What authority does the Pope actually have over the clergy?

[Joe_5859]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I meant that it’s not a “rank” in the sense that bishops report to archbishops who report to cardinals. There are different types of jurisdiction, but all bishops fundamentally report to the pope.

 

[aemcpa]

Thanks for the clarification. I meant that it’s not a “rank” in the sense that bishops report to archbishops who report to cardinals. There are different types of jurisdiction, but all bishops fundamentally report to the pope.

Yes. It’s not like the military.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

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?

A Jesuit’s vow of obedience is to his superior.

I belong to a parish run by Franciscans. I remember when our new pastor was installed. The Guardian of the Franciscan community was there and the bishop was there. The installation started with the Guardian saying something like “The Franciscan Provincial has assigned Fr. John Doe as pastor of this parish and under obedience, Fr. John has accepted the assignment.”

What it sounded like to me was “The Provincial is the one who decides where his men go and this is who you get whether you want him or not.”

My Jesuit friends fall into the same category. It’s their Provincial who decides where they are missioned and when any changes are needed. Where a bishop could tell one of his own men that he needs a new pastor at St. X parish or wants to send him for further study in canon law so he can work on the Tribunal, he can do that with a Jesuit, Franciscan, etc.

 

[JReducation]

A Jesuit’s vow of obedience is to his superior.

I belong to a parish run by Franciscans. I remember when our new pastor was installed. The Guardian of the Franciscan community was there and the bishop was there. The installation started with the Guardian saying something like “The Franciscan Provincial has assigned Fr. John Doe as pastor of this parish and under obedience, Fr. John has accepted the assignment.”

What it sounded like to me was “The Provincial is the one who decides where his men go and this is who you get whether you want him or not.”

My Jesuit friends fall into the same category. It’s their Provincial who decides where they are missioned and when any changes are needed. Where a bishop could tell one of his own men that he needs a new pastor at St. X parish or wants to send him for further study in canon law so he can work on the Tribunal, he can do that with a Jesuit, Franciscan, etc.

The answer to the original question is not as black and white as quoting canon law and the CCC as some have done here. Remember, Canon Law uses a language that is part of the canonical tradition and not the language of the Church today. To read it correctly, one must understand the tradition.

Let’s take the first point. The pope has universal jurisdiction. But one must understand what the term “jurisdiction” means in canon law. In simple language, it means that he does not need permission to celebrate the sacraments in any diocese around the world. Secondly, he decides he is to be the bishop of every diocese. This leads down the third point. Because every bishop is ordained with the explicit consent of the pope and appointed through a bull from the pope, every bishop receives his faculties from the pope. Therefore, every bishop receives his jurisdiction form the pope. The bishop is expected to lead in communion with the pope. If a bishop breaks communion with the pope, then no one is bound to obey.

But here is the next point of the language. What does communion mean in the tradition of canon law? It does not mean that a bishop has to say everything that a pope says or do everything that pope does. Communion means jurisdiction. This is one of those concepts that you’re not going to find in print in any one book. It’s tradition handed down by word of mouth and by practice.

We recently saw a group of European bishops approve communion in the hand (no pun intended). They did not have permission from the Holy Father to do so. However, this does not break communion with the pope. What they did was to vanquish a discipline. However the discipline of COTT is not required for communion with the pope. Even though they broke with the discipline, they did not break with the pope.

If you take the case of Archbishop Lefebvre who ordained bishops without a papal mandate, he broke communion with the pope. The ordination of bishops is reserved to the approval of the Holy Father, because it is necessary that every bishop be approved by the Holy Father to preserve the communion of the college of bishops. The bishop who does the ordaining and those who are ordained have set themselves outside of the college of bishops, whereas those who approved communion in the hand have not. The former is required to remain part of the college of bishops, but the latter is not. Why the difference? The ordination of bishops is the transmission of the Apostolic Succession. No one can do so without the Prince of the Apostles approving it. In fact, we heard this in this past weekend’s epistle. The CITH has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession… The breach is of a different nature.

Having said this, we can then speak about the priest’s promise of obedience in the next frame.

 

[aemcpa]

The answer to the original question is not as black and white as quoting canon law and the CCC as some have done here.

Canon 331 says “potestate” or “power”, not merely jurisdiction. It really is as black and white as saying that the Pope could walk into any chancery or rectory and tell the bishop or pastor, “Do X, Y and Z or you’re excommunicated.” Not that he would or should, but he could.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I just noticed a typo that completely changes the meaning of what I wrote.

Where a bishop could tell one of his own men that he needs a new pastor at St. X parish or wants to send him for further study in canon law so he can work on the Tribunal, he can do that with a Jesuit, Franciscan, etc.

Should be: he can NOT do that with a Jesuit, Franciscan, etc.

