|
On April 3,2001,
Il Giornale's interview with Cardinal Ratzinger treated
some of the subject matter on the agenda of the Extraordinary
Consistory scheduled by the Pope for the end of May that
year. In the interview, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke favorably
of a more "communitarian" guideline for the Church,
saying, "It is necessary to find more effective ways
to exercise collegiality in the Church." As always,
necessity springs from ecumenical reasons. Cardinal Ratzinger
was also quoted as saying:
The Orthodox think
that the Catholic Church has rather falsified communion
by becoming an absolute monarchy, but this is not true.
[The Catholic Church] is a community of local churches,
with the pope as the reference point. It is important
that this great communitarian reality be brought to light;
the pope is not the bishops' monarch but the community's
servant, who confirms his brothers in the faith.
At this point, the
interviewer, noting that Pope John Paul II in his letter,
Ut Unum Sint, said he was inclined to open a discussion
on forms for exercising his primacy, inquired, "Seven
years later, what has come of this proposal?" Cardinal
Ratzinger replied:
In Protestant and
Anglican circles, there are some indications as to what
these forms might be. But it is difficult to say if any
might be incepted. Every pope has his charisma, and to
plan the future is never easy. What is important to understand
is the Petrine primacy's permanent nucleus. The forms
this primacy assumes can change, leaving the same nucleus
in place.
The
"Nucleus"
But is it about the
"forms" in which the primacy is exercised being
the "same nucleus" or not? Or is it rather the
very nature and scope of the primacy that is contested by
the so-called separated brethren? On the nature and scope
of the papacy, we have Vatican I's infallible definitions,
which are the Faith's "unchangeable norms," Thus,
Pope Pius IX, in Inter Gravissimas Afflictiones, issued
on October 28, 1870, wrote:
We teach and declare
that the Roman Church, through Our Lord's direction, possesses
ordinary power over all of the other Churches, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff, which
is truly Episcopal, is immediate. To this power the pastors
{i.e., the bishops], and the faithful of every
rite and of every station, both individually and collectively,
are bound by a necessity of hierarchical subordination
and true obedience, not only in what concerns the Faith
and customs, but also in what relates to the discipline
and governing of the Church all over the world...This
is the Catholic doctrine from which no one can distance
himself without prejudicing his faith and his salvation.
And from this, the
anathema:
Therefore, whoever
would affirm that the Roman Pontiff has only the duty
of overseeing or of directing, but not full and supreme
jurisdictional power over the entire Church, not only
in matters regarding the faith and customs, but also in
matters regarding the discipline and governance of the
Church throughout the world, and who otherwise affirms
that the Roman Pontiff has only a very important share,
but not the entire fullness of this supreme power; or
who would say that his power is not ordinary and immediate,
both over each and every church, and over each and every
pastor and faithful, is excommunicated.
In Chapter IV, the
First Vatican Council recalled the previous Councils of
Constantinople, Lyons, and Florence, which say essentially
the same thing, because, as Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis
Cognitum:
Wherefore, in the
decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority
of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived
opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief
of every age.
This then is the
Petrine primacy's nucleus. It is an already defined nucleus
that can no longer be redefined because it is treated by
dogmatic definitions; and every pope, whatever might be
his "personal charisma," is authorized to watch
over and defend, and not to touch "the ancient and
constant faith of all of the centuries of Christendom"
infallibly defined by various ecumenical and dogmatic Councils.
A Connection?
A
pope without primacy: an altar without a tabernacle?
The
Forms
It is clear that
whoever admits to this nucleus has nothing more to say on
the forms in which, up to the present, the Roman pontificate
has been exercised, because whether broad or narrow, these
forms have all supported that nucleus and are logically
derived from it.
It is also clear
that, since the so-called separated brethren reject this
nucleus, every modification of the papacy's form is either
useless or merely a pretext for destroying the nucleus,
but without letting this be apparent.
