The third primary error of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) is collegiality. The first essay covers the primary error of religious freedom (click here), and the second addresses ecumenism (click here). This is the final essay in the three-part series.
As always, we must start with definitions. The term collegiality refers to a “college,” which is nothing more than a body of persons having a shared or common purpose. With respect to the Church, the question of collegiality refers to how the Church is governed. Usually, collegiality will involve questions of governance among the bishops and the Pope, but as we shall see, the door has been opened for laity and non-Catholic involvement as well.
Errors concerning collegiality stemming from Vatican II strike at the heart of Holy Mother Church. As always, before we explore this Vatican II error, we must recall what the Church teaches in Her Tradition in order to see how Vatican II collegiality cannot be reconciled with the Catholic faith.
A. Traditional Catholic Teaching on Church Governance
The traditional (i.e. Catholic) teaching on Church governance was set forth clearly at the First Vatican Council (Vatican I), specifically in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus. Without doubt, it has been the teaching of the Catholic Church since its inception that the Pope is the Supreme Pastor with full governing (juridical) authority over the Church.
Any discussion concerning Church governance must begin with Holy Scripture. While quite familiar to any Catholic today, these passages bear repeating because it is the definitive source upon which the Tradition of the Church is grounded. Emphases on the following relevant statements are mine and will be especially relevant for the discussion to follow. According to St. Matthew:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [i]
While Protestants and Eastern Orthodox may disagree, the authority of the Pope was always been accepted within various degrees throughout Christendom. After the first millennium and the reforms of Pope St. Gregory VII, Papal authority was clarified and solidified to the point where Pope Boniface in 1302 could confidently teach:
“Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].”[ii]
On the other hand, it is true that the authority of the Pope to govern the Church did not remain uncontested over the centuries. Any questions concerning the Pope’s possession of supreme juridical authority to govern the Church was infallibly resolved with Pastor Aeternus in 1870 at Vatican I.
“We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.”[iii]
“And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep”.[iv]
“the “holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.”[v]
“Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.”[vi]
“Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment.”[vii]
The Popes continued to teach on this issue even after Vatican I. Pope Pius XII, shortly before Vatican II, made it explicitly clear once again the source of a bishop’s juridical authority. He says:
“Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called “principal parts of the members of the Lord;” moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[viii]
In response to suppression in Communist China and illicit ordination of bishops not approved by the Holy See, Pope Pius XII in 1958 once again reiterated what he had already taught in Mystici Corporis:
“it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…
“And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: ‘The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.’[ix]
The Catholic teaching about the source of juridical authority, that is the authority to govern in the Church, ultimately comes from Jesus Christ Himself and is conferred directly on Pope as the Vicar of Christ.
This means that while the bishops receive the authority to sanctify and offer sacraments directly from Christ through the sacrament of Holy Orders, they ONLY receive the power to govern directly from the Pope. The Church, in other words, very clearly distinguishes between the sacramental powers received by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders and the authority to govern received from the Pope.
This distinction between sacramental and juridical authority may not seem like a big deal, but as we shall see, this teaching is a fundamental and indispensable building block upon which the entire visible structure of the Church hinges.
B. Church Governance Under Vatican II
Under Vatican II, a fundamental change in the Church’s teachings concerning authority was attempted. And when we speak of authority, in this instance, we are speaking specifically about juridical authority, or the power to govern.
The primary error will be found in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium. This is not ambiguous or difficult to decipher. The Constitution specifically says in paragraph 21:
“And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college (emphasis added).”[x]
Here, contrary to Tradition, the Council teaches that a bishop’s authority to govern does not come from the Pope but by way of the episcopal consecration itself. Yes, it says it can only be “exercised” in communion with the Pope, but the power itself is received through consecration.
Some may argue this can somehow be squared with prior Tradition because the Pope must still assign a bishop to a particular jurisdiction. But Pope Benedict XVI clarified in this letter to the Bishops in China:
“As in the rest of the world, in China too the Church is governed by Bishops who, through episcopal ordination conferred upon them by other validly ordained Bishops, have received, together with the sanctifying office, the offices of teaching and governing the people entrusted to them in their respective particular Churches, with a power that is conferred by God through the grace of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”[xi]
Notice here it was not the Pope who entrusted the bishops with their respective Churches in China, but “the people.” Simply stated, according to Pope Benedict, it is evidently clear Lumen Gentium teaches the power of jurisdiction is received by and through the Sacrament of Holy Orders and not the Pope.
