THe Popes Jurisdiction

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andreas,

This is why I earlier used scare quotes for the “absolutist view.” Though the position I read out of the texts is very similar to that you have in mind, mine is limited by the Thomistic understanding of law. This implies that his legal authority can only be exercised for the common good and that unjust commands can be resisted. The doctrine of disciplinary infalliblity means that a law imposed upon the whole Church cannot enjoin anything intrinsically evil, but that does not protect less universal rulings.

To be honest, this is really beside the point. I brought this up merely to challenge your idea that the jurisdictional power of the Pope is absolute. But the original point of our discussion was whether the Pope can make a universal law without the involvement of his brother bishops. I don’t believe he can. He can do so if by some fantastic circumstance all the bishops of the world were impeded, but on a matter that involves the entire Church, the Church has always and normatively acted in a collegial manner.

How does this relate to the pope’s canonical ability to grant any priest universal faculties,

I’m not aware that such a canonical prerogative exists. Can you please cite the canon? Such a circumstance is only possible if there were no other bishops in the world. But the Holy Spirit preserves the very government of the Church established by Christ, so there will never be an occasion when the Pope is the only bishop left. In that light, the proper ordinary of a priest in a local diocese/eparchy is the only one who can grant him faculties, not the Pope.

and the ability of faithful to approach priests of any rite for the sacrament?

I don’t see how this is relevant to the present issue. Such a person would have to be in the parochial jurisdiction of that non-Latin priest in order for that priest to be able to hear his or her confession, correct?

The argument there is rather straightforward and, admittedly, taken over from St. Robert who is largely following St. Thomas. God constituted the Church according to the best form of government, and that is monarchy, both because it is the divine form of government and because it is most efficient of the good. The collegiality of bishops constitutes an admixture to this monarchy of aristocracy, whereby bishops are true but subordinate rulers, and democracy, because all men are capable of becoming bishops. The form remains essentially, however, monarchical. That’s just what those two Latin doctors have taught.

That the Church is a monarchy is a dated theory, but nothing more. I have not seen the word “monarchy” used to describe the constitution of the Church in any magisterial document. We see the words “hierarchical” and “collegial” but never “monarchical.” Not even V1 used the word “monarchy.” I could accept the descriptive “quasi-monarchy,” but never “monarchy.”

A priest is incapable of validly conferring confirmation without faculties. A priest is incapable of validly absolving without faculties. Call it what you will, the cases function in parallel. It is not a power that can be exercised validly but illicitly without episcopal approval; rather, it is one that cannot be exercised at all without such.

We might be saying the same thing, but with different words.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m not aware that such a canonical prerogative exists. Can you please cite the canon? Such a circumstance is only possible if there were no other bishops in the world. But the Holy Spirit preserves the very government of the Church established by Christ, so there will never be an occasion when the Pope is the only bishop left. In that light, the proper ordinary of a priest in a local diocese/eparchy is the only one who can grant him faculties, not the Pope.

I’m thinking historically - the mendicant controversy. At issue were, among other things, the many exemptions and papal privileges of the mendicants, included among them the papal grant of faculties to hear confession which removed them from the oversight of local ordinaries, to their great chagrin.

We have, however, begun to descend into details that obscure our view of the larger picture. As you’ve pointed out, the decree on primacy is sufficiently vague that both sides of this debate can claim its support, and since we agree as to how the Church ought to be governed, the controversy over the limits of how it might possibly be governed may have run its course.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andreas,

I’m thinking historically - the mendicant controversy. At issue were, among other things, the many exemptions and papal privileges of the mendicants, included among them the papal grant of faculties to hear confession which removed them from the oversight of local ordinaries, to their great chagrin.

I thought the mendicant orders were originally apostolic (not episcopal) societies to begin with. Weren’t they always under the direct omophor of the Pope? I’m open to correction, but otherwise, your appeal to the mendicant controversy would not seem to support your position.

We have, however, begun to descend into details that obscure our view of the larger picture. As you’ve pointed out, the decree on primacy is sufficiently vague that both sides of this debate can claim its support, and since we agree as to how the Church ought to be governed, the controversy over the limits of how it might possibly be governed may have run its course.

Good enough. However, I feel it needs to be said that the Absolutist Petrine advocates are making it more difficult to achieve reunion with our Orthodox brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not sure I understand. Are Catholic bishops not consecrated as ruling bishops of a diocese? Can they be transfered from diocese to diocese?

