Particular Councils and Synodality

Abstract

This paper underlines the importance of the Particular Councils in the implementation of the principle of synodality, a central theme in Pope Francis’ pontificate. A recovery of the role previously recognised to Particular Councils can, in fact, contribute to a more balanced participation of the People of God in carrying out the Church’s mission.

1. Background

Synodality is, as is well known, one of the main themes of Pope Francis’ pontificate. The International Theological Commission, in its 2018 document “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”, emphasised that “the renewal of the synodal life of the Church requires activating processes of consultation of the entire People of God”1 remembering that “the practice of consulting the faithful is not new in the life of the Church. In the Church of the Middle Ages, a principle of Roman law was used: Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (what concerns everyone must be discussed and approved by everyone). This axiom should not be understood in the sense of conciliarism at the ecclesiological level, nor of parliamentarianism at the political level, but rather as a way to think about and exercise synodality within ecclesial communion”2. The construction of a synodal Church, thus, presupposes the co-responsible participation of all members of the People of God, according to each one’s vocation. Moreover, even the discretionary power assigned by the 1983 Code of Canon Law to ecclesiastical authority in the exercise of governance is nothing other than the exercise of the duty–right of responsibility, which is expressed through participation, according to one proper’s vocation, in the construction and safeguarding of the values on which the order of justice within the ecclesial community is structured (d’Arienzo 2012, p. 126 ff).

The synodal method, as delineated in the specific code provisions, compellingly advocates for the active engagement of each believer in the ‘edification of the Church’. This engagement is characterised by a symbiotic interplay between the personal and communal dimensions, underscoring the collective contribution of individuals towards the larger good. The basis for this participation is the recognition that all believers are called to utilise the gifts bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of one another. The synodal method acknowledges this right–duty of each individual as a holder of the right to contribute to the aedificatio Ecclesiae. As Pope Francis has noted, the non-participation of a member in the activities of the body impedes the collective growth and strength of the Church (Iannone 2021, especially p. 121).

In this paper, I intend to focus on the concrete dynamics of the implementation of synodality in the relations between Episcopal Conferences and Particular Councils3. This topic is particularly relevant in light of the current effort professed by Pope Francis of a renewal of the synodal life of the Church, encouraged by the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 20244. The Second Vatican Council acknowledged that, akin to the ancient patriarchal Churches, Episcopal Conferences “can today make a manifold and fruitful contribution so that the sense of collegiality is realised concretely” (Second Vatican Council 1964). The “success” of Episcopal Conferences has prompted ecclesiological and canonical doctrine to engage in more profound reflection on the relationship with Particular Councils (Szabó 2023; d’Arienzo 2022). Episcopal Conferences emerged in the late nineteenth century to address the need for bishops to convene and discuss matters pertaining to the relationship between their Churches and states. These conferences proliferated until the Holy See recommended their incorporation into the Church’s organisational structure, as outlined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Feliciani 1974, pp. 15–57, 2020; Manzanares 1975; Arrieta 1984; Dandou 2008, p. 268 ff.; Hamer 1963; Bettetini 1999; del Pozzo 2022; Routhier 2022; Erdö 2020).

2. A Double Approach to Synodality in Groupings of Particular Churches

As is well documented, there was a decline in the frequency of meetings of Particular, Provincial, Regional, and National Councils towards the end of the 19th century5. It has been noted that the establishment of Episcopal Conferences was an attempt to address the issues that arose from the non-celebration of Particular Councils6. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that, while exhibiting a synodal character in common, these two institutions embody disparate ecclesiological principles (García y García 1988; Mucci 1987; Ghirlanda 1991).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the section devoted to the grouping of particular Churches, provides the regulatory framework for Ecclesiastical Provinces. The primary purpose of these provinces is to promote evangelising action and to enhance mutual relations between diocesan bishops7. Consequently, they bring together the particular Churches within a given territory and are presided over by metropolitans, i.e., bishops who, having received a See to which this function is attached, exercise a supervisory and guiding role for the province, with the aim of being “to a certain extent… primus inter pares” (Congregation for Bishops 2004) and of fostering greater pastoral collaboration and collegiality between the suffragan bishops (Moneta 1993). Within a province or several provinces, the Provincial or Plenary Councils are the institutional places where the bishops’ governance power is exercised. The bishops are at the head of the particular Churches of a territory, as well as their collaborating bishops or non-bishops, with the participation of the faithful of each of these Churches8.

