Collegiality -- Question for Mardukm

[Byz_Guy]

Just read your comments on the role of the Pope and the Bishops.

I am not very well learned on these subjects but I recently read these comments by Cardinal Dulles:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810

6. The doctrine of collegiality is frequently misunderstood as though it restricted the powers of the pope, requiring him to establish a consensus of the world’s bishops before deciding important issues. Vatican II did indeed affirm that the bishops as a college, when acting together with their head, the pope, enjoy supreme authority, but it affirmed that the pope likewise has supreme authority as successor of Peter and head of the college. The full power of the college is present in the pope alone, who is always free to exercise his primatial office according to the grace given to him. The college, on the other hand, cannot act except when summoned to collegial action by the pope. Its decisions have no efficacy without the pope’s approval. Thus the primacy of the pope, as it had been defined by Vatican I, remains intact. His power is in no way limited by that of the episcopal college (LG, No. 22).

Would you agree with his interpretation?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Thank you for your questions. I’ll answer as concisely as I can.

Just read your comments on the role of the Pope and the Bishops.

I am not very well learned on these subjects but I recently read these comments by Cardinal Dulles:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810

6. The doctrine of collegiality is frequently misunderstood as though it restricted the powers of the pope, requiring him to establish a consensus of the world’s bishops before deciding important issues.

 

[Byz_Guy]

I would accept it, given the qualifications mentioned above. I’m sure Cardinal Avery Dulles had a good head on his shoulders.

I may be wrong, but in reading your “qualifications” it would appear you reject his interpretation.

Your interpretations seem novel to me. Are there theologians you can cite who support your interpretations of Vatican I and II?

 

[steve_b]

Just read your comments on the role of the Pope and the Bishops.

I am not very well learned on these subjects but I recently read these comments by Cardinal Dulles:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810

6. The doctrine of collegiality is frequently misunderstood as though it restricted the powers of the pope, requiring him to establish a consensus of the world’s bishops before deciding important issues. Vatican II did indeed affirm that the bishops as a college, when acting together with their head, the pope, enjoy supreme authority, but it affirmed that the pope likewise has supreme authority as successor of Peter and head of the college. The full power of the college is present in the pope alone, who is always free to exercise his primatial office according to the grace given to him. The college, on the other hand, cannot act except when summoned to collegial action by the pope. Its decisions have no efficacy without the pope’s approval. Thus the primacy of the pope, as it had been defined by Vatican I, remains intact. His power is in no way limited by that of the episcopal college (LG, No. 22).

Would you agree with his interpretation?

As you point out, Dulles combines paraphrase of, and actual quotes from [LG22.]

Here’s the actual quote

[LG22]
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

In discussions about collegiality, there’s “theory” vs “practice.” Dulles explains what is practiced.

 

[smad0142]

Mardukm, would you care to post the text of AC 34? I always hear it bandied about, but the text I have read of AC 34 seems to have nothing to do with collegiality.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

I would accept it, given the qualifications mentioned above. I’m sure Cardinal Avery Dulles had a good head on his shoulders.

I may be wrong, but in reading your “qualifications” it would appear you reject his interpretation.

“Who is the faithful and wise servant who the master will set over his household to feed it?” This came from the lips of our own Lord and Savior. St. John Chrysostom taught that this applied to St. Peter and his successors.

The purpose of the primacy (on any level - metropolical, patriarchal, universal) is to build up the body of Christ by ensuring the unity of the Church in charity. So I agree with the Cardinal’s statement that collegiality does not limit the primatial authority of the Pope. Collegiality does not upend nor restrict the primacy or its divinely-established purpose. Primacy is an important feature of the Church’s divine constitution. It is just as necessary as collegiality. Without primacy, there is no collegiality, because every college must have a head, according to the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34/35.

