The Tradition of Pope As Visible Head vs. Collegiality

[Aelred_Minor]

What are you talking about ? First, it’s spelled magisterium. Secondly, the “magisterium” is not a separate “body” or group. It’s the teaching function. One of the pope’s FUNCTIONS is to teach. The teaching function is the “magisterium”. The assembled bishops are a totally separate matter.

The word “Magisterium” refers to the teaching office of the Church, and is often specifically used of the body that holds this office and therefore does the Magisterial teaching- the college of bishops, with its head the Pope.

Please, let’s discuss the substance of the issue, not a have a word-fight about different common uses of the same word.

 

[TrueLight]

Objectively this is true, though out of charity we must remember that many of them may be honestly mistaken about the facts regarding this teaching.

What do you mean by "mistaken about this teaching? "

 

[Aelred_Minor]

What do you mean by "mistaken about this teaching? "

I simply mean that they may honestly, mistakenly believe that the Church which Jesus Christ founded and calls them to be a full member of has not taught that the Pope teaches infallibly when by virtue of his Petrine office he bindingly defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church.

 

[TrueLight]

I simply mean that they may honestly, mistakenly believe that the Church which Jesus Christ founded and calls them to be a full member of has not taught that the Pope teaches infallibly when by virtue of his Petrine office he bindingly defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church.

Oh okay.

Well one can say that all non-Catholics are mistaken. Hindus are mistaken. Buddhists are mistaken,. Those who follow the Yoruba religion are mistaken. Because in fact, they are.

And yes, I know the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, etc.

I’m just saying.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Oh okay.

Well one can say that all non-Catholics are mistaken. Hindus are mistaken. Buddhists are mistaken,. Those who follow the Yoruba religion are mistaken. Because in fact, they are.

And yes, I know the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, etc.

I’m just saying.

Yes. It’s also true that the error may in fact be morally culpable.

 

[Mike30]

**Why is it a wrong thing to head back to the primitive Church? **The contention of the East always is that the Pope of the second millennium exercises authority not present in the first. It has nothing to do about leadership, I know some Orthodox today have taken that extreme stance. But fact is most Orthodox are fine with the primacy of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. The problem is supremacy, his immediate and ordinary power in all Churches.

Well if you want to just throw away 2000 years of sound theological development I say fine go for it.

But don’t pick and choose which parts of the primitive Church you are willing to accept or reject. Take it as it was but remember they operated under a much different mindset than we do today.

The contentions and objections of the Orthodox are well known.

Supremecy is not a problem at all. Just look at Lumen Genitum.

 

[ready]

So there has always been collegiality in the Church, both before and after Vatican II, but how does it differ now from before Vatican II? Does our Holy Father have less authority than he held before? The statement Pope Benedict made to the SSPX Bishop (found in an earlier post) makes me fearful that our Holy Father’s authority is very limited (and I don’t understand why because he is the Vicar of Christ and if he wants a change to happen he should be able to enforce it, right?) … Or has the authority of many a Vicar of Christ gone only as far as the door which separates him from the rest of the Church and world? What do you suppose Pope Benedict meant when he said that his authority went only as far as “that door?” I don’t understand. I know that Bishops don’t always agree with Popes (like all the Canadian Bishops who opposed Humanae Vitae), but does this mean that the Pope is only given absolute teaching authority and that’s it? Does this mean that he is near powerless (on his own) to make authoritative changes in the way things are done in the Church? Are all his decisions on how things should be run in the Church part of some democratic type of consensus? I don’t know if anyone can answer what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican, but your help is greatly appreciated!

 

[Mike30]

So there has always been collegiality in the Church, both before and after Vatican II, but how does it differ now from before Vatican II? Does our Holy Father have less authority than he held before? The statement Pope Benedict made to the SSPX Bishop (found in an earlier post) makes me fearful that our Holy Father’s authority is very limited (and I don’t understand why because he is the Vicar of Christ and if he wants a change to happen he should be able to enforce it, right?) … Or has the authority of many a Vicar of Christ gone only as far as the door which separates him from the rest of the Church and world? What do you suppose Pope Benedict meant when he said that his authority went only as far as “that door?” I don’t understand. I know that Bishops don’t always agree with Popes (like all the Canadian Bishops who opposed Humanae Vitae), but does this mean that the Pope is only given absolute teaching authority and that’s it? Does this mean that he is near powerless (on his own) to make authoritative changes in the way things are done in the Church? Are all his decisions on how things should be run in the Church part of some democratic type of consensus? I don’t know if anyone can answer what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican, but your help is greatly appreciated!

As I understand it the Pope can pretty much do as he wants. He has to walk a fine line though in some areas, otherwise he could have a rebellion on his hands, something which I’m sure he wants to avoid. Look at the SSPX situation. No matter what happens, a lot of people on both sides are going to be flat out furious and there could be serious aftershocks so to speak…

I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well if you want to just throw away 2000 years of sound theological development I say fine go for it.

