Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Joachim Salaverri on Formal Succession

In Book I, Chapter III, Article II of the Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB (On the Church of Christ), Fr. Joachim Salaverri writes,

Succession is the continuation of one person after another in some office. A twofold succession should be distinguished, one material and the other formal: a) Material succession is a mere temporal continuation of one person after another in some office. b). Formal succession is the full substitution of one person in the rights and obligations of an office for someone else, or it is the substitution of a subject without any change of right in a certain office.[1]
….
The office of Apostles in general is the complex of all the powers, which for the good of the Church were conferred on them by Christ. Their ordinary office is the complex of the powers of teaching, sanctifying and governing, which are firmly connected to the institution itself as a permanent office.[2]
                       
We are saying 1) that it is a matter of divine right that the College of Bishops formally succeeds the College of the Apostles; 2) that the individual Bishops govern monarchically the individual Churches with a power that is complete in its own kind.[3]
                       
For, the hierarchy, instituted in the Apostles, by the will of Christ or by divine right is perennial. Therefore they always existed who, by divine right, fully succeeded the Apostles in their ordinary office. But only the Bishops de facto always fully succeeded the Apostles in their ordinary office. Therefore the Bishops by divine right succeed the Apostles in their ordinary office.[4]
                       
For, Christ committed to the same Apostles the ordinary office of teaching, sanctifying and ruling, and he did it perpetually to the close of the age (Matt 28:20), universally for all nations (Matt. 28:18; Mark 16:15), in all places to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8).[5]

The phrase “fully succeeded” is equivalent to formal succession; meaning, a bishop who has ordinary jurisdiction.

Fr. Salaverri continues in Book III, Chapter III, Article II,


1176. Apostolicity fundamentally is the perennial identity in the Church of the mission, which Christ gave the Apostles when he instituted the Church. Apostolicity is distinguished into at least three forms:
1). Of origin, which is the essential identity, not only specific but also individual of the constitution of the contemporary Church with that which took its beginning with th eApostles and from the Apostles.
2). Of doctrine, which the objective and individual identity of the doctrine fo the contemporary Church with the deposit of doctrine received from the Apostles and handed on.
3). Of succession, which is the juridical identity of the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling of the contemporary Church with the ordinary power of the Apostles handed on by a legitimate succession.
1178. The apostolicity of succession is distinguished in two ways: 1) material, is the mere continuation of one person after another in the same office, without a necessary permanence of the same law; 2) formal, is the replacement of one person in the right sand obligation of another in some office, without any change in the law.
Apostolicity of formal succession is, therefore, that apostolicity of succession defined previously under 3); this will be direct, if by an uninterrupted succession it goes back to a certain apostle, the first pastor of the same Church; but it will be indirect, if the first in the series of successors properly received his jurisdiction from the pastor of another Church, who can legitimately confer it.
1180. The apostolicity of formal succession is proved, in which others are included.
A. What Christ instituted perpetually in the Church is its necessary property. But Christ instituted perpetually the juridical identity of the power of the Church of all ages with the ordinary power of the Apostles, to be handed on by a formal succession. Therefore the apostolicity of formal succession is a necessary property of the Church.
The consequence is clear, because the minor is the definition of the apostolicity of succession. The major is certain, because it is the definition of a necessary property.
The minor is explained: 1) Christ the juridical identity of power, because he conferred on the Apostles no other power except his own mission, and as one destined to endure perpetually, as was already proved John 17:18; 20:21; Matt 28:18-20; John 14:16-26. 
The minor is explained: 2) The identical power of the Apostles is to be handed on perpetually by formal succession, because perpetuity is promised by Christ to the same Apostles: Matt. 28:20; John 14:16; but not to the same persons physically; therefore to the same ones morally or juridically, that is without any change of law, or by formal succession.[6]



