The interest this unprecedented petition to the Australian Catholic Bishops has stirred, and the courageous and very political decision of the President of that Conference, Archbishop Phillip Wilson, to scuttle an endeavour designed to derail that petition and position the Conference and the Bishops in a politically neutral position in relation to the petition proceeding without impediment, has inspired Ian Elmer to prepare this commentary for us on the nature of authority within the Church.

By whose authority?

How many times have we been told that "the church is not a democracy"? We often hear this slogan whenever anyone suggests a change to church practice or dreams of a future Church that is more open and accepting. It has been heard afresh in recent times as a group of worried Australian Catholics sought to petition the Bishops concerning falling vocations and the concomitant need to discuss new ways of tackling this problem — ordaining married men, training lay leaders and considering women priests. Many have felt that this lay-led initiative is foolhardy, divisive or, worse, heretical.

The underlying assumption is that seeking a greater participation of the faithful (both lay and clerical) in the decision-making processes of the Church is an inappropriate application of a secular political model (democracy) to the life of the Church — whose autocratic, hierarchical structures and administration are seen as a divinely ordained and, therefore, unchangeable.

John Paul II used a similar argument to avoid the dealing with earlier calls for the ordination of women. In his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), John Paul declared "that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (4).

The question I want to raise here is: by whose authority can a Pope make such a declaration? I am speaking not only of John Paul's declaration on ordination of women but also more broadly on the limits or the bases of "apostolic authority". Both issues lay at the heart of the debate concerning the recent petition to the Australian bishops vis-à-vis priestly ministry.

Historical Background…

In terms of authority, the Church has always struggled with the tension between "institutional" model of being church and the "charismatic" model, where the first tends to centralise decision-making and second relies upon the collective and inspired mind of the whole Church. In the Acts of the Apostles, the earliest communities are seen as highly charismatic — even the Apostles exercise their authority only at the behest of the Spirit-directed gathering of the whole Church. But, it is probably also true to say that the development of the three tiered hierarchy (Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon) appeared very early in the life of the Church.

Paul greets the church in Philippi in terms that bespeak an early hierarchy (Phil 1:1). The Pastorals — 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus — demonstrate how the later Pauline communities attempted to maintain the apostolic succession by "finding" supposedly lost Pauline letters that spoke of Paul having ordained and instructed his successors (cf. 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1; 3:10, 14-16).

One must see the doctrine of the primacy of Peter as distinct from the primacy of Rome

This concept of apostolic succession is crucial to understanding the nature of authority in the Catholic Church, which apparently holds that ultimate power rests with the Pope, whose primacy derives from his position as both the bishop of Rome and the successor of Peter. Of course, one must see the doctrine of the primacy of Peter as distinct from the primacy of Rome, the first of which has precedence over the second.

A quick overview of the Catechism, which is our best compendium of "official" Church teachings, suggests that Peter's primacy exists apart from the location of Rome. Paragraph 522 holds that, although, "Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve, Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him". Subsequent paragraphs go on to develop further this understanding of Peter as the "first among equals", deriving from a careful reading of Peter's role in the New Testament documents — especially in Matthew, John, and the Acts of the Apostles.

Paragraph 523 tells us that "Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom".

Interestingly, in the Catechism, the connection between Peter and Rome is not discussed in similar depth, but is rather assumed. Hence, paragraph 194 we find the following statement about the Apostles' Creed: "It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is 'the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith'." Elsewhere, the Bishop of Rome is merely designated the successor of Peter (cf. 85; 877; 822; 892; 936).

Once again, we see here the manner in which we, as Catholics, read the bible out of tradition and, similarly, read tradition out of the bible. It demonstrates the wisdom of this balanced approach. Theologians throughout the Church's history have recognised that the primacy of Rome is a historical development of a living tradition that only partly reaches back into the first century.

The Church recognises that the emergence of the pre-eminence of Rome had far more to do with the city's political significance than the Christian community there. The equally-ancient Orthodox Churches of the East would hold that Rome should not take precedence over the other, "apostolic" patriarchies of antiquity. Peter was but one of the Twelve, and the primacy of Rome has more to do the bygone politics of the Roman Empire than it has do with apostolic commission.

This Eastern tradition is held by all the Christian churches that separated at an early stage from the Western tradition (Rome) in order to follow one of the other ancient patriarchies (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople). However, this Orthodox "model" of diverse, but equal patriarchies is partly preserved in the Roman tradition of the episcopacy, and in that aspect of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that recognises that the Pope's authority is exercised in union with the college of bishops.

It is important to remember that the Pope is NOT infallible when acting alone. The doctrine does not claim that this charism belongs exclusively to the pope. It is significant that John Henry Newman openly opposed the proposal when it was first canvassed at Vatican I. It was no doubt a result of his work on authority within the Church, and the work of historian, J. J. Döllinger (whose followers later formed the "Old Catholics" in protest of Vat I), that the Council conceded that infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.

To pursue this issue further, the pope's infallibility is NOT boundless, nor his authority autocratic (in the true sense of that term). The doctrine of infallibility does not declare the Pope's authority to be unlimited. On the contrary, it places clear bounds around the Pope's authority. It recognises the human limitations of the "man in the job", and forces him to act only as spokesperson for the whole Church. To say that the Pope is infallible is not to say that he personally is "inspired" to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the same way we all do — through study (of the relevant texts), consultation (with church historians, theologians and biblical scholars), and cooperation (with the whole Catholic communion, especially via his fellow bishops).

Vatican II…

One of the more important developments that occurred as a result of Vatican II was the rediscovery of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. For much of the history of Western Christianity the role of the Spirit has been subordinated by a tendency to think of the Church almost exclusively in terms of its relation to Christ — Pneumatology has been eclipsed by Christology.

At Vatican II there was a renewed awareness that although Christ laid the foundations of the Church, it is the Spirit who continues to animate and guide the Church. This renewed vision has led to a new conception of the Church as a "pilgrim people" on a journey. It is no longer seen as a static entity, preserving doctrine and practice unchanged for all eternity.

The council fathers owed a great deal to John Henry Newman for the insight that our faith is preserved and passed on by the conspiratio fidelium et pastorum (the "breathing together of the faithful and the pastors"). The breath or spirit of God animates and inspires both the hierarchy and the faithful alike.

The Vatican II document on Divine Revelation even went so far as to say that the very development of tradition and doctrine derives the "contemplation" and "study" of "all believers" (8). Similarly, Lumen gentium speaks of the "prophetic office" being fulfilled "not only through the hierarchy who teach in his [Jesus'] name and by his power, but also through the laity" (35). Both hierarchy and laity are seen as "witnesses" whose combined efforts, thoughts, study and reflection lead to the sensus fidei.

One other important corollary of this change in perspective, however, has also been a new (or rather rediscovered) collaborative view of the role of the faithful in the decision-making processes of the Church. Every believer, by virtue of their baptism, shares in the life of the Spirit, and therefore possesses a "supernatural instinct" or "sense of faith" (sensus fidei) that allows each to recognise God's word and respond to it. The individual believers exercise this instinct fallibly, but the collective exercise of this instinct provides the very basis of the Church's "spiritual discernment". We can speak of the doctrines and practices of the Church as deriving from the sense of the whole faithful (sensus fidelium) and, thus, these beliefs and practices represent what the whole people of God in fact believe and practice.

Final Reflections…

	We should remember that the whole issue is not a simple matter of the Roman Church changing its practice. The Pontiff also must be mindful of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and especially the Eastern rite communities in communion with Rome (for whom the Pope also speaks).

Returning to the issues we raised at start of this commentary, we could conclude in the light of the foregoing discussion that John Paul II was correct in saying that he did not have the authority to change the Church's ancient practice of ordaining only men to the ministerial priesthood. That authority to make such a radical change can only derive from the whole community "breathing together". We should remember that the whole issue is not a simple matter of the Roman Church changing its practice. The Pontiff also must be mindful of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and especially the Eastern rite communities in communion with Rome (for whom the Pope also speaks).

Still, the foregoing discussion does raise some difficult questions.

What happens when the Pope or bishops are out of step with what the whole of the faithful believe and practice? By what authority do they "declare" something as either a belief or an unchangeable practice of the Church if such declaration does not truly represent the sensus fidelium? Do they not require what might be called a consensus fidelium (a true consensus from all the faithful) to so declare such a doctrine or practice?

These questions are pressed upon us with even greater urgency as we confront the present crisis in priestly vocations, which has led many within the ranks of the faithful to question the present practice of limiting the search for new priestly recruits to celibate males.

One possible option for "making up the numbers" in the West is to import priests and seminarians from those countries with a surfeit of vocations. This, however, could only ever be a stop-gap measure. Some more long-term solution will be needed down the track.

Another development in the West is the reintroduction of the permanent deaconate, raising up local (most often married) men to take on many of the roles formally reserved for the priest — both pastoral (visiting the sick, counselling the bereaved) and liturgical (weddings, funerals, baptisms).

I can foresee a day in the very near future when parishes will be staffed and led by deacons, and priests will become "boundary riders" visiting parishes to celebrate Eucharist. Again this could only be at best a stop-gap measure, unless we are willing to accept a very different understanding of parish, which is not centred on Sunday Eucharist.

Such a radical change to the notion of the "Eucharistic Community" would, however, be little short of a new "Reformation".

Would the Church remain identifiably "Catholic"?

The issue at stake is this: the Eucharist (described by Vatican II as the "source and summit of the Christian life") is central to Catholic faith practice and Catholic spirituality. It is not an option to dispense with its regular celebration.

It comes down to a situation where we must choose between the priesthood as we presently know it or the celebration of the Sunday Eucharist — which is primary? On such a crucial and pressing question, surely, all the faithful must have input.

Photo Credits:
"Staying the Course" © 2007 Daryl Gagle.
URL: cagle.msnbc.com/news/PopeBenedict/images/tab%20copy.gif
"St Peter" © 2006 by James Martin. St. Peter holding the key to heaven statue in St. Peter's square Go Italy URL: z.about.com/d/goitaly/1/0/m/3/-/-/st-peters-ext-3.jpg
"St Peter's Rome" Puzzle House (2007)
URL: www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/stpetersrome.jpg
 

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the beginning of the email address before sending the email"

©2007 Ian Elmer

[Ian's Take Archive]