Papal Authority and Jurisdiction

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Vatican I:

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
3. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
4. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
5. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
6. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
7. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
8. 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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Ah, it is actually you who doesn’t know what it means. The Metropolitan and Patriarch does not have ordinary jurisdiction in another diocese. It is not true in the East, it was never true in the West prior to their flat ecclesiology today.

Even when there were actually Primates who functioned as Primates in the Roman Catholic Church, there were only First Among Equals of a certain political territory (Primate of US, Primate of Canada, etc.). They have no such authority over any other diocese other than their own. Same goes with the Archbishop in relation with his suffragan bishops. He does not have authority over the suffragan diocese.

Even in todays Eastern Churches both Catholic and Orthodox, this is the case. It is quite surprising that someone who used to be Copt do not know this. While I admittedly know little about Oriental Orthodoxy, I will be very surprised if their Ecclesiology is different from the Eastern Orthodox. My guess is it is not because this issue has never been raised as an issue between the two Communions. The EOs wouldn’t accept an ecclesiology other than their own, that is for sure.

And no, as per traditional understanding an ecclesiology, Bishops are the only ordinaries. I do understand there is a complicated conundrum about Religious Orders. I’m trying to wrap my head around that before I make a decision on whether it is skipping out on something essential, or an acceptable development in the Church.

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

In EO and OO, every Bishop is in charge of a territory. There cannot be a bishop with no territory, even if this territory is historical and today does not really have a significant congregation to it. Similar to Met. Kallistos’ territory which contains I think one monastery. But in the past it used to be a central city in the region, thus its bishop is a Metropolitan. The same way Alexandria and Antioch today still have Patriarchs even though the cities are pretty insignificant. I guess once prestige has been assigned to a city, it is not to be taken away. A Metropolitan is not merely an administrator of a group of bishops, he is actually a bishop of an actual diocese. His Beatitude Sviatoslav is actually a Local Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Kyiv-Halych. The same way the Pope is actually the local bishop of the diocese of Rome. Of course because of what the Papacy is today, the Pope hands off duties for his local diocese to someone else. But by all intents and purposes, he is the bishop of Rome, literally, not just in title.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Of course. The Pope approves all ordinations of all Bishops in the Catholic Church, including Eastern Bishops. There is no bigger proof than that. Historically that is not the case. Metropolitans may deny ordination to episcopal-candidates for their suffragan dioceses, but they cannot for dioceses not attached to them. Since the Pope does this for all dioceses, then what else does that mean?

 

[mardukm]

Ah, it is actually you who doesn’t know what it means. The Metropolitan and Patriarch does not have ordinary jurisdiction in another diocese. It is not true in the East, it was never true in the West prior to their flat ecclesiology today.

Actually, the practice of Metropolitans and Patriarchs appointing bishops to dioceses under them when the bishop was impeded for some reason was rather common during the patristic period. That demonstrates, according to Catholic canonical language, an ordinary jurisdiction over tthose particular dioceses. It devolves upon head bishops to care for dioceses whose bishops are impeded, according to particular canon law. The most ancient practice was to have a neighboring bishop care for the vacant see; sometimes an auxiliary bishop or chorepiscpus or another ordinary would temporarily take care of the sheep. The practice of appointment was a development during the patristic age. I think you are just not understanding that these canonical terms in the Catholic Church reflects actual praxis present in all Churches. Don’t be so hung up on terminologies, brother. I’m explaining this from a Catholic perspective and thus using Catholic terminology, because a Catholic (a Latin Catholic at that) was asking about it.

Even when there were actually Primates who functioned as Primates in the Roman Catholic Church, there were only First Among Equals of a certain political territory (Primate of US, Primate of Canada, etc.). They have no such authority over any other diocese other than their own. Same goes with the Archbishop in relation with his suffragan bishops. He does not have authority over the suffragan diocese.

You obviously don’t understand the difference between ordinary jurisdiction and proper jurisdiction. A bishop who has proper jurisdiction would be equivalent to your conception of “ordinary.” There is only one bishop with proper jurisdiction in any given diocese, which would be equivalent to the idea that there is only one “ordinary” in any given diocese from your pov.

Even in todays Eastern Churches both Catholic and Orthodox, this is the case. It is quite surprising that someone who used to be Copt do not know this.

I understand Orthodox ecclesiology. It’s just that you don’t understand Catholic ecclesiology. They are basically the same, but different terminologies are utiilized to describe the same praxis and principles…

And no, as per traditional understanding an ecclesiology, Bishops are the only ordinaries.

