www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Married Priesthood in US ?

Do you think that is the whole of Canon law?
I believe it is under the section on administrative and juridical acts. I would look it up for you, but I don't have the time right now. It might also be good to familiarize yourself more fully with the contents of your Canon law. In a few days, I might have the time to do a search, however, if you can wait.

Blessings

Stop right there. I underlined one of the sentences in the section you posted. Reading it along with the three paragraphs immediately above the ones you posted distinctly seem to make it pretty clear - The office of pope has no juridical boundaries.

What this section is emphasizing is that the idea that the office of bishop is powerless but for any sort of direct deputizing from a pope, as if bishops were just papal legates, is erroneous. Bishops have the full authority of the office of apostle over their own dioceses. But so does the pope at the same time. How is that not contradictory? It's classic Catholic case of not "either/or" but "both/and."


I would love to see this statement if you wouldn't mind posting it for me.



Then this is not an example of local bishops contravening an order of the pope.


The original discussion on this surrounded local bishops having the authority to dispense with universal rules of the Church and papal decrees in their own diocese. When you alleged this, I thought to myself, "Well, universal laws in some cases, yes. True. But papal decrees are a different matter. And shy of one that explicitly says something along the lines of 'It's up to each local bishop to decide xyz', no. Local bishops do not have the authority to contravene an order from the pope.*

(*Under the current conventional model. There may be a certain nuance present in Church teaching that I am waiting for you to introduce. If you can do so successfully, then this caveat remains permanently. If you cannot, then it disappears.)


Sorry, I don't have the time right now to go back and check, but it distinctly seems like you just moved the goal posts here. At what point did Pius IX order Audu to ordain these men? If the answer is "never", then there was no papal decree being dispensed with.


Amen to that.


Here's where that nuance needs to come in. Because until it does, all I'm seeing in these documents and Canon Law is repeated emphasis on the fact that there are no limits on the pope's juridical powers (as far as the office itself goes - obviously, for the pope to try to, say, dispense with the Eucharist and dismiss it from the faith is impossible even by absolute petrine standards).

That's not true at all. The problem with your interpretation is that you think the term "primacy" equates to "no juridical boundaries." There is no limit to the exercise of the primacy, but the primacy can only do certain things - that is, the exercise of the primacy has INHERENT limits. Some of them are outlined by your very citation (from the German bishops' conference immediately after V1).

No. While the Pope has full and ordinary authority at the same time, he cannot exercise it at the same time so as to impede the divinely appointed jurisdiction of the local bishop. To use an infamous example, it is not within the Pope's authority to demand that an Oriental or Eastern hierarch replace his local Church's Mass or Divine Liturgy with the Novus Ordo. That is why our canons state that even though the Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in any diocese, it is only the local bishop who has proper, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction in the that local diocese.

Gladly. I'll give two, to demonstrate the breadth of the teaching:
(1) After V1, the Swiss bishops sent out a pastoral letter to their flock, which flatly rejected the Absolutist Petrine excesses of the Neo-ultramontantists: "�It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; [NOTE: this foregoing clause refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our topic] lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domoain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we ow in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.�

Pope Pius IX's response: ��nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.�

This pastoral by the Swiss bishops was also cited by John Henry Newman to combat the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists of his day.

(2) The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH, CDF (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary)


The problem with your pov seems to be that you think that someone contravening the Pope of Rome will always be acting illicitly. But that is not true. A bishop can contravene the Pope and be acting within his juridical rights at the same time.

It's in your Latin canon law. The Pope of Rome does not have the absolute power you think he does.

As stated, the Pope threatened him with deposition. What more do you need to realize this was a papal order refused by a bishop for the good of his flock?

It seems to me your pov is trying to insist on both the full authority of the local bishop in his local diocese, and the full authority of the Pope do whatever he wants in that diocese DESPITE what the local bishops says. That is simply not what the primacy is for. It is simply not within the primatial prerogative to be able to impede the authority of a local orthodox bishop in his diocese. If Bishop A believes something is for the good of his flock, the Pope has no authority to contravene it. Primatial authority is intended to discipline wayward bishops according to the canons (as with any head bishop, actually), to support and promote the authority of the local bishop, and to supplement it if the local bishop has been impeded. The primatial authority does not have the prerogative to himself be the cause of impeding the authority of the local bishop in his diocese.

Mardukm, this discussion is starting to branch out too extensively into too many side trails. To try and keep it as focused as possible, I'm going to respond to your latest post in the following fashion...

