Quotations
on Collegiality
More
quotations will be added to this in the coming days and weeks
When reading the following quotations, keep in mind
that the SSPX, Sedevacantist, Independent Priest, and virtually everyone in the
independent Traditional Movement, deny that: 1) Christ established the
Apostlic/Episcopal college as a perpetual part of the Church’s divine constitution;
2) that bishops possess universal jurisdiction, or supreme authority, as
members of the episcopal college. 3) Rather, they maintain that residential
bishops only enjoy particular jurisdiction over their respective sees. The following quotations confirm the
contrary.
Cardinal
Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, 1909
Thesis XXVII: In
order to emphasize the unity of the Apostles, for which he prayed at the Last
Supper, when he said, 'That they may be one, as we are one, that they may be
perfect as one,' Christ arranged the apostolic college as a stable and
perpetual institution, united to St. Peter, to share in the supreme
power. Hence the monarchy of the Church is a monarchy sui generis (of its
own kind), and while it retains without limitation the full character of a
monarchy in all respects, yet the government includes individual bishops joined
to it, so that the bishops forming one body may exercise the supreme authority
joined with their head.
The
truth of this assertion is clear from Mt. 28-20, John 20-21, and even more
clearly from Mt. 18-18, where Christ, in addressing
the entire community of the apostles, said, ‘Amen I say to you, whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven.’ These words, previously spoken to Peter alone,
imply the exercise of the fullness of power, as has been explained above, Thes.
25 § 1. Therefore, just as in Peter there was the fullness of
ecclesiastical authority, so too was it in the whole college, considered
collegially. But how this can
and ought to be understood must be explained in a little more detail, by a
comparison between the institution established in St. Peter on the one hand,
and that of the entire college on the other.
First
of all, from the force of the words of the Gospel, there is not greater 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, 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 its fullness is considere, nothing at all can be
added to it.
But neither can it be denied that there are [more]
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 sense that there are
more beings in existence after creation than before, but not a greater 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 total of the individual 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. Moreover, if one or more of the
subordinate powers are considered to be added in any way to the supreme power,
they can contribute nothing to it, since that which is of the lower order can
never add to the interests of the higher order; even though an addition can be
protracted to infinity. Therefore,
the power of the college is adequately distinct from the sum of the particular
powers of the individual members of the college.
Therefore,
since these things are so, it is not to be inquired why the exercise of supreme
authority was deposited 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 with them in whatever way. etc.,
are read those things which they do to emphasize unity and concord:
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. And
this collegial authority of all bishops united with the head Peter, is
how the saying of Cyprian (De Unit. Eccl. n. 5) is rightly understood: ‘The
episcopate is one, of which each has a part in solidium’. Not that each bishop individually can, by himself,
do all that the community of bishops can do; for this would be ridiculous. But
because in each one it is necessary to distinguish what he is as the head of a
particular church, and what he is as one who participates in the unity of the universal
Church. In the first way there is
nothing more than a singular bishop: in the second way he is a member of the
ecumenical college of bishops. And because the authority of this college is one
and indivisible with and under its head, and which does not in any way coalesce
from the addition of singular powers, as was said above, therefore each one,
acting in communion with the others, can do and does do, not indeed by reason
of himself, but by reason of the unanimous whole of which he is a part,
whatever the universal episcopate can do and does do.”
Thus far we have discussed the ecclesiastical hierarchy as it was
established in Peter and the apostles. It now remains for us to discuss more
particularly the successors of the apostles themselves, and first of all the
successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.” (Billot, De Ecclesia 1,Thesis XXVII 569-573)
Central
Preparatory Commission for the First Vatican Council
In
the lead up to the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX requested that the
preparatory commission investigate whether titular bishops (bishops without
actual jurisdiction over a diocese) had the right to be called to the
Council. As Cardinal Hamer would later
explain,[1]
the reason for this request is because there were certain titular bishops that Pius
IX did not want to participate in the Council. After studying the matter, the directive
commission concluded that they did not see any way to exclude titular bishops
from being called to the council, a conclusion that Pope Pius IX himself
approved. The following excerpts from
the directive commission explain why titular bishops have a right to vote at a
council:
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 [i.e., that titular bishops do not have a
right to participate in a council] 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.)
