The Tradition of Pope As Visible Head vs. Collegiality

[ready]

Someone posted the following on this Traditional Catholicism forum:

…The second session [of the Vatican II Council] was no less turbulent. The Modernists strove to promote the theory of “collegiality,” contradicting the established truth that the pope is the visible head of the Church. Conservatives were soundly defeated by a margin of 2,000 to 300, reducing the authority of the pope to a membership in a fellowship.

What does this mean? Doesn’t the Pope still hold absolute authority in the Church, like he traditionaly has? What are the ramifications of collegiality? Why is the Church better (or worse) off with it? Your help is greatly appreciated!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Someone posted the following on this Traditional Catholicism forum:

…The second session [of the Vatican II Council] was no less turbulent. The Modernists strove to promote the theory of “collegiality,” contradicting the established truth that the pope is the visible head of the Church. Conservatives were soundly defeated by a margin of 2,000 to 300, reducing the authority of the pope to a membership in a fellowship.

What does this mean? Doesn’t the Pope still hold absolute authority in the Church, like he traditionaly has? What are the ramifications of collegiality? Why is the Church better (or worse) off with it? Your help is greatly appreciated!

Collegiality does not mean Conciliarism.

Yes, there is a college of bishops which collectively is the teaching and governing authority of the Church. Yes, the Pope is the visible head of this college, with supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the rest of its members and over the entire Church. As usual, a balanced Catholic attitude recognizes both sides of the truth.

 

[Mike30]

The traditional view has been that the Pope does not require the assistance and agreement of the Magesterium in what he does and says. The Magesterium on the other hand needs the Pope.

Many came away from Vatican II with the idea that the Pope could not act without the agreement of the Bishops, something they, the Bishops, have wanted for a long, long time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The traditional view has been that the Pope does not require the assistance and agreement of the Magesterium in what he does and says. The Magesterium on the other hand needs the Pope.

The Magisterium is not a group of people. Its not anyone specifically. It can be the Pope by himself, or a group of bishops in a synod, etc.

Many came away from Vatican II with the idea that the Pope could not act without the agreement of the Bishops, something they, the Bishops, have wanted for a long, long time.

This is not new to Vatican II. This has been held as the view by many in the Church from a long time ago. Its one of the causes of the schism between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches.

 

[ready]

Here is a PM a good poster sent me in response to a message I sent him. I asked him to help me with this collegiality issue and this is his very enlightening response. You will find his last paragraph speaks volumes about collegiality and the Pope’s actual authority in the Church.

*Dear ready,

Our faith tells us that he is the absolute head of the visible church. In the aftermath of the council, and with the participation of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, an attempt was (successfully) made to dilute that power and spread it among the bishops and college of Cardinals.

Pope Paul symbolically gave up the triple tiara to demonstrate that Catholic Church was embarked on a more “democratic” system of governance.

The result is that the independent councils of bishops in each of the territories of Christendom operate practically autonomous of the Papal See in most matters.

A couple of examples would be that the Pope’s promulgated reforms of some of the vernacular interpretations of the words of the Mass have been rejected by some councils of bishops. They have, in essence, told the Pope that they have refused his will in this matter.

Another example would be the liberation of the TLM which the Pope asked the bishops to be generous with but which some bishops have flatly said "NO’.

That would not not have happened before the advent of the new “collegiality” in the aftermath of the council.

Anecdotally, in one of the recent meetings between the Pope and Bishop Fellay. +Fellay suggested that the Pope certainly had the authority and power to made one particular provision happen quickly. The Pope’s reply was “Do you see that door? (Referring to the meeting room door). That is as far as my authority goes.” *

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here is a PM a good poster sent me in response to a message I sent him. I asked him to help me with this collegiality issue and this is his very enlightening response. You will find his last paragraph speaks volumes about collegiality and the Pope’s actual authority in the Church.

*Dear ready,

Our faith tells us that he is the absolute head of the visible church. In the aftermath of the council, and with the participation of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, an attempt was (successfully) made to dilute that power and spread it among the bishops and college of Cardinals.

Pope Paul symbolically gave up the triple tiara to demonstrate that Catholic Church was embarked on a more “democratic” system of governance.

The result is that the independent councils of bishops in each of the territories of Christendom operate practically autonomous of the Papal See in most matters.

A couple of examples would be that the Pope’s promulgated reforms of some of the vernacular interpretations of the words of the Mass have been rejected by some councils of bishops. They have, in essence, told the Pope that they have refused his will in this matter.

