The head bishop

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

Ah, the horns of the dilema when the “college” cannot act ever without the “head.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brothers Jimmy and Aramis,

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).

And they say Vatican I didn’t abolish all other bishops. Does this effect the idea of the local bishopric as divinely instituted? Why not?

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).

How so?

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

I see.

 

[Aramis]

In looking at some of the church councils of the post-schism past, once the council is called, the head bishop is along for the ride, like everyone else.

The ones deposing anti-popes, for example, were called by one of the claimants. The cost of deposing the anti-popes seems to have been stepping down as well, so that the synod can elect a new one.

But, by the same token, once the council is rolling, I believe the Pope to be bound to obey it as are all other bishops who attended or declined to attend (but not those not invited).

I was taught that the highest authority of the Church is the Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit, as embodied by the Churchwide councils hearing and speaking the will of the Holy Spirit. It requires the Pope to call such council, or at least approve it, but once so approved, hang on, it may go places even the pope fears to tread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

The problem it specifies every nation.

It is a problem for your understanding. If the Canon intended to say ONLY what YOU want it to say, it would have stated: “The bishops of EACH nation must recognize him who is their head”

But that is not what it states - rather, it states that the bishops of EVERY nation must acknowledge him who is their head. This form is more general than the first - not only does it primarily refer to a head bishop for the bishops of every nation, but it can also refer to the head bishop for each nation. And this, indeed, is the order of the Catholic Church from apostolic times until today - i.e., there are head bishops at different levels of the hierarchy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

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.

Canon 9 of Chalcedon states that:

1. If a clergyman has a grievance against another clergyman, he has recourse to his bishop.
2. If a clergyman has a grievance against his bishop, he has recourse to the LOCAL SYNOD.
3. If a bishop has a grievance against his metropolitan, he has recourse to the PATRIARCH.

Note the difference between #2 and #3. Though the authority of the SYNOD is appealed to in #2, it is the authority of the HEAD BISHOP (i.e., Patriarch) that is appealed to in #3.

The Patriarchs had actual juridic authority by virtue of his own office over the bishops and metropolitans under him, and not simply by virtue of being the head of his Patriarchal Synod.

HOWEVER, I agree with you that, even though the head bishop had/has actual authority by virtue of his own office, he is constrained by the Apostolic Canon 34 to exercise it collegially.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

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.

Canon 9 of Chalcedon states that:

1. If a clergyman has a grievance against another clergyman, he has recourse to his bishop.
2. If a clergyman has a grievance against his bishop, he has recourse to the LOCAL SYNOD.
3. If a bishop has a grievance against his metropolitan, he has recourse to the PATRIARCH.

Note the difference between #2 and #3. Though the authority of the SYNOD is appealed to in #2, it is the authority of the HEAD BISHOP (i.e., Patriarch) that is appealed to in #3.

The Patriarchs had actual juridic authority by virtue of his own office over the bishops and metropolitans under him, and not simply by virtue of being the head of his Patriarchal Synod.

HOWEVER, I agree with you that, even though the head bishop had/has actual authority by virtue of his own office, he is constrained by the Apostolic Canon 34 to exercise it collegially.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Ah, the horns of the dilema when the “college” cannot act ever without the “head.”

If that’s what the Apostles instructed us to do as reflected in their Canon 34, that is what the Catholic Church will do.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

mardukm, I am still unsure what you mean with number 4. Can the synod act without the consent of the head bishop? Can they condemn him without his consent? It seems that your interpretation is that they can’t. It seems that your opinion is that they can only remove him if he says OK.

Of course they should be willing to listen to what the head bishop says and possibly be persuaded. I am willing to listen to what you or anyone else or even the Orthodox say and possibly be persuaded. That is essential for any discussion.

 

[Unitas]

I selected #5 because there is no one to judge the Vicar of Christ. No one other than God can punish him for anything (judgment). BUT, the Pope does have the possibility to be objectively wrong. Infallibility does not guarantee 100% truth in all things, nor does it protect against imprudent decisions. So in that, it is possible to say he can be objectively wrong. But cannot be judged as in “You are wrong, here’s your punishment”.

The rest is pretty much condemned by Pastor Aeternus:

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

 

[Allyson]

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.

Why did you add the highlighted text? It seems to load the answer in the direction of 1. So a vote for 2 is 1. I think that it would have been sufficient to leave the last phrase off, as it adds nothing substantial to the rest of choice #2, and, of course, leaves me scratching my head.

In other words, I might read it as your commentary on the option, but since poll options don’t typically add commentary in the text of the option, it seems to be senseless addition. I have read it as part of the answer, not your commentary on the possible answer.

God Bless,
R.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

mardukm, I am still unsure what you mean with number 4. Can the synod act without the consent of the head bishop? Can they condemn him without his consent? It seems that your interpretation is that they can’t. It seems that your opinion is that they can only remove him if he says OK.

Of course they should be willing to listen to what the head bishop says and possibly be persuaded. I am willing to listen to what you or anyone else or even the Orthodox say and possibly be persuaded. That is essential for any discussion.

