INAUGURAL ISSUE - AUGUST 2003
ISSN 1448 - 6326
Anthony Gooley Abstract:
Ecclesiology of Vatican II The ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council is expressed through a range of images
and metaphors drawn from Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church seemed in some ways
to be a radical break from the overly juridical images of Church that
emerged from the unfinished work of the First Vatican Council. Images of the Church as a perfect
society, or a hierarchy with a monarchical flavour seemed to dominate
the ecclesiology that existed before the Council. I propose that the
ecclesiology of Vatican II was not a radical break with the teaching
of the Church but a radical rediscovery of a lost emphasis. At The Second Vatican Council was “a Council of the Church about the Church, a Council in which all of the themes discussed were ecclesiological ones; which concentrated upon ecclesiology as no previous Council has ever done.” 1 Of all the images and metaphors used to describe the Church the “Councils vision of the Church as koinonia-communion was its most important teaching.” 2 That the Church was a communion and indeed a communion of communions was not new teaching but a recovery of an older image. Church as communion is not presented as an exclusive image or definitive in the sense that the image negates other images. The ecclesiology of the Council is not an either/or ecclesiology it is a both/and theology. The Church is both hierarchy and mystical body, visible assembly and spiritual community, earthly and enriched by heaven, these images come together to “form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and human element.” 3 Communion has vertical and horizontal dimensions. The Church is a mysterious vertical communion between God and believers and a horizontal communion among believers. 4 The communion among believers is not limited to the individual scale, it includes communion of communities of believers. The image of Church described in Acts (2:42-47), albeit idealised, attests to the communion that existed within the Jerusalem community. The community is united in a communion founded on sharing in common faith founded on apostolic witness, prayer and the breaking of bread. Concern for the material welfare of the members, the love they have for one another is a fruit and gift of the communion created by the Spirit among them. Numerous references exist in the Scriptures that indicate a communion exists between communities of believers. Paul’s collection for the Church in Palestine is aimed not only at providing relief to the community but to demonstrate the communion that exists between the communities. The use of the plural churches (Romans 16:16 and elsewhere) is itself a testament that each community of believers considered itself to be Church and to be in communion with the other Churches so as to form the Church of Christ. The Local Church Each diocese or local church that is legitimately established is an authentic and complete expression of the universal church. 5 The universal church subsists whole and entire in the local church. Lumen Gentium 10-12, use the expression “the whole people” or “the whole church” when it teaches that the priestly and prophetic ministry of Jesus exists in the church, including the supernatural gift of discernment in matters of faith and morals. Each local church, so long as it remains in visible communion with the other local churches, contains all of the means of grace that God has provided for our salvation. Having the means is no guarantee that the correct disposition exists within believers and communities to make use of those gifts and a simple equation that the means equal salvation cannot be made. Two extreme conclusions must be avoided in understanding the life of the
local church in relation to the life of the universal church. On the
one hand the local church must not be seen as the local branch of the
bigger entity in the way that IBM Australia is related to IBM The role of the Bishop
Collegiality Bishops are constituted as true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors to the local Church. 9 Constitution is to be distinguished from institution. Christ instituted the college of Bishops at a point in time by forming the first apostolic group, the Twelve. The office of Bishop emerged from the various subapostolic ministries as the best means to preserve the role of the apostles as the foundations of the Christian faith. Bishops today actively constitute this same apostolic college as a gift the Holy Spirit brings to the life of the Church. Constitution involves an ongoing witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus and interpreting the mysteries of the faith for our times. Institution is looking backwards to a point in time, constitution is present and future oriented and is a work of the Holy Sprit. Collegiality is the practical and living expression of the static concept of College of Bishops. All of the bishops share in the care of the Church and its governance in communion with each other and with the Bishop of Rome who is also a member of the College. Christus Dominus teaches that a Bishop exercises his authority in his own right for the good of the local Church and for the whole church. 10 The Bishops together with the Bishop of Rome govern the living house of God. 11 All of the Bishops share in the office of the apostles and are therefore shepherds of the whole church. 12 Of its nature, ordination to the episcopate is a sign of the communion of the Church. Lumen Gentium teaches that Episcopal ordination confers the office of teaching and governing and adds that “of its very nature (Episcopal office) can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College, Peter, and the members of the College.” 13 Collegiality is the essence of the episcopate, there is only one undivided episcopate in which all Bishops participate. Collegiality is expressed through the “duty of all bishops to promote and safeguard the unity of the faith and discipline common to the whole Church and to instruct the faithful to love for the whole mystical Body of Christ…”.14 The solicitude that bishops are to have for the whole Church is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction. Since the care for the whole church is not an exercise of canonical power there must be some other means by which the care is exercised if it is to have any practical effect. The Bishop can exercise jurisdiction over the particular church under his care but has no jurisdiction over another church or the universal church. It is clear from Lumen Gentium and Christus Dominus that the emphasis is on collegiality and not the College; that is, on the sign of communion and the mutual bonds of care for the church rather than the institution of Bishop. Collegiality brings into question the means to fulfil the duty of care that all Bishops have for the church. If direct exercise of power is to be ruled out then the means of expressing collegiality must be found in some other process or mechanism. The Bishop of Rome
