At the Vatican Council
Pope and Bishops
From BARBARA LUCAS
ROME
THE first five weeks of the third session v& the second Vatican Council have been brisk, busy and fruitful. New matter has been debated, and matter debated last year has been voted on-- including the first six chapters of what will be the most important Council document, 'De Ecclesia' ('Concerning the Church'), and notably the crucial chapter three, which deals with the powers of the bishops.
In fact, Carlo Falconi, Council commentator for the left-wing Italian weekly L'Espresso, and author of Pope John and his Council, goes so far as to say that if the equivalent of the Franco- Prussian war had cut short Vatican H three weeks ago, it would have had as much to show as Vatican I, which, when actually cut short, had Papal Infallibility in the bag----and this because a the 'revolution' brought about by the voting on the bishops' powers in the last week of Sep- tember 'which established the doctrine of 'epis- copal collegiality.' As this voting took place while debate on the Declarations 'Concerning the Jews' and 'Concerning Religious Liberty' were occupy- ing most of the Council Fathers' time, it was not always accorded its full significance in the press. Yet not only is the definition of the bishops' Power in view of Papal Infallibility central to the work of Vatican II, but the stresses and strains underlying the last session and, to a lesser extent, this one, can only be understood in terms of a stubborn opposition to 'episcopal collegiality' on the part of a powerful few.
The cautious progression of donnees that lies behind the doctrine of 'episcopal collegiality'. establishes finally that 'the college of bishops, succeeding the college of the apostles in authority and pastoral government, in union with its head the Pope, and never without its head, has likewise [with the Pope] supreme and full power over the universal Church.' Though there is the re- curring proviso that the primacy of the Pope remains intact, Falconi is able to comment : 'The consequences of the approval of the doctrine of episcopal collegiality . . . signify on the one hand a re-dimensioning of papal primacy, and on the other a first step towards "collegial" govern- ment vertically in the Church. That expression is still too strong as yet, but the consequences of the declaration that "the bishops succeed the college of apostles in authority and government of the Church" implies just that. . . . The Catholic Church of tomorrow,' he sums up, 'will be born of the historic last week of September. , Unless, of course, an unforeseen coup de theatre, in the session that deals with "De Ecclesia" as a whole, rejects the decree . .
The Pope himself is known to be in favour of collegiality. He is alleged to have said on September 30, 'The Council is saved.' But the encrusted conservatives to be found mainly within the Curia see in it a threat to their age-long privileged position, .as, for one thing, one of its outcomes is presumed to be the setting-up of a Senate of Bishops chosen from all over the world to meet periodically in Rome and help the Pope with the government of the Church. Hence the stubborn opposition by the powerful few, which makes itself fell in a variety of ways.
Recently, consternation was caused by a curial directive that the Declaration 'On Religious Liberty' should be recast by a small commission consisting chiefly of fathers known to oppose it, while that 'On the Jews' should be cut and trans- ferred to the draft decree `De Ecclesia' instead of remaining in its amended entirety in the draft decree 'On Ecumenism' under the eye of its spon- sor, German Jesuit Cardinal Bea. Its proposed change of setting caused less dismay among many than the threat that it should be cut, which was seen as putting expediency (in view of Arab hostility) before truth. Others, however, incurably suspicious of curial machinations, saw the change of setting as the crux of the matter; for the longer it takes to finalise the text of 'De Ecclesia'— with its chapter three on collegiality—the better, from the curial point of view.
This high-handed intervention was countered by Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne and anti-curial spearhead, when he drew up and de- livered (October 13) a protest to the Pope signed by seventeen cardinals. The upshot of his move was to secure that both Declarations should be amended and voted on according to normal Council procedure; but 'On the Jews' was still to go into 'De Ecclesia.' This change of setting, it has to be admitted (pace the incurably sus- picious), does help to emphasise the purely religious nature of the Declaration, and hence may quieten the opposition of the Middle Eastern patriarchs.
Another matter brought up by Cardinal Frings with the rope was whether or not a fourth session could be taken for granted. Though this is still in the air at the time of writing, more and more Council Fathers are coming to recognise the necessity of a fourth session—there is so much debated material to be amended and voted on apart from the draft decrees to be debated from scratch.
To end where we began, with the positive achievements of the first five weeks: besides the favourable voting on the first six chapters of `De Ecclesia,' there has been favourable voting on the three chapters of 'On Ecumenism,' with the almost revolutionary change they embody in the attitude of Roman Catholics towards the Christians of other Churches.
Previous page
