Monday, May 17, 2021

Flunking The College Of Bishops

 

One of the lesser discussed heresies of Vatican II is that of collegiality. This heretical doctrine teaches that the bishops exist as a "college" or permanent group. The teaching is to be found in paragraph #22 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. It reads:

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. (Emphasis mine). 

According to Catholic teaching, the subject of the supreme, full, and universal power of teaching and of jurisdiction is the pope alone, who, when he wishes, may associate with himself the body of bishops, for a determined period of time. The pope by himself is able to exercise the supreme, total, and universal power of teaching and jurisdiction without having to unite to himself the body of bishops. This post will set forth the teaching of the Church compared to the heretical view of the Vatican II sect on the relationship of the bishops to the pope, and the disastrous consequences of the sect's teaching.

The Church is Monarchial in Her Fundamental Structure

The Apostles form a college in the broad sense of the term. It is therefore correct to speak of the apostolic college. The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles teach that the twelve Apostles were chosen in order to live together with Our Lord. In this way they would receive together their teaching, witnesses the Passion and Resurrection, and be elevated together to the fullness of the priesthood, which is the episcopacy. The expression "apostolic college" is orthodox, but it is necessary to point out that the Apostles were not a college in the strict sense as taught by the Vatican II sect.

In the strict sense the term college implies the existence of a moral person endowed as such with powers that no single person who would be a member of it (in this case, each of the Apostles) would have by himself. To make an analogy, the phrase corporate body can be used in the broad sense as a specific group of persons, or in American jurisprudence, a corporate body (i.e., corporation) is considered a person that can do things and has rights different from the members who comprise it. 

In Sacred Scripture, there is not a single word about this moral person or college in the strict sense, nor is there anything found in the teaching of the Magisterium. All of the texts prove that the Apostles were a college in the broad sense. Christ did at times speak to the Apostles in the plural; however this in no way proves that He was referring to them collectively, but rather it was distributive. When Christ told the Apostles at the Last Supper to "Do this in commemoration of Me," He did not intend for them to concelebrate Mass. Likewise, the Great Commission was not meant to be done collegially. The Gospel accounts and the Acts of the Apostles give proof of this; the Apostles act collegially only at the Council of Jerusalem. Nowhere is it recorded that the Apostles heard confessions, baptized, or taught collegially.

That the Church is a monarchy founded upon the papacy is dogma. The pope alone possesses supreme authority in the Church. From the Vatican Council of 1870:

 Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Other Magisterial teachings clearly confirm this truth:

The foundation on which this society rests is of such a nature that it makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. For, it is wholly in this: that it supposes the true Church of Jesus Christ to be composed partly of the Roman Church scattered and propagated throughout the whole world, partly, indeed, of the schism of Photius, and of the Anglican heresy, to which, as well as to the Roman Church, "there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" [cf. Eph. 4:5]. Surely nothing should be preferable to a Catholic man than that schisms and dissensions among Christians be torn out by the roots and that all Christians be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" [Eph. 4:3]. . . . But, that the faithful of Christ and the clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics, and, what is worse, according to an intention, polluted and infected as much as possible with heresy, can in no way be tolerated. The true Church of Jesus Christ was established by divine authority, and is known by a fourfold mark, which we assert in the Creed must be believed; and each one of these marks so clings to the others that it cannot be separated from them; hence it happens that that Church which truly is, and is called Catholic should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apostolic succession. Therefore, the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and "higher principality''* of blessed PETER, the prince of the Apostles, and of his successors in the Roman Chair. No other Church is Catholic except the one which, founded on the one PETER, grows into one "body compacted and fitly joined together" [Eph. 4:16] in the unity of faith and charity. . . .(See the Letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to the bishops of England, Sept. 16, 1864). 

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION:  In addition, the proposition which states "that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head," if it is so explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in the universal Church,--heretical. (See Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution, Auctorem Fidei,  August 28, 1794). 

 . . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X, is being renewed, in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter;--then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid arguments. (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, December 26, 1910; Emphasis mine). 

The False Collegiality of the Vatican II Sect

According to Catholic teaching, the bishops habitually and per se are a body and only extraordinarily and per accidens do they become a college. Only the pope can establish the body of bishops as a college, such as in the case of convoking an Ecumenical Council, without being necessitated to it by a divine institution as is taught by Vatican II.  In Lumen Gentium para. #22, however, the usual, permanent, ordinary subject of supreme, full, and universal power of teaching and jurisdiction is the "College of Bishops" with the pope at its head. Such a doctrine succeeds in avoiding the heresy of conciliarism (or Gallicanism), which declares that the body of bishops alone, without its head, has de facto the supreme power of jurisdiction. However, it wanders away from Catholic doctrine which has never spoken of a permanent and necessary college of bishops, even if it should be united to the pope.

