Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2023 7:26:03 GMT -5
Hello everyone,
I was reading a German dissertation about the question of supplied jurisdiction. I came across the following:
“Since the Pope himself holds the highest authority, his own office cannot be validly obtained through suppletion. Such suppletion would require the full papal power itself, which is only possessed by the legitimate Pope. He receives it directly from God after accepting the validly executed election (designatio personae) (cf. c. 219 CIC). From where else would it come? Not from the electors, as they do not possess it. The cardinals do not hold jurisdictional primacy even during the vacancy of the See. The authority does not come from the Church either, as it was directly transferred to Peter and his successors (cf. D. 1502). It does not come from the "Pope" himself either because he did not possess it before and cannot transfer it to himself. Suppletion of the lacking authority is impossible since it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Although c. 209 CIC exists, allowing for ecclesiastical suppletion during the vacancy of the See, in the case of suppletion of papal power, the object of suppletion is removed as it is based on divine law.”
From: Horst Herrmann, Ecclesia Supplet, 1968, pp. 167-168
This raised my interest since it would seem to go against the idea that false popes could validly appoint Catholics to ecclesiastical offices by supplied jurisdiction. The author is not the only one making this point, since he cites to different sources.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 14, 2023 9:15:28 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I was reading a German dissertation about the question of supplied jurisdiction. I came across the following: “Since the Pope himself holds the highest authority, his own office cannot be validly obtained through suppletion. Such suppletion would require the full papal power itself, which is only possessed by the legitimate Pope. He receives it directly from God after accepting the validly executed election (designatio personae) (cf. c. 219 CIC). From where else would it come? Not from the electors, as they do not possess it. The cardinals do not hold jurisdictional primacy even during the vacancy of the See. The authority does not come from the Church either, as it was directly transferred to Peter and his successors (cf. D. 1502). It does not come from the "Pope" himself either because he did not possess it before and cannot transfer it to himself. Suppletion of the lacking authority is impossible since it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Although c. 209 CIC exists, allowing for ecclesiastical suppletion during the vacancy of the See, in the case of suppletion of papal power, the object of suppletion is removed as it is based on divine law.” From: Horst Herrmann, Ecclesia Supplet, 1968, pp. 167-168 This raised my interest since it would seem to go against the idea that false popes could validly appoint Catholics to ecclesiastical offices by supplied jurisdiction. The author is not the only one making this point, since he cites to different sources. Any thoughts? Thank you for this. I, unfortunately cannot speak German, but this seems to be a great source. There is also great dissertation that I have read in English published by the CUA which covers this topic in the best detail available in English, linked HERE. In this dissertation, Fr. Miaskiewicz explains that there are no limits to what may be supplied by the Church, any jurisdictional act may be supplied so long as the conditions are met. The excerpt you quoted does not say that jurisdictional acts of an undeclared antipope would not be supplied. It says that the a man cannot become pope through supplied jurisdiction. He is clear in his reasoning, which is that the act of a man becoming Pope is from God Himself, not the Church. The Church supplies, but its limits extend only to what the jurisdictional acts of the Church entail, not to things that fall only under Divine power. The appointment of Cardinals and bishops are jurisdictional acts of a pope, therefore they do fall under Canon 209.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2023 14:22:32 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I was reading a German dissertation about the question of supplied jurisdiction. I came across the following: “Since the Pope himself holds the highest authority, his own office cannot be validly obtained through suppletion. Such suppletion would require the full papal power itself, which is only possessed by the legitimate Pope. He receives it directly from God after accepting the validly executed election (designatio personae) (cf. c. 219 CIC). From where else would it come? Not from the electors, as they do not possess it. The cardinals do not hold jurisdictional primacy even during the vacancy of the See. The authority does not come from the Church either, as it was directly transferred to Peter and his successors (cf. D. 1502). It does not come from the "Pope" himself either because he did not possess it before and cannot transfer it to himself. Suppletion of the lacking authority is impossible since it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Although c. 209 CIC exists, allowing for ecclesiastical suppletion during the vacancy of the See, in the case of suppletion of papal power, the object of suppletion is removed as it is based on divine law.” From: Horst Herrmann, Ecclesia Supplet, 1968, pp. 167-168 This raised my interest since it would seem to go against the idea that false popes could validly appoint Catholics to ecclesiastical offices by supplied jurisdiction. The author is not the only one making this point, since he cites to different sources. Any thoughts? Thank you for this. I, unfortunately cannot speak German, but this seems to be a great source. There is also great dissertation that I have read in English published by the CUA which covers this topic in the best detail available in English, linked HERE. In this dissertation, Fr. Miaskiewicz explains that