Does the Vatican have only one bishop?

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry:
Surely it has been pointed out to you multiple times by now that the Catholic Church FULLY AGREES that the power of the keys are excercised by the Church and not by the successor of Peter alone. The Catechism and canon law both clarify that the Supreme Authority of the Church (the universal exercise of binding and loosing) is comprised of the Pope AND bishops…not the pope alone. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that bishops derive their power and office directly from Christ. When necessary, they do owe the Pope of Rome obedience, as he has been entrusted with the entire Church (while individual bishops are entrusted with particular churches) but he is not in any way the source of their authority. All bishops are true vicars of Christ within their own particular churches.

I’ve dealt with the consistency of this elsewhere.

No, you’ve ignored evidence against your mischaracterizations several times.

Just to get the ball rolliing (I’m too tired now to pull up the references, etc), I’ll post this now.

Has Vatican I eliminated any need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome, pro or con.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Just to get the ball rolliing (I’m too tired now to pull up the references, etc), I’ll post this now.

Has Vatican I eliminated any need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome, pro or con.

On reading the text concerning “infallibility” the answer would have to be “YES”, especially in the light of the last sentence: "If any one shall presume (which God forbid!) to contradict this our definition; let them be anathema." Documents of the Christian Church. Second Edition, 1963 Pg 384-385

nough said.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Just to get the ball rolliing (I’m too tired now to pull up the references, etc), I’ll post this now.

Has Vatican I eliminated any need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome, pro or con.

Of course not. Why do you think he calls them “brother Bishops”.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Of course not. Why do you think he calls them “brother Bishops”.

I’m trying to get beyond lip service.

The Reformers noticed, with all the extravegance, opulance, pomp and circumstance that they didn’t see much service from the "Servant of the Servants of Christ). (Durer had a print, I believe, with Christ being beaten on one side, and the pope in the Vatican having his slipper kissed).

Lumen Gentium is at PAINS to claim that it is never an issue of the bishops acting without the pope, but always an issue of the pope acting with or without the bishops. That being said, who needs the bishops except as bishop making machines, care takers and administrators. You don’t have to be a bishop to advise: we’ve had it pointed out sevearl times that for the “infallible” proclaramations the pope consulted the laity.

So what do you need bishops for?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Lumen Gentium is at PAINS to claim that it is never an issue of the bishops acting without the pope, but always an issue of the pope acting with or without the bishops. That being said, who needs the bishops except as bishop making machines, care takers and administrators. You don’t have to be a bishop to advise: we’ve had it pointed out sevearl times that for the “infallible” proclaramations the pope consulted the laity.

So what do you need bishops for?

This is going to sound sarcastic but it’s not meant to be.

The Pope needs the Bishops so that when ever an issue is brought forth, such as those in Vaticans I and II, that he can call a council together. Although there may appear to be a concensus at the end of the council, history shows, the Pope fosters a great deal of control over the council and if there is disagreement with the Pope’s views they are usually “persuaded” to take on the Pope’s opinion. Much in Vatican II was revolutionary for the Church, however, there were and are still many who disagree with it’s precepts and if a more stanch old school Pope is ever elected you can expect to see a reversal of those precepts. Some of them have already been weakened by the Popes that came after Vatican II.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Lumen Gentium is at PAINS to claim that it is never an issue of the bishops acting without the pope, but always an issue of the pope acting with or without the bishops. That being said, who needs the bishops except as bishop making machines, care takers and administrators. You don’t have to be a bishop to advise: we’ve had it pointed out sevearl times that for the “infallible” proclaramations the pope consulted the laity.

So what do you need bishops for?

The principals of subsidiarity necessitate that we apply solutions closest to their problems. Top down central control models do not practically scale outside of the simple uni-lateral and benevolent conveyance of policy and common teaching. The office of Pope executes these well. The bishops provide the means to solve the pragmatic issues arising from cultural and social differences that invariable come up in implementation of the policy and teaching at a local level. This also provides a means to regulate and moderating the uptake of ideas and concerns to Rome without swamping the pontificate with every single issue and problem.

I think its a very efficient system myself with a fair amount of shared cooperative authority and cross checking through peer expectations. If governments could run themselves as efficiently with the scarce resources of the Vatican we would not need much administrative government at all. What other country or government on the planet has the same global scope of operations and governance with such a small budget?

