High Petrine view in the early Church

[steve_b]

But can it be developed using the teaching on development of doctrine?

Sure.

 

[jmj1984]

Exactly! JMJ and the other Absolutists seem to miss the implications of the fact that the Church teaches that the ordinary magisterium of the Church shares in the Church’s infallibility. The bishops in union with the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium and share in its infallibility - not individually, but collectively. Marduk has never once implied that the Pope must explicitly consult or “take a vote” each and every time he makes a decision…but rather that the Pope always acts with the Church and not apart from it. Pope Paul of blessed memory was very much aware that the consistent witness of the ordinary magisterium, including the majority of bishops down through the ages, testified to the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception. The Church is clear, from the Patristic witness down to Vatican II (and in the current Catechism) that the bishops are not mere deputies of the Pope. Ideally the Pope works with his brother bishops, as the Church clearly teaches that the supreme governing authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him - but even in extraordinary cases when he must, in the literal sense, “act alone”, such as in the above example regarding contraception (in which case many bishops had fallen into heresy on this particular issue), the Pope still acts in union with the collective testimony of the ordinary magisterium, which includes all bishops, down through the ages…

Like with so many other controversial issues, it is the beautiful, yet sometimes confusing, nuance of Catholic doctrine that can lead to disagreement…

Actually no one was defining the ordinary magisterium nor did I or any other so called absolutist dispute bishops could through it share in the infallibility, yet again ‘high petrine’ advocates are misrepresenting the views of their opponents and attacking strawmen.

It has repeatedly been implied by several people on this thread that the Pope must consult and cannot act against the witness of orthodox bishops or interfere in their dioceses affairs. That is what I and other so called ‘papal absolutists’ have addressed.

Your statement that ‘as the Church clearly teaches that the supreme governing authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him’ is simply nonsense and goes word for word against what Pope Leo XIII and several other Popes have stated in the matter as well as what the First Vatican Council declared and even what the relatio declared. It becomes clearer as this discussion goes on that ‘High petrine’ advocates are simply making things up and then distorting statements in order to provide authority for their position. Sadly it has none.

 

[steve_b]

Exactly! Take out the prepositional clauses and you have the unremarkable statement:

for clarification, are you suggesting the removal of the underlined parts perhaps? If so, that would certainly remove key parts and key understanding of the clause as stated.

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
From Vat II Lumen Gentium (25)
his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,* promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment *footnote(43) from Pastor aeternus Vat 1]
j:

It is the assistance of the Holy Spirit at work that makes them “irreformable”!!

of course, but let’s not eliminate the pope in the process. It’s not either / or but both, as God set it up to be…agreed?.
j:

It is not the consent of the Church that makes them irreformable. That does not mean, however, that the Pope is: (i) separated from, (ii) lacking the consent of, or (iii) acting apart from, the Church.

I don’t see anyone here arguing against that
j:

The Pope is never separated from, lacking the consent of or acting apart from the Church. That is the point!

I haven’t seen anyone here argue against this.

The Vatican docs clearly state, consent is with the pope and not lacking to him, but that consent of the Church is NOT a condition required for efficacy of his dicision either prior to, or after the decision is made, in order to make his teaching ex cathedra*.*

btw, the revers of that statement is NOT the case for the college of bishops. For their decisions to be universal, they need to meet in an E council, and they DO require the pope’s approval.
j:

That is what Gasser makes clear. It is the absolutist position that Gasser sought to gainsay, because some Council Fathers thought the definition was absolutist.

An ex cathedra statement on faith and morals is absolute. But that doesn’t make the pope absolutist, or anyone else who defends the pope’s ability to make an absolute decision.
j:

That the spokesman for the Deputation says, in effect, that the absolutist interpretation is erroneous and NOT what the formula means, is, IMHO, dispositive once the formula with Gasser’s explanation was approved by Pio Nono.
Pio IX made the formula “his definition” and “his definition” came with Gasser’s explanation - hence it’s irreformable and binding on all.

