Primacy and Synodality According To The Common Tradition of The Church in The First Millennium

IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023

Page: 9-47
PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY ACCORDING TO

THE COMMON TRADITION OF THE CHURCH
IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM
Paul Pallath∗
Abstract
After a brief account of the origin of the various types of synods
and councils in the early Church, the author examines the
apostolic canon thirty-four, which is considered the basic
principle of synodality, especially in the East. The author then
illustrates the affirmation of the synodal principle and the
development of primatial authorities at various levels:
Metropolitan, Patriarch, and Bishop of Rome, mainly based on the
canons of the first seven ecumenical councils of the undivided
Church. The last part is devoted to the relationship between
primacy and synodality, showing that a good functioning of both
is necessary for unity and harmony in the Churches.
Keywords: Bishop of Rome, ecumenical councils, primacy,
patriarchate, synodality.
Introduction
Primacy and synodality are two institutions that are closely related
and coexist for the smooth governance of the Church. When primacy
is excessively strengthened and consolidated and gradually takes
over all power, as in an absolute monarchy, synodality steadily
diminishes and even disappears. On the other hand, the functioning
of synods is impossible without primates to convene, direct, and lead
the synodal assemblies at various levels. Therefore, to ensure the
smooth governance of the Church, the primate and synod should
work together in a balanced and harmonious manner. This article is
∗ Msgr. Prof. Paul Pallath holds a doctorate in Eastern Canon Law from the
Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and in Latin Canon Law from the Pontifical
Lateran University. He is currently a Relator of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints,
Associate Professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, Consultor at the
Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Consultor in the Dicastery for Legislative Texts,
and Commissioner at the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. He has published 24 books
and numerous articles dealing with canonical topics or the history, liturgy, and
spiritual heritage of the St Thomas Christians in India.
Iustitia: Dharmaram Journal of Canon Law (ISSN: 2348-9789)

10 Iustitia
an attempt to evaluate the origin, development, and functioning of

primacy and synodality at different levels according to the common
tradition of the Church in the first millennium, based mainly on the
doctrine and canons of the first seven ecumenical councils.
1. Synods in the Early Church
The origin and development of synods and councils can be traced
back to apostolic praxis as described in the Acts of the Apostles. Many
see the application of the principle of synodality, especially in
connection with the election of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), the election of
seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6) and the synod of Jerusalem (Acts 15), since
these decisions were made “in agreement with the whole Church” or
jointly.1 Although the terms synod and council did not exist at that
time, all the constitutive elements of a true synod can be traced in the
Jerusalem synod: preliminary discussions with the people of God,
synodal assembly of apostles and elders, discussion and decision on
the question of the observance of the Mosaic Law by the gentile
Christians, the proclamation of the decision to the people of God in
Jerusalem and its acceptance, and official synodal letter
communicating the decision to the other local Churches and their
acceptance of it.2
In the early Church, bishops were always aware that together they
formed a community or college, just as the apostolic college was.
Because of this collegial consciousness, collegial structures and
synodal convocations developed spontaneously in the early Church,
following the example of the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, under the
providence of God, especially when the Church was faced with
serious problems that could not be solved by a single bishop. Thus,
the bishops of a region gathered, usually under the leadership of the
bishop of the metropolitan city, solved the problems in a collegial
manner and promulgated norms for common action.
The first synods were held between 170 and 180 against the heresy of
Montanism in Asia Minor. Eusebius speaks of assemblies in many
1 Cf. P. Trembelas, Dogmatique de l’Eglise orthodoxe, vol. 2, Burges 1967, 398-399:
P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure of the Church in Eastern Theology,” in One in

Christ 7 (1971) 152-153; D. Salachas, “Il principio della struttura sinodale delle Chiese
orientali nella legislazione canonica antica,” in Nicolaus 2 (1978) 227-228; J. Forget,
“Conciles,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Tome III, Paris 1908, 637.
2 For details, see P. Pallath, “Apostolic Synod of Jerusalem as the Model and
Inspiration of Synodality,” in Christian Orient, vol. 46/1 (2023) 9-26.

Paul Pallath: “Primacy and Synodality” 11
places throughout Asia that examined the new doctrines of the

Montanists, declared them null and void, rejected them as heresy,
condemned these persons, and expelled them from communion with
the Church.3 Eusebius also speaks of synods in many Churches and
the exchange of synodal letters between bishops on the question of
the celebration of Easter:
Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this
question; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree,
which they communicated to all Churches in all places, that the
mystery of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other
day than the Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should
observe the close of paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant even now,
of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided
Theophilus, bishop of the Church in Cesarea, and Narcissus, bishop
of Jerusalem. There is also another epistle extant on the same
question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle, also of the bishops
in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also
of the Churches of Gaul, over whom Iranaeus presided. Moreover,
one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular
epistle from Bacchyllus, bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of
many others, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed
the same vote. And this, their unanimous determination, was the one
already mentioned.4
From this description, it is evident that in connection with the Easter
question, there were synods and assemblies in Italy under Pope Victor
of Rome, in Palestine under Theophilus of Cesarea and Narcissus of
Jerusalem, in Pontus under Palmas, in Gaul under Irenaeus, in Corinth
under Bacchylus and in many other places (AD 189-199).
Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas, relying on the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius, points out the nature and structure of the early
councils and synods:
(a) These first councils were strictly regional, usually covering an
area of an eparchia of the Roman Empire, (b) the chairmanship of the
3 Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book V, chapter 16; Sources

Chrétiennes 41, 46-52; English translation in C. F. Cruse, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History, London 1851, 183.
4 Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book V, chapter 23; Sources
Chrétiennes 41, 66-67; English translation in C. F. Cruse, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History, 195.
12 Iustitia
council was in some places given to the bishop of the metropolitan

city, but in other places (e.g., in Pontus) to the oldest of the bishops,
(c) the importance was attached to the great number of participants
as well as to the achievement of unanimity in the decisions taken by
the council, and (d) the motive as well as the ultimate purpose of
convocation of the council was related to the eucharistic communion.
It should be also noted that conciliar activity was accompanied by a
rich exchange of letters between bishops.5
Several synods took place in the third and fourth centuries. Around
the year 230, there were two synods against Origen, and in the
middle of the century, Roman and African synods on the question of
lapsi and Novasianism. There were also synods in Iconium (230-235)
and in Antioch in 264 and 265. In the first half of the fourth century
synods in Elvira (306), Rome (313), Arles (314), Ancyra (314),
Neocaesaria (between 314 and 325), and Antioch (324) dealt with the
questions of lapsi and Donatism.6
In short, synods became the way of life of the Church, both in the
East and in the West in the second century. Even before the first
council of Nicaea, local Churches were grouped into provinces and
held synods. The bishop of the metropolitan city, which was usually
considered the head of the province, convened the synods, presided
over them, and established relations with the bishops of the other
5 J. D. Zizioulas, “The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of First
Ecumenical Council,” in Councils and Ecumenical Movement (WCC Studies 5), Geneva
1968, 42.
6 For the origin and development of synodal structure and for a short account of
different synods before the Council of Nicaea, cf. C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles,
Tome I (première partie), Paris 1907, 125-385; H. Grotz, Die Hauptkirchen des Ostens
von den Anfängen bis zum Konzil von Nikaia (325), Orientalia Christiana Analecta (OCA)
169, Rome 1964, 133-162; W. De Vries, “Die kollegiale Struktur der Kirche in den
ersten Jahrhunderten,” Una Sancta 19 (1964) 299-304: “Primat und Kollegialität auf
den Synoden vor Nikaia,” in Konziliarität und Kollegialität, Innsbruck-Wien-München
1975, 155-156; E. Lanne, “Églises locales et patriarcats à l'époque des grands
conciles,” Irénikon 34 (1961) 293-300; J. Hajjar, “La collegialità episcopale nella
tradizione orientale,” in G. Barauna, La Chiesa del Vaticano II, Firenze 1965, 812-817;
G. Dejaifve, “La collegialità episcopale nella tradizione Latina,” in G. Barauna, La
Chiesa del Vaticano II, Firenze 1965, 834-836; J. A. Fischer, “Die ersten Synoden,” in
W. Brandmüller, Synodale Strukturen der Kirche, Donauwörth 1977, 27-60; H. Marot,
“Conciles anténicéens et conciles œcuméniques,” in Le concile et les conciles,
Chevetogne 1960, 19-43; J. D. Zizioulas, “The Development of Conciliar Structures,”
34-48.
metropolitan cities.7 Since the beginnings of Christianity, synods

were understood as an expression of communion and collegiality
among the bishops and as a service to the unity of the Church, during
which questions of faith and discipline were resolved.
In the course of time, in addition to provincial or metropolitan synods,
regional or national synods, general synods, patriarchal synods,
particular councils, and ecumenical councils came into being. The
functioning of all these synods and councils is regulated by important
general synods and ecumenical councils of the first millennium. Since I
have dealt with the origin, development, and competence of these
synods and councils in other works, this article will deal only with the
principle of primacy in relation to synodality, also to avoid repetition.8
To understand the ancient canons dealing with primacy and
synodality in the first millennium, one must understand the political
and administrative situation of the Roman Empire. In the third
century, the distinction between the western and eastern halves of
the Roman Empire was solidified under Emperor Diocletian (284-
305),9 who reorganized the eparchies and established ‘dioceses’ for
administrative reasons. The Church in the western part of the Empire
came to be known as the Western or Latin Church, whose main
centre was in Rome and whose territory included the entire Western
Roman Empire, while the various churches that developed in the
eastern part of the Roman Empire were called Eastern Churches. The
ecclesiastical administrative divisions corresponded to those of the
Roman Empire as established by Emperor Diocletian. Thus, a parish
denoted a local church headed by a bishop, an eparchy was
comparable to a province, while a diocese indicated large
administrative districts encompassing several provinces and, in
some cases, even more than one nation.10
7 Cf. C. Vogel, “Unité de l'Église et pluralité des formes historiques
d'organisation ecclésiastique du IIIe au Ve siècle” (Unam sanctam 39), Paris 1962, 601-
616; E. Lanne, “Églises locales et patriarcats,” 294-295; H. M. Biedermann, “Die
Synodalität. Prinzip der Verfassung und Leitung der Orthodoxen Kirchen und
Kirche,” in L. Hein (ed.), Die Einheit der Kirche, Wiesbaden 1977, 298.
8 See especially P. Pallath, Local Episcopal Bodies in East and West, Kottayam 1997,
15-90. This book is also available on www.academia.edu.

9 Cf. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, Harvard 2006, 6-7; The Cambridge
History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine, edited by Margaret M.

Mitchell and Frances M. Young, Cambridge 2006, 518.
10 Cf. D. Salachas, Il Diritto canonico delle Chiese orientali nel primo millennio, Roma-
Bologna 1997, 54 & 68.

14 Iustitia
2. Apostolic Canon Thirty-Four as the Basic Principle Regulating

Primacy and Synodality
The first and fundamental affirmation of the conciliar or synodal
principle is found in the thirty-fourth canon of the collection, known
as the “Apostolic Canons” or Canons of the Holy Apostles. The
collection was first found as the last chapter of the eighth book of the
Apostolic Constitutions. Although the canons that make up the
collection date from different times, most of them are older than 300
AD. Of course, these canons are not of direct apostolic origin, but
they are nevertheless called “apostolic” because they were
formulated in accordance with the apostolic tradition, were
maintained and written down by persons who were temporally close
to the apostles, and were guardians and continuators of the apostolic
tradition not only in matters of faith but also in matters of
ecclesiastical discipline and law.11 Although the apostolic canons
belong to the apocryphal writings of that time, they practically
formed the canon law of the Church before the first ecumenical
council.12
The Western Church generally regarded the collection of Apostolic
Canons as apocryphal, although many of these canons, translated
into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus around 500 AD, circulated in the
West and were gradually accepted.13 Obviously, the apostolic canon
thirty-four was well known in the West.14 The Eastern Churches
11Les canons des synodes particuliers (Pontificia Commissione per la Redazione del
Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale, Fonti, Fasc. IX, T. I, 2), P. P. Joannou (ed.),
Grottaferrata 1962, 1-2; C. J. Héfélé, Histoire des conciles, Tome I, Paris 1869, 609-615;
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 100-
325, Grand Rapids 1885, 120-121; N. Milash, Das Kirchenrecht der Morgenländischen
Kirche: Nach den allgemeinen Kirchenrechtsquellen und nach den in den autokephalien
Kirchen geltenden Spezialgesetzen, Mostar 1905, 159; D. Salachas, Il Diritto canonico delle
Chiese orientali nel primo millennio, 16.
12 Cf. D. Salachas, Il Diritto canonico delle Chiese orientali nel primo millennio, 16-17;
J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York
1974, 80.
13 Cf. Les canons des synodes particuliers, 2; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church (A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, Second Series, Volume XIV), edited by H. R. Percival, Grand Rapids 1988,
592-593; P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure,” 153; J. Gaudemet, Les sources du droit
de l'Église en occident du IIe au VIIe siécle, Cerf 1985, 24-25; C. Gallagher,”Sacri
Canones nel Decretum di Graziano,” in Ius in vita et missione Edclesiae, Citta del
Vaticano 1994, 766.
14 Decretum Gratiani, pars II, causa IX, questio III, C.V., in Corpus Iuris Canonici I
(editio secunda, A. Friedberg et A. L. Richteri, edd.) Graz 1959, col. 607.

never hesitated to recognize the ancient tradition of the Apostolic

Canons. The authority of the eighty-five canons was finalized at the
council of Trullo (Quinisext AD 692) and in its enumeration of
accepted canons, these canons predating those of the ecumenical
council of Nicaea. The second canon of Trullo begins as follows: “It
is the most noble and serious resolve of this holy council that the
eighty-five canons which have come down to us under the name of
the holy and glorious Apostles, received and confirmed by the holy
and blessed Fathers before us, should henceforth remain firm and
secure, for the healing of souls and curing of passions […]”.15
Therefore, the Apostolic Canons are recognized on an equal footing
with the canons of the ecumenical councils in the East, especially by
the Byzantine Churches.16
Despite the various questions regarding the collection in which such
a canon was inserted, it can be stated that canon 34 outlines a very
precise norm of action for all those who have responsibility for local
Churches and indicates the consequences of a spiritual order that
result from observing and applying this canon.17 Canon 34 reads as
follows:
Let the bishops of each people (nation) know who is first (protos)
among them, and regard him as their head, and do nothing of
importance without his consent. Let each one deal only with what
concerns his own parish (= today eparchy or diocese) and the
territories dependent on it, but let the first do nothing without the
consent of all. In this way harmony will prevail and God will be
glorified through Christ in the Holy Spirit.18
15 Trullo, canon 2: Greek, Latin and English text in G. Nedungatt and M.
Featherstone (eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited (Kanonika 6), Roma 1995, 64-65;
Greek, Latin and French versions in Les canons des conciles œcuméniques (Pontificia
Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale, Fonti. Fasc.
IX, T I, 1), P. P. Joannou (ed.), Grottaferrata 1962, 120-121; Latin text also in Mansi
XI, 939.
16 The Council in Trullo was also accepted as the basis for the Eastern Code,
together with the seven ecumenical councils. Pope John Paul II has mentioned the
Council in Trullo in Sacri canones, by which he promulgated the Code. See Acta
Apostolicae Sedis 82 (1990) 1034.
17 Cf. D. Salachas, “Il principio della struttura sinodale,” 230.
18 This English translation is based on The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church, 596; this canon can be found also in Mansi I, 35; Les canons des
synodes particuliers, 24.
16 Iustitia
In a few simple words, this canon affirms the conciliar or synodal

power in the Church as a whole, and defines in particular the rights,
obligations, and mutual relations of the holders of this power,
namely the bishops within the local Church.19
2.1. Position of the Head or Protos
The canon recognizes the need for a head or protos in each nation or
province to coordinate episcopal action. According to the canon, it is
necessary for the bishops of each province or nation to know who is
the first among them to be considered their head, namely, the
metropolitan.20 They should do “nothing of importance without his
consent,” that is, initiatives and decisions that affect the entire
province or nation.21 Therefore, the norm is that the bishops are to do
nothing pertaining to the common affairs of the province or nation
without the consent of the metropolitan; likewise, in matters
pertaining to the whole province, the metropolitan is to decide
nothing on his own without the consensus of the bishops of the
province. In other words, true co-responsibility and a just balance
between the bishops and the metropolitan are realized in the synodal
system of a local Church.
The convocation of the synod and the passing of resolutions in the
presence and with the consent of the protos – the bishops are to “do
nothing of importance without his consent” –does not mean that the
resolutions of a local synod, passed by majority vote, are subject to the
approval or disapproval of the protos, but that the subjects of general
interest in a metropolitan province, and especially the election of
bishops, are deliberated and decided together in the synod, always
presided over by the senior bishop of the metropolis. It is not possible
for the bishops to convene a synod, hold a discussion, or make a
decision without the protos, nor for the protos to decide or act without
the synod on matters that affect the entire province.22
19 R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” Kanon 9 (1989) 212.

20 Balsamon in his commentary indicates that the “head” is the consecrating
bishop. Cf. Balsamon, Patrologia PG 137, col. 106. From the canons of other synods
it is clear that the consecrating bishop is the metropolitan, the head of the province.
See c. 9 of Antioch, c. 4 of Nicaea I, c. 6 of Sardica and cc. 34 and 56 of Carthage.
21 See the commentary of Zonarus in PG 137, col. 107; E. Lanne, “Un esempio
classico: il sinodo come stile di vita nella Chiesa ortodossa d'oriente,” in A.

Mondadori (ed.), Crisi del potere nella Chiesa e risveglio comunitario, Verona 1969, 246.
22 P. Rodopoulos, “Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic
Canon,” 94; cf. also R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” 212-213.

2.2. Synodal Principle

In all matters beyond the immediate territorial jurisdiction of a
bishop, the decision is to be collegial, so that he who is first or head
among the bishops does not act without the others, and the others do
not act without him. This is the norm and criterion for the action of
the bishops. The heads of the local Churches, namely the bishops,
must gather to deal together with those questions that go beyond the
immediate interest of a local ecclesial community, namely the
diocese. Therefore, any question of general interest, such as
discipline, doctrine, or liturgy, must be discussed and decided in the
assembly of bishops. None of the bishops, not even the head or protos,
can decide alone on questions that concern the whole province.23
What concerns all must be decided collegially by all. Thus, “by the
provisions of the thirty-fourth apostolic canon, a balance is
established in the relations of the bishops with the metropolitan;
mutual respect for them is maintained, and at the same time the co-
responsibility of all the bishops for the administration and pastoral
care of the whole Church is emphasized”.24 Only on the basis of
common consent, unanimity, and unity of action of the regional
bishops, namely the synod of bishops together with the protos and
vice versa the regional protos together with the synod of bishops, can
the supreme and truly conciliar power be exercised.25
2.3. Internal Autonomy of Each Eparchy or Diocese
Canon thirty-four does not impede the autonomy of each bishop in
his own territory: “Let each one deal only with what concerns his
own parish (= today eparchy or diocese) and the territories
dependent on it.” Thus, each bishop is free to attend to the affairs of
23 Cf. The commentary of Balsamon, PG 137, col. 106-107; P. Duprey, “The
Synodical Structure,” 154; D. Salachas, “Il principio della struttura sinodale,” 230;
“L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale nelle Chiese orientali cattoliche,” Euntes Docente
43 (1990) 247; J. D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in the Personhood and the
Church, London 1985, 135-136; D. Papandreou, “Die Stellung des Ersten in der
orthodoxen Kirche,” Kanon 9 (1989) 13-14; A. Schmemann, “La notion de primauté
dans l'ecclésiologie orthodoxe,” in La primauté de Pierre dans l'Église orthodoxe,
Neuchâtel 1960, 138-139; L. Waldmüller, “Das Konzil im Verständnis der
Ostkirche,” in W. Brandmüller (ed.), Synodale Strukturen der Kirche, Donauwörth
1977, 142-143; R. Metz, “L'institution synodale d'après les canones locaux,” Kanon 11
(1974) 158.
24 P. Rodopoulos, “Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic
Canon,” Kanon 4 (1980) 93.

25 R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” 212.
18 Iustitia
his own eparchy or diocese and the territories belonging to it. He can
decide, without the consent of the metropolitan and the other
bishops, on all matters that concern his diocese alone. Thus, matters
concerning a local Church or eparchy fall within the competence of
each bishop, for which he is dependent neither on the synod nor on
the head: the Apostolic Canon guarantees above all the internal
autonomy of the diocese or eparchy in its internal affairs; its external
action, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the synod. The
relationship of the head of the synod to the other members is defined
in canon thirty-four as one of interdependence, so that the balance
between the local Church and the supra-episcopal structure is
maintained. This metropolitan system protects the Church from a
false pyramidal type of hierarchical structure. The idea of the synodal
head is not aimed at subjecting the local Church to a supra-episcopal
structure, but, on the contrary, prevents such a pretence or claim. He
is not the one who stands at the top of a pyramid, but the bishop of a
Church and must serve the communion of local Churches.26 In short,
the synod or the metropolitan should not be empowered to intervene
in the internal affairs of a diocese unless those affairs affect the life of
the other local Churches in a substantial and direct way.27
2.4. Glorification of God as the Ultimate End of Synodal Action
The conclusion of the canon reads: “In this way, harmony will prevail
and God will be glorified through Christ in the Holy Spirit.” There is
a profound relationship between the collegial action of bishops in
harmony and the glorification of God. The synodal life of the Church
is therefore a witness to the Holy Trinity, which is the perfect
communion. From the principle of synodal collegial action comes a
consequence of the spiritual order: the communal manner of the
bishops’ action in harmony reflects the communion and love that
exist in the Most Holy Trinity and becomes an example for the clergy
and the Christian faithful; by the same fact, synodal action is an act
of glorification of the Trinity.28 Therefore, synods or councils cannot
26 Cf. P. Rodopoulos, “Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic
Canon,” 95-98; D. Papandreou, “Die Stellung des Ersten,” 13-14; D. Salachas, “Il
principio della struttura sinodale,” 232.
27 Cf. J. D. Zizioulas, “The Institution of Episcopal Conferences: An Orthodox
Perspective,” in The Jurist 48 (1988) 378.

28 Cf. The commentary of Zonarus in PG 137, col. 107; D. Salachas, “Il principio
della struttura sinodale,” 230; “L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale,” 247-248; E.

Lanne, “Un esempio classico: il sinodo come stile di vita,” 247; R. Metz, “L'institution
synodale d'après les canones locaux,” 158.
be considered primarily as means of power, domination, and

governance, but are expressions of the profound communion or
koinonia of the bishops of a Church, and thus an act of glorifying God.
This canon reminds us of the fundamental principle upheld
throughout the Church, namely, that organizational structures and
canonical institutions are at the service of communion and their
purpose is nothing other than the realization of the Church’s highest
end, namely, the salus animarum and the glorification of God.29
The synodal action as an expression of love and communion for the
glory of God is also based on the teaching of Christ. After washing
the disciples’ feet, Jesus gave the new commandment of love, which
is the distinguishing mark of his disciples: “I give you a new
commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you,
you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that
you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13: 34-35).
After declaring that the disciples are “the light of the world”,
following the example of a lighted lamp on a lampstand that gives
light to all in the house (Mt 5: 14-15) Christ stated: “In the same way,
let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good
works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Mt 5: 16).
In summary, the apostolic canon thirty-four is the fundamental basis
and cornerstone of the synodal governance and organization of the
Eastern Churches in particular and has greatly influenced the Eastern
theology of the Church. This canon enjoys outstanding importance,
especially in Orthodox thought, and serves as the basis for the
principle of conciliarity or synodality and remains one of the
fundamental norms of ecclesial life to this day.30
When the apostolic canon thirty-four was formulated, there was only
the metropolitan level of ecclesiastical organization, and therefore
29 Cf. P. Pallath, “Liturgy Makes the Church: Towards a Catholic Sacramental
Ecclesiology,” in P. Pallath (ed.), Church and Its Most Basic Element, Rome 1995, 89.
30 Cf. E. Lanne, “Un esempio classico: il sinodo come stile di vita,” 245-247; S.
Harkianakis, “Über die gegenwartige Situation der orthodoxen Kirchen,” Kyrios 6

(1966) 229-230; J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxie et catholicité, Paris 1965, 149; A.
Schmemann, “La notion de primauté,” 138-139; J. D., Zizioulas, Being as Communion,
135; P. L'Huillier, “Collégialité et primauté, Réflexions d'un orthodoxe sur les
problèmes historiques,” in La collégialité épiscopale (Unam Sanctam 52), Paris 1965,
331-334; Y. Congar, “Autonomie et pouvoir central dans l'Église vus par la théologie
catholique,” Kanon 4 (1980) 140-141; R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” 212-
213; P. Rodopoulos, “Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic Canon,”
92-99.
20 Iustitia
the canon considered only synodality and primacy at that level and
regulated the relations between metropolitan, bishops and provincial
synod. However, the principles established by the canon also apply
to primacy and synodality at all levels, as it regulates the relationship
between diocesan or eparchial bishops and collegial structures,
primacy and synodality. It strikes a balance between the autonomy
of diocesan bishops within the diocese and the authority of councils
or synods for the common good of the whole Church at the
provincial, regional, or national level.31
3. Primacy according to the Common Tradition of the Church
Primacy has always been a fundamental institutional concept of
authority in the organisation and function of the body of the Church. In
apostolic times this authority was exercised by the apostles, and in post-
apostolic times by their disciples. Then, gradually, certain sees became
important because of their apostolic origin, evangelization of other
nations as mother Churches, favourable geographical location, political
and cultural importance, and flourishing ecclesiastical life, and the
bishops of these sees exercised the primatial function. This led to the
emergence of ecclesiastical structures such as the metropolitan system
and, later, the patriarchates.32
The synodal institution is inseparable from the primatial function of
the Church, and the primatial authority is inseparable from the
synod. An examination of the canons of the ecumenical councils
shows, in addition to the affirmation of the synodal principle, the
31 The canon provides a valid criterion for synodal action that could even resolve
the much-debated question in the Latin Church about the autonomy of diocesan
bishops and the authority of the episcopal conference. Thus, the principle
formulated in this canon applies to the universal Catholic Church, which is a
communion of Churches.
32 Cf. V. Phidas, “Primus inter Pares,” Kanon 9 (1989) 181-182; R. Poptodorov,
“Protos and Conciliarity,” 207-214; J. Meyendorff, “Ecclesiastical Organizations in

the History of Orthodoxy,” St Vladimir Theological Quarterly 4 (1960) 2-8; W. De Vries,
“Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen im ersten Jahrtausend,”
Kanon 4 (1980) 45-46; G. Greshake, “Die Stellung des Protos in der sicht der
Römischkatholischen dogmatischen Theologie,” Kanon 9 (1989) 23-24; C. Vogel,
“Unité de l'Eglise et pluralité d'organisation,” 618. According to F. Dvornik the
principle of adaptation to the political division of the empire played the most
important role in the emergence of the great sees in the East. Cf. The Idea of
Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cabridge-
Massachusetts 1958, 47-50; cf. also, H. Grotz, Die Hauptkirchen des Ostens, 35-82; J.
Hoeck, Primum Regnum Dei, Die Patriarchalstruktur der Kirche als Angelpunkt der
Wiedervereinigung, München 1975, 44-45.
existence of primatial power at various levels, namely metropolitan

at the provincial level, patriarch at the patriarchal level, and bishop
of Rome at the universal level.
3.1. Primacy at the Provincial Level: Metropolitan
As the civil administrative division in the Roman Empire became
also the ecclesiastical administrative division, the bishop of the
metropolis, who became the head of the entire province, began to be
called metropolitan.33 Many canons dealing with the synodal system
also emphasize the importance and role of the metropolitan for the
proper functioning of the synod. The sixth canon of the first
ecumenical council of Nicaea (325) determines the role of the
metropolitan in the election of bishops in the province:
[…] In general, the following principle is evident: if anyone is made
bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod
determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or
three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote
of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s
canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.34
The canon recognizes the special role of the metropolitan and the
synodal participation of the other bishops of the same province in the
election of bishops. As we have already seen, the thirty-fourth
apostolic canon established the basic principles regarding the role of
the first or the head in his own territory and collegial action. The
ninth canon of the synod of Antioch (341) substantially reiterates the
thirty-fourth apostolic canon and states more clearly the conciliar
principle and the primatial role of the metropolitan.35 The canon
reads as follows:
33 Cf. C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles,I, 1, 540-542; J. Meyendorff, “Ecclesiastical
Organization,” 7; Orthodoxie et catholicité, 28-29; P. L‘Huillier, “Collégialité et

primauté,” 332-333; V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale nelle Chiese orientali dal IV al X
secolo, Padova 1969, 10; V. Phidas, “Primus Inter Pares,” 181-182; D. Papandreou,
“Die Stellung des Ersten” 13; J. Hajjar, “La collegialità episcopale nella tradizione
orientale,” 819; B. Kurtscheid, Historia iuris canonici, Historia institutorum, Romae
1951, 41-42; F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, 5-6; H. Grotz, Die
Hauptkirchen des Ostens, 89.
34 Nicaea I, canon 6: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 9; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, a cura di Giuseppe Alberigo e altri (edizione bilingue),

Bologna 2002, 8-9; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 28-29.
35 The synod was convoked by Roman Emperor Constantius II (337-361) and was
most probably presided over by Bishop Flaccillus of Antioch. In the Synod 97

22 Iustitia
It behooves the bishops of every province to acknowledge the

bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take
thought for the whole province, because all men of business come
together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is
decreed that he has precedence in rank, and that the other bishops
do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient
canon which prevailed from the times of our Fathers) or such things
only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts
subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish,
both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one,
and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on
his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons and to settle everything
with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the
bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of
others.36
The canon specifies that the first or head referred to in the apostolic
canon is the bishop who presides in the metropolis, namely the
metropolitan, who precedes in rank. However, it clearly refers to
each bishop's liturgical, administrative, and judicial autonomy in his
own diocese. Later ecumenical councils, such as Constantinople I
(c. 2), Chalcedon (c. 19), and Nicaea II (cc. 3 and 6), as well as the
council of Trullo (c. 39), confirmed the special role and position of the
metropolitan in the province.
As stated above, since the metropolitan is the first bishop and head
of the province, he has a special role in the synodal election and
consecration of the bishops of his province. It is his right to confirm
the procedure (Nicaea I c.4: Nicaea II c.3). It is not possible to appoint
someone as bishop without the consent of the metropolitan (Nicaea
I, c. 6). According to the synod of Antioch, a bishop should not be
consecrated without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of
the province. The metropolitan must convoke the synod of election
by an official letter (Antioch c.19). As we shall see below, even the
council of Chalcedon, which reserved the right to consecrate the
metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace to the patriarch of
Constantinople, confirmed that “each metropolitan of the aforesaid
Eastern bishops participated; most of them belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch.

