Debates and controversies over matters of doctrinal development never happen in a vacuum or in the abstract. Which is why it is always critical to assess both the intellectual milieu in which such debates take place and the history that led up to that moment in time.
Because Christian doctrines are first and foremost elucidations of a Mystery – the Mystery of God’s self-Revelation in Christ – they are therefore not merely conceptual constructs ordered to our reason in a strictly deductive and logical register. They are also, and perhaps more importantly, an appeal to an infinite Good, which pertains to the will and all of our imaginative capacities for the symbolization of our deepest transcendental desires in the light of that Revelation. Therefore, it is of vital importance to ascertain what the imaginative hopes and fears were of the various parties involved in the debates since they have a direct bearing on why certain doctrinal ideas became hot button triggers for a host of deeper questions.
In other words, what were the often hidden “issues” behind the “issue” at hand?
Collegiality and the Papacy
Such is the case in assessing one of the most contentious doctrinal debates at Vatican II, on the topic of episcopal collegiality and the relationship between the authority of a local bishop and the authority of the pope. Central to that debate was the question of whether or not an individual bishop, in virtue of his consecration as a bishop, has the power (potestas) of teaching and governing in a manner that is sacramentally given by God and not, as recent Church teaching had stated (e.g., Pius XII in Mystici corporis Christi), delegated to the bishop from the pope as a sharing in the pope’s supreme jurisdictional and teaching authority.
Vatican I, which had famously defined the dogma of papal infallibility (which included an affirmation of the Pope’s supreme jurisdictional authority over and in the Church), ended abruptly before it could go on to discuss the topic of the episcopal munera (functions) and the relation of those functions to papal authority. Leading up to Vatican I, there had already been a marked tendency toward greater and greater centralization of power in Rome and a diminution of the authority of the local bishop. Thus, the doctrinal definitions of Vatican I acted as a super accelerant to a fire that had already been burning for a long time, as can be seen in the hypertrophy of papal power, if not an outright papalotry, in the ensuing century.
Combined with the power of the newly minted media of radio, film, and then television, the pope became the public face of Catholicism, and his every word took on the tonality of an oracular inspiration directly from God for most ordinary Catholics, not to mention most non-Catholics. No less a light than St. Pope Paul VI once said that the Pope answers to nobody but God himself, a statement that fits well within Vatican I and its assertion that the Pope answers to nobody in the Church, which is the logical conclusion to the notion that the Pope’s authority alone is the rock upon which Christ founded his Church, with the other apostles being little more than vassals of Peter’s authority.
The ressourcement theologians at Vatican II, as well as an overwhelming majority of bishops, insisted the idea that local bishops do not teach and govern via a power given to them by God, but rather only as extensions of papal power, was of recent vintage. They stated that the older and truer tradition of the Church had always maintained that elevation to the episcopacy granted those powers to the bishop by divine right.
However, a vocal minority of bishops strongly and repeatedly dissented from this view. Paul VI, aware that the Council was developing various doctrines on several fronts and desiring to protect the reputation and integrity of the Magisterium, was keen on making certain the minority voices were not only heard but genuinely incorporated into the text to preserve the notion of a material continuity in doctrine. To that end, he approved the famous “nota praevia explicativa” which became a kind of appendix to Lumen Gentium, and which made it clear that even if a bishop has, in virtue of his ordination, the powers of teaching and governing, such powers would always be exercised “sub et cum Petro” [under and with Peter].
It worked, and the minority bishops were placated. Paul VI had gotten his wish of a unanimity of voices, deftly woven together into a balanced and internally coherent document. The doctrine of episcopal collegiality with bishops teaching and governing on their own authority – an authority given by God and not delegated from the Pope – was now the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
A legitimate fear?
In hindsight, it is perhaps easy to view the minority bishops as old-guard obstructionists who simply wanted to maintain a hyper-papalism rooted in a stubborn adherence to discredited theological concepts. But hearkening back to my opening paragraph, it is important that we dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves: what was it that these bishops feared?
In short, they feared a runaway neo-Gallicanism and the reduction of papal authority to a mere symbol of unity without juridical teeth. They feared a resurgent conciliarism and the rise of national episcopal conferences now empowered to launch synods and councils of their own with an ambiguous relation to the universal Magisterium of the Pope. And perhaps most noteworthy of the “issues behind the issue” was a fear that the progressive wing of the Church, long desirous of extreme changes in Church doctrine and practice, were merely using the issue of collegiality to bring in through the Church’s back door heretical doctrines and dangerous practices that they could not get in the front door.
