-
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
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.
-
Does anyone have a ready copy of this,
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?
-
Does anyone have the copy that Father Pfeiffer read from in his sermon?
-
It looks like a more detailed version of the 1988 protocol initially signed by Archbishop Lefebvre then disavowed the very next day!
-
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"?
-
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.
:facepalm:
-
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.
-
So accurate to use the word "plight" - that's the most exact translation?
-
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
-
.
It's been what, 10 months, now................
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23472&min=0#p1)
Does anyone have a ready copy of this,
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? .....................
.
-
Well you might not like the source... I tried to find a better one, but here's (http://www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html) 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
-
.
Thanks, parentsfortruth.
From the following portion, I can recognize having seen the parts in bold:
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 (http://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/vatican-ii-dates-events1.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
-
.
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.
.
-
.
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:
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 .
.
-
.
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.
.
.
-
.
Lumen Gentium chapter III goes from paragraph 18-29:
Caput III
DE CONSTITUTIONE HIERARCHICA ECCLESIAE
ET IN SPECIE DE EPISCOPATU
18. Christus Dominus, ad Populum Dei pascendum semperque augendum, in Ecclesia sua varia ministeria instituit, quae ad bonum totius Corporis tendunt. Ministri enim, qui sacra potestate pollent, fratribus suis inserviunt, ut omnes qui de Populo Dei sunt, ideoque vera dignitate christiana gaudent, ad eumdem finem libere et ordinatim conspirantes, ad salutem perveniant.
Haec Sacrosancta Synodus, Concilii Vaticani primi vestigia premens, cuм eo docet et declarat Iesum Christum Pastorem aeternum sanctam aedificasse Ecclesiam, missis Apostolis sicut Ipse missus erat a Patre (cf. Io 20,21); quorum successores, videlicet Episcopos, in Ecclesia sua usque ad consummationem saeculi pastores esse voluit. Ut vero Episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, beatum Petrum ceteris Apostolis praeposuit in ipsoque instituit perpetuum ac visibile unitatis fidei et communionis principium et fundamentum(37). Quam doctrinam de institutione, perpetuitate, vi ac ratione sacri Primatus Romani Pontificis deque eius infallibili Magisterio, Sacra Synodus cunctis fidelibus firmiter credendam rursus proponit, et in eodem incepto pergens, doctrinam de Episcopis, successoribus Apostolorum, qui cuм successore Petri, Christi Vicario(38) ac totius Ecclesiae visibili Capite, domum Dei viventis regunt, coram omnibus profiteri et declarare constituit.
19. Dominus Iesus, precibus ad Patrem fusis, vocans ad Se quos voluit Ipse, duodecim constituit ut essent cuм Illo et ut mitteret eos praedicare Regnum Dei (cf. Mc 3,13-19; Mt 10,1-42); quos Apostolos (cf. Lc 6,13) ad modum collegii seu coetus stabilis instituit, cui ex iisdem electum Petrum praefecit (cf. Io 21,15-17). Eos ad filios Israel primum et ad omnes gentes misit (cf. Rom 1,16), ut suae participes potestatis, omnes populos discipulos Ipsius facerent, eosque sanctificarent et gubernarent (cf. Mt 28,16-20; Mc 16,15; Lc 24,45-48; Io 20,21-23), sicque Ecclesiam propagarent, eamque sub ductu Domini ministrando pascerent, omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi (cf. Mt 28,20). In qua missione die Pentecostes plene confirmati sunt (cf. Act 2,1-36) secundum promissum Domini: "Accipietis virtutem supervenientis Spiritus Sancti in vos, et eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem et in omni Iudaea et Samaria, et usque ad ultimum terrae" (Act 1,8). Apostoli autem praedicando ubique Evangelium (cf. Mc 16,20), ab audientibus Spiritu Sancto operante acceptum, Ecclesiam congregant universalem, quam Dominus in Apostolis condidit et supra beatum Petrum, eorum principem, aedificavit, ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Iesu (cf. Apoc 21,14; Mt 16,18; Eph 2,20)(39).
20. Missio illa divina, a Christo Apostolis concredita, ad finem saeculi erit duratura (cf. Mt 28,20), cuм Evangelium, ab eis tradendum, sit in omne tempus pro Ecclesia totius vitae principium. Quapropter Apostoli, in hac societate hierarchice ordinata, de instituendis successoribus curam egerunt.
Non solum enim varios adiutores in ministerio habuerunt(40), sed ut missio ipsis concredita post eorum mortem continuaretur, cooperatoribus suis immediatis, quasi per modum testamenti, demandaverunt munus perficiendi et confirmandi opus ab ipsis inceptum(41), commendantes illis ut attenderent universo gregi, in quo Spiritus Sanctus eos posuit pascere Ecclesiam Dei (cf. Act 20, 28). Constituerunt itaque huius modi viros ac deinceps ordinationem dederunt, ut cuм decessissent, ministerium eorum alii viri probati exciperent(42). Inter varia illa ministeria quae inde a primis temporibus in Ecclesia exercentur, teste traditione, praecipuum locuм tenet munus illorum qui, in episcopatum constituti, per successionem ab initio decurrentem(43), apostolici seminis traduces habent(44). Ita, ut testatur S. Irenaeus, per eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi et successores eorum usque ad nos, traditio apostolica in toto mundo manifestatur(45) et custoditur(46).
