In the Exercise of Executive Power According

(1)

(2)

EDITORIAL BOARD Piotr Stanisz ( hair)C Artur Kuś

Sławomir Fundowicz Delaine Swenson Leszek Adamowicz Magdalena Pyter

olume

V 7

(3)

Wydawnictwo KUL 3 Lublin 201

COMPETENCES OF COLLEGIAL ORGANS IN A PARTICULAR CHURCH

In the Exercise of Executive Power According

to the Code of Canon Law of 1983

(4)

Typesetting Teresa Myśliwiec

Cover design Agnieszka Gawryszuk

ISBN978-83-7702-764-6

PUBLISHER Wydawnictwo KUL

ul. Zbożowa 61, 20-827 Lublin tel. 81 740-93-40, fax 81 740-93-50 e-mail: wydawnictwo@kul.lublin.pl http:// wydawnictwo.kul.lublin.pl

PRINTING AND BINDING elpil ul. Artyleryjska 11 08-110 Siedlce e-mail: info@elpil.com.pl

(5)

AA Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 18 Nov 1965

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis: Commentarium Officiale, Roma 1909- AG Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes, promulga-

ted by Pope Paul VI on 7 Dec 1965

AS Congregation for Bishops, Directory For The Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004 AKEP Akta Konferencji Episkopatu Polski [Documents of the Polish Epi-

scopal Conference], Warszawa 1998- AP Annuario Pontificio, Roma 1912- ACPF Acta Congregationis de Propaganda Fide

BSKP Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Kanonistów Polskich [Bulletin of the Polish Canonists Association], Lublin 1991-

CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 11 Oct 1992

CCEO Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium [Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches], promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 18 Oct 1990 CIC/17 Codex Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV on 27

May 1917

CIC/83 Codex Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25 Jan CIC Fontes 1983Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes

CD Decree concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops Christus Domi- nus, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 28 Oct 1965

EI Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Ecclesiae Imago, published on 22 Feb 1973

EK Encyklopedia Katolicka [Catholic Encyclopaedia], Polish edition, Lublin 1973-

(6)

ES Motu proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, issued by Pope Paul VI on 6 Aug GS 1966Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gau-

dium et Spes, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 7 Dec 1965 IC Ius Canonicum, Pamplona 1961-

ISD Instruction of Congregation for Bishops and Congregation of Evangelisation of the Peoples De synodis dioecesanis agendi, issued on 19 March 1997

LG Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, promul- gated by Pope Paul VI on 21 Nov 1964

KEP Konferencja Episkopatu Polski [the Polish Episcopal Conferen- ME ce]Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Rome 1876-

OE Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium Ecclesia- rum, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 21 Nov 1964

OrPast Orientamenti Pastorali, Roma 1952-

PB Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 28 June 1988

PCL Post-conciliar legislation

Periodica Periodica De Re Morali, Canonica et Liturgica, Rome 1911-

PG Post-synodal apostolic exhortation Pastores Gregis, delivered by Pope John Paul II on 16 Oct 2003

PK Prawo Kanoniczne [Canon Law], Warszawa 1958-

PO-KEP Pismo Okólne Konferencji Episkopatu Polski [official journal of the Polish Episcopal Conference], Warszawa 1967-

PO Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum ordinis, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 7 Dec 1965

REDC Revista Espanola de Derecho Canonico, Salamanca 1946- Resp. Responsum

SC Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, pro- mulgated by Pope Paul VI on 4 Dec 1963

SCPF Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith

SMC Apostolic Constitution on Military Ordinariates Spirituali Mili- tum Curae, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 21 April 1986 SP Studia Płockie, Płock 1973-

SS Studia Sandomierskie, Sandomierz 1980-

TN KUL Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL [Scientific Society of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin]

TPV Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis

UR Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 21 Nov 1964

ZN KUL Zeszyty Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego [Legal Science Annals of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lub- lin], Lublin 1958-

(7)

The presented dissertation deals with the postulate of democratisation in the Church which was put forward at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), and the way it is put into practice. Democratisation cannot be achieved existing in the Church in the same way as in national communities based on natural law. One has to respect the theological premises that define the Church as a human-divine community whose foundations are grounded in the revealed Divine Law (see for example: J. Ratzinger, H. Meier, Demokratie in der Kirche: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, Lahn-Verlag 2005). The realisation of this postulate is made possible by the norms of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (CIC/83) that regulate the participation of the faithful, both clerics and lay persons, in the exercise of authority by bishops through auxiliary collegial bodies in the issuance of singular administrative acts as well as the performance of other tasks envisaged by law.

