www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Vicar of Christ

From the Code of Canon Law

SECTION I.

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 330 - 367)

CHAPTER I.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS

Can. 330 Just as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves.

Art. 1.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.



Art. 2.

THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS

Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power offer the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

§2. It exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a true collegial act.

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 339 §1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.

§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The sanctifying office

893 The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,"423 especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock."424 Thus, "together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life."425

The governing office

894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children.... The faithful ... should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428


Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God's law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.429

Take a look at the Canons of the Latin Church in relation to the Constitution of the Syriac Orthodox Antiochian Church. Take a look at the similarity between the Patriarch's authority and those of the Pope, some may interpret that the Patriarch acts with more authority in practice than the Pope professes in Canon.

http://orientalorthodox.blogspot.com/2009/12/constitution-of-syriac-orthodox-church.html

The Pope of Alexandria has had, at least since the time of St. Cyril, far greater real power than the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Alexandria, for instance, has directly appointed and deposed his bishops since the fourth century.

Not according to the Fathers. The Church did not even perform second marriage for any reason before the ninth century. Remarriage for any reason was considered sinful, and required prayer, fasting and absence from communion for a period of three to five years. The Rite of Second Marriage was specifically non-sacramental in being removed from its Eucharistic setting.

All this is firmly documented, you just refuse to acknowledge it, because, of course, Orthodoxy never changes and never has changed, therefore, if your bishop says second marriage is sacramental, it must be so--canons be damned!

?

Byzantine Catholics today are firmly latinized in their marriage discipline, but my preference would be a return to the true Orthodox Tradition: marriage is a sacrament that can be entered into just once in any lifetime.

If there is no annullment, yes, it is, and a grave sin.

If there was an annullment, no christian marriage had taken place, and therefore, it is not, indeed, a second marriage, but a first one.

This does not seem to sit well with the conscience of some Western Christians. I received and then married two couples, all four of whom had been former Catholics. They had been offered annulment by their previous Church authorities but felt they could not say that their first marriages could be declared a nullity. They saw them as genuine at the time of marriage and for years thereafter. So they felt unable to accept what they saw as the fiction of having the marriages declared null and they chose what they saw as the more honest path of divorce. Then, in later discovering us they found a Church which would both accept the authenticity of their first marriages and provide them with a sacramental marriage after divorce, as well of course as Confession and Holy Communion, etc.

Not entirely true. The Catholic Church recognizes civil marriages, as well as non-Christian marriages, as "natural marriages" that would act as an impediment to remarriage if the spouse was still living.

The principal difference between current Catholic discipline and the Traditional Orthodox discipline is the Catholic Church considers a marriage bond to be dissolved by the death of one of the partners; on the other hand, under the Traditional Orthodox perspective, marriage is an eternal bond that perdures in the kairos. Christians can have only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime. Remarriage, whether after widowhood or divorce, is a concession to human frailty.

As I noted, until a Tomos of Emperor Leo VI in the ninth century, the Orthodox Church did not perform second marriages of any kind. Those who wished to remarry did so in a civil ceremony, and the Church then undertook to reconcile those who had remarried with the Church through a penitential regime of prayer, fasting and excommunication lasting 3-5 years. Second marriages were not sacramental because they were not performed in or by the Church.

Leo's Tomos made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage, and abolished civil marriage as an institution. The Church thus had to compromise its prior discipline by taking over the function of remarriage, but preserved its theology of marriage by making the Rite of Remarriage both penitential and non-sacramental.

Whatever the Orthodox are doing today, if they consider second marriages to be sacramental, they have innovated--changed their fundamental teaching from that which was handed down from the Fathers. Their doctrine will have developed! How positively Latin of them!

One of your chaps, a professor of Catholic History and Morals at an Australian university has published a study of marrriage and divorce in the first millennium which sharply disagrees with what you have written. I wish I could find it on the Web again. He has a Polish surname I'll keep hunting for it.

Please do. All sorts of things get written by people who don't know what they are about, and I look forward to adding him to my collection.

I've never quite understood totally the issue of Sacramentality (as opposed to validity) in marriage.

I understand when a marriage is "invalid".

What does it mean for a marriage to be Valid but not Sacramental?

Please excuse if these are "Latin-esque, Scholastic-y, foreign to Byzantine theology and Orthodox Phronema" distinctions that I am asking about...

[/quote]

The first millennium church certainly allowed second marriages and had penances which it imposed on them. I deal with this issue on page three of this thread.

Let me be clear about chronology here:

1. Prior to the 9th century: the Church allows second marriages, but these are civil ceremonies without sacramental status. Persons contracting second marriages are excommunicated, regardless of whether their spouse is alive or dead. Through a course of prayer and fasting lasting 3-5 years, they can be readmitted to communion.

2. In the 9th century, Emperor Leo VI (he of the notorious fourth marriage) abolished civil marriage throughout the Empire, and turned responsibility for all aspects of marriage over to the Church. The Church now has to deal with the problems of divorce, widowhood and remarriage, which previously it had simply ignored as falling within the purview of the State. In a compromise between doctrine and pastoral necessity, the Church agrees to perform second marriages. But in order to preserve its fundamental doctrine that Christian marriage is an eternal sacrament that transcends death, these second marriages likewise are not considered to be sacramental, and involve extended periods of penance.

This is just straight historical fact. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Validity is a legal concept. Sacramentality is a theological concept. The Church recognizes civil marriages as valid; it does not consider them to be sacramental. The Church regards marriages between non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to be valid, but they also are not sacramental.

For a marriage to be a sacrament, it has to fulfill its sacramental purpose as the union of man and woman into one flesh, a typos of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

dear Stuart:

Thanks that's helpful. May I ask a supplementary or 2?

Would a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian (assuming all the permissions) be sacramental (I presume the permissions give the necessary canonical validity)?

Would a marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized (assuming all the permissions) be sacramental (I presume the permissions give the necessary canonical validity)?

If either of these are non-sacramental, what does that mean for the Catholic spouse? Does it mean there is no grace? Or that the love they receive or give is not connected to or part of God's love for them?

That's a really good question for a canon lawyer.


That's another good one. The oldest strata of Tradition would say the issue is moot, since Christians should not marry non-Christians, and such marriages would never be celebrated in church. No church wedding, no sacrament.


The Eastern Christian perspective would say that the divine grace heals all that is broken and provides that which is absent.