In contrast, Episcopal Conferences, as delineated by Canon 447, comprise exclusively the bishops who are at the helm of particular Churches within a specified territory. The purpose of these conferences is to collectively (coniunctim) undertake specific pastoral functions in relation to the faithful adherents within their purview9.

Ecclesiastical Provinces, according to Canon 431 § 1, are a group of particular Churches through which the communio Ecclesiarum (ut communis diversarum dioecesium vicinarum) and the communio Episcoporum, an expression of the affectio collegialis which binds the bishops of the same college (ut Episcoporum dioecesarium inter se relationes aptius foveantur), are realised. Episcopal Conferences, on the other hand, are simply colleges of bishops made up of the bishops of a territory, often that of a nation or, in certain circumstances, of several nations10.

In the context of Ecclesiastical Provinces, can. 431 § 1 explicitly references ‘diocesan bishops’, that is to say, bishops who preside over communities established within dioceses or as a distinct type of particular Church, charged with the task of fortifying their mutual bonds (can. 450). With regard to Episcopal Conferences, can. 450 does not make mention of ‘diocesan bishops’ but rather refers to the “bishops of a particular nation or territory”11.

In addition, it can be inferred from Canon 447 that Episcopal Conferences primarily represent the communio Episcoporum, which originates from shared sacramental ordination and membership of the college of bishops. Each bishop is obligated to demonstrate this through the collegial affection he exhibits towards the other members. However, the priority given to the first end does not exclude the second, that is, the communio Ecclesiarum, since, according to Canon 454, only bishops who are heads of particular Churches and who represent them have, in fact, deliberative suffrage by right. The other bishops, including coadjutor bishops and titular bishops responsible for a function in the territory, although full members of the Bishops’ Conference (can. 450 § 1), have only a consultative vote and may only participate with a deliberative vote if the conference so decides in its statutes12.

The Code’s approach to synodality in groupings of particular Churches is dual, as illustrated by the different purposes of provinces and ecclesiastical conferences. The priority given to one purpose over the other is reflected in these groupings. Episcopal Conferences enable bishops to meet and perform “certain pastoral functions for the faithful of that territory”13 in a collegial and joint manner while provinces are based on the expression of a neighbourhood ecclesiology of particular Churches14.

The two forms of communion in the organisation of the groupings of particular Churches that express the two institutions, the Ecclesiastical Provinces and the Bishops’ Conferences, are based on two of the main elements of the Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology, contained in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium: on the one hand, episcopal collegiality, which is expressed in the collegial institutions (Erdö 2020); on the other, the structuring character of the particular Churches “in which and from which there exists the one and only Catholic Church”15. The new 1983 Code of Canon Law has been described as going beyond the pyramidal presentation of the ecclesiology that inspired the 1917 Code, which hierarchised the offices by virtue of their participation in the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. This has resulted in a legislative model that recognises the constitutive existence of hierarchical communities within a territory, namely, the diocesan communities. These communities are bound together and guaranteed in communion not only with each other but also with the Pope, who acts as the “perpetual and visible principle and foundation that binds together both the bishops and the multitude of the faithful” (Valdrini 2017). This theological foundation underpins the legislative intent to integrate the two forms of communion, communio Episcoporum and communio Ecclesiarum, while also ensuring their institutional realisation in a complementary and balanced manner.

3. Non-Convocation of Particular Councils and the Community Dimension of Organisation in Particular Churches

Observation of the Canons on the regrouping of particular Churches reveals, however, an imbalance in the implementation of the two types of communion expressed, respectively, by Ecclesiastical Provinces and Episcopal Conferences.

The meetings of the Bishops’ Conferences, in fact, have become increasingly important since the 20th century and have contributed to the weakening of conciliar practices (Sabbarese 2019). The priority, or even, in some nations, the exclusivity given to the Conferences of Bishops, indeed, denotes the desire to develop groupings of particular Churches in place of the communio Ecclesiarum. Consequently, while the collaboration of bishops with each other is encouraged in the regular meetings of the institutions of the Bishops’ Conferences, the principles of collaboration required of neighbouring particular Churches are disregarded, as are the means offered for the cooperation of these Churches in Particular Councils.