Vatican II acknowledges the life of the College of Bishops and outlines some of the expression of collegial action while at the same time presents the tradition of the Church that the Bishop of Rome has the power of primacy and full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church. 15 There needs to be consideration of the balances that exist within this primacy. The Bishop of Rome is the universal primate and also a member of the College. Once again we can find our way out of the dilemma if we accept that we must adopt a both and approach and not either or definitions. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and not of another Diocese, he is Bishop of Rome and universal pastor, but not universal Bishop. He is head of the church and head of the College; and he is head of the church because he is head of the College and not apart from the College. There can be no universal bishop since to be bishop is to represent Christ and the Universal church to a particular Church. Peter’s role is as bishop among the bishops and as their head, but not apart from them to be the apostolic foundation for the church. The Bishop of Rome is the universal sign of the communion of the church and this is the key to understanding papal primacy. In examining the elements of the definition of papal infallibility again we recognise that it is an expression of communion. There is of course so much more to the role of the Bishop of Rome, the focus in this part of the discussion on infallibility is to shed some light on the relationship of the Bishop of Rome to the communion of the Church. Three factors limit the exercise of the gift of infallibility, which the Council makes clear is not a personal quality of the Bishop of Rome in some personal way, it is a gift of the Church. The first is that ex cathedra statements may only be made when the Bishop of Rome is acting in the office of teacher and pastor in a deliberate act. The second is that the definition must be in relation to matters of faith and morals which are proposed to be held by the whole church and witnessed in the life of the Church. The third is that the infallibility which the pope exercises is the infallibility that Christ willed for the whole Church. In fact the “the entire body of the faithful cannot err in matters of faith and morals” and this certainty is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the whole church. 16 This seemingly singular office of the Bishop of Rome is in fact an expression of the communion of the church. Infallibility cannot be exercised apart from the College, since the Pope acts as its head and it is an exercise of a gift given to the whole church. There is one supreme authority within the Church, the College of Bishops in union with their head, the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. The supreme authority of the church can act in two modes as a council of the College with its head and the head of the College acting alone. The head can only act alone because he is head of a College. The Second Vatican Council recognises that the Bishops can act in other ways that show their concern for the local and universal Church and are not considered acts of the supreme authority of the Church. The Council refers to Synods and national or even regional Bishops’ Conferences as two of the means Bishops have to express this concern for the good of all the Church. Questions arise as to the theological status of the teaching authority of these means and also regarding post Conciliar developments with regard to synods and conferences. II The Synod of Bishops and Conferences in relation to this theory since Vatican II.
The experience of the Council is the context in which the final documents were formed and this context should not be overlooked when interpreting the documents. Some aspects of the experience, germane to the present discussion, must be noted before we consider the teaching of the Council with regard to Conferences and the Synod of Bishops. For the Bishops who attended the Council, it was a living experience of an ecclesiology of communion. Even for those Bishops whose views were not accepted by the Council, it was still an experience of collegiality. It became clear as the Council developed that the Bishops were at the Council to exercise their authority to teach, which comes from Christ and their sense of solicitude for the whole Church. Precedent It was the view of the Council that Synods, Councils and Episcopal Conferences, whereby the Bishops gather together for the common good, grow out of precedents of the early Church, that is Diocesan Synods, Provincial and Plenary Councils.17 After having referred to some concrete examples of the Councils and Synods of the first millennium, Lumen Gentium then draws a parallel, “In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in the position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance so that the this collegial feeling may be put into practical application.” 18 The Council wished to see a growth of synods and Councils.19 The Council extended this collegial action of the Bishops to other means of exercising the collective magisterium apart from Ecumenical Councils and Synods of Bishops; this same collegial power can be exercised together with the Pope and by the Bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the College calls them to collegiate action or at least approves and accepts what they have taught, making it a Collegial act. 20 The teaching of the Council was embedded in the belief that the power of binding and loosing, given to the Church, is given to all of the Bishops and not only to Peter and his successor, and allied to the solicitude that all the Bishops have for the whole church. It was the sense of communion, so newly rediscovered by the Church that the Bishops wished to give expression to by reviving the ancient tradition of particular councils and synods. The context in which the Council gives its teaching on the Conferences and Synod indicated that they saw the “ecclesial bodies of our day” as successors to the forms of collegiality in the past that gave life and energy to the experience of the Church as communion. Like so much else about the way the Council taught, it wanted to draw out from the treasury of the Church’s patrimony, not simply re-present it to the Church and the world, but to present it in a contemporary form suited to the times. The principle of aggiornamento would be applied to the tradition of Councils and Synods. Problems The Synod of Bishops and Conferences can be considered separately because each has its own set of problems; however they do share some common issues. The first and most significant issue is that there has been a failure on the part of some sections of the Church to adequately understand the concept of communion. We will examine this through the consideration of the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The second issue is that of confusion about the teaching authority of the Conference of Bishops. The third issue is the tension between local and universal Church that has caused unnecessary confusion. In all of the issues the theological concept of communion must be appealed to in order to find a way out of confusion. A misunderstanding of the Church as communion The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seems to misunderstand the concept of communion as expressed in the Second Vatican Council and to some extent misrepresents that teaching. The argument of the Congregation seems flawed when it asserts that through Baptism and faith a member of the faithful becomes one with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in a way that is mediated by belonging to a local church and at the same time attempts to assert that the universal church has ontological priority over the local church.19 Lumen Gentium clearly asserts that the one universal church subsist in the local church. 20 When the Congregation argues that the first manifestation of the church is universal and that particular Churches are expressions of the one universal church and derive their existence from it, it does so without supporting argument.21 For this assertion to be true the Congregation would need to argue that the church was only born on Pentecost at Jerusalem, itself a particular church and that no other Christian community existed apart from this one. Scriptural evidence suggests that this was not the historical consciousness of the church. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul the communities of the Christian diaspora are referred to as Churches. There is certainly evidence of a sense of communion and mutual recognition of their common faith in Jesus which made them conscious in some way of a universal bond of Church, but there is no evidence that the Apostolic and sub-apostolic communities saw themselves as having derived from the Jerusalem Church in a linear and chronological fashion. Such a viewpoint cannot be corroborated by the evidence of Scripture or by Patristic sources. The Congregation appeals to the Eucharistic assembly and the Eucharist itself as, the sign par excellence of the unity and priority of the one (universal) Church, for just as the Eucharist is one so is the Church, Christ’s mystical body, one and indivisible. 22 The image in fact serves to underline a different point, that there is one bread and one body, one Lord of all, because Christ is all in all. There are many parts to the body, but through the mystery of God’s Providence there is one body formed. Vatican II is explicit on this point, where there is a eucharistic assembly there is the universal church, whole and entire. 23 This is precisely the mystery of communion. The proposition that the Universal church takes precedence over the local church because the local Churches are derived from it, is an argument that does not fully appreciate the Church as sacrament. The Church is a sacrament of Jesus because the Holy Spirit constitutes the communion of believers and gives life to it. The Church is a sacrament and that means it is mystery, a mystery of God’s presence among us. Baptism is the fundamental initiation into the community of believers, no one at a Baptism doubts for a moment that the Baptised is not at that one moment incorporated into the local and universal Church. Building on this misunderstanding of communion, the Congregation implies that the local church is not fully Church because it is lacking all of the essential elements of the universal Church. 24 The essential element that it claims to be missing is “ the supreme authority of the Church, the Episcopal College, together with their head, the supreme pontiff, and never apart from him.” 25 The difficulty with the argument that the local church lacks essential elements is that the Council has already declared that the universal Church does exist in the local Church. Furthermore the Bishop is Bishop precisely because he is ordained to the College and represents the College, which includes the Bishop of Rome (himself a Bishop of another local Church) as part of its structure. The Supreme Pontiff is Pontiff by being part of the same College of Bishops and not apart from it. It is not possible for a local Church to be lacking in an essential element of what it takes to be Church. If there is such a local church, it is not a Catholic Church. Chapter one of the Decree on Ecumenism uses the concept of a lack of all of the elements of salvation available to the Catholic Church, as a means to define churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. 26 Teaching authority Questions regarding the teaching authority of the Conferences of Bishops are essentially theological questions and not canonical ones. The teaching activity of the Bishops is a theological activity and canon law should reflect the theology of the Church with regard to authority. To give priority to canon law on the issue is to reduce the theological activity of teaching to a juridic act and to reduce the richness and variety of doctrine to some thing similar to provisions of a contract. This is not to say that canon law does not have an important role in assisting the legitimate exercise of teaching authority in the Church. In the first centuries of the Church, as a matter of procedure, the Bishops exercised their power of being judges in matters concerning Christian doctrine in synods and councils. There were no laws governing their operation and yet the Second Vatican Council recognised their role in the life of the Church and points to them as a model and hope to revitalise their service to the Church in modern times. Ladislaus Orsy points to the necessity to define what kind of reality we refer to when we talk of assemblies of Bishops, gathered for the purpose of teaching. “Are they theological realities or merely legal institutions? If they are the former they participate intimately in the mystery of the Church; if the latter, they are ultimately human creations for convenience sake.” 28 The witness of the tradition is that the Church has regarded them as theological realities, guided by the Holy Spirit in the service of truth. Assemblies of bishops, synods, particular councils, conferences and the like have existed to proclaim the gospel with clarity for the people of the times and to give witness to communion and sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum. One aspect of the debate about the teaching authority of assemblies of Bishops is an attempt to propose that assemblies such as Conferences and similar gatherings have a pastoral and not a doctrinal role. The division is not a clear one in Christus Dominus, where the term pastoral can be used to include the doctrinal. In Christus Dominus 11 the Council teaches that the pastoral office of the Bishops includes the threefold functions of teaching, sanctifying and governing. Although the document Gaudium et Spes is called a pastoral constitution, it is clear that the issues it deals with are doctrinal. While such ambiguity of language may not definitely settle the matter of the doctrinal authority of assemblies of Bishops it does not preclude any suggestion that they do have doctrinal authority. A consideration of the history of particular councils demonstrates what the Council teaches, that the various assemblies of Bishops that emerged in the service of the Church in the past, came together “for the teaching of the truths of the faith and for regulating ecclesiastical discipline.” 29 The third Council of Carthage drew up an authoritative list of the books of Scripture and the councils in Africa condemned Pelagianism, both sets of councils dealing with issues that are clearly doctrinal. Seiben's notes that a letter from the Bishop of Carthage in 250AD seeking to deal with the question of what to do with Christians who apostised during times of persecution and now sought readmittance. The Bishop proposed that the question will “have to wait until a larger number of us Church leaders can come together.” 30 The issue to be resolved by the African Bishops had doctrinal and disciplinary consequences. At the same time the letter confirms the expectation that the Bishops of the local church would have a role in reaching a conclusion to the issue in a collaborative manner. Since it is to the service of particular councils that the Second Vatican Council refers, than we must conclude that the Council held the same high hope for the Synod of Bishops and Conferences which were to breath life into the ancient form. There exists a reasonable expectation, based on the history referred to, that Conferences have the competence to deal with such similar vexing issues today, without recourse to a higher authority. Dulles reaches a similar conclusion in his consideration of the theological meaning of collegiality and collegial acts, “since collegiality includes the power of the Episcopal body to teach it seems to follow that conferences…participate in the teaching office.” 