"Are you under the pope?" Asking for help formulating response

[CDB1718]

I’m composing a page on the question, “Are you under the pope?” I’m thinking of a conversation I’ve seen and heard many times.

Are you under the pope?
No, we are in full communion with him.
If you aren’t under the pope, you aren’t Catholic!
We are Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
If you aren’t Roman Catholic, you aren’t Catholic. I don’t know what you are, but I know it isn’t right.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
When the person asks, this is what they say they have in their head as the way church hierarchy works. With this understanding of the church, it makes sense that they think you’re either under him or not.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The person answering has something like this in his head on where he fits into the Catholic Church. This is Vico’s chart that I added some color to.

I shared this with some people and am getting feedback. One person said, “I can’t quite agree with the right chart top line, since the Bishop of Rome could depose a Patriarch.”

I responded that I’ve never heard that a pope can depose a patriarch. He can’t appoint or approve them, so I don’t see how he could depose them. All he can do is sever communion. I asked for some more info.

The response was, “Part of the Gregorian Reforms, just before I think, the Dictatus D’Avranches by some Cardinal. THe first google hit was faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/topicfive/DictatusAvranches.htm and Gregory VII himself (although he doesn’t mention patriarchs specifically) faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/TopicFive/DictatusPapae.htm. There are others.”

Will you please help me understand the bigger picture here?

 

[MarkThompson]

Of course you are under the Pope. As the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches states:

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[dcointin]

This is the difference between the situation of the Orthodox churches before the schism, and the Eastern Catholic churches now. The Orthodox churches were in communion with the pope, but not “under him”. The Eastern Catholic churches are most certainly “under him”.

 

[Marie77]

When in doubt, go to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
This book from the Magisterium will almost always answer your questions. All Catholics are required to adhere to the “CCC 2nd Ed”.
The role of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Laity are also included in the “CCC 2nd Ed”.

CCC: " 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.
For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

CCC: " 937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

CCC: “100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.”

The power to loose and bind on heaven and earth (Apostolic Tradition) - Matthew 16:18-19.
Continuation by Peter - ACTS 1:15-26.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Of course you are under the Pope. As the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches states:

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

I see no reason to think CDB1718 denies any of that.

The problem with the description “under the pope” is the pyramidal implication such phrasing conveys. While the pope does possess supreme authority over the whole Catholic Church, the bishops of the eastern churches in communion with him - unless they are one of the eparchial, metropolitan, or hierarchy-less churches, whose situations are irregular - do not report to the pope as though their authority comes from him. Supreme authority in the Church on earth is held by the College of Bishops as a whole. The Roman Pontiff is their head, and he is supreme because the body cannot act without the head. At least, that is in theory how collegiality should function.

This is the difference between the situation of the Orthodox churches before the schism, and the Eastern Catholic churches now. The Orthodox churches were in communion with the pope, but not “under him”. The Eastern Catholic churches are most certainly “under him”.

Some of them are, in a practical sense, “under him,” but that is not the ideal. Certainly the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches are not “under” the pope - they are run by their synods, whose head is their patriarch. When a patriarch dies, that autonomous eastern church’s synod elects a replacement. All Rome does is be notified of who that replacement is. The situation is almost identical in the major archeparchial churches as well; the only difference there is that the pope does get to “confirm” the selection of the new major archeparch… but it’s still the synod who elects him.

I admit it’s a flawed system. Perhaps someday the day will come when the eastern Catholic churches can be reabsorbed into their mother Orthodox churches (notwithstanding the current messy situation with Orthodoxy in the Ukraine… I know many Ukrainian Catholics shudder at the prospect of becoming Russian Orthodox under the MP…)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Who is Major Archeparch?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Who is Major Archeparch?

There are four current Catholic “major archeparchs” in existence, one for each of the four eastern Catholic churches currently structured that way:

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has one.
So does the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.
And the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.
And, finally, the Romanian Church United with Rome has one.

Each is the head of the synod of those churches’ bishops. Those synods run those churches, which operate with autonomy but are in communion with the Roman Pontiff and recognize his supreme authority. Basically, he’s there for them if they need him.

 

[svid2]

Wherever two or more Bulgarian Catholics are gathered in His name, there is love.

 

[dcointin]

It’s my understanding that the Pope can, if he so chooses, intervene in any Catholic church in any way that he feels necessary, including the eastern ones. Is that accurate to say, or am I misunderstanding the matter?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Who is Major Archeparch?

I found the wikipedia pages on them for you, if you’re interested:

Sviatoslav Shevchuk for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
George Alencherry for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Baselios Cleemis for the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Lucian Muresan for the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I found the wikipedia pages on them for you, if you’re interested:

Sviatoslav Shevchuk for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
George Alencherry for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Baselios Cleemis for the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Lucian Muresan for the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic

Thank you!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It’s my understanding that the Pope can, if he so chooses, intervene in any Catholic church in any way that he feels necessary, including the eastern ones. Is that accurate to say, or am I misunderstanding the matter?