We both seem to agree that the office of pope has inherent limits to it. This is to say, the pope, as powerful as he is, is still not God. So, as I offered earlier, he cannot simply dispense with the Eucharist and declare that it is no longer essential to the faith, for example. This much is obvious.

We also agree that the whole point of the papacy is to serve, not to "cause problems" for other bishops or anyone else, which includes "lording it over" them.

Where we're diverging is in agreeing on what the actual limits to papal primacy are precisely. As I read things like Canon Law and John Paul II's own remarks on the papacy, citing as he does Vatican I and II, etc., what all but "screams" at me is the notion that the bishop of Rome, juridically speaking, cannot be contravened on by any other bishop in regards to any juridical matter in the Church.

There are plenty of examples of others disagreeing with the pope in the past and being explicit about it, up to and including Paul's famous "face off" with Peter, referenced in Gal. 2:11. And this is fine. By the pope having supreme authority over the Church is not meant that all the other bishops must, in every instance, "roll over" in response to everything a pope says. There is certainly "room for feedback." Especially if and when a pope were ever to insist on something that were not merely juridically "inopportune" but explicitly immoral as well.

However, I'm not sure how one interprets the following excerpt from JPII's audience (previously cited), and others, as suggesting anything other than the fact that the authority that each bishop exercises over his own diocese is the authority that the pope exercises over the whole Church, unless they are looking at the scene with rose-colored glasses, as it were.


Again, canon law with my own emphases added...


Your answer to my charge above this round amounted largely to "Huh uh"...which is fine to the extent that this is a mere "battle of wills" between the two of us. But to the extent that it's actually a more substantive dialogue (like I would like for it to be), it would really help, and indeed is necessary for you to be able to back up the "Huh uh" with something of substance.

You alluded earlier to JPII saying to another bishop at one point, "I don't have the authority to override you." Great! Can you produce that quote for me in its context? If so, it may go a long way toward helping your case. If there is material out there that bolster's your take on this issue, I'm totally game for hearing it. But it hasn't been offered yet.


And the difference between the two, in laymen's terms, is what? What does it mean, from your own perspective, that "the Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in any diocese"?


Again I'll draw attention to wording here. As you've worded this, you're right. The purpose of the papacy is not to give the pope a platform for "meddling" in the affairs of local bishops over their dioceses. But the purpose of the office and the power of the office are different things. And all the official documents I've read so far convey a notion that, morally speaking, the pope should not "meddle", but nevertheless, has the authority to do so.


Please substantiate this. So far, as I recall, you've only offered one citation in an attempt to do so - the German bishops' reference - and it does not say what you seem to think it does if one reads it plainly.

Again, if you can substantiate your case, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I have to go with what distinctly appears to be the plain meaning of the aforementioned texts.

Peace be with you.

Dear Brother Marduk,

Yes, it was Saint Andrew Sheptytsky the UGCC Primate when he asked Pope St Pius X about this very issue.

If I may, the whole "struggle" between the Eastern Catholics in North America with Rome over questions such as married clergy will not be resolved by appeal to canons etc.

The struggle was played out in the sphere of ecclesial praxis dictated by the situation at hand and interpreted variously by the two sides involved.

The Union of Brest clearly stipulated the EC right to maintain its married clergy - it's easy even to Google to get the 33 points of that Union document.

Rome didn't want married EC clergy among the celibate RC clergy in North America for the obvious reason that it didn't want the latter starting a movement to have the same rights as the EC clergy in this respect.

When I was growing up, I was a member in the movement for a UGCC patriarchate. I remember reading a letter published by the American branch of that movement having to do with married priests in the U.S. One Vatican official, forget his name (didn't really want to remember it in fact . . .), had written a letter to priests saying that Rome had received complaints from EC parishioners who said they were "scandalized" by the presence of married clergy among them . . .

Two-thirds of our priests are married and we positively prefer married clergy to celibate clergy. I wonder where that Vatican official got his information?

Not that it matters. A few years later, everyone was scandalized by the immoral behaviours of so many RC celibate priests . . .

But the RC Church is going to have to come to grips with the very real pastoral problems of not having enough celibate priests to serve the thousands of RC faithful in areas where there is a crying need.

The pastoral concerns should, in my view, outweigh all else.

You also mentioned the issue of whether the Pope has the right to get rid of all the Eastern liturgies.

