Papal Authority and Jurisdiction

[MilesVitae]

I asked this question specifically of mardukm in a pm. He suggested it was worth posting as a public thread. I am certain this question has been dealt with many times before, but I am daunted by the task of searching through past threads to find the discussion.

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate, and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily. Please correct me, of course, if I misunderstand you or do not understand fully.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

Thanks

 

[Julia_Mae]

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?
Thanks

Marduk will have his own answer, but you can’t justify authority by having the person or body claiming the authority writing the justification for the authority. You need a source outside of the authority.

Historically, the Roman Bishop was accorded “first among equals” status. But he did not rule all of the churches. Christianity was not a dictatorship.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Vatican I :

. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Further Pope Clement the first exercised these authorities in a manner which has come down to us in writing. This i’ll have you know is our fourth pope who reigned almost a full millennium before the great schism, making claims that it is a recent invention laughable.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Further Pope Clement the first exercised these authorities in a manner which has come down to us in writing. This i’ll have you know is our fourth pope who reigned almost a full millennium before the great schism, making claims that it is a recent invention laughable.

He says so about himself. You need an outside source. And whatever this may say, the way things worked was collegial, not unilateral. I don’t recall anyone using the word “recent.”

 

[mardukm]

I asked this question specifically of mardukm in a pm. He suggested it was worth posting as a public thread. I am certain this question has been dealt with many times before, but I am daunted by the task of searching through past threads to find the discussion.

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate, and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily. Please correct me, of course, if I misunderstand you or do not understand fully.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

Thanks

Thank you for the question, brother Miles. I will respond to it tonight (as in, according to my local time in the Philippines - it is about 9am here right now), as well as the other points you asked in PM’s to me (if you don’t mind). This is a very important topic, which I believe is necessary for us to discuss publicly, for the goal of unity with our separated apostolic brethren. So it is good to discuss it again once in a while for the sake of new members.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Julia Mae,

Marduk will have his own answer, but you can’t justify authority by having the person or body claiming the authority writing the justification for the authority. You need a source outside of the authority.

Historically, the Roman Bishop was accorded “first among equals” status. But he did not rule all of the churches. Christianity was not a dictatorship.

It is not possible according to the ancient apostolic canons for the Pope to be “outside of the authority” that establishes these laws, because in all things that pertains to the universal Church, the head bishop must be involved. The interplay between the head bishop and his brother bishops is, of course, going to be the topic of this thread, which I will take up in more detail tonight.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Inego,

Further Pope Clement the first exercised these authorities in a manner which has come down to us in writing. This i’ll have you know is our fourth pope who reigned almost a full millennium before the great schism, making claims that it is a recent invention laughable.

Pope St. Clement exercised his authority in a clearly collegial manner. From the earliest days of the Church until around the 13th century, the Pope always acted with the Roman Synod, not apart from nor above it. From the 13th century until Vatican 2, the College of Cardinals gradually replaced the Synod as the collegial body that worked with the Pope in his decisions (the relationship between the College of Cardinals and the Pope during these centuries is a topic all its own). At Vatican 2, the Synod was formally re-established as a means of executive power for the Pope of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Marduk will have his own answer, but you can’t justify authority by having the person or body claiming the authority writing the justification for the authority. You need a source outside of the authority.

Historically, the Roman Bishop was accorded “first among equals” status. But he did not rule all of the churches. Christianity was not a dictatorship.

Thank you for your comment, but the issue you bring up is rather off-topic. I’m actually not looking for an argument for papal supremacy. I merely want to know how Mardukm derives his interpretation of Vatican I and/or Canon Law in regards to the matter of which I spoke in my original post.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Dear sister Julia Mae,

It is not possible according to the ancient apostolic canons for the Pope to be “outside of the authority” that establishes these laws,…

The authority, Marduk, must be outside the Pope. However, I’ll be insterested to read your answer to the OP’s question:

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate, and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily. Please correct me, of course, if I misunderstand you or do not understand fully.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like** “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” **I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

BTW, we need a reference for OP’s statement, otherwise there’s no need to reconcile anything.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thank you for your comment, but the issue you bring up is rather off-topic. I’m actually not looking for an argument for papal supremacy. I merely want to know how Mardukm derives his interpretation of Vatican I and/or Canon Law in regards to the matter of which I spoke in my original post.

We need a reference for your paraphrase/quote. BTW, it was on-topic, because you wanted two statements reconciled which is only necessary if the statements carry apparent similar weight but are contradictory. So let’s see just where the second one came from and just what it says.

