and because her
immutable integrity regards the state of the universal Church.
Once again, this bishop.
in whom is the whole episcopate. brings to her all the action of Jesus Christ,
makes her the bride of Jesus Christ; she possesses through him the word of
Jesus Christ, his sacrifice, his body and his blood, his spirit, his sacraments;
it is governed by him and, in the bishop, Jesus Christ is its pastor. In a
word, she is truly Church: she has all the substance of the Church in one and
the same mystery with the universal Church (2), and as the episcopate is
entirely in each bishop, so the universal Church is entirely in each of the
Churches: est tota in toto, and tota in qualibet leave (i).
Let us beware, therefore,
of considering the particular Churches as simple circumscriptions established
solely for the good police of the government, as accidental divisions which are
nothing in substance and whose constitution could be changed at the will of a
legislator. In the order of the old Adam and of the cities which proceed from
him, the families rest on a divine sacrament. In a more august order, in the
humanity of the new Adam, the families which are the Churches also have a
substantial mystery which constitutes them, but everything is there in unity,
and this divine sacrament which constitutes the particular Church does not is
no other than the great sacrament of Jesus Christ and of the universal Church,
and that is why, according to the doctrine of Saint Cyprian, and it is
consistent with the celestial mysteries", immutable and "founded on
the divine stability . » (2)
But it would not be so if
we did not find in this hierarchy of the bishop and his Church the relations
which constitute the superior hierarchies.
The bishop is the head; he
takes the place of the principle. In the bishop is Jesus Christ, and in Jesus
Christ the Father who sends him. The Church which receives the bishop receives
Jesus Christ, and, in receiving Jesus Christ, receives her Father, for he
himself said: "Whoever receives you receives me: and whoever receives me
does not it is not me whom he receives, but my Father who sent me.» (3)
Thus the bishop holds in
her the place of Jesus Christ united to his wife (4); she is herself this
spouse of Jesus Christ called Church and containing within herself all the
mystery of the universal Church.
(Dans ce
mystère unique, elle
est dans l'Eglise
universelle et par elle,
l'épouse toujours unique
de Jésus Christ;
i ce titre,
fdle reçoit t. ois ses
liions, s,, lui.
snn baptême, ses
sacrements, son corps
et son Sang, son
t'spiil : il
étend sur elle
son autorité et
ses tendres sollicitudes, et il
"st son pasteur,
pasteur toujours unique
de l'Eglise universelle et des
troupeau* particuliers.
L'Eglise particulière, constituée
par l'épiscopat de son
évèque,
reçoit donc
bien par lui
tout ce qui
appartient à l'Eglise
universelle et tout ce
qui lu constitue (i). Ceque
nous disons ici
doit s'entendre du don
fait à l'Eglise,
c'est-à-dire de tout
ce qui constitue
la nouvelle créature, et
de toutes ses
richesses, mais non
de la stable
et indéfectible possession de
ces dons et
de ces richesses
; cette stabilité. assurée à
l'Eglise universelle, ne
l'est pas à
chacune des Eglises particulières. L'Eglise universelle
ne peut périr,
chaque h.lise particulière peut
faillir et périr.
Aucune d'elles n'est
nécessaire en tant qu'Eglise
particulière. L'Eglise romaine
seule est infaillible
et impérissable, non pas
en vertu de
sa qualité d'Eglise
particulière, mais par un
privilège spécial et
parce que son
immuable intégrité regarde l'état
de l'Eglise universelle.
Encore une
fois, cet évèque.
en qui est
tout l'épiscopat. lui
apporte toute l'action de
Jésus-Christ, en fait
l'épouse de Jésus-Christ;
elle possède par lui
la parole de
Jésus-Christ, son sacrifice,
son corps et son
sang, son esprit,
ses sacrements; elle
est régie par
lui et, dans l'evèque, Jésus-Christ
est son pasteur.
En un mot,
elle est véritablement Eglise :
elle a toute
la substance de
l'Ealise dans un
seul et même mystère
avec l'Eglise universelle
(2), et comme
l'épiscopat est tout entier
dans chaque évèque,
ainsi l'Eglise universelle
est tout entière dans
chacune des Eglises
: est tota
in toto, et
tota in qualibet parte (i).