Another example would be the liberation of the TLM which the Pope asked the bishops to be generous with but which some bishops have flatly said "NO’.

That would not not have happened before the advent of the new “collegiality” in the aftermath of the council.

Anecdotally, in one of the recent meetings between the Pope and Bishop Fellay. +Fellay suggested that the Pope certainly had the authority and power to made one particular provision happen quickly. The Pope’s reply was “Do you see that door? (Referring to the meeting room door). That is as far as my authority goes.” *

This seems consistent with what it was in the First Millennium. As you can see the other Churches that have since seceded communion operate the very same way, untainted by any development in the belief of a central ecclesiastical government. For example, even in the Ukrainian Church today, the Patriarch doesn’t even have the authority of the Pope within his own Church. He doesn’t unilaterally make decisions, though as chief pastor he does guide the direction of the Church. But every decision is made by synod, similar to what happened in Jerusalem at the time of the Apostles. Peter was there, he didn’t unilaterally made a decision without consultation and discussion with his brother Apostles.

 

[ready]

This seems consistent with what it was in the First Millennium. As you can see the other Churches that have since seceded communion operate the very same way, untainted by any development in the belief of a central ecclesiastical government. For example, even in the Ukrainian Church today, the Patriarch doesn’t even have the authority of the Pope within his own Church. He doesn’t unilaterally make decisions, though as chief pastor he does guide the direction of the Church. But every decision is made by synod, similar to what happened in Jerusalem at the time of the Apostles. Peter was there, he didn’t unilaterally made a decision without consultation and discussion with his brother Apostles.

Yes, I understand. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The traditional view has been that the Pope does not require the assistance and agreement of the Magesterium in what he does and says. The Magesterium on the other hand needs the Pope.

Many came away from Vatican II with the idea that the Pope could not act without the agreement of the Bishops, something they, the Bishops, have wanted for a long, long time.

Saying the Pope does not require the assistance and agreement of the Magisterium is like saying the President of the United States does not need the assistance or agreement of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (just an analogy; I’m not implying the Magisterium is just the Executive Branch of the Church Government or that the Pope’s relationship to the other bishops is just like the President’s relationship to his Cabinet members or anything like that).

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Here is a PM a good poster sent me in response to a message I sent him. I asked him to help me with this collegiality issue and this is his very enlightening response. You will find his last paragraph speaks volumes about collegiality and the Pope’s actual authority in the Church.

*Dear ready,

Our faith tells us that he is the absolute head of the visible church. In the aftermath of the council, and with the participation of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, an attempt was (successfully) made to dilute that power and spread it among the bishops and college of Cardinals.

Pope Paul symbolically gave up the triple tiara to demonstrate that Catholic Church was embarked on a more “democratic” system of governance.

The result is that the independent councils of bishops in each of the territories of Christendom operate practically autonomous of the Papal See in most matters.

A couple of examples would be that the Pope’s promulgated reforms of some of the vernacular interpretations of the words of the Mass have been rejected by some councils of bishops. They have, in essence, told the Pope that they have refused his will in this matter.

Another example would be the liberation of the TLM which the Pope asked the bishops to be generous with but which some bishops have flatly said "NO’.

That would not not have happened before the advent of the new “collegiality” in the aftermath of the council.

Anecdotally, in one of the recent meetings between the Pope and Bishop Fellay. +Fellay suggested that the Pope certainly had the authority and power to made one particular provision happen quickly. The Pope’s reply was “Do you see that door? (Referring to the meeting room door). That is as far as my authority goes.” *

I don’t like this. The Pope’s power has not been diluted. It remains as strong as ever. It’s just that the proper role of the local bishops, in union with and submission to the Pope, has been reaffirmed.

Also, Pope Paul VI did not give up the tiara in the abstract, he gave up his personal tiara. He did not do this to endorce a democratic form of Church governance, but as a gesture of compassion for the poor. If there was any subtext regarding Church authority, it was about “servant leadership”, not democracy.

As for instances in which bishops have defied the Pope, that is only because of the prudent (or imprudent- it’s debatable) restraint on the part of the Pope. Should he wish to impose his full authority and make obedience on the matter a requirement for continued communion with him, they would have no choice but to obey or go into schism.