 

[mardukm]

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate

The term “appellate” does not have a canonical significance, and is not an ontological descriptive of the papal prerogatives, but is only used to describe the practical application of them. In all instances, if a legitimate, orthodox bishop is present and active in a certain diocese, the Pope does not have the authority to daily intervene in the affairs of that diocese. The affairs of the diocese will come to the attention of the Pope only upon appeal. This does not lessen the fact that the Pope’s jurisdiction is “ordinary” and “immediate” in that diocese, as will be explained shortly.

and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily.

Again, let’s define our terms. The term “ordinary” used in canonical language is not equivalent to its secular usage. “Ordinary” in secular usage means it is normal or usual. But in canonese, it means “inherent.” So when we say that “the Pope’s jurisdiction is ordinary in a diocese that is not his own,” we are not saying that the Pope can exercise his prerogatives normatively and usually in that diocese; rather, it means only that the Pope’s authority in that diocese is inherent to his primatial office. There is, however, another canonical term that is for all intensive purposes equivalent to “normal and usual” - it is the term “PROPER.” In canonese, the term “proper” refers to something that is inherent and usually exercised in the normal course of affairs. That is why if you read our canons carefully, you will notice that while they describe the Pope’s jurisdiction as only “ordinary and immediate” in any diocese, a local bishop’s jurisdiction in his diocese is described as “ordinary, immediate, and proper.”

In general, every head bishop has “ordinary” (per canonical usage) authority in every local diocese within his sphere of jurisdiction (e.g., the authority of a Metropolitan is “ordinary” in every diocese in his Metropolitan See; the authority of a patriarch is “ordinary” in every diocese in his Patriarchal See; the authority of the Pope is “ordinary” in every diocese in the Church universal; etc.), but only the local bishop has “proper” (per canonical usage) authority in his local diocese. “Ordinary” in canonical usage means only that the authority is inherent in the office. That means that if and when (and only “if and when”) it needs to be used because for some reason the local orthodox bishop is impeded in his duties for his diocese, the head bishop can use his “ordinary” authority by right to care for that local diocese (that is, if particular canon law has not provided for other means).

Archbishop Rauscher of Vienna, one of the most stalwart leaders of the Minority Party at V1 concisely expressed the concerns of all (both Majority and Minority Party members):
“The Pope has the power of doing in any diocese whatsoever those things that belong to the bishop; no Catholic can question this. On the other hand it cannot be called in question that bishops in ruling their dioceses have a right that is their own, and they are not vicars of the Pope. The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is ‘ordinary’ is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, extraordinary.”

Other statements from the bishops:
“‘Immediate and ordinary’ should be deleted, and the following should be substituted: 'full power, which he can exercise not only in extraordinary cases, but always alike on all the faithful and on the bishops of the whole Church.”
“The formula ‘immediate and ordinary jurisdiction’ is most true if rightly understood, but liable to be misinterpreted if not made more clear.”
“The supreme pontiff without doubt has supreme and full power over the whole Church and over each and every part of it; but it should be exercised saving the rights of the bishops.”
“That the Pontiff has ordinary and immediate power over each and every church, is true and not open to doubt, in the sense that this power is his own and not delegated, and certainly may be exercise of itself and directly; but it should not be brought into play usually, so as not to interfere with the bishop’s immediate and ordinary jurisdiction.”
“In a canonist and theological sense the Roman Pontiff may be said to have ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every single diocese, provided it is not taken to mean that he is the only real bishop of all the churches, and the others only improperly called bishops.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The Fathers of the Deputation De Fide, the committee responsible for drafting the Decrees, recognized and accepted this concern as their own. Their solution was to use the words “ordinary and immediate” in the decree with two additional actions:
(1) Paragraph 3 was added to the Decree on the Primacy, asserting the purpose and obligation of the papal office to defend and promote the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops;
(2) The form of the anathema in the Decree on Primacy as originally proposed ran thus: “If anyone says that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is only the office of inspection and direction, and that his supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church is not full, but only extraordinary and mediate: let him be anathema.” Given the concerns of an overwhelming number of bishops, the anathema on the use of the term “extraordinary” to describe the papal prerogatives was removed. Compare this original form of the anathema to what we have now, and anyone can see how the concerns of the bishops were given voice in the Decree.

NOTE: Of particular interest to non-Latin Catholics, the proposal of Melkite Patriarch Jussef was to:
(1) re-confirm the Decree of Florence on the Primacy;
(2) include a statement on the rights of Patriarchs; and
(3) enact the Decree on the Primacy without anathema.
The Committee De Fide:
(1) did repeat the Decree of Florence;
(2) reasoned that the Decree had to do with the divine constitution of the Church, and thus should not address what is of merely ecclesiastical origin - namely, the office of Patriarch (though, of course, as the office of bishop is of divine origin, it was accomodated in the Decree on Primacy under paragraph 3 mentioned above);
(3) the Committee’s resolution regarding the anathema has already been discussed above.

