1

ECCLESIOLOGY LECTURES
Part II

These notes have been transcribed from the old mimeographed Ecclesiology hand-outs of ICST. Please
watch out for misspelled words, outdated information and topographical errors. / 63 pages.

4. Apostolicity of the Church

Meaning: The Church represents, conserves and develops the spirit, the doctrine, and the
structure which is received from Christ in the persons of the Apostles.

The Term “Apostolic”

Not a biblical word but based on a biblical idea:
1. Continuity and identity between the mission of the Son from the Father, and the
apostles from Jesus. (Jn 17:7; 20:21; Mt.28:18-20)
2. Since the apostles represent the New Israel (12 tribes), the Church grows from the
them as Israel grew from the 12 sons of Jacob.
3. Rev 21:12-14: the New Jerusalem, the Church, is founded on the twelve apostles
of the Lamb

The term comes from an ancient source – implicitly and explicitly. It was used by the
Fathers of the Church.
1. It seems to have first appeared in Ignatius of Antioch, and then appears again in
the martyrdom of Polycarp; used also by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Earlier, the idea
appeared implicitly in the epistle of Clement of Rome.
2. Refers always to having a direct link with the apostles.
3. We also speak of the “apostolic fathers” – disciples of the apostles and the
disciples of their disciples.

From the 2nd and 3rd centuries the term took on the additional meaning of “like the
apostles”
1. Ascetical meaning – implies the renunciation of earthly goods, and marriage
2. the desert monks of the East, and then the Western monks, and finally all clerics
lived what is called an “apostolic life”

Only at a later stage did the word take on the pastoral and active meaning that we
associate it with today – apostolate, apostolic work, apostolic spirit, etc.

Theologically, when we speak of the Apostolic Church, we mean the Church in its
connection and relation to the apostles. The other two meanings are secondary.

Who do we mean by “apostles”: A review

1. There are two main prerequisites for being an apostle in the NT: [a] must have
“seen” the Risen Christ; [b] must have been given commission to preach.
2. “Apostle” is a wider concept than just the “twelve”
 2

3. Paul makes a strong defense of his apostleship

a. Barnabas and others are called apostles
b. The Twelve were considered probably at the core of the apostles, the
apostles “par excellence”

The Meaning of Apostolicity

1. Apostolicity as a result of union with the Trinity:
a. Like the dimensions of unity, catholicity and holiness, the apostolicity of
the Church is rooted in the Church’s unity with the Trinity and the sharing
of its divine life. Because of this, it shares in the trinity’s outflowing love
for humankind, its missions.
b. The essence of the Church is the sharing and continuing of the mission of
Christ.
c. Jesus was sent by the Father (Jn 20:21). He hands on that mission to the
Apostles (the twelve and others especially commissioned).
d. The apostles are the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:12-14)
and the Church grows on that foundation.
e. The Church is the Church insofar as it is apostolic – insofar as it is faithful
to its apostolic foundation. Tertullian expressed all of this: the Church
holds all that which it receives from the apostles, the apostles from Christ,
and Christ from the Father.
f. In its deepest sense, apostolicity therefore means that Church, by its union
with the trinity, is made faithful to its mission; it received that mission
from the apostles, who received it from Christ, who receives it from the
Father.
g. Apostolicity is both a gift (“is”) and a task (“called to be”).

2. Living out apostolicity

a. The apostles remain the IRREPLACEABLE foundation of the Church.
They couldn’t pass on their being the foundation.
b. The apostles are gone. There are no new apostles but the apostolic mission
n remains, and will last until the end of time: to share in Jesus’ mission of
preaching the Kingdom of God. This is a mission based on obedience to
the apostles as the first witnesses of the resurrection.
c. The Church is apostolic in as much as it obeys the apostolic mission (in
two ways): Faithfulness to the apostolic witness and faithfulness to the
apostolic ministry.
i. Witness:
1. The Church must constantly confront itself with and call
itself to the apostolic message of acknowledging the
Lordship of Christ changing one’s life and giving all to the
Gospel. (Acts 2)
2. The Church, in other words, must be always radically
faithful to the witness of the Gospel. The Gospel must
come first before the safety of the Institution, the honor of
 3

the people, its comfort, etc. A good example for this is in

Acts 5:27-32.
ii. Ministry
The Church can only be true to the Gospel through Service. It
is called to be as Servant Church. 1 Cor 4:9-14

A New Understanding of Apostolic Succession

1. Because the church is Apostolic, there is an apostolic succession – this is something
the Church has as a whole, and something its leaders possess as well. The Church is
(We are) the successors of the Apostles (all of them, as a college). The bishops are
successors of the apostles (not of individual apostles but for the apostolic college) –
except the Pope who can be considered the successor of Peter in his role of Primate
and head of the Apostles.
2. Formerly, succession was conceived of rather physically – one could trace back the
leadership of the Church in an unbroken line of succession, of laying on of hands to
one of the apostles.
3. Today as a result of ecumenical dialogue, such a physical apostolic succession, while
seen as still important, is not seen as the essence of apostolic succession by many
important theologians (R. Brown, E. Schillebeeckx). Fidelity to the apostolic witness
and ministry counts more.
4. Brown (Priest and Bishop, pp. 82-86) and Schillebeeckx (The Catholic Understanding
of Office in the Church”, TS 1969, pp.574-576) speak of a Protestant church as being
at least “imperfectly apostolic”

THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH:

Preaching, Serving, Witnessing

Introduction
 The Church does not so much have a mission as she is a missioned community.
 To define the Church from the point of view of its mission is typical post-Vatican
II ecclesiology.
o At Vatican II, the breakthrough was to the Church as a community (People
of God)
o In Post-Vatican II, the image People of God is enriched as Missioned
Community
 The Missionary nature of the Church is investigated under the image of
sacramentality: the Church is a sign of the Kingdom, the sacrament of Christ. She
participates in what she signifies and effects what she signifies.
 The Church is the defined as the People gathered in order to preach, serve and
witness to the Kingdom of God which has been inaugurated in Jesus, whose
mission it continues and shares.

A. The Mission of the Church as Sharing and Continuing the Mission of Jesus
 4

1. The Mission of Jesus is to proclaim in words and deeds the Kingdom of God.

Evangelii Nuntiandi #6: The witness that the Lord gives of Himself and that Saint Luke gathered
together in his Gospel—"I must proclaim the Good News of the kingdom of God"(12)—without
doubt has enormous consequences, for it sums up the whole mission of Jesus: "That is what I was
sent to do."(13) These words take on their full significance if one links them with the previous
verses, in which Christ has just applied to Himself the words of the prophet Isaiah: "The Spirit of
the Lord has been given to me, for he has anointed me. He has sent me to bring the good news to
the poor."(14)

2. The Church comes in to being as sharing and continuing Jesus’ mission:

 Sharing: Jn 20:21; 13:20; Mt.10:40; 18:5; Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16
Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the
one who sent me. Mt.10:40.
The Church has the same authority as Jesus. Jesus was sent from the Father. He
sends the Church.
 Continuing: all three synoptic gospels end with a commission to preach and
witness to the fact that in Jesus the kingdom has come. Mt. 28:18-20; Mk 16:16;
Lk 24:44-47. The same before the ascension – Acts 1:8

3. The Church is Church insofar as she continues the mission she shares.
 The Church represents Jesus Christ:
o The Priest who offered the ultimate sacrifice once and for all.
o The Prophet who proclaimed the Kingdom of Love and Justice
o The Servant-King who lifted up the poor, the oppressed, the sick and the
outcast.
 The Church continues the Mission of the Redeemer

B. The Mission of the Church as Three-fold.

The traditional office of Christ is 3-fold: priest, prophet and king (origin not clear, but
presupposed in Vatican II)
This is applied to the Church because it shares in the mission of Christ – Priestly,
Prophetic and Kingly People. (LG 10-13)

Contemporary Usage: Kerygma, Diakonia, Koinonia

 5

1. Kerygma (Prophetic):The first duty of the Church is to preach Christ, to make his
name heard, seen and known.Gustavo Gutierrez says that sometimes announcing
the good news means denouncing non-Gospel values found where the Gospel is
announced. (Theology of Liberation 265-272) “To comfort the afflicted and to
afflict the comfortable.”
2. Diakonia (Servant): The Church must translate orthodoxy into orthopraxis. It
must be a servant, a healer, a reconciler, an affirmer, a liberator.
3. Koinonia (Priestly): The Church is a foretaste of the Kingdom, and this reality
must be lived in daily living, but in a special way, when the Church is at worship
– particularly in the Eucharistic Meal, a sign of the Messianic Banquet; when we
confess our sins to one another, experience the presence of Christ in word and
sacrament, and offer ourselves to the lord and one another in Sacrifice.

Other theologians put a slightly different emphasis:

Martyria- the witness in words and deeds to the Kingdom
Diakonia- Serving, Healing, Reconciling
Leitourgia- Celebration of the Church’s reality and interceding for the world.

Remember “W.E.S.T.Y.”?

All the 3 form ONE MISSION

o Neglect one, and you compromise the mission!
o Preaching-serving-celebrating; study-work-pray; formation-service-
worship
o All three are essential in evangelization.
o The PPC and BEC structure reflects this 3-fold mission.

o Each depends on the other two, especially in the parish level/programs.

Priestly Koinonia Leitourgia Witness Worship Prayer -Kneel

Prophetic Kerygma Martyria Preach Formation Study -Sit
Kingly Diakonia Diakonia Serve Service Work
-Walk

o These three aspects of the one Mission are not to be separated from one
another, neither should they be confused. If we separate them, we would
not see the whole. It would be distortion.
o Each aspect blends into the others, clarifies the others and acts as a
balance to the others.
 6

 The mission of the church is not all preaching without action and
prayer.
 Nor is it all action without preaching or celebration
 Nor is it all liturgy without working in and preaching to the world.

On the contrary:
o Service to the world presupposes and creates a real worshipping
community of sisters and brothers.
o Deeper formation leads to deeper worship and more responsible properly
Christian service.
o Deeper worship leads to deeper involvement and greater receptiveness to
formation.

“I pray that I may preach better; I serve that I may preach and pray better.”

The 1974 Synod of Bishops used the word Evangelization to describe the mission of the
Church.

C. The Mission of the Church as Evangelization

Required Reading: Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi, Chapters 2 and 3

Chapter 2 deals with the process of evangelization: what the Church does when it
evangelizes. There are four steps:
1. Witness (#21)
Above all the Gospel must be proclaimed by witness. Take a Christian or a handful of Christians who, in the
midst of their own community, show their capacity for understanding and acceptance, their sharing of life and
destiny with other people, their solidarity with the efforts of all for whatever is noble and good. Let us suppose
that, in addition, they radiate in an altogether simple and unaffected way their faith in values that go beyond
current values, and their hope in something that is not seen and that one would not dare to imagine. Through
this wordless witness these Christians stir up irresistible questions in the hearts of those who see how they
live: Why are they like this? Why do they live in this way? What or who is it that inspires them? Why are they
in our midst? Such a witness is already a silent proclamation of the Good News and a very powerful and
effective one. Here we have an initial act of evangelization. The above questions will ask, whether they are
people to whom Christ has never been proclaimed, or baptized people who do not practice, or people who
live as nominal Christians but according to principles that are in no way Christian, or people who are seeking,
and not without suffering, something or someone whom they sense but cannot name. Other questions will
arise, deeper and more demanding ones, questions evoked by this witness which involves presence,
sharing, solidarity, and which is an essential element, and generally the first one, in evangelization.(51)
All Christians are called to this witness, and in this way they can be real evangelizers. We are thinking
especially of the responsibility incumbent on immigrants in the country that receives them.

2. Preaching (#22)
…even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run if it is not explained, justified—what Peter
called always having "your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all
have"(52)—and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News
proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life. There is no true
evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life, the promises, the kingdom and the mystery of Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of God are not proclaimed. The history of the Church, from the discourse of Peter on the
morning of Pentecost onwards, has been intermingled and identified with the history of this proclamation. At
 7

every new phase of human history, the Church, constantly gripped by the desire to evangelize, has but one
preoccupation: whom to send to proclaim the mystery of Jesus? In what way is this mystery to be
proclaimed? How can one ensure that it will resound and reach all those who should hear it? This
proclamation—kerygma, preaching or catechesis—occupies such an important place in evangelization that it
has often become synonymous with it; and yet it is only one aspect of evangelization.

3. Incorporation into the Community (#23)

In fact the proclamation only reaches full development when it is listened to, accepted and assimilated, and
when it arouses a genuine adherence in the one who has thus received it. An adherence to the truths which
the Lord in His mercy has revealed; still more, an adherence to a program of life—a life henceforth
transformed—which He proposes. In a word, adherence to the kingdom, that is to say, to the "new world," to
the new state of things, to the new manner of being, of living, of living in community, which the Gospel
inaugurates. Such an adherence, which cannot remain abstract and unincarnated, reveals itself concretely
by a visible entry into a community of believers. Thus those whose life has been transformed enter a
community which is itself a sign of transformation, a sign of newness of life: it is the Church, the visible
sacrament of salvation.(53) Our entry into the ecclesial community will in its turn be expressed through many
other signs which prolong and unfold the sign of the Church. In the dynamism of evangelization, a person
who accepts the Church as the Word which saves(54) normally translates it into the following sacramental
acts: adherence to the Church, and acceptance of the sacraments, which manifest and support this
adherence through the grace which they confer.

4. The Evangelized becomes the Evangelizer (#24) – Apostolic initiative

Finally, the person who has been evangelized goes on to evangelize others. Here lies the test of truth, the
touchstone of evangelization: it is unthinkable that a person should accept the Word and give himself to the
kingdom without becoming a person who bears witness to it and proclaims it in his turn.

Chapter 3 deals with the content of evangelization.

It speaks first of an essential content, that is, the message of Christ (#25-28)
25. …Their presentation depends greatly on changing circumstances. They themselves also change. But
there is the essential content, the living substance, which cannot be modified or ignored without seriously
diluting the nature of evangelization itself.
26. It is not superfluous to recall the following points: to evangelize is first of all to bear witness, in a simple
and direct way, to God revealed by Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit; to bear witness that in His Son God has
loved the world—that in His Incarnate Word He has given being to all things and has called men to eternal
life. …For man the Creator is not an anonymous and remote power; He is the Father: "...that we should be
called children of God; and so we are."(56) And thus we are one another's brothers and sisters in God.

At the center of the message: salvation in Jesus Christ

27. Evangelization will also always contain--as the foundation, center, and at the same time, summit of its
dynamism--a clear proclamation that, in Jesus Christ,…salvation is offered to all men, as a gift of God's
grace and mercy.(57) And not an immanent salvation, meeting material or even spiritual needs, …
completely identified with temporal desires, hopes, affairs and struggles, but a salvation which exceeds all
these limits in order to reach fulfillment in a communion with the one and only divine Absolute: …has its
beginning in this life but which is fulfilled in eternity.

Under the sign of hope

28. Consequently evangelization cannot but include the prophetic proclamation of a hereafter, man's
profound and definitive calling, in both continuity and discontinuity with the present situation: beyond time
and history, beyond the transient reality of this world, and beyond the things of this world, of which a hidden
dimension will one day be revealed—beyond man himself, whose true destiny is not restricted to his
temporal aspect but will be revealed in the future life.(58)

Evangelization therefore also includes:

 8

- the preaching of hope in the promises made by God in the new Covenant in Jesus Christ;
- the preaching of God's love for us and of our love for God;
- the preaching of brotherly love for all men--the capacity of giving and forgiving, of self-denial, of
helping one's brother and sister--which, springing from the love of God, is the kernel of the Gospel;
- the preaching of the mystery of evil and of the active search for good.
- The preaching likewise—and this is always urgent—of the search for God Himself through prayer
which is principally that of adoration and thanksgiving, but also through communion with the visible
sign of the encounter with God which is the Church of Jesus Christ; and this communion in its turn
is expressed by the application of those other signs of Christ living and acting in the Church which
are the sacraments. To live the sacraments in this way, bringing their celebration to a true fullness,
is not, as some would claim, to impede or to accept a distortion of evangelization: it is rather to
complete it.
For in its totality, evangelization--over and above the preaching of a message-- consists in the implantation of
the Church, which does not exist without the driving force which is the sacramental life culminating in the
Eucharist.(59)

EN also speaks of the secondary elements – ramifications of the essential content of

evangelization for a particular time, place and culture. (#29-38)
29. … evangelization involves an explicit message, adapted to the different situations constantly being
realized, about the rights and duties of every human being, about family life without which personal growth
and development is hardly possible,(60) about life in society, about international life, peace, justice and
development—a message especially energetic today about liberation.

