My Orthodox Friend Wants to Know

[twf]

The Petrine function is part of the Church’s divine constitution, while the notion of an ecumenical council a later non-scriptural innovation.

From the Catholic perspective the authority of an ecumenical council rests on its acceptance and ratification by the Holy Father.

.

Not quite. This is definitely an over simplification. Yes, we as Catholics believe that Papal ratification is an essential element to an ecumenical council, but the council itself exercises authority. The supreme authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope and by the bishops in union with the Pope. The bishops are not just mere advisers or vicars of the Pope. Yes, an ecumenical council requires papal confirmation, but its authority is not a mere extension of papal authority - it is the authority of the bishops in union with the Pope. This is a subtle but very important distinction, especially when we consider relations with the Orthodox.
From the Catechism:

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

That being said, as I noted earlier in this thread, the Church does have the authority to change disciplinary canons. The process by which bishops are elected in the Latin Church has evolved over time, for better or for worse, but the Eastern Catholic Churches of patriarchal / major archepiscopal rank, still follow the ancient principal of synodal election.

 

[Erich]

The Petrine function is part of the Church’s divine constitution, while the notion of an ecumenical council a later non-scriptural innovation.
.

So… the council described in Acts 15 is not an ecumenical council? It was certainly worldwide in its application!

 

[Micko]

The Bible’s definition of a Bishop is quite different than modern churches:

1 Timothy 3 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
Qualifications of Bishops

3 The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop** desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.**

 

[Seraphim73]

Not quite. This is definitely an over simplification. Yes, we as Catholics believe that Papal ratification is an essential element to an ecumenical council, but the council itself exercises authority. The supreme authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope and by the bishops in union with the Pope. The bishops are not just mere advisers or vicars of the Pope. Yes, an ecumenical council requires papal confirmation, but its authority is not a mere extension of papal authority - it is the authority of the bishops in union with the Pope. This is a subtle but very important distinction, especially when we consider relations with the Orthodox.
From the Catechism:

That being said, as I noted earlier in this thread, the Church does have the authority to change disciplinary canons. The process by which bishops are elected in the Latin Church has evolved over time, for better or for worse, but the Eastern Catholic Churches of patriarchal / major archepiscopal rank, still follow the ancient principal of synodal election.

Many Catholics have a very different impression than you do. There is a priest on another thread saying that bishops only have authority from the pope and act as his “representatives.” Frankly that confirms what I thought was just a caricature of Catholic teaching, that there really is only one bishop in the Catholic Church, that the rest of the bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats.

 

[twf]

Many Catholics have a very different impression than you do. There is a priest on another thread saying that bishops only have authority from the pope and act as his “representatives.” Frankly that confirms what I thought was just a caricature of Catholic teaching, that there really is only one bishop in the Catholic Church, that the rest of the bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats.

Fr. David’s position is more nuanced than that. The recent thread didn’t go into it as much as some other threads have in the past, but he has made it clear, when asked, that bishops are not mere deputies of the Pope. He was referring to the very specific issue of bishops “granting faculties” for the sacrament of reconciliation in the context of current Catholic canon law. Bishops currently receive their mandate from the Pope, at least in the Latin Church, and their faculties (authority to exercise their office in specific areas) is regulated by the Pope, at least to some extent, but that doesn’t mean their inherent authority as bishops is delegated by the Pope. There is a difference - just like my point regarding ecumenical councils. Take it up with Father directly - I think you will be surprised. I would personally structure the entire argument very differently than Father did, but if you take a look at that thread (if we are indeed discussing the same one), the question of Orthodox bishops came up, and he agreed with me that the Pope never actively granted faculties to Eastern bishops, pre-Schism, and that Eastern bishops had their authority by right since apostolic times. Modern canons were not yet in place and the Pope didn’t exercise his ministry in the same way that he does today - even if his spiritual authority was present.

That being said, one of my personal missions is to deflate exaggerations of the legitimate papal ministry. Many Latin Catholics do seem to operate under the assumption that bishops are mere deputies of the Pope, but as you can see from the Catechism paragraphs I quoted earlier, this is not the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium.

