Collegiality Replies and Counter Replies

 Follow up Replies

John Salza: 

Does Fr. L's decision (to date) not to engage Robert on Collegiality mean he cannot defend Abp. Lefebvre and the Society's grave errors on this subject?  

We shall see. 

_________

Fr. L: 

Dear Mr. N. 

I do not know where Mr Salza got the idea that I would have – supposedly – taken a “decision not to engage Robert on Collegiality.” Does he suppose me to be so superficial as to write without studying first? 

It seems to me that Mr Salza (and Mr Siscoe too) are too prompt to condemn, without proper analysis of the modern situation. 

For Mr Salza, he does not even see the difference between Pope Pius IX, or St Pius X or Pius XII on one side, and Pope Paul VI and John Paul II on the other side; he does not see the difference between the Society of Saint Pius X on the one side and the “petite église” or those condemned by the Synod of Pistoia on the other side. That inability vitiates his whole reasoning, applying the “letter” to completely different situations without even the hint of a difference… 

Mr Siscoe also seems not to see any novelty in the modern notion of collegiality – does he think that all the new “synodality” is perfectly Catholic, or has he some reserves on their claims? One thing should be clear at least, in their practice these modern “synods” are not behaving the way the ancient – Catholic – synods were behaving! Perhaps reflecting on the differences between the modern synodality and the traditional practice of diocesan synods and local synods of bishops (e.g. in Northern Africa at the time of St Augustin) would help him to see the point of Archbishop Lefebvre’s criticism of these novelties. Archbishop Lefebvre never criticised the traditional notion of synods, including synods of bishops; he had founded four episcopal conferences in Africa when he was Apostolic Delegate under Pope Pius XII – a time of great growth of the Catholic Church in Africa; but those episcopal conferences were established on a traditional basis, not on the new notion promoted by Vatican II. One difference, he said, was that these episcopal conferences did not have any authority within the dioceses; the authority of the local bishop in his diocese is of divine right, the authority of the episcopal conference is only of human right and cannot overthrow the first. The episcopal conferences were there to help the bishops, not to command in their stead. A bishop is not an employee of the church as of a business; a bishop is the shepherd responsible for his flock and will have to render an strict account of his stewardship! 

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary, 

Father L.

______

Robert Siscoe:

Dear Father,

Merry Christmas.

I'm glad to hear that you're studying Vatican II's teaching on collegiality and I look forward to your replies.  I would be very surprised if you haven't already realize that it is entirely Traditional, which explains why it was approved at Vatican II by a vote of 2515 to 5.  It took me about a week to realize there is nothing novel about it when I began studying the topic five years ago.  I have continued to study it ever since, and have greatly benefited from it, especially when it comes to understanding the nature of the Church and her divine constitution.  

You asked if I see any novelty in the modern notion of collegiality?  It depends on what is meant by "collegiality."   The term is used in two different senses.  Although Vatican II never uses the term, what is referred to as the council's teaching on "collegiality" is entirely tradition, as I mentioned above.  It is simply the Church's teaching on the Episcopal College, which includes the sacramentality of the episcopate.  Nothing about Vatican II's teaching on "collegiality" is objectionable in the least, especially since the Nota Praevia provides the Church's own authoritative explanation of the parts that could potentially be misunderstood.  In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre was so pleased with the Nota Praevia that, in June of 1965, he attributed it to the Holy Ghost - "the Holy Spirit was keeping watch, and the explanatory Note must be read carefully to see that it is truly of Heaven.." (Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks, p. 31).

Bishop de Castro Meyer agreed.  Here is what he wrote about collegiality in March of 1965:

“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... 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. ... 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, 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).

  

The Other Sense in Which Collegiality is Used

But the term collegiality is also used in a more generic sense, to refer to a mode of governing by comity and consultation, more consistent with democratic form of government, which can therefore have the effect of undermining the personal authority of superiors.  

One of the errors of the Archbishop, or one of the tactic he used (whichever is the case) was conflating the two senses in which the term is used, and accusing Vatican II of error for allegedly teaching "collegiality" as understood in the broad generic sense, rather than what Vatican II actually taught.  It was a classic straw man argument, but it sufficed to persuade everyone in the Society that Vatican II's teaching on "collegiality" is the "democratization of the Church," that replaces personal authority with majority vote.  

