The Vatican View of Authority

Vatican Council II, midway in its second session, stood committed to the principle of decentralization in the exercise of supreme authority over the church.

It now comes to grips with the somewhat more practical question how that authority, once decentralized, is to be exercised effectively in the legislative, judicial, and executive areas of church government.

The council’s acceptance of the principle of decentralization was indicated in its vote on four questions in connection with Chapter 2 of the schema De Ecclesia, a chapter dealing with the hierarchy. Protracted discussion of the chapter had yielded so many interventions by bishops, numbering 1,320 on a single point, that that council’s Theological Commission found itself unable to determine the tenor of the bishops’ thinking. The four council moderators appointed by Pope Paul had devised the four questions to help the commission determine the consensus or “mind” of the council.

The four questions, put to a vote of the council, produced one-sided majorities. The results were then turned over to the Theological Commission, which presumably will reformulate the chapter on the hierarchy to reflect the opinions evident from the vote. These are the four points:

1. That episcopal consecration constitutes the peak of the Sacrament of Orders. The significance is that the chapter would state in effect that there is no order higher than that of bishop. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

2. That every bishop legitimately consecrated in communion with other bishops and the Roman Pontiff, as their head and principle of unity, is a member of the episcopal body. The word “college,” more frequently used than “body,” denotes an association of individuals for a common purpose (in this case the government of the church) and forming a corporation.

3. That, in its task of evangelizing, sanctifying, and feeding, the body or college of bishops succeeds the college of apostles, and that, in union with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head (whose primatial rights over all pastors and faithful remain intact), this body enjoys full and supreme power over the universal church.

The effect of this, if approved, would be to state that the bishops, acting collegiately (as a body), share with the Pope full and supreme power over the universal church, but do not possess that power independently of the Pope. The Pontiff, on the contrary, would retain his full and supreme power over all pastors and the faithful, even without the agreement of the bishops.

4. That the full and supreme power over the universal church belongs to the bishops (acting as a college) and the Pope together by divine right.

If this is approved, it will state in effect that no human being, including the Pope, can take away the stated power from the college of bishops and the Pontiff.

Theoretically, the Pope could act independently in a way contrary to the opinions of the college of bishops, but it is in this connection that the comment of a French theologian that “the Pope is also guided by common sense” becomes particularly significant.

A fifth guideline was approved by a vote of approximately three to one. If the Theological Commission adheres to this directive, Chapter 2 of De Ecclesia will call for a vote on “the opportuneness of restoring the diaconate as a distinct and permanent rank of the sacred ministry, according to the needs of the Church in different localities.” The directive makes no mention of celibacy as a rule for the proposed diaconate—previously the subject of much discussion.

While not directly related to the four points dealing with the college of bishops, this fifth directive becomes specifically significant when considered in relation to those points. The permanent diaconate was proposed originally to provide relief for the shortage of priests in some areas, notably the mission fields, and for the overburdening of priests in some large parishes.

Interventions by various bishops indicated a fear that restoration of the permanent diaconate might in some manner harm the priesthood, especially if the diaconate were not placed under the rule of celibacy. The vote of the council suggests that this fear—which in some cases might reflect opposition to any decentralization—carried relatively little weight with most of the church fathers.

Even when due consideration is given to the fact that no one is committed to anything, that each bishop may have had specific reasons for voting as he did on the directives and may decide to vote differently if those reasons are removed, and that the formal amendments have yet to be submitted, the five directives are nonetheless an indication of the “mind” of the council as it discussed the third schema, dealing with “Bishops and the Government of Dioceses.”

From the outset there was clamor for “radical revision,” but after the first day of debate the council voted 1,610 to 477 to accept the schema as a basis for discussion. The schema was obviously prepared before the council’s votes on the five guidelines placed it on record as approving the principle of decentralization. There was some confusion. One theologian stated in a press conference that there were two “understandings” among the bishops—one that the question of collegiality of bishops had been settled, the other that nothing had been settled.

