www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pope John Paul II

Dear Alex:

The current (1983) Code of Canons for the Latin Church DOES NOT provide for the Pope's resignation, if he so desires, upon reaching the age of 80.

Under Sec.2 of Canon 332, the Pope can resign at any given point in time during his papacy, but it has not happened for a long period of time.

However, ". . .it is required for [its] validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone."

Without him resigning, the Pope remains as Supreme Pontiff until he dies.

The Cardinals and Bishops are REQUESTED to turn in their resignation upon reaching 75. Once accepted by the Pope, such resignation becomes effective and the retiring Cardinal/Bishop remains as apostolic administrator until the installation of his successor, in the case of diocesan bishops and Cardinals functioning as Archbishops.

Cardinal Ratzinger first turned in his resignation at age 75, and then at age 80 recently, but both resignations were not accepted by the Pope. The Cardinal, therefore, continues to be the Prefect of the CDF.

Cardinal Sin just turned his resignation as Metropolitan Archbishop of Manila which was accepted by the Pope, with an immediate appointment of a successor in
Artchbishop Rosales.

Amado

Dear Amado:

So, from what you aresaying it could be argued that:

(1) resignation at age 75 for a bishop is not mandatory and he may refuse to offer his resignation; and

(2) that the REAL reason for the request is so that the Pope can keep the bishop he likes and get rid of those he doens't. And we wonder why our bretheren the Orthodox are afraid of Rome's exercise of its power.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Halychanin:

Yes, you could argue #1, but who, in his right mind, would not offer such a "courtesy resignation," which is the universal practice today in the Latin Church?

Your 2nd argument is merely an inference and, unless we can read the Pope's mind, your opinion is as good as mine.

Amado

Halychanyn,

the Orthodox need not worry of Rome's exercise of power, the Phanar exercises authority over the GO Church which rivals anything people perceive the Pope would do.

See this link:

Spyridon Interview [helleniccomserve.com]

Dear Fr. Deacon John:

Respectfully, the fact that there are internal politics within the GO Church and tensions between it and the Greek government doesn't detract from my point.

The "mandatory" resignation age of 75 has not (at least in practice) been limited to Latin-Rite bishops. Several of our Ukrainian bishops in North America tendered their resignations at age 75 despite the fact that they belong to a sui juris Church in communion with the Roman Pope.

Of course, one can discuss whether the Ukie bishops should have done so.

But, the point is that when the big-o Orthodox see stuff like this happening, they naturally will assume that union with Rome will allow the Pope to decide who stays and who goes.

Whether of not the Ecumencial Patriarch or anyone else rules their own sui juris Church with a heavy hand is one thing. Whether the Pope's use of his "power" goes beyond the ecclesiastical boundaries of the Latin Rite Church is, respectfully, a completely different matter.

Yours,

halychanyn

Halychanyn's point is well taken especially in the case of Bishop Isidore Borecky. Thank God he did not retire at the "canonical age" even when he was requested to.

I do think he also has a valid point about the perception of the Orthodox bishops of Rome's "canonical approach". An Orthodox bishop once recently said to me and some others gathered to talk to him "If I was Catholic I would be retired by now. How horrible." And he left it at that.

Cheirotonia has no retirement age. If he can physically and mentally perform his duties as shepherd, leave him be.

Ugh. I hate it when people link to their site because they require you to register and the content goes away anyway after awhile.

anastasios

I think it's UN-neccessary to have fear of the authority of Rome. The fear is mis-placed.

Why? Well...the Pope's acceptance or refusal of his bishops' resignations is being excercised as being the Patriarch of the Latin Church...is it so?

So if that's the case...then it has nothing to do with his role as a Pope.

All in all, the fear is mis-placed.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear SPDundas:

Repeating what I said above:

The "mandatory" resignation age of 75 has not (at least in practice) been limited to Latin-Rite bishops. Several of our Ukrainian bishops in North America tendered their resignations at age 75 despite the fact that they belong to a sui juris Church in communion with the Roman Pope.