30. … the effort and struggle to overcome everything which condemns them to remain on the margin of life:
famine, chronic disease, illiteracy, poverty, injustices in international relations and especially in commercial
exchanges, situations of economic and cultural neo- colonialism sometimes as cruel as the old political
colonialism. The Church, as the bishops repeated, has the duty to proclaim the liberation of millions of
human beings...

Necessarily linked to human advancement

31. Between evangelization and human advancement—development and liberation—there are in fact
profound links.
 These include links of an anthropological order, because the man who is to be evangelized is not
an abstract being but is subject to social and economic questions.
 They also include links in the theological order, since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation
from the plan of Redemption. The latter plan touches the very concrete situations of injustice to be
combated and of justice to be restored.
 They include links of the eminently evangelical order, which is that of charity: how in fact can one
proclaim the new commandment without promoting in justice and in peace the true, authentic
advancement of man?

Without reduction or ambiguity

32. … even generous Christians …in their wish to commit the Church to the liberation effort are frequently
tempted to reduce her mission to the dimensions of a simply temporal project. …This is why we have wished
to emphasize…"the need to restate clearly the specifically religious finality of evangelization….: the kingdom
of God, before anything else, in its fully theological meaning...."(62)

34. …her contribution to liberation is incomplete if she neglects to proclaim salvation in Jesus Christ.

On an evangelical concept of man

 9

35. The Church links human liberation and salvation in Jesus Christ, but she never identifies them,
because … not every notion of liberation is necessarily consistent and compatible with an evangelical vision
of man, of things and of events; she knows too that in order that God's kingdom should come it is not enough
to establish liberation and to create well-being and development.
And what is more, the Church has the firm conviction that all temporal liberation, all political liberation …
carries within itself the germ of its own negation …
 whenever its profound motives are not those of justice in charity,
 whenever its zeal lacks a truly spiritual dimension and
 whenever its final goal is not salvation and happiness in God.

Involving a necessary conversion

36. The Church considers it to be undoubtedly important to build up structures which are more human,
more just, … and less enslaving, but she is conscious that the best structures …soon become inhuman…if
those who live in these structures or who rule them do not undergo a conversion of heart and of outlook.

37. The Church cannot accept violence, especially the force of arms…"We exhort you not to place your
trust in violence and revolution: that is contrary to the Christian spirit…

Specific contribution of the Church

38. …She is trying more and more to encourage large numbers of Christians to devote themselves to the
liberation of men.
She is providing these Christian "liberators" with the inspiration of faith, the motivation of fraternal love, a
social teaching …The Church strives always to insert the Christian struggle for liberation into the universal
plan of salvation which she herself proclaims.

D. The Scope of the Mission of the Church

Two movements of Church mission: Ad intra and ad extra

1. Ad Intra:
 The Church as an earthly reality is not yet fully penetrated by the Kingdom of
God both in terms of growth of the members (we can always grow more) and the
infidelity of members.
 The Church must always be constantly called to and called back to the values of
the Kingdom: ecclesia semper formanda et reformanda.
 This is a major work of the Church. It engages pastors and parishioners most of
the time.
a) Preaching at Mass, the catechetical program, adult education, etc.
b) Helping the poor, mediating disputes, working for justice, etc.
c) Forming a community of love, celebrating the eucharist, the other sacraments,
popular devotions, the community’s prayer life.
EN #15: (The Church) has a constant need of being evangelized …by constant conversion and renewal, in
order to evangelize the world with credibility.
EN #54: Nevertheless the Church does not feel dispensed from paying unflagging attention also to those
who have received the faith and who have been in contact with the Gospel often for generations…This faith
is nearly always today … exposed to trials and threats, …To evangelize must therefore very often be to give
this necessary food and sustenance to the faith of believers...
 10

2. Ad Extra
This movement has a manifold scope:
a. to non-Christians: dialogue, that is, mutual knowledge and enrichment, is part of
the Evangelizing Mission. God does not fail to make himself present in many
ways. He has planted the seeds of his Word in persons and various religious
traditions. But this does not cancel the call to explicit Christian faith and
baptism which God wills for all people. (Read Redemptoris Missio #55-56) The
aim is proclamation in view of deeper conversion towards God. But we must
maintain respect for differences and free decision of individuals. (Read Dialogue
and Proclamation #40-41)
b. to non-believers: “the secular men”; atheists; scientologists (teaches immortality
and psychotherapeutic method that frees individuals from personal problems);
new age movement (“We are God”) – They have many deep/“limit” questions.
The Church should go to them, be hospitable to them and listen to them. (Read
Evangelii nuntiandi #55)
c. to non-practicing Christians: (Read Evangelii Nuntiandi #56)
 to seek them out and invite them back;
 to show understanding and forgiveness;
 to ask forgiveness for the failures and scandals of the Church.
d. Dialogues with other Christians: (Read Evangelii nuntiandi #54.3)
 to find out what we hold in common;
 to pray together; to enjoy fellowship; to work at common projects;
 but at the same time to witness by one’s life, to the FULLNESS that
subsists in the Catholic Church.
e. to imbue the temporal order with the values of the Kingdom:
(Gaudium et Spes 42)
 The Church is a prophet in society, proclaiming Christian values in (secular)
society; guarding those values in society; acting as a critic in society.
 The Church works and lobbies for a more just society.
 The Church witnesses to the world by her life that true brotherhood is
possible, and she prays for the world.
 schools, government, business, hospitals, police and military, place of work

SOME POINTS FOR REFLECTION:

 How committed is your parish/community in the Apostolate of the Church? Are

we and our people aware that we share a common mission?
 Are our people in SOLIDARITY with the community or do they just give their
“support”? Full-time or part-time Christians?
 Where do we categorize temporalities? (WESTY) Is it part of the Mission of the
Church?
 How do we start implementing the 3-fold Mission of the Church in the
barangay/BEC level?

KERYGMA
 11

 Would a weekly parish bulletin improve our people’s moral, catechetical and
social awareness? It could provide a weekly catechism and reflections on the
readings (the Word for us today). It would also be a better channel for our detailed
announcements and financial information. (More appropriate than during the
Mass)
 Is our catechetical program effective and relevant? Are our catechists updated in
Church doctrine and morals?
 Do we send young people for pastoral training and specialization?
 Do we encourage priestly and religious vocations in our parish and schools?
 Do we consider as top priority the formation of young parishioners? Is our
liturgy appealing to the youth? Do we have adolescent catechesis? Youth
Encounters? We are losing them to other sects, to drugs, media, crime, etc.

DIAKONIA
 Beggars and vagrants come in and out of the church during the Mass. We give
them alms, and they use it for what? Some people just drive them away like dogs.
Are we making them more human and more dignified or (unconsciously)
encouraging them to remain where they are (compulsively dependent)?
 Collections in the early Church were intended only for the poor. Do we have an
active and effective program for the poor? Do we have cooperatives for
farmers, workers, etc.?
 Is our parish aware of and actively involved in the social, moral and political
issues in our locality? What kind of lifestyle is encouraged in our parish?

KOINONIA
 Do our parishioners feel welcome in the Liturgy? Do they feel they belong? Is
there active participation? Do we have a ministry of welcome?
 What is our notion of “offering” or “offertory”?
 Why do we always have to publicly announce our so-called “Mass Intentions”
and “Mass Sponsors”? Why do some people require public recognition?
 How is prayer encouraged in our families? How does the parish priest appreciate
popular religiosity? Does he pray with HIS people and journey with them?
 Are Sacraments and Blessings for sale?
 12

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH

As appears on our course outline, we’ll be treating the following topics in this part:
Chapter I: THE LAITY IN THE CHURCH
Chapter II: OFFICE IN THE CHURCH
The Development of Office in the Church
Bishops in the Church
Presbyters (Priests) in the Church
Deacons in the Church
The People of the Church
Chapter III: RELIGIOUS MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

A. As we have said several times, the change of order of chapters in the 1963 version of
the Constitution on the Church was very important.

1. Before it looked like this:

Chapter I: The Mystery of the Church
Chapter II: The Hierarchy
Chapter III: The People of God and the Laity in Particular
Chapter IV: The Call to Holiness
2. At the suggestion of Card Suenens, the order of the chapters was changed to this:
Chapter I: The Mystery of the Church
Chapter II: The People of God
Chapter III: The Hierarchy
Chapter IV: The Laity
Etc.
3. The SIGNIFICANCE of the change, of course was that ALL MEMBERS of the
Church – clergy, laity – together belong FIRST AND FOREMOST to the
PEOPLE OF GOD.
4. “People of God”, therefore, does not mean just the Laity, as it would have in the
original order, but “the Church as a whole, with every group of its members.”

B. Alois Grillmeier, in his Commentary on LG, says that this seemingly small change of
order provides a whole new vision of the Church.
1. Hans Kung, in his book THE CHURCH also comments on the importance of the
changes.
a. Before, ecclesiology was mostly “hierarchology” because theology focused
first on the DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS.
b. But when Office in the Church is seen from the point of view of the
fundamental brotherhood and unity of the people of God, office and authority
in the Church is seen as “secondary” if not tertiary important.
2. Kung goes on to say further that an office-holder in the Church is primarily not a
dignitary but a believer; “the believer who holds no office is a Christian and a
 13

member of the Church of Christ; a man who hold office without faith is not
Christian and not a member of the Church” (Kung, p. 363).
3. The US Bishops have said the same thing in the document on the Priesthood As
One Who Serves: “…All those who are made one by Baptism into Christ thereby
share his ministry. Ministry, then, is the vocation, privilege, and responsibility of
all members of the Church. This insight was highlighted in the Council debate on
the Church that led to placing the cantor on the People of God before the one on
the hierarchical structure of the Church. The whole Church is the primary
recipient of Christ’s mission, and each individual from Pope through Lay person
can operate only in community with the whole Church and as part of the whole
body. The brotherhood and equality of all members takes precedence over all
later distinction and persists in them. In this sense the People of God as a whole
enjoy a basic collegiality, a common servanthood” (p. 19).

C. We have to understand the Church’s fundamental unity, therefore, before we

understand its structure.
1. As we said, the essence of the Church is to be the Herald, servant and witness to
the Kingdom of God. The Church is that people that shares and continues the
Mission of Christ in announcing the Kingdom.
2. The fundamental unity of the Church is found right here in the Church’s mission:
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY
PARTICIPATE IN CHRIST’S MISSION FROM “ONE COMMON
SERVANTHOOD, ONE BASIC COLLEGIALITY” (as one who serves, p. 19).
3. The basis for differentiation is the WAY THAT INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
SHARE IN THIS MISSION.
4. To put it briefly:
a. The way the laity continues Christ’s mission is primarily by working in the
world.
b. The way the clergy continues Christ’s mission is through the preaching of the
word.
c. Every state in the Church is a state-in-mission there is no passive Christians.
d. The Layman exercise Christ’s mission indirectly: the clergy exercises Christ’s
mission more directly.
e. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND “DIRECTLY” AND
“INDIRECTLY” CORRECTLY – BY THIS WE DO NOT MEAN
“HIGHER” OR “LOWER” OR MORE OR LESS DIGNIFIED OR HOLY –
only direct or indirect, a way of continuing Christ’s mission. It is not so
important HOW the Christian carries on Christ’s mission. Important first of
all is THAT he carries it out.

D. A traditional way of expressing this fundamental unity of all Christians is to speak of

the COMMON PRIESTHOOD, THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS, THE
PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL, THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE CHURCH.
1. These terms are often used to designate the Laity, but most fundamentally these
terms are used to designate the whole Church, from the point of view of its
equality and unity of mission. This is the way the term “Common Priesthood” is
 14

used in LG 10-12 (Common does not mean “ordinary” as opposed to “Special” –

it means what a common to all believers!).
2. The designation of the Church as a Priesthood is the application of a biblical title.
3. The fact that the Church is called a Priesthood is due to the fact that the Church is
the New and True People of God, the New Israel.
a. In the Old Testament, Israel was called a “Kingdom of Priests” – the classic
text is Ex 19:6.
b. Much later, in Is 6:16, the prophet speaks of the Messianic age as a time when
Israel will be called “priests of the Lord” and “ministers of our God”.
c. The term “priests” or “priesthood” is not used anymore specifically of Israel,
but Israel is always called a HOLY people, a people CONSECRATED to
Yahweh.
4. In the NT, Jesus never designate his followers as priests, or called himself a
priest:
a. But, says Leon Dufour in his DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY,
Jesus never cased to act as a priest. He revealed himself as a priest. (It was
only later in the NT when Hebrews specifically calls Jesus a Priest).
b. Jesus calls each of his followers to act as he acts – i.e., in an implicitly priestly
manner.
1) Mt. 16,24 – each is called to take up his cross
2) Mt. 20:22; 26:27 – each is called to drink the cup.
3) Lk. 9:60; 10:1-16 – each is called to spread the message
4) Mt. 10:17-42 – each is called to bear witness unto death.
c. Dufour says: “As he makes all men sharers of his titles of son and Messiah-
King, Jesus also makes them priests with him.” We saw this in part I when
we saw that we share and continue Jesus’ Mission.
5. Paul does not explicitly call Christian priests but he uses many cultic terms to
describe Christian life.
a. Phil. 2:17 – Christian faith is a “sacrifice and oblation”
b. Phil. 4:18 – the alms offered to the Jerusalem Church are a “fragrant perfume,
an acceptable sacrifice, agreeable to God”.
c. Rom. 12:1 – Christian life is a priestly act.
d. Cf. also Rom. 15:16, 31; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16.
6. James enumerates the acts which constitutes true worship: ordinary daily good
living – cf. Jas. 1:26ff.
7. 1 Pet. And Revelation are explicit: they apply the designation of Israel in Exodus
to the Church.
a. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9-10.
b. Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6 (although it is not clear if this designation refers to the
Church now, or the Church in its state as the “New Jerusalem”).
8. Summing up the biblical background, Leon Dufour says: “by this title…” p. 411.
9. Yves Congar testifies that the Fathers used this term often in respect to the Church
(cf. LAY PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH, pp. 123-236). I’d just like to present the
Patristic passage that to me is outstanding – Pope Leo the Great (Office of
Readings for his feast, No. 10).
 15

10. Congar also mentions that the high ecclesiastics, in particular St. Thomas, used
the term. Congar points out too that in Scripture, in the Fathers and in the
Scholastics the fundamental idea of the Common Priesthood is not linked
exclusively to the Eucharist, but to the whole of Christian life. Christian life is
priestly service; the original idea of the Common Priesthood has no conflict with
the ministerial priesthood.
11. The big problem with the Common Priesthood came with the Reformation.
a. Luther first used the term in an orthodox way, in an attempt to offset the
extreme clericalizing of the medieval Church.
b. But eventually the term became an anti-clerical battle cry.
c. Eventually common priesthood came to mean that the ordained priesthood
presides at Eucharist.
d. Naturally, the apologetic mood of the Counter-Reformation objected to this,
and in doing so, eclipsed the term, and the original, real meaning. A striking
example of the Catholic opinion of the term appears in the 1952 edition of the
KIRCHENLEXIKON.
12. Gradually, though, thanks to the Biblical, Patristic and Liturgical revival of the
20th century (we studied these in our history of ecclesiology) the original meaning
was recovered, and Vatican II kind of canonized the idea again. The term appears
there no less than seven times: LG #10, 11, 31, 34, AA 2, 3, 10. LG # 10 and 11
are the most clear as to the common priesthood referring to the whole Church
(read #10).