Episcopi igitur communitatis ministerium cuм adiutoribus preshyteris et diaconis susceperunt(47), loco Dei praesidentes gregi(48), cuius sunt pastores, ut doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes, gubernationis ministri(49). Sicut autem permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, ita permanet munus Apostolorum pascendi Ecclesiam, ab ordine sacrato Episcoporum iugiter exercendum(50). Proinde docet Sacra Synodus Episcopos ex divina institutione in locuм Apostolorum successisse(51), tamquam Ecclesiae pastores, quos qui audit, Christum audit, qui vero spernit, Christum spernit et Eum qui Christum misit (cf. Lc 10,16)(52).
21. In Episcopis igitur, quibus presbyteri assistunt, adest in medio credentium Dominus Iesus Christus, Pontifex Summus. Sedens enim ad dexteram Dei Patris, non deest a suorum congregatione pontificuм(53), sed imprimis per eorum eximium servitium verbum Dei omnibus gentibus praedicat et credentibus sacramenta fidei continuo administrat, eorum paterno munere (cf. 1Cor 4,15) nova membra Corpori suo regeneratione superna incorporat, eorum denique sapientia et prudentia Populum Novi Testamenti in sua ad aeternam beatitudinem peregrinatione dirigit et ordinat. Hi pastores ad pascendum dominicuм gregem electi, ministri Christi sunt et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei (cf. 1Cor 4,1), quibus concredita est testificatio Evangelii gratiae Dei (cf. Rom 15,16; Act 20,24), atque ministratio Spiritus et iustitiae in gloria (cf. 2Cor 3,8-9).
Ad tanta munera explenda, Apostoli speciali effusione supervenientis Spiritus Sancti a Christo ditati sunt (cf. Act 1,8; 2,4; Io 20,22-23), et ipsi adiutoribus suis per impositionem manuum donum spirituale tradiderunt (cf. 1Tim 4,14; 2Tim 1,6-7), quod usque ad nos in episcopali consecratione transmissum est(54). Docet autem Sancta Synodus episcopali consecratione plenitudinem conferri sacramenti Ordinis, quae nimirum et liturgica Ecclesiae consuetudine et voce Sanctorum Patrum summum sacerdotium, sacri ministerii summa nuncupatur(55). Episcopalis autem consecratio, cuм munere sanctificandi, munera quoque confert docendi et regendi, quae tamen natura sua nonnisi in hierarchica communione cuм Collegii Capite et membris exerceri possunt. Ex traditione enim, quae praesertim liturgicis ritibus et Ecclesiae tum Orientis tum Occidentis usu declaratur, perspicuum est manuum impositione et verbis consecrationis gratiam Spiritus Sancti ita conferri(56) et sacrum characterem ita imprimi(57), ut Episcopi, eminenti ac adspectabili modo, ipsius Christi Magistri, Pastoris et Pontificis partes sustineant et in Eius persona agant(58). Episcoporum est per Sacramentum Ordinis novos electos in corpus episcopale assumere.
22. Sicut, statuente Domino, sanctus Petrus et ceteri Apostoli unum Collegium apostolicuм constituunt, pari ratione Romanus Pontifex, successor Petri, et Episcopi, successores Apostolorum, inter se coniunguntur. Iam perantiqua disciplina, qua Episcopi in universo orbe constituti ad invicem et cuм Romano Episcopo communicabant in vinculo unitatis, caritatis et pacis(59), itemque concilia coadunata(60), per quae et altiora quaeque in commune statuerentur(61), sententia multorum consilio ponderata(62), ordinis episcopalis indolem et rationem collegialem significant; quam manifeste comprobant Concilia Oecuмenica decursu saeculorum celebrata. Eandem vero iam innuit ipse usus, antiquitus inductus, plures advocandi Episcopos qui in novo electo ad summi sacerdotii ministerium elevando partem haberent. Membrum Corporis episcopalis aliquis constituitur vi sacramentalis consecrationis et hierarchica communione cuм Collegii Capite atque membris.
Collegium autem seu corpus Episcoporum auctoritatem non habet, nisi simul cuм Pontifice Romano, successore Petri, ut capite eius intellegatur, huiusque integre manente potestate Primatus in omnes sive Pastores sive fideles. Romanus enim Pontifex habet in Ecclesiam, vi muneris sui, Vicarii scilicet Christi et totius Ecclesiae Pastoris, plenam, supremam et universalem potestatem, quam semper libere exercere valet. Ordo autem Episcoporum, qui collegio Apostolorum in magisterio et regimine pastorali succedit, immo in quo corpus apostolicuм continuo perseverat, una cuм Capite suo Romano Pontifice, et numquam sine hoc Capite, subiectum quoque supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam exsistit(63), quae quidem potestas nonnisi consentiente Romano Pontifice exerceri potest. Dominus unum Simonem ut petram et clavigerum Ecclesiae posuit (cf. Mt 16,18-19), eumque Pastorem totius sui gregis constituit (cf. Io 21,15ss.); illud autem ligandi ac solvendi munus, quod Petro datum est (cf. Mt 16,19), collegio quoque Apostolorum, suo Capiti coniuncto, tributum esse constat (cf. Mt 18,18; 28,16-20)(64). Collegium hoc quatenus ex multis compositum, varietatem et universalitatem Populi Dei, quatenus vero sub uno capite collectum unitatem gregis Christi exprimit. In ipso, Episcopi, primatum et principatum Capitis sui fideliter servantes, propria potestate in bonum fidelium suorum, immo totius Ecclesiae funguntur, Spiritu Sancto organicam structuram eiusque concordiam continenter roborante. Suprema in universam Ecclesiam potestas, qua istud Collegium pollet, sollemni modo in Concilio Oecuмenico exercetur. Concilium Oecuмenicuм numquam datur, quod a Successore Petri non sit ut tale confirmatum vel saltem receptum; et Romani Pontificis praerogativa est haec Concilia convocare, iisdem praesidere et eadem confirmare(65). Eadem potestas collegialis una cuм Papa exerceri potest ab Episcopis in orbe terrarum degentibus, dummodo Caput Collegii eos ad actionem collegialem vocet, vel saltem Episcoporum dispersorum unitam actionem approbet vel libere recipiat, ita ut verus actus collegialis efficiatur.
