|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In Fr. Pagliarani’s letter to Cardinal Fernández of February 19th of this year, he makes reference to the “threats” directed against the SSPX from Rome. “There is talk of breaking communion, of schism, and of “serious consequences.” At the word “schism” there is a footnote that affirms: “The Society, however, defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church’s constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction.” The footnote refers the reader to Annex II, an article with the title, “Order and Jurisdiction: The Futility of the Schism Accusation.”
The article basically argues that, based on the distinction between “order and jurisdiction,” – order coming through the sacrament, jurisdiction coming from the Pope – that their action is not schismatic since they do not claim jurisdiction for their bishops. The SSPX bishops are needed only for the administration of the sacraments. This distinction between “order and jurisdiction” is actually fundamental to the whole “raison d’etre” of the SSPX, their claim that they are not schismatic, and their justification for ordaining bishops who will have no jurisdiction.[1]
I find the very first paragraph of the article rather curious and revealing. In this paragraph they both misrepresent and reject a key teaching of Lumen Gentium. Were they to understand and accept this teaching their whole argument would fall apart.
First, the article affirms: “The Constitution Lumen gentium on the Church states in chapter III, no. 21, that the power of jurisdiction is conferred by episcopal consecration simultaneously with the power of order.”[2] It insists likewise that the Decree Christus Dominus and the Code of Canon Law affirm the same.
Now, the passage in question is one of the most authoritative teachings of the Council, introduced by words, “The Sacred Council teaches.”[3] Here is what follows:
The Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office [munus] of sanctifying, also confers the office [munera] of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person.[4]
There is some very pertinent background to this teaching. First of all, the Council of Trent, in its teaching on the sacrament of Holy Orders, makes mention only of the priesthood, diaconate, subdiaconate, and minor orders. It mentions bishops as “belonging to this hierarchical order” but does not specify that it is distinct from the priesthood as regards the sacrament, nor that it is the “fullness of orders.” [5]
Trent appears to be following St. Thomas Aquinas who argued that since the sacrament of order was distinguished in relation to sacred powers regarding the consecration of the holy Eucharist and that since the episcopate did not confer any additional power with regard to the Eucharist itself, that it was not an additional sacramental order, but a only higher hierarchical office.[6]
Nevertheless, Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis (30 November, 1947), seems to have authoritatively laid to rest this medieval theory.[7] Writing about the sacrament of orders, constituted of diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy, he defines the matter and form of the sacrament, including the episcopacy thereby as a distinct order within the sacrament of holy orders. The development found in the Apostolic Constitution is rooted in a consideration of the practice of the entire Church, not just the Roman Rite.
This development, prior to Vatican II, I think is of great importance for understanding the development in the Council itself regarding the nature of the episcopacy, both as possessing the fullness of order and constituting a “college” together with and under the Pope.
In any case, in regard to the SSPX’s aforementioned article, it is noteworthy that neither Lumen Gentium, nor any of the other sources cited, says what the article affirms. The SSPX is speaking of a distinction between order and jurisdiction, one that fits well with medieval Latin tradition that saw the episcopacy having to do rather with jurisdiction than sacramental order. The Council does not speak of jurisdiction at all, but of the triple office [munera] by which the bishops “sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest.”[8]
Further, the “Nota Previa,” while it does not make use of the word “jurisdiction,” provides a clarification that effectively relates munera to jurisdiction, but by no means identifies them.
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.[9]
So, the first thing to observe is that the SSPX has misrepresented the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. For the power to be fully ready to act (jurisdiction) in the traditional sense, “there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority,” which flows from the papal office.
Nevertheless, what the Council teaches about the threefold munera of the episcopacy is of great importance for understanding the teaching regarding the episcopacy as the fullness of orders and for understanding the much controverted doctrine of “collegiality.”
The SSPX builds their defense on the distinction between order and jurisdiction. In doing so, they misrepresent the Conciliar teaching and they set the Pre-Conciliar Magisterial affirmations by Pius XII,[10] which are not solemn definitions, in opposition to the authority of the Council, which intends to speak at least authoritatively. A proper Catholic response, then, instead of setting the teachings in opposition, would seek rather to reconcile them.
What we are considering is the conception of the episcopacy first in terms of order and jurisdiction (in which jurisdiction comes immediately from the Pope, without intermediary of the sacrament) and the conception of the episcopacy in terms of sharing in the threefold munus of Christ, priest, prophet, and king, conferred through ordination[11] itself, in which the royal munus (and even the prophetic) seems to imply jurisdiction. This consideration needs to keep in mind that we are considering the interrelated revealed mysteries of the Church and the sacraments, about which we can make true but limited affirmations.