Lumen Gentium falsely asserts that  Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. It has been demonstrated that no such collegial relationship was created by Christ, and therefore, as a logical corollary, nothing similar could exist between the bishops (as successors of the Apostles) and the pope (as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Christ).  A "note" was added to the text of paragraph 22, but it did nothing to change the error. The proof of this can be seen in Wojtyla's New "Code of Canon Law" (1983):

1.  The 1917 Code, Canon 218; Traditional Teaching of the One True Church

 1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.

2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent from any human authority.

2. The 1983 Code, Canon 336; Teaching of the Vatican II sect

The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church. (Emphasis mine; the bishops--with or without the pope--are never the subject of Supreme and Full power). 

The Evil Fruits of Collegiality

Collegiality goes hand-in-glove with the heresy from which all the others of Vatican II flow; the false and heretical ecclesiology found in Lumen Gentium para. #8 whereby the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not the same; the Church of Christ subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but it also subsists elsewhere according to how many "elements of sanctification" it possesses. To have all the elements is best, but having just some is good too, and leads to salvation. Collegiality is complementary to this new idea of what constitutes the Church. Just as the Church allegedly subsists everywhere, so too does authority in varying degrees.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not, unfortunately, an avowed sedevacantist. His "recognize and resist" position has caused much confusion and difficulties. Nevertheless, the Archbishop did do much good during the Great Apostasy. During the Council he fought the Modernists and often made salient observations. At the damnable Robber Council, the Archbishop spoke against collegiality in an "Intervention" (speech), wherein he stated the grave ills that would be caused by that false teaching. From the Archbishop's book I Accuse The Council! (1982), here is what he said:

Text of the Intervention (read publicly): 

Venerable Brethren,  I am speaking on behalf of several Fathers, whose names I am handing to the General Secretariat. It has seemed to us that if the text of Chap. 2, nos. 16 and 17, be retained as it is at present, the pastoral intention of the Council may be placed in grave danger. This text, in fact, claims that the members of the College of Bishops possess a right of  government, either with the Sovereign Pontiff over the universal Church or with the other bishops over the various dioceses. From a practical point of view, collegiality would exist, both through an international Senate residing in Rome and governing the universal Church with the Sovereign Pontiff, and through the national Assemblies of Bishops possessing true rights and duties in all the dioceses of one particular nation. [Cf. the definitive text of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, nos. 22-23]. 

In this way national or international Colleges would gradually take the place in the Church of  the personal Government of a single Pastor. Several Fathers have mentioned the danger of a lessening of the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, and we are fully in agreement with them. But we foresee another danger, even more serious, if possible: the threat of the gradual disappearance of the essential character of the bishops, namely that they are "true pastors, each one of whom feeds and governs his own flock, entrusted to him in accordance with a power proper to him alone, directly and fully contained in his Order." 

The national assemblies with their commissions would soon — and unconsciously — be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishop, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority. We could bring forward many examples of difficulties in which priests and people, and even bishops find themselves at variance. 

It was certainly Our Lord's will to found particular churches on the person of their pastor, of whom He spoke so eloquently. The universal Tradition of the Church also teaches us this, as is shown by the great beauty of the liturgy of episcopal consecration. That is why the episcopal assemblies, based upon a moral collegiality, upon brotherly love and mutual aid, can be of great benefit to apostolic work. But if, on the contrary, they gradually take the place of the bishops because they are founded upon a legal collegiality, they can bring the greatest harm to it. (See pgs. 10-11).

Not only has that come to pass, but authority is now "shared" by all. Vatican II sect "bishops" in their national councils routinely do their own thing against the official teachings of Bergoglio's Unholy See. "Priest" councils do their own thing contrary to the local "bishop." "Parish Councils" dictate to the "priests" how to run the parish and "create good liturgy" while laymen and laywomen usurp the role a real priest once had. No one can really correct anyone else because authority "subsists" in all sect members, contrary to the Divinely established monarchial structure of the One True Church.

Conclusion

The doctrine of collegiality is yet another proof that the Vatican II sect is not, and cannot be, the One True Church. As Pope Leo XIII so clearly taught in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:

But the Epsicopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? (para. #15; Emphasis in the original). 




