Author Topic: New, very accurate reliable translation of Fellays Doctrinal Statement (Read 4886 times)

suger · « **on:** March 10, 2013, 11:06:45 AM »

Yesterday I quickly made a translation,
( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23455&f=19&min=5&num=5 )
which was not perfect as I am not a native English speaker (and thank you for pointing out some mistakes).

The Recusant also provided a translation, this time by a native English speaker,
( http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012 )
but it missed a few nuances or grammatical points, as well as a few theological ones (assent, deposit of faith, etc.), and embellished a bit the text.

This declaration is utterly important. Furthermore, being a tentative canonical text, each comma or nuance makes a difference. A very accurate and reliable translation is much needed.

So I have used the Recusant's translation to improve mine, producing hopefully a very reliable translation. I have not improved the imperfections (style, textual inconsistencies, manner of citing / absence of italics, etc.) of the original docuмent.

To express the redundant use of two different words (magistère/ Magisterium) in the original French when there only a single equivalent word in English, I have use a variation of lowercase and uppercase for the English word magisterium:
magistère --> magisterium
Magisterium --> Magisterium

Quote

DOCTRINAL DECLARATION FROM APRIL 15, 2012, WHICH MGR FELLAY SENT TO CARDINAL LEVADA

I

We plight to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, her supreme pastor, Christ's vicar, successor of Peter and head of the body of bishops.

II

We declare that we accept the teachings of the Church's magisterium re. matters of faith and morals, giving to each doctrinal statement the required degree of assent, according to the doctrine contained in item 25 of the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council (1).

III In particular:

1 We declare accepting the doctrine re. the Roman Pontiff and the College of bishops, with its head, the Pope, as taught by the Pastor Aeternus dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council and by the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this very chapter.

2 We recognize the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is entrusted the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God written or handed down (2) in faithfulness to the Tradition, remembering that « the Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter's successors so that they may make known, under his revelation, a new doctrine, but so that, with His assistance, they may keep in a holy manner and faithfully express the revelation handed over by the Apostles, i.e. the deposit of faith » (3).

3 The Tradition is the living transmission of the Revelation « usque ad nos » (4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its cult, perpetuates and transmits to all generations what it is and all what She believes. The Tradition progresses within the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (5), not as a contrary novelty (6) but through a better understanding of the depositum fidei (7).

4 The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide for understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which in turn illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit– some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her midst or not yet conceptually formulated (8).

5 The statements of the Second Vatican Council and of the later pontifical magisterium re. the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as re. the social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom, whose formulation is difficult to reconcile with the former doctrinal statements of the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner consistent with the truths previously taught by the Church's magisterium, without accepting any interpretation of these statements which may lead to expound the Catholic doctrine in opposition or in rupture with the Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6 This is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and the theological explanation of expressions and of formulations of the Second Vatican Council and of the consecutive magisterium, in the case where it appears that they cannot be reconciled with the previous Church's Magisterium (9).

7 We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does according the rites referred to in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual legitimately promulgated by popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.

8 By following the criteria set out above (III, 5), as well as canon 21 of the Code, we plight to respect the Church's common discipline and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by pope John-Paul II (1983) in the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches promulgated by the same Pontiff (1990), reserving the right of a discipline to be conceded to the Society of Saint Pius X by a particular law.

—————————————–
Notes--
(1) See the new formula for the Profession of the 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, §1 and §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, §1 and §2; 599.

(2) See Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 and 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “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, 28].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, § 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) E.g. like the teaching on the sacramentality of the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, § 21.

(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 Holy Orders. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Finally the issue was resolved in another way by Pope Pius XII.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2013, 05:24:20 AM »

Does anyone have a ready copy of this,

Quote

1 We declare accepting the doctrine re. the Roman Pontiff and the College of bishops, with its head, the Pope, as taught by the Pastor Aeternus dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council and by the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this very chapter.

...the Nota expicativa praevia mentioned here?

bvmknight · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2013, 10:16:24 AM »

Does anyone have the copy that Father Pfeiffer read from in his sermon?

trento · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:16:02 AM »

It looks like a more detailed version of the 1988 protocol initially signed by Archbishop Lefebvre then disavowed the very next day!

