Vatican I

[Memaw]

You must be reading the wrong threads. I’ve seen a number of Protestant and Orthodox posters who present their arguments in a very polite and reasonable manner.

Either you’ve been reading the wrong threads, or you’re focusing too much on the “bad apples” and not enough on the good.

Seems your on many threads too so you surely have read some of them. Some do and some don’t.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

1. Where do the Vatican I Fathers state the Pope acts “apart from the rest of the bishops?” Whether in the formation of a decree, the promulgation of a decree, and/or the acceptance of the decree, his brother bishops are always there

Just wanted to add something to this portion of my post. The comments from the Council Fathers state that the only time the Pope need not consult his brother bishops is when agreement is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition. Do you suppose there would be no consensus on such a matter?

I pray you respond to this post and post #39. I confess I don’t understand your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Please answer the following questions succinctly:

1. Where do the Vatican I Fathers state the Pope acts “apart from the rest of the bishops?” Whether in the formation of a decree, the promulgation of a decree, and/or the acceptance of the decree, his brother bishops are always there.

“It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts (fonts) as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information. That strict necessity, such as would be necessary for inclusion in a dogmatic decree cannot be established. There may be a case so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from the bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches: such was the case regarding the Immaculate Conception: but such a case cannot be set up as a rule.”

1. What does the Apostolic Canon specifically state is the purpose of the consent of all the bishops together (head and body)?

Unanimity.

1. Do you believe that consensus determines Truth or simply reflects Truth?

Of course it reflects truth. What it seems to me is going on with the pope here is that the pope declares truth and the bishops consent because they are faithful subjects of the pope.

1. How does the idea of consensus exactly work in your view? Suppose seven out of 100 bishops is wrong? Is there consensus? Should the other 93 bishops attempt to accomodate the other seven, perhaps water down a certain teaching so that ALL bishops come to an agreement?

No, the 93 don’t accomodate the seven but the 99 also don’t simply submit to one because that one has some super authority. That is not consensus, it is obedience. The bishops obediently accept what the pope taught.

1. What are the differences/similarities between Vatican I and the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture? Was there debate at the Council of Jerusalem? Do you suppose EVERYONE came to an agreement before the head bishop (St. James) gave his judgment? Where was the consensus at the Council of Jerusalem?

I don’t know whether they came to an agreement or not before James made his judgement. It doesn’t mention that. All we know is that after St. James’ judgement it was final. I find it strange that someone would quote this in support of papal infallibility since it was James who was head of the council and made the judgement.

1. After the Vatican Council, did any bishop of the Catholic Church initiate a schism? Is your understanding of consensus satisfied by the fact that there was no schism?

I don’t know that much about modern history to speak about that. I can tell you the old Catholics don’t accept it. From what I know they come from around that time period.

Really it is irrelevant whether there was a schism after. There were schisms before. Even if there have been no schisms that doesn’t make it more legitimate. Look at history. The ‘nestorians’ didn’t think the pope was this universal bishop. Neither did the miaphysites. Neither did the Eastern Orthodox. Do you not see how this contradicts the ideas of VI? They have elevated the pope to such a degree that a bishop has no real dignity on his own. Any bishop who is not in communion with Rome is consequently only an insubordinate. The pope has basically become the only bishop. He is a one man council as the quote from above shows.

 

[jimmy]

Wasn’t that what you believed already?

I had doubts of my interpretation of the council due to mardukm’s and Ghosty’s statements in other threads about how there is synodality and conciliarity. Now I can’t see how they can make that claim.

 

[jimmy]

mardukm, where can I buy the book you quote from in your posts? I would like to read it to get a better grasp of the issue. I have just purchased James T. O’Connor’s book The Gift of Infallibility which gives a translation of bishop Gasser’s speech I think.

I pray you respond to this post and post #39. I confess I don’t understand your position.

