Confirmation and assent

[mardukm]

Dear Oriental and Eastern brethren,

I wanted to elaborate on this particular point from another thread. I feel it is a rather important issue and deserves greater PR.

Vico;8151575:

They elect their bishops within their territory (confirmed by Holy See).

The Pope does not confirm Eastern and Oriental bishops. It is the head bishop of those bishops who does the confirmation. The Pope gives what is called his “assent” which is a different canonical animal than a confirmation.

For those who may have wondered, the difference between confirmation of our bishops and papal assent is this:

Confirmation is what grants our bishops their faculties/prerogatives.

Assent is what permits our bishops to exercise those prerogatives within the Catholic Church.

Confirmation grants our bishops their validity. Assent grants our bishops their liceity.

Some who don’t understand this distinction might say that it is the Pope who grants our Eastern and Oriental Churches our bishops. But that is not true. It is our OWN head bishops who grant us our bishops. As already noted, the Pope is only involved for sake of licitness. But the question of validity rests with our own Churches.

This matter is relevant for the issue of self-governance, so I felt it needed to be clarified.

Some (or many) no doubt question the need for the papal assent. I personally do not question the need for it. I believe this Canon exists because of the state of Schism with our Orthodox brethren. As long as their exists an institution separate from the Catholic Church that can perpetuate and attract others to schism, I sincerely believe that this Canon is necessary to ensure explicit loyalty to the Catholic communion. It is telling that the recent Middle East Synod did not seek to modify this Canonical requirement, but only requested that the process of papal assent be speeded up. (If I was a bishop, I would have personally put it in much stronger terms than a request, for it is so important for the growth of our Churches to have our bishops, and there are already waaaaaay too many empty eparchies in our Churches.)

Be that as it may, I also solidly believe that in a united Church (with our Orthodox brethren), this Canonical requirement must disappear. At that point, a bishop’s communion with his Patriarch should be considered sufficient to ensure unity on the universal level, via the Patriarch’s communion with the protos of the Church, the bishop of Rome.

If brother Dcointin is reading this, this is one of those canons that I mentioned in the past which I believe needs to be removed once reunion is achieved, or even perhaps a short while before it, to demonstrate to our Orthodox brethren that the Catholic Church is willing to “walk the talk.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Fascinating. So, in your opinion, could we extend your conclusion from this specific case of confirmation and assent being only necessary because of the existence of schismatic bodies outside of the Catholic Church to a general conclusion that distinction between valid and licit is only necessary because of schismatic bodies outside of the Catholic Church?

 

[Vico]

And there is also appointment of bishops.

appoint = decide on
assent = concur

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ,

Fascinating. So, in your opinion, could we extend your conclusion from this specific case of confirmation and assent being only necessary because of the existence of schismatic bodies outside of the Catholic Church to a general conclusion that distinction between valid and licit is only necessary because of schismatic bodies outside of the Catholic Church?

Forgive me for neglecting this thread.

In response to your question, it appears that your assessment is correct. The terms “valid” and “licit” are Latinese, but the concept behind the distinction existed in the early Church since the debate between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian on rebaptism of schismatics and certain heretics. The ruling of several Ecumenical Councils from the 4th century onwards formally recognized this distinction (e.g., even the baptism and orders of Arian heretics were accepted as true by the Church, even though their priests could not perform the Sacraments within the Catholic Church). The Latin Church put a name to this distinction (i,e, “valid” vs. “licit”), but the concept is fully patristic and predates the nomenclature that the Latins Church eventually attached to the distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

And there is also appointment of bishops.

appoint = decide on
assent = concur

Yes, there is this distinction, but it cannot be left unsaid that even the process of appointment by the Pope of Oriental and Eastern bishops in the traditional “diaspora” is a COLLEGIAL exercise of jurisdiction.

The Pope appoints from a list of candidates approved beforehand by the Synod. The Pope has the prerogative of rejecting the list and choosing his own. However, the Synod also has the prerogative of rejecting the papal candidate, after which the process starts anew.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Yes, there is this distinction, but it cannot be left unsaid that even the process of appointment by the Pope of Oriental and Eastern bishops in the traditional “diaspora” is a COLLEGIAL exercise of jurisdiction.

The Pope appoints from a list of candidates approved beforehand by the Synod. The Pope has the prerogative of rejecting the list and choosing his own. However, the Synod also has the prerogative of rejecting the papal candidate, after which the process starts anew.

Blessings,
Marduk

And for those Churches sui iuris that have no hierarchy of their own, or outside the traditional territories (for churches with Patriarch or Major Archbishop) the appointment of bishops is given as acts of the Pope.