In
a meeting of the same Congregation, March 14, 1869, the same conclusion
was reached:
“… 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)
Billot on Titular
Bishops voting in a council:
The reason for the
assertion is that ecumenical councils are called general assemblies of those
who are placed to govern the Church of God. Such, first of all, as is clear
from the foregoing, are all ordinary local bishops. Furthermore, I say all are
equal with title. For since they sit in the council as Catholic bishops, not as
representatives of their peoples, there can be no distinction between bishops
of greater or lesser sees. But neither are the prerogatives of primatial or
archiepiscopal jurisdictions valid there, since these were introduced by the
Holy See to fill the roles in a state of dispersion. And therefore all and each
one, from the least to the greatest, are endowed with equal right under the
common head of all, the Supreme Pontiff. However, it is disputed, as far as
strict right is concerned, about titular bishops who are without subjects,
since these do not actually belong to the ruling Church. But nevertheless,
since they are undoubtedly marked by the character as those 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.
Bongani,
L'episcopato ossia della potestà di governare la Chiesa , 1789
During
Vatican II, Cardinal Staffa stated that the teaching of Bolgeni had been abandoned
150 years earlier; that is, in the year1813 (1963 – 150 = 1813). This was statement of Cardinal Staffa was quoted
by Romano Amerio in Iota Unam, and hence has been accepted as true by all those
who reject collegiality. The statement of Cardinal Staffa was incorrect. As we saw above, every Cardinal on the Preparatory
Commission accepted the teaching and used it as the basis for concluding that titular
bishops had a right to vote in a council, and Pius IX implicitly accepted it by
approving the conclusion, and reasoning for the conclusion, of the directive committee. Before quoting the teaching of Bolgeni below,
I will preface it by quoting Cardinal Manning introduction to the same quote taken
from his book on the Episcopate, which was published in 1883.
Introduction
by Cardinal Manning: "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. Th 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)’
Pope Gregory XVI,
Trumph of the Holy
See
(written before he
was elected Pope, with a 3rd edition published after his elevation
to the Pontificate under his papal name):
In the following
quote, Pope Gregory XVI also quotes Bolgeni, whose teaching he agreed with and embraced,
as the same directive commission mentioned above:
LXVII. 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. ...
The
right 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 [universal jurisdiction] 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, that is, 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 going back to apostolic times; in which it is
clearly seen that particular jurisdiction was given to bishops by the Apostles.
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, yet they had the episcopal character, and as such
could sit in council. Hence it is that the power of order, which gives
the universal power, was always distinguished from the other, the power of
government, which in fact is the only one that is usually appealed to as 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).” (Pope Gregory XVI, Triumph of the Holy
See)
Devoti,
Ius canonicum universum publicum et privatum, Vol. I, Rome, 1838,
“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. 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.”
“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. Outside this diocese there
are no individual subjects, and no jurisdiction. But if the jurisdiction which
each Bishop has separately depends entirely on certain subjects, and of a
certain region, and if this assignment is made by the Church, it is necessary
that each Bishop obtain jurisdiction directly from the same Church, or from its
Head, the Roman Pontiff. … Therefore there is
one jurisdiction which individual Bishops possess, another which is in the
universal college; and the latter, but not the former, precedes directly from
God. (Devoti, Ius canonicum universum publicum et privatum, Vol. I,
Rome, 1838)
Cardinal
Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, 1955
The
following lengthy quote is taken from Cardinal Journet’s celebrated book, the
Church of the Word Incarnate, which was originally published in 1942. The English translation, from which the
following is taken, was published in 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[2] 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,[3]
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.[4]
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).
“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 [the Anglican] 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.”
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 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]
Kluetgen,
during Vatican I, in his official capacity as the relator for the deputation de
fide, in the relatio on the revised schema of the Second Divine Constitution of
the Church:
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 definers; 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 in 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)
Phillips,
Du Droit Ecclésiastique Dans Ses Principes Generaux. 1850, XXIII
[1]
“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 [to be participate in a council], 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.’ 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’. 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. After having examined them with great
attention, Pius IX approved the Commission. 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.” (Note Sur La Collégialité Épiscopale,
by Jérôme Hamer, 1960)
