the same thing

[steve_b]

Exactly.

Immediate in this context (jurisdiction) has always meant NOT-mediated (no intermediary).

Well put.

and as it further states

“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”

Pushback came from Febronius in Germany and the Gallicans in France, add to that ultramontanists, conciliarists, etc. All those positions were condemned by the Church.

(cont)

“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,” Ref: “Pastor Aeternus” ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm ]

Then Card Ratzinger, head of the propogation of faith under JPII, wrote,there’s an " invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

We’ll see how that “new situation” unfolds

 

[yawsep1569]

All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum (2 Cor 11:28) as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them. In the case of the Bishop of Rome - Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops - the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church: a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful. The ministry of Peter’s Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which “the Church of Christ is truly present and active”, and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome’s ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.

The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is “one and undivided” the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and “is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church’s mission, discipline and the Christian life”; on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church - Bishops and the other faithful - owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West. (The Primacy of the Successor of Peter) - CDF document

Thanks for posting this resource Steve! It’s definitely very interesting to read His Holiness’ thoughts on the papacy before he became pope. I think my confusion stems from the fact that the Catholic Church wants to affirm that the Pope of Rome has supreme power and does not answer to anyone, but also wants to say that he does not have absolute power and governs according to sensus fidei, Revelation and the Holy Spirit. This requires a lot of faith and trust, especially knowing that popes have not always had the best intentions…

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for posting this resource Steve! It’s definitely very interesting to read His Holiness’ thoughts on the papacy before he became pope. I think my confusion stems from the fact that the Catholic Church wants to affirm that the Pope of Rome has supreme power and does not answer to anyone, but also wants to say that he does not have absolute power and governs according to sensus fidei, Revelation and the Holy Spirit. This requires a lot of faith and trust, especially knowing that popes have not always had the best intentions…

From that same doc, then Card Ratzinger in 1998 wrote ,

“The Bishop of Rome is a member of the ‘College’, and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry”.22 It should also be said, reciprocally, that episcopal collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it."

That’s an important clarifying satement. The other resources I posted show the nuts and bolts, if you will, of how the papacy and primacy is applied.

 

[Vico]

However, we don’t see the Patriarch of Alexandria acting as a literal “judge of the universe,” and defending his actions on that basis during the first millenium. Whereas we do see Rome acting from the “chair of Peter” in a unique fashion, even while acknowledging that other sees have a connection to Peter as well. For example, Pope Leo believed that he had the authority to annul a decision of the Council of Chalcedon “by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.”

Constantinople II made new anathemas, that apply after their ratification by Pope Vigilius in ~554 A.D., particularly:

1. the person and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia
2. the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and
3. the writings of Ibas of Edessa.

Justinian I had decided without a council to edict condemnation twice, in 543 A.D. and about seven years later in 551 A.D., and Justinian I had an agreement with Pope Vigilius to have a conciliar decision on it, but later Justinian I retracted, and Justinian I would not allow to have good western representation at the council of Constantinople II in 553 A.D… Pope Vigilius did not approve of holding this council without good western representation so did not attend himself.

Pope Vigilius implicitly ratified the conciliar judgement in ~554 A.D. with his Constitutum, after studying the issue.

 

[mardukm]

Exactly.

Immediate in this context (jurisdiction) has always meant NOT-mediated (no intermediary).

You have noted a distinction that I think is lost on most people.

I think most people don’t realize that the episcopal office (including the papacy) has two powers - the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction.

The power itself is considered “immediate” in the sense that it is not mediated by another party but comes directly from God. Thus, the powers of the Pope as head bishop, as well as the powers of his brother bishops, are regarded as “immediate” because they come directly from God and not given by anyone else. In distinction, the powers of Patriarchs, Metropolitans and other head bishops are not regarded as “immediate,” precisely because their power as head bishops do not come directly come from God, but is given by the Church.

Now, in terms of of the context of jurisdiction proper as a legal term, the term “immediate” has another connotation - the more popular one - that indicates the relationship between the holder of the jurisdiction and those over whom the jurisdiction is exercised.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Note on immediate:

CCEO Canon 178
The eparchial bishop, as a vicar and legate of Christ, governs in his own name the eparchy entrusted to him for shepherding. This power, which he exercises personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the Supreme Authority of the Church and can be defined with certain limits should the usefulness of the Church or the Christian faithful require it.

CCEO Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
2. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yawsep,

Thanks for posting this resource Steve! It’s definitely very interesting to read His Holiness’ thoughts on the papacy before he became pope. I think my confusion stems from the fact that the Catholic Church wants to affirm that the Pope of Rome has supreme power and does not answer to anyone, but also wants to say that he does not have absolute power and governs according to sensus fidei, Revelation and the Holy Spirit. This requires a lot of faith and trust, especially knowing that popes have not always had the best intentions…

We have been discussing this “confusion” that you have experienced here in ECF for a few years now. There are basically two positions on the papacy within the Catholic Church, which, for the sake of convenience, we can call the “Absolutist Petrine view” and the “High Petrine view.”