Pelly · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:36:04 AM »

Quote

7 We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does according the rites referred to in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual legitimately promulgated by popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.

Does this mean that he recognized the NO "Mass"?

Mea Culpa · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2013, 08:01:09 AM »

Quote from: Pelly

Quote
7 We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does according the rites referred to in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual legitimately promulgated by popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.

Does this mean that he recognized the NO "Mass"?

Not only does Bp. Fellay recognize the NO mass, but states that it is also "valid".

He's accepting/promoting everything that ABL fought in order to preserve tradition.

suger · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:46:03 PM »

Mea Culpa, you are fully right!

What do you think about this "with the intent of doing..."? Could this be a tricky manner of moving the undersigned to intend, hence in the end to celebrate the NO Mass?
I understand this is what happened with Campo traditionalists in South-America. They signed a declaration, then their bishop had to start celebrated the NO Mass (well if he signed that he intended to...) and then they all end up celebrating the NO Mass... Am I right?

I would appreciate many inputs and views on these issues.

Thank you.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:57:42 PM »

So accurate to use the word "plight" - that's the most exact translation?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2013, 10:26:23 AM »

Good for historical reference. Here's the 1988 protocol. It looks almost identical, but it appears that +Fellay has been even more "generous."

http://www.sspx.org/fraternity_of_st_peter/protocol.pdf

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:39:59 PM »

.

It's been what, 10 months, now................

Post

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Does anyone have a ready copy of this,

Quote

III In particular:

1 We declare accepting the doctrine re. the Roman Pontiff and the College of bishops, with its head, the Pope, as taught by the Pastor Aeternus dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council and by the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this very chapter.

...the Nota explicativa prævia mentioned here?

................... anybody? .....................

.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:58:51 PM »

Well you might not like the source... I tried to find a better one, but here's the English translation. I could not find the Latin text.

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 circuмstances 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 docuмents 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 Ecuмenical Council

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:05:04 AM »

.

Thanks, parentsfortruth.

From the following portion, I can recognize having seen the parts in bold:

Quote

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."

All of the text following "Preliminary Note of Explanation" has nothing to do with this topic, and only refers to what constitutes being a member of the bishops and/or cardinals and/or college of bishops in the Catholic Church.

The portion subsequent to what I quoted, above in bold, beginning with, "inasmuch as they are the teaching..." is not something I recall having seen before. Perhaps what I recall having seen was some kind of SUMMARY, I don't know. I'm thinking perhaps this which you're quoting from Fisheaters is rather a summary, and it somehow is missing the words I'm looking for. But instead of that, above, a shorter conclusion I recall having seen, which was something like this:

As for the rest of the things which the Council sets forth, we must make reservations.

AS I RECALL, this would then read something like as follows:

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. As for the rest of the things which the Council sets forth, we must make reservations.

Notice I am not quoting anyone here. I am remembering what I had seen years ago somewhere, but I can't find it now. The point was, that as to what is binding on the Church, ONLY that which is defined as binding (and nothing was so defined in Vat.II!) was to be considered as binding (IOW, nothing!), but as for other things (that is, things that were not defined as binding -- which effectively is THE ENTIRE COUNCIL), they said "we must make reservations" (IOW -- what is not defined as binding is not to be construed as binding).

The only exception, obviously, and implied in the invocation of "with the general rules that are known to all," etc., is, that anything mentioned in Vat.II that had ALREADY BEEN DEFINED AS BINDING IN THE PAST, before Vat.II, would continue to be binding -- but equally obvious is that those things would be binding upon the Church EVEN IF VAT.II HAD NEVER HAPPENED, and therefore Vat.II has ZERO binding force in and of itself. As I said, this is something that results from INTERPRETATION, but it is only the logical conclusion, given the major premise and the minor premise. The major being the "general rules that are known to all," and the minor being this Preliminary Theological Note of Explanation, Nota explicativa praevia, which it seems to me that the Fisheater copy has somehow CORRUPTED for whatever reason. Maybe Iggy got his grubby paws on this! HAHAHAHA

...............But seriously,

In case the irony escapes the reader, it was upon the event of the Theological Commission being asked for an interpretation of what is to be considered binding, that the Commission begrudgingly issued this THEOLOGICAL NOTE, which itself, in turn, needs to be interpreted!