Cf. See my article, “Eastern Canon Law throughout the Centuries,” in P. Pallath
(ed.), Code of Eastern Canon Law, Kottayam 2021, 30-31.
36 The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, 112; Mansi II, 1311; Les
canons des synodes particuliers, 110-111.

dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of
the province” (c. 28).37 In short, for the election of a bishop in a
province, the metropolitan was obliged to convene all the bishops of
the province, preside over the synod and oversee the faithful
observance of the traditions and canonical discipline of the Church,
and finally, together with other bishops of the province, consecrate
the newly elected bishop.38
As with the elective synods, the metropolitan obviously played an
important role in convening the general synods of the province. The
metropolitan convoked the synod, determined the place of its
meeting, and saw to its proper functioning in accordance with the
tradition and canons of the ecumenical councils.39 He presided over
the synod’s proceedings and promulgated its decisions on behalf of
all the bishops of the province.40 The metropolitan’s responsibility for
convening synods is made very clear in canon 6 of Nicaea II, which
prescribes canonical penalties for a metropolitan who fails to
convene the synod at least once a year.41 In short, the metropolitan’s
leadership undoubtedly maintained agreement, harmony, and
unanimity among the bishops of the province.42
3.2. Primacy at the Supra-Provincial Level: Patriarch
Along with the development of the synodal structure and the
metropolitan system, some important sees with supra-metropolitan
prerogatives emerged, which later became patriarchates. In addition
to all the powers and functions of a metropolitan in relation to his
province, the supra-metropolitan or patriarch possessed certain
powers over other provinces and metropolitans. He consecrated
metropolitans and generally had the right to supervise dogmatic and
37 Chalcedon, canon 28: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 100; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, 100; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 92-93.

38 Cf. F. X. Wernz-P. Vidal, Ius Canonicum II, Tomus II, De Personis, Romae 1928,
548; D. Salachas, “Il principio della struttura sinodale” 233; E. Eid, La figure juridique
du patriarche, Rome 1963, 40; M. J. Le Guillou, “L'expérience orientale de la
collégialité épiscopale et ses requêtes” (Unam Sanctam 52), Paris 1965, 170; I. Ortiz de
Urbina, Nicée et Consantinople, Paris 1963, 100.
39 Cf. Apostolic Canons 37; Nicaea I c. 5; Chalcedon c. 19; council of Antioch c.
20; council in Trullo c.8; council of Carthage (419) c. 76.

40 Cf. R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” 210.
41 Nicaea II, canon 6: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 133-134; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, 144; Les canones des conciles œcuméniques, 258-259.

42 J. Hajjar, “The Synod in the Eastern Church,” Concilium 8 (1965) 31.
24 Iustitia
canonical matters within his patriarchate.43 In the sixth canon of

Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Church, the supra-
metropolitan prerogatives of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch over
certain other provinces were recognised and regulated as follows:
The ancient custom of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be
maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has
authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with
reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other
provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved
[…].44
The council officially confirmed an existing hierarchy of power that
had probably developed because of the special relationship of these
Churches to an apostle, the fame and holiness of one of their bishops,
their special status as mother Churches, and the prominent position
of their cities in the civil administration of the empire. The council of
Nicaea, therefore, did not introduce or create the patriarchal rank,
but found this rank to be an institution of ancient customary law and
authentically recognized and confirmed it as such.45 The seventh
43T. Kane, The Jurisdiction of Patriarchs of the Major Sees in Antiquity and in the
Middle Ages, Washington 1949, 40-56.
44 Nicaea I, canon 6: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, 8-9; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, 8-9; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 28-29.

45 Cf. W. De Vries, “The Origin of the Eastern Patriarchates and Their
Relationship to the Power of the Pope” One in Christ, vol. II (1966) 54; Rom und die
Patriarchate des Ostens, Freiburg-München 1963, 7-8; “La S. Sede ed i patriarcati
cattolici d’Oriente,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (OCP) 27 (1961) 314; “Die
Entstehung der Patriarchate des Ostens und ihr Verhaltnis zur papstlichen
Voligewalt,” Scholastik 37 (1962) 344-345; L. Örsy, “The Development of the Concept
of 'Protos' in the Ancient Church,” Kanon 9 (1989) 86-87; L'Huillier, “Collégialité et
primauté,” 334-335; V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale, 11-12; H. Marot, “The Primacy
and Decentralisation of the Early Church,” Concilium 1 (1965) 10; “Note sur le
pentarchie,” Irénikon 32 (1959) 436; V. T. Istavridis, “Prerogatives of the Byzantine
Patriarchate in Relation with the Other Oriental Patriarchs,” in I patriarcati orientali
nell primo mellennio (OCA 181), Roma 1968, 40; M. J. Le Guillou, “L'expérience
orientale de la collégialité épiscopale,” 171; G. Alberigo, Storia dei concili ecumenici,
Queriniana-Brescia 1990, 38-39; F. Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, New
York 1966, 32; J. E. Lynch, “The Eastern Churches: Historical Background,” The Jurist
51 (1991) 9; T. Kane, The Jurisdiction of Patriarchs, 7-8. For the large powers and
prerogatives of the see of Alexandria before the council of Nicaea: I. Ortiz de Urbina,
Nicée et Constantinople, 102; “Diritti del vescovo Alessandrino prima del concilio di
Calcedonia,” in I patriarcati orientali nel primo millennio (OCA 181), Roma 1968, 71-85;
H. Grotz, Die Hauptkirchen des Ostens, 164-170. For the prerogatives of Antioch before
the council of Nicaea: L. Laham, “Le patriarcat d'Antioche au premier millénaire,”
canon of the same council recognized the special position of

Jerusalem and conferred on its bishop the dignity that belongs to the
metropolitan according to ancient custom and tradition; later
Jerusalem would become the fifth patriarchate.46
The council of Constantinople (381), in its second canon, recognized
and confirmed the primacy of the great sees of Alexandria and
Antioch, and established that the heads of dioceses (as they existed
in the Roman Empire) should not invade the churches beyond their
own borders.47 The third canon of the same council affirmed the
supra-metropolitan prerogatives of Constantinople and granted it
the rights of honour after the bishop of Rome. The canon states:
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy
the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.48
This canon is to be understood in the particular historical context of
the time. The Roman Emperor Constantine I (324-337) ended many
years of persecution of Christians and, with the Edict of Milan in
February 313, legalized Christianity in the empire so that Christians
could follow their faith without oppression.49 He established a new
imperial residence in Byzantium and renamed the city
Constantinople (modern Istanbul) after his own name, which later
became known as “New Rome.”50 Constantinople became the capital
in I patriarcati orientali nel primo millennio (OCA 181), Roma 1968, 117-121; H. Grotz,
Die Hauptkirchen des Ostens, 170-188.
46 Nicaea I, canon 7: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, 9; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, 9; Les canones des conciles œcuméniques, 29. For the special
position of Jerusalem, cf. E. Lanne, “Eglises locales et patriarcats,” 308; P. P. Joannou,
“Pape, concile et patriarches dans la tradition canonique de l’eglise orientale jusque’
au IXe s.,” in Les canons des synodes particuliers, 542; H. Marot, “Note sur la
pentarchie,” 437.
47 Constantinople I, canon 2: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, 31-32;
Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 31-32; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 46-47.
48 Constantinople I, canon 3: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, 32;
Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 32; Les canones des conciles œcuméniques, 47-48. For
the historical background and interpretation of the canon cf. H. Kreilkamp, The
Origin of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and First Roman Recognition of its Patriarchal
Jurisdiction, Washington 1964, 40-63.
49 Cf. P. Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, London 2001,
162-167; The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1, 538-548; P. Schaff, History of

the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600,
(fifth edition), Grand Rapids 1893, 10-22.
50 The ancient Greek city of Byzantion or Byzantium was founded by the
Megarians in the sixth century BC. The centre of the city was the Acropolis (today
26 Iustitia
of the Roman Empire in 330; the Eastern Roman Empire was also
called the Byzantine Empire because its capital was located in the city
formerly known as Byzantium.51 With the rise of Constantinople,
Rome gradually lost its prestige and importance as the capital of the
Roman Empire. It was against this historical background that the
council of Constantinople issued the canon quoted above. With the
promulgation of this canon, Constantinople became the first seat
among the Eastern Churches, and Alexandria and Antioch the
second and third, respectively. It is of great interest that the Council
placed Constantinople second only for political reasons.
Constantinople had no other reason to have these privileges except
that it was the “New Rome.”52
Under Emperor Theodosius I (379-395), Christianity became the
official state religion of the empire, and other religious practices were
banned.53 Over time, the Western Roman Empire declined, and the
Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, gained strength
and importance. The city of Constantinople definitively became the
imperial residence and political capital of the Roman Empire. As a
result of this change, the city and the Church of Constantinople also
gained a very honourable position. In this context, the council of
Chalcedon (451) definitively fixed the prerogatives of the four great
Eastern patriarchal sees. Canon 28 of the council again emphasised
the special position of Constantinople, confirmed its second place,
and equated its privileges with those of ancient Rome as follows:
Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognizing
the canon which has recently been read out – the canon of the 150 most
devout bishops who assembled in the time of great Theodosius of
pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome
Topkapi Saray), where the temples of Aphrodite, Artemis and the Sun rose. E. J.
Farrugia (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East, Rome 2015, 353-354.
51 P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, 23-34;
https://brewminate.com/a-history-of-the-byzantine-empire-rome-in-the-east/,
visited on 5 March 2023.
52 Until 381 Constantinople was a suffragan see under the metropolitan of
Heraclia of Thrace. Alexandria and Antioch did not oppose this change, since they
too recognized the new situation of this Church and it was in accordance with the
will of the emperor. Moreover, it was an accepted principle at that time that the
importance of a Church corresponded to the political importance of the city. Cf. W.
De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, 10.
53 P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, 40-43; Storia della Chiesa III:
Dalla pace costantiniana alla morte di Teodosio (autori vari), Torino 1961, 638-641.
– we issue the same decree and resolution concerning prerogatives of

the same holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The
fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since
that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose 150 most
devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see
of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by
the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older
imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical
affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the
dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the
bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be
ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in
Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses
along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the
province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the
metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be
ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has
been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.54
The council issued this canon as a confirmation of the canon of “150
most devote bishops” assembled at the council of Constantinople,
namely the third canon cited above. As the said canon states, the
main reason for Constantinople’s second position is its political
importance, since it is honoured by the imperial power and the
Senate in the same way as ancient Rome was honoured before. The
most important innovation of this canon is that it reserved the
consecration of the metropolitans of the three quasi-autonomous
provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace to the patriarch of
Constantinople, thus transforming the honorary primacy recognised
by the council of Constantinople into a kind of primacy of power and
authority over them.55 In addition, canons 9 and 17 allowed that
54 Chalcedon, canon 28: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 99-100;
Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 99-100; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 90-93.
55 V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale, 17-18; P. P. Joannou, “Pape, concile et
patriarches,” 543-544; W. De Vries, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen

Ostkirchen,” 55; J. E. Anastasiou, “Can All the Ancient Canons be Valid Today?,”
Kanon 1 (1973) 36; H. Marot, “Note sur la Pentarchie” 437; C. Vogel, “Unité de l'Eglise
et pluralité d'organisation,” 621-622; V. T. Istavridis, “Prerogatives of the Byzantine
Patriarchate,” 47; C. De Clercq, “Patriarche en droit oriental,” in Dictionnaire de Droit
Canonique, vol. 6, Paris 1957, 1255; G. Alberigo, Storia dei concili ecumenici, 105; T.
Camelot, Ephése et Chalcédoine, Histoire des conciles oecuméniques vol. 2, Paris 1961, 164;
J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxie et catholicité, 70; F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in
Byzantium, 92; C. D. Cobham, The Patriarchs of Constantinople, Cambridge 1911, 28-
28 Iustitia
complaints against metropolitans could be brought either before the

head of the “diocese” or before the imperial see of Constantinople.56
At the council of Chalcedon, the See of Jerusalem also obtained its
autonomy and became the fifth patriarchate. Jerusalem received the
Three Palestine provinces that had been taken from the Church of
Antioch.57 The council in Trullo (691), in canon 36, reaffirmed the
second position of Constantinople and repeated the order of
precedence of the five patriarchates.58 Thus developed the five supra-
metropolitan primatial powers within the Roman Empire: Rome,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
In addition, two other catholicates or patriarchates developed outside
the Roman Empire, in Persia and Armenia, respectively. The Persian
Church became a fully autonomous catholicate under the primacy of
the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire,
at the beginning of the fifth century.59 Armenia embraced
Christianity thanks to the missionary work of St Gregory the
Illuminator in the fourth century, and the Armenian Church also
29; H. Fuhrmann, “Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate,” Zeitschrift

der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 39 (1953) 129.
56 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 91 and 95; Conciliorum oecumenicorum
decreta, 91 et 94; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 76-77 et 82-83.

57 The promotion of the see of Jerusalem to the rank of patriarchate is not treated
in the canons of the council. The Fathers in the fourth and last session ratified an
accord between Maximus of Antioch and Juvanal of Jerusalem. “Maximus
reverendissimus episcopus antiochiae Syriae dixit. Placuit mihi reverend. episcopo
Juvenali, propter multam contentionem per consensum ut sedes quidem
Antiochensium maximae civitatis beati Petri habeat duas Phoenicias et Arabiam,
sedes autem Hierosolimorum habeat tres Palestinas. Et rogamus ex decreto vestrae
magnificentiae et sancti concilii, haec scripto firmari. Juvenalis sanctissimus
Hierosolimorum civitatis episcopus dixit: Haec etiam mihi complacuerit ut sancta
quidem Christi resurrectio tres Palestinas habeat, sedes autem antiochiensis duas
Phoenicias et Arabiam”. Chalcedon, Actio VII, Mansi VII, 179; E. Schwartz, Acta
conciliorum oecumenicorum, tomus II: Concilium universale Chalcedonese, vol 3, Berlin-
Leipzig 1932, 4-5.
58 G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone (eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited, 114;
Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 170.

59 J. B. Chabot, Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens, Paris 1902, 259-
260 & 296; W. F. Macomber, “The Authority of the Catholicate Patriarch of Seleucia-
Ctesiphon,” in I patriarcati orientali nell primo millennio (OCA 181), Roma 1968, 179-
200; Congregation for the Eastern Churches, The Catholic East, Vatican City 2019, 254-
255; W. De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, 8-9; “Entstehung und
Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 52-53; Oriente cristiano ieri e oggi, Roma
1949, 34-35; E. Lanne, “Eglises locales et patriarcats,” 304-308; Cf. G. P. Badger, The
Nestorians and Their Rituals, vol. I, London 1987, 137-142.
became an autonomous catholicate in the fifth century.60 According to

some scholars, the Persian Church gradually embraced
Nestorianism61 and the Armenian Church Monophysitism.62
Therefore, in practice the Catholic Church consisted of the five
patriarchates within the Roman Empire.
Emperor Justinian (482-565 AD) gave state sanction to the dogmas
and canons of the first four ecumenical councils, making them part
of imperial doctrine and state law valid throughout the Roman
Empire.63 He also incorporated into state law the division of the
Church in the Empire into five patriarchates and recognized the
order of precedence of the five patriarchs according to the third
canon of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of
Chalcedon.64 It was at this time that the Byzantine theory of
pentarchy arose, according to which the Church of God was
governed by five patriarchs.65 Thus, in their historical origin, the
patriarchal and synodal institutions are neither a concession of the
Roman Pontiff nor a sharing of his power, but the result of
spontaneous action of the bishops and an institution of ancient
60 Cf. G. Amadouni, “L'autocephalie du katholicat Armenien,” in I patriarcati

orientali nell primo millennio (OCA 181), Roma 1968, 165-175; Congregation for the
Eastern Churches, The Catholic East, 285-287; W. De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate
des Ostens, 11-12; “Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 53-54;
A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom, vol. 2, Rome 1948, 522-528.
61 Cf. Congregation for the Eastern Churches, The Catholic East; 255; W. De Vries,
“Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 64-65; Oriente Cristiano

ieri e oggi, 41-42; R. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches (seventh edition), Rome
2008, 13; 1; C. De Clercq, “Patriarche en droit oriental” 1256; A. A. King, The Rites of
Eastern Christendom, 256 & 259-264; A. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity, New
York-London 1968, 252-253.
62 W. De Vries, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 65-
66; Oriente Cristiano ieri e oggi, 46-47; C. De Clercq, “Patriarche en droit oriental,”
1256; A. A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom, 529-532; A. Atiya, Eastern
Christianity, 326-328.
63 “Sancimus igitur, ut legum vicem obtineant sacri ecclesiastici canones, qui a
sanctis quatuor synodis expositi vel confirmati sunt, hoc est a Nicaena trecentorum
decem et octo, et Constantinopolitana centum quinquaginta sanctorum patrum, et
Ephesina prima, in qua Nestorius condemnatus est, et Chalcedonesi, in qua Eutiches
cum Nestorio anthamate percussus est. Praedictorum enim sacrarum synodorum et
dogmata ut divinas scripturas suscipimus, et canones tamquam leges custodimus”.
Emperor Justinian, Novellae 131, caput 1 (Corpus Iuris Civilis, pars III), in Fratres
Kriegelli (edd.), Lipsiae 1858, 593.
64 Cf. Emperor Justinian, Novellae 123, caput 3 et 131, caput 2, in Fratres Kriegelli
(edd.), 542 and 593.

65 Cf. D. Salachas, “L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale,” 238-239.
30 Iustitia
tradition and custom sanctioned by the ecumenical councils

celebrated jointly by East and West.66 As W. De Vries affirms: “it
would a priori be unhistorical if one wished to explain the patriarchs’
powers as a granting of privileges by Rome, that is, as an exceptional
transmission of series of faculties which of themselves necessarily
pertain to the central power of Rome.”67 Prof. Hans Joachim Schulz
provides the following explanation regarding the origin of
patriarchal power:
Theologically the origin of the rights of the patriarchates is to be
explained by the fact that the bishops of large territories renounced
some of their rights in favor of the most prominent local Church for
the sake of better and more uniform administration. The patriarchal
rights are then to be considered as flowing from the rights of the
college of bishops of the respective territory. The concentration of
these rights in the person of the patriarch became a legitimate
tradition, the regulation of which was determined by the councils
for the whole Church.68
Although the bishops of Rome were reluctant to accept the twenty-
eighth canon of Chalcedon at that time, they treated the four
patriarchs of the East in practice according to the order of precedence
established by the same council.69 The seventh ecumenical council,
Nicaea II, with the approval of the papal legates, gave general
sanction to the canons of the “six holy universal synods” and “the
synods assembled locally for promulgation of such decrees.”70 At the
Fourth council of Constantinople (869), considered ecumenical by the
66 W. De Vries, “The Origin of Eastern Patriarchs,” 50-59; “La S. Sede ed i
patriarcati,” 313-326; Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, 13-18; “Entstehung und
Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 45-54; “Die Patriarchate des Ostens:
bestimmende Faktoren,” 15-35. Cf. also K. Mörsdorf, “L'atonomia della Chiesa
locale,” 181-182; D. Salachas, “L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale,” 240-243;
Istituzioni di diritto canonico delle Chiese cattoliche orientali, Roma-Bologna 1993, 140;
H. J. Schulz, “The Dialogue with the Orthodox,” Concilium 4 (1965) 68-69; H. Marot,
“The Primacy and Decentralisation,” 14; L. Waldmüller, “Das Konzil im Verständnis
der Ostkirche,” 145-146; M. J. Le Guillou, “L'expérience orientale de la collégialité
épiscopale,” 174.
67 W. De Vries, “The Origin of Eastern Patriarchates,” 55.
68 H. J. Schulz, “The Dialogue with the Orthodox,” 68.
69 Cf. W. De Vries, “College of Patriarchs,” in Concilium 8 (1965) 35; Rom und die
Patriarchate des Ostens, 17; “Die Entstehung der Patriarchate des Ostens,” 354-355.
70 Nicaea II (787), canon 1: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 138-139
Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 138-139; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 245-
248.
Latin Church, the bishop of Rome finally recognized the four Eastern
patriarchs according to the order of precedence in the East. After the
council established the obligation of the secular powers to consider
the patriarchs worthy of all honour and veneration, it states:
This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of the old Rome,
secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the
patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem […].71
Later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the same order of
precedence was accepted when Constantinople was under the Latin
patriarch.72 At the council of Florence, the legitimacy of the Eastern
patriarchs was again recognized and the order established at the
council of Chalcedon was confirmed.73
The five great patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem came into being under divine providence,
the patriarchal rank being an institution according to ancient custom
and tradition. The ecumenical councils of the first millennium, the
supreme authority of the Church at that time, did not create
patriarchates, but found the patriarchal rank to already exist and,
therefore, only recognized and honoured it.
3.3. Primacy at the Universal Level: The Bishop of Rome
The canons of the first seven ecumenical councils, which we have
already examined, clearly affirm the unique position and special
prerogatives of the bishop of Rome and consider him the first
patriarch, namely the patriarch of the West. Canon 6 of Nicaea I,
already cited above, affirms that “the bishop of Alexandria has
authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with
reference to the bishop of Rome.” The council that confirmed the
prerogatives of Alexandria (and Antioch) did so in accordance with
the customary practice of the Roman See. In fact, Rome was taken as
the model for such autonomous demarcations. This means that Rome
enjoyed these prerogatives since very ancient times. According to
Cardinal Duprey, this canon is an explicit testimony to the immense
and extraordinary authority that the bishop of Rome possessed in the
71 Constantinople IV (869-870), canon 21: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I,

182; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 182; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 331.
72 Lateran IV, constitution 5: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 236;
Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 236.

73 Florence, Session VI (6 July 1439), definition: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
vol. I, 528; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 527.

