The head bishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
Brothers Peter and CatholicDude,

May I humbly ask for your participation in the poll? Thanks ahead of time.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I voted 5, but I think there is overlap for 4,5,6.

The Pope can become convinced he has not lived up to the level of Christian which Scripture and Tradition demand and from this he can resign.
 
It is well beyond my competence to discuss canon law, but I voted 3…it was sorta like a 3.5, but no one had voted 3 yet and I felt it deserved some representation. 😉

At this point my only observation is that, in my experience, many people who say 5 in effect hold 6 since they also hold the Pope to be the final and authoritative interpreter of the law and tradition. This basically means that the only limits on the Pope are those which are self-chosen.

salaam.
 
mardukm said:
Please vote and/or comment. Here is the legend:
  1. The head bishop is not necessary. This is a perspective that I have ONLY found in the Eastern Orthodox Church and simply violates Apostolic canon 34:
  2. The head bishop is necessary but has a merely administrative and honorary prerogative. This seems to accept the full provisions of Apostolic Canon 34, but from my perspective it is no better than the first option.
  3. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. The body of bishops can judge the head bishop separate from him.
  4. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.
  5. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any person or group of persons, but can be incriminated by virtue of the law itself (i.e., Sacred Tradition).
  6. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any one or any thing on earth.
I believe the only Catholic options are #4 and #5. Some non-Latins might accept #3. Some real hard-liners might include #6 (certainly, #6 is the preferred perspective of anti-Catholics in their judgment of the Catholic Church). Personally, I accept #4.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. May I ask that ONLY Catholics give their vote? In this instance, I would include Traditional Catholics who are not in union with the Pope. Just to warn voters, I am turning on the feature that lets others know who voted what.
Click to expand...
Marduck can you give me any differences if any between how the Coptic Orthodox see this vs. the EO? My wife so far aint buying that there is a significanct difference between us and the EO. So any (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be helpful. 👍

Edit I just re-read and so your (name removed by moderator)ut on #1. I assume we aren’t #1 so please explain why if so.

I would guess we are #3.
 
Badaliyyah said:
It is well beyond my competence to discuss canon law, but I voted 3…it was sorta like a 3.5, but no one had voted 3 yet and I felt it deserved some representation. 😉

At this point my only observation is that, in my experience, many people who say 5 in effect hold 6 since they also hold the Pope to be the final and authoritative interpreter of the law and tradition. This basically means that the only limits on the Pope are those which are self-chosen.

salaam.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum :tiphat:

I noticed you are Melkite. May I ask, what you think of Melkite Bp John’s answer in this Q & A #9? he covers alot of ground in his answer. i.e.

The pope and
  • Juristiction
  • authority
  • canon law
  • Eastern vs Western Catholic tradition / perspective
  • infallibility
  • etc
    albeit he does it via answering a specific question on a particular papal encyclical, but IMO, he hits all the points of this thread.
melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm (from faith and worship section)

from main web site melkite.org/
 
I voted 3. But I have a question about your #4. What does this mean to you?

If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.

Does the pope have to approve his own condemnation for it to be valid? From past posts it seems that that is what you mean when you affirm that ac 34 says the synod can’t act apart from the head bishop. It seems that no council is even valid if the head bishop doesn’t approve of what it says. I could probably agree with #4 if when you say that he must be involved you do not mean he must approve.

However, what if the bishops wish to call a synod to deliberate the issue of the head bishop and possibly condemn him but he refuses to participate? Has he just nixed the whole prospect of his condemnation? Can they still call the synod and condemn him?
 
steve_b said:
Welcome to the forum :tiphat:

I noticed you are Melkite. May I ask, what you think of Melkite Bp John’s answer in this Q & A #9? he covers alot of ground in his answer.

