|
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
|
|
