THe Popes Jurisdiction

[josephdaniel29]

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.”

But doesn’t that make all the other bishops of the Catholic Church little more than glorified priests, or at best auxiliary, not ruling bishops? After all there can only be one bishop in one place at any one time. That makes the pope the only true bishop and the rest something else entirely. Do you see any support for that position either in Tradition or Church history?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Crusader90]

But doesn’t that make all the other bishops of the Catholic Church little more than glorified priests, or at best auxiliary, not ruling bishops? After all there can only be one bishop in one place at any one time. That makes the pope the only true bishop and the rest something else entirely. Do you see any support for that position either in Tradition or Church history?

No, because they have ordinary jurisdiction. They can do all things that ordinary jurisdiction allows them to do, but they must obey the Pope. If the contradict what the Pope wants, the pope can intervene.

 

[josephdaniel29]

No, because they have ordinary jurisdiction. They can do all things that ordinary jurisdiction allows them to do, but they must obey the Pope. If the contradict what the Pope wants, the pope can intervene.

The only power and authority they have is given to them by the pope. That is precisely the way a diocesan priest functions, serving at the pleasure and direction of the bishop. And so it is with the “bishops” of the Catholic Church, serving only at the pleasure of the only true bishop, the pope.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Crusader90]

I clarified earlier, they have been given the ecclesiastical office by the pope. With that office is attached various rights from God. But that ecclesiastical office can be taken away. They have ordinary jurisdiction over their dioceses. They are the one’s who ordain, confirm, rule, govern, and sanctify their flock in the diocese. But the Pope can intervene if he sees fit.

 

[joandarc2008]

But doesn’t that make all the other bishops of the Catholic Church little more than glorified priests, or at best auxiliary, not ruling bishops? After all there can only be one bishop in one place at any one time. That makes the pope the only true bishop and the rest something else entirely. Do you see any support for that position either in Tradition or Church history?

In Christ
Joe

No,

a) as was stated earlier just because the Pope can does not mean he should or he would

b) Bishops still have authority to celebrate two Sacraments that presbyters do not: Confirmation and Ordination.

 

[mardukm]

The only power and authority they have is given to them by the pope. That is precisely the way a diocesan priest functions, serving at the pleasure and direction of the bishop. And so it is with the “bishops” of the Catholic Church, serving only at the pleasure of the only true bishop, the pope.

If that is the way the ecclesiastical constitution of the CC actually is, I wouldn’t blame any Orthodox for staying away.:crying:

Fortunately, it’s not!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[laszlo]

If that is the way the ecclesiastical constitution of the CC actually is, I wouldn’t blame any Orthodox for staying away.:crying:

Fortunately, it’s not!

Blessings,
Marduk

There is sacramental power and jurisdictional power.

The sacramental power is permanent sign received by the ordination, this belongs to the individual, and that is different for the priest and the bishop.

Priests have only delegated jurisdictional power given by their Ordinary. This is given by an act separate from the ordination and can be revoked (e.g. by suspension)

Bishops have jurisdictional power over their dioceses through the investiture. Only bishops who are heads or coadjutors of a diocese have this actual jurisdictional power, auxiliary bishops (having the title of extincted dioceses) do not have such actual power. In the Roman Catholic Church this power is given by the Apostolic See, without that approval there is no episcopal jurisdiction.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

But doesn’t that make all the other bishops of the Catholic Church little more than glorified priests, or at best auxiliary, not ruling bishops? After all there can only be one bishop in one place at any one time. That makes the pope the only true bishop and the rest something else entirely. Do you see any support for that position either in Tradition or Church history?

St. Robert Bellarmine stands at the tail end of medieval high papalism and holds to the distinction between orders and jurisdiction with all jurisdictional power mediated through the pope. He is also a doctor of the Church, representing a school of thought on this issue that dominated Catholic thought for hundreds of years.