Let’s start with the distinction of order and jurisdiction.
Order, of course, refers to the sacrament of holy orders conferred by the rite of ordination or consecration. This is revealed in the New Testament as the apostolic ministry, an expression that I would see as being closest to the revealed concepts. The concept of sacrament (or for the Greeks “mystery”) is also closely allied with the language of the New Testament as an expression, elaborated in the tradition, that is readily applied to the revealed reality. The language of priesthood, as applied to the apostolic ministry is a natural development coming from the unique participation in the priesthood of Christ, expounded above all in the Letter to the Hebrews, but implicit in his actions at the Last Supper. The Apostles’ sharing in the royal and prophetic/teaching office of Christ is clear from the New Testament, and it is clear from the Tradition that this has been handed on in the Apostolic succession.[12] I focus on the New Testament here not as though Scripture were the only source of revelation, but because it contains the revealed concepts.
The language of “jurisdiction” seems to have developed from the lived reality of the Church,[13] but derives first of all from the concepts of Roman law, which of course was readily employed by the Roman Pontiffs since time immemorial. That means that the term “jurisdiction” serves most appropriately to the government of the Church in act, rather than the conception of the mystery of the priestly order.[14] The language of jurisdiction is immediately concerned with the canonical concern about when an act of governance is validly placed, as well as who has the authority to hear confessions. Effectively, then the affirmation that all jurisdiction comes from the Roman Pontiff means that every valid act of government, as well as confessional jurisdiction, must derive from the Pontiff by way of law, custom, or mandate. Theologically, this seems to be a proper consequence of the unity of the Church and is implied also in Vatican I’s definition of the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope.[15]
Pope Pius XII, in the fullest statement cited by the SSPX, taught:
By virtue of God’s Will, the faithful are divided into two classes: the clergy and the laity. By virtue of the same Will is established the twofold sacred hierarchy, namely, of orders and jurisdiction. Besides – as has also been divinely established – the power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of Bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.[16]
It is important again to emphasize that jurisdiction specifies actual governing authority in the Church; it establishes a legal power in canon law. To say that there is a “twofold sacred hierarchy,” orders and jurisdiction, speaks then of the sacramental order directly given by Christ and the good order of governance, implied in the sacramental order, but developed in the history of the Church. Pius XII does not specify the relationship, but it seems to me that the power of jurisdiction is required by the needs of the good order of the Church, for which purpose Christ gave Peter and his successors the primacy.
Now, we turn to the conception of the triple munus, of sanctifying, teaching, and governing.
Imitating the doctrinal expositions of the Council of Trent, Vatican II and the Post-Conciliar Magisterium have not emphasized Roman juridical or Thomistic philosophical conceptions, preferring rather conceptions derived from Scripture. Nevertheless, insofar as the Scriptural-derived conceptions are not Scripture itself, but expositions of the meaning of the word of God, these too are human, not revealed conceptions. Their closeness to the word of God has both advantages and disadvantages; they allow for a depth of meaning and for a synthetic power that exceed the more analytic philosophical conceptions, but at the same time they lack clarity and precision, hence they more readily allow for confusion.
Rooted as they are in the scriptural messianic offices of priest, prophet, and king, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, this way of viewing the episcopacy possesses great synthetic power.[17] Their synthetic power also applies to all the character sacraments of the Church, each of which involves anointing, and so enables us to see how each of these sacraments involve a participation in Christ’s triple office, thereby bringing them into unity. In this way, the concepts of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying go deeper into the heart of the mystery, while order and jurisdiction, on the other hand, which only apply to holy orders, does not express the participation in what is proper to Christ, nor the connection to the Old Testament preparation.
As mentioned already, the Nota Previa makes clear that speaking of the bishop as receiving through his ordination the munus regendi does not imply that he receives thereby actual jurisdiction.[18] The triple munus does mean that, as such, a bishop is more than a sacramental machine but is meant to rule and to teach. That also means the diocesan bishop is the paradigm for the whole episcopacy. In other words, even though his jurisdiction is specified by the Pope and must be exercised in subordination to him, nevertheless his power to rule comes from God through ordination, making him personally responsible for the governance of his diocese and not a mere functionary of papal rule. As a further consequence, there is something a bit anomalous about bishops that lack ordinary jurisdiction.
