Mr. Larson: Dear Hugh, I am writing this in the form of a letter, rather than an article or systematic critique, simply because I wish to speak in a way more personal than seems appropriate to a formal reply.

I have dealt with the subjects contained in my book Papal Primacy and the Schism of Archbishop Lefebvre for 16 years now. Most of my discussions with people have dealt with the question of the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction in relation to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. As the years have progressed, however, I have noted in SSPX literature, or in literature sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX position, a growth in attacks upon the very nature of the Papacy itself. These attacks always attempt to drive a wedge between the “office” of the Papacy and the person who is the reigning Pope, with the purpose of claiming either that one does not necessarily have to submit to juridical decisions of the Pope, or that a Pope can lose the faith and become a heretic. This latter belief is often accompanied by the further claim that a Pope who becomes a heretic ceases to by Pope, and this in turn forms the basis for a position of Sedevacantism.

R. Sungenis: First, let me say that I also disagree with the SSPX’s decision not to submit to the juridical decision of the pope. I also do not believe a pope loses his office for private heresy. I have written about both these issues on our web site.

Mr. Larson: In answer to all this, I can only begin by quoting Christ:

“Thou [the emphasis is necessary] art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Are not “thou” and “thee” personal pronouns? Did Jesus say, “Thou art Peter”; or, on the contrary, did He say, “Office art Peter?” This is, of course, buffoonery. But what more do we need to convince Mr. Sungenis, or anyone else ,that Jesus established the twofold Primacy upon the person of Peter? And further, that He established the Office of the Papacy not as something “above” Peter, but simply as a means of insuring that there would be successors to Peter upon whom these divine prerogatives would come to rest. Jesus, in fact, never mentions the term “office”, or anything like it. What He does mention is the term “rock”, and He changes Simon’s personal name so that he might be identified as Rock.”

R. Sungenis: This is really a very naïve argument. Jesus is not inaugurating Peter as pope or the office the papacy at that very moment. That is why all the verbs in Matthew 16:18-19 are in the future tense. The office of the papacy will only be inaugurated when Jesus dies and Peter then becomes the vicar of Christ. In other words, He is telling Peter, personally, that someday he will assume the office of the papacy. So it is futile for Mr. Larson to argue that because Jesus uses personal pronouns in Matthew 16:18-19 He doesn’t have the office of the papacy in view, only Peter’s person. No canonist would ever use such argumentation, and I don’t know anyone else who has.

Mr. Larson: Again, Vatican I provides us with the clear doctrine:

“And it was upon Simon alone [notice that the Council here uses “Simon” instead of “Peter”, thus playing havoc with any notion that Jesus might have made His promises only to “Peter” as some sort of symbol of the “office”) that Jesus, after His resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.” At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself but upon the Church, and the Church on Peter as her minister.”

The central contention throughout Mr. Sungenis’ critique is as follows: “The phrase ‘simple person’ [in Cardinal Manning’s translation] actually distorts the text. It makes an imposition on the text which shifts the focus off “government” and onto “person.” It does nothing of the sort. Rather, it identifies the primacy of the government of the Church as being bestowed directly by Christ upon the person of Peter. The above passage teaches that this government was “bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself” [we should note here that Mr. Sungenis’ Denzinger translation also has “himself” – he might ask himself therefore what the significant difference is between “himself” and “person” or “simple person], and this doctrine makes it a matter of error to claim that this primacy resides directly on the Church or some Church office, and descends only on Peter “as her minister.” The anathema pronounced at the end of this passage is pronounced against those who deny that Peter received these powers “directly and immediately” from our Lord Jesus Christ.

R. Sungenis: Here is the first case where Mr. Larson misunderstands the quote he cites. In reference to Vatican I’s statement, “the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself but upon the Church, and the Church on Peter as her minister,” Larson writes:

“…and this doctrine makes it a matter of error to claim that this primacy resides directly on the Church or some Church office, and descends only on Peter ‘as her minister.’”