I would like to start a thread soon summing up my perspective. I was going to last night but I didn’t know how to approach it.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Marduk,

I have ceased to further counter any doctrine of the Catholic Church due to my own continuing struggle between Orthodoxy and Catholicism but I too, like Jimmy, would like to know of the sources of particular views shared here.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

“It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts (fonts) as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information. That strict necessity, such as would be necessary for inclusion in a dogmatic decree cannot be established. There may be a case so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from the bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches: such was the case regarding the Immaculate Conception: but such a case cannot be set up as a rule.”

Your interpretation of the excerpt is interesting. Whereas you seem to have focused only on the verses that support your viewpoint, I focused rather on a more comprehensive reading, including the statement in between the two verses you stressed (I underlined it above for easier identification). When I initially read the first sentence of the highlighted portion (I had not yet come into the Catholic communion, but still only studying Catholicism), I had the same reaction as you. But the next sentence assuaged my concerns. There it basically states that the Pope need not involve the bishops only when the matter is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition. I thought to myself, “That makes sense.” There is no reason for me to believe that the Pope’s brother bishops would NOT agree with him on a matter that is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition even if he makes a decree on such a sufficiently clear matter on his own. The consensus that the Apostolic Canon requires would come AFTER the decree issued by the Pope.

Your selective focus on certain verses in the text does not make a persuasive case for the idea that the Pope makes infallible decrees “apart from” his brother bishops.

So I ask again, taking into account the entire text, and not just certain portions of it, where do you find in the statements I have quoted the idea that the Pope can make decrees apart from his brother bishops? I hope you respond, but I expect your response might come from the new thread you had stated you wanted to start. So I will wait until then, if my response here is not sufficient to assuage your concerns.

Unanimity.

Good. We are in agreement that the Apostolic Canon views consensus as determinitive of unanimity (iow, unity). Now I have two questions for you.

1. Since the Apostolic Canon does not indicate that consensus determines Truth, then what necessity is there for the Pope to consult his brother bishops on a matter that is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition?
2. Since the Apostolic Canon does not indicate that consensus determines Truth, what objection do you have if consensus comes before or after a decree is made, if it is on a matter that is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition?

Before you respond, please read the rest of my post.

Of course it reflects truth. What it seems to me is going on with the pope here is that the pope declares truth and the bishops consent because they are faithful subjects of the pope.

No, the 93 don’t accomodate the seven but the 99 also don’t simply submit to one because that one has some super authority. That is not consensus, it is obedience. The bishops obediently accept what the pope taught.

I fused your two replies above because they merit the same answer:
If the bishops consent to the Truth the Pope declares, it is because that Truth is sufficiently clear from the Sacred Tradition. Why do you presume that our bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs would consent with the Pope’s decrees just because he says so? Are you saying our hierarchs don’t have minds of their own? Are you saying our hierarchs are so unaware of Sacred Tradition that they cannot know if the Pope’s infallible decree is not consonant with the Faith? If you think about it, it is really your position here that is demeaning of the dignity of our hierarchs.

I don’t know whether they came to an agreement or not before James made his judgement. It doesn’t mention that. All we know is that after St. James’ judgement it was final. I find it strange that someone would quote this in support of papal infallibility since it was James who was head of the council and made the judgement.

We’re not talking about infallibility per se, but the manner in which the infallibility is exercised. The Council of Jerusalem demonstrates that whether the consensus comes before, during, or after the decree, it is still regarded as consensus.

I don’t know that much about modern history to speak about that. I can tell you the old Catholics don’t accept it. From what I know they come from around that time period.

The episcopal lineage of the Old Catholics comes from the 18th century, not as a result of Vatican I.

Really it is irrelevant whether there was a schism after.

If schism (or rather, lack of) is not relevant, then what possible basis do you have for your concerns regarding “consensus”?

There were schisms before. Even if there have been no schisms that doesn’t make it more legitimate. Look at history. The ‘nestorians’ didn’t think the pope was this universal bishop. Neither did the miaphysites. Neither did the Eastern Orthodox.

