Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 10, 2024 4:01:27 GMT -5
I copied this over from FB...I confess I did it so I can read it all later...I dont know the question being answered...or the FB persons who posted
Thoughts?
The Church is in the Bishop, just as the Bishop is in the Church"
Saint Cyprian of Carthage.
Introduction
We consider it necessary to write at least something brief but precise (and of course, relying on the teaching of the Church and approved theologians) to refute some of the most common statements within the majority of the spectrum of Catholic traditionalism. We are referring to the notion of the "diminished Episcopate" presented by the Dominican Guérard des Lauriers, which has invaded, either directly or indirectly, the minds of the majority of the clergy and theologians associated with the traditionalist movement of any aspect. The danger of this novel theory, foreign to a healthy Catholic theology, lies in the fact that it is a point of support for the current passive and quietist attitude of the Catholic clergy in the face of the current crisis of the Church, so in need of brave pastors who assume their role in the current urgent situation to reestablish the hierarchical order. Therefore, we want to make it clear that this writing is not intended to justify the Novus Ordo sect, but rather to contribute to the mission of the Church, whose hierarchy is found in the traditionalist bishops, who follow the liturgy, laws and teaching. Catholics prior to the modernist innovations of Vatican II.
1. The power of episcopal government.
The first point on which this tendency is based is to affirm that bishops, through their episcopal consecration, only receive a power of order, which is directed solely to the sanctification of souls, and which is entirely distinct from the power of government. But such an explanation is totally foreign to Catholic theology, let's see what theologians say about it:
B. PIAULT, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, December 1949, p.1042: «Pastoral power that uses government , sacrifice, teaching , here is the episcopate , here, we can conclude, what this supreme order comes to confer on the bishop ."
MJ GERLAUD op, Revue des Jeunes, L'Ordre, Desclée 1930, p.226: «priestly consecration, of a strictly sacramental order, does not in itself demand any jurisdiction over the Mystical Body, although it creates an aptitude for this jurisdiction (... ) Episcopal consecration , on the contrary, is of a different kind from priestly consecration, because it confers on the Mystical Body the power of regency of Christ , it creates a requirement of jurisdiction.
H. BOUESSE op, Le sacerdoce chrétien, 1957, p.122 and p.195, note 27. This author teaches that " episcopal power ... requires that the bishop have jurisdiction over a given flock, an effective responsibility for teaching and government and not just a virtual responsibility . Elsewhere he writes: “The coronation… immediately commands governing…the Christian flock. It is a participation in the royal power of Jesus Christ » (L'évêque dans l'Eglise du Christ, collectif, Postface, DDB, 1963, p.364).
L.-M. ORRIEUX op, «Fonctions et pouvoirs hiérarchiques», Revue Thomiste LVIII, 1958, p.670: «If bishops are not simple prefects, it is because the root of their title comes from God through sacramental means: their consecration qualifies them as pastors » .
A. LEMONNYER op, La Vie Spirituelle, T. XLVII, n°l, p. [42]: "In his consecration, the bishop receives an inadmissible power by which he is enabled to exercise the acts and functions of the hierarchical Order of him."
AG MARTIMORT, De l'évêque, Ed. du Cerf 1946, p.19: "it is necessary to point out that the fullness of the priesthood, in the bishop, is destined for ecclesiastical government ."
Ch. V. HERIS op, Le Mystère du Christ, Desclée, Paris 1928, p.329. There is in the bishop, unlike the priest, by his power of order that " confers on him a royal dignity, which makes him a prince of the Church ... a radical aptitude to govern and teach the Christian people ."
One can also cite the Council of Cologne of 1860, which teaches in this regard: "Although the episcopal power over the entire Church belongs to the Roman Pontiff, the other bishops nevertheless participate in the power to govern the Church , which is the end." "of the institution of the episcopate itself , and, assumed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they legitimately exercise this power received at their ordination ."
2. The Apostolic Mission.
Another error that many traditionalists make to justify their notion of "diminished episcopacy" is based entirely on affirming that bishops in order to exercise the power of government need the express mission of a Pope. The error of this statement is based on not taking into account the distinction between the particular mission of each bishop in his diocese (which is the exclusive competence of the Roman Pontiff to grant, which derives from his full and sovereign power over the Church) and the universal mission, which belongs to each Catholic bishop by divine right.
Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Fidei Donum, expresses this difference very clearly:
«Without a doubt it was only to the apostle Peter and his successors, the Roman pontiffs, to whom Jesus entrusted his entire flock: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (Jn 21:16-18); but if each bishop is only the shepherd of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, his condition as legitimate successor of the Apostles BY DIVINE INSTITUTION makes him SOLIDARITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APOSTOLIC MISSION OF THE CHURCH, according to the words of Christ to his Apostles: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21). THIS MISSION, WHICH SHOULD REACH ALL PEOPLE AND AT ALL TIMES (Mt 28, 19-20), did not cease with the death of the Apostles; IT REMAINS IN THE PERSON OF ALL BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH the Vicar of Jesus Christ. In them, who are par excellence the envoys, the missionaries of the Lord, resides in fullness "the dignity of the apostolate, which is the first in the Church", as Saint Thomas Aquinas attests. And it is from their hearts that this apostolic fire, brought to earth by Jesus, must be communicated to the hearts of all Our sons and daughters and awaken in them a new zeal for the missionary action of the Church in the world.
It is also necessary to remember that Pius VI had already highlighted this difference between the episcopate of the Roman Pontiff, to which the Primate is united, "by divine right", so that "the successor of Peter (...) receives with the episcopate the power of universal government ", and that of the other bishops: "for them, it is necessary to assign to each one his particular portion of the flock, not by divine right, but by ecclesiastical right, not by the mouth of Christ, but by a hierarchical order , in such a way that they can apply to it (develop in it: explaine in eam) the ordinary power of government » (Brief «Super soliditate», Nov. 28, 1786, Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, Romae 1923-1939, n°473, p .668, §16.)
3. Sacramental Grace
It is also necessary to highlight that, in the prayers themselves of the rite of episcopal consecration, the power of government that is imprinted at the moment of the transmission of the sacred orders is highlighted. In the famous Constitution that establishes the matter and form of the sacrament of Orders, Pius XII indicates as "sacramental effects (...) produced in episcopal ordination (...) the force of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit." But before that he had specified: " the spiritual power (...) and the grace to perform ecclesiastical offices (munia) as they should ," including the episcopal office (Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis", Nov. 30, 1947, AAS XL 1948, p .5.).
Saint John Chrysostom gives the meaning of the rite of the imposition of the Gospel on the head of the one who is consecrated bishop: "so that he who is ordained may learn that he receives the true tiara of the Gospel, and that, although he is consecrated as head (chief) of others , however he himself is subject to these laws, and that, commanding others , he is commanded by the law" (SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOMO, Homily on the Legislator, PG 104, 276 AB.). The Roman Pontifical speaks, for all bishops, even those who do not have charge of a particular flock : "Give him, Lord, an episcopal chair to govern your Church and the people entrusted to it." And Benedict entrusted»[BENEDICT XIV, Apostolic Letter to Cardinal delle Lanze, August 4, 1747, Bullarium Benedicti XIV, II, 253, Prati, 1846).
4. The universal jurisdiction of the Bishops.
All these considerations necessarily lead us to recognize the validity of a concept that has unfortunately been forgotten by the most recent theologians, we refer to that of the Universal Jurisdiction of the bishops. Let us let the commission of theologians of Vatican I explain it for us, which in its Ninth meeting of the commissioned Congregation, on May 17, 1868, Bishop Angelini, the speaker, declared the following:
«(...) it is necessary to distinguish, in the person of the bishop, between the particular jurisdiction to govern this or that particular church - a right that is necessarily conferred by the pope - and the general and universal jurisdiction that the bishop receives by virtue of his ordination, that is, when he becomes a member of the episcopal body and, consequently, obtains the right to teach and govern in the Church. Then he will be in union with all the other bishops and will form a single body with them and with the supreme pontiff. This is the opinion of Bolgeni, Cappellari (who later became Pope Gregory XVI, of holy memory), Phillips and others. (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection, 49, 1923, col. 495.)
