As I have tried to put
forward in these few articles, in my opinion the second Vatican Council was a
Council for neither the laity nor the Priests, but rather for the Bishops. They
took the agenda and ran with it, but were guided more by the world and by bad
theology than the eternal truths of the faith. Perhaps they just took them for
granted. Bit of a mistake that.
So what do I mean by the
rise of the Episcopacy?
If you look at the
picture above then you see that in the time before the Council there were seven
orders in the Church: Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and
Priest. We have very early documents talking about them. They contained
within them a theology of the Priesthood. Note, quite importantly, that Bishops
are not mentioned anywhere. Strange that.
When I was in seminary we
were taught that there were not seven orders in the Church but three: Deacon,
Priest and Bishop.
In very bald terms five
were ditched and one was added. Say goodbye to Porter, Exorcist, Acolyte and
Sub-Deacon and say hello – a big Hi There, Howdy and Hello – to Episcopacy.
The minor orders were
supressed after the Council, and it seems to have been a needless, petty act of
destruction of the tradition of the Church, but the theology of the Bishops was
not just added as an after thought. No, it was the reason that all of these new
Council Documents could be written, and the theology of the Episcopacy subsumed
within itself all of the other orders.
If you like, in the past the
minor Orders were added one on top of another and the highest was the
Priesthood. But after the Council the theology was inversed, turned upside down.
Deacons and Priests found their identity in the Bishops. Suddenly, from being
the pinnacle built atop of the other orders, each order (and there were only
Deacons and Priests left) – and thinking especially of the Priesthood – could
no longer stand on its own dignity and authority. Priests could only be thought
of as defective Bishops. Bishops had the ‘fullness of Orders’ and Deacons and
Priests only found their full expression in relation to them.
Bishops had annexed both
the Priesthood and the Diaconate to themselves. Now, that’s not bad going, from
not existing in the list of Orders at all to being the sun around which the
remaining ones must revolve to have
meaning.
And then, having made the
Priesthood essentially subservient to them (and with the laity always in their
place!), they began to look at their relationship with the Pope. Once you have
elevated your position so much, what is to stop you going all the way and
putting the Holy Father in his place? Why should you follow diktats from Rome?
After all you are a Bishop, a Successor of the Apostles, the one in whom all
Priests find their identity?
And if you think I’m
being melodramatic, then why do Bishops ignore simple clear instructions? Read Redemptionis Sacramentum and see how many
liturgical abuses are going on. And what was some Bishops’ response? “That is
not applicable in England and Wales”. So then when a Priest sees such obvious
dissent in their Bishop (Bishop: “Behold Jesus, the Crucified and Risen One who
came among us as a man – blessed are those who come to the Supper of the Lamb”:
No that is not what it says and we must obey the Liturgy and not be masters of
it), and please also remember that the Priest now basks in the reflected glory
of his master the Bishop, then are you really surprised when those same Priests
sit so lightly to the Church and her teaching. I am my master’s man, and if he
ignores bits, so will I.
And it is no use a Bishop
demanding the obedience which he thinks is his due, for this new theology of
Episcopacy called the Bishops to a life of exemplary obedience, which the
practice of the new theology tempted them away from. Priests had to see radical
obedience to reflect it in their own lives, “My Priesthood finds its meaning in
my Bishop, my obedience reflects the obedience of my Bishop”, while at the same
time the new theology (and the principles of ‘modern theology’) seemed to liberate
the Bishops from any external authority at all. The Bishops thought they could
do what they wanted, so I will do the same.
The Bishops found their
identity by getting together for a Council and deciding things for themselves
without much reference to anyone or anything else.
Of course the tensions
were going to show and stress lines and fractures were going to make an
appearance.
Already the competency of
Bishops Councils is being reined in and Bishops are being called to account.
Diocese are seeing the results of this ‘freedom’ of Bishops which the Priests
thought was freedom for themselves but which never in reality existed for
either. Priests are again called back to fidelity to the Church, by the Church
and for the good of the Church.