Introduction
Catholics generally know that the Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchical organization. However, the understanding of how this hierarchical organization relates to all the members of the Church is not always very clear even in the minds of some of the most faithful Catholics, and the situation among Catholics in general is presumably far worse. The Pope, of course, stands alone at the head of this hierarchy, as is acknowledged even by those who wish it were otherwise. However, many people go through their lives without ever seeing or hearing the Pope in person. Indeed, for centuries this was the case of almost everyone in the world. This does not in any way subtract from the importance of the Pope or his ability to fulfill his mission to the entire Church. However, it would seem natural for the faithful to look for some additional guidance on a level closer to themselves. Some in fact do so, often in relation to their parish priest or the equivalent. Nevertheless, there seems to be in some cases almost a lack of realization or appreciation of the importance of the episcopate, another level of the hierarchy directly below that of the Pope, a group of sacred persons second only to the universal earthly Vicar of Christ in the Church.
It is not that people simply do not know bishops exist. Catholics are at least superficially very familiar with bishops. Not a few Catholics know the names and even the reputations of various bishops around the nation, and around the world, as well as their own bishop. However, outside of hearing the prayer for the bishop in Mass it is likely that few give much thought to the bishop unless he does something wrong, as admittedly has happened all too often in recent years. It might not occur even to very devout Catholics to reflect for a moment on what the nature of the episcopal office is. The idea that their bishop is the ordinary guide in that diocese for souls on the road to salvation probably does not strike them frequently. There are any number of reasons why this may be so. Catholics may not be sufficiently educated in the significance of the episcopate. Human nature being what it is, there have undoubtedly been men in the episcopal office who have been unworthy of it and have damaged the name of that office. In fact, bishops sometimes seem as oblivious to their own proper role as anyone else. However, regardless of what reasons might contribute to a lack of appreciation of the episcopate, such a lack of appreciation is very unfortunate, for it neglects one of the most important institutions in the Church.
Part of the wonder of the episcopate, which applies to what was just said about the logic of looking for closer guidance, is that the bishop is fundamentally ordered to his diocese, and therefore principally to the salvation of souls in his diocese. Although there are bishops who do not have dioceses in the sense of an area the care of which is actually their responsibility, even these bishops, called titular bishops, are given titular sees.[1] Although this is not intended to detract from such titular bishops, here the focus of attention is on diocesan bishops, who are, it would seem, involved in a mission that is naturally episcopal and can be effectively done by no one else but a bishop. Much will be said about bishops in general, but the purpose of this study is to concentrate on the bishop as he relates to the diocese. There is not always a great consciousness of this relation, but, as will be shown, it is a very profound one. The bishop, who as a practical matter is capable of working in his diocese in a way that the Pope cannot, is also, although in a way subordinate to that of the papacy, a representative of Christ, indeed the primary representative of Christ on the level of his own diocese.
Before concluding this introduction by clarifying the purpose of this paper essay, a few comments should be made about what this purpose does not involve. First of all, although the papacy will be mentioned many times, and the Pope is of course a bishop, there is no intent here of studying the papacy in any serious way except as it relates to the episcopate. This is not out of any desire to de-emphasize or ignore the importance of the papacy. Quite the contrary, the intention is to glorify the papacy, as any truly deeper understanding of the episcopate will. However, introducing specific study of the papacy, even insofar as the Pope is a bishop, introduces whole new areas, which are not relevant to the ordinary bishop. The second area that is not to be covered specifically here is the specifically universal action of the entire episcopate as it relates to the entire world. It is true that bishops, particularly as a body, have a concern for and in a certain sense a mission to the entire world.[2] However, since the Catholic Church as a whole, when it is not considered as broken into dioceses, is ordinarily and immediately under the Pope, it is the relationship of the bishop to his diocese that is really distinctive to him.
The bishop is related to his diocese as no one else is related to his diocese. In subordination to the jurisdiction of the Pope, his mission is the shepherding of the flock in his diocese to Christ. This is involves a supernatural responsibility for his diocese. In order to fulfill this mission, the bishop is consecrated to the highest level of the sacrament of Orders. Furthermore, he is given the only ordinary jurisdiction in the Church below the Pope. Therefore, it follows that the faithful in his diocese must follow him, since he has been appointed to lead them within the Church. Moreover, this state of affairs is not a mere convenience for the current situation and needs of the Catholic Church. The episcopate finds the origin of its existence and nature in an act of divine institution during the foundation of the Church. Thus, the will of God lies behind the episcopate as it has been described in this introduction. The diocesan bishop, having received the highest degree of Orders and ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese, holds a necessary place in the Church as shepherd of the particular church, with special duties and powers. He should receive corresponding respect and submission from Catholics under him, and moreover he has a profound obligation to live up to his unique office through showing constant care for the souls entrusted to him within the Catholic Church.
Chapter One: Scriptural and Patristic Testimony on the Episcopate
In approaching virtually any theological topic it is appropriate for a Catholic to begin with some examination of relevant passages in Holy Scripture, since the foundations of Catholic theology lie in Scripture. In the case of the topic currently being studied the examination of Scripture will apply exclusively to the New Testament, since it involves the episcopate and therefore the structure of the Roman Catholic Church, which clearly was not instituted until New Testament times. It is not the intent at this point to develop any advanced theological conclusions from the New Testament, but rather to point out at least some of those passages in the New Testament that in the Catholic understanding apply to the episcopate. After this is done, it will be helpful to proceed immediately to the Fathers of the Church and consider their teaching on bishops. They are quoted not only because, in their status as Fathers of the Church, these writers have a special status and authority in theology, but also because the proximity in time of the Fathers to the writing of the New Testament and the beginnings of the Church makes them especially valuable witnesses for determining the original dignity meant for the episcopal office.[3]
The direct references to bishops in the New Testament are found mostly in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pastoral Epistles of Paul. There are, however, important passages in the Gospels that apply to the episcopate, although they require more development. These are the passages concerning the mission and power of the Apostles, which apply to bishops through Apostolic succession. Those issues will be discussed later in more depth. The direct references to bishops outside the Gospels indicate a number of things about the episcopal office, including that it is of great importance, as is seen from the concern about the kind of man who fills the office, that it involves teaching and ruling, and, even at this early time, that at least sometimes it contains a local element. The erroneous position that denies that there is any office above the priesthood, and affirms instead that these references only use different words for the priesthood, will not be addressed here, nor will it be considered in linguistic terms at any point in this work, since, as will be seen, it clearly contradicts the understanding of even the earliest Fathers, who attribute to bishops a dignity clearly surpassing that of a simple priest, as is at least implied in the Scriptural evidence.[4]
Although the commissions to the Apostles in the New Testament do not explicitly mention bishops, they must be taken as applying to bishops in light of the constant affirmation in Catholic Tradition, particularly in the Fathers, which will be examined later, of episcopal Apostolic succession. There are two passages generally taken as giving the Apostles their mission, those being Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16. The first of these reads as follows: "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."[5] The passage in Mark is much shorter, but contains a similar message, reading, "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[6] These passages emphasize the duty to baptize so that people may be saved, which by extension implies a duty to confer the other sacraments, and the responsibility for teaching, which includes both simply preaching the gospel and teaching what commands must be observed by Christians.