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

Brother Marduk,

You are still confining yourself to canonical arguments (if one is arguing about theoretically exercisable powers, you can only get so far by claiming “this is all that has been exercised thus far, and these are the rules by which the popes have currently chosen to operate”) and not, I believe, reading the different sections of Pastor Aeternus in concert with each other. III.9 (quoted above) anathematizes those who claim of the pope’s jurisdiction 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.” This is the same jurisdiction that earlier in the decree is defined as proper. Now, if the pope’s jurisdiction were simply of the appellate or supplementary sort you claim, how could it be the “absolute fullness” of jurisdiction?

Your insistence on the immediate conferral of jurisdiction with ordination is also curious to me. Let’s say the bishops of Podunk and Backwater decide that the bishop of Dead End is doing a terrible job, and they consecrate a new bishop to take his place. They don’t have the bishop deposed canonically and set another bishop in his place, they just consecrate someone and send him to care for the faithful in that territory. Since jurisdiction is immediately conferred with episcopal orders, where does this new bishop possess jurisdiction? He has no canonical claim to any see, nor was he ordained as a chorepiskopos for one of the ordaining prelates, yet possessing episcopal orders your claims would necessitate that he has, by divine right, jurisdiction somewhere. Where is that? (We could get even more extreme, with schismatic wandering bishops creating bishops willy-nilly, but I hope that example suffices to highlight the difficulty I see in your description of jurisdiction.)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

The Ukrainians at Brest were presented with this picture and chose it as, presumably, a lesser evil over an Orthodox church in which lay confraternities had been granted the power to excommunicate priests and defy bishops deemed unworthy. They had tried earlier to negotiate a union in which their ecclesiology remained intact, essentially substituting the patriarch of Rome for that of Constantinople or Moscow, but the Roman Curia kept refusing any terms other than a recognition of papal supremacy in Tridentine form.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90

I consulted a priest (the same FSSP priest) at daily Mass today…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.

The priest is mistaken.

Here are some words from V2:
"In exercising his office of father and pastor the bishops should be with his people as one who serves, as a good shepherd who knows his sheep and whose sheep know him, as a true father who excels in his love and solicitude for all, to whose divinely conferred authority all readily submit."

"The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are caled in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power is much rather defended, upheld, and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up b Christ the Lord in the Church."
(This is, of course, simply repeating what V1 already taught)

Of less authority, but probably faithful to offical Catholic belief, is the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Jurisdiction, in so far as it covers the relations of man to God, is called jurisdiction of the internal forum or jurisdiction of the forum of Heaven (jurisdictio poli). This again is either sacramental or penitential, so far as it is used in the Sacrament of Penance, or extra-sacramental, e.g. in granting dispensations from private vows. Jurisdiction, in so far as it regulates external ecclesiastical relations, is called jurisdiction of the external forum, or briefly jurisdictio fori. This jurisdiction, the actual power of ruling is legislative, judicial, or coactive. Jurisdiction can be possessed in varying degrees. It can also be held either for both fora, or for the internal forum only, e.g. by the parish priest. Jurisdiction can be further sub-divided into: ordinary, quasi-ordinary, and delegated jurisdiction. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. Its possessor is called an ordinary judge. By Divine law the pope has such ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church and a bishop for his diocese.

It can’t get much clearer than that. As stated earlier, the Church can regulate the power of jurisdiction, but the Church is not the source of that power - it is God. The power of both orders and jurisdiction of a bishop is of divine origin and possesed by divine right, not merely ecclesiastical. Bishops can be disciplined by the Church for just cause - heresy, public scandal, disobedience to the canons - and have the use of their faculties curtailed accordingly. Even the Orthodox will agree to that. But it is not because the Church is the source of their power of jurisdiction that the Church is able to do this, much less is it the case that the Pope himself is the source of their power of 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.

I’ll take your priest and raise you a bishop.
Bishop Freppel of Angers, a member of the majority party at V1. He was one of the theologians appointed by the Pope for the First Vatican Council:
"When Popes have said that they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound by the canons? As a legislator by his own law, yes. As an inferior to a superior, no. Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed, unless and until they be lawfully abrogated; this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order in any society require it."

So who is right, brother - your priest, or a bishop-theologian of Vatican 1?