That’s the argument, in any case.

absolute ≠ absolutist

The pope is not a totalitarian. He is NOT the only one to have authority in the Church. I personally haven’t run into an absolutist in conversation here.

 

[twf]

Actually no one was defining the ordinary magisterium nor did I or any other so called absolutist dispute bishops could through it share in the infallibility, yet again ‘high petrine’ advocates are misrepresenting the views of their opponents and attacking strawmen.

It has repeatedly been implied by several people on this thread that the Pope must consult and cannot act against the witness of orthodox bishops or interfere in their dioceses affairs. That is what I and other so called ‘papal absolutists’ have addressed.

Your statement that ‘as the Church clearly teaches that the supreme governing authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him’ is simply nonsense and goes word for word against what Pope Leo XIII and several other Popes have stated in the matter as well as what the First Vatican Council declared and even what the relatio declared. It becomes clearer as this discussion goes on that ‘High petrine’ advocates are simply making things up and then distorting statements in order to provide authority for their position. Sadly it has none.

I believe that you are misunderstanding Marduk’s position. Besides the “supreme authority” issue, do you disagree with anything else I said in my post?

In regards to the Church’s supreme authority…from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

The Pope can exercise the supreme authority of the Church, but so can the entire college in union with him. How is the above different than what I said (that the supreme authority of the Church is comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him)? The college must be united to its head as bishops who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome cease to be bishops of the Catholic Church and thus do not share in her supreme authority…

 

[jmj1984]

I believe that you are misunderstanding Marduk’s position. Besides the “supreme authority” issue, do you disagree with anything else I said in my post?

I very much doubt it. And no, not so far as I can see.

In regards to the Church’s supreme authority…from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Pope can exercise the supreme authority of the Church, but so can the entire college in union with him. How is the above different than what I said (that the supreme authority of the Church is comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him)? The college must be united to its head as bishops who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome cease to be bishops of the Catholic Church and thus do not share in her supreme authority…

Because what you stated makes it appear as if that is the supreme authority in the church when in fact the supreme authority is the pope, and on rare occassions the Pope in union with the bishops.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I very much doubt it. And no, not so far as I can see.

Because what you stated makes it appear as if that is the supreme authority in the church when in fact the supreme authority is the pope, and on rare occassions the Pope in union with the bishops.

Actually, the supreme authority in the Church belongs to Christ. Even the Pope is subject to that authority.

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, the supreme authority in the Church belongs to Christ. Even the Pope is subject to that authority.

That is simply a childish and unecessary comment, no one is denying this. But Christ as regards jurisdiction and governance acts through the Pope in a special way due to his being the successor of St Peter, and this is why he is the supreme authority in the church.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That is simply a childish and unecessary comment, no one is denying this. But Christ as regards jurisdiction and governance acts through the Pope in a special way due to his being the successor of St Peter, and this is why he is the supreme authority in the church.

I was simply trying to add further nuance to the conversation in order to properly orient our understanding not only of the Pope’s authority in the Church, but also of all authority within the Church.

Incidentally, historically there are three Successors of Peter: The Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Alexandria. All three sees were founded by Peter. So the Pope’s primacy has to be founded on something other than his succeeding Peter.

I would ask the following question, primarily because I don’t know the answer. Is it possible that the Roman Patriarchate’s primacy was first established out Nicea I, and that the Pope’s succeeding Peter was later use to defend the powers that he was gradually accumulating? I honestly don’t know.

Regardless, I’m once again removing myself from this conversation. Every time I make a comment it seems I get shot down with some personal attack. Goodbye.

 

[twf]

I was simply trying to add further nuance to the conversation in order to properly orient our understanding not only of the Pope’s authority in the Church, but also of all authority within the Church.

Incidentally, historically there are three Successors of Peter: The Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Alexandria. All three sees were founded by Peter. So the Pope’s primacy has to be founded on something other than his succeeding Peter.

