Ube American jScclesiastical IRcvicw 4 MONTHLY publication for the clergy Cum Approbatione Superiorum VOL. CXXX JANUARY—JUNE, 1954 Έν ivl ιτνεϋματι, μι$ ψυχΐ) avvaJ9\oÎ)i>Tes rfi πίστα τον ebayytXlov Phil. 1:27 Published by THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS MAGISTERIUM AND JURISDICTION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH It is axiomatic in the field of sacred theology that, wherever we find a serious controversy which appears at first sight to be something of merely academic interest, a more complete examina­ tion of the affair will show a matter of profound and highly prac­ tical importance. Such is the case, to take only one example, in the dispute about the nature of the sacramental character. Over the course oi the years, various theologians have attempted to classify the sacramental character within the categories of relation and quality, and there have been writers who have tried to define this entity in terms oi each of the four sub-species of quality. From a superficial point of view, it might seem a matter of very slight moment whether the character imprinted upon the soul by three of the Church’s divinely instituted sacraments is to be classi­ fied as a relatio or as a qualitas, or whether, granted that this latter classification be accurate, the character is to be correctly designated as habitus, potentia, passibilis qualitas, or figura. If ever there were a question that might appear to have significance only for those interested in the technical niceties of scientific theology, that or the classification of the sacramental character might well seem to be such a question. Yet the correct resolution of that problem, the establishment of the fact that the sacramental character is in reality a quality of the second species, a genuine physical and instrumental potency,1 car­ ries with it the only accurate and satisfactory basis for an appre­ ciation of the Church’s work as the Mystical Body of Christ and ot what is generally known as the theology of Catholic Action, The question which, in its technical terminology7, could seem to be t?f little practical import turns out, on further examination, to be one of the most important in all the field of scholastic theology·. Such likewise is the case with another question, this one in the field ot scholastic ecclesiology and also in the domain of public ecclesiastical law. It is a question which is debated at some length and occasionally with considerable sharpness in our theological t An outstandingly competent discussion of this problem is to be found in Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee : Bruce Publishing Com­ pany, 194(5), pp. 290-300. 194 MAGISTERIUM AXD JURISDICTION 195 literature, although, unfortunately, the manuals with which our American seminarians are most familiar do not treat it as ade­ quately as do other textbooks. It deals with the problem of the classification or division of those powers with which Our Lon I has endowed His Church. Interestingly enough, two men from the same pontifical faculty, both Fathers of the Society of Jesus in the University of Cornniillas in Spain, have taken up and have brilliantly defended opposing positions in this controversy. Fr. Lawrence R. Sotillo, in his C'o;.,.rft'udi'uiH iitris publici ecclesiastici, defends the teaching according to which the entire power of the Church is divided into two gotera. that of order and that of jurisdiction. He contends that nnnt.wteriura or the teaching authority belongs or pertains to the power of jurisdiction, either as a species distinct from the i))tpérima or as constituting, along with the imperiitui or ruling authority, two functions of one and the same power of jurisdiction," On the other hand, Fr. Joachim Salaverri, in his Tractatus de ecclesia, printed in the first volume of the well-known Sacrae theo­ logiae stnnma, defends the position that the twofold division of ecclesiastical power is not theologically adequate and that, consid­ ering the formal and intrinsic natures of these powers, they must be considered as really and specifically divided into the powers of teaching, of sanctifying, and of ruling.2 3 He holds that ''the power of teaching, like the power of sanctifying, cannot be called a part of the power of true and proper jurisdiction understood in a specific manner.”4 Fortunately the works of both Father Sotillo and Father Sahverri have gone into second editions. Both have been duh' revised by their authors. Each writer has had the opportunity to inspect the arguments brought forth by the other and to publish his own replies. Both of these distinguished writers have taken advantage of these opportunities. 2 Cf. Sotillo, Compendium iuris publici ecclesiastici, 2nd edition (San­ tander, Spain: Editorial Sal Terrae, 1951), ρρ. 91-99. 3Cf. Sacrae theologiae summa, 2nd edition (Madrid: Bibt'ioteca de An­ tores Cristianos, 1952), I, 933-52. 4 Salaverri, op. cit., p. 943. Salaverri cites Cardinal Billot’s Tractatus de erciesia Christi, q. 8, § 1, in support of his contention, but it is to be noted that Billot does not deny that the generic power of jurisdiction in which the teaching authority is contained is really and properly jurisdiction. 