The problem comes when one thinks that the Pope’s primatial prerogatives include things that go beyond its divinely-established purpose. IF by saying, “His power is in no way limited by that of the episcopal college,” Cardinal Dulles means that the power of the Pope for its purpose of building up the body of Christ by ensuring unity is never limited by the episcopal college, then who can disagree with that? BUT, if he is referring to some imaginary and exaggerated powers of the Pope like some Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend, then I will admit I disagree with him.

Your interpretations seem novel to me. Are there theologians you can cite who support your interpretations of Vatican I and II?

I don’t normally read the works of singular theologians, so I can’t offer you suggestions in this regard.

But “my” interpretations are straight from the Official Relatio of Vatican 1. It is the way that the Committee De Fide (the Committee at V1 responsible for formulating the Decrees of V1) explained what the Decrees were/are intended to mean, through the exposition of its official spokesman Bishop Gasser of Brixen. Not many know of the Official Relatio. There is a very recent book put out by Ignatius Press on the Official Relatio, and I think this is the FIRST time this important V1 document has received proper PR. I forget the name off-hand, but if brother Vico is reading this thread, I hope he cites it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm, would you care to post the text of AC 34? I always hear it bandied about, but the text I have read of AC 34 seems to have nothing to do with collegiality.

Apostolic Canon 34(Latin)/35 (Greek):

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. But each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the head) do anything without the conset of all, for so there willbe unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy spirit.

More recently, under the aegis of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Ratzinger asserted:
Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter’s Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…pietro_en.html

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Thank you for the source!!

But this canon does not preculde a unilateral act by the papacy, nor does the bolded section you provided preculde such an act. While such an act may be a source of scandal, it may even be sinful, neither of those canons say that the Pope does not have the authority to act in such a way.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Smad,

Thank you for the source!!

But this canon does not preculde a unilateral act by the papacy, nor does the bolded section you provided preculde such an act. While such an act may be a source of scandal, it may even be sinful, neither of those canons say that the Pope does not have the authority to act in such a way.

Under what circumstances can you think of that the Pope would act unilaterally?

Can you think of an instance in the Tradition of the Church when a Pope has ever done so? If not, why do you think that is?

I have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates on this issue (not saying you are one of them), and when all is said and done, they always fall back on the usual rhetoric that there might come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. But I completely disagree with that premise. Absolutist Petrine advocates make much of the fact that the office of the papacy is divinely established. But guess what - so is the office of bishop. If the office of the papacy will always remain intact for its purpose because it is divinely established, what reason could one have for believing that there will be no other orthodox bishop left on this earth if the office of bishop is also divinely established? Our lord established the principle that where two or three are gathered, there He will be in our midst. So it is impossible that the Pope will be the only orthodox bishop left on earth at any time. If the Pope is not the only orthodox bishop left, then it is part of his duty to maintain unity with those other orthodox bishops.

A follow-up question - how does making unilateral decisions maintain unity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

I don’t normally read the works of singular theologians, so I can’t offer you suggestions in this regard.

Well, as I said I am no expert on these things. I just did a short search for some of the terms you use “absolutist petrine view” and “high petrine view” and “low petrine view.” It seems most (but not all) of the hits I got with the search come back to discussions here. One fellow said recently on Dave Armstrong’s blog:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/11/comparisons-of-orthodox-and-catholic.html

"I understand that you refrain from participating in message-board discussions. But I’d like to point you to a thread at the Catholic Answers Forums entitled “High Petrine view in the early Church”. See posts 1-4 and 53-57 in particular; I’d quote them here but for their sheer length. The author of these posts, Marduk, is a convert from Coptic Orthodoxy to Catholicism; his approach is unlike any I’ve encountered in Catholic apologetics. What do you make of it?"

An utterly unique interpretation of these sort of things sends up red flags for me. Not meaning to offend, but I think I’d stick with Cardinal Dulles on this over a novel interpretation.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Marduk,

A suggestion: why not move beyond the discussion forums and write a presentation of your interpretation of these petrine views for a Catholic journal? Perhaps This Rock or some other Catholic journal. This would allow your interpretation to get some peer review.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

An utterly unique interpretation of these sort of things sends up red flags for me. Not meaning to offend, but I think I’d stick with Cardinal Dulles on this over a novel interpretation.