Does anyone, even the most ultramontane RC, think that the EC Churches would ever obey such a papal edict?

Even traditional RC's resist the changes re: the Novus Ordo liturgy . . .

EC Churches, bishops and laity have been circumventing Rome's directives along a number of fronts for years.

And so what? Rome hasn't excommunicated anyone for this as yet - and it won't.

It would be more appropriate for Rome to get its own ecclesial house in order and leave the venerable Apostolic Eastern Churches alone.

If anything, Rome and the Catholic West should be learning all things possible from the Apostolic heritage of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Catholic traditions.

I remember how Rome treated our sainted Confessor and Patriarch Joseph Slipyj when he was freed of 18 years in soviet camps in the shadow of Lenin's statues (the same statues that serve as rallying points in today's Russia as well).

How Rome treated him was an international scandal which should have filled the Vatican ostpoliticians with shame.

We often like to attack the Russian Orthodox Church for its silence on what happened in 1946. Rome too is silent on how it treated Patriarch Joseph when he was alive. Was that not a scandal?

And which canon law allows Rome to engage in the kind of politics it does engage in? Will RC traditionalists and ultramontanists deny this too?

Alex

thanks, for this.

To be honest, the impression I get from your posts is that "lording it over them" is exactly what you propose the primacy is. Maybe it is that I find your responses vague. For example, I make specific statements like, "The Pope does not have the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in his local diocese" or "The Pope does not have the authority to command a local bishop to get rid of his Church's Liturgy and replace it with the Novus Ordo." From the prespective of Easterns and Orientals (both Catholic and Orthodox), and not a few Westerns, these statements are touchstones of a primacy that does not "lord over." Yet, it seems you disagree with these assertions. If I have interpreted you correctly, you find a basis for disagreeing with my assertions from Magisterial statements. If that is your intent, I believe the exact opposite about those same Magisterial statements. We obviously need to discuss further why you think these Magisterial documents teach that the primacy has "no juridical limits," for I find these Magisterial documents teaching the exact opposite.

That's one way to put it. Another way to approach it is, "what power do local bishops have in relation to the primacy?" Does having primacy mean the primate is ALWAYS right (even when he is objectively wrong), or does primacy INHERENTLY mean having to bend like a reed when necessary for the good of the Church? I might be misinterpreting you, but it seems to me your position is the former (that having primacy means the primate is ALWAYS right). If that is not what you are saying, then I do not understand why you disagree with the assertions I have made.


Juridically speaking, every bishop has the right, for the good of their flock, to grant dispensations even from a papal motu proprio. Further, the Pope, in the first place, does not have the authority, according to the canons, to enact a motu proprio that violates the acquired rights of a person, without the Pope himself placing a limitation on his own motu proprio. So if a Pope of Rome happens to do the latter, it is clearly outside the scope of his primatial authority, and the Christian has the juridical right to resist such an action by the Pope. It seems you focus (as is typical of a Latin - no offense intended) on the section in the canons on the Supreme authority, as if that was the only thing the canons say about the papacy and his relation to the Church. Again, I do not have the time right now, but I urge you to become more familiar with your canons.

Let's take that in context of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34. You are correct that in matters involving the ENTIRE Church, the Pope will ALWAYS have a singularly authoritative say, though not a unilateral say. But in matters pertaining only to the local diocese, the local bishop has the highest say, not the Pope. That is what all the excerpts you have provided indicate. The primacy, as Pope St. JP2 explicitly stated, not only does NOT have the responsibility to micormanage the affairs of a local diocese (i.e., local Church), but he does NOT have the power to do so. That is NOT, as consistently stated, the purpose for which Christ established the primacy.