What you have proven here is that when there is no consensus, schism inevitably occurs (i.e., no unity). Thus, once again, I ask, if schism (or lack of) is irrelevant, then what possible basis do you have for your concerns regarding “consensus”?

Do you not see how this contradicts the ideas of VI?

Given my above responses, the answer would be “no.”

They have elevated the pope to such a degree that a bishop has no real dignity on his own. Any bishop who is not in communion with Rome is consequently only an insubordinate. The pope has basically become the only bishop.

Don’t forget to read anything I write IN THE CONTEXT of the FULL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I don’t know how you can make this statement given everything else the Catholic Church teaches about the episcopate.

He is a one man council as the quote from above shows.

Please read the text again. The statements above regard EX CATHEDRA decrees, not the decisions of ecumenical councils. Are you aware, as a Catholic, that the Church teaches that there are four expressions of the infallibility of God (the teaching of the Pope ex cathedra, the teaching of the Ecumenical Council, the teaching of Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of all the bishops of the world, even while dispersed, when speaking with one voice on an issue)? I do not mean any insult, but do you think you are maybe trying too hard to find reasons to complain against our Latin brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Chris and Jimmy,

I gave the pertinent info in post#4 for Butler’s book. I looked in Amazon and found it for $50 used (Crazy! I found the book at a library sale for 50 cents three years ago!) I believe it was only by Providence that I found that book, and found it at such an exorbitantly low price (given its price in today’s market). It really helped me understand what the Vatican Council was about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

1. Since the Apostolic Canon does not indicate that consensus determines Truth, then what necessity is there for the Pope to consult his brother bishops on a matter that is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition?

The problem is that the tradition is not one body as it is interpreted here. Tradition is ultimately a local idea. The tradition is generally the mode of the transmission of the faith. It is the understanding of the deposit of faith from the apostles in the local Church. So you have the tradition of the Maronites, the tradition of the Melkites, the tradition of the Latins, and etc. It is not something that is sufficiently clear because it is something that is lived and consequently it is absolutely necessary that the bishops represent their various traditions and have their voices heard.

Tradition as I understand it is the interpretation of the faith within the local Church which has been handed on through the centuries. I don’t think that St. Irenaeus’s writings and St. Augustines writings are Tradition. We can not simply read Augustine and understand the Tradition.

1. Since the Apostolic Canon does not indicate that consensus determines Truth, what objection do you have if consensus comes before or after a decree is made, if it is on a matter that is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition?

I don’t have a problem with concensus coming after a decree; I have a problem with concensus being based on a statement by a pope. If consensus is the result of the decree then that consensus is no more a sign of the truth than disunity would be.

I don’t presume that our patriarchs are stupid. What I am saying is simply that the VI council degrades the office of the bishop.

We’re not talking about infallibility per se, but the manner in which the infallibility is exercised. The Council of Jerusalem demonstrates that whether the consensus comes before, during, or after the decree, it is still regarded as consensus.

Jerusalem did not speak of concensus before or after, it only mentions that there was consensus.

If schism (or rather, lack of) is not relevant, then what possible basis do you have for your concerns regarding “consensus”?

As I said above, I have a problem with consensus being the result of a decree by the pope.

What you have proven here is that when there is no consensus, schism inevitably occurs (i.e., no unity). Thus, once again, I ask, if schism (or lack of) is irrelevant, then what possible basis do you have for your concerns regarding “consensus”?

I think the result of the logic of the west is that there is one bishop. If there is one bishop then there can be no such thing as schism. What my statement implies is that these groups did not view the bishop of Rome as being the voice of the whole Church which the whole Church must consent to but that is the opinion of VI. If they viewed the Church as VI did then there would have been no schisms, the nestorians and miaphysites would have simply submitted to Pope Leo and the EO would have just submitted to Pope Gregory. The miaphysites would have said there are two natures in Christ and the EO would have professed the filioque.