There are other references in the New Testament to the mission of the Apostles, but they often repeat themes, and moreover it is not always clear that they refer to the Apostolic mission in the sense in which it was passed on to bishops, as will be explained later. There are, however, two statements from Christ that should be given special attention. One is John 20:21-23, in which Christ speaks to the Apostles about both their mission and their power. It reads as follows: "He said therefore to them again : Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."[7] A similar statement, without the explicit mention of a divine mission, was made earlier in Matthew 18:18, in which Christ says, "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."[8] This power of binding and loosing indicates a power of permitting and forbidding things. If such permissions and prohibitions are indeed to correspond exactly to the will of God, this in turn shows a divine power and protection supporting the Apostles in their mission.
There is an extraordinary emphasis in the Pauline epistles to Timothy and Titus repeatedly placed on the importance of having as bishops only men who are very well fitted for that office. In discussing this point, Paul naturally also addresses some of the things actually involved in that office. In perhaps the best example of this, Paul writes to Timothy:
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, . . . sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but one that ruleth well his own house, . . . . But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.[9]
This passage from Paul is significant first of all of course for the tremendous importance that is attached to the office of bishop. In addition, however, it is interesting to note that Paul emphasizes the necessity of the bishop having the ability to rule well, pausing in his list of desirable and undesirable qualities to make a parallel between the family and the church. Thus Paul in passing almost takes for granted that it is proper to the role of the bishops to rule the church of God.
Paul makes a statement very similar to the one just quoted from his first letter to Timothy in his letter to Titus, although with slightly different points of emphasis. In giving advice to Titus on the qualifications fitting for a bishop, Paul writes, "a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre: but given to hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent: embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers."[10] Some of these qualifications are mere repetitions of things mentioned to Timothy, but this does make more explicit the importance of justice and holiness in the bishop. Furthermore, Paul includes two points here that are not included in the parallel advice to Timothy. First of all, the bishop is spoken of as the steward of God, which is obviously key to the authority of the office and will be an important idea for future theological development concerning the episcopate. Also new to this passage is the concentration on the doctrine of the bishop, which shows an emphasis on the role of the bishop as teacher, for which it is necessary for him to be orthodox.
The idea of the bishop being not only a ruler, but a steward, a ruler in the place of God, is also brought out in a passage in the Acts of the Apostles, which is addressed to bishops themselves: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God."[11] This is thematically not only consistent with but practically the same as much of what was written by Paul. This additional testimony confirms the place of the bishop as a ruler acting on behalf of God. Paul also makes this point again in his letter to Titus in a passage that is perhaps best mentioned last for two reasons. First, it does not explicitly mention the episcopal office but rather is addressed to Titus concerning himself, presumably in his role as bishop. Second, it is unusual in that it refers to the bishop being made responsible for a particular geographical area. Paul tells Titus, "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city."[12] This is not to say that this is a developed link between the bishop and the particular church, but only to show that the idea was not unfamiliar at this early date.
Although direct references to bishops in the New Testament are relatively uncommon, the opposite is true in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. There is no room for doubt in the patristic evidence that the episcopate as a necessary element in Christianity comes from Christ. Saint Athanasius writes to a bishop named Dracontius admonishing him for apparently forgetting this: "If the organizing of the churches is distasteful to you, and you do not think the ministry of the episcopate has its reward--why--then you have brought yourself to despise the Saviour that ordered these things. . . . For if all were of the same mind . . . how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops?"[13] Cyprian confirms this point in a reference to the selection of the Apostles, writing, "The Lord chose the apostles, that is, the bishops and rulers."[14] Clement of Rome expands on the fact that the Apostles were bishops, noting that the mission of all bishops comes to them through the Apostles from Christ:
The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God's Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God and the Apostles with a message from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, therefore, originate from the will of God. . . . They the Apostles preached and from their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops.[15]
The succession of bishops from the Apostles is dealt with most insistently among the Fathers by Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies. He was primarily concerned with refuting the claims of the Gnostics, and in doing this he constantly refers to their lack of Apostolic roots. He thus gives an exemplary defense of Apostolic succession, emphasizing the sound doctrine of the bishops. In this context Irenaeus states, "Anyone who wishes to discern the truth may see in every church in the whole world the Apostolic tradition clear and manifest. We can enumerate those who were appointed as bishops in the churches by the Apostles and their successors to our own day, who never knew and never taught anything resembling their [the Gnostics'] foolish doctrine."[16] Irenaeus later continues in the same vein and also draws the conclusion that obedience to the hierarchy is necessary because of the Apostolic succession coming through the episcopate: "Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown possess the succession from the Apostles; those who together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father."[17] This succession from the Apostles is the basis from which the Fathers of the Church develop a broad concept of the authority given to the bishop.[18]
It is worth noting here in passing that the link between the authority of the bishops and that of the Apostles was not only defended in the theological writings of the Fathers, but is also found in their accounts of public liturgy, which would have been heard by everyone. In fact, one of the more explicit connections made in the early Church between the episcopal office and the Apostles is in a prayer said in the context of episcopal consecrations. It is found in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus as follows:
O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . now pour forth that which is from Thee, of the princely Spirit which thou didst deliver to Thy beloved Child Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on Thy holy Apostles who established the Church. . . . Father, grant upon this servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate . . . that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority . . . to loose every bond according to the authority Thou gavest to the Apostles.[19]
The central point of interest in this prayer is that within the actual consecration of a bishop his power is equated with the powers granted to the Apostles "to loose every bond." This patristic application of that text to bishops will be key to later ecclesiological study of the episcopate, and to the general patristic understanding of the power of bishops.
One would expect that the Fathers, since they affirm an episcopate instituted by Christ, which receives powers similar to those that the Apostles received from Christ, would support a broad episcopal power. This is in fact the case, as can be seen in Ignatius of Antioch, among others, who sees the bishop as acting in the place of God. Ignatius sets the bishop's approval of an action as the standard for determining whether it has the divine approval in writing to the Smyrneans, "It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid."[20] He makes the same point in relation to marriage in writing to Polycarp: "For those of both sexes who contemplate marriage it is proper to enter the union with the sanction of the bishop; thus their marriage will be acceptable to the Lord."[21] These statements from Ignatius are not primarily important here because of the specific things over which the bishops is said to have power, although those too are interesting, but rather that the bishop speaks in the name of God, and it is through following him that Christians can be sure of following the will of God.
