A presentation of the grounds for participation of all faithful in the building of the Church, seen as a hierarchical community of the faithful, and the elucidation of the collegial and consultative character of the Church are possible only when ecclesiology remains tightly connected with Chris-tian anthropology, and when this ecclesiology encompasses the Church
30 J. Krukowski, “Hierarchia kościelna,“ Kompendium wiedzy administratywisty, 645–647.
31 The meaning of the expression “canonical mission“ depends on the conception of power.
According to Vatican II, a bishop receives three tasks by the power of his ordination: teaching, sanctification, and governance. Power and canonical mission are not the same. Power is to be understood as “ontological participation in sacred offices”, but canonical mission as legal deter-mination, so that these offices can be exercised in communion with other ministers. In this sense,
“ontological participation” and “legal determination” cannot be considered as distinct realities but rather complementary realities. Canonical mission is nothing but a legal form of power. For more, see: J. Krzywda, Funkcje i znaczenie misji kanonicznej w strukturze władzy kościelnej w świetle Vaticanum II, 113–158; A. Loghitano, Il diritto nel Mistero della Chiesa, vol. II, ed. III, Roma 2001, 291; J. Krukowski, Kościół powszechny a Kościoły partykularne, 46.
32 For more, see J. Dyduch, Obowiązki i prawa wiernych świeckich w prawodawstwie soborowym, Kraków 1985, especially pp. 120–178; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Kompendium nauki społecznej Kościoła, Kielce 2005, 355–378.
with regard to the effects the Holy Baptism exerts on every baptised per-son in terms of their rights and obligations.33 This approach to the Church is prescribed by the Second Vatican Council, which in its dogmatic con-stitution Lumen gentium put the chapter on its Christian existence and the mystery of the Church before the chapter on its hierarchical structure. Such layout serves to emphasise the fact that any distinctions in the Church are based on dignity common to all Christian faithful, and they should be made in the light of serving the whole Church. The placement of the hierarchical dimension of the Church in the second place does not deprecate it but high-lights the fact that the reason for the Church’s existence is to serve Chris- tian existence and the community of disciples. This is also signifies a tran-sition from juridic ecclesiology to ecclesiology based on sacraments.34 One of the foundations of the Church is ontology of grace – the dignity of being a Christian, which is primary to authority and hierarchical functions. The original reality of the Church is a community, the entirety of the believers, and the dignity of being Christian. The ontology of grace based on the sac-raments is primary in relation to any legal organisation.35 The sacramental basis is creative in the sense that it creates a certain ecclesiastical structure.
Taking the ontology of grace as primary facilitates proper understanding of authority in the Church, and demonstrates that collegiality has sacramental foundations.36 Collegiality and cooperation in the Church is based on the sacraments of Christian initiation, as well as common faith and love and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The above notions constitute the basis of equality for all members of the Church, who are equal in their dignity and spiritual life. Through the power of Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist, all be-lievers participate in the three functions of Jesus Christ who is a priest, king and prophet.37 Living the same Christian life and being enlivened by the Holy Spirit, they are all called to sanctity and apostolate, to responsibility
33 R. Sobański, “Sakramentalne podstawy pozycji prawnej wiernych w Kościele,” PK 13 (1970), nos. 1–2, 143–158; J. Krukowski, “Prawa i obowiązki laikatu w nowym Kodeksie Prawa Kanonicznego,” Chrześcijanin w Świecie 1983, no. 5, 61–68.