Nothing here that states the Pope has the authority to intervene in the affairs of a local diocese just because HE feels it is for the good of the local Church. You are misinterpreting the final paragraph if you think that is what it means. It appears you do not understand what the terms "ordinary" and "immediate" mean in canon law. "Ordinary" does NOT mean he can use his primatial power ordinarily (in the secular sense of the term) in any singular diocese. It only means that his primatial power is INHERENT (i.e., not by delegation). "Immediate" does not mean he can directly exercise it whenever HE feels it is opportune. It only means that WHEN it is used (which is not often at all), it is done by a direct exercise of authority, not by mediation. The statement "without the bishops' permission"will ultimately be misinterpreted by those not familiar with Catholic Canon law or the Tradition of the Church. That statement only means that the power being exercised - again, WHEN it is used - is by virtue of a direct relationship between the subject and the authority (i.e., the Pope). Bishop A is not giving the Pope the authority (i.e., permission) to act on Bishop A's subject, because Bishop A's subject is naturally also the subject of the Pope's own inherent authority. The terms "ordinary" and "immediate" MERELY describe the NATURE of the primacy in relation to every member of the Church. It has absolutely no relevance for the actual exercise of that primacy. The canonical term that governs the regular exercise of jurisdiction is the term "proper." In a matter involving the ENTIRE Church, the Pope's exercise of the primacy is proper (per Apostolic Canon 34, and echoed by Pastor Aeternus). BUT, in relation to the internal affairs of a local diocese, it is NOT. ONLY the LOCAL bishop of the diocese has PROPER jurisdiction in that diocese.

Canon law makes the above quite evident, as will be explained below in your citations thereof.

The relevant term here is the term "freely." It is often MISinterpreted to mean "unrestricted." But the term actually means "uncoerced." Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy both like to believe the term means the Pope has some laissez-faire authority to do anything and everything, anytime and anywhere. But the term only means that his exercise is uncoerced - i.e., the Pope cannot be forced to exercise or not to exercise his primatial prerogatives. His primatial acts are borne of free volition. Canon law states that if there is doubt as to the meaning of a term in canon law, the first solution is to find recourse to other places where the term is used in order to determine its correct meaning. There is simply no place in Canon law where the term "freely" is used in the sense that Absolutist Peterine advocates and other detractors of the papacy want it to have.

Pretty much supports what I have been stating.

Again, clear support for my assertions. This canon limits the exercise of the primacy to act [b][u]according to the needs of the Church. This canon does NOT say the Pope can unilaterally, with no indication of need from the Church, out of the blue say, "You know what, I have decided that the Church needs ----. So I will make this new rule that everyone must obey or else be excommunicated." Also take note that the Canon is premised by the clause, "In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor..." This begs the question, "UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE POPE FULFILLING THE OFFICE OF SUPREME PASTOR?" Is it whenever he says so, or is it when it is actually being exercised according to the needs of the Church?

The term "sentence" can only be taken in the context of the Pope as judge, and the Pope is judge only in the context of an appeal, not by some unilateral decision of the Pope out of the blue. Further, this cannot be taken out of the context of another canon that states the Pope has no authority to issue a motu proprio that violates the acquired rights of a member of the Church.

The main point of the canon is "for the good of all the Churches" - it is NOT "in his name and by his authority." ALL bishops, including the Pope, are constrained by the previously noted clause.

The statements of Pope St. JP2, a statement from the CDF, and two pastorals by two different bishops' conferences approved by Pio Nono is something of substance in my book.

First, I never claimed St. JP2 said "I don't have the authority to override you." I stated that the Pope does not have the authority to impede the authorty of an orthodox bishop in his diocese. That you interpret what I have said the way you have really reveals something about your own mindset on these matters more than my own.

Second, with the first point in mind, you already gave it, and the fact that you missed it in your own quote is rather telling imo. Here it is again: "Vatican I's definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: "This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors..."
Note carefully that V1 did NOT say "the power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of [the local bishop's] authority EXCEPT when he exercise the primacy" (which is the meaning you seem to want to impose on it); rather it says the power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of [the local bishop's] authority" PERIOD.

I once got into a debate with an Absolutist Petrine advocate once over this text from Pastor Aeternus (which, not surprisingly, he never knew existed - I've often found that controversialists over the issue (both Catholics and non-Catholics) only focus on the canons of Pastor Aeternus, and very often neglect the entire text). He attempted to circumvent its obvious teaching by arguing "it means to say this is not the PURPOSE of the primacy, but it does not mean that is not within the power of the primacy." It is practically identical to your earlier rhetoric. Forgive me for saying so, but I find that argument utterly sophistic. How the Pope as primate can validly and legitimately exercise an authority that God did not intend for the primacy to have is simply beyond my comprehension.

I understand the terms "ordinary" and "immediate" exactly as intended by Catholic Canon law. It is my impression that it is your own understanding that requires some revision. Those terms are no indication that the Pope can regularly exercise his primatial authority in any particular diocese on his mere and sole discretion. On the contrary, our Canons state that the purpose of the primacy is to RESPOND to the needs of the Church, not to be able to arbitrarily determine what those needs are. To use the already-mentioned infamous example, does the Pope have the UNILATERAL authority to change the Mass or DL of an Oriental or Eastern Catholic Church to the Novus Ordo? According to the Canons, he does not. He can do so IF and ONLY IF, the local Church has expressed a NEED to have it changed. It is NOT within the Pope's primatial prerogative to out of the blue say, "You know what folks, I don't think your Liturgy is good for you anymore. You'll have to change it to the Novus ordo."