Ignatius also writes in a more general way concerning the importance of following the bishop, because he represents God, in his letters to the Ephesians and Magnesians. He praises the priests among the Ephesians for their faithfulness to their bishop, saying: "It is proper for you to act in agreement with the mind of the bishop . . . Certain it is that your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it harmonizes with the bishop as completely as the strings with a harp."[22] His advice to the Magnesians takes the form of a reminder that the bishop should be respected for his office, regardless of the accidental characteristics of the person who happens to fill that office: "It is fitting not to take advantage of the bishop's youth, but rather, because he embodies the authority of God the Father, to show him every mark of respect."[23] Thus, he continues later, "I exhort you to strive to do all things in harmony with God: the bishop is to preside in the place of God."[24] Cyprian also makes the point that the episcopal office is larger than any one person who fills it, and the office is the same everywhere, deserving the same respect everywhere, because, as he says, "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."[25]
In view of the fact that the Fathers saw the bishop as in some sense the representative of God, another issue arises. It concerns what this representation means in relation to membership in the Church. More specifically, is it not only praiseworthy but absolutely necessary in order to be a member of the Church to recognize the bishop as speaking in the name of Christ, in other words to be in union with the bishop? There are actually a few rather short but nevertheless strikingly strong statements from the Fathers that relate to this, which are found in Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, and Tertullian (obviously long before he began his movement toward Montanism). Ignatius makes a statement that is really almost a command, writing, "Let no one do anything touching the Church apart from the bishop."[26] Tertullian proceeds to the logical conclusion of this admonition concerning personal union with the Church, saying bluntly, "Hostility to the bishop's position begets schism."[27] Cyprian develops this into a broader statement about the relationship between the bishop and the Church, and writes, "You should understand that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop and that whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church."[28]
It can easily now be seen that the patristic evidence supports, if any support is needed, the application to the episcopate of the New Testament texts given earlier that were addressed to the Apostles. The apostolicity of the episcopate, brought out so clearly in the Fathers, especially by Ireneaus, forms the basis for a profound scriptural, patristic, and therefore Catholic understanding of the role of bishops. In the statements by Christ in the Gospel, the advice on bishops by Paul, and the teaching of the Fathers, a consistent doctrine on the episcopal office is presented, making it clear that it holds a unique place in the Church. Having examined these sources, it is now possible to continue on in exploring from this point a developed idea of the dignity of the episcopate. This will involve an ecclesiological examination of bishops, concentrating on how they fit into the institutional Church, not on a legalistic level but rather theologically speaking. Through this examination of the episcopate in ecclesiology, it will be possible to determine better whether and in what way the episcopate is necessary, and what powers and duties are necessarily involved in it.
Chapter Two: An Ecclesiological Study of the Episcopate
The Scriptural and patristic data that have been presented are in a way the basis for much of what will follow. The very existence of the episcopate begins in Scripture, and is developed there to a greater extent than might be immediately evident. Furthermore, in the testimony of the Fathers one can find not only a firm foundation for a developed doctrine of the episcopate, but also in some cases direct affirmation of points of such a developed doctrine. What is to be developed now, without necessarily direct reference to this support, but still constantly building from it, is a systematic look at the place of the bishop in the Church. This will be an ecclesiological undertaking, and for purposes of such a task one must, in order to retain coherence, adopt a single and hopefully traditional ecclesiology within which to examine the episcopacy. In this case, a Thomistic ecclesiology will be used, particularly as it has been expressed in the ecclesiology of Charles Cardinal Journet. Within this ecclesiology the goal is, of course, to get an idea of the essence of the episcopate. However, one cannot start there, but must rather begin with the origins of the episcopate as they were found in Scripture.
The origins of the episcopal office can be found in some of the very passages of Scripture which were mentioned in the last chapter, such as Matthew 18:18 and 28:18-20, John 20:21-23, and Mark 16:15-16. In these statements by Christ the Apostles are given a universal mission, which is itself a continuation of Christ's mission. This mission involves certain powers, which in Scripture seem to broadly include powers to sanctify, as in Baptism, to teach, as in the preaching of the Gospel, and to rule, as in binding and loosing. This Apostolic mission and set of powers, when considered apart from the extraordinary role of the Apostles in the founding of the Church, are given also to all bishops through Apostolic Succession, which was defended so forcefully by the Fathers. These powers taken together amount to a special office, which is the episcopal office.[29] Therefore, since it was Christ who originally gave these powers to His Apostles, it was Christ who instituted the episcopal office in His foundation of the Catholic Church. He not only set up the episcopate in existence but also, through His conferral of a specific mission and powers, defined what the general nature of the episcopate was to be in His Church.[30]
Following directly upon the fact of the divine institution of the episcopate is the fact of the necessity of the episcopate. The Church Herself cannot change what she is, what she was meant to be by Christ. The basic structure of the Church as Christ instituted it cannot be altered, nor can any part of it be abolished. It will therefore inevitably be perennial as long as the earthly existence of humanity persists.[31] This on a practical level means two things for the episcopate, which is a part of that basic structure of the Church. First, it can never be simply abolished by any power either outside the Church or within the Church. Secondly, while certain changes may be made in the exact details of the role of bishops, the essential nature of the episcopate insofar as it was determined by Christ can never be changed. The necessity being described here is over and above any practical necessity that may exist for the episcopate in the Church. Even if there is no such practical necessity, still if the true Church of Christ were ever to attempt to continue in existence without the episcopate, it could not be the true Church of Christ, since Christ directly willed the episcopate as part of His Church.
Having recognized that the episcopate as instituted by Christ is essential to the Church and unchangeable as concerns its nature, the remaining work in a basic study of the episcopate is an examination of that nature. In other words, effort should be made to answer the question of exactly what it is that Christ instituted. This does not include except peripherally the accidental characteristics of the episcopal office, which may change, with the passage of time. Powers, duties, and so forth that are only temporary arrangements are not really connected with the divine institution; so they are necessarily of less interest. Furthermore, this does not pretend to include any special study of the papacy, which, although it is integrally connected with the episcopate and was founded by Christ, involves something above and beyond what is to be discussed here. Rather, what is of interest here is the place of the bishop and his office in the Catholic Church. As has been pointed out, this place is essentially an Apostolic one, given by Christ. From this basis of apostolicity by divine institution an ecclesiological picture of the episcopate can be built, revealing what is indeed essential to it.
The fact that the episcopal office at the time of its foundation in Scripture is given some basic powers by Jesus Christ, namely those of sanctifying, teaching, and ruling, has resulted in a division often made in ecclesiology between the power of order, which involves sanctification, and the power of jurisdiction, which involves teaching and ruling. Bishops by virtue of their office possess both kinds of power, ordinarily receiving them at their episcopal consecration. Both powers are essential to the episcopacy, and they are interrelated.[32] Bishops can never lose these powers, except insofar as they cease to fulfill their office, and even then only to a very limited extent, as will be seen. An explanation of these two powers may not cover everything that could be said about the episcopal office, but it will at least undoubtedly include much of it. This is so because in a way the office itself can be described in terms of the complex of episcopal powers combined with the mission with which they are essentially related. Also, this distinction is a convenient and meaningful one for the purpose of looking at the dignity of the episcopate in an organized way.
The power of order is a carrying on of Christ's mission insofar as it was a mission of sanctification. Since the actual sanctification of men is beyond human power in every way, the power of order is a ministerial power involving mediation. As Journet writes:
The power of order is a participation of the priesthood of Christ. . . . The end of Christ's priesthood is to pour into souls the very virtue of the Redemption. The created intermediaries are unable to produce so divine an effect save as simple instruments. The sacramental power is therefore a purely instrumental ministerial power. Hence it is infallible, not of course on account of its own proper virtue, but because it transmits the virtue of a Principal Agent.[33]
The power of order, then, is a sacramental power or character, and is therefore indelible. Also, since it is a ministerial power, the exercise of it retains its validity even in the unworthy. This is distinct from whatever sacramental power belongs to the baptized and confirmed, since it is received only in Holy Orders and is unique to the members of the Church hierarchy.[34] Christ Himself did not give these powers to all His followers, but only to a chosen few. The power of order involves in its fullness a power to administer or witness every sacrament. This fullness, however, is not reached by the simple priest, but only by those who are consecrated bishops.[35]
As far as the power of order is concerned, the episcopate can be said in one way to be the highest hierarchical position in the Church. In the episcopal consecration the fullness of the power of order is conferred upon the recipient, and his sacramental power is thus raised above that of a simple priest. This does not mean that the bishop is greater in celebrating the Eucharist itself, but that he has greater power as regards some of the other sacraments, which prepare people for the Eucharist. Although the power of Confirmation and Ordination can be delegated to priests, the power of a bishop in these sacraments is not delegated and basically not restricted, while in the case of priests such powers exist only with the delegation and permission of someone higher in the hierarchy. Therefore, essentially this priestly power is only capable of reproducing itself in the episcopate. Furthermore, as far as validity is concerned, even the Pope does not surpass the bishop in the power to administer the sacraments, but rather has the same power by virtue of the fact that he, too, is a bishop. Thus it can be said, as Journet points out, that the plenitude of orders, of the priesthood itself, is found only in the episcopate.[36]
The power of jurisdiction combines the powers of teaching and ruling. Journet, again, defines it as "a participation of Christ's kingship: Christ being Head of the Church in a sovereign manner and in virtue of His own proper authority, the others being heads in a dependent manner and as delegated by Christ."[37] This jurisdictional power to teach and rule is at bottom a power to proclaim truths. It is not a sacramental power, and hence not indelible in the same way that the power of order is. There are two kinds of truths to be proclaimed here, namely speculative truths which demand belief and practical truths which demand obedience, corresponding to the powers of teaching and ruling respectively. It follows from the fact that this is a power to proclaim truth, which is more natural to man than the sanctification of others, that man plays a greater role himself with this power than with the power of orders. He acts, according to a distinction of causes by Aquinas, not as a mere instrument of God but as a secondary cause protected by God from error insofar as that is necessary. As such a secondary cause one who possesses this power of proclaiming truth participates in the power of jurisdiction persisting permanently in the Church, which Journet calls the "pontificate."[38]
Unlike the power of order, the pontificate belongs properly to bishops alone, and not to simple priests, although these priests can hold jurisdiction by delegation. In a way somewhat similar to that in which the power of order has two degrees, those of bishop and priest, the power of jurisdiction has two degrees, but this time they are of bishop and Pope. The distinction in the power of order is between the sovereign pontificate, or the papacy, and the dependent pontificate, or the episcopate.[39] This distinction, of course, began with the distinction in the institution of the Church by Christ between the ordinary power common to all of the Apostles and the special primacy belonging only to Peter. Although the papacy is not truly what is under consideration here, the place of the episcopate in the Church can only be rightly defined in view of an understanding of its relationship with the papacy. In fact, it is easiest to see the defining characteristics of the jurisdiction of the episcopate in ecclesiology by comparing it with the jurisdiction of the papacy. This is to be done not with the objective of defending the rights of either institution, but only to see more clearly the nature of the episcopate.
The first point that needs examination is the question of what it means to say that the pontificate of the episcopate is dependent, in contrast to the pontificate of the papacy which is sovereign. The bishop has a power of jurisdiction that is separate from that of the Pope, and not delegated to the bishop by the Pope. In other words, although the jurisdictional power of the bishop is received through the Pope, it really is a power from Christ. It is not as if this power belongs ordinarily to the Pope and he is merely giving it to someone else to exercise it. Nevertheless, this power is dependent in the sense that it can only be exercised in the context of union with the Petrine papacy. This does not mean that every exercise of the power of the bishop must be specifically approved by the Pope, which would make this power no power at all, but rather that, for the power to be exercised, the bishop himself cannot be in schism or heresy.[40] It is not so much that the power of jurisdiction is removed from the schismatic bishop as it is that he cuts himself off from that through which he received it from Christ, as can be seen from the fact that such a bishop, upon returning to the fold, does not need anything like a reconsecration in order to possess this power by right once again.
It is evident that the bishop is not a mere delegate or vicar of the Pope. He does not, in the normal exercise of his power, speak and act in the name of the Pope, although he remains subordinate to the Pope. Clearly, however, the bishop is also not an independent power unto himself. He speaks and acts in the name of Christ, from whom his power originally came and on behalf of whom his power is intended to act.[41] This is, of course, the real basis for all power in the episcopacy and for the reverence due to it. There is a certain likeness to Christ in the bishop, which is similar to the role of the priest as another Christ but still higher than it. As it says in the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae:
Just as the perfections of all natural things pre-exist in God as their exemplar, so was Christ the exemplar of all ecclesiastical offices. Wherefore each minister of the Church is, in some respect, a copy of Christ . . . . Yet he is the higher who represents Christ according to a greater perfection. Now a priest represents Christ in that He fulfilled a certain ministry by Himself, whereas a bishop represents Him in that He instituted other ministers and founded the Church. Hence it belongs to a bishop to dedicate a thing to the Divine offices, as establishing the Divine worship after the manner of Christ. For this reason also a bishop is especially called the bridegroom of the Church even as Christ is.[42]
The bishop acts in this likeness to Christ, and hence it can be said that he ordinarily acts in the name of Christ alone.
Granting that the bishop acts ordinarily in the name of Christ, and possesses a kind of likeness to Christ that surpasses the kind of likeness possessed by a priest, then what distinguishes him from the Pope and gives him a separate mission? It has already been said that the bishop is subordinate to the Pope, and yet they both possess the power of order, which we know they possess equally, and the power of jurisdiction. It would seem, then, that the specific difference of the bishop is that he has jurisdictional power, but he simply has quantitatively less jurisdictional power than the Pope. This idea is true taken properly, but wrongly interpreted it can result in the idea that the episcopal office is close to superfluous. If the power of the papacy and the episcopacy is exactly the same in kind, with the only difference being that the papacy has more of it, then what is there that the bishop is intended to do that cannot be done just as well by the Pope? The answer lies in the fact that the difference between the powers of the episcopate and the powers of the papacy, although in a way it is a difference of quantity, is also one of kind, since it is the distinction between particular and universal.[43]
The subordination of the jurisdictional power of the episcopate to that of the papacy is properly explained in terms of the particularity of episcopal jurisdiction and the universality of papal jurisdiction. This distinction certainly establishes the papacy as having more power than the episcopate, but there is more to be said about the matter. In a case where there are a number of authorities that are all directed to the same purpose, for the sake of unity there must be a single universal authority, which is above the particular authorities in the sense of applying to all while they only apply to a part.[44] This means more than just that the universal authority, in this case the papacy, has more power than the particular authority. It also indicates in the particular authority, the bishop, a specificity of relationship to the part, which is the particular church, which does not and cannot exist in the universal authority, the Pope, because of the very fact of his universality. It is this unique relationship to the particular church that is the center of what it is to be a bishop, the defining characteristic of the power and dignity of the episcopate.[45]
This section began with a consideration of the origins of the episcopate in Scripture, and proceeded from that to a study in ecclesiology, a large portion of which consisted of comparisons between the episcopate and other hierarchical institutions, namely the simple priesthood and, above all, the papacy. The goal of all of this, however, was the development of a further understanding of the nature of the episcopate. This understanding has led up to the point that the uniqueness of the bishop lies in his hierarchical representation of Christ in the particular Church. This is emphatically not to say that the bishop is the same to the particular church as the Pope is to the universal Church. If that were so, all of the preceding development of the subordination of the episcopate and the sovereignty of the papacy, as well as the mutual necessity of the two, would collapse. Instead, what is being affirmed here is that the relationship of the bishop to the particular church is not like that of the Pope, or of the ordinary priest, or of anyone else, but rather involves a unique pastoral role in which to an appropriate extent the bishop should be seen as acting in place of Christ toward the particular Church.
Chapter Three: The Pastoral Role of the Bishop in the Particular Church
What it means to be a bishop has already been examined in some depth here. Before embarking on a consideration of the bishop in his relationship to the particular church, however, it is also necessary to clarify briefly what it means to be a particular church. First of all, the term "particular church" is used here to apply to the group of the baptized within the Catholic Church who are gathered together under a bishop. This is what we consider a diocese, but the particular church has a more strictly theological meaning in common usage than that of the diocese. Although it is not uncommon to think of a diocese in terms of a geographical area, such an idea would be erroneous in relation to the particular church.[46] It is true that there are also entities on a level lower than that of the diocese that are called churches, but the diocese is the lowest level of the Church of which it can be said jurisdictional power over it is ordinarily exercised by its immediate head.[47] In other words, the diocese is a separate jurisdictional unity in a sense that churches on a lower level are not. Thus, it seems reasonable to restrict for purposes of a study of the episcopacy the term "particular church" to application to the diocese.[48]
It was said at the end of the last chapter that the bishop in his diocese represents Christ. What follows will essentially be a study of how the bishop does this. The mission of Christ, of course, was and is the salvation of humanity. Insofar as Christ fulfills this mission as the unique God-Man the bishop naturally cannot carry on this mission. Only the Incarnate Word can actually save humanity. However, the bishop can be an instrument through which the fruits of the redemptive action of Christ are received, as has already been said. Furthermore, Christ in His mission did not only come to die, but also to teach and to rule in a unique way. This teaching and ruling mission of Christ is basically a mission of guidance. Owing the human race nothing, He nevertheless freely chose not only to give back to us the possibility of salvation, but also to guide us on our way to that supreme goal. This part of the mission of Christ can be and is carried on by the bishop, as has also been seen.[50] The mission of the bishop, however, applies fully and properly to the particular church. The key to a characterization of the relationship between the bishop and the particular church, which is part of the present purpose, is therefore a characterization of the relationship of Christ to us in His mission insofar as it is carried on in the episcopate.
There are undoubtedly many characterizations of the relationship of Christ toward us in His mission. However, some of these cannot be appropriately applied to the episcopate because they emphasize the mission of Christ insofar as it is unique. Nevertheless, there are still many images that we could use of both Christ and the bishop in this context. The point here is not to deny the validity of any of those images, but rather to stress one, which has become dominant for the purpose of seeing better the essence of the episcopate. Christ in Scripture identifies Himself in His mission toward us as the Good Shepherd. This image is used to indicate His loving care for us, which can be seen from the fact that He nourishes and guides us throughout our lives. The bishop also, although obviously in a lesser way, is responsible for the spiritual nourishment and guidance of those in his care. It is not through an accident or a casual figure of speech that bishops are not uncommonly referred to in relation to their dioceses as shepherds, or pastors, which has the same meaning. The episcopal mission and its special link to the particular church can only be fully understood if it is clearly understood that this mission is a profoundly pastoral one, which is properly undertaken in imitation of Christ.[51]
The primary mission of the bishop involves the holiness of the people under him. He fulfills this mission, as has been pointed out, through the powers of jurisdiction and sanctification which are given to him. What has been said so far has for the most part treated these powers and that mission from an ecclesiological point of view. It is also important, however, to cover these on a more practical level, dealing with how the bishop should exercise his power in order to properly fulfill his mission. In the ecclesiological study this area was studied through a bipartite division between the power of jurisdiction and the power of order, which is a valid division based on the distinction between transmitting grace and proclaiming truths. While this remains the best ecclesiological division in these matters, it is also convenient in a discussion of the practical role of the episcopate in the particular church to speak in terms of a tripartite division between sanctifying, teaching, and governing. This is so because teaching and governing, although they are both parts of the power of jurisdiction, come to us in the life of the Church as two separate things, which are not always directly linked to each other.[52]
Within the episcopal pastoral powers and duties there is obviously a primacy belonging to those powers and duties which concern sanctification through the power of order. It is in these aspects of his mission that the bishop most directly transmits, or is an instrument in the transmission of, the divine life of grace to the faithful, through which they are to be saved. This part of the episcopal office clearly contains everything that is involved in the priestly office. Thus, like any priest, the bishop has as part of his duties an obligation to celebrate the sacraments appropriately. In addition, however, the bishop ordinarily confers Confirmation, in which the recipient becomes so to speak an adult member of the Christian community, and Holy Order, which transmits to one degree or another the power of order which the bishop himself possesses. This latter sacrament also gives the bishop a degree of responsibility for his priests who in a way are acting in this aspect as secondary shepherds. Moreover, it is his responsibility to assure that the members of his flock are nourished as much as possible in the life of grace through the sacraments.[53] It would be a grave matter indeed if a soul were lost because he lacked help which could have been given him in the sacraments had the bishop adequately fulfilled this awesome responsibility.
The teaching power of the bishop is not a power to teach his own beliefs, but rather a power to teach in union with the entire Catholic Church. It is a power to transmit to those under him the Depositum Fidei, the Deposit of Faith consisting of Scripture and Tradition, which has been handed down and, in an appropriate sense, developed since the foundation of the Church.[54] When the bishop teaches in this way the faithful obviously owe complete assent to what he says. This, again, is an immense responsibility, and the concern of the bishop in his exercise of the teaching power must be to preserve this body of doctrine in all its integrity as he instructs his flock. This preservation, in fact, is a standard by which episcopal use of this power can be judged. This does not mean, however, that the faithful can simply ignore the bishop and give their attention only to what is said by the universal Church, under the theory that everything worthwhile said by the bishop will also be said at the universal level. Some degree of assent is owed to the bishop when he is teaching in harmony with the thought of the Church, even if he is not teaching something taught on the universal level. At the least it is inappropriate for a Catholic to contradict publicly the bishop when he teaches in this way.[55]
The power of the bishop to govern is somewhat different from his powers to teach and sanctify in the sense that, while it is primarily concerned with the practical truths to be obeyed that are given by the Catholic Church, it goes beyond that. Within limits, the bishop can establish laws and make rulings within his diocese that do not apply to the universal Church. However, both in the case of the universal practical truths and the specific diocesan provisions, the governing power of the bishop is intended to be a guide to the people within his particular church on their way to God. This should be the aim of every decision of the bishop in matters of governance, although of course it will be far more applicable on some points, such as matters of ecclesiastical censure, than on other matters where it may be almost purely administrative. In many cases, naturally, governing decisions of the bishop will be purely prudential, and being human he is fallible. However, he has been placed by God in his position of authority and is presumably receiving appropriate divine aid.[56] Except in cases where the bishop commands what is sinful or against the governance of the universal Church, or the bishop gives a command which he is not authorized to give within the universal Church, obedience to the bishop as governor of their particular church is required of the faithful in all those things which pertain to the Church and matters of religion.
In relation to the episcopal teaching and governing authority, the question arises of how far the faithful must go in following their bishop. It is one thing to refrain from contradicting the bishop; but must assent be given to his teaching and obedience to his government, despite the fact that he is not personally infallible? The answer concerning his government should be clearly in the affirmative, since not even the papacy brings infallibility in such areas, and its power still binds completely. The bishop must be obeyed in matters of religion as a governor, barring an appeal to higher authority, virtually up to the point of sin. The answer to the question above about teaching must also be in the affirmative. The possibility of error is not an exemption from belief for the subject. Unless an individual knows that the bishop is teaching something against the doctrines of the Church, or has a serious basis for doubting his teaching, he must assent to his teaching. Refusal to do so is the rejection of a message that claims to come from God, delivered by a messenger known to be appointed by God.[57] As Father Gerald Ryan puts it, "Acceptance of episcopal pronouncements in doctrinal matters is obligatory on his subjects to the extent that unless based on truly conscientious reasons a refusal of acceptance would brand one as temerarious and lacking in the respect and reverence due to divinely constituted authority."[58]
One of the broadest and most fundamental roles that the bishop fulfills within the particular church is his place as the principle of unity within the particular church, especially in his duties as teacher and ruler. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his work Called to Communion, the bishop "embodies the unity and the public character of the local church that derive from the unity of Word and sacrament."[59] Through the very powers that he exercises in his mission of salvation, the bishop contributes to the existence of the particular church as a communio. This role was brought out in the testimony of the Fathers, who urged that everything that involved religion should always be done in union with the bishop. It is the bishop who teaches and rules the particular church directly, so it is he who on this level should have the greatest determining influence on the beliefs and actions of those under him, always of course in accordance with the authority of the universal Church. Hopefully, all of the teaching and governing actions of the bishop together form a whole, which is consistent both internally and with the deposit of faith. The bishop can thus bring all of the people in his flock together in the same beliefs and actions and prevent dissension and discord among the faithful. Furthermore, if any dissension does occur, the presence of a bishop who has been consistently fulfilling the duties of his office provides a criterion of unity with him by which to determine whether anyone is separating himself or herself from the particular church.[60]
In addition to being the principle of unity within the particular church, the bishop is also the link that unites the particular church and the universal Church. The particular church gains its reality as a true church through participation in the universal Church, and the bishop is responsible for this participation. It should be primarily through him that the speculative and practical truths proclaimed by the universal Church reach the faithful in his diocese. It is also primarily through him that the sanctification from Christ which is in the universal Church descends on those same people.[61] In a lesser but still real sense the bishop should also be a link in the other direction, from particular to universal. For example, the normal way in which the concerns of the particular church are heard in the universal Church is through the bishop. He is a connection through which the universal Church retains contact with and knowledge of the particular church. Thus, in addition to contributing to the unity of the Catholic Church, the bishop also contributes to the catholicity or universality of the Church. It is by extension through the episcopate that the Church reaches and is reached by the multitudinous communities of the entire world.[62]
This idea of the bishop as link between the particular Church and the universal Church inevitably gives rise to questions concerning, among other things, the joint collegial action of a limited number of bishops in, for example, episcopal conferences. Although this is not of primary concern to the topic at hand, a word should be said about it because such conference have often taken on increasingly significant roles in recent years. Such united action by bishops is not action by the universal Church, such as would take place at an ecumenical council, but neither is it action on the level of the particular church in the traditional sense in which that term has been used. Rather, it seems to fall somewhere in between these two institutions.[63] Although much is sometimes made of the actions of such episcopal organizations, it should be remembered that they are not strictly speaking a part of the framework of episcopal and ecclesiastical power that is being described here. Unless the universal Church delegates authority over specific matters to such organizations, their jurisdictional actions have power only insofar as the individual bishops within the organization choose to accept those actions and apply them to their own dioceses. These organizations of themselves have no power jurisdictionally to constrain any bishop. Furthermore, it must be stated once again that these conferences are not part of the intrinsic structure of the Church as established by Jesus Christ. It is therefore important that the existence and activity of episcopal conferences not result in any diminution in the responsibility taken for their separate dioceses by individual bishops. Regrettably, it seems clear in the present day that such an abdication of episcopal responsibility to episcopal conferences has occurred in some places, and all sound principles of ecclesiology demand that this trend be reversed where it has taken hold. It is the bishop himself, not any conference to which he belongs, bears personal responsibility before God for the particular church with which the bishop has been entrusted.
In relation to the role of the bishop as the link between the particular church and the universal Church, the relationship between the episcopate and the papacy should be mentioned once again. The dependence of the episcopate on the papacy was explained earlier, but more can and should be said about it in this context. As a practical matter, the attempt has been made among Protestants to have the episcopacy but not the papacy, as for example among the Anglicans. Logically, a similar view must exist even in those Catholics who wish to reduce the papacy to a practically meaningless primacy of honor. Such people fail to realize that the episcopate depends upon the papacy in such a way that it not only does not lose its dignity by its dependence but in fact gains its dignity through its dependence. The whole tradition of the Church attests to this, and it is incoherent to wish to deny this tradition but retain the episcopate. In the seventeenth century, Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet of Meaux put the folly of such a position very well:
What could be done by bishops who had themselves annihilated the authority of their chairs and the reverence due their succession by overtly condemning their predecessors up to the very source of their Orders . . .? What is the episcopate when it separates itself from the Church which is its all as well as from the Holy See which is its center . . .?[64]
In addition to the mission and powers that make up the episcopal office, and the place in the Church which that office must take, subordinate to the universal authority and guiding the particular church, the bishop should also concern himself with being a model for those within his particular church. Leadership includes guidance by example, and this applies to the bishop as shepherd of his flock. It might be argued that teaching by example is required of all Christians, and therefore cannot in any way be applied specifically to the episcopal office. Certainly, it is important to remember that the call to holiness is universal, and not restricted on any level to those in Holy Orders. However, it would seem that the bishop has a unique responsibility in this regard as a bishop. While the example of the individual may be good or bad, it has no authority endorsing it, so to speak. The bishop, on the other hand, is supposed to appear in his particular church in persona Christi, and therefore the faithful in that particular church have special reason to follow his example, as they should his word. Therefore, there is a corresponding duty on the part of the Catholic bishop qua Catholic bishop, and not only as a Catholic, to strive to the best of his ability to give an example of personal holiness, so that he may lead his flock up rather than pull them down on their path to holiness.[65]
In any analysis in the present day of the episcopal office, particularly when one reaches the issue of moral example, the question inevitably arises of whether the current bishops are living up to their noble office. Human nature being what it is, one can guess that at any given time in history there will be some bishops who are not properly fulfilling their office. Perhaps then, the question is whether at this time there are more bishops who are failing in this respect, and whether these bishops are betraying their episcopal office in graver ways, than has been usual in the past. Unfortunately, it seems difficult not to answer this question in the affirmative. However, the appropriate response to these failures on the part of bishops is not any degradation of the episcopal office, but rather a renewed recognition of the place of the episcopate in the salvific plan of Christ, and an emphasis on the importance of bishops who fill that office worthily.
It has been made clear that the episcopate has its own power, rights, honor, and dignity. At the same time, it has corresponding duties and responsibilities. These may vary to a certain extent with the passage of time and changes in non-essential details of canon law and the structuring of the Church. However, the basic meaning of the episcopate does not change, and the powers and mission discussed here remain basically the same. It should be clear at this point that much respect, honor, and, needless to say, obedience, is owed to the episcopal office by the faithful. On the other hand, to just as great an extent the bishop owes to the particular church the sanctification and guidance that its members need for their salvation. Furthermore, he is to be the in all things religious the center of the particular church as an institution, and the guarantor of its persistence as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The episcopate essentially involves a representation of Christ in His pastoral mission by the bishop within the particular church, which is in his care. The saving power and guidance of Christ in His Church are made present through the bishop to his flock, which is given into his pastoral care by the Church, and ultimately by God.
Conclusion
It might seem odd at first that one of the points refuted in the previous section, which was intended to explain the role of the bishop in particular church, was essentially a denial of papal supremacy. However, this is not in fact inappropriate to the context because it is necessary to dispel any sort of episcopalism in order to defend the true dignity of the episcopate. It is precisely the connection of the bishop with the Pope and the Church, and therefore with Christ, that is missed by those who do not have proper appreciation and respect for the episcopal office. They do not recognize that they have a representative of Christ assigned to their particular church for the express purpose of guiding them and the other members of that church to God. It is certainly the case that not all bishops live up to their office, and that is truly tragic, but that is not an excuse for ignoring the office. Members of the Roman Catholic Church are not given choices as to what structure they would like to have put in place to help them on the road to eternal life. They are given a structure put in place by Jesus Christ for that purpose, and it includes the bishop as their primary shepherd on the level of the particular church.
This study of the episcopal office began with a review of relevant passages in the New Testament and the Fathers of the Church. Even though the direct Scriptural references to bishops were few, they were rich in content. The importance of the episcopal office could already be seen in the Pauline epistles in the great care Paul took in describing those suitable for the office. A hint was even found of the local nature of the episcopal mission, which would later be developed into a full explanation of the specific relation to the particular church as part of the nature of the episcopate. The establishment of the episcopal office in the commissions of power to the Apostles by Christ became clear in the light of Apostolic succession. This principle of Apostolic succession was seen defended in the Fathers, particularly in Irenaeus. Emphasis was also found in the patristic testimony on the obedience and respect owed to the bishop because of his office, which was a continuation of the mission of the Apostles, and even of Christ. The absolute necessity of remaining in union with the bishop was stressed, especially by Ignatius of Antioch, and indeed was made the standard for remaining inside the Catholic Church.
After an examination of the Scriptural and patristic evidence, a more systematic ecclesiological study of the episcopate was made. The purpose in this was to determine the place of the episcopate in the Church. The absolute necessity of the episcopate was established based upon the divine institution of the episcopal office. The episcopal office was then broken down into the power of order and the power of jurisdiction, and these powers were described as found in the episcopate. Within these areas the episcopate was compared both with the simple priesthood and with the papacy, in order to situate it within the structure of the Church hierarchy. It was pointed out that the bishop fundamentally acts in the name of Christ within the particular church to which he has been assigned. Finally, the difference between papal and episcopal power was addressed. The fact that papal jurisdiction is universal and episcopal jurisdiction is particular led to the particularity of the episcopate being selected as a distinctive characteristic. As a result, the episcopal office was seen to have a mission based heavily on this natural particularity. The role of the bishop was shown to involve a continuation of the mission of Christ as shepherd, primarily in the particular church.
Finally, a study was made of the actual office of the bishop as shepherd of the particular church. After defending the definition of the particular church in terms of the bishop, the pastoral role of the bishop was considered, concentrating on what seems necessary and essential to the episcopate. The episcopal powers and duties in sanctifying, teaching, and governing were laid out. Furthermore, the submission owed to the bishop by the faithful under him was discussed. It was then shown that the bishop, by serving as teacher and governor, as well as a kind of link between the particular church and the universal Church, upholds both unity and catholicity within his diocese and within the Church as a whole. However, an over-emphasis on extra-diocesan local episcopal action was rejected. Furthermore, attempts to separate the episcopate from the papacy were rejected as efforts bound to destroy the dignity of the episcopate in the process. Lastly, the duty of the bishop to be a model and an example in the Catholic religion as a representative of Christ within his particular church was established. This concluded the study of the pastoral role of the episcopate in the particular church.
The basic object of this study is the office of the episcopate in its unique relationship to the particular church. The office of the episcopate insofar as it singularly combines the plenitude of Orders with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church has been established. Furthermore, it has been shown to be necessary within the Catholic Church. The relationship of the episcopal office to the particular church has also been shown. Finally, the pastoral role of the bishop, as shepherd of the flock in his particular church, has been examined in its powers and responsibilities, and the corresponding duties of submission among the faithful. All of these points, which were set out at the beginning to be established, contribute to an understanding of the foundation for respect and appreciation of the episcopal office as shepherd of the particular church. This is the real dignity of the bishop within the Church as a whole.
The bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they are bound with the divine Head of the whole Body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord," but, as far as each one's own diocese is concerned, because as true shepherds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them.[66]
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 4 volumes. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948.
Bossuet, Jacques-Benigne. Funeral Oration for Henriette-Marie of France. 16 November 1669. Translated by Christopher Blum.
Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. Translated by James Kleist. Westminster, MD: Newman Bookshop, 1946.
Denzinger, Henry. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy Deferrari. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957.
Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1975.
The Holy Bible. Douay-Rheims Version.
The Holy See. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994.
________. Code of Canon Law. Translated by Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1983.
John Paul II. The Encyclicals of John Paul II. Edited by J. Michael Miller. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996.
Journet, Charles. The Church of the Word Incarnate. Translated by A.H.C. Downes. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955.
Lubac, Henri de. The Motherhood of the Church. Translated by Sergia Englund. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 4 volumes. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983.
Ratzinger, Joseph. Called To Communion. Translated by Adrian Walker. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996.
Ryan, Gerald. Principles of Episcopal Jurisdiction. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1939.
The Synod of Bishops. "Final Report." In The Extraordinary Synod: 1985. Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1985.
Urtasun, Joseph. What Is a Bishop?. Translated by P.J. Hepburne-Scott. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962.
Notes
[1] The Holy See, Code of Canon Law, trans. Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1983), 66.
[2] The Holy See, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), 390.
[3] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 4 vols. (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983), 1:28.
[4] Quasten, 1:10.
[5] Matthew 18:18-20 Douay-Rheims.
[6] Mark 16:15-16.
[7] John 20:21-23.
[8] Matthew 18:18.
[9] 1 Timothy 3:2-7.
[10] Titus 1:7-10.
[11] Acts 20:28.
[12] Titus 1:1-5.
[13] Athanasius, Letter to Dracontius, cited by Quasten, 3:64.
[14] Cyprian, Epistles 3:3, cited by Quasten, 2:374.
[15] Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42; Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, trans. James Kleist (Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1946), 34-5.
[16] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1, cited by Quasten, 1:301.
[17] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:26:2, cited by Quasten, 1:302.
[18] Quasten, 1:27.
[19] Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 1:3, cited by Quasten, 2:187-188.
[20] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans 8, Kleist 93.
[21] Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp 5, Kleist, 98.
[22] Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians 4, Kleist, 61.
[23] Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 3, Kleist, 69-70.
[24] Ignatius, Magnesians 6, Kleist, 70-71.
[25] Cyprian, De Ecclesiae Unitate 4:5, cited by Quasten, 2:380.
[26] Ignatius, Smyrneans 8, Kleist, 93.
[27] Tertullian, De Baptismo 17, cited by Quasten, 2:280.
[28] Cyprian, Epistles 66:8, cited by Quasten, 2:374.
[29] The Holy See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 235-237.
[30] Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Orders; Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy Deferrari (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), 293-295.
[31] Pius X, Lamentabili 53; Denzinger, 512.
[32] Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, trans. A.H.C. Downes (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 24.
[33] Journet, 23.
[34] Ibid., 23.
[35] Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 21; Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1975), 373.
[36] Journet, 86.
[37] Ibid., 23.
[38] Ibid., 384.
[39] Ibid., 128.
[40] Gerald Ryan, Principles of Episcopal Jurisdiction (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1939), 68.
[41] Journet, 396-397.
[42] Summa Theologica, Supplement, question 40, article 5.
[43] Journet, 389.
[44] ST, Suppl. q. 40, a. 6.
[45] The Holy See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 390.
[46] Henri de Lubac, The Motherhood of the Church, trans. Sergia Englund (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982), 191-192.
[47] Joseph Urtasun, What Is a Bishop?, trans. P.J. Hepburne-Scott (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1982), 43.
[48] de Lubac, 193-194.
[49] Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus 3; Denzinger, 454.
[50] Journet, 16.
[51] Pastor Aeternus 3; Denzinger, 454.
[52] Journet, 166.
[53] The Holy See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 236.
[54] John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 116.1.
[55] Ryan, 82.
[56] John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, 25.4.
[57] Ryan, 86.
[58] Ryan, 128.
[59] Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion, trans. Adrian Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), 94.
[60] Veritatis Splendor, 26.2.
[61] Veritatis Splendor, 114.3.
[62] Ratzinger, 101.
[63] The Synod of Bishops, "Final Report," in The Extraordinary Synod: 1985 (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1985), 57.
[64] Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Funeral Oration for Henriette-Marie of France, 16 November 1669, trans. Christopher Blum.
[65] ST, 2-2, q. 185, a. 4.
[66] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis; Denzinger, 616.