THe Popes Jurisdiction

[Gregory_I]

Byzcath, I never said I was addressing the 1983 code.

Matthew, what you are terming Ordinary Jurisdiction is PROPER Jurisdiction, and you are right, an Archbishop does not have proper Jurisdiction of any DIocese Other than his own,

but he IS Considered an Ordinary for both his see and the Suffragan see. But His power of Archepiscopal Jurisdiction is Mediate, not immediate (It is granted by the Church, not Christ) and Ordinary (Meaning inherent to his office as Archbishop).

I think what you are using as ordinary, is actually the term “proper”.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Byzcath, I never said I was addressing the 1983 code.

Matthew, what you are terming Ordinary Jurisdiction is PROPER Jurisdiction, and you are right, an Archbishop does not have proper Jurisdiction of any DIocese Other than his own,

but he IS Considered an Ordinary for both his see and the Suffragan see. But His power of Archepiscopal Jurisdiction is Mediate, not immediate (It is granted by the Church, not Christ) and Ordinary (Meaning inherent to his office as Archbishop).

I think what you are using as ordinary, is actually the term “proper”.

Would you please explain what you mean by proper jurisdiction. I am not sure if I have come across this term before in this context.

I am using the term ordinary is the sense that the jurisdiction comes ex officio with the office as opposed to vicarious where the authority is delegated by a higher ecclesiatical authority.

The Metropolitan’s authority within the ecclesiastical province is ordinary, i.e. it comes ex officio with the office; however, the extent of the jurisdiction is very limited. As I said in a previous post his main authority is to step in if things are going wrong in one of his suffragan sees. For example, the bishop is failing in his duty to carry out the canonical visitation of his diocese. However, if there are no issues in a suffragan diocese the metropolitan has no direct authority over the diocesan bishop. He does not even get to do this freely but he must inform the Holy See of the circumstances.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCath,

But it sort of is out of context when you attempt to use a commentary for the 1917 code on the 1983 code.

I believe we are talking about definitions. Definitions of the terms ordinary, immediate and proper are the same in the 1917 Code as it is in the 1983 code.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew,

I know but my post was in response to another description of the Latin Church. I am aware that the hierarchy in the Chaldean, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic Churches is different. I meant no slight to the Eastern Churches.

I know. You are a regular at the ECF, so I know you respect the Eastern and Oriental Churches. I write what I write for the benefit of others who may not know, especially since we are in the TCF.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew,

Would you please explain what you mean by proper jurisdiction. I am not sure if I have come across this term before in this context.

I am using the term ordinary is the sense that the jurisdiction comes ex officio with the office as opposed to vicarious where the authority is delegated by a higher ecclesiatical authority.

The canonical terms ordinary and proper mean the same thing - they both mean “inherent” as opposed to “delegated” or “vicarious.” The difference is that while ordinary refers to the nature of the office, proper refers to the use or exercise of the office. Proper applies to the one who has the regular/ usual/ day-to-day use of the power of jurisdiction, whereas ordinary applies to nature of the power of jurisdiction of the office.

For further explanation, let’s break it down according to territorial jurisdiction (at this point, the explanation is only for the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchal/ Major Archepiscopal Churches):
As far as a diocese or eparchy is concerned:
The Pope has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction;
The Patriarch/major archbishop/Catholicos/metropolitan has ordinary jurisdiction;
The bishop has immediate, ordinary and proper jurisdiction.
This means that the bishop and the bishop alone has the authority to manage the day-to-day affairs of the diocese or eparchy.

In a case where an eparchy or diocese is deprived of its bishop, the proper care of the eparchy or diocese (i.e., the day-to-day management and care of it) automatically devolves to the Metropolitan. If the Metropolitan happens to be missing or impeded, the proper care automatically devolves to the Major Archbishop or Patriarch. If the Patriarch happens to be missing or impeded, the proper care automatically devolves to the Pope. Note the use of the term “automatically” in the explanation just given. This denotes the ordinary (i.e. inherent) nature of the power of jurisdiction that head bishops have over a local diocese. Nevertheless, this does not mean they can regularly interfere in the affairs of a local diocese. So long as a local bishop is present for that diocese, he and he alone is the proper ordinary for that diocese.

