Collegiality, Communion, Tradition and the Future

[M-Dent]

One area within Church life that is sure to be much talked about (in the very near future) is the governance of the Church. And the perceptions of Church structure. The coming discussions (beginning w/ the group of 8 consulting cardinals Oct.1 and growing from there) and speculation of reforms – using recent history as a gauge - will undoubtedly cause a stir.

Pope Francis shared his perspective, “one of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council" is the “communion of the church, as an expression of collegiality“ - Further stating, “Open to the grace of the Holy Spirit, the soul of the church, we trust that the Synod of Bishops will undergo further developments to further promote dialogue and collaboration among the bishops and between the bishops and the bishop of Rome.” (noted here)

The Pope was quite frank about his intentions of the development of “real and active consultations” with “less rigid form” noting it was not only his decision, but it is the “result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave.” Its safe to assume the Holy Father will be receiving growing amounts of (name removed by moderator)ut and concerns from all around the globe! ( I wouldn’t want that headache. )

The calls of democracy in the Church will probably make headlines. But beyond that tired, untraditional and confused ecclesiology the topic can be rich.

A specific question I believe worth asking,

Is collegiality a traditional concept many understand as in the life of the Catholic Church? Do you view it in any theological concept of Communion?

 

[Genesis315]

Collegiality is a traditional concept in the Church. The problem is the fact that the First Vatican Council was truncated by the invasion of Rome. The teaching on the college of bishops was planned for a document that the Council never got to. The Second Vatican Council quotes pretty much word for word from the First Vatican Council’s preparatory documents on this point. During the debate on Pastor Aeternus, some bishops worried that proclaming the Pope’s supreme authority would create two supreme authorities in the Church. The relatio (an official explanation given to the voting Fathers), ruled this out:
Pastor Aetrernus relatio:

The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—and in that case they represent the whole Church—or dispersed but in union with their head—in which case they are the Church itself—truly have full power (vere plenam potestatem habent). There would be confusion if we were to admit two full and supreme powers separate and distinct from each other. But we admit that the truly full and supreme power is in the sovereign pontiff as in the head (veluti capite) and that the same power, truly both full and supreme, is also in the head united to the members, that is to say, in the pontiff united to the bishops.

This was the common belief of the Church at the time. For example, just prior to becoming Pope Gregory XVI, Mauro Cappellari wrote:
Mauro Cappellari (the future Gregory XVI):

Each bishop enters into membership in the episcopal body, and consequently enters into the right to govern and teach the entire Church, when he is in union with all the others, and forms a body with them.

Likewise, it seems to me that the bishops acting in a collegial way and the Pope governing and teaching in such a way is the traditional praxis of the Church. History shows many, many, many local councils of bishops. This is important so that the bishops in a particular region may speak with one voice. Furthermore, it seems the Pope should also seek to act in common with the other bishops rather than simply acting unilaterally–even if that is ultimately his right. The First Vatican Council says as much:
Pastor Aeternus:

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

St. Francis de Sales explained the same thing:
St. Francis de Sales:

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said he shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the Urim and Thummim of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail.

 

[Genesis315]

To further my point above, the history of papal dogmatic definitions and legislation shows this to be true that at the very least the College of Cardinals was usually first consulted, but often councils–partial or universal–were summoned in Rome or elsewhere. The Popes rarely acted unilateral when it came to the most important matters. Even before making the two most celebrated papal definitions in recent times (Immaculate Conception, Assumption), Popes Bl. Pius IX and Pius XII first consulted the bishops of the world. And this of course dates back to the praxis of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, where St. Peter did not rise up with his ruling until after the body had debated it–and then afterwards the whole body joined themselves to his decision in the person of St. James.

St. John Chrysostom gives one reason why this is a good idea when he discusses why St. Peter did not unilaterally choose the successor to Judas, even though he could have.
St. John Chrysostom:

Then after the event, he appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein” Acts 1:20 Psalm 69:25: this is said of the field and the dwelling: And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who has foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness. “Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time.” Acts 1:21 Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, “Men and brethren. It behooves” to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: “Of these,” he says, “which have companied with us all the time.” To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of time; for he says not simply, “These who have companied with us,” but, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” Acts 1:22: that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.
newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

St. Leo the Great gives another excellent explanation of this when discussing why the Council of Chalcedon was a good idea despite the fact that he had already ruled on the issue himself.
St. Leo:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.
newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

This was also evidenced in the papacy of St. Gregory the Great
St. Gregory:

…if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to [the Apostolic See]. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal.
newadvent.org/fathers/360209059.htm