Some false claims are being made by the opponents of the Pope about the relationship between the Supreme Pontiff and the individual Bishops.

First, read my previous article: On the dismissal of Bishop Strickland and the Authority of Roman Pontiffs over Bishops. That article quotes important teachings on the supreme authority of the Pope over the whole Church, including the Bishops. This authority is so full and unassailable that, should the entire body of Bishops wish to gather in an Ecumenical Council, the Pope by his sole authority and judgment — without needing to state a just or grave reason, without any explanation at all — has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve an Ecumenical Council, or to accept or reject any of its decisions on doctrine or discipline. And since the Pope has such full authority, not subject to appeal or revision by anyone, over the body of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council, he certainly has no less authority over individual Bishops, Cardinals, or various groups of clergy and laity.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitumm 15:
“This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils.

” ‘We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him’ (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv) [Pope Adrian II, in Allocutions 3, to the Synod of Rome, year 869; compare Acts 7, Fourth Council of Constantinople].

“The reason for which is stated thus: ‘there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See’ (Nicholaus in Epist. lxxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.) [Pope Saint Nicholas I in Letters 86 to emperor Michael] wherefore [Pope Saint] Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: ‘That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church’ (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5) [Letters 26, to the Bishops of Dardania].

“It has ever been unquestionably the office of the Roman Pontiffs to ratify or to reject the decrees of Councils. [Pope Saint] Leo the great [I] rescinded the acts of the Conciliabulum of Ephesus [the so-called robber council of Ephesus in 449; not the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431].

“[Pope Saint] Damasus [I] rejected those of Rimini [Council of Ariminum], and [Pope] Adrian I, those of Constantinople [Council of Constantinople (692), also called Trullo or Quinisext Council; Council of Constantinople (754), also called the Council of Hieria].

“The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless. Rightly, therefore, has Leo X laid down in the 5th council of Lateran ‘that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.’

“Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3) [Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3].”

But the accusers of Pope Francis are proposing an heretical doctrine of the relationship between a Bishop and the Roman Pontiff, contrary to the teachings of Leo XIII above, and contrary to the teachings of multiple Ecumenical Councils approved by the Pope. They use various explanations and false or distorted teachings to try to limit the power and authority of the Pope over any individual Bishop. These false claims are contradicted by the teachings of Councils below.

Lateran IV: “the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”

Lateran IV on the Greeks: “conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd.”

Lateran IV on the Patriarchal Sees: “In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the Apostolic See, to which all must humbly defer.”

Lyons I: “this privilege which our Lord Jesus Christ handed to Peter and in him to his successors, namely, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, in which assuredly consists the authority and power of the Roman church….”

The Second Council of Lyons: “If questions will have arisen on faith, they ought to be decided by his [i.e. the Roman Pontiff’s] judgment”.

The Council of Florence, 1438: “the most illustrious profession of the Roman Church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error.”

Florence: “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.”

The Council of Florence condemned the proposition that the pope “cannot in any way by his own authority dissolve a universal general council”.

Lateran V: “For it is clearly established that only the contemporary Roman pontiff, as holding authority over all councils, has the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve councils. This we know not only from the witness of holy scripture, the statements of holy fathers and our predecessors as Roman pontiffs, and the decisions of the sacred canons, but also from the declarations of the same councils.”

Lateran V: “It arises from the necessity of salvation that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Lateran V: “the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman pontiff cannot be within the Church….”

Then the texts from Vatican I and II were cited in my previous article on this topic.

None of these texts from multiple Ecumenical Councils gives any individual Bishop, group of Bishops, nor even the entire body of Bishops any authority to judge the Roman Pontiff, to correct or rebuke him, to oppose him if they judge that they are right and he is wrong, nor to refuse his decisions on doctrine or discipline. Since the Roman Pontiff can dissolve an entire Ecumenical Council, or refuse to approve any of its decisions on doctrine or discipline, he can also take lesser measures against any individual Bishop.

For the Keys to the kingdom of heaven were given only to Peter and his successors, and not to any of the other Apostles, nor to their successors. And when Christ said that whatever Peter binds or releases on earth will be bound or released in Heaven as well, the Lord did not qualify or limit that power by saying something like “only if just” or “only for a grave reason”. Neither did the Lord give authority to the rest of the Apostles, even all other Apostles put together, to oppose Peter or to refuse his decisions to bind or to release. Peter alone holds the Keys. The successor of Peter can exercise the authority of the Keys alone, by his sole judgment, or he can exercise the Keys with the body of Bishops (as happens in an Ecumenical Council or when the Bishops are dispersed in the world). But the Bishops as a body can participate in the power of the Keys over the whole Church only with the assent of the Pope, who is the head of the body of Bishops (called the College of Bishops). No individual Bishop holds the Keys, other than the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff.