Gardons-nous donc
de considérer les ^Eglises particulières
comme de simples circonscriptions établies
seulement pour la
bonne police du gouvernement,
comme des divisions
accidentelles qui ne
sont rien dans la
substance et dont
la constitution pourrait
être changée au gré
d'un législateur. Dans
l'ordre de l'ancien
Adam et des
cités qui procèdent de
lui, les familles
reposent sur un
sacrement divin. Dans un
ordre plus auguste,
dans l'humanité du
nouvel Adam, les familles
qui sont les
Eglises ont aussi
un mystère substantiel
qui les constitue, mais
tout y est
dans l'unité, et
ce sacrement divin
qui constitue l'Eglise particulière
n'est pas autre
que le grand
sacrement de Jésus-Christ et
de l'Eglise universelle,
et c'est pour
cela que, selon la
doctrine de saint
Cyprien, et il
est cohérent aux
mystères célestes », immuable
et « fondé
sur la stabilité
divine. » (2)
XIX - OTHER
Institutiones iuris
canonici ad usum utriusque cleri et scholarum. By by Conte, Matteo, Coronato,
1928. Not sure what the following says:
Tanquerey:
[1] Kleutgen: “Since
the primacy was given to Peter in order to show one Church and one pulpit, the
other pastors are subject to the Roman Pontiff, either each in the
administration of his own Church, or all together in the administration of the
common affairs of the [universal] Church.
For it belongs to the sovereign hierarch [the Pope] to institute new
Churches, to circumscribe by other limits those already instituted, or even to
abolish them altogether, to choose his own pastors for each of these Churches,
or, if they are elected, to confirm them, increase or restrict even their
ordinary power, to judge of the acts of each one, as well as of the acts of the
synods, and, where necessary, to remove the pastors themselves from their
office. These cannot dispose or decree
anything concerning the universal Church unless they have been called by the
reigning Pontiff to share his solicitude; and although, assembled by him,
they bear dogmatic decrees and disciplinary laws as true judges, yet it belongs
to the Roman Pontiff not only to convoke or dissolve their General Councils but
also to direct and confirm them."( 59 MANSI 53,310 C-D).
[2]
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/principles/
[3]
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/03/don-pietro-leone-part-vi-council-and.html
[4]
https://academy.smac.edu/en/publications/letters/april-2014-superior-generals-letter-82-4128
[5] THOLIC DOCTRINE
CLASS “A Study of Tumultuous Times – Part II” By Frs. Dominic & Francisco
Radecki, CMRI
https://stmichaels.org/doctrine-class/pdfs/17-12-12-other-errors-of-Vatican-II-summary.pdf
[6]
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/rejecting-the-imposter-church-letter-to-the-clergy-of-the-diocese-of-rockford/
[7] https://fsspx.uk/sites/sspx/files/an_open_letter_to_confused_cath_-_archbishop_marcel_lefebvre.pd_.pdf;
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/lumen-gentium-clarification-has-yet-be-made-29724
[8]
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/study-collegiality-second-vatican-council-41649
[9]
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/lumen-gentium-clarification-has-yet-be-made-29724
[10] Berto, Pour la
sainte Église romaine, 236-265 (texts from 1964); Itinéraires, no. 115
(July-Aug. 1967) and no. 132 (April 1969); supplement: L’abbé
Berto, 119
[11] http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001May/may29urg.htm
[12] http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001May/may29urg.htm
[13]
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/study-collegiality-second-vatican-council-41649
[15] Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confuse
Catholics
[16] Vigano, June 9, 2020.
[18] https://catholictruthscotland.com/2021/06/24/what-is-collegiality-and-is-it-dangerous/
[19]
U. BfcTTï, La Constituzione donunatica "Pastor aternus" del Concilia
Witicano I, Pontificio Ateneo Antonianum, Roma, 1961, pp. 609-610.
[20]
LE GUILLOU M. J., Les structures sacramentelles et collégiales de la communion
et de la mission,in l'Église en marche, Cahiers de la Pierre Qui Vire, Desclée
de Brouwer, Paris, 1964. op. CIT., p. 123.