32 Iustitia
Christian world at the beginning of the fourth century.74 However,

this text, which establishes a parallel between Alexandria and Rome,
describes regional primacy. It was not about universal primacy,
because the council did not speak of a universal primacy of
Alexandria, but affirmed that Alexandria had a regional primacy
because the bishop of Rome also had a regional primacy.75 As
Ladislas Örsy noted, “It is certain that at the time of Council of
Nicaea, Rome enjoyed special reverence as the see of Peter and Paul.
It was considered also as a qualified witness for the tradition
inherited from the apostles, but no administrative structures
developed that would have embraced the whole Church, other than
the ecumenical councils.”76
The third canon of the council of Constantinople I (381), quoted
above, affirmed the second position of the See of Constantinople,
even though its bishop was not considered the first. The change
brought about by this canon did not directly affect Rome in any way,
but only the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. Originally, it was an
Eastern council, and the intention of the Fathers was to reorganize
the ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern dioceses and to regulate them
only.77 The canons decided by the Fathers were to apply only to the
74 P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure,” 166; cf. also J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxie et
catholicité, 55 and 58-59; O. Kéramé, “Les chaires apostoliques et role des patriarcats,”
265. For an evaluation of the privileges and authority of Rome in the West at the time
of the council of Nicaea: P. Batifol, Cathedra Petri, etudes d' histoire ancienne de Eglise,
Paris 1938, 41-59; J. F. McCue, “The Roman Primacy in the Patristic Era,” in P. C.
Empie and T. A. Murphy (eds.), Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, (USA, no
specific place) 1974, 43-72.
75 J. Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, New York 1983, 127-128; H. Marot, “The
Primacy and Decentralisation,” 10; cf. also B. Kurtscheid, Historia iuris canonici, 126-127;
I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople, 102. The Roman see exercised primacy over the
whole of Italy: F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, 23-29.
76 Cf. L. Örsy, “The Development of the Concept of Protos,” 89.
77 Only the four patriarchates of East participated in this council. Later the
dogmas of this council were also accepted by the Pope and its ecumenicity finally
determined in the council of Chalcedon. Cf. I. Ortiz De Urbina, Nicée et
Constantinople, 223-242. The council's dogmatic authority in the Western Church was
made clear by the words of Pope Gregory I: “Sicut Sancti Evangelii quatuor libros,
sic quatuor concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor [...],” Gregory I, Epistola 25; in PL
77, 478. For the acceptance of this council in the West: Y. Congar, “La primauté des
quatre premiers conciles œcuméniques” in Le concile et les conciles, Chevetogne 1960,
75-94. But the Popes held that canon 3 was never brought to the knowledge of the
Apostolic See: cf. Pope Leo I, Epistola 106, Ad Anatolium, in PL 54, 1007, also in Mansi
VI, 203; Gregory I, Epistola 34, in PL 77, 893. At that time there was no reason to bring
the canons to the knowledge of Rome, since this council was an Eastern council only
East, and the elevation of the bishop of Constantinople to such a high

rank was a measure that primarily affected the status of the bishops
of the Eastern Church capitals. Therefore, this measure affected only
the East and had no bearing on the precedence of Rome.78 As
Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff acknowledges, “the
increasing importance of Constantinople was not in competition
with the Bishop of ancient Rome, whose primacy was uncontested; it
was directed against Alexandria, which still claimed to be second in
importance to Rome both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs.”79
According to Orthodox Historian Professor Vasil T. Istavridis,
“canon three of Constantinople in 381 should not by no means be
accepted as diminishing the primacy of Rome. On the contrary, this
primacy is clearly stated as a basis for comparison, as the same thing
has already happened in I Nicaea, canon six for Alexandria. This
canon was rather a decision taken against the See of Alexandria,
which thus moved to the third position in ecclesiastical
precedence.”80 Cardinal Duprey confirmed:
This canon attributes an honour to Constantinople because of a new
prerogative which this Church enjoys: and consequently this
Church an authority which comes second to that of the Bishop of
Rome. The reason given, that he has this honour because he is the
bishop of the capital, is a new one. But even so he is still not the first
bishop, which would suggest that recognition of the prerogatives
of the Church of Rome and of the authority of its bishop is not
merely based on its importance as the old capital.81
However, it does not appear from this canon that the bishop of Rome
had any authority over other patriarchal Churches. “It would be a
poor construction to hold that by the use of the short and subordinate
clause ‘after the see of Rome,’ the council intended to make a precise
and firm statement about the extent of the authority of the bishop of
Rome.”82
and the Fathers intended to legislate only for the East. However, there is ample
evidence that the canon three was also known in the West. See F. Dvornik, The Idea
of Apostolicity in Byzantium, 56.
78 Cf. F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, 51-55.
79 J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxie et catholicité, 31; “Ecclesiastical Organization,” 9.
80 V. T. Istavridis, “Prerogatives of the Byzantine Patriarchate,” 44.
81 P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure,” 167.
82 Cf. L. Örsy, “The Development of the Concept of “Protos,” 89.
34 Iustitia
The Council of Chalcedon (451), in canon 28 quoted above, stated

that the see of Constantinople, honoured by the imperial power and
the senate, enjoyed privileges equal to those of the older imperial
Rome, and determined that Constantinople should be raised to the
level of ancient Rome in ecclesiastical matters and take second place
after it. This canon was renewed and confirmed by the Council of
Trullo through canon 36.83 Again, these canons do not deny the great
privileges and unique position of the Roman See, but only attempt to
equate the privileges of Constantinople with those of the See of Rome
on the basis of the principle of political accommodation.
Since the Roman legates opposed canon 28 of Chalcedon, the Roman
Emperor Marcian (450-457) and Anatolius, patriarch of
Constantinople (from 449 to 458), sought approval of the council
from Pope Leo I (440-461). Because the heretics misinterpreted his
withdrawal of approval, the Pope ratified the council’s doctrinal
decrees on 21 March 453.84 However, he rejected canon 28 on the
grounds that it contradicted the legislation of the Council of Nicaea,
which had granted second and third rank to Alexandria and
Antioch.85 Pope Leo I thus rejected canon 28 not because it
diminished the rights of the Roman See, but because it reversed the
hierarchy of the great sees established by tradition and recognized
by the sixth canon of Nicaea, and because it asserted privileges only
for political reasons.86
The Fathers who promulgated this canon did not want to diminish
the authority of the Roman See in any way, which they explicitly
acknowledged in their letter to Pope Leo I.87 Both Patriarch Anatolius
and Emperor Marcian recognized the first position and primacy of
83 Trullo, canon 36: Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 170; G. Nedungatt and M.
Featherstone (eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited, 114.

84 Pope Leo I, Epistola 114, in PL 54, 1029, also in Mansi VI, 226.
85 For a detailed analysis of the position of the Popes see A. Wuyts, “Le 28˚ canon
de Chalcédoine et le fondament du primauté romain,” OCP 17 (1951) 265-282; F.

Hofmann, “Der Kampf der Päpste um Konzil und Dogma von Chalkedon von Leo
dem Grossen bis Hormisdas (451-519),” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Band II,
Würzburg 1953, 13-94; F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, 81-105.
86 Cf. Pope Leo, Epistola 104, Ad Marcianum, PL 54, 995.
87 See Epistola Sanctae Synodi Chalcedonesis ad Sanctissimum Papam Romanae
Ecclesiae Leonem, in PL 54, 955-959; Actio Decima Sexta Chalcedonesis Concilii, in Mansi
VII, 451-454; E. Hermann, “Chalkedon und die Ausgestaltung des
konstantinopolitanischen Primats,” in A. Grilmeier und H. Bacht, Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, Band II, Würzburg 1953, 470-471; F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in
Byzantium, 92.
the Pope in their written requests to Pope Leo for approval of the
canon.88 Moreover, the Council of Chalcedon, which granted
Constantinople authority over the three relatively autonomous
dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, claimed only second place after
the See of Rome. This means that Rome, because of its political and
religious importance (capital of the ancient Roman Empire, dual
apostolicity of Peter and Paul), comes first and enjoys more power
and prerogatives than Constantinople, which comes second.
Therefore, canon 28 is a clear affirmation of the primacy of the bishop
of Rome.89 Likewise, the repeated requests of Patriarch Anatolius and
Emperor Marcian to the Pope for approval or acceptance of canon 28
are themselves sufficient proof of the primacy of the Pope.
The scrutiny of the first seven ecumenical councils clearly proves that
Rome was the first see and that it had unique privileges and
prerogatives from time immemorial because of its political
importance as the ancient capital of the Roman Empire and especially
because of its double apostolicity of Petrine and Pauline origin.
However, there is no canon that suggests that Rome had any
ordinary jurisdiction over other patriarchates. Rather, many canons
strongly affirmed the autonomy of individual Sees, and accepted
non-interference in the affairs of other Churches as a basic principle.
3.3.1. Primacy of Pope as Head of the Patriarchs: The Theory of
Pentarchy
The theory of pentarchy is based on the administrative division of
the Church in the Roman Empire into five patriarchates, which made
the patriarchs holders of supreme power in the Church, except for
the unique position of the bishop of Rome. As we have already seen,
Emperor Justinian (527-565), who proclaimed the first position of the
bishop of Rome in his Novellae, legalised the order of the patriarchs
by placing the bishop of Constantinople second in the enumeration
of the patriarchs of the West and the East.90 According to Justinian,
88 See Epistola Marciani imperatoris ad Leonem Papam, in PL 54, 972-973; Epistola
Anatoli episcopi Constantinopolis ad S. Leonem Archiepiscopum Romae, in PL 54, 980-983;

also Epistola (128) Anotoli ad Leonem, in PL 54, 1082-1083; cf. J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxie
et catholicité, 71; W. De Vries, “Die Struktur der Kirche gemäss dem Konzil von
Chalkedon (451),” OCP 35 (1969) 98-111.
89 Cf. P. P. Joannou, “Pape, concile et patriarches,” 546.
90 Emperor Justinian, Novellae 123, cap. 3 & 131, cap. 2; cf. PG 86, 982.
36 Iustitia
the five patriarchates subsumed the entire Catholic Church.91 Thus

arose the theory of pentarchy, which held that the Church of God
was governed by five patriarchs in accordance with God’s plan and
as recognized by the ecumenical councils.92 The Orientals held that
the five patriarchates are of divine origin; their patriarchs are pre-
eminently successors of the apostles, the five senses of the Church,
and the five pinnacles of ecclesiastical authority.93
According to ancient canonical tradition, the five preeminent thrones
were considered the five administrative heads of the Church, and the
system of the pentarchy of patriarchal sees was considered the
highest administrative authority of the universal Church. The five
patriarchs formed one unit, a supreme governing body headed by
the bishop of Rome. By establishing the pentarchy, the five patriarchs
became the administrative heads of the five ecclesiastical
administrative bodies throughout the Christian world. Each of the
patriarchates had its own autonomy and the right to self-government
with respect to matters within its territory.94 As we have seen, the
metropolitan was the first among the bishops of the province, the
patriarch in his patriarchate, and the Pope was the first among the
five patriarchs, namely in the universal Church. The first patriarch
did not exercise any direct or ordinary jurisdiction except within the
boundaries of his own patriarchate, but he had the responsibility of
91 Emperor Justinian, Novellae 109, preface; see also caput 1 and 2 of the same
Novellae; also, Justinian's dogmatic writings, PG 86, 1044. For more about pentarchy
according to Emperor Justinian, P. O’Connel, The Ecclesiology of St Nicephorus I (758-
828) Patriarch of Constantinople, Pentarchy and Primacy (OCA 194), Roma 1972, 30-33.
92 Cf. P. P. Joannou, “Pape, concile et patriarches,” 547; E. Herman, “Chalkedon
und die Ausgestaltung,” 477. For details about Pentarchy, V. Peri, “La pentarchia:
istituzione ecclesiale (IV-VII sec.) e teoria canonico-teologica,” in Bisanzio, Roma e
l'Italia nell'alto medioevo, vol. XXXIV, tomo primo, Spoleto 1988, 209-311.
93 Cf. The introductory speech of Anastasius the Librarian at the Fourth Council
of Constantinople (869), in Mansi XVI, 7; Theodore the Studite, Epistola 129, in PG

99, 1418; The speech of the metropolitan of Smyrna at the Fourth Council of
Constantinople, Actio VI, in Mansi XVI, 82.
94 Cf. V. Phidas, “Primus Inter Pares,” 183; W. De Vries, “College of Patriarchs,”
39. For more about pentarchy, V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale, 51-55; M. Gordillo,
Compendium theologiae orientalis, Romae 1950, 54-57; Theologia orientalium cum
latinorum comparata (OCA 158), Rome 1960, 122-124; E. Lanne, “Eglises locales et
patriarcats” 316-316; H. Marot, “Note sur le pentarchie” 436-442; L. Waldmüller,
“Das Konzil im Verständnis der Ostkirche,” 146-147; E. Herman, “Chalkedon und
die Ausgestaltung,” 477-480; J. Hoeck, Primum Regnum Dei, Die Patriarchalstruktur,
63.
coordinating the body of the five patriarchs in solving problems

concerning the true faith and ecclesiastical order.95
The ecumenical council was the highest expression of consensus
among the Churches and the highest authority of the universal
Church. But, the participation of the five patriarchs was an important
condition and criterion for the ecumenicity of a council and the
authenticity of its doctrine and canons.96 The consent of the bishop of
Rome or his participation as the first among the patriarchs (through
the legates or his later reception of the council) was a constitutive and
indispensable condition for ecumenicity, universality, and
infallibility of doctrine.97 In short, the theory of pentarchy, as it was
held in the first millennium, in no way excluded the primacy of Pope.
The Pope was always considered the head of the patriarchs and
defender of orthodoxy with special privileges and prerogatives.98
All of the first seven ecumenical councils were convened and
presided over by the respective emperor or empress of the East,
either directly or through their officials, and the decrees and canons
were promulgated by them. The bishop of Rome was not personally
95 Cf. V. Phidas, “Primus Inter Pares,” 184-185.

96 Cf. Inaugural Discourse of Anastasius the Librarian at the Fourth Council of
Constantinople, Mansi XVI, 7: Theodore the Studite, Epistolarum Lib. II, 72 , PG 99,
col. 1306 and Epistola 129, PG 99 , 1418-1419; Maximus the Confessor, Disputatio cum
Pyrrho, PG 91, 351-354; John Damascene, Adversus Constatinum Cabalinum, PG 95,
331; Y. Congar, “Le pape come patriarche d'occident: approche d'une réalité trop
négligée", Istina 28:4 (1983) 378; “Church Structures and Councils in the Relations
between East and West,” One in Christ 11 (1975) 245-246; P. O’Connel, The Ecclesiology
of St Nicephorus I, 120-159; V. Peri, “La synergie entre le pape et le concile
oecuménique, note d'histoire sul l'ecclésiologie trditionelle de I'Eglise indivise,”
Irénikon 56 (1983) 174; I concili e le Chiese, Ricerca storica sulla tradizione d'universalità
dei sinodi ecumenici, Rome 1965, 32-34; W. De Vries, “Die Struktur der Kirche gemäss
dem II Konzil von Nikäa,” 70-71.
97 The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, “Apologeticus pro Sacris
imaginis,” PG 100, 598-599. For a detailed analysis of the concept of primacy

according to Nicephorus: P. O’Connel, The Ecclesiology of St Nicephorus I, 160-194; the
concept of Maximus the Confessor, PG 91, col. 137 and 144; The Speech of John the
Deacon at the Second Council of Nicaea (787), Mansi XIII, 207-210; cf. also J.-M. R.
Tillard, L'évêque de Rome, Paris 1982, 228-232; Y. Congar, “Church Structures and
Councils,” 248-250; “Le pape come patriarche d'occident,” 378; V. Peri, “La synergie
entre le pape et le concile oecuménique,” 170 and 172-178; I concili e le Chiese, 29-32.
98 Cf. W. De Vries, “The College of Patriarchs,” 40; H. Marot, “Note sur le
pentarchie,” 439; V. Phidas, “Primus Inter Pares,” 185; V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale,
54-55; J.-M. R. Tillard, L'évêque de Rome, 228-232; F. Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman
Primacy, 103-104.
38 Iustitia
present at any of the first seven ecumenical councils. His consent or

approval was considered as necessary as that of the other major
patriarchal sees, especially Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem, to ensure the ecumenicity of the council, which was based
on the principle of unanimity.99 A study by the World Council of
Churches on the importance of the conciliar process in the early
Church for the ecumenical movement confirms this:
The classical Ecumenical Councils met in the period of the Roman
Empire. The Christian emperor called them together, often led their
deliberations, approved their results, and gave them juridical status.
This can be explained from the historical situation. The fourth century
considered it self-evident that the emperor, who had become a
Christian, should assume responsibility for the Church [...].100
In a sense, the first seven ecumenical councils can also be called
imperial councils. At that time, oecumene (οἰκουμένη, oikouménē)
referred only to the Roman Empire, and therefore the ecumenical
councils were assemblies of the bishops of the same empire; bishops
outside the empire, namely those of the catholicates of Armenia and
Persia, were not convened.
3.3.2. Primacy of Rome and the Canonical Autonomy of Eastern
Patriarchates
Wilhelm De Vries, who has conducted many rigorous scholarly
studies on the origins of the patriarchs and their relationship with
Rome, identifies the canonical autonomy of the patriarchs in the first
millennium as follows:
1) The East freely elected its own patriarchs and bishops as well as
organized its own dioceses, either establishing new ones or raising
their rank; 2) the East itself regulated its liturgy and canonical
legislation; 3) the East itself regulated the discipline of the clergy
and laity.101
99 Cf. N. P. Tanner, The Councils of the Church: A Short History, New York 2001, 19-
20; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, 1-2, 21, 37, 75, 105, 131; Conciliorum
oecumenicorum decreta, 1-2, 20-21, 37-38, 75-76, 105-106, 123, 131-132; A. Fortescue,
The Orthodox Eastern Church, London 1916, 75-81; P. Pallath, “Eastern Canon Law
throughout the Centuries,” 24-27.
100 World Council of Churches, Councils and the Ecumenical Movement (Studies No.
5), Geneva 1968, 12.

101 W. De Vries, “La S. Sede ed i patriarcati cattolici d’Oriente,” 318 (my own
translation). He expressed almost the same idea also in other works:“The Origin of
Many other scholars who have scientifically studied the relations

between the Eastern Patriarchates and Rome in the first millennium
have come to the same conclusions regarding the canonical
autonomy of the Eastern Patriarchates.102
The synod of each patriarchal Church elected the patriarch and
bishops without any interference from the bishop of Rome. During
the entire first millennium, there was not a single case in which a
patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop was appointed directly by the
bishop of Rome. The role of the bishop of Rome in the election of
patriarchs usually consisted in a letter of reply to the synodal letter
by which the elected person informed him of the event of the election.
The bishop of Rome expressed his joy at the election, congratulated
the elected one, and in this way recognised the legitimacy of the
election; thus, the new Patriarch entered into communion with the
Pope without the need for any further legal act.103 Accordingly, one
the Eastern Patriarchates,” 66; Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, 19-22; “Die
Entstehung der Patriarchate des Ostens,” 339-366. The German Jesuit priest Wilhelm
De Vries was professor of Church history at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome.
102 I. Žužek, “Animadversiones quaedam in decretum de Ecclesiis orientalibus
catholicis concilii Vaticani II,” Periodica 55 (1966) 276-278; “Oriental Canon Law:
Survey of Recent Developments,” Concilium 5 (1965) , 70 & 72; C. Gallagher, “The
Concept of 'Protos' in the Eastern Catholic Churches,” Kanon 9 (1989) 105-106; H.
Marot, “The Primacy and the Decentralization of the Early Church,” Concilium 1
(1965) 13-14; H. J. Schulz, “Dialogue with the Orthodox,” Concilium 4 (1965) 68-69;
V. Parlato, L’ufficio patriarcale, 65-68; O. Kéramé, “Les chaires apostoliques et rôle des
patriarcats” (Unam Sanctam 39), Paris 1962, 266-268; L. Laham, “Le patriarcat d’
Antioche au premier millénaire,” in I patriarcati orientali nell primo millennio, Roma
1968, 122-128; W. F. Macomber, “The Authority of the Catholicos-Patriarch of
Seleucia-Ctesiphon,” 181-196; M. J. Le Guillou, “L’experience orientale de la
collégialité épiscopale,” 174; M. M. Wojnar, “Decree on Oriental Catholic Churches,”
The Jurist 25 (1965) 196-200; J. Chiramel, The Patriarchal Churches in the Oriental Code,
Alwaye 1992, 32-76; K. Medawar, “De la sauvegarde des droits de l’Eglise orientale,”
Proche-Orient Chretién 9 (1959) 224; J. Hoeck, Primum Regnum Dei, Die
Patriarchalstruktur, 276-278.
103 Cardinal Acacius Coussa describes the procedure as follows: “Ab exordiis
usque ad annum 1837 quo S. C. de P. F. decretum de hac re edidit, Patriarchae

legitime electi plenam potestatem patriarchalem exercebant, nulla, ex parte
confirmationis pontificae existente delimitatione. Unde ne fieri potest quaestio de
eorum actum validitate. De pacifice et canonice paracta electione Romani Pontifices
gaudium exprimebant, quod synodi electoralis Patres peragerant agnoscebant, et
cum electo gratulabantur”. Epitome paelectionum de iure ecclesiastico orientali, vol. I,
Rome 1948, 248 (n. 237). For similar letters of Popes expressing communion, see Acta
Romanorum Pontificum: A s. Clemente I (an c. 90) ad Coelestinum III (1198), colleit A.
Tamntu, (Fonti, Series III, vol. 1), Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis 1943, nn. 57, 59, 71, 103,
131, 140, 149, 151, 163, 223, 369.
40 Iustitia
became patriarch by election and not by confirmation by the Pope. It

is noteworthy that the elected one notified not only the Pope but also
other patriarchs of his elevation to the patriarchal office and asked
for their communion.104 The expression of mutual communion,
especially with the bishop of Rome, was crucial because it
guaranteed the orthodoxy of faith and validity of the canonical
election. The Pope could refuse communion to those elected, but only
if the invalidity of the election or the lack of Catholic faith was
proved.105
The metropolitans and the other bishops of the patriarchates
remained in communion with the bishop of Rome and thus with the
universal Church through their patriarchs. Only the patriarchs
communicated their election to the bishop of Rome and received
from him a response that ensured their belonging to the Catholic
communion. Therefore, one of the main functions of the patriarchs
was to secure the communion of all the bishops of their patriarchates
with the bishop of Rome.106
In the first millennium, the first patriarch of Rome did not interfere
with the legislative, judicial, and electoral autonomy of the other
patriarchates. In other words, the bishop of Rome, the first among
the patriarchs, exercised patriarchal authority only in the Western
Church and not in the Eastern patriarchates, limiting himself to
fulfilling the functions of universal primatial authority in the East.
3.3.3. Universal Primacy of Pope as the Guarantee of Communion
and Unity of Faith
In the first millennium, the function of the Pope was to be the
touchstone and ultimate criterion for the universal or Catholic
communion of the Church. “The basic function of the Pope was not
the performance of given official actions, but simply being present as
the fundamental point of orientation and unity in the network of
communion between the several Churches [...]. His essential office is
104 Cf. W. De Vries, La S. Sede ed i patriarcati,” 319; Rom und die Patriarchate des
Ostens, 18; “The Origin of Eastern Patriarchates,” 55-59; V. Parlato, L'ufficio

patriarcale, 67 and 103-107; H. J. Schulz, “The Dialogue with the Orthodox,” 69; H.
Marot, “The Primacy and the Decentralisation” 14; M. M. Wojnar, “Decree on the
Oriental Catholic Churches,” 199.
105 For examples of denial of communion see Acta Romanorum Pontificum, nn. 176,
177, 226, 290, 308, 316. Cf. also W. De Vries, La S. Sede ed i patriarcati,” 320; Rom und
die Patriarchate des Ostens, 20.
106 Cf. W. De Vries, “The College of Patriarchs,” 37.
bishop of Rome, the primatial diocese of the Catholic world. As

bishop of Rome, the Pope is in the episcopal college holding the first
place among all the bishops”.107 Cardinal Yves Congar confirms that
the role of the Pope in the network of communions was to be the
indispensable guarantor of ecclesial communion and the unity of the
faith, judging cases that challenged them, according to tradition and
the canons that governed the life of the Churches. In this sense, one
could speak of a “power in” the Church, as opposed to a “power
over” the Church. It is obvious that the central power, the Roman
See, has the charism and the authority to fulfil its particular task,
namely to moderate the communion of the Churches and to ensure
the preservation of the apostolic tradition and the confession of true
faith.108 This view is also shared by many other theologians who see
the bishop of Rome as the guardian par excellence of the Christian
tradition, the supreme judge of the faith, and the link of the unity and
communion of the Churches.109
Even in the first millennium, the bishop of Rome, as guarantor of
faith and unity, had the right and duty to intervene in the internal
life of the other Churches and the universal Church in order to
protect the integrity of the faith and the unity of the Catholic
107 L. Hertling, Communio: Church and Papacy, 10-11; for detailed analysis, pages
52-76.
108 Cf. Y. Congar, “De la communion des Eglises à une ecclésiologie de l'Eglise
universelle,” in L'Episcopat et l'Eglise universelle (Unam Sanctam 39), Paris 1962, 234-
235; Ministères et communion ecclésiale, Paris 1971, 98-99;”La Chiesa è apostolica,” in
J. Feiner e M. Löhrer, Mysterium salutis VII, Brescia 1972, 706; “Autonomie et pouvoir
central,” 137 et 142-143.
109 P. P. Joannou, “Pape, concile et patriarches” 526 and 520-540; E. Lanne,
“L'Eglise locale et l'Eglise universelle,” in Irénikon 43 (1970) 498; “Il Servizio di

communione tra le Chiese cattoliche romane,” in Concilium 8 (1975) 128-129. G.
Greshake, “Die Stellung des Protos,” 25; G. Alberigo, “Per un papato rinnovato a
servizio della Chiesa,” Concilium 8 (1975) 24 & 28-38; W. Kasper, “Ciò che permane
e ciò che muta nel ministero petrino,” Concilium 8 (1975) 57-58; J. J. Von Allmen,
“Ministero papale ministero di unità,” in Concilium 8 (1975) 138; P. Batiffol, Cathedra
Petri, 28; G. Dejaive, “Puet-on concilier le collège épiscopal et primauté? ,” in La
Collégialté Episcopale (Unam Sanctam 52), Paris 1965, 295-300; V. Peri, “La synergie
entre le pape et le concile oecuménique,” 180-181; G. Thils, "Papauté et épiscopat,
harmonie et complémentarité,” in R. Bäumer & H. Dolch (eds.), Volk Gottes,
Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1967, 55-63; J.-M. R. Tillard, Eglise d'Eglises: l'ecclésiologie de
communion, Paris 1987. 324 et 328; L'évêque de Rome, 203-235; “Presence of Peter in
the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome", One in Christ 2 (1991) 101-105.
42 Iustitia
Communion.110 The primacy of the Pope as guarantor of the faith is

evident in the practice of appealing to Rome in some cases of
disputes, even from the East. By his decision, the bishop of Rome
intervened in the affairs of other Churches when such appeals were
made.111 The bishop of Rome also intervened in cases of serious
disturbances or serious canonical and liturgical disorders in order to
restore peace, unity and harmony in the Church.112 In short, the Pope
was the defender and guarantor of the faith and unity as well as
bonum commune of the Church, its summus iudex and arbiter, the
indispensable condition for the ecumenicity of the councils and the
authenticity of their doctrinal decisions. As guarantor of the true
faith and Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome intervened in the
affairs of the Eastern patriarchates only when it was necessary to
protect the true faith and morals, or to restore peace and harmony in
the case of serious canonical disorders, or to make his decision when
appeals were made to Rome.
3.3.4. Recognition of Universal Primacy of Rome in Orthodox
Ecclesiology
The first position or primacy of the bishop of Rome was established
by the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church and, therefore,
can only be accepted by the Orthodox Churches. In fact, the
aforementioned Churches also generally accept the primacy of the
bishop of Rome as a ministry of unity, communion, and
110 Cf. Y. Congar, “De la communion des Eglises,” 234; “Le pape come patriarche
d'occident” 379; V. Parlato, L'ufficio patriarcale, 44-51; J.-M. R. Tillard, L'évêque de

Rome , 207-235.
111 L. Hertling, Communio, Church and Papacy,70-76; P. L’Huillier, “Collégialité et
primauté,” 341; P. P. Joannou, “Pape concile et patriarches,” 521; Y. Congar, “Church

Structures and Councils,” 230; C. Vogel, “Unité de l'Eglise et pluralité
d'organisation,” 633-635; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople, 216. Examples of
appeals from the Eastern Churches: St. John Chrysostom (Acta Romanorum
Pontificum [=ARP], nn. 27-28 & Appendix 3), Flavian of Constantinople (ARP, no. 89
& Appendix 11-12), Eutichus (ARP, Appendix 10), Eusebius Doryleor (ARP,
Appendix 13); Theodoretus the Syrian (ARP, Appendix 14); Patriarch Ignatius,
adversary of Photius (ARP, Appendix 38). For more information about appeals of
Orientals to the bishop of Rome: H. Leclercq, “Notes pour l'histoire du droit
d'appel,” 1238-1259; P. Batiffol, Cathedra petri, 215-248; A. Fortescue, The Orthodox
Eastern Church, 67-73.
112 For examples of the intervention of the bishop of Rome in cases of canonical
disorder, Acta Romanorum Pontificum, nn. 11, 121, 136, 161-162, 167, 175, 217, 240, 290,
311-312, 320-322, etc. Cf. also W. De Vries, La S. Sede ed i patriarcati,” 324-325; Rom
und die Patriarchate des Ostens, 21-22.
reconciliation at the heart of the universal ecclesial communion of the

Church, but they reject the primacy of the supreme power and
universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. About the universal
primacy of Rome, the Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann
explicitly states:
[…] An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox
canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past
or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the
canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that,
along with local ‘centres of agreement’ or primacies, the Church
had also known a universal primacy. The ecclesiological error of
Rome lies not in the affirmation of her universal primacy. Rather
the error lies in the identification of this primacy with ‘supreme
power’ which transforms Rome into the principium radix et origo113
of the unity of the Church and of the Church herself. This
ecclesiological distortion, however, must not force us into a simple
rejection of universal primacy. On the contrary it ought to
encourage its genuinely Orthodox interpretation.114
According to him “the essence and purpose of universal primacy is
to express and preserve the unity of the Churches in faith and life, to
express and preserve the unanimity of all Churches; to keep them
from isolating themselves into ecclesiastical provincialism, loosing
the Catholic ties, separating themselves from the unity of life. It
means ultimately to assume the care, the sollicitudo of the Churches,
so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always
the whole Catholic tradition and not any ‘part’ of it.”115 In general, the
Orthodox Churches accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome as the
elder brother and primus inter pares within the College of Bishops,
presiding in love with a universal responsibility and an all-
encompassing pastoral concern, but they affirm that they do not
accept a Roman Pontiff endowed with a universal supreme ordinary
jurisdiction and placed above the College of Bishops with the
113 Here he provides reference as follows: Encycl. S. Offic. Ad Episcopos Angliae,
16 Sept. 1864, in Denzinger Banwart, ed. 10, n. 1686.