The triple munus does bear on the claims made by the SSPX relative to schism. Their claim in the article is that because they do not claim jurisdiction for their bishops they cannot be accused of schism. That is a rather superficial argument (their other arguments from different principles are stronger).[19]
In the first place, the Code of Canon Law contains a much broader definition of schism: “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”[20]
More to the point, since the triple munus belongs to the episcopal order as such, the attempt to separate the order from the office of ruling, turning it into a mere sacramental machine, degrades the order.[21] The teaching regarding the triple munus shows that the royal and prophetic munera serve the priestly munus. Because Christ entrusted the sacraments to his Apostles and successors, in order to communicate his grace and sanctification to those who believe in him, they need also to have the authority to prepare them for worthy reception of the sacraments by way of teaching, while providing by way of governance for the good order of the administration of the sacraments. Further, because the order contains in itself the munus regendi, therefore it is meant to rule, it calls for a determinate jurisdiction, it belongs inherently to the jurisdictional structure of the Church. Because it is meant for the exercise of the munus regendi, which cannot rightly take place apart from jurisdiction given by the Pope, the order has an intrinsic inclination we could say towards the unity of the Church, under the Pope. Here the teaching on collegiality comes in; the episcopal order is intrinsically collegial; it is not meant to stand alone, each bishop by himself.
In this sense, the ordination of a bishop apart from the papal mandate – part of the present jurisdictional order of the Church – if not per se schismatic tends in that direction, even if jurisdiction is not claimed, because it separates, in practice, that bishop from the college of bishops. If by refusing to claim jurisdiction the bishop ordained without a mandate does not set himself directly against the jurisdictional hierarchy, he does stand apart from it. But he does not seem to be in communion with those bishops who belong to the hierarchy of jurisdiction, which pertains to the second part of the definition of schism.
From the point of view of the offices of sanctifying, the schismatic potential in the episcopacy is already great. Because of his power to ordain bishops and priests, the rogue bishop has tremendous power to separate the sacraments from the unity of the Church to which they rightly belong. Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục furnishes us with a contemporary example of the chaos this can cause.
From the point of view of the triple munus, the schismatic potential of a bishop is made more manifest. While he cannot rightly exercise his powers apart from the unity of the Church, any validly ordained bishop is fully capable of beginning a schismatic Church, for which reason every bishop has a most grave responsibility to act within and foster the unity of the Church, cum et sub Petro. This is not a mere extrinsic juridical obligation but is intrinsic to the order itself.
As I mentioned, the perspective of the triple munus not only gives us a view of the episcopacy, but of all the character sacraments in their internal unity and order. There is a hierarchical order inherent in the sacramental characters: baptismal, confirmation, diaconal, priestly, and episcopal. Without an additional character, the Pope is elevated above all these orders as the font of all jurisdiction, giving to the order of the Church the external unity that is called for by the invisible, interior order of sacramental character. Yet that hierarchy of character shows us that hierarchy in the Church is not merely external but deeply rooted in the souls of the faithful.
This speaks to the tragedy of mortal sin, in which sanctifying grace, which should match the character, is lacking, leaving the character as an empty sign, though it remains as a call to conversion. It speaks to the tragedy of schism, in which character, which structures the unity of the Church, is wrenched from that unity. It speaks to the tragedy of Protestantism in which baptismal character is wrenched from the unity of the Church unable even to achieve its perfection in the character of confirmation. Here we truly have an element of sanctification that, alas, found outside the visible structure of the Church “impels towards catholic unity.”[22]
This also gives us a potential view of ecumenism, or the goal of ecumenism, which should be the integration of all who possess sacramental character into their proper place within the unity of the Church, that through the holy sacrifice of the altar, the whole priestly people, in its unity,
“the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints [might be] offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offered Himself to God in His passion for us.”[23]
Returning to the question of the SSPX, their intention to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate does not appear merely to violate a positive prescription of canon law, but at least tends strongly in the direction of schism, by separating the episcopacy from the intrinsic ordering of the munus regendi. Further, their misrepresentation and rejection of Lumen Gentium 21 on the triple munus of the episcopal order, may not constitute formal heresy, but involves a serious doctrinal distortion in regard to the divine constitution of the Church and the sacraments that flows from the SSPX’s de facto rejection of this solemn teaching from Vatican II.
*********
The SSPX seems to rely excessively on verbal formulas from the post-Tridentine period, in a way that at times seems to forget the two-fold reality, natural and supernatural, to which those formulas refer, by which they are measured, and which always exceed the formulas. In other words, they seem to employ the philosophical terms without exercising the philosophical realism undergirding those terms.
