THe Popes Jurisdiction

[Gregory_I]

Does the Pope have PROPER Jurisdiction over any diocese other than his own? From what I understand, any Ordinary Can posses different types of Jurisdiction.

A Bishop has Ordinary, Proper and immediate jurisdiction over his own diocese.

An Archbishop has the Same over his own Archdiocese, But only Ordinary Jurisdiction over those dioceses(?) that come under his care. For example, The Archbishop of Los Angeles has only Ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop of the Diocese of Orange. But it is neither immediate (from God) or proper (pertaining to the actual running and administration of the diocese), because these offices were created by the church, and not Christ.

For Metropolitans, Catholicii and Patriarchs it would be the same in ascendency.

The Pope however DOES have Full, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all the diocese of the world, HOWEVER, his PROPER jurisdiction is LIMITED to the city of Rome. SO, He does have authority From Christ as Ordinary over all the churches of the Catholic Church.

But lets clear the terms a little more. An ordinary is a hierarch whose power of jurisdiction is INHERENT to his Office, and not mediate. So, the popes authority over the other Bishops of the world is inherent to his office, and is given by Christ, but it does not mean he can arbitrarily take control and direction of any particular Catholic church. That DOES NOT LIE WITHIN HIS POWER.

Do I understand this correctly?

SO, is the Pope the PROPER Ordinary of ANY see besides his own?

 

[JReducation]

Does the Pope have PROPER Jurisdiction over any diocese other than his own? From what I understand, any Ordinary Can posses different types of Jurisdiction.

A Bishop has Ordinary, Proper and immediate jurisdiction over his own diocese.

An Archbishop has the Same over his own Archdiocese, But only Ordinary Jurisdiction over those dioceses(?) that come under his care. For example, The Archbishop of Los Angeles has only Ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop of the Diocese of Orange. But it is neither immediate (from God) or proper (pertaining to the actual running and administration of the diocese), because these offices were created by the church, and not Christ.

For Metropolitans, Catholicii and Patriarchs it would be the same in ascendency.

The Pope however DOES have Full, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all the diocese of the world, HOWEVER, his PROPER jurisdiction is LIMITED to the city of Rome. SO, He does have authority From Christ as Ordinary over all the churches of the Catholic Church.

But lets clear the terms a little more. An ordinary is a hierarch whose power of jurisdiction is INHERENT to his Office, and not mediate. So, the popes authority over the other Bishops of the world is inherent to his office, and is given by Christ, but it does not mean he can arbitrarily take control and direction of any particular Catholic church. That DOES NOT LIE WITHIN HIS POWER.

Do I understand this correctly?

SO, is the Pope the PROPER Ordinary of ANY see besides his own?

The pope does have ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every diocese in the Church. He chooses not to use it. That’s his choice. He governs in communion with the bishops. Observe that no one may be ordained a bishop without his consent and no bishop may take posession of a diocese without a papal appointment. He can install and remove bishops at will without justifying it. This is an exercise of immediate jurisdiction. Once a bishop breaks communion with the pope, through some serious infraction, the diocese reverts to the care of the pope until a new Ordinary can be found. The same happens when a bishop retires or dies and the chair is empty. The pope enjoys full jurisdiction in that diocese.

A good way to show this is through faculties. The pontiff has faculties to hear absolve, witness marriges and preach in every diocese in all 23 Catholic Churches. No one can deny him faculties. It’s rather interesting, becaues he can actually witness marriages in the USA, even though he does not live here. The states grant license to the Church, not the individual deacons and priests. The Church then vouches for those who make use of that license to act as justices of the peace for the state. Legally, the pope can witness a marraige in the USA and it is legal within the Church and the state, because he is part of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

And this may be a rather stupid unrelated question - are there still couples in the world that still ask the Pope to marry them - heads of state, etc?

 

[stephe1987]

The state “grants” license to the Church? So much for separation between church and state. It’s good to know that the state has control over the churches and so kindly chooses to let the people worship, at least for now… maybe someday the evangelical atheists will win and religion will abolished for being “discriminatory” just like Soviet Russia.