Error Proposed by the Papal Accusers

In the OnePeterFive article, The Pope Cannot Depose Bishops Without Grave Cause, the following false or distorted claims are made:

“This means that, although according to current canon (human) law [Canon 375], the bishops of the Latin Church are appointed by the pope, their authority derives from divine institution and is received directly from God, not from the pope.”

This claim is a half-truth. See the distinction, at the end of this article, between the gifts of the episcopal office, received directly from Christ by consecration in Holy Orders, and the power of the office, which requires hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops. Without approval from the Pope, the Bishop does not have the powers of the office, and the gifts of the office, which are from Christ directly, cannot be exercised. [Vatican II, LG, Appendix]

OnePeterFive claims: “The difference with other ecclesiastical offices is that by the very nature of the bishop’s office he cannot be removed unjustly because he is free to use his native jurisdictional power to oppose an arbitrary and openly tyrannical act of the pope. No other ecclesiastical office enjoys this native power of divine institution besides the pope. In that way it would be better to see the pope as a special case of what is true of all bishops than to see the pope as radically other than they, and thus, to empty bishops of their Christ-conferred apostolic authority, which the canons of the Church acknowledge and must respect by natural and divine law.”

The First See is judged by no one but God. Therefore, no one has the right or authority to judge an act taken by the Roman Pontiff against a Cardinal or Bishop to be “unjust” or “arbitrary” or “tyrannical”.

The gifts of the Bishops office are from Christ and are native to Holy Orders to the episcopal degree. However, the powers of the office are only granted with hierarchical communion, under the authority of the Pope, because Christ placed Peter and his successors over the other Bishops as part of the very structure of the Church and the College of Bishops. As Vatican II and other sources teach (quoted extensively below), a Bishop is certainly NOT free to exercise the gifts or powers of his office in opposition to the Roman Pontiff. Not even the entire College of Bishops can do so, as Lumen Gentium explains [n. 22-24; Appendix also].

It is heretical to claim that the Pope is merely “a special case of what is true of all bishops”. See the quotes below from several Ecumenical Councils as well as from Pope Leo XIII and Vatican II. Peter and his successors are each the Rock on which the Church is founded, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the Church, and to Peter alone is given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (signifying supreme authority over the entire Church, including the other Bishops). None of the other Apostles were made Rock, or Vicar, or Head, or were given the Keys. And the Christ-conferred gifts given to persons consecrated under Holy Orders to the episcopal degree cannot be exercised without powers given from the Pope through hierarchical communion — because that is the structure for the living Body of Christ chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ.

OnePeterFive claims: “The Gospel teaches us that Christ gave to all the Apostles the right to judge: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). Simon received this power first and above all, but as Scripture shows, the other Apostles received it as well.”

The above claim is a severe distortion of Catholic teaching. See the last section of this article quoting Vatican II extensively. In summary, Peter alone was given the Keys, which signify the power of binding and loosing over the whole Church — including over each Bishop and all the Bishops. However, the Pope can choose to exercise the Keys with the College of Bishops, only as a body united to and led by their head the Roman Pontiff, so as to bind and to loose for the universal Church — but this always requires the assent of the Roman Pontiff. The individual Bishops do not possess the Keys or the authority to bind and loose. The body of Bishops, apart from the Pope, do not possess the Keys. The individual Bishops have authority only in their own diocese (or other specific flock assigned to them), and not over the universal Church as individuals.

The power to bind and to loose is signified by the Keys of Saint Peter. The above quote is from an article that avoids using the term Keys, for the Keys are always called the Keys of Peter, not the Keys of all the Apostles.
[Matthew]
{16:16} Simon Peter responded by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
{16:17} And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven.
{16:18} And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
{16:19} And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

We see from the full passage in the Gospel that Simon Peter is the one Apostle who called Jesus the Son of God and the Christ, and the one called “Blessed” by Christ. Jesus specifically refers to Peter here, calling him “Simon son of Jonah”, making it clear He is speaking solely about Peter. Therefore, Jesus radically sets him apart from the rest of the Apostles, by giving him a new name, Peter, which means Rock, signifying that Jesus has chosen to build His Church upon that Rock AND signifying that as the Rock of the Church, he alone holds the Keys of the kingdom of heaven. So whatever Peter binds or releases on earth, is so also in Heaven. This was not said to the other Apostles. They were not given the power to bind and loose using the Keys — always referred to by the Church as the Keys of Peter.

