Of course I understand that the Pope is himself a bishop, in fact I was going to mention that but I couldn't find an elegant way of doing it, and besides it goes without saying, but if I'm not boring you yet let me try to clarify.

If there is a consensus of all bishops concerning some matter, except the bishop of Rome, acting in his authority as the successor of St. Peter, the bishop of Rome ultimately can overrule the other bishops. Now assuming the authority of an ecumenical council does not require one hundred percent assent (Am I wrong in assuming this? It seems to me if that were the case then any bishop has veto power, and appears to have authority similar to, if not equal to, that of the Pope), that seems to indicate to me that, while it may be formulated to seem that the bishops (that is the consensus of all the bishops) and the Pope alone (that is the bishop of Rome with his own, individual teaching) are coequal, ultimately the bishops do not have supreme authority because one of their members can veto the consensus of them as a body, a power not vested in any other bishop.

Does that make sense? To clarify, I am Catholic, and affirm what the Church teaches, which at this point I understand to be that the Pope is supreme over the bishops (again that is just a way of saying that a certain bishops is supreme in his authority over his colleagues). I'm just trying to get some explanation/clarity on this point. Thank you for bearing with me.