But this is an obvious misreading of Vatican I. We can tell what Mr. Larson wishes to see because he slips in the phrase “Church office” into his analysis, but Vatican I is not addressing “Church offices,” and no one on my side of the fence is claiming that Vatican I bestowed a primacy on “the Church” or a “Church office.” In fact, if we use Mr. Larson’s argument about “person,” I wonder why Mr. Larson is so eager to make the “Church” into an “office” in the face of the fact that the Church is composed of PEOPLE, just as Peter and the Apostles are people?

The contrast Vatican I draws out is NOT between Peter and offices, but between: (a) “Peter” and “all the other Apostles,” and (b) “primacy…bestowed …upon Blessed Peter” as opposed to primacy bestowed on “the Church.” In other words, Vatican I is saying that only Peter can have the primacy, not the other Apostles, and not the Church as a whole. Vatican I was thwarting the Eastern Orthodox interpretation, that is: claiming that the primacy was bestowed on the Church, and Peter is thus among equals, and the Church chooses to give him a special place of honor. Vatican I was NOT separating Peter from the office of the papacy. If anything, it was strengthening the bond between the two, since it would not allow anyone else to infringe upon the rights Peter had through it.

Mr. Larson: Cardinal Manning’s translation may take some license with the Latin, but it takes no license with the meaning of the text. It rather serves to clarify it, which I am sure was Cardinal Manning’s intention. It is interesting that the accusation of promoting heresy which Mr. Sungenis applies to me, would also logically descend upon Cardinal Manning, who clearly believed in these personal prerogatives of any reigning Pope.

R. Sungenis: With all due respect to Cardinal Manning, his is the only translation with which I am aware that adds the word “simple person.” But his translation immediately becomes suspect, since it is not in the original Latin. Mr. Larson’s claim that it is allowed because it “clarifies the meaning of the text,” is simply a case of using as proof something he has not yet proven. But I am not accusing Cardinal Manning of heresy, for I don’t find him making arguments akin to Mr. Larson’s from the words “simple person.”

As for my use of the word “heresy” in the case of Mr. Larson, I was merely reciprocating to the level of discussion Mr. Larson had initiated by his rather free-wheeling use of the term “heresy” against Mr. Davies and other traditionalists. Throughout Mr. Larson’s book there is a condescending and accusatory tone, implying that, if you don’t agree with him, you’re not Catholic, and even worse, a heretic. I find that accusation not only out of his jurisdiction, but rather ironic in light of the unsound arguments he gives to support his own position.

Mr. Larson: It is absolutely essential to realize that the Pope holds an authority like no other on earth. Mr. Sungenis wishes us to “make the proper distinctions between the ‘legal’ and the ‘personal’ when speaking of the Papacy, in order that “we should not make such an impassable identification that we cannot separate the two when necessary.” In other words, he would do away with the whatever in the “whatever you bind on earth.”

R. Sungenis: Far from it. In fact, if the pope has established that “whatever” includes the connection and/or distinction between the person and the office, then we best heed that teaching.

Mr. Larson: In his critique, Mr. Sungenis tries to draw an analogy between the qualifications necessary to be a bishop and those necessary for the exercise of Papal authority. He fails to realize that there is a divinely constituted difference which exists between the Pope and the bishops in their relationship to the respective offices which they hold. Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (On The Unity of the Church)quotes St. John Chrysostom:

“If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him (Peter) and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it.”

R. Sungenis: This again is a case of Mr. Larson misunderstanding the quote he cites. In fact, he is doing precisely the same thing here that he did with Vatican I’s quote we saw above. Chrysostom is NOT speaking about a distinction or connection between Peter and the papal office, but the lack of commonality between Peter and the “other princes.” In other words, Chysostom is saying the same thing Vatican I said, that is, there is a marked distinction between Peter and the Apostles, and Peter and the rest of “the Church.”

Mr. Larson: Pope Leo continues in his own words:

“From this it must be clearly understood that bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately withdraw from Peter and his successors….

R. Sungenis: Again, the same problem. The contrast is between Peter’s authority and everyone else’s authority, not a contrast between Peter and the papal office.

Mr. Larson: This teaching is also applied by Vatican II to the entire college of bishops: “The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head….(Lumen Gentium 22).” In other words, there really is a distinction between the legal office of bishop and the person who holds that position, such that the powers of the office of bishop do not dissolve upon that person unless he meets certain conditions.