And again, on March 14, 1869, the same commission declared:
«This (universal) jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and govern throughout the Church, as in the councils in which the episcopal body joins the Pope to deal with the affairs of the universal Church. In view of these important considerations, the most eminent and most reverend cardinals mentioned have unanimously concluded that they find no reason not to allow the admission to the Council of the aforementioned titular bishops. (Mansi, ibid. 525.)
Such a statement belongs to a conception of many theologians approved and even praised by the Holy See. It is not licit under any point of view to have it condemned by Pius XII in the encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem, since the Pope there was simply repeating the common and certain doctrine of the Church regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Bishops, which belongs by divine right to the determination of the Supreme Pontiff, but at no time does it make direct or indirect reference to this universal jurisdiction that we mention here. Furthermore, to pretend that he did it, not only means forcing the text, but also implies turning Pius XII against himself, since in the encyclical Fidei Donum he clearly makes the distinction between the particular and universal mission of the bishops. On the other hand, there are several magisterial texts that allow us to conclude that the notion of a "diminished episcopate" (that is, that idea that sees in the episcopate a hierarchy whose authority depends entirely on the papal mission) is erroneous and totally foreign to the magisterium of the Church, we present here a considerable, although not exhaustive, list that we will divide according to their authority:
A- Papal Teaching:
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896), teaches:
«If the power of Peter and his successors is full and sovereign, IT SHOULD NOT BE THOUGHT THAT THERE IS NO OTHER IN THE CHURCH . He who established Peter as the foundation of the Church also "chose twelve of his disciples to whom he gave the name of Apostles." Just as the authority of Peter is necessarily permanent and perpetual in the Roman Pontiff, SO ALSO THE BISHOPS, AS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, ARE HEIRS OF THE ORDINARY POWER OF THE APOSTLES , SO THAT THE EPISCOPAL ORDER IS NECESSARILY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION INTIMATE OF THE CHURCH . And although the authority of the bishops is neither full, nor universal, nor sovereign, they should not be considered as mere vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, since they have their own authority, and in truth they bear the name of ordinary prelates of the peoples they govern. ».
El mismo Pope León XIII, en la Encíclica Sapientiae christianae, §48 says that the Catholic bishops are:
«(…) true princes in the ecclesiastical hierarchy: and as each of them is entrusted with the government of a particular Church, they are, says Saint Thomas, 'like the main workers in the construction of the spiritual edifice', and they have the members of the clergy to share their work and execute their decisions. Each one must regulate his life according to this constitution of the Church, which no one can change. Therefore, just as bishops must be united to the Apostolic See in the exercise of their episcopal power, SO ALSO THE CLERGY AND LAYNESS MUST LIVE IN VERY CLOSE UNION WITH THEIR BISHOPS.
Saint Pius X, encyclical E supremi:
«However, Venerable Brothers, it is not Our intention that you and your clergy be left without helpers in the arduous task of renewing peoples for Christ. We know that God has commanded each man to take care of his neighbor (Ecclesiasticus XVII, 12). It is not, therefore, only men vested with the priesthood, but all the faithful without exception who must dedicate themselves to the interests of God and souls: not, of course, each one according to his own opinions and tendencies, BUT ALWAYS UNDER THE DIRECTION AND ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE BISHOPS, since THE RIGHT TO COMMAND, TO TEACH DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CHURCH TO ANYONE BUT YOU, "appointed by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God" (Acts XX, 28)."
In a joint declaration of the German bishops approved by His Holiness Pope Pius IX, a response is given to the Circular of Chancellor Bismarck on the interpretation of the Constitution "Pastor aeternus" of the First Vatican Council, of January-March 1875, by the Catholic Bishops of Germany, signed by all of them and countersigned by Pius IX himself.
First, the German bishops summarized the false doctrines that Bismarck derived from his false reading of Pastor Aeternus:
"By virtue of these decisions [i.e., Vatican I],
the Pope has appropriated the rights of the bishop in each diocese, and has replaced the territorial power of the bishop with his own papal power.
Episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction.
The Pope no longer exercises, as in the past, certain definite rights reserved only to him, but now all the rights of the local bishops have passed into his hands.
As a matter of principle, he has taken the place of each bishop, and it is up to him alone at any time with respect to practical matters to take the place of the bishop in negotiations with the civil government.