YIKES!

 

[Gregory_I]

Ecclesiologically speaking, “immediate” does not mean “unlimited, or Free to act presently.”

It is not a descriptor of when the authority can be excercised, but from whom does the authority stem? Immediate jurisdiction means that the Authority be excercised is directly from God.

SO a Bishop has Ordinary (THat is, powers in herent to his office as Bishop), Proper (THat is, direct control) and immediate (The power is GIven by God, since he established the office of Bishop) Jurisdiction over his Diocese.

That is why a Catholicos does not have immediate jurisdiction over a diocese in his Catholicate. The rank “Catholicos” was not given by Christ, but instituted by the Church.

 

[JReducation]

The state “grants” license to the Church? So much for separation between church and state. It’s good to know that the state has control over the churches and so kindly chooses to let the people worship, at least for now… maybe someday the evangelical atheists will win and religion will abolished for being “discriminatory” just like Soviet Russia.

YIKES!

In the USA, yes. Most states grant license to the Church to perform marriages. That’s why you don’t need to go before a justice of the peace to marry. In many countries you must go through two weddings, a civil and an ecclesial. You can’'t get the ecclesial until you have been married by the state.

In most states in the USA, you simply get a marriage license. The deacon, piest, bishop or whomever the bishop delegates witnesses the wedding and signs the marriage license. He has 10 days to submit it to the state. If you ever get a copy of your marriage license from the state, after you’ve been married, you will notice that it has the signature of the clergyman, rabbi or Muslim cleric who witnessed the marriage, not the signature of a civil servant.

You apply for your license. When you pick it up, there are blanks for the date, place and signature. Those are filled in by the religious authority who “perform” the marriage. The state uses the term “perform”.

I don’t get your point. Evangelical Protestantism is not atheist, for one. Second, the state has no control over religion. It’s simply streamlining the process, because we inherited our system from the British. In England all marraiges were performed by the Church. Long before we were independent, we had clergymen witnessing marriages. Since there is not federal recognition of marriage, it’s a state issue, each state handles it its own way. For the most part, the states in this country never recinded the right of religious leaders to witness marriages, whether they were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. As long as either the person or the istitution is registered with the state it can act in place of the state. In most states, the religious repersentative is also the representative of the state.

The reverse is also true. In the Catholic Church, you may not apply for a decree of nullity, until you have been divorced. If you don’t have a decree of divorce, the Church assumes that you are validly married, even if you’re not sacramentally married. The Church will not touch your request for an anullment hearing.

There are other countries that that have similar arrangements. I believe some of them are: UK, Canada, Philippines, Columbia, Malta, Italy and many of the Middle Eastern countries. The problem is that some countries do not have reciprocity. If you marry in some countries, the marriage has to be recorded at the embassy of the USA for validity in the USA.

Before I was a relgious, I was married. I married in Bath, England, UK. I was married by a priest. I did not have to go through the embassy of the USA or through the British Ministry. The priest simply had to file the papers with the British government. I then brought my copy of the certificate of marriage to the USA and it worked fine here. When my wife died, there was not question as to marital assets and all the other stuff that you have to show when a spouse dies. I just showed by British marriage certificate and that’s was it.

The same thing happens with birth certificates. It was only in the 20th century when you had to register your births and miscarriages. Prior to that, a baptismal certificate was accepted as a birth certificate. The states granted the Catholic Church authority to certify your birth. With that you could get your passport and claim all of your rights of citizenship. That’s how many Jewish people got out of harms way in Europe. The religious forged baptismal certificates. They passed as natural born Christians across borders. It was always understood that the Churches kept the best records in the world. That’s why most geneologists go for baptismal records. If you’re over a certain age, you probably never had a civil birth certifical. I guess most of those people are now dead. We’re talking up to about WW II.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t see what the Soviet Union has to do with anything. It no longer exists.

