Papal prerogatives

[w_stewart]

According to the Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore when the title of Supreme Pontiff was conferred on the Pope by the Emperor Gratian it gave the Pope legal power and authority.

At least that is how I read Bonocore. He is not always clear in what he writes.

See
bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm

I did not mean legal power and authority.

For clarification’s sake, I meant that it was not the giver of the title “supreme pontiff” that was the source of the authority of the Pope as the head of the whole Church founded by Christ.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Although the Pope may choose to share power with the bishops, provided they agree with him, I think that Canon 333/3 makes it starkly clear who holds the supreme authority:

**There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. **

First, bishops have power in and of themselves.

Second, if the Pope chooses to make a law in a collegial manner, he is bound by Canon law to act in that fashion, which means that the act must be approved by an absolute majority of the college.

Third, according to Canon law, custom is the best interpreter of the law. If you can find a time when the Pope has ever made a decree that is binding for the universal Church in a non-collegial manner, or made a decree for a local Church that was not done in response to a request from a local Ordinary, then and only then will your caricature have merit.

Now, let’s discuss the Canon you have proffered.

First. let’s consider a “judgment.” A judgment is given in the context of a trial with two opposing parties. Persons who appeal to the Pope ALREADY understand that the Pope is the highest court of appeal. They are consciously and willfully entering that forum with that understanding. So I do not understand what your objection to this would be. It is not as if the Pope has given his judgment WITHOUT the parties’ prior submission to his authority.

Second, let’s consider the “decree.” A “decree” has a specific definition in Canon law, separate from a dispensation, a rescript or privilege. Canon law states that any decree that violates the law is automatically null and void. So this presumes that the decree of the Pope will be just. If it violates the law, it intrinsically has no validity as a decree. The Pope has thus never given it in the first place.

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S. I have all the canons that I want to present, but I’m having a harder time obtaining their Eastern Code equivalents. So please be patient.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Second, if the Pope chooses to make a law in a collegial manner, he is bound by Canon law to act in that fashion, which means that the act must be approved by an absolute majority of the college.

Forgive me if I do my doubting Thomas impression and say; Unless I see the Canon I will not believe.

Third, according to Canon law, custom is the best interpreter of the law. .

Nope. According to Canon law the legislator, i.e., the Pope, is the interpreter of canon law. If you want proof, please refer to Canon 16 §1.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

If you can find a time when the Pope has ever made a decree…for a local Church that was not done in response to a request from a local Ordinary, then and only then will your caricature have merit.

One comes to mind immediately. Before the time when the Vatican had acquiesced in the use of female altar boys (still forbidden in Rome) the Pope instructed the New Zealand bishops they were to stop allowing them. The local Ordinaries decided to disobey the Pope and refused to implement his decree. Female altar boys continued.

 

[mardukm]

One comes to mind immediately. Before the time when the Vatican had acquiesced in the use of female altar boys (still forbidden in Rome) the Pope instructed the New Zealand bishops they were to stop allowing them. The local Ordinaries decided to disobey the Pope and refused to implement his decree. Female altar boys continued.

I’d love to see the actual text of that decree. In any case, is the Church in New Zealand a particular Church? If not, this certainly has no bearing on our present discussion.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I’d love to see the actual text of that decree. In any case, is the Church in New Zealand a particular Church? If not, this certainly has no bearing on our present discussion.

It certainly is. You must remember that the term “particular Church” carries TWO meanings in contemporary canon law.

 

[Magicsilence]

One comes to mind immediately. Before the time when the Vatican had acquiesced in the use of female altar boys (still forbidden in Rome) the Pope instructed the New Zealand bishops they were to stop allowing them. The local Ordinaries decided to disobey the Pope and refused to implement his decree. Female altar boys continued.

 

[mardukm]

Forgive me if I do my doubting Thomas impression and say; Unless I see the Canon I will not believe.Nope. According to Canon law the legislator, i.e., the Pope, is the interpreter of canon law. If you want proof, please refer to Canon 16 §1.

No, canon law states that custom is the BEST interpreter of the Law. (Canon 27) Unless, the legislator specifically interprets it in a particular way, custom must be the best interpreter.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It certainly is. You must remember that the term “particular Church” carries TWO meanings in contemporary canon law.

Unless the Latin Church in New Zealand has a Patriarch other than the bishop of Rome. it does not affect our discussion.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

HELLO BROTHER MAGICSILENCE!!!

I’m very glad to see your handle in this thread. Obviously, you’ve just been lurking here, or you would have said something by now. I know you have some definite opinions on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

No, canon law states that custom is the BEST interpreter of the Law. (Canon 27) Unless, the legislator specifically interprets it in a particular way, custom must be the best interpreter.