It was as if after having STOOD WAITING IN LINE to obtain this Nota explicativa praevia, after having received it, they would have had to stand in line AGAIN for an explanation of the explanation -- but they knew that what they got was ALL THEY WOULD EVER GET. So they gave up asking for more!

----------I don't see any words like that here. Furthermore, I had been under the impression that the Nota explicativa praevia to which I refer had been obtained at a later time than November 16, 1963, that is, closer to the end of the Council, which was Dec. 8th, 1965. But I'm just going by memory there and I might have been mistaken.

I found a PDF that summarizes the principle events of Vat.II, which has the following:

Sep 14, 1964-Nov 21, 1964 - Third Session
Debates on Church and on Bishops
Debate on Religious Freedom
Debate on Churchin the Modern World

“Black Week”
(“Nota praevia;” ecuмenism; postponed vote
on religious freedom; title “Mother of the Church”)
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
Decree on Ecuмenism
Decree on Oriental Churches

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:28:15 AM »

.

Typo! The stupid ink dried again, as usual.

Where I have:

----------I don't see any words like that here. Furthermore, I had been under the impression that the Nota explicativa praevia to which I refer had been obtained at a later time than November 16, 1963, that is, closer to the end of the Council, which was Dec. 8th, 1965. But I'm just going by memory there and I might have been mistaken.

...it should say November 16, 1964 -- not 1963.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2014, 03:24:03 AM »

.

This Nota explicativa paraevia seems to be pretty rare stuff.

Various sources say that it was included "against Paul VI's wishes" as an appendix to Lumen Gentium. Therefore, it should be on the Vatican website, correct? ----------- in Latin!

Here is what one flaming progressivist site has to say about it:

Quote from: One flaming progressivist site

5. Collegiality

Although the majority position was compromised at the Council (See, e.g., the infamous "nota praevia explicativa."), the cat is out of the bag. The hitherto unmentionable word has been mentioned and even embodied in the (till now ineffective) Synod of Bishops.

When liberals talk like that, you know they're upset about something. So it must be worth checking out, no? (It says to "see, e.g., the infamous 'nota praevia explicativa'," but it doesn't provide any copy of it nor any link to where you can go to "see" it.)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html

EX ACTIS SS. OEcuмENICI CONCILII VATICANI II

NOTIFICATIONES

Factae ab Exc.mo Secretario Generali Ss. Concilii in Congregatione Generali CXXIII diei XVI Nov. MCMLXIV

Quaesitum est quaenam esse debeat qualificatio theologica doctrinae, quae in Schemate de Ecclesia exponitur et suffragationi subicitur.

Commissio Doctrinalis quaesito responsionem dedit, in expendendis Modis spectantibus ad caput tertium Schematis de Ecclesia, hisce verbis:

"Ut de se patet, textus Concilii semper secundum regulas generales, ab omnibus cognitas, interpretandus est".

Qua occasione Commissio Doctrinalis remittit ad suam Declarationem 6 martii 1964, cuius textum hic transcribimus:

"Ratione habita moris conciliaris ac praesentis Concilii finis pastoralis, haec S. Synodus ea tantum de rebus fidei vel morum ab Ecclesia tenenda definit, quae ut talia aperte ipsa declaraverit.

Cetera autem, quae S. Synodus proponit, utpote Supremi Ecclesiae Magisterii doctrinam, omnes ac singuli christifideles excipere et amplecti debent iuxta ipsius S. Synodi mentem, quae sive ex subiecta materia sive ex dicendi ratione innotescit, secundum normas theologicae interpretationis".

Superiore dein Auctoritate communicatur Patribus nota explicativa praevia ad Modos circa caput tertium Schematis de Ecclesia, ad cuius notae mentem atque sententiam explicari et intelligi debet doctrina in eodem capite tertio exposita.

Nota explicativa praevia

"Commissio statuit expensioni Modorum sequentes observationes generales praemittere.