So, there is a precedent for the Pope acting as Universal Pastor and not just the Patriarch of the Latin Church vis a vis the mandatory 75 retirement age.

Yours,

halychanyn

Here is the real issue, bishops "outside" the so-called "traditional land" of patriarchate. The UGC bishops (as are all Eastern Catholic bishops)of North America are subject to the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the CCEO. Now one can debate the merits of this canon, but I imagine the bishops are free to decide whether or not to submit their resignations. Case in point, a certain Byzantine eparch celebrated his 75th birthday and shows no signs of slowing down or retiring, and Rome has not named a successor. I imagine those bishops (including Latin bishops) who submit their resignations do so because they want to, not because of some canon in the Code.

Halychanyn:

Your continued use of the word "mandatory," even safely in quotations, is really misleading. At worse, it is misinformation.

The Latin Code of Canons shows otherwise (and perhaps, also, by the counterpart provision in the Eastern Code of Canons.)

AmdG

Dear Amado:

While the Cannon itself does not say it is "mandatory" based upon what I've noted from the above posts, it has also been made clear above that no Latin bishop would dare say "no" based upon the common practice of the day and deference to his Patriarch.

So perhaps it is not de jure mandatory but it sure seems like it is de facto mandatory.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Fr. Deacon John:

The point is an ecumenical one. The big-O Orthodox fear Rome's "over-flexing" of its muscle. Based upon what has been represented above, it seems that the Pope is given a LOT of discretion on whether or not to allow (yes, allow) a bishop to stay on beyond 75.

As for Ukie bishops outside of Ukraine being subject directly to the Pope, I'm not so sure. I think, under the current system, once they are ordained and installed, they become subject to our Patriarch. How else could they take active and voting part in the Synods of the UGCC? I may be wrong, and will stand corrected if anyone proves something different.

The point, however, still remains. Let's say the Greek Orthodox Church wants to enter into communion with Rome. Would Rome say, OK - You have Greece under your control, Patriarch of Constantinople, but we will appoint your bishops outside of Greece. Obviously the Greeks would never, ever go for this.

The "75 rule" is, IMHO, an impediment to ecumenical relations. Given the discussion of schismatics on another thread, I'm not sure any of us should be worried about it, but there it is.

Yours,

halychanyn

The canons don't say that you must resign at 75; the resignation is requested. But quotes such as these:

VATICAN CITY, SEP 16, 2003 (VIS) - The Holy Father:

- Accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Richmond, U.S.A., presented by Bishop Walter Francis Sullivan upon having reached the age limit.

presumably coming from an official organ (unless VIS is simply a news agency, and not an official Vatican news agency) give a different picture in that they speak of "the age limit". Maybe it's not strictly required by the law, but it certainly looks like it's required anyway, exceptional rare cases notwithstanding.

Here is the real issue, bishops "outside" the so-called "traditional land" of patriarchate. The UGC bishops (as are all Eastern Catholic bishops)of North America are subject to the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the CCEO.

Do Roman Catholic bishops in the "traditional lands" of Eastern Catholic jurisdictions have to answer to the particular heads of those Eastern Catholic Churches in such matters as resignation? I could be wrong, but I don't think so (I think there are Roman dioceses under Eastern archdioceses in India, for example, but I don't think these Roman ordinaries tender resignations to the Syro-Malabar archbishop, do they?). But Eastern Catholic bishops outside of "traditional lands" do have to answer to the Patriarch of Rome on matters like resignation. The double standard (and unless RC bishops offer resignations to EC primates in EC territories, it is a double standard) is not fair, and that looks bad to the Orthodox. If I'm not mistaken, that's Halychanyn's point.

Halychanyn,

in my reading of the Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical dialogue, the retirement age of 75 for bishops has never been discussed, but I could be mistaken.

On the other hand the Catholic Church admited at Vatican II, that the canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches are "temporary" until East and West are reunited:

"The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation till such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity." Orientalium Ecclesiarum n. 30.