When St. Robert denies that the pope is lord of the whole earth, he is discussing the pope’s power in temporal affairs. St. Robert opposed the hieratic school of his day that considered the pope to be the original holder and source of all temporal power on earth; instead, he argued that the pope has indirect temporal power, a power to depose rulers and/or regulate the temporal affairs even of individuals, but only when the common spiritual good of the Church requires.
I am not saying that the “absolutist view” (and I use the scare quotes because I think there would be various modes of thought about the specific restrictions on papal power, which might separate into more than one view) is a dogmatic novelty any more than the dogma of papal infallibility is a novelty. Both ideas are the fruit of reflection on the constitution of the Church, reflection which led to the conclusion that papal authority was greater than that which had in practice been exercised earlier in the Church’s history. I honestly don’t think the fathers of Chalcedon had our notion of papal infallibility in mind when they cried out that Peter had spoken through Leo, and throughout history after that council you will find plenty of Catholics who furiously opposed the notion of papal infallibility. But new things are never added to the deposit of faith, so when an ecumenical council infallibly defined papal infallibility, this meant it must have been present in germ in the Church’s faith from the very beginning. The same would be held by various stripes of papal maximalist schools - no, the pope’s did not exercise the fulness of this authority in times past, but from reflection on the Petrine office we can conclude that he could exercise that fulness.
The pope does not exercise a primacy different from that of Peter’s. I quoted as much of the decree as I did in order to unite the different elements that make that case. Note:
What is in question here is jurisdiction in the external forum. Bishops do by their very orders receive jurisdiction in the internal forum to forgive sins (though the fact of reserved cases - dare I argue canonically? - would give rise to questions of the extent to which even this jurisdiction might be limited by the pope). In the external forum, however, they have jurisdiction only by dint of ecclesiastical office. Thus, your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that a bishop has jurisdiction by divine right over his diocese - but his ordination does not grant him a diocese. You are correct, jurisdiction does not originate with the pope, but it still nonetheless flows through the papacy because the pope, in the monarchy established by Christ (which form of government the Holy Spirit preserves), regulates jurisdiction for the whole Church.
Yes, supreme could be taken in different senses. But you have not responded to the fact that the pope, per Vatican I, possesses the absolute fulness of jurisdiction over all churches and individuals.
Refer back to the thread on confirmation where I sketched the Latin understanding of the relation between priest and bishop. The power to forgive sins resides in the high priesthood of the bishop and can be exercised by presbyters only when a high priest unites them to himself in the exercise of that power. A priest (presbyter) is always a priest, but a priest does not always have the power to forgive sins.
You are equivocating in your use of “collegially.” In the case of the extraordinary magisterium of a council or of the universal magisterium, there is a practical collegiality; for these magisteria to be exercised, a plurality of actors is absolutely necessary. But in the case of the extraordinary papal magisterium, there need be no practical collegiality, no concrete consultation or consent, in order for the teaching to be binding. You will remember that the final paragraph of Pastor aeternus, which is considered to outline the conditions for infallibility, does not state that the pope must consult the bishops of the world. Rather, it requires only that he: 1) speak in his capacity as teacher and pastor of all Christians 2) on a matter of faith or morals 3) to define something as to be held in faith by the whole Church. Tellingly, the decree makes a point of clarifying that “ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse” [and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church].
But is the requirement of collegiality, in the sense of consultation, a moral requirement, or an absolute legal requirement for validity (when such consultation is possible). The proponents of maximalist views do not hold that a pope is not morally bound to collegial action, they simply claim that he is not legally bound to act in this manner. And, I ought to add, they may also make that claim with trepidation because they know how open to abuse this may be.
Make yourself another pot. I don’t have the time to respond until tonight.
If the bishop in the diocese was doing a good job then there would be no reason to. If the bishop was not doing a good job the pope could: tell the bishop to get his act straight, if that doesn’t work he could remove him and put another bishop in the diocese. During the time of having no bishop the Pope could put it directly under his control. Or if what the bishop did wasn’t serious enough to have him removed, but what he did was still wrong…the pope could over ride his decision. If the bishop was doing a good job, then the Pope would respect the bishop’s power.
I’m not sure I understand. Are Catholic bishops not consecrated as ruling bishops of a diocese? Can they be transfered from diocese to diocese?
There’s a big difference between the concept of papal infallibility and the concept of primacy as envisaged by the Absolutist Petrine advocates. There are actual indications in the early Church that could point to a teaching of papal infallibility (rightly understood, not according to the sensationalist exaggerations of Absolutist or Low Petrine advocates). But there are absolutely no indications in the early Church that neither the Primacy of the bishop of Rome, nor the Supreme Authority of the Church was ever exercised by the Pope alone. The Ravenna colloquy is helpful in this regard. The participants all agreed that Primacy has always existed in the Church in the context of collegiality.
That’s fine. But I don’t see how that refutes my statements in any way. The Pope, like St. Peter, has proper jurisdiction over the whole Church (i.e., in matters that pertain to the Church universal, his jurisdiction is indeed proper). But nowhere does Vatican 1 claim that the Pope has proper jurisdiction in a local diocese. He has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over a local diocese, but it is not proper. Only the local bishop has proper jurisdiction in his local diocese, and our canons make that exceedingly clear. In fact, did you know that the canons state that the local bishop – and only the local bishop – has the prerogative to grant to a priest in his jurisdiction the faculty of hearing confessions everywhere in the diocese? In any case, I have explained to you in an earlier post the circumstance wherein the Pope may exercise proper jurisdiction in a local diocese/eparchy.
