Papal prerogatives

[yeshua]

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

Peace,

As far as I understand it, Patriarch Sfier supports clerical celibacy but also does support married clergy; he finds there is functional reason to have both. Half of the clergy in Lebanon are married, half are celibate, and I do remember the Patriarch mentioning high comments on celibate clergy, yet there were made in response to some particular events. If memory serves, it was brought up at a meeting of bishops at the Vatican, a meeting about the rampant sex abuse scandal in the Roman Church and the relationship to married priests. Where the Patriarch made his comments was to say that celibacy is important and he supports it (as in the Romans should keep their singular tradition), but married clergy won’t necessarily unilaterally fix the problems that were being brought up at the council (the sex scandal issues). He is not that supporting the status quo in the Diaspora, he supports the tradition of option and beauty that celibacy is, and his comments were directed toward Latin prelates themselves to better understand how married clergy could play (or not) into the fallout of the sex scandals.

I was told that the two dissenting bishops were from the Diaspora.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

Dear brother Yeshua,

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

Peace Brother Marduk,

Certainly they all will be addressed. Yet I have the time for only one at a time, and #4 seemed the most shaky. And in the end, the claim is usurped by Canons that specifically give full and supreme power, thus loosing the support it gives to your other claims.

All in good time, it’s nice to be able to discuss these issues this time without the needless “drama,” I certainly miss discourse with you, Brother Marduk!

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

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.

Peace Brother Marduk,

This was the issue that I was on when the previous thread was closed. If you remember, I had implored the help of a local university professor whose expertise was in Papal authority; from Yale, dissertation was on St. Bernard of Clarivoux and his assessment of Papal Authority. I only mention qualifications to denote a certain level of scholarship and authority in this particular issue, a bit beyond the casual curiouser like ourselves.

The professor had mentioned that what this claim centers on is the Latin term being used in the Canon, as there is Latin used in Canon documents with the word a separate word translating as “immediate,” though defined as the unhindered jurisdictional understanding. Her guess at the time was that the word used is this jurisdictional one, though she would check to determine which it was. The rational behind her guess was her familiarity of the Code of Canon (in language and context) in relationship to the Church of Rome and other “churches” during the beginning medieval period, shortly after the split, and the time when the Papacy evolved to it’s jurisdictional status of today. Mind you she knows nothing of the CCOC.

I never followed up because of the closure of the thread, but I will now fulfill my promise and see what conclusion was made. I see no reason why others could try and determine an answer themselves, per their understanding of Latin.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mikee]

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.

The power of orders comes directly from God. That is, a bishop is validly ordained even if without papal mandate. But in order to exercise the power of jurisdiction, a bishop needs the Pope’s approval and consent.

“There is another important item on which the Mystici Corporis Christi issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this document, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops’ power of jurisdiction and he described it as something “which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff.” In the edition of his Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici which came out after the issuance of the Mystici Corporis Christi, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.” (Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church)

 

[yeshua]

) 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.

Peace Brother Marduk,

(Forgive me if I only stay with the Canons that we have discussed, I will leave the power of the Pope in Canons vs. Ecumenical Councils, and other radiating topics you have listed above to others, probably the Orthodox.)

Canonically speaking, the jurisdiction is certainly immediate and freely at his disposal, straight from the CCOC:
Code of Canon of the Oriental Churches:

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.

Supreme and full denote that his power is not hindered nor contained. Universal ordinary is the same power he holds, existing in any given institution of the Church as a whole, and immediate (in my guess) would be in the jurisdictional sense that by virtue of his office he has direct power in any operation within the Church. I stand by this definition of “immediate” as opposed to the theological one because of the nature of what the Canon is promogulating. Your theological understanding of “immediate” in my mind is already defined by Canon 42 and the words of Canon 43 (…by virtue of his office) and that the theological authority given solely from God is exactly what gives the Pope his supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power.

