- I. The Church, Sacrament of the Trinity.
- II. The Theology of the Local Church: Communion
- III. The Theology of the Universal Church
- IV. The Reform of Vatican II
I. The Church, Sacrament of the Trinity.
The Church, like every Christian mystery, has its origin in the mystery of the unity and plurality of the Trinity, and it is in the Trinity that it has its ultimate explanation. 1 Therefore, it is impossible to explain the Church in terms merely of philosophy or history, 2 because there is a tension in it deriving from the fact of many local churches existing within the one universal Church, and this tension remains insoluble without a religious explanation, since the Church “…is the people brought together in the union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” 3 This polyvalent nature of the Church has been taken into account from the very beginning of theological reflection. St. Paul, followed by St. Cyprian, gave to the term “church” both a local and a universal meaning. 4 In patristic thought the universal view of the Church seems to have predominated, 5 while in the living structure of the Church there prevailed in early times the local church, which was directly experienced in everyday Christian life. In both East and West, theology and practice developed independently of each other, with little reference from one to the other, and this gave rise to differing ecclesiologies and systems of canon law, which were to be the fundamental cause in their turn of the final break which came at the Great Schism. 6
II. The Theology of the Local Church: Communion
1. The Idea of the Church
The ecclesiology embodied in the idea of communion, although found elsewhere, is typical of Eastern theology. It approaches the problem of the Church empirically; starting with the datum of the local community, Eastern theology attributes to it a content based on elements drawn from history and anthropology quite different from the Western view. While Latin theology emphasized rather the characteristics of the Church as in this world, Eastern theology showed a Hellenistic taste for the characteristics of the spiritual side of the Church. The Church is like an icon: it is the sacrament of the heavenly, spiritual, realities. Such an ecclesiology is essentially sacramental and eucharistic, and based on the local community, which is always seen as a constant, perfect manifestation of the universal Church. The basic principle governing the relations between local churches was the concept of realizing in a concrete way the universal alliance in Christ, that obtains between the various churches in the oikoumenh. This was achieved, not merely by norms dictated from above, but rather by the various practices developed by the churches themselves, whether at the personal level – letters, hospitality and diakonia – or in their liturgical contacts (eulogia, the fermentum, and excommunication), or in the later development of institutional contacts (synods and synodal letters). 7 The role of the Bishop of Rome in this inter-church activity was merely relative. He was considered not so much as an authority with power derived from a divine right higher than the other bishops, but more as the custodian of the Church’s unity, with power not over the Church but rather within the ecclesial communion. 8 And this communion in its turn depends rather on a bond of love in the Holy Spirit (sobornost) than on the legal position of a monarchical authority deriving from the possession of an ecclesiastical office. 9
This ecclesiology was interpreted by the orthodox in terms of an acephalous synodal system. 10 Since the Church ought faithfully to reflect the equality which obtains between the persons of the Trinity, and since also the bishops, by reason of their consecration, are equal amongst themselves, the structure of the synods was of equals among equals; the ultimate level of authority was never any particular individual, but the body of bishops as a whole. 11 The institution which best reflects this ecclesiology is the synod endemousa, by virtue of which the Byzantine Church considers itself as being permanently gathered in synod. In this situation, the position of the patriarch is quite different from that of the Pope. The Pope governed the Roman synod, and claimed also authority over the ecumenical synod, in addition to the powers he obtained in later times over the provincial councils. But in the Byzantine Church the synod cannot proceed without the patriarch, nor can he make final decisions without reference to the synod. 12
3. The Function of the Bishop
The image of the bishop as a mystical and cultic figure takes precedence over the canonical and juridical idea of his function. The bishop is seen as the type of the Father in the life of the Church, he is the liturgical figure who unites the whole of the local community in a twofold movement: their return to the Father and their bond of communion with all the other churches. 13 The collegial aspect of the bishop’s function was seen as being so important 14 that any higher personal authority of a monarchical nature was excluded. The authority of the bishops at the local level was all the stronger for this. The higher bishops (patriarchs and metropolitans) have their various powers, only in so far as these are acknowledged as theirs by the whole body of bishops (ecumenical councils and the patriarchal synod). 15
When translated into juridical terms, this became a system of concessions. However, these were not concessions granted from above, as in the Latin Church, but rather from below, a system which thus eliminated the possibility of any personal interference within the sphere of jurisdiction which belonged to the lower bishops. Thus at the local level, the bishop enjoyed considerable autonomy of action. 16
III. The Theology of the Universal Church
1. The Concept of the Church
Because of the West’s different Eucharistic theology, Latin ecclesiology developed along its own lines. In the East, the idea of transcendence was much to the fore, and in the breaking of bread the bishops are seen as all representing Christ in the same way. In the West, however, there was a more juridical view of the Eucharist, seeing it rather as a sacrifice of reconciliation, in keeping with the power of binding and loosing. The redemptive act, which is celebrated by the bishops in the Eucharistic sacrifice, is performed in a special way by the Successor of Peter (Mt. 16. 19), who therefore enjoys primacy over all the others. 17
The Augustinian view of the Eucharist was that the local celebration is a reflection of the unity of the local church; this idea was taken up in a one-sided way by the Middle Ages. “Church” became synonymous with the whole body, incorporating all believers in a vertical structure. 18 The “Church of Rome,” understood at one time as referring to the local church, became the equivalent to the “Catholic Church,” reflecting a kind of imperial, universal vision.