I would appreciate a response to the first part of my post #6. I don’t see that the quote you gave from Cardinal Dulles necessarily contradicts my position. What makes you think it does? What other quotes can you offer from Cardinal Dulles that would cause you to believe he has an Absolutist Petrine view of the papacy that contradicts the position that I have proposed (known as the High Petrine view)?

I don’t normally read the works of singular theologians, so I can’t offer you suggestions in this regard.

Well, as I said I am no expert on these things. I just did a short search for some of the terms you use “absolutist petrine view” and “high petrine view” and “low petrine view.” It seems most (but not all) of the hits I got with the search come back to discussions here.

I’m the one who created those terms, so it is not surprising most hits would refer to discussions here. But the tension inherent in those three positions is something that many readers here in CAF understand actually exists. I’m just giving a name to it.

One fellow said recently on Dave Armstrong’s blog:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/11/comparisons-of-orthodox-and-catholic.html

"I understand that you refrain from participating in message-board discussions. But I’d like to point you to a thread at the Catholic Answers Forums entitled “High Petrine view in the early Church”. See posts 1-4 and 53-57 in particular; I’d quote them here but for their sheer length. The author of these posts, Marduk, is a convert from Coptic Orthodoxy to Catholicism; his approach is unlike any I’ve encountered in Catholic apologetics. What do you make of it?"

A suggestion: why not move beyond the discussion forums and write a presentation of your interpretation of these petrine views for a Catholic journal? Perhaps This Rock or some other Catholic journal. This would allow your interpretation to get some peer review.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I am not a professional theologian. I am just a regular joe who reads a lot about the Faith because he is concerned about his Faith. To me, my peers are the run-of-the-mill Catholic, not the professional theologians and apologists. And I’ve had many good reviews of what I’ve written from many Catholics, Latin, Eastern, and Oriental. I have had at least 40 e-mails or PM’s from Catholics over the past 2 years who came to me with the concern that they felt like leaving the Catholic Church because of the issue of the papacy. They have all decided to stay because of what they read from me. That, to me, is sufficient “peer review.”

There is a gentleman named Dr. Adam De Ville (he posted on Dave Armstrong’s blog to which you gave a link). He came out with a book on the issue of the papacy and Orthodoxy and I recall one of the reviews states that he offered a fresh new approach to the issue. I haven’t read his book yet.

Also, read the following, a review of Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement’s book regarding the papacy and orthodoxy, with a foreword by none other than Cardinal Avery Dulles:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-02-047-b

Olivier Clement is another who has proposed a fresh and novel approach to the issue from the Orthodox perspective (according to the review). I haven’t read his book either, but I think we need to step out of the box (like Dr. Adam De Ville and Olivier Clement) to overcome the usual polemics between the parties on the issue of the papacy. That’s what I offer, a fresh approach that is informed by my Faith as a Christian from the Oriental Tradition. And I daresay that many are responding positively.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

I’m the one who created those terms, so it is not surprising most hits would refer to discussions here. But the tension inherent in those three positions is something that many readers here in CAF understand actually exists. I’m just giving a name to it.

So, these are not accepted terminology that are used by scholars.

I have Dr. DeVille’s book. It’s interesting but it would not play at Catholic Answers. His proposals would end up having the Pope being more Orthodox than Catholic. An interesting review of his book can be read here:

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1211-tighe

I find Fr. Clement’s critique of the papacy accurate (this from the link you gave):

**Yet for this to become a reality, it is necessary for the papacy to significantly alter the way in which it currently functions, and in the later chapters Clément suggests what needs to change. He decries specific developments in the Catholic understanding of the papacy, and especially in the way that papal primacy has come to be exercised. In particular, he is disturbed by what he perceives as an unhealthy tendency to centralize all authority in Rome.