As far as a metropolical or archdiocesan see is concerned:
The Pope has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction;
The Patriarch/major archbishop has ordinary jurisdiction;
The Metropolitan or archbishop has ordinary and proper jurisdiction.
A local bishop has no jurisdiction on this level.
This means is that the Metropolitan/Archbishop, and he alone, has the authority to exercise jurisdiction in matters that concern the entire metropolical See.

In a case where a metropolical/archdiocesan See is deprived of its Metropolitan/Archbishop, the proper care of the metropolical/archdiocesan See (i.e., the day-to-day management and care of it) automatically devolves to the Patriarch. If the Patriarch happens to be missing or impeded, the proper care automatically devolves to the Pope. Note the use of the term “automatically” in the explanation just given. This denotes the ordinary (i.e. inherent) nature of the power of jurisdiction that head bishops possess. Nevertheless, this does not mean they can regularly interfere in the affairs of a lesser territorial jurisdiction that possesses a proper ordinary.

The same considerations above apply to the Patriarchal/Major archepiscopal and papal/universal levels of jurisdiction. I just want to repeat one salient point - though a Patriarch/major archbishop has proper jurisdiction in a matter that involves the entire patriarchate/Major archepiscopal See, he does not have proper jurisdiction on matters that concern only local dioceses within his patriarchate/Majorarchepiscopal See. The rest can be deduced by the reader.

The Metropolitan’s authority within the ecclesiastical province is ordinary, i.e. it comes ex officio with the office; however, the extent of the jurisdiction is very limited. As I said in a previous post his main authority is to step in if things are going wrong in one of his suffragan sees. For example, the bishop is failing in his duty to carry out the canonical visitation of his diocese. However, if there are no issues in a suffragan diocese the metropolitan has no direct authority over the diocesan bishop. He does not even get to do this freely but he must inform the Holy See of the circumstances.

This might be the case in the Latin Catholic Church, but in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches, a Metropolitan’s authority is not only ordinary, but, insofar as it involves a matter that affects his entire Metropolitan See, it is also proper, as explained above.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think it does help.

Without any research, just of the top of my head, a similar example in the Latin Church might be the Diocesan Bishop and the Vicar General. The powers of both are ordinary. The law gives the Vicar General almost as much authority in administrative and executive powers as the Bishop. Basically, the law leaves it up to the Bishop to “rein him in” and decide those things the Vicar General can’t do. So, while both have ordinary jurisdiction only the Bishop has the proper jurisdiction to rule the diocese.

I know this is certainly not the best example. Treat me like a student answering his first question on a new topic. I hope this shows I’ve grasped the concept.

**

 

[Crusader90]

Dear brother JReducation,

I’m afraid you cannot appeal to the highlighted portion of brother ByzCath’s post to justify your position. You need to take that canon in the context from which it originated.

Canon 45 S3 comes from paragraph 5 of Chapter 3 regarding V1’s Decree on the Primacy. That paragraph concerns the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff as supreme judge. It is in the context of the appellate authority of the Pope that Canon 45 S3 comes to us. This means that there have been judgments by other tribunals, other head bishops, on which the Pope would base his final decision. He does not make such decisions in a vacuum, without the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops, much less that he does not need to explain his decision. In other words, Canon 45 S3 does not authorize the Pope to be able to make judgments out of the blue. Far from it.

One can also counter your position from other canons which indicate that acquired rights of juridical persons cannot be taken away except for just cause. A bishop’s territorial jurisdiction is an acquired right, and the Pope cannot take it away all of sudden without any need to justify his action (your position).