The Second Vatican Council greatly contributed to the explanation of the procedure and scope of democratisation in the Church by proclaiming the theological truth that the Church is both the People of God and a hierarchical community (cf. LG 10, 22, 24, 26). This truth includes the principle that all the faithful are equal in their dignity and their vocation to take part in the building of the Mystical Body of Christ. All People of God are uni- fied by fraternal love. All the faithful partake in the universal priesthood of Christ, and they are called upon to accept joint responsibility for the realisation of the mission of the Church according to their status. In the first place, this vocation affects those members of the People of God who participate in the hierarchical ministry (LG 28) and are called bodies of ecclesiastical hierarchical authority by the Council (LG 8). From the above theological premises springs a pastoral premise regarding the need to sustain dialogue

(8)

within the Church community, which Pope Paul VI assumed to be the foun- dation of any pastoral activity.

Further, from the above-mentioned theological and pastoral premises stems a legislative postulate concerning (a) the establishment of legal norms regulating the ways of fostering dialogue in the Church, and (b) the establishment of auxiliary collegial bodies through which such dialogue may take place – in the very delicate domain of exercising power, especially administrative authority, both within the Catholic Church and a particular Church. The ecclesiastical legislator is obliged to consider two essential elements found in the constituent structure of the Church. These are: a) obligations and rights of faithful Christians, both the laity and clergy, to voice their needs and opinions regarding the hierarchical Church in matters relating to the attainment of common good; and (b) hierarchical structure of the sacred authority that belongs to diocesan bishops and other adminis- trators of particular Churches who issue decisions, typically in the form of administrative acts.

Following the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council, the supreme ecclesiastical legislator established, for one thing, the status of auxiliary collegial organs in a diocese which are to assist in various ways diocesan bishops in their service to the People of God, especially by issu- ing administrative acts, and, for another, the forms of their functioning.

Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Novo millennio ineunte, appealed for a greater appreciation of diocesan collegial bodies in the following way:

“(…) the structures of participation envisaged by canon law such as the presbyteral council and the pastoral council must be ever more highly va- lued” (45).

These words of Pope John Paul II and the currency of the above matters in the context of democratisation of the Church have all prompted the Author to address these issues. This need seems particularly pressing since in the teaching of canon law there has been no monographic study on the due position and competences of collegial bodies in particular Churches as envisaged by CIC/83.

The considerations presented here will focus mainly on source mate- rials as well as domestic and foreign publications to date.

The basic sources used by the Author are the documents created by the Second Vatican Council, executory decrees of the Apostolic See for conciliar resolutions, Code of Canon Law of 1983 for the Latin Church, papal constitutions, responses of pontifical commissions and interpretation commissions, dicasterial decrees of the Roman Curia, as well as normative acts issued by the Polish Episcopal Conference and some diocesan bishops.

(9)

Although some time has passed since Vatican II and the promulgation of CIC/83, scientific literature that deals with ecclesiastical collegial bodies in particular Churches is rather modest. Apart from commentaries to CIC/83 containing interpretations of canons that regulate the establishment, structure and tasks of particular organs, several works on certain collegial bodies have been published, especially on the college of consultors, such as Diocesan Consultors Development and Present Legislation by Punderson, or treatises: Il collegio dei consultori by Benetti, Il consiglio presbiterale by Incitti, or Il presbiterio della Chiesa particolare. Questioni canonistiche ed ecclesiologiche nei documenti del magistero e nel dibattito postconciliare by Cattaneo (see Li- terature).

In Poland, only three monographs on the subject have been published.

Their authors analyse the origin, structure and tasks of the following col- legial organs: a diocesan synod (Rozkrut’s Synod diecezjalny w Kościele), the presbyteral council (Rola i zadania prezbiterium w życiu Kościoła partykular- nego by Wroceński) and the college of consultors (Kolegium konsultorów w Kodeksie Prawa Kanonicznego 1983 i w partykularnym prawie polskim by Si- tarz). These issues are discussed in articles collected in Struktury kolegialne w Kościele partykularnym. Materiały z ogólnopolskiej konferencji naukowej zorga- nizowanej przez Stowarzyszenie Kanonistów Polskich, Wydział Nauk Prawnych TN KUL i Wyższe Seminarium Duchowne w Tarnowie (edited by Krukowski and Rozkrut), and articles by Dyduch, Górecki, Góralski, Krukowski, Krzy- wda, Rozkrut, Sobański, and Wroceński (see Literature).

