What authority does the Pope actually have over the clergy?

[Brendan_64]

I recently had a conversation with a priest I know, a very nice guy, personally I’d describe him as leaning towards the more ‘liberal’, side of the Church, liturgically speaking (not on morals). During the conversation it came up that a secular priest’s oath of obedience is to his diocesan bishop, not to Rome, and that, as the Bishop of Rome, the priest is not bound to obey the Pope.

Is this correct? This would seem to run very contrary to the devotions and sympathies of the laity who do, as a rule, look to Rome rather than to their local diocesan bishop. In looking to their diocesan bishops in this way, rather than to Rome, are local priests and dioceses in danger of following a separate agenda to the one looked to by the people they serve? Surely this cannot be healthy for the Church, particularly if some diocesan bishops appear to have a different emphasis on certain aspects than Rome does?

Does this model of quasi-independent dioceses, with the bishop as ultimate authority, run the danger of the formation of cliques, with those priests in tune with the bishop’s views being ‘in’ and those priests who look more to Rome being ‘out’?

Christ did not create all bishops equal, Peter was given the keys and the power to bind and loose. Surely the clergy are bound to obey the Pope (regardless of whether or not they have made a specific oath to do so)?

 

[Lucky7]

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I would tend to think that yes, the priests “report” so to speak to the bishops. However, I would also tend to think that the bishops “report” to the Pope. So, if the bishops are doing something contrary and, in turn, having their diocese doing something contrary that ultimately the Pope could fix that (and therefore indirectly affect the priests).

How’s that for saying a lot and yet not saying much at all?

Maybe someone actually has a good answer to your question.

 

[Brendan_64]

How’s that for saying a lot and yet not saying much at all?

Great answer Lucky, you’d make a good English bishop

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You are correct that diocesan priests take a vow of obedience to their bishop, not to the Pope. The Latin rite bishops are responsible to the Pope. Theoretically, at least, all should be on the same page.

 

[aemcpa]

“The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.” - CIC 331

“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.” - CCC 882

 

[Bodkinn]

Implicit in the promise of obedience made by the new priest which he makes kneeling with his hands joined between those of his Ordinary is complete obedience to the authority which has raised him to the ministerial priesthood. It must follow that this obedience freely given covers all that he who has raised him represents not only in his person but by virtue of his office of Bishop. As a Bishop in the Holy Catholic Church enjoys his office by the ‘Grace of God and the Favour of the Apostolic See’ it follows that all priests are bound in obedience to the Holy Father. I would contend that this obedience covers all aspects of a priest’s priestly life. So for example even deciding for himself not to wear vestments when celebrating Mass would be an infringement of his promise of obedience.

 

[Theophorus]

I recently had a conversation with a priest I know, a very nice guy, personally I’d describe him as leaning towards the more ‘liberal’, side of the Church, liturgically speaking (not on morals). During the conversation it came up that a secular priest’s oath of obedience is to his diocesan bishop, not to Rome, and that, as the Bishop of Rome, the priest is not bound to obey the Pope.

I would say that while Priests don’t take a vow of obedience to the Pope(unless they are a Jesuits that is), The Second Vatican Council renewed the call for religious submission of Mind and Will to Church teaching by all the faithful(which includes clergy and religious). To quote part of Lumen Gentium 25:
Lumen Gentium 25:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

So while strict obedience, as should be shown to a bishop or Religious Superior, is not automatically owed to the Holy Father it is often given. However if one runs contrary to the teaching of the Petrine office, they run a large risk of cutting themselves off from the Church.

Is this correct? This would seem to run very contrary to the devotions and sympathies of the laity who do, as a rule, look to Rome rather than to their local diocesan bishop. In looking to their diocesan bishops in this way, rather than to Rome, are local priests and dioceses in danger of following a separate agenda to the one looked to by the people they serve? Surely this cannot be healthy for the Church, particularly if some diocesan bishops appear to have a different emphasis on certain aspects than Rome does?

Does this model of quasi-independent dioceses, with the bishop as ultimate authority, run the danger of the formation of cliques, with those priests in tune with the bishop’s views being ‘in’ and those priests who look more to Rome being ‘out’?

Christ did not create all bishops equal, Peter was given the keys and the power to bind and loose. Surely the clergy are bound to obey the Pope (regardless of whether or not they have made a specific oath to do so)?