The Decretals, typical of the Latin mentality, incorporated this vision into a system of discipline, tending to reduce all to uniformity. With the Gregorian Reform in the West, the Church detached itself from the feudal theocratic structure, and this enabled it to define itself as a perfect society, with its own autonomy and law, as distinct from the secular power 19 and to transform itself into a sort of vast diocese, into which even the new religious orders were directly incorporated. 20The Pope has the plenitudo potestatis, he is the fons et origo of all ecclesial life and the first bishop of every diocese. 21 The principle underlying his relations with the bishops appears now as the appointment of each pastor in partem sollicitudinis papae, and consequently Catholic doctrine reduces the bishop to the position of a mere vicar or legate of the Pope. 22
This all-embracing pyramid scheme of the Latin Church implies also a different view of councils. General councils appear in the West not so much as assemblies of bishops meeting together, as representatives from all Christianity to offer advice to the Supreme Pontiff. The Pope is the head, the bishops the members. They are not present on an equal footing, nor even as a body, but as individuals.23 With the Council of Trent, the episcopate recovered de facto its collegial responsibilities. 24 However, ecclesiology, under pressure from Protestantism and Gallicanism, became yet more centered on the papacy and the universal Church, thus overshadowing the concept of communion in favour of the “society” aspect as contained in the idea of juridical primacy. 25 This increasingly undermined the autonomy and strength of the particular councils of the local churches. 26
3. The Function of the Bishop
As a result of the tension in the relations between the local and universal Church, the juridical idea of the bishop has fluctuated considerably in the West. 27 As in the East, until the fourteenth century the authority of the bishop as head of the local church went unquestioned (ein gewaltiger Herr). 28 His position is based on the possession of a legitimate function, and judicial and administrative authority is expressed symbolically in the one Eucharist which is shared by the whole presbyterate and people 29 His decisions are taken in the light of the advice given by the presbyterate, the wishes of the people and local tradition.
When the Church found herself obliged to adapt to the pressure of the politico-religious unity of a new world, the bishop was changed into the local administrator, representing an omnipresent civil and ecclesiastical government, a development which effectively depersonalized his relations with the local community (cf. the practice of absolute ordination). Progressive centralization by Rome certainly weakened the position of metropolitans (now considered merely as an extension of the papal primacy); it also reduced the status of the bishops in the West, who had indeed consolidated their position by establishing both their private (cf. the system of the “proper” church) and public rights (feudal functions, bannus). But now they resembled more the suffragan bishops who held the suburbican sees. 30
Episcopal authority was also threatened in the internal government of the diocese; from the early Middle Ages the spread of the parochial structure had gradually broken up the presbyterate, transforming the priest into a minister, who enjoyed his own proper rights and had lost for the most part any collegial link with his bishop. 31 The high Middle Ages saw the granting of innumerable privileges and exemptions (convents, religious orders, foundations and universities). This, plus the policy of benefices adopted by the Holy See (reservations), backed by the particular law and consuetudo, served to exaggerate the position of cathedral chapters, the higher prelates (archdeacons and auxiliary bishops) and the laity (right of patronage).