114 A. Schmemann, “La notion de primauté,” 141; English translation: “The Idea
of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology,” in The Primacy of Peter, London 1963, 48. For
almost same idea about universal primacy, cf. P. L’Huillier, “Collégialité et
primauté,” 338; M. J. Le Guillou, “L'expérience orientale de la collégialité
épiscopale,” 175.
115 A. Schmemann, “La notion de primauté,” 142-143; “The Idea of Primacy,” 49.
44 Iustitia
authority to confirm or approve even the decisions of ecumenical

councils.116
4. Relationship between Primacy and Synodality
The examination of the ancient canons clearly demonstrates the
primatial authority at the various levels of ecclesiastical organization,
which gives the bishops of some Churches special powers over the other
Churches. However, primatial authority in no way impedes the synodal
governance of the Churches but rather guarantees their smooth
functioning. In fact, the synods cannot function properly if there is no
one to convene them and ensure their functioning according to the
discipline of the Church. Therefore, primacy is not a contradiction to the
conciliar principle, but a necessity of conciliarity. In fact, without
primacy, neither councils nor synods are possible. According to
Orthodox theologian Nicholas Afanassieff, the conciliar principle
cannot be set off against primacy. The council does not exclude primacy
but presupposes it. Councils cannot assemble automatically, but must
be convened by the head of the province - provincial synod; head of the
patriarchate - patriarchal synod; head of the universal Church -
ecumenical synod. If there had been no heads in the autocephalous
Churches, there could have been no councils; otherwise, anarchy would
have prevailed, since every bishop would have thought he had the right
to convene councils. Therefore, the conciliar institution presupposes the
permanent heads at the various levels of ecclesiastical life.117 With
regard to the relationship between primacy and conciliarity, Cardinal
Duprey writes:
The authority is the same, whether exercised by all or by the one
who is their head. Now this authority exists for a function, which
116 Cf. K. Ware, “Primacy, collegiality and the People of God,” in Eastern
Ecclesiastical Review 3 (1970) 18-27; N. Arseniev, “The Second Vatican Council's

Constitution 'De Ecclesia'“, in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965) 21-22; J.
Meyendorff, “Vatican II: A Preliminary Reaction,” in St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Quarterly 32-33; L'Eglise orthodoxe hier et aujourd'hui, Paris 1969, 171-172; Orthodoxie
et catholicité, 149; S. Harkianakis, “Può avere un senso un servizio di Pietro nella
Chiesa? Risposta greco-ortodosso,” in Concilium 4 (1971)153-160; Evdokimov, “Può
avere un senso un servizio di Pietro nella Chiesa? Risposta Russo-ortodossa,” in
Concilium 4 (1971) 161-166; J. H. Erickson, “Common Comprehension of Christians
concerning Autonomy and Central Power in the Church in View of Orthodox
Theology,” Kanon 4 (1980) 105-111; M. J. Le Guillou, “L'expérience orientale de la
collégialité épiscopale” 174-181.
117 Cf. N. Afanassieff, “L'Eglise qui préside dans l'amour,” in La primauté de Pierre
dans l'Eglise orthodoxe, Neuchtel 1960, 19-20.

is to safeguard and give expression to the conciliar principle, which

is communion between the Churches, by preventing local Churches
becoming isolated. It exists to maintain the bonds of Catholicity and
to safeguard the fullness of life within each Church. The purpose of
this authority is that each and every Church should live with and
through the others, for it is this vital interpenetration that
constitutes the mystery of the Body of Christ, which is the fullness
of him who fills all in all.118
The Agreed Orthodox-Catholic Statement on Conciliarity and
Primacy in the Church, issued in 1989 by the Orthodox-Roman
Catholic Consultation in the United States of America clearly
expresses the relationship between conciliarity and primacy:
Primacy - whether that of a metropolitan within his province, or
that of a patriarch or presiding hierarch within a larger region - is a
service of leadership that has taken many forms throughout
Christian history, but that always should be seen as complementary
to the function of the synods. It is the primate (protos) who
convenes the synod, presides over its activities, and seeks, together
with his colleagues, to assure its continuity in faith and discipline
with the apostolic Church; yet it is the synod which, together with
the primate, gives voice and definition to the apostolic tradition. It
is also the synod which, in most Churches, elects the primate, and
assists him in his leadership. and holds him to account for his
ministry in the name of the whole Church (Apostolic canons 34).119
Thus, according to the genuine common tradition of the Church,
primacy at various levels does not destroy dynamism and synodal
vitality in the Church. Rather, it can be said that the authority of the
head or protos is a primacy of diakonia, a primacy of service to the
function of synodality. It is the unfolding of a function that protects
synodal life, expresses communion among local Churches and their
bishops, prevents the isolation of local Churches, strengthens
Catholic communion, and is a guarantee of the fullness of ecclesial
life at the heart of each local Church. This authority is destined to
118 P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure,” 167. Cf. also “Brief Reflections on the
Title Primus Inter Pares,” One in Christ 10 (1974) 10-12; A. Schmemann, “La notion de
primauté,” 143; N. Afanassieff, “L’Eglise qui préside dans l'amour,” 19-21.
119 “Agreed Orthodox-Catholic Statement on Conciliarity and Primacy,” in
Sobornost 12 (1990) 88-89. The Consultation brings together Orthodox theologians

appointed by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches and
Catholic theologians appointed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
46 Iustitia
make possible the presence of all in each Church and the presence of
each in all. The protos, therefore, has a power in the structure of the
community that makes possible the effective activity of synods.120
According to the common tradition of the Church, there is a
fundamental and essential equality of all bishops in the episcopal
consecration. Therefore, the protos or head, whether metropolitan or
patriarch, is a bishop canonically elected and consecrated for a
determined see, and he also has a diocese or eparchy in which he
officiates like all other bishops.121
All bishops are successors of the apostles and share equally in the
high priesthood of Christ. Therefore, all bishops are equal with
regard to their priesthood. Some of them have primacy and special
prerogatives because they were canonically elected and consecrated
to certain sees that were respected by all of Christendom because of
their special importance due to their apostolic origin, their cultural
and political preeminence, or their high status as mother Churches.
Accordingly, these bishops (protos) are the first among equals (primi
inter pares) and have the prominent position of first brother in
relation to the other bishops of the province or patriarchate. This
position does not change the nature of episcopal status, nor does it
confer on primates higher priestly rights or prerogatives deriving
from their priesthood.122 However, these primates do enjoy some
special powers and prerogatives, though they do not emanate from
their priesthood, over other bishops, as they have been sanctioned by
the ecumenical councils, canon law, authentic traditions and
legitimate customs. In summary, the office of primate is a service,
namely a ministry of unity and communion.
120 Cf. D. Salachas, “Il principio della struttura sinodale,” 242; “L'istituzione
patriarcale e sinodale,” 248-249.

121 Cf. K. Mörsdorf, “Die hierarchische Struktur der Kirchenverfassung",
Seminarium 2 (1966) 407; Y. Congar, “Le pape comme patriarche d'occident,” 387.
The Pope is also a bishop from the point of view of sacrament, in spite of the fact
that he is successor of St Peter. Pope Francis, Episcopalis communio (apostolic
constitution), Vatican City 2018, no. 10; cf. also E. Lanne, “L'Eglise locale et l'Eglise
universelle,” 498-499; K. Rahner und J. Ratzinger, Episcopat und Primat, Freiburg-
Wasel-Wien 1961, 28-29; J. D. Zizioulas, Being as communion, 252; D. Salachas,
“L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale,” 244-245.
122 Cf. P. Rodopoulos, “Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic
Canon,” 95-99; cf. also P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure,” 174-175; “Brief
Reflections on the Title “Primus Inter Pares,” 6-7.
Conclusion
In this study, a brief investigation has been carried out on the origin,
development and canonical recognition of the principles of
synodality and primacy in the first millennium. According to the
common tradition of the Church, synodality manifested itself in
various forms: provincial synods, patriarchal or general synods, and
ecumenical councils. Corresponding to the three levels of synodality,
the primacy has also been consolidated on three levels: metropolitan,
patriarch, and the Pope of Rome. The proper functioning of primacy
and synodality in balance brings about unity, harmony, and
communion in the Churches and renders glory to the Most Holy
Trinity, the mystery of perfect communion and ontological
synodality.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 49-62
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION PRAEDICATE

EVANGELIUM – A NEW VISION ON CHURCH
ADMINISTRATION
Sajan George Thengumpally∗
Abstract
The Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (PE) promulgated
by Pope Francis on 19 March 2022 replaced Pastor Bonus of Pope
John Paul II and reformed the Roman Curia. The new document
embodies Pope Francis’ unique vision of the Church
administration. It invites the Officials of the Roman Curia to arrive
at a more missionary, more pastoral, and more spiritual way of
functioning than a mere bureaucratic way of working. The
document came out while the Bishop’s Synod on the theme of
‘synadality’ was going on. Listening and walking together are
experimented with in this Apostolic Constitution. This article
elucidates basic visions that guided the reformation and summarize
the major changes in the functioning of the Roman Curia.
Keywords: Synodality, Mission, Roman Curia, Evangelization, Holy See
Introduction
The Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (PE) promulgated
by Pope Francis on 19 March 2022 replaced Pastor Bonus (PB), which
Pope St. John Paul II promulgated on 28 June 1988 and in force since
1 March 1989. The new document embodies Pope Francis’ unique
vision of the Church administration. Immediately after his election,
Pope Francis announced the creation of a Council of Cardinals
∗ Fr. Sajan George Thengumpally is a priest belonging to the Catholic

Archdiocese of Thalassery, Kerala, India. He was ordained priest on 30 th December
1998. He completed a licentiate in Canon Law from the Oriental Canon Law
Institute, Dharmaram, Bangalore. He secured his doctoral degree in canon law from
the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. He served as the Judicial Vicar and
Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Tellicherry. Currently, he is serving as a teaching
faculty member of Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore and Good Shepherd
Major Seminary, Kunnoth, Judge in Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal of the
Syro-Malabar Church, and in the Archeparchial Tribunal, Tellicherry. He has
published several articles in various canonical journals. At present, he is the Vicar of
St. Joseph’s Forane Church, Vayattuparamaba, Kerala.

50 Iustitia
consisting of eight Cardinals from different continents, and one of

the tasks given to this Council was to prepare a revision of PB. The
new Apostolic Constitution is the result of nine years of lengthy
processes of consultations and listening carried out under the
headship of the Council of Cardinals.1 This is the culmination of Pope
Francis’ attempts to renew the administrative system of the Church
according to the needs of the time and to reorganize the
competencies of the dicasteries. In fact, Pope Francis began this
renewal in the years preceding the publication of this document by
introducing many changes in the Roman Curia, like adding new
dicasteries and changing the structures and competencies of
dicasteries.2
“On 24 February 2014, the motu proprio Fidelis Dispensator instituted
the new Council for the Economy and the new “Secretariat for the
Economy,” of which Australian Cardinal George Pell was appointed
prefect. On 11 November 2014, Francis established a new judicial
body within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to handle
appeals by priests who have been disciplined for sexually abusing
children. On 8 September 2015, the two motu proprios Mitis Iudex
Dominus Iesus and Mitis et Misericors Iesus streamlined the process for
marriage annulment while also aiming to reduce the workload for
Vatican tribunals. In November 2017, Francis added a Third Section
to the Secretariat of State that would be in charge of the diplomatic
corps of the Holy See. In February 2018, he changed the law to allow
non-cardinal bishops serving in the Vatican’s bureaucracy to
continue to hold their offices past the age of seventy-five, whereas
previously they had automatically lost their positions. In July 2018,
an Italian lay journalist, Paolo Ruffini, became prefect of the
Dicastery for Communication—the first layman to become prefect of
a dicastery of the Roman Curia; in January 2021, a layman, Professor
Vincenzo Buonomo (rector of the Pontifical Lateran University), was
appointed leader of the disciplinary commission of the Roman Curia.
On 11 February 2022, Francis promulgated a motu proprio entitled
Fidem Servare that modified the organizational chart of the
Massimo Faggioli, The Apostolic Constitution “Preach the Gospel” Praedicate

1
Evangelium, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2022) xxxi.

2 Andrea Tornielli & Sergio Centofanti, Pope Francis promulgates Apostolic
Constitution on Roman Curia 'Praedicate Evangelium', in https://www. vaticannews.

va/en/pope/news/2022-03/pope-francis-promulgates-constitution-praedicate-
evangelium.html. {access on 18 May 2023}.
S. G. Thengumpally: “Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium” 51
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by separating the

responsibilities into two sections under two different secretaries: the
doctrinal section (competent on personal ordinariates; the marriage
office to examine the privilegium fidei and the dissolution of marriages
between two non-baptized persons or between a baptized person
and a non-baptized person) and the disciplinary section (concerned
with crimes reserved to the judgment of the congregation, which are
adjudicated by the Supreme Apostolic Tribunal established
therein).”3
However, this document does not intend to introduce a thorough
structural and institutional reorganization, but to attain renewal in
the spiritual and cultural outlook of the curia. The reformation of the
Roman Curia aims at a conversion of the central administrative
system of the Church from a mere bureaucratic administrative setup
to an effective tool of evangelization and a witness of the synodal
nature of the Church. The preamble of the document specifies that,
“… this new Apostolic Constitution seeks to attune its present-day
activity more effectively to the path of evangelization the Church,
especially in our times, has taken” (PE 3). Mission and communion
are the two key concepts guiding this document. In fact, these two
elements are the basic ecclesiological principles that define the
Church's nature. Pope Francis intends to give a message to the whole
Church to go back to the roots and basic principles, and he legislates
for the practical implementation of these principles in the day-to-day
administration of the Church.
The aim of the Apostolic Constitution is not limited merely to the
renewal of the administrative system. It has a wider perspective of
interior reform of every singular person involved in the secular
administration of the Church, which is the visible Body of Christ.
“The reform of the Roman Curia will be authentic and effective if it
is the fruit of an interiorreform whereby, we appropriate “the
paradigm of the spirituality of the Council” as expressed in “the
ancient story of the good Samaritan”, the person who goes out of his
way to be a neighbour to someone left half-dead on the roadside, a
foreigner whom he does not even know. This spirituality has its
deepest source in the love of God, who loved us first, while we were
still poor sinners. It reminds us that our duty is, in imitation of Christ,
to serve our brothers and sisters, especially those in greatest need,
3 Massimo Faggioli, The Apostolic Constitution “Preach the Gospel,” xxxii-xxxiii.

52 Iustitia
and that Christ’s face is seen in the face of every man and woman,
particularly those who suffer in any way (cf. Mt 25:40)” (PE 11).
This study tries to recapture the important visions of Pope Francis
reflects in the formation of PE. Before his election to the pontificate,
Pope Francis never has been a part of the Roman curia.
Consequently, he was able to make changes and propose new way
of functioning, unaffected by restrictions of bureaucratic prejudices.
Though no revolutionary changes are introduced in the Roman
Curia, his views about the Church administration materialized in the
renewal are revolutionary.
1. Missionary conversion
The document's title shows the special emphasis Pope Francis wants
to give to ‘preaching of the Gospel.’ When Pastor Bonus is replaced
with PE, a change of outlook regarding administration is visibly
portrayed through the importance given to evangelization -
preaching the Gospel is the primary goal compared to shepherding
the folk. At the onset of the document the Pope reminds that
“Preaching the Gospel (cf.Mk 16:15; Mt 0: 7-8): this is the task that the
Lord Jesus entrusted to his disciples” (PE 1).
The goal of the reform, as envisioned in the constitution, is to
remodel the Curia for a more missionary Church. A basic conversion
in the understanding of the Church administration is demanded. The
ultimate goal of all the activities in the Church, including the
complex administrative systems of the Church, is to preach Gospel.
“The Church’s “missionary conversion” aims to renew her as a
mirror of Christ’s own mission of love. The Lord’s disciples are called
to be “the light of the world” (Mt 5:14). In this way, the Church
reflects the saving love of Christ, the true light of the world (cf. Jn
8:12). She herself becomes increasingly radiant as she brings to
humanity the supernatural gift of faith as “a light for our way,
guiding our journey through time”. The Church is at the service of
the Gospel, so that “this light of faith . . . can grow and illumine the
present, becoming a star to brighten the horizon of our journey at a
time when mankind is particularly in need of light” (PE 2).
The goal is clearly set forth: “…this new Apostolic Constitution seeks
to attune its present-day activity more effectively to the path of
evangelization that the Church, especially in our time, has taken” (PE
3). In the redesigning of the dicasteries, the primary role which the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been playing is now
assigned to the dicastery for Evangelization. Just after the
Secretariate of State, the new Dicastery for Evangelization is placed
as the first in the list of dicasteries. Previous Congregation for
Evangelization, which was responsible for the Church’s
administration in missionary territories, and the Pontifical Council
for Promoting the New Evangelization initiated by Pope Benedict VI,
were combined to form the new dicastery. The most significant
innovation is that: “the Dicastery for Evangelization is presided over
directly by the Roman Pontiff” (PE . Art. 54). Two Pro-prefects will
be directing the two sections of this dicastery in the name and by the
authority of the Roman Pontiff.
The importance attached to this dicastery in this document would
mark as a new chapter in the four hundred years’ history of the
congregation of Propaganda Fide, the predecessor of the
Congregation Evangelization of Peoples. Gregory XV formerly
erected the Congregation de propaganda fide by the bull Inscrutabili
Divinæ Providentiæ Arcano on 6 January 1622.4 Propaganda Fide was
later renamed as the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples and
now again retitled as Dicastery for Evangelization.5 The competency
of this dicastery is the same as it was defined in Ad Gentes (AD): “For
all missions and for the whole of missionary activity there should be
only one competent office, namely that of the "Propagation of the
Faith," which should direct and coordinate, throughout the world,
both missionary work itself and missionary cooperation (AD 29).
However, the language of this document echoes the dream of Pope
Francis which he has expressed in his encyclical, Evangelium Gaudium
(EG):
I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse
capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs,
ways of doing things, times and schedules, language, and
structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of
today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of
structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be
understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more
mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level
4 Cf. Sajan George Thengumpaly, “Migration as a tool of Evangelization,” Justitia
3, 1(2012) 56.
5 J. Metzler, “The Foundation of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide in 1622,”
Omnis Terra 3 (1969) 16-20.

54 Iustitia
more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant

desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from
all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself. As John
Paul II once said to the Bishops of Oceania: “All renewal in the
Church must have a mission as its goal if it is not to fall prey to a
kind of ecclesial introversion.6
Pope Francis is sincere in his promises while giving a primary place
to evangelization in the Curia. He stated in Evangelium Gaudium:
“Since I am called to put into practice what I ask of others, I too must
think about a conversion of the papacy. It is my duty, as the Bishop
of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise
of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ
wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization” (EG
32). The new arrangements are evidently aimed at missionary
conversion of the central administrative system of the Church which
is a dream of Pope Francis.
2. Synodal nature of the Church and reciprocal Listening
Another important vision of pope Francis embodies in PE is the
synodal nature of the Church. The 16th Ordinary General Assembly
of the Synod of Bishop, which will be concluded in October 2024 has
taken the theme “for a synodal Church: communion, participation
and mission.” The preamble of PE states:
This life of communion makes the Church synodal; a Church
marked by reciprocal listening, “whereby everyone has something
to learn. The faithful people, the College of Bishops, the Bishop of
Rome: all listening to each other and all listening to the Holy Spirit,
the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 14:17), in order to know what he says to the
Churches (cf. Rev 2:7)”. This synodal nature of the Church is to be
understood as “the journeying together of God’s flock along the
paths of history towards the encounter with Christ the Lord”. It has
to do with the mission of the Church and the communion that is in
service to that mission and is itself missionary (PE 4).
A synodal way of functioning means a lot of consultations, listening,
and discussions. Pope Francis said in his address during the opening
of the Synod:” And so, brothers and sisters, let us experience this
moment of encounter, listening, and reflection as a season of
6 Pope Francis, Encyclical Leter, Evangelium Gaudium, 27, https:// www.
vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco
_ esortazione-ap_20131124_ evangelii-gaudium.html.
grace that, in the joy of the Gospel, allows us to recognize at least three
opportunities. First, that of moving not occasionally but
structurally towards a synodal Church, an open square where all can
feel at home and participate. The Synod then offers us the
opportunity to become a listening Church, to break out of our routine
and pause from our pastoral concerns in order to stop and listen.”7
The changes in the Roman Curia give more space for listening and
consultation. Periodic meetings of the heads of the dicateries and
mandatory interdicastrial consultation are now part of the
administration. The preamble clearly states: “Communion and
participation must be the hallmark of the internal working of the
Curia and each of its institutions. The Roman Curia must
increasingly be at the service of communion of life and operational
unity around the pastors of the universal Church. Superiors of
Dicasteries thus meet periodically with the Roman Pontiff, both
individually and in groups. These periodic meetings favour
transparency and concerted action in discussing the work plans of
the Dicasteries and their application.” PE Art. 9 speaks of
cooperation with other dicasteries and cooperation within each
dicastery. In carrying out the mission of each dicastery, mutual
collaboration, continual interdependence, and interconnection of
activities are called for. “In carrying out its work, each Dicastery,
Institution or Office makes regular and appropriate use of the
specific means envisioned in this Apostolic Constitution, such as the
congress, in ordinary or plenary sessions. Interdicasterial meetings
and meetings of heads of Dicasteries should also be held regularly”
(PE Art. 10). This emphasis reflects ‘synodality’ which is a key
concept for Pope Francis’ pontificate.
3. Curia for the service of the Universal Church and of the
Particular Churches
The ordinary and primary responsibility of the Roman Curia is to
assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his Supreme pastoral office and
universal mission in the world (PE Art. 1). At the same time, the
Curia is at the service of the Bishops who together with the successor
of Peter governs the Church. While narrating the principles and
Criteria for the service of the Roman Curia PE clarifies:
7 Pope Francis, “Address for the opening of the synod”: https://www.
vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ speeches /2021/october/documents/ 20211009

-apertura- camminosinodale.html (access on 00-2023).
56 Iustitia
To carry out effectively the pastoral mission of solicitude for the

entire Church that the Roman Pontiff has received from Christ, her
Lord and Pastor (cf. Jn 21:15ff.), and to preserve and foster the
relationship existing between the Petrine ministry and the ministry
of all the Bishops, the Pope, “in exercising his supreme, full and
immediate authority over the universal Church, employs the
various departments of the Roman Curia, which act in his name
and by his authority for the good of the Churches and in the service
of the sacred pastors”. The Curia is thus at the service of the Pope
and of the Bishops, who, “together with Peter’s successor . . . gov-
ern the house of the living God”. The Curia exercises this service to
the Bishops in their particular Churches with due respect for their
responsibilities as successors of the Apostles (PE - Principles and
Criteria for the service of the Roman Curia).
The Roman Curia is primarily an instrument at the service of the
successor of Peter and, at the same time, to assist Bishops who form
one college with the Pope. This document tries to highlight the
importance of particular Churches and the role of these Churches in
the universal mission of the Church. The Roman Curia is “to be of
assistance to bishops, particular Churches, Episcopal Conferences,
and their regional and continental groupings, the hierarchical
structures of the Eastern Churches and other institutions and
communities in the Church” (PE, Principles and Criteria). Roman
Curia is not an institution dictating and ruling over particular
Churches, but assisting and serving the bishops in their mission. In
the chapter on Principles and Criteria, PE specifies: “In this context
of cooperation with the bishops, the service that the Curia offers them
consists primarily in acknowledging and supporting their ministry
to the Gospel and the Church. It does so by providing them with
timely counsel, encouraging the pastoral conversion that they
promote, showing solidary support for their efforts at
evangelization, their preferential pastoral option for the poor,
protecting minors and vulnerable persons, and all their initiatives to
serve the human family, unity and peace.”
At the same time, decentralization of power and responsibility also
is emphasized in PE. “The present reform proposes, in the spirit of a
“sound decentralization”, to leave to the competence of Bishops the
authority to resolve, in the exercise of “their proper task as teachers”
and pastors, those issues with which they are familiar and that do
not affect the Church’s unity of doctrine, discipline, and communion,
always acting with that spirit of co-responsibility which is the fruit

and expression of the specific mysterium communionis that is the
Church (PE II, 1).
The document also highlights the role of local bishops’ conferences,
mentioning them 52 times. By contrast, the 1988 document Pastor
bonus, the previous law book on the Roman Curia, mentioned them
just twice. The role of episcopal Conferences of the Latin Church and
the hierarchical structures of the Eastern sui iuris Churches is
recognized in this document, and the Roman curia is entrusted with
the task of collecting their successful experience in the field of
evangelization and ‘rich fund of knowledge and the fruits of the best
initiatives and creative proposals for evangelization devised by
individual particular Churches, Episcopal Conferences and the hier-
archical structures of the Eastern Churches, as well as their responses
to specific problems and challenges.’
4. Possibility of Laity assuming key roles
PE envisages added provisions for the involvement of lay persons in
the administration of Roman Curia. New legislation opens the
possibility of appointing lay persons as the heads of the dicasteries.
“Each curial institution carries out its proper mission by virtue of the
power it has received from the Roman Pontiff, in whose name it
operates with vicarious power in exercising his primatial munus. For
this reason, any member of the faithful can preside over a Dicastery
or Office, depending on the power of governance and the specific
competence and function of the Dicastery or Office in question” (PE,
Principles and Criteria 5). This is a revolutionary change in the
history of the church administration. For many centuries, clerics held
the key positions in the Roman Curia, and by law, many offices were
reserved to clerics alone. According to PB, ‘the dicasteries are
composed of the cardinal prefect or the presiding archbishop’ (PB art.
3 § 1). Now, in all dicasteries except in the Supreme Tribunal of the
Signatura Apostolica, laymen and women can become members and
heads of dicasteries. An evident shift in the vision is marked by Pope
Francis’ decision to make provision for the involvement of more lay
people in the Church government. This is founded on the universal
call of every Christian to become a missionary disciple. “Each
Christian, by virtue of baptism, is a missionary disciple to the extent
that he or she has encountered the love of God in Christ Jesus. This
must necessarily be taken into account in the reform of the Curia,
58 Iustitia
which should consequently make provision for the involvement of

lay women and men, also in roles of government and responsibility.
Their presence and their participation are essential since they
contribute to the well-being of the entire Church.” (PE, Preamble 10).
Modern education and technological developments have
empowered lay people; consequently, they are more competent in
administering Church matters extra professionally. “The Roman
curia is to be seen as professional service with a view on the apostolic
mission of the Church, run by qualified personnel, whether they are
ordained or not.”8 Anyone gets an opportunity to assume key
positions in the Church government not by assuming ‘power of
jurisdiction’ but through the missio canonica assumed by the Roman
Pontiff. “In this way, it is made clear that whoever is in charge of a
dicastery or other organisms of the Curia does not have authority
because of the hierarchical degree with which he is invested, but
because of the vicarious power he receives from the Roman Pontiff
and exercises in his name.”9
According to PE article 14 § 3, universality of selection and objective
and transparent criteria are to be observed in choosing curia officials.
“The officials are selected, as far as possible, from various regions of
the world, so that the Curia may reflect the universal character of the
Church. They are taken from among clerics, members of Institutes of
Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the laity, who
are distinguished for their experience, proven expertise attested by
appropriate academic degrees, virtue, and prudence. They should be
chosen by objective and transparent criteria and should have a
suitable number of years of pastoral experience” (PE Art. 14).
5. Dicastery – new title and new priorities
The important departments of the Roman Curia were traditionally
called ‘congregations’ and Pontifical councils. PB divided these
departments into Congregations, tribunals, Pontifical councils, other
Institutes of the Roman Curia, and Institutions connected with the
Holy See. PE changed the name of congregations to dicasteries. The
departments of the Roman Curia are now reorganized as dicasteries,
Institutions of Justice, Institutions of Finance, and institutions
associated with the Holy See. There are sixteen dicasteries, three
8 Michael Noble “Reform of the Roman Curia-Pope Francis’ Apostolic
Constitution Praedicate Evanelium” Studies in Church Law 17 (2022) 71.