…

melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm (from faith and worship section)

from main web site melkite.org/
Click to expand...
Just to state the obvious: Bp.John knows a lot more about what he is talking about than I do. Bp.John is also speaking as a representative of the Church, and I am speaking entirely as a private layperson. Soooo…with that in mind…

I said, when I first posted an answer to the poll that I was 3, leaning to 3.5. As I am being more reflective about it now, I actually read Marduk’s interpretation of 4 and answer 2 to come very close to one another ((2+4)/2=3 😃 ). The prerogatives of Rome are born out of the love which the other churches have for Rome and which Rome has for those churches. In times of crisis we look to Rome for guidance and direction. The canons and conciliar statements are not there to impose an authority upon the churches, but to describe the innermost desire which we have for one another and practice of that desire as it has historically existed. They are not permission for Rome to act arbitrarily, nor do they call for .

[not to take us off-topic, but to hopefully provide a clarifying example…there is no external obligation to attend the Liturgy on Sunday, but there is a deep and burning need within the human spirit for it. This is what I understand the teaching of the Melkite Church to be on “the Sunday obligation”.]

I completely agree with Bp.John’s point that there is one Truth. I would go further and point out that that Truth is the Logos, and thus Christ. It is in that Truth that the Churches look towards their unity: a unity that is seen most clearly, and in which we participate most fully, in the Eucharist. We cannot have a new sort of Averroism (poor Averroes, this was such an abuse of him 😦 ) where there are two independent truths that have their own integrity. That said, I think it is fairly safe to say that we know the Truth, each in our own “language”, our own ethos.

We recognize our own concerns and faith translated, as it were, in the language of Rome. I tend to think that we usually say it better than Rome does, but that is also because I have a greater fluency in the language of my own Church. Rome has likewise said that it recognizes its own faith, again, translated as it were, in us. This is a good situation.

I am not sure that entirely answers the question but I think that is as far as I am capable of going at the moment.

salaam.
 
I voted 3, because of the early church canons, and the history that a primatial bishop can be removed by his synod for good cause. He still remains a bishop, but he no longer is THEIR bishop.
 
Dear brothers Jimmy and Aramis,
jimmy said:
I voted 3. But I have a question about your #4. What does this mean to you?

If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.

Does the pope have to approve his own condemnation for it to be valid? From past posts it seems that that is what you mean when you affirm that ac 34 says the synod can’t act apart from the head bishop. It seems that no council is even valid if the head bishop doesn’t approve of what it says. I could probably agree with #4 if when you say that he must be involved you do not mean he must approve.

However, what if the bishops wish to call a synod to deliberate the issue of the head bishop and possibly condemn him but he refuses to participate? Has he just nixed the whole prospect of his condemnation? Can they still call the synod and condemn him?
Click to expand...
40.png
Aramis:
voted 3, because of the early church canons, and the history that a primatial bishop can be removed by his synod for good cause. He still remains a bishop, but he no longer is THEIR bishop.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing!!!

I wish I could post more at the moment. For now, let me just make these comments:

I think there is a difference between the head bishopric of the entire Church, and the head bishopric at other different levels of the hierarchy. I believe the head bishopric of the entire Church is the only one DIVINELY instituted, so the circumstances for the removal of the head bishop at that level of the Church should be be more cautious, if not different. A study of Church history should reveal a difference. More on that this weekend (remind me if you are interested in continuing that line of discussion).

I do believe, however, that at any level, the head bishop will always be the head bishop, even in a synod/council which seeks to judge his actions. The rest of the bishops must be willing to hear the head bishop’s reasons for his decision(s) for which they seek to judge him, and, if possible, be swayed by the head bishop to accept his position. Likewise, the head bishop should be ready and willing to hear the voices of his brother bishops and, if possible, be swayed by the arguments of his brother bishops. In all cases, the head bishop will remain so until such time as it is proven that the head bishop is wrong and/or intransigent. If the head bishop is wrong, he will be proven wrong by virtue of the law (doctrinal or otherwise). In my view, the only time one can consider the body making judgment OVER the head is if the body creates NEW laws just for the purpose of judging the head, or judges him arbitrarily without regard for the Church’s existing laws. God forbid this should ever happen (though it actually did happen recently in the Eritrean Orthodox Church, and the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox were “up in arms”, and it did happen in the Eastern Orthodox Church after Florence).