39 comments:

  1. The chaos caused by this false doctrine can be seen in the debate on Novus Ordo “Communion” given to pro-abortionists like Biden or the blessings of sodomite “couples” by false V2 clergy. A true Pope would have settled these questions once and for all. This is further proof that the V2 sect is not the Catholic Church but a new church that uses the name and institutions of the Catholic Church to then claim that it is the Catholic Church. In this, it is a great victory for Satan. And the world has fallen into the trap, like, unfortunately, many people who say they are sincere Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      The examples you give of "communion" *thank God it's invalid) for abortionists, and "blessing" perverts are excellent ones!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Hello Introibo,

    In Article 2 of Salaverri's "On the Church of Christ", he argues that the thesis "Christ instituted the College of Twelve Apostles, to whom he committed his mission; and he conferred the same Apostolate on St. Paul that he did on the College" is a matter of divine and Catholic faith, insofar as the question considers the Legation (or mission) given by Christ to the Apostles. Likewise, the subsequent thesis "Christ handed over to the Apostles the power of ruling, teaching, and sanctifying, andhe obligated men to submit themselves to this power. Hence he is the author of a hierarchical society, which he called Church" is also (he argued) de Fide.

    Now, before those who would argue that this is in some way a vindication of Lumen Gentium's formulation, it should be noted that Salaverri does not mention 'jurisdiction' until the chapter dealing with the Church as a monarchic institution, and more particularly in the theses dealing with the essence and nature of the Papacy. In like manner, further on in paragraph 374 (On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops), Salaverri lists two opinions (Victoria and Vazquez in favor of jurisdiction given 'immediately from God', St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Bellarmine, Suarez in how jurisdiction is mediated through the Roman Pontiff; the latter opinion is positively taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, which is why Salaverri says the latter opinion "is to be preferred"). As such, Salaverri's theses on the Apostolic College are more limited in scope than Lumen Gentium.

    It would seem that Lumen Gentium's error (one of them, at least) is to go beyond the characteristics of the Apostolic College as a moral body (and as regards to its social power) in describing it as the "subject" of jurisdictional power. Although LG acknowledges that such power cannot be viewed in separation from the Roman Pontiff, the subtle distinction results in a marked change of doctrinal trajectory, so to speak: a power that resides in the college *as a subject* is one that is essentially **different** than a power that is *exercised* by the college *by mediation through the Roman Pontiff*.

    This contrast is further shown when looking at LG 27 (asterisks is emphasis mine): "Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them...This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and **immediate**, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful."

    That's how it seems to me at any rate, but I would welcome further clarification, since it would be all too easy to miss this subtle distinguishment in subject matter between Salaverri (likewise other pre=V2 theologians not mentioned here) and Lumen Gentium.

    Sincerely,

    A Simple Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Simple Man,
      Your third and fourth paragraphs hit the nail on the head. From theologian Van Noort, "...in asserting that all the bishops (insofar as jointly with the Roman Pontiff they form one body) are in charge of the universal Church, we do not imply that the bishops possess two kinds of jurisdiction: one which is particular and received directly from the pope; the other which is universal and received from Christ Himself in their episcopal consecration. Not at all. We maintain that the bishops do not possess any other jurisdiction other than that which they receive from the Roman Pontiff." (See "Dogmatic Theology"2:329).
      Only the pope is the SUBJECT of this power as a monarch.

      For the Vatican II sect the Church is not a monarchy, and therefore the subject of the supreme power is not the pope who, when he wants and if he wants, convokes a council and makes the bishops, constituted in act as a college ("sui generis"), participate in his supreme power; but rather for Vatican II the subject of such power is the pope as head of the college, or the college with its head the pope, and all of this--allegedly-- through divine institution.

      God Bless my friend,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Thanks once again for a very information post. I was wondering if you or your readers could suggest some good books on the papacy and the Magisterium. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:00
      I ask all my readers to make suggestions for you and I'll start; "The Truth of Papal Claims" by Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. Also, "Dogmatic Theology" in 3 volumes by theologian Fr. Gerard Van Noort has an excellent analysis on the papacy and Magisterium.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Citizen G'Kar,

      I find this book to be enjoyable to read: "The Lives and Times of the Popes" by Chevalier Artaud de Montor

      https://archive.org/details/livesofpopes01artauoft

      It's more of a history book, than a theology book.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Hello Citizen G'Kar,

      I'd recommend "The Church of Christ. An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise" by Fr. Sylvester Berry. I've got the 1927 edition of this book somewhere in my PDF files but can't seem to locate it anywhere on the Internet.
      It was republished in 2009 by Wipf and Stock Publishers; there's a preview of this new edition on Google Books:
      https://books.google.pl/books?id=czZMAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  4. Question: In an ecumenical council, do all bishops, regardless if they are a cardinal, patriarch, primate, archbishop, or not, have an equal vote, even if they have jurisdiction over other bishops?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:51
      To the best of my knowledge and belief, all bishops have an equal vote.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Even the Eastern Rite Bishops?
      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew,
      Yes. All bishops in union with the Holy See are entitled to attend with equal rights regardless of the Rite to which they belong. One of the strangest happenings occurred during the Robber Council Vatican II.