Pope St. Gregory, venerated by the Orthodox as well, condemned the doctrine of a single “universal bishop”. He is still honored as a Doctor of the Church, a saint, and one of only three popes known as “the Great” in the Catholic Church today…

 

[Vico]

Many Catholics have a very different impression than you do. There is a priest on another thread saying that bishops only have authority from the pope and act as his “representatives.” Frankly that confirms what I thought was just a caricature of Catholic teaching, that there really is only one bishop in the Catholic Church, that the rest of the bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats.

Bishop Gasser’s relatio (official explanation by Bishop Gasser given at Vatican I) 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.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

There is a priest on another thread saying that bishops only have authority from the pope and act as his “representatives.”

I am sure that is not an accurate paraphrase.

Frankly that confirms what I thought was just a caricature of Catholic teaching, that there really is only one bishop in the Catholic Church, that the rest of the bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats.

I would not, as a guest in an Orthodox forum, write a comment like that about the Ecumenical Patriarch and orthodox bishops.

What do you expect a Catholic to take away from that comment?

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

So… the council described in Acts 15 is not an ecumenical council? It was certainly worldwide in its application!

It follows the particular grant of authority to Peter by Christ Himself.

There is no comparable grant of authority to a council in Scriptures.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

This is definitely an over simplification. … Yes, an ecumenical council requires papal confirmation, but its authority is not a mere extension of papal authority - it is the authority of the bishops in union with the Pope.

But no bishop can be in union with the Holy Father who rejects his teaching and his authority.

I did not say that the authority of an ecumenical council is an extension of papal authority, I said it is not an ecumenical council without the acceptance and ratification of the Holy Father. The issue of the authority of councils has been a constant issue in the Church. Most recently the Vatican Council II said in Lumen Gentium:

“There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.”

.

 

[Seraphim73]

Fr. David’s position is more nuanced than that. The recent thread didn’t go into it as much as some other threads have in the past, but he has made it clear, when asked, that bishops are not mere deputies of the Pope. He was referring to the very specific issue of bishops “granting faculties” for the sacrament of reconciliation in the context of current Catholic canon law. Bishops currently receive their mandate from the Pope, at least in the Latin Church, and their faculties (authority to exercise their office in specific areas) is regulated by the Pope, at least to some extent, but that doesn’t mean their inherent authority as bishops is delegated by the Pope. There is a difference - just like my point regarding ecumenical councils. Take it up with Father directly - I think you will be surprised. I would personally structure the entire argument very differently than Father did, but if you take a look at that thread (if we are indeed discussing the same one), the question of Orthodox bishops came up, and he agreed with me that the Pope never actively granted faculties to Eastern bishops, pre-Schism, and that Eastern bishops had their authority by right since apostolic times. Modern canons were not yet in place and the Pope didn’t exercise his ministry in the same way that he does today - even if his spiritual authority was present.

That being said, one of my personal missions is to deflate exaggerations of the legitimate papal ministry. Many Latin Catholics do seem to operate under the assumption that bishops are mere deputies of the Pope, but as you can see from the Catechism paragraphs I quoted earlier, this is not the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium.

Pope St. Gregory, venerated by the Orthodox as well, condemned the doctrine of a single “universal bishop”. He is still honored as a Doctor of the Church, a saint, and one of only three popes known as “the Great” in the Catholic Church today…

Maybe it is. The only thread I read was that one on the liturgy and sacraments forum and that wasn’t the place to raise the subject. Honestly I don’t even understand what you mean by granting faculties to a bishop. Either the bishop is a bishop or he’s not. They already have the fullness of the priestly orders.

 

[Seraphim73]

I would not, as a guest in an Orthodox forum, write a comment like that about the Ecumenical Patriarch and orthodox bishops.

What do you expect a Catholic to take away from that comment?

I would expect them to take away from it what it was. My impression from one person’s posts on an internet forum.

 

[steve_b]

Many Catholics have a very different impression than you do. There is a priest on another thread saying that bishops only have authority from the pope and act as his “representatives.” Frankly that confirms what I thought was just a caricature of Catholic teaching, that there really is only one bishop in the Catholic Church, that the rest of the bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=bishop%2C+authority&xsubmit=Search&s=SS bishops are the highest authority in their diocese. They do NOT have authority in another bishop’s diocese.