 

[JReducation]

Here is where things get very sticky. I was once asked if I had the same authority as a bishop, since I’m a major superior and two of my brothers are priests. I tried to explain this, but I think the receiver became more confused, because he did not explain it very clearly.

Let’s begin with diocesan clergy. When a man is ordained a deacon for the diocese, he promises obedience to his bishop. It makes no difference whether he is going to be a permanent deacon or transitional deacon. A deacon is a deacon. The promise is the same. Observe, it is a promise, not a vow. It is limited to the bishop’s use of authority in all that is directly related to ministry. The bishop has no authority over the personal life of the deacon, priest or his auxiliary bishops. Obviously, if they are causing scandal, it affects ministry.

SuscipeMeDomine brings out the appointment of a Franciscan Friar as pastor. Here is where we religious superiors have the same authority as a bishop. It is the superior who appoints your pastor, not the bishop. The pastor answers to the bishop in those matters that are in diocesan policy and to which the superior has agreed. It is the superior who enters into an agreement with the bishop as to what the pastor will or will not do, as well as any friars under the pastor. If you notice, the superior is not a bishop, but his authority over his men is the same as that of a bishop over diocesan clergy. Also, notice that the laity has no voice over the superior.

Here is an interesting point. In the case of a diocesan priest who is appointed to a parish, the laity has recourse to the bishop if there is a problem. In the case of a priest from a religious order, the laity presents its concern to the bishop who then forwards the concerns to the superior. The bishop cannot become involved. Here again, the superior is acting as a bishop would regarding his men. The laity and the bishop have to accept the word of the superior as final. If they laity and the superior do not reach an agreement the bishop has the authority to put the laity under interdict until it submits to the superior. He cannot put the superior and his men under interdict. He does not have that authority. Why not?

When a man becomes a religious, he makes a vow of obedience to his superior, to his founder, to his constitution, to his community and to the rule written by the founder. No other promise of obedience is necessary. At ordination, his promise of obedience to the bishop is either not made or it’s made with the contingency that the bishop cannot demand was is in conflict with the religious life, even if it’s for the good of the diocese. The religious vow of obedience trumps the promise of obedience to the bishop when a conflict arises. If there is no conflict, the religious is bound to obey the bishop, because he is exercising legitimate authority.

This takes us back to the Code of Canon Law. A bishop exercises legitimate authority when he acts within the parameters of Canon Law. And Canon Law requires that he act in communion with the pope. As we said above, there are things actions and situations that even though they are illegal do not break the communion, because they are not necessary for the communion with the pope.

If a bishop decides that everyone must receive communion kneeling down and on the tongue, he can do so. The law permits COTH. The law is approved by the pope. But the law is an indult. The indult is not a necessity for communion with the pope. If the bishop decides that there will be no fasting and abstinence on a particular day for some pastoral reason, even though the universal Church is abstaining and fasting, he is not breaking communion with the pope. Fasting and abstinence are not necessary for communion. If that were the case, every Church in union with Rome would have to fast and abstain on the same days.

The best way to determine what is and is not required for communion with the pope is to look beyond the Latin Church. If it is required for the universal Church, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is probably necessary to maintain communion.

This takes us down to priests, deacons and auxiliary bishops. Who do they obey, bishop or pope. Since the bishop is put over them by the pope, in obeying the bishop, they are obeying the pope. As I said above, when a bishop breaks communion with the pope, he cannot command obedience. We saw this very clearly in the case of the FSSP and Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop broke the communion and the first FSSP bolted. He could no longer exercise legitimate episcopal authority over them. I use the SSPX situation, but theirs is not the only case. It’s just the most popular case known in this forum.

 

[JReducation]

There is a mistaken understanding about what religious vow to obey the pope and who do not.

The Jesuits do not vow to obey the pope. This is another misunderstanding of the language of law. St. Ignatius vowed to go where the pope needed him and his sons. They vow to be available to the pope. This does not mean that they are making a vow of obedience to the pope.

However, there is a catch here. The pope is the highest ranking authority in every religious community. All religious are bound to obey the pope when he explicitly requires their obedience. Note the word “explicitly”. He can’t just say that they “should do this” or “it would be good if they did that.” He has to say, “You will do this.” Case in point, Pope Francis has just said that the revision of the LCWR will continue. This is explicit. The LCWR has not choice but to cooperate with the CDF. The Pope did not say that “it would be a good idea” to continue.

Another myth, Franciscans are the only religious who have it in their constitution and in the rule that St. Francis wrote that we vow unquestioning obedience to the pope. It’s not the Jesuits who vow unquestioning obedience to the pope, it’s Franciscans. That’s the reason that Leonard Buff of Brazil had to leave the Franciscans. The pressure to obey the pope was mounting from within the Franciscans. The pope had explicitly prohibited the use of Marxism to promote the Gospel. Any form of Liberation Theology that used Marxist methods and philosophy was to be abandoned. Buff had problems with this and the pressure mounted. He was not dismissed. He left very legally and is in good standing with the Church, even though his ideas are rather different.

