In the current (March) edition of Flourish, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Glasgow, Archbishop Conti reports on the recent ad limina visit of the Scots Bishops to Rome. The whole report seems to be a case of trying to make the best of a bad job, but that’s not really the main point of this thread. The main point of this thread is the fact that, in his comments about papal authority, Archbishop Conti misrepresents Vatican II teaching to argue that the Pope needs the bishops to “complete” his authority. Not so.
Read the Archbishop’s words for yourself:
“Pope Saint Leo the Great has left us a sermon which the Church has incorporated into the Divine Office for this Feast: “One man, Peter, was chosen out from the whole world to preside over the calling of all nations, over all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church. So, although in the People of God there are many priests and many pastors, Peter was to rule by his own authority overall, and over them also.” Clearly, Pope Leo had a sense, as Successor of Saint Peter, of his own authority and responsibility as teacher. At the same time, he recognised that the authority that had been given to him, and his commission to feed the whole flock of Christ, was shared by the other apostles… There is a collegiality among all the bishops, which is not complete without Peter, any more than Peter is complete without shepherds who share the power and commission which was given to him, the Prince of the Apostles. The example of Peter is put before all the leaders of the “Church.” Click here to read the entire article
Now read what Vatican II teaches on the subject…
“…the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys (this infallibility) 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*)” Lumen Gentium 25. Click here to read the entire Vatican II document
So, Vatican II unequivocally re-states traditional Catholic teaching on papal authority. In short, the bishops need the Pope but the Pope – by virtue of his office as “supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful” – does not need the agreement of the bishops to pronounce on matters pertaining to the Faith.
So, is there an innocent explanation for this grave error on the part of the Archbishop of Glasgow?