[21]
LE GUILLOU M. J., Les structures sacramentelles et collégiales de la communion
et de la mission,in l'Église en marche, Cahiers de la Pierre Qui Vire, Desclée
de Brouwer, Paris, 1964. op. CIT., p. 118.
[22] See
Gérard Leclerc, Rome et les lefebvristes: Le Dossier (Paris: Editions Salvator,
2009)
[23]
Lefebvre: “There is no usual, permanent collegiality.
It does not exist, it cannot exist because that would defeat power. Who is the
one who will exercise power? The Pope with the Bishops, or the Pope alone?
There cannot be two parallel authorities, that is not possible. Our Lord did
not make an institution which is not viable ”(December 19, 1983).
[24] L. Lercher-Schlagenhaufen, Instil. Theolog. 1
th.46, n.456. t.3 b.3 c.4 a . 1 t h . 3 2 n . 1 3 1 8 -1 3 2 1 539
[25] 15. I. Kleutgen,
Relatio de Schemate reformato Constit. De Ecclesia: Msi 53,330b-c. Franzelin
said the same thing often, Theses de Ecclesia th.5,IV,2,3. Those who defend the
bipartite division of the powers do not pay sufficient attention to this, and therefore
they often confuse the magisterial act in the proper sense with a merely
disciplinary act concerning those obliged to hold the doctrine.
[26] “There is no
mention of the universal jurisdiction that the bishops receive at their
consecration. But this is the traditional thesis. At the Council of Trent, the
curialists stated: jurisdiction over the whole Church is a Deo [comes from God]
but jurisdiction over a PARTICULAR territory comes from the pope. It was also
the thesis of the great Ultramontanists of the end of the eighteenth century:
not only Bolgeni, but also Ballerini, Zaccaria, Andreucci, Cappellari
(Gregory XVI). According to them, titular
bishops were members of the ecumenical council iure divino [by divine right]
and that was twice the reply given to Pius IX by the preparatory commission for
Vatican I.”
[27] Although his position is more
nuanced, François Suarez (1548-1617) basically agrees with Cano: "For a
council to be general, it is necessary in itself (per se) that the convocation
be general, it that is to say that all the bishops who are pastors and enjoy
episcopal jurisdiction be summoned there as far as possible” {De fide, t. I,
avail. XI, sect. II, no. 2). “With regard to the annular bishops, no doubt,
they can be called to the Council and there enjoy the prerogative of casting
their vote. But in itself (per se) this is by no means necessary, because they
do not have episcopal jurisdiction. And the custom is that they are not called
there” {ibid. sect. 1, n® 18). The famous German canonist Franz-Xaver and
Schmalzgrueber (1663-1735) repeat the same.
[28] Triumph of the Holy See and of the
Church, translated from the Italian by the Abbé Jammes, Lyon, 1833, t. I, pp.
145-146. The author does not spare his praise for Bolgeni. The work appeared
for the first time in 1799. The translation is made on the 3rd edition (Venice,
1832) after the election of Grégoire XVI.
[29] François-Louis-Michel Maupied,
Juris canonici universi ompendium ex probatissimis auctoribus catholicis,
Paris, 1861. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044081845968&view=1up&seq=236
[also saved as a google ebook]- The
future council, according to the divine constitution of the Church, and the
most serious current question, improperly called the separation of the Church
and of the State, before this council, Paris, 1869. In the same line, Maupied
had been preceded by the great German canonist George Phillips (1804-1872). See
Ecclesiastical Law in its General Principles, translated by Abbé Grouzet,
Paris, 1850-51, t. I, p. 106
[30] On the right to vote of titular
and renunciated bishops in the ecumenical council, dans La Scienza et la Fede,
Naples, 1868, series III, vol. IV, pp. 353-372.
