Episcopal Collegiality and Synodality

In his writings and speeches Pope Francis makes clear his desire for synodality. He has attempted to model it with the synods on the Amazon and the Family. In this article, after a cursory review of the meaning of collegiality and the long history of synodality, I want to suggest that we need a collective imagination as the basis on which to proceed. We currently lack what Charles Taylor has called a “social imaginary.”

Among the many initiatives which were closely debated during the Second Vatican Council, that involving episcopal collegiality received a high level of focus. The distinguished Church historian, John O’Malley, wrote “The lightning-rod issue at the council was episcopal collegiality. No other section of any other document was more contested or received more minute scrutiny than chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium. Even after the council overwhelmingly approved that chapter, the issue did not die but returned at the last moment in the famous Nota praevia attached to the decree by ‘a higher authority.’ The fierce and unrelenting opposition to collegiality from a small but powerful minority at the council […] indicates that something important was at stake, something more than an updating or a development.”[1]

What exactly is episcopal collegiality? Why was the issue so contentious? Why did it come up at all?

The meaning of collegiality

The bishops and theologians at Vatican II were well aware that the First Vatican Council (1869-70) had dealt with the authority of the pope but not with the question of bishops in the Church and in relation to the pope. This was a piece of unfinished business that had left the Church with a very unbalanced ecclesiology for almost a century and it clearly had to be addressed. They also knew it would be contentious. So, in the debate on the use of the vernacular in the liturgy in the first session (October, 1962), it became clear that decisions about the use of modern languages could only be made at the local level by what they termed the “competent territorial ecclesiastical authorities” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 22), or the bishops in the countries or regions where each language was spoken. How it would work would not come up until the debate on the document on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

After the preparatory document on the Church was rejected in the first session, a straw vote was taken during the second session, October, 1963, to get a sense of the Council’s thinking on the issue of collegiality. The bishops voted 84 percent in favor “That the body or college of bishops succeeds to the college of the apostles and that this body, in union with its head the pope, possesses full and supreme authority in the Church.”[2] Thus the way was open for the final version which read: “Just as, by the Lord’s will, St. Peter and the other apostles constituted one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, and the bishops as successors of the apostles are joined together. The collegial nature and meaning of the episcopal order found expression in the very ancient practice by which bishops appointed the world over were linked with one another and with the Bishop of Rome by the bonds of unity, charity and peace; also in the conciliar assemblies which made common judgments about more profound matters in decisions reflecting the views of many. The ecumenical councils held through the centuries clearly attest this collegial aspect” (LG 22).

In the later Decree on the Pastoral Office of the Bishop, Christus Dominus (CD), promulgated in the last session, the bishops reaffirmed this: “By virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and other members of the college, a bishop becomes a part of the episcopal body. ‘The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching authority and pastoral rule; or, rather, in the episcopal order the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church. But this power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.’ (LG 22) This power is exercised in a solemn manner in an Ecumenical Council” (CD 4).

The bishops go on to call for the formation of a body to “render especially helpful assistance to the supreme pastor of the Church in a council to be known by the proper name of Synod of Bishops. That Synod, representing the entire Catholic Episcopate, is a sign that all the bishops participate in hierarchical communion in the responsibility for the universal Church” (CD 5).

What did the Council mean and intend? I think that two aspects are clear. First, the bishops, like the first apostles, form a group, a college (the Latin collegium means “persons united in a body, a guild, a corporation, a college”), so the bishops should be taken together, collectively, not merely as individuals. In referring to the apostles, “the twelve” was a symbolic number representing the twelve tribes of Israel whom God would bring together in the end times to form a whole, so the bishops are linked together by “bonds of unity, charity and peace.” “The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are 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” (Code of Canon Law, can. 336). As the U.S. theologian Richard Gaillardetz has pointed out, “This assertion of shared power and authority over the universal Church represented the heart of the teaching on collegiality.”[3]

Second, this collective action was exemplified in the early Church by their coming together in councils or synods, conciliar assemblies which “made common judgment about profound matters in decisions reflecting the views of many.” The Council fathers understood episcopal collegiality to be a continuation of the synodal or conciliar tradition in the Church; it was not something new but an ancient expression of the unity of the bishops world-wide. Important decisions about faith and discipline were made collectively, “with Peter and never without him,” not by a bishop of one diocese in isolation from the rest.