But don’t pick and choose which parts of the primitive Church you are willing to accept or reject. Take it as it was but remember they operated under a much different mindset than we do today.

The contentions and objections of the Orthodox are well known.

Supremecy is not a problem at all. Just look at Lumen Genitum.

Why does there need to be “development”? Does the faith change? I thought as traditional Catholic, we should be against innovation? Why can’t the “development” of Vatican II be accepted as well as all these other developments you are talking about? Is there a double standard here?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Pope is infallible dogma.
So either the Orthodox accept this, or they have a problem with infallible dogma.

It is infallible dogma taught after the separation of the Churches. Why should they accept something that has been taught by a Church they are not in communion with anymore? Was this taught in the First Millennium?

 

[ready]

As I understand it the Pope can pretty much do as he wants. He has to walk a fine line though in some areas, otherwise he could have a rebellion on his hands, something which I’m sure he wants to avoid. Look at the SSPX situation. No matter what happens, a lot of people on both sides are going to be flat out furious and there could be serious aftershocks so to speak…

I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.

Thanks, Mike, for the good feedback.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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?

There are some big problems with those claims. First of all, collegiality does not deny that the pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church. Secondly, it’s always been Church teaching that Sacramentally, the pope is a bishop; so yes, the pope is and has always been considered a member “in a fellowship” if by fellowship you mean the worldwide college of bishops.

Long before Vatican II, popes were addressing bishops as their brothers. At the beginning of Rerum Novarum, for instance, from the late nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII addresses the Catholic bishops of the world as his “venerable brethren.”

Collegiality does not deny that the pope holds ordinary and universal jurisdiction over everything in the Catholic Church.

Doesn’t the Pope still hold absolute authority in the Church, like he traditionaly has?

The pope has never wielded “absolute” authority: there are plenty of things he can’t do. Could the pope decree that beer will be used instead of water for baptism? Could he annul/nullify the decrees of the Council of Trent? Could he abolish, say, the diaconate altogether?

No, of course not. His power is far from “absolute.” He can’t even impede the proper authority of local bishops.

The pope’s authority in the Catholic Church is supreme (i.e. the highest), not “absolute.”

What are the ramifications of collegiality? Why is the Church better (or worse) off with it? Your help is greatly appreciated!

Collegiality is a doctrine whose ecclesiology is that of the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Those who reject it are living in fantasy land, historically speaking, just as those who - like most of the Orthodox - reject the notion of universal papal authority are.

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.

Well said.

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.

This “good poster’s” rejection of collegiality stems from historical and ecclesiological ignorance, ready. You should read more about collegiality; it is the teaching of the Catholic Church and has been for 2000 years.

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…

You know, throughout the Middle Ages the pope mainly exercised his authority in the context of a synod. Only after Trent did the way he exercised his supreme authority begin to resemble what we’re used to today.

I even read that papal confirmation of every episcopal consecration was not the universally mandated norm until the nineteenth century.

The pope’s authority was never as absolute as some take it to be. On the other hand, the first millennium eastern bishops did not, to my knowledge, object to things like the Formula of Hormisdas.

The bottom line is that both extremes - neo-Ultramontanism and conciliarism - are wrong.

Anyway, the main accusation from more “traditional” critics is that the doctrine in Vatican II creates two supreme heads–the Pope and the Pope and bishops. But the 1917 Code of Canon law does the same thing. It says the Pope exercises supreme power and that an Ecumenical Council (in other words, the Pope joined with the body of bishops) also wields supreme power. I don’t see how this is different than what is in Lumen Gentium.

Nor do I.

I know the Orthodox don’t recognize the Pope as the Supreme Leader of the Church. They never have. Thats their issue. I pray for them.

Properly understood, his supreme status was recognized by them in the first millennium.

Please, let’s discuss the substance of the issue, not a have a word-fight about different common uses of the same word.

You’re right about its different uses, but Jason’s interlocutor was still using it incorrectly, and he merited Jason’s correction. To say that “the pope doesn’t need the consent of the Magisterium” to teach infallibly literally makes no sense. What he meant was “the pope doesn’t need the consent of a certain number of bishops” to teach infallibly, but it does matter that what he basically said was, “the pope does not need the consent of his teaching function” to teach infallibly.

People need to know what the Magisterium is. To think that it is the group of the bishops and the pope is imprecision that cries out for correction.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So there has always been collegiality in the Church, both before and after Vatican II, but how does it differ now from before Vatican II? Does our Holy Father have less authority than he held before?

No, I don’t think so. Before Vatican II, in the minds of some Catholics, he may have appeared to hold more power than he actually did, whereas now he does not do so.