It’s complicated.

I know you’ve been here awhile, so forgive the stupid question, but have you run across any posts here on the Petrine primacy by poster Mardukm? He translated from the Coptic Orthodox Church to the Coptic Catholic Church, and he’s a veritable gold mine of incredibly specific, well-documented information on this matter. He knows Vatican I and Vatican II inside and out, and they are the Catholic councils that most clearly laid out the understanding of the Catholic Church on the authority of the papacy and its relationship to the bishops of the world.

I was just looking for a thread in which he explains this in painstaking detail, and it’s harder to find than I thought it is. I could try to explain it myself, but I think I’ll also PM him and see if he’ll step into this thread for us!

 

[Hesychios]

I see no reason to think CDB1718 denies any of that.

The problem with the description “under the pope” is the pyramidal implication such phrasing conveys. While the pope does possess supreme authority over the whole Catholic Church, the bishops of the eastern churches in communion with him - unless they are one of the eparchial, metropolitan, or hierarchy-less churches, whose situations are irregular - do not report to the pope as though their authority comes from him.

As I recall Ad Limina visits are required of all Eastern Catholic Prelates, and thay are all bound to the Code of Canons, which is promulgated only by the authority of the Pope of Rome.

Supreme authority in the Church on earth is held by the College of Bishops as a whole.

I would be able to agree with the theory, but I disagree with this as a reality.

The Roman Pontiff is their head, and he is supreme because the body cannot act without the head. At least, that is in theory how collegiality should function.

This comes straight from Apostolic Canon 34/35, except that it applies to the metropolitan of each Synod. So in that context the Bishop of Rome can be supreme in the Metropolitan Synod of Rome, in central Italy.

*The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit *
Apostolic Canon 34/35

Note that the church is recognized as a group of nations organized into synods each with a Metropolitan bishop who is their ‘head’.

To resolve questions of serious import, the synods are expected to meet twice a year [Canon 37]. In an age before air travel the expectation that bishops could and should gather two times a year reflect a very local vision of church structure and problem resolution. It is part of the essence of church collegiality.

It’s my understanding that the Pope can, if he so chooses, intervene in any Catholic church in any way that he feels necessary, including the eastern ones. Is that accurate to say, or am I misunderstanding the matter?

That sounds about right.

He does not necessarily intervene when the members or the hierarchy of Eastern Catholic churches feels necessary. He could, but he is not compelled to.

He will intervene when he himself feels it is necessary, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

 

[dcointin]

It’s complicated.

I know you’ve been here awhile, so forgive the stupid question, but have you run across any posts here on the Petrine primacy by poster Mardukm? He translated from the Coptic Orthodox Church to the Coptic Catholic Church, and he’s a veritable gold mine of incredibly specific, well-documented information on this matter. He knows Vatican I and Vatican II inside and out, and they are the Catholic councils that most clearly laid out the understanding of the Catholic Church on the authority of the papacy and its relationship to the bishops of the world.

I was just looking for a thread in which he explains this in painstaking detail, and it’s harder to find than I thought it is. I could try to explain it myself, but I think I’ll also PM him and see if he’ll step into this thread for us!

I am familiar with Mardukm’s theory. I have never heard another Catholic, however, explain opinions on papal authority in terms of “low”, “high” and “absolute” in the way that he does, so I’m hesitant to accept that explanation. I’ve often heard Catholics say that the pope could exercise the kind of authority I described, but that he chooses not to, and would work instead through conciliar methods. My interest however is in what’s possible, not what normally happens.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As I recall Ad Limina visits are required of all Eastern Catholic Prelates, and thay are all bound to the Code of Canons, which is promulgated only by the authority of the Pope of Rome.

Many eastern Catholics are unhappy with many aspects of the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.

We have inherited a flawed system that is designed to be temporary. Even in this flawed system, however, I must emphasize that major archeparchial Catholic churches and patriarchal Catholic churches really are run by their synods.

I would be able to agree with the theory, but I disagree with this as a reality.

Fair enough.

This comes straight from Apostolic Canon 34/35, except that it applies to the metropolitan of each Synod. So in that context the Bishop of Rome can be supreme in the Metropolitan Synod of Rome, in central Italy.

*The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit *
Apostolic Canon 34/35

Note that the church is recognized as a group of nations organized into synods each with a Metropolitan bishop who is their ‘head’.

To resolve questions of serious import, the synods are expected to meet twice a year [Canon 37]. In an age before air travel the expectation that bishops could and should gather two times a year reflect a very local vision of church structure and problem resolution. It is part of the essence of church collegiality.