23. Collegialis unio etiam in mutuis relationibus singulorum Episcoporum cuм particularibus Ecclesiis Ecclesiaque universali apparet. Romanus Pontifex, ut successor Petri, est unitatis, tum Episcoporum tum fidelium multitudinis, perpetuum ac visibile principium et fundamentum(66). Episcopi autem singuli visibile principium et fundamentum sunt unitatis in suis Ecclesiis particularibus(67), ad imaginem Ecclesiae universalis formatis in quibus et ex quibus una et unica Ecclesia catholica exsistit(68). Qua de causa singuli Episcopi suam Ecclesiam, omnes autem simul cuм Papa totam Ecclesiam repraesentant in vinculo pacis, amoris et unitatis.
Singuli Episcopi, qui particularibus Ecclesiis praeficiuntur, regimen suum pastorale super portionem Populi Dei sibi commissam, non super alias Ecclesias neque super Ecclesiam universalem exercent. Sed qua membra Collegii episcopalis et legitimi Apostolorum successores singuli ea sollicitudine pro universa Ecclesia ex Christi institutione et praecepto tenentur(69), quae, etiamsi per actum iurisdictionis non exerceatur, summopere tamen confert ad Ecclesiae universalis emolumentum. Debent enim omnes Episcopi promovere et tueri unitatem fidei et disciplinam cunctae Ecclesiae communem, fideles edocere ad amorem totius Corporis mystici Christi, praesertim membrorum pauperum, dolentium et eorum qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam (cf. Mt 5,10), tandem promovere omnem actuositatem quae toti Ecclesiae communis est, praesertim ut fides incrementum capiat et lux plenae veritatis omnibus hominibus oriatur. Ceterum hoc sanctum est quod, bene regendo propriam Ecclesiam ut portionem Ecclesiae universalis, ipsi efficaciter conferunt ad bonum totius mystici Corporis, quod est etiam corpus Ecclesiarum(70).
Cura Evangelium ubique terrarum annuntiandi ad corpus Pastorum pertinet, quibus omnibus in commune Christus mandatum dedit imponendo commune officium, ut iam Papa Coelestinus Patribus Ephesini Concilii commendavit(71). Unde singuli Episcopi, quantum propria eorum perfunctio muneris sinit, in laborum societatem venire tenentur inter se et cuм successore Petri, cui grande munus christiani nominis propagandi singulari modo demandatum est(72). Quare missionibus tum messis operarios, tum etiam auxilia spiritualia et materialia, tam per se directe, quam suscitando fidelium ardentem cooperationem, suppeditare omnibus viribus debent. Episcopi denique, in universali caritatis societate, fraternum adiutorium aliis Ecclesiis, praesertim finitimis et egentioribus, secundum venerandum antiquitatis exemplum, libenter praebeant.
Divina autem Providentia factum est ut variae variis in locis ab Apostolis eorumque successoribus institutae Ecclesiae decursu temporum in plures coaluerint coetus, organice coniunctos, qui, salva fidei unitate et unica divina constitutione universalis Ecclesiae, gaudent propria disciplina, proprio liturgico usu, theologico spiritualique patrimonio. Inter quas aliquae, notatim antiquae Patriarchales Ecclesiae, veluti matrices fidei, alias pepererunt quasi filias, quibuscuм arctiore vinculo caritatis in vita sacramentali atque in mutua iurium et officiorum reverentia ad nostra usque tempora connectuntur(73). Quae Ecclesiarum localium in unum conspirans varietas indivisae Ecclesiae catholicitatem luculentius demonstrat. Simili ratione Coetus Episcopales hodie multiplicem atque fecundam opem conferre possunt, ut collegialis affectus ad concretam applicationem perducatur.
24. Episcopi, utpote Apostolorum successores, a Domino, cui omnis potestas in coelo et in terra data est, missionem accipiunt docendi omnes gentes et praedicandi Evangelium omni creaturae, ut homines universi, per fidem, baptismum et adimpletionem mandatorum salutem consequantur (cf. Mt 28,18-20; Mc 16,15-16; Act 26,17s.). Ad hanc missionem implendam, Christus Dominus Spiritum Sanctum promisit Apostolis et die Pentecostes e coelo misit, cuius virtute testes Eidem essent usque ad ultimum terrae, coram gentibus et populis et regibus (cf. Act 1,8; 2,1ss.; 9,15). Munus autem illud quod Dominus pastoribus populi sui commisit, verum est servitium quod in sacris Litteris "diaconia" seu ministerium significanter nuncupatur (cf. Act 1,17 et 25; 21,19; Rom 11,13; 1Tim 1,12).
Episcoporum autem missio canonica fieri potest per legitimas consuetudines, a suprema et universali potestate Ecclesiae non revocatas, vel per leges ab eadem auctoritate latas aut agnitas, vel directe per ipsum Successorem Petri; quo renuente seu communionem Apostolicam denegante, Episcopi in officium assumi nequeunt(74).