Disproved of course by Pope Paul VI who stood custom and patristic teaching on its head when he allowed natural family planning, i.e., engaging in sex and hoping NOT to conceive.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Unless the Latin Church in New Zealand has a Patriarch other than the bishop of Rome. it does not affect our discussion.

It is, by canon law, a particular Church and you said that it WAS germane to our discussion.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

No, canon law states that custom is the BEST interpreter of the Law. (Canon 27) Unless, the legislator specifically interprets it in a particular way, custom must be the best interpreter.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

This is not referring to canon law but to customs which may be questionable but which have acquired the force of law.

 

[mardukm]

It is, by canon law, a particular Church and you said that it WAS germane to our discussion.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. This discussion is specifically with regards to the relationship between the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches and the Pope. I have no business discussing or criticizing the affairs of the Latin Church.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

This is not referring to canon law but to customs which may be questionable but which have acquired the force of law.

That doesn’t make sense. What is custom “interpreting” in this canon? Itself? Or are you saying that custom is interpreting laws that have become laws by custom? Shouldn’t the Code say that then? I mean, whenever the Code says the word “laws” it always refers to canon law. I mean, if it means anything else other than general canon law, the Code says so (i.e., divine law, civil law, etc.). I think we need to assume that when the word “law” is used in the Code, it refers to canon law in general. Apply Canon 17 in your interpretation.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

That doesn’t make sense. What is custom “interpreting” in this canon? Itself? Or are you saying that custom is interpreting laws that have become laws by custom? Shouldn’t the Code say that then? I mean, whenever the Code says the word “laws” it always refers to canon law. I mean, if it means anything else other than general canon law, the Code says so (i.e., divine law, civil law, etc.). I think we need to assume that when the word “law” is used in the Code, it refers to canon law in general. Apply Canon 17 in your interpretation.

Humbly,
Marduk

Read the previous canon and you will see what I say is correct.

 

[mardukm]

Read the previous canon and you will see what I say is correct.

Sorry, Father. The surrounding canons distinguish between CUSTOM and LAW. Even a custom which has acquired the force of law is still called a CUSTOM. Once, again, I think we need to interpret this canon according to Canon 17.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Disproved of course by Pope Paul VI who stood custom and patristic teaching on its head when he allowed natural family planning, i.e., engaging in sex and hoping NOT to conceive.

This notion has already been soundly refuted in other threads. If you want to resurrect it somewhere else (not THIS thread, please), I urge you to do so, and I will repeat the refutations of those statements from Fathers you feel support your claim.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

…This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church and can be confined within certain limits should the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it…

I pray my citation of Vatican II has settled this issue. .

The bishops’ authority being “immediate” is not something new from Vatican II. It’s actually found in many theology books that deal with this subject before the Council.

For instance, you have the well-respected theologian Cardinal Charles Journet who defined the sense in which the bishop’s power is “immediate” in his treatise on the Church:

The bishop’s jurisdiction is immediate. He can reach every member of his flock directly without having to go through any intermediary. In the thirteenth century there were some who contested this truth… They maintained that the bishops, having given this double jurisdiction to the priests, could no longer resume it and delegate it to others, and that they themselves had no longer any right to exercise it in the parishes of their dioceses save only with the assent of the parish priests. The archbishop, they said, does not directly intervene in the suffragan dioceses save only to deputise, and it is the same with the bishop in the parishes. (The Church of the Word Incarnate, Chapter VIII)

Suffice it to say “immediate” does not denote that the bishops’ jurisdiction derive directly from God.

mardukm:

First, notice that the exercise can only be confined or limited if the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it. This does NOT translate to a laissez-faire authority for the Pope.

You have to be careful here. The clause “should the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it” does not limit the Pope’s power, rather it explains the reason why he may use it. Otherwise, who gets to decide what is useful for the Church and the faithful if there is a dispute between the Pope and the Bishop?

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

…can you cite where this power of the Pope originates from “divine law?”

Sorry, not by divine law, but by divine right:

For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined.

Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: “. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.” (Ad Apostolorum Principis)

Notice there that the power of jursidiction passes through the Roman Pontiff and not simply in virtue of ordination to the episcopacy. And this is clearly logical when you think about it. Any cleric can be validly ordained a bishop (they are, in fact, ordained in the Old Catholic sects, sedevacantist groups, and six were ordained in the SSPX ), but these bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction because they do not have --at least the tacit-- approval of the Roman Pontiff.

And such is the case even with the exceptions where bishops are licitly ordained without papal mandate. They can never be licitly ordained against the will of the Pope.