That is a slightly different kettle of fish. The Model runs priests as sons of the Bishop, direct obedience due to him. Bishops in communion with the Holy Father, only a true Bishop of the Catholic Church insofar as he is in communion with Peter. Everyone should accept and be obedient to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

First and foremost the Bishop, in communion with the Holy Father, is responsible for the Church in his Diocese, the laity too, should look to their bishop first and foremost(again insofar as he is in communion with Rome). That we don’t look to our bishop first shows a failure subsidiarity in the Church and a failure at the local level of Bishops to exercise there legitimate episcopal authority as successors of the Apostles(always in communion with Peter). The Recent Scandals involving Bishops comes to mind.

Peter guiding his brother bishops as leader, and stepping in to “strengthen his Brethren” (cf.Lk 22:32) when they go wrong is the way the Church should operate.

 

[aemcpa]

So while strict obedience, as should be shown to a bishop or Religious Superior, is not automatically owed to the Holy Father it is often given. However if one runs contrary to the teaching of the Petrine office, they run a large risk of cutting themselves off from the Church.

The Pope has immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church, so yes, obedience is automatically owed to the Pope.

 

[TimothyH]

The Pope has immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church, so yes, obedience is automatically owed to the Pope.

That about sums it up, and not just for clergy but for all of us.

-Tim-

 

[Joe_5859]

From what you have described, I’d say you are both half right and half wrong.

The Church very much operates under the principle of subsidiarity. That is, that which can be settled on the local level ought to be settled on the local level. Priests promise obedience to their diocesan bishop and their successors. Likewise, us laity also ought to look to our local bishop. He is our shepherd.

I understand the impulse to go straight to the pope, but I think we need to be very careful about such attitudes. Wanting to go straight to the pope (and ignore our bishop) could be analagous to a Protestant’s desire to just go straight to Jesus (and ignore the Saints).

The reality is, it is unnecessary to do an end-run around the bishop (or the saints). We “go to the pope” through going to our bishop. You cannot have one without the other. The Pope (or his predecessor) put the bishop there in the first place. The bishop is not just window dressing to take care of things because the Pope is too busy. The bishop is a successor to the apostles. He has direct authority over us by virtue of that office.

Of course, the Pope has universal jurisdiction. So I don’t think it’s the best way to phrase things to say that a priest owes no obedience to the Pope (even if it could be construed as technically correct on some level). But I’d guess your priest was just emphasizing the point that the bishop is the one who gives him direct orders that he must follow. Obviously, if the pope called up the priest and asked him to do something, he wouldn’t say no. But that doesn’t generally happen.

Sure, there are examples of bishops who veer off the reservation and out of union with the pope. Priests and laity would not follow such a bishop off into schism. But these types of situations are not the norm.

 

[7armyrugrats]

One of my cousins is a priest. He likened this to the chain of command in the military. He reports to his pastor, who in turns reports to the bishop, who in turn reports to the archbishop, etc. Not sure if this is completely correct, but it is how he was describing it to my son who is discerning a vocation. Being an armybrat my son understood chain of command

 

[Brendan_64]

One of my cousins is a priest. He likened this to the chain of command in the military. He reports to his pastor, who in turns reports to the bishop, who in turn reports to the archbishop, etc. Not sure if this is completely correct, but it is how he was describing it to my son who is discerning a vocation. Being an armybrat my son understood chain of command

Is the archbishop actually in authority over the other bishops. I was led to believe that he wasn’t. It’s an office of reverence rather than authority, a bit like a cardinal, but just a notch lower. That’s what I was led to believe anyway.

I wnoder what happens when you get those rare cases where the parish priest is a Jesuit. Which oath of obedience takes preeminence? The oath of obedience relating to his order, or the oath of obedience to the diocesan bishop?

 

[Brendan_64]

Sure, there are examples of bishops who veer off the reservation and out of union with the pope.

A bishop doesn’t necessarily have to go out of union with the Pope in order to veer off the reservation.

 

[aemcpa]

From what you have described, I’d say you are both half right and half wrong.

The Church very much operates under the principle of subsidiarity. That is, that which can be settled on the local level ought to be settled on the local level. Priests promise obedience to their diocesan bishop and their successors. Likewise, us laity also ought to look to our local bishop. He is our shepherd.

I understand the impulse to go straight to the pope, but I think we need to be very careful about such attitudes. Wanting to go straight to the pope (and ignore our bishop) could be analagous to a Protestant’s desire to just go straight to Jesus (and ignore the Saints).

The reality is, it is unnecessary to do an end-run around the bishop (or the saints). We “go to the pope” through going to our bishop. You cannot have one without the other. The Pope (or his predecessor) put the bishop there in the first place. The bishop is not just window dressing to take care of things because the Pope is too busy. The bishop is a successor to the apostles. He has direct authority over us by virtue of that office.