The basic ecclesiologies on the episcopate are the same, but the Catholic Church has more incisively described the matter, and thus uses different terminologies for the same reality.

I do understand there is a complicated conundrum about Religious Orders. I’m trying to wrap my head around that before I make a decision on whether it is skipping out on something essential, or an acceptable development in the Church.

Don’t worry about it. It doesn’t affect your daily living as a Christian.

In EO and OO, every Bishop is in charge of a territory. There cannot be a bishop with no territory, even if this territory is historical and today does not really have a significant congregation to it. Similar to Met. Kallistos’ territory which contains I think one monastery. But in the past it used to be a central city in the region, thus its bishop is a Metropolitan. The same way Alexandria and Antioch today still have Patriarchs even though the cities are pretty insignificant. I guess once prestige has been assigned to a city, it is not to be taken away.

Actually, not all bishops are in charge of a territory. Auxiliary bishops are rather common in Orthodoxy and they do not have actual charge of the territory to which they are assigned. For that reason, though they are true bishops, they are not called “ordinaries.” I’m surprised you did not know that.

A Metropolitan is not merely an administrator of a group of bishops, he is actually a bishop of an actual diocese.

You did not address my point at all. I was talking about the role of head bishops in the entire territory in which they are head, not their role in their local diocese.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course. The Pope approves all ordinations of all Bishops in the Catholic Church, including Eastern Bishops. There is no bigger proof than that. Historically that is not the case. Metropolitans may deny ordination to episcopal-candidates for their suffragan dioceses, but they cannot for dioceses not attached to them. Since the Pope does this for all dioceses, then what else does that mean?

So according to your understanding, Metropolitans are overlords with absolute power simply because they approve who gets to be ordained?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear Marduk,

Thank you for your response to my questions. I haven’t been able to look at it till today as I’ve been without internet for the last couple days.

I think I’m good for now on the question on of the Pope’s authority as “ordinary” etc.

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…

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.”

Okay, so we’re on the same boat as far as needing the agreement of the Church is concerned. But, I want to make sure I understand your position on needing to seek the agreement of the Church.
What about the possibility of a Pope failing to engage in the proper means to confirm that what he intends to define is in agreement with the Church (again, I am not saying that what the Pope ultimately defines in this situation is in disagreement with the Church, merely that he has failed in his obligation to confirm that it is in agreement)? Granted, this seems unlikely - but it seems like a theoretical possibility.
In such a case, the Pope will and can never come to define a teaching which is in disagreement with the Church.
But are you saying that it is impossible that a Pope will ever define a teaching which is, in fact, in agreement with the Church, although he failed to take the proper means to confirm it was in agreement?

 

[mardukm]

I think I’m good for now on the question on of the Pope’s authority as “ordinary” etc.

Awesome! I would add that the distinction between “proper” and “ordinary” is evident in other spheres of jurisdiction, not just among bishops. For example, though the authority of a bishop is considered “ordinary” in all matters within his territory, the abbot of a monastery within the bishop’s territory is the only one whose jurisdiction over the monastery is considered “proper” (per canonical usage). Further, in Catholic canon theory, there is also a distinction made between “proper” jurisdiction and “potential” jurisdiction. Hence, a co-adjutor bishop, while having jurisdiction which is called “ordinary” in the same territory as the proper bishop, only has “potential” jurisdiction, and not “proper” jurisdiction. The general principle, of course, is that any given jurisdiction (whether territorial or personal) in the Church can only have one PROPER hierarch.

As an aside, Orthodox generally have not made this canonical distinction in their ecclesiology, and would say “any given jurisdiction can only have one ORDINARY.” It is actually equivalent to saying, according to Catholic ecclesiology, that “any given jurisdiction can only have one PROPER hierarch.” Orthodox who are not aware of Catholic ecclesiology will make a big deal about this difference, and it is our job, for the sake of Church unity, to properly (no pun intended) explain that it is only a terminological distinction.

Okay, so we’re on the same boat as far as needing the agreement of the Church is concerned. But, I want to make sure I understand your position on needing to seek the agreement of the Church.
What about the possibility of a Pope failing to engage in the proper means to confirm that what he intends to define is in agreement with the Church (again, I am not saying that what the Pope ultimately defines in this situation is in disagreement with the Church, merely that he has failed in his obligation to confirm that it is in agreement)? Granted, this seems unlikely - but it seems like a theoretical possibility.

