Papal prerogatives

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello,

The Holy Father has immediate power over the whole Church, even in matters of discipline. As the Eastern Canons read:

Canon 43 The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45 §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only as power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

So much for the independent patriarch theory.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Thank you for all your (name removed by moderator)ut so far. As I read your replies, I realize I need to clarify/add something in the statement of my belief in post #1 – namely, a very short background of the debate:

The primary context of the original debate was, concisely, whether or not there are limits to the Pope’s prerogatives – more specifically, whether the Pope has the right or prerogative to interfere in the affairs of any particular Church whenever, wherever, and however he chooses. I believe there are canonical limits to the Pope’s prerogatives. To explain, I cited the intentions of the Vatican I Fathers, as well as the Eastern Canons (originally I cited the Western Canons, but the point is moot because the Eastern Canons and Western Canons are identical in the points I was making – it was simply their numbering that was different). Father Ambrose particularly cited the Vatican I decree (w/ anathema) on the Primacy of the Pope in his argument to refute my belief that there are limits to the papal prerogatives.

And that is where we are at (though this is a very brief summary, I urge those who want to participate in the thread to take Father Ambrose’s advice and read the links he gave to the original debates, as they have a lot of very good and relevant documentary information).

Here is my response:

As stated, my original (and current) intention is to show that there are canonical limits to the Pope’s prerogatives. Consequently, my mindset is to focus on limits to the PRACTICE of the papal prerogatives. It is in THIS context that I request readers to understand my statement of belief in the first post. It is not primarily about the theological basis for the Primacy, but the canonical exercise of the papal prerogatives.

Now, I want to prove that I am not under the anathema of Vatican I.

1. I want to assert that I believe and accept the THEOLOGICAL basis of the Primacy – that the Pope has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over all the Churches given to him by God. There is no argument from me that his jurisdiction is THEOLOGICALLY IMMEDIATE. In other words, his power of jurisdiction comes DIRECTLY from God, and not from anyone else. So I am definitely not under anathema in that regard.

NOTE: for those who do not know, the term “immediate” has an ecclesiological definition different from its secular usage. In secular parlance, “immediate” means “now and presently.” With this definition, one would be tempted to think the Pope can do what he wants right away without restriction. But that is not what “immediate” means for our purpose. Ecclesiologically speaking, “immediate” means “not mediated.” Thus, when the Catholic Church teaches states that the power of papal jurisdiction is “immediate,” it means only that it comes DIRECTLY from God and not from anyone else. It does NOT mean (to repeat) that the power of jurisdiction can be exercised right away without restriction.

1. I point out that though I believe the jurisdiction is immediate THEOLOGICALLY speaking, that jurisdiction is NOT immediate CANONICALLY speaking. I believe the Canons themselves demonstrate this. You can read about them with attendant explanation here:
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2131133&postcount=58
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137113&postcount=118
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137293&postcount=132
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137565&postcount=141
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137567&postcount=142
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137624&postcount=152
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2137652&postcount=161
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2141609&postcount=193
   These posts are from the first link Father Ambrose gave. Please read the entire thread if you are interested in the Orthodox responses.
2. Understand that there was a debate at Vatican I regarding the form of the anathema attached to the decree on the Primacy. Originally, the anathema placed a condemnation on stating that the papal jurisdiction was only mediate or extraordinary. Guess what – THIS STATEMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY REMOVED. Why? Because most bishops (both Majority and Minority party) believed that the terms “immediate and ordinary” needed to be explained, and that in explaining the Primacy Decree to their flocks, recourse to those terms as the true and proper intention of the Council would become necessary. That explanation is what I offer here and is the basis of my statement of belief in the first post.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