As for Canon 45, and that there is a distinction between 45 and 43, I find that to say there is limitations on power because of the concise wording of 45 is but another inference, and neglects the previous statement of full and supreme in the umbrella Canon 43. Also, Canon 45 is merely elaborating that within the eparchial context, or bishop to bishop relations, the Pope has primacy of ordinary power over all eparchies AND those immediate and ordinary powers entrusted to those bishops. This is what explains how a Pope can mandate (historically speaking, through Papal decress) unleavened bread or the filioque onto a patriarchal church because he has primacy of ordinary power over that patriarch’s (bishop’s) jurisdiction, that primacy of ordinary power containing all those powers entrusted to the bishop (immediate and ordinary), all in the order to safeguard and strengthen the Church as the “supreme pastor” (which is then discussed as the second half of the Canon). No doubt that is what the Pope was exercising in any given situation he mandated Latin tradition onto the Maronites.

It is but an explanation of the full power the Pope has, and there is nothing that warrants an individual to denote that the Pope lacks the authority to interfere within any aspect of the Church when his authority is so plainly defined without limitations.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Aramis]

The only limitations are those of the various treaties of reunion.

 

[yeshua]

Dear brother Yeshua

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

Peace Brother Marduk,

I only get wary of referring to the Latin Canons because theirs is a discussion between Latin Churches (“Church of Rome,” “Church of Milan,” etc.) and I do not want our discussion to be muddled between the distinction that the Latin Canons are meant within the Roman Context, whereas the Oriental Canons are meant between Rome and the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

For example, “immediate” in the Latin Code is the jurisdictional word (so says my papal authority professor) as it actually came out of a dispute over the Pope’s authority between the Church of Rome and Church of Milan, ensuring that the Pope does have immediate authority within that church (or eparchy).

Pardon me for being picky, I just want to make sure we are using the same base and understand each Canon’s context.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

The only limitations are those of the various treaties of reunion.

Exactly, those limitations crafted by the Pope, as that is an exercise of his authority.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[HenryV]

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters,

I would like to resurrect an old topic and would like your (name removed by moderator)uton my belief about the papacy. I am open to correction (accompanied by right reason), so I hope you can help me out.

I believe that:

The Pope has immediate jurisdiction ONLY over his own Patriarchal Church on all matters regarding faith and discipline; his jurisdiction regarding discipline in other Patriarchal Churches is NOT immediate. Only in matters of universal Faith and morals and in the enforcement of a UNIVERSAL canon does the Pope have immediate jurisiction over all Churches. Further, the Pope also has ordinary jurisdiction over all Churches; but the exercise of this jurisdiction is EXTRAordinary.

Please let me know what you think as reflected in the poll and your comments.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Catholic teaching is that the pope has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over all of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth, none of the other apostles had that authority. Just look at Acts. Peter is mentioned more times than all the other apostles combined.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Catholic teaching is that the pope has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over all of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth, none of the other apostles had that authority. Just look at Acts. Peter is mentioned more times than all the other apostles combined.

It seems Paul is mentioned quite a bit (and about midway Peter disappears) St James doesn’t appear as often, but at the Council of Jerusalem, he runs it, although Peter is there.

 

[mardukm]

As far as I understand it, Patriarch Sfier supports clerical celibacy but also does support married clergy; he finds there is functional reason to have both. Half of the clergy in Lebanon are married, half are celibate, and I do remember the Patriarch mentioning high comments on celibate clergy, yet there were made in response to some particular events. If memory serves, it was brought up at a meeting of bishops at the Vatican, a meeting about the rampant sex abuse scandal in the Roman Church and the relationship to married priests. Where the Patriarch made his comments was to say that celibacy is important and he supports it (as in the Romans should keep their singular tradition), but married clergy won’t necessarily unilaterally fix the problems that were being brought up at the council (the sex scandal issues). He is not that supporting the status quo in the Diaspora, he supports the tradition of option and beauty that celibacy is, and his comments were directed toward Latin prelates themselves to better understand how married clergy could play (or not) into the fallout of the sex scandals.

Thanks for the info. I had already observed this in my readings. My only concern was the POSSIBILITY that your head bishop was one of the two bishops mentioned because of his positive comments about celibacy.

I was told that the two dissenting bishops were from the Diaspora.

Well, I would be up in arms, too, if this was the case. Before I go on, I would just assert that the Pope did NOT violate the canon stating that it is his divine duty to preserve the immediate and ordinary authority of the bishops. The Pope did hand the decision over to the Patriarchal Synod, which was the correct thing to do.

