question about the Papacy

[Monica4316]

Hi, I was wondering… is the Pope also the Bishop of other dioceses? For example, in my diocese, do I have two bishops: the local Bishop and the Pope? Or, is the Pope only the Bishop of Rome but is the successor of St Peter, first of the Apostles, meaning that it’s important to be in communion with him to be in the true Church…

thanks

the reason I’m asking is because I found this, and I wanted to check that the Papacy doesn’t mean the same thing:

The Pope is not the “only” Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the “only” power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or “sole” bishop in his Patriarchate.

however

The controversy thus oddly terminated leads us to inquire – What exactly was Gregory’s view respecting his own position? What, in his opinion, was the relation of the Papacy towards the Churches? Now, Gregory has been accused of insincerity, in that while disclaiming the title Universalis, he yet claimed all the title implied. This charge, however, is misleading and is not true. As has been already pointed out, Gregory interpreted “universalis” in the sense of “unus”; and he certainly never pretended to be the sole bishop in Christendom.

On the other hand (though abhorring the title which might mean “sole bishop”), he NEVER FOR AN INSTANT denied, or made any pretence of denying, that the Pope was the PRIMATE and CHIEF of Christian bishops. There can be NO DOUBT that Gregory claimed a PRIMACY, not of honour MERELY, but of AUTHORITY, in the Church Universal. To him the Apostolic See was “THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES,”

(from bringtoyou apologetics)

for example,

The reason alleged for this preeminence was that the Roman Bishop was the successor and vicar of St. Peter, CHIEF of the Apostles [ii:46] to whom had been committed the “cura et principatus” of the whole Church, and on the stability of whom, as on a ROCK, the Church had been firmly established [Epp v:37; vii:37].

“Wherefore, although there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the principate the See of the PRINCE of the Apostles ALONE has grown strong in authority” [vii:37].

As the successor, then, of the CHIEF of the Apostles [Peter], the Pope claimed a DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIMACY [iii:30 – “Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis”].

The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE “WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See” [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].

Appeals might be made to the Pope against the decisions even of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and such decisions might be reversed by sentence of the Papal court [see pg 203ff in this volume].

All bishops, moreover, even the patriarchs, were subject to correction and punishment by the Pope, if guilty of heresy or uncanonical proceedings. “If any of the four patriarchs had done such a thing,” he wrote again to a bishop who had disobeyed his orders [ii:50], “such contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal.”

“As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he said once more [ix:26], “WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it.”

Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought by F. Homes Dudden, B.D. (volume 2, page 224-225)

PHIL PORVAZNIK (July 1995)

 

[mjs1987]

The Catholic church believes in subsidiary governance. This means decision making is devolved to the lowest level possible. The pope is the bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff but he does not have supreme power over all diocese. Bishops have real power to make decisions in their diocese. The church is not a centralized body outside of doctrine. The church tries to be as de-centralized as possible. Bishops are not figureheads. This would be bad because a single pope from Rome would struggle to rule over such vast territories where the faithful are. Diocese are best governed by the lowest possible authority.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Keep in mind that the word from which we derive “bishop” really means “overseer.” So, in a sense, the Pope is the overseer over the whole Church. However, he is also the overseer of Rome (Bishop of Rome).

This is the framework on which the Church operates. But, from a practical standpoint, the Church is probably the most decentralized organization of its size in the world. There are over 5000 bishops worldwide, and the notion that the Pope could “supervise” that many people is not realistic. The best he can do is have an ad limina visit with them in small groups about every five years.

 

[cymonk]

Not quite sure what you are asking here. The pope only has one diocese (Rome). We only have one Bishop (though some diocese have auxilary bishops to help). It is the magisterium which defines church teaching (unless its the pope from ex cathedra).

So no the pope does not have direct authority over our bishop.

 

[Monica4316]

thanks

well to clarify, I was wondering if the Pope is the Bishop of (only) Rome but has a special authority as the successor of St Peter, OR - if he’s the Bishop of Rome *and of the whole world. *

 

[TheDoctor]

…The pope is the bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff but he does not have supreme power over all diocese. Bishops have real power to make decisions in their diocese…

This, I believe, is not entirely true. The Pope has supreme power over the entire Church. While you are correct in that the Pope allows individual Bishops to lead their diocese, he can exercise full power over them at any time. For example, the Pope can move your Bishop or remove him or even, if the Pope has nothing better to do, make changes in your diocese and your Bishop has no recourse but to obey.

