Papal Authority and Jurisdiction

[mardukm]

But I see now that his actions were consistent with the canons. I am not sure about what the pope did to investigate whether his actions were in agreement with the church, but there wasn’t a whole sale rebellion against the motu proprio. There certainly was some grumbling and consternation from some quarters.

I suspect that agreement from all quarters is not necessary or even possible at times.

He most likely discussed it with the American Cardinals. The Cardinals are, after all, his advisory group. To be perfectly concise, the agreement of which brother Milesvitae have been discussing is the agreement of the Church in a matter of faith and morals. I expect that on matters of discipline, there will be more grumbling since bishops are generally protective of their own prerogatives in their home court.

That is certainly the case for humanae vitae (HV). As a Canadian, I am aware of the Winnipeg conference that taught in contradiction to HV. I am sure they reflected the opinion of many other bishops as well.

When the matter came to a vote at V2, IIRC the number of bishops assenting to adhere to the Traditional teaching was around 90% of the quorum. I suppose we have a new generation of bishops that may be more “progressive.” Do you have a link to contents of the discussions at the Winnipeg Conference?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’m taking a fresh look at this. I suppose the pope would argue that the EF was never abrogated, therefore he was not violating the points you make for 1, 2, and 3. The power to restrict the EF was never proper to the bishops.

Yes, it was not a proper authority, but was a delegated one, granted by the supreme authority of V2. To be prefectly concise, the delegated authority was given to the episcopal conferences, not to the individual bishops directly.

I also recall reading somewhere that the delegated authority was of a temporary nature to “test the waters,” so to speak. Have you read anything similar?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

He most likely discussed it with the American Cardinals. The Cardinals are, after all, his advisory group. To be perfectly concise, the agreement of which brother Milesvitae have been discussing is the agreement of the Church in a matter of faith and morals. I expect that on matters of discipline, there will be more grumbling since bishops are generally protective of their own prerogatives in their home court.

Makes sense to me.

When the matter came to a vote at V2, IIRC the number of bishops assenting to adhere to the Traditional teaching was around 90% of the quorum. I suppose we have a new generation of bishops that may be more “progressive.”

Well, the Winnipeg statement came in 1968, so it represents a more proximate reaction to HV. It helps to explain the confusion about and acceptance of contraception on the part of my parent’s generation. I wonder if the reason many people on the Catholic Answers forums feel that the pope is an often lone voice in support of HV is because we belong to the epicenter of the contraceptive revolution here in North America (an Europe)? If we broke down which bishops were part of the 10%, I suspect that many of them would have been from North America and Europe.

Are you from the Philipines, or are you European or North American?

Do you have a link to contents of the discussions at the Winnipeg Conference?

Blessings,
Marduk

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/winnipeg.html

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, it was not a proper authority, but was a delegated one, granted by the supreme authority of V2. To be prefectly concise, the delegated authority was given to the episcopal conferences, not to the individual bishops directly.

I also recall reading somewhere that the delegated authority was of a temporary nature to “test the waters,” so to speak. Have you read anything similar?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think articles 36 to 40 were used to justify the novus ordos. During the implementation, the latin mass was completely supressed, at least in English speaking countries. The Heenan indult was grudglingly implemented by Bugnini providing some freedom for the latin mass:

lms.org.uk/resources/documents/heenan-indult

But the bishop could only get permission if the entire conference agreed! This was even more restrictive than I thought. I believe in 1991 this restriction was removed. It may have been with the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, but it wasn’t set as law. Complaints to John Paul II generally resulted in encouragement for laity to try to convince bishops to be generous with allowing the latin mass, but they could still legally refuse.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Vatican I:

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]

1. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
2. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].
3. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
4. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

1. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
2. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

Cont.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Cont.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting. I think what Mardukm is saying is that this clause:

Therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves,
and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Does not contradict this clause:

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
   sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils
   or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world,
   sometimes by special synods,
   sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
   defined as doctrines to be held those things which,
   by God’s help,
   they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

He does not need the concent of anyone, but he must implement, in some way, the precepts described in the previous quote. Whether it be by consulting the Cardinals, synods, an ecumenical council, etc…In fact, he woudl not pronounce an Ex Cathedra statement without doing the above.

God bless,
Ut

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nope. Just attacking your logic. I asked you to back up your Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy. According to you he can “meddle” in the affairs of a local Church "if he wants."You said that fact that he approves who is or who is not a bishop is apparently supposed to demonstrate this absolute power. But a Metropolitan also has the same prerogative in his Metropolitan See. According to your “logic,” the Metropolitan must have absolute authority to “meddle” in the affairs of the local Churches within his Metropolitan See because he also approves who is or who is not a bishop in his Metropolitan See.