************I translated that much with Google, below*************

1. Collegium non intelligitur sensu stricte iuridico, scilicet de coetu aequalium, qui potestatem suam praesidi suo demandarent, sed de coetu stabili, cuius structura et auctoritas ex Revelatione deduci debent. Quapropter in Responsione ad Modum 12 explicite de Duodecim dicitur quod Dominus eos constituit "ad modum collegii seu coetus stabilis". Cf etiam Mod. 53, c. - Ob eandem rationem, de Collegio Episcoporum passim etiam adhibentur vocabula Ordo vel Corpus. Parallelismus inter Petrum ceterosque Apostolos ex una parte, et Summum Pontificem et Episcopos ex altera parte, non implicat transmissionem potestatis extraordinariae Apostolorum ad successores eorum, neque, uti patet, aequalitatem inter Caput et membra Collegii, sed solam proportionalitatem inter primam relationem (Petrus - Apostoli) et alteram (Papa - Episcopi). Unde Commissio statuit scribere in n. 22: non eadem sed pari ratione. Cf Modum 57.

2. Aliquis fit membrum Collegii vi consecrationis episcopalis et communione hierarchica cuм Collegii Capite atque membris. Cf n. 22, § 1 in fine. In consecratione datur ontologica participatio sacrorum munerum, ut indubie constat ex Traditione, etiam liturgica. Consulto adhibetur vocabulum munerum, non vero potestatum, quia haec ultima vox de potestate ad actum expedita intelligi posset. Ut vero talis expedita potestas habeatur, accedere debet canonica seu iuridica determinatio per auctoritatem hierarchicam. Quae determinatio potestatis consistere potest in concessione particularis officii vel in assignatione subditorum, et datur iuxta normas a suprema auctoritate adprobatas. Huiusmodi ulterior norma ex natura rei requiritur, quia agitur de muneribus quae a pluribus subiectis, hierarchice ex voluntate Christi cooperantibus, exerceri debent. Evidens est quod haec "communio" in vita Ecclesiae secundum adiuncta temporum applicata est, priusquam in iure velut codificata fuerit.

Quapropter signanter dicitur, requiri hierarchicam communionem cuм Ecclesiae Capite atque membris. Communio est notio quae in antiqua Ecclesia (sicut etiam hodie praesertim in Oriente) in magno honore habetur. Non intelligitur autem de vago quodam affectu, sed de realitate organica, quae iuridicam formam exigit et simul caritate animatur. Unde Commissio, fere unanimi consensu, scribendum esse statuit: "in hierarchica communione". Cf Modum 40 et etiam illa quae dicuntur de missione canonica, sub n. 24.

Docuмenta recentiorum Summorum Pontificuм circa iurisdictionem Episcoporum interpretanda sunt de hac necessaria determinatione potestatum.

3. Collegium, quod sine Capite non datur, dicitur: "subiectum quoque supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam existere". Quod necessario admittendum est, ne plenitudo potestatis Romani Pontificis in discrimen poneretur. Collegium enim necessario et semper Caput suum cointelligit, quod in Collegio integrum servat suum munus Vicarii Christi et Pastoris Ecclesiae universalis. Aliis verbis distinctio non est inter Romanum Pontificem et Episcopos collective sumptos, sed inter Romanum Pontificem seorsim et Romanum Pontificem simul cuм Episcopis. Quia vero Summus Pontifex est Caput Collegii, ipse solus quosdam actus facere potest, qui Episcopis nullo modo competunt, v. gr. Collegium convocare et dirigere, normas actionis approbare, etc. Cf Modum 81. Ad iudicium Summi Pontificis, cui cura totius gregis Christi commissa est, spectat, secundum necessitates Ecclesiae decursu temporum variantes, determinare modum quo haec cura actuari conveniat, sive modo personali, sive modo collegiali. Romanus Pontifex ad collegiale exercitium ordinandum, promovendum, approbandum, intuitu boni Ecclesiae, secundum propriam discretionem procedit.

4. Summus Pontifex, utpote Pastor Supremus Ecclesiae, suam potestatem omni tempore ad placitum exercere potest, sicut ab ipso suo munere requiritur. Collegium vero, licet semper exsistat, non propterea permanenter actione stricte collegiali agit, sicut ex Traditione Ecclesiae constat. Aliis verbis non semper est "in actu pleno", immo nonnisi per intervalla actu stricte collegiali agit et nonnisi consentiente Capite. Dicitur autem "consentiente Capite", ne cogitetur de dependentia velut ab aliquo extraneo; terminus "consentiens" evocat e contra communionem inter Caput et membra, et implicat necessitatem actus qui Capiti proprie competit. Res affirmatur explicite in n. 22, § 2 et explicatur ibid., in fine. Formula negativa "nonnisi" omnes casus comprehendit: unde evidens est quod normae a suprema Auctoritate approbatae semper observari debent. Cf Modum 84.