That’s better. That the power “flows through” the Pope – that the bishops’ own power is directly from God, and not merely an extension of the Pope’s own power - would be acceptable to refute the Absolutist Petrine idea that the bishops are nothing more than vicars of the Pope.
Having the fullness of jurisdiction means that the Pope can do everything that a bishop can do in his local diocese for that local diocese. But it does not mean that the Pope can impede the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of his brother bishops. If a local diocese/eparchy is under the care of an orthodox bishop, he and he alone – not the Pope - is its proper ordinary, and this according to divine and canon law. As you stated (though in the wrong context), the Holy Spirit indeed preserves the government of the Church established by Christ. I think rather it is you who has not addressed the relevant portion of the Vatican 1 decree (repeated by Vatican 2) that details the divine responsibility of the Pope to uphold, defend, and promote the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of his brother bishops.
Yes. The difference between the Eastern and Oriental understanding, on the one hand, and the Western understanding, on the other, of the matter is well-known. Bishops are the ordinary ministers of confirmation in the Latin Church, and the priest is the delegated minister of confirmation, but in the Eastern and Oriental Churches, the ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest. But I think you are mistaken with regards to the Sacrament of Penance. A priest is an ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Penance, just as much as the bishop is. Using your terminology, the power to forgive sins resides not only in the high priesthood of the bishop, but also in the priest himself. It is its use which is regulated by the Bishop.
This has no relevance to our discussion on collegiality, as explained in the last paragraph of my last post.
Ummm. Who’s equivocating? First you say that no collegiality is necessary for an ex cathedra decree, and now you say it is “conceptually” the case (?).
When you say “morally bound,” is that a tacit admission that this is the divine (as distinct from canonical) intention as expressed by V1 and V2? Remember that the concept of collegiality is not the same thing as the concept behind “the consent of bishops.”
You probably know this by now, but for the sake of others who don’t —
Again what you say is a matter of ecclesiastical law and subject to change. If there was a new code for eastern Churches in 20 years, this could all change. However, seeing that the Pope is not the Patriarch of the Eastern Churches it would take a lot more for the Pope to get involved, and I think the code of the Eastern Churches have a duty reflect that.
Not all bishops, and I think you know this, since it is the same in the Orthodox Churches. Auxiliary bishops are truly bishops, but they don’t have proper jurisdiction like the proper ordinary.
If the needs of the Church call for it. Translation of bishops has historically occurred in the Church both East and West despite the canons. The canons never forbade translations absolutely. The Councils forbade translations of bishops for very specific reasons - (1) to prevent heretical bishops from moving from see to see; (2) to counter the secular power’s attempts to control the Church; (3) to prevent a bishop from abandoning his flock for “greener pastures.” Translation of bishops for the purpose of meeting a genuine need of the Church was never forbidden. In the Latin Catholic Church, the Pope normally does this in consultation with local bishops; in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, this is the prerogative of the Synod.
Dear brother Marduk,
How does this relate to the pope’s canonical ability to grant any priest universal faculties, and the ability of faithful to approach priests of any rite for the sacrament?
The argument there is rather straightforward and, admittedly, taken over from St. Robert who is largely following St. Thomas. God constituted the Church according to the best form of government, and that is monarchy, both because it is the divine form of government and because it is most efficient of the good. The collegiality of bishops constitutes an admixture to this monarchy of aristocracy, whereby bishops are true but subordinate rulers, and democracy, because all men are capable of becoming bishops. The form remains essentially, however, monarchical. That’s just what those two Latin doctors have taught.
A priest is incapable of validly conferring confirmation without faculties. A priest is incapable of validly absolving without faculties. Call it what you will, the cases function in parallel. It is not a power that can be exercised validly but illicitly without episcopal approval; rather, it is one that cannot be exercised at all without such.
I am familiar with auxiliary bishops.
Yes but the way a previous poster made it seem Catholic bishops are consecrated and then the pope places them in a diocese. Almost as if the pope simply plugs bishops in wherever he sees fit and that they have no inherent connection to the diocese they rule. In Orthodoxy the episcopal candidate is elected by the holy synod as bishop of lets say Atlanta. The candidate is then consecrated bishop of Atlanta and that is his diocese, he is the ruling bishop of Atlanta and he cannot be removed from that diocese without his consent except for heresy or canonical violations.
I read brothers Crusader90 and Andreas’ descriptions exactly as you do - that the Pope at his will can plug in bishops whereever and whenever he chooses for whatever reason. Their claim is that though the Pope can do this at will, he should not do so. And that was my main contention with them.
A correct understanding would be that currently, the Catholic position can be interpreted in both an Absolutist Petrine and a High Petrine sense. The Vatican Decrees can be read to mean that the Pope is the source of every episcopal power on earth (Absolutist Petrine view), and they can also be read with a collegial understanding (High Petrine view). I personally believe that the Absolutist Petrine view can only be supported by a myopic, non-contextual, reading of the Vatican Councils, but it exists nonetheless. I know that the High Petrine view also exists within EO’xy, and I sincerely believe it is only through that position that unity will ever be achieved on the issue of the papacy.