Here is one example of the Archbishop employing this tactic:

 

"I must confess that he [Pope John Paul II] appears to be basically in agreement with the Council and with the reforms – he just does not question them. And that is serious, because it means that he is for ecumenism, for collegiality, and for religious liberty. Those are the three capital ideas from the Council. .. Collegiality: that means number against person, the law of number against the authority of the person. It is no longer the person who has authority, but number! It is democracy, or at least the democratic principle. ... By the very fact that number is put in the place of the person, that authority is given to number, authority is in the people, in the rank and file, in the group. That is absolutely contrary to what Our Lord wanted, to the personal authority which He always wanted to give: the Pope has a personal authority; the Bishop has a personal authority by his consecration; the Priest has a personal authority by his sacramental character, his ordination; in the Church authority is personal. The subject of authority (he who is going to exercise it) may be designated democratically, but the authority cannot be so given. That is an important principle. On a false principle Our Lord could lose His crown." (Lefebvre, Conference to Seminarians, December of 1978)

 

So, in a conference given to his impressionable seminarians, the Archbishop conflates the two senses in which the term collegiality is used, and falsely accuses Vatican II's teaching on the Episcopal College, which is entirely traditional (and referred to as "collegiality"), of undermining the personal authority of the pope, bishops and priest, by "giving authority to numbers," which is "the democratic principle" - a principle which, he says, could deprive our Lord to lose his crown.  And you can be sure every seminarian believed the Archbishop with no question asked. 

Something else that I have found surprising is how many errors of the Archbishop go unnoticed (the same is true with Vigano). For example, notice how the Archbishop said bishops and priests receive their personal authority. He said they receive it from thier consecration/ordination!  Fr. Tranquillo spent more than an hour falsely accusing Vatican II of heresy for allegedly teaching that bishops receive their authority (jurisdiction) from their consecration (which the Council doesn't it). Yet Archbishop Lefebvre did teach it, and no one cares or (apparently) even notices.  And this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the errors and heresies of the Archbishop.  I will spotlight others in a future email, after I send out my next one on collegiality next week.

In your email, you also asked if I object to the modern notion of synodality.  I haven't delved too deep into that issue yet, but I plan to.  At this point, it seems that synods are not acts of the college (and hence of the collegiate power), but only consultative bodies. Bishops possess two keys, the key of knowledge and the key of power. As a consultative body, it would seem that the bishops would exercise the former, but not the latter.  Now, a body of bishops exercising the key of knowledge to solve issues concerning the Church is not, in itself, bad, and in fact is actually good.  Including laymen in the synod is a potential problem, especially in light of the fact that it is the liberal laymen that are usually chosen. Those are my initial thoughts, but, as I mentioned, I have not yet studied the issue.

    

Lastly, you said: "It seems to me that Mr Salza (and Mr Siscoe too) are too prompt to condemn, without proper analysis of the modern situation."

I have studied Vatican II's teaching on the episcopal college ("collegiality") and the pre-Vatican II teaching on the same, in great depth.  I am not judging Vatican II's teaching in light of post-conciliar problems, but simply as it is taught by the council, since everyone in the Traditional movement believes what Vatican II teaches concerning collegiality is heretical (or close to it).  That error (as well as other falsely accusations against Vatican II) causes Catholics to lose their faith in the church. 

The Church must be defended against lies and false accusation, even when she is in the midst of a crisis.  Nay, during times of crisis she has a greater need of being defended.  That is what I plan to do. Hopefully you will join me in doing the same after you complete your study on collegiality.  For my part, I will provide more matter for your study when I send out the next email on collegiality.

________

John Salza:

Dear Fr. L.

It has been a while and I am writing to ask whether or not you will be responding to Robert Siscoe's questions he posed to you on Collegiality? 

The last time we communicated, you indicated that you were consulting with priests on the matter. 

We look forward to your reply. 

John Salza

________

Fr. L never replied.