The variations of
the forms, or the pope's means of exercising them, observable
in the history of the Church, originate in the fact that
our Lord Jesus Christ has given the Church both a solid
and supple constitution; has subjected the Apostles to Peter,
and so, the bishops to the pope, vi primatus. But
the episcopal power did not have limits directly placed
upon it, so that the pope, vi primatus, per force
of the primacy, might be able to widen or restrict these
limits in a way that in all times, places, and in all circumstances
would provide for this "in ways sufficient to the salvation
of the faithful."1
But whatever a pope's personal charisma might be, 1)
it will never widen the bishops' power to the point
of loosening them from that bond of submission and obedience,
which, by divine right, binds them to Peter; and 2)
this power (and necessity) must be exercised by
widening or restricting the limits of episcopal power according
to the intrinsic necessities of the Church (the good
of the faithful) and not for reasons extrinsic to it, such
as unfounded actions against the primacy brought by heretics
and schismatics. But those who are "more open"
to revisions are not inclined to recognize the pope as having
more than an honorary primacy, which falls under Vatican
I's anathema (sess. IV and I):
[W]hoever would
assert that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not made Prince
of all the Apostles and head of the entire Church militant
by Christ, our Lord, and that Peter also received from
our same Lord, Jesus Christ, directly and immediately,
an only honorary primacy but not a real and specific jurisdiction,
is excommunicated.
Therefore, what about
those who put the forms up for discussion when it is the
nucleus that is being contested?
The
"Nucleus" in Danger
While there is no
change among the Orthodox, we see, however, that in the
post-Conciliar Catholic world's consensus, the Protestants
and Anglicans have increasingly put this nucleus in danger.
The same Cardinal
Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, seems to have an entirely different idea for
shedding light on the primacy. He speaks of "collegiality":
"It is necessary to find more effective ways of exercising
collegiality." Which collegiality?
Whoever discusses
the universal Church's government-as Cardinal Ratzinger
knows and ought to know-doesn't talk about collegiality
because, as Pope Pius XI wrote in Ecclesiam Dei, in
His Church, our Lord Jesus Christ established "the
rule of one of the Apostles over all the others." And
as Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis Cognitum:
Christ constituted
[Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter
therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the
children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and
rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form
the whole of the Church (quoting St. Bruno, Episcopi
Signiensis Comment, onjohn, partiii., ch.21, n.55).
"That all bishops
are called by God to govern the [universal] Church, not
only the pope" is a proposition already condemned by
the Church (see Pius VI, Super Soliditate Petrae).
As witnessed by Cardinal
Siri, who was an authoritative witness of Vatican II:
Some came to the
Council proposing that the Church live Protestantly, without
Tradition and without the Pope's primacy....The first aim
created a lot of confusion; and through the second aim they
tried to toy with the argument of collegiality,2
but it is also true that their intention was thwarted by
Lumen Gentium's Explanatory Note, which disallowed
the bishops from claiming governing powers other than those
that were always allowed, without discussion.3
Even less permitted
is discussion relating to releasing bishops "from the
need for hierarchical subordination and true obedience,"
which, through divine right, "both individually and
collectively" binds and subjects them to the pope (Vatican
I, Denzinger-Schonmetzer, 1827), thus assuring the
Church's unity, because this subordination belongs to that
nucleus of the primacy which the same Cardinal Ratzinger
admits ought to remain "in place."
Cardinal Siri also
wrote: "Any attempt at diminishing the Roman pontificate's
primacy is an attempt against the Church's survival";4
and today, given the times, he also said that there is "no
need to find more effective ways of exercising collegiality."
On the contrary, there is a need to find more effective
ways of exercising the primacy and exercising it for the
ends for which our Lord Jesus Christ instituted it.
Monarchy
and "Absolute Monarchy"
In His Church our
Lord Jesus Christ instituted "the rule of only one
over all" (Pope Pius XI, Ecdesiam Dei) and this
form of government, since time immemorial, is called monarchy.