25. Inter praecipua Episcoporum munera eminet praedicatio Evangelii(75). Episcopi enim sunt fidei praecones, qui novos discipulos ad Christum adducunt, et doctores authentici seu auctoritate Christi praediti, qui populo sibi commisso fidem credendam et moribus applicandam praedicant, et sub lumine Sancti Spiritus illustrant, ex thesauro Revelationis nova et vetera proferentes (cf. Mt 13,52), eam fructificare faciunt erroresque gregi suo, impendentes vigilanter arcent (cf. 2Tim 4,1-4). Episcopi in communione cuм Romano Pontifice docentes ab omnibus tamquam divinae et catholicae veritatis testes venerandi sunt; fideles autem in sui Episcopi sententiam de fide et moribus nomine Christi prolatam concurrere, eique religioso animi obsequio adhaerere debent. Hoc vero religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singulari ratione praestandum est Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio etiam cuм non ex cathedra loquitur; ita nempe ut magisterium eius supremum reverenter agnoscatur, et sententiis ab eo prolatis sincere adhaereatur, iuxta mentem et voluntatem manifestatam ipsius, quae se prodit praecipue sive indole docuмentorum, sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinae, sive ex dicendi ratione.
Licet singuli praesules infallibilitatis praerogativa non polleant, quando tamen, etiam per orbem dispersi, sed communionis nexum inter se et cuм Successore Petri servantes, authentice res fidei et morum docentes in unam sententiam tamquam definitive tenendam conveniunt, doctrinam Christi infallibiliter enuntiant(76). Quod adhuc manifestius habetur quando, in Concilio Oecuмenico coadunati, pro universa Ecclesia fidei et morum doctores et iudices sunt, quorum definitionibus fidei obsequio est adhaerendum(77).
Haec autem infallibilitas, qua Divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit, tantum patet quantum divinae Revelationis patet depositum, sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum. Qua quidem infallibilitate Romanus Pontifex, Collegii Episcoporum Caput, vi muneris sui gaudet, quando, ut supremus omnium christifidelium pastor et doctor, qui fratres suos in fide confirmat (cf. Lc 22,32), doctrinam de fide vel moribus definitivo actu proclamat(78). Quare definitiones eius ex sese, et non ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles merito dicuntur, quippe quae sub assistentia Spiritus Sancti, ipsi in beato Petro promissa, prolatae sint, ideoque nulla indigeant aliorum approbatione, nec ullam ad aliud iudicium appellationem patiantur. Tunc enim Romanus Pontifex non ut persona privata sententiam profert, sed ut universalis Ecclesiae magister supremus, in quo charisma infallibilitatis ipsius Ecclesiae singulariter inest, doctrinam fidei catholicae exponit vel tuetur(79). Infallibilitas Ecciesiae promissa in corpore Episcoporum quoque inest, quando supremum magisterium cuм Petri Successore exercet. Istis autem definitionibus assensus Ecclesiae numquam deesse potest propter actionem eiusdem Spiritus Sancti, qua universus Christi grex in unitate fidei servatur et proficit(80).
cuм autem sive Romanus Pontifex sive Corpus Episcoporum cuм eo sententiam definiunt, eam proferunt secundum ipsam Revelationem, cui omnes stare et conformari tenentur et quae scripta vel tradita per legitimam Episcoporum successionem et imprimis ipsius Romani Pontificis cura integre transmittitur, atque praelucente Spiritu veritatis in Ecclesia sancte servatur et fideliter exponitur(81). Ad quam rite indagandam et apte enuntiandam, Romanus Pontifex et Episcopi, pro officio suo et rei gravitate, per media apta, sedulo operam navant(82); novam vero revelationem publicam tamquam ad divinum fidei depositum pertinentem non accipiunt(83).
26. Episcopus, plenitudine sacramenti Ordinis insignitus, est "oeconomus gratiae supremi sacerdotii"(84), praesertim in Eucharistia, quam ipse offert vel offerri curat(85), et qua continuo vivit et crescit Ecclesia. Haec Christi Ecclesia vere adest in omnibus, legitimis fidelium congregationibus localibus, quae, pastoribus suis adhaerentes, et ipsae in Novo Testamento ecclesiae vocantur(86). Hae sunt enim loco suo Populus novus a Deo vocatus, in Spiritu Sancto et in plenitudine multa (cf. 1Thess 1,5). In eis praedicatione Evangelii Christi congregantur fideles et celebratur mysterium Coenae Domini, "ut per escam et sanguinem Domini corporis fraternitas cuncta copuletur"(87) In quavis altaris communitate, sub Episcopi sacro ministerio(88), exhibetur symbolum illius caritatis et "unitatis Corporis mystici, sine qua non potest esse salus"(89). In his communitatibus, licet saepe exiguis et pauperibus, vel in dispersione degentibus, praesens est Christus, cuius virtute consociatur una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia(90). Etenim "non aliud agit participatio corporis et sanguinis Christi, quam ut in id quod sumimus transeamus"(91).
Omnis autem legitima Eucharistiae celebratio dirigitur ab Episcopo, cui officium commissum est cultum christianae religionis Divinae Maiestati deferendi atque administrandi secundum praecepta Domini et Ecclesiae leges, eius particulari iudicio ulterius pro dioecesi determinatas.
