G
Genesis315
Guest
As you mentioned, it’s a working document. But even then it said “canonical authority” and it didn’t say ever. The appeals to Rome ended in authoritative decisions–real acts of jurisdiction. “Canonical” would be a matter of positive law, whereas the Pope’s jurisdiction is part of the constituent nature of the Church. The Pope (except in extraordinary circumstances) as a matter of custom and based on the laws promulgated at Nicea (which Rome accepted as governing) did not take an active role in the East (the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch bore most of the burden) unless his intervention was necessary to serve unity.And what of the Chieti Document which states that the Pope of Rime never exercised authority over the Churches of the East?
There has been some confusion in Catholic circles based on the word “ordinary” when referring to the Pope’s jurisdiction at the First Vatican Council. This term is used in a precise way to mean “not delegated” (ie the Pope does not receive his authority as a delegation from other bishops), it does not mean “usual” or “common” or “routine.” In general, each bishop should govern his own church and bishops should coordinate their efforts as necessary. The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. The jurisdiction of the Pope is therefore traditionally used as an extraordinary means to serve unity. Unfortunately, events in the West gradually necessitated a more active role for the Pope. But this is not a necessity of the papacy. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic treatment is in the abstract–the “can” rather than the “should”–since what would be appropriate to serve unity in every situation cannot be foreseen.
Last edited: