The Vatican Dogma

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

the pope is required for making a council ecumenical

Agree.

and the pope’s approval is required for a council to have universal authority.

Agree.

and Bishops must be in union with the pope

Agree.

the pope is the one person who fills that “universal” requirement. Therefore he is the only one seperating universal authority from local authority.

DISagree.
In an Ecumenical Council, the Pope does not fill the “universal” requirement alone. It is universal because of a united action of all the bishops.

Canon 341: “The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…”

Isn’t it definitional?

From a direct reading, what is definitional is that the Pope’s agreement is required. I don’t see anything that says ONLY the Pope’s agreement is required. Can you please point out a magisterial statement that contains the word “only?” Brother Abu certainly has not been able to provide one.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[militantsparrow]

This whole discussion is very rewarding for me. The more I learn about Catholicism, the more I love it. Thank you all for your dialog.

Dear brother Steve,

Agree.

Agree.

Agree.

DISagree.
In an Ecumenical Council, the Pope does not fill the “universal” requirement alone. It is universal because of a united action of all the bishops.

Canon 341: “The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…”

From a direct reading, what is definitional is that the Pope’s agreement is required. I don’t see anything that says ONLY the Pope’s agreement is required. Can you please point out a magisterial statement that contains the word “only?” Brother Abu certainly has not been able to provide one.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

Canon 341: “The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…”

From a direct reading, what is definitional is that the Pope’s agreement is required. I don’t see anything that says ONLY the Pope’s agreement is required. Can you please point out a magisterial statement that contains the word "only?" Brother Abu certainly has not been able to provide one.

Blessings,
Marduk

For context.

Article 2: The College of Bishops

Can. 336
The head of the College of Bishops is the Supreme Pontiff, and its members are the Bishops by virtue of their sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members. This College of Bishops, in which the apostolic body abides in an unbroken manner, is, in union with its head and never without this head, also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.

Can. 337
§1 The College of Bishops exercises its power over the universal Church in solemn form in an Ecumenical Council.
§2 It exercises this same power by the united action of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world, when *this action is as such proclaimed or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, so that it becomes a truly collegial act. *
§3 It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to select and promote, according to the needs of the Church, ways in which the College of Bishops can exercise its office in respect of the universal Church in a collegial manner.

Can. 338
§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.
§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff .

Can. 339
§1 All Bishops, but only Bishops who are members of the College of Bishops, have the right and the obligation to be present at an Ecumenical Council with a deliberative vote.
§2 Some others besides, who do not have the episcopal dignity, can be summoned to an Ecumenical Council by the supreme authority in the Church, to whom it belongs to determine what part they take in the Council.

Can. 340
If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of the Council, it is by virtue of the law itself suspended until the new Supreme Pontiff either orders it to continue or dissolves it.

Can. 341
§1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, *confirmed by the Roman Pontiff *and promulgated by his direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff

Marduk,

note canon #338. and “alone”

§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.
§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff .

I trust that solves the issue

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.

I trust that solves the issue

I’m afraid that doesn’t solve anything. You have two options: interpret this canon in the context of canon 341, or interpret it so it contradicts canon 341.

Personally, I choose to interpret it in the context of canon 341. And in this regard, I choose to follow the Eastern Code over the Latin Code. The Eastern Code does not say “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone…to approve its decrees.” Rather, it states, much more correctly, it seems to me, “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone…to confirm its decrees.”

It’s simple, correct, and does not require contradiction with other canons. Let the reader judge.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

I’m afraid that doesn’t solve anything. You have two options: interpret this canon in the context of canon 341, or interpret it so it contradicts canon 341.

Personally, I choose to interpret it in the context of canon 341. And in this regard, I choose to follow the Eastern Code over the Latin Code. The Eastern Code does not say “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone…to approve its decrees.” Rather, it states, much more correctly, it seems to me, “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone…to confirm its decrees.”

It’s simple, correct, and does not require contradiction with other canons. Let the reader judge.

Blessings,
Marduk

Seems Confirm and approve is a distinction without a difference. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirm?show=0&t=1296534694

 

[mardukm]

Seems Confirm and approve is a distinction without a difference. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirm?show=0&t=1296534694

Except Canon 341 uses “approve” and “confirm” in the same statement in different contexts. Everyone knows and everyone agrees that the act of confirming is a specific ecclesiastical action that belongs to a head bishop. So it is a different animal than “approving.”