9 Michael Noble “Reform of the Roman Curia, 74.
institutions of Justice, six institutions of Finance, and three offices

listed in PE.
Though equality among all dicasteries was stated in PE, just as in PB,
the prime role played by the Secretariate of State remains almost
intact. A notable change is that now the secretariate of State has three
sections in the place of previous two sections: the Section for General
Affairs, the Section for Relations with States and International Orga-
nizations, and the Section for the Diplomatic Staff of the Holy See.
Another important change is that the secretary of State not
necessarily be a Cardinal. According to PB, “the Secretariate is
presided over by the Cardinal Secretary of State.” Whereas PE states,
“It is directed by the Secretary of State” (PE art. 45 § 1). Consequently,
a priest, a religious man/woman, or a lay person, both men and
women, could be appointed Secretary of the State.
Congregation for Evangelization is listed as the first dicastery in the
place of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “With Francis,
the primary role once played by the defence of doctrine is now
played by evangelization.”10 The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith is divided into doctrinal and disciplinary sections. In the
disciplinary section, a Supreme Apostolic Tribunal is established to
declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of law.
This tribunal will judge Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the
Apostolic See, and Bishops by the mandate of the Roman Pontiff (PE,
art. 76 §§ 1,2). In addition to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and
International Theological Commission, which were already parts of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a new commission,
the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, established
in 2014, is added.
A new dicastery under the title ‘dicastery for the Service of Charity,’
was established. The previously existing office of the papal almoner
is merged into this new dicastery. This is the legal embodiment of the
dominant principle held by Pope Francis, namely ‘mercy.’ PE Art. 79
says: “The Dicastery for the Service of Charity, also known as the
Office of the Papal Almoner, is a special expression of mercy and,
based on the option for the poor, vulnerable and excluded, carries
out in every part of the world the work of aid and assistance offered
in the name of the Roman Pontiff, who in cases of particular need or
other emergencies, personally determines the forms of aid to be
10 Massimo Faggioli, The Apostolic Constitution “Preach the Gospel,” xl.

60 Iustitia
given” (PE Art. 79). While this dicastery is solely for handling the
matters related to charity of the Roman Pontiff, the Secretariate for
economy, which is responsible for the economic matter of the
Church, is not listed among the dicasteries, but listed as one of the
institutions of economy. As Massimo Faggioli points out:
Praedicate Evangelium also establishes a new Dicastery for the
Service of Charity. Up to this point there has been no parallel to
this, as it represents an upgrade of the pre-existing office of papal
almoner. Something that is not new is the name and function of the
financial entities: in this sense, Francis’s reform of the Curia is a
piecemeal reform that has been done step by step over the past few
years. But it is important to note that the Secretariat for the
Economy is not among the first-class dicasteries: this is one of the
effects of, and responses to, Cardinal George Pell’s impetuous and
failed attempts to raise the Secretariat for the Economy to the level
of the Secretariat of State and of his very public clashes with the
Secretariat of State. The Secretariat for the Economy merely
“collaborates” with the Secretariat of State, which has “exclusive
competence” over matters touching diplomatic functions and
anything touching international law. At the same time, the
Secretariat for the Economy took charge of managing the personnel
of the Roman Curia, taking it away from the Secretariat of State.11
PE follows almost the same legislation as the Dicastery for the
Eastern Churches. However, PE art. 82 § 2 is a fresh addition. There
we read thus: “Since some of these Churches, especially the ancient
patriarchal Churches, are of ancient tradition, the Dicastery will
examine on a case-by-case basis, after having consulted, if necessary,
other Dicasteries involved, questions that deal with matters related
to internal governance that can be left to the higher authorities of
those Churches, derogating from the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches” (PE art. 82 § 2).
Other dicasteries also have undergone notable, but not substantial
changes. Some of the striking points are the following:
- The Council of Cardinals, which was created in 2013 to help the
Roman Pontiff govern the universal Church and to reform the
Roman Curia, did not become a part of Roman Curia.
- A new dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life, established by Pope
Francis in 2015 replaced PB’s Pontifical Council for Family with
11 Massimo Faggioli, The Apostolic Constitution “Preach the Gospel,” xl.

more responsibilities. This dicastery is assigned with a variety of

responsibilities like caring for young people, the elderly, and
family (special mention to the divorced and civilly remarried and
those who live in situations of polygamy (PE, art. 137 § 3),
promotion of vocation and mission of lay people, accompanying
ecclesial movements, supporting protection of human life, etc.
- The Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development is
another new dicastery in PE. This dicastery was established in
2016 joining together four pontifical councils of PB, namely, the
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Pontifical Council Cor
Unum, the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants
and Itinerant People, and the Pontifical Council for Health Care
Workers.
- The Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical
Council for Culture are merged to form the Dicastery for Culture
and Education. However, this dicastery functions with two
sections: A section for Culture and a Section for Education.
- The competency over Personal Prelatures is transferred from the
Dicastery for Bishops (PB art. 80) to the Dicastery for the Clergy
(PE art. 117).
- The Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life are entrusted with the competence to grant
permission for the validity of the establishment of an Institute of
Consecrated Life or Society of Apostolic Life of diocesan right on
the part of the bishop. In the previous legislation permission from
the dicastery was not mandatory to erect a diocesan right religious
institute.
- The title ‘tribunals’ in PB is replaced with the title ‘Institutions of
Justice’ in PE. Though the number of tribunals and their functions
remain the same, certain modifications were made to the
competencies of the tribunals. The competence of the Supreme
Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is extended to adjudicate
recourse against individual administrative acts issued by the
Secretariate of State and to adjudicate conflict of competence
between dicasteries and the Secretariate of State (PE art 197).
- Another important innovation is the introduction of a set of
Institutions of Finance. Two sections from the PB- Council of
Cardinals for the Study of Organizational and Economic
Questions of the Apostolic See (PB art. 24-25) and Prefecture for
the Economic Affairs of the Holy See (PB art. 176-179)- are not as
62 Iustitia
such included in PE. On 24 February 2014 with the Apostolic

Letter Fidelis dispensator et prudens12 Pope Francis created the
Council for the Economy, Secretariate for the Economy, and the
Office of the Auditor General. These institutions now become a
part of PE.
6. Conclusion
PE reflects the uniqueness of Pope Francis’ vision of the Church in
the present world, which he used to clarify in his speeches and
writings and to implement through various legislations. More
truthfulness to the Gospel values and faithfulness to the guiding
principles of the Second Vatical Council are echoed in this document.
It invites the Officials of the Roman Curia to arrive at a more
missionary, pastoral, and spiritual way of functioning than a mere
bureaucratic way of working. The document came out while the
Bishop’s Synod on the theme of ‘synodality’ was going on. The idea
of synodality demands a radical change of attitude in every sphere
of the Church. As Pope Francis envisions, this is a new way of life in
the Church. “The Holy Spirit guides us where God wants us to be,
not to where our own ideas and personal tastes would lead us. Father
Congar, of blessed memory, once said: “There is no need to
create another Church, but to create a different Church” (True and False
Reform in the Church). That is the challenge. For a “different Church”,
a Church open to the newness that God wants to suggest, let us with
greater fervour and frequency invoke the Holy Spirit and humbly
listen to him, journeying together as he, the source of communion
and mission, desires: with docility and courage.”13 PE is one of his
attempts actualize the dream of creating a “different Church.”
12 Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, Fidelis dispensator et
prudens, Establishing a new coordinating agency for the economic and

administrative affairs of the holy see and the Vatican City State.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-
francesco-motu-proprio_20140224_fidelis-dispensator-et-prudens.html access on 23
May 2023.
13 Pope Francis, “Address for the opening of the synod”.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June, 2023
Page: 63-84
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACCORDING

TO PRAEDICATE EVANGELIUM
Benny Sebastian Tharakunnel, CMI*
Abstract
Based on the reform of the Roman Curia made by Pope Francis
through the apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium, the
presentation analyzes the role, structure, and function of the
Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith and the three institutions of
justice, namely, Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of
the Apostolic Signatura and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. It
also discusses the role they play in the administration of justice in
the Church. The study analyzes the changes brought about by
these four organs of the Curia, the reasons behind the reform, and
their far-reaching positive impact on the life of the Church.
Keywords: Roman Curia; Dicastery; Protection of Minors; Delicts;
Tribunal; Competence; Penalty; Apostolic See
Introduction
All the reforms connected with the administration of justice made by
Pope Francis since he assumed the throne of St Peter have been based
on the legal maxim fīat iūstitia ruat cælum (let justice be done even if
the heavens fall). The institution of the Pontifical Commission for the
Protection of Minors on 22 March 20141, reform of the marriage
nullity process on 15 August 2015,2 the apostolic letter Come una madre
* Benny Sebastian Tharakunnel, CMI born at Murikkassery, Kerala, India in 1972
and ordained in 2002 is a Syro-Malabar Catholic priest belonging to the congregation

of Carmelites of Mary Immaculate (CMI). Besides having a doctorate in Oriental
Canon Law from Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome he holds a Master’s degree in
Physics from Bangalore University. At present, he is serving as an assistant professor
at the Institute of Oriental Canon Law, director of Dharmaram Academy of Distance
Education (DADE), and as a judge at the eparchial tribunal of Mandya.
1 AAS 107 (2015), 562-563.
2 Pope Francis, by the apostolic letters Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et
Misericors Iesus issued on 15 August 2015, reformed the procedures for the
declaration of nullity of marriage contained in the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and the
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) respectively and simplified the
marriage nullity process.

64 Iustitia
amoreveole (As a Loving Mother),3 which sets new procedures that

provide for the removal of diocesan bishops, their equivalents and
major superiors of institutes of consecrated life who are negligent in
addressing complaints of sexual abuse or other serious issues,
Vatican sexual summit of February 2019, the motu proprio “Vos Estis
Lux Mundi” issued on 9 May 2019, which established a set of
procedural norms to prevent and combat sexual abuses and
violations,4 raising the age limit of minors in child pornography cases
from 14 to 185, abolition of pontifical secret in cases of sexual violence
and abuse of minors by clerics6, new provisions in the Roman Curia
and in Vatican City State, changes introduced to the penal law
contained in both CIC and CCEO through the apostolic constitutions
Pascite Gregem Dei7 and Vocare Peccatores and other similar radical
initiatives by the Holy Father are clear proofs of his strong
determination to provide a faster and more effective system of
administration of justice, devoid of unnecessary technicalities and
loopholes.
This is all the truer in the reform of the Roman Curia brought about
by Pope Francis through the apostolic constitution Praedicate
Evangelium promulgated on 19 March 2022.8 These changes made in
the structure and functioning of the Roman Curia, the central
governing body assisting the Roman Pontiff in the administration of
3 Franciscus, littera apostolica , die 1 mensis iulii 2013, in AAS 108 (2016), 715-
717.
4 Franciscus, Littera Apostolica Vos Estis Lux Mundi, die 7 mensis Iunii 2019, in
AAS 111 (2019), 823-832.

5 This change was made by Pope Francis by a rescript in the Audience granted
to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, and Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria,
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 4 October 2019. (cf.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/12/1
7/191217a.html)
6 The historic decision to issue the Instruction on the Confidentiality of Legal
Proceedings was communicated by His Holiness Pope Francis, in the Audience

granted to His Excellency Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, Substitute for General
Affairs of the Secretariat of State, on 4 December 2019.
7 The Holy Father through the apostolic constitution Pascite Gregem Dei issued on
23 May 2021, reformed book VI of CIC which deals with “Penal Sanctions in the
Church” and through the apostolic constitution Vocare Peccatores issued on 20 March
2023 revised the canons on Penal Sanctions in the Church given in title XXVII of
CCEO.
8 https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_constitutions/docu
ments/20220319-costituzione-ap-praedicate-evangelium.html accessed on 23 May
2023.
B. S. Tharakunnel: “Administration of Justice” 65
the Catholic Church, was the fruition of nine years of reform work
started in the same year, 2013, in which Pope Francis became the
head of the Universal Church.9 The apostolic constitution, which
came into force on 5 June 2022, the feast of Pentecost, inaugurated a
new era in the central administration of the Catholic Church. The
principles of synodality, collegiality, and subsidiarity championed
by Pope Francis throughout his papacy find their expression in the
reform of the Curia as well. The apostolic constitution outlines the
structure and responsibilities of the various dicasteries and offices
that make up the Curia, and the principles that should guide their
work. This article, however, limits its attention to the four organs of
administration of justice in the Church, namely the Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith, Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal
of the Apostolic Signatura, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota with
a special focus on the novelties introduced to these four institutions
through Praedicate Evangelium. Although the Dicastery of Doctrine of
Faith (DDF)10 is not included in the list of three ordinary Institutions
of Justice by Praedicate Evangelium (art 189-204)11, an analysis of its
role and mission reveals that it plays a major and explicit role in
ensuring right administration of justice in the Church.
1. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is one of the most
important institutions that occupies a predominant position in the
Catholic Church. It is responsible for promoting and defending the
teachings of the Catholic Church. The Dicastery was established in
1542 and was known as the Sacred Congregation of the Universal
Inquisition until 1908.12 Although after the latest reform by Praedicate
Evangelium, it has lost the first place in the hierarchy of dicasteries
and is placed after the Dicastery for Evangelization, it should in no
way be considered a diminution of its role in the Church. It continues
to be the custodian of faith and morals in the Church. The Roman
Pontiff, placing the Dicastery for Evangelization in the first place,
9 Sergio F. Aumenta – Roberto Interlandi, La Curia Romana Secondo Praedicate
Evangelium, Roma: Pontificia Università della Santa Croce, 2023, 55-58.

10 In Pastor Bonus, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) was known
as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

11 Pastor Bonus arts 117-128 put Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of
the Apostolic Signatura and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota under the title
‘tribunals.’
Evangelium, 108-111.
66 Iustitia
gives greater importance and added thrust to evangelization,

reminding every member of the Catholic Church of his/her innate
right and obligation to preach the Gospel. In articles 69-78 of the
apostolic constitution, Pope Francis reaffirms the importance of the
Dicastery and outlines its role in the Church.
According to PE art. 69, the task of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of
the Faith is to help the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops to proclaim
the Gospel throughout the world by promoting and safeguarding the
integrity of Catholic teaching on faith and morals. After the
modification made to the internal structure of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith through the Apostolic Letter Fidem Servare
issued motu proprio by the Supreme Pontiff Francis on 11 February
2022, now as indicated in PE art. 70, the Dicastery consists of two
Sections: Doctrinal and Disciplinary, each coordinated by a Secretary
who assists the Prefect in accordance with the specific area of its
competence. The Doctrinal Section is entrusted with the task of
encouraging and supporting study and reflection on the
understanding of faith and morals and the progress of theology in
different cultures in the light of sound doctrine and contemporary
challenges in order to offer a response in light of the faith, to the
questions and arguments arising from scientific advances and
cultural developments (PE art. 71).
The role of the Dicastery in the administration of justice is exercised
through its Disciplinary Section. “The Disciplinary Section, through
its Disciplinary Office, deals with delicts reserved to the Dicastery
and adjudicated by the Supreme Apostolic Tribunal established
therein, which then declares or imposes canonical sanctions
according to the norm of law, both common and proper, without
prejudice to the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary” (PE art 76
§1). Concerning the delicts reserved to the Dicastery, the Section, by
mandate of the Roman Pontiff, has the competence to judge
Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, and Bishops, as
well as other physical persons, in conformity with canonical
provisions (PE art 76 §2). In this regard, “the Section promotes the
training programmes offered by the Dicastery to Ordinaries and
legal professionals to foster a proper understanding and application
of the canonical norms related to its proper area of competency” (PE
art 76 §3).
1.1. Delicts Reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
(DDF)
The delicts reserved for the Dicastery have undergone changes over
a period of time from 2001 to 2021. Through the motu
proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST), Pope John Paul II, on
30 April 2001 reserved certain delicta graviora (graver delicts) to the
judgment of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).13 Pope
Benedict XVI revised it through the Rescriptum ex Audientia
SS.mi dated 21 May 2010.14 His Holiness Pope Francis, in the
Audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 4 October
2019, again introduced a few amendments to the Normae de
gravioribus delictis. It was again reformed by Pope Francis with a
Rescript dated 11 October 2021, published on 7 December on the
website of the Holy See, and entered into force on 8 December 2021.15
The crimes currently reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith come under five categories: i) The graver delicts against the
faith; ii) The graver delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy
Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist; iii) The graver delicts
against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance; iv) The graver delict
Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders and v) The graver delicts
against Morals. About these delicts, the DDF, by mandate of the
Roman Pontiff, may judge Cardinals, Patriarchs/Major Archbishops,
Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops, as well as other physical
persons who don’t have a superior authority below the Roman
Pontiff.
1.1.1. The Graver Delicts Against the Faith
The graver delicts against the faith reserved to DDF, according to
article 2 of SST are heresy, apostasy, and schism according to the
norm of CIC cc. 751 and 1364, and CCEO cc. 1436 and 1437. While
CCEO does not define the concepts of heresy, apostasy, and schism.
CIC c. 751 defines these concepts. Heresy is an obstinate post-
baptismal denial of or doubt concerning some truth which must be
believed with divine and Catholic faith. Apostasy means a total
13
AAS 93 (2001), 737- 750.
14
AAS 102 (2010), 419-431.
15 Cf. DDF, "Vademecum in some points of procedures in the treatment of the
sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics, 16 July 2020.

68 Iustitia
repudiation of the Catholic faith. Schism is the withdrawal of

submission to the Roman Pontiff or from communion with the
members of the Church subject to him. When CIC c. 1364 §1
prescribes the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication for these
crimes, the corresponding CCEO cc. 1436 §1 and 1437 prescribe major
excommunication for those who are found guilty of these offenses.
According to CCEO, these penalties can be imposed only after being
legitimately warned.
1.1.2. Graver Delicts Against the Sanctity of the Most Holy
Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist
The five graver delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy Sacrifice
and Sacrament of the Eucharist are reserved to the DDF for judgment
as per SST art. 3 are:
1° the taking or retaining for a sacrilegious purpose or the throwing
away of the consecrated species, as mentioned in CIC c. 1382 and
in CCEO c. 1442;
2° attempting the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
spoken of in CIC c. 1379 § 1, n. 1 and in CCEO c. 1443 CIC c. 1379
§ 1, n. 1
3° the simulation of the same, spoken of in CIC c. 1379 and in
CCEO c. 1443;
4° the con-celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice prohibited in CIC
c. 908 and in CCEO c. 702, in CIC c. 1381 and in CCEO c. 1440 with
ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic
succession and do not acknowledge the sacramental dignity of
priestly ordination; and
5° the delict which consists in the consecration for a sacrilegious
purpose of one matter without the other or even of both, either
within or outside of the Eucharistic celebration. One who has
perpetrated this delict is to be punished according to the gravity of
the crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.
1.1.3. The Graver Delicts Against the Sanctity of the Sacrament of
Penance
The graver delicts against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance
listed in SST art. 4 reserved to the DDF come under six categories.
They are:
1° the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth

commandment of the Decalogue, mentioned in CIC c 1384 and in
CCEO c. 1457;
2° attempted sacramental absolution or the prohibited hearing of
confession, mentioned in CIC c. 1378 § 2, 2° of the and CCEO c.
1443 §1, 3°;
3° simulated sacramental absolution, mentioned in CIC c. 1379 and
in CCEO c. 1443;
4° the solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the
Decalogue in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of
confession, as mentioned in CIC c. 1385 and in CCEO c. 1458, if it is
directed to sinning with the confessor himself;
5° the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal,
mentioned in CIC c. 1386 § 1 and CCEO c. 1456 §1;
6° recording, by whatever technical means, or in the malicious
diffusion through communications media, of what is said in
sacramental confession, whether true or false, by the confessor or
the penitent, mentioned in CIC c. 1386 § 3 and CCEO c. 1456 §3.
1.1.4. The Graver Delicts Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders
The graver delict against the sacrament of Holy Orders reserved to
DDF outlined in SST art. 5 is the attempted sacred ordination of a
woman. The recent revision of penal law given in CIC and CCEO
has incorporated the SST stipulations in this regard. As per CIC c.
1379 § 3 both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a
woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs
a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
The oriental code which has discarded latae sententiae penalties
however, states that both the person who has attempted to confer
sacramental ordination on a woman and the woman who has
attempted to receive sacramental ordination are to be punished with
a major excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See (CCEO c.
1459 § 3). In the case of a cleric, both CIC, CCEO, and SST add the
extra punishment of dismissal from the clerical state.
1.1.5. The Graver Delicts Against Morals
The graver delicts against morals which are reserved to the DDF
according to SST art. 6 § 1 are:
70 Iustitia
1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue

committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years;
in this number, a person who habitually has the imperfect use of
reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor;
2° the acquisition, possession, exhibition16 or distribution by a cleric
of pornographic images of minors under the age of eighteen, for
purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using
whatever technology.
The norms given in SST art. 6 § 2 stipulates that a cleric who commits
these delicts is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not
excluding dismissal or deposition. Notably, these SST provisions are
included in the revised CIC c. 1398 and the revised CCEO c. 1453 §5.
1.2. Establishment of Pontifical Commission for the Protection of
Minors at DDF
One of the notable novelties introduced by PE was bringing the
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors into the DDF.
This Commission established with a chirograph dated 22 March 2014
had been functioning as an autonomous institution linked to the
Holy See with public juridical personality (Statute, art. 1 §1).17 The
reason to make it part of DDF seems to be to strengthen the
protection of minors through an appropriately more organic and
close collaboration between the judicial bodies and the consultative-
preventive bodies for the protection of minors and vulnerable
persons.18 Thus, currently at the DDF, in addition to the Pontifical
Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission,
both presided over by the same Prefect (PE art. 76), there exists the
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PE art. 78).
This commission is charged with providing guidance and advice to
the Roman Pontiff, as well as proposing the most appropriate
16Norms Regarding Delicts Reserved to the Congregation for The Doctrine of

the Faith published on 11 October 2021 added the word exhibition (cf.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_
cfaith_doc_20211011_norme-delittiriservati-cfaith_la.html).
17 Pope Francis, Chirograph of His Holiness for the Institution of a Pontifical
Commission for the Protection of Minors, 22 March 2014. Cf. https://www.

vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2014/documents/papa-francesco_20140
322_chirografo-pontificia-commissione-tutela-minori. html, accessed on 21 May
2023.
Evangelium, 114.
measures for safeguarding minors and vulnerable persons (PE art 78

§1). It also has the task of assisting diocesan and eparchial bishops,
episcopal conferences and Eastern hierarchical structures, the
Superiors of the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of
Apostolic Life and their Conferences in drafting the Guidelines
according to the canonical norms and taking into account the
requirements of the Civil Law in this regard (PE art 78 §2).
The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors is presided
over by a President Delegate and a Secretary, both appointed by the
Roman Pontiff for a five-year term (PE art 78 §4). The members of it
are also appointed by the Roman Pontiff for five years and are chosen
from among clerics, members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and
Societies of Apostolic Life, and lay people of various nationalities
who are distinguished by science, proven ability, and pastoral
experience (PE art. 78 §3).
This Pontifical Commission governed by its own law, makes all the
efforts to prevent the occurrences of such abuses sexual abuse against
minors and vulnerable adults in the future and to heal the wounds
caused by applying the coercive power of the Church, as and when
required even by the imposition of penal measures against the
culprits.
2. Institutions of Justice
The three institutions of justice outlined in PE arts. 189-204 were put
under the heading ‘Tribunals’ in articles 117-129 of Pastor Bonus. The
task of the institutions of justice is to ensure that justice always
prevails in the Church of Christ, founded on the commandment of
love. It is our experience that because of the fallible human nature,
there always exists the possibility of this communion among the
faithful broken by violation of rights and conflicts.19 Church, which
is divine and human at the same time, requires visible structures and
appropriate measures to maintain good order and to restore it when
the bonds of communion are broken. 20 Thus, “the service provided
by the Institutions of Justice is one of the essential functions in the
governance of the Church. The aim of this service, pursued by each
institution in the forum of its own competence, is that of the Church’s
19 Cfr. Zenon Grocholewski, “Theological Aspects of the Judicial Activity of the
Church,” The Jurist 46 (1986), 552-567, at p. 554.