The presented publication takes advantage of their research but at the same time constitutes an independent study, based on a profound analysis of the sources of canon law with due attention paid to a document di- rectly relevant to our considerations, namely the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores, issued by the Congregation for Bishops in 2004.

The presented dissertation was written using mainly the dogmatic-legal method. In order to justify the key legal regulations related to collegial bodies, the theological-legal and historical-legal methods were also used.

This work, given the scope of the research, is divided in two parts.

The first one deals with substantive law and the other with procedural law.The first part is intended to present the position of collegial bodies in their exercise of executive power in a particular Church. This part is sub- divided into three chapters. Chapter I discusses the theological and legal foundations of the establishment of collegial organs of power in particular

(10)

Churches. The analysis seeks to elucidate the core precepts necessary to understand the considerations that follow, namely: the notion of a particular Church, theological basis for the participation of all the faithful, (both lay and clerical) in the formation of the Church under the leadership of a bishop, and cardinal legal principles that should be observed in the relations between a diocesan bishop and collegial bodies participating in the ecclesiastical mission.

Chapter II explains the notion of an organ and kinds of authorities existing in a particular Church. Having clarified the notion of an organ in the Church, and stated that there exist single-person and multi-person bodies of authority, obligatory and facultative collegial organs are presented (featuring in CIC/83). Prior to their presentation, classification criteria for collegial bodies are provided.

This chapter is intended to address, among others, the following ques- tions. What is the ratio legis of a norm that prescribes or permits a diocesan bishop to institute collegial bodies in the particular Church entrusted to him? Does a diocesan bishop in a particular Church, which is a portion of the People of God formed much like the Catholic Church, have auxiliary collegial bodies, similar to those which support the Bishop of Rome in his pastoral ministry (e.g. Synod of Bishops, College of Cardinals, collegial bodies of the Roman Curia)? Do and in what measure the provisions of CIC/83 realise the proposals of the Second Vatican Council that demand that the existing collegial structures be reformed and new collegial bodies within particular Churches established?

Chapter III deals with the competences of collegial bodies in a particular Church. It is commonly accepted that collegial bodies are provided with broadly understood advisory (consultative) competences. This understanding does not reflect the truth contained in the provisions of the Code, hence the analysis of legal provisions will focus on the reading of all competences that the legislator envisaged in CIC/83 for collegial bodies. The study re- sults that are discussed in this chapter are intended to answer the question whether – aside from consultative competences – the collegial bodies of a particular Church possess other competences, e.g. creative, representa- tive, liturgical, mediation, or coordination competences? If so, then what competences was a given collegial body granted? What is the scope of individual competences? Are they specific to particular bodies or do they differ with regard to the circumstances of the see (sede plena, sede impedita, or sede vacante)?

The second part aims to present legal norms that regulate the object and the procedure of exercising competences of collegial bodies of authority

(11)

in a particular Church, thanks to which the implementation of substantive law is possible. This part consists of two chapters.

Chapter I provides an analysis of those codified norms that concern the subject of competences of collegial bodies. The main idea of this chapter is that the object of any competent activity of collegial bodies is a singular administrative act, substantiated as an act of consent, opinion, or choice.

Therefore it is here that one should find answers to the following questions.

What is understood by an ecclesiastical act of administration? What kinds of administrative acts are there, and what classification criteria are to be found in CIC/83 and the doctrine? What is the structure of an administrative act? Which acts can be issued by collegial bodies? Does the activity of collegial bodies follow from an entitlement, obligation, or competence?

Chapter II discusses issues connected with the realisation of individual competences by collegial bodies in a particular Church. The realisation of consultative competences is presented in detail, i.e. the procedure of ob- taining consent and the procedure of seeking opinion. Moreover, leadership issues are discussed as well as problems that may arise while prepa- ring for consultation, during convocation, or proper session, the discussion and voting stages, as well the very important issue of selecting a procedure for consultation. The realisation of creative and governance competences has been treated in a similar way, whereas the coordination, representa- tive and mediation procedures will be merely outlined since the general legislator requires that they be specified by a given legislator in a particular Church. Also, the method of realisation of liturgical competences is treated by CIC/83 in much detail since the Code makes a reference to liturgical regulations, too.

