5154663
The Pope and The College of Bishops: Who Teaches What When…and Why?
Introduction: The Teaching Office of The Church, The Problem Stated
An oft discussed (and mostly misunderstood) teaching of the Church is that of infallibility. Whether one speaks to cradle Catholics, zealous converts, or main-line protestants, infallibility is often mistaken for a kind of blind obedience to the pope, who can rule at whim and even arbitrarily. The import of this misunderstanding is that it encompasses the majority of the teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals – no small bones of contention in the modern age. However, the authority of the pope to make an infallible ruling regarding faith and morals (and the college of bishops in union with him, as we shall see) is limited to very precise circumstances. Infallibility itself is not the issue at hand. Rather, a full understanding of the office and structure (the papacy and college of bishops), and of the authority by which they are able to rule infallibly would better serve the overall purpose of understanding not only infallibility, but the entire range of areas in which the Apostolic See exercises authority.
This paper will examine the office of the papacy and the college of bishops in terms of their authority, using the teaching of infallibility as the optic through which the exercise of such authority is viewed. The canon concerning infallibility will be treated briefly, but more time will be given to the canons concerning papal primacy, the college of bishops, and the circumstances under which supreme and full authority can be exercised. A combination of the history and fonts of these canons, along with more modern commentary will be utilized in the analysis.
Canon 749: Who Teaches What Infallibly?
Canon 749, §1 treats the pope’s ability to teach infallibly, “By virtue of his office, the Supreme pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when…he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.” Paragraph two subsequently treats the same ability of the college of bishops:
The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world, but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith and morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
The pope teaches infallibly as an individual when by virtue of his office, he proclaims a teaching of faith and morals to be held definitively by the faithful by means of a definitive act. The college of bishops teaches infallibly either when gathered together in an ecumenical council, or even when they, dispersed throughout the world in communion with themselves and with the successor of Peter, proclaim a teaching of faith and morals to be held definitively. Regarding the college of bishops though, this can only be done with the approval of the pope.
Simply stated, the answer then to the question, “Who teaches what infallibly?” is the pope as an individual regarding faith and morals, and the college of bishops, either in an ecumenical council or dispersed throughout the world, but always in union with the pope as its head also regarding faith and morals. Any teaching meant to be understood as infallible must be clearly identified as such so as not to confuse those bound to hold it.
The doctrinal basis of canon 749, §§ 1 and 2 is Lumen Gentium 25. To find the canonical basis, one has to go to Book II Part II of the Code of Canon Law concerning the hierarchical constitution of the Church, where the canons dealing with the office of the papacy and the structure of the college of bishops are found.
When and Why
Section one of Book II, Part II of the Code of Canon Law is entitled, “The Supreme Authority of the Church.” Chapter one of this section is entitled, “The Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops.” Here, the canons that define who exercises what authority and the conditions under which this authority may be exercised are found.
The first canon, 330, sets up the relationship of the pope and the college of bishops as analogous to the relationship of St. Peter and the apostles, “Just as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves.” The key to understanding the collegiality of the bishops and the pope is found in the sources of this canon: Lumen Gentium 22, and the preliminary note of explanation appended to Lumen Gentium. During the drafting of Lumen Gentium (specifically chapter three, dealing with the hierarchical church), there was some dispute as to the meaning of “college” and the relationship of the college to the pope. Eventually Pope Paul VI and the theological commission became involved. Since the draft text had already been approved by the needed majority, they sought to assuage the concerns of those opposed with the explanatory note. The note clarifies that the term college is not to be taken in a strictly juridical sense (a body of equals), but rather in a sense analogous to the relationship that St. Peter enjoyed with the twelve apostles, “a permanent body whose form and authority is to be ascertained from revelation.” The theological commission ascertained that defining the college in this way did not “imply equality between the head and members of the college, but only a proportion between the two relationships: Peter-apostles and pope-bishops.” This proportionality is clearly expressed in the explanatory note regarding the language used in drafting Lumen Gentium, “And therefore the commission decided to write in Art. 22 not ‘in the same manner’ (eadem ratione) but ‘in like manner’ (pari ratione).”
