I
Irenicist
Guest
One problem Orthodox often raise with respect to governance is with the claim spelled out at Vatican I for the Pope’s immediate universal ordinary jurisdiction. You will have to bear with me as this gets somewhat complicated.
First off, Catholics and Orthodox tend to have different understandings of the authority of councils they respectively consider ecumenical. For many (if not necessarily all) Orthodox all the canons of ecumenical councils are irreformable by any other organ of the Church, even strictly legal decisions or anathemas. So many Orthodox who would deny immediate universal jurisdiction to bishop of Rome believe that Vatican I has (on this point among others) simply shuts the door on the issue precluding further dialogue.
From the Catholic point of view, however, (and I stand to be corrected on this) the Pope doesn’t claim universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction by divine right (at least not in a uniquely exercised sense). Step back a bit and you will see that, in fact, all bishops by virtue of their ordination (i.e. ordinarily) can validly administer the sacraments universally (i.e. anywhere), immediately (i.e. without having to go through someone else, in other words “without mediation”).
The issue is not the “validity” of such actions, but whether they are “licit”, i.e. acceptable under canon law. So what Vatican I is saying here is that the Pope can exercise such jurisdiction licitly. It is thus simply amending or clarifying canon law and not infallibly articulating a statement of faith. Soi in therory, this is something that could be changed on the Catholic side (which is not to say that such a change would likely, desirable, or even wise).
To those who would argue that episcopal acts (whether legal or sacramental) by one bishop in the diocese of another are invalid, one can demonstrate powerful precedents to the contrary. One of the greatest Eastern Patriarch, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, did exactly that, ordaining and ministering to the orthodox in the dioceses of Arianising or compromising bishops outside his Patriarchate. So if the Patriarch of Alexandria, the number 2 in the ecclesiastical hierarchy at the time in the undivided Church, could validly exercise universal immediate ordinary jurisdiction, it follows that the Pope could as well. It also follows that if the canons of Sardicca (which St. Athanasius signed, btw) were to have any practical meaning, the Pope would have to be able to exercise such jurisdiction licitly, at least in some well defined circumstances. Some Orthodox (though probably not the majority at the moment) would be prepared to buy into this…
Irenicist
First off, Catholics and Orthodox tend to have different understandings of the authority of councils they respectively consider ecumenical. For many (if not necessarily all) Orthodox all the canons of ecumenical councils are irreformable by any other organ of the Church, even strictly legal decisions or anathemas. So many Orthodox who would deny immediate universal jurisdiction to bishop of Rome believe that Vatican I has (on this point among others) simply shuts the door on the issue precluding further dialogue.
From the Catholic point of view, however, (and I stand to be corrected on this) the Pope doesn’t claim universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction by divine right (at least not in a uniquely exercised sense). Step back a bit and you will see that, in fact, all bishops by virtue of their ordination (i.e. ordinarily) can validly administer the sacraments universally (i.e. anywhere), immediately (i.e. without having to go through someone else, in other words “without mediation”).
The issue is not the “validity” of such actions, but whether they are “licit”, i.e. acceptable under canon law. So what Vatican I is saying here is that the Pope can exercise such jurisdiction licitly. It is thus simply amending or clarifying canon law and not infallibly articulating a statement of faith. Soi in therory, this is something that could be changed on the Catholic side (which is not to say that such a change would likely, desirable, or even wise).
To those who would argue that episcopal acts (whether legal or sacramental) by one bishop in the diocese of another are invalid, one can demonstrate powerful precedents to the contrary. One of the greatest Eastern Patriarch, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, did exactly that, ordaining and ministering to the orthodox in the dioceses of Arianising or compromising bishops outside his Patriarchate. So if the Patriarch of Alexandria, the number 2 in the ecclesiastical hierarchy at the time in the undivided Church, could validly exercise universal immediate ordinary jurisdiction, it follows that the Pope could as well. It also follows that if the canons of Sardicca (which St. Athanasius signed, btw) were to have any practical meaning, the Pope would have to be able to exercise such jurisdiction licitly, at least in some well defined circumstances. Some Orthodox (though probably not the majority at the moment) would be prepared to buy into this…
Irenicist