Therefore, as Pius VI wrote in Super Soliditate Petrae,
"that Jesus Christ did not immediately establish
the monarchical form in the Church" is a proposition
already condemned many times.
But Cardinal Ratzinger
negates the pope as the "Bishops' monarch" and
also that the papacy is an "absolute monarchy,"
and he describes the Catholic Church as "a community
of local churches with the pope as a reference point."
But the primacy's
nucleus, infallibly defined by Vatican I, which the same
Cardinal Ratzinger says should remain in place, recognizes
that the pope, by divine right, has a veritable governing
power that is universal, supreme, complete, ordinary, episcopal
and immediate over all members of the Church, both bishops
and faithful. Let's specify these powers:
1)
Actual Power to govern
or of jurisdiction, not just a faculty for overseeing
or direction. The corresponding aspect of this real power
on the part of the faithful (bishops and faithful) is
that they owe actual obedience and submission, and not
just respect or deference, to the pope;
2) Universal
Power, which is personally extended over each
and every bishop and each and all of the faithful ["shepherds
and sheep" (Jn. 21:15-17)];
3) Supreme
Power because it supersedes that of each individual
bishop and all of the bishops as a group, because there
is no possibility of appeal against the pope;
4) Full
Power, that is, that the pope possesses the
complete fullness of governing power, and thus is able
to regulate every single thing without the approval of
either the bishops or of the entire Church;
5)
Ordinary Power, that is, inerrancy via
divine will, of the papal office, through which the pope
can always exercise it and not only in exceptional cases,
for example, when a bishop transgresses his own power
within his own diocese, as Febronius wished;
6)
Episcopal Power, that is, the pope is
the bishop of the entire Church, the "universal bishop"
and not the "first among bishops," exactly as
the Bishop of Rome is "episcopus urbis et orbif
and, so, he has legal, judicial and penal power over
the entire Church, just as each bishop has the same over
his own diocese;
7)
Immediate Power, that is, the Pope can
directly exercise his power over the bishops and faithful
without intermediaries.
Cardinal Siri wrote
that all of this could be summarized as follows:
The Roman Pontiff
has power over the entire Church, can exercise power over
all, whether over the whole or over one; he can exercise
power without being limited by anyone, neither Pastor
nor faithful.5
However, Cardinal
Ratzinger believes he can re-summarize this power by presenting
the Church as "a community of local churches with the
pope as the reference point." Is this what he means
by "keeping the papacy's nucleus in place?"
Roman
Communion, Not
Headless Communion
After presenting
the Church as a federation of local churches with the pope
as merely a reference point, Cardinal Ratzinger says that
it is necessary
to make this great communitarian reality known; the Pope
is not the Bishops' King, but the community's servant
who confirms his brothers in the faith.
But, then, the pope-like
it or not-is, by divine right, the king of all, including
"King of the Bishops," for in the Catholic Church
the communion was never simply a communion of local churches
with a vague point of reference in the pope, but was always
the Roman communion, that is the communion
with Peter and under Peter. In Quartus Supra Vigesimum,
to the Armenians (Jan. 6, 1873), Pope Pius IX wrote:
For any man to
be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he
is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic
See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the
faithful of the whole Church should agree (St. Irenaeus,
Adversus Haereses, chapter 3, 3). And the man who
abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident
that he is in the Church (St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecdesiae,
4). As a result, that man is already a schismatic
and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the
unique See of the blessed Peter (St. Optatus of Milevis,
De Schisma Donatist, book 2, n.2J, from which the
rights of sacred communion derive for all men (St. Ambrose,
Epist. XI, ad Imperatores).
Thus, it is not the
Catholic Church which has "rather falsified communion,"
but the Orthodox who have done so, and not just a little,
by rejecting the papacy, which is the foundation that, as
Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis Cognitum, "effects
and involves unity of communion, [and] is necessary jure
divino" (see Vatican I, dz 1821).