The Ecumenical Councils

As I explained in my previous article, each person received directly from God the authority of their state of life: the authority of all the baptized to preach the Gospel; the authority of ordained persons (deacons, priests, bishops), each in their proper role; in particular, the authority of Bishops as successors of the Apostles; and the authority of the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter. But this does not imply, as the opponents of Pope Francis have repeatedly claimed, that a Bishop can retain his office and withstand the will of the Pope, based on that authority. For God gave authority directly to the baptized to preach the Gospel, each according to his or her gifts; yet we are all under the authority of the clergy, especially the Bishop in charge of our diocese, and the authority of the Vicar of Christ. Similarly, as proven by the many quotes earlier in this article, the Roman Pontiff receives, also directly from God, authority over every person in the Church, of every rank. For although each Bishop is a successor to the Apostles, Peter and his successors have always been placed by God above all the Bishops, individually and as a group, to exercise the authority of Christ the Lord over them.

Therefore, if a Roman Pontiff issues a decision against a Bishop, he cannot withstand or ignore the decision of that Pope, based on his divine authority as a successor to the Apostles. The reason is that the Pope also has authority directly from God, and his authority is above that of all others in the Church on earth, including Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Bishops, and the rest of the clergy, religious, and laity.

The above cited article from OnePeterFive makes the following claim:

“The Gospel teaches us that Christ gave to all the Apostles the right to judge: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). Simon received this power first and above all, but as Scripture shows, the other Apostles received it as well.”

The truth is that Peter alone received the power of the keys. Now as Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum 12, the keys signify “power and authority over the Church” and “In this same sense He says: ‘Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed also in Heaven.’ ” So the power of binding and loosing, referenced in the quote from 1P5 above, is the power of the Keys of Saint Peter, given only to the successors of Peter. So the other Apostles have not “received it as well”. But they can exercise those Keys and the power of binding and loosing, only as a body led by the successor of Peter, who alone holds the Keys.

All the other Bishops put together cannot exercise the power of these Keys, unless the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, agrees. In such a case, the Keys are still being exercised by the successor of Peter; he exercises the Keys, sometimes with the other Bishops, and other times alone.

And while the 1P5 article claims Vatican II supports their distorted claim that the other Apostles also received the power of binding and loosing, that is not quite what the text says:

LG 22: “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. 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. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.”

The Bishops, even the entire body of Bishops, “has no authority” apart from the Pope. No authority. Then the authority given to the Pope includes the “power of primacy over all” including the Bishops. This authority is always “full, supreme and universal”. The college of Bishops, i.e. the Bishops considered as a body, also has “supreme and full power” over the Church, but only “together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.” This full and supreme power of the college of Bishops — the Bishops as a body — “can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

So these texts refute the claim that a Bishop or group of Bishops can withstand the authority of the Pope, and reject his teaching or refuse his decisions of discipline. Jesus made Simon Peter alone the Rock of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Bearer of the Keys of the Church. The power of binding and loosing, with those keys, can be exercised by the College of the successors to the Apostles (i.e. the Bishops as a body), but only as a body “joined with their head”.

LG 22 continues: “This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, 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. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them. This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

Notice that all the Bishops together, gathered in an Ecumenical Council, are not even a true valid Council, unless it is “confirmed or at least accepted as such” by the Pope. They cannot exercise the powers of binding and loosing, the power of the Keys, unless the Pope agrees. This applies both in an Ecumenical Council and when the Bishops are dispersed in the world.

LG 23: “The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church.”

Bishop Strickland, Cardinal Burke, and a few other Bishops have spoken as if they not only have the authority to teach the universal Church, but also to oversee, correct, and oppose the teaching of the Roman Pontiff. No such authority has been given to any Bishop, other than the Roman Pontiff, who is the Bishop of Rome. Strickland, Burke and other usurp an authority not given to them. They must teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, as part of the body of Bishops led by him. They have no authority to judge, correct, or oppose the Roman Pontiff.

LG 24: “The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.”

An individual Bishop cannot assume, and by extensions cannot retain, any office if the Roman Pontiff “refuses or denies apostolic communion”. There is no question here of a canonical process being required, nor is it said that a Bishop can withstand the will of the Supreme Pontiff, unless a grave accusation is proven against the Bishop. The Roman Pontiff can deny Apostolic communion, and remove a Bishop from his office.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 14: “”If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him [the Pope] and the other princes [the Bishops], whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2).”

While each Bishop, by virtue of consecration in Holy Orders to the episcopal degree, is a successor to the Apostles and has this calling and authority directly from Christ, it is also true that the Lord Jesus gave this role and authority to each Apostle “only through” Peter. For Peter also was given an authority, directly from Christ, and that authority is to rule over the whole Church, including the Bishops, other clergy, religious, and laity.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 15: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.“

The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, signifying power and authority over the Church, were given “by Christ to Peter alone”. The other Bishops can participate in exercising those Keys and the power of binding and loosing that they signify, only with the Roman Pontiff. Peter alone holds the Keys.