Well, that is why I believe 4 and 5 are the only viable options.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Badaliyyah,
Badaliyyah said:
It is well beyond my competence to discuss canon law, but I voted 3…it was sorta like a 3.5, but no one had voted 3 yet and I felt it deserved some representation. 😉

At this point my only observation is that, in my experience, many people who say 5 in effect hold 6 since they also hold the Pope to be the final and authoritative interpreter of the law and tradition. This basically means that the only limits on the Pope are those which are self-chosen.
Click to expand...
My personal intention for #5 was that the Pope is
  1. answerable to the Sacred Tradition that went before him, and
  2. does NOT have the authority to pick and choose from Sacred Tradition - he must accept it in toto.
In fact, reading the commentaries of the Vatican I Council Fathers themselves, the phrase “as is also contained in the proceedings of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons” contained in the historical preamble of the Decree on the Primacy was NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRIMACY, but was rather an amendment to the original draft, added by the solicitude of the Minority Party bishops, and also a good number of the Majority Party, to ensure that papal primacy should be exercised ACCORDING TO THE SACRED CANONS OF THE CHURCH. In other words, when the Vatican I Council Fathers enacted the Decree on the Primacy, they fully understood that the Pope was BOUND by the laws of the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

I don’t believe any Catholic who has chosen #5 believes otherwise (if any Catholic thinks so, please let us know). So I don’t think that equates to limits which are “self-chosen.”

I would love your comments on what I have written.

Btw, I personally could never vote for #6.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
The following is an answer I gave to brother Hesychios question, “Do you believe a Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council?” It is from the “Papal Claims” thread, but it has relevance, so I thought I’d copy/paste it here.
40.png
Mardukm:
I believe the Pope is not superior to an Ecumenical Council, and is the head bishop of such a Council. I have ALWAYS maintained that IN THE SETTING OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, the authority of the Pope is no more nor less than what is granted by Apostolic canon 34, where it states that the other bishops “MUST acknowledge their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent.” In addition, the head should not do anything without the consent of all.

This basically describes the dynamics of the ecumenical council (it does describe the apostolic expectation for lower levels of the hierarchy also). What occurs is that most of the bishops wrangle it out on a certain issue. The issue is decided (doctrinal or other), and then AFTERWARDS the bishops hand over their findings to the head bishop (in this case, the Pope).

At this point, one of several things can occur:
  1. The Pope gives his consent, unanimity will have been achieved, the consent of the other bishops already having been obtained prior to the involvement of the head bishop, and the decision is promulgated as binding on the ENTIRE Church (hence, “ecumenical”).
  2. The Pope withholds his consent, and the issue is rediscussed by his brother bishops, and the process continues until the issue is resolved. If the Church follows the commands of Apostolic Canon 34, this will be the ideal situation. As far as Catholicism is concerned (if past practice can be considered a standard), only 2/3’s of the voting body is required for an issue to be resolved, and the decision promulgated. The unanimity required by Apostolic Canon 34 is satisfied when the other bishops conscientiously submit themselves to the decision of the majority. In such a situation, the ecumenicity of the Council is maintained.
  3. The Pope withholds his consent, and instead of rediscussing the issue, the other bishops promulgate their decision without the consent of their head. At this point, the requirements of Apostolic Canon 34 can still be met, and communion thus maintained, if everyone agrees that the decision is NOT universally binding and is only binding on the jurisdictions of those who agree with the decision. This is highly probable on a canonical issue of discipline or practice, but if the point at issue is one of doctrine, a big problem is likely to occur.
  4. The Pope withholds his consent, and instead of rediscussing the issue, the other bishops try to excommunicate their head bishop. This inevitably results in schism, and completely violates Apostolic Canon 34
I believe, along with my fellow Catholics, that no Ecumenical Council can be regarded as Ecumenical without the Pope, but I base my own belief NOT on the decrees of Vatican I, but by what the Apostles established as the Church order as reflected in Apostolic Canon 34 (though I am certain that Vatican I based its decrees on the selfsame Apostolic Canon).