It seems that the west has come to the conclusion that the bishops of the EO and OO are false simply because Rome did not approve of their views. Rome said there were two natures in Christ therefore there were. Rome said the filioque is true therefore the EO are false. The view of these eastern bishops wasn’t even considered.

Given my above responses, the answer would be “no.”

My last parapraph answers this.

Your selective focus on certain verses in the text does not make a persuasive case for the idea that the Pope makes infallible decrees “apart from” his brother bishops.

I think you are selective with your focus as well. You see the most benign statements and skim over the more offensive speech. I focused on the lines that spoke of the fact that the pope did not have to pursue the consent of the bishops. You focused on the line that said that the consent of the bishops is the norm. I think that the idea that the pope does not have to pursue the consent of the bishops overrides the statement that consent of the bishops is the norm. It kind of makes the consent of the bishops meaningless.

Don’t forget to read anything I write IN THE CONTEXT of the FULL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I don’t know how you can make this statement given everything else the Catholic Church teaches about the episcopate.

The statements that the bishop is not simply a vicar of the pope or that the pope is not the only bishop seem like semantics to me because when it comes to practice these statements never show forth. As I mentioned in another thread the US bishops couldn’t even approve a translation of the liturgy for their own area without the approval of the pope. They seem to be crippled without Romes approval. The council of Laudicea or that of Carthage did not seek approval from Rome to make its statements authoritative.

Please read the text again. The statements above regard EX CATHEDRA decrees, not the decisions of ecumenical councils. Are you aware, as a Catholic, that the Church teaches that there are four expressions of the infallibility of God (the teaching of the Pope ex cathedra, the teaching of the Ecumenical Council, the teaching of Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of all the bishops of the world, even while dispersed, when speaking with one voice on an issue)? I do not mean any insult, but do you think you are maybe trying too hard to find reasons to complain against our Latin brethren.

I don’t think I am seeking for reasons to complain. I don’t think the ultra-montanist view of the west is consistent with Tradition. From my perception of Tradition the agreement of the bishops was just as important as that of the head bishop as AC 34 shows. Neither could act without the other. There is a correspondence between them.

So I ask again, taking into account the entire text, and not just certain portions of it, where do you find in the statements I have quoted the idea that the Pope can make decrees apart from his brother bishops? I hope you respond, but I expect your response might come from the new thread you had stated you wanted to start. So I will wait until then, if my response here is not sufficient to assuage your concerns.

I think the statement is pretty clear, whether you take it as a whole or not that the pope does not have to seek the consent of the bishops.

The problem with starting a thread is organizing my thoughts into an ordered statement. I have several things I would like to speak of but I don’t know how to wrap them together. If I can’t wrap them together as a single coherent whole then my points will not be understood properly. So I need time to organize my thoughts on the issue.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for the discussion. It’s great!

The problem is that the tradition is not one body as it is interpreted here. Tradition is ultimately a local idea… We can not simply read Augustine and understand the Tradition.

Though I agree with your definition of Tradition (as distinct from tradition), I view Sacred Tradition as that infallible Truth that pervades all the Traditions within Christendom. It is that common Faith we all share as Catholics regardless of the different expressions it may attain in our various Traditions. I may be misreading your statements above, but I hope you are not presuming that when the Pope looks to a certain teaching most evident from Sacred Tradition, he is only looking at, or would only look at, the Latin Tradition.

I don’t have a problem with concensus coming after a decree; I have a problem with concensus being based on a statement by a pope. If consensus is the result of the decree then that consensus is no more a sign of the truth than disunity would be.

The problem here is your idea that assent to a papal decree AUTOMATICALLY means assent JUST BECAUSE it is a papal decree. That is your OWN assumption that you are injecting into the decrees of Vatican I that I do not find based simply on the texts of that Council and the texts of the explanations of the Fathers of the Council. Let’s assume my position that consent to an ex cathedra papal decree is based on a knowledgeable and volitional assent of conscience by his brother bishops, and not out of mere obligation to the Pope - since you admit that consensus coming after the decree is not a problem for you, then I don’t see a basis for your complaint.