31 Having established that assemblies of Bishops have teaching authority, questions need to be resolved regarding the level of their authority and the degree of authority accorded to the teaching of a Conference of Bishops compared with other means by which the magisterium of the Church is made manifest. The Second Vatican Council acknowledged the hierarchy of truths, whereby each doctrine of the Church is not accorded the same status. It is clear that some doctrine can be considered core elements of Christian belief while other elements of teaching remain at the periphery. The Council also teaches that not all church teaching has the same call on the assent required by the faithful; this truth is embodied in canons 750 –754. Questions emerge as to what is the precise status of the doctrine taught by a Conference for the universal church, for the diocese, especially in those diocese where a bishop personally dissents from the teaching, and finally for individual Catholics. Each of these issues will be addressed. A distinction needs to be made between fullness of communion and fullness of collegial action. Through the diocesan bishop, shared faith, the word of God and sacraments the local church is in full communion with the universal church. Fullness of communion should not be equated with fullness of collegial action. That there exist various levels of teaching authority to be ascribed to different teaching “bodies” in the Church is established teaching. The teaching authority of an ecumenical council is greater than that of a Vatican Congregation and so on, in a more or less hierarchical manner. We acknowledge that the various bodies themselves have a status that affects the authoritative status of the teaching. Each teaching “body” and its teaching can be an expression of collegial action, (the Curia should speak on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, head of the College) and each group can be said to be in full communion with the Church on the basis given above. It could be argued a similar hierarchy of collegial action exists. An ecumenical council represents the most complete expression of collegial action, the Synod of Bishops a lesser degree, Bishops Conferences and so on down to the level of the diocesan bishop exercising his teaching authority in the service of his own community. Lumen Gentium 25 requires that the teaching of the bishop is to “be respected by all as witnesses to the divine and catholic truth”. When the bishop teaches in the name of Christ it “is to be accepted with religious submission.” Canon 753 makes the distinction between non-infallible teaching of the Conference of Bishops, particular councils and individual Bishops, which is an expression of collegial action and which requires “religious submission of mind” to the teaching. 33 Canon 754 states the obligation of all the faithful to observe constitutions and decrees taught by lawful ecclesiastical authority and add “especially of the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops.”, which is indicative of levels of authority within the College. Nonetheless the Conference of Bishops and particular councils are to be regarded as expressions of the “authentic magisterium of the Church”. 34 As non-infallible teaching the potential for error in the substance or manner of the teaching exists and the possibility remains open for faithful dissent and even eventual reform of the teaching itself. If the teaching is an authentic expression of magisterium, then to some extent the guidance of the Holy Spirit must be available to the Bishops to help them understand the matter and give clear expression to the doctrine. The Spirit is their guarantee of faithful witness to the gospel. The one help not supplied by the Spirit to a diocesan Bishop or Episcopal Conference is the gift of infallibility, although this may not be the position adopted by the Spanish and Frankish Councils of the first millennium. The history, which the Council appeals to as precedent for rediscovery of collegial modes of action, traces a history of significant doctrinal and disciplinary issues being settled by a local Church in collegial acts such as synods and particular councils and later adopted by the universal church. All of these instances are considered authentic acts of the magisterium today. When the Synod of Bishops meets, the doctrine that it proclaims can be regarded as binding on all the faithful, since the Synod represents the whole Church even though all bishops do not attend. The character of the Synod of Bishops is recognised by the church as a universal act of collegiality. It could be argued that since the 1985 Synod the universal character of the Synod has been somewhat diminished by the fact that synodal documents often do not reflect the responses garnered from the bishops of the world in response to the linemata and post-synodal documents are completed by the Roman Curia and the Bishop of Rome. Is the teaching of a conference binding on the universal church? It is necessary here to distinguish between the teaching authority of the conference and its governing authority, since these two functions legitimately belong to the order of bishop. When a Conference establishes norms for the celebration of liturgy, pastoral care of migrants or other matters, the decrees that are issued are binding on all the faithful of the territory represented by the Conference. No other Conference would need to adopt such norms, although the solution that the Bishops of one territory may find to a pastoral problem may, be a useful starting point for the reflections of a Conference faced with similar situations. In any case the decrees and legislation of a Conference must be submitted to the Holy See for recognito. The recognito may be said to at least confer an acceptance by the universal Church that the solution adopted by the Conference is not inconsistent with the practice of the See of Rome, which is regarded as having normative value. On this point it would seem that the recognito only provides a point of reference as to the broad orthodoxy of the decrees or legislation emanating from the Conference, to argue that it provides anything that may have a binding character on the universal church would seem to go beyond the scope of the authority of the Conference. Several canons refer to the requirements to submit the decisions of Conferences to the Holy See, canon 775 with regards to catechisms and canon 838 with regards to translations of liturgical texts. In each case the requirements of the canons differ slightly but significantly. Canon 775 requires the approval of the Apostolic See prior to the publication of catechisms whereas canon 838 requires review of the translation prior to publication. In the case of English translations of liturgical texts it would seem that in practice the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy has interpreted canon 838 as meaning approval and rewriting of translations that are submitted by Bishops. The canon clearly states, “it pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare translations” the practice suggests that the Roman Curia have gone beyond this literal meaning of the canon and reserved to themselves the right to prepare the texts.35 Preparation of the English translation was an international effort involving all of the Conferences of Bishops, where English is the main language, and the processes used embodied both collegiality and communion. Refusal of permission to publish, when the majority of Bishops had accepted the text was a serious blow to the concepts of communion and collegiality in the Catholic Church. It seems that the Congregation went beyond its competence, since approval to publish is not required by the canons. The action of the Congregation reinforced centralising tendencies that seem to be opposed to the intention of the Council. Apart from the fact that the Conference has the right to prepare translations it seems that the intention of the canon 838 is to recognise two critical aspects of communion, subsidiarity and enculturation. The local community seems best suited to prepare translations that reflect both the best language usage appropriate to the Latin original and to make necessary adaptations to the culture of the local people. What competence does the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy have to understand the language and needs of cultures as diverse as English speaking Americans, Telegu speaking Indians and Xhosa speaking Africans? More importantly what does the practice of communion have to say about the reality of the theory?
