Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, Chp. 3

[Perplexity]

So, I was asked to start a thread on a comment I had made in another thread. Basically, I had mentioned the official interpretation of Lumen Gentium’s third chapter given by Paul VI, and how this seems to place Lumen Gentium’s ecclesiology at irreconcilable odds with pre-V2 teachings. I’d like to elaborate on that here.

The pertinent text from Lumen Gentium is as follows:

“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.” -Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3, n. 22.

Generally, this text is taken as evidence by some Traditional Catholics that Vatican II produced a new ecclesiology: one which wasn’t monarchical by nature. That is, if there are two entities that possess supreme and full power over the universal Church (even if they’re considered as somehow intrinsically unified) then it’s not a monarchy.

But, how are we to understand this text? Well, Paul VI gave an official interpretation of this text known as the nota praevia. Here is the pertinent text from that interpretation:

“3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc.” - Nota, n. 3.

As is unambiguously stated, the Pontiff preserves his function as Pontiff in the college. It’s because he is the head of the college that he’s able to perform certain actions which bishops can’t. This is explicitly contrary to the pre-V2 understanding of Vatican 1, as exemplified by the following dogmatic theologians:

"Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possess in himself alone the plentitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plentitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power than the rest of bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any restriction. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself. It is true that in the aforesaid hypothesis no individual bishop, and no collection of bishops (exclusive of the pope) would have power equal to the pope; but the power of the pontiff would not be absolutely complete in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the supreme pontiff, alone and without the consent of the bishops or of the Church, can do anything that pertains to the jurisdictional powers of the Church. That is why this fourth article of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy was condemned: “In matters of faith the supreme pontiff has the principle share and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, but his judgement is not irreformable unless it receives the consent of the Church.” - Noort, Gerardus Cornelis Van. Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957. pp. 281-282.

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954, p. 285.

Both theologians are explicitly interpreting the following decree of Vatican 1:

“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema”. - Vatican 1, Ch. 3, n. 9.

 

[mardukm]

from Lumen Gentium:

“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.” .

Paul VI gave an official interpretation of this text known as the nota praevia:

“3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc.”

As is unambiguously stated, the Pontiff preserves his function as Pontiff in the college. It’s because he is the head of the college that he’s able to perform certain actions which bishops can’t. This is explicitly contrary to the pre-V2 understanding of Vatican 1, as exemplified by the following dogmatic theologians:

Well done. Also, don’t forget that in another place in the Nota, it affirms that even though it does not always use its supreme power formally, the College is ALWAYS in existence. Conclusively, the Pope is ALWAYS part of the College as its head.

Generally, this text is taken as evidence by some Traditional Catholics that Vatican II produced a new ecclesiology: one which wasn’t monarchical by nature. That is, if there are two entities that possess supreme and full power over the universal Church (even if they’re considered as somehow intrinsically unified) then it’s not a monarchy.

This begs the question of why they assume it is monarchical the first place. It is actually presidential.

"Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possess in himself alone the plentitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plentitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power than the rest of bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any restriction. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself." - Noort, Gerardus Cornelis Van.

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.” - Ott, Ludwig

The two theologians don’t agree. Van Noort claims that not even the College with the Pope has supremacy. Ott affirms differently- only the College apart from the Pope is not supreme. Ott reflects the High Petrine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Van Noort does not.

Both theologians are explicitly interpreting the following decree of Vatican 1:

But only one is correct, and it is not Van Noort.

“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema”. -

Those who interpret this to mean papal monarchy instead of papal presidency always neglect Parag 3 of Chap 3 on the Primacy, where it states that the supreme power BY NO MEANS stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of bishops in their local diocese, but rather strengthens and supports the authority of local bishops.

Parag 3 was added to the text of Pastor Aeternus after a great many Fathers from BOTH the Majority and Minority Party demanded an addition that preserved the full authority of bishops in their local jurisdiction. The Pope is not an absolute monarch, after all. according to V1.

Blessings

 

[Brendan]

This begs the question of why they assume it is monarchical the first place. It is actually presidential.

It is Monarchial in the sense that Christ, our King, is the Head of the Church. The Church, therefore is a monarchy.