The intention of the Council can be gleaned from some of the speeches during the debates and some of the reflections of theologians at that time. For example, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh drew on the experience of the Eastern Churches with their permanent synods as a model for the shared governance of the universal Church, and over five hundred bishops signed a letter to the pope requesting such a synod.[4] Similarly, a much discussed lecture at that time by theologian Joseph Ratzinger harkened back to the more fluid notion of collegiality in the regional synods of the early Church. This was an expression of the communio Ecclesiarum.[5] Thus, there was a clear link in the mind of the council between the authority exercised by the Roman Pontiff and episcopal governance in the Church.

In chapter 3 of Christus Dominus this connection was made very explicit: “From the very first centuries of the Church the bishops who were placed over individual Churches were deeply influenced by the fellowship of fraternal charity and by zeal for the universal mission entrusted to the apostles. And so they pooled their resources and unified their plans for the common good and for that of the individual Churches. Thus there were established synods, provincial councils, and plenary councils in which bishops legislated for various Churches a common pattern to be followed in teaching the truths of faith and ordering ecclesiastical discipline. This sacred Ecumenical Synod earnestly desires that the venerable institution of synods and councils flourish with new vigor. Thus the faith will be spread and discipline preserved more fittingly and effectively in the various Churches, as the circumstances of the times require” (CD 36).

The Council decree goes on to say that the form this should take today is Episcopal Conferences and expects that these should be organized in regions where they do not already exist and that their statutes should be constituted. The meaning and intent of the bishops was quite clear and straight forward. Why, then, is the issue so contentious?

Opposition within the Council

Between the early Church to which the Council hearkens back and the present time, there developed in the Middle Ages a strong, centralized papacy with its attendant bureaucracy, the curia. Church historian, Richard W. Southern states: “For the whole of this period—from the age of Bede to that of Luther, from the effective replacement of imperial by papal authority in the West in the eighth century to the fragmentation of that authority in the sixteenth, from the cutting of the political ties between eastern and western Europe to Europe’s breaking out into the wider western world beyond the seas—the papacy is the dominant institution in western Europe.”[6]

The position of the papacy varied considerably over these centuries and the causes of its rise to prominence are multiple. These include the fact that Rome was the place of martyrdom of Peter and Paul and this gave the bishop of Rome some primacy; there was also the vacuum created by the removal of the capital of the Roman empire to Constantinople and the collapse of the empire in the West; the energetic leadership of some of the popes themselves in defending the city from the attacks of barbarians; the fight against famine and plague; the rise of Islam beginning in the 7th century, which cut off the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem from contact with Rome; and finally there were persistent claims, not always justified, on the part of some popes to a primacy both over the other Churches and over the temporal powers. The Reformation challenged these claims and the communion in the West fractured. In response, Rome only emphasized its authority even more, culminating in the definition of papal infallibility in the 19th century at Vatican I.

The bishops at Vatican II, aware of this history, did not want to deny or contradict that primacy. Indeed, they repeated it in Lumen Gentium, in chapter 25, but wanted to balance it with episcopal collegiality and the infallibility of the collective body of bishops. A strong and influential minority, 16 percent (recall that 84 percent had voted in favor of collegiality in the earlier straw vote) were afraid that this would limit the authority and prerogatives of the pope. The council was trying to overcome any sense of tension between bishops and the pope by locating the pope within the college of bishops as its head. This seemed to the minority to be a diminution of the authority of the pope in the governance of the Church. To overcome this fear and bring the minority on board, Paul VI had inserted the Explanatory Note at the last minute, in which he tried to make it clear that episcopal collegiality should not be interpreted as placing any conditions or limitations on papal primacy.

Conciliar or synodal tradition

The custom of the bishops gathering as one body was not an innovation in the Church. As early as the second century we have evidence of the bishops meeting in local synods to deal with threats to ecclesial order and discipline concerning such issues as the dating of Easter. Such gatherings of bishops became “a regular and indispensable feature of Church life, the ordinary institutional expression of the cohesion of local Eucharistic communities in a universal body.”[7] Over four hundred synods and meetings of bishops are known to have been held between the middle of the second century and the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604). Cyprian and Augustine, for example, participated in many councils in North Africa, and Augustine had to argue against the Donatists that the decrees of councils did not have the same authority as scripture.

This experience of conciliar governance existed on several levels: local, regional and general. The first ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325) decreed that bishops of “each civil province should gather in synod twice a year” and popes encouraged such meetings. Whether or not this was actually followed, it nonetheless indicates the expectation of the whole Church at that time.

This conciliar or synodal tradition did not cease with the early Church but continued as the main form of decision making. It was also the expression of unity of the various local Churches who understood themselves as a communio communiorum, a communion of communions. All main branches of Christianity currently accept the decrees of the first seven ecumenical councils up to and including the Second Council of Nicaea (787) as authoritative. There were many other local or regional synods/councils not recognized as general or ecumenical but whose decisions sometimes were accepted as part of the larger Church tradition.

Gradually, however, as the Church became increasingly integrated with the medieval social order we know as Christendom, the councils came to be dominated by secular rulers or powerful families, for example, at Rome. Councils came to be not just meetings of bishops but included representatives of secular powers. Church historian Klaus Schatz writes that “Whereas the general Church councils of the first Christian millennium had simply been assemblies of bishops, usually with the emperor presiding, the medieval councils, in contrast, were constituted as assemblies not only of the Church but of Christendom as a whole, presided over by the pope.”[8] The synods had become politicized; they had moved away from their earlier nature and purpose. The Gregorian Reforms of the 11th and 12th centuries were intended to restore the independence of the Church from such secular domination.

A significant resurgence and reinvigoration of the conciliar tradition was occasioned by the Great Western Schism of the 14th and 15th centuries when there were two, and for a time, three claimants to the papal throne. In order to resolve this scandal and restore the unity of the church, a series of councils was held, the most important of which was the Council of Constance (1415-18). In a famous decree, Haec Sancta, the assembly declared that its authority was directly from Christ and that it could do what was necessary for the good of the Church, including, if necessary, deposing a pope. The theology underlying this was that of the Church as the community of the faithful, or that the ultimate authority resided within that institution. The Pauline image of the Body of Christ was at the root of this corporate understanding of the Church. The Church was thought of as a series of corporations beginning with the local community, then the Church in a diocese or province, as exemplified in the ancient patriarchates, and finally, the universal Church as the Body of Christ. These communities were represented in local synods, regional councils, and finally the whole Church was represented in a general or ecumenical council.

The Council of Constance resolved the schism created by deposing the rival claimants to the papal throne and electing a new pope, Martin V, in 1417. But it also issued a decree, Frequens, obliging future popes to call a council after five years, then after seven, and then every ten years. And so there were councils that met at Pavia, Sienna, Basle and Florence, then the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). That same year Luther posted his 95 theses and the Reformation began. He too soon called for a “free and open council” to resolve the crisis, but the popes of the day delayed, fearing what another council might do. The pope was finally forced by the emperor Charles V to summon the Council of Trent (1545-1563), but the papal fear of councils persisted and papal propagandists tried to portray conciliar theory as an aberration or even a heresy.

Despite these attempts at what British historian Francis Oakley calls “institutionally sponsored forgetting,” the theology of communion, or the corporate understanding of the Church continued in various times and places.[9] It can be found in the writings of St. Thomas More and Richard Hooker in 16th century England; it can be found in the work of Paolo Sarpi in his response to Robert Bellarmine and in the writing of Edmond Richer in the 17th century; it was the official ecclesiological view of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris. Perhaps its most lasting and influential expression was found in the Gallican Articles drawn up by Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet and adopted by the assembly of the French clergy in 1682[10] and which were attached by Napoleon to the Concordat of 1801. Napoleon mandated that they be taught by all French professors of theology. This view was echoed in Febronianism in Germany and the changes attempted by the Emperor Joseph II in Austria in the 18th century. Even at Vatican I this corporate or synodal view of governance in the Church was advocated by Henri Maret, the dean of the theological faculty of the Sorbonne and several bishops. Obviously, it did not prevail at Vatican I, partly due to the influence of secular powers and national governments.

My point in recalling the history of this corporate and collegial understanding of the Church is to point out that the recovery of it at Vatican II was not an innovation but an exercise in ressourcement, going back to the sources. Also, one might argue that the synodal or conciliar movement in the 14th and 15th centuries was intended to save the papacy, not replace it. The view of the papacy functioning above and in isolation from the rest of the bishops that has come to dominate since the 19th century, and with which we are most familiar, has existed alongside a more corporate self-understanding of the Church. These two views of the Church were not always and need not be seen as in opposition to one another. But the tension between the two has continued and was not resolved at Vatican II.

Significance for the Church today

 As I mentioned earlier, the Council fathers explicitly desired that the “venerable institution of synods and councils flourish with new vigor” (CD 36).

The world in which we live today is characterized by globalization and postmodernity. Both of these movements are very broad and can be variously interpreted. Without going into too much detail, we may see some common characteristics these analyses of society share:[11] 1) technologies have speeded up both communication and travel and so we are acutely aware of cultural differences and pluralism; 2) events in one locale have repercussions in many distant places; 3) there is a dialectical relationship between the local and the global, the particular and the universal; 4) along with globalization there is increasing regionalization; 5) territorial boundaries are ever more porous and nation-states have less control over their borders; 6) despite some superficial cultural homogenization, differences and distinctive ways of proceeding have reasserted themselves; 7) less centralized decision-making and greater expectation of participation and democratic procedures, of dialogue and mutual respect; and, finally, 8) an increased emphasis on the dignity and rights of women and minorities.

Though some of these social and cultural characteristics were adumbrated in the documents of Vatican II, they have become clearer and stronger since then. They all point to the need for some institutional structures that facilitate dialogue and consultation, recognition of regional and cultural differences, and exchange between the various local Churches, while maintaining the unity of the universal Church. Synods and councils are historically the form this has taken in the Catholic community.

Stemming directly from Vatican II, there has been an increasing awareness among the laity that they are the People of God, and that they have gifts the Church needs. Lay women and men have increasingly taken responsibility for various ministries in the Church, have assumed leadership roles previously reserved for the ordained or religious in schools, hospitals, prisons, parishes and the missions. They have positions in chancery offices, in seminaries, and in theological education, teaching and research.

A new social imaginary

As the Church moved through history, it adopted and adapted the social and political forms from the surrounding culture, e.g., in Roman times it organized itself along the lines of Roman provinces, adapting the procedures of the Roman senate for its first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325. In feudal times the pope granted benefices to his subjects in a sense, the bishops who in turn pledged fealty and obedience. They did the same with regard to secular clergy. In monarchical times, the pope acted like an absolute ruler surrounded by his court, comprised of the Roman Curia, the cardinals and minor officials.

Since the 18th century, however, more democratic forms, vesting ultimate power in the people with a system of elections, separation of powers, checks and balances, and representative assemblies has come to dominate many countries. Yet the Church is not a democracy; it was not founded on the consent of the governed or on a social contract in the sense of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes. The synodal or conciliar tradition we have recalled indicates that there has always been some form of participation in governance, though not “one person, one vote.” But we are so accustomed to the centralization that we have experienced for the last 200 years that we find it hard to imagine another way of being a Christian community. Perhaps what is needed in the Church today is a new “social imaginary.”

Social imaginaries, according to Charles Taylor, are “the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between themselves and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations.”[12] A social imaginary is not necessarily clearly articulated or consciously subscribed to, but it is the background against which a social group in a given time and place understands their common practices and behavior.

A social imaginary perhaps can be seen most clearly when it changes. What follows are a few examples: 1) In North America, SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is taken for granted today by both scientists and ordinary people. It was not part of our shared imagination 50 years ago but it is today; 2) In many countries we now take for granted that smoking is dangerous to health and should be banned in restaurants, bars, and other public places—this was not so 50 years ago; and 3) women might not have imagined studying theology 50 years ago, but now it is possible. Our “social imaginaries” have changed.

Can that also happen in the Church? Today there seems to be a “baroque social imaginary,”[13] that is, a shared way of understanding ourselves that subordinates the individual to the community in a series of ordered ranks, a hierarchy, not equal in dignity or value. In this social imaginary, inequality is not merely functional but ingrained; it is the way the universe is and cannot be changed. This social imaginary is in contrast to a more modern one which stresses the rights of individuals, the basic equality in human dignity and the value of all members. Any social differentiation is merely functional and can be changed accordingly. The modern social imaginary takes for granted the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, and recognizes that no one, not even a president or a pope, is above the law. The dissatisfaction and frustration many faithful experience today, I submit, is due to this clash of social imaginaries. We expect popes, bishops, pastors – leaders within the Church – to behave the way we expect leaders in the social and political world to behave, respecting, at least in theory, justice and equality for all.

There is a need for prudence. The solution is not for the Church to adopt wholesale and uncritically a modern form of democratic or parliamentary government. We all know these can also be dysfunctional. It is a plea, however, that we imagine our lives together in the Church in a way that does incorporate some of the positive values of the modern world, but at the same time drawing upon the ancient conciliar or synodal tradition. The Council’s teaching on episcopal collegiality was a call for a changed social imaginary. Pope Paul VI’s institution of the permanent Synod of Bishops, in 1965 before the end of the Council, was a step in this direction. He recognized the desire of the bishops but at the same time asserted his papal prerogatives.

Synods and councils have taken different forms in the history of the Church. There is no one set, univocal form they have taken in the past and there is not only one model for such assemblies today. How Christians participate in the decision-making process can vary from place to place.

The traditional tripartite ministry consists of bishops, priests and deacons, and there is also the primacy vested in the bishop of Rome. These functions developed historically in response to needs in the community and they have lasted over time, although how they have been exercised has varied throughout history. The Church continues to need these forms of leadership. After all, we would not have had the Second Vatican Council at all without the inspiration and courage of a pope, John XXIII. So the call for a renewal of synodal or conciliar decision-making processes is not a call to repudiate these ministries, including the Petrine ministry, but to renegotiate and redress their relationship with the synodal tradition as Vatican II intended. It could be argued that the conciliarists of the 14th and 15th centuries were trying to save the papacy, not destroy it! So at Vatican II, episcopal collegiality was not meant to lessen the moral authority of the pope but to enhance it.

From an ecumenical perspective, the World Council of Churches has made some similar proposals in a recent paper on “The Nature and Mission of the Church.”[14] Discussing collegiality and conciliarity, the World Council declared: “Conciliarity is an essential feature of the life of the Church, grounded in the common baptism of its members (cf. 1 Pet 2: 9-10; Eph 4:11-16). Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the whole Church, whether dispersed or gathered together, is conciliar. Thus conciliarity characterizes all levels of the Church. It is already in the relations which exist among the members of the smallest local communities.”[15] The statement also recognized that “Whenever people, communities or Churches come together to take counsel and make important decisions, there is need for someone to summon and preside over the gathering for the sake of good order” and those who do preside must always “respect the integrity of the local Churches, to give voice to the voiceless and to uphold unity in diversity.”[16] Hence, on the worldwide level some form of universal primacy “can be seen as a gift rather than a threat to other Churches and the distinctive features of their witness.” Such oversight is not opposed to conciliarity since this exercise was affirmed by previous councils.

The relationship of episcopal conciliarity to primacy needs to be renegotiated in each epoch in the history of the Church. Vatican II was trying to do just that for our times. We can and we must continue what the Second Vatican Council began with patience, courage and hope.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32009/22072446.0923.1

[1]. J. O’Malley, “The Hermeneutic of Reform: An Historical Analysis”, in Theological Studies 73 (2012) 540.

[2]. R. R. Gaillardetz, The Church in the Making, New York, Paulist Press, 2006, 18.

[3]. Ibid., 77.

[4]. Cf. ibid., 33.

[5]. Cf. ibid., 35.

[6]. R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, London, Penguin Books, 1970, 26.

[7]. B. E. Daley, “Structures of Charity: Bishops’ Gatherings and the See of Rome”, in T. J. Reese (ed), Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical, and Theological Studies, Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press, 1989, 27-28.

[8]. K. Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1996, 79.

[9]. F. Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870, New York, Oxford University Press, 2003, 16.

[10]. The Four Articles claimed that 1) the pope has no power in temporal matters; 2) general councils are superior to the pope in spiritual affairs; 3) the generally accepted laws of the French Church are inviolable; and 4) in matters of faith, the pope’s decisions become irreversible only when ratified by a general council.

[11]. Cf. T. H. Sanks, “Globalization, Postmodernity and Governance in the Church”, in Louvain Studies 28 (2003) 194-216.

[12]. C. Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham, N. C., Duke University Press, 2004, 23.

[13]. J. P. Beal, “Something There Is That Doesn’t Love a Law”, in M. J. Lacey – F. Oakley (eds), The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, New York, Oxford University Press, 2011, 139f.

[14]. World Council of Churches, “The Nature and Mission of the Church”, Geneva, Faith and Order Paper 198, 2005, 107.

[15]. Ibid., 26-27.

[16]. Ibid.