This twofold weakening of the bishop in his relations both with those below and above him was embodied likewise in scholastic theology. The power of jurisdiction, now seen as independent of the power of orders, 32 was taken as a mere extension of the papal power of orders, while as far as the power of orders was concerned the bishop was not really distinguished from the simplex sacerdos (the same power of order, the non-sacramental nature of the episcopate). 33 The medieval universalist culture was able to conceive authority only in the form of a leader in command of a body; thus the bishop was viewed in isolation, a papal representative linked to a locality, 34 and bound by an oath of obedience and obliged to an ad limina visit. He was underrated, both as guardian of the local church, because of interference by third parties, and as a link with other churches and the universal Church, since in spite of intense synodal activity, the Middle Ages had little idea of what episcopal collegiality really was. 35
The tridentine reform did understand to an extent that the ecclesial crisis originated in this imbalance, which had weakened the episcopal office. Unable to resolve the basic question of the human or divine origin of the bishop’s jurisdiction, the council tried instead to cope with the difficult problem of how to strengthen not only the papal power but also the power of the bishops. 36 This it did by the pragmatic device of delegatio a jure, which conferred on bishops, “loaned” to them, as it were, the faculties which were considered proper to the position of the Pope.37
To counteract the abuses arising from the innumerable exemptions, the council restored the right of the ordinary to visit and to supervise (especially with reference to the administration of ecclesiastical property), and recognized his right to legislate in his own territory without papal approval, and to dispense in particular cases from the common law. Obligations were also laid down for the bishop (residence), helping thus to re-establish a higher image. 38 This was not yet a true restoration of the powers of the bishop, because once again he was considered, as also in the code of 1917, as being too dependent on the papacy. The whole ecclesiological structure still over-emphasized the individual and did not sufficiently take into account the bishop’s function and his collegial responsibility.
1. The Council’s Ecclesiology.
The particular value of the local church was stated in Vatican II, as it had been in no other council until now. 39 However, taken overall in the teaching of the council, the local church is still seen in a slightly impersonal way, as the situation by means of which the universal Church is made manifest. 40
The fundamental principle (De Eccles. 26. I) relating to the local church was introduced very late in the history of the schema of Lumen Gentium, so that it did not exercise the same overall influence as the idea of the universal Church. However, the fact remains that the council has provided full justification for an ecclesiology centered on the Eucharistic community. 41 The temptation was overcome to take the local church merely as an administrative unit of the universal Church, and in fact its existence is based on dogmatic reasons, and not only on historico-sociological ones. The particular Church does realize in itself the universal Church, in so far as in the bishop’s celebration of the Word and Sacrament there is made present the mystery of the Trinity; it offers at the same time the essential meeting point for men to come into contact with the mystery of salvation, 42 a mystery which indeed is fully represented only in the symbol of the universal Church, 43 the sacrament of the union both with God and with the whole human race. 44
Now the unity of the Church is derived not from uniformity but from her plurality,45 and the local churches, in their own, proper way, are an essential part in an ascending hierarchy to be found fully explained in the council (patriarchate, diocese, parish, house church 46 and separated ecclesial communities 47). The council did not take up any position with regard to the debated question whether the universal Church was prior to the local church or vice-versa. In fact there exists both the structure belonging to the universal Church (primacy and episcopal college) and the structure characteristic of the local church (the episcopal office).48 Christ did not give priority in his institution either to the local church or to the universal Church; 49 rather he founded the Church as such, with its own twofold structure, whose parts are complementary.
2. The Collegial Structure
Beginning with its own concrete experience, the early Church always considered the idea of the college of bishops as secondary to the concept of the local church. Modern theology has never experienced directly the Church as active in her councils; theology is also under the influence of illuminism even yet. And so the theological approach to this problem has been speculative rather than historical. 50Hence the fact that the Latin theology of the universal Church influenced Vatican II more with reference to the Church’s structure – collegiality – than at the purely ecclesiological level. In fact the council did not recognize the true character of collegiality in the strict sense, and rather took as its central points the problem of the relations of the bishop to the papal primacy and the question whether the subject of power was single or twofold. 51 If the council did reappraise the shape and form of local councils, 52 with particular reference to the modern form of the episcopal conference, 53 nevertheless it did not apply the idea of collegiality to them – putting aside the hypothesis that they could be a way of sharing in the supreme power of the universal college. 54
In fact, they are a genuine form of collegiality, of a local kind, differing from the universal collegiality in that it does not enjoy power of the whole Church. While the Codex Juris Canonicis (CIC) had seen in the episcopal conference only an institution which derived from the papal primacy, Vatican II recognized the local collegial gathering as an institution whose ultimate justification was the proper, ordinary power of the bishops. In particular, it made the episcopal conference a real intermediary between the central authority and the local bishop, in a position to exercise a more general form of authority, and not only in particular cases, as now. 55
3. The Function of the Bishop
(a) The local church as the criterion of the bishop’s function. The bishop, both from the theological and juridical point of view, emerged from Vatican II with his position radically revised, in his relationship both with higher authority and with the local church. The doctrine of collegiality has underlined his juridical and moral responsibility to the whole Church. The reconsideration of the position of the local church has restored the original responsibility of the bishop for the local church. Now the local church is an ecclesial body only in so far as it is able to show forth the essential characteristics of the universal Church, and likewise the bishop is only the local church’s legitimate head, in so far as he is a member of the college of bishops. Therefore, the local church should be taken as the criterion by which the function of the bishop may be defined, since he presides over the local church and is its representative in the assembly of bishops. 56 Thus we can see that it was not only for reasons of administration that the Second Vatican Council, for the first time in the history of the councils, was concerned to define the nature of a diocese. 57
(b) The personal aspect of the bishop’s power. Analogously to the universal Church, there is within the diocese a personal principle of unity and a collegial principle. 58 The bishop is the personal principle, in as far as he possesses by divine right the complete power of orders and jurisdiction necessary to carry out his apostolic duties of teaching, sanctifying and ruling. 59 The council completely reversed the whole approach to the episcopal office, by fully restoring the bishop to the position he originally enjoyed – and still enjoys to an extent in the oriental tradition. The power of orders of the bishop was not defined by the council by referring it to the priestly power of order, but rather the other way round, and the sacramental fullness of the priesthood was predicated of the bishop. 60 With reference to the power of jurisdiction on the other hand, the council eliminated any possibility of seeing such jurisdiction as deriving from the papal primacy, by affirming explicitly that the individual bishop has, per se and in his own right, all the ordinary powers necessary for his apostolic function. 61
From the system of the concession of powers by the Pope to the bishop, it had been a natural step to the system of questions reserved to the Pope. Since the divine right does not exist in the abstract but can only be realized in the process of history by the development of human rights, 62 the problem is how to know in the concrete which powers are necessary for the bishop to be able to look after the discipline of his own local church, so as to ensure that it is a valid manifestation of the universal Church. There is in fact a fundamental objection to the rigid juridical system of reservations. The office of bishop should indeed have limits laid down as to its content, lest the general legal presumption in favour of the bishop given by Vatican II should degenerate into something completely arbitrary, but the problem obviously cannot be solved merely by the granting of a general faculty to dispense from the common law; 63 the bishop must also be able, in the revised CIC, to influence directly, through his administrative and judicial activity, his own local discipline, to take into account the special characteristics and requirements of his own diocese. 64
Therefore, it is rather a question of restoring to the local church its own internal autonomy and unity, which will make possible a pastoral policy for the diocese as a whole under the final responsibility of a single individual. This is the tendency, for example, of the norms of the council, which emphasize the global responsibility of the bishop in some sectors, 65 and support this in a negative way by canceling out the centrifugal tendency which took the clergy, 66 laity, 67 and religious 68 away from the direct authority of the bishop. In a word, it is a question of translating into practical terms of law the picture of the bishop given in the decree Christus Dominus, nn. 11-16. 69
(c) The power of the Synod. As pastoral activity develops in our industrial, consumer society, 70 which is seeing rapid expansion in every field, there is the risk of overtaxing the abilities of one individual. This consideration, and especially the fundamental theological teaching on the bishop, has led to a rediscovery of the further, lower, dimension of the episcopate. The bishop is rescued from the isolation into which he had fallen by several factors: the theological restoration of the presbyterate, the representation of priests in the shape of the council of priests; also, though only by analogy, the other councils and commissions on which the religious 71 and also the laity have a consultative function. All of this is intended to involve every sector of the diocese and extend responsibility to the whole community.
This isolation of the bishop was already known in the Middle Ages, when the idea of a unified pastoral policy was inconceivable, given the absence of any notion of collegiality 72 – a state of affairs which persisted even into recent times, in spite of a considerable missionary effort, under the guise of the partial exclusion of the bishop from the problems of the universal Church. The teaching on collegiality and on the local church, which ought to reflect the universal Church in the most authentic way possible, was incorporated in the clear directives which came from the council, with the purpose of preventing any kind of parochialism in the local church, and promoting inter-ecclesial responsibility – for example, a unified policy73 in ecumenism 74 and mission work. 75
To sum up: the central teaching of the council on episcopal collegiality has had the effect of restoring the standing of the bishop in the universal Church, while also strengthening his position as head of the local church. Limits have been imposed on his authority; firstly, from above, by incorporating him into an inter-diocesan discipline, in the shape of an intermediate collegial institution (the episcopal conference), and secondly, from below, by providing for the advisory function of the priests and laity.
*First published in English translation in Conc (GB) 8 (1968) 47-54, transl. by Michael Tully.
1 M. Philipon, “La santissima Trinità e la Chiesa,” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II(Florence, 1965), pp. 328-31; E. Zoghby, “Unità e diversità della Chiesa,” in ibid., pp. 525, 535-7. (Also published in French as L’Église de Vatican II.)
2 W. Beinert, “Die Una Catholica und die Partikularkirche,” in Theol. und Phil.42(1967), 3-5.
3 De Eccl. 4. 2, in Documents of Vatican II, ed. Abbott (London, 1966).
4 Cf. K. Rahner, The Episcopate and the Primacy (Quaest. Disputatae, II) (London, 1963), pp. 20-30; G. Dejaifve, “La collegialità nella tradizione latina,” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, pp. 838-840; J. Hajjar “La collegialità nella tradizione orientale”, in ibid., pp. 816-817.
5 A. Schmemann, “La notion de primauté dans l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe,” in La primauté de Pierre dans l’Église Orthodoxe (Neuchâtel, 1960), p. 141; M.-J. Guillou, “L’expérience orientale de la collégialité épiscopale et ses requêtes,” in La collégialité épiscopale (Unam Sanctam, 52) (Paris, 1965), p. 176. Y. Congar, “De la communion des Églises à une ecclésiologie de l’Église universelle,” in L’Épiscopat de l’Église Universelle (Unam Sanctam, 39) (Paris, 1962), p. 228.
6 On this whole question, and in particular on sections II and III of this article, cf. Y. Congar, Neuf cent ans après. Notes sur le “Schisme oriental” (Irénikon) (Chevetogne, 1954), pp. 16-181; id., “De la communion,” loc. cit., pp. 227-260; id., “Notes sur le destin de l’idée de collégialité épiscopale en Occident au Moyen Age (VII-XVI siècles),” in La collégialité épiscopale, op. cit., pp. 99-129.
7 Cf. Y. Congar, “De la communion…,” loc. cit., pp. 231-235.
8 Cf. A. Alivisatos, “Les conciles oecuméniques, Ve, VIe, VIIe, VIIIe,” in Le Concile et les Conciles (Unam Sanctam, hors-série) (Chevetogne, 1960), p. 120; H. Marot, “Conciles anténicéens et conciles oecuméniques,” in ibid., pp. 42-43.
9 M.-J. Guillou, Mission et Unité, Les exigeances de la communion (Unam Sanctam, 34), II (Paris, 1960), pp. 184-200; E. v. Ivanea, “Sobornost,” in LThK 9 (Freiburg, 2nd edn., 1964), 841-842.
10 This acephalous arrangement is not necessarily restricted to the synodal regime only. It is also possible within a monarchical system, cf. the medieval Byzantine theologians on the doctrine of “pentarchy”: cf. V. Pospischil, Der Patriarch in der Serbisch-Orthodoxen Kirche (Vienna, 1966), pp. 63-78. See also “Loi organique de l’Église autocéphale de Grèce” (1923) and “Le Charte constitutionelle de l’Église de Grèce,” published in Istina 7 (1960), 153-172, 279-300, where it is clear that the Holy Synod is the supreme legislative, administrative and judicial organ of the autocephalous Church of Greece.