Perhaps you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of focusing on the nature of an ex cathedra decree as Truth (which objectively does not need consensus to BE Truth), let’s focus on the consent of the bishops. What is the nature of this consent? Is it consent by mere submission/ obligation, or is it a consent based on free will and true knowledge of the Faith? Demonstrate to me/us that the consent to be given to an ex cathedra decree is based on YOUR assumption (the former), and not mine (the latter). Or demonstrate to me/us that the Latin Church teaches that conscience has no place in the assent of the faithful to the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. Or demonstrate to me/us that religious assent is nothing more that blind submission.

What I am saying is simply that the VI council degrades the office of the bishop.

Prove that your assumption above is correct, and I’ll concede this point. Until then —

Jerusalem did not speak of concensus before or after, it only mentions that there was consensus.

I just re-read the Scriptural text. Assuming everyone fell silent because there was nothing more to debate about, the consensus actually came BEFORE St. James’ judgment. But the immediate cause of the consensus (the thing that silenced everyone) was St. Peter’s authoritative teaching on the matter.

As I said above, I have a problem with consensus being the result of a decree by the pope.

I would have a problem with that too, but you have yet to prove that assent to the Pope’s ex cathedra decree is based on mere submission, and not on an informed, volitional agreement.

I think the result of the logic of the west is that there is one bishop. If there is one bishop then there can be no such thing as schism. What my statement implies is that these groups did not view the bishop of Rome as being the voice of the whole Church which the whole Church must consent to but that is the opinion of VI. If they viewed the Church as VI did then there would have been no schisms, the nestorians and miaphysites would have simply submitted to Pope Leo and the EO would have just submitted to Pope Gregory. The miaphysites would have said there are two natures in Christ and the EO would have professed the filioque.

What you view as the “logic of the west” is really only the logic of a few extremist Latins. The dogma of papal infallibility does not and cannot force the conscience. It is not some sort of magical, hypnotic power that will compel people to believe the Pope’s infallible decrees (which is what you make it seem like). In the EXACT same manner, the infallibility of a Council does not and cannot force the conscience. Infallibility is not a guarantee of Truth, but exists so that there will be a sure standard of Truth which people can follow with an informed conscience. There will always be schism because people are weak and have free will. After all, Jesus Himself stated the Truth will indeed be a cause of division. For those who freely assent to the authority/authorities that are graced with the infallibility of God, then the Truth becomes an irrefragable source of unity. Otherwise, it certainly will be a cause of division, we can be assured of that. So your examples of schism from the past don’t offer any evidence against the papacy as one of the valid fonts of infallibility within the Catholic Church that will always offer the world the clear standard of Truth.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

It seems that the west has come to the conclusion that the bishops of the EO and OO are false simply because Rome did not approve of their views.

Actually, it is the EO who view the bishops of the CC and the OO as false. On the other hand, it is the CC and the OO who do not make such a judgment on each other nor on the EO. Perhaps you meant to say something else?

In any case, I certainly do agree with you that there are Latins who have an extreme understanding of the papacy, and I have debated against such Latins myself. But I certainly can’t agree with you that the extreme and unpatristic position of such Latins was the selfsame position of the Vatican Council.

Rome said there were two natures in Christ therefore there were.

I thought this was determined in Council, not by an ex cathedra decree. Are you simply presenting the extremist position of some Latins (I’ve certainly encountered that opinion from such extremist Latins)? Though extremist Latins make this claim, I don’t believe MOST Latins share that view.

Rome said the filioque is true therefore the EO are false. The view of these eastern bishops wasn’t even considered.

The debate was not begun by Rome or the Latins accusing the Easterns of falsehood, but rather by the Easterns accusing Rome and the Latins of falsehood. OK, enough said on filioque.

I think you are selective with your focus as well. You see the most benign statements and skim over the more offensive speech. I focused on the lines that spoke of the fact that the pope did not have to pursue the consent of the bishops. You focused on the line that said that the consent of the bishops is the norm. I think that the idea that the pope does not have to pursue the consent of the bishops overrides the statement that consent of the bishops is the norm. It kind of makes the consent of the bishops meaningless.