To put it another way, I think that the question “is the Pope superior to an Ecumenical Council?” is just as valid as the question “Can God make a rock he cannot lift?” or “is the body of bishops (minus the bishop of Rome) superior to an Ecumenical Council?” It is a nonsensical question that has no real application except to satisfy a polemic agenda. In fact, an Ecumenical Council cannot exist ontologically without a head bishop. On the same principle, the Ecumenical Council is not the head bishop alone, but the collective body of the bishops of the Church.

I hope that I have answered your question satisfactorily. If there is anything I can do to clarify, don’t hesitate to ask.
Click to expand...
I would welcome comments and criticisms.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Badaliyyah said:
[not to take us off-topic, but to hopefully provide a clarifying example…there is no external obligation to attend the Liturgy on Sunday, but there is a deep and burning need within the human spirit for it.
Click to expand...

This is what I understand the teaching of the Melkite Church to be on “the Sunday obligation”.]

There IS an external obligation. It’s from scripture. ( emphasis mine)

Heb 10:
25 Let us not give up meeting together (episynagōgē (Gr) the religious assembly (of Christians)) as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day (Sunday) approaching. 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice ( thysia (Gr), sacrifice, victim) for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God

IOW, after being given the truth, it’s a serious sin if we deliberately miss mass on Sunday, where we celebrate the very sacrifice for sin. How serious is this sin? When no sacrifice for sin is left for you, but only expectation of judgement and raging fire, THAT’S as serious a sin as one can commit…Agreed?
 
Let’s not go too far off topic, since it was merely meant as an example. I am sure someone would be happy to compare the Latin understanding of Sunday obligation with the Melkite if you start a new thread though (I would be shocked if it hasn’t been covered somewhere on this site already). It does nonetheless get at why I read 2 and(/through?) 4 to be very close to one another.

First, let me say that I don’t understand the two to be in contradiction or real conflict. The legal definition is nothing other than a description of that deep human need (if it were not so, continuing the analogy, then 2 and 4 would have no relation to each other. As it is, 4 has its real ground in 2 and can only be understood by way of 2)…As such,

When one fails to attend to the deepest desires and needs of one’s own spirit (e.g., cuts oneself off from the Liturgy), one is engaged in very serious self-mutilation that will certainly lead to a diseased and malformed being. This is serious sin indeed.

salaam.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Badaliyyah,

My personal intention for #5 was that the Pope is
  1. answerable to the Sacred Tradition that went before him, and
  2. does NOT have the authority to pick and choose from Sacred Tradition - he must accept it in toto.
In fact, reading the commentaries of the Vatican I Council Fathers themselves, the phrase “as is also contained in the proceedings of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons” contained in the historical preamble of the Decree on the Primacy was NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRIMACY, but was rather an amendment to the original draft, added by the solicitude of the Minority Party bishops, and also a good number of the Majority Party, to ensure that papal primacy should be exercised ACCORDING TO THE SACRED CANONS OF THE CHURCH. In other words, when the Vatican I Council Fathers enacted the Decree on the Primacy, they fully understood that the Pope was BOUND by the laws of the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

I don’t believe any Catholic who has chosen #5 believes otherwise (if any Catholic thinks so, please let us know). So I don’t think that equates to limits which are “self-chosen.”

I would love your comments on what I have written.