Yes, that is normal.

… what you say is a matter of ecclesiastical law and subject to change. If there was a new code for eastern Churches in 20 years, this could all change.

What you state is correct, and it is the bishop of the city of Rome who approves the changes.

…but the way a previous poster made it seem Catholic bishops are consecrated and then the pope places them in a diocese. Almost as if the pope simply plugs bishops in wherever he sees fit and that they have no inherent connection to the diocese they rule.

It was not alwways like that, even in the west.

In fact, in the Roman Catholic church of the west it was normal for the local synod to choose it’s own bishops, and consecrate them.

No longer.

In Orthodoxy the episcopal candidate is elected by the holy synod as bishop of lets say Atlanta. The candidate is then consecrated bishop of Atlanta and that is his diocese, he is the ruling bishop of Atlanta and he cannot be removed from that diocese without his consent except for heresy or canonical violations.

Am I misreading the Catholic position?

In the Roman Catholic church, the bishop of Rome erects dioceses, and suppresses them on his own authority.

He names the bishops to the dioceses, elevates them, removes them as he sees fit. The See at Rome has full responsibility for the quality of the bishops of the western RC church, as it vet’s the candidates and chooses what is considered the most suitable for it’s purposes.

The See at Rome has the right to do this for every eastern Catholic church outside of it’s homeland if it should so choose, and the See at Rome delineates the home territory of each EC on it’s own authority. The See at Rome composes and codifies the canons of the CCEO on it’s own authority. The eastern Catholic churches are bound to follow the CCEO promulgated for them by the bishop of the See at Rome.

There is no recourse to the judgement of the bishop of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

What you state is correct, and it is the bishop of the city of Rome who approves the changes.

Each sui juris Church is competent to make its own particular law. On an inter-Church matter, the Pope must naturally get involved as protos, and he approves the laws made by these Churches for these Churches according to Apostolic Canon 34/35.

It was not alwways like that, even in the west.

In fact, in the Roman Catholic church of the west it was normal for the local synod to choose it’s own bishops, and consecrate them.

No longer.

This circumstance developed in the West as a response to the investiture conflict and simony. It was directed against abuse of ecclesiastical authority. As long as there exists attempts by the secular power to control the Church, I doubt this will change anytime soon. The centralization of authority in the Latin Church is often seen as a diminution of the episcopal power, when in fact, its very purpose was to protect the episcopal power from the secular authorities. My only complaint against it is that the siege mentality of Rome transferred over to his relations with his fellow head bishops in East and Orient.

In the Roman Catholic church, the bishop of Rome erects dioceses, and suppresses them on his own authority.

FYI, it would take a lot for a diocese to be supressed once it is erected. That is because a diocese/eparchy acquires its own juridic personality in the person of the local proper ordinary once it is formed, with all attendant rights according to Catholic law. The Pope cannot at will suppress a diocese/eparchy.

He names the bishops to the dioceses, elevates them, removes them as he sees fit. The See at Rome has full responsibility for the quality of the bishops of the western RC church, as it vet’s the candidates and chooses what is considered the most suitable for it’s purposes.

The bishop of Rome is only authoritized by God to act for the good of the Church (just like any other bishop). It is the Church’s needs that are paramount, not the Pope’s desires. I object to the insinuation of the phrases I highlighted from your comment.

The See at Rome has the right to do this for every eastern Catholic church outside of it’s homeland if it should so choose,

Wrong. The Pope has a right to do it not if he “should so choose,” but rather only if the needs of the Church require it.

and the See at Rome delineates the home territory of each EC on it’s own authority.

Actually, this is delineated by Tradition, not the Pope. The Pope just follows Tradition.

The See at Rome composes and codifies the canons of the CCEO on it’s own authority. The eastern Catholic churches are bound to follow the CCEO promulgated for them by the bishop of the See at Rome.

Actually, it is composed and codified collegially, though it is indeed promulgated on his own authority.

There is no recourse to the judgement of the bishop of Rome.

A statement which has no place in your discussion, since this only applies in the context of the Pope’s universal appellate authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[stephenthesixth]

Gentlemen:

Can someone explain to me HOW the lay people of the Church lost the power to elect and appoint their own bishops? Augustine wasn’t appointed by the bishop of Rome; nor did anyone in Rome “sign off” on Cyprian’s appointment. These are just two example from the early Church. Why do we, in New York, have to live with an appointment or sign off from someone thousands of miles away. How did this happen?