Remember that the divine assistance of infallibility comes in his very effort of searching out the agreement of the Church. I suppose he is given the grace (1) to strengthen his very resolve to search out the agreement of the Church, (2) in his very search for agreement (i.e., God will present to him the necessary helps), and (3) thenceforth to write the proclamation. It is certainly possible on the principle of free will that the Pope can resist this grace. But I believe that if he resists this grace, God, for the sake of the integrity of His Church, will bring events together that wouild not allow the Pope to make an ex cathedra decree. I am reminded of the case of Pope Honorius, wherein the Pope it seems depended purely on his personal opinion, and in fact made no ex cathedra decree. I believe that was divine Providence at work. I am further reminded of Pope John XXII(?), who preached on the afterlife contrary to the mind of the Church. He was brought to task on it, and, thankfully, he was cognizant of his responsibility as the head bishop of the Church, and during his public defense, made a distinction between something given in a personal homily, on the one hand, and an official definition of faith, on the other.

In such a case, the Pope will and can never come to define a teaching which is in disagreement with the Church.

Agreed.

But are you saying that it is impossible that a Pope will ever define a teaching which is, in fact, in agreement with the Church, although he failed to take the proper means to confirm it was in agreement?

Yes, I would say that it is impossible because we must assume that the Pope needs to be certain first that the teaching will be consonant with the ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei. The Pope’s certainty that he is in agreement with the Church comes - explicitly according to Pastor Aeternus and the official Relatio - not through divine inspiration or revelation, but through diligent search by very human and ordinary means that he is in agreement with the Church. Remember that the matters that need an ex cathedra determination are brought to him by his brother bishops who normally have the same resources as the Pope. If the matter was not that difficult to resolve, the local bishop can handle it himself. Basically, what the Pope will do is bring the entire resources of the Church together for the determination, either through an Ecumenical Council formally (i.e., collegially), or searching out the mind of the Church through informal means and then making a decision (i,e. personally). I think the examples of Popes Honorius and John XXII amply demonstrate that the Pope’s mere personal opinion would not be enough to guarantee the correctness of a proposed dogma. Rather, it is in his very search for agreement with the rest of the Church that the grace of infallibility will be effective in bringing about the definition.

Now, you might ask, will not the Pope’s personal opinion be afforded the grace of infallibility? If that was the case, infallibility would be nothing more than divine inspiration or revelation. But the Fathers of V1 were explicit that the divine assistance of infallibility is not divine inspiration or revelation.

Does the foregoing explanation help at all?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Mardukm,

How are we to judge when the pope has done his due diligence. Seems like no one can determine that but himself.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting quotes from canon law:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth.
By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the **primacy of ordinary power **over all particular churches and groups of them.
Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

Seems like the term “proper” is defined as whatever the pope proposes. Especially since he seems to be able to reserve some of the bishop’s power to his own supreme authority.

God bless,
ut

 

[MilesVitae]

Awesome! I would add that the distinction between “proper” and “ordinary” is evident in other spheres of jurisdiction, not just among bishops. For example, though the authority of a bishop is considered “ordinary” in all matters within his territory, the abbot of a monastery within the bishop’s territory is the only one whose jurisdiction over the monastery is considered “proper” (per canonical usage). Further, in Catholic canon theory, there is also a distinction made between “proper” jurisdiction and “potential” jurisdiction. Hence, a co-adjutor bishop, while having jurisdiction which is called “ordinary” in the same territory as the proper bishop, only has “potential” jurisdiction, and not “proper” jurisdiction. The general principle, of course, is that any given jurisdiction (whether territorial or personal) in the Church can only have one PROPER hierarch.

As an aside, Orthodox generally have not made this canonical distinction in their ecclesiology, and would say “any given jurisdiction can only have one ORDINARY.” It is actually equivalent to saying, according to Catholic ecclesiology, that “any given jurisdiction can only have one PROPER hierarch.” Orthodox who are not aware of Catholic ecclesiology will make a big deal about this difference, and it is our job, for the sake of Church unity, to properly (no pun intended) explain that it is only a terminological distinction.

