www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Role of the Pope

I've been involved in a little discussion over on the Catholic convert board about the role of the pope. The thread is about a whacko parish that is ignored by the local RC bishop. Someone appealed to Rome which has now stepped in.

I noted that this wasn't really the role of the pope and someone responded with canon law:

"Can. 333 �1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church,[b[ but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings.[/b] This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.


�2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. [b[He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.[/b]


�3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff."

Who's right? As I wrote in my original post that I'd almost converted to Orthodoxy. I decided to stay with Rome (as an Eastern Catholic) because I can accept the idea of the pope as 'tie-breaker.' But I don't know if I can accept the idea of the pope having absolute authority over every parish in the world.

Also is it right to say that the pope is the "supreme Pastor?"

He is the "supreme pastor" in the sence that he sits in the chair of Peter. In the perspective or the East, he is called "first among equals." Saying that, however, the patirarhs and bishops of the Eastern Catholics (I hope I am saying this right) give him the final say when a decision is being made concerning the churches if there is not a total agreement between the two of them.

Since I am a convert, well some 25 years ago, I am still not intuned to all of the canon law, so I will leave that to those on the forum who love debate.

Jennifer,

I'm certain that the discussion was about St Joan of Arc in Minneapolis/St Paul, a parish that has had a controversial history for decades and has particularly been a lightening rod for complaints the past few years because of its highly publicized and politicized involvement in any number of social issues on which it has taken extremely liberal (at least by Church standards) stances. I understand that Rome gave very particular direction to the local Ordinary with respect to taking action. Since that is the genesis of your concern, I'll answer in that context and supplement with some thoughts about how it affects our Churches.

In the instance of parish-level issues in the Latin Church sui iuris, I am not certain that I can see a strong argument against the Pope taking action, directly or through the Curia, when the controversy is such that it is polarizing a diocese, causing public scandal among Catholics even outside the diocese, and being dealt with ineffectually by the local Ordinary. And that seems to be the case in the instance at hand. There may be differences of opinion regarding some of the matters at issue in St Joan's, and I think that there has been over-reaction on the part of conservative Catholics to some of the incidents, although there are at least as many others in which I see justification for their concerns (and I would be termed very liberal by many). That said, and there being no intermediary body or person empowered to react, I'm not sure whom you would have take appropriate action, if not Rome. Someone had to do so.

By the same token, we are in union with Rome and consider the Pope in historical context to be primus inter pares, first among equals, of the Patriarchs - that being in his capacity as Patriarch of the West. In his further capacity as Supreme Pontiff, we accord to him or (probably more correctly phrased) accept of him the capacity to act as Peter's successor and exercise a primacy that goes beyond honorific precedence. Both the exercise of that authority and, conversely, the failure to exercise it, have unquestionably had negative effects on our Churches. In no particular order of import or magnitude in regard to the effect:

• the Russian Greek-Catholic Church, which suffered incredibly for its faith, has had no hierarchs appointed, despite the fact that the fall of the USSR has eliminated the circumstances that effectively denied the opportunity for such to function for decades;
• the Belarussian Greek-Catholic Church, which suffered equally, also has had no hierarchs appointed, the same circumstances applying to it;
• the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which also suffered incredibly, and despite being the largest Eastern Catholic Church, has been denied the elevation of its presiding hierarch to the level of Patriarch;
• the Russian Greek-Catholic Church in the diaspora, which isn't directly involved in the ecclesial politics that affect decision-making vis-a-vis its institutions in its homeland, has not had a canonical jurisdiction established for it, having to rely instead on the fraternal good-will of Melkite and other hierarchy, even for the ordination of its clergy;
• the Byzantine Italo-Greico-Albanian Church in the diaspora has not had a canonical jurisdiction established for it;
• the Georgian Greek-Catholic Church, always a very small community, will soon become extinct, probably due in part to the failure to provide any clergy to it, something that I suspect Rome could have accomplished by a mere request to the Jesuits;
• those Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches which have a tradition of a married secular clergy have been effectively denied such in the diaspora, a situation which has only been overcome through a combination of practiced disregard of the rules and elaborate fictions in assignment and transfer of clergy between their native lands and the diaspora;
• those Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches which have a presence in the diaspora are effectively divided, with their canonical jurisdictions in the diaspora being technically subject to Rome rather than their presiding hierarchs, except as to matters liturgical;
• some Eastern Church canonical jurisdictions, such as the Byzantine Greek Catholic Church, are headed by Latin prelates, rather than by hierarchs of their Church;
• Eastern Catholic Churches, other than those of patriarchal or major-archepiscopal status, are dependent on Rome for the appointment of their hierarchs, with even those of patriarchal or major-archepiscopal status being dependent for same when it comes to the appointment of hierarchs for their jurisdictions in the diaspora.

There are probably more, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind (ah, the Albanians, who also await re-establishment of a true canonical jurisdiction and hierarch, rather than the apostolic administration which they have at present).