E. Although this term, “common priesthood” is a very traditional way of expressing the
fundamental oneness of the People of God that we’re trying to develop here, I just
wonder if it is the best way.
1. I personally would tend to use such terminology because I think it causes more
problems than it solves. (This is more a personal opinion, a kind of theological
reflection on the nature of the fundamental unity of the People of God.
Remember, one of the functions of speculative theology is to come to
terminology).
2. My reasons for avoiding this terminology would be the following:
a. To call all Christian priests, and then to speak of a special priesthood is
confusing.
1) According to Grillmeier, the Fathers of the Council, in accepting the
term “common priesthood” had a hard time to explain how it differs
from the “ministerial (ordained) priesthood”. It ended up saying that
the two were related but actually totally different (different no only in
degree but in essence).
2) But the confusion in terimonology persisted and the 1971 Synod had
to deal with the difference again. It repeated Vatican II’s doctrine, but
did not emphasize the common priesthood quite as much (cf. #4).
3) Hans King has a long section in his book on THE CHURCH on the
“priesthood of all believers”, and more or less ends up saying there
and later in WHY PRIEST? that any Christian can celebrate the
Eucharist, etc. He was admonished for this in 1975.
 16

b. The terminology is also confusing since the term “common priesthood” is a

general term which includes the functions of prophet, king and priest (cf.
“Ministerial Priesthood” #5 – “The Church… participates in different ways in
the functions of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King, in order to carry out her
mission of salvation in his name and by his power, as a priestly people”).
c. To speak of a common priesthood or a “priesthood of the faithful” strikes me
as too clerical.
1) This of course was not the original intention of the NT – the Church
was called a “Holy Priesthood” before individuals were called priests –
but in our understanding of priesthood a misunderstanding could
result.
2) It almost sounds like every Christian, even a layman, has dignity
because he too is a priest – kind of a mini-priesthood.
d. Vatican II says that the common priesthood and the ordained priesthood are
different things – they differ in essence. Then, why call the fundamental unity
of Christians a priesthood? Better to call it something else.
3. Another way of expressing the same reality was taken by the US Bishops in their
document: AS ONE WHO SERVES.
a. The document agrees that the NT uses the term priesthood in a wider sense,
and that all share the one ministry, the one priesthood of Christ.
b. But the bishops prefer to speak of a common ministry, a common mission, a
basic collegiality, a common servanthood rather than a common priesthood
when speaking about the basic unity of the whole Church.
c. And they use the term “priestly ministry” for the ordained, sacramental
priesthood.
In the same way, I will try to avoid the term “common priesthood” as a
designation for the basic unity of the Church. I would prefer to speak, like the US
Bishops of the COMMON MISSION OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD, or one of the
other terms used by them.

To understand this Common Mission further, we can say that as a result of this common
mission, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE CHURCH SHARES AND
CONTINUES CHRIST’S THREEFOLD MISSION OF KERYGMA, DIAKONIA AND
KOINONIA.
1. All Christians have a kerygmatic function:
a. There is first of all the preaching and witnessing.
1) The importance of witnessing has been stressed by Evangelii
Nuntiandi (cf. #21, 26, esp. 41: “For the Church, the first means of
evangelization is the witness of an authentically Christian life, given
over to God in a communion that nothing should destroy and at the
same time given to one’s neighbor with limitless zeal. As we said
recently to a group of lay people, (Modern man listens more willingly
to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is
because they are witnesses).
2) I don’t think we can underestimate the power of example, especially
people like Mother Theresa.
 17

3) Marriage encounter has a phrase which is very important here: “couple

power” – just to have a couple witness to their love for one another is
apostolic, is preaching.
b. But there is also the dimension of witnessing in word: preaching,
proclaiming, witnessing, admonishing.
1) All are called to this. Every Christian should be able to give
account of the hope that is his (1 Pet. 3,15).
2) Whether as bishop or priest, which have clear teaching roles, or
as catechists or lectors, or as parent catechists, whatever, all the
Church has a clear kerygmatic role.
3) Some friends of mine in the States read an article in the paper
they didn’t like about teenage pregnancy and wrote a really
prophetic letter to the newspaper about it. That is a real
witnessing – and it hits home, from some of the replies that they
got.
c. Summing up what we’ve said, EN #66 says: “The whole Church … is
called upon to evangelize, and yet within her we have different
evangelizing tasks to accomplish. This diversity of services in the unity of
the same mission makes up the richness and beauty of evangelization”
(And the Synod of Bishops, in their concluding message of the 1974
Synod said: BEF, 1974, p. 841).
d. The idea is clear: everyone has the task of evangelization in the Church:
everyone has a kerygmatic task.
2. All Christians have a diakonic function:
a. All Christians are called to serve one another, and the world, in whatever
way it takes. All Christians share, say the US Bishops, a common
ministry, a common servanthood.
b. CF. LG #12:2.
c. In our day, a large service that the Church performs is working for justice:
1) Each Christian, by putting Christian principles to work in their
daily lives, serve mankind by bringing about a more just world.
2) Some are called to be leaders in the struggle for justice, but
everyone is called to do his part.
3) The whole document JUSTICE IN THE WORLD is important
here, but we can refer specifically to p. 19.
d. There are many other services that Christians render to one another and to
the world: There is the ministry of parenthood, the ministry of
contributing to charity, the ministry of all sorts of volunteer work, These
things are an intimate part of the Christian vocation to be Church.
3. All Christians have a Koinoniac Function:
a. This aspect involves the Church being a worshipping community.
b. Every Christ have direct access to God.
1) In pagan religions, only the priests – a special class – can offer
sacrifice.
2) The priest is conceived as a middleman, a mangibabaet. A person
never spoke directly to God.
 18

3) In Judaism, only the priests could sacrifice for the people.

4) But Jesus revealed that God is Father, and as Father he is always
available, always loving, personally caring for each person (are
not two sparrows sold for a fathering…).
5) This is the point of LG Chapter V – the Universal Call to
Holiness Each Christian is called to personal intimacy with God:
“All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the
fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of love” (LG #40).
c. Liturgical and sacramental life is something that all the Church is called to
participate in, according to their states, but fully according to each.
1) Cf. SC #7: “The liturgy … is rightly seen as an exercise of the
priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of
man’s sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the
senses and its accomplishments in ways appropriate to each of
these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the
Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that, by the Head and his
members.
2) To be more specific, let’s look at some of the celebrations of the
sacraments and see how they are not things the ministers do
alone, but are celebrations of the whole Church:
a) Baptism:
(1) The new rite of Baptism brings out the community
aspect of the sacrament. Baptism is not the mere
pouring of water (that is its essence, but in its
solemn celebration it’s more than that). It is the
reception of the person into the Christian
community.
(2) Several years ago a couple asked for their child to
be baptized, but were refused because the woman
was a promoter of a local abortion clinic. The
people protested to the bishop but the bishop
backed the parish priest up. (Common practice in
Switzerland and Germany to “postpone” baptism if
parents are not prepared to take responsibility for
children’s growth in forth. Philippine Bishops say
that parents should have some instruction and
baptism can even be delayed if they don’t have it
(LIB, VI, 2, 1971, p. 51).
b) Eucharist:
(1) The liturgical renewal has taught us that every
Christian is a celebrant, in his own way, of the
Eucharist.
(2) We do not “hear Mass”; the priest does not “say”
Mass by himself (it is a theologically inaccurate
phrase to say that a priest will say his Mass – it is
not his, it belongs to the Church!)
 19

(3) Each Christian actively offers sacrifice, each

actively remembers Christ, each actively give
thanks and praise.
(4) We speak of the priest presiding, and ordering the
worship, but the Mass is the celebration of the
Church, the community.
(5) There is no such thing as a “private Mass”, for the
priest always prays in the first person plural.
Masses without at least one other person present
are strongly discouraged by the authorities of the
Church.
c) Sacrament of Reconciliation:
(1) The forgiveness given by the priest is in the name
of community. “Through the ministry of the
Church may God grant you pardon and peace…”
(2) The introduction to the Rile of Penance says: cf. p.
5.
(3) This is the importance of celebrating the sacrament
within a penitential service. We all partake in the
sacramental forgiveness of one another’s sins.
(4) There are also many times when we co-
sacramentally forgive each other’s sins – at the
penitential rite of the Mass, at the kiss of peace, in a
brotherly dialogue … by accepting one another we
proclaim God’s forgiving word in Christ.
d) These things sound strange to our ears because the main
rites of the sacraments have been assumed by the clergy.
But what still remains and will probably get better
expression as time goes on, is that the minister presides
only in the name of the community. The community
dimension has to come more and more to the fore.
4. The relation between the different state in the Church is expressed beautifully by
St. Augustine in a famous sermon, and this quotation might serve as a conclusion
for this introduction into the structure of the Church. It will be good to keep
Augustine’s words in mind as we proceed now to the different functions in the
Church (cf. also Office of Readings, 24th Sunday in Ordinary time). LG #32,4.
 20

CHAPTER I: THE LAITY IN THE CHURCH

Introduction

A. It is important from the start to get a right orientation to the theology of the Laity:

1. The Laity are important in today’s Church.

a. not because of the current vocation crisis and lack of priests.
b. Not because of so many numbers that the priests need the laity to help
them.
c. These would be condescending and clericalist reasons.
2. Rather, the laity are important today because we have realized in our day that they
are essential for the Church to be the Church. As Pius XII said in 1946 already:
“They (the laity) must have an ever-clearer conviction, not only that they belong
to the Church, but that they are the Church.” (AAS 38, 1946, p. 149).

B. This understanding of the role of the layman in the Church is due:

1. to a better understanding of human existence.
2. to a better understanding of the nature and mission of the Church.
3. These new understanding have both non-theological and theological roots.

C. Non-Theological Roots:
1. The whole modern understanding of man has its roots in Kant’s “second
Copernican revolution”, the switch from concentration on OBJECT to SUBJECT.
Now the center of philosophical thought became the subject, Man.
2. As Western though began to take Kant seriously
a. There was a general realization that no dualism existed in man.
b. Before, man was understood as composed of BODY and SOUL, and
somehow the body or the material aspect was seen as less good, even evil.
The soul or spirit was seen as good.
c. Gradually, philosophers began to speak of man as a unity, a person.
1) body and spirit are seen as two DIMENSIONS of a unity.
2) As a result of this the material dimension of man was considered
good.
d. To be HUMAN became a goal, not something to be fled from (e.g., the
title of J. Goldbrunner’s famous book: HOLINESS IS WHOLENESS).
e. In the social dimension, to be human meant to have a voice in society, in
politics:
1) and so we have the rise of democracy
2) in the 17th century, Louis XIV could say Le France, se moi; in the
19th century Abraham Lincoln was speaking about the
government of, by and for the people and Rizal was speaking
about their being no tyrants where there are no slaves.

D. Theological Roots:
 21

1. The move from object to subject spoken of above set the context of our
CONTEMPORARY RELATIVE HORIZON of non-dualism, personalism,
democratization.
2. When THEOLOGY meets this contemporary horizon the result is that “holiness”
is found not only in the “sacred” sphere but also in the secular sphere, because
both are seen to be basically the same. The old dichotomies of sacred/secular;
church/world, etc. began to lose their meaning.
3. A result of this is that Humanizing Activity is at the same time salvific activity.
Working for the betterment of the world is as salvific as praying and celebrating
the sacraments (both of course have to be done; it would be wrong to neglect the
one and overdo the other).
4. An example of such a mind-change can be seen in the way Karl Rahner explains
the meaning of the sacraments. In an article in Theology Digest of 1971, Rahner
proposes a “Copernican Revolution” in thinking about the sacraments: “instead of
seeing in them a spiritual movement outward from the sacramental action to an
effect in the world, we should look for a spiritual movement of the world toward
the sacrament” (TD, Automn, 1971, p. 227).
5. Many writers speak of the LITURGICAL MOVEMENT as well as a theological
root of today’s strong lay movement. As Catholics took the liturgy seriously they
saw that the laity plays a definite part in it; singing, answering, ministering the
word, at the altar, etc.
6. The BIBLICAL RENEWAL also had to do with today’s emphasis on the laity.
Particularly the discovery of the notion “People of God” to describe the Church:
a. It brings out the truth that all Christians are fundamentally equal.
b. And that the Church is essentially a fellowship with a vision, and so not to
be reduced to a Hierarchical-Monarchial Structure.
7. A final theological root can be traced in the Ecumenical Movement, especially
with the acceptance of what had become a Protestant notion: the “Priesthood of
the Faithful”.

We conclude this introduction by repeating the orientation necessary for an adequate

theology of the laity: THE LAITY HAVE COME INTO PROMINENCE TODAY NOT
PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF A NEED FOR PRIESTS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE
CHANGE OF HORIZON. In this connection read AA #1.1.

Our Chapter will be developed in three parts:

1. What is a layman?
2. The Lay Apostolate.
3. The Contents of LG Chapter IV and AA.

I. What is a Layman?

A. The Structure of the Church is two-fold:

1. Clergy (Deacons, Priests, Bishops)
2. Laity
 22

B. The word “cleric” (Greek: KLEROS) means “lot”, “portion”, “heritage” and is often
found in the Bible.
1. In the OT, the priestly class – the tribe of Levi – had no land, could not inherit
anything, because YAHWEH WAS HIMSELF THEIR PORTION. They were
“clerics”, i.e., they had to live totally for Yahweh (cf. Nu. 18:20-24).
2. In the NT, another idea comes in – the people entrusted to the leaders of the
Church are their “portion”. To be a “cleric”, as the word came about, was to have
charge of the people. Cf. 1 Pet 5:3 – “Don’t dominate those put in your charge.
The people are the NT leaders’ portion; being a cleric is a call to service of them.

C. The word “laity” (LAIKOS) is not found in the Bible at all.

1. It has its roots in the word LAOS, however:
a. in Profane Greek, LAOS means the MASS AS DINTINGUISHED FROM
THE LEADERS (cf. Is. 24:1; Jer. 26:11).
b. But we know that LAOS in the Bible also stood for the Hebrew ‘AM, and
was used instead of the Greek ETHNE (GOYIM) to mean THE CHOSEN
PEOPLE OF GOD.
c. All Christians, says 1 Pet 2:9 form a Royal Priesthood, a Holy Nation, a
People Set Apart.
d. And so the term “laity” has its roots in the term for the SPECIAL,
CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD.
2. Yves Congar, in his book LAY PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH, points out that the
absence of the term “laity” in the Bible, and especially in the NT, does not
necessarily mean that the distinction did not exist in the early Church. There are
indications that the distinction did in fact exist, if not in name. For example, cf. 1
Pet. 5:1-4 – the shepherd/flock distinction.

D. The word “Laity” first appears in the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians (1
Clem. 40:5). The context in which Clement speaks is the OT, and the different ranks
there: “… special functions are assigned to the high priest; a special office is imposed
upon the priests; and special ministrations fall to the levites. The layman is bound by the
rules laid down for the LAITY.