In a communio model, collegiality can be a two way process, as was demonstrated when Pope Zozimus rehabilitated Pelagius against the wishes of the Pan-African Synod. The Bishops of Africa entered into a dialogue with the Bishop of Rome and eventually, after some heated exchanges, the Bishop of Rome backed down and confirmed the original decision of the Council to which his predecessor had agreed. The dissent of the African Bishops and their fraternal correction of the Bishop of Rome was not interpreted as disloyalty or usurping the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Even after this episode the African Bishops continued the practice of sending their decisions to Rome and inviting the Roman Church to join with them in their decisions. Communion and respect for the Petrine office can coexist with tensions about doctrinal and disciplinary matters, provided that there is an acknowledgement that all of the churches are united as equals through the work of the Holy Spirit. Africa and Rome could struggle through their differences because each recognised that the other was an inheritor of the Apostolic Tradition and received the same Spirit. One church did not see itself as subordinate or superior to the other. Within an ecclesiology of communion procedures can be found that will allow gatherings of Bishops in conferences or particular councils to exercise a legitimate teaching authority and at the same time preserve the unity of the faith. Relying on the concern that all Bishops have for the Church, Conferences of Bishops should be open to having other Churches enter into dialogue about their teachings and their legislation. In particular the Bishop of Rome through the Petrine ministry can offer a service of unity. Some safeguards would need to be in place to ensure that the unity of the communion is maintained. Current procedures do not reflect a theology of communion as was experienced in the first millennium. Conferences of Bishops should have the competence to deal with some of the procedures that are currently centralised, for example investigations into the works of theologians.
Conferences and authority The statement that the decisions of a Conference are binding on all in the territory represented by the Conference requires some further development. Binding, in this sense means within the limits imposed by canon law and conscience as discussed above. Questions have been asked as to the relationship of individual Bishops who dissent from the majority view and of their diocese in relation to what is taught by a Conference of which they are part. The apostolic letter Apostolos Suos addresses this question, it says in concern to protect the rights of diocesan bishops to teach. Section 22 of the letter and its corresponding norm, article 1, require that Bishops must be unanimous in their agreement before it has binding force on the faithful and can be considered an authentic expression of the magisterium.38 Komonchak notes that such a standard for authentic magisterium is greater than any other instance of ecclesiastical governance or teaching on either the universal or local level. He goes on to note that none of the documents of Vatican II would meet this standard. 39 No justification or precedent is provided in the Apostolic Letter for the introduction of this novel requirement for authentic teaching. Such a high standard seems difficult to justify given that none of the documents of Vatican II would meet this criteria, and it is unlikely that any previous Council achieved unanimity either. Apostolos Suos states, without justifying argument, that a Conference “never takes on the collegial nature proper to the actions of the order of Bishops as such”.40 In the same section the same conferences are described as “ a concrete application of collegial spirit.” The effect of these statements is to undermine the teaching authority of the Conferences while at the same time bolstering the authority of individual Bishops. At what point is the distinction to be made regarding proper collegial acts? The order of Bishops places a bishop in the College and he will remain a part of it provided that he maintains communion with each of the Churches represented by the other Bishops of the College. The distinction that Apostolos Suos introduces seems arbitrary. The Council specifically referred to the Conferences of Bishops as one of the new forms that collegiality has taken in the Church. In the preceding section Apostolos Suos teaches “only the faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular bishop are required to accept his judgement given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals.” 41 Such a provision should not exclude the fact that the Conference teaching in the name of all the bishops of the territory should require the religious assent of all the faithful of the territory. Acting together the teaching of the bishops may have greater force and be received with more certainty than that of a single bishop teaching alone. When the Bishops of a nation assemble to consider issues of significance to the nation, such as the rights of asylum seekers or support for a proposed war on another nation, their teaching may be more effective because they speak with one voice. Their collegial action may even gain the attention of the wider community outside of the church and provide guidance, encouragement or at least some stimulus for further reflection. Bishops who dissent from the statement of the Conference would be free in conscience to remain opposed to the teaching but would be required, along with all of the faithful, to give the teaching religious assent. Bishops are receivers of teaching as well as teachers. The situation described here is no different from that of bishops who were in the minority when the documents of Vatican II were adopted by the Council. Unanimity of the bishops in support of a statement is desirable but not essential for the teaching to have effect. Conferences of Bishops may be considered “in harmony” with the tradition of particular Councils and are stable in character. 