I would ask the following question, primarily because I don’t know the answer. Is it possible that the Roman Patriarchate’s primacy was first established out Nicea I, and that the Pope’s succeeding Peter was later use to defend the powers that he was gradually accumulating? I honestly don’t know.

Regardless, I’m once again removing myself from this conversation. Every time I make a comment it seems I get shot down with some personal attack. Goodbye.

Nicaea seemed to recognize Rome’s primacy as an established fact…it was recognition, not institution…as Pope St. Damasus proclaimed:

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

While it is true that even Pope St. Gregory the Great agreed that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are also successors of Peter, it has always been understood that the Petrine primacy held by Rome is of a unique nature. Our Lord and St. Peter understood that the Church universal, for practical reasons, required a single focal point of unity. Alexandria and Antioch share in Peter’s succession, but the fullness of the Petrine office and ministry was entrusted to his successors in Rome. The universal primacy of the Pope of Rome could also be seen as a “type” of, or icon of, the universal primacy (and service) of Christ. A parallel has traditionally been drawn between Isaiah 22:21-22 and Matthew 16:16-18 - as there could be but one chief steward in the Davidic Kingdom, so can there be but one chief bishop in the New Israel. In that the bishops of each ancient regional Church (the bishops of Africa and the bishops of Asia) reflect the college of the apostoles, it is fitting that one among them would hold primacy, as Peter held primacy within the original apostolic college - thus in this sense the bishop of Alexandria acted as Peter within the college of African bishops while the bishop of Antioch acted as Peter within the college of Asian bishops. Within the college of bishops of the Catholic Church herself, however, the bishop of Rome has always stood in the place of Peter. Peter’s primacy is a model for episcopal primacy at all levels of the Church.
As St. Irenaeus said of the Church of Rome - With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

If this conversation is going to continue, it will do so without any attacks on fellow posters or their posting style. I have been far too lenient after both public and private warnings. **Refusal to follow my directions after this warning will result in a suspension of posting privileges. **

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable**.**
*
Examples of Uncharitable Statements:*
-That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Anyone who would believe that is immature at best and a heretic at worst.
-That statement is uncharitable and ineffective in enlightened debate. I’m reporting you.
-Any idiot with a computer can get on the internet and verify that I’m right.

Examples of Charitable Statements:
-The belief that ___ is inconsistent with Dr. X’s statement that the church believes ____.
-I was taught that the Church’s teachings on ___ are ____.
-The statement that ____ is true appears to be inconsistent with your earlier statement that ___ is true. Will you please explain how these are consistent beliefs?
-When you say ____, do you mean ___?

*Examples of Uncharitable Actions: *
-Respond to an uncharitable statement with an uncharitable statement of one’s own.
-Complain about a poster in another thread.
-Criticize the education, experiences, intelligence or sanctity of fellow posters.
-Post a criticism of the way a poster asks a question or shares information.

Examples of Charitable Actions:
-Place a Bad Post Report after someone posts a statement that isn’t charitable.
-Don’t respond to an uncharitable statement.
-Post a charitable on-topic statement that ignores any uncharitable statements.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Like with so many other controversial issues, it is the beautiful, yet sometimes confusing, nuance of Catholic doctrine that can lead to disagreement…

Well said, twf! Your whole reply, too, not just the part I quoted.

The Pope can exercise the supreme authority of the Church, but so can the entire college in union with him. How is the above different than what I said (that the supreme authority of the Church is comprised of the Pope and bishops in union with him)? The college must be united to its head as bishops who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome cease to be bishops of the Catholic Church and thus do not share in her supreme authority…

Well put, once again. It’s simply true that - as the CCC paragraph you quoted reflects - the college of bishops in union with the pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Well put, once again. It’s simply true that - as the CCC paragraph you quoted reflects - the college of bishops in union with the pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

Just so I have this straight in my own mind … are you saying the bishops ‘in communion’ with the Pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church? … or are you saying the bishops ‘in agreement’ with the Pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church?