He can, among other things, change canon law

Without the conference of his brother bishops? I don’t see how. If you are saying he can change canon law in concert with the college of which he is head, I accept that. If you say he can change it unilaterally if the college is somehow impeded from making a collegial action (it can happen if the government impedes bishops in its territories, and it has happened in the past), I can accept that as well. But If you are saying he can change it unilaterally at his will, I know of no warrant for such a fantastic position, especially not from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our canons - thus, I can never accept that as a faithful Catholic.

change liturgies in both the East and West without even consulting one bishop. He can do the same regardless of rite or particular church."

Absolutely false. Please show us a canon or teaching that permits such a monstrous prerogative. Vatican 2 stated that matters of the Liturgy are fully within the competence of the bishop to decide. Our canons state that the Liturgy may be regulated by the sui juris Church Synod of which the bishop is a member. There are norms that the Church by ancient Tradition has also established universally.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Laszlo,

the Roman Catholic Church this power is given by the Apostolic See, without that approval there is no episcopal jurisdiction.

Yes, that is true of the Latin and Metropolical sui juris Churches.

However, in Major Archepiscopal and Patriarchal sui juris Churches, it is the Major Archbishop or Patriarch in Synod who has competence to give canonical provision for its bishops – i.e., not the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

The priest is mistaken.

No, I have cross referenced him with theology manuals and various other works. Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office. If the pope says removes a bishop from the diocese, that bishop NO LONGER HAS JURISDICTION. A bishop has jurisdiction attached to the ecclesiastical office. While has that ecclesiastical office then he has the divine right to rule, sanctify, and judge in his diocese. But he doesn’t if that office has been removed.

Read Andreas Hofer’s post:

Your insistence on the immediate conferral of jurisdiction with ordination is also curious to me. Let’s say the bishops of Podunk and Backwater decide that the bishop of Dead End is doing a terrible job, and they consecrate a new bishop to take his place. They don’t have the bishop deposed canonically and set another bishop in his place, they just consecrate someone and send him to care for the faithful in that territory. Since jurisdiction is immediately conferred with episcopal orders, where does this new bishop possess jurisdiction? He has no canonical claim to any see, nor was he ordained as a chorepiskopos for one of the ordaining prelates, yet possessing episcopal orders your claims would necessitate that he has, by divine right, jurisdiction somewhere. Where is that? (We could get even more extreme, with schismatic wandering bishops creating bishops willy-nilly, but I hope that example suffices to highlight the difficulty I see in your description of jurisdiction.)

“When Popes have said that they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound by the canons? As a legislator by his own law, yes. As an inferior to a superior, no. Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed, unless and until they be lawfully abrogated; this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order in any society require it.”

Right, but the Pope can change the law. So even if he were subject to it, he could change it.

Without the conference of his brother bishops? I don’t see how. If you are saying he can change canon law in concert with the college of which he is head, I accept that. If you say he can change it unilaterally if the college is somehow impeded from making a collegial action (it can happen if the government impedes bishops in its territories, and it has happened in the past), I can accept that as well. But If you are saying he can change it unilaterally at his will, I know of no warrant for such a fantastic position, especially not from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our canons - thus, I can never accept that as a faithful Catholic.

The Pope can always act independently from the college of bishop! The college of bishops only acts with the consent of the head, the pope. If the pope doesn’t want the college of bishops to act, then he doesn’t need to let them. Simple as that.

"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 act independently of them.

Absolutely false. Please show us a canon or teaching that permits such a monstrous prerogative. Vatican 2 stated that matters of the Liturgy are fully within the competence of the bishop to decide. Our canons state that the Liturgy may be regulated by the sui juris Church Synod of which the bishop is a member. There are norms that the Church by ancient Tradition has also established universally.

You keep on quoting canons. The pope can change canon law. And the bishop is the “chief liturgist” of the diocese, but that doesn’t mean he can act in opposition to the pope.

As Andreas Hofer said “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.”