E. By the 3rd century, Congar says, the term “laity” is common, but by this time also not
only two states were distinguished in the Church, but there: clergy, laity, and monks.
1. There are still two states in the Church, as we said at the beginning of this section,
but, as Congar says, we must distinguish between the ESSENTIAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHURCH (two-fold) and its PERMANENT PATTERN (three-fold).
2. Members of this third state (monks/religious) can be EITHER LAY OR
CLERICAL.
a. they represent total dedication to the Lord.
b. Religious life is defined as a state of life, not as a function or service.
3. The interplay of these three states contributes much to the consequent devaluation
of the laity.
 23

F. Over the years, there occurs a gradual linking of the CLERICAL STATE to the
MONASTIC STATE. It seemed “fitting that clerics, dedicated to the service of the altar
and the sacred ministry, should have the spirit and virtues of monks” (Congar, LAY
PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH, p. 5).
1. JEROME expressed something of this in a famous text:
The cleric who serves the Church of Christ should in the first place construe and
ponder his name and, when he has explained it, try to be what the title means.
The Greek word KLEROS signifies “portion”, a part drawn by lot; and he bears
the name of cleric either because he is the Lord’s portion, or because he has the
Lord for his portion. The man who professes the one or the other should show by
his behavior that he possesses the Lord or that he is possessed by the Lord. But
he who possesses the Lord, and says with the Prophet “the Lord is the portion of
my inheritance” … can have nothing outside the Lord…” (quoted in Congar, p.
5).
2. Poverty, community and celibacy became soon the ideal life for the cleric, and
this new “monasticization” of the clergy brought in a NEW distinction:
a. Clerics and Monks were considered MEN OF RELIGION, MEN OF
GOD.
b. Laity were considered MEN OF THE WORLD.

G. Eventually, only clerics and monks became educated, and they took over more and
more of the reins of the Church. “Lay” even today means uneducated, or one who is not
an expert in a field – e.g., “I am a layman when it comes to science.” The growth of the
vernacular languages and the persistence of the Latin Liturgy (we are talking about the
West here) separated the scriptures and the liturgy from the uneducated, and the clergy
assumed it. By the 12th century, the canon lawyer Gratian could write the following:

There are two kind of Christians, one kind, linked to the divine office and given to
contemplation and prayer… are the clerics… KLEROS is Greek, and means “lot”, and
thus men of this sort are called clerics – that is, chosen by lot. For God has chosen them
all for his own. They are kings, that is, ruling others in virtue, and so they have their
kingdom in God… There is another sort of Christian who are called lay folk. LAOS
means “people”. These are allowed to possess temporal goods, but only what they need
for use. For nothing is more wretched than to set God at naught for the sake of money.
They are allowed to marry, to till the earth, to pronounce judgment on man’s disputes and
plead in court, to lay their offerings on the altar, to pay tithes: and so they can be saved, if
they do good and avoid evil. (quoted in Congar, p. 7).

H. Until our day, with the emergence of a new theology of the laity, the layman has been
defined either according to:
1. His state of life (we can call this the “monastic definition”).
2. Or by his function within the Church (we call this the “canonical definition).

I. The “Monastic Definition”:

1. According to this definition, the lay person is defined by his state of life, or, in
other words, the manner in which he works for his salvation.
 24

2. Clerics and monks are men and women who:

a. live for God.
b. Apart from earthly things.
c. And essentially dedicated to holy things.
d. AND THIS IS SEEN AS THE IDEAL CHRISTIAN LIFE; THE TRUE
FOLLOWING OF CHRIST.
3. Laity, on the other hand, stayed in the world.
a. By a CONFESSION TO HUMAN WEAKNESS they are ALLOWED (cf.
the quote above the Gratian) to stay in the world, marry, own property,
etc.
b. The IDEAL was to become a monk, but some are too weak. They can
also achieve salvation because the Church allows them to live a less ideal
life and still come to salvation. Congar quotes a medieval papal
document: “From her beginning the Church has offered two kinds of life
to her children: one to help the insufficiency of the weak, another to
perfect the goodness of the strong…” (p.9 – cf. also the quote of Gerhoh
of Reichersberg on p. 9).
c. Being in the world, the laity has no sphere in the sacred; they are to care
only for worldly (i.e. less good) things. Congar quotes Stephen of
Tournai: “In one city and under one king there are two people whose
difference corresponds to two sorts of life; and to them corresponds two
sovereignties, a double order of jurisdiction. The city is the Church; her
king is Christ; the two peoples are the two orders of clergy and laity; the
two sorts of life are the spiritual and the fleshly; the two sovereignties are
the priesthood and the kingship; the two jurisdictions are the divine and
the human” (cf. p. 10).

J. The “Canonical Definition”:

1. The canonical approach to defining the laity defines them according to their
function (what they can and cannot do) in the Church.
2. The basis of this might be described by St. Bonaventure when he says that there
are three states of faith:
a. SIMPLE FAITH – conferred by Baptism.
b. FORCEFUL FAITH – conferred by Confirmation.
c. FRUITFUL FAITH – conferred by Holy Order.
3. According to this scheme, the layman HAS faith, but he is not responsible for
sharing or spreading it. The emphasis here is on competence or “powers”. The
layman is defined in this approach as one who has no part in the power of
jurisdiction, and especially of Holy Order. Cf. Congar, p. 14; cf. CIC 682; 948.

K. These two ideas of the layperson were the ones prominent until the beginning of our
century. There were times when the laity tried to emerge, but there were always some
reasons why they did not.
1. In the Middle Ages, the great lay movements turned heretical: the Waldensians
and Fratricelli.
2. Franciscanism was originally a lay movement but it soon became clericalized.
 25

3. George Tavard points out that Protestantism was originally a lay movement, but
in going to excess it caused a reaction from the Church and just reinforced
mistrust of lay movements in the Church (THE CHURCH, THE LAYMAN AND
THE MODERN WORLD, pp. 1-4).
4. Trusteeism in US Church history was another lay movement, but it too got a bit
out of hand, causing a strong clericalization of the Church in the US.

L. We can hardly speak of a theology of the laity until practically the 20th century.
1. In a German theological dictionary, the KIRCHENLEXIKON, 1891, when one
looked up”laity”, it said “see cleric”.
2. In the French DICTIONARIE DE THEOLOGIE, produced in the 1920s there was
no entry under “lay” or “laity”/
3. In the original CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1907 there is also no entry for
“laity”.
4. Canon Law defines the layman negatively – a Christian who is neither ordained
nor a religious (cf. NCE, Vol. 8, p. 327).

N. Because of the lay movement beginning in the 20th century, and because of a deeper
understanding of human existence and the nature of the Church, Vatican II’s definition is
more positive.
1. Cf. LG #31:
The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy
orders and those in a religious state mentioned by the Church. These faithful are
by baptism made one body with Christ and are established among the People of
God. They are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetic and
kingly functions of Christ. They carry out their own part in the mission of the
whole Christian people with respect to the Church and the world.
2. In the original Latin, this definition is only one sentence, pointing to the fact that
we are dealing with a positive definition of those who are neither clerics nor
religious.

O. And so – within the context of the theology of Vatican II – this is what a layman is: A
BAPTIZED CHRISTIAN WHO SHARES IN THE MISSION OF CHRIST. NOT BY
VIRTUE OF ANY OFFICE HE HOLDS IN THE CHURCH, BUT BY VIRTUE OF HIS
BEING A CHRISTIAN.

II. The Lay Apostolate:

Introduction: cf. AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, Church pp. 25-26, #20-

21. These two questions give a good overview and orientation to the Lay Apostolate.

A. History of the Lay Apostolate:

1. In the early 20th century, Pius X began speaking with approval about “Catholic
Action”, a lay movement that grew up in Italy and Europe around the turn of the
century in defense of the Church in secular states.
 26

2. Pius XI gave Catholic Action definite approval and called for it to be applied
worldwide. He is called the “Pope of Catholic Action”, and defined it as “the
participation of the laity in the apostolate of the Church’s hierarchy”.
3. Pius XI said that Catholic Action could be used in a broader sense, but in his
many writing about it, he tended to restrict it to
a. lay action,
b. which was organized,
c. apostolic work (i.e., for spiritual welfare)
d. done under the mandate of the bishop – whence “mandated organizations”
(cf. NCE, Vol. 3, p. 262).
4. For Pius XI, Catholic Action was the Lay Apostolate. The lay apostle was
someone who worked under the direction of the hierarchy.
5. In 1957, in an address to the Second World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, Pius
XII referred to Catholic Action as a “particular form of the Lay Apostolate”. It
must not “claim a monopoly of the lay apostolate, for along with it there remains
the free lay apostolate” (Quoted in D. Thorman, THE EMERGING LAYMAN, p.
20). Pius XII spoke of the Lay Apostolate in the “strict sense” (Catholic Action)
and the broad sense (“free” lay apostolate).
6. Vatican II’s notion of the Lay Apostolate went beyond the idea of equating it with
Catholic Action, and did not keep the distinction of Pius XII.
a. It has a much broader idea of the layman’s apostolate, not deriving it from
the mandate of the hierarchy, but from the Christian’s participation, in his
own way, in the Mission of the Whole Church.
b. The basis of the Lay Apostolate is given in LG #33:
The lay apostolate … is a participation in the saving mission of the Church
itself. Through their baptism and confirmation, all are commissioned to
that apostolate by the Lord Himself … Thus every layman, by virtue of
the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a
living instrument of the mission of the Church herself, “according to the
measure of Christ’s bestowal” (Eph. 4:7).
7. As a result of this new direction is understanding the lay apostolate, Catholic
Action – once so prominent – has taken a back seat. It is one aspect of something
broader.
a. In #26 of AA, some kind of central office was called for in order to:
1) communicate information about the various lay apostolic
programs.
2) Promote research into modern problems arising in the field.
3) Assist with advice both laity and hierarchy.
b. This office was set up in 1967, and was called the CONSILIUM DE
LAICIS.
1) It existed as experimentum for five years.
2) In 1972 it was renewed for five more years.
3) On December 10, 1976, Paul VI decreed that the Consilium de
Laicis would be restructured, and that now it would be called the
Pontifical Council for the Laity. All lay apostolates are under
this council. (cf. “The Council of the Laity” by Bishop Jose
 27

Sanchez in BEF, August-September, 1977, Vol LI, Nos. 573-

574, pp. 506-515).
c. Here in the Philippines, the Council of the Laity has replaced the
“Catholic Action in the Philippines”.

B, The Main Types of the Lay Apostolate:

1. We must keep in mind that the Lay Apostolate is a participation in the mission of
the Church, not just in the mission of the hierarchy. As Congar points out
emphatically:
“… the true title to the apostolate consists in one’s belonging to a body of
which Christ is the head and internal principle of life through his spirit,
and as such participating in the mission of Christ. The fundamental title of
apostolate is not therefore a mandate given by the hierarchy (VATICAN
II, AN INTERFAITH APPRAISAL, p. 242).
2. Aware of this, and following LG #33.3, we can speak of three main types of the
Lay Apostolate.
a. First and foremost, THE LAITY IS CALLED TO LIVE OUT THEIR
CHRISTIAN LIFE IN A CHRISTIAN WAY (cf. LG #31-32).
1) This used not to be considered an “apostolate” in the proper
sense, but as we begin to see more and more the need for a
“consecration of the world”, this idea rises into prominence.
2) In an article in the mid-fifties, Karl Rahner was already speaking
of the lay apostolate as “the apostolate of a man in the place that
he has received in the world.” The layman, Rahner said, “realize
his proper apostolate when he leads an exemplary life” (TD,
1957, p. 76: “The Apostolate of the Layman”).
3) Explaining this further, Rahner says: Science, arts, medicine,
politics, work, marriage present so many open questions in the
concrete order, questions of salvation or of sin. Only the
Christian can offer an answer to these questions in terms of
God’s grace. If he responds by bringing patience, interior
freedom and endurance to the accomplishments of his human
tasks, then he exercises his apostolate of the laity (p. 77).
4) LG 30 echoes this type of thinking: But the laity, by their very
vocation, seeks the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal
affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They
live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular
profession and occupations. They live in ordinary circumstances
of family and social life, from which the very web of their
existence is woven.
They are called there by God so that by exercising their
proper function and being led by the spirit of the gospel they can
work for the sanctification of the world from within, in the
manner of leaven.
5) Recently, in 1975, Evangelii Nuntiandi has spoken this way as
well:
 28

a) In Chapter VI, “The Workers for Evangelization”, EN first

treats of Evangelization as THE WORK OF THE WHOLE
CHURCH (#59-66).
b) Then it gets to the workers in particular:
(1) the Pope’s role (#67)
(2) the Bishop’s and Priests’ role (#68)
(3) the role of the Religious (#69)
(4) the role of the Laity (#70-73).
c) The Laity exercises a special form of evangelization:
Their primary and immediate task is not to establish
and develop the ecclesial community – this is the specific
role of the pastors – but to use every Christian and
evangelical possibility latent but already present and active
in the affairs of the world (#70).
d) Then the concrete areas of lay action are spelled out:
politics, economics, culture, sciences, international life,
mass media, human love (“couple power”), the family,
education of children and adolescents, professional work
(doctors, lawyers, etc.) suffering.
e) #70 concludes:
The more Gospel-inspired lay people there are engaged
in these realities, clearly involved in them, competent to
promote them and conscious that they must exercise to the
full their Christian powers which are often buried and
suffocated, the more these realities will be at the service of
the Kingdom of God and therefore of salvation in Jesus
Christ, without in any way losing or sacrificing their human
content but rather pointing to a transcendent dimension
which is often disregarded.
6) To live out one’s Christian life more intensely, there have sprung
up lay organizations like CFM, YCS, YCW, Focolare
Movement, Cursillo, Marriage Encounter.
a) such organizations are run by the laity and priests together,
b) I can speak of Marriage Encounter, of which I have had
some experience… In this (and I think the other
organizations), the members (in this case, the couples) are
called to do things to express their Christianity, and some
will get involved in other lay organizations. For example,
an encountered couple might get actively involved in parish
organizations, or they might get involved in some of NE’s
satellite programs (Evenings for Couples; We, the Parish;
Choice, etc.). Or they might be asked to be a Team Couple
and work directly in bettering the marriages of their fellow
Christians.
c) What happens with an ME couple is that they also become
more loving to their children by being more open to one
 29

another; many even change their job to be more available to

their families or to the Encounter Community.
Involvement in such an organization opens up a whole
different way of living, the discovery of being Church.
b. Secondly, THE LAITY CAN ALSO BE CALLED TO A
COOPERATION IN THE APOSTOLATE OF THE HIERARCHY (cf.
LG #32).
1) This is close to the classic “Catholic Action” and involves groups
like Legion of Mary, sodalities, other “mandated organizations”
(CWL, Children of Mary, etc.).
2) This second area of the apostolate, however, includes other
apostolates: catechists, members of the parish pastoral council,
even members of various non-mandated organizations, like the
Knights of Columbus.
3) Still, it is clear that the laity cooperates with the hierarchy as
their right and duty, not from the mission of the pastors but from
their baptism.
c. Thirdly, THE LAITY CAN BE CALLED BY THE HIERARCHY TO
EXERCISE CERTAIN MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS.
1) This is the whole area of “lay ministries”
2) There is real variety here:
a) for a long time there have been lectors and commentators in
various parishes.
b) In Pangasinan, there are officially appointed lectors and
acolytes (though not, I don’t think OFFICIALLY
instituted).
c) In Abra, there are the “pastoral leaders” who conduct the
priestless Sunday services.
d) In Mindanao, (at least Tagum, where I have some
experience) there are a whole variety of lay liturgical
ministers: Kaabag, prayer leader, lector, song leader, chapel
president.
e) There are extraordinary ministers of communion, baptism,
and even in some places, lay witnesses to marriage.
f) Some places have officially instituted lectors and acolytes.
g) This lay ministry tends to be more koinoniac and
kerygmatic, but it can also include some diaconia functions,
like administration, organization, etc.
3. In Summary, we can say that the Lay Apostolate is primarily “not Catholic Action
but action of Catholics” (Rahner, ibid., p. 76). It is being a Christian in one’s
state of life. Secondarily, the Lay Apostolate is more closely involved with
building up the Church community through formal apostolic works, and through
participation as liturgical ministers (cf. Issues of NCR on Volunteers and Laity;
cf. ME tape –“Marriage as Sign”).
 30

CHAPTER II: OFFICE IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

In this section, when we speak of office we mean ordained, sacramental office. Office in
this sense is one thing, but it has a three-fold structure – episcopate, presbyterate and
diaconate. We speak of Sacramentum Ordinis (Sacrament of Order) which has three
grades. Not sacrament of diaconate, priesthood, episcopate.