First, though it is there, I never appealed to the statement that collegiality is the norm. Second, my position does not skim over the offensive parts. My position is that if you take the entire context, the offensive parts are really not offensive at all. Third, you have cut off the statement you want to focus on from the rest of the text. The text does NOT say that the Pope need not pursue the consent of the bishops PERIOD. It says that the Pope need not pursue the consent of the bishops IN THE SPECIFIC AND SINGULAR INSTANCE when the matter is sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition. You can see how different the actual text is from your own interpretation.

The problem is that you are making the singular exception the rule, and basing your conclusion on that misunderstanding. It is comparable to the following situation: Though the Church has a normative means of administering the Sacrament of Baptism, she recognizes that there may exist certain unique circumstances when the proper form of baptism cannot be realized, especially if a person is at the point of death. The Church has adjudged that in those unique circumstances, the person’s faith would be sufficient for salvation. Now here comes rigorist Joe, who rejects the Church’s teaching, erroneously claiming, “Your Church teaches that water baptism is not actually necessary, even though the Lord clearly taught that one must be born of water and spirit!” Or perhaps rigorist Joe will claim, “Oh so your Church teaches that a priest is not even necessary and only faith is required. You can’t be the true Church.” From my perspective, your position is identical to that of rigorist Joe.

The statements that the bishop is not simply a vicar of the pope or that the pope is not the only bishop seem like semantics to me because when it comes to practice these statements never show forth.

There has been NO instance in the history of the Church when the Pope has made a doctrinal decree WITHOUT the participation of brother bishops. You can’t prove your statement from actual evidence, but you can claim that this is the “practice” of the Catholic Church just because you have taken some statements out of context?

As I mentioned in another thread the US bishops couldn’t even approve a translation of the liturgy for their own area without the approval of the pope.

Did you read my response to your example?

They seem to be crippled without Romes approval. The council of Laudicea or that of Carthage did not seek approval from Rome to make its statements authoritative.

Don’t know about Laodicia. Some scholars believe that council was spurious. So I wouldn’t depend on that council to prove a point either way. But with regards to Carthage, I am absolutely positive you need to do some more reading on the matter. It was the normal practice of Carthage to send its decrees to Rome for confirmation.

From my perception of Tradition the agreement of the bishops was just as important as that of the head bishop as AC 34 shows. Neither could act without the other. There is a correspondence between them.

My thoughts exactly. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. I DON’T believe the head bishop is just any bishop. I DON’T believe that the head bishop’s consent on an issue that affects the entire Church is only as good as the constent of any other singular bishop. I DO believe that the head bishop is especially graced by God to lead the Church into unity, as confirmer of the brethren in the Faith. I DO believe that of all the bishops, in the context of collegiality, the head bishop is the only one whose SINGULAR consent is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the acts and decisions of that collegial body to be valid. And I DO believe that, in the collegial context, the consent of the BODY of his brother bishops is likewise ABSOLUTELY necessary for the acts and decisions of that collegial body to be valid.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Memaw]

My thoughts exactly. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. I DON’T believe the head bishop is just any bishop. I DON’T believe that the head bishop’s consent on an issue that affects the entire Church is only as good as the constent of any other singular bishop. I DO believe that the head bishop is especially graced by God to lead the Church into unity, as confirmer of the brethren in the Faith. I DO believe that of all the bishops, in the context of collegiality, the head bishop is the only one whose SINGULAR consent is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the acts and decisions of that collegial body to be valid. And I DO believe that, in the collegial context, the consent of the BODY of his brother bishops is likewise ABSOLUTELY necessary for the acts and decisions of that collegial body to be valid.

Blessings,
Marduk

Correct!! and that can be seen in the early Church when many, if not most of the Bishops were following the Arian Heresy. It was the POPE that kept the faith and won the day.