Rather than supporting the authority of the local churches, Rome has, he fears, usurped much of that authority for herself. Since the beginning of the second millennium, “while safeguarding the traditional ecclesial principle of her primacy, [Rome] has increasingly interpreted this primacy as absolute power over the Church.”

For Christian unity to become a reality, Clément believes the pope must give back to the local churches some of the power that he has amassed. Nonetheless, he finds considerable hope in the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, which in his estimation restored a more historically balanced and patristic understanding of authority in the Church.**

Part of Fr. Clement’s book is online at Google Books and Cardinal Dulles’ introduction can be read here:

books.google.com/books?id=iLz7otL3bnUC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cardinal Dulles’ introduction is polite and respectful but not an endorsement. Towards the end of it he says that Fr. Clement’s work is “quite properly registering a distinctively Orthodox point of view.” (page 8)

Again, none of this would play at Catholic Answers. They would never publish Anthony Dragani’s review from Touchstone. Nor would they publish Fr. Clement’s ideas. I seriously doubt they’d publish Dr. DeVille’s proposals either.

Why? Because these ideas represent a break with the understanding of papal primacy as is currently understood in the Catholic Church or the understanding of it that Vatican I and II teach – at least as understood by the average Catholic.

Now, perhaps Touchstone would be a good venue for you to present your work. They reach a wider audience and would not be constrained by traditional understandings.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byzguy,

I’m the one who created those terms, so it is not surprising most hits would refer to discussions here. But the tension inherent in those three positions is something that many readers here in CAF understand actually exists. I’m just giving a name to it.

So, these are not accepted terminology that are used by scholars.

Yes.

I have Dr. DeVille’s book. It’s interesting but it would not play at Catholic Answers. His proposals would end up having the Pope being more Orthodox than Catholic. An interesting review of his book can be read here:

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1211-tighe

Part of Fr. Clement’s book is online at Google Books and Cardinal Dulles’ introduction can be read here:

books.google.com/books?id=iLz7otL3bnUC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cardinal Dulles’ introduction is polite and respectful but not an endorsement. Towards the end of it he says that Fr. Clement’s work is “quite properly registering a distinctively Orthodox point of view.” (page 8)

Again, none of this would play at Catholic Answers. They would never publish Anthony Dragani’s review from Touchstone. Nor would they publish Fr. Clement’s ideas. I seriously doubt they’d publish Dr. DeVille’s proposals either.

Why? Because these ideas represent a break with the understanding of papal primacy as is currently understood in the Catholic Church or the understanding of it that Vatican I and II teach – at least as understood by the average Catholic.

Like I said, I’ve never read Dr. DeVille’s or Fr. Clement’s work. If the reviews are accurate, I would say that the difference is that my ideas don’t break with Catholic Tradition. I believe the Catholic teaching on the primacy and infallibility is true, ideal and God-ordained. What I don’t accept is the Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretation of the Catholic teaching. I have more than amply provided proof for the High Petrine position (in opposition to the Absolutist Petrine position) from the documents of Vatican 1 itself and from Catholic Tradition. And I have refuted every supposed proof that Absolutist Petrine advocates claim exists for their position. The Absolutist Petrine position was only first popularized in the beginning of the 19th century, and was known in its day as “NEO-ULTRAMONTANISM.” Look it up, since you are interested in “scholarly” acceptable terminology. There were two brands of neo-ultramontanists - theological and political. Political neo-ultramontanism has gone the way of the dodo. Theological neo-ultramontantism (though it was formally repudiated at Vatican 1 by the inclusion of the historic Proem in Pastor Aeternus) is still alive and kicking, however, and it is this that I and many others here in ECF oppose.

I find Fr. Clement’s critique of the papacy accurate (this from the link you gave):

**Yet for this to become a reality, it is necessary for the papacy to significantly alter the way in which it currently functions, and in the later chapters Clément suggests what needs to change. He decries specific developments in the Catholic understanding of the papacy, and especially in the way that papal primacy has come to be exercised. In particular, he is disturbed by what he perceives as an unhealthy tendency to centralize all authority in Rome.