There seems to be an underlying reason for this: Catholic Traditionalism constitutes a strong reaction to the Modernist heresy, which overemphasizes the inadequacy of verbal formulas to enunciate an essentially unknowable – even when revealed – divine mystery. Modernism sees verbal formulas as serving an essentially inarticulate interior religious impulse by which man responds to the unknowable divine mystery. Since the mystery is unknowable and the interior impulse inarticulate, the verbal formula finally is not judged by the truth of reality, but by its utility in serving the impulse in relation to the mystery. This then becomes the basis for the “evolution of dogma” that is so characteristic of Modernist religion.[24] This also becomes the basis for an “updating” or “aggiornamento” that abandons fidelity to Catholic Tradition in seeking to make the Church relevant to “the times.”[25] For the Modernist, there is no longer any standard of truth outside “the times” that can measure the faith and life of the Church.
It is necessary to surpass the theological positivism manifest in the SSPX arguments, together with the agnosticism and immanentism of modernism. Faith and philosophy are both measured by reality, we could say a twofold reality, natural and revealed.
The mysteries of the faith receive their greatest verbal and conceptual expression in sacred Scripture, above all in the words of Jesus, the Word Incarnate. These are human words, conveying concepts that come from God, that are themselves vehicles of divine revelation. The words of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, at their best guided by the Holy Spirit, are rather human conceptions seeking to elaborate the mysteries of faith.[26] The dogmatic definitions are authoritative interpretations, employing again human concepts, that delimit the mysteries of the faith, which mark out the “boundaries” within which the mind can seek understanding, without betraying the mystery. That means that the teachings of the Fathers and the Doctors, witnesses of sacred Tradition, and the definitions of the Magisterium, make true but limited affirmations that assist us in understanding the mysteries of faith and preserve us from falling in error in their regard.
Theology makes use of philosophy, so it is important also to say something about philosophical conceptions.
I would hold that Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy is the true philosophy, the supreme conceptual articulation of reality achievable by the human mind.[27] As theology is a rational articulation of the mysteries of faith, what God has revealed, realistic philosophy is a rational articulation of reality, as accessible to the human mind. Theology is measured by the reality of the revealed mysteries; philosophy is measured by reality accessible to the mind. Both make use of human concepts and indeed, by revealing His inner mystery and His plan of salvation, God, the Holy Trinity, makes use of human concepts, speaking to the human mind, yet extending those concepts beyond their natural capacity.[28]
Philosophy can in some way be adequate in articulating a proper understanding of the created world, but in another way be rather incomplete and unsatisfying. It is adequate insofar as the human mind is adequate to attaining its “proper object” the quiddity, whatness, or nature of sensible things. Yet it is necessarily incomplete and unsatisfying in that the human mind, in attaining its proper object, understands universally what exists individually. For this very reason the philosophic articulation of reality is more certain the higher its level of universality, while the more it descends to particulars, the more it enters the realm of uncertainty, of opinion and conjecture, both in its conceptualization and its argument.[29]
The abstractness of the philosophical conception needs to be complemented by the poetic conception.[30] At its best the poetic conception, by the way it disposes the imagination and emotions, aids the mind in grasping philosophical principles, reminds the mind of its philosophical limitations, and helps bring back together into one whole what the philosophical mind has analyzed into parts.
In revealing Himself and His plan of salvation, God has often made use of poetic conceptions.[31] Men of prayer and devotion, saints above all, in speaking of God and man’s relationship to God, naturally reach for poetic conceptions to speak about a reality that exceeds the grasp of the mind. Theology, as a rational exposition of the faith, makes use of philosophical conceptions to expound the mysteries of the faith. As I already affirmed regarding the Fathers and Doctors of the Church this makes possible true but limited affirmations that assist us in understanding the mysteries of faith and preserve us from falling in error in their regard.
Finally, in order to understand Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, mere verbal formulas are not enough, there is a need for a basic grasp of the mind’s relation to reality, natural and supernatural, mediated by words, which express the concepts of the mind.
[1] Personally, in the late 1990s I heard this basic argument from some priests who had left the SSPX, but still defended them in this regard. Given their lack of jurisdiction, I am left wondering on what basis the Superiors of the Order claim authority to govern the members, and on what basis the priests claim authority over the faithful who attend their chapels.
[2] Annex II, the article cited.