The temporal head of the Church, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, rules monarchially as the Vicar of Christ, and presidentially as the head of the College of Bishops.

 

[Perplexity]

The two theologians don’t agree. Van Noort claims that not even the College with the Pope has supremacy. Ott affirms differently- only the College apart from the Pope is not supreme. Ott reflects the High Petrine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Van Noort does not.

I have to disagree with you here on Ott’s position because he says:

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power…”

This is point (c) on p. 285 of Ott’s book. (c) is one of 7 descriptions Ott gives of Primatial power.

That is, he says "In consonance with this declaration [V1], the Primatial power is:

(a)…,

(b)…,

(c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power.

(d)…, etc.

So, he seems to be agreeing with Noort.

Those who interpret this to mean papal monarchy instead of papal presidency always neglect Parag 3 of Chap 3 on the Primacy, where it states that the supreme power BY NO MEANS stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of bishops in their local diocese, but rather strengthens and supports the authority of local bishops.

Parag 3 was added to the text of Pastor Aeternus after a great many Fathers from BOTH the Majority and Minority Party demanded an addition that preserved the full authority of bishops in their local jurisdiction. The Pope is not an absolute monarch, after all. according to V1.

It’s unclear to me how the Pontiff’s absolute monarchical power would jeopardize the bishop’s authority and jurisdiction. They’d still teach, rule and sanctify, and all that’s implied therein.

I find it interesting that you agree that Lumen Gentium is at odds with a monarchical ecclesiology (something the trads might take as a score lol) but, respond by saying this doesn’t matter because the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology isn’t monarchical. I’ll have to re-read some other theologians and pontiffs who I took to be teaching a monarchical ecclesiology now.

Thanks for the response!

 

[mardukm]

I have to disagree with you here on Ott’s position because he says:

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power…”

This is point (c) on p. 285 of Ott’s book. (c) is one of 7 descriptions Ott gives of Primatial power.

That is, he says "In consonance with this declaration [V1], the Primatial power is:

(a)…,

(b)…,

(c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power.

(d)…, etc.

So, he seems to be agreeing with Noort.

Actually, Ott specifies immediately afterward what is not equal to the supreme power:
(1) individual bishops;
(2) all the OTHER bishops combined.

Then he goes on to say that the bishops collectively APART FROM the Pope are not equal to or superior to the Pope (i.e., WITH the Pope, they are collectively the subject of the supreme power, which is what V2 explicitly teaches about collegiality). This is in direct contradiction to Van Noort’s opinion that the bishops collectively EVEN WITH the Pope are not equal to or superior to the Pope.

It’s unclear to me how the Pontiff’s absolute monarchical power would jeopardize the bishop’s authority and jurisdiction. They’d still teach, rule and sanctify, and all that’s implied therein.

If he has absolute monarchical power, then he can go into their diocese and overrule them at any time. That is simply and undeniably the definition of “absolute monarchical power.” But V1 explicitly says that this is not what the supreme power is intended by God to be. Thus, the Pope is not an absolute monarch.

I find it interesting that you agree that Lumen Gentium is at odds with a monarchical ecclesiology (something the trads might take as a score lol) but, respond by saying this doesn’t matter because the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology isn’t monarchical. I’ll have to re-read some other theologians and pontiffs who I took to be teaching a monarchical ecclesiology now.

I can start you off with Pope Leo the Great who taught that the Keys were SHARED by St. Peter with the rest of the Apostles (a sharing of authority that is handed down in the Apostolic Succession by every Pope). I’ll move on to Pope St. Gregory the Great who taught that the Primacy of the Church belongs to the three Petrine Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (with Rome having the primacy among these, of course). According to these Catholic giants, the Papacy is not an absolute monarchy. I’ve got lots of other examples for you. The Church nor any Pope has ever perceived the papacy to be an absolute monarchy in the theological sense. At best, one can find some late medieval Popes claiming the absolute political monarchy of the papacy, but that has never been a dogma of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is Monarchial in the sense that Christ, our King, is the Head of the Church. The Church, therefore is a monarchy.

The temporal head of the Church, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, rules monarchially as the Vicar of Christ, and presidentially as the head of the College of Bishops.