The priest who answered the question is correct. A diocesan priest does not promise obedience to the pope. He promises obedience to his bishop. He trusts that his bishop will remain in communion with the pope, even if he breaks a rule here or there. Hopefully, we’re not talking about rules necessary for communion. If his bishop breaks with the Primacy, then his fidelity moves up the chain of command.

One final note. An archbishop is not higher than a bishop and bishops do not answer to archbishops. Archbishops are heads of a metropolitan see. These are dioceses that are the mother dioceses in a province. The archbishop is automatically the president of the conference of bishops for that province. It is his job to cover when a bishop is too sick or dies until the pope finds a new bishop.

In reality, in the Catholic Church, every diocese is a local Church and quite autonomous as long as they maintain communion with the Primacy. This does not mean agreement on everything, only on what is essential for communion. What is essential is not decided by us, but by the pope himself.

I’m not a canon lawyer. I studied canon law for two years while in the seminary. So my language in explaining these things is not as good and concise as that of a lawyer. For this I ask pardon.

 

[JReducation]

Canon 331 says “potestate” or “power”, not merely jurisdiction. It really is as black and white as saying that the Pope could walk into any chancery or rectory and tell the bishop or pastor, “Do X, Y and Z or you’re excommunicated.” Not that he would or should, but he could.

Not quite. That’s a very literal interpretation of law. You must interpret law according to the legal tradition, not according to the printed word alone. We don’t do law that way in the Latin Church.

In the legal tradition, to have the power does not mean that one walks all over those underneath them. This would be an abuse of power. To have power means that one exercise that power justly and charitably. A pope is not bound by canon law, but he is bound by moral law. He cannot violate charity and justice in the exercise of power.

To step on a bishop’s toes is failing in charity and justice. It is also a violation of the collegiality. All bishops belong to the college of bishops of which the pope is the head. While they owe him obedience, he owes them respect and charity. These are moral requirements that no pope can change.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks, Brother JR, for the clarifications.

 

[dans0622]

…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? …Surely the clergy are bound to obey the Pope (regardless of whether or not they have made a specific oath to do so)?

Hello,

Far be it from me to not refer to the Code of canon law when possible but I think we can more profitably go to Vatican Council I’s Pastor aeternus, chapter 3, number 2: “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

On second thought, I’ll throw a reference to the Code in here: canon 273 is particularly relevant: “Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.”

Dan

 

[Brendan_64]

Thanks to all for your answers on here. I have had a lot of things clarified, thanks for that.

So it seems that if you have a particularly ‘liberal’ bishop, yet one who doesn’t do anything to step out of Communion with Rome, you still have to look to him rather than Rome and your’re stuck with it? I’m not a traditionalist myself by any means, but I do quite like the idea of a Catholic Church that is Catholic in style, appearance and in devotional practices. I’m very much a supporter of Vatican II, but I do not like the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” which can be used as carte blanche for going beyond what was actually stated.

 

[Jaysuitical]

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)?

For years the bishop in my diocese did everything he could to prevent any clergy or laity from co-operation with Rome, tho' he put on quite a show of enthusiasm when it came to the papal visit or to his own ad liminal visits to Rome.

Ven. Fulton J. Sheen’s book on the priesthood is called “The Priest Is Not His Own,” and sadly, this priest expresses the opposite – the priest is his own, filled with his own opinions, and using a foolish and false pretext for justifying going his own way, or the way his particular clique of diocesan clergy are going. Maybe he’s even sound on doctrine – but the fact that he would insist that his allegiance isn’t to the “Bishop of Rome” is rather like a medieval knight insisting that his allegiance is to his duke rather than to his king or to the emperor. Not a very good place to be at all . . .

 

[Brendan_64]

Let’s just hope that Pope Francis continues with the much needed central discipline over diocesan practices that was implemented under John Paul II and continued under Benedict XVI.

 

[ProVobis]

If you take the case of Archbishop Lefebvre who ordained bishops without a papal mandate, he broke communion with the pope.

Br JR, the priests whom he ordained were all suspended, years before he consecrated those four bishops. The priests AFAIK were in accord with their bishop; unfortunately for them the Vatican did not see it their way. They needed to break with their bishop (and become the FSSP) to keep any communion with Rome.

 

[aemcpa]

Hello,

Far be it from me to not refer to the Code of canon law when possible but I think we can more profitably go to Vatican Council I’s Pastor aeternus, chapter 3, number 2: “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

CIC 331 is a codification in law of this teaching.

 

[otjm]

CIC 331 is a codification in law of this teaching.

And is subject to precedent - or, as Bro. JR explained, is not subject to a literal reading with no reference to the past - whether written in Code, or as done in practice.