The failure to convene councils, therefore, creates an institutional imbalance since the collegial dimension of the episcopate finds expression in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conferences. These conferences direct the assemblies that manifest what the Pope has called “synodal collegiality”16. Conversely, the failure to convene Particular Councils disregards the communitarian aspect of the organisation into particular Churches, namely, the anticipated meeting “of all the particular Churches of the same Bishops’ Conference”17 or that “of the various particular Churches of the same Ecclesiastical Province”18.

The Code of Canon Law, taking into account the different legal conditions of the faithful according to their sacramental status, in particular in the definition of their duties and their right to vote, elevates precisely the Conciliar Assemblies to places of participation where decisions are made. These decisions are the result of a synodal activity involving the faithful of the dioceses that make up the provinces through the representation of the councils to which they belong. This is a new element with respect to the 1917 Code.

This stands in contrast to the concept of the collegial collaboration of bishops among themselves in Bishops’ Conferences. The concept of synodal activity of particular Churches at the level of a province or territory of an Episcopal Conference refers to the exercise of synodality in the dioceses that make up the conference. In Particular Councils, synodal action takes place with neighbouring dioceses, in the synodal spirit that inspires the action and participation of the faithful in the dioceses. In this regard, synodality is cultivated through the organisation of diocesan councils, with the diocesan synod, as outlined in the 1917 Code, initially comprising solely clerics.

According to Canon 460 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the diocesan synod is defined as a gathering of representatives of priests and other faithful of the particular Church who assist the bishop for the benefit of the entire diocesan community. The diocesan synod is thus composed of both clergy and laity, who, in conjunction with the diocesan bishop, engage in the collaborative formulation of diocesan legislation, duly accounting for the multifarious legal contexts19. Legislation currently in force has superseded the juridical organisation of the Plenary and Provincial Councils of the 1917 Code, which allowed only secular and regular clerics to participate in Council Assemblies20. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, in fact, not only provides that priests and other faithful “may be called” to participate in Particular Councils (vocari possunt)—in a number, the Code says, that does not exceed the bishops and clerics holding hierarchical functions21—but establishes that the faithful must be invited (invitentur), as in the case of clerics and lay people who are members of cathedral chapters and presbyteral and pastoral councils22. This conception of the representation of members in view of participation in a given council is an expression of the evolution of the conception of synodal activity that applies to the extra-diocesan level.

In the current Code, therefore, these clerics and lay persons are designated collegially by the members of the councils to which they belong (collegialiter ab iisdem designatos)23 and participate, in a consultative capacity, in the Provincial and Plenary Council Assemblies.

The synodality which the Code of Canon Law requires the dioceses of the Ecclesiastical Provinces to exercise in concilio is representative of the communities to which the faithful belong, both at the provincial level and at the level of the territory of an Episcopal Conference. It is up to the hierarchical communities, constituted for the realisation of the Ecclesia Christi in a given place, to make use of the means offered by the conciliar institution to decide, in accordance with Canon 445, on the level of a territory that brings together neighbouring particular Churches, what seems appropriate “for the increase of faith, for the ordering of common pastoral activity, for the regulation of customs, and for the defence of common ecclesiastical discipline”24. The Particular Council, comprising members who hold governing offices in the dioceses and the institutions that assist them, is convened by the Metropolitan or the President of the Bishops’ Conference. As a synodal institution, it is responsible for the pastoral care of the People of God within its territory25. From then on, it is the dioceses that are united in council within the grouping of the particular Churches. For this reason, in the wake of the change brought about by the 1983 Code compared to the 1917 Code, a distinction should not be made between councils and Conferences of Bishops but between Ecclesiastical Provinces and Conferences of Bishops. The current Code, in fact, posits, on the one hand, the grouping of neighbouring particular Churches into provinces whose Particular Councils are synodal expressions26 and, on the other hand, the gathering of bishops into Episcopal Conferences whose Plenary Assembly is the main organ27.