Evangelium, 139.
72 Iustitia
own mission: to proclaim and inaugurate the Kingdom of God and

to work, through the order of justice applied with canonical equity,
for the salvation of souls, which is always the supreme law in the
Church” (PE art. 189 §1).
The three ordinary institutions of justice that are independent of each
other are the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the
Apostolic Signatura, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota (cf. PE art.
189 §2). According to CIC c. 1442, the Roman Pontiff, the supreme
judge for the whole Catholic world, gives judgment either personally
or through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See or through the
judges he delegates. Supreme Tribunal of Apostolic Signatura and the
Tribunal of the Roman Rota are the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic
See. Although along with the above-mentioned two tribunals, the
apostolic penitentiary, which deals with cases of the internal forum
only, is also one of the three institutions of justice, it is not included in
the category of ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See.
2.1. Apostolic Penitentiary (PE arts. 190-193)
The Apostolic Penitentiary, established in the 12th century, is one of
the oldest institutions of the Catholic Church. It is responsible and
competent in all matters regarding the internal forum and
indulgences as expressions of divine mercy21 (PE art. 190 §1). In PE,
Pope Francis reaffirmed the importance of the Apostolic Penitentiary
and outlined its role in the Church. Its role, function, and
administrative structure remain unchanged even after the reform. As
far as its internal organization is concerned, it is headed by the Major
Penitentiary, assisted by the Regent, and by several officials (PE art.
190 §2). According to PE arts. 191-193, it has the following four major
functions: i) for the internal forum, whether sacramental or non-
sacramental, it grants absolution from censures, dispensations,
commutations, validations, remissions, and other favours (PE art.
191); ii) it sees to it that the Papal Basilicas of Rome are provided with
a sufficient number of Penitentiaries supplied with appropriate
faculties (PE art. 192 §1); iii) it oversees the proper training of the
Penitentiaries appointed in the Papal Basilicas and of those
appointed elsewhere; iv) it is charged with the granting and use of
indulgences, without prejudice to the competence of the Dicastery
for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning their doctrine and of the
21 The term ‘as expressions of divine mercy’ is an addition given by the reform
through PE.
Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

for ritual matters (PE art. 193).
2.2. Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (arts. 194-199)
This tribunal dates back to the time when, during the thirteenth
century the Popes made use of the referendarii to investigate and
prepare the signature (signatura) of the petitions and the
commissions of causes of iustitia or gratia to the auditors (cardinales
auditores and cappellani auditores).22 Hence, it got the name ‘Apostolic
Signatura’. It achieved certain stability during the pontificate of Pope
Eugene IV (1431-1447) who asked the same referendarii to sign certain
petitions. It underwent several changes over a period of time. It was
divided into two Dicasteries, namely Signatura iustitiae and
Signatura gratiae by Pope Alexander VI (May 4, 1493) and from the
end of the fifteenth century it was chaired by two Cardinals.23 Of
these two, the Signatura iustitiae became more and more
characterized as a real tribunal. Pius X with the Sapienti consilio and
with the Lex propria Sacrae Romanae Rotae et Signaturae Apostolicae of
29 June 1909 abolished these divisions in the Apostolic Signatura and
reconstituted a single Apostolic Signatura as Supreme Tribunal,
whose composition was fixed initially at 6 Cardinals, of which one
with the task of Prefect. With the CIC of 1917, this number was made
unlimited. Before the promulgation of CIC 1917, Pope Benedict XV,
with the Chirograph of June 28, 1915, had already reconstituted the
College of Voters and that of referendaries as consultative bodies of
the Tribunal. The apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus promulgated in
1988 by Pope John Paul II through its articles 121-125 and the new
Lex propria, promulgated with the motu proprio Antiqua ordinatione
by Pope Benedict XVI on 21 June 2008, regulated its powers and
activities.24 Praedicate Evangelium of Pope Francis did the latest
reform of the curia and consequently that of the Supreme Tribunal of
the Apostolic Signatura.
Apostolic Signatura's importance lies in its “functions as the
Church’s Supreme Tribunal and ensures that justice in the Church is
correctly administered” (PE art. 194). It comprises of Cardinals,
Evangelium, 141.
Evangelium, 141.
Evangelium, 141.
74 Iustitia
Bishops, and priests appointed by the Roman Pontiff for a term of

five years and is headed by the Cardinal Prefect. 25 Moreover, in
dispatching the affairs of the Tribunal, the Prefect is assisted by a
secretary,26 the Promoter of Justice, the defender of the bond27.
The Apostolic Signatura can act as a Tribunal of ordinary jurisdiction
and an administrative Tribunal. CIC c. 1445 also speaks in detail
about its competence.28 As outlined in PE arts. 196-198, the Tribunal
has a threefold competence.
a) As a tribunal of ordinary jurisdiction: It is to be borne in mind
that the Apostolic Signatura is not an appeal tribunal. Nevertheless,
it judges challenges of various kinds (other than ordinary appeals)
against the decisions of the Rota.29 According to PE art. 196, it
adjudicates: i) complaints of nullity and petitions for restitutio in
integrum against sentences of the Roman Rota; ii) recourses in cases
involving the status of persons when the Roman Rota has denied a
new examination of the case; iii) exceptions of suspicion and other
proceedings against judges of the Roman Rota arising from the
25 PE art. 195 §1; Unlike other dicasteries which could be presided over by non-
cardinals and even by lay Christian faithful, Apostolic Signatura can be headed only
by a cardinal.
26 PE art. 195 §2.
27 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: A Practical
Guide to the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 1: The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, Veritas Publications, 1995, 839.
28 CIC c. 1445 §1. The supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura adjudicates:
1º complaints of nullity, petitions for restitutio in integrum and other recourses

against rotal sentences;
2º recourses in cases concerning the status of persons which the Roman Rota
refused to admit to a new examination;
3º exceptions of suspicion and other cases against the auditors of the Roman
Rota for acts done in the exercise of their function;
4º conflicts of competence mentioned in can. 1416.
§2. This tribunal deals with conflicts which have arisen from an act of
ecclesiastical administrative power and are brought before it legitimately, with other
administrative controversies which the Roman Pontiff or the dicasteries of the
Roman Curia bring before it, and with a conflict of competence among these
dicasteries.
§3. Furthermore, it is for this supreme tribunal:
1º to watch over the correct administration of justice and discipline advocates or
procurators if necessary;
2º to extend the competence of tribunals;
3º to promote and approve the erection of the tribunals mentioned in cann. 1423
and 1439.
29 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit., 839.
exercise of their functions; iv). conflicts of competence between

tribunals that are not subject to the same appellate tribunal.30
b) As the administrative Tribunal for the Roman Curia: Since the
Apostolic Signatura is empowered with the competence to handle all
controversies arising from administrative acts, it is the place of final
recourse against an administrative decree.31 Consequently, as the
administrative tribunal for the Roman Curia, it adjudicates recourses
against individual administrative acts, whether issued by the
Dicasteries or the Secretariat of State or else approved by them,
whenever it is contended that the act being impugned violated some
law, either in the decision-making process or in the procedure
employed (PE art 197 §1). Praedicate Evangelium goes on to state that
“in these cases, in addition to its judgement regarding the illegality
of the act, the Apostolic Signatura, at the request of the plaintiff, can
also judge concerning the reparation of possible damages incurred
through the act in question” (PE art 197 §2). Furthermore, the
Apostolic Signatura is competent to adjudicate other administrative
controversies referred to it by the Roman Pontiff or by institutions of
the Curia as well as conflicts of competence between Dicasteries or
between Dicasteries and the Secretariat of State (PE art 197 §2).
c) As an administrative institution of justice in disciplinary
matters: As an administrative institution of justice in disciplinary
matters, the Signatura has extensive power over the universal
Church and according to PE art 198, it is competent: i) to exercise
vigilance over the correct administration of justice in the different
ecclesiastical tribunals and, if need be, to censure officials, advocates
or procurators; ii) to adjudicate petitions presented to the Apostolic
See for obtaining the referral of a case to the Roman Rota; iii) to
adjudicate concerning any other request relative to the
administration of justice; iv) to extend the competence of lower
30 According to CIC c. 1416, a conflict of competence between tribunals subject to

the same appeal tribunal is to be resolved by the appeal tribunal. If they are not
subject to the same appeal tribunal, the conflict is to be resolved by the Apostolic
Signatura. However, according to the parallel CCEO c. 1083, a conflict between
judges as to which of them is competent is to be decided by the appellate tribunal of
that judge before whom the action was first advanced by an introductory libellus of
appeal. If, however, one of the two tribunals is the appellate tribunal of the other,
the conflict is to be decided by the tribunal of the third grade for the tribunal before
which the action was first introduced.
31 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit., 839.; CIC cc.
1732-1739 gives the detailed norms in this regard.

76 Iustitia
tribunals; v) to grant approval of a tribunal of appeal, as well as

approval, if reserved to the Holy See, of the erection of inter-
diocesan/inter-eparchial/inter-ritual, regional, national and, if need
be, supranational tribunals.
It is obvious that ensuring the right administration of justice in the
different ecclesiastical tribunals all over the world requires regular
and periodic contact with them and collecting from them an annual
report of their activities. In that capacity, if the situation demands it,
it is also incumbent on the Signatura, to censure officials, advocates,
or procurators.32 However, as per the provisions of CCEO c. 1062 §5,
the general moderator for the administration of justice33 has the right
to exercise vigilance (ius vigilandi) over the tribunals situated within
the territory of the patriarchal/ major archiepiscopal Church. Apart
from having the power to extend the competence of the lower
tribunals, if, for some special reasons, a tribunal is to deal with a case
for which it is not competent by law, the Signatura is empowered to
grant to the lower tribunals the faculty to judge appeals ordinarily
reserved to the Holy See.34
The novelty of PE in this regard is the competence given to the
Signatura to grant approval of a tribunal of inter-diocesan/inter-
eparchial/inter-ritual, regional, national, and, if need be,
supranational tribunals. Pastor Bonus art. 124, 10, spoke only of the
competence of Signatura to erect inter-diocesan tribunals. As per CIC
cc. 1445 §1, 1423, and 1439, these inter-diocesan tribunals could be
tribunals of first and second instance. A distinction that exists
between CIC and CCEO in matters connected with the erection of
inter-diocesan and inter-ritual tribunals deserves to be mentioned in
this connection. According to CCEO c. 1067 §1, within the territorial
boundaries of a patriarchal/major archiepiscopal Church, the
32Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: … 839.
33The role of General moderator for the administration of justice can be
understood only in the context of the judicial power of governance possessed by the
synod of bishops of a patriarchal/major archiepiscopal Church. Although the synod
being the superior tribunal within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal/major
archiepiscopal Church, in the first instance it exercises its judicial power through an
elected portion of the same synod constituted as a tribunal. For that purpose, the
synod of bishops of the Patriarchal/ major archiepiscopal Church for a five-year
term elects from among its members a general moderator for the administration of
justice and two bishops. These three bishops together constitute what is called the
synodal tribunal.
34 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: … 1995, 839.
patriarch/major archbishop erects it with the consent of individual

bishops concerned. According to §2 of the same canon within the
territorial boundaries of a patriarchal/major archiepiscopal Church,
if the situation warrants such a tribunal is to be established by the
synod of bishops. However, CCEO c. 1067 §1makes it clear that in
other cases, such a tribunal can be established only with the consent
of the Apostolic See. That implies that for dioceses/eparchies outside
the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal/major archiepiscopal
Church and non-patriarchal/major archiepiscopal Churches, the
approval for the establishment of such a tribunal must be given by
the Apostolic Signatura. Although CCEO c. 1068 which speaks about
the erection of inter-eparchial tribunal of first instance for different
Churches sui iuris does not explicitly mention that, given the fact that
the Latin Church is also one of the Churches sui iuris in the catholic
communion, it can be reasonably argued that if the inter-diocesan
tribunals are inter- ritual in nature, then the intervention of the
Apostolic Signatura would be required.35
2.3 Tribunal of the Roman Rota (PE arts. 200-204)
The historic origins of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota date back to
the 12th century. The Tribunal originated from the Apostolic
Chancery, where the individual cases were handled by curial
officials, often in the presence of the pope.36 Innocent III conferred to
it the power to pronounce sentences, and gradually, it emerged as a
tribunal with the first Council of Lyons. Since in this tribunal, the
Auditors were seated in a circular enclosure in order to judge the
cases it assumed the name Rota.37 Pastor Bonus of 1988 and the norms
approved by John Paul II on 7 February 1994, outlined clearly the role
and structure of the Rota. This article analyses Roman Rota as per the
arts. 200-204 of PE, through which the latest reform of the curia was
brought about by Pope Francis on 19 March 2022.
35 William L. Daniel, “Title XXIV. Trials in General,” in In J. D. Faris, & J. Abbass,

(Eds.), A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, vol. II,
Montreal: Libraire Wilson & Lafleur inc., 2019, 1989-2168, at p. 2020.
36 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: … 836.
Evangelium, 143.
78 Iustitia
2.3.1 Roman Rota as Ordinarily Appellate Court of Higher Instance

at theApostolic See
As outlined in PE art. 200 §1, “the Tribunal of the Roman Rota
ordinarily acts as an appellate court of higher instance at the
Apostolic See, to safeguard rights within the Church; it fosters unity
of jurisprudence and, by virtue of its decisions, provides assistance
to lower tribunals.” Praedicate Evangelium’s immediate predecessor
Pastor Bonus, in its art. 126 also contained this idea in more or less the
same words. Speaking of Roman Rota, without giving any room for
ambiguity, CIC c. 1443 states that the ordinary tribunal constituted
by the Roman Pontiff is the Roman Rota. This competence speaks of
its role as the tribunal competent to hear appeals made to the Holy
See in judicial processes.38
This tribunal helps the Roman Pontiff administer justice as the
supreme pastor of the Church39 and acts in his name and with his
authority40. As Zenon Grocholewski says, “Unlike some dicasteries
of the Roman Curia whose competence is limited only to the Latin
Church or to the Oriental Church or mission territories - the two
tribunals (Apostolic Signatura and Roman Rota) exercising their
jurisdiction in the whole Church, carry out a truly universal
function.”41 In other words, “the competence of the Roman Rota
ratione territorii is universal. It is the tribunal of appeal of the
universal Church.”42 Apart from the traditional role of Roman Rota
as a tribunal of appeal, the law additionally grants three functions to
the Rota,43 namely, protecting the rights in the Church, providing for
the unity of jurisprudence, and being a help to other tribunals
38 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: …, 836-837.
39According to CIC c. 1442, the Roman Pontiff as the Supreme Pastor can render
judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or
through judges he has delegated.
40 Cfr. Zenon Grocholewski, “I tribunali apostolici,” in Michel Thériault, Jean
Thorn (eds.), The New Code of Canon Law: Proceedings of the 5. International Congress of
Canon Law, organized by Saint Paul University and held at the University of Ottawa,
August 19-25 1984, Ottawa, Canada: Saint Paul University. Faculty of Canon Law,
1986, 457-479, at p. 459.
41 Cfr. Zenon Grocholewski, “I tribunali apostolici,” 459.
42 Cfr. Raffaello Funghini, “La Competenza della Rota Romana,” in Piero
Antonio Bonnet and Carlo Gullo (eds.), Le “Normae” del Tribunale della Rota Romana,
Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997, 151-164, at p. 154.
43 Cfr. Redazione di Quaderni di diritto ecclesiale (ed.), Codice di Diritto Canonico
Commentato, Milano, Italia: Àncora, 2001, 1139-1140.

through its own judgement (PE art.200 §1).44 These roles enhance the
importance of the Rota in the administration of justice in the Church.
2.3.1.1 Its Competence for Non-Consummation of Marriage
As per PE Art. 200 §2, the Tribunal of the Roman Rota also includes
the Office competent to adjudicate the fact of the non-consummation
of marriage and the existence of a just cause for granting
dispensations.45 Both the Latin and the Oriental Code speak of the
possibility of a ratified but non-consummated marriage being
dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just cause at the request of both
or either of the parties, even if the other is unwilling (CCEO c. 862;
CIC c. 1142). In this regard, CCEO c. 1384 stipulates that in order to
obtain the dissolution of a non-consummated marriage or the
dissolution of a marriage in favour of the faith, the special norms
issued by the Apostolic See are to be strictly observed. In the Latin
code, CIC cc. 1697-1706 deal in detail with the process of dispensation
from a ratified and non-consummated marriage. It was only in 2011,
through article 2 of the motu proprio Quaerit semper46 that the Rota
received the competence to deal with cases of ratified and non-
consummated marriages which until then belonged to the
Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of Sacraments.47
Praedicate Evangelium has reconfirmed this faculty of the Roman Rota,
and thus, currently, the Tribunal of the Roman Rota is competent to
adjudicate, through a special Office, the fact of the non-
consummation of the marriage or the existence of a just cause for
granting the dispensation.
2.3.1.2 Roman Rota and the Cases of the Nullity of Sacred
Ordination
Praedicate Evangelium art. 200 §3 unambiguously states that the Office
established at the Roman Rota with the competence to adjudicate the
fact of the non-consummation of marriage is also competent to deal
with cases of the nullity of sacred ordination, pursuant to the norm of
44 Article 126 of Pastor Bonus also spoke of these three-fold roles of the Roman
Rota.
45 Pastor Bonus however did not speak of inclusion of such an office at the
Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
46 Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter issued 'Motu Proprio' Quaerit Semper, 30 August
2011 in AAS 103 (2011), 569-571.

Evangelium, 143.
80 Iustitia
universal and proper law, in accordance with the different cases.48

This competence was given to the Rota by the same motu proprio
Quaerit semper that gave it the competence to deal with cases of
nullity of sacred ordination. It is to be understood in this context that
the competence in cases for the declaration of the nullity of sacred
ordination was formerly vested in the Congregation for Divine
Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments for clerics of Latin Church
sui iuris49 and in the Congregation for the Eastern Churches for clerics
of the Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris.50 However, the competence
of all nullity of sacred ordination cases, including that of clerics of
Latin Church sui iuris and the Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris was
transferred to a special office of the Tribunal of the Rota effective on
1 October 2011.51 Quaerit semper states thus concerning processes of
dispensation from ratified and non-consummated marriage and
cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination: “On the day of the
entry into force of these regulations, any processes of dispensation
from ratified and non-consummated marriage and cases concerning
the nullity of sacred ordination still pending at the Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will be
transferred to the new Office at the Tribunal of the Roman Rota and
will be decided by the latter.”52
2.3.2 Structure and Internal Organization of the Roman Rota
The Tribunal of the Roman Rota has a collegiate structure and is
composed of a certain number of judges of proven doctrine,
competence and experience selected by the Roman Pontiff from
various parts of the world (PE art. 201 §1). The selection of judges
from various parts of the world clearly indicates Rota’s universal
function in the Church. This College of the Tribunal is headed by the
dean, as primus inter pares, who is appointed for a term of five years
by the Roman Pontiff, who chooses him from among the judges (PE
48
CCEO cc. 1385-1387 and CIC cc. 1708-1710 deal with cases for declaring the
nullity of sacred ordination
49 PB 68.
50 PB 58.
51 Quaerit semper, art. 2 §3; Francis J. Marini, “Title XXVI. Certain Special
Processes,” in In J. D. Faris, & J. Abbass, (Eds.), A Practical Commentary to the Code of

Canons of the Eastern Churches, vol. II, Montreal: Libraire Wilson & Lafleur inc., 2019,
2375-2516, at p. 2442.
52 Quaerit semper, art.4.
art. 201 §2).53 Unlike eparchial tribunals, ordinarily, the judges sit in
rotation. This is because the same tribunal will have to handle a given
case in more than one instance.
When cases are brought to the Tribunal, it is the duty of the dean54 to
constitute a turnus of auditors and the relator, who is generally senior
among the auditors.55 Normally, a collegiate tribunal of three
auditors is constituted to deal with a case. If a serious case is to be
considered, sometimes, a greater number of judges are assigned a
particular case,56 and occasionally a case is considered by all the
auditors.57 The system of turnus of auditors to deal with each case
and the fact that a judge, promoter of justice, defender of bond, etc.,
are not allowed to participate in a further instance of the same case58
ensures that the possibility of biased judgments is eliminated to the
maximum possible extent.59
An additional provision which was not there in PB is found in PE art.
201 §3. As per this new norm, the Office for procedures of dispensation
from a marriage ratum et non consummatum and for cases of the nullity
of sacred ordination is headed by the dean, assisted by its proper
officials, and by designated commissioners and consultors.
53 PB art. 127 without dividing it into two paragraphs expresses the idea in
similar words. One notable difference between PB and PE on this matter is while PB
states that the dean of the Rota is appointed for a specific term of office, PE stipulates
that he is appointed for a term of five years.
54 Cfr. Normae Sacrae Romanae Rotae Tribunalis 1982, 18.
55 Cfr. Normae Sacrae Romanae Rotae Tribunalis 17-18, in AAS 86 (1994), 508-540;
Ernst Caparros, Michel Thériault and Jean Thorn (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated,
1128.
56 E.g. a case of nullity of marriage was heard by nine Auditors in 1986 because
the matter was complicated and of great importance: cfr. Rota Romana coram
Serrano 27.VI.1986.
57 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: …, -837.
58 The current law proper to the Roman Rota the Normae Sacrae Romanae Rotae
Tribunalis was promulgated on April 18, 1994 and came into force on October 1, 1994.
The full text of the Norms are published in AAS 86 (1994), 508-540. The statement of
PE art. 204 that the Tribunal of the Roman Rota is governed by its own law in
principle implies that the Rota is governed by Normae Sacrae Romanae Rotae
Tribunalis.
59 Apart from the Rota, the patriarchal/ major archiepiscopal ordinary tribunal
is also competent to handle a given case in different instances with the judges
serving in rotation.
82 Iustitia
2.3.3 Cases the Rota Handles in Second, Third, and Further Instances
The role of Roman Rota as an appellate tribunal to adjudicate cases
in the second instance is given in PE art. 202.60 According to PE art.
202 §1, the Tribunal of the Roman Rota adjudicates in second instance
cases that have been decided by ordinary tribunals of first instance
and referred to the Holy See by legitimate appeal. Regarding its
competence for third and further instance cases, PE art. 202 §2 states
that it adjudicates in third or further instances cases already decided
by the same Apostolic Tribunal and by any other tribunals, unless
they have become res iudicata. Canon 1444 § 1 of CIC also speaks of
this competence.
Although by universal law, Roman Rota is the only tribunal
established with the faculty to adjudge third instance in the Latin
Church, it must not be forgotten that even in the Latin Church, this
faculty is given to other tribunals, either habitually or occasionally.
The Rota of the Nunciature of Spain and the Tribunal of the Primate
of Hungary are examples of such habitually (permanently)
established tribunals. Other tribunals have this faculty given to them
occasionally, but only for each specific case, by the Apostolic
Signatura in virtue of a special concession.61 Thus, all the third
instance tribunals in the Latin Church other than the Roman Rota are
established not by universal law but by virtue of a special concession.
The same principle, however, is not true for the Eastern Catholic
Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal Churches, which, according to
the provisions of the CCEO c. 1063 § 3, have the power to erect
Ordinary Tribunals with the competence to handle cases in the
second, third and further instances. Moreover, going by the
stipulations of CCEO c. 1065, for non- patriarchal and non-major
archiepiscopal Churches and for those eparchies of Patriarchal and
Major Archiepiscopal Churches outside the territorial boundaries,
the tribunal of third grade is the Roman Rota.
2.3.4. Cases for which the Rota is Competent in First, Second and
Further Instances
Although the Rota is an appeal tribunal, it also has to judge in the
first instance some cases reserved by law itself and those cases which
the Roman Pontiff, either on his own initiative or at the request of the
60 This competence was enumerated in PB 128.

61 Gerard Sheehy and others, (eds.), The Canon Law Letter and Spirit: …, -837.
parties, has reserved to his own tribunal and has entrusted to the
Roman Rota.62 The Rota also judges These reserved cases in second
or further instances. Following are such cases enumerated by PE art.
203: i) Bishops in contentious matters, unless they concern the rights
or temporal goods of a juridicalperson represented by the Bishop; ii)
Abbots Primate or Abbots Superior of monastic congregations and
Supreme Moderators ofInstitutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life of Pontifical right; iii) Dioceses/Eparchies or other
ecclesiastical persons, whether physical or juridical, which have no
Superior below the Roman Pontiff; iv) cases which the Roman Pontiff
entrusts to this Tribunal.
Of these four cases, in the patriarchal and major archiepiscopal
Churches, contentious cases of bishops and eparchies in the first
instance is adjudged by the synodal tribunal,63 and if there is an
appeal, it is made to the synod of bishops, with any further appeal
excluded.64 This, however, does not exclude the possibility of
provocatio ad Romanum Pontificem,65 which cannot be equated with a
true appeal.66
Conclusion
Administering justice effectively without unnecessary delays and
with a human face requires a combination of efficient processes,
adequate resources, and a focus on fairness and empathy. The
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Apostolic Penitentiary, the
Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and the Tribunal of
Roman Rota outlined in Praedicate Evangelium are preeminent
institutions in the central administrative structure of the Catholic
Church that play a vital role in enforcing and interpreting Church
doctrine, as well as ensuring the proper administration of justice
within the Church. While each of these institutions has its own
62 CIC c. 1444 §2.

63 CCEO c. 1062 §3.
64 CCEO c. 1062 §4.
65 CCEO c. 1059 §1.
66 This is because of the fact that provocatio ad Romanum Pontificem (Deferring
Cases to the Roman Pontiff) doesn’t suspend the exercise of power by a judge who
has already begun to hear the case except in the case of an appeal or unless it is
evident that the Roman Pontiff has reserved the case to himself (CCEO c. 1059 §2).
If the Roman Pontiff takes up the case, he judges these cases personally, through
tribunals of the Apostolic See or through judges delegated by him (CCEO c. 1059
§1).
84 Iustitia
unique responsibilities and functions, they all work together to

uphold the teachings of the Catholic faith and promote justice and
morality within the Church. Through their work, these institutions
play a major role in ensuring that justice is administered fairly and
consistently and the Catholic Church remains a strong and cohesive
institution that serves the spiritual needs of its followers and upholds
the values of the faith. As the Church continues to evolve and adapt
to the needs of its followers, the reform of the Roman Curia through
the apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangleium will serve as a major
step in the onward march of the Church to its final goal, namely the
salvation of the souls. In line with all the reforms carried out during
the pontificate of Francis, this reform also seems to hold fast to the
principle that simplifying legal procedures and reducing
unnecessary formalities can expedite the judicial process and ensure
speedy administration of justice, and avoid the danger of a delayed
justice in effect becoming denied justice.
For the pilgrim Church journeying towards Heavenly Jerusalem,
these institutions serve as a critical component of its mission,
ensuring that the values of justice, compassion, and integrity are
upheld in all aspects of its life. The conviction of Pope Francis that
our times require a deeply merciful Catholicism that is unafraid of
change and is manifested through his well-known statement that
“we are not living an era of change but a change of era”67 is clearly
reflected in the reform.
This statement is from the message of Pope Francis to Italian Catholics inside
67
the Cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore during his visit to Florence Tuesday, Nov. 10,
2015 where he outlined his vision of reform. (Cf. https://www. vatican.va/
content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/november/documents/papa-
francesco_20151 110_firenze-convegno-chiesa-italiana.html accessed on 24 May
2023)
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 85-104
PASTORAL OR PRE-JUDICIAL
INVESTIGATION: A CANONICAL PROVISION
FOR THE LAY PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYNODAL CHURCH
Alex Velacherry∗
Abstract
The article analyses the scope of walking together by the inclusion
of the lay persons in the pastoral and judicial ministries. In 2015,
Pope Francis reformed the procedural law related to the
matrimonial nullity by means of two Motu proprio, Mitis Iudex
Dominus Iesus for the Latin Church and Mitis et misericors Iesus for
the Oriental Churches. One of the provisions of the reformed laws
was the introduction of a pastoral or pre-judicial investigation
given as a pastoral follow-up for those who live in irregular
marriage unions. In deserving cases, it may be taken as a pre-trial
step to approach the tribunal for declaration of the nullity of
marriage. As per the new norm lay persons are also competent be
admitted to head this mission whereby, they become part of the
judicial proceedings indirectly. Unfortunately, the scope of this
provision has not yet been properly explored. Therefore, this
article exposes the possibility and different nuances of giving
space for the lay experts in this mission. It also presents an Indian
model of the project.
Keywords: Mitis et misericors Iesus, Synodal Church, lay participation,
pastoral or pre-judicial investigation, a model for Indian Church
∗ Alex Velacherry is a Syro-Malabar Catholic priest belonging to the eparchy of

Idukki. He obtained his licentiate in Oriental Canon Law from DV K, Bangalore. He
secured his Doctorate in Oriental Canon Law from Pontifical Oriental Institute,
Rome on the topic Briefer Judicial Matrimonial Process-The Role of the Eparchial or
Diocesan Bishop as the Personal and Sole Judge in the Reformed Matrimonial Nullity
Process of Mitis et misericors Iesus and Ratio Procedendi. He holds a civil law (LLB)
degree from Sarvodaya College of Law, Bangalore, and is enrolled in the High Court
of Kerala. He was a visiting faculty at Good Shepherd Major Seminary, Kunnoth. He
served in the Eparchial Tribunal of Idukki. At present, he is a member of the teaching
staff at the Institute of Oriental Canon Law, DVK, Bangalore, and serving as
defender of bond in the Eparchial Tribunal of Mandya.