Ita Episcopi, orando pro populo et laborando, de plenitudine sanctitatis Christi multiformiter et abundanter effundunt. Per ministerium verbi virtutem Dei credentibus in salutem communicant (cf. Rom 1,16), et per sacramenta, quorum regularem et fructuosam distributionem auctoritate sua ordinant(92), fideles sanctificant. Ipsi regunt collationem baptismi, quo regalis sacerdotii Christi participatio conceditur. Ipsi sunt ministri originarii confirmationis, dispensatores sacrorum ordinum et moderatores disciplinae poenitentialis, atque populos suos, ut in liturgia et praesertim in sacro Missae sacrificio partes suas fide et reverentia impleant, sollicite exhortantur et instruunt. Eis denique quibus praesunt exemplo conversationis suae proficere debent, mores suos ab omni malo temperantes et quantum poterint, Domino adiuvante, ad bonum commutando, ut ad vitam, una cuм grege sibi credito, perveniant sempiternam(93).
27. Episcopi Ecclesias particulares sibi commissas ut vicarii et legati Christi regunt(94), consiliis, suasionibus, exemplis, verum etiam auctoritate et sacra potestate, qua quidem nonnisi ad gregem suum in veritate et sanctitate aedificandum utuntur, memores quod qui maior est fiat sicut minor et qui praecessor est sicut ministrator (cf. Lc 22,26-27). Haec potestas qua, nomine Christi personaliter funguntur, est propria, ordinaria et immediata, licet a suprema Ecclesiae auctoritate exercitium eiusdem ultimatim regatur et certis limitibus, intuitu utilitatis Ecclesiae vel fidelium, circuмscribi possit. Vi huius potestatis Episcopi sacrum ius et coram Domino officium habent in suos subditos leges ferendi, iudicium faciendi, atque omnia, quae ad cultus apostolatusque ordinem pertinent, moderandi.
Ipsis munus pastorale seu habitualis et cotidiana cura ovium suarum plene committitur, neque vicarii Romanorum Pontificuм putandi sunt, quia potestatem gerunt sibi propriam verissimeque populorum quos regunt, Antistites dicuntur(95). Eorum itaque potestas a suprema et universali potestate non eliditur, sed e contra asseritur, roboratur et vindicatur(96), Spiritu Sancto constitutam a Christo Domino in sua Ecclesia regiminis formam indefectibiliter servante.
Episcopus, missus a Patrefamilias ad gubernandam familiam suam, ante oculos teneat exemplum Boni Pastoris, qui venit non ministrari sed ministrare (cf. Mt 20,28; Mc 10,45) et animam suam pro ovibus ponere (cf. Io 10,11). Assumptus ex hominibus et circuмdatus infirmitate, condolere potest iis qui ignorant et errant (cf. Hebr 5,1-2). Subditos, quos ut veros filios suos fovet et ad alacriter secuм cooperandum exhortatur, audire ne renuat. Pro animabus eorum rationem redditurus Deo (cf. Hebr 13,17) oratione, praedicatione omnibusque operibus caritatis curam habeat tum eorumdem, tum etiam illorum qui de uno grege nondum sunt, quos in Domino commendatos sibi habeat. Ipse, cuм sicut Paulus Apostolus cunctis debitor sit, promptus sit omnibus evangelizare (cf. Rom 1,14-15), fidelesque suos ad operositatem apostolicam et missionalem exhortari. Fideles autem Episcopo adhaerere debent sicut Ecclesia Iesu Christo, et sicut Iesus Christus Patri, ut omnia per unitatem consentiant(97), et abundent in gloriam Dei (cf. 2Cor 4,15).
28. Christus, quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum (cf. Io 10,36), consecrationis missionisque suae per Apostolos suos, eorum successores, videlicet Episcopos participes effecit(98), qui munus ministerii sui, vario gradu, variis subiectis in Ecclesia legitime tradiderunt. Sic ministerium ecclesiasticuм divinitus institutum diversis ordinibus exercetur ab illis qui iam ab antiquo Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi vocantur(99). Presbyteri, quamvis pontificatus apicem non habeant et in exercenda sua potestate ab Episcopis pendeant, cuм eis tamen sacerdotali honore coniuncti sunt(100) et vi sacramenti Ordinis(101), ad imaginem Christi, summi atque aeterni Sacerdotis (cf. Hebr 5, 1-10; 7, 24; 9, 11-28), ad Evangelium praedicandum fidelesque pascendos et ad divinum cultum celebrandum consecrantur, ut veri sacerdotes Novi Testamenti(102). Muneris unici Mediatoris Christi (cf. 1Tim. 2, 5) participes in suo gradu ministerii, omnibus verbum divinum annuntiant. Suum vero munus sacrum maxime exercent in eucharistico cultu vel synaxi, qua in persona Christi agentes(103) Eiusque mysterium proclamantes, vota fidelium sacrificio Capitis ipsorum coniungunt, et unicuм sacrificium Novi Testamenti, Christi scilicet Sese Patri immaculatam hostiam semel offerentis (cf. Hebr 9, 11-28), in sacrificio Missae usque ad adventum Domini (cf. 1Cor 11, 26) repraesentant et applicant(104). Pro fidelibus autem poenitentibus vel aegrotantibus ministerio reconciliationis et alleviationis summe funguntur, et necessitates ac preces fidelium ad Deum Patrem afferunt (cf. Hebr 5,1-3). Munus Christi Pastoris et Capitis pro sua parte auctoritatis exercentes(105), familiam Dei, ut fraternitatem in unum animatam(106), colligunt et per Christum in Spiritu ad Deum Patrem adducunt. In medio gregis Eum in spiritu et veritate adorant (cf. Io 4,24). In verbo demum et doctrina laborant (cf. 1Tim. 5,17), credentes quod in lege Domini meditantes legerint, docentes quod crediderint, imitantes quod docuerint(107).
