The Prefect of the Dicastery for Religious is a denial of the Second Vatican Council. What will remain valid in the Church in the future?
A guest comment by Martin Grichting
For years, the Holy See has subjected the entire Church to an ad nauseam debate on synodality. However, during this time, the previous Pope made a decision without synodal consultation that alters the sacramental essence of the Church: On December 13, 2024, the religious sister Simona Brambilla, who by her nature cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, was appointed «prefect» of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Since then, she exercises as a layperson the «sacra potestas» (ordinary vicarious potestas) over tens of thousands of religious clerics.
The Second Vatican Council, the highest expression of synodality, had taught, on the contrary, that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers the office of governing. Canon law can only regulate in more detail the concrete form of the exercise of the office of governing. For this reason, Pope Paul VI specified in the «previous explanatory note» of «Lumen Gentium»: «In the consecration, an ontological participation in the sacred ministries is given, as is evident without doubt from Tradition, even the liturgical one». Without this ontological participation through the sacrament of Holy Orders, there can be no more precise juridical definition of the power of governing.
In other words: in times of supposed synodality, the previous Pope rejected the Second Vatican Council in an anti-synodal manner, with a stroke of the pen, on a fundamental dogmatic issue that affects the essence of the Church and one of the seven sacraments. And the prefect in question remains in office a year after this break with the Council.
This action has grave consequences:
If the Second Vatican Council is only valid until further notice with regard to a fundamental dogmatic issue, then everything else that this council has said is also invalidated. As is well known, much of it has a less binding character. Then the disciplinary provisions relating to the liturgy, for example, no longer need to be taken literally. And the statements on religious freedom, one level down, only refer to the Church’s social doctrine. What value do such statements still have? On the other hand, new perspectives for dialogue with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X would open up if, in relation to «Sacrosanctum Concilium» and «Dignitatis Humanae», it were later declared that they are merely non-binding opinions that can be revoked at any time.
Joseph Ratzinger emphasized in «Democracy in the Church. Possibilities and Limits», published in 1970, that the separation between the power of orders and the power of governance is «absolutely inadmissible». Because in this way, the sacrament is relegated «to the magical» and ecclesiastical jurisdiction «to the profane»: «The sacrament is conceived only as a rite, not as a commission to lead the Church through the Word and the Liturgy; and governance is seen as a politico-administrative matter, because the Church is viewed as a mere political instrument. In reality, the ministry of leadership in the Church is an indivisible service» (quoted from the Topos Limburg-Kevelaer edition 2000, p. 31 ff.). Although Pope Leo XIV definitively rejects the Second Vatican Council on this fundamental issue of the faith, the question of women’s priesthood is really resolved definitively. It is true that there will be no women priests in the future either. But the issue becomes secondary. Because in the Church one can also govern without the sacrament of Holy Orders, and the «prefect» is compelling proof of that. The sacrament of Holy Orders is no longer the essential basis, but only an optional complement. It is an accidental magical addition, «nice to have», but no longer indispensable. Problems can also be solved this way. However, this comes at the cost of the substance of the faith, which dissolves behind legal sophistries.
If the Second Vatican Council is no longer valid with regard to the sacrament of orders and the «potestas sacra», in the future, following the Pope’s example, there can be laypeople at all levels of the hierarchy: laypeople can be pastors and hire a sacramental assistant to fill the tabernacle once a month. Laypeople can also be bishops and vicars general, as happened abusively in medieval feudalism. Because if in Rome a prefect can dispense monks from their public vows, a lay bishop can also appoint pastors. The papal appointment is sufficient for both. For the sacrament of confirmation, the future lay bishop has, like the noble German lay prince-bishop of the 16th century, an auxiliary bishop at his disposal. And if in this diocese there are still men who wish to act as sacramental assistants, the auxiliary bishop can authorize them ritually.
The Church will then organize itself like any other company through legal instruments such as appointment and dismissal. In this way, it will be secularized and profaned. The question is then what this has to do exactly with God and grace. Perhaps it would have to be officially specified that Jesus Christ did not choose and send the apostles, but appointed them.
In the case of the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a matter of the intellectual and moral suitability of a person. In the case at hand, it is not about a specific person, but about a central issue of the faith. The faithful now have the right to know whether the Second Vatican Council remains valid in its dogmatic determinations or not. The unity of the Church depends on this.