The early Church history with regards to Catholic Church governance indicates what Nichols (2004:111) called “Participatory Hierarchy.” While defining the model and citing the principle of common discussion which was later affirmed by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, Nichols (2004:118) notes that the holy fathers, who have gathered at interims in the Four Holy councils, have followed the examples of ancient times that is well practised by the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem; (Acts 15). Nicholas (2004) concludes that:
They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadow of lying.
The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour.
It is indeed with such wisdom in communal model of agreement that the early Church was able to govern with almost reaching consensus level before decisions were made that had wider implications and applications binding on all believers and followers of Christ. This
common responsibility or governance was such that it was the duty of the Lay people to select, elect or recommend their local bishops. Clear examples were Ambrose and Augustine chosen by the communities to be ordained bishops and to represent their communities in all aspects. While confirming this participatory hierarchy, Nichols (2004:118) cites Hippolytus writing in about 215, and notes: “Let the bishop be ordained being in all things without fault chosen by all the people.” While emphasising on participatory hierarchy, Nichols (2004) agrees that the achievement of consensus or common agreement is a sign that the decision expresses the will of the Holy Spirit, not merely human will, which then would mean single or independent mind. Hippolytus insists further that the early Church Councils of 1st and 2nd Nicaea 325/787, 1st and 2nd Constantinople 381/553, and Chalcedon 451, all took place in the circumstances of dialogue, discussions and near consensus for decisions concerning faith to be made (Dupuis and Neuner 2001:5; 99). It is therefore only through participatory discussion and not imposition of a hierarchical command that the truth about faith can be made clear for all the faithful (Nichols 2004:119).
Alluding to the New Testament scriptures, Nichols (2004) notes that Peter the apostle without doubt acted as the spokesperson for the group or community in both the gospels and in Acts.
In many instances he was noted to have been the facilitator and proclaimed consensus, as common discussions had taken place; not from a command hierarchy or point of view, but from a shared, common or participatory governance (Matthew 10; and Luke 9; the calling and sending out of the first missionaries together as a group; John 17; the prayers of Jesus that the community may remain united and in common; Acts 1 in the election of Matthias and in Acts 2; the event of the Holy Spirit was a community centred event; Acts 6; the choosing of the first Deacons was done in conjunction and in consensus with the community’s discussion and of course, the 1st Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15; where consensus and agreement was reached only after a participatory hierarchy or decisions took place; 1Cor. 12; the emphasis of the participation of all the members with their gifts in the one body of Christ) (see Nichols 2004:116).
Of all this instances Acts 15 (1st Jerusalem Council) remains the ideal of how issues and differences ought to be handled in the Church governance. No session of the faithful (ordained and or lay) should be side-lined or neglected when there are serious issues of faith governance on the table.
However, having considered the true history of Church governance in the early church, one wonders at what point the institutional Catholic Church deviated from the ancient and original practice of participatory hierarchy evident in the Scriptures? According to Nichols (2004:119), this deviation took effect in the reign of Pope Siricius (384-389). It was in the 4th century that a different language and style of governance began to emerge. While citing Klaus Schatz, Nichols (2004) notes that it was in Siricius era we find: “…the commanding style of the imperial court. …Before this, only synods could create new law in the Church. Now papal writings were placed de facto on the same level as synodal law.” Pope Leo the Great in the 5th century went further in declaring himself as the head of the whole church, because he was the vicar of Peter. In this case Pope Leo wrote: “When, therefore, we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking, whose representative we are (cuius vice fungimur).14 More so, by the late 5th century in the reign of Pope Gelasius (496), he held the view that “the Roman See judges the whole church, but can itself be judged by no one.” Thus, in the medieval era the papal monarchy took root. By the 11th century with the reforms of Pope Gregory VII to rescue the church from the Lay lords who were then installing bishops of their choices, a new ecclesiology emerged that changed every view of the church as in participatory hierarchy. Highlighting this ‘dangerous’ development in the Church while citing Yves Congar, Nichols (2004:119) notes that this was the greatest change that Catholic ecclesiology has ever known. Ecclesiology changed from a conciliar mode to an imperial mode, in which the authority of the church derives from the pope, its head, who alone represents Christ on earth, and who has not only primacy, but jurisdiction over all other churches.
Nichols (2004:120) concludes on the unprecedented move by the Popes to arrogate the entire power of governance of the Roman Catholic Church to the See stating:
The ancient idea that the unity of the Body of Christ was to be found in the principle of consensus was replaced with the idea that its unity is based on monarchical papal authority and obedience. The Spirit is mediated only through one, not through many. By the reign of Innocent III (1198-1215), the title “Vicar of Christ” was reserved for the pope alone, whereas in earlier times it had been used by both kings and bishops. It was Innocent who declared: “The Pope is the meeting point between God and man…who can judge all things and be judged by no one.”
14 This is as noted and cited by Nichols (2004) in Leo, Sermo 3, 4, in J. P. Migne, (ed.), Patrologiae Latinae cursus completus (Paris, 1881), vol.54, pp.147A.
