www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News What is going on in Austria?

I am sorry, but I did include the word "apparently" for a reason, friends. My dictionary has as an entry for the word "apparently," the following: "used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying."

Now I will attempt to respond to what Bob said earlier.

Alexis

What I would like to get to the bottom of, is exactly how much authority the Pope has in appointing bishops.

We know, from various ecumenical councils, that the Pope's power is full, supreme, and immediate over every single member of the faithful and the pastors of the Church. At the same time, we know that Vatican I also said that the power of the Pope does not impede the ordinary and immediate jurisdictional power of the bishops.

I'm no expert, but this roughly sounds to me like each bishop is entrusted with ordinary and immediate jurisdictional power in his diocese, unless the Pope steps in and instructs something to the contrary, thus exercising his full, immediate, and supreme power.

Canon law also states that a man must be 35 years of age to be elevated to the episcopacy, that the outgoing bishop and papal nuncio should prepare shortlists with some possible names on it, that the Holy See should seek input from the diocese, etc. etc. Can all of this be ignored, if the Pope wishes to ignore it? Or is it binding in all circumstances?

That would be interesting to find out.

Alexis

That is to your credit. My priest was a member of the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club from way back.

LOL ROFL. Really? Is that so?

Unsatisfactory substitutes? Would that be the "anti-popes?" During the Great Western Schism, they stayed for a lifetime, rending the West and readying it for the Reformation split.

I reminded of a rather amusing piece:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

The Vatican didn't need him, huh? Perhaps you might explain then why, besides depending on him to drage the Orthodox into the latest union schemes (nothing new: Pope Hormisdas demanded that Emperor Justin enforce HH Formula by the sword when the EP wrote his own preface to it affirming the equality of the Church of New Rome to that of Old Rome, the bishops the emperor couldn't get his hands on stated that they would die rather than sign, and the metropolitan of Thessalonica, at the time in the Patriarchate of Rome, tore it in two and stomped on it), why did she make so much use of the "Donation of Constantine," a forgery whose transparence amazes me that it took the West 7 centuries to see it.

[quote]2. The Sultan (not even a Christian!)
3. The Tsar of Russia
4. The Soviet government

each in his (or its) time was pressed into service as a "substitute Pope". In varying degrees, each of them managed, for a time, to keep some semblance of order (the Roman Emperor of the East had the greatest success at it, and still did not succeed as well as one could wish - in any case he is no longer available, much to my sorrow).

All the authority. He is the final word on all episcopal appointments in the Latin Church. He seems to have to pass on all episcopal appointments and give approval in the Eastern Catholic Churches, too.

But he doesn't know, personally, all the candidates that come to his desk. He gets recommendations from all sorts of sources: the nuncio, bishops in the country, etc.

But appointments don't necessarily mean that he controls the man once he's made bishop and installed. We can see any number of people who I would say "got in under the radar" and were really dissident types who got in with the right recommendations.

And then what does he do? Remove them? Might have worked in the old days, but it seems to run counter to the Vatican II idea of collegiality. What doesn't seem to fit with me is how collegiality becomes tolerance for outright dissent from the Pope's authority and so many nuanced criticisms that have gone into the mass media by bishops all around the world.

As far as using the consulting that comes to his desk, yes, the Pope has the authority to ignore it all and put his own man in a place. Look at the Archbishop Hunthaussen situation in Portland some decades ago. The Pope appointed a Bishop, now Archbishop of Washington, to go to Portland and take over certain functions normally reserved to the bishop of a diocese. It didn't go well. But he had the authority to do so. Then there wa s the reaction of a number of priests in the Archdiocese ofChicago when Cardinal George arrived.

BOB

Archbishop Bathersby is finally doing what he should have been doing all along. Well placed clergy insist he knew of the abuses in the Archdiocese and did nothing until the stories hit the newspapers and then said he knew nothing of them. He may yet be dragged into Court by the schismatics he should have nipped in the bud a while ago.