Blessings,
Marduk

These canons are found under the title “THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH” They don’t limit when he can use it. If the Pope didn’t approve of a patriarch’s disciplinary decision, the Pope has the power to overturn that decision. From what I understand, a patriarch appoints his own bishops (if I’m wrong please correct me). If the Pope didn’t like a patriarch’s decision of bishop, he could overturn the patriarch’s decision and the Pope could appoint the bishop himself. The Pope could even take away patriarchs’ power to appoint bishops, and could legislate that he alone can appoint bishops. The patriarchs’ are allowed to appoint bishops because the Pope has allowed them to. The Pope has “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” It can be discussed if it is prudent for the Pope to do this. The Pope cannot abuse his authority. But what is not up for discussion is whether the Pope has the authority and power to do these things. He, of course, has the authority and power to do so.

 

[joandarc2008]

These canons are found under the title “THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH” They don’t limit when he can use it. If the Pope didn’t approve of a patriarch’s disciplinary decision, the Pope has the power to overturn that decision. From what I understand, a patriarch appoints his own bishops (if I’m wrong please correct me). If the Pope didn’t like a patriarch’s decision of bishop, he could overturn the patriarch’s decision and the Pope could appoint the bishop himself. The Pope could even take away patriarchs’ power to appoint bishops, and could legislate that he alone can appoint bishops. The patriarchs’ are allowed to appoint bishops because the Pope has allowed them to. The Pope has “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” It can be discussed if it is prudent for the Pope to do this. The Pope cannot abuse his authority. But what is not up for discussion is whether the Pope has the authority and power to do these things. He, of course, has the authority and power to do so.

I am asking an honest question here because I don’t know - is this what happened with the SSPX?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

These canons are found under the title “THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH” They don’t limit when he can use it.

You appeal to the canon. I appeal to the dogmatic decree of Vatican 1. I daresay the dogma trumps your (mis)interpretation of the canon.

If the Pope didn’t approve of a patriarch’s disciplinary decision, the Pope has the power to overturn that decision.

Not exactly. The Pope’s approval is not the standard. The standard is divine and canon law. If a Patriarch is found to contradict these, then the Pope is authorized to intervene. But even then, it is by way of appeal. The proper court of jurisdiction on the patriarchal level is the Patriarchal Synod, not the Pope.

From what I understand, a patriarch appoints his own bishops (if I’m wrong please correct me). If the Pope didn’t like a patriarch’s decision of bishop, he could overturn the patriarch’s decision and the Pope could appoint the bishop himself.

Appointments are done in a collegial manner. The Patriarch appoints a bishop from a group of candidates proposed by the Synod. If the Pope does not like the decision, he can propose his own candidate. The Synod can choose to confirm it, but it also has the prerogative to reject the candidate. At that point, the selection process begins anew, and a new candidate is chosen from a group nominated by the Synod. The process continues until there is agreement. Agreement is the key, not unilateral imposition.

The Pope could even take away patriarchs’ power to appoint bishops, and could legislate that he alone can appoint bishops.

No he can’t. Please point to a canon law that states what you claim. “Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman Law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who ever said that the Roman Pontiff should govern the Church according to his sweet will, by his nod, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without the laws and canons?” (Bishop Freppel of Angers, a member of the Majority Party at V1)

The patriarchs’ are allowed to appoint bishops because the Pope has allowed them to.

No. We have our ecclesiastical constitution by the will of the Supreme Authority of the Church, not the Pope. The Supreme Authority is a collegial authority, whether exercised formally in Council or by the Pope.

The Pope has “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” It can be discussed if it is prudent for the Pope to do this.

It’s not about the Pope’s prudence. The Dogma on the Primacy states that his authority is to be used to strengthen and protect the authority of his brother bishops. Neither the dogma nor canon law says anything about the power to take away the authority of his brother bishops - far from it. Your statements here are a (mis)interpretation of Vatican 1’s intent in the Decree on the Primacy.

The Pope cannot abuse his authority. But what is not up for discussion is whether the Pope has the authority and power to do these things. He, of course, has the authority and power to do so.

He has no power to diminish or stand in the way of his brother bishops’ power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction. That’s what the Dogma on the Primacy explicitly states (see Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of the Dogma). If you want to oppose the Dogma, that’s your choice. But rest assured that you are opposing the Dogma itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

I consulted a priest of the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), who studied Canon Law, in regards to this subject. I showed him what I said, he had a few comments.