The dissertation closes with a summary of the considerations presented in the individual chapters, and proposes de lege lata and de lege ferenda con- clusions.

(12)

(13)

By analogy to the Catholic Church, particular Churches, “in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists” (can. 368), host bodies of authority divinely and ecclesiastically instituted. Divinely instituted, the Catholic Church is headed by the Bishop of Rome and the College of Bishops, while a particular Church is governed by diocesan bishops.

The authorities that are established by God’s institution enjoy the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial power, while it is positive law whereby auxiliary organs are created as a result of decentralisation and deconcentration of power. These include single-person and collegial authorities. The scope of authority of auxiliary bodies is delimited by their basic subjects of authority. Therefore, in the first place, one needs to determine the status of collegial authorities that exercise power under a diocesan bishop in a particular Church. Hence, the first part of the dissertation discusses the following issues: theological and legal foundations in the establishment of auxiliary collegial authorities in a particular Church, the notion and types of authority, as well as the notion and kinds of competences that collegial organs possess.

The Position of Collegial Organs in the Exercise of Executive Power

in Particular Churches

(14)

(15)

Before we establish the notion and kinds of organs of executive authority in a particular Church, we need to explain what constitutional grounds there are for their establishment and functioning. It must be noted that constitutional grounds in the Church must not be considered in a formal sense but only in material terms. These foundations were determined by the Divine Founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, and are read and proclaimed anew by the Magisterium. The main source of the modern Church’s teaching on its constitution are the resolutions of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar ecclesiastical legislation.¹ The post-conciliar resolutions regarding the Church are characterised by their pastoral nature. They are not strictly normative or legal but rather descriptive.² They were translated into legal parlance the successive popes in secondary legislation, which is to be found in the Code of Canon Law of 1983.

1 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replied to the question “Did the Second Vatican Council change the teaching on the Church?” by stating that: “The Second Vatican Coun- cil did not intend to alter, and indeed did not change this teaching, but developed, deepened, and extended it.” The Congregation also quoted Pope Paul VI’s words which he uttered upon the promulgation of the constitution Lumen gentium: “ There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncer- tain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”; see: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of the Doctrine on the Church, Vatican, 29 June 2007.

2 J. Krukowski, Administracja w Kościele. Zarys kościelnego prawa administracyjnego, Lublin 1985, 30.

Theological and Legal Foundations of the Establishement

of Auxiliary Collegial Organs

in a Particular Church

(16)

1. The notion of particular Church

The post-conciliar theological and canonist reflection on the Church led to the inclusion into CIC/83 a definition of particular Churches and rules governing the relation between them and the Catholic Church (cann. 368–371).

The definition of a diocese given by Vatican II is of fundamental im- portance for the notion of a particular Church: “A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to a bishop to be shepherded by him with the cooperation of the presbytery. Thus by adhering to its pastor and gathered together by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative” (CD 11).

The Council used the name “particular Church” to denote 1) a separate portion of the People of God (portio populi Dei) entrusted to a bishop, re- maining in unity with the Bishop of Rome (LG 23, 27), and 2) a Church of a given rite (OE 2).

Apart from the term “particular Church” the Council uses the name

“local Church” (LG 23; UR 14; AG 19, 27, 32), referring not only to a diocese but also a group of dioceses and parishes (CD 30; AA 30).³ In post-conciliar documents formulated in canonist language the term “particular Church”

prevails (see ES I, 3, §1; I, 34, §2).⁴

The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets a particular Church (a diocese or eparchy, in the first place) as “a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists” (CCC 833).⁵

3 S. Napierała, Pojęcie Kościoła partykularnego w dokumentach i aktach Soboru Watykańskiego II, Poznań 1985; R. Sobański, “Kościół partykularny jako podmiot prawa,” Kościół i Prawo 1989, 25 –46; G. Thils, La communaute ecclesiale son statut et sa vie. Precisions theologiques, Louvain-la-Neuve 1995, 22; A. Cattaneo, La Chiesa locale. I fondamenti ecclesiologici e la sua missione nella teologia post- conciliare, Vaticano 2003, 15–260; J. Krukowski, “Kościół powszechny a Kościoły partykularne,”

Kościół partykularny w Kodeksie Jana Pawła II, ed. J. Krukowski, M. Sitarz, Lublin 2004, 17–59.