So, why do we stick with Rome? We believe that the Pope exercises the role that Peter established and we hope, we pray, that we will see more changes (because, God knows, there have been positive ones over the past few decades) that further recognize the full ecclesial nature of our Churches, making us truly sui iuris.

Many years,

Neil

Hi,

Both.

It is a matter of Catholic dogma that the Pope has supreme, immediate, ordinary and episcopal authority not only over every diocese and parish, but over every individual Catholic faithful.

Canon Law as you quoted it made it quite explicit, doesn't it?

As a Catholic, you are required to accept that, as I said, it is a matter of dogma.

And being an Eastern Catholic will not get anybody "off the hook", so to speak. First of all, dogma has no variation from one Sui-Iuris Church to another, you might express this dogma using different terms, but the substance has to be the same. And Second, the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches also contains a canon with virtually identical wording.

Strictly speaking, appeal to the Pope is the right of every Catholic faithful, however, it is usually a dicastery of the Roman Curia the one actually processing those appeals.

So, you are right as well, the Pope usually will not step in to solve a parish dispute. But the titular of the proper dicastery could, and maybe would.

But in any event, it is highly unusual for Rome to step into a dispute uncalled. In this particular situation, there is already an appeal, and therefore, Rome's intervention is as a "tie-breaker", to use your own term.

Yes, for as successor of St. Peter, that is what he is.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Jennie:

MEMO (also a Latin like me ) have given you the easy answer to the Q: Is the Pope the "Supreme Pastor?" However, this should have been phrased: Is the Pope the "Universal Pastor"?

I suspect that you wanted also to ask: Is the Pope the "Supreme Pontiff"?

My answer is absolutely YES like MEMO's and this is where you have observed that our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters might (and DO) have a variation from their perspective.

Amado

Dear Jennifer,

What you quote is true, but when Rome has discussed the Eastern Churches, it does say that the Patriarchs and heads of the Particular Churches of the East share the government of their churches with the Pope.

In fact, the immediate government of the Patriarchal EC Churches is done by the Patriarchs and their Synods.

The idea of jurisdiction over every Catholic etc., by the way, comes not from Rome itself, but from ancient Orthodox Alexandria.

The Pope of Alexandria (which is also where the title originated) had wide and absolute powers over every parish and Christian under his jurisdiction.

And this occurred when the Bishop of Rome was referred to humbly as "Your Beatitude" and when his immediate ecclesial jurisdiction didn't extend over all of Italy as yet.

There is a distinction between the Pope as Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy and Patriarch of the West, in jurisdictional terms, and the Pope as supreme pastor, which is how the EC Churches accept him.

This is not to say that the Popes have not gotten involved in EC church affairs when such involvement was not elicited or desired.

Even though the UGCC is not officially a patriarchate, when our Confessor, Patriarch Josef declared that we are a patriarchate, many people in the UGCC resisted Rome's attempts to control our Church's daily life.

When bishops were nominated for the UGCC over the head of Patriarch Joseph the Confessor, we expected those nominees to travel to see the Patriarch and get his blessing (which he always gave).

When a bishop refused to do so, there was literally hell to pay at his cheirotonia (as happened in Chicago way back when when protesters brought a coffin with them and where they sang out "Unworthy!" )

Even though Rome still won't acknowledge our patriarchal status, our synod does operate as such and even our Basilian Fathers, in many areas, commemorate Lubomyr as "Patriarch" (our Basilian bishop did so last Sunday).

I think we've a better sense of unity around our Patriarch than ever before and this is grounded in a better appreciation of our identity, our Church's suffering (for which mention I salute our brother Neil!) and our Martyrs.

In addition, there is no one model of church governance in Orthodoxy.

I've uncles who are priests in the ROC and who say the Patriarch of Moscow can as "Papal" as any Pope .

I'm sure that's not true though . . .

(Don't you give me at least a "B+" for ecumenical effort here?)

And don't pay too much attention to Manuel.

He's a Latin, you know!

Alex

Dear Alex:

Are you trying to ignore MEMO? :p

MANUEL has not been in this thread, yet!

You said Eastern Catholics view the Pope as the "Supreme Pastor." I think you meant as "Universal Pastor," which at least expresses the idea of the Pope's "primacy of honor."

There is a difference if we view him as the "Supreme Pontiff," which then takes his "primacy of jurisdiction" to having, as we Latin Catholics believe, "supremacy of jurisdiction" in the Catholic communion.

Both the Latin Code of Canons and the Eastern Code of Canons recognize the "supremacy of jurisdiction" of the Pope as "Supreme Pontiff."

Amado

Dear Amado,

My apologies to Manuel - I did indeed mean "Memo."

The problem is, a "memo" for me is something of a note that I write to government bureaucrats who haven't the time to read my longer expositions

What you say is true, but is not the whole story for EC's.

EC's are Particular Churches in communion with Rome with their OWN particular church government.

This is different from the Roman Patriarchate itself which is YOUR patriarchate, as a Latin Catholic.