 

[JReducation]

Ecclesiologically speaking, “immediate” does not mean “unlimited, or Free to act presently.”

It is not a descriptor of when the authority can be excercised, but from whom does the authority stem? Immediate jurisdiction means that the Authority be excercised is directly from God.

SO a Bishop has Ordinary (THat is, powers in herent to his office as Bishop), Proper (THat is, direct control) and immediate (The power is GIven by God, since he established the office of Bishop) Jurisdiction over his Diocese.

That is why a Catholicos does not have immediate jurisdiction over a diocese in his Catholicate. The rank “Catholicos” was not given by Christ, but instituted by the Church.

But Church law gives the Pontiff the same right over any diocese as the local bishop. He does not make use of them. What for? That’s why he appoints a bishop.

Christ gives the bishop the episcopal state, not the jurisdiction over the diocese. That’s granted by the ecclesial authority. That why not all bishops are ordinaries. For example, an auciliary bishop is not an ordinary, but he is a bishop. However, he has no rights, except those given to him by the ordinary of the diocese or by the pope.

The principle is that the pope can grant those rights, because they are his to grant. Even the Patriarchs govern with the consent of the pope. The Oriental Patriarchs have a very unique tradition that the papacy respects. That is their autonomy. But it’s ot an autonomy granted by Christ. It’s granted by tradition. What is granted by Christ is the sacrament…

In fact, yes the pope has limitless powers over every diocese in the Church. In practice, this is not the case, because that has not been the tradition.

There is another point, which may be what you’re referring to and what other people do not know. “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.” Many people believe that the pope can just run rough shot over every bishop. That’s never been done, even though he can do so. Popes have always respected the autonomy of bishops. I believe that in Roman Church there has been an even greater distance between the pope and bishops than there is between the Patriarchs and thier bishops in the Oriental Churches. That would actually make sense, since these are much smaller.

Most Catholics, especially Romans, are not aware of the tradition and they assume that because a pope can pull the rug from under a bishop that he will do so. Ain’t gonna happen, as they saying goes. There is too much tradition involved. At best, what a pope does is to remove a bishop, not micromanage them. The same tradition holds true for other ordinaries who are not bishops, specifically abbots and major superiors of men. No pope is going to pull the rug out from under them. Pope do not micromanage ordinaries, even if they can. Just because you can, does not mean that you should do it. In fact, it’s done molre often today than it has ever been done. It’s even rare today. It’s called the principle of subsidiarity. Let each local Church solve its own problems. It’s not the pope’s job to solve the Church’s problems. He rules the macro, not the micro. Not because he can’t, but because it’s not tradition to do so. Is that what you’re referring to?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

But Church law gives the Pontiff the same right over any diocese as the local bishop. He does not make use of them. What for? That’s why he appoints a bishop.

Christ gives the bishop the episcopal state, not the jurisdiction over the diocese. That’s granted by the ecclesial authority. That why not all bishops are ordinaries. For example, an auciliary bishop is not an ordinary, but he is a bishop. However, he has no rights, except those given to him by the ordinary of the diocese or by the pope.

The principle is that the pope can grant those rights, because they are his to grant. Even the Patriarchs govern with the consent of the pope. The Oriental Patriarchs have a very unique tradition that the papacy respects. That is their autonomy. But it’s ot an autonomy granted by Christ. It’s granted by tradition. What is granted by Christ is the sacrament…

In fact, yes the pope has limitless powers over every diocese in the Church. In practice, this is not the case, because that has not been the tradition.

There is another point, which may be what you’re referring to and what other people do not know. “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.” Many people believe that the pope can just run rough shot over every bishop. That’s never been done, even though he can do so. Popes have always respected the autonomy of bishops. I believe that in Roman Church there has been an even greater distance between the pope and bishops than there is between the Patriarchs and thier bishops in the Oriental Churches. That would actually make sense, since these are much smaller.