332. Definition of terms. The Apostles are those Twelve disciples of Christ with whom the Lord instituted the College.
The office of Apostles in general is the complex of all the powers, which for the good of the Church were conferred on them by Christ.
Their ordinary office is the complex of the powers of teaching, sanctifying and governing, which are firmly connected to the institution itself as a permanent office.
An extraordinary office is a complex of powers, which are committed to someone for extraordinary events or circumstances.
A delegated office is a complex of powers, which are committed to a person, from among those contained in some ordinary office.
333. Therefore, an ordinary office differs from an extraordinary one, because the ordinary office is granted for all generally occurring situations, but the extraordinary if for some unusual happenings and circumstances.
But an ordinary office differs from a delegated one, because the ordinary is annexed to an office, but the delegated is granted to a person.
Moreover, an office can be proper or vicarious, according as it is exercised by the subject in his own name and right, or in the name and right of another person, to whom the office properly belongs.
334. We understand to succeed “by divine right” in the sense in which it was understood by Vatican Council I, that is, “according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself” (D 3058). But this implies especially two things: 1) objectively, that the office itself was instituted positively by God; 2) subjectively, that the person occupying the office obtained it according to the law established positively by God for its conferral. Hence this office was not only in itself divinely instituted, but also it is conferred on the subject divinely or according to the divine positive law. Accordingly, the one who obtains the office possesses and exercises it with regard to men as something proper to himself, not as taking the place or office of some other human person.
Succession is the continuation of one person after another in some office. A twofold succession should be distinguished, one material and the other formal: a) Material succession is a mere temporal continuation of one person after another in some office. b). Formal succession is the full substitution of one person in the rights and obligations of an office for someone else, or it is the substitution of a subject without any change of right in a certain office.
335. The word Bishop, etymologically from ἐπισκοπή, is the same thing as overseer or prefect. This word in profane literature, in the Greek translation of the O.T. and in the inspired books of the N.T. signifies at least a firmly established office, especially one concerning holy things.
A Bishop in our thesis is understood as a man who in a particular Church has the complete ordinary power of teaching, sanctifying and governing. Therefore, the power of the Bishop is not merely delegated or extraordinary or vicarious coming from some other human person, although it is the power of a Bishop “placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff,” who not in his own name, “but in the name of Christ feeds and governs his flock.”
Bishops, who as individuals preside over particular Churches, exclude a collegial Episcopate, and therefore they can be said to the Monarchs, although they may have under them Bishops as auxiliaries or coadjutors.
336. State of the question. We are saying 1) that it is a matter of divine right that the College of Bishops formally succeeds the College of the Apostles; 2) that the individual Bishops govern monarchically the individual Churches with a power that is complete in its own kind; but we are also saying that this monarchical nature of the Episcopate can be suitably explained only because of its divine institution.
337. Adversaries. 1) All those who either have worked against the obedience due to Bishops and their freed, or have exalted the rights of the secular authority over the legitimate power of the Church and of the Bishops, or at least have held that priests are equal in authority with the Bishops. Adversaries of this kind in the 4th century were Arius (D 2609), in the 14th century Marsilius of Padua (D 1498 [34th ed.]), in the 15th century Wycliff and Hus (D 1265); since the 16th century the followers of Calvin and Presbyterian Protestants (D 2609), in the 17th century E Richer and his disciples, who were joined by the followers of the Synod of Pistoia in the 18th and 19th centuries (D 2609-2611).
….
347. Part I: The Bishops by divine right succeed the Apostles in their ordinary office.
Proof. 1) as a conclusion of the preceding thesis.
For, the hierarchy, instituted in the Apostles, by the will of Christ or by divine right is perennial. Therefore they always existed who, by divine right, fully succeeded the Apostles in their ordinary office. But only the Bishops de facto always fully succeeded the Apostles in their ordinary office. Therefore the Bishops by divine right succeed the Apostles in their ordinary office.
The antecedent and the first conclusion are certain from the preceding thesis, in which we proved the perpetuity of the hierarchy from the institution for Christ or by divine right.
The minor states a fact, which is clearly apparent from the history of the Church. But the same fact is proved from the arguments to be offered in proof of the second part.
348. Proof 2) from the words of Christ
For, Christ committed to the same Apostles the ordinary office of teaching, sanctifying and ruling, and he did it perpetually to the close of the age (Matt 28:20), universally for all nations (Matt. 28:18; Mark 16:15), in all places to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). But Christ could not hand over such a mission to the Apostles alone personally, since they were going to die (John 21:9). Therefore, he conferred it on the same Apostles morally and juridicallly, that is, on their successors without any juridical change. But only Bishops under the Roman Pontiff have always claimed for themselves and de facto have fully exercised the ordinary office of the Apostles accepted from them by succession. Therefore, from the words of Christ it is concluded that the Bishops are by divine right successors of the Apostles in their ordinary office.
352. c) Finally, they are show as established in authority received from God. For, they received their power by the imposition of hands, to which was annexed the granting of grace and the power to fulfill the pastoral office (2 Timothy 1:6-9, 13f; see 1 Timothy 4:14)