Beyond this, there are problems. IF the Pope actually required unanimity, then that goes beyond the Apostolic Canon AND another current canon. The Apostolic Canon states that the ONLY bishop whose approval is ABSOLUTELY necessary is the head bishop’s. Since this was apparently obtained, then the appeal should have been granted. Further, the current Canon states that the Pope uses his immediate and ordinary authority “for the needs of the Church.” I can’t imagine that maintaining the status quo for the Maronite Church meets “the needs of the Church,” especially as all other Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches have married priests in the Diaspora.

You’re right. Given HH JP2’s (of thrice-blessed memory) explicit love, respect, and appreciation for the Eastern/Oriental Traditions, this whole incident sounds pretty shaky. When did this happen? Was it during the years of JP2’s illness? I think that during his last years, a lot of his functions were done by proxy. Perhaps a Latinizing prelate got the job of handling the negotiations, and drafted up the document for the Pope to sign. Let’s imagine this. The document contained a statement like: “The Synod should agree for the sake of unanimity (which is simply the Apostolic Canon 34 reworded).” But what if this was misinterpreted to mean, “the Synod should be unanimous in its agreement.” What if the language of the document was in Latin, and got mistranslated wrongly. I don’t know. A lot of possibilities.

I’m giving this possibility because, like I said, it is so hard for me to believe JP2 could do this. But, at this time, you have both my emotional AND intellectual sympathies. I only pray we get more first-hand information on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

Certainly they all will be addressed. Yet I have the time for only one at a time, and #4 seemed the most shaky. And in the end, the claim is usurped by Canons that specifically give full and supreme power, thus loosing the support it gives to your other claims.

I admit the canons and the Vatican Council do this, but there are other canons that limit, as well. They must be interpreted TOGETHER, and not used to cancel each other out. Wouldn’t you agree?

All in good time, it’s nice to be able to discuss these issues this time without the needless “drama,” I certainly miss discourse with you, Brother Marduk!

Likewise, indeed brother.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It seems Paul is mentioned quite a bit (and about midway Peter disappears) St James doesn’t appear as often, but at the Council of Jerusalem, he runs it, although Peter is there.

Actually, though the Catholic Church claims St. Peter was the head of the Apostles, she claims the authority of BOTH Sts. Peter and Paul for the establishment of the Church in Rome and its attendant spiritual authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I never followed up because of the closure of the thread, but I will now fulfill my promise and see what conclusion was made. I see no reason why others could try and determine an answer themselves, per their understanding of Latin.

My best friend just happens to have been Fr. Reginald Denni’s number one student when he was studying Latin in Rome. Fr. Denni is the premier Vatican Latinist. I went to Rome to visit my friend, and we got a personal tour from Fr. Denni. It was on a Wednesday, and we were actually waiting outside the doors of the Pope’s own quarters(!) to greet him after his weekly audience. But Father Denni got an emergency call a mere 15 minutes(!)before the Pope would have arrived, and since he could not leave us alone (security and all), my friend and I were deprived of the chance to greet and touch that holy man!

To get back on topic, I will ask my friend about this issue. I’m almost sure he has a copy of the text in Latin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

(Forgive me if I only stay with the Canons that we have discussed, I will leave the power of the Pope in Canons vs. Ecumenical Councils, and other radiating topics you have listed above to others, probably the Orthodox.)

The links I gave mentioned canons (and explanations of which) immediatly germane to our topic (though they did include other “radiating topics”). My intention was not to discuss those tangents, so by all means ignore them. Have you been able to pick out those particular canons from the links? If not, let me know, and I will bring it up in this thread more obviously (sans all the background static from the radiating topics).

Canonically speaking, the jurisdiction is certainly immediate and freely at his disposal, straight from the CCOC:

Agreed, but I feel the phrase “freely at his disposal” takes too much license with the actual text. I will explain this later on.

Supreme and full denote that his power is not hindered nor contained. Universal ordinary is the same power he holds, existing in any given institution of the Church as a whole, and immediate (in my guess) would be in the jurisdictional sense that by virtue of his office he has direct power in any operation within the Church. I stand by this definition of “immediate” as opposed to the theological one because of the nature of what the Canon is promogulating. Your theological understanding of “immediate” in my mind is already defined by Canon 42 and the words of Canon 43 (…by virtue of his office) and that the theological authority given solely from God is exactly what gives the Pope his supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power.

