The earliest Christians were not united merely by the bond of fraternal love or by the prestige of the charismatic gifts. From the beginning there were recognized in the Church leaders and superiors to whom the direction of the communities belonged.
During the founding period of the early community of Jerusalem the Apostles possessed an undisputed authority. After the separation of Judas they completed the symbolic number of the “Twelve”. They decided all important questions and, as the judgment upon Ananias and Saphira shows, with true jurisdiction. To Peter belonged the supreme direction. After his departure from Jerusalem, occasioned by the persecution of Herod, James occupied the principal place in the early community and stood out in all the affairs that were dealt with in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 13 ff.; 21, 17 ff.; Gal 1, 19; 2, 9).
Very soon the Apostles felt the need to appoint helpers for the tasks that arose in the community, and thus be left free for preaching (Acts 6, 2 ff.; 8, 5). Seven members of the community were chosen for the Diaconate, to whom the Apostles entrusted this office by means of the imposition of hands (Acts 6, 5 f.). On this occasion the initiative of the Apostles is emphasized in such a way “that there can be no doubt about the fact that the constitution of the seven in their ministry is valid only through the appointment of the Apostles”. The seven, as may be gathered from the later activities of Stephen and Philip, were not only to serve the poor, but also to exercise the ministry of the word. In the early community there also existed the Presbyters, as may be gathered from their occasional mention (Acts 11, 30; 15, 2 ff.; 21, 18). They took charge of the collection of the Christians of Antioch and took part in the council of the Apostles (Acts 15, 2.6.22.24)
Thus there appears in the early community a legitimate hierarchy distributed in three degrees.
In the Christian communities there also existed men to whom the direction of the Church had been entrusted and who were invested with a ministerial character.
1. Because of the missionary character of these communities, the first heralds of Christianity, the prophets and teachers, stand out in them above all (Acts 13, 1). In their mission of preaching the Gospel and moving men to Faith in Christ, the charismatic gift of teaching naturally played an important role. The itinerant preachers were the commandos who precede the regular troops. They were delegated for a mission of a transitory character.
2. Alongside this “itinerant Hierarchy” there were also stable superiors in the Christian communities. Many researchers do not take sufficiently into account the influence of the Old Testament. Barrer has noted that the idea of a hierarchical constitution and an authority was so familiar that Paul could not disregard it. Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey “appointed in every community…presbyters, and commended them to the Lord, to whom they too had entrusted themselves” (Acts 14, 23). On the third journey Paul had the superiors of Ephesus come to Miletus, who are designated as “Presbyters” or “Bishops” (Acts 20, 17.28). “Bishops” and “Deacons” are also named at the beginning of the letter to the Philippians. Paul gave his disciples Timothy and Titus the charge and the full powers to constitute Bishops and Deacons.
3. It should not be surprising that Saint Paul in his letters deals little with the internal organization of his communities; in his letters the Apostle is interested, above all, in the religious affairs of the Christians known to him, most of the time even personally, and not so much in the determination of the various ministries among Christians. At the beginning, while the spirit of fraternal unity was in full vigor, these offices and ministries passed more unnoticed in comparison with the charismatic gifts (1 Cor 12, 28). But Saint Paul, even in his first letters, recognizes the ecclesiastical ministries. In the first letter to the Thessalonians (5, 12) and in the letter to the Romans (12, 8) he deals with superiors in general. He exhorts the Thessalonians to treat “with reverence and love in their ministry those who labour among them and are over them in the Lord”. He exhorts the community of Corinth to show attentions “to the house of Stephanas, the firstfruits of Achaia, who have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints” (1 Cor 16, 15). He always expresses himself clearly and attributes to God the sacred order of the tasks and ministries within the community (Ephesians 4, 11). The superiors of Ephesus, whom Paul on his return from the third missionary journey has come to Miletus, are exhorted by him as “pastors of the community placed by the Holy Spirit” (Acts 20, 28) and are called presbyters and bishops (Acts 20, 17.28). In his letter to the Philippians (1, 1) he expressly names the bishops and deacons. In the pastoral letters, finally, Paul charges his disciples Timothy and Titus to appoint bishops and deacons (Tit 1, 5; 2 Tim 2, 3) and deals in detail with the duties and requirements of these offices and with the respect due to them (1 Tim 3, 1-13; 5, 17; Tit 1, 5-9).