Presbyteri, ordinis Episcopalis providi cooperatores(108) eiusque adiutorium et organum, ad Populo Dei inserviendum vocati, unum presbyterium(109) cuм suo Episcopo constituunt, diversis quidem officiis mancipatum. In singulis localibus fidelium congregationibus Episcopum, quocuм fidenti et magno animo consociantur, quodammodo praesentem reddunt eiusque munera et sollicitudinem pro parte suscipiunt et cura cotidiana exercent. Qui sub auctoritate Episcopi portionem gregis dominici sibi addictam sanctificant et regunt, Ecclesiam universalem in suo loco visibilem faciunt et in aedificando toto corpore Christi (cf. Eph 4,12) validam opem afferunt. Ad bonum autem filiorum Dei semper intenti operam suam ad opus pastorale totius dioeceseos, immo totius Ecclesiae conferre studeant. Propter hanc in sacerdotio et missione participationem Presbyteri Episcopum vere ut patrem suum agnoscant eique reverenter oboediant. Episcopus vero Sacerdotes cooperatores suos ut filios et amicos consideret, sicut Christus discipulos suos iam non servos, sed amicos vocat (cf. Io 15,15) Corpori igitur Episcoporum, ratione Ordinis et ministerii, omnes Sacerdotes, tum dioecesani tum religiosi coaptantur et bono totius Ecclesiae pro sua vocatione et gratia inserviunt.
Vi communis sacrae ordinationis et missionis Presbyteri omnes inter se intima fraternitate nectuntur, quae sponte ac libenter sese manifestet in mutuo auxilio, tam spirituali quam materiali, tam pastorali quam personali, in conventibus et communione vitae, laboris et caritatis.
Fidelium vero, quos spiritualiter baptismate et doctrina genuerunt (cf. 1Cor 4,15; 1Pt 1,23), curam tamquam patres in Christo agant. Forma facti gregis ex animo (cf. 1Pt 5,3) suae communitati locali ita praesint et inserviant, ut ista digne vocari possit illo nomine, quo unus et totus Populus Dei insignitur, Ecclesiae scilicet Dei (cf. 1Cor 1,2; 2Cor 1,1; et passim). Memores sint se sua cotidiana conversatione et sollicitudine fidelibus et infidelibus, catholicis et non catholicis, faciem ministerii vere sacerdotalis et pastoralis exhibere, omnibusque testimonium veritatis et vitae reddere debere, et ut boni pastores illos quoque quaerere (cf. Lc 15,4-7), qui baptizati quidem in Ecclesia catholica a praxi sacramentorum, vel imo a fide defecerunt.
Quia genus humanum hodie magis magisque in unitatem civilem, oeconomicam et socialem coalescit, eo magis oportet ut Sacerdotes, coniuncta cura et ope sub ductu Episcoporum et Summi Pontificis, omnem rationem dispersionis elidant, ut in unitatem familiae Dei totum genus humanum adducatur.
29. In gradu inferiori hierarchiae sistunt Diaconi, quibus "non ad sacerdotium, sed ad ministerium" manus imponuntur(110). Gratia etenim sacramentali roborati, in diaconia liturgiae, verbi et caritatis Populo Dei, in communione cuм Episcopo eiusque presbyterio, inserviunt. Diaconi est, prout ei a competenti auctoritate assignatum fuerit, solemniter baptismum administrare, Eucharistiam servare et distribuere, matrimonio Ecclesiae nomine adsistere et benedicere, Viaticuм moribundis deferre, fidelibus sacram legere Scripturam, populum instruere et exhortari, fidelium cultui et orationi praesidere, sacramentalia ministrare, ritui funeris ac sepulturae praeesse. Caritatis et administrationis officiis dediti, meminerint Diaconi moniti Beati Polycarpi: "Misericordes, seduli, incedentes iuxta veritatem Domini, qui omnium minister factus est"(111).
cuм vero haec munera, ad vitam Ecclesiae summopere necessaria, in disciplina Ecclesiae latinae hodie vigenti in pluribus regionibus adimpleri difficulter possint, Diaconatus in futurum tamquam proprius ac permanens gradus hierarchiae restitui poterit. Ad competentes autem varii generis territoriales Episcoporum coetus, approbante ipso Summo Pontifice, spectat decernere, utrum et ubinam pro cura animarum huiusmodi diaconos institui opportunum sit. De consensu Romani Pontificis hic diaconatus viris maturioris aetatis etiam in matrimonio viventibus conferri poterit, necnon iuvenibus idoneis, pro quibus tamen lex coelibatus firma remanere debet.
.
-
.
Elsewhere on the Vatican website is the English translation of the Appendix and Nota:
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 proportionality 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 [munera]; 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
.
-
Here is the English translation of the text of the Doctrinal Declaration (with footnotes) as officially put out by the SSPX in one of their Cor Unam's. It can be found in the Appendix to Fr. Rioult's The Impossible Reconciliation, English edition:
TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ. successor of Peter and head of the Episcopal Corps.
II. We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals, giving to each doctrinal statement the requisite degree of adherence, according to the teaching contained in no.25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II. [1]
III. In particular:
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine on the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops, with its head, the Pope, taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I and the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, chapter III (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), as explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa praevia of that same chapter.