Most Catholics, especially Romans, are not aware of the tradition and they assume that because a pope can pull the rug from under a bishop that he will do so. Ain’t gonna happen, as they saying goes. There is too much tradition involved. At best, what a pope does is to remove a bishop, not micromanage them. The same tradition holds true for other ordinaries who are not bishops, specifically abbots and major superiors of men. No pope is going to pull the rug out from under them. Pope do not micromanage ordinaries, even if they can. Just because you can, does not mean that you should do it. In fact, it’s done molre often today than it has ever been done. It’s even rare today. It’s called the principle of subsidiarity. Let each local Church solve its own problems. It’s not the pope’s job to solve the Church’s problems. He rules the macro, not the micro. Not because he can’t, but because it’s not tradition to do so. Is that what you’re referring to?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This reminds me of a Question and Answer session Cardinal Arinze once gave. A man (I believe an American) asked what should be done about these politicians who continued to give politicians Eucharist that supported abortion.

Cardinal Arinze gave a two part answer:

1. The first part was a very theological answer that made a lot of sense: He said that if you go to a first communicant who is seven or eight years old and ask them if it is OK for a Catholic who votes to kill little unborn babies not just in the ones but in the millions to take communion they will surely give you the correct answer. Why do you need a theologian for Rome to tell you this?
2. The second part of his answer was a bit tongue in cheek but relates directly back to what I believe you are saying and he said: “What would you like us to do send 12 Swiss Guards out to round them all up?”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JREducation,

Just about everything you’ve written here has been written in view of the Latin Church, not the Church as a whole.

Observe that no one may be ordained a bishop without his consent

True.

and no bishop may take posession of a diocese without a papal appointment.

Not true. Canonical provision for a bishop of a patriarchal or a major archepiscopal Church sui juris is provided by the Patriarch or major archbishop, not the Pope, regardless of whether that bishop is within or outside the traditional Patriarchal or major archepiscopal territory.

He can install and remove bishops at will without justifying it.

Absolutely not true. Can you please point to the canon or statute that allows for this?

This is an exercise of immediate jurisdiction. Once a bishop breaks communion with the pope, through some serious infraction, the diocese reverts to the care of the pope until a new Ordinary can be found. The same happens when a bishop retires or dies and the chair is empty. The pope enjoys full jurisdiction in that diocese.

Your statements indicate that you don’t recognize the ordinary jurisdiction of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and other head bishops in the Church. An eparchy within a sui juris Church that loses its bishop comes under the proper, immediate and ordinary care of the head bishop within that sui juris Church, unless the particular law of that sui juris Church provides otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JReducation]

Dear brother JREducation,

Just about everything you’ve written here has been written in view of the Latin Church, not the Church as a whole.

True.

Not true. Canonical provision for a bishop of a patriarchal or a major archepiscopal Church sui juris is provided by the Patriarch or major archbishop, not the Pope, regardless of whether that bishop is within or outside the traditional Patriarchal or major archepiscopal territory.

Absolutely not true. Can you please point to the canon or statute that allows for this?

Your statements indicate that you don’t recognize the ordinary jurisdiction of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and other head bishops in the Church. An eparchy within a sui juris Church that loses its bishop comes under the proper, immediate and ordinary care of the head bishop within that sui juris Church, unless the particular law of that sui juris Church provides otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

Either I did not say it clearly enough or you may have missed the point that I made when I said that the Oriental Churches have a very different situation, because they are sui iuris. Yes, I’m speaking from a Roman perspective.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

Either I did not say it clearly enough or you may have missed the point that I made when I said that the Oriental Churches have a very different situation, because they are sui iuris. Yes, I’m speaking from a Roman perspective.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No, you wrote very clearly about sui juris - I think someone did not read the whole post - I also think that M**duk (mods missed this one) missed what was said about just because he can does not mean he should.

 

[JReducation]

This reminds me of a Question and Answer session Cardinal Arinze once gave. A man (I believe an American) asked what should be done about these politicians who continued to give politicians Eucharist that supported abortion.