Of course, the Pope has universal jurisdiction. So I don’t think it’s the best way to phrase things to say that a priest owes no obedience to the Pope (even if it could be construed as technically correct on some level). But I’d guess your priest was just emphasizing the point that the bishop is the one who gives him direct orders that he must follow. Obviously, if the pope called up the priest and asked him to do something, he wouldn’t say no. But that doesn’t generally happen.

Sure, there are examples of bishops who veer off the reservation and out of union with the pope. Priests and laity would not follow such a bishop off into schism. But these types of situations are not the norm.

The question at hand is “What authority does the Pope actually have over the clergy?” The answer is “supreme, full, immediate, universal ordinary power which he is always free to exercise unhindered”.

 

[Joe_5859]

Is the archbishop actually in authority over the other bishops. I was led to believe that he wasn’t. It’s an office of reverence rather than authority, a bit like a cardinal, but just a notch lower. That’s what I was led to believe anyway.

I wnoder what happens when you get those rare cases where the parish priest is a Jesuit. Which oath of obedience takes preeminence? The oath of obedience relating to his order, or the oath of obedience to the diocesan bishop?

It’s an imperfect analogy. A bishop doesn’t really report to the archbishop of his province, but there are some matters where the archbishop of a province has a certain type of preeminence (see canons 435-438 in Canon Law).

So being an archbishop isn’t completely an honorary thing. There are certain responsibilities that go with it. This is different from a cardinal. A cardinal isn’t a rank per se, but simply denotes that the person is one of those who will elect a pope in the event of a vacancy.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Is the archbishop actually in authority over the other bishops. I was led to believe that he wasn’t. It’s an office of reverence rather than authority, a bit like a cardinal, but just a notch lower. That’s what I was led to believe anyway.

I wnoder what happens when you get those rare cases where the parish priest is a Jesuit. Which oath of obedience takes preeminence? The oath of obedience relating to his order, or the oath of obedience to the diocesan bishop?

In all honesty, I don’t have a clue. I was just relating what my cousin told my son. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

 

[Joe_5859]

A bishop doesn’t necessarily have to go out of union with the Pope in order to veer off the reservation.

Maybe I’m thinking too simplistically, but I would think that vering off the reservation by definition means being out of union with the pope.

 

[Joe_5859]

The question at hand is “What authority does the Pope actually have over the clergy?” The answer is “supreme, full, immediate, universal ordinary power which he is always free to exercise unhindered”.

Yes, that is true and is really the succinct anser to the title of the thread as stated.

I was responding more to the OP’s comment: “This would seem to run very contrary to the devotions and sympathies of the laity who do, as a rule, look to Rome rather than to their local diocesan bishop.”

I think it’s unfortunate that some Catholics take this approach. I know that in certain dioceses, it’s understandable to develop that mentality (and I cannot say I wouldn’t do the same if I lived in one of those dioceses). But I don’t think that’s the ideal. Looking to our own bishop doesn’t mean ignoring the pope or creating some sort of “quasi-independent” churches. Dioceses do have independence it certain matters. Canon Law lays it all out. We should be able to look to our bishop and what he says.

 

[aemcpa]

A cardinal isn’t a rank per se, but simply denotes that the person is one of those who will elect a pope in the event of a vacancy.

This is not true. A bishop has jurisdiction throughout his diocese; a metropolitan archbishop has jurisdiction throughout his province; a cardinal has universal jurisdiction. In other words, while a bishop needs permission to celebrate the Sacraments outside his diocese, an archbishop may do so without permission in his archdiocese and in the dioceses of his suffragan bishops, and a cardinal may celebrate the Sacraments anywhere in the world without anyone’s permission.

 

[aemcpa]

Yes, that is true and is really the succinct anser to the title of the thread as stated.

I was responding more to the OP’s comment: “This would seem to run very contrary to the devotions and sympathies of the laity who do, as a rule, look to Rome rather than to their local diocesan bishop.”

I think it’s unfortunate that some Catholics take this approach. I know that in certain dioceses, it’s understandable to develop that mentality (and I cannot say I wouldn’t do the same if I lived in one of those dioceses). But I don’t think that’s the ideal. Looking to our own bishop doesn’t mean ignoring the pope or creating some sort of “quasi-independent” churches. Dioceses do have independence it certain matters. Canon Law lays it all out. We should be able to look to our bishop and what he says.

I agree.