The Tradition of Pope As Visible Head vs. Collegiality

[twf]

There is no contradiction. Anyone who has studied Church history prior to the Great Schism can not deny that collegialty has always operated in the Church. To deny this fact of history is to once and for all eliminate any possibility of reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches. Pope Benedict has made it clear that he does not expect the Orthodox to accept a model of papal primacy that did not exist in the first millennium.

We cannot take little snippets of Vatican I out of context without considering the entire teaching of the council…there is no contradiction between the pope’s primacy and collegialty. The supreme governing authority of the Church is the pope and the bishops in union with him.

From Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I):

1. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.”[51]

…

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

 

[Genesis315]

Read Lumen Gentium 21-23. It affirms the Pope as the supreme head (and prior to that it explicitly affirms Vatican I on the topic). Also read the “preliminary note of explanation” (printed at the end of Lumen Gentium on the Vatican website) which makes this even more clear.

The way I understand “collegiality” in general is summed up by St. Cyprian in his treatise on the unity of the Church:
St. Cyprian:

“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

And then the whole college together with its head exercises the supreme authority with him when convoked to do so by the head. This seems to have its precedence in traditional doctrine and praxis given the history of Ecumenical Councils.

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. I believe some of the confusion comes from the fact that Vatican I ended prematurely after the constitution on the Pope, but before it dealt with the bishops. Lumen Gentium cites the schema on the Church from Vatican I in a couple places, and one is where it says that the body of bishops spread throughout the world teaches infallibility when they as one body teach a doctrine definitively in union with the Pope. Furthermore, the official relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser for Pastor Aeternus even says the judgment of an Ecumenical Council is the “most solemn judgment” (I think the request of a collegial consecration of Russia by Our Lady at Fatima also gives credence to this importance).

Likewise, it seems to me that the bishops acting in a collegial way and the Pope governing and teaching in such a way is the traditional praxis of the Church. History shows many, many, many local councils of bishops. This is important so that the bishops in a particular region may speak with one voice. Because such a practice is abused in our times, does not mean it is wrong or contrary to Tradition in and of itself. Furthermore, it seems the Pope should also seek to act in common with the other bishops rather than simply acting unilaterally–even if that is ultimately his right. The First Vatican Council says as much:

“5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.”

ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

St. Francis de Sales teaches the same thing:
St. Francis de Sales:

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said he shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the Urim and Thummim of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail.

seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/the-authority-of-the-pope-parts-xii/

The history of dogmatic definitions and legislation shows this to be true that at the very least the College of Cardinals was usually first consulted, but often councils–partial or universal–were summoned in Rome or elsewhere. The Popes rarely acted unilateral when it came to the most important matters. Even before making the two most celebrated papal definitions in recent times (Immaculate Conception, Assumption), Popes Bl. Pius IX and Pius XII first consulted the bishops of the world. And this of course dates back to the praxis of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, where St. Peter did not rise up with his ruling until after the body had debated it–and then afterwards the whole body joined themselves to his decision in the person of St. James.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

…continued from above…

St. John Chrysostom gives one reason why this is a good idea when he discusses why St. Peter did not unilaterally choose the successor to Judas, even though he could have. St. Leo gives another excellent explanation of this when discussing why the Council of Chalcedon was a good idea despite the fact that he had already ruled on the issue himself. First St. John Chrysostom:
St. John Chrysostom:

Then after the event, he appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein” Acts 1:20 Psalm 69:25: this is said of the field and the dwelling: And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who has foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness. “Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time.” Acts 1:21 Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, “Men and brethren. It behooves” to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: “Of these,” he says, “which have companied with us all the time.” To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of time; for he says not simply, “These who have companied with us,” but, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” Acts 1:22: that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.

newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

And now St. Leo the Great:
St. Leo:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

This was also the praxis of St. Gregory the Great, who treated all bishops as equals with himself when governing the Church, unless some specific fault needed correction.

"…if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to [the Apostolic See]
. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal."

newadvent.org/fathers/360209059.htm

 

[Mike30]

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).

From Lumen Genitum.
The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff"

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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…

Can you show me the Pope doing anything unilaterally previous to the Great Schism?

 

[TrueLight]

So I’m beginning my research on collegiality. I found this on CNS.

At the September forum on the papacy, panelists from the Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran traditions saw the Synod of Bishops, bishops’ conferences and diocesan and parish pastoral councils as steps toward more decentralized authority and more consultative and participatory decision-making in the Catholic Church. But they thought those conciliar structures need to be strengthened further and the primacy of the pope reinterpreted before the papacy can be seen as exercising a ministry of unity for all Christians.

This is right after the Council.