I strontly disagree. The purpose for which God intended the primacy limits what the primacy can do. The purpose of the office and the power of the office perfectly coincide. It makes absolutely no sense that he would have a power for which his office was never intended. Recall what St. JP2 explicitly asserted - he not only does not have the responsibility to daily intervene in the affairs of a local church, but neither does he have the power to do so. In that proper light, it is correct to say that the Pope has no authority to "meddle." He only has the authority to RESPOND to the needs of the Church (local or otherwise). It is, basically, an appellate authority. Though the authority is ordinary (i.e., inherent - the authority does not begin to exist because of the appeal), it can and should only be exercised by the appeal of the Church for her needs -- because, in truth, that local Church ALREADY has its own proper authority who is God's appointed representative for that Church, the local bishop.

I did above, by way of a contextual, orthodox, patristic and Traditional explanation of what you have quoted.

Blessings

Dear brother Alex

I'll make a special effort to remember this time.

I agree. I believe the issue is one of common law (i.e., custom, or tradition, if you will), which has its own strength in particular Churches. The resolution requires a healthy balance between two evidently competing customs/traditions where and whence the twain shall meet. I also believe the history of the Churches is replete with examples that demonstrate a lack of due appreciation for balance balance, on both sides of any issue regarding valued traditions.

I'm always cautious whenever someone mentions "Rome," for the term is rather loaded and can mean several things. I've seen it variously connote or denote "the Western tradition," "the curia," "the Pope," or "Roman tradition" in particular.

Most likely a celibacy promoter in the curia hoping to convince the Pope that EC's don't really mind having their tradition pulled out from under their feet.

Agreed, though I've read promoters of married clergy from non-Latin quarters affirm that the idea of married clergy is not being advanced on the platform of being a means to cure the priest shortage. Rather, it is being advanced for the sheer correctness of the tradition.

Noted, but my position (at least as far as my discussion with brother Talon is concerned) is not that Catholics have a juridical right to insist on their acquired rights, but rather that it is not within the scope of the primatial prerogative in the first place to violate the acquired rights of Catholic Christians.

And, forgive the disagreement, but I don't think the introduction of the Novus Ordo really has anything to do with the issue of whether the Pope has a unilateral authority to do such a thing, because the Novus Ordo was never introduced into the Latin Church unilaterally by the Pope in the first place, but rather via conciliar/collegial authority.

Agreed. And I sincerely believe that such actions are not a denial of the papal prerogatives, but rather reflects a proper appreciation of what the primacy was intended by Christ to do. There are simply some things the Pope cannot do according to his divine obligation to keep the peace and unity of the Church. Of course, if and when the primacy is legitimately REQUIRED to be exercised by the Pope, I'd be the first to defend the Pope's inherent (i.e., ordinary) right as primate of the Church universal to perform such action.

That keeps him pretty busy, since, aside from cleaning up his own house, he also has to deal with appeals from our Churches.

Amen to that.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the history of that situation.

Well, Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists like to pretend the Pope is not bound by the canons at all, so they would probably look at your question rather askance.

Blessings

I'm listening, brother mardukm. I really am...I'm actively trying to read what I've posted from the Church from your vantage point, but I have to admit it's not working (yet?). And it's not for lack of willingness. Before you cynically think, "Well, as a Latin, of course not", I can promise you I have no horse in this particular race. I really don't care whether your position turns out to be true, or mine does. In fact, truth be told, (*leaning into you to whisper*) I'd kind of prefer your position to be the correct one for the sole reason that it would be easier for the greater number of other non-Catholics to accept than my position is...

How 'bout them apples?

The problem is that, at present, it appears that you are taking these official statements and trying to make them, "round" as they are, fit into square holes. I'll expound on why I think that later, but it's probably going to be a pretty busy next couple days. So, be forewarned it might take until Thursday or so for me to crank out more.

In the interim, if you could quote the actual canons you are referring to that bring "balance" as it were to the ones I've cited, that may go a long way...