4 J. Glemp, “Problem identyfikacji Kościoła lokalnego i partykularnego,” PK 21 (1978), nos.

3–4, 23–29; Międzynarodowa Komisja Teologiczna, Wybrane zagadnienia z eklezjologii, Od wiary do teologii. Dokumenty Międzynarodowej Komisji Teologicznej 1969–1996, ed. J. Królikowski, Kraków 2000, 197–236.

5 For more on this, see: M. Żurowski, “Kościół partykularny jednostką podstawowo-twórczą we wspólnocie wspólnot,” PK 22 (1979), nos. 1–2, 25–32; H. de Lubac, Kościoły partykularne w Kościele powszechnym, Kraków 2004; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Note on the

(17)

CIC/83 abandons the term “local Church” and uses “particular Church”

and “universal Church” instead. These terms are not contradictory. There are two ways of existing of the same Church of Christ, which visibly exists in multiple places without multiplying the essence of the salvific event.⁶ In order to facilitate an understanding of the communion holding between particular Churches and the universal Church,⁷ using the terminology of Vatican II (LG 23; CD 11), the legislator specifies it as follows: “Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists, are first of all dioceses, to which, unless it is otherwise evident, are likened a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner” (can.

368).⁸ The military ordinariate⁹ and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney¹⁰ and the Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans¹¹ were likened to a particular Church.

Expression «Sister Churches», Vatican 30 June 2000; see also: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church Dominus Iesus, AAS 92 (2000), 742–765. The Congregation also answers the question how to interpret the statement that Christ’s Church subsists (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church in the following manner: “Christ

«established here on earth» only one Church and instituted it as a «visible and spiritual community», that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. «This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic (…). This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”. In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ (subsistentia) means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions).

6 J.I. Arrieta, “Prałatury personalne i ich relacje do struktur terytorialnych,“ PK 43 (2000), nos. 3–4, 85–115; Komentarz do Kodeksu Prawa Kanonicznego, vol. II/1, Księga II. Lud Boży, ed.

J. Krukowski, Poznań 2005, 216; J. Dyduch, “Odzwierciedlenie nauczania Soboru Watykań- skiego II o Kościołach partykularnych w Kodeksie Prawa Kanonicznego,” Sobór Watykański II.

Inspiracje i wpływ na Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego z 1983 roku z okazji 40. rocznicy zakończenia Soboru Watykańskiego II, ed. K. Burczak, Lublin 2006, 93–98.

7 See: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood As Communion, Vatican, 28 May 1992.

8 J.I. Arrieta, “Fattori territoriali e personali di aggregazione ecclesiale,” Territorialità e per- sonalità nel diritto canonico ed ecclesiastico. Il diritto canonico di fronte al terzo millenio. Atti dell’XI Congresso Internazinale di Diritto Canonico e del XV Congresso Internazionale della Società per Diritto delle Chiese Orientali. Budapest 2–7 Settembre 2001, ed. E. Erdö, P. Szabo, Budapest 2002, 393–425.

9 See: John Paul II, Apostolic constitution Spirituali militium curae, AAS (1986), 481–486.

10 Congregation for Bishops, Decretum de Administratione Apostolica personali Sancti Ioannis Mariae Vianney condenda, AAS 94 (2002), 305–308; see also: J. Bednarz, “Administratura

(18)

11While analysing the notion of a particular Church, we must note that it is not only part of the universal Church, but owing to its supernatural elements it constitutes a whole that exists in parts.¹² Such an understanding of a particular Church is expressed by John Paul II in his apostolic adhortation Christifideles laici: “The particular Church does not come about from a kind of fragmentation of the universal Church, nor does the universal Church come about by a simple amalgamation of particular Churches. But there is a real, essential and constant bond uniting each of them and this is why the universal Church exists and is manifested in the particular Churches” (25).¹³

Following the position of the Council, the legislator gives the following definition of a diocese (a typical form of a particular Church) in can. 369:

“A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to a bishop for him to shepherd with the cooperation of the presbyterium, so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.”¹⁴

A particular Church and the universal Church constitute two dimensions that make up the Church of Christ on earth as a hierarchical community of the faithful.¹⁵ The main difference lies in the fact that the principle of collegiality exists in the universal Church in relation between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops who are in communion with him as their superior.