[31] This work could not be submitted
to the Council for debate. It echoes,
however, the deliberations on Chapter III of the first dogmatic constitution De
Ecclesia Christi (the one that defines pontifical infallibility). Two amendments (bearing numbers 35 and 36) had been
proposed which both introduced the idea of the single subject of supreme
power in the Church. On behalf of the Deputation of the Faith, Bishop Zinelli, Bishop of
Treviso, responded at length by developing the theme of the double subject. "On
the contrary, we admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in the
Supreme Pontiff as the head, and that the same true and supreme power exists
even in the head with the members conjoined in the Pope with the bishops.”
[32] (36) See Rerum Ecclesiae,
February 28, 1926, in A.A.S., 1926, t. 18, p. 69 and Fidei donum, April
21, 1957, in A.A.S., 1957, vol. 49, p. 236-237. In this last text, the
following sentences are particularly clear: "If each bishop is proper
pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, his quality of
legitimate successor of the apostles by divine institution makes him jointly
and severally responsible for the apostolic mission of the Church (...). This mission which must embrace all nations and all times
(...) lasts in the person of all the bishops in communion with the 'Vicar of
Jesus Christ'.
[33] Note also that the thesis that we
have presented here maintains a very close relationship between episcopate and
jurisdiction (collegial). In the sheet appended to his minutes of the meeting
of May 17, 1868, the secretary of the Central Commission, Msgr. Giannelli (who
was himself titular archbishop) also draws attention to this link: “But this
total lack of jurisdiction does not seem to be admissible “ (Senonchè questa mancanza total di
giurisdizione non sembra potersi ammettere). (Mansi, t. 49, col. 495).
[34] In this note, we
have limited ourselves to the existence and nature of the collegial
jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, we have excluded from our considerations
the problem of the communication of this jurisdiction. We intend to return
there.
[35] The account is
found in MANSI 49, 492-493
[36] 147 C. Augustine
O.S.B., A commentary on the new code of Canon Law, vol. II, Clergy and
Hierarchy, St. Louis and London, 1928, pp. 220-221.
[37] 150 F. X. WF.RNZ,
JUS Decretalium, Tomus II, Romae, S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1899, Tit. XXXV, n.
738, pp. 884-885.
[38] 151 Op. cit."
Tit. XL, n. 844, p. 1065.
[39]
152 A.
TANQUEREY, op. cit. pp. 660-661: "Episcopi per orbem dispersi et cum R.
Pontifice uniti, unum corpus efformant quod universali Ecclesiae praeest.Non
exinde inferas episcopos gaudere duplici jurisdictione: una particulari in sua
dioecesiquam tenent a Roman Pontifice; alia universali quam a Christo
reciperent in consecratione: nam episcopis inest una tantum jurisdictio, qua
greges sibi commissos immediate pascuunt et S. Pontifici consentiunt in totius
Ecclesiae regimine (...). Episcopi in Concilio CEcumenico congregati ex
jurisdictione a R. Pontifice in eis derivata, ad Ecclesiae gubernationem
concurrunt".
[40]
153 G. VAN
NOORT, op. cit. p. 221: "Ceterum dicendo, omnes episcopos, prout simul cum
Rom. Pontifice unum corpus constituunt, universali Ecclesiae pneesse, non
intendimus duplicem in episcopis adstruere jurisdictionem: unam particularem,
quam immediate a Pontifice recipiunt, et aliam universalem, quam ipse Christus
iis immediate conferret in consecratione episcopali. Minime. Putamus
episcoposnon alia pollere jurisdictione puneter eam, quam a Roman Pontifice
accipiunt"
[41] 154 D. PALMIERI,
op. cit., p. 672
[42] 157 J. HAMER, The
Episcopal Body united to the Pope, its authority in the Church, according to
the documents of the first Vatican Council in RSPT 45 (1961), p. 28
[43] . 158 G. ALBERIGO,
op. cit. pp. 450-452.
