The Papacy a PERSONAL Ordinariate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gregory_I

Guest
Hey all,

Can we conceive of the Papacy as a PERSONAL ordinariate for all territories outside the Popes Metropolitan Jurisdiction?

Can this Help to free up territorial issues?

He is an Ordinary with Supreme Full Universal Jurisdiction over PEOPLES outside his Metropolitan territories, but not proper Jurisdiction over those territories?

It may be technical, but I think it could be important.
 
Gregory_I said:
Hey all,

Can we conceive of the Papacy as a PERSONAL ordinariate for all territories outside the Popes Metropolitan Jurisdiction?

Can this Help to free up territorial issues?

He is an Ordinary with Supreme Full Universal Jurisdiction over PEOPLES outside his Metropolitan territories, but not proper Jurisdiction over those territories?

It may be technical, but I think it could be important.
Click to expand...
No.
 
The Pope can suppress a diocese (or territory), he can remove the ordinary, he could remove a patriarch, he could suppress an Eastern Church (such as the Russian Catholic Church), and intervene in any way he wishes in the local diocese. Of course he cannot abuse his power, but he can do any of the above if there are legitimate and just reasons to do so. If I recall correctly, part of ordinary jurisdiction involves territory.

Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I:
We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character
Click to expand...
This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is good, look especially at the parts regarding his jurisdiction.
 
Gregory_I said:
Hey all,

Can we conceive of the Papacy as a PERSONAL ordinariate for all territories outside the Popes Metropolitan Jurisdiction?

Can this Help to free up territorial issues?

He is an Ordinary with Supreme Full Universal Jurisdiction over PEOPLES outside his Metropolitan territories, but not proper Jurisdiction over those territories?

It may be technical, but I think it could be important.
Click to expand...
No!

The Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome and Primate of Italy and Patriarch of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris (I know Pope Benedict has dropped the title ‘Patriarch of the West’ but in effect he’s still the Patriarch of the Latin Church) and he’s the Supreme Pontiff of the Communion of all 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches. He has immediate, full, supreme, ordinary canonical jurisdiction over the whole Church.
 
Dear brother Gregory I,

Can you please explain what a “personal ordinariate” is?

And how would such a position mitigate the tension regarding “territory”?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
The only way there will ever be a breakthrough between East and West on the subject of papal jurisdiction is if Rome will agree that the Eastern Churches can administer themselves without the Vatican offices being involved. An Ordinariate is about jurisdiction and administrative matters. It is a non-starter from the get-go.

But nice try! 🙂

Alex
 
I am just saying A Personal Ordinariate is like, say a mitred abbot. He has Jurisdiction over the PEOPLE entrusted to his care, but not the Diocesan territory in which he resides. I was wondering if something Like that OCuld be applied to the Popes Ordinary Jurisdiction OUTSIDE His Metropolitan see.
 
Well, if this is for the purpose of harmonizing the ecclesiologies of East and West - I think the Orthodox won’t buy it.

What Orthodox and Eastern Catholics ideally want to see in the papacy is a “hands off” approach toward their internal jurisdictional administration.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but the Eastern Churches have their own hierarchies based on a collegial union and a primacy of honour, locally, regionally and universally.

Again, I may well be misunderstanding your intent here.

Alex
 
Eh, I can just kill this thread then. I am very familiar with how the easterns organize themselves, I was on the brink of leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy a little over a year ago and did alot of studying and bought alot of books, including the Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorf.

He makes alot of compelling points in that book, and I just do not see why Rome feels that they have to have their stamp of approval on EVERYthing.
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Well, if this is for the purpose of harmonizing the ecclesiologies of East and West - I think the Orthodox won’t buy it.

What Orthodox and Eastern Catholics ideally want to see in the papacy is a “hands off” approach toward their internal jurisdictional administration.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but the Eastern Churches have their own hierarchies based on a collegial union and a primacy of honour, locally, regionally and universally.

Again, I may well be misunderstanding your intent here.

Alex
Click to expand...
In the extant union, except where specifically stated otherwise in the treaty of union, the CCEO lists the pope as having " supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (CCEO Canon 43.)
 
Gregory_I said:
Eh, I can just kill this thread then. I am very familiar with how the easterns organize themselves, I was on the brink of leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy a little over a year ago and did alot of studying and bought alot of books, including the Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorf.

He makes alot of compelling points in that book, and I just do not see why Rome feels that they have to have their stamp of approval on EVERYthing.
Click to expand...
First, I’m going to be technical. There’s no such thing as a personal ordinariate in the Latin Catholic Church; well not anyway, although they’re on the way for former Anglicans.

Second, the Pope has authority as several levels. He is the Bishop of Rome and exercises over that diocese the same ordinary power any diocesan bishop has over a diocese. He’s the Metropolitan of Rome and will have the same metropolitcal power over that province as any other Metropolitan. I’m not sure about is title as Primate of Italy. Most primates have this title only in an honorary sense, normally it brings no authority. The Pope is the head of the Latin Catholic Church but seems to have dispensed with any title that reflects that. Finally, he’s the head of the whole Church but being totally practical that means only the 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches.

Third, I have to agree with you about the papal primacy. I am not sure why everything seems to have to cross someone’s desk in Rome to be given the go-ahead. You are not alone among Latin Catholics in questioning this.
 
Gregory_I said:
Eh, I can just kill this thread then. I am very familiar with how the easterns organize themselves, I was on the brink of leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy a little over a year ago and did alot of studying and bought alot of books, including the Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorf.

He makes alot of compelling points in that book, and I just do not see why Rome feels that they have to have their stamp of approval on EVERYthing.
Click to expand...
I was in exactly the same place as you, sir!

Ultimately, union would need the approval from both sides. Until both sides can give a little, there will be no union - just a lot of well-meaning talk that raises hopes without any concrete actions undertaken to realize them.

As far as the Orthodox see it, Rome hasn’t given an inch as yet.

Alex
 
What Rome needs to do is to, in no uncertain terms, state that, “, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise” can only be understood and practiced within the understanding of the Church of the first millenium.

Rome needs to settle its own identity crisis first and realzie that its own formulations are largely formed by the ultramontanists, and then it must reformulate its own understanding in terms of collegiality.

Rome shouldn’t be fiddling with these novel ideas of an ordinariate. It should just return to a primacy based in the collegial model of communion instead of the loaded word of supremacy.

IMHO, that isn’t going to happen in this generation of Bishop’s and cardinals. It’s too ancient of an idea that is still foreign to them and ironically seems to novel to them.
 
Well, Dan-Man, if you were Pope, I certainly wouldn’t have any trouble submitting to you and then getting others to submit to you!

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
As far as the Orthodox see it, Rome hasn’t given an inch as yet.
Click to expand...
I think that is because BOTH sides don’t feel they need to move anywhere. They are both stuck in their own view of ecclesiology without see the wholeness of both east and west.
 
I think a big problem is that “Personal Ordinariates” are totally foreign to Eastern and Western conceptions of ecclesiology. I do not think they are a good idea to handle anglicans who wish to enter into communion with the Church and I especially think that trying to impose this on Eastern Christians would be a total disaster.
 
Formosus said:
I think a big problem is that “Personal Ordinariates” are totally foreign to Eastern and Western conceptions of ecclesiology. I do not think they are a good idea to handle anglicans who wish to enter into communion with the Church and I especially think that trying to impose this on Eastern Christians would be a total disaster.
Click to expand...
The personal ordinariate system is just a non-geographical diocese; it’s just a matter of not being willing to allow married bishops, but not wanting to subject them to hostile Roman Bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top