Blessings,
Marduk

And choosing which bishops get ordained isn’t meddling?

The Metropolitan belongs to the same sui juris, the Pope does not. HUGE difference.

 

[mardukm]

Interesting. I think what Mardukm is saying is that this clause:

Does not contradict this clause:

Thank you brother, that is what I am saying.

He does not need the concent of anyone,

He does not need consent as in “permission,” but he does not consent as in “agreement.” He does not need permission insofar as it is inherent in his prerogative to care for the Church in this way. But he does need agreement because it is in the nature of the Church to function as a whole body, not the head separated from the other members, nor the other members separated from the head.

but he must implement, in some way, the precepts described in the previous quote. Whether it be by consulting the Cardinals, synods, an ecumenical council, etc…In fact, he woudl not pronounce an Ex Cathedra statement without doing the above.

Agreed. To be perfectly concise, in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium is exercised by the entire College of bishops in union with the head bishop. In distinction, for an ex cathedra decree, only the head bishop exercises the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium, while the rest of the orthodox bishops simultaneously exercise the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

The infallibility spoken of in the foregoing paragraph is, of course, part and parcel the infallibility of the Church as a whole.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I personally am strongly opposed to the phrase “the College of bishops in union with the Pope.” I use the phrase only for the sake of clarity, but I believe the phrase can be easily misinterpreted in an unorthodox, non-Catholic sense — i.e., that the Pope can in any way or at any time be separated from the College of bishops (or the Church). Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, the term “Synod” naturally includes the head bishop with his brother bishops. There is no need to say, “the Synod in union with its head” – it is wholly redundant. I do understand the utility of the phrase, to combat the excesses of the Low Petrine error that seeks to separate the body from the head, but it can have the unintended effect of strengthening the opposite Absolutist Petrine error of separating the head from the body.

 

[mardukm]

And choosing which bishops get ordained isn’t meddling?

No, it is not, because in such a capacity, the bishop of Rome is not acting as a Patriarch, but as the head bishop of the Church universal. This statement seems to demonstrate you are misunderstanding or simply not aware of an important distinction between what the Pope does and what other head bishops do in relation to approval of candidates for the episcopal office. I will explain this shortly.

The Metropolitan belongs to the same sui juris, the Pope does not. HUGE difference.

It is a difference, but I think you do not understand the real distinction here. By now, I hope you are aware of and understand the meaning of the canonical term “PROPER,” because you will need that knowledge in order to understand that the papal “assent” is not a meddling into the affairs of local Churches.

As explained, a head bishop has PROPER authority in matters related to (1) the ENTIRE grouping of particular Churches over which he is head, and (2) his own local diocese (not any other local diocese).

The approval of the bishop of Rome as a Patriarch/Metropolitan of the Latin Church is different from the approval of the bishop of Rome as Pope.

The approval of a Patriarch/Metropolitan is called “confirmation” (this is PROPER to his authority as head bishop of a grouping of particular Churches);
the approval of the Pope is called an “assent” (this is PROPER to his authority as head bishop of the Church universal).

The “confirmation” (given by Patriarchs/Metropolitans) is directly related to the VALIDITY of an ordination (VALIDITY has to do with the making of a bishop as a bishop);
the “assent” (given by the Pope) is directly related to the LICEITY of an ordination (LICEITY has to do with the exercise of a bishop’s prerogatives within the Church).

• The papal “assent” is an act of the bishop of Rome as head bishop of the Church universal. It is not an act of the bishop of Rome as head bishop (i.e., Patriarch) of the Latin Church.

Conclusions:

• The Patriarch of the Latin Church is not the one who gives the non-Latin Catholic Churches our bishops. Our own Patriarchs/Metropolitans do this because the VALIDITY of their ordination (by the act of confirmation which is what makes a bishop a bishop) rests with our Patriarchs/Metropolitans, not the Patriarch of the Latin Church.
• Since the act of confirmation is the PROPER authority of head bishops in a sui juris Church, the bishop of Rome would be regarded as “meddling” if and only if he actually confirmed the bishops of the Eastern/Oriental Churches. But he does not do this. The bishop of Rome only confirms bishops in the Latin particular Churches, not bishops of the Eastern/Oriental Churches.