[44] Sarebbe in vero un delirio
peggiore di quello, da cui viene agitata qualche contrada, il volere che basti
essere membro del corpo sovrano per governare. Se potesse ciò darsi ad
intendere a qualche democratica o aristocratica società, si vedrebbero tutte in
breve tempo distrutte. Ogni cittadino, ogni nobile creder potrebbe di avere il
diritto di governare un castello, una città, una provincia, senza alcuna
speciale destinazione, poiché avrebbe nel suo supposto sistema una parte del
potere sovrano, ossia la stessa indivisibile sovranità. Ecco perciò inevitabili
le guerre intestine, per levarsi Tun l'altro dalle mani il rispettivo governo:
ecco in continua violenza 1* umanità: ecco uno stato contro natura: ed ecco per
conseguenza necessaria la distinzione accennata delle due autorità. U corpo
sovrano pertanto dovrà considerarsi come deputante la potestà di governo a chi
fra' suoi membri destina a reggere una determinata popolazione, ed il membro a
ciò destinato, siccome dipendente dal corpo che lo ha incaricato di quel
particolare regime, sarà obbligato a contenersi entro quei limiti, e ad
ammettere quelle riserve, che il sovrano consiglio, eia coi gli deriva
l'autorità, più convenienti giudicasse al buon ordine del governo ed alla sua
sovranità. Non altrimenti ne' Vescovi deesi distinguere questo doppio diritto,
di suffragio cioè l' uno, e questo in solidum, di governo poi l'altro, e questo
proveniente loro dal Superiore, cui sono subordinati: e sia poi questo il Papa
o la Chiesa universale, cade in ogni modo l'argomento avversario poiché si
nell' un caso, come nell'altro, tale autorità non è loro propria, originaria ed
assoluta.
[45] Il diritto di suffragio che è nel
Vescovo come membro della Chiesa, chiamasi dal chiarissimo ab.Bolgeni
giurisdizione universale; quello poi di governo, giurisdizione particolare : ed
evidentemente esso autore dimostra nel suo Episcopato (i), come la prima viene
ai Vescovi comunicata immediatamente da Dio, ma non basta per l'attuale
governo, e l'altra vien loro comunicata dalla Chiesa per mezzo del papa suo
capo • La vasta erudizione con cudilucida e prova questa distinzione, non ci
permette di qui trascriverne per esteso i fatti, eh' egli, risalendo fino ai
tempi apostolici, ci espone, e nei quali chiaramente si vede dagli Apostoli ai
Vescovi demandata la giurisdizione particolare.
[47] Osserva egli che fino dal quarto
secolo yi era il costume di ordinar Vescovi ad honorem, quali furono al
riferire di Sozomeno, i tre Vescovi, Barsè, Eulogio, e Lazzaro, ordinati senza
che fosse loro affidato il governo di alcuna diocesi, quantunque avessero il
carattere episcopale, e potessero come tali sedere in concilio. Quindi è che fu
sempre distinta la potestà dell' ordine, che è l universale, dall'altra potestà
di governo, che anzi suole appellarsi essa sola di giurisdizione. Universale
chiama egli la prima, « perchè ciascun Vescovo nelle l'atto ed in vigore della
sua ordinazione, entra « ad essere membro del corpo episcopale, e per conce
seguenza entra in diritto di governare e ammae« strare tutta la Chiesa, quando
sarà in unione con «tutti gli altri, e formerà corpo cogli altri» ; nel qual
senso devesi intendere l'autorità in solidum che dice S. Cipriano da Dio ai
Vescovi conferita.
Vedendosi
per ogni parte abbattuti, riconoscono i novatori una qualche monarchia nella
Chiesa, ma la travisano in modo, che formano del monarca il primo tra uguali
> ed in sostanza il primo de' sudditi, col pretesto di non dover conformare
le idee del governo ecclesiastico a quelle degli umani governi .