      In July of 1945, Pope Pius XII excommunicated Brazilian Bishop Carlos Duarte-Costa for promoting heretical ideas and disobedience. 16 days after his excommunication, he ordained an Anglican ecumenist, named Salomao Barbosa Ferraz, as a priest in his new "Independent Brazilian Catholic (sic)" sect. He used the unchanged Roman Catholic Rite so it was valid. Less than one month later, he consecrated Ferraz a Bishop in the Rite of the Catholic Church.

      Ferraz, like his miscreant consecrator, was a rabid Modernist. He was married with seven kids. In 1959, he appealed to false pope Roncalli to be admitted to the Church. Roncalli did so admit him, and ALLOWED HIM TO FUNCTION AS A BISHOP WITH A WIFE AND CHILDREN! He was PERSONALLY invited to Vatican II by Roncalli, and HIS WIFE WAS THE ONLY WOMAN ALLOWED TO ATTEND ALL SESSIONS FREELY MOVING AMONG THE BISHOPS AND SITTING WITH HER HUSBAND.

      Ferraz aligned himself with the Modernists, and died in 1969, seeing the creation of the Vatican II sect in opposition of the Church he and Duarte-Costa (d. 1961) hated.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I knew that story believe it or not.
      Wasn't the 2nd Bishop Duarte-Costa consecrated an ordained Catholic Priest?
      He died just a few yrs ago,can't recall his name.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Andrew,
      You are correct that Duarte-Costa consecrated several more bishops, most being apostate Catholic priests. I'm not exactly sure who the apostate was to whom you refer.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Bp.Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez

      -Andrew

      Delete
    7. Why the question about the Eastern Rite bishops?

      Delete
    8. Irrelevant to the blog entry,I have 1 question.
      To your knowledge,are Utrecht Old Catholic Holy Orders still valid?
      Has the Trent Rite of Holy Orders been continuous from unquestionable valid Bishops?
      Recently read about Anglican "Bishop"
      Graham Leonard who,from limited info I located,received Trent Rite Ordination & Episcopal Consecration from valid Utrecht Bishops.
      Ironically,if Utrecht orders are still valid,he then received
      "conditional ordination" from doubtful novus ordo "Bishop" Basil Hume.

      Also,recently read a validly ordained Thuc line Priest resides at Clear Creek Abby,a novus ordo Indult.
      Personally,and apologise if wrong,would consider it a blessing if unnamed Thuc Priest was secretly validly consecrated & conditionally ordained the Monks at Clear Creek.
      The faithful & our families need all the Sanctifying Grace they can receive.(valid confessions,Extreme Unction,Baptism)
      Sorry for long & winding msg but,this info is difficult to find.
      Happy Pentecost God bless,
      Andrew

      Delete
    9. Andrew,
      The Utrecht line was valid at least until the end of the 1960s. Whether or not it changed post-1969, I do not know.

      I can not vouch for any Clear Creek ordinations, secret or otherwise. Remember that God's grace is efficacious through the Sacraments if and only if the Integral Catholic Faith is held. Receiving valid sacraments from those in union with Bergoglio (Indult) is no better than receiving them from Eastern Schismatics.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. So,a valid Priest/Bishop within the N.O,who absolves the faithful in confession and if Extreme Unction is used instead A.O.T.S. does not confer sanctifying grace?
      Asking this sincerely,not being sarcastic or patronizing.
      God bless -A

      Delete
    11. 3 separate trad Priests/Bishops have explained to me in coherent sound language that an Una Cum Holy Sacrifice could be a prayer for the false Pope & apostate Bishop's conversion.
      I'm not a Theologian nor claim to be but their explanation made sense,and these are clerics are not Novus Ordo.
      Are they right or wrong?
      -A

      Delete
    12. Andrew,
      1. being a valid priest does not suppose valid Rites. If the Traditional Rites are used by a valid priest in danger of death (and the person believes himself Catholic) I would argue that Grace is given. Outside the danger of death, God may give Grace by allowing a person who goes to confession perfect contrition as they believe themselves to be Catholic. The V2 sect is not the Catholic Church. If valid sacraments and not the Integral Faith were all that was needed, then someone could be saved as easily in the Eastern Schismatic sects as the One True Church. You can be saved with the True Faith and no actual sacraments available, but not vice-versa.

