What if not all the Bishops are in agreement?

[dje101]

Hello all,

I was listening to a podcast of CA today and Jimmy Akin was the guest. An individual called up and was asking about the difference between the Ordinary Magisterium (doctrine is taught with the Pope and all Bishops in union) and the Extraordinary Magisterium (Pope infallibly defines the teaching) of the Church.

Jimmy stated that issues, such as the male only priesthood, has been addressed at the Ordinary Magisterium level, in which the Pope hasn’t declared the issue infallibly, but it has been addressed in agreement with all the Bishops of the world.

My question is what if even one of the Bishops thinks that a female priesthood is acceptable and possible? Or another example could be the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, where the Pope consecrated the world in union with all the Bishops of the world. What if even one Bishop didn’t want it to happen?

(My main question is regarding the male priesthood.)

 

[otjm]

Hello all,

I was listening to a podcast of CA today and Jimmy Akin was the guest. An individual called up and was asking about the difference between the Ordinary Magisterium (doctrine is taught with the Pope and all Bishops in union) and the Extraordinary Magisterium (Pope infallibly defines the teaching) of the Church.

Jimmy stated that issues, such as the male only priesthood, has been addressed at the Ordinary Magisterium level, in which the Pope hasn’t declared the issue infallibly, but it has been addressed in agreement with all the Bishops of the world.

My question is what if even one of the Bishops thinks that a female priesthood is acceptable and possible? Or another example could be the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, where the Pope consecrated the world in union with all the Bishops of the world. What if even one Bishop didn’t want it to happen?

(My main question is regarding the male priesthood.)

It isn’t a nose count issue. Any bishop who does not hold what the Church teaches (for example, male-only priesthood) has broken with the Church. That is not a new issue, if one looks at the last 2000 years of history.

So if the real issue you are asking about is this: has there been a tallying of bishops, or have bishops been independently polled, as to their acceptance and teaching of this particular issue, the answer is, no, there has not bee a poll, or a tallying. Male only priesthood is a constant teaching of the Church back to the time of Christ, and was prefigured in the Jewish priesthood (male only).

I would suggest that you obtain a copy of John Paul’s missive on the matter and read it.

As to the second issue, this one has been answered by John Paul 2, and there are some individuals out there who think they know more than the Pope about it. Keep in mind that prayer, and issues such as consecration, are not magic. We do not have the power or the ability to bind God by our acts (nor Mary, or any of the other saints). Those who insist that the consecration did not occur a) ignore the reality of Communism falling apart at the seams in Russia, and b) appear to be approaching the matter as some sort of magical incantation which, if properly done, would force God to force people… you see where I am going with this. The Berlin Wall came down, Russia no longer operates under the format set up by Lenin/Stalin and their subsequent rulers, and conversion is rarely instantaneous. The last time I recall millions converting was after the tilma of Guadalupe was shown to the bishop, and that took several years if I recall.

Back to the first point; it is not that the issue is not infallible; it is that the Pope did not exercise infallibility ex cathedra. There have only been two times in the history of the Church that has been done, and too many Catholics seem to think that if the Pope does not define something that way, that it is not infallible. Poor understanding of the issue of infallibility.

 

[KP3243]

Bishops are chosen by the Pope and are carefully vetted by a Prefect at the Vatican before they are approved by the Pope, there is a reason why over 2000 years the Church has been unshakable in certain areas, they choose men who first love Jesus and won’t do anything contrary to His wishes. The office of Bishop is the same office as the Apostles held- no one offering a man this office nor the man accepting the office of Bishop take the matter lightly.

 

[po18guy]

In all cases, that bishop would simply be in disagreement. They are not the Church, but rather, a part of it.

 

[dje101]

I guess that makes some sense. I just don’t understand why there is a need to say “in union with all the Bishops” if there might be a chance that the Bishops are not in union? I understand that there is serious consideration taken before electing an individual to be a Bishop. But lets consider a different situation.

What if the Pope, “in union with the Bishops of the world” says that Limbo is now a Church teaching, but because of the various schools of thought over the centuries, some of the Bishops might not agree?

 

[KP3243]

I guess that makes some sense. I just don’t understand why there is a need to say “in union with all the Bishops” if there might be a chance that the Bishops are not in union? I understand that there is serious consideration taken before electing an individual to be a Bishop. But lets consider a different situation.

What if the Pope, “in union with the Bishops of the world” says that Limbo is now a Church teaching, but because of the various schools of thought over the centuries, some of the Bishops might not agree?

They don’t go out of their way to change things or define things until there is clearly a heresy happening. Things like the divinity of Christ, the theotokos, transubstation, the prepetual virginity of Mary seem like they get defined late in history but the are defined because men stray from the Church and her teaching and follow their own teachings. Up until the Reformation and into the 1800s no one even questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Abu]

dje101 #1
Jimmy Akin was the guest. An individual called up and was asking about the difference between the Ordinary Magisterium (doctrine is taught with the Pope and all Bishops in union) and the Extraordinary Magisterium (Pope infallibly defines the teaching) of the Church.