«Non si
dee formare (grida un autor del partito) 1' idea della monarchia ecclesiastica
sulle tracce di Puffendorff e di Grozio, ma su quelle di Gesù Cristo istitutor
della Chiesa: sono viziose le comic parazioni che si fanno del governo
ecclesiastico cogli umani governi: per la Chiesa non è il migliore quello che
noi immaginiamo, ma quello che Gesù Cristo ha stabilito. Ora egli e'insegna,
che dal suo governo debb'essere bandito ogni spirito di dominazione, che ha
un'indole diversa dal le forme de' governi temporali, che è un governo di
sapienza, di persuasione, di lume, e non di dispotismo, che S. Pietro fu
stabilito il primo ministro, ma non il solo, che gli altri Apostoli hanno come
Pietro il diritto di governare la Chiesa, e che il sovrano potere risiede, non
in Pietro, ma nel corpo della Chiesa, secondo il detto di Cristo; Die Ecclesiae
(del quale si ragionerà a suo luogo nel seguente trattato). Nelle monarchie
temporali il monarca possiede egli solo tutto il potere senza eccezione, di cui
non sono che rivoli ed emanazioni le potestà subordinate, che egli può
limitare, ristrignere, o annichilare secondo il suo beneplacito. Nella
monarchia ecclesiastica il monarca ministeriale, ossia il Papa, non possiede
egli tutta l'autorità, ma questa è divisa con proporzione fra molti, che non
ricevono la loro porzione da questo monarca, ma la ricevono immediatamente da
Gesù Cristo, monarca essenziale e ne cessano della Chiesa, che disse a tutti, e
non a Pietro solo: Andate, insegnate battezzate, eoc.; ciò che dimostra, essere
la monarchia del Papa temperata coll'aristocrazia; poiché molli hanno ricevuta
dalla stessa sorgente una porzione dell' autorità sovrana, ed in solidum, come
dice san Cipriano, e colla quale è governata la Chiesa » ( i).
[48]
Bolgeni: “This
universal jurisdiction is annexed by the institution of Jesus Christ to the
episcopal character, and is immediately conferred by God on every bishop in his
ordination.”
[49] Bolgeni , p . 125
; — p . 303 .
[50] https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/palladius_john_chrysostom_letter_to_innocent_i.htm
[51]
Augustine: It is ridiculous to say this, as if my own concern belongs to the
church of Hippo. For in other states we act only as much as it pertains to the
Church as much as either us permit or impose on us the bishops of those states,
our brothers and priests
[52] 133 C. JOURNET,
op. cit. p. 491.
[53] 134 J. PERROXE,
op. cit. p. 268: "Dicimus sub duplici respectu tum Apostolos tum episcopos
considerari posse, quatenus nempe unum constituunt corpus et indi viduum cum
ipsorum capite, et quatenus singillatim sumpti singularia membra sunt
[54] 48. D. PALMJERI,
op. cit. p. 450: "Defendimus itaque plenitudinem potestatis Romani
Pontificis in universam Ecclesiam esse talem, ut vel formaliter vel virtualiter
complectatur omnem potestatem qua Ecclesia regenda est et regitur, ut idcirco
sit immediatus fons a quo est iurisdictio Episcoporum. Haec est sententia quam
Caietano in tract. de auctoritate Papa et Concilii, c. 3, atque Dominico Soto
in quartum d. 20. sequitur Bellarminus de Rom. Pontif. 1. 4. c 22. seq.
(...)".
[55] 49. A. TANQUEREY,
Synopsis theologia dogmatica fundamentalis. Pars prima, revised and corrected
edition by J. B. Bord, Desclée & socii, Parisiis-Tornaci-Romse, 1942, n.
994, p. 663, states that this opinion is probabilior.
[56] 50. G. VAN NOORT,
op. cit. p. 219: "Episcopi jurisdictionem in greges suos probabilius non
nisi mediante Romano Pontifice a Deo accipiunt".
[57] 51. L. BILLOT,
op. cit. p. 682: "Et nos quidem (...) communissimam et valde rationabilem
sententiam quae in Pontifice proximum agnoscit jurisdictionis episcoporum
fontem, pluribus argumentis prosecuti sumus".
[58] Quoted by Giuseppe
AUJERIGO. pars I, cap. Il, n. 2, p. 5.)
[59] Berto, Pour la
sainte Église romaine, 236-265 (texts from 1964); Itinéraires, no. 115
(July-Aug. 1967) and no. 132 (April 1969); supplement: L’abbé
Berto, 119
[60] J.
