+
JMJ
Ten years ago on April 15, 2012, the SSPX provided Rome with it's Doctrinal Preamble. Originally, Pope Benedict was reported to be satisfied with it and the SSPX expected to reach an agreement. However, something changed and the subsequent meeting did not go as expected.
I repost this blog for two reasons. First the anniversary and second because there appears to be some misunderstanding of what the SSPX believes vis-a-vis Vatican II etc.
I understand that Bishop Fellay noted that this preamble represents the extreme limit of what the SSPX can accept. As noted by Bishop Fellay (then SSPX superior general), not one word can be changed if Rome wanted an agreement.
P^3
P.S. I have attached below the reblogged post, the Nota Praevia that can still be found today a the end of Lumen Gentium (see Vatican Lumen Gentium - link).
ReBlog: Doctrinal Preamble April 15, 2012 vs Protcol 1988
Reproduced below are the Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay (2012) and Protocol of Archbishop Lefebvre (1988) for comparison.
Perhaps when I have time I will add detailed commentary. Now, given
that Archbishop Lefebvre stated that there was nothing wrong with the
1988 text of the protocol, comparing it with that of Bishop Fellay ...
where's the problem?
Are as Kaesekopf of Suscipedomine wrote:
...can someone explain why trads would reject this?Update: To make a comparison easier, I have inserted the comparable elements of the Protocol developed by Archbishop Lefebvre with that of Bishop Fellay. I have also included my own commentary in blue.
Or rather, why a sedeplenist trad (who accepts the validity of the NO) would reject this?
Last thought, when I first read the preamble I thought ... ok so what's the problem? Now I that I've read it again ... I still ask: What's the problem? It was based on the Protocol signed by Archbishop Lefebvre, which he said didn't contain anything wrong (otherwise he would not have signed it).
P^3
Doctrinal Preamble presented to Rome by Bishop Fellay
15th April, 2012
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
◄ 1988 ►. a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(l)
◄ 1988 ►b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
Tradicat: This is one of the points that the SSPX has noted contains a contradiction or discontinuity between prior magisterium (see here point 4 ) as it indicates that there are two 'Supreme' powers over the Church (Pope and College of Bishops).
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'.Logically, you can't have two supreme powers. What is of interest here is that Bishop Fellay has placed LG into context with Vatican I's teaching. Almost like saying we place Pastor Aeternus above Lumen Gentium, you sort out the 'inconsistency'.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."
(3)
Tradicat: This is completely Traditional, probably hard for some to accept, but the truth is not always what we'd like it to be ...
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos'(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(S), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith.
Tradicat: This is completely Traditional.
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
Tradicat: Now I know that the 'resistance' has a hard time swallowing this particular point. Many believe that the Second Vatican Council should just be tossed in the bin. I guess they haven't considered the footnote nor that the position of the SSPX has always been to: Accept what was Traditional, Interpret Ambiguous Statements in line with Tradition and request correction of the Contradictory Statements.
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
◄ 1988 ►c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
Tradicat: I find it interesting that there is a lot more detail in #5 and #6 than that found in the protcol of 1988. Basically, #5 says that pre-conciliar Magisterium is the rule by which the post-conciliar Magisterium is to be interpreted. So anything that contradicts this - we do not accept. Pretty clear to me. I also have to ask is 'with difficulty reconciliable' really different than 'not appear to us easily reconciliable'? Both phrases admit the possibility that it could be reconciled with prior Magisterium. Perhaps there is another hair we can split some where else?
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
◄ 1988 ►d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.Tradicat: I understand that some have serious issues with this statement. What is the problem with the phrase 'legitimately promulgated'? If Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the statement '... promulgated by Popes ...' - is not a promulgation of the legitimate authority legitimately promulgated?
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (111,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by john-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
◄ 1988 ► e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
Notes--
( 1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church. 1989; cf.
Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2: 752 : CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2: 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution. Pastor Aetemus, Oz. 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Oz. 1 501 : "All saving truth and rules of conduct(Matt. 16:1 5) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Chtist Himself, or from the Apostles themselves./3} the Holy Ghost dictati!Jg, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand."
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-42 1 0.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Oz. 302 0: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore[ .. .} let the understanding. the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. " [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3)."