The institution corresponding to Particular Councils is the Plenary Assembly of the Bishops’ Conference, which, according to Canon 463, meets at least once a year and, in addition, whenever particular circumstances require it, according to the provisions of the statutes. In both cases, the Particular Councils and the Plenary Assembly of the Episcopal Conference bring together those who are to exercise the office which pertains to the institution of which they are an expression: on the one hand, the Particular Councils as the means or places the Particular Councils enable the particular Churches of the provinces to meet while the Plenary Assemblies allow the bishops who are members of the conference to carry out the pastoral duties, which the law and supreme authority require them to exercise jointly.

4. Via Concilii vs. ‘Episcopalisation’ of Government Decisions

The via concilii is being used less and its role is being diminished in favour of the importance given to the Bishops’ Conferences. This also leads to a reduction in the use of the governance possibilities offered by the Code in a grouping of particular Churches. In the case of the Bishops’ Conference, laws are approved synodally by the bishops jointly. These laws are characterised by their collegial nature, with bishops from the respective territories participating in their drafting. These bishops also serve as legislators in their individual dioceses, resulting in a blend of collegial and episcopal lawmaking.

In the case of Particular Provincial Councils, on the other hand, they are conciliar laws, brought forward by virtue of the power of legislative governance conferred on the councils themselves and not on the bishops alone, i.e., synodal laws promulgated with the participation of the faithful. The bishops, diocesan and titular, participate by virtue of the responsibility they exercise with the granting of a deliberative vote, in collaboration with the non-bishop faithful who receive a consultative vote28.

The imbalance in the expression and synodal participation of the hierarchical communities in favour of a joint government entrusted to the bishops alone, albeit as representatives of the Churches they head, has consequences for the exercise of governmental power in the groupings of particular Churches. In order to perform its pastoral task in the territory, the council has the power of governance, especially legislative power29, which implies the ability to issue general decrees applicable to the territory of the circumscriptions. While it is not exempt from the obligation to respect universal law (salvo semper iure universali), like the diocesan bishop who exercises the power to legislate in the particular Church in synodo30, this power can be said to be general. It is a power that is not limited like the governing power of an Episcopal Conference.

The Bishops’ Conference has a broad capacity to create declarations and guidelines but, as far as the exercise of the power to legislate is concerned, it can only exercise its legislative power in three circumstances: when it is asked or granted to issue general decrees, when universal law so decides; when it has received from the Holy See the faculty to issue a specific decree; or when the assembly of bishops decides unanimously31. Consequently, the grouping of particular Churches, on the one hand, is only partially governed by the Bishops’ Conference in the cases provided for by law and, on the other hand, does not benefit from the type of exercise of the power of governance of collegial conciliar institutions that have, in a given territory, a broader competence than the Bishops’ Conferences, although the synodal acts of the councils, like those of the Bishops’ Conferences, will necessarily be subject to the recognitio of the Holy See (Pontifical Counsil for Legislative Texts 2007; Monniot 2022).

In his address on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis described the levels of synodality as institutional places in which what he called a “synodal Church” is realised, without making distinctions between these institutions, which he called “intermediate instances of synodality” (Franciscus 2015). He hoped that they could contribute to the growth of the spirit of episcopal collegiality that, in his opinion, has not yet been fully realised. The institutional imbalance caused by the almost sole effective presence of the Bishops’ Conferences in the groupings of Churches due to the failure to convene Provincial or Plenary Conciliar Assemblies—which can be explained by the ease with which diocesan bishops can meet in conference and, on the contrary, the difficulty and heaviness of the concrete implementation of the via concilii (Valdrini 1997)—reinforces a false perception of the organisation of the Church, diminishing the role that structurally belongs to the local Churches in taking charge of their missionary activity32. The community dimension is essential in the Catholic Church, based on an ecclesiological conception of the constitutive link between the universal dimension of the Church and the particular dimension.

The failure to convene Particular Councils will, therefore, affect the constitutive and institutional participation of the members of the diocese in decisions that affect the activity of the entire Church in a territory, with the risk of reinforcing an episcopalisation of governmental decisions that affect the Churches grouped in a territory. The Directory for the Ministry of Bishops Apostolos suos, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, emphasised the episcopal character of Particular Councils, stating that they are “assemblies of bishops, in which other ministers and lay faithful also participate in a consultative capacity”33. This contradicts can. 439 § and can. 440 § 1 of the 1983 CIC, which describe Particular Councils as meetings of particular Churches. Similarly, speaking of the provinces, the Directory states that “through them the particular Churches themselves strengthen the bonds of communion with the universal Church through the Bishops, their legitimate representatives” (n. 22)34. In this instance, the Directory diverges from the concept outlined in Canon 431 § 1, which prioritises the communio Ecclesiarum embodied by the provinces.