34 J. Krzywda, “Sakramentalność Kościoła a jego struktura społeczno-prawna,” PK 35 (1992), nos. 1–2, 213–224.
35 M. Żurowski, “Wspólnota kościelna ‘communio’ podstawą prawa kościelnego?” PK 20 (1997), nos. 1–2, 67–85.
36 Y. Congar, O Kościół służebny i ubogi, Kraków 2000, 53.
37 A. Zuberbier, “Stosunek między kapłaństwem powszechnym a kapłaństwem hierar-chicznym. Teologiczny punkt widzenia,” Kapłaństwo powszechne a kapłaństwo hierarchiczne. Ma-teriały spotkania wykładowców prawa kanonicznego (WSD oo. Franciszkanów, Katowice-Panewniki, 14 kwietnia 1998 roku), ed. A. Kaczor, Lublin 1998, 33–41.
for the growth of the Church, for the clarity of the transmitted deposit of faith, and to participation in making decisions that concern them in accor-dance with the ecclesiastical law. Given this radical equality, there is also multiplicity and variety of vocations and gifts initiated by the Holy Spirit, which contribute to the growth of the Church. They introduce differences in function, not differences in value.38
In the New Testament, the functions and offices are determined on the basis of tasks undertaken to serve the community of Christian life, which is a reality that is fundamental and primary in relation to hierarchy.39 The task of those who hold ecclesiastical offices is to “perfect the saints for the work of the ministry” (Ephesians 4:12). The goal of this “ministry” is to organise and build the mystical Body of Jesus Christ. This is a duty that is appropriate for all Christians, who by the same dignity are called to con-tribute to the growth of the Church.40All faithful bear responsibility in the Church and for the universal Church. It is both their right and task to work towards this goal. Jesus first chose his disciples, and then chose the twelve Apostles from among them. Of the twelve he chose Simon Peter to head the Apostolic College and the whole Church. Also, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the presence of a hundred and twenty other brethren (Acts 1:15). These facts prove that a community of disciples was the origi-nal reality upon which the hierarchical dimension was created. According to the will of the Founder of the Church the dignity of being a disciple is primary to that of being an apostle, and it is necessary to be entrusted with the mission. In this way, unique law of structures came into being according to which a community is the primary reality. Within it some of its mem-bers were chosen to fulfil certain tasks for the benefit of this community.41 In this Ecclesia, the superiors of this Christian community were appointed (praepositi Ecclesiae, ministri Ecclesiae, rectores Ecclesiae). Augustine of Hippo (354–430) emphasised this while preaching: “Vobis sum episcopus, vobis-cum christianus […] – For you I am a bishop, but with you I am a Christian
38 Y. Cognar, “Bapteme, sacerdoce et vie religieuse,” La vocation inquietudes et recherches, Paris 1968, 32–33.
39 A. Paciorek, “Posługiwanie w Kościele Apostolskim,” W trosce o Kościół. Tydzień Eklez-jologiczny ’97 „Kościół Tajemniczy – Kościół tajemnic”. Tydzień EklezEklez-jologiczny ’98 „Posługiwanie w Kościele”, ed. A. Jarząbek, Lublin 2000, 85–96.
40 Y. Congar, “Uprawnienia członków ludu Bożego a uprawnienia laikatu,” PK 13 (1970), nos. 1–2, 101–141; M. Żurowski, “Uprawnienia do uczestnictwa we wspólnocie kościelnej pierwszych wieków chrześcijaństwa,” PK 19 (1976), nos. 3–4, 37–52.
41 Cf. R. Słupek, Jesteśmy Kościołem Trójjedynego Boga. Kolegialność według Yves’a Congara, Lublin 2004, 70–75.
but also a sinner, disciple and listener of the Gospel. If I am a bishop, this is for you, but with you I am Christian.”42 From the very beginning the two dimensions of the Church – hierarchical and communitarian – were consi- dered in conjunction as a result of the Church understood as an organised Body with specific structures at every level of its existence. Unity of the whole Body was ensured by means of adhesion to the Triune God, which happened on the level of faith. Authority in the Church was exercised in connection with the whole community of believers. St Cyprian (200–258) made a point of consulting clerics and the people in his care. Already at the beginning of his pastoral ministry he stated that he would not make any decision without the counsel of priests and deacons (sine consilio vestro) or the people (sine consensu plebis meae).43
Time brought changes. They were due to gradual granting of various privileges to the clergy following the edict of Milan (313) in the Christian empire and later in the very Church.44 Multiple legal norms were created concerning clerics, and they were intended to safeguard their honour and prestige. A set of legal norms (special apparel, celibacy) was created, which caused the clergy to become distinct.45 This led to some tension between the faithful and the superiors of the community. Over centuries, institutional structures and communities gradually drifted apart. This process was bol-stered by popes Leo IX (1049–1054) and Gregory VII (1073–1085), who at-tempted to free the Church from political associations. While wishing to free the Church from the lay authority, they strived after strengthened papacy.46 Despite increased exposure of the prerogatives of papal authority in the 12th and 13th centuries, communities of the faithful were deeply aware of the necessity of coexistence and balance between the hierarchical principle
42 St Augustine, Sermo 340, 1, Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Latina I–CCXVII, (PL 38, 1483), Paris 1878–90; more on this in: Y. Congar, O Kościół służebny i ubogi, 52–57.