[3] To my knowledge this is the most solemn expression of teaching authority used by Vatican II and one which is used only a few times in all the Council documents. The Council’s Theological Commission, in its declaration of March 6, 1964 stated: “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.” (Emphasis added) It would seem that the Council, in fact, never openly declares any teaching as “binding.” Consequently, the teaching of LG 21 is not “binding.” Nevertheless, it is clearly being taught by the Church’s supreme magisterium with great authority; in accord with LG 25, this would require at least the highest degree of “religious submission of mind and will.” Further, this teaching (fullness of the sacrament orders and triple munus imparted through sacrament) has been affirmed to such an extent by the post-conciliar Magisterium that one might well argue that it now belongs to the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” and could be, if specified with greater precision, the subject of a dogmatic definition.
[4] LG 21.
[5] Session XXIII “The True and Catholic Doctrine of Order”. Note that the Council of Florence, in the Bull of Union with the Armenians mentions only the priesthood, diaconate by name, but mentions the bishop as the ordinary minister of the sacrament.
[6] ST Supplement q40 a5.
[7] Nothing derogatory or dismissive is meant here by “medieval theory,” but merely the lack of universality.
[8] There has been much debate about the precise translation of the Latin word “munus/munera” into English. “Office” and “Ministry” have both been used.
[9] Lumen Gentium, Nota Previa, emphasis added.
[10] The article cites three texts from Pope Pius XII, including Mystici Corporis 42: “Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” The most complete is Ad Sinarum Gentem 12, cited below. The third text is from Ad Apostolorum Principis 39-40, which cites the other two texts.
[11] The change in language from “consecration” to “ordination” seems to follow upon the development in which the episcopate is no longer conceived as a merely juridical superstructure over the sacrament, but the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders. The language “consecration” is, however, recognized still by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1538.
[12] The New Testament employs the terms “episcopos/bishop”, “presbyteros/elder”, and “diaconos/deacon”. While these terms correspond to the three sacred orders, their meaning, from Scripture alone, remains ambiguous. Likewise, their connection to the word “priest/sacerdos,” specifically as one who offers sacrifice (cf. Heb 5:1), is not manifest from the New Testament. Nor is their precise relation to the ministry of the Apostles manifest. All of this, however, is quickly made clear in the Tradition, as witnessed St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch.
[13] See Dei Verbum 8, “Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.”
[14] As the Church first received the sacraments from Christ and only later developed the theology of the seven sacraments, so Peter first received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from Christ, and only later was the theology elaborated in terms of jurisdiction, taken from Roman law and already actually employed in the governance of the Church.
[15] In all the varied practical history two eras in particular seem pertinent: the ancient east, when the naming of bishops may have been presented to the Roman Pontiff, but his confirmation was not formally sought (even though this was the custom accepted by the Pontiff); and the time of Gallicanism, in which the claim (at least implied) was made that bishops had jurisdiction from their consecration, independent of the Roman Pontiff. This latter, I think appears to be what the SSPX thinks Vatican II is claiming. If jurisdiction is not united in the papal office, there would then be the possibility of multiple, competing jurisdictions, to the detriment of Church unity. This effectively seems to be the case with the Orthodox.
[16] Ad Sinarum Gentem, 12 (cited in the article); Nevertheless, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) affirms: “It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses.” Did Pope Pius XII intend authoritatively to settle the controversy, or merely argue from the common opinion? When Pius XII speaks of the distinction, he employs it as a premise, not a conclusion.
[17] These are messianic offices because priests and kings were both anointed and anointing is mentioned at least with respect to the prophet Elisha (cf. 1 Kg 19:16), so each of these offices both shows forth the anointed or messianic ministry on behalf of the people of Israel and foreshadow the mission of the Anointed One, the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
[18] Had the “Nota previa” not been added to Lumen Gentium at the specific request of St. Paul VI, the text of Lumen Gentium on the episcopal office, the triple munera, and collegiality, could have been read, as the SSPX appears to read it, in a manner that would have undermined the unity of the Church.
[19] The theoretical arguments of the SSPX are finally weak and superficial, relying on verbal formulas rather than the reality itself, but their strongest argument is practical. This is best exemplified in terms of the liturgy, for even the most eloquent and profound defense of the reformed liturgy faces the reality on the ground, widespread banality, tolerated abuse. The same applies in teaching. The most eloquent exposition of post-conciliar theology, in fidelity to the tradition of the Church, is contradicted at almost every level, by sloppiness, lack of clarity, and superficiality, while outright heresy is tolerated. One could say that the SSPX does not interpret the Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Magisterium so much by what it actually says as by what it practically allows. Nevertheless, Fr. Pagliarani’s statement, “It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation”, is absurd in its unqualified global reach. Were it true, the Church would have failed; Christ would have failed. This is made worse by Fr. Pagliaraini’s doubling down in his recent interview in which he insists that he is addressing the “objective” character of the situation, not the work being done by “good priests”. Well, that would mean that objectively the Church has failed.