4. Offices in the community were conferred, from the beginning, in an act of worship by means of the imposition of hands (Acts 6, 6; 13, 3; 14, 23; 1 Tim 4, 14; 5, 22; 2 Tim 1, 6). This shows that it was not intended to leave the government to the free inspiration of the Pneuma, but that a firm order was aimed at. The question of the charisms in early Christianity has not yet been fully clarified. There were charisms of different kinds. Among them were counted the extraordinary graces (glossolalia, miraculous healings, discernment of spirits), but also the graces necessary to enable the “Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors” (Ephesians 4, 11) to carry out their mission. There was no opposition between charism and authority. The charismatics were called upon for the services of the community; in particular, the preaching of the Gospel was entrusted to those endowed with the gift of tongues. In turn, it was recognized that the leaders of the community were filled with the power of the Spirit (Acts 20, 28). Paul, in Rom 12, 6-8, counts service among the gifts of grace, and in 1 Tim 4, 14 he calls a charism the office that has been conferred upon Timothy by the imposition of hands.
It is important to note that the birth of the ministries and offices of government in the Church does not coincide with the reflection upon them. It must be recognized that the names for the various offices first had to be coined and only little by little did they succeed in circumscribing their meaning. At the beginning the vocabulary for the various posts or offices was not developed, or only in an imperfect way. It is not only Paul who first spoke of the “superiors” in general Heb 13, 17, and in the Shepherd of Hermas the indeterminate “those who lead” is still used, and Justin, in the description of a liturgical assembly, speaks almost 150 times of “he who presides” only in a general way. But precisely the fact that the offices of the New Testament were not designated with the sacred titles that existed previously shows that they were regarded as something new, as a function born of the mission given by Christ.
The word Deacon seems to have been the first to receive its precise meaning. Being a term that expressed a not very concrete relation, it had sufficient flexibility to be able to receive a new content of meaning. The words: diakoneuo, diakonía, diákonos were employed to signify also the service of the table, the care of subsistence and, in general, any service; with this meaning they were also employed in the New Testament (Lk 10, 40; Mk 1, 31; Acts 6, 1 f.; 11, 29; 12, 25; Rom 15, 31). But little by little they came to be used to signify the acts of service in the Christian community (1 Thess 3, 2; 2 Cor 11, 23; Eph 6, 21; Col 1, 7). In the “pastoral letters” the word diákonos already signifies a definite office, namely, the one charged with serving in divine worship and in preaching (1 Tim 3, 8.12).
It was at the beginning of the second century, and in the West perhaps somewhat later, that the word “episcopus” (bishop) began to be given the precise sense it has today.
Hierarchical Character of Authority in the Early Church
More important than the question of the external form of authority in the Church is the investigation into its foundation and legitimation. The intimate essence of a community depends less on the person who exercises authority in the community than on the foundation upon which he exercises it.
Those who defend the idea of a democratic church affirm that the offices of government in the early Church, insofar as one can speak of them at its beginnings, had only to fulfill a function of order. Ecclesiastical authority was born, according to them, from the services indispensable for the life and common activity of a community. Consequently, its functions are to be understood on the basis of social categories, and its powers are to be deduced from the will of the community. This authority, according to them, does not rest on divine right, does not proceed from “above”, but from “below”; it is democratic, not hierarchical. This conception of ecclesiastical authority is in contradiction with the data offered to us by the sources. Although these give only scanty information about the organization of the early Christian communities, one thing may clearly be gathered from them: that the early Church in its fundamental features had a hierarchical character, that is, that the powers on which it rested, the demands it presented, the graces it offered, were attributed to an ordinance or promise of God.
The Apostles exercised their ministry founded on the authority of God. This is expressly seen in the election of the successor of Judas. They entrust to lot the decision between Barsabbas and Matthias in order to know “which of these two the Lord has chosen” (Acts 1, 21 ff.). The consciousness of being called by God (Acts 4, 7; 4, 29; 20, 24), who must always be obeyed rather than men (Acts 4, 19), gives them strength to face interior and exterior obstacles. Before the election of the seven deacons (Acts 6, 1 ff.), the Apostles summon the community so that they may deliberate and propose men fit for the new ministry. But the installation in the office and the handing over of the necessary powers is done only through the Apostles and precisely with the imposition of hands (1 Tim 4, 14; 2 Tim 1, 6; Cf. Acts 6, 6). The imposition of hands on the head appears many times in the history of religions as a means or symbol of conferring strength and power upon another. In the Old Testament the imposition of hands was also customary in the rite of sacrifices (Lev 1, 4; 16, 21; 24, 14), in the consecration of the Levites (Num 8, 10), and later in the admission to the degree of doctor of the Law.