544. One way of exercising the Magisterium is extraordinary and the other is ordinary. The extraordinary way is that in which they exercise their Magisterium when they are united together in a Council under the Roman Pontiff. But the ordinary way is that in which the bishops, continuing in community with the Roman Pontiff, exercise the Magisterium while dispersed throughout the world in their own dioceses.
545. A Council is an assembly of bishops legitimately brought together to deliberate and make decisions about ecclesiastical affairs. It can be both Particular and Universal. A Particular Council is one that represents only a part of the College of Bishops. A Universal Council is one that includes that College of all Bishops. A Particular Council is called Provincial or Plenary if it consists of Bishops of one or of just some ecclesiastical provinces. It is called National or Regional if all the Bishops of a nation or region are joined together in it.
546. A universal Council can be either General or Ecumenical A General Council is one that includes the Bishops of all the particular Churches. A General Council is said to be Ecumenical if it is accepted and confirmed by the Supreme Head of the Church, the Roman Pontiff. For an Ecumenical Council it is required and suffices that all the residential Bishops assemble together under the Roman Pontiff, not physically but morally, so that deservedly they are brought to represent the universal teaching Church.
Therefore the ways of exercising ecumenical Magisterium, the ordinary form, or outside of a Council and the extraordinary form, or in a Council, essentially agree in the fact that both are acts of the universal Church teaching under the Roman Pontiff; accidentally they differ in the fact that the extraordinary way involves further the local assemblage of the Bishops.
547. We are attributing infallibility to the Bishops, not to all, but to the residential; not to individuals, but as constituting a College and taking the place of the College of Apostles; not to those independent of the Head, but to those obedient to the Roma Pontiff and agreeing with him; not to those teaching in just any way, but to those agreeing formally among themselves and with their Head; not to those exercising just any kind of authority, but to those binding all the faithful to an assent that is completely firm and irrevocable. But the way in which Bishops exercise their own infallibility can be either ordinary, that is outside of a Council and dispersed throughout the world, or extraordinary, that is united together in an Ecumenical council.
551. The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium, or outside of Councils, and of the extraordinary Magisterium, or in Ecumenical Councils, implicitly was defined in Vatican Council I (D 3011). This place, from the declaration made by Bishop Martin in the name of the Committee on Faith in the same Council, must be understood according to the Apostolic Letter “Tuas Libenter” of Pius IX (D 2879: “For even if it were a matter…””), however the question must remain separate concerning the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, which in this place the Fathers at the Vatican Council did not wish to touch either directly or indirectly. (The infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff was to be treated and de facto was treated in the following session, that is, session IV (D 3065-3075).
552. Archbishop Simor, in the name of the Committee on Faith, explained the meaning of this definition, when he said: “The paragraph Porro fide divina (D 3011) is directed against those who say that only that must be believed which the Council defined, and not also that which the dispersed Church teaching with unanimous consent preaches and teaches as divinely revealed.” Bishop Martin, in the name of the same Committee on Faith, determined further the meaning of the same definition, saying: “The reason why the word universal is added, is this, namely, lest anyone should think that in this place we are speaking about the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Apostolic See. For, in no way was it the intention of the Committee to tough either directly or indirectly on the question about the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, this word “universal” more or less signifies the same thing that the Holy Father expressed in his Apostolic Letter, namely, the Magisterium of the whole Church spread throughout the world.” And from the same Letter of Pius IX the words as having been divinely revealed were borrowed and so were included in the definition, “namely, lest opinion, which are handed on in Catholic schools, even if they are certain, should be inserted into the doctrine of the faith; for, if it is said that the Church teaches something as having been divinely revealed, it is not possible that it is only an opinion of the Schools.” Pius XII very much approves of this interpretation of the Vatican definition. (Munificentissimus Deus,” by which the dogma of the assumption was defined).