The papal “assent” is not a meddling in the affairs of non-Latin sui juris Churches because the Pope (i.e., the head bishop of the Church universal) is part and parcel of the ecclesiastical consitution of our sui juris Churches as CATHOLIC Churches. But there is another (in truth, the REAL) reason that the papal “assent” cannot be considered a meddling in the affairs of sui juris non-Latin Churches. The papal “assent” came into existence not to contravene the authority of other head bishops, but rather to contravene the authority of the SECULAR powers.

After all this, it should be admitted that the explicit manner in which the papal “assent” is made evident is an ECCLESIASTICAL/CANONICAL development in the Church. It is therefore not set in stone. Just as it developed into the current praxis, it can develop out of the Church as well. In the early Church, papal “assent” was made evident in nothing more than the mutual explicit communion between the bishop of Rome and the other Patriarchs. Patriarchs should be trusted not to allow the secular power to control the ecclesiastical polity of their Churches. HOWEVER, it has to be admitted that the Churches have historically not been very good at preventing secular governments from interfering in the affairs of the local Churches. I personally believe the papal assent is an important prerogative of the head bishop of the Church universal for its protection and integrity, and should not be objected to lightly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

You’re deflecting the conversation. The issue was about what kind of authority the Pope has over all Churches. My example was to prove that the Pope indeed has authority over all jurisdictions similar to that of bishops in the other jurisdictions which were supposed to be sui juris.

Your point is valid.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

“For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.”

Q: Example of how this happens?

Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese. That is proper authority for them. They have no authority in anyone elses diocese. If the pope replaces a bishop somewhere in the world, for a grave matter, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/

Pope excommunicates Chinese bishop for not getting approval from the Vatican
The Holy See has declared that Father Yue Fusheng who was ordained bishop of Harbin July 6 without the Pope’s approval, is excommunicated. He is the third Chinese bishop to be excommunicated since June 2011
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/harbin-china-16670/

Q: what’s The difference between jurisdiction of Pope and ordinary bishop

• *The pope’s jurisdiction is ordinary, immediate, episcopal, legislative, judicial, universal (over the entire Church). *
• *A bishop’s jurisdiction is ordinary, immediate, episcopal, legislative, judicial, over his diocese only. *

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting Steven.

Did the pope intervene in replacing the bishop in Australia because he was clearly teaching heresy in violation of canon law?

The same question applies in the situation with the Chinese oridnations. Did the pope intervene because the bishop was clearly violating canon law by making such appointments?

What would be interesting to see if if you can find an example where a bishop was doing something that was canonically within his rights, and the pope intervened.

I must admit though that the link you posted from the vatican does seem to cause problems for Mardukm’s definition of proper.

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

Interesting Steven.

Did the pope intervene in replacing the bishop in Australia because he was clearly teaching heresy in violation of canon law?

The same question applies in the situation with the Chinese oridnations. Did the pope intervene because the bishop was clearly violating canon law by making such appointments?

What would be interesting to see if if you can find an example where a bishop was doing something that was canonically within his rights, and the pope intervened.

I must admit though that the link you posted from the vatican does seem to cause problems for Mardukm’s definition of proper.

God bless,
Ut

To answer your 1st question, there is no need to replace a bishop who is solid in the faith.

As to “proper”, the proper day to day authority for a diocese is the bishop. The pope for example, couldn’t possibly run the day to day issues of every diocese on the planet. Besides being hugely impossible, It’s not proper for him to do that day to day business. otoh, he requires every bishop to report to him, and give him an account of their diocese. Obviously in the Australian and Chinese examples, the pope was also aware of what they were doing sans any formal reporting back to the pope, by the individual bishops involved. And the pope removed them from their office.

As you probably found out the 2nd link to the Chinese exanple didn’t take you to the proper place. This link will. catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=46930

Notice The bishops who cooporated with this act, exposed themselves to the same sanctions laid down by canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

 

[MilesVitae]

“For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.”

As far as the question of “proper” and ordinary is concerned, I’m not sure this refutes Marduk’s understanding of the matter. This quotation does not say that he has ordinary authority in the sense that he has proper authority over each and every diocese. Rather it says the he has ordinary authority in the sense that the authority which he has is proper to his office, i.e. not delegated to him from the bishops. By my reading, this defines “ordinary” precisely as Marduk defines it.

 

[mardukm]

As far as the question of “proper” and ordinary is concerned, I’m not sure this refutes Marduk’s understanding of the matter. This quotation does not say that he has ordinary authority in the sense that he has proper authority over each and every diocese. Rather it says the he has ordinary authority in the sense that the authority which he has is proper to his office, i.e. not delegated to him from the bishops. By my reading, this defines “ordinary” precisely as Marduk defines it.