42 We have already seen how the particular councils dealt with questions of faith and morals, including matters of dogma that had significance for the universal Church. This is not to say that the intention of the particular councils was to address universal questions rather, in dealing with local questions, they were not afraid to address the universal principles of doctrine that were to underpin the actions of the council. Some of teachings of the particular Councils were later adopted by the wider Church community through processes of keeping lists of the decrees of particular councils and by assimilation into local doctrine, theology, discipline and liturgy. The filioque clause had such a history, beginning in the Spanish Councils and eventually being adopted into the creed of the Latin Rite. It is conceivable that in a communitarian model of church that the local churches through the mechanism of Conferences will again render such service to the communion of Churches. The question of recognitio should not presume that the teaching of a conference is not an authentic exercise of the magisterium prior to the recognitio being granted. The history of particular councils presents a different picture where the decrees of Councils were received by the communion of Churches in a spirit of mutual service for the truth. Local and Universal Church A diocesan bishop is in communion with the universal Church and with the Churches of the nation or region. If koinonia is at the heart of ecclesiology, then a bishop should be conscious that, when he meets with his fellow bishops, what he is really attending is a gathering of local churches, through him. It is the awareness of communion that leads to a bishop’s acceptance of the decisions of the Episcopal Conference, even if he personally does not agree with the decisions. He does not represent himself at the Episcopal Conference he represents his Church. Such a view would be strengthened if the translation of bishops from one diocese to another were forbidden. A bishop should not see his ministry as a private possession as it were, and transportable through a kind of career structure for bishops. The ministry of Bishop only makes sense in relation to a community to which he is related as Christ; as spouse of the church and Good Shepherd, and not one he would abandon to move to a more important See. An ecclesiology of koinonia takes collegiality seriously. Rather than seeing some kind of opposition between the local Church and the Episcopal Conference or Synod of Bishops, koinonia allows us to view each level of teaching and authority as complementary sets. This does not mean that all differences will be resolved or that unanimity in decisions will be achieved or even required. An ecclesiology of koinonia trusts that the Spirit, who constitutes the churches anew each moment, will guide the community and preserve it in unity and maintain proper diversity. It is possible to have a meeting of churches and instruments of collegiality whereby no church is subordinate to or above another. In this environment a local church accepts the decisions of the Conference or Synod and all operate on the principle; that in essentials unity and in all things charity. An ecclesiology of koinonia understands that Episcopal Conferences and the Synod of Bishops are primarily theological realities not human administrative creations, where local churches, in the person of their bishop, meet as equals. III Ecumenical Implications
A great deal of convergence exists between the Churches on the centrality of koinonia and on the nature of the relationship between the local and universal church. ARC-USA states clearly the relationship which it says both Catholic and Anglicans acknowledge; “We …agree that the church local and the church universal are co-extensive and co-inherent.” 43 The same statement goes on to reinforce the sense of communion by noting that a “completely autonomous local church is a contradiction in terms” communion is of the essence of the church. From the Orthodox perspective Zizoulas argues “the local church is not part of the church but fully constitutes the catholic church.” 44 Methodist-Roman Catholic dialogue also points in the same direction. Koinonia as a “concept and experience is more important than any particular model of church union.” 45 Koinonia provides the very foundation that makes possible an organic unity between the churches and permits a variety of ecclesiastical traditions, styles of worship, spirituality, theology and discipline within that communion. 46 International Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue envisages a future united church where local churches form a world wide fellowship without giving up legitimate individual characteristics. Episcope as a concept, in the dialogues is the subject both of convergence and divergence. Episcope rather than bishop is deliberately used in this context because all churches seem to be willing to acknowledge a ministry of oversight not all churches express this ministry in the same form. WCC Lima Statement regards episcope as a necessary element of the church “to express and safeguard the unity of the body.” 47 All churches are urged to consider the three fold ministry of deacon, presbyter and bishop.48 The ministry of bishop is addressed and churches in which the ministry is absent are encouraged to consider introducing it. The ministry of bishop provides a focus for oversight, continuity and unity from the local level up to the universal.49 Predictably the greatest divergence around the issue of episcope is between the churches that have preserved the office of Bishop and those which have not preserved the office. Anglicans and Catholics share a similar view as to the role of the bishop but there is some divergence over the exercise of episcope and the solicitudo of bishops for the church. The Anglican Communion has developed a number of institutions which emphasise the collegial dimension of solicitude for the Church including diocesan synod, national councils, general conventions and the Lambeth Conference. Laity deacons and priests as well as bishops participate in most of the Anglican bodies. The Venice Statement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission contains the challenge; “The Roman Catholic Church has much to learn from the Anglican synodal tradition of involving the laity in the life and mission of the church.” 50 Whether it is necessary for the Catholic Church to meet this challenge or not, in a united church, will depend on the model of unity adopted. Certainly, though, it represents a different practice around the same belief that the apostolic tradition is handed onto the whole church and not only to the College of Bishops. Lutheran,
Reformed and Methodist churches have found a variety of ways to give
practical expression to episcope. Lutherans maintain a variety of expressions
of episcope. The ministry of episcope in some parts of the Lutheran
communion is assigned to a bishop, superintendent or president. Lutherans
do not ascribe any ontological difference between the ministry of a
local pastor and that of bishop; the differences are simply a matter
of geography and responsibility. 51