One might say they had a legitimate fear that the centrifugal forces at play in the culture of modernity required an equally strong centripetal force at the Church’s center. One could read the dogmas of Vatican I in a similar light, as the Church’s assertion of a centrifugal power structure to combat the fragmentation of Christendom into scores of secular nation States, as well as the rise of the centripetal forces of amoral, free market economies, democratic and egalitarian political Liberalisms, and the reduction of reason via the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution to a mere cipher for competitive domination of the world.
The minority bishops at Vatican II were not wrong to fear such centrifugal forces. And they were not wrong in their belief that the papacy had to a great extent acted as a centripetal counter punch keeping the Catholic Church from becoming, like the Episcopalians, a collection of ill-assorted local churches held together by nothing more than vague and multi-valent faith statements.
Ultimately, however, and despite these legitimate fears, the papacy could only act in this fashion for so long, if for no other reason than it is contrary to a sound and proper ecclesiology. And therefore, Vatican II was entirely right to correct the hypertrophy of papal centralization and to seek a more collegial Church. However, the Council did not entirely spell out in specific theological and canonical detail how this collegial Church was to work. Thus, it was left to later popes and national episcopal conferences to work this out — and it is far from clear, even now, what the exercise of episcopal authority sub et cum Petro actually looks like in practice.
Collegiality: The good, the bad, and the unclear
Along these lines, remember that the concept of collegiality was not an attempt to make the Church more in tune with the democratic impulses of modernity, but was instead a genuinely theological development of what a true pluralism really is in the Church. It was an attempt to empower the peripheries of the Church vis-à-vis her juridical center, and as such was an articulation of how the delicate waltz of centripetal vs. centrifugal forces could be exercised with the Pope leading the dance, but without clumsily stepping on the feet of the episcopacy. It was not a purely juridical restructuring of the Church’s lines of authority, although it was that in part, but was first and foremost a theological assertion of the Church as a “communio” of nested hierarchies.
Recently, a narrative has emerged that focuses almost exclusively on the juridical aspects of collegiality; it alleges that Pope John Paul II stalled Vatican II’s putative call for a more “democratic” Church, since he failed to implement collegiality in this juridical sense. It is further alleged that with Pope Francis we “finally” have a Pope who is implementing that vision after decades of delay and papal obstruction.
But this is a highly tendentious analysis. It ignores the fact that after the Council, the centrifugal forces within the Church had run wild and the Church, by the time John Paul took over in 1978, was threatened with being torn apart by those forces. It is instructive to remember the words of Msgr. Gerard Philips, one of the most influential theologians at the Council and no “conservative”, who commented on the debates over collegiality and noted that “the extremists of the left have made our task very difficult.” Sadly, after the Council this extremism of the left won the day, and this is what confronted Pope John Paul.
But if the “issue behind the issue” was the legitimate empowering of the peripheries, then one can see that John Paul’s many travels and his untiring struggle for human rights was precisely and truly just such an empowering. His travels were not exercises in papal theatrics or an attempt to gin up a hyper-papalist cult of personality, as is often alleged, but were his effort to use the power of the papacy to empower local bishops in their struggles with oppressive cultural and political forces. Wherever he went, the visible symbol of Peter’s unifying function empowered the local episcopacy rather than neutering it. His visits, especially in places like Poland and Central America, gave the local bishops a transcending, transnational fulcrum that ignited the local Church and galvanized it for the struggle at hand. And if the juridical aspect of collegiality was, for clear and good reasons, not fully implemented, it remains true that the theological aspect of the Church as a communio of believers sub et cum Petro was profoundly affirmed and enacted.
By contrast, the current movement toward synodality, while laudatory in theory, reeks of those elements feared by the conservative minority at the Council and which Msgr. Philips warned against.
It looks for all intents and purposes as an attempt to alter fundamental Church teachings on a range of important issues all in the name of “listening”. Listening to what, exactly? The Belgian bishops have just approved a new ritual for blessing same-sex “unions” despite repeated Vatican statements to the contrary. Many German bishops, Cardinal Marx included, have said that even if their own “synodal way” did not reach the two-thirds majority required to change Church teaching and practice, they were going to still implement it in their dioceses. Cardinal Hollerich, the relator appointed by Pope Francis to run the upcoming Synod on synodality, is on record opposing Church teaching on homosexuality. And Cardinal Tobin of Newark has just released the results of the “listening” sessions in his Archdiocese, and it seems the Holy Spirit sounds a lot like the ladies on The View.
