A LifeSiteNews article is making a far-reaching claim about the limits of the authority of the Roman Pontiff. This is applied by them to the case of Bishop Strickland, but they assert the claim very broadly.

LifeSiteNews:
“Pope Francis does not have the right to dismiss Bishop Strickland without cause.”
“Since the authority of the bishops does not come from the pope, but from Christ, and since that authority may not and cannot be justly removed except when there is just cause, Pope Francis has no power to ‘dismiss’ a bishop as if the bishop were his house servant.”

“It is true that the constant tradition, also in canon law, declares that the Apostolic See has the power to judge all other bishops. And we must confirm this universal power of jurisdiction. But it is a power of jurisdiction, not of issuing arbitrary and tyrannical orders. “Ius” is “what is just,” and “jurisdiction” is “to say what is just.” Since the authority of the bishops does not come from the pope, but from Christ, and since that authority may not and cannot be justly removed except when there is just cause, the pope has no power to “dismiss” a bishop as if the bishop were his house servant.”

“The Church was established by Jesus Christ with a canonical structure: Simon was the Rock whose faith will not waver; the Apostles are the columns with authority received directly from Christ.”

First, I find it interesting that LSN is admitting that Peter was established by Christ as a Rock of unwavering faith. Do they not understand that this applies also to each and every one of his successors, including Pope Francis? LSN has accused Pope Francis of teaching heresy and other grave failures of faith, contrary to the never-failing faith of Peter and his successors.

Second, LSN is admitting that the Pope has “universal power of jurisdiction” and that “the Apostolic See has the power to judge all other bishops”. This admission flies in the face of certain articles at LSN which try to deprive Pope Francis of the ability to exercise jurisdiction over the Church and the Bishops, when they dislike his decisions (e.g. on the Latin Mass).

Now LSN tries to place a limit on this jurisdiction, by saying that any exercise of this authority must be just: “But it is a power of jurisdiction, not of issuing arbitrary and tyrannical orders. ‘Ius’ is ‘what is just,’ and ‘jurisdiction’ is ‘to say what is just.’ ” But this presents the problem of who has the authority to judge whether an exercise of this jurisdictional authority was just? We cannot place anyone over the Pope to judge his use of his supreme authority, because then they would have supreme authority — and who would judge whether their authority was exercised justly. So while it is fine to say that the Pope must judge justly, there is no authority above the Pope to supervise and correct any claims that a Pope has judged unjustly.

There is also the bias that plays out in a case like that of Bishop Strickland. He is a very conservative Bishop. The conservative Catholic media outlets have assumed that his removal was unjust because, being conservative, he is therefore considered to be holy and faithful. This is a false assumption. Conservatism is not Catholicism. Conservatism is not holiness. Any person or group could always claim, from their own bias (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) that a decision of the Pope against one of their own was unjust. That is their opinion, but they cannot expect there to be an authority over the Pope that will keep him from ever acting against anyone in their subculture or anyone who holds the same ideology as them.

Saint Bellarmine: “Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him [the Roman Pontiff] so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope; yet from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err, if the Pontiff would err.”

Similarly to what Bellarmine says, we cannot only accept the decisions of the Roman Pontiff when we judge that he has acted justly or correctly. God is above men, and above the Pope. But there is no higher authority in the Church on earth than the Roman Pontiff. God will judge each Pope. But for now, we must accept his decisions.

As Christ Jesus has decreed: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:18).

Now LSN has cited the “Decretum Gratiani”. But that book is not of the Magisterium; it never had the same authority as Canon law; and, in any case, Canon law has superseded the decretals of the past. See this explanation (from a Catholic Encyclopedia articled dated 1908)

But the main question raised by the LSN article challenging the removal of Bishop Strickland by Pope Francis is this: Does the Authority of the Bishops come from the Pope or directly from Christ?

Now, right away, we have to admit that all authority in the Church at every level comes in some way from Christ, including the authority of the baptized laity to spread the Gospel. So Bishops must have authority from Christ, as does every other member of the clergy, religious life, and laity. But the real heart of the question is: Whether the authority of Bishops comes also from the Pope, in such a manner or to such an extent that the Pope can dismiss a Bishop at his sole discretion?

Vatican I:

“…the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.”

“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.”
[Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3]

So the Roman Pontiff has “full power” from Christ “to tend, rule, and govern the universal Church”. And this power is over “clergy and faithful” “singly and collectively” and requires “hierarchical subordination and true obedience” in faith, morals, discipline and the government of the Church. These passages clearly give the Roman Pontiff authority over individual Bishops and groups of Bishops. Then there is no appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff, not even to an Ecumenical Council.

“Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
[Ibid.]

Therefore, when the Roman Pontiff removes a Bishop from his See, this judgment “is not subject to revision by anyone” and there is no “appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff”, not even to an Ecumenical Council. It is quite clear then that the Bishop who is dismissed from his See cannot appeal to the Canonical court system in the Church based on Canon law. There are no judges or other authorities in that system who have authority over the Roman Pontiff, and he is in fact the supreme authority over the Roman Rota.

The Roman Pontiff is above Canon law. So he need not abide by that law. He can act with disregard for Canon law, and he need not change the law first. Otherwise, the Pope’s authority would not be supreme, as the Church infallibly teaches that it is. However, some of the Canons in the law are not laws or disciplines, but direct expressions of the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. And the Pope is under those teachings. In so far as any part of Canon law is law, and not teachings on faith or morals, then the Pope is above the law.

So one cannot appeal from a decision of the Roman Pontiff, such as to remove a Bishop from his See, by recourse to Canon law. The laws of the Church, as disciplines and not as teachings on faith or morals, are not above the Pope. For the dogma is that the Roman Pontiff has supreme authority over the whole Church. Putting Canon law above the Pope denies that dogma.

“9. 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.”
[Ibid.]

The Roman Pontiff has “the absolute fulness of this supreme power” and this power is over “all and each of the pastors and faithful”. The “pastors” here signifies primarily Bishops (but also all the clergy). The Roman Pontiff has “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church” in all Church matters, including government. And this governing power clearly must include deciding which Bishops may have authority over a diocesan See (also referred to as a local Church). For the Pope’s power is “ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches”. Again, this indicates the papal authority to remove a Bishop. And we see this power exercised only occasionally. But more often the Pope exercises the same type of authority by appointing a Bishop to a new See.

“5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.’ ”
[Ibid.]

Now here is an assertion (above) that individual Bishops in their Sees have “ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction” and that the Bishops “have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit”. We know that the Apostolic See appoints Bishops to their respective Sees, so this appointment of the Holy Spirit, only to those who are successors to the Apostles by episcopal consecration, occurs with that papal appointment. But there can be no conflict between the work of the Holy Spirit in this regard, and the exercise of the authority of the Vicar of Christ, which is the authority of Christ Himself. No Bishop can claim that the Holy Spirit appointed him to his See, and so the Pope cannot remove him.

Vatican II:

“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.” [LG 18]

Notice that Jesus sends forth the successors of the Apostles to be Shepherds of His Church. So the Bishops have authority from Christ directly, but also and always under Peter and his successors. For in order to keep the Episcopate “one and undivided”, Jesus placed Peter and his successors over the other Apostles and their successors. And this authority of the Pope over the other Bishops is directly from Christ as well. So while a Bishop can say “I have authority directly from Christ, by virtue of my episcopal consecration which makes me a successor of the Apostles”, he cannot use that authority to withstand the authority of the Roman Pontiff. For every Pope has authority directly from Christ “over the other apostles” and their successors. Bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity all have some form of authority from Christ, such as to exercise their respective responsibilities and to spread the Gospel, each according to his or her abilities and roles in the Church. But the Roman Pontiff has supreme authority over us all, and that authority over us is given to him directly from Christ.

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock….” [LG 22]

The entire college of Bishops “has no authority” except with the Roman Pontiff. The power of the Bishops, even as a body, “can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff”.

“The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.” [LG 24]

Above, we see that the Roman Pontiff can refuse or deny a Bishop “any office”. While this authority is usually exercised to appoint Bishops to an office, or to decline to make an appointment, it is certainly implied by the supreme and universal authority of the Roman Pontiff that a Pope can deny apostolic communion to a Bishop, unless he vacates his office as ordered by the Pope.

“Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful.” [LG 27]

The supreme authority of the Church, and certainly the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, can regulate and circumscribe the limits of a Bishop’s authority. So we see from all of the above texts, including the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, and the particular texts on subjection of the individual Bishops to the Pope, that the Roman Pontiff can remove a Bishop without canonical process and without alleging or proving any particular offense. And that Bishop has no recourse or appeal from the sentence of the Roman Pontiff, not to Canon law, and not even to an Ecumenical Council.

Ratzinger: “The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly ‘that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is — in God’s plan — an essential requisite of full and visible communion’…. We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter.”

Pope Saint Damasus I, the Roman Synod of 378, to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian II: “Certain bishops, unworthy pastors, have carried their insolence and contempt to the point of refusing obedience to the Bishop of Rome. If the accused is himself a Metropolitan, he will be ordered to go at once to Rome, or in any case to appear before the judges whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint.”

Pope Saint Zosimus, 417-418: “the tradition of the Fathers attributed so much authority to the Apostolic See that no one dared to challenge its judgment and has always preserved it through canons and regulations … such great authority belongs to Us that no one could argue again with Our decision….”41

Pope Saint Boniface I, 418-422: “No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the Apostolic Eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this, who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him.”

Pope Saint Boniface I: “there is to be no review of our judgment. In fact, it has never been licit to deliberate again on that which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.”

Pope Saint Boniface I, to the bishops of Thessaly: “It is therefore certain that this Church [the Roman See] is to the Churches throughout the world as the head to its members. If anyone cut himself off from this Church, not being in union with her, he is outside the Christian religion.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:
“14. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

“But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock….”

“[Peter] alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. [Pope Saint Leo the great] sermo iv., cap. 2).

“15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.”

“15. But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey.”

“And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority.”

“15. This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. ‘We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him’ (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: ‘there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See’ (Nicholaus in Epist. lxxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.) wherefore [Pope Saint] Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: ‘That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church’ (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5).”

“But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent. ‘It is not congruous that two superiors with equal authority should be placed over the same flock; but that two, one of whom is higher than the other, should be placed over the same people is not incongruous. Thus the parish priest, the bishop, and the Pope, are placed immediately over the same people’ (Saint Thomas in iv Sent, dist. xvii., a. 4, ad q. 4, ad 3).”

The above quotes are from Pope Leo XIII, and further above from many other sources. These all show that while Bishops have authority directly from Christ, the Roman Pontiff has authority over them directly from Christ. And so no Bishop can withstand the authority of the Roman Pontiff, such as removing him from his See, by appeal to the fact that he is appointed by Christ and the Holy Spirit to the authority given to the successors of the Apostles. For a higher authority was given by Christ and the Holy Spirit to the Successors of Peter, the prince of the Apostles. And lower authority must be subject to higher authority, as Pope Boniface VIII teaches in Unam Sanctam.

Ronald L Conte Jr