Therefore, for this study, the order of command-hierarchy or full centralization of power in the Catholic Church led to the 12th century Schism of the Byzantine of the Eastern Bloc Orthodoxy. Of course, to the later 16th century Protestant Reformation in the West had also emerged in this regard. Martin Luther reacted against the papacy in disagreement of discussions and common agreement on certain Church governing issues - like the sale of Indulgences and assertions like Outside the Church there is no salvation - (Cadorette 2009:125; Nichols 2004:121 and Barker 2000:147).
The Catholic Church governing structure is therefore described by such events as a
‘hierarchical society’ and the medieval (Middle Ages) Church period of 11th and 14th centuries was such an eventful era when this practice was alive and powerful in the Western world. One of such happenings as described by Cadorette (2009:87) was the assumption that most people of the epoch pledged allegiance to a divinely arranged social order, church and state closely associated, the church superior to the state, each playing a vital function in that most central of all events, the everlasting salvation. The church in this period became the ultimate authority to be obeyed unequivocally and explicitly. The Church had the privilege and upper hand on power and issues of governance until the 14th century when her power declined owing to the conflicts with both the Holy Roman Empire and the French crown.
Hence, the following chronological order of catastrophic events of both internal and external including the above mentioned crises could be identified signalling the loss of both power and centralization of authority in the Western Catholic Church:
i. In 1302 Boniface VIII’s attempt to arrogate power to the Church failed as the papacy became the mannequin of Charles IV, king of France.
ii. In 1307 was the exile of pope Clement V to Avignon, known as the ‘Babylonian Captivity’ and for more than 70 years there was no resident Pope in Rome.
iii. By 1377 Gregory XI (who was part of the on-going debauchery) returned to Rome by the single effort of a great woman and her companions Catherine of Siena but at his death after just one in Rome (Nichols 2004:119-121).
iv. 1378 brought the reign of two Popes Urban VI, who showed some mental instability and leading to the election of Clement VII.
v. In 1409 there were three Popes, all of them claiming the legitimacy of Peter’s authority, but was resolved in 1415, but by the mid-15th Century there was a new problem of the Reformers that hit yet hard on the central authority and governance of the Church.
vi. 1417 to early 16th Century brought Luther’s reformation and gave birth to
‘Protestantism’ in the West, the Western Schism was a continent-wide scandal that called into question the very nature of the papacy. The question that went through the mind of many was how could a divinely established institution become so blatantly corrupt and church leaders so distrustful? It should be noted therefore that though there were popes and theologians of moral uprightness who worked tirelessly to address the scandalous era in the Western Schism, chaos was the order of the day with various plaintiffs to the papacy playing clear day light filthy politics to outdo each other (Arrieta 2000:27-30 and Dupuis & Neuner 2001:704; 717).
vii. In 1517, finally came the killer blow to papacy domineering power and centralization. The 16th century Martin Luther’s call for reformation took root and spread like wild fire in the entire Northern Europe leading to a massive split (schism) that has characterized the Catholic Church (and the entire Christian world) governance authority until present day. Luther accuses the pope of tyranny; hence rejecting a command hierarchy of the pope over the entire Church of Christ (Cadorette 2009:116-121).
Furthermore, there are three more epochs that are of significant contribution to the understanding and definition of the pontiff’s authority and the centralization history in the Catholic governing structure. This includes the French revolution, Modernity as a socio- cultural theory in the West and the Vatican II Council of 1963/66 in the Church. Each of the eras and events will be discussed briefly to note the challenges that came thereof with regards to governance and centralization of authority in the Catholic Church.
3.2.1 The Effects of the French Revolution
The French revolution of the 1789 was part of defining moments of the Church’s domination of power and centralization in Church governance. In 1789, the year of the outbreak of the French Revolution, Catholicism was the official religion of the French state. The French Catholic Church, known as the Gallican Church, recognised the authority of the pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church. However, it had negotiated certain liberties that privileged the authority of the French monarch, giving it a distinct national identity characterised by considerable autonomy. France’s population of 28 million was then almost entirely Catholic, with full membership of the state denied to Protestant and Jewish minorities (Betros 2010:1).
Being French effectively meant being Catholic. Betros (2010) would yet note that by 1794, France’s churches and religious orders were closed down and religious worship suppressed.
A watershed event in modern European history, the French revolution that ended in the late 1790s with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte brought enormous pressure on the Catholic Church’s authority being challenged to reform in matters of domination of power and centralization. During this period, French citizens destroyed and redesigned their country’s political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as absolute monarchy, (headed by Louis XIV) and the ecclesiastical feudal system. The French Revolution was influenced by Enlightenment ideals, particularly the concepts of popular sovereignty and inalienable rights Komanchak (1997:357). Although it failed to achieve all of its goals and at times degenerated into a chaotic bloodbath as noted by Komanchak (1997), the movement played a critical role in shaping modern nations by showing the world the power inherent in the will of the people.