 

[Vince1022]

Hi, I was wondering… is the Pope also the Bishop of other dioceses? For example, in my diocese, do I have two bishops: the local Bishop and the Pope? Or, is the Pope only the Bishop of Rome but is the successor of St Peter, first of the Apostles, meaning that it’s important to be in communion with him to be in the true Church…

thanks

the reason I’m asking is because I found this, and I wanted to check that the Papacy doesn’t mean the same thing:

however

(from bringtoyou apologetics)

for example,

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. No other diocese, just like every Bishop is the Bishop of only one diocese.

 

[TheDoctor]

So no the pope does not have direct authority over our bishop.

Hi. I believe he does. The Pope can relocate your Bishop or remove him at will. The Pope can also mandate specific rules for your diocese (he probably would never get down to that level of control but he could) that your Bishop would need to follow without question.

It is good to remember that the papacy is an absolute monarchy. Although the Pope very rarely exercises the full power of that monarchy, it does exist.

 

[TheDoctor]

thanks

well to clarify, I was wondering if the Pope is the Bishop of (only) Rome but has a special authority as the successor of St Peter, OR - if he’s the Bishop of Rome *and of the whole world. *

When a man is elected Pope, he is immediately ordained a Bishop (if not one already) and becomes the Bishop of Rome. That is both a title and an office, although in reality the Pope has auxiliary bishops to handle the day to day issues of the diocese of Rome.

As the Pope, he has a special authority - he is the Vicar of Christ and wields supreme power over the Church, so in a sense he is the Bishop (Shepherd) of the whole world.

I am not sure if that helps or not, sorry.

 

[Hesychios]

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. No other diocese, just like every Bishop is the Bishop of only one diocese.

However, the church clearly states as a de Fide dogma that the bishop of Rome has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in every church. In other words, in reality he can function as the local bishop anywhere.

As The Doctor stated above " … The Pope can relocate your Bishop or remove him at will. The Pope can also mandate specific rules for your diocese (he probably would never get down to that level of control but he could) that your Bishop would need to follow without question."

[In some cases the Pope of the day has chosen not to appoint replacement bishops, and in that case the diocese is completely dependent upon the Pope.]

In other words, he is not only the employer and supervisor of every other bishop, he is a coworker of every other bishop (should he choose to exercise the prerogatives). He has his own curia, in Rome (a rather large organization), and every local diocesan curia must follow his instructions (if he should send any) in the same manner as if the local ordinary were to give them.

 

[Monica4316]

Hi. I believe he does. The Pope can relocate your Bishop or remove him at will. The Pope can also mandate specific rules for your diocese (he probably would never get down to that level of control but he could) that your Bishop would need to follow without question.

It is good to remember that the papacy is an absolute monarchy. Although the Pope very rarely exercises the full power of that monarchy, it does exist.

this is a lot like what Pope Gregory said I think, that Bishops are equal but if a Bishop is doing something wrong, he needs to answer to the Pope. ?

 

[Monica4316]

I’m confused about something…

Pope Gregory said that if a Bishop calls himself “Universal Bishop”, that is wrong because it lessens the other Bishops.

At the same time, he said many things in support of Papal Supremacy. For example, he said that he has authority to annul the decisions of Synods (not just for Rome), and that other Sees are subject his (the Apostolic See)…

The reason I made this thread, is because it’s not clear to me how the Pope is NOT a Universal Bishop… in today’s Church, I mean. What did Pope Gregory mean? I read that “Universal” means “only” true Bishop…how do we know this is what he meant?

I think he was very clear that no one should call himself “Universal”.

How does “universal jurisdiction” differ from the title “Universal Bishop”?

 

[TheDoctor]

I’m confused about something…

Pope Gregory said that if a Bishop calls himself “Universal Bishop”, that is wrong because it lessens the other Bishops.

At the same time, he said many things in support of Papal Supremacy. For example, he said that he has authority to annul the decisions of Synods (not just for Rome), and that other Sees are subject his (the Apostolic See)…

The reason I made this thread, is because it’s not clear to me how the Pope is NOT a Universal Bishop… in today’s Church, I mean. What did Pope Gregory mean? I read that “Universal” means “only” true Bishop…how do we know this is what he meant?