Methodist churches have adopted two patterns; churches in the Differences are found not only in the structures of episcope but also the teaching authority accorded to those who exercise episcope in the churches. Even when structures of collegiality seem similar, for example the Methodist Conference or Anglican Synod and the Catholic Bishops Conference, churches do not necessarily agree on the exact functions and the theological status of these bodies. There is not enough scope within the present paper to deal with all of the issues although some lines of enquiry can be suggested. Anglicans acknowledge the authoritative role of Bishops within the context of synods representative of all sections of the Church. There is no central authoritative body beyond the diocesan and provincial synod although through the processes of dialogue Anglicans have identified the need to develop a primatial counterweight to provincial and diocesan autonomy.56 Within the Anglican communion there have been calls for a review of the conciliar structures that are in place. There is concern that various international bodies within the Church “individually and together lack formal authority to speak definitively for the communion” 57 The Anglicans are seeking a review of their structures to address issues of authority but there is no suggestion that they wish to diminish the role of the local and regional church and the participation of all clergy and laity in synods. For Methodists the question of authoritative teaching is framed within the context of the whole church under the Word of God. No particular authoritative status is attributed to the bishops, elders or the church meeting and church conference. Binding or authoritative teaching is believed to exist, since the Holy Spirit can aid the church in any time to arrive at the truth, as it did in helping the Church fix the canon of Sacred Scripture and formulate the creeds of the first few centuries. Teaching is binding on believers “to the extent that the Church in any era teaches the truths that were originally taught in the Scripture...” 58 Catholic and Methodists agree on the need for an authoritative way of being sure, beyond doubt, concerning God’s action in so far as it is crucial for our salvation. 59 Lutherans do not locate a special authority for authoritative and binding teaching in the ministry of bishop or any other who exercises a ministry of episcope. The binding character of a teaching becomes manifest through reception by the whole church. 60 Lutherans have had to consider the problem of the teaching office and teaching authority in the light of ongoing doctrinal developments. Lutherans recognise three key limitations to the present position on teaching authority. First, there is uncertainty about the sufficient and appropriate means for teaching authoritatively. Second, there are questions about the competence of existing agencies to provide an authoritative source of binding teaching. The third question to be considered is reception and the actual competence of believers to judge doctrinal truth. 61 Lutherans are conscious of the distinction between the sensus fidei and the determining the truth of a teaching by consensus. There is openness to reconsideration of teaching authority and the role of the episcopate within that authority.
The implication for the Catholic Church could not be clearer. If ecumenical progress is to be made it needs to demonstrate that it too has not only the concept of koinonia but the experience as well. The Second Vatican Council established a direction by which koinonia could be experienced through the institution of Conference of Bishops. An Episcopal Conference is, through the Bishop, in reality a Conference of Churches, local churches.63 Further, work needs to be done to achieve the reality of the Conference and Synod of Bishops as a meetings of the local churches in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome. Their theological status needs to be more clearly articulated so that they are not simply seen as an administrative arrangement within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Conclusion The Catholic institutions of the Synod of Bishops and Episcopal Conferences were intended to reflect both a collegiate model of exercising episcope and to reflect an ecclesiology of koinonia. The development of both institutions accords with the episcopal experience of some of the non-Catholic dialogue partners. The Second Vatican Council affirmed an ecclesiology of koinonia and sought to develop structures that would give life to the communion and strengthen the life of the local Church, a development that was warmly received by other Christian communities.
Since the Council the Catholic Church, has failed to adequately develop an ecclesiology of communion, the outlines of which, were drawn in the documents of that Council and a paxis to support such a theology. Documents such as Apostolos Suos and Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion seem to indicate a retreat from a theology of communion and stress centralising elements of Church governance and teaching authority. Certainly there are some ambiguities in the language and some inconsistent use of terminology around communion and collegiality that require careful elaboration. Questions around this language seem to be resolved in official texts in favour of hierarchic and Roman centric models rather than communion in both horizontal and vertical manner. The image of Bishop that emerges from the instrumentum laborum Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for the Hope of the World, when it deals with collegial action and conferences in particular, quote from the same documents listed here and reinforce the same centralising tendencies. The Catholic Church has not realised the hope the Council had for collegiality and experienced renewed vitality that will result; at least not yet. Endnotes: 1. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations. Vol 10 (London: Darton Longman and Todd,1973), 4 2. Michael Lawler and Thomas Shanahan, Church: A Spirited Communion. (Collegeville: the Liturgical press, 1995) , 2 3. Lumen Gentium 8, in Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Dublin: Dominican publications, 1981), 357 4. Lawler and Shanahan, Church a Spirited Communion, 3 5. Lumen Gentium, 26. 6. Ibid, 21, 27 7. Lawler and Shanahan, Church a Spirited Communion, 98 8. Ibid. 99 9. Chistus Dominus 2, in Vatican II: The Counciliar and Post Counciliar Documents, ed Austin Flannery (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1981), 564. 10. Ibid. 22 11. Lumen Gentium, 18. 12. Ibid, 20. 13. Ibid, 20. 14. Ibid 23. 15. Ibid 22. 16. Ibid. 12 17. Christus Dominus 36. 18. Ibid. 19. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion 10 20. Lumen Gentium 21. Aspects of the Church as Communion, 9 22. Ibid, 11. 23. Lumen Gentium 3 24. Aspects of the Church as Communion, 13. 25. Ibid, 13 26. Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter one in Austin Flannery,(Ed.) Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dominican publications. Dublin 1981. 27. Orsy L Reflections on the Teaching Authority of Episcopal Conferences in Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies. Thomas Reece (Ed) Georgetown university Press, Washington DC, 1908 28. Ibid. p. 29. Christus Dominus, 36 30. Seiben H-F Episcopal Conferences in the Light of Particular Councils During the First Millennium. In Legrand H (Ed) et al The Nature and Future of Episcopal Conferences. Catholic University Press. Washington. 1988. p 30. 31. Dulles, A. Doctrinal Authority of Episcopal Conferences. In Episcopal Conferences: historical, canonical and theological studies p 32. Unitatis Redintegratio, 11 33. Canon Law Society Trust The Code of Canon Law in English Translation Collins Liturgical Publications. 1983. p 139. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Sieben in The Nature and Future of Episcopal Conferences, p 37 37. Ibid.p 42-43 38. Apostolos Suos May 1998. www.vatican.va pp8-9 39. Joseph Komonchak, On the Authority of Bishops Conferences in America September 12, 1998. p 1 40. Apostolos Suos, n 11,12. 41. Ibid, n10 42. Ibid, n4 43. Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue USA. Agreed Report on the Local and Universal Church. November 1999. 44 Zizoulas, J. The Institution of Episcopal Conference: an Orthodox perspective. In Nature and Future of Episcopal Conferences. 376 45. Methodist-Roman Catholic Nairobi Report. 1986. n 23 46. Ibid. n24 47. WCC Lima Statement n 23 48 bid. 29 49 Ibid 29 50. ARCIC Venice Statement p3 51. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement on Ministry in the Church n46 52. Methodist-RC Nairobi Report n 33 53. Ibid. n34 54. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement on Ministry in the Church. n 46, 55. International Reformed and Catholic Dialogue Final Report 1990. p 22 56. ARC USA;p1 57. Ibid ;p10 58. Methodist-Roman Catholic Nairobi Report n 66 59. Ibid; n 75. 60. Lutheran-RC Statement on Ministry n 53 61. Ibid; n 55 62. Zizoulas The Institution of Episcopal Conference. p 380-381 63 Ibid p 377 64 Robert Kaiser The Second Vatican Council. New York. Doubleday. 1968 p 13
|
Lumen
Gentium and Christus Dominus together develop themes from
the unfinished business of 
Vatican
Few
would doubt that the Second Vatican Council was a significant moment
for the life of the Church. The language and content of the sixteen
documents produced by the Council marked a new way of speaking about
old truths and the process of their formation marked a shift in familiar
and accepted ways of developing Church teaching. In the period immediately
prior to the Council a historical process of increasing Roman centralisation
through the growth of the Roman Curia and certain tendencies to exaggeration
as to the role of the Pope, had created a climate whereby it was assumed
that documents prepared by the preparatory commission would receive
approval from the Bishops with perhaps some minor modifications. We
know now that the documents presented to the Council were rejected by
the Bishops as not being suitable expressions of doctrine. The Bishops
found new ways to formulate doctrine and began to educate themselves
about developments in theology so that they would be better informed
in the debates on the new documents as they were presented. It would
not be too much of an exaggeration to say that through the experience
of participating in the Council the Bishops rediscovered that they were
genuine teachers of the faith and that the Roman Curia was there to
assist them in the process.
A
necessary tension exists between the collegial actions of bishops and
preserving the church in communion. This tension would seem to justify
the necessity of the recognito from 
Is
it necessary to have cases such as that involving Tissa
Balasuriya referred to Rome in the first instance? Why should
these cases be settled in Rome when the Conference of Asian Bishops
could have established a commission to investigate and enter into dialogue
with the theologian? The judgement of the Conference could have been
sent to Rome for review. If the Holy See could not join with the Conference
in their decision, questions requiring clarification could be sent back
to the Conference and a neighbouring Conference, perhaps the Australian
Conference could assist in a review. Sieben outlines an almost identical
process in place during the Frankish Councils of the first millennium.
37
Such processes were made possible partly because the Papacy had not
achieved the central place it was to acquire in canon law through later
historical developments and partly through the recognition that communio
conferred equal status on the Frankish Church and the Roman Church.
This
final section of the paper will consider the expectations of an ecclesiology
of communion generated by various ecumenical dialogues between the Catholic
Church and other churches and also the Lima Statement of the World
Council of Churches (WCC). Three key issues will be considered
each of which relate to the discussion of previous sections. The first
key issue is the understanding of koinoniaand the relationship
between the local and universal church. The second key issue is episcope
at local and regional level, its nature, function and form within the
churches. The final key issue concerns the teaching authority accorded
to the episcope in each tradition.
Orthodox
churches attribute authoritative teaching status to the bishops. The
body that corresponds to the Conference of Bishops would be the Holy
Synod. The Patriarch of the community exercises a primacy over his
church, not a primacy of honour but of jurisdiction. The Patriarch
can convoke a synod and set the agenda, in fact the synod cannot act
without its head. The Holy Synod can teach authoritatively and enact
cannons, which are binding for all the Churches of the Patriarchal territory.
The Holy Synod operates without any reference to a higher authority.62
There is no need within this authoritative structure for decisions to
passed to a higher authority for a recognito, as happens with the Conference
of Bishops in the Catholic tradition.
Recent
history of the Church, post Second Vatican Council, has not sent positive
signs to the wider Christian community in terms of witness to collegiality
or koinonia. In fact it would not be too far wrong to suggest
that other Churches may have cause for concern on both fronts. One
of the principle aims of the convocation of the Council was the promotion
of ecumenism. John XXIII’s invitation to the “separated brethren” to
attend as witnesses to the proceedings was to have a profound effect
on the assembled Bishops and representatives of the other Churches and
communities. Just as the process of the Council had a profound impact
on the Bishops as a lived experience of collegial action and communion,
the other Christian witnesses were also moved and genuinely excited
by it. Interviews and press conferences given at the time by the other
Christian representatives and in their meeting with John XXIII indicated
something of the openness that they believed was growing inside of the
Catholic Church. 64