R. Sungenis: First of all, contrary to Mr. Larson’s interpretation, Lumen Gentium 22 is not making a distinction “between the legal office of bishop and the person who holds that position,” rather, it is only saying that unless the bishops are united with Peter, they have no authority. This is another case of Mr. Larson “reading into” the passage what he desires to see.

Moreover, Mr. Larson’s argument is highly selective. On the one hand, Mr. Larson admits to an “office of bishop,” but implies that “office” does not apply to the papacy. I find that conclusion rather puzzling in light of the fact that Scripture is clear that Apostleship is dependent on an “office” (cf., Acts 1:20); the bishoprick is dependent on an “office” (1 Tim 3:1), yet somehow the chief Apostle and bishop, Peter, is not dependent on an office. How so? Only by Mr. Larson’s misinterpretation of Vatican I, which we will see below.

Mr. Larson: This is not true of the Papacy. Vatican I declares:

“We renew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to rule, feed and govern the universal Church….”

R. Sungenis: Who holds the primacy? Notice that Vatican I says, first, that “the Holy Apostolic See” holds the primacy. Is that not an “office”? Obviously, since Vatican I is not limiting the primacy to a person but is including an entity known as the “the Holy Apostolic See,” then Mr. Larson’s argument is fallacious.

Mr. Larson: And finally:

“And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment.”

R. Sungenis: I took the liberty of underlining all the “office” terms in Vatican I’s statement. Notice the interplay between such words as “Apostolic primacy,” “Apostolic See,” “tribunal” and “law” with “Roman pontiff” and “he.” I think it is clear that Vatican I recognized the “office” of the papacy.

Mr. Larson: The Pope’s powers are full, universal, and received directly from Christ. It is a profound error to attempt to subject the exercise of these powers to an office in any way exterior to him. It is, in other words, a heresy to place the prerogatives of the Papacy anywhere but upon the person of the man who legitimately occupies the Chair of Peter.

R. Sungenis: Here is an occasion of Mr. Larson using a strawman argument. No one on my side of the fence is claiming that the pope’s powers are exercised by an office which is “exterior” to him, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not quite sure what Mr. Larson means by “exterior.” I have held that when the pope exercises his authentic papal authority, his person and his office are indistinguishable, since the office is manifest by the person’s authoritative decisions. But when the pope, as a person, is merely giving his pious opinion on a certain subject, then he is not exercising or manifesting the papal office. Rather, at that point we distinguish between Karol Wojtyla as a man, as opposed to the pope who, at that time, is not exercising his papal authority. (In fact, later we will see Pope Agatho use this same argumentation in regards to Pope Honorius). And this is where Mr. Larson will meet his greatest obstacle. If he doesn’t make the proper distinctions at the proper time between the person of Karol Wojtyla and the Chair of Peter, then he will be forced to say that when Karol Wojtyla gives his pious opinion at say, a dinner meeting with visitors, that this is just as authoritative as when he writes an encyclical or in some other authoritative venue.

In fact, I find it puzzling why Mr. Larson, in his last sentence, refers on the one hand to “the prerogatives of the Papacy” and the “Chair of Peter,” yet on the other hand to “the person of the man.” If there is no distinction, then why does Mr. Larson keep implying that there is a distinction?

Mr. Larson: The Second Error

There are actually two distinct, but interconnected, errors which Mr. Sungenis seems to have embraced. The first I have discussed. It consists in the belief that the prerogatives of the Papacy do not “rest” directly and fully upon the person of any reigning Pope.
The second error consists in the denial of the “never-failing faith” of Peter and all his successors until the end of time. Mr. Sungenis emphatically states, “Vatican I NEVER states, however, that a pope could never lose his own personal faith.” We shall let Vatican I speak for itself:

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”

The first thing that we must note concerning this passage is that this grace of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors “according to the promise” made by Our Lord to Peter: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm they brethren.” In other words, this never-failing faith is the fruit of Christ’s efficacious prayer that the personal faith of Peter “fail not.” Vatican I clearly states, therefore, that Peter’s personal faith is guaranteed “according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples.”

1 2 3 4