HAMER, Note on episcopal collegiality in RSPT 44 (1960), p. 49
[61] Concedimus lubenter et nos, in
Conc. oecumenico, sive in episcopis coniunctim cum suo capite, supremam inesse
et plenam ecclesiasticam potestatem in fideles omnes. Igitur Episcopi
congregati cum capite in Concilio oecumenico, quo in casu totam Ecclesiam
repraesentant, aut dispersi, sed cum suo capite, quo in casu sunt Ecclesia,
vere plenam potestatem habent. At verba Christi omnia consistere debent. Si ex
eo, quod cum Apostolis, cum Petro et successoribus, futurum se esse promisit,
aliaque concessit, apparet hanc vere plenam et supremam potestatem esse in
Ecclesia cum suo capite coniuncta, eadem prorsus ratione, ex eo, quod similes
promissiones factae sunt Petro soli eiusque successoribus, concludendum est,
vere plenam et supremam potestatem traditam esse Petro et eius successoribus,
etiam independenter ab actione communi cum aliis Episcopis. Quae duo amice
consistere possunt, quin dualismus, qui confusionem parit, introducatur in
Ecclesiam. Hoc postremum incommodum obtineret, si duae ab invicem distinctae et
separatae vere plenae et supremae potestates admitterentur; ut separare caput a
membris est proprium illorum, qui subiiciunt Papam Episcopis collective
sumptis, aut repraesentatis a Concilio generali; tunc enim sequitur, posse ex
una parte stare aliquando Pontificem, etiam in sua qualitate Pontificis Summi,
et ex alia parte Episcopos. E contrario nos admittimus vere plenam et supremam
potestatem existere in Summo Pontifice veluti capite, et eamdem vere plenam et
supremam potestatem esse etiam in capite cum membris coniuncto, sc. in
Pontifice cum Episcopis, salvo semper et inconcusso quod prius admonuimus.)
[62] * P Torrell, La
théologie de l'Épiscopat au premier concile du Vatican, Coll. Unam Sanctam 38,
Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1961. pp. 157 & seq.
[63] Fr. Wernz does not accept
Bolgeni’s position.
[64] P. 413
[65] To search this
quote, the following is another quote from the same relatio, same page: “ed
utraque difficultas evanescit si recte consideretur, ut iam innuimus, non
duplicem esse potestatem Ecclesiæ sed unicam, quam Christus integro Collegio
Apostolico (Petro et Apostolis ceteris) contulit.
[66] Consequenter in
hoc casu in ordine metaphysico potestas quidem constituta est quoad substantiam
( esse spirituale ) et structuram internam ; attamen ipsa non est constituta
quoad « corpus » seu structuram externam . Potestas sacramentaliter collata non
est tantum potentia passiva ad potestatem regendi recipiendam , quae per
recognitionem ex parte Ecclesiae fieret potestas actu , sed causalitas
sacramentalis potestatem regendi quoad substantiam constituens cum recognitione
consecrati ex parte Ecclesiae se extendit eo ipso etiam ad structuram externam
potestatis regendi constituendam . Altera ex parte vere perdurante defectu
recognitionis ex parte Ecclesiae potestas est quidem constituta quoad
substantiam et structuram internam , attamen ipsi deficit , ut sit constituta
in ordine iuridico , elementum essentiale , scilicet structura externa . -
Proinde recognitio consecrationis episcopalis ex parte Ec- clesiae habet
rationem « formae » canonicae , scilicet condicionis seu formalitatis
essentialiter requisitae , quatenus ab ipsa de- pendet legitimitas
consecrationis episcopalis quoad potestatem regendi in Ecclesia societate
iuridica constituendam . Deficiente hac << forma » canonica
consecrationis episcopalis quae igitur est in ordine iuridico- potestas se
efformare non potest ex toto.
Of it itself, constituted as to
substance (in the metaphysical order), lacks the other essentially constitutive
element, namely the "body" or external structure, so that it is
ineffective (in the juridical order) or cannot be juridically exercised. Therefore,
failing the canonical "form" of episcopal consecration, i.e. failing
its juridical re-recognition by the Church in order to establish the power to
rule in the Church's hierarchical society - the power to rule itself (in the
metaphysical order) cannot be fully formed; it lacks one of the two essentially
constitutive elements ("mind" and "body"), namely
"body". In this way, through episcopal consecration, the power of
governing, not recognized by the Church, is indeed established as to substance
(that is, as to the "soul") and internal structure, but not as to the
external structure (that is, as to the "body").