86 Iustitia
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, in dialogue with the time, took up a
prophetic mission to reshape the Church, and in the pursuit of an
aggiornamento, the Council redefined the Church as a people of God.1
It was, in fact, an original vision for a synodal Church. In this synodal
Church, the Council wanted to situate the lay people in their proper
place, demolishing the pyramidical structure of a Clerical Church.
The Codes of Canon Law, CIC 1983 and CCEO, imbibing the spirit of
the Conciliar challenge, tried to legally translate this vision into the
juridical language. However, even after more than three decades of
experiments with these legal provisions, until now, in the practical
sphere, the vision remains unrealized which made Pope Francis
think of a synod on synodality to discuss the scope of a Synodal
Church that can journey together in a communion to fulfill Her
mission in the world. In other words, this Papal commitment to
resituate the marginalized faithful in the mainstream of the Church
calls forth the collaboration of other lay members of the local Church.
1. A Synod on Synodality
“For a synodal Church - Communion, Participation and Mission” is
the theme for the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of
Bishops, the upcoming synod on synodality, to be concluded in
Rome in two phases, 2023 and 2024. The Vademecum of 07 September
2021, unfolds the idea of a synodal church: “A synodal Church walks
together in communion to pursue a common mission through the
participation of each and every one of her members.”2 The synodal
process that started with the diocesan phase was intended to hear the
living voice of the people of God from the grassroots level. Now, after
having finished the continental phase, an Instrumentum laboris,
agenda for the discussion in the first session of the synod of bishops
in October 2023, is published.
1.1 The Vision of a Synodal Church
In the wake of this synod on synodality, the role and mission of laity,
and the concept of a participatory Church regain the focus of
attention. Instrumentum laboris says that baptism creates a true co-
1 Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, no.9,
21 November 1964, AAS 58 (1966), 1025-1120.

2 Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality, 7 September 2021, https://www.
synod.va/content/dam/synod/document/common/vademecum/Vademecum-
EN-A4.pdf. Accessed on 3 June 2023.
Alex Velacherry: “Pastoral or Pre-Judicial Investigation” 87
responsibility among all the members of the Church, which is

manifested in the participation of all, with the charisms of each, in
the mission of the Church and the building up of the ecclesial
community.3 Pope Francis wants the Church to walk together, and
this exhortation is an indirect invitation to integrate laity into the
ministry and the Church's decision-making process according to the
norms of law.4 The spirit of the Papal exhortation is that any process
leading to decision-making in the Church should be reflecting the
voice of the people of God from the ground level, and this process
must find fresh space that lay persons may be incorporated more
effectively into the ministries and mission of the Synodal Church.
However, this can take place only as per the norms of the law. The
legal norms of the Codes allow the lay involvement in the mission of
the Church in various ways. It is a question to be discussed whether
these provisions are sufficient to accommodate the lay persons in the
ministries of the Church. But a more relevant question is whether we
properly discuss the scope of the existing provisions to incorporate
the lay persons and utilize their expertise for making a participatory
Church. Hence, in this study, our concern is to analyse a legal
provision, pastoral or pre-judicial investigation, which allows the
participation of the laity in pastoral and judicial matters. This
provision has its legal root in the documents MP, Mitis Iudex Dominus
Iesus, and Mitis et misericors Iesus, two motu proprio published in 2015.
This article discusses the canonical and pastoral nuances of the
provision, pastoral or pre-judicial investigation, proposing a
different model of a participatory Church that is more viable for
finding due space for the laity.
1.2 Mitis et misericors Iesus and Ratio procedendi
Pope Francis published the reformed norms on the matrimonial
process of nullity through two Apostolic Letters in the form of Motu
proprio, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus for the Latin Church and Mitis et
3 Instrumentum Laboris for the first session, October 2023, XVI Ordinary General
Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 20 June 2023, no.20, https://www.synod.

va/en/news/instrumentum-laboris-a-document-of-the-whole-church.html,
Accessed on 18 July 2023.
4 The objective of this Synodal Process is not to provide a temporary or one-time
experience of synodality, but rather to provide an opportunity for the entire People
of God to discern together how to move forward on the path towards being a more
synodal Church in the long-term. Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality,
https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/document/common/vademecum/
Vademecum-EN-A4.pdf. Accessed on 3 June 2023.
88 Iustitia
misericors Iesus for the Oriental Churches. They came into force on 8
December 2015. The Motu proprio. Mitis et misericors Iesus (MMI)
substituted with its new norms, the title XXVI of CCEO, chapter I, the
matrimonial process, Article I, Le cause per la dichiarazione della nullità
matrimoniale (cann. 1357-1377). As an integral part of this reformed
text, MMI added another section of Procedural Rules (Ratio
procedendi) as the guidelines for applying these norms. This section
introduced the new provision of Pastoral or Pre-judicial
Investigation.
MMI has introduced several practical measures for expediting the
marriage nullity process, like abrogating double conformity
sentences, introducing a briefer judicial process, etc.5 Another
provision that was very significant but eluded the attention and
discussion of the canonists was the pastoral or pre-judicial
investigation. It was meant to make the process faster, easier, and
more accessible to couples in need. This was, in fact, a pastoral tool
and, at the same time, a quasi-judicial step, and it invites the laities
to utilize their expertise and goodwill for the Church, especially for
helping the divorced and civilly remarried persons.
2. Genesis of the provision-Pastoral or Pre-Judicial Investigation
The pastoral or pre-judicial investigation is a project to be designed
and implemented by the eparchial bishop at diocesan and parish
levels as a pastoral follow-up or as a necessary pre-trial step. Ratio
procedendi6 (art. 1-5/RP), a legal document attached to the motu
5 For an in-depth study refer, Velacherry Alex, Briefer Judicial Process of
Matrimonial Nullity, Dharmaram Canonical Studies-29 (Bengaluru, Dharmaram

Publications, 2022), 463.
6 Ratio procedendi is the document annexed to the new canons for the correct and
accurate application of the reformed norms, with the same legislative force. The legal
nature of RP though disputed by some, it is asserted that along with the norms of
Motu proprio it creates one and the same legal unit. “Le RP costituiscono un “unico
documento” con i canoni del Motu proprio e, in pratica, sotto la veste formale di
“articoli” raddoppiano i canoni di ogni codice sulle cause per la dichiarazione di
nullità del matrimonio. In tal modo si è evitato di dover fare ricorso all’uso del “bis,”
“tris” ecc. nella numerazione dei canoni. In effetti, dette regole hanno natura
legislativa stricto sensu, sono cioè vere leggi in quanto prodotte e promulgate dal
Legislatore ed innovatrici dei codici. Il fatto che le regole siano poste in seguito alla
firma di Francesco è irrilevante, giacché il Papa le fa sue prima di apporre la firma.
Francesco non riserva il termine Motu proprio ai 21 nuovi canoni perché anche le RP
ne fanno parte. Al presente documento vengono unite delle regole procedurali, che
ho ritenuto necessarie per la corretta e accurata applicazione della legge rinnovata.”
Joaquín Llobell, “Alcune questioni comuni ai tre processi per la dichiarazione di
proprio MMI gives a general notion about the nature, aim, and
skeleton of such a project. 7 According to these guidelines, the
eparchial bishop is to frame the project as per the needs of the
diocese. Though this is born out of a pastoral need, it is also a pre-
judicial instrument.
The III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops held
in 2014, while discussing the situation of the faithful who are
separated or divorced and living in irregular marital situations,
suggested an urgent need for a pastoral follow-up for them.8 This
anxiety of the synodal fathers was shared in the discussion on the
necessity of streamlining the procedure for marriage nullity since the
nullity process was very long and time-consuming. This lengthy
process often kept the couple in irregular marital unions out of the
Church's spiritual benefits, denying them access to the sacraments of
confession and eucharist. Since they had to wait a long time to get a
declaration on the nullity of their marital status, many of them had
sought other ways or were made indifferent and inactive in the
parish spiritual activities. In such a context, the project of pastoral or
pre-judicial investigation was proposed as a pastoral
accompaniment to such couples. The synod suggested a preliminary
idea of this pastoral follow-up:
This work could be done through specially trained counselors who
would be able to offer free advice to the concerned parties on the
nullità de matrimonio previsti dal M.P. “Mitis Iudex,” Ius Ecclesiae 28 (2016), 29;
Response of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts also affirms the same: “Le
Regole procedurali sono state “promulgate dal Motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus
Iesus” e le etichetta senza indugio come “una norma universale.” Pontifical Council
for Legislative Texts, Risposta, Prot. no. 15157/2015, 13 Ottobre 2015, in
www.delegumtextibus.va (https://bit.ly/2AhjR73). Accessed on 10 January 2017.
Hereafter Ratio procedendi would be indicated in the text as RP.
7 Cf, Velacherry Alex, Briefer Judicial Process of Matrimonial Nullity, p.122.
8 “The necessity for courageous pastoral choices was particularly evident at the
Synod. Strongly reconfirming their faithfulness to the Gospel of the Family and
acknowledging that separation and divorce are always wounds that cause deep
suffering to the married couple and to their children, the synod fathers felt the
urgent need to embark on a new pastoral course based on the present reality of
weaknesses within the family, knowing often that these are more “endured” with
suffering than freely chosen.” The Synod of Bishops, III Extraordinary General
Assembly, 2014, Relatio Synodi, nos. 44, 45. http://secretariat.synod.va/content/
synod/en/synodal_assemblies/2014-third-extraordinary-general-assembly--
pastoral-challenges-o.html, Accessed on 3 June 2023.
90 Iustitia
validity of their marriage. This work could be done in an office or

by qualified persons.9
Though it was suggested as a pastoral action, it is to be seen in the
broader framework of streamlining the judicial process of
matrimonial nullity. Therefore, on the practical level, it becomes a
pre-judicial phase of the nullity process on certain occasions. Hence,
it can be said as a semi-judicial process in the broader sense because,
at least for certain couples who are living with other partners after
the civil divorce, this pastoral venture might help them to approach
the proper tribunal in order to introduce a libellus for getting their
prior marriage bond declared null. Therefore, it is not merely
pastoral or spiritual counselling; instead, it is a pre-judicial
investigation in the sense that those who accompany the couple in
crisis also seek the possibility of a future declaration of the nullity of
the broken marriage. In such cases, this project is meant to collect the
useful elements for helping the parties to prepare a libellus for
presenting their case in the tribunal, whether it is the ordinary or
briefer judicial process.10
2.1 Pastoral or Pre-Judicial Investigation- As Ministry of Listening
and Accompaniment with Lay Involvement
Instrumentum laboris (IL) for the first session of the synod on
synodality poses a question for discernment: “Walking together
means not leaving anyone behind and remaining alongside those
who struggle the most. How are we building a synodal Church
capable of promoting the belongingness and participation of the least
within the Church and society?”11
For prayer and reflection, IL also suggests: “Walking together with
the poor and marginalized requires a willingness to listen. Should
the Church recognize a specific ministry of listening and
accompaniment for those who take on this service? How can a
9 The Synod of Bishops, III Extraordinary General Assembly, 2014, Relatio Synodi,
no. 48.
10 “This path of "accompanying" will aid in overcoming in a more satisfying
manner matrimonial crises, but it is also called to verify, in concrete cases, the
validity or non-validity of the marriage and to gather the material useful for the
eventual judicial process, be it the ordinary or the briefer one.” The Apostolic
Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Subsidium for the application of M.p. Mitis Iudex
Dominus Iesus, January, 2016, 14.
11 Instrumentum laboris, B-1, P.32
synodal Church form and support those offering such

accompaniment?”12
Those who live in irregular marital unions are marginalized in a
spiritual frame to whom we must listen and provide accompaniment.
In this sense, the pastoral or pre-judicial investigation is an adequate
response to the suggestion mentioned above. This is a specific
ministry that the Church already recognized or highly recommended
by the Holy Father.
In this attempt, the involvement of the lay people is very significant.
Those with proper training and minimum knowledge of canon law
and counselling can head the mission at the parish levels. The
proposed law gives only some guidelines in this respect. Hence,
ample freedom is given to the eparchial bishop to design and execute
such a mission13. This article is intended to provide a model for such
a project, locating the laypeople in their proper place within this
structure.
2.2 Pastoral or Pre-judicial Investigation? - Terminological
Clarification
The terminological confusion regarding this project, Pastoral or Pre-
judicial Investigation, is not an academic issue, rather, it is a
superficial debate. The debate arose from the use of the term in RP.
Art. 2/RP uses the term pre-judicial or pastoral investigation, and the
art. 3/RP uses the term investigation and art. 4/RP uses the term
pastoral investigation in view of collecting useful information for
introducing the case before the competent tribunal.14
However, suppose we understand the mind of the legislator, we can
come to know that in this case, be it pastoral or pre-judicial follow-
up, as the different names mention, are the dual dimensions of one
and the same reality and that both dimensions are interrelated and
subservient to each other. But in reality, in the art. 2/RP, with regard
12 Instrumentum laboris, B-1, P.32

13 Velacherry Alex, Briefer Judicial Process of Matrimonial Nullity, 115.
14 While Costantino analyses the terminological nuances and its ambiguity, he is
of the opinion that we could have thought of two different types of investigations,
pastoral and judicial, complementary to each other, because the concern of the
Church is always to safeguard a matrimonial bond which is validly celebrated. Cf.
Costantino-M. Fabris, “Indagine pregiudiziale o indagine pastorale nel Motu proprio
Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus: novità normative e profili problematici,” Ius Ecclesiae 28
(2016), ), 479-504, at pp. 489-490.
92 Iustitia
to its course of proceedings and finality, it may denote two separate

investigations apparently.15 In fact, we cannot separate both these
dimensions as two watertight compartments.16 Pope Francis, who is
the legislator, had in his mind a deep conviction of this inseparability
between the pastoral and juridical dimensions of the ministry of the
Church:
The juridical dimension and the pastoral dimension of the Church’s
ministry do not stand in opposition; instead, both contribute to
realizing the Church’s purpose and unity of action. In fact, the
juridical work of the Church which represents a service to truth in
justice has a deeply pastoral connotation, because it aims both to
pursue the good of the faithful and to build up the Christian
community.17
2.3 The Necessity of the Bishop to Implement Such a Project.
CCEO reminds the bishop of his duty to take care of all the faithful
entrusted to his care:
In the exercise of his pastoral function, the eparchial bishop is to
show that he is concerned for all the Christian faithful who are
committed to his care, regardless of age, condition, nation or Church
sui iuris, both those who live within the territory of his eparchy and
15 Cf. Costantino-M. Fabris, “Indagine pregiudiziale o indagine pastorale nel
Motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus: novità normative e profili problematici,” Ius
Ecclesiae 28 (2016), 489-490. They further observe that the legislator could have used
a more suitable term to denote the investigation in question, because the term
prejudicial investigation implies a starting point of the judicial process for the nullity
of marriage in the tribunal while the pastoral investigation implies a solution other
than that of the nullity for the crisis of a broken marital bond.
16 “The juridical and the pastoral dimensions are united inseparably in the
Church, pilgrim on this earth. Above all, they are in harmony because of their
common goal—the salvation of souls. But there is more. In effect, juridical-canonical
activity is pastoral by its very nature. It constitutes a special participation in the
mission of Christ, the shepherd (pastor), and consists in bringing into reality the
order of intra-ecclesial justice willed by Christ himself. Pastoral work, in its turn,
while extending far beyond juridical aspects alone, always includes a dimension of
justice. In fact, it would be impossible to lead souls toward the kingdom of heaven
without that minimum of love and prudence that is found in the commitment to
seeing to it that the law and the rights of all in the Church are observed faithfully.”
John Paul II, Papal Allocutions to the Roman Rota, 18 January 1990, AAS 82 (1990), 872-
877; English translation in William H. Woestman, (ed.), Papal Allocutions to the Roman
Rota, 1939-2011, at pp. 210-211.
17 Francis, Papal Allocutions to the Roman Rota, 24 January 2014, AAS 106 (2014),
88-89; English translation in Origins, 13 February 2014, 43/36, 588.

those who are staying in it temporarily; he is to extend his apostolic

spirit also to those who cannot sufficiently make use of ordinarily
pastoral care due to their condition in life as well as to those who no
longer practice their religion.18
The new provision is to be read in line with this canonical mandate.
Understanding the spirit of the canon, the bishop is asked to
implement this project to extend his pastoral care to the divorced and
civilly remarried faithful who are kept aloof from the sacramental
nourishments of the Church.
2.4 Target Group of the Project
In parishes, there are couples who may be living separately after
getting a civil divorce or ecclesiastical decree of separation or even
without obtaining any of these. Still, there are couples who are living
in irregular marital unions after the civil divorce. That is, those living
together without having civil registration or those who have
registered their marriage under the Christian Marriage Act of 1857.
We say they are in irregular marital unions because they are living
together without having solemnized the marriage properly. Civilly
divorced people cannot contract a marriage in the Church without
getting a declaration of nullity of their marriage from the proper
ecclesiastical tribunal. This may happen due to a variety of reasons,
like their lack of awareness about the need and possibility of
approaching an ecclesiastical tribunal, their lack of faith, their
indifference, and so on. Only after having made the personal visits
and understanding each couple's situation can we make a strategy to
proceed with. These people are the beneficiaries of the project.
Those living in irregular marital unions may have different attitudes
towards the Church. There may be persons who attend the mass and
prayers regularly, accepting the fact that they cannot access the
sacraments of confession and holy communion. They may be active
in communitarian and charitable activities. However, most of those
living in such unions keep themselves aloof from the community.
Eminent canonist, Eugino Zanetti points out that this can happen
because of different reasons. For him, this may be because of the
shyness or defiance of the faith or a critical mind to the pastors. There
may also be cases where they might have discarded the religious
practice. However, he suggests that in whatever situations they are
18 Can. 192 §1 CCEO.

94 Iustitia
found, the Church is to extend her pastoral care to them so that they
may confront their crisis with discretion, respect, and courage.19 In
short, the beneficiaries of this project comprise all those faithful in
crisis who need a pastoral follow-up in such a way that they may be
re-integrated into the life of the Church.
2.5 Designing a Model Project for Pastoral or Pre-Judicial
Investigation
Since RP is simply giving a Skelton of such a project in 5 procedural
rules, canonists have tried to present their own models incorporating
these necessary elements to serve the purpose of this project. Among
them, a sensible model is that of Eugenio Zanetti, who has suggested
a blueprint for this pastoral accompaniment with three levels.
However, it is a general structure without considering particular
situations peculiar to a diocese or a region.
He thinks it is to be started with the intervention of the parish priest,
consecrated person, or a lay expert who listens to the couple in crisis.
In this first level, hearing the case and analysing the situation, they
make a judgment about the second level whether they need spiritual
help, they should be helped with psychological counselling, or they
can be enlightened with a canonical counselling. He holds that if the
separation has happened due to an eventual problem developed in
the marital life (for example, a single instance of cheating), it may not
bring a challenge of nullity. But, after hearing the stories, if it seems
that the marriage was celebrated with such a defect that nullifies the
consent, naturally, it needs still deeper and more specialized
canonical help.20
In the second level, he suggests the service of a team of experts. RP
says it can be formed by an individual diocese or a group of
dioceses.21 There should be a benevolent and expert team visiting the
couple in crisis to hear them and provide them with a deeper insight
into their problems. They should have a pastoral sensitivity and a
19 Cf. Eugenio Zanetti, “La consulenza previa all’introduzione di una causa di
nullità matrimoniale,” in AA. VV., La riforma dei processi matrimoniali di Papa

Francesco, una guida per tutti, Milano, Ancora, 2016, 9-27, at p. 10.

Francesco, una guida per tutti, 18-19.
21 “One eparchy or several together, according to the present groupings, can form
a stable structure through which they provide this service [...].” Art. 3/RP.
minimum knowledge of canon law concerning the divorced and

remarried couple. If, after having weighed all the facts, the team
thinks there exists a ground of nullity or some proof to start a
marriage nullity process, they are to be directed to the third level.22
In the third level, Zanetti believes that we should have the service of
a canonical advocate who helps the party initiate a process with a
libellus properly prepared and collecting the necessary evidence as
documents, etc. However, this is to be an extended service of the
tribunal for helping the faithful to have easy access to the tribunal,
offered either freely or at a minimum cost.23
Whatever be the suggested models, it is the eparchial bishop who is
to design a structure suited for his eparchy, considering also the
pastoral situation and the cultural background of the faithful of the
diocese, to best serve the aim proposed by the new provision.
3 A Pastoral or Pre-Judicial Investigation for the Indian Church
As we enter into this discussion, certain basic notions are to be
explained at the very outset. The first one is to state the vision of an
Indian Church in the context of the Synodal idea of a Church that
walks together with the motto of communion, participation, and
mission.
Vademecum says:
“The mission of the Church is to better witness the Gospel in the
world especially with those who live in the peripheries. Participation
aims at including all especially, those who feel excluded and in the
margins.”24
Instrumentum laboris asks a question in this regard:
“What steps can a synodal Church take to imitate ever more closely
its Master and Lord, who walks with all in unconditional love and
proclaims the fullness of the Gospel truth?” discussing this question,
for a reflection, IL suggests:


24 Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality, 1.4, p.13. Accessed on 3 June 2023.
96 Iustitia
“How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church
and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to
ask questions, and not judged? In the light of the Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are
needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church
because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried
divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people,
etc.)?”25 Therefore, the vision of a Synodal Church in India also
should share the spirit of this reflection. The Church should find
space to welcome all marginalized people, and that mission should
be accomplished through the participation of lay persons.
Hence, the Church in India should redefine Her priorities proper to
a synodal journey. A synodal church is a listening church. Listening
creates the space for a dialogue. Jesus was always committed to
listening to the marginalized and having open dialogue with them,
as in the case of the Samaritan woman.26
Therefore, the Church in India should be a communion who
mutually listens to each other and sits together for a dialogue.
Nobody should feel that they are excluded. This is much more
relevant with the miserable lot in the peripheries of the Church.
Divorced and remarried are those faithful in the spiritual peripheries
of the Church. They need to be listened to urgently since they are
denied the right of the sacraments and care of the Mother Church,
and it will create space for a dialogue. Here begins the pastoral and
pre-judicial investigation as a new mission for the Church: getting
prepared to walk together. Therefore, one of the priorities for making
a synodal Church in India must be to include these marginalized lot
in the journeying together with the help of the other lay faithful.
3.1 Can We Propose a Common Model for the Indian Church
Subsidium notes that this pastoral follow-up is destined to help the
couple in crisis who are separated or divorced, and it becomes a pre-
judicial step when it reaches the extent of supporting them for an
eventual introduction of the judicial process for nullity where it
seems possible. That is, it concludes with the drawing up of the
details or with the presentation of a libellus to the competent
25 Instrumentum laboris, B.1.2, P.34.

26 Instrumentum laboris, A.1, P.12.
tribunal.27 But, for all those who are divorced or separated, we may
not be able to find proper grounds to request a nullity. In such cases,
pastoral outreach should first help the alienated persons to come
back to the life of the Church as their conditions permit.28 They
should be further accompanied to help them solve their crisis
through counselling and other means.
Before sorting out the question, can we propose a common model for
the Indian Church we must pin point the nature of this special
mission in the context of the Indian Church. First we have to
understand and distinguish the situation of the couple in crisis and
suggest a pastoral follow-up suitable for each of them. In India, we
see people in various situations: Some people live separately once the
marriage is broken, getting or without getting a decree of separation.
There may be different reasons, like cheating, domestic violence, or
simple ego clashes. For them, there is a scope for reconciliation and
reunion. Some people may live separately after a civil divorce
without having another partner. In these cases, they are not denied
any sacraments. But they may not be involving in religious activities
since the wounds of a marital failure haunt them. Also, there may be
people living in concubinage or other irregular marital unions, such
as not having celebrated any marriage or married civilly with a
member of different religions. However, the worst situation we face
is with those who are divorced and civilly remarried who did not get
any declaration of nullity. Therefore, a pre-judicial investigation in
the Indian Church should aim at listening to those in crisis, having a
constant dialogue with them, and helping them discern through
critical reflection, assessment, and a decision for a fresh beginning.
For each one, this fresh beginning would be different. This mission
requires a structure suitable to serve these purposes. That is to say,
we need an indigenous model of pastoral or pre-judicial
investigation, which will, of course, vary as per the diversity of the
culture of the nation.
Indian culture is very diverse, with many peculiarities as we go
through different regions. There are three main Rites regarding faith
practices: Latin, Syro-Malabar, and Malankara. The way of living
faith and local customs differ from region to region. When dealing
27 Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Subsidium for the Application of the
M.p. Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, 15.