The Council did not stop there. Continuing on in paragraph 22, the Constitution states:
“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. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff… In [the college], the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council.”[xii]
Now, the Council extends the “supreme and full power over the universal Church” beyond only the Pope, as provided for at Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus, to the college of bishops. This is an ambiguous teaching because the college cannot at the same time have supreme power over the universal Church if it is conditioned on the approval of the Pope—then it would not be supreme but subordinate.
Nevertheless, while Lumen Gentium conditions the exercise of this supreme power on the consent of the Pope, the idea that the Pope in some way shares the supreme and full power over the universal Church with the bishops is a novel one and conflicts with Pastor Aeternus. Recall, that Vatican I taught that bishops only exercised authority to “govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them.”
Consequently, we see two distinct, but interrelated errors taught in Lumen Gentium. First, that the bishops receive their power to govern and teach, their jurisdiction, directly from Jesus Christ, not the Pope, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Second, this governing and teaching authority, when exercised with the Pope, constitutes the supreme and full governing power over the universal Church—a power Vatican I only gave to the Pope.
This shift in authority away from the Pope and to the college of bishops not only contradicts Tradition, but fundamentally changes the structure of the Church entirely.
C. Consequences of Collegiality
This shift away from Papal monarchical type governance to a broader-based oligarchical authority resting with the bishops of the Church has resulted in significant and dire consequences for the Church. The most obvious one the faithful are suffering through today is this notion of synodality.
The first step in collegiality is to shift governing power away from the Pope to the bishops. This is the first, and most important step, because once the power of the Papal office is effectively transferred to (or even shared with) the bishops, the door is now open to further and potentially unlimited delegation to others, including the laity. This is a natural step for the Modernist because for them religion comes not from God but arises from the subconscious of each individual. Pope Pius X warned us about this in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:
“In past times [according to the Modernist] it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say directly from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But his conception had now grown obsolete….For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its fullest development, and when the public conscience has in the civil order introduced popular government…It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind.”[xiii]
The redistribution of juridical (governing) authority away from the Pope, which coincides with the outdated monarchism of the past for the Modernist, and first to the bishops and eventually “the people” is a necessary component if one seeks to destroy the Catholic Church and rebuild a new one that will be amenable to the shifting sands of the modern world.
1. Synod on Synodality
This is where the Synod on Synodality comes in, a process the faithful has been subjected to since 2021 and remains ongoing at least through October 2024 of this year. The key to understanding such a process, one that is essentially unheard of in the past although the word “synod” has always been there, insists that “synodality” guides the Church “within a historical context… to scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret them in the light of the Gospel.”[xiv]
But how is this done? This is done not just through the thousands of bishops who presumably are in touch with the individuals within their diocese and are aware of the situation on the ground, it is to be done through formalized meetings, polls, surveys and discussions among the faithful.
The preparatory document to the Synod on Synodality was careful to say that “the consultation of the People of God does not imply the assumption within the Church of the dynamics of democracy based on the principle of majority,” but rather
“It is in the fruitful bond between the sensus fidei of the People of God and the magisterial function of the Pastors that the unanimous consensus of the whole Church in the same faith is realized.”[xv]
I have addressed the concerns with this notion of sensus fidei, the sense of the faithful, before. The key is that the concept of sensus fidei is an entirely new conception of the term, not consistent with the way the Church traditionally understood it.
Traditionally, this concept meant that the whole of the faithful cannot err if the whole of the faithful consent to a particular doctrine. What it does not mean is that the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church must consult with the faithful when teaching on matters of doctrine. The exercise of magisterial authority is not an exercise in polling the Pope, bishops, and the laity in order to arrive at consensus on what is Truth. And yet, that is exactly what the promoters of the Synod on Synodality intend because they told us that is what they intend.