Is any of this what the Council meant by collegiality? In a word… no. The entire affair comes across as a ruse, a game, and a cynical strategy for doing an end run around Church teaching.
Add to this the fact that the ruling style of Pope Francis has been anything but collegial or synodal, and you end up with a deep suspicion that “synodality” is merely a synonym for liberalization. Whether it be by papal diktat as in Traditionis custodes, or the canning of a Puerto Rican bishop without due process and for no stated reasons, or the suspension of ordinations in a vocationally thriving French diocese – also for no stated reason – or the faux “democracy” of the neo-Montanist synodal “listening”, it all amounts to the same thing: the baptizing of the plausibility structures of secular modernity.
And this is not what the Council meant by collegiality, either juridically or theologically.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“sounds alot like the ladies on The View” a great line. But I actually think Tobin IS one of the ladies on The View.
He’s no lady.
As a supporting footnote to Chapp’s comment on, and the linked “nota praevia exlicativia” to Lumen Gentium…the Second Vatican Council correspondent, Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen SVD, fills in the blanks:
“…Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of these ambiguous passages [in Lumen Gentium], and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals [thirty-five in number] and superior general, whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept [Pope Paul VI then took action…] And in order to make absolutely sure that, after the Council, no one could possibly place the extreme liberal interpretation upon the concept of collegiality, the Theological Commission must prepare a Preliminary Explanatory Note to precede this particular chapter [Chapter 3]” (“The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II,” 1966; p. 232).
The Note is included curiously as only an appendix to the entire published Constitution, and not as the instructed and visible preface to Chapter 3 on collegiality. Now, over half a century “after the council,” a few fossilized remnants, plus second- and third-generation extreme liberals, functional illiterates, and assembly-line empty suits, or all five, are set on airbrushing their zeitgeist graffiti atop collegiality (a “hierarchical communion”), the Council, and the perennial Catholic Church itself.
The question at this late hour is whether, at the next conclave, the more recently appointed and more international cardinals will suck up to this West-sectarian cross-dressing of the universal Church, or not. The mutation of ambiguous “synodality.”
(For three years, Fr. Wiltgen published the international Council News Service in six languages, which went out to over 3,000 subscribers in 108 countries.)
Paul VI lamented that he had been deceived? I am thinking he foresaw that the Council would be betrayed one way and another and this is what caused him to suffer.
The Council does get betrayed, which does happen in different ways; and this causes similar suffering to every faithful person.
In my VATICAN II Documents book with Walter M. Abbott, S.J., as General Editor (Geoffrey Chapman 1967), the Nota is not given. For me reading Chapter III is easy enough without the Nota.
Then when I read the Nota without connecting anything about controversy, I find the Nota to be either unnecessary, strictly speaking, or, pedantic and not ancillary.
I defer to other comments I have made concerning VATICAN II, in particular, that the documents speak for themselves very well -exceptional, really- when you are minded to keep faith.
I thought Chapp’s positioning of the problematic synod and the actions/ behaviours /driving comments, associated with it, to be very perceptive.
Jesus didn’t freeze-frame any society in order to teach and there is no such lesson in the Gospel or in Acts or in Paul’s letters; nor any such example in any of the lives of the saints.
In none of the apparitions of the BVM does she freeze-frame anything in order for her message to succeed.
https://www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
The Pope “has full, SUPREME, and universal power over the WHOLE Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” Cathechism # 882.
.
The College of Cardinals, all younger than 80, elects Popes and requires at least 66% votes. Francis will have it on 1/14/23 when Cardinal Bagnasco is 80. He need not appoint more before then, given his 16 new ones, who shall replace 80 year olds through Cardinal Sandri on 11/18/43. Expect Francis to appoint 15 new Cardinals after that date, only 14 months away, who would replace 15 Cardinals through Cardinal Cardozo, who turns 80 on 10/10/44. On that day in 2 years, Francis College Cardinals will be 77%. If Francis retires when he turns 90 on 12/17/26, then he will appoint 83% of the College.
.
Benedict is 95. Francis shall be 95 on 12/17/31 if he is Pope. It is possible. Current College members, who are not “Francis Cardinals,” shall be only 6 then. 7 Cardinals were born before 1960; new Cardinal Marengo is 47. They shall elect 2 successor “Francis Popes”, and more shall follow: the same with Francis Cardinals and Francis Bishops, who shall appoint Francis Heads of Seminaries, who shall appoint Francis faculty, who shall teach seminarians to become Francis priests.