2. We acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium, to which alone has been entrusted the task of interpreting authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down, [2] in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the apostles, i.e., the deposit of faith.” [3]
3. Tradition is the living transmission of Revelation “usque ad nos” [4] and the Church in her doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuates and transmits to all generations all that she is and all that she believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, [5] not by some contrary innovation [6] but by a better understanding of the depositum Fidei.[7]
4. The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican Council II which Council in turn clarifies—i.e., deepens and makes more explicit over time—certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually. [8]
5. The statements of Vatican Council II and of the subsequent papal Magisterium relative to the relation of the Catholic Church to the non-Catholic Christian confessions, and also to the civic duty of religion and to the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is difficult to reconcile with the preceding doctrinal statements of the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole and uninterrupted Tradition, in a way consistent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these statements that might lead to a presentation of Catholic doctrine that is opposed to or breaks with Tradition and with that Magisterium.
6. For this reason it is legitimate to promote, through a legitimate discussion, the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulations of Vatican Council II and of the subsequent Magisterium, should they seem irreconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church.[9]
7. We declare that we acknowledge the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments when celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Following the criteria spelled out above (III,5), as well as canon 21 of the Code, 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 (1983) and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by the same Pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline to be granted to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X by a particular law.
-----
[1] Cf. also the new formula of the Profession of Faith and of the Oath of Fidelity on Assuming an Office to be exercised in the Name of the Church, 1989: cf. CIC canons 749; 750 §1 and §2: 752: CCEO canons 597: 598 §1 and §2; 599).
[2] Cf. Pius XII. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Denz. 3886.
[3] Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Denz. 3070.
[4] Council of Trent. Denz. 1501: “This truth and instruction [which] are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us.”
[5] Cf. Vatican Council II. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 and 10; Denz. 4209-4210.
[6] Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Del Filius, Denz. 3020: “Hence, also. that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never he 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.” (St. Vincent of Lerins. Commonitorium. 23.3 [n. 28])
[7] Cf. Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Denz. 3011; Antimodernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Denz. 3886: Vatican Council II. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10. Denz. 4213.
[8] As for example the teaching on the sacramentality of the episcopate in Lumen Gentium, 21.
[9] We find a parallel in history with the Decree of the Armenians of the Council of Florence, in which the presentation or the instruments was indicated as the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Nevertheless, even after that Decree theologians legitimately discussed the exactitude of such an assertion; finally the question was resolved in another way by Pope Pius XII.
-
.
Thank you, ancien regime.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my querry.
I am specifically looking for a the source of the discrepancy between what +Fellay is ostensibly taking note of in item 1 of his AFD (his April Fifteenth "doctrinal Declaration"), and WHAT REALLY HAPPENED during and after Vat.II.
The explanation below helps to expose this discrepancy.
That is to say, if you only go by what +F has written in his abominable AFD, you would think (like liberals have been pushing ever since Vat.II) that the Nota explicativa praevia that was issued by the General Secretary of Vat.II, Pericles Cardinal Felici (translated by Google as "DANGER Cardinal Felici"), was ONLY SIGNIFICANT for its re-affirmation of the Petrine Autonomy that is enjoyed by the Pope, in regards to his infallibility alone, without any need of the bishops together with him, AS WELL AS the dependence the bishops have upon the Pope since they as a "college" as in "collegiality" do NOT enjoy this infallibility UNLESS they are in union with the Pope. (The famous error of "Collegiality" resides in the LIE that the college of bishops or cardinals somehow does not need the pope in order to have infallibility.) In other words, it is the Pope and the Pope ALONE that provides the infallibility of the Church to the assembly of bishops. And it is this papal infallibility that is the most conspicuous and POSITIVE grace of the protection of the Holy Ghost, whether it be in a Council or in anything else that the pope and/or bishops do or say!
But when you pay attention to the sources of the words below, including the testimony of ABL, who HIMSELF carried the request for the Nota to the General Secretary, according to his words in the book cited, you will see that what the Secretary was communicating was the LACK OF INFALLIBILITY of the entire Council Vat.II.
So it is not merely a matter of the assembly of bishops vs. the pope, but it is rather a matter of the note of theological doctrinal infallibility of the entire Vat.II council, which means that since the Holy Ghost protects the Church from error by the POPE DEFINING ERROR, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN AT VAT.II, it is therefore a grave error to say that the Holy Ghost was protecting the docuмents of Vat.II in any POSITIVE WAY.
The protection of the Holy Ghost at Vatican II was confined to a NEGATIVE protection --- that is, He prevented anything to be made to APPEAR as infallible. And He did this by all the incidents of the Pope and others over the years repeating again and again and again that the Council was only pastoral and not definitive.
NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that starting about 5 or 10 years after the council was over, various know-it-alls started sPouting the platitudes that the word "DOGMATIC" in the title of various docuмents such as the "DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION Lumen Gentium," which see, meant that there was some kind of doctrinal character to the docuмents, and therefore some kind of infallibility. But that's a lie.
P.S. -- Don't miss the glaring fact that +F dutifully included "DOGMATIC" in his mention of Lumen Gentium in item #1 of his abominable AFD, along with the glaring fact he intimates that the Nota explicativa praevia was somehow only attached to Caput III (Chapter 3) of that docuмent (LG).
.
.
.
There is a lot more I want to say about this
but I need some time to think about it.
.
.
.
I found a webpage that has the message I was looking for, but this is the first time I've seen this page. It seems to me that whoever wrote this, below, had read the same material that I had seen previously. It seems to me that my prior experience may have been a lecture given by Canon Gregorius Hesse or else a someone giving a talk at a Catholic restoration conference sometime about 20 years ago.
The quote I recalled in reference to the Nota praevia is found in this book by ABL: An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church,” p. 107. See below.