But each bishop is fully a representative of Christ as well. A bishop has no equal in his diocese and his word is law (in accord with Sacred Tradition, of course). A bishop indeed rules monarchially. If this were comparably true of the Pope on the universal level, then he should have the authority to interfere in the affairs of any diocese at any time (in accord with Sacred Tradition, of course). But V1 says that is not within his power to do (“BY NO MEANS stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of other bishops”). Whatever type of authority the Pope possesses, it is not monarchial because it must NECESSARILY respect the authority of his brother orthodox bishops. We can call it primatial or presidential, but monarchial would be the wrong word to describe it.

A monarchy is rule by ONE. But the Catholic Church is a co-rulership with one having the primacy. Do you see the difference?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Perplexity]

Actually, Ott specifies immediately afterward what is not equal to the supreme power:
(1) individual bishops;
(2) all the OTHER bishops combined.

Then he goes on to say that the bishops collectively APART FROM the Pope are not equal to or superior to the Pope (i.e., WITH the Pope, they are collectively the subject of the supreme power, which is what V2 explicitly teaches about collegiality). This is in direct contradiction to Van Noort’s opinion that the bishops collectively EVEN WITH the Pope are not equal to or superior to the Pope.

Hm, it doesn’t seem to follow that Ott thinks the college of bishops with the pope is the subject of supreme power because Ott says the college apart from the pope isn’t equal or superior to the pope.

If he has absolute monarchical power, then he can go into their diocese and overrule them at any time. That is simply and undeniably the definition of “absolute monarchical power.” But V1 explicitly says that this is not what the supreme power is intended by God to be. Thus, the Pope is not an absolute monarch.

I understood V1’s stipulations to be that the pope’s monarchical power doesn’t imply the bishops don’t have ordinary jurisdiction.

I can start you off with Pope Leo the Great who taught that the Keys were SHARED by St. Peter with the rest of the Apostles (a sharing of authority that is handed down in the Apostolic Succession by every Pope).

Hm, I’ll have to look more into this as well. I’m not sure how much weight we should give these, granting you’re right. At least, I mean I’m not sure why we should accept these popes over the ones I’d be appealing to.

I’ll move on to Pope St. Gregory the Great who taught that the Primacy of the Church belongs to the three Petrine Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (with Rome having the primacy among these, of course). According to these Catholic giants, the Papacy is not an absolute monarchy. I’ve got lots of other examples for you. The Church nor any Pope has ever perceived the papacy to be an absolute monarchy in the theological sense. At best, one can find some late medieval Popes claiming the absolute political monarchy of the papacy, but that has never been a dogma of the Church.

[According to Gregory the Great] “Peter had been the first bishop of Rome, and the pope was his successor. To be sure, Peter had also been in Alexandria and in Antioch, and Gregory sometimes put forth the idea that these two patriarchs shared with him the primacy given to Peter: Rome was the see where Peter had died, Alexandria the see to which he had sent Mark, and Antioch the see which he himself had occupied for seven years. There was one see of Peter in three places. But this touch of whimsy about the apostle did not have any far-reaching implications for Gregory’s concrete doctrine of primacy in the Church.” - Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971. p. 353.

I know that Noort also addresses the Gregory concerns, but I’ll have to dig .

btw, I’m an atheist, so I don’t have too much of a stake in this.

 

[mardukm]

Hm, it doesn’t seem to follow that Ott thinks the college of bishops with the pope is the subject of supreme power because Ott says the college apart from the pope isn’t equal or superior to the pope.

Then why did Ott add the clause “apart from the Pope?” Contemplate on that, and you’ll find that your conclusion makes sense if and only if that clause is not part of his statement. The problem, of course, is that the clause IS part of his statement.

I understood V1’s stipulations to be that the pope’s monarchical power doesn’t imply the bishops don’t have ordinary jurisdiction.

Actually, if you look at the Latin, the text does not say that “the supreme power does not TAKE AWAY the local authority.” That is not the concern of the text (though it is of course a truism that the Pope has no authority to take away the God-given authority of an orthodox bishop). It says that the supreme power does not STAND IN THE WAY of the local authority. So the local authority is there and it is being exericsed by the local bishop. And if the bishop is orthodox, it says the supreme power BY NO MEANS stands in the way of (or impedes) that local authority.

Hm, I’ll have to look more into this as well. I’m not sure how much weight we should give these, granting you’re right. At least, I mean I’m not sure why we should accept these popes over the ones I’d be appealing to.

I’d be interested to see your quotes that seemingly contradicts the statements of these ancient Popes…

[According to Gregory the Great] “Peter had been the first bishop of Rome, and the pope was his successor. To be sure, Peter had also been in Alexandria and in Antioch, and Gregory sometimes put forth the idea that these two patriarchs shared with him the primacy given to Peter: Rome was the see where Peter had died, Alexandria the see to which he had sent Mark, and Antioch the see which he himself had occupied for seven years. There was one see of Peter in three places. But this touch of whimsy about the apostle did not have any far-reaching implications for Gregory’s concrete doctrine of primacy in the Church.” - Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971. p. 353.

Having primacy is not the same as monarchy. All Jaroslav Pelikan is saying is that Gregory had primacy. That’s the same thing I said.

I know that Noort also addresses the Gregory concerns, but I’ll have to dig .

From what you’ve quoted, I assume Van Noort will find some actions of Pope Gregory as primatial bishop (i.e., correcting other bishops) and interpret them as the actions of a monarch. On the contrary, the actions of Pope St. Gregory as primatial bishop are not monarchial for one very important reason: until around the 13th century, EVERY BISHOP OF ROME ACTED WITH THE AGREEMENT OF HIS SYNOD (I bold that not to shout, btw, but to stress its importance). Even the much-vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated WITH THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT OF 80 BISHOPS IN SYNOD. The Synodal system was replaced by the College of Cardinals around this time, not because the Pope was trying to take power for himself, but because local secular rulers (in their bid to control the local Church or the Pope) would prevent their local bishops from attending the Synods. After that, even without the Synodal structure, the collegial reality of the Church was still very evident by the particaption of the College of Cardinals in the decisions of Popes. The monarchial concept is a very, very recent innovation in the history of the Catholic Church, and is not the doctrinal conceptualization of the papacy according to Sacred Tradition, or Vatican 1 or Vatican 2.

btw, I’m an atheist, so I don’t have too much of a stake in this.

OK. I am actually more appreciative of that fact, since I feel you can look at the evidence more objectively.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

“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.” -Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3, n. 22.

Generally, this text is taken as evidence by some Traditional Catholics that Vatican II produced a new ecclesiology: one which wasn’t monarchical by nature. That is, if there are two entities that possess supreme and full power over the universal Church (even if they’re considered as somehow intrinsically unified) then it’s not a monarchy.

But, how are we to understand this text? Well, Paul VI gave an official interpretation of this text known as the nota praevia. Here is the pertinent text from that interpretation:

“3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc.” - Nota, n. 3.

As is unambiguously stated, the Pontiff preserves his function as Pontiff in the college. It’s because he is the head of the college that he’s able to perform certain actions which bishops can’t. This is explicitly contrary to the pre-V2 understanding of Vatican 1, as exemplified by the following dogmatic theologians:

"Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possess in himself alone the plentitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plentitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power than the rest of bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any restriction. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself. It is true that in the aforesaid hypothesis no individual bishop, and no collection of bishops (exclusive of the pope) would have power equal to the pope; but the power of the pontiff would not be absolutely complete in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the supreme pontiff, alone and without the consent of the bishops or of the Church, can do anything that pertains to the jurisdictional powers of the Church. That is why this fourth article of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy was condemned: “In matters of faith the supreme pontiff has the principle share and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, but his judgement is not irreformable unless it receives the consent of the Church.” - Noort, Gerardus Cornelis Van. Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957. pp. 281-282.

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954, p. 285.

Both theologians are explicitly interpreting the following decree of Vatican 1:

“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema”. - Vatican 1, Ch. 3, n. 9.

An example of this in action

It’s rarely exercised, but only the pope can remove a rogue bishop from office.
ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=3112

 

[Rogerteder]

The pertinent text from Lumen Gentium is as follows:

“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.” -Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3, n. 22.