And I wouldn’t rely on too much on secular dictionaries to look up the definitions of words used in ecclesiastical law. Such a procedure causes more trouble than its worth.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Except Canon 341 uses “approve” and “confirm” in the same statement in different contexts. Everyone knows and everyone agrees that the act of confirming is a specific ecclesiastical action that belongs to a head bishop. So it is a different animal than “approving.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: Can 341

The head bishop is the pope.

Can. 341
§1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff

IOW

• The Fathers of the council don’t promulgate or Confirm. That is reserved to the Pope.
• an ecumenical council requires approval by the Roman Pontiff + Fathers of the Council
• if the council is to have binding force, the council must be confirmed and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff alone.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

IOW

• The Fathers of the council don’t promulgate or Confirm. That is reserved to the Pope.
• an ecumenical council requires approval by the Roman Pontiff + Fathers of the Council
• if the council is to have binding force, the council must be confirmed and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff alone.

Ahhhh! But the question is - does the Pope confirm and promulgate apart from the Council, or does he confirm and promulgate as a member of the Council. The obvious answer is the latter.

If he confirms and promulgates as a member of the Council, then it cannot be said that he is above an Ecumenical Council.

Ergo, the authority of an Ecumenical Council comes from the action of ALL the bishops, not the Pope alone.

Case solved.

I don’t like to quote non-magisterial sources like our brother Abu, but I will quote the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican 1, who does represent the official understanding of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council on the matter:
“The most solemn judgment of the Church in faith and morals is, and always will be, the judgment of an Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the Catholic world sitting and judging ALONG WITH HIM.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

Ahhhh! But the question is - does the Pope confirm and promulgate apart from the Council, or does he confirm and promulgate as a member of the Council. The obvious answer is the latter.

We know the pope doesn’t operate in a vaccuum. Nor would I think he would ever want to operate that way.

But you said and I agree, that “confirm” has a unique quality that is reserved for the successor to Peter. Therefore, while the pope needs the other bishops in union with him, the canon specifically says, to confirm and promulgate, are his alone. That goes back to Jesus words to Peter.
M:

If he confirms and promulgates as a member of the Council, then it cannot be said that he is above an Ecumenical Council.

The council can’t confirm or promulgate the council. So the pope IS above the council.
M:

Ergo, the authority of an Ecumenical Council comes from the action of ALL the bishops, not the Pope alone.

Case solved.

When “if” is wrong, so is “ergo”. So case NOT solved.
M:

.

I don’t like to quote non-magisterial sources like our brother Abu, but I will quote the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican 1, who does represent the official understanding of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council on the matter:
“The most solemn judgment of the Church in faith and morals is, and always will be, the judgment of an Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the Catholic world sitting and judging ALONG WITH HIM.”

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s true and good.

However

Can. 338
§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.
§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff .
**
Can. 341
§1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, *confirmed by the Roman Pontiff *and promulgated by his direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff

there is a unique and sole authority the pope has that no other bishop or college of bishops has.

 

[Hadrianus]

Please cite an example of this.

it is the explicit teaching of the First Vatican Council that the Pope and bishops of the world are infallible in the excercise of their ordinary magisterium when they concur that a doctrine of faith or morals is divinely revealed and when they propose it to be held by the faithful as such. This is quite common regarding moral questions, in fact it is the usual way that infallibility is exercised.

This is what is called the universal ordinary magisterium, as opposed to the ordinary papal magisterium which is the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs alone.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Stever

The council can’t confirm or promulgate the council. So the pope IS above the council.

The Pope is a member of the Council when he promulgates or confirms, so can you please explain how he is above the Council?

Isn’t a Council by definition the (head + body)?

So are you saying the Pope has a twin somewhere? That there is another Pope that confirms the (head + body)?

Your position doesn’t make any sense.

there is a unique and sole authority the pope has that no other bishop or college of bishops has.

There’s another problem. “College of bishops” is defined as (head bishop + body of bishops). You can compare the “unique and sole authority” of the Pope to any other singular bishop, but you can’t juxtapose him in distinction from the “college of bishops” of which he is a member. The Pope’s actions in a college belongs to the COLLEGE, not to himself. That’s why the Church has the concept of “COLLEGIAL infallibility.” Similarly, a Pope’s action in a Council, no matter how unique, is an action of a member of the Council, so you can’t juxtapose the Pope in distinction or apart from the Council when he is acting as its head.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Stever

The Pope is a member of the Council when he promulgates or confirms, so can you please explain how he is above the Council?
Isn’t a Council by definition the (head + body)?