The pope has authority over all the bishops. The pope is the only one who can remove a bishop

Examples

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/
Pope excommunicates Chinese bishop for not getting approval from the Vatican
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/harbin-china-16670/

 

[Seraphim73]

The pope has authority over all the bishops.

My point exactly.

 

[twf]

Maybe it is. The only thread I read was that one on the liturgy and sacraments forum and that wasn’t the place to raise the subject. Honestly I don’t even understand what you mean by granting faculties to a bishop. Either the bishop is a bishop or he’s not. They already have the fullness of the priestly orders.

Catholics distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. All bishops possess the power of orders to the highest degree. Jurisdiction is another matter. The pope possesses the highest degree of jurisdictional power. A retired bishop possesses the full power of orders, but no longer has jurisdiction (or at least has limited jurisdiction). (Incidentally this is also true of a retire pope - see Pope Emeritus Benedict). In the case of the sacrament of penance, which was the issue raised in the other thread, jurisdiction comes into play as absolution is a juridic act of the Church. There is a sacramental side to it, which flows from orders, but there is also a juridic side to it, as the Church is not only administering God’s forgiveness but also reconciling the penitent with the Church as a community. All bishops have the *power *to confer all seven sacraments, by virtue of their apostolic succession, of possessing the fullness of the priesthood, but the Supreme Authority of the Church can regulate how this power is used. In Orthodoxy, cannot councils, especially ecumenical councils, limit or regulate how a bishop exercises his authority? Is this not comparable to faculties?

 

[Seraphim73]

Catholics distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. All bishops possess the power of orders to the highest degree. Jurisdiction is another matter. The pope possesses the highest degree of jurisdictional power. A retired bishop possesses the full power of orders, but no longer has jurisdiction (or at least has limited jurisdiction). (Incidentally this is also true of a retire pope - see Pope Emeritus Benedict). In the case of the sacrament of penance, which was the issue raised in the other thread, jurisdiction comes into play as absolution is a juridic act of the Church. There is a sacramental side to it, which flows from orders, but there is also a juridic side to it, as the Church is not only administering God’s forgiveness but also reconciling the penitent with the Church as a community. All bishops have the *power *to confer all seven sacraments, by virtue of their apostolic succession, of possessing the fullness of the priesthood, but the Supreme Authority of the Church can regulate how this power is used. In Orthodoxy, cannot councils, especially ecumenical councils, limit or regulate how a bishop exercises his authority? Is this not comparable to faculties?

Seems to me like a bishop’s jurisdiction would be his diocese. And yes there are canons regulating all kinds of things from the order in which clergy sit at tables to who can be ordained. But councils do not “grant” faculties as I understand the word to mean. A bishop has full jurisdictional power from the moment he is installed in his see.

 

[steve_b]

My point exactly.

It doesn’t equal the caricature however, that you portrayed… “bishops are just glorified priests in fancy hats”

 

[Genesis315]

This is a disciplinary canon, not some immutable dogma. An ecumenical Council (which by definition has at least the tacit consent of the Pope) exercises supreme authority in the Church, and therefore can promulgate, amend, or abrogate such canons. This same supreme authority is also exercised in the Church by the Pope, and therefore he can also promulgate, amend, or abrogate such canons.

Universal jurisdiction does not mean that the Pope must be constantly involved in the jurisdictions of other bishops, just that he can be when he judges it expedient for the Church. The Pope appointing bishops in the West is a relatively new process–Popes claimed universal jurisdiction but generally did not get involved in appointing bishops for centuries. But, due to certain circumstances, it seemed more prudent to switch to this method.

 

[Brendan]

There are certainly bishops who have been appointed without the consent of Rome.

Several dioceses in China are great examples.

The Church recognizes them as being validly ordained bishops.

But who has the authority to decide if they are in Communion with Rome other than Rome itself.

Is the status of bishop who has been determined to not be in Communion that different in the East? If a Patriarch has determined that a bishop has separated themselves from Communion, what is the status of their See?

( Kiev is a great example if the man put forward is not to Moscow’s liking…)