Cardinal Arinze gave a two part answer:

1. The first part was a very theological answer that made a lot of sense: He said that if you go to a first communicant who is seven or eight years old and ask them if it is OK for a Catholic who votes to kill little unborn babies not just in the ones but in the millions to take communion they will surely give you the correct answer. Why do you need a theologian for Rome to tell you this?
2. The second part of his answer was a bit tongue in cheek but relates directly back to what I believe you are saying and he said: “What would you like us to do send 12 Swiss Guards out to round them all up?”

I saw that interview on Youtube and I loved that answer too. Sometimes, we human beings are not very realistic or practical. That’s what Cardinal Arinze means when he asks if we want them to send 12 Swiss Guards. He’s telling his audience, “Be practical here. Problems get resolved slowly.”

I can’t recall the last time that the pope pulled the rug out from under a bishop who was an Ordinary. Could there have been cases during the whole crisis with Henry VIII? I can’t think of another major event that would have warranted such an action. Pulling a bishop from his see is no small matter.

**Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed offer some particular church or a community equivalent to it according to the norm of ⇒ can. 368 as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The term freely is very important. He does not have to justify himself.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.**

Canon 333 is very important in defining the power of the pope over local dioceses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, this is what you’re not getting I think. Let’;s read that canon again:

**Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care./B]

Ok, but notice, the Popes authority over any diocese other than his own is NOT PROPER, ecclesiologically speaking. HE is not steering the diocese of fresno say, and IT IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO.

None of these canons say the Pope has PROPER jurisdiction outside his own see.

He has Ordinary, immediate, supreme and universal authority that can always be excercised freely, yes, but those terms have specific ecclesiological definitions that have been set forth clearly.

Once again, Ordinary jurisdiction is power that is INHERENT to the office. EVERY Bishop BY RIGHT has jurisdiction of his own particular see. If this was not true, then why are auxillary Bishops granted titular sees? It is because the Church recognizes that there is no such thing as a bishop without a see.

Again, IMMEDIATE Jurisdiction is jurisdiction that is granted by Christ himself. ALL BISHOPS POSSES IMMEDIATE JURISDICTION over their particular sees, even titular ones, in theory, if they were to exist. That is because the office of Bishop as established by Christ has inherent jurisdiction.

Even a mitred Abbot , which is basically a Personal ordinariate for a religious community has proper jurisdiction over the persons entrusted to his care (i.e. the Norbertines).

Proper Jurisdiction is the Jurisdiction belonging by right to those Bishops who oversee their own particular diocese.

Now, an Archbishop does have Ordinary Jurisdiction Over his archdiocese, and all diocese that belong to it. But he does not have Proper Jurisdiction over those individual Diocese, even though he is considered an Ordinary for Them. Likewise a Patriarch does have Ordinary Jurisdiction over all diocese in his territory, but he does Not have Proper Jurisdiction. The limits of this authority are defined by the Church.

Also, his Authority over these diocese , while Ordinary, is not immediate, because Christ did not establish Archbishops and Patriarchs.

NOw, The POPE has Authority over all the Diocese of the whole Church. Just Like Patriarchs and Archbishops. But his Authority, as such, is IMMEDIATE, that is Christ told Peter to govern the whole Church. BUT HE DIDN"T TELL HIM HOW.
Which means at least some of the Popes privileges must be determined by an ecumenical council, or by some local council ratified by an ecumenical council, like Sardica.

SUpreme and full simply means that the Authority he has is An authority no one else can have: it is supreme; and full simply means that what other Bishops have in part (Territories of Jurisdiction) he has In full (Universal jurisdiction).

BUT DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER SEE PROPERLY?

Actually, can we say the Papacy is a Personal Ordinariate, since his jurisdiction extends to all people of all territories? This may also resolve some tensions as to who holds the territory issues… no?**

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for explaining what you’re trying to say.

BUT DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER SEE PROPERLY?