The development of synodal paths, as evidenced in Germany and Italy, can be attributed to an overemphasis on the governing role of bishops, resulting in an imbalance between Bishops’ Conferences and councils. These new institutions, devoid of a universal legislative basis, can be classified as institutions of “particular law”. The participation of bishops and other faithful is organised in the image and likeness of Particular Councils (Iannone 2021, p. 126). These institutions are a concrete manifestation of the Roman Pontiff’s vision to nurture synodality as a “constitutive dimension of the Church” (Franciscus 2015). At the same time, certain Bishops’ Conferences extend invitations to non-bishops’ faithful to contribute to the drafting of texts, though they do not have a direct role in the assemblies.

These practices appear to be an attempt to make up for the failure to convene Particular Councils, which, nevertheless, offer possibilities for realising synodality, especially since they must be framed by particular statutes that allow for adaptation to the local cultures of the provinces of which they are an expression. Their convocation would indeed allow the communio Ecclesiarum, which is complementary to the communio Episcoporum expressed by the Bishops’ Conferences, to be implemented in a balanced manner.

5. Conclusions

Valuing the role of Particular Councils could contribute to the effective renewal of a large-scale participatory synodality, capable of averting that “excessive centralisation”, which, as Pope Francis himself pointed out in Evangelii Gaudium, instead of proving useful, “complicates the life of the Church and its missionary impulse” (Francis 2013, p. 1034). Pope Francis warns of the “need to move towards a healthy decentralisation”35. Moreover, unlike Episcopal Conferences, as John Paul II pointed out in Pastores Gregis, “Particular Councils, precisely because they provide for the participation of priests, deacons, religious men and women, and lay people, even if only with a consultative vote, are a direct expression not only of communion among Bishops but also of communion among the Churches”36.

It follows, again using the words of John Paul II, that “the place of the Particular Councils cannot therefore be taken by the Bishops’ Conferences, as the Second Vatican Council made clear in its wish that the Particular Councils take on renewed vigour” (Ibid.) Therefore, the reflections of those in doctrine who have maintained that the consolidation of local synodality can be more easily and effectively ensured by placing the emphasis not on Episcopal Conferences but, precisely, on the revival of Particular Councils, seem worthy of support37. This objective would, of course, require some revision of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, especially with regard to the circumstance that Particular Councils—and this, indeed, is one of the main obstacles to their relaunch—do not have permanent bodies, a necessary condition to prevent their functioning from assuming a merely occasional character, unlike what is envisaged for Episcopal Conferences.

An initial revision of the 1983 Codex iuris canonici should, therefore, focus on the establishment of permanent bodies within the Particular Councils. This change does not appear to present any theological challenges, given that a comparable shift in approach has already occurred in Eastern Canon Law. There, Synods, which were previously sporadic and similar to the present-day Latin Councils, have now become a permanent feature in their structure in accordance with the current provisions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO)38. At present, in fact, in the Eastern Churches, the patriarchal and metropolitan assemblies provide a platform for an inter-diocesan participatory synodality, with a five-year periodicity. The comparison between Eastern Canon Law and Latin Canon Law on the issue of synodality and specifically on the functioning of local synod bodies can, therefore, lead to results that are far from negligible. In fact, the current juridical configuration of the Episcopal Synod of the Patriarchal Church described in the CCEO provides indisputable proof that the general deliberative competence, on the one hand, and the permanent character of the same body, on the other, are by no means mutually exclusive characteristics39.

In conclusion, by reviving the role of Particular Councils, it would truly be possible to facilitate the implementation of a synodal method in the governance of the Church without negatively impacting the necessary subsidiary nature of synodality in relation to the bishop’s mission within his own diocese. It is precisely such a synodal model that would ensure that the bishop’s mission does not hinder the widely recognised need for the regular renewal of the particular law of a territory.