Now the bishops are only his instruments, his officials without personal responsibility; with respect to civil government, they have become officials of a foreign sovereign; in fact, of a sovereign who, due to his infallibility, enjoys absolute authority, more than any absolute monarch in the world."
The German bishops clearly refute Bismarck's misconceptions:
«All these statements are unfounded and contradict the tenor and meaning of the decisions of the Vatican Council, a meaning expressed clearly and repeatedly by the Pope, by the bishops and by experts in Catholic studies.
Certainly, according to these decisions, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope is a potestas suprema, ordinary et immediata (supreme, ordinary and immediate power) which was conferred upon him by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in the person of Saint Peter. Pedro; This supreme authority is exercised over the entire Church and, therefore, over each diocese and each individual believer... [However] the decisions of the Vatican Council offer no basis for the claim that the pope, thanks to them, has become in an absolute master….
In the first place, the area covered by the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope is essentially different from that over which the earthly power of a sovereign monarch extends, and Catholics do not in any way question the sovereignty of types and princes over civil affairs. . But regardless of that, the application of the term "absolute monarch" to the Pope in reference to ecclesiastical matters is not correct because he is subject to divine laws and is linked to the directives given by Christ for his Church. The Pope cannot change the constitution given to the Church by its divine founder, any more than an earthly ruler can change the constitution of a State. In all essential points, the constitution of the Church is based on divine directives and is therefore not subject to human arbitrariness.
JUST AS THE PAPARY IS OF A DIVINE INSTITUTION, SO IS THE EPISCOPATE. THE LATTER HAS HIS OWN RIGHTS AND DUTIES BY VIRTUE OF HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED BY GOD, AND THE POPE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OR THE POWER TO CHANGE THEM. Therefore, one completely misinterprets the Vatican's decisions if one concludes from them that "episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction," that the Pope, "as a matter of principle, has taken the place of each bishop," that bishops they are only “his instruments, his officials without personal responsibility”… With respect to the [last] statement in particular, we must categorically reject it; it is certainly not the Catholic Church that has embraced the immoral and despotic principle that the command of a superior unconditionally frees one from all personal responsibility.
Finally, the view that the Pope is "an absolute sovereign because of his infallibility" is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility. As the Vatican Council has expressed the idea in clear and precise words, and as the nature of the matter demands, infallibility is a characteristic of the papacy that refers exclusively to the supreme Magisterium of the pope; It is coextensive with the scope of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in general, and is limited to the contents of Sacred Scripture and tradition and also to the dogmas previously defined by the teaching authority of the Church. Consequently, the teaching on infallibility has not modified the administrative actions of the Popes in any way.
His Holiness Pope Pius IX addressed an Apostolic Letter Mirabilis illa constantia to the Bishops of Germany, dated March 4, 1875, in which he unequivocally endorsed his entire interpretation:
«You have increased the glory of the Church, venerable Brothers, because you have taken it upon yourself to restore the true meaning of the definitions of the Vatican Council that had been distorted by a misleading and widely distributed circular. [You wrote so that the aforementioned Bismarck letter] would not deceive the faithful and, subverted by envy, serve as a pretext to intrigue against the freedom of the election of a new Pope. The clarity and solidity of your statement is truly of such a nature that, since it leaves nothing more to be desired, it can only give rise to Our deepest congratulations, unless the cunning voice of certain newspapers demands even stronger testimony from Us. In fact, to give strength again to the letter that you rightly rejected, they tried to attack the credibility of your document by stating that the doctrine of conciliar definitions had been softened by you and that, therefore, it did not correspond in any way to the intention of this Holy See. We reject, therefore, this astute and slanderous insinuation and suggestion; because your declaration presents the truly Catholic understanding, which is that of the holy council and of this Holy See; "You defended the teaching so skillfully and brilliantly with convincing and irrefutable arguments that it is obvious to any honest person that there is absolutely nothing new in the attacked definitions (...)"
The Council of Trent, citing the Acts of the Apostles (Acts XX, 28), teaches that they [the bishops] were "established by the Holy Spirit to govern (regere) the Church of God." (Session XXIII, chapter 4)
The same council later states that:
"If anyone says... that those are legitimate ministers of the word and sacraments who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by THE ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY, but come from another source, let him be anathema." (Session XXIII, can. VII)
B- Teaching of theologians.