1: The Pope is the Legislator, therefore he could change canon law of the Eastern Churches.
2: Pastor Aeternus said: Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3: He did clarify the Eastern episcopal appointment process and you did as well. I thank you for your clarification. But in regards to the eastern episcopal appointment process, the Pope can appoint whomever he wishes if he were to decide to do so, even if it were to contradict the patriarch. However, in practice and canonically the process is as you described.
4: The Pope, who is the legislator for the universal Church, could reformulate the Eastern Code so that the Eastern Episcopal appointment process mimics that of the Latin Church. The right of the patriarch to appoint an episcopal candidate is a matter of ecclesiastical law and therefore can be changed, the patriarchs do not have that power by divine right, only the Pope does.
5: To your last point in regards to the dogma, Father said that the Pope also has “ordinary and immediate power” over each ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The bishop, no matter of what rite or church, must obey any lawful command of the pope. That passage in Pastor Aeternus simply states that the local ordinary has “ordinary and immediate power” over their faithful. They have the right to legislate in their diocese and they have the right to govern their flock. However, their government must not contradict that of the Holy See. For example, the bishop says “you don’t need to fast of Ash Wednesday,” the Pope says “o yes you and your flock has to,” the Pope wins. Another example the pope says “Bishop No name, you cannot admit that person into the clerical state,” and the Bishop says “O yes I can”…the Pope wins…no matter what rite or what church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

I consulted a priest of the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), who studied Canon Law, in regards to this subject. I showed him what I said, he had a few comments.

1: The Pope is the Legislator, therefore he could change canon law of the Eastern Churches.

Yes he could, but unilaterally? I don’t see how that is possible without violating the principle established in the Decree on the Primacy that the papal power is meant to protect and preserve the episcopal power of his brother bishops. He can’t (imperative) do that by making laws for the territories of his brother bishops without their participation, can he?

2: Pastor Aeternus said: Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Agreed, but this power is never exercised in a way that stands in the way of his brother bishops’ ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction. Should we interpret this teaching in a way which wholly contradicts another portion of that self-same teaching? That is the difference between our positions, and it is an important difference. I am saying that a Pope has no authority to impose himself in the jurisdiction of a local, orthodox bishop. You say he does, for no other reason than that he can. That’s absolutism, which I reject wholeheartedly. I am not rejecting the Decree on the Primacy. I am simply rejecting your intrepretation of it.

4: The Pope, who is the legislator for the universal Church, could reformulate the Eastern Code so that the Eastern Episcopal appointment process mimics that of the Latin Church. The right of the patriarch to appoint an episcopal candidate is a matter of ecclesiastical law and therefore can be changed, the patriarchs do not have that power by divine right, only the Pope does.

You seem to forget that bishops also rule by divine right, and that together with the head bishop (the bishop of Rome), they are the subject of Supreme Authority in the universal Church. I believe it is rash to presume that every place in Canon Law where the words “Supreme Authority” appears refers to the Pope alone.

5: To your last point in regards to the dogma, Father said that the Pope also has “ordinary and immediate power” over each ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The bishop, no matter of what rite or church, must obey any lawful command of the pope. That passage in Pastor Aeternus simply states that the local ordinary has “ordinary and immediate power” over their faithful. They have the right to legislate in their diocese and they have the right to govern their flock. However, their government must not contradict that of the Holy See. For example, the bishop says “you don’t need to fast of Ash Wednesday,” the Pope says “o yes you and your flock has to,” the Pope wins. Another example the pope says “Bishop No name, you cannot admit that person into the clerical state,” and the Bishop says “O yes I can”…the Pope wins…no matter what rite or what church.

It’s not that simple. I don’t believe the Pope has the right or authority to oppose the decision of a Patriarch just on his say so. He must have serious justifications for doing so.

It is a given that obedience to the authority of the Pope is a divine and canonical imperative.

The question is: Is the Pope’s respect for the authority of his brother bishops also a divine and canonical imperative? Eastern and Oriental Catholics say “YES!” What do you say?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

Certainly bishops rule by divine right, but some rights that they have are not by divine right. Some rights could be taken away. Also, a bishop never has the right to contradict a lawful command of the Pope. In the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium it says: “As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.” The Catechism says: "“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (my emphasis) The Pope could impose a new Code of Canon Law on the Church even if the bishops didn’t want one. Summorum Pontificum was issued with the majority of the world’s episcopate opposing it. I agree that it would be unusual, imprudent, and in some cases an abuse of power for the Pope to interfere in the government of a local diocese. I guess the adage “if it a’int broke, don’t fix it” could apply. But if the bishop is opposing some legitimate command of the Pope, the local bishop has no right to do so and the faithful are obliged to follow the Pope. The pope could intervene. If the Pope declared that an Eastern Church is to use a specific language (old church Slavonic for example), the matter is settled. The pope could do that without consulting the patriarch. Would it be prudent for him to do so? Probably not. But the patriarch should obey the Pope, even if he were to personally disagree. If the patriarch did not obey, the Pope could intervene by removing the Patriarch.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

Certainly bishops rule by divine right, but some rights that they have are not by divine right. Some rights could be taken away.

Canon law states acquired rights cannot be taken away except for a just reason. It’s not about the Pope’s say so. It’s about adherence to divine and canon law.

Also, a bishop never has the right to contradict a lawful command of the Pope.

The key is “lawful.” As St. Robert Bellarmine taught, every Christian has the right and obligation to oppose the Pope if he makes laws or acts in contradiction to the Gospel.

In the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium it says: “As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.”

The same Nota states, “The phrase ‘with the consent of its head’ is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members.” Collegiality is the key to Church peace and unity, not unilateral imposition.

The Catechism says: "“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (my emphasis)

Every instance in Canon law of the use of the word “unhindered” indicates that it means “the use of free will” or “uncoerced.” It does not mean “unrestricted.”

The Pope could impose a new Code of Canon Law on the Church even if the bishops didn’t want one.

You have no evidence to prove this.

Summorum Pontificum was issued with the majority of the world’s episcopate opposing it.

First, what evidence do you have that a majority of the world’s episcopate opposed it? Second, how does a motu proprio intended for the Latin Catholic Church demonstrate that the Pope has that kind of unilateral authority in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches? Regardless, he is Patriarch of the Latin Church, and it is his right to do that in the Latin Catholic Church - though I highly doubt it was a purely unilateral action.

I agree that it would be unusual, imprudent, and in some cases an abuse of power for the Pope to interfere in the government of a local diocese. I guess the adage “if it a’int broke, don’t fix it” could apply.

But if the bishop is opposing some legitimate command of the Pope, the local bishop has no right to do so and the faithful are obliged to follow the Pope.

Agreed. Again, the key word is “legitimate.”

The pope could intervene. If the Pope declared that an Eastern Church is to use a specific language (old church Slavonic for example), the matter is settled. The pope could do that without consulting the patriarch. Would it be prudent for him to do so? Probably not. But the patriarch should obey the Pope, even if he were to personally disagree. If the patriarch did not obey, the Pope could intervene by removing the Patriarch.

No he can’t. To do so would be a definite abuse - an illegitimate, unlawful use of papal authority. This is a terrible, terrible example!

Please answer this question - is it more important to aggrandize power to the Pope, or to keep the peace of the Churches?

Btw, you haven’t answered the question I asked in my previous post. Let me repeat it here:
Is the Pope’s respect for the authority of his brother bishops, as affirmed in the Decree on the Primacy, also a divine and canonical imperative?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

What you quoted in the Nota Praevia is talking about when the College of Bishops acts: Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed.

The Pope can always act INDEPENDENTLY from the College of Bishops. The College of Bishops can only have authority in union with it’s head.

In traditional Catholic theology the Pope is not subject the Law as he is the Giver of the Law (the Legislator). Also, he is the ultimate interpreter of that law. Therefore, there would have to be a lot of evidence against his judgment in order for one to say it is unjust. Could the pope act unjustly and impose novel laws or act unjustly? Heck yes! I a Traditional Catholic, and within that movement he acted unjustly.