Source (http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html)
The Testimony of Paul VI
The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964. Pope Paul VI had it read by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericles Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s participants on November 16 of that year. It was intended to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral,” it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).
“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, p. 98)
Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience:
“These events I was involved in. It is I who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Note: ABL testifies here that he was the one who carried the signatures to Cardinal DANGER FELICI, and that there are many CONFUSED CATHOLICS who are under the misconception that the Holy Ghost inspired the Second Vatican Council.
He then gives his explanation of what the proper interpretation is, that is, the meaning and significance of this Nota explicativa praevia,
The Explanation that requires, ironically,
another explanation!!!
I ask you, "What better reason could there be for +Fellay's efforts to have this book, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, removed from the shelves in SSPX bookstores?" For right there in Chapter 14, page 107, is the big, fat torpedo that demolishes his big, fat lie in #1 of his abominable AFD!
Furthermore:
Why do you suppose ABL wrote in his book, "I do not say this in order to condemn the Council?" It is for no other reason than this: that THIS COULD EASILY BE CONSTRUED AS A CONDEMNATION OF THE CLAIM THAT VAT.II WAS IN ANY WAY DOCTRINAL.
This Letter to Confused Catholics clears up that confusion., that is, for those with eyes to see. If you are under the satanic delusion that the Holy Ghost inspired Vat.II, well, GET OVER IT. BECAUSE HE DID NOT INSPIRE VAT.II!
The Holy Ghost only protected the Church by making sure the lousy Popes who live and breathe the Grand Sewer of all Heresies, Modernism, explained on several occasions, even though they have been steeped in heresy, that Vat.II was NOT INFALLIBLE.
Why would the Preliminary Explanatory Note from the General Secretary of the entire Council have to be EXPLAINED? It is rather of a most prominently LIBERAL behavior for him to hand over a thing in writing and at the same moment he hands it over, he SPEAKS WORDS that are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what is contained on the paper itself.
And the really big kicker is this:
We only know that he had to explain his explanation because our Founder and practically patron saint, ABL, was the man standing there with living witnesses all of whom are now deceased, when the now-deceased General Secretary of the Council VERBALLY EXPLAINED to ABL that the entire Council was NOT INFALLIBLE, AND THAT IN REGARDS TO THE 'DECLARATIONS' IN IT THAT ARE OF A NOVEL CHARACTER, "WE HAVE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS."
IOW ---- The thing I have been looking for over the past 10 months is not to be found in the writing of the Council, nor in the commmentary of varions pundits about what the docuмents have in them, such as Fisheaters, et. al., but rather it is found in what ABL testifies in his book, because it was what Danger Cardinal Felici TOLD HIM, verbally, in front of witnesses, ALL OF WHOM ARE NOW DEAD.[/font]
“I AM NOT UNAWARE that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost. Not necessarily. [!] A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility.
“When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, 'Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council”?' he replied, 'We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.'”
(An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church,” p. 107)
[Oh, he must have been talking about calling his favorite restaurant because 'we have to make reservations' for dinner; it's actually a bar he likes to frequent, Bar Mitzvah.........NOT.]
According to the General Secretary of Vatican II, distinctions must be made: the dogmatic definitions of the past must of course be adhered to, but “reservations” must be made regarding any doctrines of a “novel character.” Never before in the history of the Catholic Church had a council ever taken pains to declare that it was not teaching infallibly, unless it should “openly declare so”, which it never did. And that a General Secretary should confide that “reservations” must be made about its teachings of “a novel character” is quite staggering. Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecuмenical council which preceded it.
Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was not infallible when he concluded it:
“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.”
(Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)
Vatican II did not “issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” at all; that refers to infallible definitions, none of which were made. That Council was not infallible, did not claim to be and it was repeatedly said that it was not. Rather it claimed to “descend so to speak, into a dialogue with” man, “with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity” and to “express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach.” The Council was intended to reorient the Church to the world, to be “accommodating” and “friendly,” “up-to-date” with the pluralistic, liberal World Order.
The very same day, the Council’s pluralist “Declaration on Religious Liberty,” Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity of Man), was finalised as addressed to the whole world.
“Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the constitutional order of society. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, pp. 677-8)
The Vatican ordered all Catholic countries to alter their constitutions so that they would no longer be Catholic countries but would uphold liberal pluralism. Francisco Franco resisted and the Church attempted to undermine him. Before the Council, the Church had given him the title of “Defender of the Church.”
Paul VI gave the theological note of the revolutionary Council in his Apostolic Brief for its closing, “In Spiritu Sancto” (December 8, 1965), which was read at the closing ceremonies of that day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.
“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.”
(In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)
Paul VI established at the Council’s end that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.
“Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith.”
“Can. 749. In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecuмenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”
So, when Paul VI stated that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed,” he was making all the Council texts a matter of “religious submission” which is what is given to non-infallible matter. For the Council did not “proclaim definitively” any doctrine, “not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements.”
Paul VI again highlighted the non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience a year later:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
(General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
[The "conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964" that was "repeated on November 16, 1964" was the Nota explicativa praevia that I was looking for 10 months ago on page 1 of this thread.]
That is plain: Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” The docuмents were intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.
Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council:
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
(General Audience, August 6, 1975)
Vatican II was a uniquely non-infallible ecuмenical council unlike any other. It was a vehicle of a revolution.
...
(the source page has over twice this much on it)
From the root page (http://www.romancatholicism.org/) ('home' page - but there is none so called):
The Triumph of St. Augustine by Claudio Coello
(http://www.romancatholicism.org/images/augustin-sm.jpg)
.