 

[mardukm]

Thank you for the response, brother Fonebone! (There was a big hurricane, and I-net service has been down here in my local area in the Philippines for almost a week!)

The text of the condemned proposition from your Google books research is interesting. I’m sure you know that Latin, like Greek, does not have a very solid syntax (unlike later languages). It’s possible that the adjective “only” could be modifying the phrase “those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty…” instead of the clause “which prevailed in the middle ages.” In other words, the adjective “only” could be taken in the sense of “merely” or “nothing more.” In that sense, the condemned proposition would read “The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to merely (or nothing more than) a free sovereignty acting…” The way I understand it, it is the COMPARISON that is being condemned. The clause “who compare the…” would be totally out of place otherwise.

In any case, the idea of a free sovereign or free prince - iow, an absolute monarch who is not bound by any laws except those he creates at will - was an idea popularized by Machiavelli in the Middle Ages. Absolutist Petrine advocates will have to do much more than appeal to a very vague statement from one Pope to prove that the Church EVER adhered to that model of governance at any time during her 2,000 years of existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

I looked up the context on Google Books and found the list of condemned propositions in an appendix to another book:

The condemned proposition asserts, "The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty acting in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages only."

It actually does seem to me that in that particular proposition, what is condemned is the notion that this “free sovereignty” nonsense was held only in the Middle Ages. So I don’t think this particular condemnation implies anything either way - for *or *against - the proposition that the pope is like the Catholic Church’s “free sovereign.”

That said, I’m not sure how you two ended up arguing about that. No matter when this “free prince” notion - whose contextual origin you identified so precisely - “prevailed,” it’s still obviously untrue that the Supreme Pontiff is in any way a “free prince.” Surely even the most strident Absolutist Petrine advocate can see that… if the pope were a “free prince,” his power would be absolute - he could rightly say, “let’s use fudge instead of wheat bread for the Mass! Let’s ordain women priests and bishops! Let’s write and add more books of the Bible!” etc.

Obviously plenty of things - both divinely structured and canonically established - limit the exercise of the pope’s supreme authority. But it does seem that particular condemned proposition leaves untouched the truth or falsehood of the “free prince” assertion and concerns itself merely with when it has been held.

Unless I’m missing something?

 

[mardukm]

If I may it appears to be that a common misconception has arisen on this thread which I will attempt to address. This misconception is that one only has to obey the Pope when he is infallible or that it is legitmate to disobey him when speaking fallibly as he may be wrong. This misconception is totally false.

Regardless of whether the Pope is speaking infallibly or fallibly one must obey him as he is exercising the authority given to him by Christ as Supreme Pontiff, father and teacher of all the faithful, the vicar of Jesus Christ and God’s representative on earth.

So how do you excuse your calumny of HH JP2’s position on collegiality by your earlier claim that it was merely the opinion of a Pope (in response to a quote from brother Johnnykins)?

We High Petrine advocates have shown you that you have simply misinterpreted the statements of past Popes. We don’t go around - unlike you - trying to avoid the actual statements by accusing the Popes of giving mere personal opinions.

Take that log out of your eye, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

jmj quoted the pope’s syllabus of errors that should have ended all discussion. Marduk kept it going.

Brother JMJ did NOT quote the Pope’s syllabus of errors DIRECTLY, but cut and pasted TWO, SEPARATE statements in order to support an erroneous interpretation. His personal misinterpretation has no authority in the matter, and won’t end the discussion.

You take the “absolute” example too far. When something is made irreversable by the pope, it’s also absolute.