I have read the text you are referring a while back. It should also be noted that immediately after the statement you gave above, HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory added (exactly as I have consistently argued):
Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches.

Note that HH did not say “well, the Pope doesn’t do it because it is a merely practical impossibility.” Rather he says that Vatican 1 did not give such power (i.e., to invervene daily) to the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

I have read the text you are referring a while back. It should also be noted that immediately after the statement you gave above, HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory added (exactly as I have consistently argued):
Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches.

Note that HH did not say “well, the Pope doesn’t do it because it is a merely practical impossibility.” Rather he says that Vatican 1 did not give such power (i.e., to invervene daily) to the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

Touche! I missed that part of the document. My mistake for trying to multitask my day job and this forum discussion.

Steve? Any response?

God Bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

To answer your 1st question, there is no need to replace a bishop who is solid in the faith.

Hi Steve,

I agree, but does he not do this because he doesn’t need to, or because he is legally prevented from doing so by canon law? I mean, I don’t think he can arbitrarily remove a bishop without due canonical process… do you think he can? That would seem to be an injustice.

As to “proper”, the proper day to day authority for a diocese is the bishop. The pope for example, couldn’t possibly run the day to day issues of every diocese on the planet. Besides being hugely impossible, It’s not proper for him to do that day to day business. otoh, he requires every bishop to report to him, and give him an account of their diocese. Obviously in the Australian and Chinese examples, the pope was also aware of what they were doing sans any formal reporting back to the pope, by the individual bishops involved. And the pope removed them from their office.

As you probably found out the 2nd link to the Chinese exanple didn’t take you to the proper place. This link will. catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=46930

Notice The bishops who cooporated with this act, exposed themselves to the same sanctions laid down by canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

This is true, but he is operating within the confines of canon law by doing these things. In fact, they are his proper responsibility (or at least it is the responsibility of those organs of his office that handle these kinds of issues).

Can we define the poper authority of the bishop as that power that is given to the bishop acording to canon law? ANd the follow up question would be, can the pope arbitrarily change canon law?

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

As far as the question of “proper” and** ordinary** is concerned, I’m not sure this refutes Marduk’s understanding of the matter. This quotation does not say that he has ordinary authority in the sense that he has proper authority over each and every diocese. Rather it says the he has ordinary authority in the sense that the authority which he has is proper to his office, i.e. not delegated to him from the bishops. By my reading, this defines “ordinary” precisely as Marduk defines it.

When I previously wrote the following Q/A, I meant for it to show simply, using same terms used by the Church docs, where pope and bishop jurisdiction are similar and where they are different

Q: what’s The difference between jurisdiction of Pope and ordinary bishop

• *The pope’s jurisdiction is ordinary, immediate, episcopal, legislative, judicial, universal (over the entire Church). *
• *A bishop’s jurisdiction is ordinary, immediate, episcopal, legislative, judicial, (over his diocese only.) *

To add further description (*From the vatican link I previously offered) *vatican.va/holy_father/jo…9930224en.html

"Council of Florence (1439) “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).

"vatican I (1870) cited the Council of Florence’s definition (cf. DS 3060) and, after mentioning the Gospel texts (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:16f.; Jn 21:15f.), expresses the meaning of this power in further detail. The Roman Pontiff “does not only have the office of inspection and direction,” but enjoys “full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world” (DS 3064)…… the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064)

And While

"Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. "

 

[steve_b]

Touche! I missed that part of the document. My mistake for trying to multitask my day job and this forum discussion.

Steve? Any response?

God Bless,
Ut

"Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. "

Does that answer it?

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

I agree, but does he not do this because he doesn’t need to, or because he is legally prevented from doing so by canon law? I mean, **I don’t think he can arbitrarily remove a bishop without due canonical process… do you think he can? That would seem to be an injustice. **

Arbitrarily? No.
u:

This is true, but he is operating within the confines of canon law by doing these things. In fact, they are his proper responsibility (or at least it is the responsibility of those organs of his office that handle these kinds of issues).

yes, of course the pope follows the law. But see my last entry
u:

Can we define the poper authority of the bishop as that power that is given to the bishop acording to canon law?

they have to follow the canons that are there. You saw from my previous post, what happened when some didn’t
u:

ANd the follow up question would be, can the pope arbitrarily change canon law?

God bless,
Ut

“Arbitrarily” ? No

But look at this for perspective uscatholic.org/node/5380