Papal Authority and Jurisdiction

[utunumsint]

Arbitrarily? No.

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

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

“Arbitrarily” ? No

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

Hi Steve,

I took another look at the Pope’s letter on supreme jurisdiction. It does seem like the Pope does have substantial limitations to his power:

Quote 1

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).

The pope has neither the right or the power to change the rights and duties of the episcopate.

I think we have to read the following text in light of this statement about the rights and duties of the episcopate, and how the pope does not have the power or the right to change them.

Quote 2

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.

What limits to the primacy was the pope talking about? Specifically the power of the pope:

Quote 3

…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.

This statement was defined to protect the Popes rights, but does not limit the bishops rights.

In fact, Quote 2 continues to state:

The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).

So given this, I would say that the pope`s power is not absolute, in the sense of unlimited. He has to respect the god given rights of the bishops, and I supose, the god given rights of the entire world.

I think I am getting closer to a proper understanding, but I suspect that these details, when it comes to the fine points, can be hard to pin down.

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

I took another look at the Pope’s letter on supreme jurisdiction. It does seem like the Pope does have substantial limitations to his power:

Quote 1

The pope has neither the right or the power to change the rights and duties of the episcopate.

I think we have to read the following text in light of this statement about the rights and duties of the episcopate, and how the pope does not have the power or the right to change them.

Quote 2

What limits to the primacy was the pope talking about? Specifically the power of the pope:

Quote 3

This statement was defined to protect the Popes rights, but does not limit the bishops rights.

In fact, Quote 2 continues to state:

So given this, I would say that the** pope`s power is not absolute**, in the sense of unlimited. He has to respect the god given rights of the bishops, and I supose, the god given rights of the entire world.

I think I am getting closer to a proper understanding, but I suspect that these details, when it comes to the fine points, can be hard to pin down.

God bless,
Ut

No one as far as I can see, is saying or has said the pope’s power is unlimited. And to answer your 2nd point, while the pope respects everyone’s respective rights, Jesus expects bishops and the world to also respect in the pope, the authority He gave to Peter…true?

 

[utunumsint]

No one as far as I can see, is saying or has said the pope’s power is unlimited. And to answer your 2nd point, while the pope respects everyone’s respective rights, Jesus expects bishops and the world to also respect in the pope, the authority He gave to Peter…true?

True. I guess my concern is that there have been evil Popes. Can a Pope be put in jail for crimes? Or brought to justice? If yes, then by whom?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

True. I guess my concern is that there have been evil Popes. Can a Pope be put in jail for crimes? Or brought to justice? If yes, then by whom?

God bless,
Ut

Christ at the last day, and boy howdy, is that jail a doozie.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Utunumsint,

Here are several points I hope you will consider:

In your post #61, in response to brother Steveb, I noticed he gave a link to an article discussing the changes in Canon law. Aboslutist Petrine advocates might take this to mean that the Pope can unilaterally change Canon law. However, the article provided is actually misleading (though perhaps not intentionally). The full story is given in the original Motu Proprio Omnum in Mente: zenit.org/article-33673?l=spanish. The article is in Spanish, but anyone should have access to an online translation engine.

What is missing from the article to which brother Steveb linked is the fact that not only did the Pope seek the advice of his brother bishops from episcopal conferences and Roman curial offices before making the changes, but the changes were initated by appeal, not by a unilateral papal action. Personal authority does not mean unilateral authority (you probably already realize that, so I’m not writing that for your benefit, but for those who may have an Absolutist Petrine misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology).

No one as far as I can see, is saying or has said the pope’s power is unlimited. And to answer your 2nd point, while the pope respects everyone’s respective rights, Jesus expects bishops and the world to also respect in the pope, the authority He gave to Peter…true?

True. I guess my concern is that there have been evil Popes. Can a Pope be put in jail for crimes? Or brought to justice? If yes, then by whom?

That’s a valid concern, which I will address in a moment. For now, I would like to express some reservations about brother Steveb’s statement above (not his statement in particular. but similar statements I have read from Absolutist Petrine advocates). Many Absolutist Petrine advocates will admit that the Pope’s power is not unlimited - but by this, they normally only mean that the Pope cannot contradict divine law. However, they will claim that in all else, he has absolute power to such an extent that he can override any singular bishop’s authority in his local diocese on his mere discretion for its daily affairs. I am overjoyed that you realize that this is not the case, and that the Pope does not do this, not because it is a mere practical impossibility, but because it really is not within his power to do so. When you asked brother Steveb to respond to the Pope’s statement that the papacy does not have the power to daily intervene in the affairs of a local diocese, I was frankly surprised he attempted a response, rather than simply admit to the truth of the statement (I noticed his response in your post #61). It’s possible he might think that the subsequent statement somehow refutes the obvious intent of the prior statement from HH JP2. But the most logically obvious interpetation is what you stated - that the “exercise of the primacy” that cannot be limited refers to the powers of the primatial office that in fact does not include the power to daily intervene in the affairs of a local diocese not his own (aside from other obvious inherent limits). In other words, whereas no outside agency can limit the primatial authority, the primatial authority has its own inherent limits.

And it may just be me, but I note another strange distinction in brother Steveb’s response - namely, he states that “while the Pope respects everyone’s respective rights, Jesus expects bishops and the world to also respect the Pope…” The Absolutist Petrine (i.e., neo-ultramontanist) view normally assumes that whatever the Pope does is according to his mere discretion. Thus, while everyone else is under a divine imperative to respect the Pope, there is no similar imperative attached to the Pope’s respect for others. I suspect this is due to the typical neo-ultramontanist mentality that equates the will of the Pope with the will of God Himself in all things. I believe this is a very dangerous pov, and Catholics need to do our best to combat it.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Now, on to your immediate concern about evil Popes. I think we can class this under two headings: (1) violation of doctrine; (2) violation of moral law. According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, it is the general opinion of theologians that a Pope who preaches heresy ceases to be Pope latae sententaie. This can occur even without a personal ecclesiastical tribunal that judges the Pope. I’m perfectly fine with that, but I’m sure there are those who will stay up all night wondering what the practical result of this is. Will the heretical Pope simply be ignored and a new Pope elected? I imagine that the most likely scenario is that the College of Cardinals will elect a new Pope, and the new Pope will call an Ecumenical Council to resolve the matter, and force the false Pope to formally abdicate (which happened during the Great Western Schism). But what if the Pope does not abdicate? That, I suppose, is getting into the realm of the Twilight Zone. Popes have abdicated in the past due to pressure from his brother bishops, and no Pope has ever formally taught heterodoxy as the public Faith of the Church. To me, all this evinces God’s Providence in protecting His Church, and we trust that God will continue to protect His Church till the end – in other words, these Twilight Zone scenarios will never happen, and it is a sorry Christian who lets skepticism instead of trust in God’s protection for His Church dominate his/her belief system.

So what about the case of a violation of moral law? Suppose a Pope murders someone, or is discovered to have abused children in the past. I don’t see a problem. GIven the international profile of the papacy, and the pressure of public opinion, I think it is even more likely (than in the case of heresy) for the Pope to abdicate in such a circumstance. No doubt, there will be pressure from both ecclesiastical and secular authorities to place into the Canon law of the CC some kind of accomodation for this scenario at that point. So perhaps what we can discuss is the biblical and patristic basis for such a canon. Any suggestions? Or can we be content with trust in God’s Providence and public pressure (maybe the public pressure can be seen as part of God’s Providence) to force such a Pope to abdicate?

Blessings,
Marduk