Traditionalists and collegiality

[twf]

Why is there so much resistance, in many “traditionalist” circles, to episcopal collegiality? It is hardly a novel idea nor was its renewed emphasis at Vatican II without precedent. The Church operated in a very collegial fashion for most of its history - certainly during the first millennium in particular. It was only very gradually that authority shifted from local synods to the Pope and Curia in Rome. The idea that the Pope should rule by decree with the bishops acting as mere advisers is, as far as I can tell, the novelty, not collegiality. There seems to be a resistance in some circles to the idea that the bishops are, with the Pope, truly part of the magisterium. I’ve seen some suggest that synods, such as the one currently opening in Rome, are a waste of time, and that the Church would be better off with the Pope issuing a ruling independently… yet what can be more traditional, to the governance of the Church, than the synodal model which finds its roots in Acts 15? There seems to almost be a fear that the bishops can’t be trusted to make the right decision. This baffles me when infallibility was entrusted to the college of bishops as a whole (with and under the Pope), and not only to the Pope alone. The infallibility of the college (particularly when assembled in an ecumenical council) has rarely been questioned in the history of the Church, while the question of papal infallibility was only settled in, by Church standards, very recent times.

I certainly accept and profess the papal dogmas promulgated at Vatican I, but it is impossible to deny that synodality is the historical model of Church governance - the pope WITH his brother bishops governing the Church in concert. Why the resistance?

 

[otjm]

Why is there so much resistance, in many “traditionalist” circles, to episcopal collegiality? It is hardly a novel idea nor was its renewed emphasis at Vatican II without precedent. The Church operated in a very collegial fashion for most of its history - certainly during the first millennium in particular. It was only very gradually that authority shifted from local synods to the Pope and Curia in Rome. The idea that the Pope should rule by decree with the bishops acting as mere advisers is, as far as I can tell, the novelty, not collegiality. There seems to be a resistance in some circles to the idea that the bishops are, with the Pope, truly part of the magisterium. I’ve seen some suggest that synods, such as the one currently opening in Rome, are a waste of time, and that the Church would be better off with the Pope issuing a ruling independently… yet what can be more traditional, to the governance of the Church, than the synodal model which finds its roots in Acts 15? There seems to almost be a fear that the bishops can’t be trusted to make the right decision. This baffles me when infallibility was entrusted to the college of bishops as a whole (with and under the Pope), and not only to the Pope alone. The infallibility of the college (particularly when assembled in an ecumenical council) has rarely been questioned in the history of the Church, while the question of papal infallibility was only settled in, by Church standards, very recent times.

I certainly accept and profess the papal dogmas promulgated at Vatican I, but it is impossible to deny that synodality is the historical model of Church governance - the pope WITH his brother bishops governing the Church in concert. Why the resistance?

The resistance i largely due to a profound lack of knowledge of both Church history and theology. There are very well meaning people whose faith formation does not reach much farther than the Baltimore Catechism, if that, and are people susceptible to (name removed by moderator)ut which sounds very comforting in its rigidity and appears to provide structure when they presume that the world (and the Church) is suffering from a dissolving structure.

70, 75 years and more ago, there did not appear to be a theologian on every street corner, if you will; there was not a tremendous amount of theological discussion (actually, there wasn’t much at all); people went to Mass and attended devotional exercises and left bible studies to the Protestants, The term Pray, Pay and Obey was not that awfully far off the mark for many.

And with the changes, a goodly number did not know how to react. Bishops were considered to be administrator (an many were just that) and what went on with bishops was not particularly advertised. Vatican 1 started the work of defining the roles of the Pope an the bihops, but due to being interrupted by war, was stuck with the role of the Pope an the roles of the bishops wa essentially unfinished. And so many were left with the impression that the bishops took orders from Rome and simply carried them out. The sense of the apostles and the early Church simply was not on the radar.

 

[sw85]

Why is there so much resistance, in many “traditionalist” circles, to episcopal collegiality? It is hardly a novel idea nor was its renewed emphasis at Vatican II without precedent. The Church operated in a very collegial fashion for most of its history - certainly during the first millennium in particular. It was only very gradually that authority shifted from local synods to the Pope and Curia in Rome. The idea that the Pope should rule by decree with the bishops acting as mere advisers is, as far as I can tell, the novelty, not collegiality. There seems to be a resistance in some circles to the idea that the bishops are, with the Pope, truly part of the magisterium. I’ve seen some suggest that synods, such as the one currently opening in Rome, are a waste of time, and that the Church would be better off with the Pope issuing a ruling independently… yet what can be more traditional, to the governance of the Church, than the synodal model which finds its roots in Acts 15? There seems to almost be a fear that the bishops can’t be trusted to make the right decision. This baffles me when infallibility was entrusted to the college of bishops as a whole (with and under the Pope), and not only to the Pope alone. The infallibility of the college (particularly when assembled in an ecumenical council) has rarely been questioned in the history of the Church, while the question of papal infallibility was only settled in, by Church standards, very recent times.