The Absolutist Petrine view interprets the magisterial documents to mean that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, whereever he wants at his mere discretion. To such people, because the Pope’s jurisdiction is “immediate,” that means that he can override any single bishop’s authority in a local jurisdiction at any time.

The High Petrine view understands that the Pope has certain prerogatives that can ONLY be exercised when the local bishop’s authority is impeded, but the Pope himself does not have the authority to impede that local bishop’s authority.

If you will read V1’s Decree on the Primacy and our canons, you will see that it supports the High Petrine view.

Absolutist Petrine advocates (along with non-Catholic detractors of the papacy) think that just because the Pope’s jurisdiction is “ordinary and immediate” it means that he can replace the authority of local bishop for that local bishops’ see at any time at his sole discretion. But Absolutist Petrine advocates don’t seem to have read the Canons of the Catholic Church very well. They don’t realize that while the canons affirm that the Pope has “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction in a local diocese, they do not affirm that the Pope has “PROPER, ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction. Only the local bishop is affirmed by our canons to have “PROPER, ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction in his local diocese.

The canonical term “proper” is what you have to look for to see who it is that has the normative and usual exercise of “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction in a local diocese. The Pope’s jurisdiction is considered “ordinary and immediate” in that local diocese because WHEN he has to use it in certain extraordinary circumstances, it is his right and he can deal directly with those subjects. But it does NOT mean he can exercise that jurisdiction regularly at his mere discretion. Only the one who has PROPER jurisdiction can exercise such jurisdiction regularly in a local diocese, and such PROPER jurisdiction does not belong to the Pope.

This confusion you harbor has reflected in threads where questions such as “does the Pope have the authority to change the liturgy of a local Church?” have been asked. Absolutist Petrine advocates have insisted that the Pope has such authority with no qualification. High Petrine advocates insist that he does but ONLY if it fulfills the needs of the local Church. But even that qualification is insufficient to settle the issue because Absolutist Petrine advocates claim that it is within the Pope’s prerogative to himself determine what the needs of the Church are. High Petrine advocates, in opposition, understand that only the local Church itself (with the consensus and interplay among Patriarch/Synod/laity) can determine its own needs, and the Pope responds to serve those needs.

Finally, I want address this particular porition of your statement: “I think my confusion stems from the fact that the Catholic Church wants to affirm that the Pope of Rome has supreme power and does not answer to anyone…” This needs to be qualified. I haven’t seen anything in the magisterial documents of the Church that matches such a notion without qualification. I have seen statements that the collegiality does not stand in the way of the exercise of the primacy, but such statements also insist that primacy must always work within the context of collegiality. Colleigiality cannot stand in the way of the exercise of the primacy because there is an inherent assumption that the primacy can ONLY be exercised for the good of the Church, - for that is the very purpose for which Christ himself instituted the primacy. But what if the holder of the primacy is contradicting the purpose for which Christ estalbished it? As St. Robert Bellarmine had asserted - and attested to by incidents in the sacred history of the Church - if the Pope is found to be tearing down the Church, it is the duty of the bishops to correct him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you for quoting these relevant canons. I would llike to make some comments, for the sake of information, as well as to combat the Absolutist misinterpretations of these canons.

CCEO Canon 178
The eparchial bishop, as a vicar and legate of Christ, governs in his own name the eparchy entrusted to him for shepherding. This power, which he exercises personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the Supreme Authority of the Church and can be defined with certain limits should the usefulness of the Church or the Christian faithful require it.

It should be noted here that while the power of jurisdiction is regulated by the Supreme authority, it is obtained by bishops directly from God (and in that sense is considered “immediate”). As noted earlier, the power of jurisdiction of Patriarchs, Metropolitans and other head bishops (other than the coryphaeus who is the Pope if Rome) is not considered immediate because it was/is granted by the Church, not directly from God.

CCEO Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

I would have included the canonical term “proper” in your highlight of this section.

1. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

Along with Section 1 of this Canon 45, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law makes a special point of the use of the term “munus.” The Commentary notes that the writers of the Code used this term munus in specific contradistinction to the use of the term potestas. In other words, the power of the primacy rests in its nature as a SERVICE (munus) for the Church, not by virtue of legal force (potestas).

1. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Naysayers of the papacy often criticize this section. In truth, it merely reflects the ancient Canons of Sardica. Unless non-Catholics can find proof that the early Church affirmed a higher court of appeal than the bishop of Rome, I do not see what justification they can offer for their criticism.