43 St Cyprian, Epistle 14, 5 (“nihil sine concilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere” – From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing of my own private judgment without your advice [presbyters and deacons] and the concurrence of the peo-ple). Cf. Epistle 34, 3 (“tractanda […] non tantum cum colleges meis, sed cum plebe ipsa univer-sa” – The case […] must be considered separately and decided […] with advice not only of my Colleagues, but of the whole people”).
44 W. Szcześniak, Dzieje Kościoła katolickiego w zarysie, vol. I, Warszawa 1902, 186–213.
45 See: Y. Congar, O kościół służebny, 45–47, 113; W. Granat states: “Historical circumstances were conducive for the Church to take over a great deal from the previous state apparatus:
thrones, from which it was difficult to stoop; princely and courtly titles which lifted one up;
handsome apparel which gave distinction – also coarse habits, for a change” (Eucharystia. Miste-rium Bożej obecności, Sandomierz 2001, 184).
46 B. Sesboüé, Władza w Kościele. Autorytet, prawda i wolność, Kraków 2003, 257–260.
and the rule of collegial life of the Church.47 This was manifested by the pro-cedural principle, transposed from the Roman law, saying: Quod omnes tan-git, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (What concerns everybody must be discussed and approved by all).48 This principle was frequently applied for the triple function of the Church: priestly, prophetic and royal. It was used by those popes who were strongly aware of the prerogatives of their pa-pal authority: Innocent III (1198–1216) and Boniface VIII (1294–1303).49 The principle expressed a conviction, existing in the awareness of the Church, that certain issues should be accepted or at least discussed by those whom they concern or by their representation.50 It was called a principle of conces-sion for the faithful, and as such did not violate the hierarchical structure but was an expression of peaceful coexistence with a particular structure of power in a community.51 In the following centuries the balance between the hierarchical principle and the principle of collegiality was disturbed. This broadened the gap between the hierarchical principle of the Church and the principle of communitarian life although in the past they had constituted an organic whole. They came to be treated as two incompatible realities, which gave rise to extreme ecclesiological approaches.52 Some emphasised papal authority, deprecating the significance of community (papal abso-lutism).53 Others downgraded the role of the pope, and gave prominence to the community of the Church as a community of believers (e.g. concilia- rism, anti-hierarchical movements).54 In time the quod omnes tangit principle came to be abused. Its overuse, the renaissance of political philosophy and the Roman law all minimised its application in practice. The priority of ontology of grace, common to all faithful, was in time superseded by lega- lism, which allowed for determination of legal validity with no regard for
47 J. Ratzinger, Le nouveau peuple de Dieu, Paris 1991, 56–79.
48 Justinian, Constitution of 531 (Codex Iustinianus [C. 5, 59, 5, 2], Corpus Iris Civilis, vol. II, Berlin 1963, 115).
49 “Quod omnes tangit, debet ab omnibus approbari” [What touches everybody should be approved by all] – Liber sextus, 5, 13, 29 (Pope Boniface VIII). It should be added that in the cur-rent Code of Canon Law (CIC/83), this principle is featured in a canon concerning collegial acts in the following manner: “quod autem omnes uti singulos tangit, ab omnibus approbati debet”
[what concerns all as individuals must be approved by all] (can. 119, 3°).