Forgive me for disagreeing. I believe Canon 42 is meant to define the scope of the Chapter “The Supreme Authority of the Church”- the College of bishops with the Pope as its head. It is intended to state that the Supreme authority in the Church is NOT the Pope ALONE.

Canon 43 actually canonizes the theological definition of the Vatican Council. The canons do not need to define “immediate” - it is a term that can be found in any ecclesiological dictionary. “Supreme and full” do NOT mean that it is not hindered nor contained. “Supreme” means only that it is the highest level of authority. “Full” means it includes every possible prerogative that God can give to a man. Though it is tempting, one should not immediately inject “not hindered nor contained” in the definition. The language of the canons is pretty concise, and the primary or immediate definition should be used in interpreting the words, wouldn’t you agree? “Immediate” here is exactly as I have stated - that the power comes DIRECTLY from God. “Universal” means the power extends to the entire Church. “Ordinary” means the power is normative and always possessed.

Now we come to the phrase “he can always freely exercise.” Is THIS where one can infer that the Pope is “not hindered nor contained?” The answer is a resounding “NO.” If you do a search of ALL times that the word “freely” is utilized in the Canons, it ALWAYS refers to the exercise of free will, and that is all that this phrase means. It means that all his acts in his capacity as Pope must be of his own volition and cannot be forced - otherwise, it will not be an act that can be considered binding for the Church.

Thus far, nothing supports a conclusion that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants - in a word “not hindered nor contained.” This is why I said earlier your phrase “freely at his disposal” takes too much license with the actual text. There is nothing in the text that indicates that the power is merely “at his disposal.” And this becomes even more evident once we study Canon 45.

[CONTINUED]

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

As for Canon 45, and that there is a distinction between 45 and 43, I find that to say there is limitations on power because of the concise wording of 45 is but another inference, and neglects the previous statement of full and supreme in the umbrella Canon 43.

As nothing in Canon 45 supports the conclusion that the Pope’s power is “unhindered nor contained” and “at his disposal,” I feel obliged to reject your conclusion that Canon 43 trumps the intention of Canon 45.

Also, Canon 45 is merely elaborating that within the eparchial context, or bishop to bishop relations, the Pope has primacy of ordinary power over all eparchies AND those immediate and ordinary powers entrusted to those bishops.

Once again, too much license with the text of the Canon has been taken to impose your last clause “AND those immediate and ordinary powers entrusted to those bishops.” This text is not there. Let’s take it ad verbum, OK?

The text “primacy of ordinary power over all eparchies” means exactly what it says and nothing more. Namely, that the ordinary power of the Pope is more extensive than any other singular bishop’s. It does NOT mean that the EXERCISE of his power over all eparchies is normative (i.e., ordinary), but rather that the power itself is normative to the Pope, though indeed its exercise is rare.

Further, your interpretation is simply and absolutely impossible according to the canon itself(!). How can the primacy overcome or cancel the immediate and ordinary powers entrusted to the bishops when the VERY SAME canon explicitly states that the primacy is meant to STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD those very same episcopal powers you claim the Pope’s primacy somehow overrides? I think it is rather telling that you failed to discuss the second part of the Canon. If you had considered it, I don’t think you could have written what you did.

This is what explains how a Pope can mandate (historically speaking, through Papal decress) unleavened bread or the filioque onto a patriarchal church because he has primacy of ordinary power over that patriarch’s (bishop’s) jurisdiction, that primacy of ordinary power containing all those powers entrusted to the bishop (immediate and ordinary).

These two examples I believe were exigencies of history. The Easterns were accusing the West of being heretics for using unleavened bread and the filioque, instead of accepting them as local traditions. What could the Pope do? If I would blame the Pope for anything at all, it would be for a failure to distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox from the Oriental Orthodox. The latter had never made the wild accusations that the EO made against the Latins. There was no need to attempt to impose filioque (I mean the phrase, not the theology) or unleavened bread on us at all. But since we all came around at the same time, I guess the Pope felt a blanket order was expedient. In any case, the East’s accusations gave these issues a theological importance that did not really belong to them. In that sense, I don’t believe the Pope at that time would have been wrong to impose them, for I believe the Pope’s power in a matter of faith or morals is plenary. Everyone has a more level head today, and we can see in hindsight that matters of unleavened bread and the phrase “filioque” are actually more disciplinary and local, than theological and universal.

all in the order to safeguard and strengthen the Church as the "supreme pastor” (which is then discussed as the second half of the Canon). No doubt that is what the Pope was exercising in any given situation he mandated Latin tradition onto the Maronites.