I’m not a canon lawyer. But I’ll take a guess here and say that he does, if he wished to do so, by virtue of his office as Pontiff. I don’t think that it has ever been done, to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, can we say the Papacy is a Personal Ordinariate, since his jurisdiction extends to all people of all territories? This may also resolve some tensions as to who holds the territory issues… no?

That’s an interesting concept. The answer is best left to a canonist, lest we mislead others by speaking out of our pay grade.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gregory_I]

THanks for your charity in the face of my passion. You’re a good Franciscan!

 

[mardukm]

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The term freely is very important. He does not have to justify himself.

I’m afraid you have interpreted “freely” in a wrong manner. “Freely” does not mean that he does not have to justify himself. It simply means that he is uncoerced - that his actions are done volitionally. Please read this for further clarification: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6598593&postcount=32

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

Canon 333 is very important in defining the power of the pope over local dioceses.
Yes. It demonstrates that canonically speaking, he must respect their jurisdiction, and cannot act in any way that would demean that jurisdiction. But in truth, this is not just a merely canonical imperative placed on the Pope. It is actually a theological imperative. The second sentence of the above canon you quoted is from the Dogmatic Decree on the Primacy from Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

But I’ll take a guess here and say that he does, if he wished to do so, by virtue of his office as Pontiff. I don’t think that it has ever been done, to the best of my knowledge.

He has proper jurisdiction only in those instances when a local eparchy/diocese loses its bishop, and that eparchy/diocese is not within an existing sui juris Church.

He can have proper jurisdiction in a local eparchy/diocese within a sui juris Church if that local eparchy/diocese happens to lose not only its bishop, but also the head bishop of the sui juris Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JReducation]

I’m afraid you have interpreted “freely” in a wrong manner. “Freely” does not mean that he does not have to justify himself. It simply means that he is uncoerced - that his actions are done volitionally. Please read this for further clarification: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6598593&postcount=32

Yes. It demonstrates that canonically speaking, he must respect their jurisdiction, and cannot act in any way that would demean that jurisdiction. But in truth, this is not just a merely canonical imperative placed on the Pope. It is actually a theological imperative. The second sentence of the above canon you quoted is from the Dogmatic Decree on the Primacy from Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk

Allow me to ask a question at this point. What’s in it for the posters who come here to limit the power of the papacy over dioceses? Does it add anything to their life of faith? Does it enrich their life of prayer? Does it stear them away from sin and closer to the perfection of charity?

I’m asking, because I often find that many of these threads don’t really nurture the spiritual life. When the rubber meets the road, the call is to holiness. If one is just out to “dethrone” the papacy, that certainly works against the call to holiness. If one is simply out to kill time, that’s OK too. Entertainment can be a good thing. But we should then be open and tell people that this is just a “fun” question, not really something pertinent to holiness.

We have to show how something is either necessary for holiness or necessary for relaxation and entertainment, which can help us be holier people. I believe that stressed out Christians are not always very holy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

THanks for your charity in the face of my passion. You’re a good Franciscan!

Just pray for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mardukm]

Allow me to ask a question at this point. What’s in it for the posters who come here to limit the power of the papacy over dioceses? Does it add anything to their life of faith? Does it enrich their life of prayer? Does it stear them away from sin and closer to the perfection of charity?

I’m asking, because I often find that many of these threads don’t really nurture the spiritual life. When the rubber meets the road, the call is to holiness. If one is just out to “dethrone” the papacy, that certainly works against the call to holiness. If one is simply out to kill time, that’s OK too. Entertainment can be a good thing. But we should then be open and tell people that this is just a “fun” question, not really something pertinent to holiness.

We have to show how something is either necessary for holiness or necessary for relaxation and entertainment, which can help us be holier people. I believe that stressed out Christians are not always very holy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I believe the Truth is a holy thing. Your presentation of the papacy has not been altogether true (perhaps unintentionally). The papacy as you present it is a partial cause of the continuing schism with the Orthodox Churches. Unity is also a holy thing, and working for unity by presenting the Truth is necessary according to Jesus’ commandment.

Blessings,
Marduk