Hobbledehoy
Reputation: 3830
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,112
|
| Nishant2011 said: | | Msgr.Charles Journet, Church of the Incarnate Word, 1956 said: | But, besides this particular jurisdiction which they possess as properly theirs, the bishops, taken as a college, in virtue of their close union with the Sovereign Pontiff, participate in the universal jurisdiction proper to the Pontiff. And just as we distinguish, in the case, for instance, of a harp, the beauty of the sound it gives out at the touch of the strings, from the spiritual beauty lent it by the mind of the artist; or, in the case of a human arm, its mechanical from its intelligent activity; or in the case of Socrates' disciples or Napoleon's marshals, their own personal qualities from the added powers they gain from the genius of their master; so we must distinguish in the bishops the power of particular jurisdiction which finds in each of them its proper subject, from the power of universal jurisdiction which finds in them a supplementary subject.
I have said that the particular jurisdiction of the bishops is distinct from the universal jurisdiction of the Pope; it is superadded to it, not so as to make up more power, "majus in potestate", but many powers, " plures potestates ". On the other hand, the collegiate jurisdiction of the bishops is not numerically added to the universal jurisdiction, but is one with it.
In other words, the power to rule the universal Church resides first of all in the Sovereign Pontiff, then in the episcopal college united with the Pontiff; and it can be exercised either singly by the Sovereign Pontiff, or jointly by the Pontiff and the episcopal college: the power of the Sovereign Pontiff singly and that of the Sovereign Pontiff united with the episcopal college constituting not two powers adequately distinct, but one sole supreme power -- considered on the one hand in the head of the Church teaching, in whom it resides in its wholeness and as in its source, and on the other hand as at once in the head and in the body of the Church teaching, to which it is communicated and in which it finds its plenary and integral subject. |
To me a similar statement in Lumen Gentium was the most problematic, the statement that the supreme power can find a subject in any sense in the Apostolic college, and a recent SSPX article also identified that point in particular as being in discordance with prior Magisterial teaching. Here is Lumen Gentium,
| Quote: | | But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. |
I wonder if you or anyone else have any thoughts on this matter? |
I would have to read that extract from Lumen Gentium in its proper context in order for me to give an adequate treatment thereof - actually I would have to read the whole document.
If the above-cited document is meant to say that the aggregate of the Catholic Episcopacy can exercise "supreme and full power over the universal Church" by virtue of their Apostolic succession alone, and add the necessity of communion with the Supreme Pontiff as a qualifying afterthought, it is erroneous, according to my understanding.
This explains why the N.O. bishops and their lobbyists can boss around Benedict XVI and pressure the Vatican to comply with their demands (like when the European bishops threatened the Vatican if the SSPX demands were met). This also explains why Bishop Fellay is mistaken if he thinks that convincing Benedict XVI and his staff suffices to guarantee the tranquility of the SSPX clergy and faithful within the N.O. construct: there can be no tranquility where there is no order.
Having a conglomerate of N.O. bishops arrogate to themselves authority and power they never could pretend to usurp were it not the novel theological lexicon and phraseology promulgated by "Vatican II," and reducing Benedict XVI into some powerless figurehead in the practical sphere, to be interpreted at the theoretical level as political agendae of various strata of the N.O. gamut demand, is really not Catholic order at all. How is that different than what the various camps of sedevacantists have proposed? I think the N.O. construct is more noxious to the integrity of the Church of the Christ than the terrifying implications of what some sedevacantists say or do.
I have to re-read that chapter, but from what I can recall Msgr. Journet concludes that the jurisdiction of the Episcopy "participates" in that of the Roman Pontiff, which alone is supreme and universal, because concluding otherwise (if one would follow his argument to another direction) would deny the unicity of Apostolic succession and of the divine authority delegated by Christ to St. Peter and the Apostolic College. Our Lord did not issue a plurality of dispensations of authority to the other Apostles, but gave unto the Apostles their authority in one motion of divine volition together with, but subordinated to, the primacy of St. Peter and his successors.
The Jansenists and Gallicanists of previous ages had denied such crucial unicity, asserting that each individual Bishop can claim just as much Apostolic succession as the Roman Pontiff, and could exercise Apostolic authority in his individual see. The Episcopacy's jurisdiction is true, but it cannot be said to extend to the entire universal Church in the same sense as the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff: again, the Episcopacy is absolutely subordinated unto the Roman Pontiff, so that even their formal Apostolic succession is dependent on the acceptation of a bishop-elect's elevation to the Episcopacy and the Canonical mission thereto vouchsafed by the Vicar of Christ alone.
|
|
| Posted Jun 27, 2012, 2:28 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Hobbledehoy
Reputation: 3830
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,112
|
| SJB said: | | This is of great interest. |
Many thanks for this!
I have to re-read that again and again.
Msgr. Fenton did address a point that is not relevant to the discussion at hand, regarding Msgr. Journet's notion of the constitution of the Church of Christ, which has had me a bit disturbed. I now have some homework to do...
According to my personal experience, if one is initially informed and tremendously influenced by the ascetical and mystical theology of the Dominicans, especially if one has chosen it in preference to that of the other schools of theology, then one is more likely to agree with both Msgr. Journet and Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange when it comes to these matters. There is St. Robert Bellarmine and his school to balance one's perspective regarding the various questions pertinent to the treatise De Ecclesia Christi.
I know Mr. John Lane (the most consistent and sane of the sedevacantist apologists on the internet) does not think much of the Dominicans as ecclesiologists, and I understand his apprehensions, but I have to do my own reading before I agree or disagree with his judgment on the matter.
I think it's time for someone as learned as Mr. Lane to translate the ecclesiological works of St. Robert Bellarmine or at least make the original Latin text more accessible. Just citing extracts in monographs or treatises of such important works does not suffice for a generation of Catholics who are starving for sound theological education and edification.
|
|
| Posted Jun 27, 2012, 2:47 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
