The Role of Leadership in the Catholic Church.
1. The rights and duties of the people of God.
Since a properly informed understanding of the Church leadership must come from our understanding of the Church and of Christ, I would like to begin my own presentation by laying out the rights and duties of the Catholic faithful, as expounded in the current and historical teaching of the Church. I shall do my best to cite my sources as I go, so as to better show from where these beliefs have been drawn and some sense of their development.
Christ is the Image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,(Col 1:15) the Saviour of all His elect whom God foreknew and predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29); in such a way, the Church was readied through the history and people of Israel, of whom the same Church is the fulfilment, “a chosen kindred, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people” (1 Pet 2:9.) The Church was constituted most properly and made manifest through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ’s preaching of the Kingdom of God, so that when He returned to the Father, He sent the same Holy Spirit a Paraclete from the Father to be led into all truth (John 14:26.) The Lord Jesus is really with us unto the age, and is the Head of the Church, His Body (Col 1:21; 1 Cor 10:16–17); and this Church is described in many different ways in the Old Testament and in the revelation of the Kingdom through our blessed Lord’s ministry.
The Church, to wit, is likened to a sheepfold, the door to which is Christ (Jn 10:1–10): for through the regeneration of Baptism (Titus 3:5–7) outpouring grace into our hearts, we are “born from above of water and Spirit” (John 3:5) and so enter into “newness of life” (Romans 6:3–4), bearing the image of the heavenly even as we have borne the image of the earthly Adam (1 Cor 15:45–9.) The Church too is a promised land to be cultivated and tilled, which being planted by the Lord (Isaiah 5:1–5) was rooted in Moses and the Prophets (cf. Rom 3:1–2) and grew into a choice vineyard. Christ is the true vine, and the Father is the husbandman(John 15:1) — for through Christ our Passover, we have come to know the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles, grafted as it were into this one true vine(Gal 3:28.) The Church is again called “our mother”, being “that Jerusalem which is above”(Gal 4:26) who is the spotless spouse (Song 4:7) whom Christ her Bridegroom “loved and for whom He delivered Himself up that He might hallow her” (Eph 5:25–28). She is one with Christ, for “they are not now two but one flesh; what God has conjoined, let no man put asunder” (Eph 5:31–32; Mark 10:7–9.)
I must emphasise that these fundamentals are essential to understanding why we believe what we do about the Church’s governance. Therefore to summarise both the preceding and what is to follow:
The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfil in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.
There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.
From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.
2. Biblical Foundations.
When Christ built his Church, and she began her mission after the ascension of Christ, Peter “standing up in the midst of the brethren” (Acts 1:15) treats Judas Iscariot’s place as one of the twelve as an “episcopate” (or “bishopric”, to take the derived term in English.) He cites Psalm 108[109] in favour of this (comp. Acts 1:20 w/ Ps 109[109]:8): “his bishopric let another take,” which some translations render “office”, but which has for the literal word ἐπισκοπή, “his *episkopé*” or his office of overseeing. In any case, Matthias is chosen by the apostles and ordained to the “bishopric” of Judas by the laying on of hands (Acts 1:23–6), following which he “was numbered with the eleven apostles.” Therefore we can understand that he had the same authority as the other Apostles. We next see the institution of those called Deacons in the first days of the Church, beginning with the first seven noted in Acts 6:1–7. These deacons, coming from a Greek word meaning “servant”, were appointed to the business of daily ministration and the “serving of tables, for the better application of the Apostles to “prayer and to the ministry of the Word.” Again, they are notably ordained when the Apostles “imposed hands upon them”, a significant Biblical gesture, as it has precedents in much of the Old Testament.
We read in Deuteronomy, “Jesus the son of Nun was filled with the Spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him; and the children of Israel obeyed him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Dt 34:9.) Jesus, or Joshua, succeeded to the same office of Moses who had a headship over the people of God, from God himself; when this was opposed by Korah, Dathan, and Abiron, God showed by miraculous signs that while “all the multitude consists of holy ones, and the Lord is among them”, there is a special authority and ministration given to those who are appointed by God to rule the Church of God. Indeed as it is confirmed in the New Testament, “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has placed you bishops, to rule the church of God which he has purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28)
Indeed, it must be noted that in this passage the same leading men here called bishops and told to act as pastors (shepherds) are also called “elders” (from πρεσβυτέρος, “presbyter”, whence we get the word “priest.”) In the context of the New Testament, there was no set semantic distinction between the two, and they were used interchangeably elsewhere in the epistle of Paul to Titus. Yet, James is equated with the Church of Jerusalem in Galatians 2:12, who is directly reported to in Acts 12:17 (instead of it being said, “report this to the presbyters”), indicating that James was the leading authority over the presbyters there. Again we see that in Acts 15:2, when a dispute arose between Paul, Barnabas and some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, they decided to appeal to the “apostles and presbyters” in Jerusalem; we see many references here to these “presbyters” without reference to a presiding “lead presbyter” here, but James’ authority is again manifested in Acts 15:19. The community saw no need at this time to identify him as the presiding head, as he is an organic part of the Church of Jerusalem and not separate from it.
Again in Titus 1:5 we see that Titus was left in Crete to “set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town.” This appointment of presbyters was part of the function of the presiding priest or bishop; as such, we can see that Titus is over the other presbyters as a head rather than one among many, despite being called “presbyter” (Titus 1:7.) Once more in 1 Tim 5:17–22, Paul speaks to Timothy singularly on how to govern the other presbyters under his authority, using as he does the singular “you” pronoun explicitly. It indicates that Timothy, and other like bishops, possessed exclusive and personal authority over the other presbyters, having power to “accept an accusation against a presbyter”, and to “lay hands” on people to ordain them in the manner of the Apostles.
From closer examination of the New Testament, therefore, we can see a distinction between the Apostles who had a “bishopric” — and later those whom they appointed to their roles — as well as presbyters under them, whom they had power to appoint and judge between and rule over, and finally a class of deacons who were ordained by the same form to the daily ministration.
We can go even further than these Scriptural examples by explaining that the early Church was modelled off the synagogue system that preceded them (cf. Acts 18:7–8); while these synagogues possessed colleges of elders who acted as a governing body for the community, it was presided over by the ‘chief rabbi’, a leading elder, who was the president and spiritual father of it. So while we indeed say that bishops are priests in the Church, and that priests in some sense oversee their diocese and therefore may be called “bishops” of it, there is a clear demarcation, and distinction, between these three orders, as we see play out naturally in the half-century proceeding the New Testament. By time early second century, we have this distinction used in the language of the Church as it is today, in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 107:
CHAPTER III. 1 See that ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father; and the 2 presbytery, as the Apostles; and reverence the deacons, as the command of God. 2 Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the church separately from the bishop. 3 Let that Eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has given his consent. 4 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church. 5 It is not lawful without the bishop; neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the Holy Communion but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing unto God; that so whatever is done, may be sure and well done. (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 3:1–4.)
3. The succession of Bishops from the Apostles.
Saint Clement, the Bishop of Rome between 88 and 99, gives us important insight into the origin of these Holy Orders from a source outside of the New Testament. While not Apostolic teaching itself, it does witness to the universal truths taught by the Apostles, giving testimony to those traditions of which St Paul exhorts the Thessalonians, “stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” (2 Thess 2:14.) His epistle to the Corinthians was held in high regard in the whole Church from its promulgation, especially by the Church of Corinth itself which would read it along with the Sacred Scriptures for many decades afterwards (cf. Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:11.) It is virtually the oldest work we know, aside from perhaps the Didache Apostolorum (the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” touching Church order). Scholars are divided on when to date it, but from the internal evidences — such as 1:1 referring to “sudden and repeated calamities which have befallen us”, and 18:20 which uses the continual daily sacrifices observed in Jerusalem in his argument — it would seem that it may be dated to some time during the persecution under Nero, c. 68. Other scholars connect 1:1 with the persecution under Diocletian (c. 95–96) and so place the epistle in this date range.
Clement is writing to stop a schism in Corinth where their own presbyters (which Clement also calls bishops) had been thrown out by the laity. He seeks peace and in the same spirit as Saint Paul (comp. 1 Cor 1) exhorts them to root out the schismatics (those making separations in the Church) as it is unbefitting of a Church that is one. Part of his argument states:
Chapter XIX. 1. The Apostles have preached to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. 2 Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ; so both were orderly sent, according to the will of God. 3 For having received their command, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and convinced by the word of God, with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad, publishing, That the kingdom of God was at hand. 4 And thus through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit. 5 Nor was this any new thing; seeing that long before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. 6 For thus saith the Scripture, in a certain place: “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their ministers in faith.”[comp Isaiah 60:17.] […]
16 So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise on account of the ministry. 17 And therefore having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have aforesaid, and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. 18 Wherefore we cannot think that those may ustly be thrown out of their ministry, who were either appinted by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church; and who have with all lowliness and innocence ministered to the flock of Church, in peace, and without self-interest, were for a long time commended by all. 19 For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their ministry, who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it.
From these ancient words we know the mind of the Church against disputation and casting off of those who fulfil the duties of the office they have received from Christ. While for grave offences and failures in those duties, as Clement seems to intimate, there is a way that one would judge a bishop which was no “chosen and approved” — that, in the Catholic view, is not part of the purview of the laity, but of the other bishops. Meanwhile, however, the authority of the bishops, priests, and deacons, is manifest and held to by the Church since these times. “16 Learn to be subject, laying aside all proud and arrogant boasting of your tongues. 17 For it is better for you to be found little, and approved, in the sheepfold of Christ, than to seem to yourselves better than others, and be cast out of his fold” (1 Clement 23:16–17.)
4. Ministry in the Church.
So then, leadership in the Church is ministry: “he that is the leader should be as he that serves,” as the Lord says at the Last Supper (Luke 22:25–26), especially in the ministry of the Word of God and of the Sacraments such as Baptism and the Eucharist. The Apostles were the first such heads of the Church and constitute the foundations of the Church along with the Prophets (Eph 2:20), with the chief cornerstone being Christ, who upholds all of them by His Spirit. Therefore while the Lord Jesus promises to build the Church on Simon, whom he names ‘Cephas’ or ‘Rock’ (John 1:42), all of the Apostles and subsequently all of the Bishops have an equal power and authority in their episcopate (Matt 18:18). They have the power to forgive and retain sins through Christ, because they are one with Christ and act in His person (John 20:19–23.) To make sure the Church is one, however, and to uphold it in its unity, a source of that unity is established in Peter who is told to ‘uphold your brethren’ (Luke 22:31–32; cf. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4.) Indeed his confession, which is made as representative of the whole Church,(cf. Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 108, 1) was not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Father, and the gates of hell (that is, the power of death) cannot prevail against it (Matthew 16:17–19.)
So we see that power in the Christian and Ecclesiastical system is not one of “lording it over” others, but rooted in service, especially in the Divine Service (latria) of God, the offering of the sacrifice of Christ which is Jesus’ “body which is given for you… the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Our blessed Lord does not see the ministry of the Church’s rulers as “powers over the Church”, but servers of it, which certainly must be obeyed and submitted to but in a confirmatory role; and Peter, as him who would confirm the brethren, is “as a loving father to his children” (cf. Dionysius of Corinth to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9.)
Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college (ibid, can. 375.) This head is the Bishop of Rome, as it was known and accepted from the time of the Council of Ephesus:
There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.
Indeed, it was “known in all ages” that Rome presided over the Churches, as the aforementioned Ignatius (Ignatius to the Romans 1:1), Dionysius (Letter to Pope Soter), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2), Cyprian (Letter 55[52]:1), Pope Julius (Letter on behalf of Athanasius), Pope Damasus (Decree of Damasus 3) to that point and onwards.
According to Canon 378 of the Code of Canon Law and canon 180 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: in order for a person to be considered suitable for the episcopate, it is required that he: (1) demonstrate solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls and prudence; (2) enjoy a good reputation; (3) not be bound by a matrimonial bond; (4) be at least thirty-five years old; (5) ordained a presbyter for at least five years; (6) possess a doctorate or licentiate in some sacred science or at least be an expert in it. These are based on 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9, as well as other ancient canonical traditions such as those found in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Didache Apostolorum.
The Church fulfils its sanctifying function in a particular way through the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly function of Jesus Christ. In the sacred liturgy the sanctification of humanity is signified through sensible signs and effected in a manner proper to each sign. In the sacred liturgy, the whole public worship of God is carried out by the Head and members of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Such worship takes place when it is carried out in the name of the Church by persons legitimately designated and through acts approved by the authority of the Church. (CIC Can. 834.)
The bishops in the first place exercise the sanctifying function; they are the high priests, the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, and the directors, promoters, and guardians of the entire liturgical life in the church entrusted to them. Presbyters also exercise this function; sharing in the priesthood of Christ and as his ministers under the authority of the bishop, they are consecrated to celebrate divine worship and to sanctify the people. Deacons have a part in the celebration of divine worship according to the norm of the prescripts of the law. The other members of the Christian faithful also have their own part in the function of sanctifying by participating actively in their own way in liturgical celebrations, especially the Eucharist. Parents share in a particular way in this function by leading a conjugal life in a Christian spirit and by seeing to the Christian education of their children. (CIC Can. 835.)
5. Magisterium of the Church.
Magisterium, which is the teaching office of the Church exercised in either an ordinary or an extra-ordinary way, always requires assent; as Ignatius says, “see that ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father.” All definitive teachings (not just opinions) of the Church are authoritative and binding, so that we hold the “same mind and judgment” as the whole Church (1 Cor 1:10), knowing that the bishops have been placed in charge of the Church (Acts 20:28) and the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15.) Since the Church has been promised to be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13), and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Matt 16:18), we assert also that the definitive teachings of the Church expressed by the universal consent of the Bishops is unable to err.
Yet every Bishop is a source of what is called “ordinary” Magisterium, the teachings of the Church as touch the rules and disciplines which are kept by the faithful of his jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome, who is of course a Bishop, is also a source of Magisterium, and as it is in him that the Apostolic tradition is maintained (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2); he settles any dissensions or disputes between the Bishops as he whose role is to “feed the Lord’s sheep” (cf. John 21:15–17.) A Bishop is not infallible in himself; but we submit to the Bishop, for where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.
The definitive proposals of all the Bishops together with the Roman Pontiff, dispersed but in agreement, are infallible and irreformable as part of the Universal Magisterium. Nothing that is taught universally can be contrary or added to the Deposit of Faith, though these doctrines may be developed over time out of them as the seed of the Church grows — not constituting a change or introduction of foreign material. But indeed the Church cannot universally fall into another Gospel, just as it is written: “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” But the Bride of Christ cannot be anathema to him, but is “all fair” and “the pillar and ground of the truth”, as aforesaid.
As the rock of the Church, the Roman Bishop’s confession of faith is Peter’s, and when the Pope speaks in an extraordinary and solemn definition from the “faith delivered once to the saints” of a dogma to be believed by the faithful, these dogmas are infallible and irreformable of themselves. A Pope can define them on his own or through an Ecumenical Council, and dogmas are usually defined for some pastoral benefit, like ending disputes or fostering greater appreciation for something of the faith.
6. Archbishops, Metropolitans, Primates, and Patriarchs.
Finally, it befits to talk about various developments in the kinds of jurisdiction given to bishops in the Church.
The term “Archbishop” comes from arché, “first”, and episcopos “bishop”. It essentially denotes those who, following the establishment of bishops in all provinces of the Roman Empire, were first in place among them and had a precedence over them, judging between the bishops of that province. When the Archbishop ruled from a Metropolis (that is, a certain kind of city), he was known as the Metropolitan Arcbishop; an Archbishop is usually Metropolitan, a term which was applied in the 4th century to bishops of all ranks from archbishops to patriarchs; the semantic distinction as concerned their jurisdiction generally arose around the 5th-6th centuries. The Archbishop is not Metropolitan if his diocese is the only one in a province, as is the case with the Archbishops of Luxembourg and Monaco; for he is not under a Metropolitan, and so is Archbishop of his province, but neither does he rule other bishops, as a Metropolitan would.
The Patriarch is the autonomous head of a Church in matters of law, having communion with the other patriarchs and the bishop of Rome but not ruled by them, governing himself and his particular church. The first three patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch; they were chosen as the three most important Sees in the empire, so that Roman law was applied to the West, Alexandrian to the dioceses of Egypt, and Antioch to Syria, notwithstanding that judgment was referred to the Apostolic See in disputes between other eastern churches as well (as in the case of Pope Victor and the Quartodeciman controversy, the deposition of Athanasius, and the calling and confirming of Ecumenical Councils as with Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, the latter of which confirmed Constantinople I.) The Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople were next added from the Council of Chalcedon, and Armenia and the Chaldees had Catholicos-Patriarchates also from around the 5th and 6th centuries.
The Latin Church also considers Patriarchs in a slightly broader sense and allows the titles of Patriarch of Venice, Lisbon, and the East Indies, which do not correspond generally to jurisdiction over a self-governing church. The title is basically honorary and started around the 15th century. Another feature of Latin ecclesiology is the designation of Primates across the various provincial territories of the West and later the primatial Sees of each country, so that a comparable division could be made between different territories like in the East but without changing the historical necessity of Rome as “Patriarch of the West”, under which all these “primates” had the same law and ritual practices as Rome (with some exceptions over time.) Thus Armagh is the primate of all Ireland, for instance. Today the title of “Primate” is generally hard to pin down because we have moved away from calling Sees by that name, referring instead to presidents of the various national “Episcopal Conferences” which apply Roman law in each national territory and are in charge of pastoral care within national borders.
