When are bishops in communion with one another and with the pope?

[SHoJjhmou]

EWTN states:
*
The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an
infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:

1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
3. That they agree in one judgment.
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful.*

But what exactly does it mean by the bishops being in communion with one another and with the pope?

Does it mean that every single bishop must be in communion with each other?

Thank you for your answers.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is a good question. I look forward to the answers.

 

[ichabode]

EWTN states:
Does it mean that every single bishop must be in communion with each other?
.

That the Bishop’s must be in communion with each other does not mean a unanimous consent, or else that word would have been used. There are always going to be a few Bishops who might hold to or teach a heterodox position.

It means that for a period of time there is near unanimous consent. Some examples of this from the Church Fathers are Jesus is the new Adam, Mary was a perpetual Virgin, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc.

This is why the Assumption of Mary was defined because at the time it was almost universally held by all Bishops. Note the world almost again it does not mean every Bishop but most in communion with the Pope.

 

[Kmon23]

Considering Orthodox are viewed as having valid sacraments, clearly not all bishops are in communion.

Joking aside, I am also curious to the answer.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Every true Catholic is in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

Every true Catholic is in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

What about the SSPX? Are they in communion with the Pope? I read that their excommunications have been lifted.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

SSPX claim to be in communion with the Catholic Church, but are disobedient to the lawful Catholic bishops.

 

[FrDavid96]

EWTN states:
The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an
infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:

1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
3. That they agree in one judgment.
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful.

But what exactly does it mean by the bishops being in communion with one another and with the pope?

Does it mean that every single bishop must be in communion with each other?

Thank you for your answers.

Dear Posters:

Read the question.

Admittedly, it was hard to do because of the small font, so I’ve removed the formatting.

#1 is a condition for the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium on an infallible teaching.

What that means is that for the Catholic Church to have an infallible teaching that is taught by the Church, we look to what the bishops who are in full Communion with the Pope and each other are teaching.

In other words, we look to those bishops who are “officially Catholic” in contrast to those bishops who are (or might be) validly ordained but are not in corporate Communion with the Church.

So the answer to the question is “yes.” Number 1 does mean what the OP asked “Does it mean that every single bishop must be in communion with each other?” It means exactly that. Each and every bishop who is being consulted must be in full ecclesial Communion with every other bishop who is being consulted.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Dear Posters:

Read the question.

Admittedly, it was hard to do because of the small font, so I’ve removed the formatting.

#1 is a condition for the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium on an infallible teaching.

What that means is that for the Catholic Church to have an infallible teaching that is taught by the Church, we look to what the bishops who are in full Communion with the Pope and each other are teaching.

In other words, we look to those bishops who are “officially Catholic” in contrast to those bishops who are (or might be) validly ordained but are not in corporate Communion with the Church.

So the answer to the question is “yes.” Number 1 does mean what the OP asked “Does it mean that every single bishop must be in communion with each other?” It means exactly that. Each and every bishop who is being consulted must be in full ecclesial Communion with every other bishop who is being consulted.

That seems awfully circular to me.
Issue A is infallible when the Pope and whoever agrees with him are in agreement?

 

[FrDavid96]

That seems awfully circular to me.
Issue A is infallible when the Pope and whoever agrees with him are in agreement?

Not really.

Remember that #1 means that only the bishops who are in Communion with the Pope are consulted. It excludes consulting bishops who are not-in-Communion (they might be consulted, as some were at Vatican II, but it’s not necessary).

Being in Communion and being in agreement are not necessarily the same thing.

For an example, look to the upcoming Synod (the one we’re hearing so much about). Obviously the several bishops have a wide variety of opinions. That doesn’t mean they are no longer in Communion with each other.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not really.

Remember that #1 means that only the bishops who are in Communion with the Pope are consulted. It excludes consulting bishops who are not-in-Communion (they might be consulted, as some were at Vatican II, but it’s not necessary).

Being in Communion and being in agreement are not necessarily the same thing.

For an example, look to the upcoming Synod (the one we’re hearing so much about). Obviously the several bishops have a wide variety of opinions. That doesn’t mean they are no longer in Communion with each other.

I guess I don’t understand what in communion means then in the Catholic sense.