It is important that we understand the correct manner by which V1 understood the term “ordinary” and to provide that correct understanding to all who may ask us to give an account for the belief that is in us.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

The clause “which he can always freely exercise” is very often misinterpreted by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors to mean that the Pope can exercise his prerogatives any time, any place, and in any manner he chooses at his mere discretion. But that is not the meaning of it according to the canons. The term “freely” here does not mean “unfettered” as if the Pope has nothing to keep him at bay except his own conscience. Rather, “freely” refers to the fact that every act of the Pope must be volitional, i.e., not forced by some outside agency. The Canons assert that if there is doubt as to interpretation, one should always look at other places in the Canons where the terminology is used. The fact is, grammatically speaking, if one looks at the use of the term “freely” in the Canons, it always refers to the use of free will. It does not mean the license to do whatever.

I’ve been reading through an old thread about the High Petrine position - therein the topic turned to the question of the consent of the Church and how it relates to papal proclamations of dogma.

The impression which I receive from you and others in agreement with you in that thread is that if a Pope has not, in fact, confirmed that the statement he is making is in agreement with the teaching of the Bishops (ordinary magisterium) and the sense of the faithful, then that statement will not be protected from error by the Holy Spirit. This is the impression I receive, but I suspect it is not quite what you mean.

From what you write, you think I am saying that the Holy Spirit will protect the Pope’s writing of the definition only if he has first confirmed the agreement of the Church. If I understand you correctly, yes, that’s not quite what I mean. You are presenting two scenarios here (from what I understand you to be saying): (1) The Holy Spirit protects an occasion when the Pope does confirm the agreement of the ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei; (2) The Holy Spirit protects an occasion when the Pope does not confirm the agreement of the ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei. The fact is, scenario #2 is simply impossible according to both Pastor Aeternus and the official Relatio. The fact is, according to both Pastor Aeternus and the official Relatio, the agreement with the Church that the Pope discovers from his research is the very esse of the promised protection of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is in the search for that very agreement that the promised protection of the Holy Spirit exhibits itself.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Pastor Aeternus asserts:
“However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the conditions of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic Tradition. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith…”
Note especially that by the clause “the reason for this is,” the Decree connects the Pope’s effort through ordinary means to search out the mind of the Church immediately and directly with the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The offical Relatio further explains:
“Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence, the Pope is BOUND by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it”
The Pope must ascertain the truth, not just write a decree and expect some magical aid to come from the Holy Spirit to guide his hand in writing the doctrine. The notion of ascertaining the truth also rejects the possibility that the Pope will somehow have the certainty of truth magically injected into him without endeavoring to investigate the matter by quite ordinary means, as is wont of all human beings.

You are asking, “will the Holy Spirit protect the Pope if he does not obtain the agreement of the ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei?” The answer to that is “NO” because the protection of the Holy Spirit is given only in that very process of searching out that agreement. IOW, the protection of the Holy Spirit in the writing of an ex cathedra decree is not subsequent to the Pope’s effort to confirm the agreement of the Church, but rather coincident with and in that very effort.

My best understanding of the matter, from reading some of the Relatio, is as follows. Strictly speaking, the Pope need not seek the consent of the Church for an ex cathedra statement to be infallible. Morally speaking, yes, he has the obligation to investigate what the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is - but if he does not, the Holy Spirit will still protect him from making an ex cathedra statement which is in error. In otherwords, the Pope should not wake up in the morning and decide to declare a dogma. But, it’s theoretically possible that a Pope could do so - if such were the case, the Holy Spirit would protect him from contradicting Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

That’s not the correct understanding according to both Pastor Aeternus and the Relatio, both of which intimately and immediately connects the aid of the Holy Spirit to the Pope’s very effort in searching out the agreement of the ordinary Magisterium. See above.

So, as far as the consent of the Church goes, this is my understanding. The Pope need not have sought the consent of the Church for his statement to have been infallible. But, since the Holy Spirit will always preserve such statements from error, and because the Church as a whole and the ordinary magisterium cannot fall into error, any such statements on the part of the Pope will necessarily have the consent of the Church.

Is this your position?

Please clarify first what you mean by the highlighted portion above:
If by it you mean “The Pope need not have sought the permission of the Church…” I would answer “YES.”
If by it you mean “The Pope need not have sought the agreement of the Church…” I would answer a definite “NO.”

Looking forward to a good discussion on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I asked this question specifically of mardukm in a pm. He suggested it was worth posting as a public thread. I am certain this question has been dealt with many times before, but I am daunted by the task of searching through past threads to find the discussion.

