Papal Prerogatives revisited

[mardukm]

After reading the Altar Girls thread, I thought I’d start this thread so as not to hijack that other thread. I want to present the following considerations for my fellow Catholics - Oriental, Eastern, and Latin - and for my Orthodox brethren.

Some have opined, “the Pope has universal jurisdiction,” and therefore that gives him the authority to involve himself in the affairs of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Others have stated, “the Pope has no say in the affairs of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.”

An Orthodox brother stated that the Pope has the canonical right to involve himself in the affairs of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

The reality of the matter is more subtle than that.

Though the Pope has universal jurisdiction, it must always be used according to the prescription of Vatican 1 - namely, it must be exercised in a way that does not interfere with the jurisdictional authority of his brother bishops. In effect, the authority is always on stand-by mode. It is only used when necessary. This criterion of necessity is an imperative, not an option. In other words, the Pope can exercise his universal jurisdiction not when he wants to, but only when it is necessary. For in truth, the authority of a bishop in his local sphere of influence is as much of divine origin as the authority of the Pope.in the universal Church. Basically, the Pope can exercise local jurisdiction only if that local jurisdiction does not have a bishop. One can see how truly rare this use is since any particular jurisdiction has a whole hierarchal system that can care for the needs of a local diocese or eparchy in the case when it loses its bishop. I know of only one occasion in the history of the Church when a Pope exercised his universal jurisdiction over a local particular Church. This occurred in the 7th century. Due to the Muslim invasion, the See of Jerusalem was left without its chief hierarch. The Pope of Rome installed an apostolic administrator to care for the affairs of the Jerusalem Church in the interim until a new Patriarch could be elected.

As far as the Pope having no say in the affairs of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, it should be noted that as universal pastor, the Pope of Rome has the primary responsibility to ensure that a universal canon is being obeyed by a particular Church. It is on that principle that the HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory exhorted the Chaldean Church to elect a new Patriarch, since the 15-day deadline for election according to universal law had been exceeded. It was on this same principle that the Pope of Rome had for so long resisted Canon 28 of Chalcedon, since Nicea had already established the order of the Sees. Likewise on this same principle, Pope St. Nicholas opposed the election of Patriarch St. Photios since he believed his election violated the universal canons regarding episcopal election (whether Pope St. Nicholas was misinformed or not is not relevant here). We know that for the most part, the Pope can involves himself only in an appellate capacity (i.e., when a local bishope requests it), but there are legitimate instances and circumstances wherein the Pope can involve himself in the affairs of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, even without the express approval of the local hierarchs.

As far as the Pope of Rome having a canonical right to involve himself in the affairs of an Eastern or Oriental Church, this must be tempered by divine necessity with what I stated earlier regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In addition, Canon law gives certain rights to local bishops that the Pope does not have. For instance, only the local bishop has the authority to grant a priest the faculty of hearing confessions anywhere in the diocese. The Pope can do this in his own diocese as the bishop of Rome, but he can’t do it for any other diocese. There are other examples, but anyone can look it up themselves in the Code.

Blessings

 

[GunslingerSaint]

Dear brother GunslingerSaint,

The Pope does not “let” them do anything. The heirarchical order of the Church has been established in Sacred Tradition. Bishops of whatever grade rule over their jurisdiction by canonical authoriity, not papal authority.

For Latin bishops, it is somewhat different since the constitution of the Latin Church permits their Patriarch a larger share in their affairs.

But if you want to continue this discussion, let’s do it in the new “Papal Prerogatives Revisited” thread I started.

Blessings

I can’t confirm this, bottom line is the Pope has authority and jurisdiction over all 23 churches. Else he wouldn’t be the Pope, and we wouldn’t have problems with the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

I can’t confirm this, bottom line is the Pope has authority and jurisdiction over all 23 churches. Else he wouldn’t be the Pope, and we wouldn’t have problems with the Eastern Orthodox.

Personally, I find the Low Petrine view of many EO to be problematic and unpatristic (though I’ve met many EO who have a High Petrine view as well).

But please present for us what you feel this universal authority and jurisdiction permits the bishop of Rome to do in, say, the Melkite Patriarchate.

Also, you seem to reject my statement that the Pope does not “let” his brother bishops do anything. Are you saying that bishops are just puppets of the Pope?

Blessings

 

[fwon2638]

The papal prerogatives are similar to the “reserved powers” enjoyed by the monarch or her vice regal representative under the Westminster System.

Under the Australian Constitution, it is the Governor General’s personal prerogative to call a general election. However, by unwritten convention, he/she can only do so if he/she is being advised by the Prime Minister. The Convention provides that, even though the Constitution does not provide any restraint, the Governor General should not sack the Prime Minister and call an election unilaterally save in exceptional circumstances. In one sense, the Governor General’s power to call an election is absolute (being a personal power that comes with the office). Yet, unwritten convention “imposes” restriction as to the usage of such power.

Similarly, even though the CCC provides that the Pope has primary over the entire church (both locally or universally speaking), the Pope will only exercise his papal prerogative but only in exceptional circumstance (so as to defend the authority of his brother bishop as provided in the Can. 333 §1.).

Francis

 

[JohnVIII]

An ancient Tradition and canon law (see canon 8, 1st Ecumenical) that was very important to the whole church originally, but has become mostly unimportant to either the Roman Church or even to the Eastern Churches today is the law that says there can only be one bishop in one city. Now, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction, then any city you can name where there is a local bishop, you also have the Pope there as well, and that makes a minimum of two bishops over that city, not one as the canon law requires.

As I see it, the way that this issue is resolved in the Roman Catholic Church is that there really is only one bishop anywhere and that bishop is the Pope. Local bishops cannot truly be bishops, but must be something less than bishops.

The Eastern Churches almost do the same thing with Patriarchs. Local bishops under a patriarchate are virtually all vicar bishops. But one critical difference is that the Orthodox teach that salvation in part depends on being under a bishop (any bishop) whereas in the Roman Church salvation depends on being under (or at least “in communion with”) the Pope. Which, to me, proves that the Roman Church really is a one bishop church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I pray you are doing well.

An ancient Tradition and canon law (see canon 8, 1st Ecumenical) that was very important to the whole church originally, but has become mostly unimportant to either the Roman Church or even to the Eastern Churches today is the law that says there can only be one bishop in one city. Now, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction, then any city you can name where there is a local bishop, you also have the Pope there as well, and that makes a minimum of two bishops over that city, not one as the canon law requires.

As I see it, the way that this issue is resolved in the Roman Catholic Church is that there really is only one bishop anywhere and that bishop is the Pope. Local bishops cannot truly be bishops, but must be something less than bishops.

The Eastern Churches almost do the same thing with Patriarchs. Local bishops under a patriarchate are virtually all vicar bishops. But one critical difference is that the Orthodox teach that salvation in part depends on being under a bishop (any bishop) whereas in the Roman Church salvation depends on being under (or at least “in communion with”) the Pope. Which, to me, proves that the Roman Church really is a one bishop church.

This issue of “two bishops in one diocese” has been treated before. Perhaps these will help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5723258&postcount=112

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5732039&postcount=144

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[shawnbm]

I very much enjoy this riveting discussion and find useful Br. Marduk’s explication of the nuances of canon law concerning the power of not only the Bishop of Rome–both as the bishop of that diocese and as successor of Saint Peter–but also of the roles historically played by the Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops in the worldwide Church. It is highly illuminating and I wish more on this forum would read same. The fact that the Pontiff has universal jurisdiction in very limited circumstances with proper and recognized ecclesiastical purposes (preserving unity being chief amongst them) does not mean intervention on a routine basis with another bishop’s affairs in his canonically given diocese or eparchy. The idea that the Roman Pope would tell His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew how to govern his Church in Constantinople if the Churches were reunited is far fetched to me. I don’t see how the Pope would even think to do that, even assuming arguendo he supposedly had the authority to do so (which I don’t feed he would). Shalom.

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I pray you are doing well.

This issue of “two bishops in one diocese” has been treated before. Perhaps these will help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5723258&postcount=112

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5732039&postcount=144

Blessings,
Marduk

I looked at how you treated this issue from your quotes and as [user]Hesychios[/user] quoted there said “this is a totally new concept never before recognized by the church”. It most certainly was unknown in the Church at the time of the 1st Ecumenical and without this new concept of “A bishop of any grade” the whole idea of “Papal Prerogatives” likewise would not even be thinkable.

Of course I admit that degrees of bishops were introduced into the Church by later Ecumenical Councils, but not only was this not the case in the early Church, I maintain that equality of all bishops is an absolute principle that not even an ecumenical council can change. As such, in each case were there is more than one bishop asserting authority the reality is that only one of them hold true authority and the rest serve as vicar-bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I looked at how you treated this issue from your quotes and as [user]Hesychios[/user] quoted there said “this is a totally new concept never before recognized by the church”. It most certainly was unknown in the Church at the time of the 1st Ecumenical and without this new concept of “A bishop of any grade” the whole idea of “Papal Prerogatives” likewise would not even be thinkable. Of course I admit that degrees of bishops were introduced into the Church by later Ecumenical Councils,

That’s not true. The First ecumenical Council recognized the episcopal grades of Patriarch, Metropolitan, and bishop.

but not only was this not the case in the early Church, I maintain that equality of all bishops is an absolute principle that not even an ecumenical council can change. As such, in each case were there is more than one bishop asserting authority the reality is that only one of them hold true authority and the rest serve as vicar-bishops.

To Catholics, the college of bishops with the head bishop was established by Christ himself (see Matthew 24), after the model of the Apostles. All other grades of bishops (Patriarch, Major Archbishop, Metropolitan) were established by the Church in Ecumenical Councils, and are microcosms of the universal apostolic model. I agree with you that what was divinely established can never be cancelled, even by an Ecumenical Council - which includes the office of bishop, and the head bishop (who is the bishop of Rome) - but they can be regulated by the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I very much enjoy this riveting discussion and find useful Br. Marduk’s explication of the nuances …

I think you are being mislead here by spin doctoring.

There are no nuances, the Latin Catholic church is very explicit about the powers of the Pope and will not change them. I should not have to post this here, every Catholic commenting on the subject should already know the text, and fully assent to it.

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

BTW, ‘immediate’ in the text above means ‘un-mediated’, as in ‘nothing in between’ or ‘direct’.

The idea that the Roman Pope would tell His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew how to govern his Church in Constantinople if the Churches were reunited is far fetched to me.

Are you of the opinion that it never did happen, never will happen and is not possible?

What was the reason for excommunication stated in the Bull of Pope Leo IX ?

I don’t see how the Pope would even think to do that, even assuming arguendo he supposedly had the authority to do so (which I don’t feed he would). Shalom.

Then you only need read some the church history.

I suggest you read Allatae Sunt, for starters, where a Pope, in his own words, recounts how his predecessors handled (sometimes arbitrarily) Orthodox in various situations when they came under the control of Rome.

 

[jimmy]

As far as the Pope of Rome having a canonical right to involve himself in the affairs of an Eastern or Oriental Church, this must be tempered by divine necessity with what I stated earlier regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In addition, Canon law gives certain rights to local bishops that the Pope does not have. For instance, only the local bishop has the authority to grant a priest the faculty of hearing confessions anywhere in the diocese. The Pope can do this in his own diocese as the bishop of Rome, but he can’t do it for any other diocese. There are other examples, but anyone can look it up themselves in the Code.

Blessings

This is just wrong. The popes authority is immediate and ordinary upon the whole Church, meaning that the authority that the bishop has in his own diocese the pope has in every diocese.

All things are left to the judgement of the pope. When to intervene and when not to is at his judgement. There is no canonical restriction that says when he is not allowed to intervene. His authority is universal, full and supreme and there is no higher judge on earth than him so to even speak against one of his actions is sinful even if it is a justified protest. The only judge of the pope is God Himself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I think you are being mislead here by spin doctoring.

There’s no “spin doctoring.” But non-Catholics are often prone to eisegesis (i.e., misinterpretation due to lack of consideration for the full context), which is sometimes understandable since Catholicism can be confusing to the non-Catholic.

There are no nuances, the Latin Catholic church is very explicit about the powers of the Pope and will not change them. I should not have to post this here, every Catholic commenting on the subject should already know the text, and fully assent to it.

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

Here’s a perfect example of eisegesis. Non-Catholics detractors of the papacy (as well as Catholic papalists) love to quote this canon from Vatican 1 to support their Absolutist Petrine view. But these same persons are left stumped when the following paragraph from the same Vatican 1 (and from the same Decree on the Primacy) is presented to them:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

BTW, ‘immediate’ in the text above means ‘un-mediated’, as in ‘nothing in between’ or ‘direct’.

I suspect you are using the definition in the wrong way. “Immediate” describes not the relation of the Pope to the Church, but rather the relation of God to the recipient of God-given authority. “Immediate” means that the prerogatives come directly from God, not the Church or any other intermediary. Accordingly, “immediate” is also used as a descriptive of any bishop (as is evident from the quote I gave above). The prerogatives of the bishop are directly from God, not the Church or the Pope or any other intermediary. Let’s not try to “spin” the facts, brother.

Are you of the opinion that it never did happen, never will happen and is not possible?

What was the reason for excommunication stated in the Bull of Pope Leo IX ?

Are you speaking of the Bull from Cardinal Humbert? If you are, that is a very poor example. That Bull was not from Pope Leo IX, but from Cardinal Humbert. The only things Cardinarl Humbert was authorized to talk about were 1) the issue of the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and 2) the issue of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Bulgaria. Everything else contained in that Bull of excommunication was from Cardinal Humbert’s own mind and temper. It is interesting that on the issue of the use of leavened or unleavened bread, it was the bishop of Rome who called for fairness, while it was the Greeks who wanted to impose their practice on the West. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!uch:

Then you only need read some the church history.

I suggest you read Allatae Sunt, for starters, where a Pope, in his own words, recounts how his predecessors handled (sometimes arbitrarily) Orthodox in various situations when they came under the control of Rome.

Except for the Maronites (sadly), Allatae Sunt indicates that the papacy has always strived to maintain the Traditions of the East and Orient.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This is just wrong. The popes authority is immediate and ordinary upon the whole Church, meaning that the authority that the bishop has in his own diocese the pope has in every diocese.

All things are left to the judgement of the pope. When to intervene and when not to is at his judgement. There is no canonical restriction that says when he is not allowed to intervene. His authority is universal, full and supreme and there is no higher judge on earth than him …The only judge of the pope is God Himself.

Canon law says that the Pope cannot issue a decree that harms the rights of an individual.

Canon law says that though his authority is universal, full, and supreme, it cannot be used to stand in the way of the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops.

Aside from ecclesiastical law, there is also divine law that restricts the Pope, since despite your interpretation, it is a fact that the authority of bishops is by divine right just as much as the Pope’s authority is.

so to even speak against one of his actions is sinful even if it is a justified protest.

Where on earth do you get these ideas?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

There’s no “spin doctoring.” But non-Catholics are often prone to eisegesis (i.e., misinterpretation due to lack of consideration for the full context), which is sometimes understandable since Catholicism can be confusing to the non-Catholic. …

This and what followed are very well put. It should give pause to those who insist on the “Absolute Petrine” view as well as those who far too taken with the “Low Petrine” view. Taken together, which I think is the only way they can be read, those quotes from Vatican I seem to be basically consistent with the “High Petrine” view.

Except for the Maronites (sadly), Allatae Sunt indicates that the papacy has always strived to maintain the Traditions of the East and Orient.

Even I don’t find a problem with Allatae Sunt itself: all that it speaks of reflects the “old” wave of latinization which, as I have said umpteen times in various threads, was primarily external and, for the most part, was not “forced” as such. I would give just about anything (not that I have much, but never mind that here) to have the days of the “old latinizations” back: the current wave of on-going and never-ending Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations are 1000 times worse and more insidious than anything even the 16th century Jesuits could have come up with.