 

[aemcpa]

And is subject to precedent - or, as Bro. JR explained, is not subject to a literal reading with no reference to the past - whether written in Code, or as done in practice.

I don’t see how you can say precedent imposes any limit on the Pope’s power. The only limit on his power is divine law itself. As far as the governance of churches, he can erect and abolish dioceses by fiat, and appoint and transfer bishops by fiat, so it’s pretty hard to argue that it is outside his power to govern a diocese against the bishop’s will.

 

[otjm]

It is at times hard to get a realistic perspective of what goes on in the Church. And from what I have read and seen, it is even harder if one lives in the US.

In the US, we have a very strong tendency to take law literally; that is, we tend to see the letter of the law, and not understand that there may be valid interpretations that are not literal.

Another way to say it is that unity does not mean uniformity. The Church can be (and is) united, but it is not absolutely uniform, and our perspective that it was uniform prior to Vatican 2 is not necessarily historically based, but rather presumed.

That is not to say that there was experimentation going on in liturgy such as occurred in the late 1960’s through, say the 1980’s. But we look back, often guided by others’ say-so that it was a time of an almost lockstep following of whatever Rome said.

Rome has a more relaxed approach to law than we do. Rome does not micro-manage the Church (and for that matter, neither do bishops generally), so the issue of whether or not priests are obedient to Rome would probably be looked at quite differently by Rome (the Pope and the Curia) than we look at it.

Ultimately yes, a priest has to be obedient to Rome, but that obedience is far more of a secondary matter than a primary; that is, he is going to get marching orders, if such are to be given, by his bishop, and not the Curia as the active “enforcement” agency of the Pope. The Pope himself is not going to get involved in local matters, or for that matter, regional matters; that is why he has the various dicasteries. And as noted elsewhere, the Curia are going to look to see if a complaint, filtering up from the laity, has gone through the proper channels (the bishop, that is). That in part is why there has been so little activity on the part of Rome in the last 40 years over what has been complained of in the area, for example, of liturgical abuse.

Likewise, there have been attempts to pin the sexual abuse by priests on Rome, as if Rome were ion control of each an every priest (and that would make sense if each priest were required direct obedience to the Pope). It didn’t pin, in part because there is no direct code of obedience required of each priest.

 

[JReducation]

On May 6, the Holy Father addressed the International Union of Superiors General for religious orders, religious congregations and institutes of consecrated life. In speaking to the brothers and sisters who represent the 3 million religious men and women in the Catholic Church, the Pope Francis address obedience.

Just as I had explained above, he explained that obedience is an openness to the Holy Spirit. It is doing the will of God, which is mediated through human authority. At the same time, human authority is at the service of those who profess obedience. It is not the role of ecclesial authority to lord it over those who profess obedience.

The statement can be found in VIS.

This statement by the Holy Father is exactly what we have been saying about the problem of taking Canon Law very literally on this particular subject. Obedience is not simply a matter of following orders. There are components to obedience. The subject must discern the voice of the Holy Spirit. The superior (including the pope) must confirm that what the subject hears is indeed the voice of the Holy Spirit. However, this places a moral responsibility on the superior to be attentive to and to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, the superior, including the pope, cannot simply give orders to those who profess obedience. He must serve them. It is his moral duty to seek their best interest; herein enters the obligation to exercise authority with justice and charity. Authority that is not exercised with justice and charity is not legitimate authority, because it is not servant authority, as the Holy Father describes the role of the superior.

As you can see, there is much more than what is written in Canon Law. One must remember that the purpose of Canon Law is to summarize, not to spell out every detail of every possible situation. We tend to read Canon Law very narrowly. If it says X it must mean X. The Church knows that X stands for something much bigger.

Archbishop Mueller recently said that the laity, unless they are trained in Canon Law and theology, should not dabble in it because they always get it wrong. I don’t think that he meant it to be disrespectful to the laity, because he recognizes that there are lay canon lawyers and lay theologians. I think that he is trying to be respectful to canon law and theology by protecting the two disciplines from being misrepresented by those who do not know how to read them properly. One could even say that he’s trying to protect the universal Church by telling those who are not experts not to tamper with very delicate matters, because they can do much harm.

This is certainly the case in this discussion. There is a tendency on both sides. One side tries to stick the law so literally that the true meaning of obedience and authority is lost. The other side tries to water down the law to the point that the law may as well not exist, because it fails to represent the reality that the Church had in mind when it wrote the law in 1983.

We must remember that terms such as love, service, and charity are rarely found in canon law. Bl. John Paul II deliberately ordered that these terms be avoided in writing Canon Law, because these terms are theological and Canon Law is not theology. Canon Law must be interpreted in the light of theology. To put it another way, the Church’s theological definition of obedience, authority, the papacy, promise, and vow guides the application of the law. The law never guides theology.