11 M.-J. Guillou, Mission et Unité II, p. 189.
12 J. Hajjar, “La collegialit‡ nella tradizione orientale,” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II,op. cit., pp. 818-831; id., “Synode permanent et collégialité épiscopale dans l’Église byzantine au premier millénaire,” in La collégialité épiscopale, op. cit., pp. 151-166.
13 Th. Strotmann, “L’evêque dans la tradition orientale,” in L’Épiscopat et l’Église Universelle, op. cit., pp. 309-314. Latin theology usually prefers to compare the bishop to Christ, cf. J. Pascher, “Die Hierarchie in sakramentaler Symbolik,” inStudien über das Bischofsamt (Regensburg, 1949), p. 292.
14 J. Hajjar, La collegialitˆ, op. cit., p. 823.
15 V. Pospischil, op. cit., pp. 64-65. For the discussion on the existence of absolute rights belonging to the person of the patriarch, see specially pp. 69-72.
16 Cf. the list of the rights of the patriarchs and metropolitans in N. Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche (Mostar, 21905), pp. 326-329. 335-338. On the rights of bishops in an “eparchy” (diocese), ibid., pp. 372-386, 456-458.
17 C. Andresen, “Geschichte der abendländischen Konzile des Mittelalters,” in Die ökumenische Konzile der Christenheit, ed H. Margull (Stuttgart, 1961), pp. 79-84.
18 B. Neunheuser, “Chiesa universale et chiesa locale,” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, op. cit., pp. 628-630.
19 Y. Congar, “L’ecclésiologie, de la Révolution française au Concile du Vatican, sous le signe de l’affirmation de l’autorité,” in L’ecclésiologie au XIXe siècle (Unam Sanctam, 34) (Paris, 1960), p. 90.
20 O. Rousseau, “La doctrine du ministère épiscopale et ses vicissitudes dans l’Église d’Occident,” in L’Épiscopat et l’Église Universelle, op. cit., pp. 286-287.
21 The quarrel between the seculars and mendicants in the 13th century, which was more than a mere controversy over spirituality, had an influence on ecclesiology, cf. J. Ratzinger, “Der Einfluss des Bettelordensstreites auf die Entwicklung der Lehre vom päpstlichen Universalprimat, unter besonderer Berüchsichtigung des heiligen Bonaventura,” in Theol. in der Geschichte und Gegenwart, Festschrift zum 60 Geb. M. Schmaus (Munich, 1957), pp. 697-724; Y. Congar, “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe et le début du XIVe siècles,” in Arch. Hist. Doctr. Lit., MA 28 (1961), pp. 35-151.
22 Y. Congar, “De la communion…,” loc. cit., pp. 238-40; cf. also J. Rivière, “In partem sollecitudinis… Evolution d’une formule pontificale,” in Rev. Sc. Relig., 5 (1925), pp. 210-231.
23 C. Andresen, loc. cit., pp. 75-149; G. Fransen, “L’ecclésiologie des conciles mediévaux,” in Le Concile et les Conciles, op. cit., pp. 125-141; H. Jedin,Strukturprobleme der ökumenischen Konzilien (Cologne, 1963), pp. 2-27.
24 The conciliarism in the Council of Constance had little true feeling for collegiality, in spite of its insisting on an “ecclesiology of the Church”; cf. Ch. Moeller, “La collégialité au Concile de Constance,” in La collégialité épiscopale, op. cit., p. 149.
25 On the ecclesiology of the period, cf. Y. Congar, “Kirche. II Dogmengeschichtlich,” in Handbuch Theologischer Grundbegriffe I (Munich, 1962), pp. 807-812; cf. also, H. Fries, III Systematisch, ib., pp. 812-822.
26 From the time of Trent until the end of the nineteenth century approximately 260 provincial or plenary councils were held in the Latin Church. If we take 90 as the minimum number of ecclesiastical provinces, it looks as if the number of councils during this time was approximately 2% of the number laid down by Church law. Cf. E. Corecco, La formazione della Chiesa negli Stati Uniti d’America attraverso l’attività sinodale, con particolare riguardo al problema dell’amministrazione dei beni ecclesiastici (Munich, 1962).