This is why there are two subjects of supreme authority in the universal Church: the Bishop of Rome and the College of Bishops (cann. 330–341).¹⁶

apostolska personalna Świętego Jana Marii Vianneya,” Annales Canonici 1 (2005), 139–174;

W. Jakubowski, M. Solarczyk, Ustrój Kościoła Rzymskokatolickiego. Wybrane zagadnienia instytu- cjonalne, Warszawa 2002, 156–159.

11 Benedictus XVI, Constitutio apostolica Anglicanorum coetibus Qua Personales Ordinariatus pro Anglicanis conduntur qui plenam communionem cum Catholica Ecclesia ineunt, AAS 101 (2009), 985-990.

12 J. Glemp, Problem identyfikacji Kościoła, 27; J. Krukowski, “Kościół partykularny,” Kompen- dium wiedzy administratywisty, ed. S. Wrzosek, Lublin 2008, 649.

13 Ioannes Paulus II, Christifideles laici, AAS 81 (1989), 393–521.

14 J. Krukowski, „Diecezja", Kompendium wiedzy administratywisty, 643–644.

15 E. Corecco adds that a particular Church is a Church inasmuch as it is capable of reali- sing the essential aspects of the universal Church. See also: E. Corecco, “Biskup głową Kościoła partykularnego, protektorem i obrońcą karności lokalnej,” Concilium. Międzynarodowy Przegląd Teologiczny [Polish edition.], 1–10 (1968), 451–452; A. Luneau and M. Bobichon, Kościół Ludem Bożym, Warszawa 1980, 260; T. Dereziński, Urzeczywistnianie się Kościoła uniwersalnego w Kościele partykularnym w świetle literatury posoborowej, Lublin 2002, 23–76.

16 More on this in: J. Krukowski, “Relacje między Kościołem powszechnym a Kościołami partykularnymi w nauczaniu i ustawodawstwie Jana Pawła II,” Roczniki Nauk Prawnych 17 (2007), no. 1, 107–119.

(19)

In a particular Church, governed by a diocesan bishop who remains in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the fullness of authority is reserved for the diocesan bishop and other high ecclesiastical officials who are equal to him under law (see can. 381, §2).¹⁷

Now the question arises as to which theological and legal elements cause a given community of the faithful to become “a portion of the People of God”, as exemplified by a particular Church.¹⁸

Krukowski rightly claims that a particular Church should be viewed in the context of a diocese. If it is claimed that in this “portion of the People of God the one and only, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church of Christ oper- ates“, then it is obvious that one does not read only a fragment that otherwise contributes to a whole¹⁹ and points to the following theological elements that constitute a particular Church: a) the preaching and acceptance of the Gospel – truth revealed to people by Christ, b) the Holy Spirit who constitutes a particular Church, c) the Eucharist through which a diocese is created (can. 369; SC 41), d) the charisma and sacrament of priesthood given to those who govern a “portion of the People of God,” namely bishops and the presbyterium (can. 369 of CIC/83; can. 1777 of CCEO).²⁰ Thanks to that, as G. Ghirlanda claims, the Church has a sacramental-charismatic-institutional character.²¹ This charisma supports the task of representing Christ, who is the Head of a community, recognition and coordination of charismata for all the faithful to attain full communion and for the community to enjoy communion with other communities. It is fully given to bishops, who govern the particular Churches entrusted to them – “by their counsel, exhorta-

17 J. Krukowski, “Biskup diecezjalny,” Kompendium wiedzy administratywisty, 642.

18 C. Bartnik, “Kryteria Kościoła partykularnego,” Studia Theologica Varsoviensia 14 (1976), no. 1, 129–142; T. Dereziński, Urzeczywistnianie się Kościoła uniwersalnego, 43–61.

19 F.J. Ramos, Le Diocesi nel Codice di Diritto Canonico. Studio giuridico-pastorale sulla organ- izzazione ed i raggruppamenti delle Chiese particolari, Roma 1997, 27–101; J. Krzywda, “Teolo- giczno-prawny wymiar zasady »In quibus et ex quibus« według nauki Soboru Watykańskie- go II oraz kan. 368 KPK,” Analecta Cracoviensia 32 (2000), 447–458; J. Krukowski, Relacje między Kościołem powszechnym a Kościołami partykularnymi, 112.

20 The Congregation for Bishops enumerates the characteristics of a particular Church in the following way: “The particular Church is: a community of faith, which needs to be nour- ished by the Word of God; a community of grace, in which the Eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated, the sacraments are administered and prayer is offered unceasingly to God; a community of char- ity, both spiritual and material, which flows forth from the fountain of the Eucharist; a community of apostolate, in which all are called to spread the inexhaustible riches of Christ” (AS 118).