Rather than supporting the authority of the local churches, Rome has, he fears, usurped much of that authority for herself. Since the beginning of the second millennium, “while safeguarding the traditional ecclesial principle of her primacy, [Rome] has increasingly interpreted this primacy as absolute power over the Church.”

For Christian unity to become a reality, Clément believes the pope must give back to the local churches some of the power that he has amassed. Nonetheless, he finds considerable hope in the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, which in his estimation restored a more historically balanced and patristic understanding of authority in the Church.**

I disagree with the analysis that this trend by Rome started in the beginning of the second millenium. I don’t see any evidence of it. The primate of the Church setting demands to reestablish unity in the Church is a different thing from usurping the authority of local bishops. It is the divinely established responsibility of the one who holds the primacy to ensure the unity of the Church, so it should be expected that the primate of the Church might put his foot down for the realization of our Lord’s command for the unity of His Church. If the Pope did things that might seem to infringe on the authority of a local bishop, one could only expect to find it from the end of the 17th century onwards, for that was the time when the power of the College of Cardinals over the Pope was finally broken. Prior to this, from the great Schism to the 13th century, the Pope always acted in Synod. From the 14th to the 17the century, the Pope was under the thumb of the College of Cardinals (every Pope had to sign a “pre-nup” of sorts before he could obtain his office). The Pope never had absolute authority in the Church. As stated, this was a theory that only had its beginning at the start of the 19th century, but it has never been the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, perhaps Touchstone would be a good venue for you to present your work. They reach a wider audience and would not be constrained by traditional understandings.

Thank you. I might consider it in the future.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Again, none of this would play at Catholic Answers. They would never publish Anthony Dragani’s review from Touchstone. Nor would they publish Fr. Clement’s ideas. I seriously doubt they’d publish Dr. DeVille’s proposals either.

Why? Because these ideas represent a break with the understanding of papal primacy as is currently understood in the Catholic Church or the understanding of it that Vatican I and II teach – at least as understood by the average Catholic.

Now, perhaps Touchstone would be a good venue for you to present your work. They reach a wider audience and would not be constrained by traditional understandings.

I’m glad to read this. In another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=643374) I was having a hard time putting words to my visercal reaction to some of the posts and readings. You have succinctly worded what I could not. Maybe your (name removed by moderator)ut there could be used

 

[Byz_Guy]

Well, I await Catholic Answers publication of Mardukm’s clarification of what Vatican I really meant.

 

[mardukm]

Well, I await Catholic Answers publication of Mardukm’s clarification of what Vatican I really meant.

Not necessary. Ignatius Press already published one recently on the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Art321]

Not necessary. Ignatius Press already published one recently on the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you!

I’ll have to check this out!

 

[Byz_Guy]

Not necessary. Ignatius Press already published one recently on the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

Marduk,

So, are you saying that your interpretation of Vatican I (which others have commented is novel) could be promoted by Catholic Answers?

I find that hard to believe. Yes, it can be found buried here on the Catholic Answers Forum but I seriously doubt it’d ever be printed in This Rock or presented on their website. They tend towards what you term “Absolutist Petrine.”

On Touchstone, yes. But, Touchstone is not a Catholic site.

 

[Art321]

Marduk,

So, are you saying that your interpretation of Vatican I (which others have commented is novel) could be promoted by Catholic Answers?

I find that hard to believe. Yes, it can be found buried here on the Catholic Answers Forum but I seriously doubt it’d ever be printed in This Rock or presented on their website. They tend towards what you term “Absolutist Petrine.”

On Touchstone, yes. But, Touchstone is not a Catholic site.

Are you sure about this? I have read some articles on Catholic Answers and they don’t seem to support the Absolute Petrine view. Can you give some examples?