www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question: Is Universal Papal Jurisdiction a "dogma" or not?

I read some of the posts on the communion thread with interest, particularly the ones indicating that the jurisdictional aspects of the papacy may not be dogmatic in nature. I'm not throwing out this question as a "bait", but I'm honestly confused. I had thought that the decrees contained in Pastor Aeturnus relating to papal jurisdiction (not just infallibility) were dogmatic in nature -- are they simply doctrine or even more simply a canonical statement? What is their status, exactly, under Catholic theology?

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yes, it is a doctrine, defined by Vatican I.

As someone with more than a passing familiarity with law, you would know that, in addition to legal definitions, there is also the interpretation of them based on case law etc.

Vatican II and other documents also affirmed that papal government is something that is shared with, for example, the heads of the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Pope's influence over the EC Churches is limited in a number of respects and he cannot, for example, legislature liturgical feasts for the East (ie. Divine Mercy Sunday).

Different Eastern Catholic Churches have different styles of governing in relation to Rome e.g. the Melkites are different from some other Eastern Catholic Churches and appear to exercise greater (if not the greatest) autonomy in this respect.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is flexing its patriarchal muscle more and more and is simply getting on with life with or without Rome's approval.

And before you counter with, "That is not what Rome expects of you," I'll say that the model of Church unity on the basis of the old Unias is itself now discredited by Rome itself.

EC Churches, in their struggles with Vatican bureaucracy, are working out new models of unity and coexistence with Rome.

Ultimately, the ideal of papal jurisdiction, which can be qualified by a future pope or council, would be based on that of the first millennium - getting involved in the affairs of a Particular, Local Church when asked to do so or in times of crisis.

Development of doctrine is central here and thank God for that!

Alex

Hi:

Well, Papal jurisdiction is defined in Pastor Aeternus as Episcopal, Immediate, Ordinary and Universal.

This means that the Pope has the same powers that the Bishop has, directly (not needing to go through the Local Bishop), out of his own right (not requiring a specific mandate) and over all Catholics of all the Sui Iuris Churches in the Catholic Communion.

The definition is made in the same terms as that of Papal infallibility, by the same Council, in the same document.

This leads me to say that the doctrine of Papal jurisdiction is as dogmatic as that of Papal infallibility.

In this forum, you'll find those who believe that the General Councils of the Catholic Church after the Seventh (Nicea II) do not rank as Ecumenical, and therefore are not infallible, and therefore are not capable of define dogma.

I think the Catholic Church clearly teaches otherwise, and I do think that such positions place those who adhere to them right at the borderline of dogmatic error, but I am not in the mood to discuss that any further, so I'll leave that to yourself.

The fact that the Pope doesn't use his authority for the Eastern Churches very frequently doesn't mean that he doesn't have the authority at all.

In fact, this absolute and sovereign power of the Roman Pontiff is scarcely used, even for matters within Latin dioceses. The Pope usually relies in the Local Ordinary to handle local matters, and only when the matter becomes a crisis, the Pope removes the Local Ordinary and names someone else.

I don't recall an instance when the Pope took the local affairs of a diocese into his own hands, personally. But again, that doesn't mean he can't, it just means he has chosen not to.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

First of all, for a Catholic today to say that the Latin Councils following the Seventh Ecumenical Council are Local would be a theological opinion.

And such is allowable for any loyal Catholic, including someone like Fr. Francis Dvornik, SJ, from whom I first learned of this view!

Most of the later 14 Latin Councils did NOT teach doctrine at all. And while this is a matter capable of debate, Fr. Dvornik (and others) have held that a Council that does not define a doctrine cannot be an ecumenical council.

Another argument against their "universality" as ecumenical councils would be the lack of participation of the Eastern Churches.

Without them, the majority, if not all, the 14 Latin Councils are simply not "ecumenical" at all, despite the fact that it would see Orthodoxy as being "in schism."

Even more to the point, in the event of a reunion Council between East and West, the West could NOT impose its Latin Councils on the East for the above reasons.

So this is not a point of contention outside the possibility of a reunion of East and West.

As we've discussed here a number of times before, what few doctrinal definitions have come out of the West since the Seventh Council, outside of those regarding the papacy, are not an issue with the East and they reflect Western theological concerns that do not impact us.

Although the papacy was defined in jurisdictional and infallible terms, there is no reason why a future union Council (which need not be "ecumenical" either, but most likely will be) could not redefine things.

Your view of us as being "borderline" whatever and also Brendan's view of us being "relativistic" does show the peculiar vocation to which Eastern Catholics are called.

We are viewed with suspicion by BOTH the Latin West and the Orthodox East as we struggle in our commitment to remain true to the vision of the Church in terms of "unity in diversity."

To me, Roman Catholics and Orthodox seem to be in full agreement with one another when it comes to Eastern Catholics - we are neither "here" nor "there" and we should therefore make a definite choice.

We have made a choice and we will continue to defend our stance with a foot in both East and West until the reunion of Churches, as equals, with full respect of each other's patrimony etc. is achieved.

Alex

Posted by Orthodox Catholic:

"We have made a choice and we will continue to defend our stance with a foot in both East and West until the reunion of Churches, as equals, with full respect of each other's patrimony etc. is achieved."


Dear Alex,

That's a choice that seems most eminently reasonable and true to the Faith.