Absolutist Petrine advocates often use this section as proof for their claim that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, when he wants, at his mere discretion. They fail to realize that this is in specific reference to the Pope responding to the needs of the Church (see previous section). So this is in the context of an appeal process. It offers no support for the idea that the Pope can make decrees and sentences unilaterally.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Absolutist Petrine advocates often use this section as proof for their claim that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, when he wants, at his mere discretion. They fail to realize that this is in specific reference to the Pope responding to the needs of the Church (see previous section).

We are still waiting for your book on this subject matter to be written and published

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you for quoting these relevant canons. I would llike to make some comments, for the sake of information, as well as to combat the Absolutist misinterpretations of these canons.

It should be noted here that while the power of jurisdiction is regulated by the Supreme authority, it is obtained by bishops directly from God (and in that sense is considered “immediate”). As noted earlier, the power of jurisdiction of Patriarchs, Metropolitans and other head bishops (other than the coryphaeus who is the Pope if Rome) is not considered immediate because it was/is granted by the Church, not directly from God.

I would have included the canonical term “proper” in your highlight of this section.

Along with Section 1 of this Canon 45, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law makes a special point of the use of the term “munus.” The Commentary notes that the writers of the Code used this term munus in specific contradistinction to the use of the term potestas. In other words, the power of the primacy rests in its nature as a SERVICE (munus) for the Church, not by virtue of legal force (potestas).

Naysayers of the papacy often criticize this section. In truth, it merely reflects the ancient Canons of Sardica. Unless non-Catholics can find proof that the early Church affirmed a higher court of appeal than the bishop of Rome, I do not see what justification they can offer for their criticism.

Absolutist Petrine advocates often use this section as proof for their claim that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, when he wants, at his mere discretion. They fail to realize that this is in specific reference to the Pope responding to the needs of the Church (see previous section). So this is in the context of an appeal process. It offers no support for the idea that the Pope can make decrees and sentences unilaterally.

Blessings,
Marduk

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

 

[steve_b]

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

From the CCC
**895 **“The power which they (bishops) exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

If a bishop won’t accept correction/guidance from the pope, a pope can replace a bishop catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/

 

[ConstantineTG]

An Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox faith and praxis can only be found in the Orthodox Church. The reason is that being in communion with Rome means it is unavoidable that they will have influence in our Churches. He likens it to a body, your foot is in communion with your hand. The same blood circulates around the same body. You can’t be in isolation from one another.

 

[Hesychios]

An Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox faith and praxis can only be found in the Orthodox Church. The reason is that being in communion with Rome means it is unavoidable that they will have influence in our Churches. He likens it to a body, your foot is in communion with your hand. The same blood circulates around the same body. You can’t be in isolation from one another.

I feel that what he said holds true. It can be like a mixed marriage …

It is like being unequally yoked.

 

[Seamus_L]

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

 

[Trebor135]

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

Why do you say this?

 

[Seamus_L]

Because of the numbers of people I’ve known of in one way or another who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. I’ve even seen staunch OICWR types admit that a high pct of those in there ranks eventually “dox”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree. I believe Orthodox in Communion almost inevitably leads to being Orthodox Not in Communion.

Perhaps that is how God intended it.

 

[Trebor135]

Perhaps that is how God intended it.

Since you’re still in communion with Rome, don’t you fear for the souls of those who, according to Catholicism, have gone into schism by converting to Eastern Orthodoxy? How could such a thing be the will of God from a Catholic perspective?

 

[Hesychios]

Good that you mentioned proper. There is universal law and proper law. It all makes sense as you stated it.

What does ‘proper’ mean in the context of this discussion?

Just an example … If one was to make the claim that immediate Papal authority in another bishop’s diocese was improper, how would that be taken?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I feel that what he said holds true. It can be like a mixed marriage …

It is like being unequally yoked.

The problem that I find is that if it is impossible to be fully “Orthodox”/Eastern while also being in communion with Rome, it is similarly impossible to be fully “Roman”/Western while being in communion with Orthodoxy, as witnessed by the “Western Rite” Orthodox.

I personally find that the Church needs the tension of the Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith. Without that tension one tends to dogmatize one’s own theological concepts and speculations, ultimately making an idol of them. Just say “uncreated energies” or “Gregory Palamas” to a somewhat knowledgeable Roman Catholic, and the reaction will be sadly condemnatory. Likewise say “Papal infallibility,” “original sin,” or “Immaculate Conception” to a somewhat knowledgeable Orthodox, and their reaction won’t be much different.

The problem is that the majority of the major theological differences between East and West were developments after the Schism. Has one Church become heterodox? Have both? Or are both simply expressing the same ultimate reality from within their own theological framework. As an Eastern Catholic I obviously opt for the third of these options.

Oh, and Hesychios, this post was not directed at you in particular. I simply quoted your post in order to show some continuity with a line of discussion within this thread.