The statement Pope Benedict made to the SSPX Bishop (found in an earlier post) makes me fearful that our Holy Father’s authority is very limited (and I don’t understand why because he is the Vicar of Christ and if he wants a change to happen he should be able to enforce it, right?)

I think our Holy Father is just trying to be prudent. Still, the SSPX is in manifest error and disobedience on certain points, and the pope can’t force them to change, can he? Just as not even God can bestow forgiveness on someone who refuses to repent, can the pope regularize a group that insists on being separated from what they call “the Conciliar Church”?

Does this mean that the Pope is only given absolute teaching authority and that’s it? Does this mean that he is near powerless (on his own) to make authoritative changes in the way things are done in the Church?

No, his authority extends to administrative matters as well as matters of faith and morals. Vatican I is very clear on that.

He cannot, however, impede the proper authority of another orthodox bishop. In the case of all this SSPX stuff, I’d imagine his authority truly is basically unlimited, as the SSPX is a society in the Latin Church and thus not part of an overtly episcopal structure that the pope isn’t allowed to impede. In other words, his authority is more direct when it comes to orders like that.

Are all his decisions on how things should be run in the Church part of some democratic type of consensus?

No.

I don’t know if anyone can answer what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican, but your help is greatly appreciated!

I don’t think what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican is necessarily relevant to the experience of your average Catholic. Every diocese is run by its bishop. If there’s a problem, a synod or the pope can take of it, but the pope isn’t expected to micromanage everyone. That would be very unfair to him; when would he even have time to pray? He’d go nuts! He’d never be able to sleep!

No, papal intervention is not the default. The pope is to the bishops as Saint Peter was to the other Apostles. Saint Peter was the leader and always had the final say, but he didn’t authorize everything the other Apostles did; they didn’t get their jobs from him. They got them from Christ.

 

[ready]

Thanks so much, Fone Bone 2001, for answering my questions! I truly appreciate it!

 

[Mike30]

There are some big problems with those claims. First of all, collegiality does not deny that the pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church. Secondly, it’s always been Church teaching that Sacramentally, the pope is a bishop; so yes, the pope is and has always been considered a member “in a fellowship” if by fellowship you mean the worldwide college of bishops.

Long before Vatican II, popes were addressing bishops as their brothers. At the beginning of Rerum Novarum, for instance, from the late nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII addresses the Catholic bishops of the world as his “venerable brethren.”

Collegiality does not deny that the pope holds ordinary and universal jurisdiction over everything in the Catholic Church.

The pope has never wielded “absolute” authority: there are plenty of things he can’t do. Could the pope decree that beer will be used instead of water for baptism? Could he annul/nullify the decrees of the Council of Trent? Could he abolish, say, the diaconate altogether?

No, of course not. His power is far from “absolute.” He can’t even impede the proper authority of local bishops.

The pope’s authority in the Catholic Church is supreme (i.e. the highest), not “absolute.”

Collegiality is a doctrine whose ecclesiology is that of the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Those who reject it are living in fantasy land, historically speaking, just as those who - like most of the Orthodox - reject the notion of universal papal authority are.

Well said.

This “good poster’s” rejection of collegiality stems from historical and ecclesiological ignorance, ready. You should read more about collegiality; it is the teaching of the Catholic Church and has been for 2000 years.

You know, throughout the Middle Ages the pope mainly exercised his authority in the context of a synod. Only after Trent did the way he exercised his supreme authority begin to resemble what we’re used to today.

I even read that papal confirmation of every episcopal consecration was not the universally mandated norm until the nineteenth century.

The pope’s authority was never as absolute as some take it to be. On the other hand, the first millennium eastern bishops did not, to my knowledge, object to things like the Formula of Hormisdas.

The bottom line is that both extremes - neo-Ultramontanism and conciliarism - are wrong.

Nor do I.

Properly understood, his supreme status was recognized by them in the first millennium.

You’re right about its different uses, but Jason’s interlocutor was still using it incorrectly, and he merited Jason’s correction. To say that “the pope doesn’t need the consent of the Magisterium” to teach infallibly literally makes no sense. What he meant was “the pope doesn’t need the consent of a certain number of bishops” to teach infallibly, but it does matter that what he basically said was, “the pope does not need the consent of his teaching function” to teach infallibly.

People need to know what the Magisterium is. To think that it is the group of the bishops and the pope is imprecision that cries out for correction.

had it been properly understood I doubt there would have been a problem.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thanks so much, Fone Bone 2001, for answering my questions! I truly appreciate it!

You’re welcome; I hope it was helpful.

had it been properly understood I doubt there would have been a problem.

That may be true, although I also think there’s far more to the East-West Schism than that.

 

[ready]

You’re welcome; I hope it was helpful.

It was very helpful!

 

[Mike30]

You’re welcome; I hope it was helpful.

That may be true, although I also think there’s far more to the East-West Schism than that./QUOTE

Agreed:thumbsup: