Yes, as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope does have supreme authority over the Church, meaning that if he wishes, as Bricker stated upthread, direct that all priests are to now celebrate Mass in top hats and tuxedos, then the priests will be standing in front of the altar in tuxes.
The Pope cannot, as moriah suggested upthread, declare adultery or murder to be morally acceptable. That is NOT within his authority, ever. He may only CLARIFY that which is in the original Deposit of Faith. He may not rewrite it.
I apologize for any misconceptions caused by my first statement.
~VOW
Indeed, as Benedict has demonstrated -the reason popes don’t resign is because for centuries, they didn’t. Tradition.
Benedict may be best remembered for setting the new tradition that they don’t have to hang on to the job like a pope.
Of course, this is a radical change - we may see the bar lowered further and further, until a 60yo pope who resigns when he starts to slow down at 80 or so is the norm. (Those earlier resignations tended to be political, not due to age and infirmity.) Thanks to modern medicine, a pope can be kept alive for a decade or three after he starts to lose it or can’t really handle the demands of the job. Benny’s best contribution to modernizing the church is to point out they don’t have to wait two decades for a tottering old guy to kick off. Brand new precedent. Good for him!
In the long run, this may be the biggest step yet to modernizing the church. Instead a decade or two of doing nothing, waiting for a pope to die, the church will move on to the next energetic ruler who is young enough to want to do his work and then move on - much as bishops work now.
The pope is, in fact, the supreme authority of the Church on earth. He has the power to unilaterally make whatever changes he wishes, without consent from the rest of the body. Which is why you’re not going to see a pope making huge, earth-shattering reforms or changes; the body of cardinals makes damned sure that the guy they’re picking is a party-line kind of guy with decades of solid service behind him. No wild cards or firebrands need apply.
But the link was to show how later Popes and Ecumenical Councils do indeed have the power to reverse previous papal decisions.
As far a “withdrawing” sacraments. The current Pope has the power to do that through declaration of nullity, even if it reverses the decision of a previous Pope. Supreme authority is supreme. And declaring what is or isn’t a valid sacrament is one of those decisions a Pope can make.
Pope Formosus’ ordinations were posthumously declared annulled by the succeeding Pope. (But was later reinstated as valid due to the confusion it caused.)
And then Catholics, all the way from Curial officials, cardinal, and bishops all the way to the lay folk in the pews would have to decide whether to accept or reject that attempt.
Suddenly saying “Jesus isn’t divine” will get no traction and immediately lead to schism, with the Pope standing alone.
The church does indeed limit the Pope’s power by saying the ‘deposit of faith’, i.e., everything God intended to reveal through divine revelation in the life death and resurrection of Christ is settled. And the Pope can never contradict Divine Law (thou shalt not commit adultery). And the Pope can’t contradict Natural Law (which is not always clear cut since it has to be deduced from observation, so there is some wiggle room there).
But when I say “supreme authority is supreme”, I meant the authority to run the church and teach that which does not violate divine law. It’s supreme in governance in all issues not reserved to the teachings of Christ.
It’s also limited in practically in the acceptance or non-acceptance of any orders or teachings of the Pope. If the Pope gives a teaching no one accepts, is it really a teaching? Such is the issue of artificial contraception which is rejected by a majority of the laity.
And if the Pope does give a teaching regarded as heretical… who’s going to storm the Vatican to make him retract it? It stands as official papal teaching until such time the pope dies and his corpse can be publicly tried (O hai! Honorius!).
And here I thought Catholic faith was bizarre, Catholic history is even weirder. A new pope is a history lesson the way a new war is a geography lesson.
Well, yes, that is the case. But we’ve seen in cases where ‘priests left the priesthood’ some of the faithful didn’t know that and questioned whether their child was really baptized. There would certainly be scandalization on the part of the faithful from all sides of the issue.
But another oddity of annulling priestly ordination would be marriage annulments. Marriage annulments are granted by the power of clergy to wield authority in the church which layfolk can’t. A tribunal granting an annulment requires two of the three judges to be clergy in order to make the annulment a valid act of church authority. If a priest-judge’s ordination was annulled… I wonder if that would un-annul an annulled marriage! :eek:
No, it wouldn’t. The marriage is either null or it isn;t null. The tribunal doesn’t make it null; they attempt to discern whether it has been shown to be null. While tribunal members are normally priests, they don’t have to be, and if one of the tribunal members turns out not to have had the usual qualifications for membership that has no implications for the validity or otherwise of the marriages the tribunal has investigated. Whatever other factors dictate the validity of a particular marriage, it’s not dicated by the qualifications of the people who later investigate its validity.
Can. 1421 §1 In each diocese the Bishop is to appoint diocesan judges, who are to be clerics.
§2 The Episcopal Conference can permit that lay persons also be appointed judges. Where necessity suggests, one of these can be chosen in forming a college of Judges. Just as I said. Clerics only with only one lay person in a tribunal.
Yes, canon law requires them to be clerics. But canon law doesn’t have to do that; canon law could be changed to provide that there be more lay people on tribunals, whereas it can’t provide that lay people can celebrate the eucharist, or ordain bishops, because that;s inconsistent with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and ordination respectively.
Which means that my point stands. It’s not the fact that two out of three tribunal members are clerics which makes a marriage investigated by the tribunal null, or not null, as the case may be. And while it would be irregular for an improperly constituted tribunal to pronounce on the validity of the marriage, that wouldn’t have any implications for the validity of the marriage. Just like, if the registrar who files your death certificate turns out not to be properly qualified or properly appointed, you’re still dead.
But it does. And for a theological reason. A reason some in the church would say is part of divine law (but I’m not one of those) which would be something that can’t be ever changed (though I think it can and should). It’s the reason I gave above. So, despite what you claim, there are theologians which would tell you with a straight face, that you’re wrong because canon law must demand that a juridical act be decided by a majority of clerics because that is the divine law. It’s because the ‘keys of the kingdom’ to ‘bind or make loose’ is solely the provenance of clergy.
And then I surmised about what that would mean for the juridical acts declared by a priest who was later found out, through the annulment of his ordination, that he couldn’t have made those juridical act to begin with. If annulment of ordination throws validity of sacraments celebrated into question, then it should also throw into question juridical acts which are only valid because he was exercising clerical authority.
I’m sceptical, moriah. If that argument holds good then the invovlement of even one out of three lay tribunal members is problematic, because what is a lay person doing participating in a juridical act, if the juridical act is solely the province of the clergy?
The tribunal is not “binding or making loose”. The marriage is already invalid (or, it is already valid) and the decree of the tribunal changes nothing in that regard. Nobody is loosed from any spiritual obligations by a decree of nullity; they were never subject to the obligations in the first place, and all the decree does is to recognise that fact. In other words, a tribunal hearing is a process of discernment of an existing truth. It doesn’t change anything; it just uncovers it.
It is indeed a source of much theological consternation. The 1917 code allowed for no layperson to make juridical decisions because of the theology of authority/governance being solely relegated to clergy. The new code allows for one lay person to help with a decision of a tribunal such that they are not the majority of the actors of the decision. For some, this was done partly to empower laity as a matter of principle, and for others, it was because of the decline of priests that they allowed laity to help staff tribunals. This was obviously a compromise solution fought in the halls of the Vatican.
But canonists who are rightfully dubious of this compromise ask: “What if the two clergy are deadlocked and the layperson casts the tie-breaking vote… wouldn’t that be an example of the layperson exercising juridical power?” To which the answer is the sound of Roman crickets chirping.
The inability of laity to exercise true authority/governance where it counts – juridical and sacramental decisions – is the reason why laity may not hold positions of Judicial or Episcopal Vicars in dioceses. Those positions don’t have to include actually celebrating sacraments, those positions could theoretically be purely governing positions, but laity may not hold them precisely because they are governing positions. It’s not just some sacraments laity are barred from doing, they’re also barred from governance.
Laity can, however, be a Chancellor and hold a host of other positions and make purely administrative decisions.
I’d go a little further. Even if all the members of the tribunal vote the same way, they are all exercising juridical power.
So I’d see the 2+1 rule as representing a rejection of the theology that says that only clerics can exercise juridical power in the church.
I appreciate that some may still adhere to this theology, but it’s clearly not the only theological view which a Catholic may legitimately hold, and it’s not the view which animates the current canonical rules. If canon law can accommodate a 2+1 rule, then it can accommodate a 1+2 rule, or a 0+3 rule.
Again, nope. If laity can be members of canonical tribunals, then they are not unable to exercise juridical power, because they do in fact exercise it. You could, I suppose, argue that all the acts of tribunals constituted under the 2+1 rule are invalid, but that’s clearly not the official position. So if canon law can allow laypersons to exercise juridical power in this context, it’s hard to see that it can’t allow them to do so in other circumstances. It doesn’t, certainly, but not because it can’t.