Papal Primacy
Following this, canon 331 lays out the exclusivity of the office of the pope and the extent of his power, “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles…is the head of the college of bishops…By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.” Msgr. Luigi Chiappetta comments that both of the above canons establish firmly that the pope is the head of the college of bishops as Peter was the head of the college of apostles.
This headship, or primacy, is expressed in canon 333 in increasingly stronger terms by its three paragraphs:
§1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
The first paragraph states that not only does the pope enjoy universal primacy, but by virtue of this primacy, he also has ordinary power over all of the particular churches and groups of them. This primacy is not meant to be held over and above the other bishops, but rather to strengthen them in the exercise of their power in their particular churches. This brings us to an interesting point made in the first paragraph of the explanatory note regarding the relationship of the pope to the college as it relates to Peter and the apostles: “the parallel between Peter and the apostles on the one hand and the Pope and the Bishops on the other does not imply the transmission of the extraordinary power of the apostles to their successors…” So while the pope, like Peter, still enjoys the primacy (and hence, jurisdiction) noted above, the bishops do not, like the apostles, enjoy the extraordinary power that was given to the apostles by Christ. This extraordinary power was thought to be jurisdiction throughout the universal church, according to tradition. A diocesan bishop does not have this extraordinary power, but rather ordinary, proper and immediate power only in the diocese entrusted to him by the pope. This is a point that will be addressed later in regard to the college of bishops acting collegially.
The second paragraph notes that the pope is always in communion with the other bishops and the universal Church. It goes on to say, however, that he nevertheless still has the right to determine how he exercises his office: personally or collegially. Therefore, he may choose to govern however he sees fit, either personally or through some collegiate body of his choosing, be it a full ecumenical council, a so-called epistolary council , or even a synod to which he gives deliberative voice subject to his approval. This is the first canon that significantly impacts the teaching on infallibility. It is the pope and the pope alone who decides whether he will act personally or together with the college of bishops as member and head. And while it is certainly the duty of the pope to consult the bishops and experts in the matter before he would proclaim an infallible doctrine, the next paragraph leaves no recourse if he does not.
Paragraph three states that there is no appeal or recourse to any sentence or decree of the pope. Further, canon 1372 threatens a censure to anyone who would attempt to make recourse to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops, and canon 1404 declares that no one can judge the pope (juridically). This is by far the strongest statement in regard to the authority and primacy of the pope, and one which puts great faith in the Church as communion, its indefectibility and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The College of Bishops
Having firmly established the authority of the pope and his relationship to the college of bishops, the code moves on to the college of bishops itself in canon 336:
The college of bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.
The canon establishes that episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, together with its head and never without, are the keys to its ability to exercise supreme and full power over the Church. Canon 205 lists the elements of communion as, “…the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.” Wolf notes that hierarchical communion also includes accepting the primacy of the pope. Though the power attributed to the college does not include the qualifiers immediate and ordinary as does the power attributed to the pope, the college does possess supreme and full power, which leads us to the interesting situation in which there are two subjects of supreme and full power in the Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law attributed supreme power to an ecumenical council, but did not discuss the college of bishops as such. It did however allude to collegiality by noting that bishops are the successors to the apostles. The doctrinal basis for collegiality finds its fullest expression in Lumen Gentium 22 and 23, and in the explanatory note, which are some of the sources for this canon.
Chiappetta acknowledges the difficulty in having two subjects of supreme power in the Church, noting that while there are two subjects of supreme power, there is in fact only one power: that of Christ, in whose name these subjects act. Acting personally, the power of the pope is always in act, continually extant. Acting collegially, this power is only in act when the college acts in a collegial manner toward a specific end. The bishops, on the other hand, only exercise ordinary power over their own dioceses, and universally only when acting as a college in union with its head the pope, and only with his consent. He further notes, following the explanatory note, that though the college is always in existence immanently in the Church, it is only in act as the college at the behest and approval of the pope.
The Ecumenical Council and Other Means of Acting Collegially
Regarding infallible teachings then, apart from the pope acting personally, he may choose to convene the college in a way he sees fit, in conformity with the law, in which the college engages its supreme and full power, in concert with the pope as its head. This would have to be for a particular instance regarding a teaching of either faith or morals and the pope would have the final say. In essence, the college of bishops, existing immanently in the Church perpetually, is brought into act and engaged to wield its supreme and full power at the direction of the pope and for a specific purpose. The primary means of engaging the college of bishops would be the ecumenical council, the subject of the next canon, and the final one assessed here.