 

[ProVobis]

Remember that #1 means that only the bishops who are in Communion with the Pope are consulted. It excludes consulting bishops who are not-in-Communion (they might be consulted, as some were at Vatican II, but it’s not necessary).

That’s an interesting point, since ultimately the Pope can “remove” all those bishops who disagree with his position. So is collegiality all that it was intended to be?

 

[ichabode]

Dear Posters: Read the question.

Fr. David, I think the question about communion of Bishops is in the context of what does that mean as it relates to an infallible teaching.

I assumed it was obvious the OP had in mind the Catholic Church and not schismatics who have been officially removed from the Catholic Church.

I see people get confused about full communion of Bishops and linking that to an idea that every Bishop must be in agreement. If that is what the original Poster had in mind that would be incorrect.

 

[LongingSoul]

That seems awfully circular to me.
Issue A is infallible when the Pope and whoever agrees with him are in agreement?

It’s not a matter of ‘agreeing’ with the Pope per se… it is more ‘submitting’ to a teaching. It’s a communion in faith rather than a consensus of opinions.

Lumen Gentium goes into great detail about the nature of infallible teachings as they relate to the authority of the Bishops. Here is a part from paragraph 25.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess I don’t understand what in communion means then in the Catholic sense.

So if one bishop is a football fan and the pope is a soccer fan, does that mean they are no longer members of the same Church?

If one drinks coffee and the other likes tea, can they not share in the Sacraments?

It’s not that you misunderstand it (and yes, I know you meant it sarcastically), you’re just reading too much into the notion of being in Communion.

Remember that theologians can and do have differing opinions. Just look at any Ecumenical Council. The bishops spend a great deal of time discussing and debating issues. It doesn’t mean they are out-of-Communion with each other. It means they are human.

When it’s all said and done, and an infallible teaching is defined, then, and only then, they all must agree. If it’s not infallible they can have levels of agreeing and disagreeing. They can disagree on matters of Church discipline, for example. One bishop might want a 1 hour Communion fast, another might propose a 2 hour one. That’s because it isn’t a matter of infallibility.

I think that what’s happening is you’re starting with an infallible teaching, then saying that because it’s infallible, they must all agree. That’s not the point of what the OP posted. The OP posted the criteria for determining what is an infallible teaching.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Being ‘in communion’ with a fellow Bishop has a wider scope and meaning than being ‘in accord’. Bishops are in solidarity with each other by mere fact of being a Bishop, yes? But I would imagine that behind closed doors there are sharp disagreements. Two examples I can think of are (Arch)Bishop Cordeleone from San Francisco (my home), who is on the far end of the conservative continuum, and retired Bishop Gumbleton from Detroit (where I once lived), who is pretty far on the end of the liberal continuum. My guess is that they disagree on many, many things, yet they are both Bishops and in communion with each other and with Rome.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Thanks for all your answers.

So, for infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium, being in communion means that all the bishops who are proclaiming an infallible teaching must submit to the Pope.

And if all the bishops are submitting to the Pope, they’ll be in communion with each other (and the Pope obviously).

This is correct, right?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thanks for all your answers.

So, for infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium, being in communion means that all the bishops who are proclaiming an infallible teaching must submit to the Pope.

And if all the bishops are submitting to the Pope, they’ll be in communion with each other (and the Pope obviously).

This is correct, right?

If communion means submission then why not use the word. If it means agreement, Why not use that word. It seems to mean more than that. A deep spiritual connection. It would be nice if we had a Catholic definition of that. Because honestly I have no idea what it means in this context.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for all your answers.

So, for infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium, being in communion means that all the bishops who are proclaiming an infallible teaching must submit to the Pope.

And if all the bishops are submitting to the Pope, they’ll be in communion with each other (and the Pope obviously).

This is correct, right?

No. It does not mean that at all.

I keep trying to explain it.

#1 means that only the opinion of the bishops who are in Communion with the Catholic Church matter.

Other bishops need not be consulted (although they may be).

 

[FrDavid96]

If communion means submission then why not use the word. If it means agreement, Why not use that word. It seems to mean more than that. A deep spiritual connection. It would be nice if we had a Catholic definition of that. Because honestly I have no idea what it means in this context.

Communion does not mean submission. You’re still confusing two different issues.

Communion means that they are fully members of the Catholic Church. In this context, they are not only members they are more-specifically bishops.