However, in Major Archepiscopal and Patriarchal sui juris Churches, it is the Major Archbishop or Patriarch in Synod who has competence to give canonical provision for its bishops – i.e., not the Pope.

Again, it is canonical. Therefore the pope can change it. Andreas Hofer has given you an dogmatic statement that has an anathema attached to it that contradicts what you are saying. The Pope can change canon law without the consent of the bishops. The Pope can change a liturgy without the consent of the bishops. The pope can speak ex cathedra without the consent of the bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andreas,

St. Robert Bellarmine stands at the tail end of medieval high papalism and holds to the distinction between orders and jurisdiction with all jurisdictional power mediated through the pope. He is also a doctor of the Church, representing a school of thought on this issue that dominated Catholic thought for hundreds of years.

Are you sure about this? I know that he was on the “tail end” regarding Infallibility. But as far as Primacy is concerned - in his “Controversies,” he states that the Pope is not lord of the whole earth, and neither is he lord of the whole of Christendom.

You are still confining yourself to canonical arguments (if one is arguing about theoretically exercisable powers, you can only get so far by claiming “this is all that has been exercised thus far, and these are the rules by which the popes have currently chosen to operate”)

I am not inclined to interpret V1 or V2 beyond what is contained in Tradition. Are you admitting that interpretations such as provided by brother Crusader90 (the Absolutist Petrine view) are in fact novelties in the Church? If so, it should pose no dogmatic difficulty to dispose of such positions for the sake of Church unity.

and not, I believe, reading the different sections of Pastor Aeternus in concert with each other. III.9 (quoted above) anathematizes those who claim of the pope’s jurisdiction 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.” This is the same jurisdiction that earlier in the decree is defined as proper. Now, if the pope’s jurisdiction were simply of the appellate or supplementary sort you claim, how could it be the “absolute fullness” of jurisdiction?

This is where we definitely disagree. You quoted Chapter 1 of Pastor Aeternus. Chapter 1 is not about the papacy, but about St. Peter in relation to the Apostles. In that section, and only in that section do we see the ecclesiatical term “proper” being used, and it states specifically that St. Peter had proper jurisdiction over the Apostles. From this, we can deduce that the Pope has proper jurisdiction over bishops. Indeed, the early Church affirmed this through the Canons of the Council of Sardica, whereby the Pope was recognized to have universal appellate jurisdiction for all bishops in the Church.

But by no means can one extrapolate this to the whole Church as you have done, saying “this is the same jurisdiction that earlier in the decree is defined as proper.” The ecclesiastical term “proper” is specifically not used in other sections of Pastor Aeternus. In regards to the Church as a whole, though “immediate” and “ordinary” can correctly be used of the jurisdiction of the Pope, the word “proper” is explicitly and specifically missing. Only the local bishop has a divinely instituded proper jurisdiction over his flock, not the Pope. The Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, but it only becomes proper if:
(1) the local bishop is somehow impeded;
(2) if the diocese/eparchy is within a sui juris metropolical Church, the Metropolitan is somehow impeded;
(3) if metropolical Church is within a Major Archbishopric or Patriarchal Church, the Major Archbishop or Patriarch is somehow impeded.
Any other interpretation would violate the dogmatic decrees of V1 and V2 that the Pope cannot impede the ordinary and immediate power of jurisdiction of local bishops.

Your insistence on the immediate conferral of jurisdiction with ordination is also curious to me. Let’s say the bishops of Podunk and Backwater decide that the bishop of Dead End is doing a terrible job, and they consecrate a new bishop to take his place. They don’t have the bishop deposed canonically and set another bishop in his place, they just consecrate someone and send him to care for the faithful in that territory. Since jurisdiction is immediately conferred with episcopal orders, where does this new bishop possess jurisdiction? He has no canonical claim to any see, nor was he ordained as a chorepiskopos for one of the ordaining prelates, yet possessing episcopal orders your claims would necessitate that he has, by divine right, jurisdiction somewhere. Where is that? (We could get even more extreme, with schismatic wandering bishops creating bishops willy-nilly, but I hope that example suffices to highlight the difficulty I see in your description of jurisdiction.)

As repeatedly stated, the Church regulates the power of jurisdiction of bishops, but is not the SOURCE of it - much less so can it be said that the Pope is the source of the power of jurisdiction of bishops. And I quoted sources stating as much, while neither you nor brother Crusader90, nor sister JoanofArc have given anything but mere interpretations. Brother Josephdaniel has correctly opined that your interpretations make bishops nothing more than vicars of the Pope. In that regard, you oppose the decrees of V2, and teachings of past Popes after V1, yet before V2.

Why are Latins so opposed to that belief? Please explain.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, I have cross referenced him with theology manuals and various other works. Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office. If the pope says removes a bishop from the diocese, that bishop NO LONGER HAS JURISDICTION. A bishop has jurisdiction attached to the ecclesiastical office. While has that ecclesiastical office then he has the divine right to rule, sanctify, and judge in his diocese. But he doesn’t if that office has been removed.

Incorrect. Jurisdiction refers to both the internal forum and the external forum. The Church regulates the external forum, but the internal forum is by divine right. Though a bishop cannot exercise jurisdiction if the Church takes it away for good reason, that does not mean he does not have jurisdiction. The Pope/the Church has the inherent authority to discipline bishops and take away their use of the power of jurisdiction for just cause. The Pope/the Church does not have it within their power in such a way that they can do such things at will.

Right, but the Pope can change the law. So even if he were subject to it, he could change it.

But you stated he was not subject to it. So just admit you were wrong and we can leave it at that.

The Pope can always act independently from the college of bishop! The college of bishops only acts with the consent of the head, the pope. If the pope doesn’t want the college of bishops to act, then he doesn’t need to let them. Simple as that.

He can do so only in extenuating circumstances (such as, though not limited to, when the college is impeded). But acts by the Pope for the universal Church are normatively done collegially. Do you seriously think the Church is a one-man show?

"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. "

Mmmm? Nothing here about “the Pope can always act independently of the College of bishops.”

The Pope can act independently of them.

Not usually or normatively.

You keep on quoting canons. The pope can change canon law. And the bishop is the “chief liturgist” of the diocese, but that doesn’t mean he can act in opposition to the pope.

You mean “in opposition to the Church.” Even the Pope has no power to oppose the Church, or is that what you are saying?

As Andreas Hofer said “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.”

I think it was your priest that said that, not brother Andreas.

Again, it is canonical. Therefore the pope can change it. Andreas Hofer has given you an dogmatic statement that has an anathema attached to it that contradicts what you are saying. The Pope can change canon law without the consent of the bishops. The Pope can change a liturgy without the consent of the bishops. The pope can speak ex cathedra without the consent of the bishops.

OK, forget Canon law. Where does anything you say have even a remote similarity to any teaching contained in the dogmatic statements of V1 or V2?

Btw, none of what I stated contradicts the V1 canons. The issue here is the word “supreme.” I come from an Oriental Orthodox background. The word “supreme” is not unknown to us as it applies to head bishops. But the word “supreme” to Orientals simply means “highest.” In the Eastern view and the Western polemic understanding, however, “supreme” means “***highest , only, and absolute ***.” That the Pope must act collegially in all things does not derogate from his “supreme” status. But your position makes the Pope out as nothing more than a dictator.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office, it is NOT conferred upon episcopal consecration. Jurisdiction is required for validity of some sacraments. Therefore if what you said is true, a priest without jurisdiction could still hear confessions and celebrate the sacrament of marriage. But nope, they can’t, it would be invalid. Jurisdiction does not come with ordination/consecration. And I did not admit the pope is subject to canon law…is said “even if.” And there is something in my quote about acting independently. The College of Bishops only acts when the pope wants it to. It is not always acting, even though it always exists. If the pope thought that he should do something without the college of bishops he could. A highly educated priest and multiple people have said you are limiting papal power too far. And Andreas did say what I quoted in post #54.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office, it is NOT conferred upon episcopal consecration…Jurisdiction does not come with ordination/consecration.