Oooh, thank you for quoting these Apostolic Canons. The most succinct way I know of summarizing the Catholic understanding of the papacy - at least, how it ought to function - is that the pope is to all the bishops of the world what a Metropolitan bishop is to his synod.

I am familiar with Mardukm’s theory. I have never heard another Catholic, however, explain opinions on papal authority in terms of “low”, “high” and “absolute” in the way that he does, so I’m hesitant to accept that explanation. I’ve often heard Catholics say that the pope could exercise the kind of authority I described, but that he chooses not to, and would work instead through conciliar methods. My interest however is in what’s possible, not what normally happens.

Okay, because of what Hesychios quoted above, I think I can succinctly summarize the teaching without using that low/high/absolute terminology. It’s just like the Apostolic Canons he quoted above, except in the Catholic Church the pope is to all the bishops what a Metropolitan is to his synod.

In other words, the Catholic Church is of the opinion that this collegial body-head relationship exists not just in metropolitan synods or patriarchates, but on the universal level as well, with the pope as the “head bishop” of the entire Catholic Church.

Now, because of today’s situation, the pope actually exercises this authority more often than he did before the East-West Schism. But the ideal is as I have described it.

I think the patriarchal Catholic churches (Coptic Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, etc.) are the closest to the ideal in this regard. In my quite fallible opinion, the relation between the pope and the eastern patriarchal Catholic churches would be the ideal if we also (a) did without the curial Congregation for the Oriental Churches entirely, and if (b) the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches were the product of an ecumenical council rather than the Roman Curia.

 

[Hesychios]

Oooh, thank you for quoting these Apostolic Canons. The most succinct way I know of summarizing the Catholic understanding of the papacy - at least, how it ought to function - is that the pope is to all the bishops of the world what a Metropolitan bishop is to his synod.

Except that it has never been known that way to the church.

It’s a modern idea to place the Pope of Rome as a Metropolitan over the world’s bishops. Actually something of a fantasy.

IF this had been the arrangement from the earliest days, the canons would have been explicit about it, they discussed everything (the range of problems they were willing to address is amazing) of concern to them in these canons, and wanted to reinforce the practices of the church they inherited from before the emancipation. There is no mention anywhere of a Pope-like office in the church and correspondingly the church behaved as if there were none.

What we have seen is prelates of one church asked to adjudicate (hopefully impartially) in extraordinary cases in a neighboring church, this was by invitation (not by right). Church history is full of examples of this, and sometimes the bishop of Rome was invited or requested to take a part in these.

But there is no bishop of bishops, anywhere in church history, and this canon does not apply to the Pope anywhere except within his own Metropolia, which is central Italy.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Except that it has never been known that way to the church.

There is no mention anywhere of a Pope-like office in the church and correspondingly the church behaved as if there were none.

I don’t know, Hesychios. Are you sure it’s true that “the church behaved as if there were none” and “it has never been known that way to the church”? I ask because the first four posts of this thread seemed to me to shoot all sorts of gargantuan holes in the interpretation of the alternative theories (both the Latin alternative to what I’ve asserted and the opposite eastern one) of most of the first millennium examples that are commonly debated when these matters arise.

I honestly don’t know what to make of the fact that the Apostolic Canons don’t actually describe Petrine supremacy, but - properly understood - there are certainly examples of it in action in the first millennium, examples that distinguish the way the first millennium church operated from the way the Orthodox Church does today quite clearly…

In any case, if my “head bishop” assertion about the papacy were the norm when the canon you quoted was written, then that canon would implicitly apply to the pope’s universal authority.

Plus, I’m not saying there was unanimity in the early Church. I know there wasn’t. At the same time, Pope Leo the Great almost certainly believed about his office what the Catholic Church today teaches… yet no reaction, no schism. The East-West Schism was still centuries away.

 

[Marie77]

The Churches that are in communion with the Pope (Roman rite) are listed in “Catholicism for Dummies” by Fathers Tragilio and Breghenti.
They include Byzantine and many others.

Churches that are not in union with the Pope are not Catholic.

The same book lists the entire succession of Popes from St. Peter (32-67 AD) through today.
There have been 266 Popes in succession including Pope Benedict today.

 

[Vico]

I am familiar with Mardukm’s theory. I have never heard another Catholic, however, explain opinions on papal authority in terms of “low”, “high” and “absolute” in the way that he does, so I’m hesitant to accept that explanation. I’ve often heard Catholics say that the pope could exercise the kind of authority I described, but that he chooses not to, and would work instead through conciliar methods. My interest however is in what’s possible, not what normally happens.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I. Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123

 

[Celticnovice]

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I. Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123

This.

Also, it seems to agree with what Mardukm explains as well.