[20] CIC 1751. A question comes to my mind here: The SSPX claims that they are not in schism because they do not claim jurisdiction. When it comes to “submission to the Supreme Pontiff” do they accept and apply in their community the 1983 Code of Canon Law? If they do not, in what sense can they claim to be in submission to the Supreme Pontiff?
[21] It is ironic that under Pope Francis the movement of the “Synodal Church” sought also to separate order from jurisdiction, taking the traditional understanding of the Papacy a step further than the SSPX. While the SSPX subjects bishops, without jurisdiction, to a simple priest, Fr. Pagliarani, the Superior of the Order, the “synodalists,” have made the argument that the Pope can give jurisdiction even to laity, setting them thereby over bishops and priests in the juridical order.
[22] LG 8.
[23] St. Augustine, City of God X.6.
[24] Cf. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
[25] I use the word “aggiornamento,” so characteristic of Vatican II not to suggest that the Council was wrongheaded or erroneous, but only to highlight the ambiguity in the expression, one that sets off alarm bells in someone focused on opposing Modernism. “Aggiornamento,” in line with St. John XXIII’s opening speech at the Council, would signify an adaptation to the times in fidelity to the Tradition.
[26] Certainly, I think that certain expressions, elaborated through the Tradition, though not inspired as the words of Scripture, are so closely allied to the inspired words and so deeply integrated with the deposit of faith, that they too transcend the realm of merely human concepts and belong to the realm of comparing spiritual things to spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13) Such, for example would be the word “Trinity.”
[27] To speak of philosophy as “conceptualization of reality” is to take an unashamed “realist” stance. Starting with René Descartes, modern philosophy has basically abandoned the conceptualization of reality, starting rather with the “a prioris” of the mind. A sign of the rootedness of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy in reality, is that in the 21st century writers such as Fr. Thomas Joseph White (Principles of Catholic Theology, Vol II, On the Rational Credibility of Christianity) and Michael Augros (Who Designed the Designer and The Immortal in You) who are able to elaborate fundamental philosophic principles without relying on reference to or quotation of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Insofar as their minds were led into reality by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, they are then able to articulate the reality they have come to understand, starting anew from their own mind. Even for all the disagreements and debates within the Aristotelian-Thomistic school there remains an unmatched level of coherence, agreement, and intelligibility in our present time and across the centuries, which is a sign of the truth of fundamental principles. Nevertheless, for the mind to possess this conceptualization of reality it must truly be shaped by the philosophy, not merely possess a grab-bag of half understood Aristotelian-Thomistic conceptions, as a sort of philosophical catechism. In this latter case, the mind’s conceptions are, as with most of the human race, a sort of hit and miss array of concepts, though maybe a bit better off for the provenance of its conceptions.
[28] When God to reveals himself as “Father”, both in relation to the created world and even more in relation to His eternal Son, this would be unintelligible if we did not already understand human fatherhood. Yet the revealed concept of “Father” applied to God, extends the human concept far beyond its normal meaning to something that, finally, cannot be adequately grasped by any human concept. The way of causality, negation, eminence, elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas and rooted in the Areopagite applies to all revealed concepts such that there is always more that is left beyond the grasp of the mind than attained by the concept (cf. ST Ia q13, CCC 43).
[29] One area where this is particularly relevant as regards Vatican II is the realm of concrete human life. For example, “culture” is a notoriously difficult concept precisely because it tries to encapsulate, in universal fashion, a many-faceted, highly variable, complex and contingent human social reality. It is one thing to define man as a “rational animal,” in which the social nature of man is also implicitly comprehended, it is another to grasp the varied forms of human social life under a single concept “culture.” The same is true with the concept of “religion.” How really can we capture such diverse realities as Catholicism, Christianity (more generally speaking), Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and Shamanism, for starters, under a single concept?
[30] I speak of the poetic conception as a sort of imaginative synthesis, taking the “poem” as the most primitive, paradigmatical form. Yet, just as the poem can encompass anything from a few simple verses to a grand epic, so the poetic conception embraces also, for example, the prose novel.
[31] Cf. ST Ia q1a9.