.
Francis also changed US Bishops appointing 131/273 who are younger than 75, which is when he can retire them. That is 5 fewer than 50%. The 5 turn 75 by 11/19/22. Others turn 75 in the next 5 years from large dioceses (Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Orange County), and 2 are the President and V.P. of USCCB. Soon, Francis Bishops shall control USCCB (retired Bishops cannot vote) and its agenda.
.
To those who have resentment toward Francis, remember the saying: “you don’t have the numbers.” They shall have fewer numbers and more resentment with each new day. There is nothing they can do about it, given Catechism # 882.
.
Remember Benedict is the cause of Cardinal Bergoglio being Pope Francis because Benedict would be Pope had he not retired, making Francis his Papal legacy. Remember it was the Cardinals appointed by Benedict and John Paul 2 who elected Bergoglio Pope Francis. THEIR Cardinals created Francis. Look to them and to Benedict.
.
Benedict also is the cause of Francis not being able to retire before Benedict dies because having 3 living Popes is an ontological impossibility for the Church. Benedict alive creates another Francis Bishop to appoint another Francis Seminary Head to appoint another Francis Seminary faculty to create another Francis priest.
.
To those who have resentment of Francis, they can thank Benedict for their resentment. I thank God for retiring Benedict. May Benedict live a long life. The Papal irony of more resentment of Francis caused by Ratzinger is a Papal gift that shall keep on giving.
Yours comment serves no purpose, correct?
Why do you keep posting this? You have posted this same exact response multiple times on this sight. What are you doing here and what are you trying to accomplish?
Anna N Amoz , I would comment that you are referencing the full authority of the Pope in a wrong sense. Yet you do not say what you actually mean or intend, therefore, until you specify what you mean by it, it can not merit as an argument about anything nor can it lead as a discouragement in anything.
When St. Peter was straying on the question of circumcision, he could have put the weight of his power behind it. As it turned out, he didn’t; but had he done so he would have misled himself and many others.
I have complete power over a vehicle when I am driving it. If I drive it badly there will be consequences and I would bear the responsibility in this and that measure. It is a useful parallel in teaching freedom. And it gives insight too concerning the Pope and the authority he has for Christ; and the love Christ expects from us.
Thank God for writers like Chapp. Really wonderful.
Good article. I always appreciated the statement that the only biblical reference to collegiality was the phrase, “And they all fled.”
When some new bishop puts that on his coat of arms, there will be hope.
“Christian doctrines are first and foremost elucidations of a Mystery, Revelation in Christ, not merely conceptual constructs” (Chapp).
Listening means conceptualization, neither revelation, nor theological resourcemente, nor hermeneutic continuity. Simply flabby opinions at best, outright distortions of truth at worst [the latter perceived by Larry Chapp as the purpose of the Synod structure] by the morally deranged led by the epitome of that derangement, Synod relator Cardinal Hollerich SJ. Deranged is an appropriate description of one who rearranges the coherency of order.
Line of the month: Listening sessions sound a lot like the ladies on The View. Nota praevia exlicativia, spitefully [or strategically] moved from its intended introductory status Lumen Gentium buried in the appendix in order to highlight conceptual collegiality absent of the one bishop that really matters, the bishop of Rome. This chicanery is now wilfully [Pope VI author of the Nota was deceived by Modernists] the rearrangement of the current bishop of Rome. A derangement of divinely established order.
Our solace, whatever chicanery transpires Christus Vincit.
Although Pope Francis is primarily responsible for what was chicanery under Paul VI, the Pontiff has expressed benevolent motivation – finding new pastoral ways, advances that he cited as not doctrinal. In line with that he criticized Archbishop Cordileone as making an insensitive, unpastoral decision in prohibiting Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist.
Can we acknowledge good intent? Perhaps we can, and as pontiff he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, indications are that he expects more of the same in context of inclusiveness in lieu of prohibitions. That opinion regarding his intent could be wrong.
The root problem is the outright rejection and subversion of the authority of scripture and tradition, and the insanity of those who reject and subvert scripture and tradition to brazenly attempt to substitute their own authority who are mere mortals, call title themselves Bishops and Archbishops and Cardinals and Pontiffs.