In our first sections, we will speak of office in general. We will speak about:
 The Nature of Office in the Church
 The Theology of office in the Church
 The Development of Office
 The Meaning of Ordination to Office

In our next four sections we will speak about the three-fold structure of office in the
Church.
 About the episcopate in the Church (sacramentality and collegiality)
 About the Presbyterate
 About the Diaconate
 About the Papacy (primacy and infallibility)

I. THE NATURE OF OFFICE IN THE CHURCH

A. Basic premise: All Christians are fundamentally equal participants in the Church’s
Mission. LG #32: all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to the
activity common to all the faithful for the building up of the body of Christ.

B. In the document made by US bishops on Church Office entitled “As one who
Serves” (p.19) “…all those made one by baptism into Christ thereby share in his
ministry. Ministry then is the vocation, privilege and responsibility of all
members of the Church.”

The equality of all members takes precedence over all later distinctions and
persists in them. In this case the whole people of God as a whole enjoy a basic
collegiality, a common servanthood.

C. In this fundamental unity of mission and ministry, there exist different kinds of
ministries, gifts and charisms. The People of the Church, responding to these,
minister to eachother and to the world. (1 Cor 12:4-7)

D. While the Church is a charismatic community, and so a manifestation of the

Divine, we must always remember that the Church is also a fully human reality.
The gifts of the Spirit are incarnated in human talents, capabilities, frailties,
limitations, imperfections. The Church is a charismatic, divinely gifted
community but it is a fully human society as well, obeying human societal laws.
 31

E. From this it follows that someone has to be a leader of the charismatic

community. Someone has to order this community, to inspire the emergence
and development of the charisms, to relate them to one another, to test them for
authenticity. Such leadership is also a charism, and those who possess these
charisms are called by the Church to the leadership, guidance and administration
of the Church – such persons are called, in other words, to serve the Church by
being endowed with office.

1. Thomas Aquinas: “So that this beauty of the Church might not be lacking,
God placed order in it.” (ST III< Supplementum, questione 34, a.1)
2. “…individual charisms must serve the whole. They are integrated,
delimited, corrected by the special charism of office.” Church office
promotes unity among the charisms, not by combining them in one person,
but by helping those who have them to function harmoniously together.
Ordination is commissioning of a person for this ministry, and the grace it
brings is not primarily for personal sanctification, but for the work of
sanctifying the world and society.” (K. Lehmann, “Root of priestly
office”, Theology Digest 1970, pp.234-235.)

F. This Office is Charismatic, Public and Permanent

1. It is Charismatic because it is a gift of the Spirit. Not anyone can hold
office in the Church. It is a vocation.
2. It is Public because the office bearer acts in the name of the Church and in
the name of Christ. It is such a delicate and important area after the
Church has discerned the genuineness of the charism and endorsed it. For
its realization, this charism needs ordination (commissioning and
consecration). “Holy Mother Church asks you to ordain this man our
brother…”
3. It is Permanent because because through ordination, the office bearer takes
on the function of imaging Christ as the Head of the Church. Thus office
is a sacrament. Once the Church has discerned that the Spirit has gifted
one with the charism of office and has ordained that person to office, it
can never change its mind or withdraw its approval. At ordination the
office holder is claimed by Christ, and formed into His image as Head.
This is what we mean by “character”. (Baptism and Confirmation also
confer character because they form a man into the image of Christ for the
world; matrimony offers a “quasi character” because the love between
husband and wife (until death) is the image of Christ’s love for the world.
G. The Office Bearer in the Church, then, as a result of his ordination, symbolizes in
his person the person of Christ in his role as Head of the Church. What the church
is for the world (the presence/Body/Sacrament of Christ) the office bearer is for
the Church. He is “an other Christ” for “other Christs”.
1. It is not primarily the office bearer’s functions (“Power”) that reveal the
nature of office (the deacon can preach, the priest can say Mass, the
 32

bishop can confirm). Such functions can change and some can become
separate ministries performed by others.
2. Lehmann points out: “Vatican II describes the priest not by the powers he
possesses but by the mission he received from Christ.” (p.233)
3. The office bearer is a living symbol of Christ giving his life for the
Church, and at the same time, he is a challenge for the faithful to give their
lives to one another and for the world.
4. Thus he is publicly commissioned to preach and teach authoritatively, and
so order (guard and deepen the common faith), to order worship (and to
preside), to order the community (to administer, make decisions, counsel,
etc.)
H. In summary, let us quote the 1971 Synod of Bishops’ document on “Ministerial
Priesthood” #7

Therefore, ardently desiring to strengthen the witness of faith, we fraternally urge all the faithful
to strive to contemplate the Lord Jesus living in His Church and to realize that He wishes to
work in a special way through His ministers; they will thus be convinced that the Christian
community cannot fulfill its complete mission without the ministerial priesthood.

II. Theology of Office in the Church: Office of ministry

A. It is significant to note what name the NT Church gave to its office-bearers.
1. ARCHE (), for instance, means primacy, precedence, rule.
a. The Septuagint uses the word in a secular context (eg. For
Egyptian court officials.)
b. LXX also uses it in religious contexts (e.g., high priests and
levites)
c. It appears in the NT for Jewish and Gentile authorities.
d. It is even used for Christ Himself, in Col 1:18 – “he is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead”
e. But the term is never used for an office bearer in the Church.
2. Another word for a ruler or an authority is ARCHON (-ruler,
prince).
a. Used for demonic powers
b. Used for Roman and Jewish officials
c. Used of Christ in Rev 1:5 – “ruler of the kings of the earth”
d. But it too is never used to designate an office bearer in the
Church.
3. TIMEN () means value, price, esteem, honor, and is used to describe
the dignity of office. But it is used in the NT only once (Heb. 5:4), where
it describes the honor of a high priestly office. “And one does not take the
honor upon himself, but he is called by God just as Aaron was.”
4. TELOS (is a word that means end, conclusion, goal, reminder, and
is used in secular Greek to describe the total power of office. But it does
not occur in the NT at all.
5. LEITURGON () designated a cultic leader, and it is used
once, in Rom. 15:16 in a metaphorical sense, comparing the preaching of
the Gospel to priestly service.
 33

B. Why, asks Hans Kung, does the NT avoid using these terms? “Clearly because
despite the variety of areas they cover, they have one common factor: all express
a relationship of rulers and ruled. And it is precisely this which makes them
usable.” (The Church, p. 389).
C. The word chosen to express office in the Church was never before used in the
Bible to express office; was never to describe office at all.
1. It was a word that carried no meanings of authority, officialdom, rule,
dignity or power.
2. And a word that caught very much what Jesus meant by authority. “and
now Jesus practiced authority as Son of God”
3. The word that designates office in the Church in the NT is the word
DIAKONIA, meaning Ministry or Service.
D. What did this DIAKONIA mean in the context of those times?
1. Waiting at table, serving food, pouring wine.
2. In secular Greek, it never lost its sense of abasement, of inferiority; for a
free Greek, to become Servant was an unthinkable humiliation.
3. For a Jew, it was deemed respectable to serve those higher than yourself,
especially a great master, or even God; in later Judaism however, service,
especially service at table, was never rendered to the authority.
4. For Jesus, however, there was a reversal. Every disciple had to be the
“servant of all”. The greatest was to be the least. Cf. Lk 22:26-27 – “the
greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one
who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who
serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who
serves.”
5. We find this saying in various contexts, at least 5 times in the synoptic
gospels. This shows how central it is in Jesus’ teaching, and how
important it was in the early Church. Cf. Mk 9:33-35; Mk 10:35-45; Mt
23:2-12; Mt 20:20-28)
6. In John’s Gospel in place of the Institution of the Eucharist at the Last
Supper, John has Jesus serving the disciples (washing their feet) Cf. 13:1-
17
E. Office in the Church then is to be seen not as dignity but service. It is being
chosen not for honor, but for service. Vatican II recognized this in the
introductory section of Chapter III of LG:
For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in
his Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those
ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren, so that all who are of
the People of God, and therefore enjoy a true Christian dignity, working toward a common
goal freely and in an orderly way, may arrive at salvation.
F. This fact – that office in the church is essentially not a dignity and domination but
service – must be remembered when we reflect on the office of bishops, priests
and deacons in the Church. They have the charism of office and leadership but
they exercise it as servants. (“Servant Leader” used in PCP 2 and NLPF)
G. At the ordination of a Priest, the bishop concludes his instruction with the
following words – they could stand for office in general: “Always remember the
 34

example of the Good Shepherd who came to serve rather than be served, to seek
out and save what had gone astray.”
H. We could develop this idea of office as ministry by developing some images of
the office bearer: Shepherd, Father …Spouse of the Church (?!)
1. In this image we have recourse to the total indissoluble bond between
husband and wife as a sign of the total indissoluble bond between Christ
and the Church.
2. We also recall that the office bearer images, “sacraments” (used as verb
here) Christ as head of the Church.
3. Christ is called in the NT (Synoptics, Ephesians, Revelation) several times
as the Spouse/Bridegroom of the Church. This draws on the long tradition
in the OT where Israel is called the Spouse of Yahweh. (Hosea, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Song of Songs)
4. The office holder as representative of Christ the Head can also be said to
represent Christ as Spouse of the Church. He can be said to have the
Church as his Spouse. (Allegorical meaning of the Bishop’s Ring)
5. What is really illuminating is to read Eph. 5:21-33 where Christ is
described as Spouse of the Church, and then to substitute “office
holder/priest-Church” for “husband-wife”
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of
which he is the Savior.
24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their
husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word,
27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the
kind-- yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.
28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves
his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ
does for the church,
30 because we are members of his body.
31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
will become one flesh."
32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.
33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

III. The Development of Office in the Church

INTRODUCTION

1. The usual understanding of the origin of the threefold office in the Church is that
Jesus instituted it in a very explicit sense while he was on earth. (If not in SS it
was in the tradition handed on orally by the Apostles)
 The Diaconate was instituted at the washing of the feet during the last
Supper.
 The mandate “Do this in memory of me” was the institution of the
Priesthood. (Trent says this DS 1740); TCC 512
 35

 The descent of the Holy Spirit made the Apostles Bishops.

2. LG 18-20 are also written more or less with this common understanding. Read.
3. But such an understanding does not always correspond to historical evidence. As
one Protestant scholar asked Raymond Brown, “Where were the exegetes when
LG 18 was written?” Brown himself says that many statements in Vatican II
documents are “biblically naïve” (Priest and Bishop, p. 15 #8), and Karl Rahner,
in his commentary on LG 18-20, is subtle but critical. Not to mention others.
4. Raymond Brown speaks of a divine origin of Office in the Church, but only in a
qualified sense. He says that to speak of the historical Jesus as instituting office as
we now know it (in its three-fold structure) is only true “to the same real but
nuanced extent as the statement that the historical Jesus instituted the Church”
(p.19). (Cf. also Schillebeeckx, “Catholic understanding…”, TS 1969 p. 568-569)
5. If we read the NT carefully, we find a diversity of forms of office, and so the
question of one particular kind or style was still open for development. If things
had developed differently in the first years of the Church, we may have had a
different structural set-up in the Church.
 This does not mean that we may now abandon the present form of government
completely; but it does not give us room to none within it – more collegiality;
less priests/ more bishops; abolishment of diaconate? (Rahner) Cf.
Schillebeeckx, “Catholic understanding…”, pp. 569-570, says we can even
change as long as “Apostolic ordering” remains the same.
6. Fullenbach says: The Church order that we find in the NT is not a uniform one.
The NT writings present different Christian communities with quite different
settings and backgrounds. Each community seemingly had to find its way, its
organization in spite of the preachers’ common background and common
message. Church order in the NT is marked by development which did not come
to an end with the apostolic times. This means that the ministerial structure of the
early Church cannot be established decisively on the basis of scripture alone.
7. The development of the present form of office in the Church is quite a
complicated one. One reason is the nature of our sources. They must reflect the
reality of the times.
8. Recommended Readings:
 R. Brown. Priest and Bishop
 Idem., “Unity and Diversity in NT Ecclesiology” in New Testament Essays.
 M. Bourke, “Reflections on Church order in the NT” in CBQ 1968, 493-511
(A reflection on Kung)
 Terwilliger and Holmes, ed., To be a Priest.
 American Catholic Catechist, “Ordination”
 Schmaus, Ch. 14
 J. Morgat, “Priestly Character and ministry”, TD 1969, pp. 227-232
9. Three Thesis on the Development of Office:
a. Jesus did not found the 3-fold hierarchical structure of office during his earthly
life.
b. But he did lay the foundation for such structure – the Twelve, the disciples, the
commission of Peter, the institution of the Eucharist.
 36

c. The development of the 3-fold structure of office in the Church is the work of the
Church in dialogue with the Risen Christ and his Spirit, as a response to the needs
of the times.

A. Jesus did not found the 3-fold hierarchical structure of office during his earthly
life.
i. Jesus was totally involved in preaching the Kingdom; he was not thinking
of a Church at least at the start, with organization and office.
ii. The Twelve were originally appointed
1. As a help in preaching the imminence of the Kingdom
2. To represent the full re-establishment of Israel.
B. But he did lay the foundation for such structure – the Twelve, the disciples, the
commission of Peter, the institution of the Eucharist.
i. First of all, he set the tone for whatever office there would be in the
Church by his own example of authority.
1. his mercy to sinners, his association not just with one class, but
with all
2. his preaching and example of service (seen in the washing of the
feet)
ii. And as he became more and more rejected, the Twelve whom he had
chosen became the nucleus of the New People he was to form. Cf. the
context of the choice of the Twelve in the Gospel; done in a time of crisis;
universal perspective in Mark and Luke.
C. The development of the 3-fold structure of office in the Church is the work of the
Church in dialogue with the Risen Christ and his Spirit, as a response to the needs
of the times. (Cf. M. Schmaus, Dogma 4: The Church, pp. 150; pp. 134-135.)
1. The Twelve in the Early Church
a. After the Resurrection the Twelve constitute the nucleus of the
primitive church, under the guidance of Peter.
b. They were the official preachers and witnesses to the Resurrection
(Acts 4:34-36; 6:2; 9:26-27; 15:6)
c. It would be natural that the Twelve would lead the early church
because they were the guarantors of the continuity between the Risen
Christ and the historical Jesus who appointed them. They were the
eyewitnesses; they had been with Jesus “from the beginning”. (cf. Acts
1:21)
2. The Apostles:
a. The term “Apostles” has a wider reference than just the Twelve.
b. Paul claims that he is an apostle; others (Barnabas and Silas) were also
called apostles.
c. Apostles in this wider sense (the so-called “Pauline sense”) seem to be
in charge of several churches
i. They can demand obedience in the name of the Lord (e.g. 1
Cor 14:37, which comes at the end of a list of commands)
ii. They judge situations (e.g. 1 Cor 5:1-5)
iii. They preside and preach at meetings (Acts 20:7-10)
 37

iv. They are, in general, the foundation of the Church (Eph.2:20)

