The Petrine views

[mardukm]

CONT’d

PROPER
This refers to the exercise of jurisdiction. In effect, this is the term that Catholics normally use to designate the normative and regular exercise of jurisdiction (in distinction, Orthodox use the term “ordinary” to designate the normative and regular exercise of jurisdiction). It is indeed intimately connected with the descriptive “ordinary,” but it is distinct. Whereas every bishop who has proper jurisdiction also has ordinary jurisdiction (and in normal usage, the two terms are often not distinguished), not every bishop who has ordinary jurisdiction has proper jurisdiction.

NOTE 1: The term “ordinary” is both a noun and an adjective in Catholic jargon. As a noun, the term “ordinary” is perfectly equivalent to “bishop” and inherently accomodates all the descriptives of “ordinary,” “immediate,” and “proper.” As an adjective, however, though Catholics do say that the jurisdiction of a metropolitan, patriarch or pope in any particular diocese within his plenary geographic jurisdiction is “ordinary” (but not “proper”), Catholics would not normally refer to a metropolitan, patriarch, or pope as the ordinary (i.e., as a noun) of that same diocese.

NOTE 2: As explained above, head bishops exercise their ordinary (and, for the Pope, immediate) jurisdiction in a local diocese not their own only in extenuating circumstances, normally when the proper jurisdiction of the local bishop himself has been impeded (as explained earlier, by heresy, long absence, imprisonment, etc.). But if the ecclesiastical structure of the local Church has provided for a bishop in such circumstances when the proper jurisdiction of the local bishop has been impeded, the jurisdiction will devolve on that bishop, not the head bishop. This exigency is known as a co-adjutor bishop. Co-adjutor bishops are appointed by the Patriarch with the consent of the Synod. They serve the same functions as an auxiliary bishop of a diocese in the presence of a proper bishop, but they have a natural right of succession. In truth, though head bishops have such ordinary (and, for the Pope, immediate) jurisdiction in any local diocese in their respective plenary geographic jurisdictions in order to care for it when the need arises, it is rarely, if ever, used, because canon law already provides for the administration of local Churches when the proper bishop is impeded.

Finally, to respond to Cavaradossi’s joke in the other thread, “if the Pope’s authority in any local diocese not his own is not proper, then is it IMproper?” No. The term that would be used in contradistinction to “proper” in this case is “extraordinary.”

I hope the foregoing explanation has helped readers in their understanding of Catholic ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Any bishop can say “No” to the Pope. I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I believe it is in your Canon Law, Canon 86 or 87 IIRC.

Any bishop, for the good of his flock, can dispense with any laws, even those established by the Supreme authority (it’s gotta be a sincere good of course, not some arbitrary whim).

A lot of times, bishops won’t say no, if they feel it would be against the Pope’s wishes. In such instances, the Pope’s authority is really on auctoritas, not potestas (in layman’s terms, auctoritas is authority by virtue of love or respect, while potestas is authority by virtue of law). The Pope’s authority is indeed indicated in our canon laws, but the ideal (as reflected in St. Paul’s teachings) is always that our adherence to the law should be borne of sincerity and free exercise, not one forced by mere obligation or fear.

Blessings,
Marduk.

The SSPX found out differently.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Misplaced Book,

The SSPX found out differently.

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre, as described by both his opponents and admirers was a classical NEO-ultramontanist, and that this is the official position of most, if not all, in the SSPX? The issue with the SSPX is not about the form of the Liturgy, but something more theologically fundamental.

Can you please explain the intent of your statement? Are you intending to defend neo-ultramontanism/the Absolutist Petrine view? Are you saying this position is a valid patristic viewpoint that does not deserve excommunication?

The Chaldean Patriarch Audu said “No” to Pope Pius IX at Vatican 1 (he refused to grant episcopal consecration to some priests nominated by the Pope). This was a “No” that spanned some ten years until Pope Pius IX’s death - and beyond - but he was never excommunicated or deposed…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Dear brother Misplaced Book,

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre, as described by both his opponents and admirers was a classical NEO-ultramontanist, and that this is the official position of most, if not all, in the SSPX? The issue with the SSPX is not about the form of the Liturgy, but something more theologically fundamental.

Can you please explain the intent of your statement? Are you intending to defend neo-ultramontanism/the Absolutist Petrine view? Are you saying this position is a valid patristic viewpoint that does not deserve excommunication?

The Chaldean Patriarch Audu said “No” to Pope Pius IX at Vatican 1 (he refused to grant episcopal consecration to some priests nominated by the Pope). This was a “No” that spanned some ten years until Pope Pius IX’s death - and beyond - but he was never excommunicated or deposed…

Blessings,
Marduk

My intention was to demonstrate that perhaps theoretically, a Bishop can refuse, say no or otherwise go against Rome for whatever reason…BUT the reality is quite different. It has been pointed out by others, and I will say it again…Ultramontanism is the rule in the Church at large. You can quote all of the documents and talk about what can be done in theory or how “it should be” but the fact is, the wide perception and actual practice in the Church is quite different. As an Orthodox, I’m interested in the Latin Church’s actual praxis. All the flowery words and Ecumenical conferences are irrelevant to that, if the reality on the ground doesn’t match up, which is often the case.

