We could go line-by-line on this. I am interested in your position.
I believe you have read the Apostolic canons and the canons of the Council of Nicea.
I have, but I hope and trust that you know I am no expert. I know what I know through irregular and amateur study of theology, ecclesiology, and Church history.
That said, I would love to continue this discussion in this manner. I don’t intend or predict it to be a debate of any kind; rather, learning about things with precision and detail from those with different perspectives inevitably strengthens the mind and helps give context to one’s knowledge. In this spirit I am eager to hear what you have to say as well, since I really do believe that the interpretations - on any subject - of those with whom one disagrees, help one understand things more broadly and clearly. Not to mention you seem
very level-headed, precise, and honest - quite the opposite of a raging polemicist.
Let us start naming the powers of the Papacy and see what that gives us. Let us delineate some of the Powers the Supreme Pontiff exercises today which should have been recognized and accepted in the first century and attributable only to the Papacy, powers inherent in the office and claimed for it by the Roman Catholic church.
I don’t mind doing it that way, but truthfully, I wouldn’t know where to begin. There are a lot of things that he does today. Vico listed a bunch; is his list a good place to start?
In any case, I stand by what I asserted before as a broad principle, and as the heart of the Catholic understanding of the papacy: the pope of Rome’s supreme office is to the whole Catholic Church what a metropolitan bishop is to the dioceses of his synod, and what a patriarch is to his patriarchate - no more, and no less.
Of course he has universal jurisdiction, but that doesn’t mean he can do anything
anywhere, and at any time. He is not the proper Ordinary in any particular diocese but in Rome,
so his supreme and universal authority is of a different kind than the directly episcopal nature of a bishop’s authority over his diocese. Or to put it another way, he is not and
should not be every Catholic’s bishop but rather the
head bishop of the entire Catholic Church.
Anyway, I know I’m not getting into specifics and practical matters, for which I apologize. I hope Vico’s list was good to start with. I do have one question before we proceed, though:
why exactly are the Apostolic Canons supposed to be so absolutely comprehensive? What indication is there that that is the case? We’re not even sure when they were written, and they’re certainly not
actually apostolic or Clementine in origin, as they seem to purport to be… anyway, I’m not disparaging them. They are good, and they were accepted by the early Church. I’m just not sure why anyone would expect a detailed summary of differing levels of episcopal jurisdiction to be found in them when they seem to *assume *but not
explain its particulars.
The pope most certainly could appoint or depose a patriarch. He may choose not to so out respect for the autonomy of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but it would be within his right to do so.
Doesn’t canon law and ecclesiastical tradition give patriarchs certain rights, rights that the pope himself acknowledges when he, in today’s Church, raises a Metropolitan or major archeparch to the level of patriarch?
If so, I’m not sure it’s true that he can “depose” a patriarch for any reason whatsoever. I think that may be outside his *proper *authority. Of course, if the right circumstances permitted and required him to act, his universal and
ordinary jurisdiction would in
that case permit him to depose a patriarch.
Then there goes any hope for union. He had the power to excommunicate (from his Latin church), but not to depose. That power belonged to the synod of the patriarch, or to a general council.
Runningdude may be wrong about that (read that part of this reply, just above); I’m not sure, though.