there are no limits to what may be supplied by the Church, any jurisdictional act may be supplied so long as the conditions are met. The excerpt you quoted does not say that jurisdictional acts of an undeclared antipope would not be supplied. It says that the a man cannot become pope through supplied jurisdiction. He is clear in his reasoning, which is that the act of a man becoming Pope is from God Himself, not the Church. The Church supplies, but its limits extend only to what the jurisdictional acts of the Church entail, not to things that fall only under Divine power. The appointment of Cardinals and bishops are jurisdictional acts of a pope, therefore they do fall under Canon 209. Thank you for the answer. I wanted to read Fr. Miaskewicz’ dissertation next. I am not sure though this is what the German author means. I think it becomes clearer in the original text. Here’s an improved translation: “A suppletion of the missing [papal] authority is impossible since it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. While Canon 209 of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) exists, allowing for ecclesiastical suppletion during a vacancy of the Holy See, in the case of suppletion of papal authority, the object of suppletion is withdrawn since it is based on divine law.” To me he seems to say that what belongs to papal authority cannot be supplied since papal power is not subject to ecclesiastical law. This may just be his opinion, I find it interesting nonetheless
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 15, 2023 7:50:36 GMT -5
@sebastian,
Could you scan the chapter of the book for us, that this excerpt is from and put it up on here. I think we should defer any more discussion until we see the full text, with the context of what you are quoting. Unfortunately, I don't own the book, and I wasn't able to find it online, and used copies are expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 10:29:35 GMT -5
The Pope and Bishops as bearers of the power of suppletion
"It is necessary to inquire about the specific bearers of ecclesiastical power and consequently, the bearers of ecclesiastical suppletory power. The Church does not act abstractly through itself but through its organs. Christ founded his Church on individuals who are to represent his visible substitution in and for the Church. It cannot simply be said that the Church, as a whole, is the bearer of full authority and therefore has the power to determine who else should receive this authority individually. The successors of Peter and the apostles have received the authority and do not require a repeated mission by the entirety of the Church. The Pope and bishops are the principal bearers of ecclesiastical pastoral authority and also determine its exercise and transmission. These statements also provide the basis for the conclusions to be drawn regarding c. 209 CIC."
1. The Pope as bearer of the full suppletory power
“Various authors who at least briefly address the question at hand simply answer the present problem regarding the bearer of suppletory power with "Romanus Pontifex." The Pope, as the head of the Church and its representative, acts on its behalf, but he does not govern it in its own mandate and name, rather as Christ's representative in His name. The current canonical law explicitly states, with a clear emphasis against differing views, that the Pope, in the sense of Vatican I, possesses not only an honorary primacy but also the highest and full authority over the entire Church (c. 218 CIC). No power in the Church surpasses or even stands on an equal footing with papal authority; on the contrary, it encompasses all other powers in the Church. It lacks no right it requires, and no other authority possesses the same privileges. Thus, it is also correct to seek the origin and source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Pope, who can pass it on in any manner and to whomever he wishes.
One of the possible ways of transferring pastoral authority was taken by the Pope through suppletion according to c. 209 CIC. The power of suppletion flows unimpeded from the authority that the Pope received as a comprehensive delegation for the Universal Church from Christ. A. Trombetta writes about it: "Nomine Ecclesiae venit Summus Pontifex, a quo omnis iurisdictio emanat, et a quo ius commune originem ducit" (In the name of the Church comes the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom the common law takes its origin). Thus, suppletion is also an expression of the fact that the Pope is above all ecclesiastical law, which he himself has established. When previous authors simply refer to the "ius commune" as the bearer of suppletion, they intend to express this fact in their own way. The justification for suppletion lies in the office of the Pope or in his consent, pointing in a similar direction. The Pope's right to universal legislation naturally includes the right to supply any deficiencies through universally valid legal delegation.
Since the Pope himself is the bearer of the highest authority, his own office cannot be validly acquired through suppletion. Such suppletion would require the Pope's full authority, which only the rightful Pope possesses. According to the assumption of a legally valid election (designatio personae), he receives it directly from God Himself (cf. c. 219 CIC). From where else could it come? Not from the electors since they do not possess it. In the vacancy of the Holy See, the cardinals do not possess the primacy of jurisdiction either. The authority does not come from the Church either, as it was directly transferred to Peter and his successors (cf. D. 1502). It also does not come from the "Pope" himself since he did not possess it before, and he could not transfer it to himself. Suppletion of the lacking authority is impossible as it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Although c. 209 CIC and thus ecclesiastical suppletion continues during the vacancy of the Holy See, in the case of the suppletion of papal power, the object of suppletion is removed since it is based on divine law.”