You have misread the Vatican Decree. It is NOT the Pope himself that makes his teaching irreversible (or irreformible). The Pope does not have the authority to make something irreformible if it is not Truth, nor does he have the authority to change something that is Truth. It is you who takes the prerogatives of the Pope too far. Remember, it was you who explicitly claimed that Vatican 1 had no authority to limit the prerogatives of the Pope. Absolutist Petrine advocates consistently go outside the boundaries of Sacred Tradition to support their errors.

The limit is to faith and morals, which the doctrine clearly defined

YOU (and a few other absolutist Petrine advocates) have claimed that Vatican 1 did not have the authority to limit the prerogatives of the Pope. So your claim to adhere to the definition of Vatican 1 sounds very hollow. You need to explicitly repudiate your past erroneous statements before your current statements can have credibility. As it is, it seems you are saying things just to avoid admitting the errors of your position, while secretly holding to your errors anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Righto so give me 2 examples in the last 200 years for eg, whereby the Pope without any help or consideration from others within or without the Church have made infalliable decisions.

I have read a lot of stuff and I struggle to find the exact examples, so this is not me having a go at anyone. Simply put up 2 examples where the Pope has made infalliable decisions without any assistance from anyone other than the Holy Spirit, that has not been reviewed by a Council and agreed with or that has not been done without any consultation collaberation with other Bishops.

Just give me a couple of examples which you believe fit the criteria and I am happy to look at them, and if its reasonably obvious that what you say is correct then I am ultimatley happy to believe that.

Help a brother in faith.

Well, said, brother Kotim. It appears you will not get any response from the Absolutist Petrine advocates, since they have none to give.

On the other hand, brother Johnnykins has done well to provide examples of the collegial reality of papal decisions in the history of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

In matters of faith and morals only, as it has been said many many times already, when the pope makes definitions ex cathedra, they are of themselves irreformable and there is no appeal to another authority. IOW they are there for all time. What power would YOU call that?

And that is the consistent error of the Absolutist Petrine view - thinking that the Pope is God Himself.

The Official Relatio explicitly distiguished when it stated that the infallibility of the Pope is BY NO MEANS ABSOLUTE, for absolute infallibility belongs ONLY TO GOD.

You’re thinking of absolute and unlimited in a secular/worldly sense, in time and space.

And you’re not?

For example, are decisions of the supreme court final? Can their judgement be overturned to another court? Are their judgments on matters unlimited?

I agree with brother Fonebone. You are confusing “unlimited” and “irreformible.” “Irreformible” is a quality attached to the DOCTRINE. “Unlimited” is a quality attached to the prerogative of a PERSON. You are drawing some invalid conclusions because you are confusing the two. The irreformibility of a doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Pope has absolute or unlimited power (in point of fact, he does not).

But once a pope defines something infallibly, no future pope or another authority can overturn it. It’s there forever. Because the pope and the HS made the decree. IOW there is no limit to the ex cathedra decree, it’s an unlimited decision by definition.

The Official Relatio was very explicit on this point. There is no moral imperative attached to a belief unless it is defined (whether by a Council collegially or the Pope personally). But the Pope can only define something once he has ensured that he is not contradicting Sacred Tradition, or the PRESENT preaching of the whole Magisterium, or the sensus fidei. THEN AND ONLY THEN will the definition be regarded as irreformible. Infallibility is not some sort of magical gift. As explained by the Official Relatio, whatever means the Pope possesses or uses to arrive at his decision will be NATURAL. His knowledge of what is or what is not true is not obtained by the supernatural aid of inspiration, but by the same fonts of knowledge that ANY bishop possesses in order to arrive at the Truth.

Think about it.

No. YOU think about it. If it’s UNlimited, as you claim, then Sacred Tradition itself would have no binding authority on the Pope. For you to call the Pope’s prerogatives as “unlimited” is a tremendous non-sequitur. If the Pope CANNOT contradict the teaching of Sacred Tradition, if he CANNOT contradict the orthodox witness of the PRESENT preaching of the whole Magisterium, if he CANNOT contradict the sensus fidei, it is obvious his judgment is in fact LIMITED.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course the clearest example of where a Pope consulted with theologians and I believe bishops and then simply decided most of them were simply wrong is the encyclical humanae vitae by Pope Paul VI.