1. Those who say my belief is wrong have cited the Vatican I anathema attached to the Primacy Decree. I already refuted above their appeal to it, but there is something else to ponder. The very same Decree on the Primacy DECLARES that it is the Pope’s divine responsibility that by his Primacy, “the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them…is ASSERTED, CONFIRMED, and VINDICATED.” Somebody’s interpretation of the Vatican I decrees is obviously wrong. And I daresay it is not mine. How can the Pope assert, confirm, and vindicate the jurisdictional power of his brother bishops if there are actually no limits to what the Pope can do with his power? Despite and amidst all the polemic, those who claim my belief is wrong simply cannot respond to this.
2. Let me intercept a possible rejoinder to the 4th point above – namely, “can a power given directly by God possibly be limited, even by the Church?” The answer is “YES.” Though several here would rather perhaps intentionally avoid the truth of the matter, the fact is that the evidence comes from the early Church itself. According to Catholic teaching, a point to which I have found no objection from any Orthodox, the prerogatives of bishops do not come from the Pope ; they come DIRECTLY FROM GOD. They are, in ecclesiastical jargon, IMMEDIATE, just like the Pope’s own prerogatives. But do we find the Church herself limiting the practice of the prerogatives of bishops in the Canons? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!! Concisely, I do not claim the power is removed (though that also happened); rather, I assert the power IS there, but its USE was limited by the authority of the Church.

I realize this explanation should have opened this thread – I simply did not have the time then. I hope after reading this that my fellow Catholics join the poll to let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. The authority of Christ over the entire Church, exercised through His Vicar, cannot be limited.

This is the basic theological principle and it is amply instituted in the Codes of Canon Law both of the Roman Church and of the Eastern Churches.

All of this is covered fully in the two threads which I have referenced above.

I answered this in point #5 of my post above.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. I point out that though I believe the jurisdiction is immediate THEOLOGICALLY speaking, that jurisdiction is NOT immediate CANONICALLY speaking.

The concept of “immediate theological jurisdiction” is a bit outlandish. Please cite the relevant canons to prove that it even exists.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Mardukm,

It would help to prove your point if you cite the Canons which specify when and under what circumstances the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church is prevented from exercising his jurisdiction in any part of the Church.

Thanks.

CONTINUED

1. Those who say my belief is wrong have cited the Vatican I anathema attached to the Primacy Decree. I already refuted above their appeal to it, but there is something else to ponder. The very same Decree on the Primacy DECLARES that it is the Pope’s divine responsibility that by his Primacy, “the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them…is ASSERTED, CONFIRMED, and VINDICATED.” Somebody’s interpretation of the Vatican I decrees is obviously wrong. And I daresay it is not mine. How can the Pope assert, confirm, and vindicate the jurisdictional power of his brother bishops if there are actually no limits to what the Pope can do with his power? Despite and amidst all the polemic, those who claim my belief is wrong simply cannot respond to this.
2. Let me intercept a possible rejoinder to the 4th point above – namely, “can a power given directly by God possibly be limited, even by the Church?” The answer is “YES.” Though several here would rather perhaps intentionally avoid the truth of the matter, the fact is that the evidence comes from the early Church itself. According to Catholic teaching, a point to which I have found no objection from any Orthodox, the prerogatives of bishops do not come from the Pope ; they come DIRECTLY FROM GOD. They are, in ecclesiastical jargon, IMMEDIATE, just like the Pope’s own prerogatives. But do we find the Church herself limiting the practice of the prerogatives of bishops in the Canons? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!! Concisely, I do not claim the power is removed (though that also happened); rather, I assert the power IS there, but its USE was limited by the authority of the Church.

I realize this explanation should have opened this thread – I simply did not have the time then. I hope after reading this that my fellow Catholics join the poll to let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JMJ_coder,

§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

The restrictive factor here is “according to the needs of the Church.” As an example, check out this link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=132

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

The concept of “immediate theological jurisdiction” is a bit outlandish. Please cite the relevant canons to prove that it even exists.

I explained what I meant with the term in the post. Please address the explanation instead of the term. Can you say that the explanation is not found Vatican I?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. Let me intercept a possible rejoinder to the 4th point above – namely, “can a power given directly by God possibly be limited, even by the Church?” The answer is “YES.” Though several here would rather perhaps intentionally avoid the truth of the matter, the fact is that the evidence comes from the early Church itself. According to Catholic teaching, a point to which I have found no objection from any Orthodox, the prerogatives of bishops do not come from the Pope ; they come DIRECTLY FROM GOD. They are, in ecclesiastical jargon, IMMEDIATE, just like the Pope’s own prerogatives. But do we find the Church herself limiting the practice of the prerogatives of bishops in the Canons? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!! Concisely, I do not claim the power is removed (though that also happened); rather, I assert the power IS there, but its USE was limited by the authority of the Church.

Not one of your contentions is supported by Canon Law. On the contrary they are condemned.