It’s use is regulated by the Church. It’s existence is by divine right. And I gave you direct quotes from V2 to that effect. You, on the other hand, have given nothing but interpretations to support your position.

Jurisdiction is required for validity of some sacraments. Therefore if what you said is true, a priest without jurisdiction could still hear confessions and celebrate the sacrament of marriage. But nope, they can’t, it would be invalid.

Well, yes. In danger of death, a priest can hear confession even if he is impeded canonically

And I did not admit the pope is subject to canon law…is said “even if.”

If you think that’s the way it is in the Latin Catholic Church (though I seriously doubt it), that’s fine.

The College of Bishops only acts when the pope wants it to.

. Nope. The College of Bishops acts when it is necessary for the Church, not when the Pope wants it to.

It is not always acting, even though it always exists.

Agreed, but that is a different thing from making their actions dependent on the mere will of the Pope. The Pope is authorized to do nothing more than what builds up the Church. It is not a matter of his “will.” It is a matter of what is necessary for the good of the Church.

If the pope thought that he should do something without the college of bishops he could.

You’ve provided no magisterial support for this position, just opinions. The Nota you quoted says absolutely nothing about whether the Pope can act in a solitary manner. It simply notes that the authority of the College of Bishops is always realized in union with its head bishop.

A highly educated priest and multiple people have said you are limiting papal power too far.

I doubt it. Perhaps you are not explaning my position very well. All I am saying is that the Pope cannot do these things “at will.” He acts, and can only act, for the good of the Church. It is not about what the Pope wants (which is what you have been saying). It’s about what the Church needs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

Well, yes. In danger of death, a priest can hear confession even if he is impeded canonically

That is supplied jurisdiction. The Church supplies the jurisdiction to the priest in that case.

Nope. The College of Bishops acts when it is necessary for the Church, not when the Pope wants it to.

Nope, that is not what the Nota says. It says it acts with the consent of the its head. Who’s its head? The Pope

And you are explaining the situation to that priest as he has seen this thread. And in a talk given by the tribunal judge in my diocese the judge (who has degrees in canon law and theology) clearly stated that the pope is not subject to canon law and therefore can change it. So while I do not have a theology degree, I am trusting reliable sources on my interpretation. Do I have any reason to doubt them? I haven’t found one yet. And I agree with you that the pope can only act in the good of the faithful. I am saying, if the good of the faithful required it he could do all of the things we have been talking about without consulting bishops.

 

[mardukm]

That is supplied jurisdiction. The Church supplies the jurisdiction to the priest in that case.

So now you’re saying that the common aphorism “once a priest always a priest” is false. Now you are saying that Holy Orders does not imprint an indelible mark on priests. You are saying their use of the power to forgive sins is not merely restricted, but they can’t objectively forgive sins at all. Interesting.

Nope, that is not what the Nota says. It says it acts with the consent of the its head. Who’s its head? The Pope.

It doesn’t say the Pope gives his consent at his mere whim and pleasure, does it? It doesn’t say the Pope can act in a solitary manner (i.e., not collegially), does it?

And you are explaining the situation to that priest as he has seen this thread. And in a talk given by the tribunal judge in my diocese the judge (who has degrees in canon law and theology) clearly stated that the pope is not subject to canon law and therefore can change it.

I prefer the teaching of the bishop-theologian of Vatican 1. Just because the Pope can change it, it doesn’t mean that he is not subject to it. And just because the Pope can change it, doesn’t mean he can change it unilaterally. And you have yet to give any support for the opposite position.

So while I do not have a theology degree, I am trusting reliable sources on my interpretation. Do I have any reason to doubt them? I haven’t found one yet.

I do. It would oppose the common good of the Church as a just society to allow the Laws of the Church to made at the mere will of one man.

And I agree with you that the pope can only act in the good of the faithful.

I’m finally glad you agree that the Pope has limits to his authority.

I am saying, if the good of the faithful required it he could do all of the things we have been talking about without consulting bishops.