The adjustment of the prevailing “mind” of bishops at the Vatican Council, to meet the needs of the present throughout the world; the council’s determination to establish, if necessary, an entirely new formulary for “revealed truth” while retaining the doctrinal status quo; and the infinite diversity of motivations that may influence different men toward the same decisions are noteworthy elements to be observed in any ecumenical council.

In the present instance there is interwoven with these elements another which, never entirely absent, tends from time to time to dominate the conciliar scene—the willingness to undergo renewal in order to smooth the pathway to reunion. Council members who are willing to follow this pathway are classified frequently as “liberals,” a term which Catholic theologians deplore. They are, more correctly, conservative in theology, holding fast to the “fundamentals” of their faith, but liberal in their formulation of these fundamentals and in the application of them to changed and changing conditions.

Significant in this connection are these words of Father Hans Küng, now a recognized leader of the younger theologians who are urging renewal within the church:

“What a council could do today, what would have a real meaning in the present situation, is to provide a basic framework of law within which the bishops of the various countries, language-areas or continents could, under the general direction and supervision of the Petrine office, carry out concrete reforms.”

This is precisely what the council did with respect to the schema on the sacred liturgy, work on which has been finished for all practical purposes. A few amendments remain to be voted on, but they will not alter the general tenor of the schema, which might be promulgated by Pope Pius VI before the end of the present session.

Dr. Küng further suggested that: “The episcopate (working within a legislative framework), with the help of a committee of experts, could solve the concrete difficulties facing the various countries and continents in their very different stages of advance in the liturgical revival: the vernacular (the most important current question); the arrangement of Scripture reading; concelebration; Communion under both kinds on special occasions; reduction, by combination, of the number of saints’ days; the ‘high’ and ‘low’ forms of Mass; vestments, gestures, music, singing. And they could work out a basic form of the Mass which would, again, in various matters (chants, readings, prayers) leave some freedom on occasion to the individual priest. The rite thus worked out would then be submitted to the Pope for approval.”

In almost every instance this is precisely what the council has done throughout the schema on the sacred liturgy. From the use of the vernacular to a reminder that composers of liturgical music should cultivate the ideals of sacred music and a note of preference for beauty rather than mere costliness in art, vestments, and general church furnishings, the language of the schema is permissive rather than compulsive. Wherever possible the effectuation of the improvements is left to the competent episcopal conference, always under the control of competent ecclesiastical authority.

It is too early to hazard a prediction as to whether action on the schema, “Bishops and the Government of Dioceses,” will provide another victory for the progressive forces in the council. The schema is practical in nature, whereas discussion of bishops, their authority, and their collegiality has previously been confined to the theological level. Current discussion revolves around the question: “Possessing this authority as a college in conjunction with the Pope, what do the bishops propose to do about some of the things that need doing?”

Obviously, decentralization would have little value if it resulted merely in the shifting of the center of power from Rome to some other world capital, a transfer of influence from the Roman Curia to some bishops’ conference of a country, a language-area, or a continent. Dr. Küng himself directed attention to this danger and stressed the importance of continuing the work of decentralization by each bishop’s “delegating as much power downwards as he can.”

One point that some observers would appear to have overlooked is that, in point of fact, decentralization may prove to be something of a two-edged weapon. Where a specific conference of bishops in the past had, at the most, to convince the Roman Curia of the wisdom of a proposed course, it must now persuade the “mind” of the college of bishops to its way of thinking.

Other actions by the council that drew some attention last month were the bishops’ decisions to put the Roman Catholic Church on record as willing to accept a fixed date for Easter and a new universal calendar. By nearly unanimous votes the council fathers said they do not oppose a new perpetual calendar providing other Christian churches accept it and providing it retains a seven-day week, including Sunday. The council would leave implementation to civil authorities.

A Visa Problem

South African authorities withheld an entrance visa from Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and Mrs. Henry, who are on a two-month tour of Africa before visiting the Holy Land and Europe. Visas have been withheld from journalists in recent months because of sensitivity to criticism of apartheid.