21 G. Ghirlanda, “Criteri di organizzazione del Populo di Dio e di inserzione delle persona nell’economia della salvezza alla luce del libro II del CIC 1983“, Territorialità e personalità nel diritto canonico ed ecclesiastico, Budapest 2002, 101.

(20)

tion and example, as well, indeed, as by their authority and sacred power”

(PG 43). Bishops are called not only to give testimony to faith and sanctify the faithful but also to exercise the power of governance, granted to them by the power of their canonical mission.²²

In their particular Churches, bishops exercise immediate, ordinary, and proper authority, which is required for the exercise of pastoral ministry (can. 381).²³ However, the authority of the diocesan bishop in not supreme since its exercise is subject to universal law and competences reserved for the Roman Pontiff or other organs of ecclesiastical authority (PG 56).²⁴

Summing up the above considerations, we should conclude that a particular Church is an autonomous community of the faithful that has its own bishop and presbyterium and remains in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The basic form of a particular Church in the Latin Church is diocese (can. 368 of CIC/83), and in Eastern Churches this is eparchy (can. 177 of CCEO).²⁵

There arises a pertinent question: how can a bishop exercise his due power of governance in the community of the particular Church entrusted to his care?²⁶

In order to elucidate this issue one needs to consider the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council in two dimensions of the Church: communal and hierarchical.

In the first dimension, the Church is a community of the People of God, in which every baptized person is endowed with common priesthood in which all the faithful share true equality with regard to the supernatural dignity of children of God, and they are called on to participate in the building up of the body of Christ (LG 18, 32).

In the other dimension the Church is a visible community with a hierarchy whose members differ in their tasks with regard to the building of the Church. Those who are endowed with ministerial priesthood (which is also

22 For more, see: J. Krzywda, Funkcje i znaczenie misji kanonicznej w strukturze władzy kościel- nej w świetle Vaticanum II. Studium teologiczno-prawne, Kraków 1996, 76–112.

23 For more, see: G. Bier, “Die Teilkirchen und die ihnen bestellte Autoritat,” Müsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici, ed. K. Lüdicke, Essen 1984, [commentary on can. 381, 4°];

E. Górecki, “Wpływ ustaleń soborowych na kształt norm dotyczących urzędu biskupa diecez- jalnego w KPK z 1983 r.,” Sobór Watykański II. Inspiracje i wpływ na Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego z 1983, 114–116.

24 J. Krukowski, “Biskup Rzymu,“ Kompendium wiedzy administratywisty, 643.

25 Idem., “Kościół partykularny,” EK, vol. IX, coll. 1051–1052.

26 K. Wojtyła, “Biskup sługą wiary. Podstawy teologiczne problemu,” Ateneum Kapłańskie 87 (1976), Book 2, 224–228; J. Krukowski, Administracja w Kościele, 35–36.

(21)

official) can fill posts in organs of “sacred authority”, being tasked to guide the faithful towards the goal of the Church. Others are subject to them in the spirit of obedience.

Speaking of the participation of the faithful (the baptized) in the building of the Church, we need to take into account the Council’s position, ex- pressed in the constitution Lumen gentium, which deals with the hierarchi- cal constitution of the Church,²⁷ especially the following: “For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren, so that all who are of the People of God, and therefore enjoy a true Christian dignity, working toward a common goal freely and in an orderly way, may arrive at salvation (LG 18).”²⁸

The basic element that must be considered in this work is the differences concerning the subjects of authority in the universal Church and in a particular Church.

The universal Church has the principle of collegiality in relations between the Roman Pontiff and other bishops who are members of the Col- lege of Bishops.²⁹ As far a particular Church is concerned, one cannot speak of collegiality in the exercise of “holy authority” in relations between the bishop and priests as well as the lay faithful, but the principle of cooperation in the performance of tasks related to the building of the Body of Christ, derived from participation in ministerial or common priesthood.

The clerics are presented by the Holy Spirit with a unique gift of sup- porting the People of God and cooperation with those faithful who participate in the building up of the Church, endowed with common ministry (LG 17).