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 10:33:46 GMT -5
I believe that the argument he is making could come down to this:
1. Supplied jurisdiction is a form of jurisdiction delegated by ecclesiastical law.
2. One can only delegate down the chain of authority.
3. Papal power is above ecclesiastical law and not subject to it
4. Therefore, papal power cannot be supplied under canon 209
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 15, 2023 12:03:05 GMT -5
The Pope and Bishops as bearers of the power of suppletion "It is necessary to inquire about the specific bearers of ecclesiastical power and consequently, the bearers of ecclesiastical suppletory power. The Church does not act abstractly through itself but through its organs. Christ founded his Church on individuals who are to represent his visible substitution in and for the Church. It cannot simply be said that the Church, as a whole, is the bearer of full authority and therefore has the power to determine who else should receive this authority individually. The successors of Peter and the apostles have received the authority and do not require a repeated mission by the entirety of the Church. The Pope and bishops are the principal bearers of ecclesiastical pastoral authority and also determine its exercise and transmission. These statements also provide the basis for the conclusions to be drawn regarding c. 209 CIC." 1. The Pope as bearer of the full suppletory power “Various authors who at least briefly address the question at hand simply answer the present problem regarding the bearer of suppletory power with "Romanus Pontifex." The Pope, as the head of the Church and its representative, acts on its behalf, but he does not govern it in its own mandate and name, rather as Christ's representative in His name. The current canonical law explicitly states, with a clear emphasis against differing views, that the Pope, in the sense of Vatican I, possesses not only an honorary primacy but also the highest and full authority over the entire Church (c. 218 CIC). No power in the Church surpasses or even stands on an equal footing with papal authority; on the contrary, it encompasses all other powers in the Church. It lacks no right it requires, and no other authority possesses the same privileges. Thus, it is also correct to seek the origin and source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Pope, who can pass it on in any manner and to whomever he wishes. One of the possible ways of transferring pastoral authority was taken by the Pope through suppletion according to c. 209 CIC. The power of suppletion flows unimpeded from the authority that the Pope received as a comprehensive delegation for the Universal Church from Christ. A. Trombetta writes about it: "Nomine Ecclesiae venit Summus Pontifex, a quo omnis iurisdictio emanat, et a quo ius commune originem ducit" (In the name of the Church comes the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom the common law takes its origin). Thus, suppletion is also an expression of the fact that the Pope is above all ecclesiastical law, which he himself has established. When previous authors simply refer to the "ius commune" as the bearer of suppletion, they intend to express this fact in their own way. The justification for suppletion lies in the office of the Pope or in his consent, pointing in a similar direction. The Pope's right to universal legislation naturally includes the right to supply any deficiencies through universally valid legal delegation. Since the Pope himself is the bearer of the highest authority, his own office cannot be validly acquired through suppletion. Such suppletion would require the Pope's full authority, which only the rightful Pope possesses. According to the assumption of a legally valid election (designatio personae), he receives it directly from God Himself (cf. c. 219 CIC). From where else could it come? Not from the electors since they do not possess it. In the vacancy of the Holy See, the cardinals do not possess the primacy of jurisdiction either. The authority does not come from the Church either, as it was directly transferred to Peter and his successors (cf. D. 1502). It also does not come from the "Pope" himself since he did not possess it before, and he could not transfer it to himself. Suppletion of the lacking authority is impossible as it is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Although c. 209 CIC and thus ecclesiastical suppletion continues during the vacancy of the Holy See, in the case of the suppletion of papal power, the object of suppletion is removed since it is based on divine law.” Thank you for this. What I meant is a scan of the chapter directly from the book itself, not a translation or a transcription from the book,so I can read it for myself and can get my own translation.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 12:50:09 GMT -5
The first two
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 12:51:03 GMT -5
The last two
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 15, 2023 16:50:04 GMT -5
Thank you! I will look through them soon, and post a translation from an online translation, and ask a German speaking friend of mine to look it over as well.
Do you speak German? If not, what translation service did you rely on for the above translations?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2023 1:25:53 GMT -5
Thank you! I will look through them soon, and post a translation from an online translation, and ask a German speaking friend of mine to look it over as well. Do you speak German? If not, what translation service did you rely on for the above translations? I am German actually. I translated the texts with ChatGPT, it usually works quite well
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 16, 2023 5:42:00 GMT -5
Thank you! I will look through them soon, and post a translation from an online translation, and ask a German speaking friend of mine to look it over as well. Do you speak German? If not, what translation service did you rely on for the above translations? I am German actually. I translated the texts with ChatGPT, it usually works quite well I was just referred to that recently, actually, and tried it out. The ChatGPT seems to be better than the others by far, so since that's the program you used, the translations above should be as good as we are going to get without having a professional translator do it.