First, the canon does not say that the supreme pastor is suppose to safeguard and strengthen the Church (it says that in other canons); rather, our canon here states that the primacy is suppose to safeguard the immediate and ordinary power OF THE BISHOPS. That’s a BIG difference, brother, and I hope you can appreciate it.
Second, I find your understanding of the exigencies of history very inspiring.

It is but an explanation of the full power the Pope has, and there is nothing that warrants an individual to denote that the Pope lacks the authority to interfere within any aspect of the Church when his authority is so plainly defined without limitations.

I beg to differ. Nothing in the texts we have discussed so far supports this. It seems you have relied on impessions based on the past experience of your Church, instead of taking these canons literally at their word.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

Thus far, nothing supports a conclusion that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants - in a word “not hindered nor contained.”

I don’t think anyone here thus far has said that the Pope can do anything he wants. But if we are going to define the limits of the Pope’s power and jurisdiction, it should be noted that he is above canon law and the only thing he is restricted by is Divine Law.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mikee,

I don’t think anyone here thus far has said that the Pope can do anything he wants.

I think terms like “not hindered nor contained” and “at his disposal” pretty much equates to “do anything he wants.” If this was not the intention of brother Yeshua, I beg humble forgiveness. Please understand that this thread is discussing a topic that is actually many months old in this Forum. I started it specifically in response to explicit non-Catholic claims that the Pope indeed has such unbridled power.

But if we are going to define the limits of the Pope’s power and jurisdiction, it should be noted that he is above canon law and the only thing he is restricted by is Divine Law.

Good observation about Divine Law, but where do you get the idea that the Pope is above canon law? Stick around, because I will be discussing canons that limit the extent of the Pope’s authority. However, I need to ask right now - assume for the moment that these canons I mentioned exist (in case you don’t believe me). Despite these canons, are you saying the Pope can simply cancel them at any time he wishes, or at his whim?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

Good observation about Divine Law, but where do you get the idea that the Pope is above canon law?

I got it from Pope Benedict XIV’s Magnae Nobis (9):

“The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.”

However, I need to ask right now - assume for the moment that these canons I mentioned exist (in case you don’t believe me). Despite these canons, are you saying the Pope can simply cancel them at any time he wishes, or at his whim?

Yup, but it would be an abuse of the Pope’s authority to do so IMHO.

It would be like the power to ordain men to the priesthood which all bishops have .

Technically speaking a bishop can ordain anyone who is willing at a whim – even if the candidate is unfit and had no prior seminary training–, but it would be a grave abuse of power on his part if he were to act in such a careless manner.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mikee

I got it from Pope Benedict XIV’s Magnae Nobis (9):

“The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.”

Thank you for the link, after reading through it, I find the context does not warrant a conclusion that might be obtained from that one small sentence alone.

The context indicates it involved the issue of marriage for under-age girls. Existing canons seemed to conflict on allowance or restriction for such girls. The question was one of DISPENSATION from the canon that restricted marriage. The Pope, by stating that the Roman Pontiff was above canon law ONLY MEANT TO SAY that he could dispense someone from it, not change or throw it out.

Further, consider the important fact that Pope Benedict’s encyclical appealed to this statement from Pope Clement XI: “We consider it most important not to transgress the rules of the Church of God, of the Apostolic See, of our predecessors and of the holy people, all of whom shrink from the marriage of Catholics with heretics, unless the good of the entire Christian community should demand it.”

Thus, I cannot agree with your conclusion that a Pope can change or remove canon law on a whim.

Yup, but it would be an abuse of the Pope’s authority to do so IMHO.

It would be like the power to ordain men to the priesthood which all bishops have .

Technically speaking a bishop can ordain anyone who is willing at a whim – even if the candidate is unfit and had no prior seminary training–, but it would be a grave abuse of power on his part if he were to act in such a careless manner.

Good points.

Blessings,
Marduk