First, I want to ask why Anglican and Lutherans are involved? That just riles me. But anyway…

What I found interesting was that they thought that they were working towards less decentralized authority, which tells me that authority was more centralized before.

If anyone know anything about that, please chime in!

Doing more research…

 

[TrueLight]

Can you show me the Pope doing anything unilaterally previous to the Great Schism?

I read a little book on the history of the Catholic Church last year and I wish I could find it to refer to it. I do remember seeing that there was constant tension between the Pope (Bishop of Rome) and the other heads of the churches. In essence, I found there to be a little acts of rebellion in different parts.

I don’t have the book so I can’t provide more detail, but the schism didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

 

[ready]

So I’m beginning my research on collegiality. I found this on CNS.

This is right after the Council.

First, I want to ask why Anglican and Lutherans are involved? That just riles me. But anyway…

What I found interesting was that they thought that they were working towards less decentralized authority, which tells me that authority was more centralized before.

If anyone know anything about that, please chime in!

Doing more research…

I don’t understand why Anglicans and Lutherans had to be involved. Maybe for the same reason 6 (or 7) Protestants were selected to help work on constructing the Novus Ordo Mass along with the Catholics. For an ecumenical purpose perhaps?

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t understand why Anglicans and Lutherans had to be involved. Maybe for the same reason 6 (or 7) Protestants were selected to help work on constructing the Novus Ordo Mass along with the Catholics. For an ecumenical purpose perhaps?

 

[Mike30]

Can you show me the Pope doing anything unilaterally previous to the Great Schism?

I do recall that very early in the history of the Church, the Bishop of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian Church upbraiding them over some problem that had arisen in that Church, and letting them know that such activities were not be be tolerated. I don’t know if that would qualify or not. Probably not.

However, I know that the Orthodox Bishops enjoy a high degree of autonomy that Latin Bishops do not, and would be loathe to give up that autonomy. I feel that could perhaps be the real reason the Orthodox so vehemently reject the Supremacy of the Pope.

Of course if we are going to dump the doctrines of the Latin Church in favor of the Orthodox, I guess we would have to dump the Nicene Creed as well wouldn’t we?

By the way you did read what I posted from Lumen Genitum didn’t you? It does state the Latin position very well.

Besides we really aren’t supposed to get into debates concerning the alleged superiority of the Orthodox over the Latin Church. There is a sticky about that on this forum.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I do recall that very early in the history of the Church, the Bishop of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian Church upbraiding them over some problem that had arisen in that Church, and letting them know that such activities were not be be tolerated. I don’t know if that would qualify or not. Probably not.

However, I know that the Orthodox Bishops enjoy a high degree of autonomy that Latin Bishops do not, and would be loathe to give up that autonomy. I feel that could perhaps be the real reason the Orthodox so vehemently reject the Supremacy of the Pope.

Of course if we are going to dump the doctrines of the Latin Church in favor of the Orthodox, I guess we would have to dump the Nicene Creed as well wouldn’t we?

By the way you did read what I posted from Lumen Genitum didn’t you? It does state the Latin position very well.

I was unaware that the Orthodox did not profess the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. I guess that thing we say at every liturgy and as part of our morning and evening prayers, which we call the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Symbol of our Faith, must be some sort of counterfeit unrelated to the creed formulated at the First Council of Constantinople

 

[Mike30]

Can you show me the Pope doing anything unilaterally previous to the Great Schism?

What in the world does that have to do with anything unless we are all headed back to the primitive Church?

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.

 

[Mike30]

As I recall the Orthodox omit the filioque clause. Unless things have changed that is a difference.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What in the world does that have to do with anything unless we are all headed back to the primitive Church?

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.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I read a little book on the history of the Catholic Church last year and I wish I could find it to refer to it. I do remember seeing that there was constant tension between the Pope (Bishop of Rome) and the other heads of the churches. In essence, I found there to be a little acts of rebellion in different parts.

I don’t have the book so I can’t provide more detail, but the schism didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

There has been many points of contention between the bishops of the East and the Pope of Rome. Authority is just one of them. I know the Church of Rome was never happy when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople from Rome.

 

[wasserfall]

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.

So they have a problem with infallible dogma.
What else is new?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So they have a problem with infallible dogma.
What else is new?

Maybe we can discuss this without polemics?

They don’t have a problem with infallible dogma. They have a problem that it is one person who gets to decide it. Unless that one person is Christ, of course.

 

[wasserfall]

Maybe we can discuss this without polemics?

They don’t have a problem with infallible dogma. They have a problem that it is one person who gets to decide it. Unless that one person is Christ, of course.

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.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

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.

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.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

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.

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.