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Oz. 3011: Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encycl ical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886;
Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Const itut ion Dei Verbum, 1 0, Oz. 42 1 3.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 2 1.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Ord er. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN
May 5, 1988
Protocol of Accord
This protocol contains a doctrinal declaration which Archbishop Lefebvre judged barely acceptable. Only two of the seven members of the proposed Roman Commission were to be upholders of Tradition, which was a grave handicap. Nevertheless, at that moment, His Grace saw fit to sign this Accord. In the Protocol Rome recognizes, in principle, that the episcopate is to be conferred on a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. Note how vague is left the date of an eventual consecration. Note also, that since the jurisdiction would come from the local bishop, the bishop proposed by Rome for the Society would be a powerless bishop, not able to protect the priests and faithful from modernist influences.
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I,
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the
members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Considering
the fact that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has been conceived
for 18 years as a society of common life—and after studying the
propositions formulated by H. E. Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of
the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon— the
canonical form most suitable is that of a society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life
This
solution is canonically possible, and has the advantage of eventually
inserting into the clerical Society of apostolic life lay people as well
(for example, coadjutor Brothers).
According
to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this
Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate
clerics, and can insure the common life of its members.
In
the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive possibility with
respect to the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a
certain exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) for what concerns public worship, the cura animarum, and other apostolic activities, taking into account Canons 679-683. As
for jurisdiction with regards to the faithful who have recourse to the
priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by
the Ordinaries of the place or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission
A
commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and
diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes,
will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be
empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions
indicated above (for example, implantation at the request of the
faithful of a house of worship where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem, Canon 683, §2).
This commission will be composed of a president, a vice-president, and five members, of which two shall be from the Society.42
Among
other things it would have the function of exercising vigilance and
lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to
regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a
juridical or moral bond with the Society.
3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society
1) The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and lay coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.2) The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected with the Society, all belong to an association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.3) The Sisters (meaning the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and proper autonomy, even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation—at least at the beginning—would be dependent on the Roman Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.4) The members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who have a moral bond with the Society: these are to be given, case by case, a particular statute regulating their relations with the respective Order.5) The priests who, on an individual basis, are morally connected with the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into account their aspirations and at the same time the obligations flowing from their incardination. The other particular cases of the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman Commission.43
Regarding
the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of
the Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop,
but—notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the
Society—they can go to them for the administration of the sacraments
(for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage,44 the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish; cf. Canons 878, 896, 1122).
Note: There is room to consider the particular complexity:
1) Of the question of reception by the laity of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, in the communities of the Society.2) Of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and such a religious institute, without belonging to it.
The Roman Commission will have the responsibility of resolving these problems.
4. Ordinations
For the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:
1) In the immediate future: For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by himself.2) Once the Society of apostolic life is erected:• As far as possible, and in the judgment of the Superior General, the normal way is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.• In view of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.
5. Problem of a Bishop
1) At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.2) But, for practical and psychological45 reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (1), this bishop normally is not the Superior General of the Society, but it appears opportune that he be a member of the Roman Commission.
6. Particular Problems to be Resolved (By Decree or Declaration)
1) Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.2) Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.3) Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected—or used—by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.For the convenience of our readers, we put here the text of §25 of Lumen Gentium (including footnotes found in the original), oftentimes referred to in these documents [Taken from, Flannery, Austin, O.P., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1975), pp.379-381]. The passage to which Archbishop Lefebvre refers in his conference of May 10 and which condemns all the modernist bishops is the following: “This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.” How many bishops in our days are “religiously guarding and faithfully expounding” the Deposit of Revelation?
Lumen Gentium, §25
25. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.46 For
the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ;
they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the
authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to
them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct
their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that
faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things
and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. II
Tim. 4:14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are
to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the
faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’
decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals,
and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This
loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special
way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when
he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his
supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere
assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest
mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the
character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a
certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is
formulated.
Although
the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of
infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of
Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed
throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and
with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative
teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement
that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.47 This
is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical
council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in
matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the
loyal and obedient assent of faith.48
This
infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow
his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is
co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously
guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head
of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his
office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who
confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.49 For
that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by
their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as
much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised
to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they
are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of
appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does
not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he
expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme
teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of
infallibility is present in a singular way.50 The
infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of
bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme
teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to
such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit’s influence, through
which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and
makes progress in it.51
Furthermore,
when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him,
define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with
revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they
are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally
either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate
succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the
Roman Pontiff himself; and through the light of the Spirit of truth it
is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.52The
Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the
seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of
enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt
expression to its contents;53 they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.54
41. Complete text of §25 found at the end of this chapter, pp.77-79.
42. This paragraph replaces the notes in the April 15 minutes. See
how this does not correspond to the suggestions of the representatives
of the Society, but rather gives full majority to the members from
outside Catholic Tradition. This is perhaps the major point of failure in this whole Protocol.
43. This whole paragraph is new. See again how it separates these priests from the moral support they were getting from their connection with the Society.
44. Here they allow the possibility to give these Sacraments.
45. Please note the choice of words! As if the need for a bishop from among Tradition
would not be, first of all, for a reason of Faith: to have an authority
without any compromise with the errors of the day.
46. Cf. Council of Trent, Deer. de reform., Session V, can. 2, n. 9, and Session XXIV, can. 4; Conc. Oecr. pp.645, 739.
47. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denzinger, 1712 (3011). Cf. the note added to schema I de Eccl. (taken from St. Rob. Bellarmine): Mansi 51, 579C; also the revised schema of Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, with Kleutgen's commentary: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Letter Tuas libenter: Denzinger, 1683 (2879).
48. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1322-1323.
49. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denzinger, 1839 (3074).
50. Cf. Gasser's explanation of Vatican Council I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
51. Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1214 A
52.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
53.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1213
54. Vatican Council II Const. Dogm. Pastor Aeternus, 4: Denzinger, 1836 (3070).
Nota Praevia - Source Fisheaters
https://www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council
Note: This was written as a Nota Praevia, a preliminary introductory note, to the document, Lumen Gentium. It was, in defiance of Pope Paul VI's wishes, relegated to the Appendix of the document in published editions of the Second Vatican Council's documents. Nonetheless, though it exists in a less important place, it is still a part of the document. The nota-appendix clearly states that the Council was a pastoral one and clarifies the notion of collegiality in order to prevent Modernists from diminishing the power of the Petrine Ministry while elevating that of the College of Bishops, which Lumen Gentium could be -- and has been -- interpreted to call for. From a footnote on page 88 of The Great Facade, by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. which explains the reason for this Nota: "The most famous example [of the Pope acting decisively to prevent the Second Vatican Council from promulgating outright errors as Catholic doctrine] is Pope Paul's intervention forcing the Council to include the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, which correct's LG's [Lumen Gentium's] erroneous suggestion that when the Pope exercised his supreme authority he does so only as head of the apostolic college, wherein the supreme authority resides. Paul was alerted to this problem by a group of conservative Council Fathers, who finally persuaded him of LG's destructive potential: 'Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.' Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 232."
APPENDIX From the Acts of the Council
Notificationes' Given by the Secretary General of the Council at the 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964
A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.
The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: "As is self-evident, the Council's text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all."
On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:
"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."
**The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.**
A preliminary note of explanation is being given to the Council Fathers from higher-authority, regarding the Modi bearing on Chapter III of the Schema de Ecclesia; the doctrine set forth in Chapter III ought to be-explained and understood in accordance with the meaning and intent of this explanatory note.
Preliminary Note of Explanation
The Commission has decided to preface the assessment of the Modi with the following general observations.
1. "College" is not understood in a strictly juridical sense, that is as a group of equals who entrust their power to their president, but as a stable group whose structure and authority must be learned from Revelation. For this reason, in reply to Modus 12 it is expressly said of the Twelve that the Lord set them up "as a college or stable group." Cf. also Modus 53, c.
For the same reason, the words "Ordo" or "Corpus" are used throughout with reference to the College of bishops. The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles' extraordinary power to their successors; nor does it imply, as is obvious, equality between the head of the College and its members, but only a pro- portionality between the first relationship (Peter-Apostles) and the second (Pope-bishops). Thus the Commission decided to write "pari ratione, " not "eadem ratione," in n. 22. Cf. Modus 57.
2. A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. Cf. n. 22, end of 1 1.
In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [lmunera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word "functions [munera]" is used deliberately instead of the word "powers [potestates]," because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ's will. It is evident that this "communion" was applied in the Church's life according to the circumstances of the time, before it was codified as law.
For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: "in hierarchical communion." Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).
The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.
3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.
N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
+ PERICLE FELICI
Titular Archbishop of Samosata
Secretary General of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
Comments
Post a Comment