50 For more see: Y. Congar, “Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractate et approbari debet,”
Revue historique du droit français et etranger 36 (1958), 210–217; T. I. Jimenz-Urresti, “Ontologia wspólnoty i struktury kolegialne w Kościele,” Conc 1965/66, 609–610.
51 R. Słupek, Jesteśmy Kościołem, 77.
52 For more, see: G. Feliciani, Il popolo di Dio, Bologna 1991, 9.
53 M. Żywczyński, “Absolutyzm,” EK, vol. I, coll. 39–41.
54 M. Zahajkiewicz, “Koncyliaryzm,” EK, vol. IX, coll. 546–549.
a deeper sense. Ecclesiology was narrowed down to a reflection on the the-ory of papal authority and hierarchical structures of the Church. Such li- mitation was partially conditioned by threats inherent in the ecclesiology of Hus55 or Wycliffe, or dangers of such trends as conciliarism (already men-tioned), Protestantism, Gallicanism, liberalism or modernism. Margina- lisation of the reflection that the Church is a whole and a departure from the biblical and patristic approaches resulted in lay people becoming solely an object of the pastoral activity of the clergy. The Church came to be treat-ed as a community which is owntreat-ed by someone and governtreat-ed by a higher authority. This authority was perceived to decide and determine the func-tioning of the whole Church. It was a power that was exercised not only in the Church but primarily over it.56 In a Church like this the lay faithful were not capable of influencing the life of the community, a right that they were granted by virtue of their baptism, so they did not feel any responsibility for their Church and they left it. Progressive clericalisation of the Church was accompanied by dechristianisation of the world.57
An attempt at a “healthy declericalisation” of the Church was made by the Second Vatican Council, which by making a reference to biblical and pa-tristic sources and using a wealth of images and symbols (LG 1) tried to pre- sent a theological and integral vision of the Church, a vision where it is vital to maintain the right proportions between the divine and human, between the communitarian and institutional dimensions of the Church.58 The Coun-cil wished to highlight that one dimension of the Church must not be empha-sised at the expense of the other since such an interpretation disturbs the or-ganic unity between a community and its pastors as well as reducing the role of community of the faithful in bearing joint responsibility for the Church.59
The Council points out that the Church is Divine Mystery – Mis- terium Divinum (LG 3, 5),60 in other words a reality consisting of divine and
55 For more, see: K. Moskal, Aby lud był jeden…, Eklezjologia Jana Husa w traktacie De Ecclesia, Lublin 2005.
56 Cf. R. Łukaszczyk, “Ewolucja interpretacji władzy w Kościele,” ZN KUL 8 (1965), no. 2, 14–17.
57 Cf. Y. Congar, “Sobór a przyszłość Kościoła,” Więź 5 (1962), no. 4, 30.
58 A. Kubiś, “Problematyka eklezjologii katolickiej po Vaticanum II,” Servo veritatis. Mate-riały Międzynarodowej Konferencji dla uczczenia 25-lecia pontyfikatu Jego Świątobliwości Jana Pawła II, ed. S. Koperek, S. Szczur, Kraków 2003, 287–305.
59 Cf. R. Słupek, Jesteśmy Kościołem, 83. M. McAleese, Quo Vadis? Collegiality in the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 2012, 55–78.