However, owing to the interference of the revolution into the Church’s internal affairs, the Catholic Church lost its independence and all clergy were made to take the oath of allegiance to the state. France still recognized Rome as the spiritual head but the appointment or rather election of bishops and priest into dioceses and parishes respectively was now in the hands of the people (Cadorette 2009:152-157). With the revolution at full force, the Church lost its domination on power and centralization authority in France and many other nations in the 18th century Europe.
3.2.2 The Effect of Modernity on Church Governance
Modernity was a reaction against certain religious opinions, the monarchical and feudal medieval practices and ways of life in the European understanding of contemporary era.
According to Berman (2010:16), modernity is a European terminology used to describe humanities and social sciences. It designates both to a historical period (the modern era), as well as the collective of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in post-medieval era. Modernity in this sense also refers to fashion, approach and warfare. It can also refer to the subjective or existential experience of the conditions these new approaches have produced, and their on-going impact on human culture, institutions, and politics (Berman 2010:20-35).
Modernity has had a tremendous effect on the subject of this study, especially the Catholic Church’s domination of power and centralization of governance. Hence, the movement towards change in human culture and institutions always affects age-long institutions when human opinion varies in terms of perceptions and contemporary practices. Matunhu (2011:65) notes and alludes to Hussain et al. (1981), that modernization is the movement of the mid- 20th century which is an economic theory that is rooted in capitalism. As a concept, it incorporates the full spectrum of the transition and drastic transformation that a traditional society has to undergo in order to become modern. While yet reiterating Coetzee et al. (2007), Matunhu (2011:65) listed the following characteristics to identify modernity:
I. Readiness to accommodate the process of transformation resulting from changes.
II. Continuous broadening of life experiences and receptiveness to new knowledge.
III. Continuous planning, calculability and readiness towards new experiences.
IV. Predictability of action and the ability to exercise effective control.
V. High premium on technical skills and understanding of the principles of production.
VI. Changing attitudes to kinship, family roles, family size and the role of religion.
VII. Changing consumer behaviour and the acceptance of social stratification.
As this study critically analyse the implications of such events and theories for the centralization of power and governance as Catholicism battles to hold on to its authority, it is vital to note therefore that all age-long traditional institutions like the Catholic Church cannot withhold human aspirations towards improvement and redefining its environment and central role around the people. Change therefore is the only permanent experience of human endeavour. Indeed, the Church’s fight or battle against the theory of modernity is obvious in the different ways of its promotions of ritual activities to still show its relevance in the modern world. It is to this understanding that Komonchak (1997:363) notes that the Catholic Church’s alienation from the emerging society, polity and culture of modernity was also a major factor in the promotion of many of the devotions which were to mark Catholic life in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
There is no doubt that modernity was said to have brought grievous blow to Catholicism and its traditional values of keeping its power and centralization. The Catholic Church has to put up a courageous fight to still maintain its vital place in the human societies amidst the changes that human soul and hearts long for. Slowly but surely, the Catholic Church lost its religious authority and social prerogative and control. The Church had become defensive because of
the cultural, political, moral and intellectual attacks which it could never have expected. As Cadorette (2009:149) observes, the Catholic Church was no longer a predictable and impenetrable stronghold, and for the insiders there was uncertainty of what is becoming a progressively more secular (material) and basically non-religious world and societies. Having considered the reality the Church faced, Komonchak (1997:371) concludes:
…since the challenge represented by liberalism had spread across national boundaries…an effective Catholic defence would have to be mounted also on an international level; and for this only the papacy could be an adequate means. …the nineteenth century was the increased centralization of Catholic life upon Rome and the figure of the pope.
Secularization in the social culture has since indeed deviated from the Catholic Church regulations and control showing a departure or different approach from the following of religious ideals previously determined by the Church. It was to this that Komonchak (1997:380) refered, while noting Cardinal Manning’s blunt denunciation of the era that he affirmed modern civilization as one without Christianity. Of course, modernity henceforth challenged the ideal religious human establishments and was therefore condemned by the religious authority controllers, namely Catholicism.
3.2.3 The Effect of Vatican II Council on Church Governance
The last era under consideration of events that has affected the centralization and power domination in Catholic Church governance is the Vatican II event of 1963-1966. This 20th century Catholic Church ecumenical council was as a result of an expansion of church outside its local “Roman” original circumstances in non-Western cultures. Both colonialism and World War II having taken their toll and effects in the world, the council was to open a new door and window to ‘let in some fresh air’ so to say (John XXIII, 1963). Due to new cultures and societies that the church has encountered through the work of her missionary agents in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, a considerable change was being noted that slowly affected the nature of Catholicism.
Having come to appreciate and accept that the church was now part of a pluralistic and secular world, John XXIII had come to grips with it, even when the church disagreed on some of the assumptions behind modernity. Affirmed and resolute to the needed changes (and reform) that are eminent in the Roman Catholic Church in the modern world governance, Cadorette (2009) emphasised on the moment for the need of the Vatican II Ecumenical