James

 

[Atreyu]

Has Vatican I eliminated any need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome, pro or con.

First of all, no, because if there is no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome after Vatican I, then there was no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome before Vatican I.

That being said, it depends entirely upon what you mean by “need”. In terms of abstract ecclesiology, in my very uninformed opinion, I would say that yes, there is only a need for one bishop; the bishop of Rome. I think you will almost agree with me, once I explain.

Imagine a situation whereby all but one of the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches suddenly died. Let’s not get into possible scenarios whereby this could happen, but let’s just take it that it could happen. It certainly could have easily happened in the early Church.

Anyway, would you then claim that this bishop is unable to perform some of his functions because he is the only bishop? I doubt that you would. Would you claim that this bishop lacks infallibility in promulgating and authoritatively defining an aspect of the faith - let’s say if he had to combat some heresy? I also doubt that you would.

Of course, it would be extremely difficult for this bishop to ordain priests and to do all of the other duties a bishop needs to do - and this is where your definition of the word “needs” comes into play.

So far, I think you’ll pretty much agree with everything that I have said. Now is the point for you to disagree: I reckon this last bishop, no matter his current diocese, would become the bishop of Rome.

Strangely enough, I think this thread is actually a witness for Papal Infallibility!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is an example of what I am talking about.

… there are Five Apostolic Sees, and Peter represents the fullness by Himself, …

 

[Isa_Almisry]

First of all, no, because if there is no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome after Vatican I, then there was no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome before Vatican I.

That being said, it depends entirely upon what you mean by “need”. In terms of abstract ecclesiology, in my very uninformed opinion, I would say that yes, there is only a need for one bishop; the bishop of Rome. I think you will almost agree with me, once I explain.

Imagine a situation whereby all but one of the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches suddenly died. Let’s not get into possible scenarios whereby this could happen, but let’s just take it that it could happen. It certainly could have easily happened in the early Church.

Anyway, would you then claim that this bishop is unable to perform some of his functions because he is the only bishop? I doubt that you would. Would you claim that this bishop lacks infallibility in promulgating and authoritatively defining an aspect of the faith - let’s say if he had to combat some heresy? I also doubt that you would.

Of course, it would be extremely difficult for this bishop to ordain priests and to do all of the other duties a bishop needs to do - and this is where your definition of the word “needs” comes into play.

So far, I think you’ll pretty much agree with everything that I have said. Now is the point for you to disagree: I reckon this last bishop, no matter his current diocese, would become the bishop of Rome.

Strangely enough, I think this thread is actually a witness for Papal Infallibility!

Actually, he would become the bishop of EVERY diocese.

 

[Peter_J]

First of all, no, because if there is no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome after Vatican I, then there was no need for any bishop but the bishop of Rome before Vatican I.

That being said, it depends entirely upon what you mean by “need”. In terms of abstract ecclesiology, in my very uninformed opinion, I would say that yes, there is only a need for one bishop; the bishop of Rome. I think you will almost agree with me, once I explain.

Imagine a situation whereby all but one of the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches suddenly died. Let’s not get into possible scenarios whereby this could happen, but let’s just take it that it could happen. It certainly could have easily happened in the early Church.

Anyway, would you then claim that this bishop is unable to perform some of his functions because he is the only bishop? I doubt that you would. Would you claim that this bishop lacks infallibility in promulgating and authoritatively defining an aspect of the faith - let’s say if he had to combat some heresy? I also doubt that you would.

Of course, it would be extremely difficult for this bishop to ordain priests and to do all of the other duties a bishop needs to do - and this is where your definition of the word “needs” comes into play.

So far, I think you’ll pretty much agree with everything that I have said. Now is the point for you to disagree: I reckon this last bishop, no matter his current diocese, would become the bishop of Rome.

Strangely enough, I think this thread is actually a witness for Papal Infallibility!

I agree with you that, if there were only one bishop left, he would automatically become the Pope – that is, the First Among Equals. It would be up to him to decide whether he wanted to be the Bishop of Rome, or of some other city. (You’re aware, I’m sure, that St. Peter didn’t automatically become the Bishop of Rome when Christ appointed him the first Pope. In fact, St. Peter first became the Bishop of Antioch, then later chose to become the Bishop of Rome instead.)

 

[Peter_J]

Does the Church need more than one bishop?

No. If there were only one bishop, the Church would still survive.