I choose not to have an opinion on the SSPX and their position within the Latin Church, although I will say that I respect them for their honesty and fidelity for the Traditional Latin Position, as unfriendly as that may be to us.

 

[Anthony86]

You can quote all of the documents and talk about what can be done in theory or how “it should be” but the fact is, the wide perception and actual practice in the Church is quite different.

Practice is open to reform, especially when it can be shown practice conflicts with sound doctrine.

mardukm, thank you for posting this thread. I think the distinction you make between Low, High and Absolutist interpretations of the Petrine primacy is helpful. Could you refer us to some Magisterial documents that show the Catholic Church holds the High, rather than the Absolutist position? It would be appreciated.

 

[SyroMalankara]

On the flip side, Eastern Orthodox (never once have I heard an Oriental claim this, to the extent that and EO has) say all bishops are equal in authority (from bishop to Ecumenical Patriarch), yet when push comes to shove, those in higher rank win - for example Bishop Jerome ROCOR-WR was “retired” without consent by Met. Hilarion’s request, signed by the MP Patriarch, sure it was “the Synod” who met - just as the Pope has his “advisors” (some select group or subset of Cardinals or the Curia) who meet for these things. Yet it’s much more rare for the Pope to act in this way, in practice, I’ve seen it more frequently among EO and OO - while EO say each bishop is equal and can’t be out-bishopped. Is there a major difference in being outdone by one Bishop in consult with his advisors (Latin Papal model) or a group of bishops advising each other, with their head (EO synodal model)? Not really.

 

[malphono]

Practice is open to reform, especially when it can be shown practice conflicts with sound doctrine.

That’s true for normal practice, but this is a rather special case since it involves the ultramontanist interpretation of Vatican I which has **never **been formally and officially clarified.

 

[Anthony86]

That’s true for normal practice, but this is a rather special case since it involves the ultramontanist interpretation of Vatican I which has **never **been formally and officially clarified.

I understand. Hence my question for Magisterial documents which show the High rather than the Absolutist interpretation is the Church’s teaching.

 

[AndyP2010]

My intention was to demonstrate that perhaps theoretically, a Bishop can refuse, say no or otherwise go against Rome for whatever reason…BUT the reality is quite different. It has been pointed out by others, and I will say it again…Ultramontanism is the rule in the Church at large. You can quote all of the documents and talk about what can be done in theory or how “it should be” but the fact is, the wide perception and actual practice in the Church is quite different. As an Orthodox, I’m interested in the Latin Church’s actual praxis. All the flowery words and Ecumenical conferences are irrelevant to that, if the reality on the ground doesn’t match up, which is often the case.

I choose not to have an opinion on the SSPX and their position within the Latin Church, although I will say that I respect them for their honesty and fidelity for the Traditional Latin Position, as unfriendly as that may be to us.

The SSPX isn’t claiming that the Pope lacks the authority over them. They are appealing to the higher authority of the “eternal Rome”. This “eR” tradition is higher than the Pope or any Council Ecumenical and they have made themselves the sole protectors and interpreters of it.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

On the flip side, Eastern Orthodox (never once have I heard an Oriental claim this, to the extent that and EO has) say all bishops are equal in authority (from bishop to Ecumenical Patriarch), yet when push comes to shove, those in higher rank win - for example Bishop Jerome ROCOR-WR was “retired” without consent by Met. Hilarion’s request, signed by the MP Patriarch, sure it was “the Synod” who met - just as the Pope has his “advisors” (some select group or subset of Cardinals or the Curia) who meet for these things. Yet it’s much more rare for the Pope to act in this way, in practice, I’ve seen it more frequently among EO and OO - while EO say each bishop is equal and can’t be out-bishopped. Is there a major difference in being outdone by one Bishop in consult with his advisors (Latin Papal model) or a group of bishops advising each other, with their head (EO synodal model)? Not really.

Oh there is a difference. This focus on collegiality is very new in the Latin Church. The Papal Tiara and Supremacy of the Pope still lies underneath. A Pope can depose a bishop at will and is above Canon Law. Just because the Pope doesn’t wear the Papal Tiara any more doesn’t mean he still can’t put it back on…The Pope has these powers and “doesnt use them”…We reject the idea that he has them at all.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The SSPX isn’t claiming that the Pope lacks the authority over them. They are appealing to the higher authority of the “eternal Rome”. This “eR” tradition is higher than the Pope or any Council Ecumenical and they have made themselves the sole protectors and interpreters of it.

Which itself is confused and eyebrow raising.

 

[Anthony86]

Which itself is confused and eyebrow raising.

