Roman Catholics have been conditioned for centuries to be almost completely Rome centric. If you were to return to a more collegial form of Church government now it would be a disaster. The Church simply isn’t of the mindset to deal with it.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.
And the Patriarch of Antioch…The pope is pope for a reason. He alone is the successor of Peter.
Brendan,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.
This whole post was a great post (I just edited it to make it shorter, not to belittle the removed parts). I think it probably explains a large part of the reason that people are wary when the word “collegiality” is bandied about.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.
…]
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.
That would be understandable if collegiality had actually been tried. That’s not at all what bishop’s conferences are. If you want proof can anyone name the Catholic primate in the US?This whole post was a great post (I just edited it to make it shorter, not to belittle the removed parts). I think it probably explains a large part of the reason that people are wary when the word “collegiality” is bandied about.
Thanks!
–Jen
The Metropolitan Archbishop of Baltimore has that honor.That would be understandable if collegiality had actually been tried. That’s not at all what bishop’s conferences are. If you want proof can anyone name the Catholic primate in the US?
That would be understandable if collegiality had actually been tried.
It has been in practice in the Church since the Council of Jerusalem first set out the model.
The issue may be debated, but any final decision comes from the See of Peter.
After he spoke, the matter was decided, it then turned to implementing the decision of Peter
I think Seraphim’s point was that collegiality, in the sense of synodality as exercised in the early Church, would mean that the Metropolitan Archbishop of Baltimore would convene and preside over a true synod of the US Church, rather than an elected president presiding over a mere “conference”, and that such synod would govern the US Church in accordance with the ancient principle outlined in Apostolic Canon 34. The episcopal conferences are a step in the right direction, but they didn’t truly restore the ancient synodal model. Pope Francis has stated more than once that the Catholic Church needs to “refresh” her understanding of synodality.The Metropolitan Archbishop of Baltimore has that honor.
That was indeed the point. I would also point out to Brendan that the Church was never governed from Rome. The Church was governed by local bishops and local synods. I mean a lot of what Catholics consider “traditional” today really came about between the 16th and 19th centuries. Things like the Roman Curia or all the various Congregations would have been completely foreign to the fathers of the first millennium. History proves you can have local governance without the world coming to an end.I think Seraphim’s point was that collegiality, in the sense of synodality as exercised in the early Church, would mean that the Metropolitan Archbishop of Baltimore would convene and preside over a true synod of the US Church, rather than an elected president presiding over a mere “conference”, and that such synod would govern the US Church in accordance with the ancient principle outlined in Apostolic Canon 34. The episcopal conferences are a step in the right direction, but they didn’t truly restore the ancient synodal model. Pope Francis has stated more than once that the Catholic Church needs to “refresh” her understanding of synodality.
The Roman curia goes back to the early centuries.That was indeed the point. I would also point out to Brendan that the Church was never governed from Rome. The Church was governed by local bishops and local synods. I mean a lot of what Catholics consider “traditional” today really came about between the 16th and 19th centuries. Things like the Roman Curia or all the various Congregations would have been completely foreign to the fathers of the first millennium. History proves you can have local governance without the world coming to an end.
Nonetheless, a lot of people who use the word collegiality use it to mean the bishop’s conferences. So when people use the word, nobody knows that this time they mean what the word is supposed to mean, when the last 15 times they heard it it meant something else.That would be understandable if collegiality had actually been tried. That’s not at all what bishop’s conferences are. If you want proof can anyone name the Catholic primate in the US?
They trust the Pope to make all the calls, but don’t trust the bishops? Both have had bad track records at times in history. Both are, under very limited circumstances, protected by infallibility… but not “day-to-day”.Nonetheless, a lot of people who use the word collegiality use it to mean the bishop’s conferences. So when people use the word, nobody knows that this time they mean what the word is supposed to mean, when the last 15 times they heard it it meant something else.
The original question, IIRC, was why do traditionalists resist collegiality. A reasonable answer is, they don’t resist collegiality, they resist the simulacrum of collegiality that people usually mean when they use the word.
A different possible answer is that they may be thinking back to the time in the early church when over half of the world’s bishops were Arians, and some odd things that more recent bishops have said (think Winnipeg Statement in response to Humanae Vitae), and think it is hard to have trust.
–Jen
The episcopal college and its head, the Pope
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406
885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407
886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.
887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414
- The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416
…
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Well, it depends on what question you really want answered. If it’s the question, “why” the items mentioned could be the answer.They trust the Pope to make all the calls, but don’t trust the bishops? Both have had bad track records at times in history. Both are, under very limited circumstances, protected by infallibility… but not “day-to-day”.
I find it quite the opposite. I find NO parishes to be quite unfriendly and sometimes downright uncharitable when they find out someone attends a Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri, Canons Regular or even a diocesan Extraordinary Form Mass. On the other had, I have seen nothing but cordiality from FSSP, Canons Regular or other EF parishes.Why is there so much resistance, in many “traditionalist” circles, to episcopal collegiality?
What is the connection between this and episcopal collegiality?I find it quite the opposite. I find NO parishes to be quite unfriendly and sometimes downright uncharitable when they find out someone attends a Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri, Canons Regular or even a diocesan Extraordinary Form Mass. On the other had, I have seen nothing but cordiality from FSSP, Canons Regular or other EF parishes.
The popes, even in the worst of times, have been reliable in doctrine; not just in the “very limited circumstances” of infallibility, but overall. Individual bishops are usually reliable, but sometimes individuals issued statements that seem not heretical, but clearly imprudent.They trust the Pope to make all the calls, but don’t trust the bishops? Both have had bad track records at times in history. Both are, under very limited circumstances, protected by infallibility… but not “day-to-day”.
There aren’t a lot of EF only Bishops, so I would have to question the basis of your original contention.What is the connection between this and episcopal collegiality?