Bishops DO NOT have jurisdiction in virtue of their consecration. Their jurisdiction comes from the Lawful Authority…the Pope. He gave it and he certainly can take it away if a member of the hierarchy is disobedient to a lawful order. I do agree the Pope has some limits to his power: for example, he could not impose a local law that does harm to souls.

To answer your question: Pastor Aeternus said that the decree of Papal Infallibility and his supreme authority did not take away the authority of the bishops. It also said that the Pope would defend their authority (for example: if the local bishop justly excommunicated someone, and it was found to be just, then the Pope would support his decision). It also means that the Pope will respect the bishops to govern their faithful. If a bishop were to do something contrary to the lawful will of the Pope, then he could intervene. In governing the diocesan bishop has certain rights…but these rights to govern the diocese come from the fact that the Pope has given them jurisdiction. Again, jurisdiction does not come from the consecration itself. So the Pope could theoretically say to the bishops “Since you are the liturgists in your dioceses, I give you the power to create your own liturgies in your dioceses as long as they are doctrinally sound, in keeping with with tradition, in keeping the basic structure of your proper Rite, and that they don’t cause harm to the faithful.” That power theoretically could be allowed by his successors for hundreds of years. But then one pope, one day could say "Nope, no more. The entire Roman Rite is going to have a unified liturgy. Every diocese and territory will use the liturgy of Pope Pius V. Every Eastern Church will use the Byzantine Rite in force before my predecessor gave the permission to the diocesan bishop. " The legislator can giveth, and he can taketh away. Therefore, if the Pope wanted to make the Ukrainian Catholic Church (forgive me, I do not know the formal name) use Old-Church Slavonic he could, as long as it does not endanger the souls of the faithful.

To answer your other question? I am merely saying that the Pope can do more than you said he can do. Should he? I would say probably not! Could he legitimately use his authority in that way? Depends of the circumstance…it could be just and it could be unjust. But one must be pretty certain that it is unjust. In the Roman Rite that was abundantly clear with the novelties since Vatican II. But just because you don’t like a law, doesn’t mean you can’t obey it. It would have to be harmful or evil in order for your to disobey, but the benefit of the doubt is always to be given to the Pope *** If he thought it was for the good of the faithful***, the Pope could merge every church that uses the Byzantine Rite and put them under one patriarch, and abolish the rest. Certainly, he has a different relationship with the West than the East…but he theoretically (if it were for the good of souls) could place all of the Eastern Churches under direct control from Rome and make him Patriarch of all the Churches, and abolish the Eastern Patriarchies (note: I am NOT saying he should do this or that he will do this…I don’t think a pope would ever even consider it. Again I am NOT saying he should do it!! I would be very saddened it he would) Location of Patriarchies and dioceses (except the Bishop of Rome) is a matter of ecclesiastical law, NOT divine law.

In regards to Summorum Pontificum, I have it on very good information that most of the bishops opposed him. From the official reports sent to the Holy See that have been made available online and the reactions from the episcopate before the Motu Proprio was released. An FSSP priest and a diocesan staff member told me that Pope Benedict polled the world’s Latin Bishops and asked their opinion, the response came back that the majority opposed the Motu Proprio. But the Pope, knowing it would benefit souls, issued Summorum Pontificum anyways.

I am a great admirer of the East and I hope that the Pope never uses his power unjustly in regards to the East. And btw…there is some talk that some authorities in the Church want to “renew” you liturgy! Don’t let them…don’t let them do to the East what they did to the Roman Rite!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The canonical route is at best provisional for argumentation; the pope is supreme legislator, judge, and executive. Since he can make the law and tell us what it means, your a canonical argument could disappear with the stroke of a pen. We have to turn to *theological *principles in order to assertain the absolute bounds of papal jurisdiction.

Brother Marduk was right to turn quickly to Vatican I, since that combines a maximum level of authority with a large amount of elaboration. Having made that turn, however, I am not sure why he has staked his claim on the nature of “unhindered” authority, since the point of the discussion was to ascertain whether the pope enjoys “proper” authority. Pastor aeternus doesn’t leave room for doubt in this regard:

**I.3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
**
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

1. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
2. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

II.3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

III.2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

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.

---

The theological point is that Christ conferred the care of His entire Church upon Peter when he tasked him with feeding the sheep. Peter is not just head - under Christ - of all the churches, but of all individual Christians. His jurisdiction is not over institutions only but over all persons within the Church. In asserting that this primacy does not detract from the jurisdiction of local ordinaries, the council was forestalling theological criticism, not erecting canonical bounds.

 

[dcointin]

Without arguing the specifics of this subject, I can tell you as an Eastern Orthodox that the absolutist view of the papacy that has been presented here is absolutely unacceptable to us, and remains the greatest hindrance to reunion. I realize that this is of little concern for Catholics that believe this is dogma, but I think it still needs to be said.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Without arguing the specifics of this subject, I can tell you as an Eastern Orthodox that the absolutist view of the papacy that has been presented here is absolutely unacceptable to us, and remains the greatest hindrance to reunion. I realize that this is of little concern for Catholics that believe this is dogma, but I think it still needs to be said.

And I daresay, that if the doctrine of the papacy put forth by some on this thread so far had been presented to the various Eastern Catholic Churches at the time they were coming into union with Rome they would have rejected it outright.

I would also say that it is impossible to defend the absolutist view from either Tradition or history. I imagine Mardukm will agree with that statement.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

What you quoted in the Nota Praevia is talking about when the College of Bishops acts…This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed.

It should be noted that the “supreme authority” spoken of in the Nota Praevia is the Supreme Authority of the College of bishops.

The Pope can always act INDEPENDENTLY from the College of Bishops.

I believe you are mixing up two issues here - 1) authority; 2) exercise of authority. The Pope’s authority is indeed unique and from God, not from the Church (indeed, every bishop’s authority is from God, not from the Church, nor the Pope, for that matter). Though the Pope’s universal authority is independent of the College of bishops, the exercise of that authority for the universal Church must always be normatively collegial.

The College of Bishops can only have authority in union with it’s head.

That is an ancient apostolic principle (Apostolic Canon 34/35). No Catholic disputes this.

In traditional Catholic theology the Pope is not subject the Law as he is the Giver of the Law (the Legislator).

That’s an unconscionable position! Just because he is “the” legislator does not mean he is not subject to the laws of the Church!

Also, he is the ultimate interpreter of that law. Therefore, there would have to be a lot of evidence against his judgment in order for one to say it is unjust. Could the pope act unjustly and impose novel laws or act unjustly? Heck yes!

And if it is unjust, we are bound by conscience to oppose that judgment through our bishops. However, there is no excuse for schism.

I a Traditional Catholic, and within that movement he acted unjustly.

With all due respect, I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it’s with respect to the Liturgy, I don’t see the problem.

Bishops DO NOT have jurisdiction in virtue of their consecration. Their jurisdiction comes from the Lawful Authority…the Pope.

Forgive my brusqueness, but that is flat out wrong. The power of orders and jurisdiction of bishops is by divine right (as well as the Pope’s). It is the power of jurisdiction of other head bishops (i.e., metropolitans, catholicoi, major archbishops, patriarchs) which is conferred by human (i.e. ecclesiastical) authority. It is true that the power of jurisdiction of bishops is regulated by the Church, but its origin is divine, not ecclesiastical.

He gave it and he certainly can take it away if a member of the hierarchy is disobedient to a lawful order.

As the Pope did not give bishops their power of jurisdiction, then he can by no means take it away.

I do agree the Pope has some limits to his power: for example, he could not impose a local law that does harm to souls.

Agreed

To answer your question: Pastor Aeternus said that the decree of Papal Infallibility and his supreme authority did not take away the authority of the bishops. It also said that the Pope would defend their authority (for example: if the local bishop justly excommunicated someone, and it was found to be just, then the Pope would support his decision).

A local bishop is competent in his own power, apart from the Pope, to excommunicate one of his own flock. I don’t even know why you would bring the Pope into such a scenario.