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I which is the basis for papal infallibility.

Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, (an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility. For papal infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

“EX CATHEDRA. The term commonly applied to the special and explicit exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the *Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.

Jimmy stated that issues, such as the male only priesthood, has been addressed at the Ordinary Magisterium level, in which the Pope hasn’t declared the issue infallibly, but it has been addressed in agreement with all the Bishops of the world.

*Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *contains an infallible definition.

“In the final analysis, therefore, the reason the Church has always rejected female service in the sanctuary is that such service is very closely related, both symbolically and often causally, to the ministerial priesthood itself. And this can never possibly be conferred upon women, as John Paul II declared on the Feast of Pentecost…in what is clearly an infallible, ex cathedra definition. 10
Note:
“10. It stops short, however, of being a solemn dogmatic definition on a par with those of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which are defined as truths of faith, binding on pain of heresy. Cf. the present writer’s article, “Cardinal Ratzinger on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” *The Priest *(Journal of the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy), Spring 1994 / Summer 1995, pp. 5-6.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt58.htm

 

[Abu]

dje101 #5
What if the Pope, “in union with the Bishops of the world” says that Limbo is now a Church teaching, but because of the various schools of thought over the centuries, some of the Bishops might not agree?

As is clear from this part of Vatican II, bishops have no authority to act against the doctrinal teaching of the Pope on faith and morals to the whole Church, or against an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope.

*APPENDIX
From the Acts of the Council [Vatican II]
‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964 **
**The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.
4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition. [My emphasis].
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[YoungTradCath]

Infallibility can apply to both the Pope’s declarations and also those of the bishops in union with the Pope (and never without him). Infallible is infallible.

 

[dje101]

Infallibility can apply to both the Pope’s declarations and also those of the bishops in union with the Pope (and never without him). Infallible is infallible.

So, it is not actually “in union with all the Bishops of the world”, but rather “in union with the Bishops that are in union and agreement with the Pope”?

 

[dje101]

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I which is the basis for papal infallibility.

Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, (an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility. For papal infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

“EX CATHEDRA. The term commonly applied to the special and explicit exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the *Explanatory Note on ATF

by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.
*Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *contains an infallible definition.

“In the final analysis, therefore, the reason the Church has always rejected female service in the sanctuary is that such service is very closely related, both symbolically and often causally, to the ministerial priesthood itself. And this can never possibly be conferred upon women, as John Paul II declared on the Feast of Pentecost…in what is clearly an infallible, ex cathedra definition. 10
Note:
“10. It stops short, however, of being a solemn dogmatic definition on a par with those of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which are defined as truths of faith, binding on pain of heresy. Cf. the present writer’s article, “Cardinal Ratzinger on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” *The Priest *(Journal of the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy), Spring 1994 / Summer 1995, pp. 5-6.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt58.htm

Thank you for your answer. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into it and I greatly appreciate it. I’m curious as to the different levels of teaching. Could you provide an example of each of the three levels?

 

[Abu]

dje101 #11
Thank you for your answer. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into it and I greatly appreciate it. I’m curious as to the different levels of teaching. Could you provide an example of each of the three levels?

The reference was given for knowledge of the examples – please examine:
“11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[BobCatholic]

The last time all the bishops were in agreement was at the Garden of Gethsemane. They all agreed to run like the wind.

Wasn’t exactly a fun time.

 

[commenter]

Hello all,
… Or another example could be the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, where the Pope consecrated the world in union with all the Bishops of the world. What if even one Bishop didn’t want it to happen?

But keep in mind the request to have this consecration was made as part of a Private Revelation. Yes, it is an approved Private Revelation, accepted by many individuals, including many popes. But a Private Revelation, even a popular, widely endorsed one like Fatima, isn’t part of the content of the Faith itself (though Private Revelations and Devotions may certainly help form the heart of some persons toward the Faith itself.) This is different from the other issues in the thread, which refer to Public Revelation.

So things like Infallibility or statements by the Pope, as compared with “all the bishops together” don’t apply the way they do in Public Revelation. There is no required formula for popes and bishops to respond to Private Revelations, though people will demand popes and bishops do this or that, and they’ll sell you their books and tapes.

 

[CB_Catholic]

So, it is not actually “in union with all the Bishops of the world”, but rather “in union with the Bishops that are in union and agreement with the Pope”?

I would say that it is in union with the Bishops. One does not have to be in agreement with everything to be in union. We are a united Church despite the fact that not everyone is in agreement. I think that is where the confusion may lie–confusing unity with everybody being in agreement.