Are all Bishops Ordinary?

For those unfamiliar with church terms the title is a pun. For most people the meaning of ordinary is of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality -average. In reference to Bishops however it means Having immediate rather than delegated jurisdiction. Pace to those who think the first term also applies to their local Bishop ;)

This raises two important issues, a Bishop who is the Ordinary of an area or Diocese has immediate canonical jurisdiction. That is he is his own man, he is not a delegate of the Pope or of the Roman Curia, he holds immediate direct jurisdiction over his flock. (This does not mean he can do anything as we shall discuss later).

However not all Bishops are Ordinaries, some are Auxiliaries (they assist the local Ordinary and have the power of the Bishop to Ordain and Confirm but do not have the power to govern except as a delegate) and some are Titular Bishops (they have no flock over which to hold jurisdiction) -mainly those who work as part of the Roman Curia.

The church gains it's structure through unity of faith and purpose rather than through a structure of command and control. In essence each diocese is an autonomous church united with the Bishop of Rome and it is the unity which defines the Church rather than than the command and control structure.

This is not to denigrate the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but to explain what that supremacy is and how it works. The Bishop of Rome is responsible for confirming the appointment of every Bishop and it is through this confirmation that the Pope exercises his authority as Supreme Pontiff.

Ultimately, if a Bishop behaves in a way which might injure the unity of Church the Pope can appoint a new Bishop as a Coadjutor or, in-extremis, excommunicate him. It is important to note though that sometimes a Coadjutor is appointed when a bishop is unwell or feels unable to fully exercise their office due to age or workload.

The Pope also has sovereign powers which he can exercise on behalf of the universal church. Recent examples of these have been the liberation of the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form) Mass rite and the creation of church structures outside of Diocesan boundaries for Anglicans seeking communion with Rome.

Finally there is the Roman Curia which acts largely as a delegate of the Pope. In particular Rome has ultimate jurisdiction over the structure of the church, Canon Law, Liturgy and the Sacraments and Religious Orders and Communities outside the direct governance of the local Ordinary (thus a priest member of a religious order or congregation is subject to their superior-general rather than to the Bishop of the Diocese in which they may reside.)

So the local Ordinary has certain powers which are bounded by general norms defined by Rome. Thus a local Bishop can decide who to Ordain to the Priesthood (but not Married Men or Women), whether or not to have Permanent Deacons, the rules for lay ministers of holy communion and the content of Religious Education in Catholic schools. However a local Bishop can't, for example, change the mass or sacraments or ordain another Bishop without the approval of Rome.

These descriptions are for illustration and non-exhaustive -however one important point emerges. For the average layperson or cleric membership and participation in the church is via their local church under it's Ordinary and it is to this Ordinary -in unity with Rome - that we are bound in matters of faith and discipline.

Why is this in a blog entitled Traditionalist Errors; one of the much loved techniques of neo-traditionalists is to suggest church structures and disciplines that do not exist or have any meaning.

Thus in a recent blog by Damien Thompson it is implied that our Bishops are ignoring the Pope's wish to have a central crucifix on all altars. Firstly the source of this story is the Papal Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Guido Marini, not the Pope himself -so we're being told our Bishops should do what a priest tells them to do. Secondly the governing document for the Mass and it's celebration is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM for short) and the Pope is fully aware that he has the power to update this document if he so wishes.

In a similar vein a recent response posted on my own blog suggested that I should read a book by Bishop Schneider on the reception of Holy Communion. Bishop Schneider is an obviously holy and pious man and is deeply concerned about loss of respect for the Eucharist. I share some of his misgivings and feel that we do not do enough, as a church, to inform and educate the faithful. However his central thesis is in my view untenable and some of his arguments would appear to contradict what is accepted as historic fact. What I do object to, though, most strongly is any suggestion that I should ignore my own Archbishop and defer to the opinions of an Auxiliary from an entirely separate jurisdiction.

One of the most powerful stories in the Gospel is that of the Roman Centurion who knew about and understood the meaning of authority. He accepted Jesus' authority and earned the approbation "nowhere in Israel have I found faith like this". Jesus instituted a church with Apostles from whom each of our Bishops inherit their authority. I have sworn to follow a specific successor to the Apostles in my local diocese and his appointment has been confirmed by the successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles. There may be some other Catholic in another Diocese following the guidance of his own Bishop. That guidance may be different but we can only be united in the one true Church of Christ through our Bishops.

It would be easy to say that the practice of faith is no ordinary matter but in the Catholic church the Ordinary is what it is all about.

Capitalis(z)ation Matters

One of the great internal challenges of the Catholic church is what constitutes Tradition. The traditional (sic) understanding is that it is a set of truths handed down from the Apostles in unwritten form through oral teaching which supplements the written tradition contained in Scripture. For Catholics this Tradition includes truths like the perpetual virginity of Mary and her bodily assumption into heaven.

However there ends up being a problem that anything old is considered a tradition and this mindset can result in an over-simplistic analysis of modern documents of the church -such as those produced since the Second Vatican Council- as somehow being naturally inferior to anything "of age".

In the last decade or so that has been a traditionalist (lower case t) revival in the Catholic church that has tended to being a revisionist movement -a movement that sees much of what has happened since Vatican II as in error.

Those who remember Animal Farm will remember the move from "four legs good, two legs bad" to "four legs good, two legs better" -an example of this in the traditionalist movement has been a move to re-interpret "active participation" of the laity in the Eucharist as "you can actively participate by kneeling in silence and doing what you're told". This is a typical example of the traditionalist revisionist agenda and presentation.

One of the particular problems of traditionalism is that, since many of its arguments are specious, it uses half-a-truth plus half-a-truth equals a truth logic. An example of this type of logic relates to the reception of communion in the hand. A traditionalist will tend to use an argument like "every fragment of the Host is the full presence of Christ", "a crumb of Host falling on the floor could result in the body of Christ being trodden underfoot or (worse still) eaten by a mouse (yes -this has actually been used in a Catholic newspaper)" therefore no-one should receive communion in the hand. The fact that in the early church reception in the hand was the norm, and that communion could be taken home for consumption during the week are not arguments that traditionalists will admit to. They will present medieval practices as superior to those of the Apostolic era as they are "organic" developments while presenting Vatican II as a "rupture" with the past.

Anyway by now you will see my "drift". I am concerned that there is some significant mis-information being presented by the neo-traditionalist movement through selective quotation of church documents and history.

My plan is to approach some of the views presented by the traditionalist movement by providing appropriate counter arguments and a possible synthesis.

As an example of this I accept that there has been a visible (if not interior) loss of reverence in receiving communion in the hand, but I believe the solution is in catechisis. Ultimately it is an issue of discipline -not dogma. I would rather teach the faithful how to fully participate in the Eucharist by receiving communion respectfully than return to a practice which renders them passive and contradicts Apostolic practice.