In 2014, the International Theological Commission issued a document entitled: Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church. In it, the Commission says:
“In matters of faith the baptized cannot be passive… Not only do they have the right to be heard, but their reaction to what is proposed as belonging to the faith of the Apostles must be taken very seriously, because it is by the Church as a whole that the apostolic faith is borne in the power of the Spirit. The magisterium does not have sole responsibility for it. The magisterium should therefore refer to the sense of faith of the Church as a whole. The sensus fidelium can be an important factor in the development of doctrine, and it follows that the magisterium needs means by which to consult the faithful (Emphasis added).[xvi]
This notion of consulting the faithful, as matter of right, in developing doctrine on matters of faith and morals is simply not Catholic—but certainly protestant. This is a complete reversal of Vatican I, in Pastor Aeternus, where it is taught that lines of communication must remain open, not so the Pope can learn from the faithful, but so that “they [the faithful] may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation!”[xvii]
Consequently, while the Vatican II documents erroneously speak about the power of the bishops obtaining their governing authority directly from Christ, the inevitable result of such an idea leads to the reduction in the authority of the Papal office itself, and consequently the entire structure of the visible hierarchy.
2. The Bishop of Rome Study Document
In June of 2024, the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity presented a new study document concerning the role of the Pope and the exercise of the “Petrine Ministry.”
This document, entitled Bishop of Rome, seeks to summarize various opinions among protestant groups in effort at ecumenical dialogue. The Dicastery claims the document attempts to reach a new understanding with such protestant groups about the role of the Papacy in order to achieve greater unity.
What is amazing about this document is that it summarizes attempts to break down the primacy of the Pope, as taught in Pastor Aeternus, and hinges on this notion that the Papal office is not structured according to Divine law, but rather grew out of historical needs and took its current shape due to historical influence.
This is important because if the Papacy is not structured according to divine right but is only subject to human law, then the office itself can be restructured in a way that is pleasing to protestants without eliminating the notion of a Petrine Ministry.
In fact, the Modernist term “Petrine Ministry” is now the terminology used after Vatican II, instead of “the Papacy,” or “Papal office,” because it encompasses other aspects or functions beyond juridical, administrative governing authority that protestants reject. It is also why there is now more of an emphasis on the Pope’s role as “Bishop of Rome,” rather than Supreme Head of the Church, because it deemphasized the Pope’s universal authority.
The document itself does not mince words. It proudly proclaims that:
“The understanding and exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome entered a new phase with the Second Vatican Council.”[xviii]
It furthermore confirms exactly what I sought to prove above, namely that the authority of bishops was strengthened (at the expense of the Pope) at the Council:
“Complementing the definitions of the First Vatican Council on papal primacy, the Constitution Lumen gentium strengthened the office of bishops who govern their particular churches as ‘vicars and ambassadors of Christ […] and not as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs’ (LG 27) and emphasized the significance of episcopal collegiality (LG 23).”[xix]
As I proved above, it DOES contradict the First Vatican Council and Church Tradition, but nonetheless, at least the study document admits Vatican II teaches the bishops receive their authority from Christ and not the Pope.
In fact, it goes on to further confirm:
“In its teaching on the sacramentality of episcopacy (LG 21), Vatican II re-established the connection between sacramental and juridical powers given through ordination: ‘This means that a bishop possesses authority by virtue of his ordination that is not juridically delegated by the bishop of Rome. The exercise of this authority, however, is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.’”[xx]
This paragraph admits it was not the Church’s understanding before Vatican II that the bishops receive their juridical authority from the Pope because it needed to be “re-established.”
The study document desperately tries to convince its readers that Vatican II simply completed or complemented the teachings of Vatican I. This is necessary because unless they mischaracterize collegiality as a “development,” it is obvious to everyone in the world, including protestants, that Lumen Gentium cannot be squared with Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus when it comes to Papal primacy. And the Modernists unquestionably need to get around the clear, beautiful language of Paster Aeternus in order to recreate the Church in a new Modernist image.
At the end of the day, the Modernists propose conceiving a new idea of the Petrine Ministry that:
“should not be expressed in juridical terms alone, but on the basis of a koinonia ecclesiology rooted in the sacramental understanding of the Church favoured by the Second Vatican Council (see LG 1, 9, 48). Such an ecclesiology is based on the sensus fidei of all the faithful by virtue of their baptism; on the Eucharist, which “constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole” (O–C 2007, 3); and in the sacramental nature of the episcopate (see LG 21).”[xxi]
And what is the natural consequence of this revisioning of the Petrine Ministry? It necessarily means changing the structure of the Papacy itself as the document freely admits:
“Since ‘ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority’ are understood as the ‘ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the church’…institutional structures of the Church should ‘visibly reflect the mystery of this koinonia.’” [citations omitted].[xxii]
Here, Koinonia refers to the idea of Christian fellowship among a large body of believers, not limited to Catholics alone.