I certainly accept and profess the papal dogmas promulgated at Vatican I, but it is impossible to deny that synodality is the historical model of Church governance - the pope WITH his brother bishops governing the Church in concert. Why the resistance?

As I understand it the “resistance” is more to the way the idea was formulated at Vatican II rather than to the idea itself. The main criticism I’ve read is that discussions of collegiality excessively downplay the authority of the Pope.

 

[christus_vincit]

I certainly accept and profess the papal dogmas promulgated at Vatican I, but it is impossible to deny that synodality is the historical model of Church governance - the pope WITH his brother bishops governing the Church in concert. Why the resistance?

The pope is pope for a reason. He alone is the successor of Peter. A balance needs to be struck between “synodality” and Petrine authority. Balance is the key. Right now it is not hard to see why some might say that Synods are being emphasized over the primacy of Peter.

 

[otjm]

The pope is pope for a reason. He alone is the successor of Peter. A balance needs to be struck between “synodality” and Petrine authority. Balance is the key. Right now it is not hard to see why some might say that Synods are being emphasized over the primacy of Peter.

Well, actually, I think it would be extremely difficult to see why they might say that; since they are not factually basing their comments.

As always, the Pope will have the final say. That is either being ignored, or the root of the issue with them is that they want bishops to go back to being administrators, rather than shepherds.

 

[Genesis315]

Collegiality as taught by Vatican II means both the Pope alone exercises the supreme authority of the Church and the Pope together with the bishops exercises that same supreme authority. Those who oppose it in principle claim this creates two heads in the Church. Those who oppose it in practice, say the Pope should not govern in a collaborative way with other bishops.

The opposition in principle comes from the fact that the First Vatican Council got cut short when Rome was invaded. That Council taught that the Pope exercised supreme authority, but never got to finish the document where it would teach about the supreme authority of the College. Vatican II pretty much just quotes from the preparatory documents of Vatican I on this point.

In fact, the official relatio for Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I directly answered the objection concerning two heads (a relatio is an offical explanation given to the voting Fathers)–the objection then was the other way around however: some argued saying the Pope alone had supreme authority created two heads. Here is the official response from the relator:
Relatio for Pastor Aeternus:

The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—and in that case they represent the whole Church—or dispersed but in union with their head—in which case they are the Church itself—truly have full power. There would be confusion if we were to admit two full and supreme powers separate and distinct from each other. But we admit that the truly full and supreme power is in the sovereign pontiff as in the head and that the same power, truly both full and supreme, is also in the head united to the members, that is to say, in the pontiff united to the bishops.

This was the traditional belief of the Church at the time. For example, just prior to becoming Pope Gregory XVI, Mauro Cappellari wrote:
Mauro Cappellari (the future Gregory XVI):

Each bishop enters into membership in the episcopal body, and consequently enters into the right to govern and teach the entire Church, when he is in union with all the others, and forms a body with them.

 

[janeway529]

Some of it also has to do with Ultramontanism and in some “traditionalist” circles a desire to return to the Papal States as some sort of utopian society (not unlike ISIS/ISIL in Syria and their propaganda of a caliphate).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism

 

[O_Sapientia]

Some of it also has to do with Ultramontanism and in some “traditionalist” circles a desire to return to the Papal States as some sort of utopian society (not unlike ISIS/ISIL in Syria and their propaganda of a caliphate).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism

Did you just compare the temporal sovereignty of the popes to the militants that are raping women, beheading children and crucifying men in Irag and Syria

Incredible.

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[Seraphim73]

Did you just compare the temporal sovereignty of the popes to the militants that are raping women, beheading children and crucifying men in Irag and Syria

Incredible.

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

I think they were referring to the desire to live under a religious state under a religious figure, not implying that the popes were beheading people.

 

[O_Sapientia]

I think they were referring to the desire to live under a religious state under a religious figure, not implying that the popes were beheading people.

I never will quite grasp the American mind’s aversion to state religion.

In Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[janeway529]

Did you just compare the temporal sovereignty of the popes to the militants that are raping women, beheading children and crucifying men in Irag and Syria

Incredible.

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

I think they were referring to the desire to live under a religious state under a religious figure, not implying that the popes were beheading people.

Yes, what Seraphim73 said is what I meant.

I never will quite grasp the American mind’s aversion to state religion.

In Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

Well [historically], the UK didn’t exactly have a great record with religious freedom.

 

[andrewstx]

I never will quite grasp the American mind’s aversion to state religion.

In Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

It seems to me that if you are fond of state religion, you might prefer to leave the Catholic church and join the state religion of Britain, the church of England.

 

[O_Sapientia]

Well [historically], the UK didn’t exactly have a great record with religious freedom.

We did quite fine up until the Reformation. Most of Europe did. A society founded upon Christian principles, rather than Masonic/Deist principles, is so much healthier.