196 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW They have taken advantage of tlieir opportunities so thoroughly, as a matter of fact, that, by the time thev have finished explaining their exact positions, it is difficult to find more than the vestiges of a controversy, despite the fact that each lists the other among the opponents of his thesis. Father Salaverrî holds that the power of magisterium is specifically distinct from the potestas regendi. He admits that the word ‘‘jurisdiction” can be taken in both a generic and in a specific sense, and. from the context, it seems plain that he is willing to admit that the magisterium is a part of the potestas iurisdictionis, considered in this generic sensed H:s continual emphasis is on the term ‘‘specific.” Father Sotillo, on the other hand, while insisting that order and jurisdiction are the two genera into which, the entire power of the Church is divided, does not choose to decide whether there is a specific difference between magisterium and imperium, or whether these two are merely different functions of the same potestasP Hence both men seem quite justified in quoting Cardinal Franzelin in support of their own views. It was Franzelin’s thesis that “Al­ though the solemn division between the power of order and u: jurisdiction is quite true and necessary, still the power of juris­ diction, which in that twofold division is taken in a generic sense, can, for the sake of greater clarity and because of mutually dis­ tinct properties within itself, be again divided into the power of rule or of jurisdiction specifically so-called and the power of magisterium which is authentic and which, in its fulness, is in­ fallible. And so it is that the threefold distinction of the priesthood or the sacred ministry’, the ecclesiastical rule, and the authentic ■magisterium should be considered as theologically true.*'7 Thus it is clear that in general, all of those who have taken part in this particular controversy will readily admit that both the two­ fold and threefold divisions of the ecclesiastical potestas are quite acceptable. The encyclical Mystici Corporis speaks of the threefold power which Our Lord conferred upon the apostles and upon their successors, ‘‘the power to teach men, to rule them, and to lead them to holiness.”3 On the other hand, the Codex iuris canomd. 5 Cf. Salaverri, op. ci!., p. 951. 6 Cf. Salaverri, op. cit., p. 94. 'Franzelin. Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome: Typographia polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887), p. 46. «A4S, XXXV (July 20, 1945), 209. MAGISTER/I’M AND JURISDICTION 197 in canons 118 and 218, speaks of the twofold power of orders and jurisdiction. As Cardinal Ottaviani points out in his institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, the original wording of canon 195 § 1 included the expression “potestas ordinis et potestas jurisdictionis ac magisterii," but the text which was actually approved and pro­ mulgated makes no mention of any such division.9 Despite the acceptability of both the twofold and the threefold division of the Church’s power, it is much more probable that the former is scientifically preferable. In the actual constitution of the Catholic Church as this society has been established by Our Lord, the power or competence to teach actually belongs to the power of jurisdiction. The main proof in favor of this contention is to be found in the teaching of the. Vatican Council itself. In the constitution Paster ucteruus the Council declared explicitly that “In that same apos­ tolic primacy in the Church universal, which the Roman Pontiff receives as the successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the supreme power of magisterium is also included." It likewise ex­ plains this primacy as a power of jurisdiction "quae vere episco­ palis est.’’10 The entire first paragraph in the third chapter of tire Paster Citsrnus is obviously written with the understanding that the Holy Father's power of teaching is included or contained wiriiin his !'i>tt'stiis ttirisdictionis. This paragraph quotes the final passatre irom the decree for the Greeks promulgated by the Oecumenical Council of Florence. It states that “the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy ( tenere primatum} over tin· entire world and the same Roman Pontiff is the successor ot the Bxssed Peter the Prince ot the Apostles, and is the true Vicar f the power of ruling or of jurisdiction.1” Now this particular distinction is essential to the position taken by Father Salaverri in this controversy. Although he lists Cardi­ nal Billot among the authorities who support his own contention on this question, his teaching is notably different from that of Ins great predecessor in the field of ecclesiology. It was Billots con­ tention that, while formally considered, ecclesiastical power is rightly divided into that of order, niagisteriitm, and jurisdiction, "the power of magisterium, considered concretely and insofar as it Fas inseparably attached to it the right to command oliedience oi faith from its subjects, is not distinguished adequately from rhe power of jurisdiction.''1C Father Salaverri. on the other hand, tends to look always for evidences of specific distinction between the teaching power and the power of jurisdiction in the Churcn, and to overlook or at least not to stress the fart that in the concrete there is no adequate distinction between the two. It would seem that the distinction to which. Father >?.laverr; has had recourse in justifying bis stand on this question is .larlw acceptable. In the first place, it is worthy of note that Iw -wings f->rth neither reason nor authority in. support of his cnitcniton treat the teaching power directly affects c-rdv inward acts. Toe one citau DB, 1641. l- Ci. Salaverri, ap. cit, p. 944. 