It seems ‘Eternal Rome’ is effectively a sort of synonym (or pseudonym) for Holy Tradition. The SSPX is thus invoking Tradition against the recent popes and (most of) the bishops. An interesting development in Latin Traditionalism.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

It seems ‘Eternal Rome’ is effectively a sort of synonym (or pseudonym) for Holy Tradition. The SSPX is thus invoking Tradition against the recent popes and (most of) the bishops. An interesting development in Latin Traditionalism.

Which raises the interesting question of how to get rid of a bad Pope. Latter day Catholic teaching says a Pope is above the Canons and Ecumenical Councils (even though the Anathema against Honorius and Council of Constance says otherwise)

 

[tdgesq]

Honorius was already dead when he was anathematized, so that doesn’t really do with deposing bad Popes.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Honorius was already dead when he was anathematized, so that doesn’t really do with deposing bad Popes.

I was referring to the idea that a Pope is not subject to an Ecumenical Council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Misplaced Book,

My intention was to demonstrate that perhaps theoretically, a Bishop can refuse, say no or otherwise go against Rome for whatever reason…BUT the reality is quite different.

Thanks for explaining your point. My intention was that the example you gave does not actually go to the point (and I have yet to see a single historical instance that could actually prove your point). The excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre and his group came about not because they said “no” to the Pope, but because of a long drawn out set of circumstances wherein he disobeyed several orthodox Church authorities before it finally came to the Pope’s attention (this is what normally happened in the history of the undivided Church in the patristic age).

Furthermore, to repeat, the issue with the SSPX is not the form of the Liturgy (the Tridentine form was never abrogated to begin with; only that its use was severely limited). The whole issue with Abp Fellay and his group was his heterodox NEO-ultramontanist ecclesiology (particularly: (1) rejection of collegiality; (2) support for absolute papal supremacy; (3) refusal to recognize that there can be Christians properly so-called outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church).

In any case, this incident involves a matter within the Latin Patriarchate, not an Oriental or Eastern Catholic Church.

In order to prove your point, one must provide an incident that meets all of the following conditions:
(1) It involves an Oriental or Eastern Catholic hierarch, not a Latin hierarch;
(2) It involves saying “No” to a UNILATERAL decision by the Pope - i.e., not one borne of an appeal to the Pope.
(3) It involves a situation wherein no other bishop is in agreement with the Pope of Rome on the matter.

It has been pointed out by others, and I will say it again…Ultramontanism is the rule in the Church at large.

Those others have not given a single instance in the history of the Church that meets the conditions outlined above.

You can quote all of the documents and talk about what can be done in theory or how “it should be” but the fact is, the wide perception and actual practice in the Church is quite different.

Agreed. I hope you will agree that we need to change this perception that the Pope is an absolute ruler of the Church.

As an Orthodox, I’m interested in the Latin Church’s actual praxis. All the flowery words and Ecumenical conferences are irrelevant to that, if the reality on the ground doesn’t match up, which is often the case.

What the Church of Antioch in the EO communion did (relatively recently) with regards to making all its bishops under a metropolitan mere auxiliary bishops is more to the point you are making than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Catholic communion.

I choose not to have an opinion on the SSPX and their position within the Latin Church, although I will say that I respect them for their honesty and fidelity for the Traditional Latin Position, as unfriendly as that may be to us.

I respect their traditionalism as well. But their absolutist Petrine/neo-ultramontanist position is not the Tradition of the Latin Church (much less the Catholic Church as a whole). I would hope you would agree with the High Petrine advocates in the Catholic Church on that point.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh there is a difference. This focus on collegiality is very new in the Latin Church.

No, it’s not. If you’ve ever studied Latin Church history, you might realize that the Pope was under the thumb of the College of Cardinals for most of the High Middle Ages. Catholic historians will often relate a particular incident as “the Pope did…” That’s just a shortcut way of saying that whatever was promulgated was promulgated with the personal authority of the Pope, but there’s a whole set of collegial actions that led up to that promulgation in the first place.

A Pope can depose a bishop at will

Prove it.

and is above Canon Law.

Prove it. There’s a conceptual difference between popular (mis)conception and what the Church formally teaches. There’s also a conceptual difference, admittedly, between what the Church formally teaches, and what has occurred in its history. The reality is probably somewhere between the two.

The Pope has these powers and “doesnt use them”…We reject the idea that he has them at all.

I’ll agree to that. But I would add that what these powers exactly are is more likely the result of popular imagination, rather than what the Church actually teaches on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I was referring to the idea that a Pope is not subject to an Ecumenical Council.

Of course he is subject to an Ecumenical Council, because he is an inherent member of an Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Mardukm,

Are you saying the Pope DOESN’T have the power to remove any bishop anywhere?

So Canon 28 elevating Constantinople in authority is accepted by Rome?

 

[mardukm]

I need to be off for a few days. Brother Misplaced Book, I will respond when I return. Brother Anthony, I will provide the Magisterial sources at that time.

Blessings,
Marduk