(LifeSiteNews) — With the appointment of the female “Prefect” of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life by the late Pope, the division of the “potestas sacra” into the power of orders and the power of governance has returned to the Church.
The validity of Vatican Council II has been de facto abolished in this essential point, which is vital for the sacramentality of the Church. We have thus been thrown back into times that the Church had overcome. For it has indeed happened in church history that the powers of ordination and jurisdiction were not only distinguished from one another, but separated.
“Bishops” who were not consecrated bishops presided over important dioceses. They were not pastors, but merely beneficiaries of sinecures. The pastoral damage caused by unconsecrated “shepherds” was considerable.
The Second Vatican Council put an end to these abuses in Lumen Gentium by means of an in-depth theology on the episcopal office and in particular with No. 21. For there the inseparability of ordination and jurisdiction is explicitly taught: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office 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.”
Pope Paul VI made this even clearer in the “Nota explicativa praevia,” which he declared to be an integral part of Lumen Gentium: “In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included.” (no.2) One can also see from this: Where there is no ontological foundation due to a lack of consecration, no offices associated with “potestas sacra” can be conferred.
RELATED: Pope Francis appoints first woman to lead a Vatican dicastery
When the Codex Iuris Canonici (Codex of Canon Law) was drafted, there were nevertheless forces that attempted to create a basis in canon law to grant lay people “potestas sacra.” The first draft of 1977 initially stated, in accordance with Lumen Gentium and the “Nota explicativa praevia”: “Those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders are qualified to assume leadership in the Church in accordance with the legal provisions.” However, it then continued: “In the exercise of this authority, insofar as it is not based on sacred ordination, those who have not received the sacrament of Holy Orders can only have that share which the highest ecclesiastical authority grants them for individual cases.” This break with the Council was repaired in a consultation lasting several years. In the years leading up to 1983, the worldwide episcopate, the Curia and numerous experts were involved. Finally, can. 129 today reads:
§1. Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction.
§2. Lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power according to the norm of law.
Lay people can therefore participate in the preparation of decisions that require the power of governance. However, they cannot make such decisions personally.
In 1970, Joseph Ratzinger outlined the consequences of the division of the “potestas sacra” in his book Demokratie in der Kirche. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen (“Democracy in the Church: Possibilities and Limits”), published jointly with Hans Maier. He spoke unequivocally of the “factually absolutely inadmissible separation of the powers of orders and governance.” This is because the separation of the powers of orders and governance relegates the sacrament “to the magical” and ecclesiastical jurisdiction “to the profane”: “The sacrament is now only understood ritually and not as a mandate to lead the Church through word and liturgy; leadership, on the other hand, is seen as a purely political-administrative business – because the Church itself is obviously only seen as a political instrument. In truth, the office of leadership in the Church is an indivisible ministry” (quoted from the Topos edition Limburg-Kevelaer 2000, p. 31f).
If a lay prefect with “potestas sacra” was possible in the dicastery for Consecrated Life, then it is possible in every dicastery. This is also stated in the Curia Constitution “Praedicate Evangelium” of the late Pope (II.5). As long as no “potestas sacra” is exercised in such a dicastery, such as in relation to the media, this is not a problem. This also applies to the Vatican State, where a woman has been placed at the head. This is because it is an incidental state entity that does not belong to the sacramental-hierarchical order of the Church. According to the “logic” of “Praedicate Evangelium,” a layperson can also be appointed prefect of the dicastery for bishops. The prefect does not appoint the diocesan bishops, but has so far appointed apostolic administrators with the rank of bishop. If it is possible for a layperson to assign a bishop to a diocese, the sacramental character of the Church is nothing but a farce.
RELATED: The first female prefect illustrates Pope Francis’ quest for centralized power. Here’s how
If lay people exercise “potestas sacra” at the level of the Roman Curia, it is not clear why this cannot also happen at the level of the diocese. This means that a layperson can be vicar general and thus the superior of the priests of a diocese. Some dioceses are already experimenting with “lay delegates” of the bishop, who are equivalent to the vicar general. Lay people can then also lead parishes and employ a vicar to fill their tabernacle once a month. All of this would no longer be the Church of Jesus Christ, which he built on the foundation of the apostles.
To argue in this regard that the exercise of the “potestas sacra” by lay people was restricted by the late Pope to the Roman Curia by means of the constitution “Praedicate Evangelium” and does not apply to the rest of the Church is not credible. For the nature of the “potestas sacra” is the same everywhere. And limiting it to the Curia would mean saying that the supreme sovereign has issued a special law for his needs that does not apply to his subjects. If you are longing to be considered modern as a church, how could one then, at the same time, behave as an absolutist monarch who is above the law? How can you explain to bishops, priests, and laity that they should abide by the common law if the supreme leader does not want to abide by it himself on a central issue? Despotic regimes can use force to ensure that the population abides by the law, while the leadership does not. But the Church is not a state, but a community of volunteers. The Pope can therefore only invite everyone and ask them to adhere to the teachings and order of the Church. He is therefore the first person who must have an interest in adhering to both himself. Otherwise, people will desert him.
In the decades following the Council, canon law was disregarded and disparaged as the antithesis of pastoral care and charity. With the abuse scandals, canon law has experienced its first renaissance. Since then, people have been eager for criminal law and courts of law. What hypocrisy. But that is still harmless. For the late pope has now abused canon law and papal jurisdiction to declare the sacramental nature of the Church to be of secondary importance. Who would have thought such a triumph of positivist juridism, coming from the side of “progressivism”, possible in the decades following the Council? How ironic.
The consequences of this reactionary church policy, which goes back before Vatican II, are not yet foreseeable. But it is already clear that priests and bishops will be relegated to the magical, as Joseph Ratzinger put it. And the question arises: who will still be willing to act as a magician under the leadership of a functionary in the future? The Church itself is being profaned and no longer appears as the body of Christ, but as a global corporation of the Vatican President, who rules by decree with his prefects. In the face of a de-sacramentalized church, it will be less and less obvious how Christians can hold on to the idea that this is about divine revelation, grace, eternal salvation, indeed about God himself.
Pope Leo XIV will therefore not be able to avoid making decisions:
- If the “prefect” of the dicastery of religious orders has attempted to establish acts of governing power by means of the “potestas sacra”, these must either be re-established validly or declared null and void by a new prefect who has received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
- The curial constitution “Praedicate Evangelium” must be amended so that it once again corresponds to Vatican Council II and the general canon law based on it.
If, on the other hand, a new “prefect” of a dicastery is appointed who supposedly exercises “potestas sacra”, Vatican II can be shelved and the Church will be thrown into chaos, not only in Rome but potentially in every diocese and parish. However, some would probably also see the archiving of Vatican II in a positive light. After all, the liturgy constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” would then be nothing more than a piece of paper.
Father Martin Grichting is a professor of Canon Law who taught at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome. He was the vicar general of the Swiss Diocese of Chur from 2009 until 2019.