Canon 337 states:
§1. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.
§2. It exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a truly collegial act.
§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.
Primacy of place in the canon is given to the ecumenical council, in which the supreme and full power of the college of bishops is executed in a solemn manner. Throughout the history of the Church, there have only been 21 ecumenical councils. Were a matter (or matters) of great importance regarding faith and morals to be discussed with an eye towards an infallible proclamation, this would be the most secure and definitive means. The pope would convene an ecumenical council, determine the subject matter and order to be followed, and approve or deny any additional topics suggested by the councils fathers. After the period of deliberation and composition of conciliar documents, the pope could then approve them as such, make any changes he sees fit or reject them. If he were to decide that an infallible proclamation is in the best interests of the Church, then the language of the proclamation should be very clear that such is the case and leave no doubt in the mind of the reader. This way is most preferable because it is a clear action of the pope and the college of bishops in communion with him acting in concert on a matter of faith and morals.
Paragraph two treats the subject of the so-called epistolary council. It was given this name because the means by which the pope would engage the “united action” of the bishops throughout the world would be to send letters (epistles) to all of them, seeking their opinion on a particular matter. The pope would then collate the responses, engage in further discussion if need be, and make a declaration based on what he has determined to be a collegial act on behalf of the college of bishops. Chiappetta cites four examples of this type of collegial act in the modern age:
– The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX
– The compilation of the Codex Iuris Canonici by Benedict XVI
– The proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption by Pius XII
– The drafting of the new Code of Canon Law by John Paul II
Whereas it would be difficult to match the grandeur and gravitas of an ecumenical council, one wonders if in the modern age that this would be a more effective means of collegial action. The ability to communicate globally and instantaneously could make dealing with important matters more efficient and far less expensive. Further, though the pope can teach (and has taught) infallibly via this means of collegial action with the same authority as that garnered from an ecumenical council, does it carry the same weight in the eyes of the faithful? Given the fidelity and devotion accorded the Immaculate Conception and Assumption enjoyed among the faithful, and the practice of the canon law in the Church, one would have to say yes. To be a secure means going forward, however, it would be important to recatechize the faithful and perhaps even clerics and religious regarding these important points and especially in regard to the ordinary/extraordinary magisterium.
Lastly, paragraph three opens the door for the pope to select and promote other means of collegial function according to the needs of the Church. This paragraph relies heavily upon paragraph three of the explanatory note, and seems to leave open the possibility of other means of collegial action: “The Roman Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of collegiality as he sees fit.” The synod of bishops is covered in canons 342-348, and while not considered a collegial act ipso iure, there is a provision for the pope to give it deliberative voice and ratify its decisions and/or decrees (c. 343). Taking into account all that has been said regarding the pope and his broad power, this third option including the synod, appears to be the most unsatisfactory. Collegial activity carries with it the obligation of all the members of the college expressing their voice; anything less than that full expression which results in an act of supreme and full power may seem to fall short of the mark.
Conclusion
This paper began with an introduction to a problem regarding the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Those unacquainted with the teaching on infallibility, both inside and outside the Church, routinely misconstrue it as a kind of catch-all in which the pope can rule whenever he wants regarding whatever he wants. In truth, since 1854, this ability of the pope has only been used twice: in proclaiming the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Neither of these proclamations were made on a whim, but rather following the long-standing tradition of the Church and extensive consultation with the bishops around the world. There have only been two ecumenical councils since the late 19th century, the second of which made no infallible proclamations. Therefore, an infallible proclamation is extremely rare and can only be made under very precise conditions.
Instead of focusing on something that happens so rarely, it would be better to comprehend the underpinnings of the Church’s teaching on infallibility and the circumstances under which it has the authority to proclaim an issue of faith or morals to be an infallible truth: the office of the papacy, and the college of bishops in communion with him as its head. By analyzing the canons regarding the primacy of the papacy, the college of bishops, the notion of collegial action and the circumstances under which they operate, one can better understand who teaches what when…and why.