I would like to resurrect an old topic and would like your inputon my belief about the papacy. I am open to correction (accompanied by right reason), so I hope you can help me out.
I believe that:
The Pope has immediate jurisdiction ONLY over his own Patriarchal Church on all matters regarding faith and discipline; his jurisdiction regarding discipline in other Patriarchal Churches is NOT immediate. Only in matters of universal Faith and morals and in the enforcement of a UNIVERSAL canon does the Pope have immediate jurisiction over all Churches. Further, the Pope also has ordinary jurisdiction over all Churches; but the exercise of this jurisdiction is EXTRAordinary.
Please let me know what you think as reflected in the poll and your comments.
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
. . .
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
So it would appear that all those RC’s agreeing with the OP are self-anathemazers according to Roman Canonical Law…
And so far, all who have voted agree with the OP’s view…
The Canons of Rome have painted them into a corner where any attempt to walk out sticks them with the leavings of the broad brush of anathema…
What to do, what to do??
Soften the Roman edges just a little, and smack-o:
I appreciate his effort, however… He wants this all to go away and for us all to just be friends… But Roman Canon Law spikes him back into the mainstream of Papal Authoritarianism and dominance over all Churches…
And we end up somewhere between the hammer and the anvil… :bigyikes:
I do understand why it should be the way you believe, yet it has not been exercised in practice, nor is it supported by the CCOC. (The bolded text above is a newer edition to the argument, I do not recall having it in previous debate. Interesting, I was curious how you interpreted Vatican I into this. :D)
[quote=Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches]The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediateand universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
As for the historical precedents, I cite the history of the Maronite Church (still looking for that thread of mine ), the more recent example of the Maronite delegation to Rome to overturn the ban on married clergy the Pope enacted, and the subsequent decision of Rome which continues this tragic opposition to tradition. Apparently, that decision by the Pope supersedes the CCOC’s own mandate to return to married clergy as the CCOC came afterwards.
Brother, I would like to see your beliefs possible, but history and Canon says otherwise. My Latin brothers, what are your thoughts? It would seem to me that this particular belief would be, for lack of a better term, offensive to the stature and authority so vested by Latins in the Pope, though, no doubt those more ecumenical and accepting of EC’s will find it appropriate.
The Holy Father has immediate power over the whole Church, even in matters of discipline. As the Eastern Canons read:
Canon 43 The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45 §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only as power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
I have to go to sleep and I promise to get involved in the discussion when I wake up, but I would like to clarify something:
Dear EO and OO posters, when the poll asks you if what I stated is acceptable or not, what I mean is whether what I stated is an acceptable model for the Orthodox Church, not whether or not you think it is acceptable as a Catholic belief.