because of their special commission to witness to the
resurrection.
3. The Church order in the Judaeo-Christian Communities:
a. Besides the Twelve and/or apostles, there are others who seem to have
some authoritative roles.
b. The Twelve/Apostles, however, are the leaders of unquestionable
authority.
c. But we find also prophets (cf. Acts 21:4-14; 11:27)
d. And there is also a council of elders. (presbyteroi meaning presbyters).
These seem to help the Apostles in governing the Church. Cf. Acts
11:30; 15)
e. James, not one of the two by that name in the Twelve, but the “brother
of the Lord”, seems to have been the head of the council of elders (cf.
Acts 12:17; 15:13-23; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7 – James is commonly called
the bishop of Jerusalem, but he is never called “bishop” – episkopos)
i. The college seemed to have more and more influence as the
Twelve drop out of sight (die or go to other places)
ii. Their job, however, was to safeguard the apostolic tradition.
f. In the Judaeo-Christian communities, there is also the office of the
Seven, which seems to be the beginning of a form leading eventually
to the diaconate. It is rather a mysterious office in the Acts.
4. The Church Order in the Pauline Communities:
a. Paul seems to be the main figure in several communities, and is the
authority even when he is absent (e.g. 1 Cor)
b. In Corinth there seems to be an office-less community, totally based
on charisms. This is rather difficult to prove either way, though it is
the strong contention of Kung and Kasemann.
i. The argument is that Paul does not address any office bearers,
but addresses the whole community.
ii. In Philippi, written approximately at the same time, Paul
addresses the whole community and the bishops and deacons
(Phil. 1:1) and Acts 14:23 says that Paul and Barnabas
appointed presbyters in all the communities they founded. This
is the argument against Corinth being without office holders.
c. In any case, Paul seems to have appointed presbyters, bishops and
deacons in other Churches (Phil 1:1; 1 Thes 5:12). Presbyters and
Bishops are often identical – the terms are used synonymously of one
another (cf. Acts 20:17,28).
d. Although we have clear reference in Acts 14:23 to Paul and Barnabas
appointing presbyters (and so probably bishops) in each community,
we have nowhere a reference to Paul appointing a successor to
himself. This is possibly because Paul thought at first that the parousia
would come before he died.
e. Even though the imminence of the Parousia seems to have faded in
Paul’s mind, we still have no reference to Paul appointing a successor
 38

to his office as apostle. Possibly (says M. Bourke) the pastorals

represent the kind of order that Paul was in favor of, towards the end
of his life, a kind of head presbyter of the college of presbyters.
5. Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles:
a. These are later non-Pauline composition, and they reflect a church
order on the way to developing a three-fold structure of office. They
reflect the order of a church that seems to know it will stay around for
a while.
b. In contrast to Corinthians, Bishop, presbyters and deacons are
mentioned, but no other offices or charisms.
c. Still, however, the terms “bishop” and “presbyters” are used
synonymously (cf. Tit. 1:5ff). And they seem to lead as a college
(though Timothy and Titus are seen as appointers of the college).
d. These presbyter-bishops (as they are called by theologians) were
elected and established by means of ritual of laying on of hands (1
Tim.4:14; 2 Tim.1:6).
i. They manage the church (Episkope).
ii. They are exhorted to preach sound doctrine (a recurrent phrase
in the Pastorals).
iii. They were called to refute adversaries. (I Tim 1:7-9)
.
6. Church Order in the Post-Apostolic Era
a. The Didache:
i. Didache comes from probably Syria, written at least before
100.
ii. We find two charismatic offices mentioned, and these are
accorded the most importance.
1) The apostles – not the Twelve - who function as
itinerant missionaries (11:3-6).
2) The prophets – charismatic preachers (11:7-12).
iii. Besides these there are “teachers” who had to be carefully
examined by the church before they taught (15:1).
iv. These are also bishops and deacons (presbyters are not
explicitly mentioned, showing an identification still between
bishops and presbyters -15:1-2).
1) These bishops and deacons do not pray “ex tempore” as
the apostles and prophets do.
2) Rather, they say the prescribed liturgical prayers.
3) They seem not to be as important as the apostles and
prophets, but commentators point out that the author is
making a kind of appeal for more charismatic authority
in the church rather than the bishops and deacons, who
seem to be becoming more and more important.
4) The bishops and deacons are elected by the church.

b. The First Letter of Clement:

 39

i. This was written quite early about 96.

ii. Office bearer are called bishops and deacons, but they can be
called also by one name: presbyters. One time Clement calls
the office bearers “presbyters” (44:5), another time he calls
them “bishops and deacons” (e.g.42:4,5).
iii. As we pointed out before, there is a clear distinction between
office holders and laity (cf. 40:1).
iv. In general, we can see that, in Rome about the turn of the
century, there is an order thriving, which is definitely
“hierarchical”. Bishops (though still synonymous with
presbyters) are considered the legitimate successors of the
apostles (42) (some difference from the Didache). These
bishops, however, rule as a college (of presbyters), and though
we might logically conclude that there was a head of this
college (e.g. Clement) there was not yet one who alone could
be called bishop (a monarchial episcopate).,

c. The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

i. Ignatius is the monarchial bishop of Antioch in Syria, and was
taken from Syria to Rome for execution about 110. From Syria
and Troas, Ignatius wrote seven letters - 5 to churches in Asia
Minor, one to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and one to the
church of Rome.
ii. The striking thing in these letters is that the Monarchical
Episcopate seems to be the normal structure all over. It seems
to just suddenly appear - how and why exactly when we just
don’t have the documentation.
iii. Writing to the Philadelphians, for example, he writes:
1) “You are my abiding and unshakable joy, especially if
your members remained united with the bishop and
with his presbyters and deacons, all appointed in the
mind of Christ.”
2) “Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one
Eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar
and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who
are his fellow servants.” (Breviary, Vol. IV, pp. 360-
361)
iv. Writing to the Magnesians, Ignatius points out the primacy of
the bishop over the presbyters:
“…it is fitting not to take advantage of the bishop’s youth, but
rather, because he embodies the authority of God the Father, to
show him every mark of respect – and your presbyters, so I
learn, are doing just that …they are wise in God and therefore
defer to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus
 40

Christ, the bishop of all men.” (Mag.3 – Ancient Christian

Writers Series)
v. Although the bishop is unquestionably the head of the Church
(Cf. Eph.3) there is a certain collegiality present. We read, for
instance, in Eph.2:
“It is therefore proper in every way to glorify Jesus Christ, who
has glorified you, so that you, fully trained in unanimous
submission, may be submissive to the bishop and the
presbyter, and thus be sacrificed in every respect.” (Ancient
Christian Writers Series)
vi. With Ignatius, therefore, we have at least in rough form the
present three-fold set-up of office in the Church that we have
today. We have to look now at another development – that of
calling the office bearers (particularly the bishops and
presbyters) “priests”.
7. The Office Bearer as Priest:
a. It is unquestionable that the NT does not call office bearers “priests”,
and their roles were never defined as ritual or cultic service, but
rather as diakonia and episkope (service and overseeing/management).
This does not mean that we cannot see some NT roots for priestly
service as it develops later on – to call a Christian office holder a priest
is not against the NT, but a legitimate development, although
sometimes exaggerated – cf. Brown, Schelke, Ratzinger, Priestly
Ministry: a Search for Its Meaning.
b. In the NT, only Jesus (and only in Hebrews) was called priest. This
itself was a late development.
c. Relatively soon, however, the term priest began to be used for
bishops.
d. Most likely, this was because of the Church’s clearer understanding of
itself as the New Israel, which had replaced the old. The Eucharist was
seen as the new Sacrifice, and the office-bearers were seen as a new
priesthood, chosen to offer the new sacrifice.
e. As the Church grew, members of the bishop’s presbyterium were sent
to the outlying towns to “oversee” the small Churches there in the
name of the bishops called rural bishops: corepiscopi. They began also
to preside over the Eucharist in the bishop’s name, and soon,
inevitably began to claim the name of “priest” for themselves.
f. By the Middle Ages, the terms priest and presbyter were completely
interchangeable and as a result, the sacramentality of the episcopate
was denied, since priesthood became identified with the power of
consecrating. If this was true – and so thought many Scholastics,
Aquinas among them, “there is no real ordination beyond that of the
ordinary priest. The bishop would be distinguished by a higher
jurisdiction, not by a further sacramental reality.” (American Catholic
Catechism, p.139)
 41

g. The Reformers (e.g. Luther and Calvin) tried to introduce the more
NT-based idea that the office bearer was a minister of the word first
and foremost, but they exaggerated and denied that priesthood was a
legitimate title and function for Christian office bearers. Trent defined
priesthood as being tied up with offering of the sacrifice of the Mass.
(DS 1740). In traditional theology, the priest was ordained to “offer
sacrifice.”
h. Things remained more or less like this until Vatican II, when it was
declared that episcopate is a sacrament, and that, by it, is conferred the
“fullness of the priesthood”. (LG 21.2). In the Decree on the Life and
Ministry of Priests, we read that it is the first task of the priests, as
coworkers of the bishops, to preach the Gospel to all men.”
(Presbyterorum Ordinis #4) And in LG #25: “Among the more
important duties of bishops, that of preaching the Gospel, has pride of
place.” Cf. Ratzinger, op. cit. – close connection between ministry of
word and sacrament, and both linked to the pastoral aspect.
 42

CHAPTER III: BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH

Introduction
A. In this section we will use terms like power, supreme jurisdiction, etc. but we
must always remember that we are speaking in the context of OFFICE AS
MINISTRY.
B. Please read Vatican II: Christus Dominus; Lumen Gentium, # 21-27.
C. Our section will have three parts:
1. The Bishop’s participation in the mission of the Church
2. Episcopal Collegiality
3. The Sacramentality of the Episcopate

I. The Bishop’s Participation in the Mission of the Church

A. All Christians share in the mission of the Church, each in his/her own ways.
B. The layperson has his/her own proper way of sharing in the mission of the
Church, by living the Christian life in a Christian way, by cooperating with the
hierarchy in its mission, by acting as lay ministers.
C. We are now speaking of the mission of the Bishops, but when we speak of their
mission, we are also speaking of the mission of the whole clergy (bishops,
presbyters, deacons). The presbyters and deacons only share in the Bishop’s
mission.
D. The first and most basic thing we can affirm about the bishop’s mission is that he
is in the community as a sign of, and in the name of Christ. (We have already
spoken about this in the previous chapter).

1. The whole Church is the body of Christ, and yet Christ is not identified
absolutely with the Church. He is the guide of the Church, the one who directs
it, gives it life: Christ is the Head of the Body which is the Church.
2. The Church in the world represents Christ, but also does not represent him
absolutely. Other persons and institutions can also represent him.
3. In much the same way, Bishops (or the clergy) represents Christ in and to the
Church.
4. The bishop (clergy), in other words, is to the rest of the Church as Christ is to
the whole Church. The bishop is at the same time a member of the Church
(people of God) and at the same time leader of the Church, and so above the
Church as representative of Christ as head of the Church. A bishop, no less
than the Pope, is a true Vicar of Christ. (cf. LG # 27.1).

E. All of this is the basis for the Bishop’s participation in the mission of the Church:

1. LG # 21 says:
In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe.
 43

2. LG # 27 says:
For their part, the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to
Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that everything may harmonize in
unity, and abound to the glory of God.

3. Cf. AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, pp. 140-141, # 7.

F. As a representative of Christ the Head, the bishop shares in an eminent way in

Christ’s three-fold mission of prophet, priest and king (kerygmatic, koinoniac, and
diakoniac aspects).

1. Kerygmatic Aspect:

a. LG # 25 – “Among the principal duties of bishops, the preaching of the gospel

occupies an eminent place.”

1. Bishops are the official; proclaimers of the Gospel. Their ordination is

first of all a commission to preach.
2. Priests and deacons only share this power of the bishop, who has it as
his own right, from Crhist (he is a successor, with the Episcopal
college of the Apostolic college).

b. As a result of this, Bishops are the Church’s official teachers.

c. Teaching in union with the whole college and its head, the bishops share in
the infallibility of the Church. Cf. LG#25.3 – “The infallibility promised to
the Church resides also in the body of Bishops when that body exercises
supreme teaching authority with the successor of Peter.”

2. Koinoniac Aspect:

a. The bishop is the PRIEST of his diocese.

b. An old ordination prayer calls the bishop “the steward of the grace of
priesthood.”
c. Thus the bishop is the PRIMARY president of the Eucharistic assembly.
EVERY PRIEST PRESIDING AT THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY
PRESIDES IN THE BISHOP’S NAME. (General permission is given to all
Priests to preside at the Eucharist in any diocese, but a Bishop, if he wants can
deny that permission; this is the point, ultimately of the celebret card).
d. The bishop is also the “original minister” of confirmation.
e. He is the moderator of Penance (this is the point of “faculties” and reserved
absolutions, e.g., for abortion).
f. He has the last say about admitting men to the college of presbyters.
g. He is the source also of the other sacraments – if he suspends a priest of
deacon, the priest or deacon cannot licitly (validly?) function.
h. The bishop also has a grave duty to pray for his flock and to set them a good
example.
 44

3. Diakoniac Aspect:

a. The Bishop is first of all a co-governor in union with the Pope – of the whole
Church; secondly, he is the leader of the “local Church” entrusted to him, his
diocese.
b. We’ll speak more about the Diakoniac task of the Bishop below when we treat
collegiality. Here, we’ll focus on his leadership of the diocese.
c. As leader of the diocese, he is the head of the Church there as Christ is head of
the Church. He is the ORDERER of charisms of his flock.
d. Although he rules his diocese in union with the Pope, the day to day pastoral
care of the diocese of left to the diocesan Bishop.
1. After Vatican I the idea came that bishops were mere vicars of the
POPE.
2. LG # 27 expressly denies this idea when it calls Bishops vicars of
CHRIST.

e. LG#27 says that in the exercise of his Pastoral Office, the Bishop should act
as a servant. Bishops, it says, should rule by counsel, exhortations and
example, as well as by their authority and sacred power. However – “this
power 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
more distinguished as the servant.” (LG#27.1; Lk 22: 26-27).

II. Episcopal Collegiality:

Introduction: Cf. AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, p. 20, #10.

A. Vatican I, in declaring the Pope’s universal episcopate (DS 3050 – 3075; canon
3058) did not discuss the role of Bishops.
1. This was because the council closed too soon (because of the outbreak of the Franco-
Prussian Was, 1870).
2. As a result of this lack of discussion of the role of the bishops, there arose a sort of
lopsided idea of papacy and episcopacy. Bishops were regarded as mere vicars of the
Pope, having no power of their own.

B. Vatican II tried to right the balance with its statements on episcopal collegiality,
and the two related statements of the sacramentality of the episcopate and
universal hierarchical communion.

C. EPISCOPAL COLLEGIALITY is declared in LG #22:

Just as, by the Lord’s will, St. Peter and the other apostles constituted one
apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter,
and the bishops as the successors of the apostles are joined together.
 45

D. The basic meaning of episcopal collegiality is that ALL THE BISHOPS, IN UNION
WITH THE POPE, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNING OF THE CHURCH.

1. A bishop is made a member of the college by ORDINATION, i.e., the episcopacy

comes directly from God, not from the Pope’s choice.
2. A bishop, as we said before, is primarily responsible, as a member of the episcopal
college, for the whole Church, and only secondarily responsible for the local
Church entrusted to him.
3. Bishops, as members of the college, must not be merely diocesan-centered but
world-centered. They have an obligation to help missionary Churches and poorer
Churches.
4. This is why many of the curia in Rome are Bishops, even though they are without a
diocese. Their care is of the whole Church, and so they are members of the
college of bishops, responsible not to one diocese but to the whole Church.
5. The college, in union with the Pope, is the supreme power in the Church, and this
power is exercised in the most solemn and most clear way in an ecumenical
council.

E. It is important to note that the supreme authority in the Church belongs to the college
ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT IS IN UNION WITH THE POPE.

1. An action is not a truly collegiate act if it is not in union with the head of the
college of the Pope.
2. The Pope’s consent or at least his non-opposition is required for a collegiate act to
be valid and binding.
3. The Pope can act alone, but only in his capacity as HEAD OF THE COLLEGE.

F. Collegiality is exercised:

1. In an ecumenical council:
a. Which is called by the Pope
b. The acts of which are approved or at least not opposed by the Pope.

2. In Bishop’s ordinary pastoral and teaching activity.

3. In their common are and concern for Mission Churches and poorer Churches
(e.g., Misereor, Mission, CRS).
4. In the various Episcopal conferences (CBCP).
5. In the periodic Synod of Bishops (now every three years).
6. Symbolically, in episcopal ordination (there should be at least three, though as
many as possible are recommended).