553. Theological note. Therefore the thesis is a matter of implicitly defined faith, especially in Vatican Council I, with regard to both parts, that is, regarding both the ordinary Magisterium and the extraordinary.
554. Proof, 1) Both parts, that is, concerning both ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, treated together. Bishops are infallible when they teach as formal successors of the infallible College of Apostles. But Bishops, teaching under the conditions assigned by the theses is, teach as formal successors of the infallible College of Apostles. Therefore the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, are infallible, when in agreement with the Roman Pontiff they impose a doctrine to be held definitively by the faithful.
555. The major is clear: From the concept itself of formal succession, which is the substitution of the subject without any change in the law; therefore, Bishops teaching as formal successors of the infallible College, necessarily must teach with the same right, that is, infallibly, b) From the cause of the infallibility, for as successors of the Apostles, the Bishops enjoy the assistance of infallibly in teaching, which Christ absolutely promised the Apostles would continue perpetually, namely, in their successors (Matt 28:18; John 14:16,26; 16:12-13). Therefore, Bishops teaching as formal successors of the Apostles, with the highest grade of authority, exercise the Magisterium under the assistance of infallibility, that is, infallibly.
556. The minor. In the conditions which the thesis assigns, Bishops teach: a) as a College, because in agreement under the Roman Pontiff, b) with the highest grade of doctrinal authority, because they teach definitively, c) with an obligation imposed under the danger of salvation, because they impose a doctrine that must be held absolute, d) the whole flock of the faithful, because all the residential Bishops are the ones who teach. Therefore, the Bishops, teaching under the conditions which the thesis assigns, teach as a college with the same supreme, peremptory, universal authority  that was given to the Apostles by Christ, that is, they teach as the formal successors of the infallible College of Apostles.
560. The conditions of the thesis are verified also outside of a Council in the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Bishops.
a) It can be well established from the communication of the Bishops among themselves, and especially with the Roman Pontiff, that all the Bishops teach with one mind, so that their formal consensus is given.
b) It is clear from their communion and their communion with the Supreme Pontiff that the Bishops dispersed throughout the world teach under the Roman Pontiff, and this is so from their profession of due subordination and obedience towards him.
c) That doctrine is taught definitively by the Bishops, and d) that they impose it absolutely to be held can be easily proved from the formulas, whereby they both commend the gravity of the doctrine and insist on the obligation to give a firm and irrevocable assent.
d) It is clear that the Bishops are direct to all the faithful, because they are the agreeing Magisterium morally of all the Bishops of the Church.
Therefore also in the ordinary Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throught0ut the world the conditions are verified, which our thesis requires.
574. The theological foundation of the Ecumenical Council is the divine institution of the College of Apostles. For, Christ instituted the College of Apostles as a Body of Heads, that is, composed of St. Peter the Head and the Apostles as members, in order to continue his work on earth in an effective way. The Apostles exercised their office under Peter, either in the ordinary way dispersed throughout the world, or united together in an extraordinary way, namely, in the Council of Jerusalem: Acts 15:6-35.
575. The nature of the right or of the power of an Ecumenical Council is formal succession. For, the College of Bishops formally succeeds the College of Apostles, which therefore is also the Body of the Heads, that is, being composed of the Head, the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, and the member Bishops as successors fo the Apostles. Bishops exercise their office under the Roman Pontiff, either in the ordinary way dispersed throughout the world, or united together in an extraordinary way in an Ecumenical Council. By divine law, therefore, there are two essential elements in the College and consequently in a Council: The first is the Head, who is the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy; the second is the Body, which is constituted by the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, and they are this by right (de iure) physically all of them, but de facto all morally.




[1] Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB (On the Church of Christ), translated by Kenneth Baker S.J. (Keep the Faith, 2015), 128.
[2] ibid., 127.
[3] ibid., 129.
[4] ibid., 133.
[5] ibid., 133.
[6] ibid., 480-482.

No comments:

Post a Comment