The first decree of the authority of the Church known to us also has a hierarchical style. The form of the decree of the Apostles imitates the formula of the decrees of the ancient polis. But it differs in that it does not found its authority on the people, but on God: “it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…” (Acts 15, 28).
The same “consciousness of mission” fills Paul in all his work. He regards himself as an envoy who has to fulfill a lofty mission, as a herald who has to announce the message of joy; he exercises the office of Apostle in the name and in the authority of God.
The “consciousness of mission” is expressed in almost all his letters: he is “called by the will of God to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1, 1), “set apart unto the Gospel” (Rom 1, 1), “made an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal 1, 1), “an Apostle of Christ Jesus by the commandment of God…and of Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 1, 1). From Christ proceed his mission and his right “to subject all men and peoples to the obedience of the faith” (Rom 1, 5) and “to bring every thought into captivity to make it the servant of Christ” (2 Cor 10, 5). His power is founded on the divine authority: “we are ambassadors for Christ, God himself is the one who exhorts through us” (2 Cor 5, 20).
But not only does the authority of the Apostle come from God, but also that of his successors and of those who exercise some ministry of government. In his farewell discourse at Miletus Paul entrusts to the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus the care of the flock committed to them and reminds them that the “Holy Spirit has placed them to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20, 28). In the same sense he admonishes Timothy: “stir up the grace of God which resides in thee by virtue of the imposition of my hands” (2 Tim 1, 6). The constitution of the presbyters carried out by Timothy and Titus was not “a last repercussion of the special apostolic authority unique in time”, but a testimony that the mission of the Apostles was not to be extinguished, but was to be transmitted in the Church by an uninterrupted succession.
One can therefore discern in the early Church the hierarchical line which the Lord marked out in the great missionary discourse. All power comes from the Father; the Father has given it to the Son; the Son has transmitted it to the Apostles, so that they in turn may transmit it to others. Mission and power, ministries and graces come from above. In the Church of Jesus there is no democratic authority, but a hierarchical power.
Christian authority is a mission and a charge that comes from above. From this its fundamental characteristics are deduced. It is a gift of God, a power granted by God and, for that reason, of a singular authority. It suffers no limitation (Acts 4, 19.29 f.; 2 Tim 2, 9) and is responsible only before God (1 Cor 4, 3 f.). But it is also a “received” authority, which obliges to humble gratitude. All vanity and arrogance about one’s own authority is unbecoming to ecclesiastical authorities. All are “ministers, through whom one comes to the faith” (1 Cor 3, 5), “God’s coadjutors” (1 Cor 3, 9), “servants of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4, 1).
Ecclesiastical authority is a gift and, at the same time, a mission. “It is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor 4, 2). He is bound to service and is characterized, precisely for that reason, as a ministry of service (Acts 20, 24; Rom 11, 12; 12, 7). The sense of service must be manifested both in faithful obedience to God and in devoted self-giving to men. Paul calls his co-workers “servants”, “servants of God” (1 Thess 2, 3), “servants of Christ”, and he himself designates himself precisely as a “servant of Christ” (Rom 1, 1; Phil 1, 1; Tit 1,1). Service must prove itself in helping the brethren of the community, especially in the service of the Word (Acts 6, 2-4; 20, 24), of the Eucharist (Acts 2, 46; 20, 11) and in pastoral care (Eph 4, 12-16). But the obligation and authorization of this service proceed solely from the mission and charge of Christ (Rom 10, 14, 17).
Ecclesiastical authority received its definite form already during the first Christian century. Its degrees and concrete characteristics already appear in a clear and sure manner. And it is worthy of note that the consciousness of its essentially hierarchical character is recognized and expressed in a clear and emphatic way. This is evidently attested both by the letter of Saint Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth and by the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch.
Saint Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, does not state clearly what the complaints were that were being raised against the superiors of that community. What interests him, above all, is the great importance of the matter, although only a few had rebelled against the superiors. The core of his letter is constituted by the explanations of chapters 40-44: the Church and her organization are a divine institution. The authority of the superiors comes from God through Christ and the Apostles. The superiors stand within the hierarchical line: Christ is sent by God; Christ is, consequently, from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Everything has happened within the order and will of God. As the Apostles preached in the territories and cities, and baptized those who listened to the will of God, they constituted the firstfruits (of their preaching) as bishops and deacons of the future believers, after they had been proved in the Spirit. And afterwards they gave these the order that, if they died, other men of proven character should take up their ministry. The superiors do not receive their authority from the community, nor can the community take it away from them. Sacrifice and worship of God must be carried out according to the ordinance of the Lord. He has determined in His supreme will where and by means of whom it is to be performed.
Saint Ignatius of Antioch also set forth with vigor the hierarchical essence of ecclesiastical authority. Ignatius demands obedience to the bishop and always lays down as its foundation the divine mission of the bishop: “For everyone whom the master of the house sends to exercise the administration, we must receive as the very one who sent him”. “The Bishop presides in the place of God”. “He must be obeyed, as Christ obeyed His Father”. The authority of the bishop does not depend, therefore, on his person, nor on his qualities, and he cannot be despised because he is young. Neither does the bishop depend on the community; “as bishop, he has over him only God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”.
When the gnostics in the second century attacked the unique and absolute character of Christian revelation and the necessity of apostolic succession, this doctrine was generally rejected and denied, as an attack on the essential foundation of the Church. Even members of the heretical sects were aware that a hierarchical authority proceeding from the Apostles belonged to the essence of the Christian Church. Thus, the schismatic Hippolytus relies on the hierarchical foundation of ecclesiastical authority, just like the heretic Novatian, who had himself ordained and himself ordained bishops.
The disputes with Gnosticism and theological reflection led to emphasizing the essential importance of ecclesiastical authority, that is, the necessity of an uninterrupted apostolic succession. Christ is the vital source of supernatural salvation and of Grace, which is communicated by the Church; He is the spokesman of divine revelation in the world, which through the Church is to reach all. If the Church wishes to fulfill this mission, she must remain in a vital union with Christ. This consists in the power and the mission of Christ, His message and His Grace being perpetuated in the Church. “The Holy Spirit, who governs the Church —says Hippolytus—, confounds the heretics. The Apostles received Him and have transmitted Him to the true believers. We, their successors, share in His Grace, in His supreme power and in His teaching office”. Tertullian has especially asserted the necessity of the uninterrupted succession of the episcopate: “Let them consult the list of their bishops, to see whether they succeed one another in such a way that the first bishop has as his predecessor one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men”.
The authority of the Church stands in an organic union with Christ by means of the apostolic succession and tradition, through which she receives the vocation and aptitude to transmit to all men the Truth and the Grace of Christ through the Word and the Sacraments. Apostolic succession and tradition represent only two aspects of the organic process of transmission of the apostolic powers: succession underlines more the ontological aspect of the transmitted powers, namely the power of mission and administration of sacraments, while tradition relates more to their content, namely, to the intact preservation of the deposit of faith and the goods of salvation. With the demonstration of an uninterrupted succession of bishops from the Apostles onwards a community can assure the legitimacy of its ecclesiastical authority and the authenticity of the apostolic tradition. But unanimity and harmony with the other Churches and bishops, especially with the successor of Saint Peter in the Church of Rome, also constitutes a criterion for this. Indispensable marks of the legitimacy of ecclesiastical authority are, consequently, apostolicity, or rootedness in Christ and the Apostles, and catholicity, or the bond of universal union and collaboration.
The Monarchical Character and the Collegial Structure of Ecclesiastical Authority
The Church was at the beginning under the direction of the Apostles. According to the needs, they constituted helpers (deacons, presbyters) for the tasks that were increasing within the Christian community (Acts 6, 1; 14, 23; 15, 2 ff.). Their functions and various relations were only little by little fixed and delimited in a manner corresponding to the situation of that time. The development took place in such a way that the structure of ecclesiastical authority, given at the beginning only in germ, came to take clear shape: the direction of the communities was in the charge of bishops, who felt themselves collegially united in a common work and responsibility.