Generally, this text is taken as evidence by some Traditional Catholics that Vatican II produced a new ecclesiology: one which wasn’t monarchical by nature. That is, if there are two entities that possess supreme and full power over the universal Church (even if they’re considered as somehow intrinsically unified) then it’s not a monarchy.

But, how are we to understand this text? Well, Paul VI gave an official interpretation of this text known as the nota praevia. Here is the pertinent text from that interpretation:

“3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc.” - Nota, n. 3.

As is unambiguously stated, the Pontiff preserves his function as Pontiff in the college. It’s because he is the head of the college that he’s able to perform certain actions which bishops can’t. This is explicitly contrary to the pre-V2 understanding of Vatican 1, as exemplified by the following dogmatic theologians:

"Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possess in himself alone the plentitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plentitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power than the rest of bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any restriction. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself. It is true that in the aforesaid hypothesis no individual bishop, and no collection of bishops (exclusive of the pope) would have power equal to the pope; but the power of the pontiff would not be absolutely complete in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the supreme pontiff, alone and without the consent of the bishops or of the Church, can do anything that pertains to the jurisdictional powers of the Church. That is why this fourth article of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy was condemned: “In matters of faith the supreme pontiff has the principle share and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, but his judgement is not irreformable unless it receives the consent of the Church.” - Noort, Gerardus Cornelis Van. Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957. pp. 281-282.

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954, p. 285.

Both theologians are explicitly interpreting the following decree of Vatican 1:

“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema”. - Vatican 1, Ch. 3, n. 9.

I think it is pretty obvious that if one takes the time to actually read the text that vatican II is not offering anything new. NOTHING HAPPENS UNLESS THE POPE SAYS IT CAN HAPPEN!!! THUS THE BISHOPS CANT DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE POPE SAYS SO!!! (simple language) “NEVER WITHOUT ITS HEAD!”

 

[mardukm]

I think it is pretty obvious that if one takes the time to actually read the text that vatican II is not offering anything new. NOTHING HAPPENS UNLESS THE POPE SAYS IT CAN HAPPEN!!! THUS THE BISHOPS CANT DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE POPE SAYS SO!!! (simple language) “NEVER WITHOUT ITS HEAD!”

Actually the texts do not say that “the bishops can’t do anything unless the Pope says so.” Rather, it only says that the bishops can’t exercise supreme power collegially without the Pope.

The bishops can certainly do things in their OWN diocese WITHOUT the Pope’s say so.

Certain Latin Catholics really need to stop reading things into these texts that is not there to begin with.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

The pertinent text from Lumen Gentium is as follows:

“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.” -Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3, n. 22.

Paul VI gave an official interpretation of this text known as the nota praevia. Here is the pertinent text from that interpretation:

“3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc.” - Nota, n. 3.

As is unambiguously stated, the Pontiff preserves his function as Pontiff in the college. It’s because he is the head of the college that he’s able to perform certain actions which bishops can’t. This is explicitly contrary to the pre-V2 understanding of Vatican 1, as exemplified by the following dogmatic theologians:

"Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possess in himself alone the plentitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plentitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power than the rest of bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any restriction. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself. It is true that in the aforesaid hypothesis no individual bishop, and no collection of bishops (exclusive of the pope) would have power equal to the pope; but the power of the pontiff would not be absolutely complete in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the supreme pontiff, alone and without the consent of the bishops or of the Church, can do anything that pertains to the jurisdictional powers of the Church. That is why this fourth article of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy was condemned: “In matters of faith the supreme pontiff has the principle share and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, but his judgement is not irreformable unless it receives the consent of the Church.” - Noort, Gerardus Cornelis Van. Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957. pp. 281-282.

“Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954, p. 285.

Both theologians are explicitly interpreting the following decree of Vatican 1:

“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema”. - Vatican 1, Ch. 3, n. 9.

I think it is pretty obvious that if one takes the time to actually read the text that vatican II is not offering anything new. NOTHING HAPPENS UNLESS THE POPE SAYS IT CAN HAPPEN!!! THUS THE BISHOPS CANT DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE POPE SAYS SO!!! (simple language) "NEVER WITHOUT ITS HEAD!"

I think you meant to say, without the pope’s approval, bishops whether as individuals, or as a college, can only exercise authority over their individual diocese.