Yes, he is a member. That doesn’t mean the pope has no authority over the bishops or the council (see LG #22 at the end)

Can. 340
If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of the Council, it is by virtue of the law itself suspended until the new Supreme Pontiff either orders it to continue or dissolves it.
M:

So are you saying the Pope has a twin somewhere? That there is another Pope that confirms the (head + body)?

Your position doesn’t make any sense.

If the apostolic see is vacant (i.e. the pope dies), a new pope must be elected. The new pope confirms or doesn’t confirm the council. The council can’t confirm itself.
M:

There’s another problem. “College of bishops” is defined as (head bishop + body of bishops). You can compare the “unique and sole authority” of the Pope to any other singular bishop, but you can’t juxtapose him in distinction from the “college of bishops” of which he is a member.

are you suggesting he’s a figurehead with no primary authority over the others and the Church?
M:

The Pope’s actions in a college belongs to the COLLEGE, not to himself. That’s why the Church has the concept of “COLLEGIAL infallibility.” Similarly, a Pope’s action in a Council, no matter how unique, is an action of a member of the Council, so you can’t juxtapose the Pope in distinction or apart from the Council when he is acting as its head.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can. 337
§1 The College of Bishops exercises its power over the universal Church in solemn form in an Ecumenical Council.
§2 It exercises this same power by the united action of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world, when *this action is as such proclaimed or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, so that it becomes a truly collegial act. *
§3 It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to select and promote, according to the needs of the Church, ways in which the College of Bishops can exercise its office in respect of the universal Church in a collegial manner.

Can. 338
§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.
§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff .

Can. 341
§1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, *confirmed by the Roman Pontiff *and promulgated by his direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff

From Lumen Gentium #22
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Yes, he is a member. That doesn’t mean the pope has no authority over the bishops or the council (see LG #22 at the end)

Within a Council, the Pope’s authority is as a member of the Council, not as an entity apart from the Council and over it. He is a necessary member, necessary for its authority, and necessary for its infallibility, but by no means, the ONLY one necessary for its authority nor its infallibility. And, yes, your quote of LG#22 is highly revealing, and I will highlight the relevant portions which disprove your position.

Can. 340
If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of the Council, it is by virtue of the law itself suspended until the new Supreme Pontiff either orders it to continue or dissolves it.

What of it? All it proves is that the Pope is an indispensable member of the Council. His presence is necessary for its viability, but it doesn’t prove in the least that he is above the Council, nor the ONLY one that grants it its authority.

If the apostolic see is vacant (i.e. the pope dies), a new pope must be elected. The new pope confirms or doesn’t confirm the council. The council can’t confirm itself.

Without the Pope, you can’t speak of a council to begin with, so your statement is an oxymoron. When the canons speak of the Pope confirming a Council, it is merely asserting the constitutive elements of a Council - this includes, not just the Pope and his actions, but the bishops and their actions as well.

are you suggesting he’s a figurehead with no primary authority over the others and the Church?

That’s a strange rejoinder. You’ve known me long enough to know that I kowtow to no one in terms of the papal prerogatives. But it is the papal prerogatives properly understood according to the Vatican Councils and our canons, not the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Can. 337
§1 The College of Bishops exercises its power over the universal Church in solemn form in an Ecumenical Council.
§2 It exercises this same power by the united action of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world, when *this action is as such proclaimed or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff, so that it becomes a truly collegial act. *

Yes, as the Canon explicitly states, the power is exercised through a united action of the Bishops and the Pope. It is not the actions of the Pope alone that determine the authority of a collegiate action of the College of Bishops. It basically refutes the “the Pope’s action is the only one that matters” opinion being promoted by certain Latin Catholics.

§3 It belongs to the Roman Pontiff to select and promote, according to the needs of the Church, ways in which the College of Bishops can exercise its office in respect of the universal Church in a collegial manner.

Yes, these are his roles WITHIN the College of Bishops, not above it.

Can. 338
§1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.

As stated, the English translation is incorrect. “Approve” should be “confirm” in this Canon, as expressed in the Eastern Code. Otherwise, the Latins are left with the ludicrous burden of explicitly contradictory canons, as it would explicitly contradict Canon 341 which states that the approval of the bishops is just as necessary.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

§2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff .

Yes, these are his prerogatives WITHIN the Council. It does not make him ABOVE the Council.

Can. 341
§1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, *confirmed by the Roman Pontiff *and promulgated by his direction.
§2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff

Rather telling that you fail to highlight the very thing that refutes your position - namely, the clause “as well as the Fathers of the Council.” I think that demonstrates that the Absolutist Petrine position is really a fantasy, and is merely another example of Cafeteria Catholicism.

From Lumen Gentium #22
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157)

I’ve highlighted above the portions which refute your “the Pope alone matters” ideology. The Supreme authority of the College of Bishops is evident in a COLLEGIAL action, not the action of the Pope alone. It is a matter of “the body acting with the head,” not about the rest of the body being mere “yes men” of the Pope.

Recall the quote I gave from Bishop Gasser. I think the error in your position lies in the idea that the Pope’s role within an Ecumenical Council is to judge his brother bishops. As Bishop Gasser plainly indicated, relating the official position of the Fathers of Vatican 1, the bishops judge along with the Pope. The Pope is not judging his brother bishops in the context of an Ecumenical Council or within the context of collegiality. What is occuring is that the Pope along with his brother bishops, judges a teaching being proposed for acceptance by the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

cont from (part 1 & 2)

CONTINUED

Yes, these are his prerogatives WITHIN the Council. It does not make him ABOVE the Council.

Rather telling that you fail to highlight the very thing that refutes your position - namely, the clause “as well as the Fathers of the Council.” I think that demonstrates that the Absolutist Petrine position is really a fantasy, and is merely another example of Cafeteria Catholicism.

I’ve highlighted above the portions which refute your “the Pope alone matters” ideology. The Supreme authority of the College of Bishops is evident in a COLLEGIAL action, not the action of the Pope alone. It is a matter of “the body acting with the head,” not about the rest of the body being mere “yes men” of the Pope.

Recall the quote I gave from Bishop Gasser. I think the error in your position lies in the idea that the Pope’s role within an Ecumenical Council is to judge his brother bishops. As Bishop Gasser plainly indicated, relating the official position of the Fathers of Vatican 1, the bishops judge along with the Pope. The Pope is not judging his brother bishops in the context of an Ecumenical Council or within the context of collegiality. What is occuring is that the Pope along with his brother bishops, judges a teaching being proposed for acceptance by the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

From Lumen Gentium #22
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157)

Marduk

• The pope has primacy and universal power over the entire Church, over bishops & faithful… and yes councils, and he can exercise that alone
• The bishops can’t exercise THEIR authority either singly OR in council, over the entire Church without the pope.

See the difference?

 

[Vico]

I noticed this comment in the Catholic Encyclopedia, with regard to infallible judgments:

“A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation.”
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

*]The pope has primacy and universal power over the entire Church, over bishops & faithful… and yes councils, and he can exercise that alone
*]The bishops can’t exercise THEIR authority either singly OR in council, over the entire Church without the pope.

See the difference?

You say “he can exercise it alone,” yet simultaneously you say it is exercised “with the Pope.”

Do you see how illogical your position is?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

I noticed this comment in the Catholic Encyclopedia, with regard to infallible judgments:

“A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation.”
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Thank you for your contribution. I don’t think it needs to be said, though. I think all Catholics agree that the principle of collegiality asserts that the authority (or infallibility) of the College is a united action of head and body, the head being a member of the body, never apart from it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
But it is a power that cannot be exercise to impede the authority of local bishops.

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory gives a more authoritative statement on the matter:
"**Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).**”

I’d like to add that the Swiss episcopal conference also issued an encyclical after Vatican 1 with similar statements, also approved by Pio Nono:
"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our present discussion].”

POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

You say “he can exercise it alone,” yet simultaneously you say it is exercised “with the Pope.”

Do you see how illogical your position is?

Blessings,
Marduk

I didn’t say that.

allow me to repeat what I said with some emphasis. Go back and check it out.

• The pope has primacy and universal power over the entire Church, over bishops & faithful… and yes councils, and he can exercise that power and authority over the entire Church alone.
• The bishops can’t exercise THEIR authority either singly OR in council, over the entire Church without the pope.

Bottomline

The pope has primacy, and universal power over the entire Church.
Individual Bishops don’t. Their juristiction is within their own diocese. And whether singly or in council, they still submit to the pope.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm