In the West, Papal primacy had increased gradually
through the growing authority exercised by the church bodies in the Curia and
by the centralisation brought about by the Vatican over the years. Bishops were now appointed almost exclusively
by Rome and they had to apply to Rome for permission to do all kinds of things
that bishops in the past had competence to deal with. The 1870 definition of Papal primacy and
infallibility and the Papal definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the
Assumption were monuments to the increased role of Rome and the diminishing
role of the bishops.
One of the aims of the Second Vatican Council was
to redress the balance. The Curia, whose
power had grown over the years, - as it was seen as an expression of the power
of the papacy – were not at all in favour of promoting an increased role for the
bishops as this would mean a decreased role for them. In their eyes this would mean disaster for
the Church as they saw their high profile and experience as indispensible for
the proper running of all things ecclesiastical. And so throughout the Council there was
tension between these two ideas of Papal primacy and the collegiality of the
bishops – and tension between those who promoted these ideas.
Paul VI was Pope during most of Vatican Council II
and he was very keen to secure good relations between the Curia – who included
a number of Cardinals and bishops – and the body of diocesan bishops. One of the key documents of the Council was
the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.
Before voting on it they submitted it to the Pope for his consent. In this document (‘The Light of the Nations’)
the bishops restated the doctrine that the Pope had full, supreme and universal
power over the Church. In the same
paragraph they affirmed that the College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head,
also had full, supreme and universal power over the Church – they used the same
words.
Paul VI was afraid that these two statements, as
they stood, could give rise to misunderstanding and conflict. Under his guidance a few leading theologians
composed a note that the Pope sent to the Council. It stated that the Pope, as the Vicar of
Christ, is entitled to govern monarchcically.
But he is also head of the College of Bishops and as such he can govern
collegially. The choice is at his
discretion. In this way he sought to
square the concepts of primacy and collegiality. This note was meant to be a permanent guide
to interpreting the Council document.
The Council accepted it without debate or vote but it never became part
of the Council document. When the
document was voted on, only a handful voted against. Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI –
without ever saying so explicitly – have chosen to govern monarchically. Pope Paul VI in promulgating the document
‘The Light of the Nations’ spoke of the Church as ‘both monarchical and
hierarchical’. But the document itself –
and all the Council documents – avoided using the word monarch when speaking of
the structure of the Church. Paul VI
chose the vehicle of the Synod of Bishops, which meet every three years, to
give some expression to the idea of collegiality but as used up to now, it is a
very unsatisfactory instrument.
But with Pope Francis all this is about to
change. He has stated in recent weeks
that he wants to promote affective and effective communion between the Pope and
the bishops. ‘I wish to give full value
to this precious heritage of the Council.’
His eyes are now on the forthcoming Synod of Bishops in October which he
is planning to be a departure from the style of all the previous Synods of
Bishops. ‘After having deeply examined
the signs of the times and with the awareness that in the exercise of Petrine
Ministry it is necessary more than ever to revitalise the close relationship
among all pastors of the Church’ he is telling us that he is not making this
decision lightly.
This determination of Pope Francis to dare to do
things differently is sure to meet opposition.
By seeking to revitalise the exercise of the office of Peter and the
office of bishops there will be, hopefully, far-reaching implications in the
relations between the Christian Churches.
John Paul II in his Encyclical ‘That they may be one’ wrote ‘May the
Holy Spirit shine his light upon us that we may seek – together of course – the
forms of which this (Petrine) ministry may accomplish a service of love
recognised by all’