In omnibus autem apparet quod agitur de coniunctione Episcoporum cuм Capite suo, numquam vero de actione Episcoporum independenter a Papa. In quo casu, deficiente actione Capitis, Episcopi agere ut Collegium nequeunt, sicut ex notione "Collegii" patet. Haec hierarchica communio omnium Episcoporum cuм Summo Pontifice in Traditione certe solemnis est.

N.B. Sine communione hierarchica munus sacramentale-ontologicuм, quod distinguendum est ab aspectu canonico-iuridico, exerceri non potest. Commissio autem censuit non intrandum esse in quaestiones de liceitate et validitate, quae relinquuntur disceptationi theologorum, in specie quod attinet ad potestatem quae de facto apud Orientales seiunctos exercetur, et de cuius explicatione variae exstant sententiae".

† PERICLES FELICI
Archiepiscopus tit. Samosatensis
Ss. Concilii Secretarius Generalis

******************* Google Translate*********************

Record SS. Council 2

Announcement

I was made by Exc.mo the Secretary General of the Most Holy . Council and the General Congregation 123 of 16 November. 1964

The question was what ought to be the qualification of a theological doctrine, which are expounded and the vote of the Church in the Figure is subject.

The Doctrinal Commission has given an answer to the question , in the third Figure is to be reckoned with The manner in one looks at the head of the Church, in these words:

" Not to mention the self-evident , the web of the Council are always according to the general rules , then by all such as are known , be interpreted with is" .

How it happened, the Doctrinal Commission and sent back to his own Declaration , March 6, 1964 , of which we transcribe here the text here :

" On the basis of the usage of the Council's pastoral and relevance to the end of the Council , this sacred synod proclaims defines only those things in matters of faith or morals to be held by the Church , which declared itself to such things openly .

The other , which St. Synod wishes , for example, the teaching of the Church's Magisterium of the Supreme , all to embrace and individual Christians, to accept, and they must be in accordance with His St. Of the Synod of the mind, which is made known to or from the underlying matter or from his manner of speaking , according to the norms of theological interpretation, " .

Superior and then is communicated to the authority of the Fathers of the third Figure is well-known explanatory previous to way with regard to the head of the Church, ought to be understood and explained to the signs of which the mind and the opinion set forth the doctrine of the third time in the same chapter .

Note explanatory previous

" The Commission has decided submitted modes following observations of the general premise .

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2014, 03:44:16 AM »

.

Just for laughs, I checked the last two paragraphs and the signature, too:

Translate

But in all it is clear that the subject is the relationship of the Bishops with their head, but never independently of the activity of the Bishop by the Pope. In which case, the absence of the action of the Head, in the College of the Bishop's task to ensure that they are unable to, as if made of the concept of "College" is evident. This hierarchical communion with the Supreme Pontiff in the Tradition of all the Bishops is a solemn rite, at any rate.

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the role of ontological-sacramental, which canon is to be distinguished from the appearance of-juridical, may not be used. Commission, however, to be in the questions about the lawfulness and the validity of the proposed and carried a Not to be entered, which is left to the discussion of the theologians, in particular, is carried out with regard to the power of that has in fact our divided among the Orientals, and of the explanation of which is the opinion of the various extant ".

† danger Felix
Tit. Samosatensis
Ss. Secretary General of the Council

Notice how the author's name, + Pericles Felici, translated as "† danger Felix."

In all of these translations of the Nota, I do not see anything that this item #1 of the AFD could have been referring to. Item 1 is not concerned with the autonomy of the Pope, but with the authority of the Vat.II docuмents:

III In particular:

1 We declare accepting the doctrine re. the Roman Pontiff and the College of bishops, with its head, the Pope, as taught by the Pastor Aeternus dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council and by the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this very chapter.

.
.