27 It should be added that the draft version of the Fundamental Law of the Church (Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis), prepared by the Pontifical Commission For the Revision of the Code of Canon Law on order of Pope Paul VI, modelled upon constitutions of modern states, was questioned by some bishops and theologians for ecumenical reasons. This is why it was not promulgated, but most of its canons were incorporated in Book II of CIC/83, which formally is not constitutive law. Cf. J. Krukowski, “Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis,” EK, vol. X, col. 914. The source text for this project can be found in Il Regno. Documentazione, 15 August 1970, 284–300;

T. Pawluk, Prawo kanoniczne według Kodeksu Jana Pawła II, vol. I, Olsztyn 2003, 112.

28 For more, see: R. Sobański, “Kościół partykularny jako podmiot prawa,“ Kościół i prawo, vol. VI, Lublin 1989, 9–22; J. Krukowski, Kościół powszechny a Kościoły partykularne, 19–23.

29 So it is stated in LG 22 and the Introductory note, which says that collegiality in the pro- per sense applies to the College of Bishops. More on this in: H. de Lubac, Kościoły partykularne w Kościele powszechnym, 63; J. Dyduch, Odzwierciedlenie nauczania Soboru Watykańskiego II, 105.

(22)

The governance system in the Church is monistic, i.e. the fullness of power is reserved only for the bishop by virtue of his canonical mission, entrusted to him by the Bishop of Rome.

Now we have to distinguish two hierarchical orders of the abilities needed to build up the Church: the hierarchy of holy orders and the hierarchy of jurisdiction.³⁰ To some degree, they complement each other. The authority of holy orders is conferred in the rite of ordination. These com- prise the three orders: diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. The power of governance is conferred by the “canonical mission”³¹ upon a subject who is capable of it in a supernatural order owing to being ordained. Between the bishop and the presbyterium of a particular Church there exists a “hierarchical communion” (PO 7, 15).

The lay faithful can participate in the Church’s worldly mission and cooperate with a bishop and presbyters in a particular Church, whether individually or in various collegial authorities.³²

2. The basis for the participation of all the faithful in the building of the Church

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.

(23)

with regard to the effects the Holy Baptism exerts on every baptised person 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 sacraments 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 believers 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.

(24)

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 contribute 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 original 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 members 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 Eklezjologiczny ’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.

(25)

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 considered 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.

(26)

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 papal 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. conciliarism, 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.

(27)

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 mentioned), 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 treated as a community which is owned by someone and governed by a higher authority. This authority was perceived to decide and determine the functioning 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 patristic sources and using a wealth of images and symbols (LG 1) tried to present 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 emphasised at the expense of the other since such an interpretation disturbs the organic 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.

(28)

human elements, which may not be fully penetrated by the power of human 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 hierarchical 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.

(29)

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 contribute 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 understanding of the People of God⁷³ is entirely different to the socio-political notion of ‘people’.

In political communities people have a right to determine their political existence and national system. On the other hand, the constituents, basic structures, and governing principles of the Church were constituted by the Founder himself, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Lord and therefore has all authority in Heaven and on Earth. He is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion”, because the Father “has put all things under his feet” (Ephesians 1:20–22). Christ is the Lord of Universe and history. In Him, the history of mankind is recapitulated (Ephesians 1:10; 1 Co- rinthians 15:24–28) and transcendentally fulfilled (CCC 668).

In consequence, no human authority may change what was instituted by God. The People of God must not be put on a par with a community or society associated with social and political life. It is not a special case of “people’s democracy in the Church”.⁷⁴ The Sacred Congregation for the

69 C. Bartnik, Dogmatyka katolicka, Lublin 2003, 37.

70 A catalogue of these rights and obligations for all the faithful was included in CIC/83 in cann. 208–223. For more on this, see: J. Krukowski, “Katalog podstawowych obowiązków i uprawnień wszystkich chrześcijan w nowym Kodeksie Prawa Kanonicznego,” Roczniki Teologi- czno-Kanoniczne 31 (1984), Book 5, 43–52.

71 J. Gocko, Kościół obecny w świecie – posłany do świata. Teologiczno-społeczne aspekty posłan- nictwa Kościoła w świecie po Soborze Watykańskim II, Lublin 2003.

72 W. Góralski, “Pozycja prawna osób świeckich w Kościele według Kodeksu Prawa Kano- nicznego,” PK 28 (1985), nos. 1–2, 49–60.

73 Old Testament mentions the People of God in about 2000 locations, and New Testament in 140.

74 For more, see: C. Bartnik, Dogmatyka, 32–35. H. Seweryniak, Święty Kościół powszedni, Warszawa 1996, 60–73.