I addressed that here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4013143&postcount=51

If only everyone (including myself) would keep on topic on different threads!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Unitas,

I selected #5 because there is no one to judge the Vicar of Christ. No one other than God can punish him for anything (judgment). BUT, the Pope does have the possibility to be objectively wrong. Infallibility does not guarantee 100% truth in all things, nor does it protect against imprudent decisions. So in that, it is possible to say he can be objectively wrong. But cannot be judged as in “You are wrong, here’s your punishment”.

The rest is pretty much condemned by Pastor Aeternus:

Pastor Aeternus does not say anything either way on whether a Pope can be judged for his actions.or for being a heretic. I think we are treading on ground that has not been clearly defined canonically, though there are indications in history that the Pope can be judged.

It is the law that judges, but it is the role of the Ecumenical Council to determine if the Pope is worthy (or unworthy) to be judged and proceed accordingly to the norms of the Church. But I do not say “accordingly” lightly, for like I said, we are treading on not-too-clearly-defined territory.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

Why did you add the highlighted text? It seems to load the answer in the direction of 1. So a vote for 2 is 1. I think that it would have been sufficient to leave the last phrase off, as it adds nothing substantial to the rest of choice #2, and, of course, leaves me scratching my head.

In other words, I might read it as your commentary on the option, but since poll options don’t typically add commentary in the text of the option, it seems to be senseless addition. I have read it as part of the answer, not your commentary on the possible answer.

I believe it is pretty evident it is only my own opinion, and can be separated from the rest of the text, no? If it is not obvious, I apologize for the confusion.

Would you like to discuss why I feel #2 is no better than #1?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[DL82]

Call me slow, but that Canon seems to affirm the office of the Papacy.

The Canon certainly affirms the office of the Pope as Patriarch of the West, one of his titles, and one that the Orthodox tend to accept. The question is then whether there is a ‘first among firsts among equals’, i.e. of all the head bishops of particular national churches, one who is head of heads, and if so, whether the same Canon applies to their dealings with one another, and how it applies.

 

[Wesley7]

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.

Are you talking about a medical disease? . .

 

[Allyson]

I believe it is pretty evident it is only my own opinion, and can be separated from the rest of the text, no? If it is not obvious, I apologize for the confusion.

Would you like to discuss why I feel #2 is no better than #1?

Blessings,
Marduk

I can figure why you see it as no better, there are only a few shades of difference between the two. Those shades make a world of difference (I think), but if one desires there to be more of an emphasis on the head, then it is no better than choice #1.

I suppose if I could vote, I would vote for something of a combination between #2, #3, unless ApCan34 is assumed in #3, then I would go for #3. I am not sure what is the best fit, for where I sit. #2 is not quite enough, so I am probably closest to #3.

It occurred to me that you were expressing opinion after I initially posted, so I added the second paragraph.

It was confusing because normally one does not expect an opinion to be expressed in the same sentence as a polling choice, except maybe parenthetically or in a subsequent paragraph (as you did in the OP about where you stood), but not in the logical flow of the choice being given.

Basically it was a question about the logic and rhetorical flow. I just wanted to be really sure. Thank you for clearing it up.

God Bless,
R.

 

[LutheranDK]

Marduk,

Could you clarify “within his territory/juristiction”?

Thanks

The bishop of Rome has juristiction in Rome
The bishop of Copenhagen has jurisdiction in Copenhagen.
The bishop of New York has juristiction in New York.

etc.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother LutheranDK,

The bishop of Rome has juristiction in Rome
The bishop of Copenhagen has jurisdiction in Copenhagen.
The bishop of New York has juristiction in New York.

etc.

Do the Lutherans have ARCHbishops? I’ve read somewhere that your Synods (e.g., the ones in the United States) have PRESIDENTS. Are these presidents laymen or ordained ministers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother LutheranDK,

Do the Lutherans have ARCHbishops? I’ve read somewhere that your Synods (e.g., the ones in the United States) have PRESIDENTS. Are these presidents laymen or ordained ministers?

Blessings,
Marduk

This is one way that Protestants get around bishops, by translating “episkopos” president.

Some Lutherans do use the title, though. The Scandinavian churches all do, and the word priest (prest).

Lutheran ministers all have a formal ordination.

As far as I know (I used to be Lutheran) only the church of Sweden, and her daughter the church of Finland claim Apostolic succession.

 

[LutheranDK]

Dear brother LutheranDK,

Do the Lutherans have ARCHbishops? I’ve read somewhere that your Synods (e.g., the ones in the United States) have PRESIDENTS. Are these presidents laymen or ordained ministers?

Blessings,
Marduk

Greetings

I do not think that Lutheran churches have archbishops, with the notable exception of the Swedish (nominally, but not really) Lutheran Church. I think that the rest of Lutheran churches wordwide are presided over by bishops as the highest clerical “rank”.

Now, about the situation in the States, I’m not really sure. Yes, I think that for instance the LCMS is led by presidents, but whether or not those presidents are ordained clergy or laymen, I do not know. I hope for the former! But my knowledge of the Lutheran churches in America isn’t as extensive as it could be, so I might very well be mistaken

In Christ

Mark