G. The notion of collegiality is one that has to be developed yet, in both theology and
practice. A lot of understanding will come with practice: it is really a new principle that
must be worked out theoretically and practice.
 46

1. In theory, the Pope has a lot of power, but the principle of collegiality calls for
him to use that power in moderation, applying the principle of subsidiarity and
consultation.
2. Perhaps much will come out of collegiality for a more participative and
decentralized government of the church.
3. Recommended is Vol. 8 of the Concilium series, PASTORAL REFORM IN
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. This volume contains a number of articles exploring
the meaning and possibilities of Collegiality. Cf. also Richard P. McBrien’s THE
REMAKING OF THE CHURCH.

III. The Sacramentality of the Episcopate

A. For the first time in the Magisterium it is expressly stated that to receive the
episcopacy is to receive a sacrament (Cf. LG # 21:
This Sacred Synod teaches that by Episcopal consecration is conferred the
fullness of the sacrament of orders, that fullness which in the Church’s
liturgical practice and in the language of the holy Fathers of the Church is
undoubtedly called the high priesthood, the apex of the sacred ministry…
From tradition…it is clear that by means of the imposition of hands and
the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and
the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible
way undertake Christ’s own role as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest,
and that they act in His person.

B. This is a new statement in several respects:

1. Before, the episcopate was thought of in mainly juridical terms:
a. He was a priest who had received jurisdiction from the Pope to head a
diocese.
b. He did not have “ordinary power” – power to govern his Church – as a
result of ordination, but as a result of his appointment by the Pope.

2. Before, it was thought that consecration (as it was then called) conferred
sanctifying power alone, but now LG # 21 speaks of consecration (which we now
call properly ordination) as conferring the powers of teaching and governing. The
bishop is seen as real vicar of Christ, conformed in an “eminent way” to Christ the
Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest.

C. This sacramentality comes out again with the idea that ORDINATION, not
appointment, makes the bishop a member of the Episcopal college. His authority,
therefore, comes from God.

D. The bishop cannot function, however, without being in communion with the
college of bishops and its head.
 47

1. He receives power to sanctify from ordination itself, but his power to teach and
govern, though conferred by ordination are not “activated’ until he has a “missio
canonica” (mandate from the head of the college).
2. If he breaks communion with the head of the college and its members, or if he
is suspended by the head of the college, he loses his power to teach and govern
(and even his power to sanctify – e.g., validly ordain – is called into question; cf.
Schmaus, Dogma 4: THE CHURCH, pp. 164-165).
 48

CHAPTER IV: PRESBYTERS (PRIESTS) IN THE CHURCH

Introduction:
1. To be read in connection with what follows is LG # 28; Presbyterorum Ordinis;
Optatam Totius; “Ministerial Priesthood” of the 1971 Synod of Bishops; US
Bishops “As One Who Serves.”
2. This section will be a summary of a section from the US Bishops’ document – the
section of the parish ministry of priests.
3. Overview of the section summarized:
Introduction: Remarks about the Parish
a. The kerygmatic function: “To proclaim the Word”
b. The Koinoniac function: To Preside at Worship”
c. The Diaconiac function:
1) “To serve the Christian Community”
2) “To serve Humankind”

A. Introduction: The Parish Ministry:

1. The Parish is the Church of the Neighborhood/rural community. It is the Church
rooted in the place where people reside.
2. Since the fifth century the parish has been the primary local Eucharistic
community within the diocese.
3. Today, especially in urban areas, with the mobility of people, with concentrations
of different cultures and backgrounds, new forms of parishes may have to be
developed.
4. But it seems that almost certain that the main thrust of priestly ministry will be in
a parish setting, though maybe the parish will take on different forms because of
various factors.
5. The presbyter or Priest, as a representative of the bishop in guiding the Church at
the parish level, lives out his ministry mostly in the parish setting. He preaches,
prays with the guides the Church in his parish in the name of his local bishop.

B. The Kerygmatic Aspect – “To Proclaim the Word”

1. This aspect takes its cue from PO 4: “… It is the first task of priest as co-workers
of the bishops to preach the Gospel of God to all men.”
2. “Proclaiming the Word” according to PO, means:
a. preaching (homilies)
b. instruction in the Catholic faith
c. teaching
d. speaking in faith to contemporary problems
e. witnessing as the person of faith in the world.
3. The priest must be a man of Word:
a. He represents Christ in the Church
b. He must struggle to proclaim the Word, to hear it and keep it in his own life.
c. He must see the value of the Word:
 49

i. At the celebration of the Eucharist he should make sure the Lectors read
clearly and that he himself does as well. This might involves getting a first
class sound system.
ii. He must see the value of the Word in the other sacraments – especially
Baptism and Penance. (e.g. he should promote penitential service where
the word is more solemnly proclaimed!)

d. Preaching is central to priesthood:

i. “Preaching is increasingly…” pp.42-43.
ii. Preparation for preaching is indispensable:
a. This involves a deep background knowledge and familiarity with
the Scriptures (this is the point of exegesis and other theology
classes.)
b. Sensitivity to the needs of the community.
c. Time that is spent in quiet and prayerful reflection.
d. “Underlying this dialogue…” (43).
iii. The documents points out many ways to improve preaching:
a. Preparing the liturgy and homily with parish planning group.
b. Receiving reaction from the people on a regular basis.
c. Communal study and prayer of the Mass text with other Priest
(or even catechists) – a kind of Bible sharing.
d. The use of homily aids

C. The Koinoniac Aspect: “To Preside at Worship”

1. Because he is the one who preside, the priest must PREPARE.

a. He should study all the texts of the celebration.
b. He should plan and coordinate with other ministries.
c. He should choose from available option.
2. Presence in worship is essential.
3. He should develop a style of presiding. “The style of presiding… p. 44.
4. The priest should be ready to adapt:
a. To a particular kind of people (educated, farmers, cross section).
b. To the size of the congregation
c. To the cultural and ethnic background.
d. To the age level of the congregation (children, teenagers, etc.)
e. Such adaptation…” p.44.
5. Such preparation, presence and style is to permeate his approach to his presiding
over all the sacraments and other aspects of worship. The document stresses
approach to the sacrament of penance specifically.

D. The Diaconiac Aspect:

1. “To Serve the Christian Community”

a. “presiding at worship…….”, p. 45
 50

b. Pastoral care:
1) Pastoral care describes the priest’s relationship to people in need. “The full
person of a priest…..” p. 45.
2) Some of these needs are:
a. family disputes
b. marriage problems
c. the sick
d. prisoners
e. mentally and physically handicapped
f. alcoholics and drug addicts
g. the presbyter must sense the loneliness of those widowed.
h. He must sense the pain of the divorced
i. He must support those searching for deeper meaning in life
j. He must prepare those receiving the sacraments, especially
baptism and matrimony.

3) The document speaks about the need to be a wounded healer – what is

important is not to get this and that professional pastoral skill, BUT TO
BA A MAN OF COMPASSION. (On this read the books of Nouwen,
THE WOUNDED HEALER, CREATIVE MINISTRY, THE LIVING
REMINDER).
4) Nevertheless, the priest should also be able to “orient the available
services to the specific needs of the people” (p.46).
5) The document compares the priest, in an insightful passage, to someone
conducting an orchestra – cf., p. 46.

c. Team Ministry:
1) This is a new style of pastoral leadership, and can consist of just the
priests of the parish or the whole parish staff (priests, principal of the
school, catechists, social workers, secretaries).
2) The document is not so strong on recommending this approach, but it
seems to be a fruitful one when things are run right.

d. Parish Council:
1) This document is strong about the existence of a Parish Council: It is not
just a convenience based on an appreciation of democracy; but an
expected structure based on a theological principle (cf. p. 47). Is the
principle of collegiality?
2) The priest serves the Parish Council by enabling it to function,
encouraging it, coordinating his efforts with its efforts, questioning and
challenging it. The document has an important paragraph filled with
questions – pp. 47-48.

e. Ministry to Smaller Communities:

1) Within the larger community there has always been the need of smaller
communities.
 51

2) These are the parish organizations, the different lay movements within the
parish like the Cursillo, the Focolarini, the Charismatics, Marriage
Encounter.
3) The parish priest should both encourage and minister to these groups, if
not, the people feel cut off.

f. Ministry of Administration:
1) Here we mean finances, keeping baptismal records, etc.
2) Good organization is essential for the Parish.
3) This ministry can and in some cases should be shared with others –
members of the parish of employees.
4) It is important to have good training in management, accounting, etc.
(question: is the seminary the right place for this….need of continuing
education?)

g. Fostering vocations to the Ordained Priesthood:

1) The priest should be on the lookout for possible candidates.
2) Most priests enter the priesthood because of the example of some priests.

2. “Two Serve Humankind”

a. The Community around the Parish:

1) The priest has a primary responsibility to the Catholic community, but he has been
sent to all people in the larger community in which the parish exists.
2) He must be sensitive to customs and culture (and critical).
3) He must try to cooperate with the government of the town or area and with service
organizations in the community (Jaycees, Rotary, etc.)
4) He has a personal responsibility as a citizen to his nation, and so should participate
in elections, be informed in issues, etc.
5) He has a responsibility to the world at large, and a responsibility to educate his
people in world problems.

b. The Ministry of Justice:

1) “When the priest . . . . .”, p. 51.
2) Justice must be an important part of preaching
a) not just in general statements
b) in specific things, even if the facts are not always clear (p. 52)
3) The priest is also responsible for educating his people to justice.

Conclusion:

1. The document characterizes the priest as a “Servant-Leader”

2. Whether the priest works in a parish, or is involved in another apostolate, he is called
to lead the Church by service. Notion of servant leader has to be developed.
3. Summary of this, p. 54.
 52

CHAPTER V: THE POPE IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

A. According to the official yearbook of the Vatican (ANNUARIO PONTIFICIO), the

Pope is: “the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of the Apostle Peter, the head of the
Catholic Church and also the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy,
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, Sovereign of
Vatican City."
B. In ancient times, the title “Pope” was given to all bishops.
It was given also to heads of monasteries.
Today it is used for priests in the Orthodox Church.

C. The title comes from the Greek PAPPAS, which is an affectionate title for “father”,
like papa, tatang. As we call priests “Father”, the Greeks call them “pope” (“Papa”).

D. From the sixth century in the West, the title is used exclusively for the Bishop of
Rome (juridically established by Gregory VII).

E. Our treatment of the Pope in the Church will be in two parts:

1. The Primacy of the Pope – his supreme authority over the whole Church, his
universal episcopacy, his function as a sign of unity.
2. The question of the Pope’s Infallibility – his charism of articulating unerringly the
infallibility of the Church.

F. Bibliography:
1. M. Schmaus – DOGMA 4: THE CHURCH
2. NCE – “Pope”; “Primacy of the Pope”; “Infallibility of the Pope”
3. SACRAMENTUM MUNDI – “Pope”
4. B. Kloppenburg – ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN II, Chapter 6.
5. R. McBrien – WHO IS A CATHOLIC?, Chapter 6
6. H. Kung – THE CHURCH; ON BEING A CHRISTIAN, pp. 494-502.
7. R.E. Brown, et. al. – PETER IN THE NT.
8. A. Dulles, THE SURVIVAL OF DOGMA; THE RESILIENT CHURCH, Chapter
6.
9. AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC CATHECHISM, pp. 20-21, #10, 12.
10. H. McSorley, “Some Forgotten Truths About the Petrine Ministry,” CTA
Proceedings, 1974, pp. 165-198.
11. Pastoral Letter of the Philippines Hierarchy on the Holy Father (1977)
12. “Authority in the Church” – Anglican/Roman Catholic Statement (1977).
 53

I. The Primacy of the Pope:

Introduction – A Definition of Papal Primacy:

1. F. A. Sullivan in NCE defines Papal Primacy as the “state of being first of all
bishops, not only in rank or dignity, but in pastoral authority . . . that full,
supreme, and universal authority over all the bishops and faithful of the Church
which belongs by divine right to the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter,
who received such a primacy among the apostles directly from Christ” (p. 779).

2. It is good to call to mind that, with all the talk of authority, supremacy, universal
jurisdiction, etc., the Papacy is still a MINISTRY, an office of service. One of the
most significant titles of the Pope is SERVUS SERVORUM DEI – Servant of the
Servants of God (Gregory I – the Great).

3. We will try to understand this Primacy in three sections:

a. The Biblical Origins of Papal Primacy.
b. The Historical Development of Papal Primacy.
c. Some Theological Reflections about Papal Primacy.

A. The Biblical Origins of Papal Primacy:

1. The papacy grew out of the mission of the Apostle Peter, who, according to
many scholars (thought not all) ended his life in Rome.

2. In the NT we have indications of a PRIMACY OF PETER among the twelve,

and as HAVING A ROLE LEADERSHIP in the early Church:

a. Among the Twelve:

1) Peter is often shown as the spokesman of the Twelve (Mk. 8:29; Mt.
18:21; Jn 6:67f).
2) In the lists of the Twelve in the synoptics, Peter is always listed first
(Mk. 3:16-19; Mt. 10:1-4; Lk. 6:12-16).
3) According to the ancient tradition recited by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-7 that
the risen Christ appeared first to Peter and the Twelve – notice that
Peter is set apart . . . this indicates that Peter is considered the
PRIMORDIAL WITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION.
4) The three Petrine Texts:
 Mt. 16:13-19 – the confession of Peter and his commission.
(a) cf. notes pp. 39-44. What follows is a summary - -
(b) the text is most likely authentic, from the strongly semitic
flavor of the text. Most exegetes today place it after the
resurrection, however.
(c) Simon gets a new name – Peter
i. a new name in the Hebrew mentality means a person is given
a new mission.
 54

ii. The name Peter, from Petros, rock, indicates the foundational
role of Peter in the Church.
(d) Power of Keys – the power of binding and loosing.
i. the keeper of the keys is the steward, he who gives access to
the king.
ii. This gives authority to teach and impose doctrine.
iii. Binding and loosing means the power to admit and exclude
someone from the community, also the power to impose an
obligation and release from it. It also indicates the power to
declare something prohibited or lawful. This was also given
to the other eleven, and through them to the whole Church,
but here it is clear that it was given to Peter in a preeminent
way.

 Lk. 22:24-34
(a) From the text, we see that the office entrusted to Peter is one of
the service.
(b) Peter is to pray for his brothers- the community.
(c) He is the chosen despite his weakness.

 Jn 21:15-17- Peter’s role is to be the feeder and guardian of the

flock.

N.B. It might be good to study the above three “Petrine Texts” with a
commentary, e.g., Barclay; or Brown, et. al. PETER IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

b. In the Early Church:

1.) It is clear that Peter is the head of the early community:

a.) Acts 1:15-26- the choosing of Matthias

b.) Acts 2:14-47- the Pentecost Sermon
c.) Acts 3:12-26- discourse after healing the lame man (although John was
there too).
d.) Acts 5- Peter presides over the Church
e.) Acts 15:6-11- presiding over the “Council of Jerusalem”

2.) It is also clear that Peter’s power had limits

a) He had to explain himself to the Church after he admitted Cornelius-
Acts 11:1-8
b) Paul one time opposed Peter to his face for his slighting the gentiles-
Gal 2:11-21

3. The Bible does not say, however, that Peter went to Rome. We know only that he went
to Antioch.
 55

a. Still, it would be logical that Peter would make Rome the headquarters of the
Church, since Rome was the most important city in the world at that time.
b. Archaeological evidence from the excavations under the altar in St. Peter’s
Basilica seems to support the fact that Peter is buried there, but not all in
agreement.
c. With some certainty, however, we can say that Peter most likely did not act as
monarchical bishop of Rome- the idea of monarchical bishop only developed
later. The letter of Clement shows that Rome had a college of presbyter-
bishops, not as a Episcopal structure.
d. the idea of the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor is more of Logical or
Spiritual succession than Physical One (cf. R.E. Brown, Priest and Bishop,
pp.53-54.)
e. To see the development of the Primacy of Peter into the Primacy of Rome as
Peter’s successor, we must see the Historical development. There is no clear
evidence, but the fact is certainly implied almost from the very beginning.