Nope. Because Vatican 2 stated that the Supreme Authority of the Church is the College of Bishops. The Supreme Authority of the Church can be exercised formally on a matter of faith and morals in three ways - the Pope, an Ecumenical Council, the bishops throughout the world in union with its head bishop. In all cases, this Authority can only be exercised collegially. If the greater (the establishment of dogma) requires collegiality, the lesser (the establishment of canons) can require no less. That’s just common sense.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crusader90]

So now you’re saying that the common aphorism “once a priest always a priest” is false. Now you are saying that Holy Orders does not imprint an indelible mark on priests. You are saying their use of the power to forgive sins is not merely restricted, but they can’t objectively forgive sins at all. Interesting.

I never said that. I said that jurisdiction is required for validity of marriage and confession. Jurisdiction can be ordinary and in some circumstances supplied. A priest is always a priest, but that doesn’t mean he can validly hear confessions outside of the few exceptions in canon law (such as danger of death which is an example of the Church supplying jurisdiction).

Supplied Jurisdiction:

In ecclesiastical law, a form of delegation supplied by the Church, enabling a priest who is otherwise unauthorized to validly absolve penitents in the sacrament of penance. Thus jurisdiction is supplied in the case of common error (when people think that the priest has jurisdiction); in doubt of law or fact, assuming that the doubt is sincere; and if a priest’s jurisdiction had inadvertently expired.

It doesn’t say the Pope gives his consent at his mere whim and pleasure, does it? It doesn’t say the Pope can act in a solitary manner (i.e., not collegially), does it?

He can act without the bishops if he feels the good of the Church needs it. Various sources say he can independently. From the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

…the college of bishops cannot act without its head. In contrast, the head (the pope) can act or exercise power over the universal Church without the college of bishops.

The pope can likewise exercise his extraordinary magisterium without the consent of the bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crusader90,

I never said that. I said that jurisdiction is required for validity of marriage and confession. Jurisdiction can be ordinary and in some circumstances supplied. A priest is always a priest, but that doesn’t mean he can validly hear confessions outside of the few exceptions in canon law (such as danger of death which is an example of the Church supplying jurisdiction).

I understand what you’re saying, but that does not refute the fact that there is a divine right element to jurisdiction. For example, suppose someone pretends to be a priest, and a person confesses to him. Does the principle of supplied jurisdiction supply that power to that pretended priest (it seems to be a case of doubt of law or fact)? Of course not. That person is forgiven by another principle, but not by supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction permits a priest (a real priest) to exercise what is inherently in his power by divine right. To repeat, the Church can regulate the power of jurisdiction, but it is not the source of it (at least for bishops - and priests).

He can act without the bishops if he feels the good of the Church needs it.

And that would not be a normative thing, but only in emergency cases, correct? I can’t conceive of a non-emergency situation where it is not for the good of the Church for the Pope to consult his brother bishops on a matter that involves the entire Church. Can you?

Various sources say he can independently. From the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

I think you are interpretating this comment in a rather Absolutist Petrine manner. The term “college of bishops” is a specific ecclesiastical term. It refers to a formal mode of the exercise of the Supreme Authority. The commentary is not saying that the Pope can normatively act in a solitary manner. It is simply saying that the Pope need not perform an authoritative act in the usual formal means.

I’ll grant that your interpretation is just as valid as mine. The Absolutist Petrine view seems to be acceptable at this time within Catholicism (particularly, Latin Catholicism). I am not ashamed to say that I pray for the day that the Church formally and officially repudiates the Absolutist Petrine position as inimical to the well-being of the Church.

The pope can likewise exercise his extraordinary magisterium without the consent of the bishops.

Acting with the consent of bishops and acting collegially are two different things. St. Robert Bellarmine spelled it out. The first means that the body of bishops must approve every act of the Pope after the fact for it to be valid. This is the Gallican error. The second means that the Pope must never fail to seek the advice and support of his brother bishops before promulgating an act. This is what St. Bellarmine supported, and if you have ever taken the time to read the opinions of the Majority Party Council Fathers at V1, you will see that this is the position that won the day.

Blessings,
Marduk