It was precisely JPII's audience that I was emphasizing as backing my claims, the CDF references were statements that I was in full agreement with (assuming I didn't read them too quickly and miss something, I guess??) - what they were asserting was not something I was arguing against - and the German bishops' statements didn't contradict what I was saying either. As for the Pius IX situation, tell me a little more about that? Latin bishops proposed certain men for episcopal consecration to an eastern patriarch, the patriarch said, "No, I disagree with your choices" (in essence), refused to ordain the men, and was threatened with deposition by Pope Pius for refusing to do so? Is that a fair summary? If so, what was the end result? Did Pius back down?

Peace, brother.

More later...

Talon:

We have a rule on this board that all clerics, even those with whom we may disagree or with whom we may not be in communion, are addressed by the honorific that they and their community use. Please refer to His Holiness as "Pope Francis" in any future posts.

Bob
Moderator

Dear Moderator Theophan,

Thank you for that important corrective for Talon!

Our Lord did affirm that He would be with His Church always, even unto the end of the ages.

You are a great Moderator, sir!

Alex

Dear brother Talon,

I am not inclined to assign your pov to the fact that you are Latin. I have come to fully realize that there are Catholics, even while being solidly "High Petrine" in their ecclesiological perspective (speaking not just of Westerns, but Easterns and Orientals, as well), conceive of the papacy through Absolutist Petrine glasses. These Catholics accept that the Catholic teaching is officially High Petrine - or at least can legitimately be interpreted as such - but nevertheless view papal actions according to the Absolutist Petrine view. I'll give you some very common examples:

Humanae Vitae - this is almost invariably understood to have been a UNILATERAL exercise of the papal prerogative, but the actual facts reveal otherwise. In truth, not only was the issue brought to the Pope's attention by appeal, but the Pope had brought it to the Council for vote (with an OVERWHELMING majority in favor of the Traditional teaching on the matter) BEFORE promulgating the encyclical.

Novus Ordo - Every critic, particularly the ones who have schismed from the CC over the matter, seems to blame the Pope for the introduction of the Novus Ordo. That's expected from groups like the SSPX who have an Absolutist Petrine conception of the papacy. But the reality is that the Novus Ordo was introduced into the Latin CC by collegial authority, not a unilateral action by the Pope of Rome.

A change to canon law by Pope St. JP2 - I've encountered a LOT of Catholics (both Latins and non-Latins) claim this was a unilateral exercise of the primatial prerogative. But a google search reveals that the change was only instituted by the Pope due to (1) prior appeal by a good number of bishops, and (2) an indepth series of consultations with bishops and other authorities on canon law.

It is indeed very common, even in Orthodox circles, to make statements such as "head bishop so-and-so did this." But I believe it is an uninformed naivete to automatically assume that such actions had no collegial or synodal support to begin with. There are numerous historical reports of Pope so-and-so doing this or that, but - again - it is an uninformed naivete to automatically interpret such instances as evidence of a Pope of Rome having a primatial prerogative to act UNILATERALLY without collegial support.

In truth (I kid you not), I have asked COUNTLESS times from Absolutist Petrine advocates AND other detractors of the papacy in the years I have debated this issue for even a single example of a Pope exercising the primacy UNILATERALLY (i.e., not by virtue of appeal, without consultation with ANYONE, and without the prior or subsequent agreement of ANY other bishop in the Church), so as to be able to justify the pretense of the existence of such prerogatives by the Absolutist Petrine advocates, on the one hand, or to justify the fearmongering that the Pope has such excessive prerogatives by detractors of the papacy, on the other. Aside from the "usual suspect" answers (the three instances mentioned above), the response has been uniform - SILENCE. (A Maronite brother once informed me of an incident involving the Maronite Church that I believe is the closest thing anyone has ever offered as an example of a "unilateral" action by the Pope of Rome, but I did not find a convincingly objective basis for affirming that it was an actual example of such)

The reason I see that you regard my assertions as trying to fit a square into a round hole is simply because you have been indoctrinated into believing the Pope has a certain absolute and unilateral authority in the Catholic Church due to his primacy. You simply INTERPRET Magisterial documents to fit that preconceived notion, when - in fact - those Magisterial documents taken ad dictum do not support such an interpretation. I have asked some very pointed questions during our discussion, which, I have noticed, have gone unanswered (which I repeat below). Why no response? Is it because you do not find them relevant, or because deep down you might realize that answering them would expose the irrationality of the concept that the Pope has absolute power in the Church (and yes, I fully understand that it is not absolute power in relation to God, but even with that caveat, the claim is extreme and beyond the actual intent of the Magisterial texts). It is the same reason I come across even solidly Catholic High Petrine advocates interpret papal actions as examples of a UNILATERAL papal prerogative. Catholics have simply heard it all their lives that the Pope has absolute power and so it seems they automatically interpret papal actions as examples of an absolute papal prerogative, even though that is NOT really the case.