27 For this whole question, cf. W. Plöchl, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, I (Vienna, ²1960), pp. 342-343, 165-166; II ²1962), pp. 141-144; II (1959), pp. 257-258; H. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte (Cologne, 41964), pp. 124-127, 213-219, 364-379, 533-539.
28 U. Stutz, Kirchenrecht (Sonderabzug, aus vom Holtzendorffs-Kohlers Encyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft), s.l., 1904, pp. 825-826
29 In Milan and Carthage at the end of the fourth century, there was only one Eucharist for the whole city on Sundays; cf. V. Monachino, La cura pastorale a Milano, Cartagine e Roma nel secolo IV (Rome, 1947), pp. 55-56, 188-190.
30 For the three different areas in which the influence of Rome was felt, cf. P. Batiffol, Cathedra Petri (Unam Sanctam, 4) (Paris, 1938), pp. 41-59.
31 B. Bazatole, “L’évêque et la vie chrétienne au sein de l’Église locale,” inl’Épiscopat et l’Église Universelle, op. cit., pp. 342-348. For the history of the development of the parish, cf. A Blöchlinger, Die heutige Pfarrei als Gemeinschaft(Einsiedeln, 1962), pp. 57-122.
32 On this question, cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Die Entwicklung der Zweigliedrigkeit der kirchlichen Hierarchie,” in MThZ 3 ((1952), pp. 1-16; K. Nasilowski, De distinctione potestatis in ordine in primaeva canonistarum doctrina (Munich, 1962); E. Corecco, “L’origine del potere di giurisdizione episcopale: aspetti storico-giuridici e metodologico-sistematici della questione,” in La Scuola Cattolica, 96 (1968, Jan. – April).
33 O. Rousseau, loc. cit., pp. 279-296.
34 Y. Congar, “Notes sur le destin,” loc. cit., pp. 113-127; G. Alberigo, Lo sviluppo della dottrina sui poteri nella Chiesa universale (Rome, 1962), pp. 4-7.
35 According to Y. Congar (ibid., pp. 118-127), the idea of episcopal collegiality was “abolished” in the Middle Ages by the doctrine of the divine right of the College of Cardinals. Cf. also M. García Miralles, “El Cardinalato de institutione divina y el Episcopado en el problema de la succesión apostólica según Juan de Torquemada,” in XVI Semana Española de Teología (Madrid, 1957), pp. 249-274.
36 W. Bertrams, “De quaestione circa originem potestatis iurisdictionis episcoporum in concilio tridentino non resoluta,” in Periodica Rer. Mor. Can. Lit.,52 (1963), pp. 458-462; G. Alberigo, op. cit., pp. 11-101; H. Grisar, “Die Frage des päpstlichen Primates und des Ursprunges der bischöflichen Gewalten auf dem Tridentinum,” in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 8 (1884), 453-507, 727-784.
37 E. Rösser, Die gesetzliche Delegation (Görres-Gessellschaft Sekt. f. Rechts- und Staatswissenschaft, 26) (Paderborn, 1937), pp. 113-127.
38 H. Jedin, Das Bischofsideal der katholischen Reformation (Bruges, 1953).
39 F. Kantzenbach, “Luthers Konzilstheologie und die Gegenwart,” in Luth. Monatshefte, 5 (1966), 169.
40 Cf. W. Beinert, loc. cit., pp. 8-9
41 K. Rahner, “Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Kommentare I,” in Lex. Theol. und Kirche (Freiburg, 1966), 242-5.
42 W. Beinert, loc. cit., pp. 10-11.
43 The local church is the symbol of the whole ecclesial body, only by virtue of its communion with the universal Church. Ecclesial communion is a dimension which transcends the merely local church.
46 Ibid., 11, 2; De Laic., 11, 4.
48 Y. Congar, “Neuf cent ans après,” in op. cit., pp. 84-5.
49 This point of view was put forward by Archbishop Vèuillot in his relatio on theTextus Emendatus (1964), cf. K. Mörsdorf, Kommentare II, in op. cit., p. 151, n. 4.
50 J. Ratzinger, “La collegialità episcopale: spiegazione teologica,” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, op. cit., pp. 745-7.