Remember that the divine assistance of infallibility comes in his very effort of searching out the agreement of the Church. I suppose he is given the grace (1) to strengthen his very resolve to search out the agreement of the Church, (2) in his very search for agreement (i.e., God will present to him the necessary helps), and (3) thenceforth to write the proclamation. It is certainly possible on the principle of free will that the Pope can resist this grace. But I believe that if he resists this grace, God, for the sake of the integrity of His Church, will bring events together that wouild not allow the Pope to make an ex cathedra decree. I am reminded of the case of Pope Honorius, wherein the Pope it seems depended purely on his personal opinion, and in fact made no ex cathedra decree. I believe that was divine Providence at work. I am further reminded of Pope John XXII(?), who preached on the afterlife contrary to the mind of the Church. He was brought to task on it, and, thankfully, he was cognizant of his responsibility as the head bishop of the Church, and during his public defense, made a distinction between something given in a personal homily, on the one hand, and an official definition of faith, on the other.

Agreed.

Yes, I would say that it is impossible because we must assume that the Pope needs to be certain first that the teaching will be consonant with the ordinary Magisterium and the sensus fidei. The Pope’s certainty that he is in agreement with the Church comes - explicitly according to Pastor Aeternus and the official Relatio - not through divine inspiration or revelation, but through diligent search by very human and ordinary means that he is in agreement with the Church. Remember that the matters that need an ex cathedra determination are brought to him by his brother bishops who normally have the same resources as the Pope. If the matter was not that difficult to resolve, the local bishop can handle it himself. Basically, what the Pope will do is bring the entire resources of the Church together for the determination, either through an Ecumenical Council formally (i.e., collegially), or searching out the mind of the Church through informal means and then making a decision (i,e. personally). I think the examples of Popes Honorius and John XXII amply demonstrate that the Pope’s mere personal opinion would not be enough to guarantee the correctness of a proposed dogma. Rather, it is in his very search for agreement with the rest of the Church that the grace of infallibility will be effective in bringing about the definition.

Now, you might ask, will not the Pope’s personal opinion be afforded the grace of infallibility? If that was the case, infallibility would be nothing more than divine inspiration or revelation. But the Fathers of V1 were explicit that the divine assistance of infallibility is not divine inspiration or revelation.

Does the foregoing explanation help at all?

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you.
I am not sure if the examples you give (Pope Honorius and John XII) are quite relevant to the situation I described - after all, I am describing a situation where the Pope’s personal opinion is in fact in agreement with the ordinary magisterium and the sense of the faihful, nor was I suggesting the Pope receives any special inspiration or revelation nor that his private opinion is infallible - I was only suggesting that, in a case where the Pope’s opinion is incidentally (for lack of a better word atm) in agreement with the Church, despite his negligence in confirming its agreement, God would not necessarily prevent him from making an ex cathedra statement, because the Pope would be making a true statement in the case under consideration.

In any case, I am not sure I am convinced of your opinion in the matter yet, and I may have some more thoughts on this and the question of the Pope’s authority - but I’ll need to post those later. In the mean time, I am interested in your response to utunumsint.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So according to your understanding, Metropolitans are overlords with absolute power simply because they approve who gets to be ordained?

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[mardukm]

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.

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

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother utunumsint,

How are we to judge when the pope has done his due diligence. Seems like no one can determine that but himself.

Ex cathedra decrees are normally given with an Apostolic Constitution, which is a preamble (if you will) to the definition that gives a detailed account of the belief of the Church down through history. I think one can gauge if the Pope has “done his homework” by reading the Apostolic Constitution.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Seems like the term “proper” is defined as whatever the pope proposes. Especially since he seems to be able to reserve some of the bishop’s power to his own supreme authority.

Can. 38 An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.

So the Pope is not the one who determines what is “proper,” because he cannot (1) reserve everything to himself, (2) injure the rights of or cause grave harm to another, and (3) make laws contrary to a law or approved custom.

Keep in mind also that the Pope’s primatial office must be exercised according to the needs of the Church, and in communion with his brother bishops (Canon 333§2). So whatever it is the Pope decides to reserve to the supreme or another ecclesiastical authority, there will be a lot of discussion with his brother bishops before it happens.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

Can. 38 An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.

So the Pope is not the one who determines what is “proper,” because he cannot (1) reserve everything to himself, (2) injure the rights of or cause grave harm to another, and (3) make laws contrary to a law or approved custom.

Keep in mind also that the Pope’s primatial office must be exercised according to the needs of the Church, and in communion with his brother bishops (Canon 333§2). So whatever it is the Pope decides to reserve to the supreme or another ecclesiastical authority, there will be a lot of discussion with his brother bishops before it happens.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok. So the canon 38 answers my case study 1, I think:

1-The moto proprio providing for the extrodinary form basically foces bishops to have to apply to the vatican before denying a request for the latin mass (correct me if this is wrong or imprecise. They used to have the power to deny any request for the latin mass for any reason.

Could you give me an example where a bishop could go against this moto proprio in good conscience?

2-With regard to the second canon, the bishop could not dispence with the prohibition against contraception or abortion because that is part of penal law. I suppose the same thing applies for gay marriage. But aren’t these points that are most contentious?

I will look over your post again tomorrow. My four kids need to be put to bed.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mardukm]

I was only suggesting that, in a case where the Pope’s opinion is incidentally (for lack of a better word atm) in agreement with the Church, despite his negligence in confirming its agreement, God would not necessarily prevent him from making an ex cathedra statement, because the Pope would be making a true statement in the case under consideration.

You seem to be throwing an element of chance into it. I can’t conceive of that, so I cannot agree with it. Chance has no part to play in it. Either God assists the Pope in his search for agreement with the Church or God does not. My belief is that if the Pope is somehow prevented from searching out the agreement of the Church, then an ex cathedra decree will not take place. I simply can’t imagine that on a gravely serious matter such as an ex cathedra decree, the Pope will neglect to cofirm the agreement of the Church.

So we have only three possible scenarios:
(1) The Pope willfully neglects to find the agreement of the Church. In such a case, Since the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit is immediately connected with that search for agreement, it is tantamount to the Pope resisting the grace of God, and God will bring it about that an ex cathedra decree will not take place.

(2) The Pope forgets (i.e., not a willful abandonment of his duties) to find the agreement of the Church. In such a case, the Holy Spirit will move him to do His job properly.

(3) The Pope is prevented from searching out the agreement of the Church. In such a case, the ex cathedra decree will either not take place until the Pope has a chance to search out the agreement of the Church, or - if the Church has a real immediate need for the ex cathedra decree - God will remove the impediment.

Can think of another scenario which we can discuss?

The examples of Popes Honorius and John XII demonstrate what can happen if the Pope does not confirm the agreement of the Church first.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Ok. So the canon 38 answers my case study 1, I think:

1-The moto proprio providing for the extrodinary form basically foces bishops to have to apply to the vatican before denying a request for the latin mass (correct me if this is wrong or imprecise. They used to have the power to deny any request for the latin mass for any reason.

Could you give me an example where a bishop could go against this moto proprio in good conscience?

Denying a request for a certain form of the Mass is against the rights of the individual Christian, which goes against Canon and moral law. So this is a matter of the Pope positively ensuring the rights of the Christian. No hierarch has a right, according to Canon law, to deprive a Catholic Christian of his right to his own Rite nor to contradict approved custom. So this is not a matter of impeding a right of a bishop, but rather of preserving the rights of the laity.

2-With regard to the second canon, the bishop could not dispence with the prohibition against contraception or abortion because that is part of penal law. I suppose the same thing applies for gay marriage. But aren’t these points that are most contentious?

These are divine laws that cannot be dispensed and from which no bishop, even the Pope, can dispense. So that’s not a very good rejoinder.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Milesvitae,

Here’s another thing to consider about the Pope personally being in agreement with the Church:

The Pope can believe conscientiously all he wants that what he will teach is in agreement with the Church. But in the final analysis, that is merely his own belief. He does not know what is on the mind of the rest of the Church unless he takes active steps to sound the mind of the Church. The fact is, the grace of infallibility does not protect the personal belief of the Pope, but rather protects the belief of the Church as a whole.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

Denying a request for a certain form of the Mass is against the rights of the individual Christian, which goes against Canon and moral law. So this is a matter of the Pope positively ensuring the rights of the Christian. No hierarch has a right, according to Canon law, to deprive a Catholic Christian of his right to his own Rite nor to contradict approved custom. So this is not a matter of impeding a right of a bishop, but rather of preserving the rights of the laity.

Well practically speaking, the decision making powers of the bishops were restricted in order to make it harder for them to deny the EF. The motu proprio actively advocates that there be priests capable of performing the EF.

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. 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.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

So the Pope is not the one who determines what is “proper,” because he cannot (1) reserve everything to himself, (2) injure the rights of or cause grave harm to another, and (3) make laws contrary to a law or approved custom.

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.

Interesting discussion!

God bless,
Ut