I suppose that as far as this issue, it is my bane to not have grown up Catholic, so I have never been indoctrinated with nor constantly surrounded by this Absolutist Petrine perspective. My belief is not in the least informed by such an understanding of papal primacy. My beliefs are strange to many, but I have provided solid evidence for it, and I also believe it is the perspective I seriously believe the assertions I have made are a much more objective (not to mention, patristic and orthodox) understanding of the Magisterial documents than your own.

As far as "fitting a square into a round hole":
(1) It appears to me your interpretation of parag. 3 of Chap. 3 of Pastor Aeternus (on the Primacy) tries to impose something in the text that is not there. While the text specifically says that the Primacy does NOT impede the authority of a local bishop in his diocese, you need to add the imaginary clause "EXCEPT when the Primacy is being exercised" in order to obtain the interpretation you propose. Whose position is trying to fit a square into a round hole?
(2) Regarding the statement from Pope St. JP2, it seems, again, your interpretation imposes something in the text that is not there. While the text specirfically asserts that the Primacy DOES NOT have the power nor responsibility to daily intervene, you are saying that when he exercises the primacy, he does. Whose position is trying to fit a square into a round hole?
(3) Regarding the other Magisterial texts, which state that the Pope's authority is limited not just by divine law, but also by the divine constitution of the Church, you say they agree with your position. How so? Do you understand that the term "divine constitution of the Church" refers to the divinely insituted hierarchical order of the Church? How can you justify your claim that this agrees with your position - the texts specifically state that the divine constitution of the Church LIMITS the exercise of the primacy - yet, you claim there are "no juridical limits" to the primacy? Whose position is trying to fit a square into a round hole? (NOTE: Absolutist Petrine advocates normally admit that divine law limits papal primacy, but strongly deny that the divine constitution of the Church also limits papal primacy).

As far as the incident regarding Patriarch Audu, here is the course of events (related in Dom Cuthbert Butler's seminal book on the first Vatican Council):
It was Pio Nono himself who nominated the bishops for consecration for the Chaldean Church. This was done in 1867. Patriarch Audu discussed the matter with his Synod and their was strong objection to the nominations, partly for the fact that this was counter to the Tradition upheld by the articles of the Council of Florence. Hence, the Patriarch refused to consecrate/confirm the candidates. Pio Nono did nothing.

A few years later, Vatican 1 occurs. During the formal round of debates on de episcopis (i.e., on the bishops - yes, believe it or not, V1 was intending to make a formal Decree on the office of Bishop, contrary to the detractors of V1 who claim that its myopic purpose was to impose a dogma about the papal prerogatives), Patriarch Audu made a stunning speech, insisting on the preservation of the unique traditions of the non-Latin Churches. There was a movement to create a uniform, universal Canon law for the Latin and non-Latin Churches. Patriarch Audu strongly requested that a separate Code of Canons be made for the non-Latin Churches. Contemporary commentators, critics and historians of the Council (e.g., Granderath, Mourret, Ullathorne, etc.) were in agreement that there was nothing in the Patriarch's speech that could have upset the Pope, and that had he waited for the stenographer's report to read about the speech, the incident being related would never have occurred. But here's what happened: Cardinal Barnabo, Prefect of the Propaganda, himself the prime protagonist behind the movement for the uniform Canon law that would obliterate the independent traditions of the non-Latin Churches, rushed to Pio Nono immediately after the Patriarch's speech and informed him (I have this image of those cartoons where the devil whispers in someone's ear) that Patriarch Audu had made a speech challenging the Primacy. Without knowing what the actual speech was, this prompted Pio Nono to summon the Patriarch and extract from him, under threat of deposition, a promise to finally consecrate the bishops that he had nominated. After the meeting, however, Patriarch Audu informed his confidantes that he did not feel bound by the promise which was forced under duress.

For the next 8 years until Pio Nono's death, and beyond, Patriarch Audu never did consecrate the papal nominees. Pio Nono did nothing throughout the whole period. His successor, the great Pope Leo XIII, wrote that Patriarch Audu was "a bishop conspicuous for piety and religion."