My patriarch is not the Pope, but he is yours, in other words.

My patriarch can legislate fasts and other regulations for me which I must obey - and these are often different from what your patriarch can legislate for you.

When your patriarch, as pope, defined the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, you accepted it as defined dogma.

We, on the other hand, simply said, "It's about time you recognized that the Theotokos was conceived in holiness!"

(You Latins can be a riot sometimes, you know!)

Alex

The two new Codes of canon law are not sources of the Faith. Excessive titles are generally embarrassing, and that includes ultramontane expressions such as "Supreme Pastor" "Universal Pastor", and so on (there are only too many of these). For those who would like a serious theological discussion of the Pope's role, I might suggest Tillard, *The Bishop of Rome*, which is rapidly becoming a classic.
I might also suggest that much of the problem arises because many people tend to perceive the Church (when certain questions arise) as a static reality. A better image would be, jocular though this may sound, the image of an elaborate dance (the angels and saints are said to dance, and we aspire to dance with them). Perfection is an unattainable goal on this earth, but that does not excuse us from seeking perfection - and perfection in ecclesiology happens when everyone acts dynamically, in his proper step. It then becomes quite possible "to square the circle" (most of us will have attended square dances, where square circles are commonplace).
Meanwhile, if one wants a title for the Pope, try "Servant of the Servants of God". Much more edifying than "El Supremo".

However, if someone is determined to pile it on higher and higher, try this passage from the Meditations of Don Bosco (I apologize in advance for my ignorance of Italian spelling):
"Il Papa e Dio sur la terra.
"Gesu l'a posita al sopre di angeli,
"al sopre di Precurso,
"al sopre di Madonna . . .

Or, as a Melkite priest used to summarize it:
"Il Papa e al sopre di EVERYBODY!

Incognitus

The two new Codes of canon law are not sources of the Faith. Excessive titles are generally embarrassing, and that includes ultramontane expressions such as "Supreme Pastor" "Universal Pastor", and so on (there are only too many of these). For those who would like a serious theological discussion of the Pope's role, I might suggest Tillard, *The Bishop of Rome*, which is rapidly becoming a classic.

I might also suggest that much of the problem arises because many people tend to perceive the Church (when certain questions arise) as a static reality. A better image would be, jocular though this may sound, the image of an elaborate dance (the angels and saints are said to dance, and we aspire to dance with them). Perfection is an unattainable goal on this earth, but that does not excuse us from seeking perfection - and perfection in ecclesiology happens when everyone acts dynamically, in his proper step. It then becomes quite possible "to square the circle" (most of us will have attended square dances, where square circles are commonplace).

Meanwhile, if one wants a title for the Pope, try "Servant of the Servants of God". Much more edifying than "El Supremo".

However, if someone is determined to pile it on higher and higher, try this passage from the Meditations of Don Bosco (I apologize in advance for my ignorance of Italian spelling):
"Il Papa e Dio sur la terra.
"Gesu l'a posita al sopre di angeli,
"al sopre di Precurso,
"al sopre di Madonna . . .

Or, as a Melkite priest used to summarize it:
"Il Papa e al sopre di EVERYBODY!

Incognitus

I think we all agree that the Pope's title "Servant of the Servants of God" is the most appropriate of all.

There are times, however, when some of us will stir when, after all is said and done, the Pope's Petrine Office is reduced to near nothingness. He was endowed by Christ, Our Lord, this office as Chief Shepherd, the "modern" ascriptions notwithstanding.

We need the Papacy, whether we like it or not. It is the visible sign of unity and it should be nurtured and respected. It just so happened that Rome, the Holy See, where St. Peter was martyred, was "pre-ordained" to lead the Christian flock.

It also leads to discomfort when modern-day hierarchs do display attempts to be Popes or mini-Popes, a latent recognition of the importance and authority of the Papacy and its historical contribution to today's civilization.

Viva il Papa!

Amado

Dear Amado,

The good news is that the Orthodox have never denied that the Petrine Office is important to the Church.

The bad news is that they regard the RC church as cut off from the true Church . . .

As one Orthodox theologian said, (as quoted by Fr. John Meyendorff), "Do not argue with a Latin about the Roman primacy. The primacy is good for the Church. But only ask him to show that the pope's faith is the faith of Peter - and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Alex

Dear incognitus:

Nobody is saying that the 2 Codes of Canons are sources of our Catholic faith.

But in an organization as huge as the Catholic Cummunion of Churches, the necessity of rules to govern the inter-relationships of particular Churches becomes imperative. And hierarchical values are clearly defined and implemented.

Without a clarification of the lines of authority, we degenerate into a mass of chaotic co-existence. (To me, the national episcopal conferences represent the most viable exercise of collegiality in modern-day Church governance.)

Amado

Dear Alex:

Too bad the Orthodox continue to fail to see the Truth!

Amado

The Only Answer to that!!!

"We have seen the True Light, We have received the Heavenly Spirit, We have found the True Faith, worshipping the Undivided Trinity Who has saved us!"