1βBillot. Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Rume: Gregorian University, 1927), p. 339. 200 THE AMERICAN" ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW tion to which he appeals turns out to be a statement which has nothing directly to do with the question under discussion.17 It is simply the statement that, in the Acta of a Council, a prohibition or precept must be considered as distinct from the definition or the judgment about doctrine. It is quite obvious that such a dis­ tinction exists, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the teaching power of the Church, precisely as such, is not competent to deal directly with outwardly expressed statements about the faith. Actually, the opposite would seem to be the case. By its very nature, the activity of teaching is directed toward the transmission of truth. It looks to the acceptance of a doctrine by the persons to whom that doctrine is addressed. But, when it is teaching done by human beings, it looks also, by its very nature, to the manifesta­ tion of that doctrine by the person to whom the teaching has been directed. A doctrine is recognized precisely as acquired or learned by reason of the fact that it is accurately expressed by the person who is being taught. It is definitely and essentially a part oi the teaching process to demand and to evaluate responses to the con­ tent of the teaching. And, in the case of the Church’s niagisteriuin, it is the power which is described as “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ : And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience. . . .”18 It is in the very act oi teaching that the Church inculcates the divinely revealed truths into the minds of men, and it is also in that same act and process that it prohibits and proscribes inaccurate interpretations of the divine message. The great good that comes from an examination of this con­ troversy is a realization of the fact that the teaching of the Catho­ lic Church is authoritative in a unique sense. Ultimately it is Our Lord Himself who teaches within the Church, and the doctrines set forth in His name and by His authority by His ministers de­ mand full acceptance on the part of all the subjects of the Church. When the ecclesia docens acts, it inevitably binds the consciences or all Christians to accept its teachings and to manifest that ac­ ceptance. It forbids, by the very nature of its activity, any inSala verri refers to the author of the notes appended to the second schetna of the Vatican Council’s Constitutio de ecclesia, op. cit., p. 945. Cor. 10:5, 6. MAGISTERIUM AND JURISDICTION 201 accurate statement about the doctrine which has been proposed, or any refusal to receive that doctrine as the personal tenet of the persons to whom it is addressed. The man who rejects that teach­ ing, rejects Our Lord Himself. There is, of course, no other agency in all the world which is competent to teach authoritatively in this way. The authorities of the civil society are able to issue commands or laws, which the subjects of that society must obey under penalty of sin against God, They are not, however, commissioned or empowered to ad­ vance any teaching which men must accept as true and which they can reject or misinterpret only at the price of sin against God. Idle jurisdiction of the state, although a genuine jurisdiction, does not carry with it or contain any power of uiariistenitni. It is only when we realize that the jurisdiction which God. has granted, to the perfect society which is His true Church actually contains this teaching power that we can begin to appreciate the worth of the Church and the perfection of its doctrinal authority. Ultimately, we must not allow ourselves to forget, the perfection oi the Church’s teaching authority is such that the Church itself does not need to add any other jurisdictional act to its authorita­ tive condemnation of some teaching at variance with that doctrine in order to impose upon its subjects the obligation to accept that declaration with a true and inward assent, and in order to forbid, under penalty of offense against God Himself, any outward ex­ pression of opposition to what the Church has taught. The teaching :»wer of the Church is inherently and essentially jurisdictional. The man who is subject to the authority of the Church has a duty before God of accepting the acts of the ecclesiastical uiciyi.iMriiim with a sincere and genuine inward assent. He is obliged to manl­ iest that acceptance, and to refrain from any oral or written oppo­ sition to or misinterpretation of what Our Lord, acting through the eccR'sM docens, has proposed authoritatively for his guidance in His Church. Joseph Clifford Fextox i he Catholic Udiversity of America il'ashington, D. C.