I would say that it is a mix. There are some facts, some insights, some over generalizations, some superficiality, and some stereotypes in interpretation.
That’s the 1st I’ve seen a comparison like this.
My understanding was that it was meant for Catholics of other Rites. I also think that, though simple, it is accurate.
He has several eloquent responses to Rome’s position at the council. Here is an excerpt in relation to purgatory :
“*But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell *, but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard.**”
I would say he understood Catholic doctrine and fully rejected it.
Actually, he did not understand what Florence taught at all. Florence taught only that souls may require cleansing pains after death. That’s the same thing he said (though the HOW of it is explained differently by Mark of Ephesus) Florence did NOT teach purgatorial fire, since during the theological discussions, it was explicitly decided not to make it a dogmatic point of belief. FYI, the Council of Trent did not teach about Purgatorial fire either. It is a popular theologoumenon among Latins, but it is NOT a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. If Mark really understood what Florence was teaching, why was he complaining about a ponit (purgatorial fire) that Florence explicitly did NOT teach?
I hope you can answer that question, Mark.
Blessings,
Marduk
That is not the definition of “immediate and universal jurisdiction” according to Catholic teaching. “Immediate” simply means his prerogatives are directly from God. The Pope has no authority to interfere in the affairs of a local Church which has an orthodox bishop, for the simple reason that the powers of a bishop, according to Catholic teaching, are also “immediate” - i.e., directly from God. In fact, the Vatican Dogma on the Primacy explictly asserts that the supreme authority of the Pope DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS stand in the way of the local authority of the bishop - that’s just a doctrinal statement of fact. Period. Those who interpret the papal prerogatives to mean he DOES have that prerogative - non-Catholic and Catholic - are simply presenting a false caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. The Pope can intervene only if the local bishop is impeded in his duties, whether by absence, heresy, imprisonment, etc., etc. - but he does not himself have the authority to impede the local orthodox bishop’s exercise of his authority in his local diocese/eparchy. It is called universal because only the Pope can intervene in such a way universally, while a Patriarch can intervene in such wise in his entire Patriarchal jurisdiction, and a Metropolitan can intervene in such wise in his entire Metropolitan jurisdiction - i.e, when the local bishop has been impeded in performing his duties for his flock.
To be perfectly clear, Pope St. Victor called on the Churches to hold local synods on the matter only after other bishops had asked Pope St. Victor to settle the issue of the Easter date. He did not do it unilaterally. His blunder was trying to excommunicate other Churches on an issue which Tradition did not hold to be a matter that merited such an action. The Pope was duly corrected by his brother bishops and accepted correction. That seems to reflect the balance of which you spoke. The idea popular in certain Catholic circles that the Pope can do things unilaterally is neither the Tradition nor the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
It’s so good to see you! Once again I find your explanations of Catholic theological vocabulary extremely helpful. Now if only I could remember these in the future lol!
Amen.
There is an office in particular, with extra powers over the entire Church, not given by man, but from God. (1st link that follows)
How can " immediate and universal jurisdiction " be acknowledged and accepted by the East,… but only when convenient?
Disobedience plagues humanity. That doesn’t mean we aren’t called to be obedient, or no longer even try to be obedient. Jesus told us what He wanted, that’s what we’ll be judged on
Brother Marduk,
Popes have ordinary & immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church
Popes have ordinary & immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church
I do not see how that can be proved.
Thank you for that fascinating link which describe the Pope’s role within the Catholic Church. I especially found this passage helpful
2) In the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”, cap. iii, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: “We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction, is immediate in its character” (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate. That the pope’s jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ’s words to St. Peter, It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church’s members, and which needs the support of no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, “Feed my sheep”. The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., vii, § 7). That writer contended that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own authority depose him (op. cit., ii, §§ 4, 9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be definitively condemned. That the pope’s power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episco pus episcoporum. This (the bolded section) is what I have always understood the term immediate jurisdiction to mean. But why is it that some within your very own Church deny that this is what immediate jurisdiction means? Surely your disagreement is not with me, who has the same understanding of immediate jurisdiction as you do, but it is with those who in this very thread have put forth a different meaning for immediate jurisdiction than the meaning which both you and I hold in common.St. Mark replied to what was presented to him. Cardinal Julian (who had previously presided over the council) presented to all present, on behalf of Rome :
Thank you for that fascinating link which describe the Pope’s role within the Catholic Church. I especially found this passage helpful
Thank you for that fascinating link which describe the Pope’s role within the Catholic Church. I especially found this passage helpful
It would appear the Pope John Paul II disagrees with you Marduk on the meaning of immediate, but he affirms that the pope cannot do “whatever he wants”. There is some nuance involved as is usually the case. The full audience can be found here - vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html
Glad the link was helpful. I also think it clarifies in all the sections, not just the ones highlighted, issues that some misconstrue and/or distort.
Exactly.