The Pope is subject to no earthly authority and he may always and anywhere exercise his power over the Church if he chooses.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Mardukm,

It would help to prove your point if you cite the Canons which specify when and under what circumstances the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church is prevented from exercising his jurisdiction in any part of the Church.

Please see the links I gave. I did not want to have to type them out. Sorry.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Not one of your contentions is supported by Canon Law. On the contrary they are condemned.

The Pope is subject to no earthly authority and he may always and anywhere exercise his power over the Church if he chooses.

That’s not entirely true and that’s not what the canon states. You need to take that canon in the context of other canons. Brother JMJ_coder cited such canons, which indicate that the exercise of the power is restricted according to the needs of the Church. Indeed, he can always and anywhere exercise his power over the Church - but that is all it says. It does NOT say “…if he chooses.”

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua

As for the historical precedents, I cite the history of the Maronite Church (still looking for that thread of mine ), the more recent example of the Maronite delegation to Rome to overturn the ban on married clergy the Pope enacted, and the subsequent decision of Rome which continues this tragic opposition to tradition. Apparently, that decision by the Pope supersedes the CCOC’s own mandate to return to married clergy as the CCOC came afterwards.

I would LOVE to read about this. Any links? If they are contained in the other link I asked for, I’ll patiently (yet eagerly) wait.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[yeshua]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Please see the links I gave. I did not want to have to type them out. Sorry.

Humbly,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

The Roman Canons have no bearing on the Eastern Churches, which is why a Code of Canon for the Oriental Churches exists, for the former are entirely for the Church of Rome and those churches under the Pope’s jurisdiction. The distinctions made in the Roman Canon discuss the power limitation you speak of within those particular “churches,” i.e. the relationship between the Church of Rome or the Church of Milan (both of which historically have been precedents in the debate over the “immediate” and “ordinary” issues itself). The links you provide, Brother Marduk, to the Roman Canon are thus mute for this issue, please substantiate your arguments to those Canons (CCOC) that actually apply to our patriarchal churches.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

Dear brother Yeshua

I would LOVE to read about this. Any links? If they are contained in the other link I asked for, I’ll patiently (yet eagerly) wait.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

The tragedy of this issue is that there is no documentation except the word of a variety of American Maronite priests I have spoken to. In fact, the “local” (I mean that loosely as the closest parish is approximately 80 miles away from my residence) was a deacon at the time and a participant of that delegation. The now priest, along with others, described that the delegation went to Rome to ask the ban that was placed on married clergy in the diaspora to be lifted.

Pope John Paul II offered this as a solution: if the entire Maronite Patriarchal Synod agreed to lift the ban, he would allow the overturn; two bishops dissented. In an unprecedented move that sidestepped the Patriarchal office, our tradition was further suppressed. This came before the CCOC was established, which is why we still cannot have married clergy in the Diaspora; "There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."

I recognize how this can appear to be sketchy as you are taken this information on the word of me, as I am taking it off the word of priests.

This modern act, as actions of the Popes in the history of my church show exactly the same jurisprudence, demonstrates how I can only see your conception of the Canons and history as entirely romantic. Forgive my honesty, but I find this issue quite personal.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

1. Those who say my belief is wrong have cited the Vatican I anathema attached to the Primacy Decree. I already refuted above their appeal to it, but there is something else to ponder. The very same Decree on the Primacy DECLARES that it is the Pope’s divine responsibility that by his Primacy, “the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them…is ASSERTED, CONFIRMED, and VINDICATED.” Somebody’s interpretation of the Vatican I decrees is obviously wrong. And I daresay it is not mine. How can the Pope assert, confirm, and vindicate the jurisdictional power of his brother bishops if there are actually no limits to what the Pope can do with his power? Despite and amidst all the polemic, those who claim my belief is wrong simply cannot respond to this.

Brother Marduk,

You are inferring limitations on the office of the Papacy (mind you a complete lack of explanation or formal acknowledge in any Canon on what those limits are) within this reference, when all other Canons reinforce and explicitly state the supreme and full power of the Pope in the entirety of the Catholic Communion. Bearing this in mind, I can more than heavily respond to this claim; it would be prudent to take direct Canon any day over undefined, unacknowledged, and unknown conclusions of limitations merely inferred because one Canon was more concise than the explicit others.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua

The Roman Canons have no bearing on the Eastern Churches, which is why a Code of Canon for the Oriental Churches exists, for the former are entirely for the Church of Rome and those churches under the Pope’s jurisdiction. The distinctions made in the Roman Canon discuss the power limitation you speak of within those particular “churches,” i.e. the relationship between the Church of Rome or the Church of Milan (both of which historically have been precedents in the debate over the “immediate” and “ordinary” issues itself). The links you provide, Brother Marduk, to the Roman Canon are thus mute for this issue, please substantiate your arguments to those Canons (CCOC) that actually apply to our patriarchal churches.