Under the circumstances given above, which are plain for all to see (regardless of whether the spectators are pro or con), it matters little whether there is the right balance between “collegial-latry” and “papal-latry.”
The contemporary Church has “prided itself” by spreading a big tent that promoted men as Bishops, Cardinals and now a Pontiff who, in imitation of Cardinal Walter Kasper, the epitome of “the contemporary ecclesial man,” have brazenly rejected and subverted the authority of scripture and tradition, while insisting simultaneously that deference is due them and their own (tertiary) authority as office-holders, mere stewards who dare to demote Christ and his apostles and evangelists, and arrogate to themselves “the new primacy” as “heads of the Church.”
Indeed, a man like Walter Kasper can outright deny in writing the authority of the New Testament, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and can yet be promoted to vast ecclesial power, and in one breath will insist that we must “de-mythologize” the Gospel, while in the very next breath call himself “Excellent” and “Eminent.”
Well, here is a word on that from the Most High, Father of the Incarnate Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit of Pentecost:
You think you can de-mythologize me, and you will call yourselves Excellent and Eminent and Holy? I will “de-mythologize” you, false shepherds, who have shepherded no one but yourselves.
“I am The Lord thy God, thou shalt have no gods other than me.”
yes, thankyou
Well said. If they were a rock group, might it be called, Papa and the Destroyers?
Many thanks for an informative and enlightening piece. In reading your comments on JPII I was reminded of something I learned first in the Army and then in real life: leadership. JPII had it, no one since him has. The test of a leader is that he inspires people to follow where he goes and this is precisely what JPII did. He did not need to opine on what “sub et cum Petro” meant: he lived it by his actions and the fact that so many responded ratified the meaning.
He led from the front like Alexander the Great. And Jesus.
Last night I submitted a comment arguing Bishop Bätzing be excommunicated for apostasy. After second thought [as usually happens when irritated] particularly while reading Church Fathers Clement, Polycarp and their appeal for patience with the reprobate with intent of drawing the lost sheep back I retracted my comment. An email arrived from Neuer Anfgang the German Catholic conservative response to Synodalweg. Anfgang reported that German bishops preparing for ad limina visits were [also] irritated that Bishop Bätzing announced he would present the Synodalweg proposals including the rejected portions on homosexuality et al to Pope Francis. The Neuer Anfgang response:
“I would just like to draw your attention to two quotes that fit well into this context and raise the question of the danger of a new wall, or rather, of a new, imminent division of Germany – this time in the Catholic space. The statements speak for themselves: ‘None of us wants to replace the Pope, suspend canon law or rewrite the doctrine of the Church.’ Cardinal Reinhard Marx told the French newspaper La Croix on September 14, less than two weeks ago. ‘Reforms must not stop at doctrine’ – This in turn was said by Bishop Bätzing two days ago at the start of the Plenary Assembly of Bishops. So go ahead, nothing happened. No one intends to establish a schism on the Synodal Way [In German said sarcastically]. Best regards Birgit Kelle and the team from Neuer Anfang”.
Larry Chapp’s essay outlines the decapitation of Magisterial authority in a collegiality of bishops absent the bishop of Rome, a phenomenon that occurred clandestinely when Modernists buried Paul VI’s corrective introductory commentary Nota praevia explicativa in the appendix. Although, ironically, what Cardinal Marx assures La Croix is not the Synodalweg intent, isn’t that the intent of Francis?
If they don’t want to change the rules but yet they actually don’t live them, it doesn’t exempt from the possibility of excommunication.
Likely, but even regardless of apparent “intent,” in the absence of vigilance and responsible guidance or effective control, what’s the foreseeable outcome?
If possibly not the intent, then still, what about sins of omission (what!)…as one sometimes finds in parents raising footloose teenagers? What’s the ecclesial curfew, if any?
For example, the effect of the definition of infallibility under the indwelling Holy Spirit is “not to enfeeble the freedom or vigor of human thought in religious speculation, but to resist and control its extravagance” (John Henry Cardinal Newman, “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”).
Agreed.
Regarding the comment of Fr. Peter M above, at 7:25 am on 28 Sep, he has used the very apt word “Decapitation.”
This was the very word used by Fr. Robert Imbelli in his article (I believe it was in Nov 2021?) published in the journal Nova et Vetera, entitled “No Decapitated Body.”
Now it requires us to take account of what this truly amounts to, from the vantage point of the Gospel and The New Testament.
Who is the head of the Catholic Church?