It might interest you to know that in the Eastern Code, Synods of sui juris Churches have the juridical right to challenge a papal nomination. HOWEVER, this feature is not contained in the Latin Code (as mentioned several times in the past, Latin episcopal conferences do not have the same ordinary legislative and executive powers that Eastern and Oriental Synods have).

As far as the relevant Canons to which I was referring, I will quote from the Eastern Code (which have complementary Canons in the Latin Code; I am quoting the Eastern Code so as to inspire you to do research in your own Code so you can become more informed of its various contents):
Canon 1515: An administrative act, even in the case of a rescript issued motu proprio, has no effect insofar as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or an approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogatory clause.

Canon 1538: 1. As often as he judges a dispensation will contribute to teh spiritual good of the Christian faithful who are subject to him according to the norm of the law, the eparchial bishop can dispense from both the common law and the particular laws of his own Church sui juris in a special case, unless a reservation has been made by the authority which made the laws. 2. If recourse to the authority which has reserved to itself a dispensation is difficult, and at the same time there is a danger of grave harm in delay, any hierarch in a particular case can dispense the Christian faithful subject to him according to the norm of the law, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the same authority is used to grant under the same circumstances, with due regard for Canon 396 (re: dispensation from the vow of celibacy).

There is a rather stark difference between Canon 1538 and its complementary Canon in the CIC. The CIC grants that Latin bishops can dispense even from universal laws, and from laws established by the Pope, while Canon 1538 seems to indicate that non-Latin bishops can, at best, dispense from patriarchal and metropolitan laws. Are we to believe that Latin bishops have rights that Eastern and Oriental bishops do not have? I seriously doubt that is the case. I haven't investigated the reason for the difference, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the patriarchal head of the Latin Church is at the same time the primate of the unviersal Church. Further we have EEOC Canon 1501, which would seem to make up for the difference:

Unless it is penal matter, if an express prescription of universal or particular law or a custom is lacking in some particular matter, the case is to be decided in light of the canons of the synods and the holy fathers, legitimate custom, the general principles of canon law observed with canonical equity, ecclesiastical jurisprudence, and the common and constant canonical doctrine.

To conclude, I would like to repeat the pointed questions I have asked, and I hope you can offer responses this time around:

(1) Do you believe the authority that the Pope possesses must perfectly coincide with the prupose for which God intended the primacy? This goes to the very heart of our discussion/debate because while it is true that there can be no llmitation on the exercise of the primacy, you have been very, very vague on exactly what the primacy was intended by God to do. To repeat a previous question, "UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE POPE FULFILLING THE PRIMACY?" Is it everytime he says so, or is it only when the Pope is actually responding to the needs of the Church for the good of the Church?

(2) As a follow up question to the above, do you believe God intended for the Pope to replace his brother bishops? If not, how can you claim that the Pope has the authority to impede a local orthodox bishop's own authority for his diocese?

(3) Does the Pope have the authority to destroy the peace of the Church? If you feel he does, then our conversation can end because there will be no agreement between us on the matter. If he does not, does it not stand to reason that he has no authority to impose something that would evidently destroy the peace of the Church (such as insist that the Oriental and Eastern Churches change their Liturgy)?

(4) Does the Pope have the authority to violate the acquired rights of Christians?

(5) Can you please give an example of a Pope exercising the primacy UNILATERALLY (i.e., not by virtue of appeal, without consultation with ANYONE, and without the prior or subsequent agreement of ANY other bishop in the Church), so as to be able to justify the existence of such a papal prerogative?

(6) If you cannot cite any examples from Tradition, how do you justify your current interpretation of the Magisterial documents to claim he has such an authority?

I know you are preparing a more comprehensive post, and I hope you will include DIRECT responses to the above questions/points in your newest post.

Blessings

Sorry to say, but I'm not buying that. Pope Benedict's motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, impeded the ability of local bishops to determine whether the Tridentine Mass should be served within their dioceses. Do you contend that this was an abuse of papal power, or that the Latins somehow have misinterpreted Summorum Pontificum?

Agreed, brother Bob. Ever since this thread began, I was wondering why it is even in the "Faith and Theology" section in the first place. If you can suggest the appropriate forum, please do so because I would dearly love to respond to Cavadarossi's comment (a response which would, I believe, be outside the intended scope of this forum).