I think he was very clear that no one should call himself “Universal”.

How does “universal jurisdiction” differ from the title “Universal Bishop”?

Monica - can you pls. provide a link to the source for the Pope Gregory quote. It would help to understand the context and language used.

 

[Monica4316]

Monica - can you pls. provide a link to the source for the Pope Gregory quote. It would help to understand the context and language used.

sure, the text is here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=296593

God bless

 

[TheDoctor]

sure, the text is here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=296593
God bless

Hey Monica. That is a LOT to read through. On first pass, I pulled this from one of the linked articles:From THIS ROCK (December 1992) – the magazine of Catholic apologetics**
**
QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?**
**
ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.
What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.
I think what he is saying is that looking at the world’s Bishops, they are all equal and no Bishop can claim the title “Universal Bishop” within the meaning that they would be the only true Bishop and all the others would not be.

Universal Bishop has a different definition when applied to the Pope. Here, the meaning is closer to “Supreme Bishop” or “Overseeing Bishop” to denote that the Pope exercises universal power over all the other Bishops through the Papacy.

So, no individual Bishop can claim to be “THE” one and only universal Bishop. The Pope however does claim the title as he is the supreme Bishop over all the others.

I believe that “universal jurisdiction” is simply alluding to the fact that the Pope sits at the head of an absolute monarchy as Vicar of Christ and as such exercises full power and jurisdiction over the universal Church.

That’s my best shot for now. More reading to do.

 

[Monica4316]

Hi, thanks for the reply! I just don’t really understand, because Pope Gregory seems to be saying that it’s wrong for any Bishop to place himself above the others… however, that seems to contradict other things he said that support the Papacy (that I included in my OP).

 

[Hesychios]

How does “universal jurisdiction” differ from the title “Universal Bishop”?

If he has ordinary jurisdiction everywhere, I don’t see how it can be thought of as any different.

He also happens to be the boss of every other bishop, so he not only co-rules, but supervises them.

 

[Monica4316]

If he has ordinary jurisdiction everywhere, I don’t see how it can be thought of as any different.

He also happens to be the boss of every other bishop, so he not only co-rules, but supervises them.

I see what you mean, but when we look at what Pope Gregory wrote, it seems that he would agree with the Pope having universal jurisdiction and authority.

I found something else he said in the letter… it suggests that “Universal Bishop” means “the sole bishop”. This was never the case with the Papacy… Vatican I defined that other Bishops have full power over their diocese and are appointed by the Holy Spirit, and are repsentatives of Christ, not of the Pope. I don’t think that the Pope is the Bishop “of the whole universe”…he’s the Bishop of Rome who has supremacy, as many early Church Popes have taught as well of course I’m still trying to examine this and I’m seeking the truth… but this quote suggests a particular interpretation of the title:

how one, who had professed himself unworthy to be called a Bishop at all, should now despise his brethren, and aspire to be called the sole Bishop. {Epistles, 5,44}

 

[Vince1022]

I see what you mean, but when we look at what Pope Gregory wrote, it seems that he would agree with the Pope having universal jurisdiction and authority.

I found something else he said in the letter… it suggests that “Universal Bishop” means “the sole bishop”. This was never the case with the Papacy… Vatican I defined that other Bishops have full power over their diocese and are appointed by the Holy Spirit, and are repsentatives of Christ, not of the Pope. I don’t think that the Pope is the Bishop “of the whole universe”…he’s the Bishop of Rome who has supremacy, as many early Church Popes have taught as well of course I’m still trying to examine this and I’m seeking the truth… but this quote suggests a particular interpretation of the title:

how one, who had professed himself unworthy to be called a Bishop at all, should now despise his brethren, and aspire to be called the sole Bishop. {Epistles, 5,44}

The Pope is definitely not the “sole Bishop.” This is a confusing area, that I think the Church is still trying to work out…how to balance collegiality, primacy, authority, etc. Bishops are not “vice presidents” (etc.) to the Pope. Their authority over their diocese is complete, while at the same time that authority hinges on maintaining communion with Rome (i.e. the Pope). When there is a problem or concern that necessitates the Pope intervening, the Pope has the right (and obligation) to do so.