Dear Cavaradossi,
What a ridiculous premise. The Latin Church is so territorial that it basically claims that the entire new world and all of Asia falls under its territory, and its bishops often act in a very territorial way concerning the diaspora of those Eastern churches which entered into union with Rome. Not only that, but the bishop of Rome has immediate ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese, eparchy, ordinariate, etc., in the world.
Tu quoque arguments only mean you admit the premise of the thing you are criticizing.
That is quite the non sequitur. In fact, the argument from fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.
That's not a non sequitur, but the propositional premise that makes a tu quoque argument (which you made) a fallacy. The tu quoque argument attempts to defend a position being criticized by saying "you do it too." That's exactly what you did. Your only response was basically "Rome makes the same claim on a grander scale." If it is not your intention to support he territorial claims of the MP, then you may disregard my comment.
In any case, in Catholic ecclesiology, EVERY head bishop (Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Pope) has ordinary jurisdiction in each diocese under him. That the Pope has ordinary jurisdiction in each diocese in the Church is no big thing and does not interfere with the proper jurisdiction of each bishop for his local diocese. Pope St. JP2 of thrice-blessed memory stated that primacy does not give the Pope (or ANY head bishop) the responsibility NOR the power to intervene in the daily affairs of a local Church. I'd rather listen to his own job description than that of Absolutist Petrine extremists and non-Catholic fearmongerers about what the papacy is.
That he has immediate jurisdiction? No big thing. That just means we understand that when he is called upon to exercise his primacy of jurisdiction, it is a power borne directly from God, not intermediately from the Church (unlike that of other head bishops whose offices were created by the Church over time). Again, it doesn't mean he has the responsibility nor the power to interfere in the daily affairs of a local Church.
But you conceal what exactly are the implications of the existence of a universal immediate jurisdiction. The ordinary jurisdiction of metropolitans, archbishops, and patriarchs is mediate ordinary jurisdiction, and as you note, this jurisdiction is given and defined by the laws and the customs of the church. The immediate jurisdiction of the pope on the other hand is by divine right, which you also note, but then you do not admit the logical conclusion which is that there can be no legal constraints to the power of the pope when acting in virtue of his position as head of the church, nor can his powers simply be reserved by any custom or law, in such a fashion that he can be prevented from operating in the daily affairs of a local church (as human constructs and laws cannot place constraints on what is had by divine right).
I did not conceal it but addressed it directly. Pope St. JP2 of thrice blessed memory stated, directly contrary to your claim, that the Pope does not have the responsibility
nor the power to intervene in the daily affairs of local Churches. Your claim about what "universal immediate jurisdiction" means is directly contrary to what the Church
actually teaches (your criticism is, however, valid against the Absolutist Petrine misrepresentations of Catholic teaching about the papacy - in that context, I agree with you). Critics of the papacy - both Catholics and non-Catholics - who correctly admit and represent what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the papacy normally base their criticism on the praxis (not the theory), which is what you attempt to do next (to be discussed further below).
Further, the notion that because the office of the papacy (i.e., the primacy) is divinely instituted means there are no "legal constraints" on it is ridiculous. The office of bishop is also divinely instituted, just as the College of bishops is divinely instituted, as are the offices of priest and deacon, yet no one claims that these offices are not constrained by the Church's laws for one instant. If divine institution is your sole reason for claiming "no legal constraint," then it is a poor, moreso invalid, reason.
It is admitted by all that the primacy is constrained by Divine Law. The popular caricature is that this is the ONLY constraint on the papacy, and apart from that anything goes. This is a false notion. As the Swiss and German bishops conferences EXPLICITLY affirmed immediately after Vatican 1 (with explicit support from Pio Nono ), and as the CDF affirmed relatively recently just as EXPLICITLY, not only is the papacy constrained by Divine law, but also by the Divine Constitution of the Church. This is something Absolutist Petrine advocates in the SSPX and within the Catholic Church do not admit. It is plain that Absolutist Petrine advocates misrepresent the Catholic Church's teaching on the papacy, and I will easily join you in opposition to their excesses.
Indeed, the pope's supreme universal jurisdiction does affect the daily affairs of many local churches. A great example of this is anywhere where the 1962 Latin missal is used.
Let's be perfectly clear on (1) the basis of criticism, and (2) the circumstances of the example you propose to support your claim.