Since the Orthodox
say that the Catholic Church has "falsified" communion,
are we also authorized to falsify it? If the Orthodox reject
the "absolute monarchy" of the papacy, which their
fathers believed, we Catholics reject the dispersion of
their headless episcopate into "a confused and disorderly
multiplicity" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum), and
we reject it because this is not what our Lord Jesus Christ
wished, which is:
[S]o that all of
the multitudes of believers be conserved in the unity
of the Father and communion, the blessed Peter was put
in charge of the other Apostles, establishing in him the
perennial principle and the visible foundation of thorough
unity (Dz 1821).
And this also shares
in the nucleus of the papacy, infallibly defined by the
dogmatic council, Vatican I.
Certainly, the Pope
ought to render to the Church "the service" of
maintaining Her in the unity of the faith, but this does
not demote him from being the "King of the Bishops"
to being a "reference point," and even worse,
to being "a servant of the community," as the
heretical Synod of Pistoia wished and which was condemned
by Pope Pius VI in Auctores Fidei. In the broad
sense, all authority is service, but it is a service rendered
precisely while exercising authority, not by resigning it,
in which case whoever possesses the authority no longer
serves but damages the Church, as we note in this era of
resignation of authority in every camp (except those to
Modernism's benefit).
A
Balance Sheet of Desolation
As the custodian
and not the owner of the deposit of faith, the Pope is then
the steward and not the owner of the Church's divine constitution,
whatever might be the spirit of the times, and whatever
might be the heretics' and schismatics' complaints. In fact,
the absolute monarchy of the papacy is not arbitrary and
despotic as it would be if the power of Peter were absolute
from below, and not absolute from above; from above is restricted
by Divine right. As II Corinthians 10:7,8 says:
If any man trust
to himself, that he is Christ's let him think this again
with himself, that as he is Christ's, so are we also.
For if also I should
boast somewhat more of our power, which the Lord hath given
us unto edification and not for your destruction, I should
not be ashamed.
Today, it is a case
of remembering that the ecumenical self-destruction is impending
upon the papacy.
In Quartus Supra
Vigesimum, Pope Pius IX wrote:
Jesus Christ, Our
Lord, who is charity (Jn. 1:4,8) has openly declared that
those who do not listen to the Church should be regarded
as pagans and public sinners (Mt. 18:17).
And we not only call
them "separated brethren" but we look to them
in matters of faith, and listen to those who do not listen
to the Church. And this for a goal that is illusory and
outside the Church, which is to facilitate those who intend
to stay outside the Church and who do not wish to subject
their intellects to the infallible Magisterium. For nearly
40 years we have been accumulating ruin inside the Church,
ruin obscuring Catholic Tradition, throwing the unity of
the faith into turmoil, weakening authority, humiliating
the papacy, and breaking the bonds of the unity of communion.
And now we have arrived at what St. Augustine called "exquisite
impiety" and "insensible arrogance": to lay
hands on the divine constitution of the Church. Therefore,
whoever tampers with "this foundation no longer preserves
the divine and Catholic Church, [but] attempts to make a
human church." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, quoting
St. Cyprian).
Hirpinus
(Translated by
Suzanne Rini from SiSiNoNo, April 30, 2001, Vol.27,
No.8, pp.1-4.
1.St.
Thomas, Contra Gentiles, c 72; see G. Siri, Lagiovinezza
delta Chiesa, Giardini ed., Pisa, p. 130, and si
si no no, January 15, 1999, p.5.
2.
G.
Siri, op. tit. p.205.
3.
Ibid-p.
128.
4.
G.
Siri, II primato delta verita, Giardini, Pisa, p.280.
5.
G.
Siri, La giovimzza della Chiesa, p. 125.
6.
L.
Ott, Compendia di teologia dogmatica, Marietti, p.472
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