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate, and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily. Please correct me, of course, if I misunderstand you or do not understand fully.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

Thanks

Yes, that is in fact a dogma of the Church. Anyone who says the Pope does not have universal, ordinary jurisdiction is anathemized. So to claim the Pope does not have the authority to meddle with a diocese of an Eastern Catholic Church is wrong. He can go to Ukraine and change the Divine Liturgy schedule of a specific parish if he wishes to.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I asked this question specifically of mardukm in a pm. He suggested it was worth posting as a public thread. I am certain this question has been dealt with many times before, but I am daunted by the task of searching through past threads to find the discussion.

As I understand, Marduk, you believe that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope’s authority over diocese’ or churches outside his own is only appellate, and that he does not have the authority to intervene in the dioceses of other Bishops ordinarily. Please correct me, of course, if I misunderstand you or do not understand fully.

I know there is a statement somewhere - either VI Council or Canon Law (probably both!), that states something like “the Pope has immediate, universal jurisdiction which he can always freely exercise.” I’m curious to know how you reconcile your position and this statement?

Thanks

One of my responses to Marduk on this matter in another thread:

1AugustSon7:

Yes, unilateral; and this assertion hardly needs “hardly” affixed to it, as is demonstrable from even the Apostolic Age, and to which fact even non-Catholics are forced to acknowledge from the evidence:

Philip Schaff

Philip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893), was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian and a **Church historian **who spent most of his adult life living and teaching in the United States.

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states –

“…it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

• philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

Furthermore, this also disproves your claim that the Pope’s authority, powers or prerogatives are in any way whatsoever associated with an appeal, or are somehow derived from one (vis-a-vis “without being asked”).

To the above can be added the following:

The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) –

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)

“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority**…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument**.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

• Ibid.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Yes, that is in fact a dogma of the Church. Anyone who says the Pope does not have universal, ordinary jurisdiction is anathemized. So to claim the Pope does not have the authority to meddle with a diocese of an Eastern Catholic Church is wrong. He can go to Ukraine and change the Divine Liturgy schedule of a specific parish if he wishes to.

You apparently do not even know what the term “ordinary” means in canonical usage. Read my explanation above, and respond or refute if you are able.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

One of my responses to Marduk on this matter in another thread:

And not a very good response, which I will demonstrate in the other thread.

The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) –
​

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)

“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority**…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument**.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

Meyendorff is only admitting to the primacy (that’s what “priority” refers to in his statements). There is no way Meyendorff would accede to your Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papal prerogatives.

Blessings,
Marduk​

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

You apparently do not even know what the term “ordinary” means in canonical usage. Read my explanation above, and respond or refute if you are able.

Blessings,
Marduk

I understand what Ordinary means. It is also used to refer to the local bishop (ie. Local Ordinary). That is why the word itself points that the Pope, having universal ordinary jurisdiction, has the same authority as the Local Ordinary. They are both ordinaries of the same diocese, as if the local Church is a two headed monster instead of having one head (the bishop).

And not a very good response, which I will demonstrate in the other thread.

Meyendorff is only admitting to the primacy (that’s what “priority” refers to in his statements). There is no way Meyendorff would accede to your Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papal prerogatives.

Blessings,
Marduk

Definitely. I have that book. There is nothing there that would even justify the current authority of the Pope. Primacy as understood by the Orthodox is leadership, not management. And the book clearly states that the Pope’s place evolved, not divinely instituted by Jesus as Catholics claim from Matthew’s Gospel.

 

[mardukm]

I understand what Ordinary means. It is also used to refer to the local bishop (ie. Local Ordinary). That is why the word itself points that the Pope, having universal ordinary jurisdiction, has the same authority as the Local Ordinary. They are both ordinaries of the same diocese, as if the local Church is a two headed monster instead of having one head (the bishop).

Well, this statement actually demonstrates you might not know what it means. A local diocese can actually have as many as 4 ordinaries - the bishop, the metropolitan, the patriarch/major archbishop, and the pope. So the local Church is actually a 3 or 4-headed monster, according to your caricature. People are so used to referring to bishops as ordinaries, that people either forget or simply do not know that not all ordinaries are bishops, and not all bishops are ordinaries. The two are not equivalent terms. A diocese has only one proper (per canonical usage) bishop, but it can have several ordinaries.

Primacy as understood by the Orthodox is leadership, not management.

Interesting. My understanding of the Eastern Orthodox pov (well, according to some, not all) is that the office of head bishop (including the papacy) is merely managerial/administrative. The idea of leadership is more consonant with the Catholic Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I understand what Ordinary means. It is also used to refer to the local bishop (ie. Local Ordinary). That is why the word itself points that the Pope, having universal ordinary jurisdiction, has the same authority as the Local Ordinary. They are both ordinaries of the same diocese, as if the local Church is a two headed monster instead of having one head (the bishop).

Are you going to respond to the explanation I provided to brother Milesvitae? I know you have an Absolutist Petrine understanding of the Papacy. I’d like to see if you can back up your claims.

Blessings,
Marduk