It is an incontrovertible historical fact that already in the second century the Christian communities were governed by bishops. In the West the monarchical episcopate is already spoken of from the middle of the second century; in Asia Minor and Syria it appears already at the beginning of that same century.
Irenaeus of Lyons (+ 202), the disciple of Saint Polycarp (and he a disciple of the Apostle John), fought against the gnostics, and to refute their novelties he invokes the testimony of the apostolic tradition. The principal aim was to demonstrate its existence. For this he adduces the uninterrupted succession of the bishops. Since the doctrine of the Apostles is guaranteed by the apostolic succession, “we can enumerate the bishops of the particular Churches appointed by the Apostles and their successors down to our own days” (Saint Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 3, 1). According to this, in the time of Irenaeus, each Church had its particular bishop. Irenaeus enumerates the names of the bishops of Rome from Linus to Eleutherius. To Linus the episcopal ministry to govern the Church was handed over by the Apostles. (Ibidem III, 3, 3)
Eusebius has provided us with valuable testimonies on the history of the episcopate in his History of the Church, whose value lies precisely in the fact that it contains many extracts from earlier sources, which Eusebius still had at hand.
a) In the accounts of Eusebius on the struggle against Montanism and on the disputes concerning the celebration of Easter it can be observed that in the year 150 each Church was generally governed by a particular bishop. Montanism called into question the Hierarchy of the Church and opposed to it the right of the “prophets”. Against these tendencies the bishops of many Churches rose up, first individually, and then, as this was not enough, gathered in Synods (Eusebius, HE V, 3, 4; V, 16; V, 17; V, 20, 2; V, 12, 1 ff). The decision on the day of the celebration of Easter is also in the hands of particular bishops, who are often cited by name (S. Irenaeus V 23, 3 ff.; V, 24, 8).
b) Eusebius consulted the letters which Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (year 170) addressed to the various Churches in Greece, Crete, Nicomedia, Pontus and also to Rome. From the data and quotations of Eusebius it follows that the Churches mentioned were governed by monarchical bishops (S. Irenaeus, IV, 23, 1 ff.). In Athens, for example, after the martyrdom of Publius, Quadratus held the episcopal see, of which Dionysius the Areopagite is named the first titular (Saint Irenaeus, IV, 23, 3 f.)
c) Eusebius also knew the “Memoirs” of Hegesippus, a Christian of Palestine, who, around the year 160, travelled through the regions of the Mediterranean and visited many bishops in order to confirm their doctrine and verify the apostolic succession. In Corinth he dealt with Primus, the bishop of the place (S. Irenaeus, IV, 23, 2); in Rome he was able to convince himself of the “uninterrupted ‘Diadoché’ (transmission) of the pure doctrine”, thanks precisely to the uninterrupted succession of the bishops (S. Irenaeus IV, 22, 3), in Jerusalem too he was able to follow the succession of the bishops back to the Apostles (S. Irenaeus, IV, 22, 4)
The most important testimony for the existence of the monarchical episcopate is the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. From them it follows that in the communities of Asia Minor between the first and second centuries there existed a firm hierarchical constitution of ecclesiastical authority in three degrees: the bishop, the college of presbyters and the deacons. Everywhere a particular bishop exercised all the jurisdiction. Ignatius cites by name Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus; Damas, bishop of Magnesia; Polybius, bishop of Tralles; Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. This form of government existed not only in Asia Minor, but also in the whole world. It was for Ignatius something essential and inseparable from the Church (S. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 3, 2). As essential as unity in the Sacrifice and in the fraternal Agape: “There is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ and only one chalice to unite us with His Blood, one single altar, as also one single bishop in union with the college of the presbyters and with the deacons, my fellow servants” (S. I., Letter to the Philadelphians, 4). The bishop is the image of the Father (S.I., Letter to the Trallians, 3, 1). Consequently, obedience to the bishop is the condition and sign of belonging to the Church: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude also be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (S.I., Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 2). “All those who belong to God and to Jesus Christ are with the bishop” (S.I., letter to the Philadelphians, 3, 2). Therefore, nothing can be done without the bishop, for one is with Jesus only “if one is subject to one’s bishop” (S.I., letter to the Trallians, 2, 1). Ignatius says nothing about the origin, foundations and justification of the monarchical episcopate; this is for him a firm and evident datum, transmitted by tradition. The force of the testimony of Ignatius in favor of the monarchical episcopate reaches, consequently, back to the first century.
It is not true, then, that the monarchical episcopate was established for the first time in the struggle against Gnosis and Marcionism.
The first and clearest example of a monarchically directed community is the early community of Jerusalem. After the departure of Peter, occasioned by the persecution of Herod, James is the supreme director of the community. In all the affairs dealt with in Jerusalem he stands out as the decisive authority. Paul addressed himself to James both on his first and on his second visit to the community of Jerusalem (Gal 1, 19; Acts 21, 18 ff.). In the council of the Apostles a directing role falls to him as the bishop of the place. James had other bishops as successors, as is shown by the succession list presented by Hegesippus (Eusebius, HE, IV, 23, 4). Thus K. Holl sums up his judgment on the early Church: “We find in the Christian community from the beginning a legitimate hierarchy, a structure determined by God, a divine right of the Church”. A complement to this is what Fr. Heiler affirms: “we find in the early community in embryonic form the complete hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the triple office: diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate”.
On the contrary, authority in the pagan-Christian communities (they are called pagan-Christian because they were made up of “gentiles” converted to Christ) was entrusted to a college of presbyters (Acts 14, 23; 20, 17; 1 Thess 5, 12; Phil 1, 1; Eph 4, 11; Heb 13, 17; 1 Tim 4, 14; 5, 17; Tit 1, 5). The supreme direction over the communities founded by Saint Paul was reserved to himself by the Apostle of the Gentiles; the necessary dispositions he gave by letters or through his companions or by special legates; he is the original model of the monarchical bishop. The special circumstances of the pagan-Christian communities make this structure opportune, as still happens today in mission regions. The licentiousness and democratic arrogance of the Corinthians, the apocalyptic dreams of the Thessalonians, the exaggerated and proud jealousies of the “super-apostles” show the reason for this manner the Apostle had of governing the communities. Through an intense courier service Paul was kept informed about the state of the communities founded and directed by him, while he sent his companions again and again with special missions to the communities. Colson therefore maintains as possible that, alongside the stable hierarchy of local scope, there existed an “itinerant hierarchy”, messengers “en mission à travers une province”, mostly companions of Paul, who occupied the first place after him.
But in the Pauline communities too there was an evolution towards the monarchical episcopate. Where the communities were already more solidly organized and had attained a certain stability and independence, monarchical government came into force. Paul himself constituted Titus and Timothy as stationary bishops in Crete and in Ephesus.
The bishop, the supreme authority of his Church, must not be considered as something isolated. He must work in collaboration with the presbyters and deacons of his community and must be in contact with the bishops of the whole Church.
The lively epistolary exchange between the various bishops, the repeated information journeys, which were undertaken to ascertain unanimity in doctrine and tradition, and, above all, the frequent synods, more or less universal, with their conclusions binding on all, show that the consciousness of collegial union was alive among the bishops of the first centuries. To the norms given collegially by the bishops was attributed not only the force of their quantitative sum, but a special authority. Moreover, there was an awareness that such conclusions and norms had to fulfill the presuppositions of authentic collegiality. Attention was therefore paid to their extension and, in everything, consent and harmony with the Church of Rome were sought. It was known that, without the collaboration of the bishop of Rome, who, as successor of Peter, was also the head of the college of bishops, there was no authentic episcopal collegiality.
The monarchical episcopate stands at the midpoint of two lines equally essential for the Church: the vertical, historical line of the apostolic succession and the horizontal line of Catholic unity. In the lists of the uninterrupted succession of the bishops the hierarchical foundation of the episcopate finds its clearest expression and its surest verification. But, in turn, by means of the collegial bond, the bishop finds himself united to the community of the universal episcopate and shares in the infallible doctrine and in the Grace guaranteed to the universal Church by the promises of Christ and by the Spirit ever living in her. Through the apostolic succession the bishop receives, as a gift, the inheritance of the apostolic power and of tradition, and, as a sacred duty, the care of fraternal communion and of unity in the faith.
Author: Albert Lang
Source: Fundamental Theology, Volume II, Ed. Rialp, S.A.
Collaboration: Ana Beatriz Aparicio Gereda