In other words, because Vatican II taught that those with apostolic authority, like the Catholic bishops and the Eastern Orthodox bishops(!) received authority directly because of their consecration in a sacramental way, and because they do not receive their juridical authority directly from the Pope, a new notion and structure of the Petrine Ministry can be imagined that would accommodate non-Catholic mentality.
What type of “structure” may this new Petrine Ministry take on? The document does not say. But clearly it opens the door for radical innovations such as expanding the Petrine Ministry to include more than one man, even a synod of individuals, working together to exercise the Petrine Ministry.
If you think this far-fetched, I would call your attention to a piece I did on Archbishop Michael Miller’s (current Archbishop of Vancouver) dissertation concerning Pope Benedict’s incomplete resignation from the Papal office. In effort to show that Benedict XVI’s notion of expanding the Petrine Ministry was a well-established topic in Modernist circles, I pointed out that Miller cited Modernist theologians such as Karl Rahner, who suggested that:
“The Petrine function would exist iure divino[by divine law], but it need not be exercised by a single individual.”
Cardinal Dulles also made the same point:
“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament—possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like.”
These topics are relevant to Vatican II’s erroneous concept of collegiality because it shows the disastrous consequences that can arise from unmooring governing authority from the Pope as Tradition teaches was given to St. Peter and his Papal successors by Divine right.
D. Conclusion to Collegiality and the Errors of Vatican II Series
In summary, the error of collegiality arises in Lumen Gentium because it teaches that juridical, or governing authority, comes to the bishops by way of their sacramental consecration directly from Jesus Christ and is not mediated through the Office of the Papacy. As demonstrated, this is directly contrary to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which teaches that only the Pope receives his jurisdiction from Christ directly, and that as the Supreme Head of Church, all other governing authority is passed down to the bishops through the Pope and are subject to him. The laity are subject to the authority of their bishops, who in turn, receive that authority from the Pope. This is fundamental to the structure of the Church, of course, but has important implications beyond simply how the Church is governed.
As we saw with the Synod of Synodality and the Bishop of Rome study document, attacks on the Pope’s primacy necessarily means that doors for others to step into the Papal role are now opened, including the perceived duty to consult with the laity on matters of developing Church doctrine and discipline. Such a novel concept would also allow for various Papal functions (ministries) to be exercised by more than one person, even a group of non-Catholics.
All of these permutations, rabbit holes, and time bombs arise not simply because of the so-called Spirit of Vatican II, but as a direct result of the text contained in the Vatican II documents. This series of essays on the primary errors of Vatican II was intended to show the reader just how a few words among thousands can affect and even change what we believe as Catholics while at the same time changing the entire visible structure of the Church.
In fact, it impacts the entire world, millions of souls, because through religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality, the doctrines of the faith and authority of the Church are essentially being replaced with something else. Much more can be said about what this “something else” is, but unless we understand how Modernists managed to inject their faith-killing poison into the body of the Church, we will not be able to find the right antidote. Our battle to purify Holy Mother Church from the Modernist infiltrators must, therefore, begin with exposing the errors of Vatican II without shame or hesitation.
[i] Matthew 16:18-19 (RSV)).
[ii] Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302).
[iii] Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 1,1.
[iv] Ibid., 1, 3.
[v] Ibid., Chap. 3, 1.
[vi] Ibid., Chap. 3, 6.
[vii] Ibid., Chap. 3, 8.
[viii] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 42 (1943).
[ix] Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, 39-40 (1958).
[x] Lumen Gentium, 21.
[xi] Benedict XVI, “Letter to the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China (May 27, 2007).
[xii] Lumen Gentium, 22.
[xiii] Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 23.
[xiv] The Synod on Synodality, Preparatory Document, para. 4, Available at: https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/common/preparatory-document/pdf-desktop/en_prepa_desktop.pdf
[xv] Ibid. at para. 14.
[xvi] “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church (2014),” n.d. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html.
[xvii] Pastor Aeternus, Chap 3, 6.
[xviii] “The Bishop of Rome – New Publication of the DPCU,” June 13, 2024. http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/news/2024/2024-06-13-il-vescovo-di-roma-nuovo-documento-dpuc.html. Para. 1.
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Ibid., Para. 66.
[xxi] Ibid., para. 25.
[xxii] Ibid.