Any Cardinal or Bishop who deliberately secedes from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, loses his right and power of ruling, no matter what one might argue the extent of that power to be. And we know from Canon Law that the definition of schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or refusal of communion with those who are subjects of the Roman Pontiff. Such persons are automatically excommunicated, even if the latae sententiae excommunication is not declared by authority the Church. They are formally outside of the edifice of the Church.

In the case of a Cardinal or Bishop, such refusal of submission can take the form of opposing the decisions of doctrine and discipline of the Roman Pontiff extensively, or joining with and supporting those who refuse submission, or speaking and acting as if they have a role above the Pope, to decide what is and is not divinely-revealed Truth, in contradiction to the Roman Pontiff. Then refusal of communion often takes the form of refusal to join with the other Bishops as a body led by the Pope. The schismatic Bishop or Cardinal draws apart from the rest of the Bishops and Cardinals, because they support the Pope, whom the schismatic Cardinal or Bishop opposes.

Now let’s consider another text from Vatican II. This is from in the Appendix (16 Nov 1964) to Lumen Gentium (approved 21 Nov 1964), and covers certain points in the relation between Bishops and Pope.

“2. A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. Cf. n. 22, end of 1 1.

Notice that consecration as a Bishop under Holy Orders is not the sole source of authority of the Bishop. The Bishop must also have communion with the other members of the college of Bishops and a hierarchical communion with the Pope, who is the head of the college of Bishops. This necessarily means that the Pope has authority over each Bishop and so a Bishop cannot claim an independent authority from Christ, as Christ not only consecrates each Bishop in Holy Orders (just as it is Christ who acts in every Sacrament), but Christ also requires this hierarchical communion with the successor of Peter.

“In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word “functions [munera]” is used deliberately instead of the word “powers [potestates],” because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ’s will. It is evident that this “communion” was applied in the Church’s life according to the circumstances of the time, before it was codified as law.

What the opponents of Pope Francis are claiming is that the Bishop has authority as a successor of the Apostles, due to his consecration as Bishop and the sacred function [munera] under that consecration. But Vatican II teaches that a Bishop also needs powers [potestates], from the Roman Pontiff, in order for this sacred function to act as a successor to the Apostles “to be fully ready to act”. This requires an act of “the hierarchical authority”, meaning the Roman Pontiff, or persons acting under his authority.

For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: “in hierarchical communion.” Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

The Roman Pontiff has the authority from Christ to refuse to grant, or to at any time withdraw, the hierarchical communion needed for a Bishop, who has sacred functions [munera] by virtue of consecration as a Bishop, to exercise the powers [potestates] of a Bishop, that is, to exercise authority under the gifts given with episcopal consecration.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

Notice that the Roman Pontiff “proceeds according to his own discretion” in governing the exercise of authority by the college of Bishops. Then the College of Bishops “does not exist without the head” and therefore has no authority at all, and no authority certainly to bind or to loose, without the Pope, or in opposition to the Pope. This point certainly refutes the claim of the papal accusers that a gathering of Bishops (in a so-called imperfect Council) or some lesser body, such as the body of only those Bishops who are also Cardinals, can exercise any type of authority over the Roman Pontiff.

“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.”

The Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Pastor of the Church, and so he can “always exercise his power” just as he wills. There is no requirement that he must follow some version of due process of law, or even of Canon law. A Pope can change Canon law, as he wills, or he can ignore Canon law in particular cases. His authority is Supreme, directly from Christ, and specifically is above all other clergy and the laity in the Church.

The body of Bishops, i.e. the College, has the Pope as its head, and does not exist apart from this head. As the College cannot exercise any authority, such as binding or loosing, without its head or apart from its head, all the more so an individual Bishop or few Bishops cannot act against the Roman Pontiff. Even the full College, considered apart from the Pope, cannot judge, correct, rebuke, censure, condemn, or remove the Roman Pontiff, as the College of Bishops does not exist as a college apart from the Pope and has no authority at all without the Pope. Therefore, neither does any individual Bishop or group of Cardinals and Bishops have any authority at all against the Pope or in opposition to him.

“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.

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised.”

Note Well that without the subject to the Roman Pontiff found in hierarchical communion, the sacred functions of the Bishop given at consecration in Holy Orders “cannot be exercised”. This last point, with all the others above, certainly refutes the claims being made some opponents of the Pope that a Bishop cannot be removed by the Roman Pontiff without due process and proof of a grave offense by the Bishop.

Ronald L Conte Jr

Updated to add: “Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, who oversees church law at the Vatican, clarified the protocols for disciplining a bishop, saying any failure to act in communion with the church and the pope can be cause for dismissal.” [American magazine, Vatican legal expert backs Pope Francis’ disciplining of Bishop Strickland, Cardinal Burke, by Claire Giangravé, 29 Nov. 2023]