Peace and God Bless.

Forgive me for asking, but did you read everything? I thought I was clear that the Latin Canons have direct counterparts in the Eastern Canons - it’s just that their numbers are different.

Would you like it if I gave the actual corresponding numbers from the Eastern Code?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brother Marduk,

The tragedy of this issue is that there is no documentation except the word of a variety of American Maronite priests I have spoken to. In fact, the “local” (I mean that loosely as the closest parish is approximately 80 miles away from my residence) was a deacon at the time and a participant of that delegation. The now priest, along with others, described that the delegation went to Rome to ask the ban that was placed on married clergy in the diaspora to be lifted.

Pope John Paul II offered this as a solution: if the entire Maronite Patriarchal Synod agreed to lift the ban, he would allow the overturn; two bishops dissented. In an unprecedented move that sidestepped the Patriarchal office, our tradition was further suppressed. This came before the CCOC was established, which is why we still cannot have married clergy in the Diaspora; "There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."

I recognize how this can appear to be sketchy as you are taken this information on the word of me, as I am taking it off the word of priests.

This modern act, as actions of the Popes in the history of my church show exactly the same jurisprudence, demonstrates how I can only see your conception of the Canons and history as entirely romantic. Forgive my honesty, but I find this issue quite personal.

Peace and God Bless.

I took the time to google search the topic and found out some things. Apparently, your own Patriarch supports clerical celibacy. Was one of the two bishops you mentioned the head bishop of your own Church? If so, though I feel your concerns regarding the Pope’s role in my heart, I do not understand it in my head. I mean, EVEN IF the Pope did not require unanimity, the fact that your head bishop does not oppose the status quo would still canonically require that the status quo be maintained.

To repeat, I do feel your pain - it’s just that I don’t understand the rationale behind it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

You are inferring limitations on the office of the Papacy (mind you a complete lack of explanation or formal acknowledge in any Canon on what those limits are) within this reference, when all other Canons reinforce and explicitly state the supreme and full power of the Pope in the entirety of the Catholic Communion. Bearing this in mind, I can more than heavily respond to this claim; it would be prudent to take direct Canon any day over undefined, unacknowledged, and unknown conclusions of limitations merely inferred because one Canon was more concise than the explicit others.

Peace and God Bless.

Yes, I wholeheartedly admit that my argument here is based on an inference. But this argument is not the primary basis of my rationale. It does not prove my claims, but it does support it. I think the totality of my 5 points should be considered and addressed, and not just one.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

OC, I have no idea.

EC “Eastern Catholic”
EO Eastern Orthodox
OO Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Syriacs, Armenians, etc.)

OK, I take full blame for your confusion. When I first came onto this Forum, I noticed that everyone called themselves “Eastern Catholics.” I was translating into Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy, and having a keen sense of its distinction from Eastern Orthodoxy, I did not feel comfortable calling myself an “Eastern Catholic.”

Thus, I lobbied for a distinction between “Eastern Catholic” and “Oriental Catholic,” going so far as to request that the Forum be called “Eastern and Oriental Christianity.” I couldn’t get the Forum title, but at least the word “Oriental Catholic” has now become common parlance in this Forum. Even our esteemed moderator has taken to using that terminology regularly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OK, I take full blame for your confusion. When I first came onto this Forum, I noticed that everyone called themselves “Eastern Catholics.” I was translating into Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy, and having a keen sense of its distinction from Eastern Orthodoxy, I did not feel comfortable calling myself an “Eastern Catholic.”

Thus, I lobbied for a distinction between “Eastern Catholic” and “Oriental Catholic,” going so far as to request that the Forum be called “Eastern and Oriental Christianity.” I couldn’t get the Forum title, but at least the word “Oriental Catholic” has now become common parlance in this Forum. Even our esteemed moderator has taken to using that terminology regularly.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh. The distinction is justified: we’re not all Constantinople.