|
'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."
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 circumstances 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 documents 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 Ecumenical Council
|
|
|