 

[Big_Feet]

I have never thought that the Pope as the “Visible Head” of the Church, and the collegiality of the Bishops of the Chruch were two mutually exclusive concepts. I always thought that they worked in conjunction, and the Pope was 1st among equals. Is my thinking wrong?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have never thought that the Pope as the “Visible Head” of the Church, and the collegiality of the Bishops of the Chruch were two mutually exclusive concepts. I always thought that they worked in conjunction, and the Pope was 1st among equals. Is my thinking wrong?

The Pope may exercise his supreme infallible power in one of two ways:

1. Personally, as in an ex cathedra papal decree. For example, Munificentissimus Deus, the Papal Bull proclaiming the Assumption of Mary, was released by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. This is the sort of action that was formally and dogmatically sealed into belief at Vatican I.
2. In conjunction with the bishops, but still with the approval and promulgation of the Pope. Examples would be the various dogmatic/doctrinal canons of the Ecumenical Councils throughout the centuries.

Really there is a lot of overlap but they are separate in some ways.

 

[TrueLight]

From the Nature of Papal Primacy (taken from VAT I document, Pastor Aeternus:)
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

However, and this is important, on earth there is no external tribunal, neither in the Church nor in civil society to which one can appeal against his decisions. The Pope must look for advice, take the steps which prudence demands in the delicate function of governing the Church, listen to the opinion of his brother bishops, etc., but ‘the judgement of the apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone, nor is anyone allowed to pass judgement on his decisions. Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff (as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) are far from the straight path of truth.’[41]

Good read.

From the little I’ve read in other documents, it looks to me like “collegiality” Pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II are not the same.

 

[Big_Feet]

From the little I’ve read in other documents, it looks to me like “collegiality” Pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II are not the same.

How so? sources?

What you show above this statment is what I consistently hear about, too. There is no higher athority than the Roman Pontif in terms of judgment here in this world, but he is to listen to the advice of his brother bishops (i.e. 1st among equals).

The teaching you quote from Vatican I is an unchangeable truth that the Church has believed from it’s conception.

 

[Dirt]

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

"Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

 

[TrueLight]

How so? sources?

What you show above this statment is what I consistently hear about, too. There is no higher athority than the Roman Pontif in terms of judgment here in this world, but he is to listen to the advice of his brother bishops (i.e. 1st among equals).

The teaching you quote from Vatican I is an unchangeable truth that the Church has believed from it’s conception.

I admit I haven’t done enough research, but what I’d like to do is compare Pastor Aeternus to the current teaching on collegiality to see if anything has changed.

 

[Mike30]

How so? sources?

What you show above this statment is what I consistently hear about, too. There is no higher athority than the Roman Pontif in terms of judgment here in this world,** but he is to listen to the advice of his brother bishops (i.e. 1st among equals).**The teaching you quote from Vatican I is an unchangeable truth that the Church has believed from it’s conception.

He doesn’t have to listen if he doesn’t want to and he doesn’t need to take their advice. In fact in several very controversial decisions he flat out ignored what the Bishops had to say. They on the other hand need his approval. It is different in the Eastern Churches where they hold the Pope to be merely first among equals. They the easterns and the Orthodox never accepted the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Church on Earth.

At least as far as I know.

 

[Mike30]

The Magisterium is not a group of people. Its not anyone specifically. It can be the Pope by himself, or a group of bishops in a synod, etc.

This is not new to Vatican II. This has been held as the view by many in the Church from a long time ago. Its one of the causes of the schism between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches.

It has been the view of the Orthodox and the Eastern Churches. It has not historically been the view of the Latin Church, even if many of the Bishops wish it were…

 

[Big_Feet]

I admit I haven’t done enough research, but what I’d like to do is compare Pastor Aeternus to the current teaching on collegiality to see if anything has changed.

And so I ask again…What is your percieved “current teaching on collegiality?”

To me, the document which you quoted from the 1st Vatican Council is what I have always been taught in my OF parishes, and I was born in 1973, and baptized in the Catholic Faith shortly thereafter.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Roman Pontiff is obviously superior in power and eminence than all other bishops. While he can rule with the bishops in union with him, he can also rule supremely without their advice or consent. He does have more power than any bishop, and he does have universal jurisdiction, which individual other bishops have not.

The Roman Pontiff ruling personally and ruling in union with the bishops are not contradictory or exclusive of each other.

 

[TrueLight]

And so I ask again…What is your percieved “current teaching on collegiality?”

To me, the document which you quoted from the 1st Vatican Council is what I have always been taught in my OF parishes, and I was born in 1973, and baptized in the Catholic Faith shortly thereafter.

I’ll get back to you when I have a little more time. Sounds like a good topic for my blog too.