It seems to me that if you are fond of state religion, you might prefer to leave the Catholic church and join the state religion of Britain, the church of England.

That doesn’t logically follow. Just because a state has an official religion does not mean that one must belong to it, nor does it follow that the state religion will necessarily be the right religion. But the principle of an established Church remains.

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[pnewton]

The resistance I have seen varies, and even reverses depending on the amount of agreement that the Pope, bishop or group of bishops, has with one’s own ideas. When the Pope is saying or acting in accordance with one’s mindset, the emphasis is on his unique role. When he is not, the emphasis is on collegiality, and we see the names of Sts. Bellarmine, Athanasius and Catherine pop up.

 

[commenter]

One reason for caution on collegiality is the way it was abused in the US, and some other countries, from the late 60s until a few years ago. Vatican II did not foresee that the media would be so powerful, so secular, and so able to manipulate the Catholic Church, and other denominations. There was a long series of statements issued by the bishops’ conference, or some committee, that were not exactly heretical but careless, and easily presented to the public as undermining Catholic doctrine.

Yes you may blame the media for taking things out of context, but the laypeople who (in effect) wrote those documents for the bishops’ signature clearly knew the secular media, many had worked there or would work there later. Bishops carelessly delegated excessive power to conference employees who worked in Washington year-round, while the bishops who flew in for 4 days barely had time to read, let alone revise, misleading documents that would later hit the daily paper as the Teaching of the “American Catholic Church”.

Year after year, the issues emphasized by the NY Times were cut-and-pasted into the agenda for the annual conference, while issues of concern to the Catholic Faith were skipped over. The law firm that represented the Bishops’ Conference also represented the Democratic National Committee! Bishops who tried to affirm doctrine were labelled by the media as “rigid”, and their views ignored, while bishops who supported the media were labelled “pastoral”, their views given enormous influence. The media used “collegiality” to justify evangelizing Catholics to Americanism; the liberal bishops were presented as “the home town team”, while the Vatican and doctrine were cold and indifferent. Leaks to the media were common. Collegiality did not mean the bishops as a whole were more powerful, it meant certain career Washington lay staffers had more power than most of the bishops, because of ties to the TV networks and political parties.

Just because “collegiality” was so horribly abused in some countries does not make it bad, it does mean we have good reason to be cautious.

 

[Potter]

I never will quite grasp the American mind’s aversion to state religion.

In Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

Perhaps some time spent studying the bloody effects of the reformation might help – the violent struggles for power between the Church and the protestants, and later between Protestant sects themselves over control over the populace’ religious inclination. Considering that the American colonists were contenders (some bloodthirsty Puritans) in those battles, the Founders assuredly had that history in mind.

 

[O_Sapientia]

Perhaps some time spent studying the bloody effects of the reformation might help – the violent struggles for power between the Church and the protestants, and later between Protestant sects themselves over control over the populace’ religious inclination. Considering that the American colonists were contenders (some bloodthirsty Puritans) in those battles, the Founders assuredly had that history in mind.

And the American Republic, free of an established Church, faced the Civil War. Seeing as religion is not the cause of war, and that man will fight over anything because of his fallen nature, then it doesn’t stand as an argument against an established Church to point to the history of rebellion against the established Church (which the Protestant Revolution was).

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[clem456]

And the American Republic, free of an established Church, faced the Civil War.

I must be misunderstanding you.
Are you saying an established state church in America would have preserved the comfortable status quo, including enslavement of human beings?

There was a Civil War unfortunately, but prior to it our society was only peaceful for certain folk. If you were black there was never any peace to begin with.

 

[O_Sapientia]

I must be misunderstanding you.
Are you saying an established state church in America would have preserved the comfortable status quo, including enslavement of human beings?

No, not at all. I’m not saying that if the Catholic Church was the established Church in America that it would have had any effect on slavery really (though I would like to think that things would have improved quicker under the direction of Catholic social teaching). The point I was making was that having an established Church doesn’t really improve the risks of social injustice, or war and violence, etc. That is to say that the host of social ills we experience aren’t caused by religion.

Today we see so much evil in the world, and in America, and it’s all happening without an established Church (or much religion at all, actually). Which means the argument that having an established Church would be the cause of so much evil is patently false. Western society is in the worse state it has been in since the days of Rome.

In Jesus and Mary,
OS.

 

[Brendan]

Why is there so much resistance, in many “traditionalist” circles, to episcopal collegiality? It is hardly a novel idea nor was its renewed emphasis at Vatican II without precedent. The Church operated in a very collegial fashion for most of its history - certainly during the first millennium in particular.

Not quite true. In fact, we can see that very example in the very first Council, Acts 15.

There was certainly much discussion and (name removed by moderator)ut, but the final decision was made by the Pope, St. Peter

There might be collegiality, but there was certainly final authority as well. When Peter (or his heir) speaks, the matter is closed. That is clear from the very record of the Apostles.