 

[johnnykins]

For good or for ill, the one thing that can always be said about Catholic pronouncements, especially Council pronouncements, is that they are invariably nuanced.

Anyone who claims otherwise invariably has an axe to grind.

 

[Hesychios]

For good or for ill, the one thing that can always be said about Catholic pronouncements, especially Council pronouncements, is that they are invariably nuanced.

How ironic

 

[Hesychios]

Canon law says that the Pope cannot issue a decree that harms the rights of an individual.

And who might it be who judges that?

Canon law says that though his authority is universal, full, and supreme, it cannot be used to stand in the way of the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops.

And who might it be who judges that?

Aside from ecclesiastical law, there is also divine law that restricts the Pope …

And who might it be who determines the practical limits of that?

Whom is it upon his authority canon law is written, edited, codified and interpreted?

 

[mardukm]

And who might it be who judges that?
And who might it be who judges that?
And who might it be who determines the practical limits of that?

All legislative, executive, and judicial power in a local diocese belongs to the proper ordinary.

The proper ordinary can even grant a dispensation from a unviersal law if it is spiritually profitable for his diocese or certain members of his diocese.

The Code itself states that the law should be sufficient to interpret itself. If something is unclear, reference must first of all be made to other parts of the Code for clarification where the same or similar language is used; second, reference to other particular laws and to the particular circumstances; third, recourse to the competent legislator, or his represntative. As mentioned, the competent legislator in any local diocese is the proper ordinary.

Whom is it upon his authority canon law is written, edited, codified and interpreted?

According to the Apostolic Constitution on the Code, it was initiated and promulgated by papal authority. It was written, edited, and codified through collegial effort. In the words of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory:
"t is vital to make quite clear that these labours were brought to their conclusion in an eminently collegial spirit. This not only relates to the external composition of the work, but it affects also the very substance of the laws which have been drawn up. This mark of collegiality by which the process of the Code’s origin was prominently characterized, is entirely in harmony with the teaching authority and the nature of the Second Vatican Council…For this reason therefore, the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences were invited to associate themselves with the work of preparing the new Code, so thtat through a task of such length, in as collegial a manner as possible, little by little the juridical formulae would come to maturity and would then serve the whole Church. During the whole period of this task, experts also took part, people endowed with particular academic standing in the areas of theology, history, and especially canon law, drawn from all parts of the world."

The interpretation of the Code belongs to the legislators, as already mentioned, who are the bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you Marduk, but I don’t smoke.

"Canon law says that the Pope cannot issue a decree that harms the rights of an individual."

Are you telling us that the local bishops determine when the Pope issues a decree that harms the rights of an individual? What do they do, refute him? Refuse to recognize his decisions and over rule him? :ehh:

Are you telling us that the local bishops determine that the Pope has used his power to stand in the way of the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops, and stop him or reverse the decisions of the Pope?

Are you telling us that the local bishops are the judges of when the Pope transgresses ecclesiastical law or divine law?

 

[mardukm]

Thank you Marduk, but I don’t smoke. Are you telling us that the local bishops determine when the Pope issues a decree that harms the rights of an individual? What do they do, refute him? Refuse to recognize his decisions and over rule him? :ehh:

Perhaps it was something you ate?

Are you telling us that the local bishops determine that the Pope has used his power to stand in the way of the immediate and ordinary authority of his brother bishops, and stop him or reverse the decisions of the Pope?

Yes, they can make that determination. Who says they can’t? Can you offer us a canon that says so, or is this the typical non-Catholic extrapolation based on exaggerated possibilities? Of course, they don’t have the canonical authority to reverse the decision, but they certainly have a moral authority to try and put pressure on the Pope to reverse his decision. And it is possible and probable for a bishop to succeed, especially with the support of other bishops and his primate (and history itself supports that possibility).

Are you telling us that the local bishops are the judges of when the Pope transgresses ecclesiastical law or divine law?

Canon law is pretty self-evident on what the Pope can and cannot do. Can you give us a specific example for us to consider (a real one, not another of the usual non-Catholic exaggerated suppositions)?

Blessings