Dear brother Francis,
May I ask you to comment on my fellowing observations:
1. You alway mention Apostolic Canon 34 (or is it 35?), I note that Canon 9 of the Council of Antioh 341 is almost indenticial to that of Canon 34, it seems that from these canons, eastern churches have long accepted jurisdiction of the head bishop in relation to a particular church. I would also say Canon 6 of Nicea I (which deals with jurisdiction of partriach) has similar effect.
Yes, Apostolic Canon 34 has been in effect in the Church from the very beginning, having been established by the Apostles themselves. The provisions apply at EVERY level of the hierarchy. It applies to the Archdiocese/Metropolical level (where all bishops are subject to the Archbishop or Metropolitan), to the Patriarchal level (where all bishops including archbishops and metropolitans are subject to Patriarchs), and to the universal level (where all bishops including archbishops, Metropolitans and patriarchs are subject to the Pope). In each level, the head bishop is not an absolute monarch. NORMATIVELY, bishops would have supreme jurisdiction only in their own diocese (while always recognizing who is their head in every level). When a situation occurs that necessarily involves more than one diocese, the head bishop on the archbishopric/metropolical level will become involved, and he has actual jurisdiction in those areas to become involved. If a situation occurs that involves more than one archbishopric or metropolical see, the head bishop on the patriarchal level will become involved, and he has actual jurisdiction in those areas to become involved. And if a situation occurs that involves more than one Patriarchate, or the entire Church, the head bishop of the universal Church will become involved, and he has actual jurisdiction in those areas to become involved. Note that the involvement of the head bishop in a diocese not immediately his own depends NOT on the whim of the head bishop, but on the NEEDS of the Church under him.
I sincerely believe that for a while, because of the nationalist and caeseropapist tendencies that infected the Church (not to mention ecclesiological politics and theological misunderstanding), many patriarchal Churches forgot or purposefully neglected the level of the universal Church, which itself requires a head bishop.
**2. I remember you said that the Supreme Authority of the universal Church rests with the College of Bishop united with its head (the head bishop). However, under the current Code of Canon Laws, its seems that the Supreme Authority of the Church rests with: **
**a- the Pope- Canon 331; and also **
b- the College of Bishop in union with the Pope- Canon 336
Maybe I interpret wrongly, it seems that the layout or format of Code that deals with the Supreme Authority of the Church has artificially distinguished the Pope from the College of Bishop:
So, are the relevant canons saying that there is only one Supreme Authority but such authority is exercisable either by the head bishop acting alone or the College of Bishop in union with the head?
Yes, I have stated before that the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops in union with its head.
But I need to make two comments for clarification:
- When the Canon uses the term “College,” it refers to a formal, official body of bishops. However, when I used the term, I only really meant “the bishops around the world.” My approach is admittedly more generic, and actually incorporates both canons you mention.
- The phrase “in union with its head” is actually redundant. A college of bishops, according to Apostolic Canon 34, simply cannot exist without a head bishop.
Analyzing your conclusion above, I would have to disagree, but not by much. I only disagree with the clause “by the head bishop acting alone.” You see, the head bishop (in this case, we are talking about the Pope) NEVER acts alone.
Perhaps you have drawn your conclusion from Latin Canon 333.2 which states -
The Roman Pontiff…has the right to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.
If this is the case, please consider this: Collegial indeed means the authority of the College of bishops (of whom the Pope is head). But “personal” does not mean “alone.” It refers to the authority of the Pope “
ex cathedra” when exercising infallibility. This does not mean that the Pope is acting alone,
for whatever else ex cathedra may mean, it certainly does not equate to inspiration. The Pope as a human being is constrained by the available means to sort through Sacred Tradition in order to make his judgment. This necessitates the involvement (opinions and judgments) of his brother bishops.
This is also evident from Church history, for in fact, the Pope has NEVER acted alone, even when enacting decrees on his own personal authority (please see posts #11 and #12 in this thread for examples).
I hope that helps.
As you are interested in the nature of the head bishop of the universal Church, here is a very closely related thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=Papal
It is a 30 page thread, but it is well worth the read. Perhaps you might even like to participate in the poll of that thread.
If you want to participate in that poll, please do so only after reading the thread, for it explains many things that may not be evident or may be misunderstood from my first post on the thread. Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