The Pope clearly decided to legislate against the majority view and against most of the consultation he had received.

This is one of the BIGGEST MISREPRESENTATIONS perpetrated by the Absolutist Petrine Camp.

What happened during V2 is that the Pope set up a commission (a SMALL GROUP of bishops and theologians) regarding the issue of ABC. . This Commission (to repeat, a SMALL GROUP of bishops and theologians) gave a recommendation that the Pope did not follow. The issue regarding ABC was put to the vote before the whole body of bishops at V2, and an absolute majority (OVER 2000 BISHOPS) voted to adhere to the constant teaching of Sacred Tradition on the matter.

The Absolutist Petrine camp has twisted the actual facts, and mispresent the episode to claim, as brother jmj does, that the Pope legislated “against the majority view.” That is simply not true. The Pope’s position WAS the majority view!!!

I have presented these facts before in a past debate with an Absolutist Petrine advocate. Perhaps you were not a member yet when that debate occurred. Brother jmj, I would ask that you not misrepresent the facts of the situation from now on.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Just so I have this straight in my own mind … are you saying the bishops ‘in communion’ with the Pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church? … or are you saying the bishops ‘in agreement’ with the Pope can validly be said to hold supreme authority in the Catholic Church?

The former.

The latter seems too ambiguous to be useful for any kind of definition or categorization. Just how much would any given bishop have to “agree” with the pope? And what defines the necessary and then actual extent of such agreement?

No, I mean those who are in communion with the pope: i.e. whose particular *churches *are united with the Church of Rome, and whose faithful share each other’s Sacraments.

In any case, the idea of a free sovereign or free prince - iow, an absolute monarch who is not bound by any laws except those he creates at will - was an idea popularized by Machiavelli in the Middle Ages. Absolutist Petrine advocates will have to do much more than appeal to a very vague statement from one Pope to prove that the Church EVER adhered to that model of governance at any time during her 2,000 years of existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

Especially since the continued example of Church history testifies that the Catholic Church never functioned that way. I remember when you pointed out, Marduk, the central importance of the Synod of Bishops even at the height of the papacy’s power in the High Middle Ages.

 

[mardukm]

I very much doubt it. And no, not so far as I can see.

Because what you stated makes it appear as if that is the supreme authority in the church when in fact the supreme authority is the pope, and on rare occassions the Pope in union with the bishops.

May I ask what Church document states that the Supreme authority in the Church is the Pope?

The Supreme Authority of the Church is exercised by either the Pope personally or the College. No Church document specifies what you stated - “on rare occasions the Pope in union with the bishops.”

The Pope is certainly, as head bishop of the Church universal, the supreme bishop. But, once again, may I ask where it states that the “Supreme authority in the Church is the Pope?” Also, may I ask what document reflects your opinion that the Supreme authority is exercised by the Pope in union with the bishops only “on rare occasions?”

The current Commentary on the Code of Canon Law certainly gives no such notion. In the section explaining the “Supreme Authority,” it simply states that the Supreme Authority of the Pope is EQUAL to that of the Supreme Authority of the College.

It would be helpful if you can cite exactly from where you are getting your ideas.

If you have the time, I would suggest you read the Vatican 1 document “De ecclesia.” It was one of the documents that, due to time constraints, was not voted upon, but was prepared by the theologians of Vatican 1. That document states that the supreme governing authority in the Church is exercised by all the bishops as a whole. Vatican 2, which completed Vatican 1, reflected this infallible, universal teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium.

It should also be noted that as far as teaching authority is concerned, the Offical Relatio of Vatican 1 very specifically states that the supreme teaching authority is NORMATIVELY exercised by the Ecumenical Council, and only rarely by the Pope personally.

Blessings,
Marduk