159. William Tighe Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 10:07 am
A contribution from my friend Mark Bonocore, which he asked me to post here:
I see nothing in Bouyer’s article that is essentially incorrect or unCatholic. Rather, he advocates the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian, which (in large part) is the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, and the ecclesiology that is natural to the Catholic Church. Cyprian, of course, invoked the principal of the “Chair of Peter,” which is not merely the authority of Rome, but the teaching authority of the Church itself –the covenantal successor to the “Chair of Moses” (Matt 23:1-3), which was the teaching authority of Israel. And, in Jesus’ day –that is, in the Mosaic Jewish tradition –the “Chair of Moses” expressed itself in different ways and on different levels. For while the entire presbyterate of Israel (the “scribes and Pharisees”) justly held the Chair of Moses collectively, …
On the local level, the Chair of Moses was held by the rabbi of a village synagogue, but …
On the regional level, the Chair of Moses was held by the leading rabbi of a particular sect or school (e.g. Akiba at Jamnia). But, …
On the universal level, the Chair of Moses was ultimately held by the High Priest in Jerusalem, who was able to render an authoritative judgment binding all of world Jewry (see Acts 9:1-2, Acts 28:21, etc.).
Cyprian regarded the “Chair of Peter” in exactly the same way. For, in Cyprian’s view, …
On the local level, the Chair of Peter was held by the bishop of a given city-church, who was the final authority within that city-church. But, …
On the regional level, the Chair of Peter was held by the metropolitan bishop of a given region, which was Cyprian’s own position as Bishop of Carthage –metropolitan of all Africa and Numinia. But, …
On the UNIVERSAL level, the Chair of Peter was held by Peter’s own direct successor at Rome, which Cyprian called “the womb and root of the Catholic Church” and “the principal church in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
We Catholics (especially in relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches) still hold to this ecclesiology today –that is, the natural and proscriptive ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. This is what John XXIII meant when, at the initiation of Vatican II, he said how the bishops must be convinced that they are “no longer altar boys” —a reference to the long-held misconception of how Papal authority should naturally manifest itself, which was set in place by Trent in response to the crisis of the Reformation.
This is essentially, I believe, what Bouyer is advocating in his article (although he does not clearly spell out the “stratification” of the ecclesiology of Cyprian, as outlined above).
HOWEVER, …. With all that said, Bouyer (like Vatican II before him) fails to account for a scenario in which the majority of the bishops have “gone bad” or bowed to the “god of this world.” This has of course happened at numerous times in our history (e.g. the Arian controversy of the 340’s-360’s, when over 80% of all the bishops were Arians). Under such conditions, the most important aspect of the Christ-created Papacy comes into play –that is, its character of a “sure Rock” of the Apostolic Faith –a focal point for the sheep, when every other Church authority has failed them. Bouyer makes no room for this in his optimistic viewpoint; and this of course is the fatal flaw of our post-Vatican II Church, in which (for the sake of the Council), Rome permits all manner of liturgical and doctrinal abuses to fester in the other dioceses because it has committed itself to the assumption that the bishops of these dioceses are “Peter” in their dioceses, and should solve these matters on the local or regional level, and that Rome itself should not interfere. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it assumes that these bishops are engaged in the “stuff of Catholicism,” when they are, in reality, introducing (or permitting the introduction of) secular and profane elements that are harmful to the Faith. In this capacity, Vatican II was well-intention by naive –sorely underestimating the influence of the modern secular world, and unattentive to the fact that a particular diocese must possess a strong Catholic culture in order to maintain the Faith on its own –that is, in its own right. Rome, because of its history and cultural traditions, maintains this Faith without much difficulty. The same is true of many of the Eastern episcopates, which can be almost zenophoebic in their fidelity to their native, Catholic/Orthodox ethnic cultures. But, the modern, secular West has suffered greatly because of the absence of Rome’s direct, ancient and Apostolic influence in the decisions and practices of our dioceses. In this sense, we are very much like the 80% of Eastern bishops who embrace Arianism for the sake of the (at the time) pro-Arian imperial court at Constantinople and “new relationship” between Church and ancient secular society, which made it easier to be Arian than orthodox. In this, one must keep in mind that Cyprian’s ecclesiology, while certainly natural to the Church as it SHOULD operate, was articulated in c. A.D. 250 while the Church was still an illegal, underground society, persecuted by the imperial Roman government, and so DISTINCT from the secular world and the temptations to live according to a worldly agenda (I refer to the compromises made by secular-minded bishops). When secular influence is factored into the equation, I would say that Cyprian’s (that is, Vatican II’s) ecclesiogy (largely) flies out the window, requiring Rome and its Petrine charism to exert a more direct and hands-on influence among the other dioceses. In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold, the devil has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail, and once you have turned back, you must strenthen your brethren.” This can easily be applied to our modern condition, or any condition when the faith and the responsibility of bishops is compromised by worldly temptations. (This of course speaks to your own point about the French bishops of the ‘petite eglise’ under Napoleon.) And we make a serious mistake if we take a pollyanna approach to the Church and assume, as does Bouyer and Vatican II, that what is natural to the Church is necessarily beneficial in the modern (secular) context in which we currently live and operate. This is precisely why Christ gave the Church (and Peter in particular) the authority to “bind AND loosen.” There are times when what is natural is not appropriate. We are living in one of those times.
Bill, if it’s at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if what I’ve written above can be posted on the boards below Bouyer’s article. …because many of those who have responded (aside from yourself, of course) appear to be largely oblivious of this very pressing aspect of the issue.
Thanks
Mark Bonocore
More and this
