Father David,
You’ve said a couple times now on this thread that all faculties to absolve are essentially delegated by the Pope of Rome. It has always been my understanding that fundamentally a bishop - any validly consecrated bishop in apostolic succession - has the power to absolve sin, though a presbyter receives this power only if granted faculties by his bishop. Christ gave the keys to Peter and Peter alone in Matthew 16, but later in Matthew 18 He directly grants all 12 apostles (the first bishops) the power to bind and to loose…likewise in John 20 He grants all the apostles the power to forgive and retain sin. The Second Vatican Council and the Catechism also make it clear that the bishops are not mere vicars of the Pope but receive their office and authority directly from Christ (CCC 894 and 895). I understand that the Pope or an ecumenical council, when exercising the Supreme Authority of the Church, can limit the way in which the bishops exercise this power…but fundamentally and theologically is it true to say that only the Pope receives the authority of this sacrament directly from Christ? Why then do Orthodox bishops validly absolve and validly grant faculties in turn to their priests?
OK. I’ll try to explain.
When I say that all faculties to absolve are essentially delegated by the pope, I’m speaking in very broad terms. Extremely broad. I’m talking about the scriptural basis for absolution (not forgiveness, but absolution as such) when Christ gave the Keys to Peter.
You’re right to say that the Church does not see bishops as mere vicars of the popes.
Now, when I wrote that all faculties to absolve come ultimately from the pope, that was one of those times when I can only type so much in a single post. And when that happens, it’s easy for a misunderstanding to arise. I did not mean that the pope grants faculties to a bishop in the same way that a local bishop grants faculties to a parish priest—and I apologize if it came across that way. I mean “in the grant scheme of things” or “in terms of the entire economy of salvation.”
While accepting entirely the teaching of the Catechism and Vatican II (and all else) that the bishops are not merely vicars of the pope, we also have to keep in mind that the validity of the ministry of the bishop also depends upon his communion with the Pope.
Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.
To paraphrase that, a bishop must have both episcopal ordination and communion with the “head and members” in order to legitimately exercise the ministry of bishop.
What we see in the canon is likewise what we read in Vatican II, the Catechism, and all the other teachings of the Church. I just quoted the canon because it was easy for me to locate the text. They all agree with each other.
Here’s what you wrote:
It has always been my understanding that fundamentally a bishop - any validly consecrated bishop in apostolic succession - has the power to absolve sin.
That’s not the case. He needs both apostolic succession and communion (i.e. unity).
For example, a schismatic bishop cannot absolve, no matter how solid and true his claim to apostolic succession might be, because he lacks communion with the college of bishops, and especially the head of the college (pope).
With regard to the Orthodox, I’ll give you the answer, because you asked, but only with the qualification that the Orthodox don’t like this explanation.
When the Orthodox were still in communion with Rome, they had the faculties to absolve. After they separated from Rome, the popes never withdrew the faculties to absolve, ergo they still retain them.
Does that explain it?