60 R. Sobański, “Model Kościoła – tajemnicy jako podstawa teorii prawa kościelnego,” PK 21 (1978), nos. 1–2, 39–60.
human elements, which may not be fully penetrated by the power of hu-man reason,61 nor can it be expressed by means of theological language, not to mention putting it in legal norms.62 This is only possible in the light of enlightenment, which uses parables and imagery.63 The Bible and tradi-tion served theologians and canonists as models to construct ecclesiastical constitutional law.64 Of the wealth of images and symbols of the Church, demonstrated by Vatican II, the People of God, the Body of Christ and Com-munity deserve particular attention.65 However, none of these models ex-hausts the content of the Church of Christ, hence they cannot fully depict the nature of the Church.66
The image of the People of God was recognised by Vatican II as an ul-timate expression of those aspects of the Church that were once unrecog-nized, and now gained particular currency.67 The expression populus Dei was used 72 times by the Council in its documents, and 39 times in the con-stitution Lumen gentium. This notion contains the truth that all member of the Church are bound by fundamental equality in their dignity as children of God and their share of basic values, regardless of secondary distinctions resulting from their hierarchical obligations and unique charismata. The Council emphasises the truth that all members of populus Dei partake in the common ministry although some of them function in the sphere of hierar-chical priesthood which involves authority.68 The People of God has a de-fined internal structure that permits harmonious and ordered coexistence despite diversity (1 Corinthians 14:33). It is a unique People – sui generis, since it is People of God, unbound by nationality, into which you can enter through Baptism; it is headed by Jesus Christ, it gives dignity and freedom of Children of God, its right is love, this people is a seed of unity, hope and salvation for the world, its destiny is the Kingdom of God, anticipated on
61 L. Balter, “Kościół tajemnic,“ W trosce o Kościół, 43–52.
62 M. Żurowski, Współuczestnictwo kościelne. Ius ad Communionem, Kraków 1984, 21.
63 J. Krukowski, Administracja w Kościele, 30.
64 R. Sobański, Kościół – prawo – zbawienie, 241–245; M. Stasiak, “Problem modeli eklezjal-nych w budowie treści prawa Kościelnego,” Kościół i prawo, vol. I, Lublin 1981, 11–40.
65 E. Ozorowski, Kościół. Zarys eklezjologii katolickiej, Wrocław 1984; Z. Glaeser, Ku eklez-jologii „Kościołów siostrzanych”. Studium ekumeniczne, Opole 2000, 20–48; M. Kozak, Kościół jako communio według Gerarda Philipsa, Lublin 2004; S. Tymosz, “Nauka Soboru Watykańskiego II o Kościele jako Ludzie Bożym w normach Kodeksu Prawa Kanonicznego z 1983 roku,” Sobór Watykański II. Inspiracje i wpływ na Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego z 1983 roku, 146–164.
66 H. Bogacki, “Misterium Kościoła pielgrzymującego,” Kościół w świetle Soboru, ed. H. Bo-gacki, S. Moysa, Poznań 1968, 57.
67 J. Dyduch, Odzwierciedlenie nauczania Soboru Watykańskiego II, 328–335.
68 J. Krukowski, Administracja w Kościele, 32–35.
earth (CCC 782). This has to be a People who is “sense-generating for every people and nation, capable of imparting full meaning to every person and every group not only in the perspective of eternity but also here in this world and time.”69 The notion of the Church perceived as a new People of God expresses unity above all; People constitutes a so-called collective personality. An individual, by being involved in this community, collected and created by God, acquires rights and obligations.70 He or she has to con-tribute to this community and take active part in its all historical events.71 The Church thus understood constitutes a network of relations and inter-relations. All faithful become active subjects who build the Church. The lay faithful must not be an object of concern or clients of the clergy.72 The activity of the whole People of God must take into account the fact that it is not a mass of individuals but a structural community. Such a biblical un-derstanding of the People of God73 is entirely different to the socio-political notion of ‘people’.
earth (CCC 782). This has to be a People who is “sense-generating for every people and nation, capable of imparting full meaning to every person and every group not only in the perspective of eternity but also here in this world and time.”69 The notion of the Church perceived as a new People of God expresses unity above all; People constitutes a so-called collective personality. An individual, by being involved in this community, collected and created by God, acquires rights and obligations.70 He or she has to con-tribute to this community and take active part in its all historical events.71 The Church thus understood constitutes a network of relations and inter-relations. All faithful become active subjects who build the Church. The lay faithful must not be an object of concern or clients of the clergy.72 The activity of the whole People of God must take into account the fact that it is not a mass of individuals but a structural community. Such a biblical un-derstanding of the People of God73 is entirely different to the socio-political notion of ‘people’.