Henry applied to the South African chancellery in New York in late August for visas. They referred the applications to Pretoria, and indicated that favorable action could be expected promptly. For nearly two months he made periodic long-distance telephone calls, and finally he sent a messenger to New York just before flying to Europe. He was encouraged to apply to the embassy in Lisbon, Portugal, to which word of approval would be relayed. Henry said he got the same runaround in Lisbon, where he visited the embassy three times in a two-week period. The staff was courteous, but no authority to issue the visas came from Pretoria despite an additional appeal.

Miracle In Monrovia?

The Liberian capital city of Monrovia was steeped in debate after a Prophet-church minister claimed to have raised a 28-year-old woman from death. The alleged miracle was widely discussed among the city’s 60,000 inhabitants after the two daily newspapers, The Daily Listener and Liberian Age, gave the story front-page play. It also came up at a press conference with President William V. S. Tubman, Methodist churchman, who said: “When I first lead it in the newspapers I knew it was nonsense. Personally I never believed it.”

But doubts shared by most Christian leaders in Liberia in no way fazed the thousands of members of the thirty to forty Prophet-churches scattered throughout Liberia. An import from Nigeria, these congregations are led by so-called prophets who claim predictive powers and power to heal the sick, and preach the Gospel of Christ in peculiar association with both Judaic and primitive African elements. They dramatize one aspect of the problem faced by Christian missionaries in Liberia, where the early Americo-Liberians made little effort to convert the tribal people, whose religion has become a conglomerate of Christianity, Islam, and animism. In the Prophet-churches Christ’s Gospel holds a central role, and the preaching has a heavy undertone of the imminence of destruction except for fasting and prayer. But the prophets, who wear flowing white gowns with a red sash, claim special revelations, their church members speak in strange tongues and practice fasting, and the women in the congregations practice natural childbirth because of a disbelief in doctors and medicines and an emphasis on divine healing. Since the Prophet-churches are rooted in Nigeria, they claim to carry a more indigenous form of Christianity than foreign missionaries do.

Samuel M. Shoemaker

The evangelical community suffered loss last month (Oct. 31) with the death of Dr. Samuel M. Shoemaker in Baltimore. He had been suffering from a heart condition and emphysema. He is survived by his wife and two daughters. Memorial services were held in the two churches he had served as rector: Calvary Episcopal in New York City (1925–1952) and Calvary Episcopal in Pittsburgh, from which he had retired at the end of 1961 to his family home in Stevenson, Maryland—suburb of Baltimore.

Shoemaker had been a contributing editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY since its inception in 1956.

His distinctions were many: in 1955 he was named by Newsweek one of the ten greatest preachers in the United States; his weekly sermons were printed and mailed throughout this country and twelve foreign ones; for three years he was speaker for the nationally broadcast “Episcopal Hour”; he wrote some twenty-five books; and he was a vigorous champion of the cause of evangelism. English evangelist Bryan Green has said:

“He has done more than any other living minister to help forward the work of evangelism within the Protestant Episcopal Church of America.”

Financing The Churches

Total contributions in forty-two principal Protestant denominations showed little change from 1961 to 1962, according to a National Council of Churches compilation. The per-member amount of $68.76 for all causes in 1962 represented a decrease from the previous year of 0.35 per cent.

The figures were released this month in the forty-third annual publication of Statistics of Church Finances by NCC’s Department of Stewardship and Benevolence.

The Rev. T. K. Thompson, executive director of the department, attributed percentage decreases in per-member giving to an increase in total membership without a corresponding increase in dollars contributed. He said a large part of this was due to denominational mergers and a consequent change in reporting procedures.

Total figure for the forty-two bodies amounted to a record $2,799,670,577. Per-member giving for congregational expenses was $57.18, an increase of 2.03 per cent. For all benevolences, the per-member figure was $12.45, a decrease of 3.9 per cent.

The latter includes a per-member gift for foreign missions of $2.18 for 1962, which represented a loss of 1.4 per cent from the previous year.

Per-member contributions for 1962:

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.