Steve

Dear Steve,

You are my idea of a true Hollywood Star!

Alex

Dear All,

It seems to me that it was reported here that Pope Paul VI held a view that saw the first seven Ecumenical Councils as being different from the later 14. I recall that it sounded like the view presented by Alex.

I don't remember where it was posted, but I think that, if I remember correctly, it bears on the discussion taking place here. Does anyone remember the forum and topic? Or even better, is anyone able to refer us to the view of Paul VI himself as reported in primary or secondary source material?

Thanks,

Steve


PS:

Dear Alex,

Hollywood? Star? Ehhm, know any good agents? :rolleyes:

Dear Brendan,

I'm not sure that this is what you are asking about, but there is a good entry on Papal Primacy (Primacy, Papal) by Jean- M.R. Tillard in the The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pages 1051 - 1053. It discusses primacy and places primacy as treated by Vatican I in the Context of primacy and collegiality as treated by Vatican II. It does indicate that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is that ..."the Bishop of Rome has a jurisdiction that is not delegated (it is ordinary) and can be exercised directly for the whole Church without having to go through an intermediate body (it is immediate). This power is episcopal, given in the sacramental grace of episcopacy" (pp. 1052-1053).

The author of the article also points out that, "Vatican I teaches that other bishops are not the vicars of the Bishop of Rome, and no detriment may be done to the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the bishops in their own local churches (DS 3061). Vatican II adds that in his local church each bishop is 'vicar of Christ' (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, n. 27) and that the power of jurisdiction he possesses in this local church is given through his sacramental ordination and not throught the Bishop of Rome."

So, it seems that it is safe to assume that the doctrine of the Catholic Church about Papal Primacy is as you thought. As presented in the article, there are many rich nuances in its meaning and its application.

If Vatican I is indeed a true Ecumenical Council, it appears that it is dogma also. But as Alex points out infallibility and primacy were discussed in basically juridical terms by the Fathers of Vatican I. The fact that the same issues were discussed in pastoral and collegial terms by the Fathers of Vatican II suggests that the doctrinal understanding of the dogma is capable of further development.

In short, the discussion has not been completed. If it had, it doesn't seem reasonable for Pope John Paul II to invite brother patriarchs and bishops and the faithful to find ways that the role of the Pope would serve in the life of the Churches. Surely this indicates that the understanding of infallibility and jurisdiction are open for further clarification that will enrich those charisms of the college of bishops and the Pope with insights as yet not declared.

I hope that this is of some use.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Brothers,
It is my understanding that Papal Jurisdiction is a matter of "divine right" and that his jurisdiction is universal and immediate.

That being said, as in the words of John Paul, the manner in which that Jurisdiction is used is still subject to being further defined and developed within the universal church, and he has invited the Orthodox to explore thispossibility.

Stephanos I

Dear Stephanos I:

About which selected theologians from the Orthodox Churches are now meeting with Catholic theologians in Rome in closed-door sessions for in-depth discussions on the "role" of the Pope/Papacy/Petrine Ministry in a united Church.


AmdG

I have heard of "divine right" with regard to kings, but not with regard to Popes. Juristiction is a matter of discipline and good order. How authority serves the Church has changed in every century of the Church's existence. A read of Church history will confirm this. It will continue to change even as it is changing now. Our Holy Father in a recent encyclical has affirmed this truth, and expressed a willingness to address how the Papacy might change in the future in order to serve the unity of the Church better.

Something that was different in every century, is different now, and may very likely be different in the future can not be seen on the same level as an article of the 'truth' which is changeless, defined, not open to question. Such an example of dogma is the truth of the Triune God, One and Three. That Mary is properly called "Theotokos" is another such example.

I agree with all that has been said about the juristiction of the Holy Father. It is taught by Vatican I, and it begins the current Code of Canons. The interesting article above, said that no pope is bound by the legislation of a previous pope, and is free to legislate anew. So, it is possible that another pope might begin a new Code of Canons with another formulation of juristiction or model of legislation? The article affirms that right.

But it does not affirm the right of the Pope to teach something which is contrary to dogma. Then would he not be a heretic (an anti-Pope, as the history books politely affirm)?

So legislation, where the teaching on "universal papal juristiction" and authority is rightly articulated, is somehow not of the same order of the dogmas of the Church (cf. examples above). The second must be assented to, for the sake of salvation, and are eternally true, not ever to be denied.

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

With these words (and those of yours that went along with them), you have re-affirmed my desire to be an Eastern Catholic and to carry on our seemingly hopeless fight. Thank you.

Ghazar DerGhazarian

Dear Ghazar,

We are brothers in the Communion of the One, Holy, Orthodox, CAtholic and Apostolic Church, gathered around the Pope of Rome as the First among Equals and our respective Patriarchs as the First among Equals in our National, Particular Churches.

God willing, we shall remain true to what we both believe is the Will of Christ for the unity of His Church to the end!

And it is an end that is a real beginning!!

God bless you, Servant of Christ!

Alex

And canonically so too.

"The bishop of the Church of Rome ... enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43, CCEO)

"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." (Canon 45.1, CCEO)

The comment by J Thur shows why the Orthodox Church is so reluctant to enter into active ecumenical links. With such clear belifs that go against tradition, how can you expect much interactions between the Churches?