      2. I have written much on the Una Cum, as I'm sure you know. Is it possible to be a prayer for it to be a prayer for the false pope's conversion? In my opinion, yes, especially if sedeprivationism proves true.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Hello Introibo,
    I was curious.
    Does not only the pope have all jurisdiction in the Church, does all jurisdiction come *through* him? Are bishops then just delegates of the pope in a sense?

    Do appointments of bishop ordinarily belong to the pope by Divine Law, so when the apostles other than Peter and other early bishops appointed other bishops, it was extraordinary?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nvm my first question, I just read ASM. I revise it to: is the position that all power comes through the pope, taught by Pope Pius XII, not only preferable but binding? Why is it only preferable? I thought enyclicals authoritatively bind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:28
      A Simple Man's guest post, "What's So Ordinary About Authority?" answers your query:

      Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. ‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’." (Msgr. Fenton, Clifford Joseph, S.T.D., S.T.L., J.C.B. (August 1949) “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 121.

      Therefore, it is binding but not absolutely so; hence (in the strict sense), the topic has not been defined, another theologian may refer to it as 'preferable.' It is the technical language of theology employed by theologians.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Dear Friends,
    I'd like to kindly ask for your prayers for Kacper, one of our faithful in Poland, who's having his case heard in court tomorrow, on Friday, May 21. It has to do with him being released from some corona restrictions.

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      Your friend is in my prayers, and I ask all my readers to pray for him as well.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. How do you pronounce his name?
      I can't speak Polish.
      Thank you -Andrew

      Delete
  8. The article and comments brought to mind the following from The Liturgical Year by Dom Gueranger (February 22nd, Feast of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch), especially the quote from St. Leo the Great at the bottom:

    Our Savior said to Peter: To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, that is to say, of the Church. He said to him, on another occasion: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. So that Peter is Prince; for, in the language of the sacred Scriptures, Keys denote princely power: he is also Pastor, and universal Pastor; for the whole flock is comprised under the two terms, Lambs and Sheep. And yet there are other Pastors in every portion of the Christian world. The Bishops whom the Holy Ghost hath placed to rule the Church of God govern, in his name, their respective Dioceses, and are also Pastors. How comes it that the Keys, which were given to Peter, are found in other hands than his? The Catholic Church explains the difficulty to us by her Tradition. She says to us, by Tertullian: “Christ gave the Keys to Peter, and through him to the Church.” By St. Optatus of Milevum: “For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys, that he might give them to the rest.” St. Gregory of Nyssa: “It was through Peter that Christ gave to Bishops the Keys of their heavenly prerogative.” By St. Leo the Great: “If our Lord willed that there should be something in common to Peter and the rest of the Princes of his Church, it was only on this condition — that whatsoever he gave to the rest, he gave it to them through Peter.”

    God bless,
    Pauper Peccator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pauper Peccator,
      Thank you for your comment! The quote from St. Leo the Great is dispositive in this matter.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Can I get your email?

    Oremus pro invicem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:45
      You can send me your email via these comments. I will respond back with an email that protects my identity and has "Hello From Introibo" in the subject line.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Feb 1968
    https://thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=ncr19680214-01.2.15

    Notice the conditionally ordained Catholic Priest,openly rejects the authority,of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII.
    On the day of Ordination,no less!

    Ironic how the novus ordo clan can talk & think like a Sedevacantist,as long as they reject trad Catholic theology.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Thank you for that news story. The rot of the V2 sect was in full force as early as 1968, and just keeps on going! Your contention that the V2 sect thinks like sedes as long as True theology is removed, is very true!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You're welcome,it was a good insight for younger folks like ourselves who grew up post V2 apostasy.
      1968 was the watershed year as Holy Orders would 4 months after this story.
      Coincidentally,the Chicago Democratic convention Riots occurred the exact same summer Holy Orders were eradicated.
      IMO this is not a coincidence.
      -A

      Delete
  11. Doesn't collegiality sound like the Eastern Schismatics' concept of hierarchy? To me that's how I understood it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hadn't thought of that before,nice catch!
      -Andrew

      Delete
    2. @anon11:28
      Yes, very similar!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Haha good to know, thanks. Given that the Eastern Schismatics prefer to let each bishop run their own national church, don't believe in thr Patriarch of Constantinople as central authority, and in some cases they want to rebaptize folks if they want to enter jurisdiction, collegiality was what I first thought of when I heard this concept.

    Either way it reeks of democracy and in no way resembles the heavenly hierarchy Christ spoke of, given that the Church is supposed to be His kingdom on Earth...

    ReplyDelete