The Head is Jesus (and NOT the Pontiff).
So when faithful people observe that some other less-faithful people are doing a decapitation, what we really mean is this: THEY ARE TRYING TO DECAPITATE JESUS AS HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
It amounts to nothing less than that.
Chris in Maryland wrote:
“Who is the head of the Catholic Church? The Head is Jesus (and NOT the Pontiff).”
Declaration of the Council of Florence “Laetantur Caeli,” 6 July 1439 (excerpted):
“We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
There appears a difference of opinion heretofore. Our Lord and saviour has the final word, not the opinion voiced in “Declaration of the Council of Florence “Laetantur Caeli,” 6 July 1439 (excerpted)”
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Ephesians 1:22-23 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour.
Ephesians 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
Colossians 2:19 And not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
Colossians 2:10 And you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
May God’s word guide us into all blessings.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church promulgated at VCII, First Chapter, declares the Head of the Church is Christ:
“The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in Him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the Body which is the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the first place.(60) By the greatness of His power He rules the things in heaven and the things on earth, and with His all-surpassing perfection and way of acting He fills the whole body with the riches of His glory.
All the members ought to be molded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them.(62) For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him.(63) On earth, still as pilgrims in a strange land, tracing in trial and in oppression the paths He trod, we are made one with His sufferings like the body is one with the Head, suffering with Him, that with Him we may be glorified.(64)
Christ is the MYSTICAL, FIRST exemplar and CAUSE and REASON for the Church and the pope.
The pope is mere man. Jesus Christ is GOD.
Some people insist on putting man before God. Some people consider that the mystical, mysterious, non-visible Christ cannot be in charge of anything because some people have eyes but lack faith which SEEs and thus KNOWS.
Tighe, The quote you offer from the Council of Florence could grammatically be analyzed and interpreted to mean that CHRIST is the head of the Church. The “…Roman pontiff… is the true vicar of Christ [Christ, who is], the head of the whole church…”
The pope is to serve the temporal, militant, visible church as its leader, ruler, governor or head of this visible, temporal, militant body. The invisible Church–the supernatural, eternal, Church triumphant, the Church of heavenly Jerusalem–is headed by God. The visible church depends on the invisible church for its existence. The invisible Head is the first, primary, necessary, and completely sufficient Head of the entire Church body. Without the head and foundation of Christ, a church headed by a pontiff alone is an affront to God and is a counterfeit church.
I think the article by Mr. Chapp is absolutely excellent. It is good to read articles written by people who have a good knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Remember when Francis first became pope, he said he was “Mr. Humble.” He certainly has not been that person, especially when he wanted to change the words of the “Our Father” and give it a somewhat different meaning. He also wants to ignore Sacred Tradition and treat the Church as if it began in 1965. No pope can change the words or meaning of Sacred Scripture and no pope can prevent the practice of any Sacred Tradition that has been codified as part of the Deposit of Faith (ex. Traditional Latin Mass). Remember, the Coronation Oath that all popes from the early Middle Ages to Paul VI recited and sworn to uphold. The Oath stated that the pope was to preserve all doctrines, dogmas, and sacred traditions that were handed down to him. The Magisterium of the Church is not limited to the living clergy but extends all the way back to Christ and the apostles. Remember, Vatican I issued a list some 40+ popes who were declared to be heretics. Heretical popes have no teaching, moral, religious, or administrative authority. No formal Ecclesiastical Court is needed to prove heresy. Popes can excommunicate themselves “Latae Sententiae,” becoming “Papa hereticus depositus est.” This pope has worshipped Pachamama, has refused to support Cardinal Zen, has engaged in a secret agreement with the Red Chinese resulting in severe persecution of Chinese Catholics, he has also insulted traditional Catholics using many disgusting and foul terms. Is this man an anti-pope?
Chapp: “…it is far from clear, even now, what the exercise of episcopal authority sub et cum Petro actually looks like in practice.”
What IS clear is what episcopal authority should NOT look like under and with Peter. When a pope ALLOWS episcopal, collegial, or synodal teaching (the terminology is not important) which opposes the commonly understood sensus fidei (because taught by Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium for milennia), the pope errs. When the pope errs in such a way, neither the faithful nor the bishops are obliged to follow. Jesus warned against false prophets.
Jesus once called Peter “Satan.” If we were more conformed to Jesus, we would not hesitate to call error its true name; Christ stands with us against it. The Victory is His and ours who recognize Truth.