51 On this point cf. W. Bertrams, Il potere pastorale del papa e del collegio dei vescovi (Rome, 1967), pp. 62-122; C. Colombo, “Costituzione gerarchica della Chiesa e in particolare dell’episcopato,” in La costituzione “De Ecclesia” (ed. G. Ceriani) (Milan, 1965), pp. 237-261; K. Mörsdorf, “Primat und Kollegialität nach dem Konzil, Über das bischöfliche Amt” (Veröffentlichungen der Kath. Akademie der Erzdiözese Freiburg) (Karlsruhe, 1966), pp. 42-45.
53 Ibid., 37-8; Eccl. Sanc., I, 41.
54 A distinction should be made between formal and material collegiality. Cf. W. Aymans, Das synodale Element in der Kirchenverfassung (Munich, 1967), c. 4, § 1.
55 On this whole problem, cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Kommentare II,” in op. cit., pp. 228-232, 237-238.
56 K. Rahner, “Bischof und Bistum,” in Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie I(Freiburg, 1964), 167-179.
58 On the subordination of the one principle to the other, cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Über die Zuordnung des Kollegialitätsprinzips zu dem Prinzip der Einheit von Haupt und Leib in der hierarchischen Struktur der Kirchenverfassung,” in Wahrheit und Verkündigung, M. Schmaus zum 70 Geburtstag (Munich, 1967), II, pp. 1435-1445.
59 De Eccl., 25-7. Lumen Gentium expressly makes a distinction between the office and the power, to avoid any confusion between the doctrine of the triple office of the bishop and his “triple power.” For the relationship between the power of orders and jurisdiction and the triple office, cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Heilige Gewalt,” inSacramentum Mundi, II (Freiburg, 1967 ff.). (Vols. I and II of the English translation will be published in October 1968, but volume references will of course be different, as articles are in alphabetical order. – Trans.)
62 K. Rahner, “Bischof und Bistum,” in loc. cit., p. 176; id., “Über den Begriff des ‘Ius divinum’ im kath. Verständnis,” in Schriften zur Theologie V (Einsiedeln, 1962), pp. 249-277; id., Über Bischofskonferenzen,” in ib., VI (Einsiedeln, 1965), pp. 438-442.
64 On this whole question, cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Kommentare II,” in op cit., pp. 158-61, Exkursus II, pp. 166-71; id., “Neue Vollmachten und Privilegien der Bischöfe,” in AfkKR 133 (1964), pp. 82-101.
65 While the CIC attributed to the bishop a mainly negative function in supervising the execution of the liturgical norms (cf. can. 1261), the Council abrogated can. 1257 and returned to the bishop a general commission to supervise the liturgy in his diocese in keeping with the new law. Cf. De Lit., 22, 1, Instr. Vat. Lit., 22; K. Mörsdorf, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts II (Paderborn, 111967) pp. 365-370.
66 De Epis., 31-2; Eccl. Sanc., 20-1. Cf. H. Schmitz, “Amtsenthebung und Versetzung der Pfarrer im neuen Recht,” in Triere Theol. Zeitschr., 76 (1967) 357-371.
67 De Epis., 28; Eccl. Sanc., I, 18.
68 De Epis., 34-35; Eccl. Sanc., I, 22-40. A. Scheuermann, “Kommentar zum Ordensdekret des II Vatikanischen Konzils,” in Das Konzil und die Orden(Cologne, 1967), pp. 105-108; id., “Die Ausführungsbestimmungen zu den Konzilsweisungen für die Ordensleute,” in ibid., pp. 122-137.
69 K. Mörsdorf, “Kommentare II,” in op. cit., p. 173.
70 Cf. O. Saier, “Die hierarchische Struktur des Presbyteriums,” in AfkKR 136 (1967), pp. 341-391; L. Weber, “Der Priesterrat,” in Der Seelsorger, 38 (1968), pp. 105-118.
71 Religious are included among the diocesan clergy, cf. De Epis., 34, 1.
72 Y. Congar, “Notes sur le destin…,” loc. cit., p. 118.
73 For example, De Epis., 6; De Presb., 10; De Miss., 19, 4 and 20, 1; Eccl. Sanc., I, 1-15.
74 E.g., De Ecum., 4, 11; 5 and 10, 1