Similarly, does the Church need to have bishops, priests, and deacons? No, in fact in the very early Church, there were only bishops and deacons. (Of course, every bishop is also a priest, but the point is that there weren’t any priests who weren’t also bishops.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Another example of which I speak:

Why are the easterns in schism with Rome? Because of sin.

We argued with each other for a long time. Rome was right and Constontinople was wrong but both sides were too proud to act with charity to each other.

Then the muslims came. When the muslims conqured Constantinople, they were in communion with Rome. **The muslims basically said that they would cut off all the heads of every Christian who did not swear to break communion with Rome. Many Christians prefered to die but many more felt relieved to not have to follow all the teachings of Christianity to exactness anymore and gladly gave Rome the finger **and allowed a muslim with 86 wives to choose the Patriach for them.

Now in our modern day we are in a situation where reunion, true visiable and open reunion can happen and we should be working twards that. Not by denying history or blaming each other but by looking to the truth.

The Pope, regardless of where his see is, is the visible head of the Church. End of story. No Pope, no true church.

The Filioque is 100% orthodox faith. Greeks who jump up and down and say that it is heresy but have no idea what it means are themselves heretics. The Holy Spirit “procedes” from the Father Through the Son. How do you say that in Latin? Filioque. Please note the verb. Go find the Greek verb and look up its meaning before you attack this because I am right and you will just be creating hate.

Liturgy is valid using Leavened bread or unleavened bread. To believe that only ONE way is valid is heresy.

The Church has the authority to decide that it can use whatever language it wants to perform the liturgy. To believe that Latin Liturgy is invalid because it is not in Greek is a heresy.

Believing that the Bible can only be read in Greek with no translations allowed is heresy. Believing that the Bible somehow trumps the authority of the Church is also a heresy.

Authority in the Church flows like this. God first then the Church. Within the Church Authority rest with the Pope. Under the Pope there is the universal Synod, we call this a council in the west. A council does not trump the Pope and to believe such is a heresy. Under a Council there are the various Bishops of the Church at all levels. Some are Patriarchs, some archbishops or Cardinals but all are Bishops, successors to the Apostles and we faithfull must be loyal to them. Under Bishops are of course our priest who is given charge over our souls. Please note, diacons do not have authority in themselves, they only serve as helpers of the Bishop. Priest do have some authority of their own but may only exersise that authority with the permission of the Bishop. Just as a Bishop has authority, he must only exersise that authority when he is in communion with the Pope because only then is he in communion with the Church. Also note, political leaders have no place in the line of authority within the Church or without.

Under the Church, there is the authority of the Bible. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church’s authority, which depends on God’s authority.

What was a big part of Eve’s sin. She tried to invert the natural order of authority. In the garden of eden authority went from God, to Adam, to Eve to creation. But then Satan came in the form of a created animal and he tricked Eve to accept a snake’s authority. She then tried to impose that authority onto Adam and he accepted it. This was a huge part in their sin.

Scripture, no matter how true and holy, does not trump the Church. Priest do not trump the Bishop. Bishops do not by themselves trump a Council and councils do not ever trump a Pope. The Church never trumps the will of Almighty God. In fact, we know we are in the one and only true church because we give our will over to the will of Almighty God. The Church is here to be holy and do the will of God.

If reunion ever really does happen, it will come about because Catholics and those in schism from the Catholic Church seek to be holy and do the will of God. It will come about by holy men leading the faithful to the truth, full truth of Lord Jesus with not accepting of this or that. Full Truth, no cafateria. No divorce, no contraception, no skipping Mass on Sunday, no giving in to political presure. The one Church worships the One God as that God has commanded us to do.

See my response:

Which time was Rome right?
Pope Leo III who forbade the insertion the filioque.
Pope Nicholas II who allowed it.
Pope Benedict VIII who inserted it.
Pope Leo IX who insisted it be inserted.
because Constantinople was consistent is forbidding it (the original Roman position)…

0%

Since the Vatican itself forbids (now at least) the insertion into the Greek, because the result would be what it regards as heresy, it would seem that the Greeks know what they are talking about. It is the original language of the Creed…

Then the whole Early Church, especially the Second (not in communion with Rome), the Fifth (convened over Pope Vigilius’ objections, it struck him from the diptychs) and the Sixth Ecumenical Council (anathematized Pope Honorius), are heretics…