In addition to considering the quotes that we put at the beginning of the article, others can be given in this regard.
The canonist Bouix in his treatise De Episcopo, collecting the traditional and unanimous notion about the episcopate, states the following:
«What belongs to the essence of the episcopate is the high priesthood as it was instituted FOR ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT. For what belongs to the essence of the episcopate is that WITHOUT WHICH A TRUE AND OWN EPISCOPATE CANNOT BE CONCEIVED. But the episcopate itself cannot be conceived by referring only to the fullness of the priesthood, OUT OF ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT JURISDICTIONAL POWER. For, in the first place, the very word Episcopus denotes the supervision or THE POWER TO RULE; and this name of bishop was introduced for the presbyters of the highest rank BECAUSE OF THIS FUNCTION OF RULING. Secondly, a full priesthood instituted solely for the exercise of the power of ordination, and not for the government of the various parts of the Church, WOULD NOT BE AN INSTITUTION OF THE EPISCOPACY WHICH CHRIST ACTUALLY INSTITUTED. In fact, as has already been shown, Christ not only instituted the high priesthood, but also wanted the various parts of the Church to be ordinarily governed by him. From this it follows that in the concept of episcopacy, as it was instituted by Christ or as it is properly called, the following two things are included: the fullness of the priesthood and THE APPOINTMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. Therefore, a definition of the episcopate as only the fullness of the priesthood would not be correct. In fact, one could conceive of a high priesthood instituted only for the exercise of the power of order; such a priesthood, however, WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ORDAINED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO GOVERN THE CHURCH OF GOD. It is this last priesthood, and not the first, THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE TRUE AND PROPERLY CALLED EPISCOPATE. Thirdly, the same is demonstrated by the way of speaking that has always been accepted by the Church. In fact, throughout antiquity we find that bishops are referred to by the names of pastors, teachers, leaders and other similar names that EXPRESS JURISDICTION. And it is much more frequent and common for the episcopate itself to BE DESIGNATED AS A POWER OF JURISDICTION than as a power of orders. Therefore, the episcopacy has always been understood not as the fullness of the priesthood or the power of the orders, alone and without qualifications, but also BY THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE EPISCOPACY WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SAME. Thus, in effect, what belongs to the essence of the episcopate thus understood, as it should be understood, is not only the fullness of the priesthood, but the fullness of the priesthood AS INSTITUTED FOR ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT.
J. Lecuyer cssp., “Present orientations of the theology of the episcopate”, in “The episcopate and the universal Church”, Unam Sanctam n° 39, Le Cerf, 1962, pp. 803-804:
"BY THE CONSECRATION, the bishop receives above all a power of direction, not a power in the legal sense of the word, but an ontological power - of supernatural ontology - that radically enables him TO BE THE PASTOR OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD"; "Jurisdiction includes on the one hand a power in those who can and must legislate, judge and punish, and on the other hand the condition of subjects in those who must obey."
Dom Gréa, De l'Eglise, Paris 1885, p.111: « Legitimate ordination always confers [episcopal] communion, because it places the one who receives it in the hierarchy of the Universal Church. »
Guérard des Lauriers himself in, “Le Cheval de Troie dans la Cité de Dieu”, Suppl. to no. 24 of “Forts dans la Foi”, p. 48 stated: "...every bishop, being immediately established by the Holy Spirit, is, by virtue of the same consecration that he personally receives, successor of the Apostles, and a member by right of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy ...".
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II II q.184 a.4, teaches that bishops are obligated, in the sacrament of the priesthood, to the works of perfection of the pastoral ministry. He also states, Suppl. q.39 a.2, that the use of reason is required to receive the episcopate, because, unlike what happens in priestly ordination, in consecration "power over the mystical body is received, and therefore it is required "the act of accepting the pastoral care of souls."
Anger, La doctrine du Corps mystique de Jésus-Christ, 8th ed. Beauchesne's, 1946, p.263: «It is almost impossible not to recognize that by the laying on of hands, that is, consecration, a certain jurisdiction is received... general and universal jurisdiction that the bishop acquires in the act and by virtue of his ordination … arises from episcopal ordination… it is linked to ordination” (Mansi 49, 525)