(1) Is the basis of your criticism the fact that the Pope of Rome was involved at all in a collegial decision that affects the whole Latin Church (and hence the individual local Churches within the Latin Church)? There is no valid basis for such a criticism, if that is the case. It has always been one of my own criticisms against the Low Petrine view of certain EO I've encountered - the idea that a head bishop has no true jurisdiction anywhere except in his own local diocese. The High Petrine, patristic teaching and praxis of the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches affirm that head bishops have true jurisdiciton in the entire area in which he is considered the head bishop, not just in his own local diocese. However, it is a jurisdiction that does not interfere in nor impede the proper jurisdiction of local bishops in the local dioceses/eparchies. I am definitely of the opinion that the Low Petrine view of cetain EO in this regard is unpatristic, and is just as inimical to the unity of the Church as the Absolutist Petrine view of certain Catholics. If your criticism is against the idea of a unilateral papal prerogative, we are in agreement. But if your criticism is based on the notion that head bishops have no true jurisdiction outside their own local diocese, I would contend your position is unpatristic.
(2) The implementation of the Novus Ordo, with all its attendant exigencies, was plainly and objectively achieved by virtue of
collegial action and
collegial authority, NOT a unilateral action by the bishop of Rome. There is absolutely no warrant for assuming this was an example of a Pope unilaterally interfering in the daily affairs of the local Latin Churches I know, as you indicated in another thread, that the thrust of your criticism is a recent papal instruction that allowed a freer use of the 1962 Missal,. I had actually responded to your statement in a new thread in the East-West Forum, but it was deleted by the mods/admins (I suspect because the matter really had nothing to do with Eastern issues to warrant a separate thread). But since you repeat your comment here, I hope the mods do not mind if I likewise repeat my (previously deleted) response.
The papal instruction allowing for a freer use of the 1962 Missal is
not an example of some pretended
unilateral authority of the Pope to intervene in the daily affairs of the local Churches, and this for several reasons (analogically, neither is it an example of the bishop of Rome impeding the ordinary and proper authority of local bishops):
First of all, a simple Google search will reveal to anyone that BEFORE the Pope gave the instruction, there were already many voices in the Church calling for such an instruction, and the Pope indeed consulted many bishops from several countries before promulgating it.
Secondly, the prerogative to permit the use of the 1962 Missal was a DELEGATED authority that was intended to be
temporary in the first place. This temporary authority was granted collegially by Vatican 2. That the head bishop of the Latin Church, representing her, decided, after due consultation with his brother bihops and in response to he needs of many voices within that Church, to promulgate the instruction - which is in keeping with the collegial decision of V2 - does NOT represent an impedence of the ordinary and proper authority of local Latin bishops. Can you provide any examples of Latin bishops complaining that their rights were being taken away? If you don't find any, that's because they already knew that such a prerogative was DELEGATED in the first place and COULD, according to the canons, legally be taken away when the need arises.
Thirdly, the Pope did nothing more than place the 1962 missal on a more level footing with the Novus Ordo. The fact is, priests do not need the explicit permission of their bishop to celebrate the Novus Ordo. Does this fact mean that the bishop has no jurisdiction over the priest? That's a silly notion. The ordinary authority of the bishop in this matter lies in his ability to authorize a priest to celebrate a Mass AT ALL, not what form of the Missal to use. The form of the Missal for the Latin Church as a whole is within the proper jurisdictional prerogative of its head bishop in consultation and agreement with his brother bishpos (and, as mentioned, there is ample proof of the latter).
Fourthly, the reaction to the instruction is indicative of the collegial element of the decree, since a good majority of Latin bishops (within the Catholic Church, I mean, not the SSPX or other splinter groups) lauded the move as a means to heal the schism with the aforementioned groups. So there was an actual good in response to a need in the Latin Church in this situation.
Finally, I should comment that this matter has no bearing on the Eastern/Oriental Churches. This was clearly one of those actions done by the bishop of Rome in his role as Patriarch of the Latins, and it is just a red herring to make any sort of prognostications about the primatial office of the Church [u]
universal[/i] based on this incident. The fact is, the lower one goes on the hierarchal level, the more relevant is the authority of a head bishop for a local Church (i.e., a head bishop on the metropolitan level will have a more usual hand in the affairs of a local Church than the head bishop on the patriarchal level; and the head bishop on the patriarchal level will have a more usual hand in the affairs of a local Church than the head bishop on the universal level). That the bishop of Rome has a more direct role in the matter of the LIturgy of the Latin Churches is not any reason to cry wolf here in a website dedicated to Eastern issues.
Blessings