B. The Historical Development of Papal Primacy:

1. In general, there are many proofs from ancient documents that Rome had a certain
primacy, but these proofs are “in germ”; and “not fully explicit” (cf. Sacramentum
Mundi, p.1245; Schmaus, p181).

2. Earliest historical evidence of Papal Primacy (or really here, Roman Primacy) is in the
letter of Clement (95-96)
a. Although he does not express the notion of primacy, he displays a deep sense of
responsibility for the whole Church.
b. Only in Rome, of all the Churches, dared interfere in the problems of Corinth (the
deposition of some presbyters).

3. In 110, the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Roman offers more evidence:
a. He calls the Roman Church the “Presider of love”
b. He does says that the roman Church TEACHES, but does not receive instruction.
c. Because Peter and Paul lived at Rome and preached there, Rome takes precedence
over all the Churches.

4. Other indications come in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian

see (Schmaus). From the second century, Rome is asked to solve disputes between
Churches; Rome is the court of appeal, higher than which is the Church than which
one could not go.
5. In the fourth century, Ambrose coined the dictum: “Where Peter is, there is the
Church.”
6. In the fifth century, the fathers at Chalcedon exclaimed: “Peter speaks through Leo.”
 56

7. The middle ages took the primacy of the Pope for granted; the primacy was
expressed in the emergence of new orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) who
wanted to be directly under the Pope.

8. In the late Middle Ages there arose the question of “Conciliarism”, which contended
that the ecumenical council was more powerful than the Pope. This was settled at the
Council of Florence, which condemned Conciliarism (DS 1307).

9. The papacy as we know it today is a product of the 19 th century, especially Vatican I.

This council solemnly defined that the Pope not only has office of in-spection and
direction of the whole Church, but the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over
the Church.

a. This is not only in faith and morals

b. But also in ecclesiastical discipline and government;
c. Not merely a primacy of honor, nor a greater share of supreme power
d. But the whole plentitude of supreme power with ordinary and immediate
authority (cf. DS 3509/ TCC 578ff).
e. As the Philippine Bishops explain this is in their 1977 Pastoral Letter:
One cannot escape the earnest intent of the Council to guard against any
misunderstanding of any minimizing of this important truth. The Pope in his own
right has authority that is supreme, over all the Churches. It is full, over
everything pertaining to them. It is immediate, directly touching all members
including the bishops. It is ordinary, by the very reason of his office and not
delegated to him. (p. 3)

10. Vatican II repeated Vatican I’s doctrine, but added a note of balance in seeing the
Pope as head of the College of Bishops (LG #22).

C. Some Theological Reflections About Papal Primacy:

1. How can we prove the primacy of the Pope?

a. We cannot prove beyond doubt from the scriptures that Jesus intended Peter to
have successors to his Primacy (cf. the debate between O. Cullman and O.
Karrer).
b. Nor can we trace with certainty the Popes back to Peter. Cf. above, especially the
reference to Brown.
c. As Hans Kung expresses it, however, and the idea is echoed with approval by
Avery Dulles, we can say that the notion of a successor to the office or ministry
of Peter is not contradiction to the Bible; in fact it squares with the biblical spirit
rather well (eg. the notion of the one for many).
d. Kung says that if the Pope really succeeds Peter in his ministry, he can perform a
great service for the Church, giving the Church a leader and model (cf. Kung and
A. Dulles, THE RESILIENT CHURCH).
 57

2. Papal Primacy as Service:

a. The Pope is Head of the Church as Christ is Head of the Body.

1) The Church is the body of Christ, and yet Christ is the Head.
2) The Pope is a member of the Church, and yet, as a representative of Christ
the Head, he is the ruler of the Church, the father of the Church. The
Churc does not, of course, have two heads but one, for the Pope is only the
representative, the sign of Christ for the whole Church.

b. The Pope is the visible sign of unity and continuity in the Church:

1) Throughout the Bible we have the theme of the one for the many.
2) The Pope is the one for the many, and so a principle, a sign of unity in the
Church.
3) One of his major tasks as head of the whole Church is to work for its
unity.
4) To be in communion with Rome is to be in communion with the whole
Catholic Church.
5) The Anglican/Roman Catholic Statement on Authority in the Church
(September 1976) has a beautiful explanation of this:
(Witmer, J. and Wright, J.R., eds., Called to Full Unity: Documents on
Anglican-Roman Catholic Relations 1966-1983, Washington DC: United
States Catholic Conference, 1986, #20-23, pp. 261-262.)

The bishops are collectively responsible for defending and interpreting the
apostolic faith. The primacy accorded to a bishop implies that, after
consulting his fellow bishops, he may speak in their name and express
their mind. The recognition of his position by the faithful creates an
expectation that on occasion he will take an initiative in speaking for the
Church. Primatial statements are only one way by which the Holy Spirit
keeps the people of God faithful to the truth of the Gospel.

If primacy is to be a genuine expression of episcope it will foster the

koinonia by helping the bishops in their task of apostolic leadership both
in their local church and in the church universal. Primacy fulfills its
purpose by helping the churches listen to one another, to grow in love and
unity and to strive together towards the fullness of Christian life and
witness; it respects and promotes Christian freedom and spontaneity; it
does not seek uniformity where diversity is legitimate, or centralize
administration to the detriment of local Churches.

A primate exercises his ministry not in isolation but in collegial

association with his brother bishops. His intervention in the affairs of the
local Church should not be made in such a way to use up the responsibility
of its bishop.
 58

Although primacy and conciliarity are complementary elements of

episcope it has often happened that one has been emphasized at the
expense of the other, even to the point of serious imbalance. When
churches have been separated from one another, this danger has been
increased. The koinonia of the churches requires that a proper balance be
preserved between the two with the responsible participation of the whole
people of God.

If God’s will for the unity in love and truth of the whole Christian
community is to be fulfilled, this general pattern of the complementary
primatial and conciliar aspects of episcope serving the koinonia of the
churches needs to be realized at the universal level. The only see which
makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still
exercises such episcope in the see of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul
died.

It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as

has been described should be held by that see.

6) Hans Kung would like to see this service aspect of the Pope’s ministry
accented more.

a) He says that the best way for the Pope to carry on his succession
to the Petrine Ministry and mission would be to RENOUNCE
ALL TEMPORAL AND EVEN SPIRITUAL POWER.
b) He would serve the Church – and the world – by his example: a
true Christ-like life, giving himself for all mankind.
c) Kung cites John XXIII as an example of the ideal Pope.

3. Papal Primacy as Universal Episcopacy:

a. Vatican I (DS 3060; TCC 379) spoke of the Pope’s “superiority of ordinary power
over all the churches.”

1) This power is TRULY EPISCOPAL, i.e., ordinary.

2) It is immediate
3) This means that the Pope is BISHOP OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

b. This, however, does not mean that the Pope’s power as universal bishop
conflicts with the powers of local bishops in their ORDINARY AND
IMMEDIATE JURISDICTION OF THEIR FLOCKS. Rather, says Vatican I,
the Pope’s universal episcopacy is the FOUNDATION of their jurisdiction.

1) The Pope’s power is not unlimited or arbitrary (NCE, p. 780).

 59

2) As Sullivan says, “The pope could neither in theory nor in practice deprive
the bishops of their pastoral function or reduce them to the status of mere
vicars of the people” (ibid.).
3) The Pope is bound to use his universal episcopacy for the BUILDING UP
OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, NOT ITS DESTRUCTION.
4) As B. Kloppenburg points out: the Pope does not have HABITUAL
ordinary power, but can intervene only when the UNITY and
SALVATION of the flock is at stake (e.g. Deposition of a heretical
bishop).

c. Still, the problem arises in that there is NO JURIDICAL APPEAL against a

possible misuse of power:

1) If the Pope would be publicly heretical or schismatic, most theologians

would agree that the bishops, acting together, could remove him.
2) In case of a less serious abuse of power (e.g. nepotism) we would have to
resort to moral remedies- persuasion and prayer.

d. Vatican II has a more balanced approach when it speaks of BOTH papal primacy
and Episcopal collegiality. The two are complementary to one another, as we
read above in the Anglican/Roman Catholic statement.

II. The Infallibility of the Pope

A. The Infallibility of the Church:

1.) The basis of Papal Infallibility is the infallibility of the Church: The church,
as the sign of salvation and the heralds, servant and witness of the kingdom,
CANNOT BUT PROCLAIM GOD’S REVELATION AUTHENTICALLY,
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DISCONCEPTION.
2.) This task of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom was entrusted to the
church by Christ. This is rooted in the idea, develop on pp. 59ff.
a. It is Christ who gave the church the commission to preach (Mt.
28:18-20; Mk. 16:15 and 20).
b. The apostles possess Jesus’ own authority (Lk 10:16).
c. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, who will keep the Church in the
truth (Jn 14:16; 15:26; 16:12f).
d. Through the Spirit, the church is sanctified for the truth for all time
(Jn 17: 17).
e. The Spirit guarantees the integrity of the proclamation (Acts 5:34).
f. The early Church was aware that it was not its word that was
proclaimed but God’s word, in human form (2 Cor 4:5; 1 Thess
2:13).

3) The idea here is: The Church is infallible because it adheres to and preaches,
by divine commission, God’s word, which can never err.
 60

4) This is why in confessional formulas, in creeds, in councils, the church

boldly always believed itself as infallible. GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW
HIS AGENT ON EARTH TO PREACH HIS WORD WRONGLY.

5) Cf. LG # 2.1

B. Papal Infallibility as the Guarantee of the Church’s Infallibility:

1. As ages went by, the question arose: JUST WHO IN THE CHURCH IS THE
ONE TO ARTICULATE THIS INFALLIBILITY POSSESSED BY THE
CHURCH?
2. The answer of CONCILIARISM was: the Ecumenical Council.
3. GALLICANISM and FEBRONIANISM said that it was the POPE, after
getting the consent of the national hierarchies.
4. In response to these ideas (especially the two latter), Vatican I declared that
NOT THE BISHOPS, BUT THE POPE POSSESSES THE HIGHEST
TEACHING AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH, AND SO ARTICULATE
THE CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY.

C. Vatican I’s Definition of Papal Infallibility:

1. The definition reads as follows (this is the essential paragraph – DS 3073/TCC

388):
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning
of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the
Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, the Sacred
Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely
revealed: THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF, WHEN HE SPEAKS EX
CATHEDRA, THAT IS, WHEN IN DISCHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF
PASTOR AND DOCTOR OF ALL CHRISTIANS, BY VIRTUE OF HIS
SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY HE DEFINES A DOCTRINE
REGARDING FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE
UNIVERSAL CHURCH, BY THE DIVINE ASSISTANCE PROMISED
HIM IN BLESSED PETER, IS POSSESSED OF THAT
INFALLIBILITY WITH WHICH THE DIVINE REDEEMER WILL
THAT HIS CHURCH SHOULS ENDOWED FOR DEFINING
DOCTRINE REGARDING FAITH AND MORALS: AND THAT
THERFORE SUCH DEFINITION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF ARE
IRREFORMABLE OF THEMSELVES, AND NOT FROM THE
CONSENT OF THE CHURCH.

2. Let’s look at the main ideas in this definition:

 61

a. The Pope is infallible WHEN HE SPEAKS “EX CATHEDRA”: in

other words, only when he speaks officially as head of the Church.
1) He is not infallible when he speaks in encyclicals, in
exhortations, in weekly audiences, not through the Roman
Curia.
2) SACRAMENTUM MUNDI says: “In contrast to a tendency
observed in some quarters to extend the notion and
application of infallibility beyond its due limits, especially
with regard to the ordinary papal magisterium, the texts of
Vatican I and Vatican II not that infallibility should not be
ascribed too readily to papal documents.”
3) I remember that when HUMANE VITAE was issued, the
parish priest I was working with at the same time said, “Well,
finally the Pope has decided – ROMA LOCUTA, CAUSA
FINITA.” But not so!

b. The Pope is only infallible in FAITH and MORALS – not in political

issues or secular matters, like the weather etc.
c. The Pope is infallible BECAUSE HE IS POSSESSED OF THE
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH:
1) The Pope is not infallible of himself.
2) He can only possess the infallibility of the Church.
3) He is only infallible in the matters pertaining to the Gospel.
d. The Pope’s infallible statements are IRREFORMABLE IN
THEMSELVES AND NOT FROM THE CONSENT OF THE
CHURCH.
1) When speaking infallibility the Pope does it as the
REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
2) The Church cannot context the MEANING of the
formulation, though the wording, presuppositions, etc. can be
questioned and eventually even rejected.

3. Critique of Vatican I’s Definition:

a. Schmaus points out that we must remember that the definition of infallibility was
forged in polemical context – against Conciliarism, Gallicianism, and
Febronianism, etc., and so “the infallibility of the Pope was stressed with
extraordinary forcefulness” (p. 206).

b. In the Vatican I decree, the infallibility of the Church is not forgotten, but
certainly underplayed. Especially underplayed is that it was the ecumenical
council that defined it!

c. Infallibility of the Episcopal college is not brought out with sufficient emphasis.
 62

d. The Pope seems almost defined against the Church. The idea that his infallible
statements are irreformable in themselves and not from the consent of the Church
seems to imply that the Pope could define something contrary to the faith of the
Church, and force it on the Church – which is certainly not true.

e. Despite these weaknesses in the definition, we can say that it is a middle way
between two extreme positions proposed at the time. The infallibilists (eg.
Manning and Ward) wanted a definition of infallibility which would declare
infallible everything the Pope said. The ultramontanists (eg. Dullinger) did not
want definition at all, and eventually left the Church. The actual definitions is
much more restricted than the origin one proposed, however.

4. Vatican II and Papal Infallibility:

a. Vatican II restated Vatican I’s definition of Papal infallibility in LG #25. It

essentially repeated Vatican I with some subtle, but significant changes:

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to

endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-
extensive with the deposit revelation, which must be religiously guarded
and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the
college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as
supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in
the faith ….he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to
faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be
irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the
Church in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit
promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a
consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do
not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman
Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does
he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme
teacher of the universal Church, in who the Church’s charisma of
infallibility is present in a singular way. The infallibility promised is also
present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they
exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can
never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit’s
influence, through which Christ’s whole flock is maintained in the unity of
the faith and makes progress in it.

b. We see upon careful reading of Vatican II’s restatement how the infallibility
of the Church is brought into prominence.

c. The statement also places the pope at the head of the Episcopal college and
also expressly states the infallibility of the college.
 63

d. The statement says also that the consent of the church always comes with an
infallible statement since it is the same Holy Spirit who inspires the Pope
and the Church.

5. Limits to Papal Infallibility:

a. Schmaus points out that the “infallibility” is in many ways unfortunate in its
negative connotation.

b. More positively, infallibility means that “the legacy of salvation left by Christ, the
saving truth handed down by the apostles, is preserved and presented by the
church as authentic and trustworthy” (Schmaus, p. 210).

c. Avery Dulles that the meaning of infallibility is that it is an emphatic assertion

that the pope’s primacy extends to his teaching role as well.

d. Cf. Sacramentum Mundi, “infallibility”, under “ecumenical aspects”, “a” to “j”.

e. An infallible statement, says Schmaus, is not a timeless, perfect one. It is, by

itself, a PARTIAL though TRUE expression of the faith, but still conditioned by
history, personal idiosyncrasies and prejudices both of the pronouncer and those
to whom it is pronounced.

f. Infallibility in NO WAY means perfection or sinlessness.

g. Summing up, Schmaus says:

Since the form of the definition is closely bound up with the situation in
which it is proclaimed, it is clear that with the advance of culture and the
development of the scope of the human knowledge, the dogma
experiences a linguistic embodiment, which is always new. Moreover,
owing to the connection between form and content, the new embodiment
will lead to an understanding of the faith which is always more
comprehensive and thorough, and sometimes more nuanced and
synthesized (p. 211).

h. Finally, read, AN AMERICAN CATECHISM, p. 22, #12.