[67] 330 We quote in
extenso the passage delivered on this point by the official reporter, Bishop
Parente: - Non dirimitur quæstio de unitate vel pluritate subjecti, sed
etiamsi sint duo subjecta, inadéquate quidem distincta, unica manet potestas;
quæ quidem etiam extra Concilium collegialiter exerceri potest, dummodo S.
Pontifex, pro suo supremo jure, episcopatum ad actum collegialem invitet et
vocet. Neque magna facienda est difficultas contra vocem "plena", quæ
potestati tum R. Pontificis solius tum R. P. et episcoporum cum ipso
conjunctorum tribuitur. Fortasse major est difficultas de voce
"suprema", quam tamen CIC tribuit Concilio Œcumenico. Sed
utraque difficultas evanescit si recte consideretur, ut iam innuimus, non
duplicem esse potestatem Ecclesiæ sed unicam, quam Christus integro Collegio
Apostolico (Petro et Apostolis ceteris) contulit" (Relatio
circa Caput III, nn. 22-27, in Cone. Vat. II Syn., p. 2071 ).
[68] 31 As Pope John
Paul II said in the Motu proprio Apostolos suos of 21 May 1998: "The power
of the College of Bishops over the whole Church is not the sum of the powers
exercised individually by the Bishops in their particular Churches; it is an
anterior reality [similar to what Dom Grea said] in which the Bishops
participate, and they cannot act on behalf of the whole Church except
collegially" (Apostolos suos 12).
[70] This work could not be submitted
to the Council for debate. It echoes,
however, the deliberations on Chapter III of the first dogmatic constitution De
Ecclesia Christi (the one that defines pontifical infallibility). Two amendments (bearing numbers 35 and 36) had been
proposed which both introduced the idea of the single subject of supreme
power in the Church. On behalf of the Deputation of the Faith, Bishop Zinelli, Bishop of
Treviso, responded at length by developing the theme of the double subject. "On
the contrary, we admit that a truly full and supreme power exists in the
Supreme Pontiff as the head, and that the same true and supreme power exists
even in the head with the members conjoined in the Pope with the bishops.”
[71] The Secretary Bishop Zinelli, in
the name of the Committee for the faith, at Vatican Council I, from the twofold
immediate promise of Christ—one to the College with its Head and the other made
to Peter alone— concluded in general that in the Church there is a twofold
subject of supreme authority, saying: “We admit that full and supreme power
truly exists in the Supreme Pontiff as the Head, and that the same full and
supreme power truly is also in the Head joined together with the members, that
is, in the Pontiff with the Bishops.” And further, because these two
subjects of supreme power are not adequately distinguished from each other,
because the Bishops in no way can obtain the supreme power without the Head, he
rightly concludes that there cannot be any conflict between the two subjects.
(Msi 52,1109-10); Granderath, Constit. Dogmat.
Cone. Vaticani, 223f. note 1. In the Vatican Council J. Kleutgen held the same
thing: Msi 53,321 f.325. See CIC 218, 228 [1917].
[72] 118 C. JOURNET,
op. cit. p. 159, note 1
[73] 119 Cf. Dom GREA,
op. cit. II, cap. IV, p. 214
[74] P. 108: “Also the ordination which makes one enter the hierarchy confers
in the fullness of its effects Order, communion and title.Ordination, even illegitimate, always confers the Order and its powers.naked sances. Legitimate ordination always confers communion,
because it places the one who receives it in the hierarchy of the Churchuniversal. The title may, it is true, not be conferred at the timeof legitimate ordination, which will only givethe hierarchical communion in the universal Church. But inthis case, if the title is subsequently received by the subject, or even if the title, after being lost, is recovered by him, he does not losewhatever time it is conferred, to rest on the communion andon the Order and to go back through it to ordination, like alate fruit, but already contained in germ in the branches and theracine. It can even be conferred before ordination and in view of it.In this case. he expects his perfection and solidity from ordinationsubsequent, on which it depends in advance. It remains precarious until then.and will annihilate itself if ordination fails.