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Jul 16, 2023 10:23:09 GMT -5
I am German actually. I translated the texts with ChatGPT, it usually works quite well I was just referred to that recently, actually, and tried it out. The ChatGPT seems to be better than the others by far, so since that's the program you used, the translations above should be as good as we are going to get without having a professional translator do it. I’ve used chatGPT for translating Latin texts recently. I’ve found it to be petty good overall, but every now and then it translates some phrases that might be technically correct, but incorrect based on context. I’ve found it helpful to use both chatGPT and Google Translate to ensure accuracy, and sometimes use wiktionary and online Latin dictionaries when neither Google or ChatGPT seem to be getting it right.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 16, 2023 14:44:52 GMT -5
Presuming the translation is accurate, this paragraph seems to me to be the crucial aspect to grasping what he is saying:
The introductory sentence to the paragraph is stating the point, that the papal office cannot be acquired by supplied jurisdiction. The rest of the paragraph are supporting sentences to the first sentence. The context is dealing with the fact that the papacy cannot be obtained through supplied jurisdiction, the only power of filling the papal office comes directly by God himself. This at least seems to me to be what he is saying.
If the understanding of the last sentence was that papal acts could not be supplied during an interregnum, how would bishops appointed for the many centuries in Church history who obtained their offices indirectly but with tacit approval of the pope, have obtained their offices during interregnums? It wouldn't make any sense. How can tacit approval be given by someone who is dead? For a very long part of Church history, popes did not directly select or even approve of bishops, it was done only with their tacit consent, and done regularly, whether there was a living pope or not, and all understood that this was lawful, and the bishop was truly the ordinary of the diocese immediately upon accepting the office, even if he was elected at a time of a vacancy. It was a time in Church history with extremely slow communication, in which no one would know of the death of a pope and the election of a new pope for a very long time.
If this understanding of Horst is correct, (and I am still not convinced that is what he is saying), that without a pope, the Church cannot supply for the act of appointment when there was no pope, during a vacancy, then all of these bishops elected during papal vacancies would not have been valid bishops. Yet no one ever even considered this to be a problem. If this understanding is correct, then the ordinary and regular policy of the Church of allowing the practice of local or regional elections of bishops to operate on their own without first finding out if there was a living pope at the time of the election, so tacit consent would be given by a living pope, rather than being a supplied act from the Church, would have been incorrect. Yet this practice existed in the Church for a very long time, many centuries in fact, and to be more precise, the first half of Church history. In my opinion, this approved and regular practice of the Church closes the door to such an idea.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 0:47:50 GMT -5
Presuming the translation is accurate, this paragraph seems to me to be the crucial aspect to grasping what he is saying: The introductory sentence to the paragraph is stating the point, that the papal office cannot be acquired by supplied jurisdiction. The rest of the paragraph are supporting sentences to the first sentence. The context is dealing with the fact that the papacy cannot be obtained through supplied jurisdiction, the only power of filling the papal office comes directly by God himself. This at least seems to me to be what he is saying. If the understanding of the last sentence was that papal acts could not be supplied during an interregnum, how would bishops appointed for the many centuries in Church history who obtained their offices indirectly but with tacit approval of the pope, have obtained their offices during interregnums? It wouldn't make any sense. How can tacit approval be given by someone who is dead? For a very long part of Church history, popes did not directly select or even approve of bishops, it was done only with their tacit consent, and done regularly, whether there was a living pope or not, and all understood that this was lawful, and the bishop was truly the ordinary of the diocese immediately upon accepting the office, even if he was elected at a time of a vacancy. It was a time in Church history with extremely slow communication, in which no one would know of the death of a pope and the election of a new pope for a very long time. If this understanding of Horst is correct, (and I am still not convinced that is what he is saying), that without a pope, the Church cannot supply for the act of appointment when there was no pope, during a vacancy, then all of these bishops elected during papal vacancies would not have been valid bishops. Yet no one ever even considered this to be a problem. If this understanding is correct, then the ordinary and regular policy of the Church of allowing the practice of local or regional elections of bishops to operate on their own without first finding out if there was a living pope at the time of the election, so tacit consent would be given by a living pope, rather than being a supplied act from the Church, would have been incorrect. Yet this practice existed in the Church for a very long time, many centuries in fact, and to be more precise, the first half of Church history. In my opinion, this approved and regular practice of the Church closes the door to such an idea. I am wondering if supplied jurisdiction is even necessary for this. From how I understand it, whenever the Pope doesn’t directly appoint a bishop, the bishop is chosen in accord with local customs and obtains his office immediately upon election. He is still subject to the future approval of the Pope, but he already has obtained his office. So maybe it wouldn’t even be necessary to rely on supplied jurisdiction for the Eastern rite bishops to have obtained their office.
|
|