Btw, I personally could never vote for #6.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Marduk,

I completely understand what you meant to distinguish between 5 and 6, nor did I intend to suggest that the people who held a position along the lines of 5 were hypocritical. I think one really can hold that position in good faith. I simply meant that in practice, when the Pope is affirmed as the final authority in interpreting the law and tradition, even if one says that he is bound by them, he is, nonetheless, an autocrat.
 
mardukm said:
Please vote and/or comment. Here is the legend:
  1. The head bishop is not necessary. This is a perspective that I have ONLY found in the Eastern Orthodox Church and simply violates Apostolic canon 34:
  2. The head bishop is necessary but has a merely administrative and honorary prerogative. This seems to accept the full provisions of Apostolic Canon 34, but from my perspective it is no better than the first option.
  3. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. The body of bishops can judge the head bishop separate from him.
  4. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.
  5. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any person or group of persons, but can be incriminated by virtue of the law itself (i.e., Sacred Tradition).
  6. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any one or any thing on earth.
I believe the only Catholic options are #4 and #5. Some non-Latins might accept #3. Some real hard-liners might include #6 (certainly, #6 is the preferred perspective of anti-Catholics in their judgment of the Catholic Church). Personally, I accept #4.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. May I ask that ONLY Catholics give their vote? In this instance, I would include Traditional Catholics who are not in union with the Pope. Just to warn voters, I am turning on the feature that lets others know who voted what.
Click to expand...
Marduk,

Could you clarify “within his territory/juristiction”?

Thanks
 
steve_b said:
Marduk,

Could you clarify “within his territory/juristiction”?

Thanks
Click to expand...
This doesn’t completely answer your question, but in the particular case of the head bishop of the universal church (i.e. the pope), “his territory/juristiction” would be everywhere.
 
Grace and Peace,

I chose 3 but I wasn’t sure of the meaning…
  1. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. The body of bishops can judge the head bishop separate from him.
what does this actually mean?
 
chrisb said:
Grace and Peace,

I chose 3 but I wasn’t sure of the meaning…
  1. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. The body of bishops can judge the head bishop separate from him.
what does this actually mean?
Click to expand...
Literally, authority to judge.

In general, it means he can suspend them, he can make particular law which affects them, and he can direct them to do or not do things.

The early Canons make it quite clear a bishop has juridic authority over his priests, deacons, and faithful.

They are less clear about the role of the Metropolitan Archbishop.

It is clear that the patriarchal synod has juridic authority over a patrairchate’s bishops, metropolitans, and archbishops, but not so clear the authority of the head bishop of said synod, the patriarch.
 
mardukm said:
On the heels of this, I would like to mention that a long time ago (when this was still the Eastern Christianity Forum), a disgruntled Eastern Catholic complained, “why specifically mention only the Pope in our diptychs? Shouldn’t we mention ALL the Patriarchs and Metropolitans of every Catholic Church in the world?” At the time, I did not bother to respond, thinking that his request was just impractical. But now, I have the answer.

For any of my Eastern/ Oriental brethren who have ever made the same complaint, the answer is in Apostolic Canon 34. The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is the head bishop. So every diptych of every Church is bound by apostolic ordinance to acknowledge not only the head bishop of the local diocese, archdiocese, and Patriarchate, but also the bishop of Rome as head of the universal Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
  1. the canon mentions every nation. It says nothing above that level.
    2)The unanmous testimony of the first millenium was that the diptychs contained all the primates in communion, as the present, continuous practice of the Orthodox Church.
 
Addai said:
Marduck can you give me any differences if any between how the Coptic Orthodox see this vs. the EO? My wife so far aint buying that there is a significanct difference between us and the EO. So any (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be helpful. 👍

Edit I just re-read and so your (name removed by moderator)ut on #1. I assume we aren’t #1 so please explain why if so.

I would guess we are #3.
Click to expand...
if I may intrude, your profile says Coptic convert.

Convert from to what?

I would think we (Orthodox both EO and OO) are 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top