It also means that the Pope will respect the bishops to govern their faithful. If a bishop were to do something contrary to the lawful will of the Pope, then he could intervene. In governing the diocesan bishop has certain rights…but these rights to govern the diocese come from the fact that the Pope has given them jurisdiction. Again, jurisdiction does not come from the consecration itself. So the Pope could theoretically say to the bishops "Since you are the liturgists…

Your scenarios on the Liturgy are based on the premise that a bishops’ power of jurisdiction is from the Pope. Since that is erroneous, your conclusions must be erroneous as well.

To answer your other question? I am merely saying that the Pope can do more than you said he can do. Should he? I would say probably not! Could he legitimately use his authority in that way? Depends of the circumstance…it could be just and it could be unjust. But one must be pretty certain that it is unjust…(note: I am NOT saying he should do this or that he will do this…I don’t think a pope would ever even consider it. Again I am NOT saying he should do it!! I would be very saddened it he would)

Confusing. You say he should not do something unjust, yet insist he has the divine authority to do something unjust. It makes absolutely no sense. What I am saying is that the things that you surmise the Pope should not do are really things that he can not do.

Location of Patriarchies and dioceses (except the Bishop of Rome) is a matter of ecclesiastical law, NOT divine law.

Not certain of the relevance.

In regards to Summorum Pontificum, I have it on very good information that most of the bishops opposed him…But the Pope, knowing it would benefit souls, issued Summorum Pontificum anyways.

So you admit it wasn’t a unilateral decision.

Don’t let them…don’t let them do to the East what they did to the Roman Rite!

Thanks for your concern, but that’s up to our bishops, not the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andreas

Brother Marduk was right to turn quickly to Vatican I, since that combines a maximum level of authority with a large amount of elaboration. Having made that turn, however, I am not sure why he has staked his claim on the nature of “unhindered” authority, since the point of the discussion was to ascertain whether the pope enjoys “proper” authority. Pastor aeternus doesn’t leave room for doubt in this regard:

I was simply explaining what “unhindered” meant in canon law since others were using it to mean that the Pope’s authority is unrestricted, which is a false interpretation. I’m not the one who brought it up.

1. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

The theological point is that Christ conferred the care of His entire Church upon Peter when he tasked him with feeding the sheep. Peter is not just head - under Christ - of all the churches, but of all individual Christians. His jurisdiction is not over institutions only but over all persons within the Church. In asserting that this primacy does not detract from the jurisdiction of local ordinaries, the council was forestalling theological criticism, not erecting canonical bounds.

I think I already explained in my post #44 that the Pope has proper universal jurisdiction - i.e., he has proper jurisdiction in a matter that involves the entire Church (i.e., matter of faith or morals, a matter of unviersal canon law). But he does not have proper local jurisdiction if the local diocese/eparchy has an orthodox bishop ruling it.

In the absence of a local bishop, according to the laws of the particular Church sui juris, the proper care of the local diocese/eparchy devolves upon the Metropolitan. In the absence of a Metropolitan, the proper care devolves upon the Major Archbishop or Patriarch. In the absence of a Major Archbishop or Patriarch, the proper care devolves upon the Pope.

In the history of the undivded universal Church (not just the Latin Church), I believe this has occurred only once. During the Muslim invasion of Jerusalem in the 7th century, the hierarchial system of that See was impeded, so the bishop of Rome became its proper ordinary, and he appointed an Apostolic administrator to oversee the affairs of the Church until a new patriarch could be elected.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

I consulted a priest (the same FSSP priest) at daily Mass today and he assured me that various people are trying to limiting papal authority more than the Church has limited papal authority. I showed him my previous post and he explained the jurisdiction of the bishop to me. If a bishop is consecrated he is a bishop, but he doesn’t necessarily have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office, not the “order of bishop.” The pope could take away a bishop’s ecclesiastical office and thus lose his jurisdiction. A bishop illicitly consecrated does not have ordinary jurisdiction. My priest said, and I quote, “He’s [the pope] the legislator and is not subject to ecclesiastical law and he can change it with the stroke of his pen. He can, among other things, change canon law, speak ex cathedra, and change liturgies in both the East and West without even consulting one bishop. He can do the same regardless of rite or particular church.”