28 Cf. John P Beal, “Mitis Iudex Canons 1671-1682, 1688-1691: A Commentary,”
The Jurist 75 (2015), 527.

98 Iustitia
with the issue of those living in irregular marital situations, we must

address the local customs and related problems. Therefore, we may be
unable to suggest an Indian model valid for all. However, we can
propose a general structure for a pastoral follow-up viz, a pastoral or
pre-judicial investigation for the Indian Church. It is up to each bishop
to adopt these elements and design a project for his own diocese.
3.2 Designing the Structure for the Diocese Involving the Lay Persons
The procedural rule, art. 3 entrusts the bishop with a duty to make a
proper structure to work out this plan at the eparchial or parish levels.
Also, it can be a joint endeavour consisting of more than one diocese.29
At the diocesan level, what we need is a group of experts to give the
training to the parish teams and to coordinate the parish activities.
Bishops should find skilled and knowledgeable persons competent to
do this work. They need not be exclusively from the canonical domain.
Yet it is a must that they should have some basic awareness regarding
the substantive and procedural rules since, at times, they would be
compelled to direct those in need to the tribunal.
The diocesan team should be a well-trained group to form the parish
teams on a forane basis. They are to be the experts in canon law,
pastoral ministries, and spiritual and psychological counselling. The
diocesan training team should prepare a curriculum that will give
necessary knowledge of canon law and catholic doctrines related to
marriage and nullity to the chosen members of the parish team.
Further, they are to be given counselling skills to deal with problems
related to marriage and family life. Here, the bishop should use the
lay faithful's expertise and leave them free to design the structures
suitable to give the proper training. The Clerics and consecrated
persons can also share the responsibilities as per their specialization.
The counselling service can also be organised in the form of a special
institute or as a stable organization. The bishop can inform the
details, addresses and phone numbers of these members approved
by him to all the faithful of his diocese.30 Once the parish teams are
given the basic training, they are to be convened together at each
One eparchy, or several together, according to the present groupings, can form
29
a stable structure through which they provide this service and, if appropriate, a
handbook (vademecum) also can be given containing the elements essential to the
most appropriate way of conducting the investigation. Cf. Art. 3/RP.
30 Cf. Péter Erdö, “Osservazioni sulla nuova regolamentazione del processo
matrimoniale,” Periodica 105 (2016), 621-661, at p. 660.

interval to better equip them with advanced training based on their

responses from the parishes. In each diocese, advanced training will
be different according to the diocese's nature and the people's
lifestyle.
3.3 A Parish Team Including the Lay Experts
In India, faith life is centered around the parishes and mission
stations. Where there are priests, usually couples in crisis first
approach the parish priests, or while making the house visits, parish
priests come to know of the problems. The role of the parish priest is
very important here since, in such difficult situations of separation,
usually the faithful come to their parish priest, and therefore, he must
listen to them attentively and should make them aware of the
possibility of approaching a tribunal.31 Hence, while designing a
structure for the parish, the parish priest is necessary to be included.
Other members of the team may be consecrated persons or lay
persons. There are a lot of Christian faithful who are experts in
counselling and psychology or experts in other scientific discipline.
If there are lay experts, their service is to be used for the benefit of
the Church. Those who are leading a catholic life and are faithful to
the catholic doctrines can be selected by the parish priests and sent
for training conducted by the diocese.
When suitable persons are nominated to do this mission, they need
special approval from the eparchial bishop of the place.32 This is not
a condition stipulated by law. However, such a measure will ensure
the quality of the team members employed for this mission. The
obtaining of the certificate of the diocesan course can satisfy this
requirement.
3.3.1 Mode of Functioning at the Parish Level
After having heard the couple in crisis, the parish priest or other
parties concerned can suggest the intervention of the parish team for
the follow-up when necessary. Once the intervention of the team is
requested, they have to come together to discuss the issue and fix the
31 Cf. Vincent Pereira, “Episcopus, parochus, christifideles and then some in Mitis
Iudex Dominus Iesus,” Newsletter 190 (2017), 92-103, at p. 101.

32 Cf. Costantino-M. Fabris, “Indagine pregiudiziale o indagine pastorale nel
Motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus: novità normative e profili problematici,” Ius
Ecclesiae 28 (2016), 492.
100 Iustitia
time for further meetings with the parties. Often several sessions
would be needed.
First, the team should listen to the couple in crisis and identify the
actual situation, problems, and the way out. For those who are
separated only, they can be helped by seeking the possibility of a
reunion by way of counselling by the team. If professional
counselling is needed, they can be referred to the diocesan centres. In
certain situations, they can be brought back to normal life with
spiritual and psychological counselling either to continue conjugal
living or to be active in the community of the faithful. Those who live
alone after the divorce, the team should take special care to support
them in all ways possible.
In the case of those who are divorced and remarried, the parish team
should see if there is any possibility of getting a declaration of nullity
from the Church. In such situations, this pastoral mission should
necessarily be unfolded with canonical counselling. For such
counselling, the counsellors should discern the motivation of the
people who request for a nullity (problem of conscience, civil
advantages or regularization of the marriage), and also, they must be
able to identify their real situations (spiritual, moral, psychological
or juridical). A canonical counselling should seek whether all the
essential elements needed for the validity of a marriage were present
at the celebration of their marriage. Hence, those engaged in such a
mission should have a basic knowledge regarding the grounds of
nullity.33 In complex situations, they can get the help of the diocesan
team.
This mission ultimately aims at collecting the “useful elements” for
the introduction of a petition. These useful elements could be: a
complete statement by the potential petitioner, if possible by the
other spouse also, baptism certificates, civil and ecclesiastical
marriage records, divorce decrees if any, records of counselling or
psychiatric treatments, or releases authorising the tribunal to get
these records and other documentary evidence that are readily
available. Besides, the parish team can also help the parties to

identify witnesses who can testify on the proposed subject and even
interview useful witnesses who may not be available in the future.34
In cases where there is no possibility of getting such a declaration,
they are to be helped to be active in the community by giving them
proper support. Amoris latitiae suggests a pastoral discernment to be
used in necessary circumstances to assure that they are not deprived
of the spiritual benefits of the Church. For example, A man and a
woman who cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, for the
children’s upbringing, if they decide to live in complete continence,
that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples, and
they repent of having broken the sign of the covenant and of fidelity
to Christ by acting against the indissolubility of marriage, the pastor
after having given proper instruction and evaluating the real
situations can admit them also to the communion at the occasion of
their child’s first holy communion.35
4 Pastoral or Pre-judicial Investigation- How does it help the
Synodal Church?
Synodal Church is a participatory Church. The lay persons are
invited to give their share in moulding the communion and
The Jurist 75 (2015), 527.

35 “Those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of
fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to embrace a way of life that is no longer in
contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when
for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman
cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in
complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic
Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and
Remarried Members of the Faithful,” September 14, 1994; AAS 86 (1994), 976.
“Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective
circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages
these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in
fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way
they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the
Church's established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be
possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial
initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise
among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.” Benedict XVI, Sacramentum
Caritatis: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit
of the Church’s Life and Mission, February 22, 2007, no. 29; AAS 99 (2007), 129.
102 Iustitia
accomplishing the mission of the Church in a better way. This

provision, in two ways, helps the synodal journey of the Church:
Implementing such a project will help the divorced and remarried
persons to get back to communion as their condition permits.
This provision incorporates the lay people into the Church's pastoral
mission as active ministers. They also indirectly become a part of the
tribunal process in certain circumstances when it becomes a pre-trial
phase.
Being a pre-trial step, it helps the worthy parties to have speedy
access to and effective result from the tribunals. It also helps the
tribunals in many ways. Due to this process, the judicial vicar who
accepts the case gets a moral certainty about the irreparability of the
bond, and consequently the reconciliatory step can be avoided36.
Collection of the available documents will help the tribunal to speed
up the case.
Implementing it at the parish level will serve as a means to have easy
access to justice for the faithful even though the diocese is
geographically large 37 That is to say; it is a means to put into practice
the principle of proximity under the guidance of the bishop.
Moreover, this provision harmoniously blends the pastoral and
judicial dimensions related to marriage and family life.
Conclusion
Concluding this reflection, I would like to highlight a very much
relevant observation of the eminent canonist, John P. Beal who held
that if the pastoral or pre-judicial investigation precedes all the
petitions of the nullity, it will serve to accelerate the initial procedural
formalities and will ensure a positive outcome of the trial.
John P. Beal describes that there was a time when the service of
expert advocates was made available to furnish the petitions for
marriage nullity. Those petitions drafted with necessary details often
helped the parties to go through the process successfully and finally
to get a declaration of the nullity of their marriage the lack of which
left the poor couples, though worthy, without availing that
36 A legal consequence of this new norm is that it abrogates the provision
(can.1362/CCEO) for a mandatory pastoral reconciliation by the judge before

accepting a petition for the nullity.
37 Cf. Alexander M. Laschuk, “Mitis Iudex and the Conversion of the Ecclesiastical
Structures,” Studia Canonica 51 (2017), 535.

advantage.38 Recognizing this fact, certain tribunals, especially in

North America, began the pre-judicial inquiry to help the needy.
However, such a practice was rejected by the Pio-Benedictine Code,
CIC, CCEO, and DC.39
According to Beal, “art. 2/RP constitutes a frank acknowledgment
that if the marriage nullity process is to be realistically accessible to
divorced Catholics worldwide, they will need more or less
professional assistance to navigate the tribunal process.”40 Thus, this
provision of a pastoral or pre-judicial investigation fulfils this
38 Beal refers to Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, in 19th century, who managed to
secure the promulgation of an instruction related to the matrimonial procedure, with

the approval of the Apostolic See for the Austrian empire, by which he introduced a
preliminary investigation, done by a team consisting of an auditor, notary and
defender of bond. Then existed situation was that due to the lack of trained service
of the canon lawyers, many of the worthy petitions were rejected or were not able to
be presented at all. Thus, the team reached out to the pastoral field, met such people.
Oral petitions were transcribed by the notary, and sent to the tribunal with the result
of their preliminary investigations. Having found that this brought about a
successful result, France, US and Spain later adopted this method. Cf. John P Beal,
“Mitis Iudex Canons 1671-1682, 1688-1691: A Commentary,” The Jurist 75 (2015), 467-
538, at pp. 523-524.
39 Can. 1529/CIC and Can. 1210/CCEO were the reiterations of the norm
introduced by 1917 Code which prohibited the collection of proofs before the joinder
of the issue except for a grave cause. DC suggests: “Without prejudice to art. 120, the
tribunal is not to proceed to collecting the proofs before the formulation of the doubt
has been set in accordance with art. 135/DC, except for a grave reason, since the
formulation of the doubt is to delimit those things which are to be investigated.” But,
the so called preliminary investigation in exceptional situations as suggested by DC
is as follows: Art. 120 §1/DC states: “The president of the college can and must, if
the case requires, institute a preliminary investigation regarding the question of the
tribunal’s competence and of the petitioner’s legitimate standing in the trial.” §2: “In
regard to the merits of the cause, he can only institute an investigation in order to
admit or reject the libellus, if the libellus should seem to lack any basis whatsoever;
he can do this only in order to see whether it could happen that some basis could
appear from the process.” Cf. John P Beal, “Mitis Iudex Canons 1671-1682, 1688-1691:
A Commentary,” The Jurist 75 (2015), 523-524. The preliminary investigation was
denied by the norms of law under the suspicion that such an attempt to collect the
proofs before the trial and outside the court would taint the quality of the evidence.
The Jurist 75 (2015), 523. Art. 113/DC provides for an office or person who can
explain the tribunal process, But, there was no provision for the preparation of the
writ or petition as in MIDI. The function of giving help to petitioners and
respondents in the tribunal process including the preparation of juridic acts such as
the libellus belonged to the competency of the advocate. Cf. Alexander M. Laschuk,
“Mitis Iudex and the Conversion of the Ecclesiastical Structures,” Studia Canonica 51
(2017), 535.
104 Iustitia
objective at the concrete level besides making the lay people involved
in the mission of the synodal Church. Whatever good be said about
the project, if diocesan bishops are not taking the initiatives to
implement the same in their dioceses, the synodal vision will remain
only as a fine dream.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June, 2023
Page: 105-131
THE OBLIGATORY DAYS OF FEAST AND

PENANCE IN CCEO AND THE RIGHT OF
A PARTICULAR CHURCH SUI IURIS
TO SAFEGUARD ITS PATRIMONY
Marylit, CMC∗
Abstract
Feast days and days of penance that exist in the Church have
theological, liturgical, and canonical aspects. Considering the laws
on obligatory days in the Eastern Code, we have to keep in mind
that there are common and particular aspects of observation
practices in Eastern Churches sui iuris. As a common law for all
the Oriental Churches, the Code of Eastern Churches has
recognized the patrimony of each Churches sui iuris. The Oriental
Code also establishes the norms on feast days and days of penance
in the matter of common discipline for all the Eastern Churches.
Sacred times of the Church, such as Sundays, feast days, and days
of penance, are the common manifestations of the faith in the
Church. These days the community of the faithful is coming
together to celebrate the mystery of salvation with the aim of
foretasting the heavenly joy. Thus, the common and particular
norm for the sacred time is essential for all Churches sui iuris.
Key Words: Sacred Time, Common Law, Particular Law, Competent
Authority to establish, suppress and dispense, Obligation of faithful
Introduction
The Church is the sacrament of Christ in this world. Through the
Church, people living on the earth experience the redemptive
mystery of Jesus Christ. The Church flourished after the Pentecostal
event, established in different parts of the world through the works
of the Apostles and their successors. Faith has been generated in the
∗ Sr. Marylit CMC belongs to the Congregation of Mother of Carmel. She had her
Licentiate in Oriental Canon Law at the Institute of Oriental Canon Law at
Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore, and her doctorate in Canon Law from the
Pontifical Lateran University, Rome. She also holds a diploma in the canonization
process from the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Rome.

106 Iustitia
midst of different cultures, different Apostolic traditions, and the

diversity of the personal experience of each person. Catholic Church
is the communion of 24 individual Churches. Stemming from a
geographical and historical purview, the Catholic Church has dual
dimensions of West and East in its theological and liturgical
perspectives. But at the same time, all the Churches in the Catholic
communion are united in the matters of faith, sacraments, and
hierarchical fellowship. In the case of canonical discipline, there
exists the problem of unity and diversity.
The principle of unity helps the cooperation and coordination of the
different organs in one Body. The common Code for the 23 Eastern
Churches does not limit the autonomy of Churches sui iuris. To help
and grow in communion, the Code gave common norms for essential
matters that all should obey and gave various possibilities that make
the uniqueness not lost. The principle of diversity is applied to the
canons related to the issues connected to the Churches sui iuris to
preserve their traditions and heritage. In this way, they can
safeguard their uniqueness. The principle of diversity is upheld with
the provision of particular laws. The principle of unity has been
recommended in cooperation and collaboration between the
Churches sui iuris.
Sacred times of the Church, such as Sundays, feast days, and days of
penance, are the common manifestations of the faith in the Church.
These days, the community of the faithful comes together to celebrate
the mystery of salvation to foretaste the heavenly joy. In this regard,
the common norm for the sacred time is essential for all Churches.
Feast days and days of penance in the Church have theological,
liturgical, and canonical aspects.1 Canon 28 §1 of CCEO, states that
rites are a liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage,
distinguished by the culture and circumstances of people's history
and uniquely manifested by each Church sui iuris.2 Considering the
laws on obligatory days in the Eastern Code, we have to keep in mind
that there are common and particular aspects of practices of
observation. As a common law for all the Oriental Churches, the
common Code has recognized the patrimony of each Churches sui
1 Dimitrios Salachas, “Preliminary Canons,” in John D Faris and Jobe Abbass, eds.,
A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, I (Canada: Wilson
& Lafleur, 2019) 55.
2 Helmuth Pree, “Rite and Liturgical Law in Eastern Canon Law,” Eastern Canon
Law, VI (2017), 11-12.

Marylit: “Obligatory Days of Feast and Penance” 107
iuris; at the same time, common law has to establish the norms in this
section on feast days and days of penance in the matter of common
discipline.
1. Sacred Times in CCEO
Sacred times come under Divine worship, especially the Sacraments
in the title XVI of CCEO. In CCEO, each title is divided into chapters
and subdivided into articles. This title, Divine Worship and
Especially the Sacraments, is divided into eight chapters. Seven
sacraments are treated individually in the first seven chapters.
Chapter eight of this title deals with sacramental, sacred times and
places, veneration of the saints, and a vow and an oath. Article III, in
the eighth chapter of title XVI, deals with feast days and days of
penance. In CCEO, there are four canons in this section. One of the
main differences between the CIC and CCEO of this section is the
difference in the names of the sections. In CIC Book IV, The
Sanctifying Office of the Church, Title II deals with Sacred Times.3
The legislator intends to emphasize the title on divine worship and
especially the sacraments in Title XVI, the need to conform to the
Eastern mentality, according to Eastern tradition, which
undoubtedly considers the sacraments to be primary acts of divine
worship. The main effect of the sacraments is the sanctification of
souls. The valid and licit administration of the sacraments always has
a predominant aspect of worship.4 The Orientals, according to whom
the sacraments, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice, cannot be
adequately distinguished from divine worship.5 The sacraments are,
above all, a theophany of the Holy Trinity; therefore, the Church, by
celebrating and administering the sacraments through her
ministerial priesthood, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, places herself
before the mysteries of Christ and unites herself to the worship of the
heavenly Church. The earthly liturgy unites the earth to heaven,
associating itself with the divine and perfect liturgy celebrated there
3 Varghese Koluthara, “Title XVI, Divine Worship and Especially the Sacraments,”
in John D Faris- Jobe Abbass, A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches, I, Wilson & Lafleur, Canada, 2019, 1197.
4 Pontificia Commissio Codici Iuris Canonici Orientalis Recognoscendo,“Denua
recognitio dello shema dei canoni sul Culto divino a Sacramenti,” Nuntia, XV (1982), 6.
5 M. Augé, “Función de santificar,” in J. Otaduy - A. Viana - J. Sedano, Diccionario
general de derecho canónico, IV (Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 2012) 161.

108 Iustitia
in the unceasing praise of the most holy Trinity.6 Sacraments and

sacramentals are the most common worship experience and, in
almost all Christians' worship life.7 The constitution on the Divine
Liturgy states that:
The sacraments are ordained to the sanctification of men, to the
building up of the Body of Christ, to the worship of God; as signs
also they have a place in instruction. They not only presuppose
faith, but they nourish, strengthen and express it by word and
action; therefore are they called the sacraments of faith. They do
indeed confer grace, but their celebration disposes the faithful most
efficaciously for a fruitful reception, for the worship of God, and
for the exercise of charity.8
Both the Codes do not have the definition of sacred times. Sacred
times are generally set aside for God, for a special religious worship.9
In CCEO, article III treats feast days and days of penance. That means
sacred times are days of feast and days of penance. On the other
hand, CIC title on sacred time is divided into two chapters. They are
feast days and days of penance. That means there are two kinds of
sacred times: feast days and days of penance.10
2. Competent Authority of All Eastern Churches in CCEO C. 880 §1
In the same spirit of the Latin Code, the Eastern Code articulates,
“The supreme authority of the Church alone is to establish, transfer
or suppress feast days and days of penance that are common to all of
the Eastern Churches with regard for §3.”11 The supreme authority is
the Pope alone or the College of Bishops acting together with the
Pope.12 Christus dominus, the decree concerning the pastoral office of
bishops in the Church, expresses the Roman Pontiff's supreme
6 D. Salachas, “De cultu divino et praesertim de sacramentis,” in P.V. Pinto,
Commento al Codice dei Canoni delle Chiese Orientali ( Città del Vaticana: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 2001) 551.
7 James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1990) 165.
8 SC 59.
9 Thomas Pazhayampallil, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (Bangalore:
KJC Publication,1985) 561.

10 John M. Huels, “The Sanctifying Function of the Church,” in John P. Beal,
James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2003) 1442.
11 CCEO c. 880 §1.
12 John M. Huels, “The Sanctifying Function of the Church,” 1442.
authority.13 As bishop of Rome, the Pope has ordinary power in the

Latin Church and in all the Eastern Catholic Churches. Canon 43 of
CCEO stipulates the power of the Roman Pontiff,14 and Canon 49 of
CCEO expresses the supreme power of the collage of bishop in
communion with the Pope.15
The collage of bishop exercises this supreme power collegially only
when it is united with the head, while the Roman Pontiff can
personally exercise this supreme and ordinary power.16 Eastern Code
highlights the exclusive role of the supreme Church authority in
establishing, transferring, or suppressing those feast days or days of
penance common to all Eastern Churches.17 OE no. 19 explains that
the competent authority must determine, transfer, or suppress feast
days common to all the Eastern Churches and the individual
Churches sui iuris. The competent authority to set up, transfer, or
suppress the feast days common to all the Eastern Churches is the
Ecumenical Council or the Apostolic See. However, for an individual
Church, besides the Apostolic See, the Synod of bishops of each
individual Church is competent to do the same.18
Some of the Fontes cited in CCEO are based on OE 19, Quod saepissime
of Leo M., Quia divinae of Innocentius III, and Assueto paterne of Pope
Pius VI. In Quod saepissime, the bishop of Rome asked the authority
of the Church in Constantinople for the celebration of the holy Easter
13 In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom
Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full,
immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution.
Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of
the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds
a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches. CD 2.
14 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the
Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his
successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the
entire Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate
and universal ordinary power in the Church which he is always able to exercise
freely. CCEO c. 43.
15 CCEO c. 49.
16 George Thekkekara, “College of Bishops,” in John D Faris and Jobe Abbass, A
Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, I, (Canada:Wilson

& Lafleur, 2019) 201.
17 Thomas J. Green, “Selected Issus in Divine Worship/ Sacraments in the Latin
and Eastern Codes: A Comparative Study,” Studies in Church Law 6, 4 (Jan- Dec 2008)
106.
18 OE 19.
110 Iustitia
on the same day. Pope commands in this letter that the day of
observance of Easter will be brought to the knowledge of His mercy
so that the universal Church may know what should be kept around
the observance, which it is not lawful for it to differ. This document
notices the bishop of Constantinople that he may not have the faculty
to harm them.19
Quia divinae is an Apostolic Bull issued by Pope Innocentius III, by
which the Church of the Maronites have been received under the
protection of the apostolic see, and the rights and customs of the
Maronite Church are confirmed. In this document, the Pope
permitted the practice of the obligatory days in the Maronite
tradition. They were the feast of the nativity of our Lord, the feast of
the martyr Stephen, the Lord's circumcision, the feast of the
Epiphany, Palm Sunday, the Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, the
Passover, one of the feast days of blessed virgin Mary, the feast of St.
John the Baptist, all the solemnities of the apostles, the feast day of
all saints, dedications of churches, principal feasts according to
Maronite traditions, day of consecrations of bishops and ordinations
of clerics.20
Assueto paterne is the letter issued by Pope Pius VI to the Ruthenian
Catholic Church to instruct the obligatory days. Obligatory days of
the Church not transferred to other days are Easter and Pentecost,
and other Sundays throughout the year, Christmas, Circumcision of
our Lord, Epiphany, Ascension, feast of Mother Mary such as the
Purification, the Annunciation, the Assumption, and Conception of
the Virgin Mary, as well as the feasts of the holy Apostles Peter and
Paul and all the Saints.21 These fontes show the universal authority of
the Pope and how to use it in the discipline of obligatory days in the
history of particular Churches in the Universal Church.
19 Leo PP. Magnus, Quod Saepissime, 15 apr. 454, in Pontificia Commissio ad
Redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis, Fontes Acta Romanorum pontificum

A S. Clemente I (anc.90) ad Coelestinum III (1198), I (Romae: Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, 1963) 278.
20 Innocentii PP. II, Quia divinae, in Pontificia Commissio ad Redigendum
Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis, Acta Innocenti PP. III (1198- 1216), I (Romae: Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1963) 458-459.
21 Pius PP. VI, Assueto Paternae Caritatis, 8 apr. 1755, in Sacra Congregazione
Orientale, Codificazione canonica orientale, fonti, ius particulare Ruthenorum, XI,

(Romae: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1933) 231-233.
3. The Competent Authority in Individual Churches in CCEO

Obligatory days of any of the individual Churches are within the
competence not only of the Apostolic See but also of the Patriarchal
or Archiepiscopal Synod.22 Canon 880 §2 of CCEO stipulates:
The competence to constitute, transfer or suppress feast days and
days of penance for individual Churches sui iuris belongs also to the
authority in those Churches that is competent to establish the
Particular Law. It may do so, however, only after taking into account
the other Churches sui iuris and without prejudice to c. 40 §1.23
Canon 40 §1 explains, Hierarch who preside over Churches sui iuris
and all other hierarchs are to care with the greatest diligence for the
faithful and accurate observance of their own rite; nor are they to
allow changes to be made in it except by reason of its organic
progress; they are nonetheless to keep in mind mutual goodwill and
the unity of Christians.24 The organic progress of each Church sui
iuris indicates considering into account, first of all, the roots from
which the heritage of these Churches was initially developed, mainly
in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Armenia, and in
the ancient empire of Persia. Secondly, the way such traditions were
transmitted, adapted, and interpreted to the various circumstances
and places but maintained in a coherent, organic continuity. Any
renewal that takes place on the basis of faithfulness to the traditions
and in view of the demands of our world, it is necessary to coherent
and agree with sound tradition, in such a way that the new norms do
not appear as an extraneous body forced into an ecclesiastical
composite, but blossoming as though spontaneously from already
existing norms.25
In making the particular laws on feast days and days of penance, the
competent legislative bodies are to take into account both the similar
decisions of the other Catholic Churches sui iuris and those of the
non-Catholic Churches, in order to promote unity or at least not to
hinder it, as recommended by the Second Vatican Council, without,
however, damaging their own faith and the accurate observance of
22 OE 19.
23 CCEO c. 880 §2.
24 CCEO c. 40 §1.
25 Dicastery for Eastern Churches, Instruction for Applying the Liturgical
Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, (Città del Vaticano: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 1996) 12.
112 Iustitia
their own rite, and only when such a decision could produce organic
progress, in accordance with canon 40 §1 CCEO.26 Canon 40 §1
imposes that the sui iuris Churches conserve and protect their
authentic heritage.27
3.1. Particular Law of Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Church
The juridical figure of the major archbishop and the Synod of Major
archiepiscopal Church resembles the patriarch and patriarchal
Synod.28 In a patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, the Synod
of bishop exclusively exercises the legislative power and has the
highest juridical powers (CCEO c. 1062). The Synod of bishops is
competent to make particular laws within the proper territory (CCEO
c. 110 §1). However, the power to promulgate laws and to publish
decisions of the Synod is within the competence of the patriarch
(CCEO c. 112 §1). Regarding the manner of promulgating laws,
canon. 1489 §2 of CCEO says that laws given by legislator other than
the Apostolic See are promulgated in the manner determined by
those legislators and begin to oblige from the date prescribed by
them. Canon 111 §3 of CCEO states that the laws and decisions of the
Synod are to be sent to the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible. No
mention is made of the approval by the Roman Pontiff.29 That which
concerns the establishment, transfer, or suppression of feast days and
days of penance is considered as having the force of liturgical law
and, therefore, has force everywhere and not only within the
boundaries of the Church sui iuris.30 In accordance with canon 150 §2
of CCEO:
Laws enacted by the Synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church
and promulgated by the patriarch, have the force of law
everywhere in the world if they are liturgical laws. However, if they
are disciplinary laws or in the case of other decisions of the Synod,
26 D. Salachas, “De cultu divino et praesertim de sacramentis,”759.

27 Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law: Commentary (India: Oriental
Institute of Religious Studies, 1994) 539.
28 Ivan Žužek, “Canons Concerning the Authority of Patriarchs over the Faithful
of Their Own Rite Who Live Outside The Limits of Patriarchal Territory,” George
Nedungatt (ed.), Understanding the Eastern Code, Kanonika 8 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto
Orientale, 1997) 32.
29 Kuriakose Bharanikulangara, “Classification, promulgation and Extension of
Particular law,” in John D. Faris- Francis J. Marini (ed.), Particular law of the Eastern
Catholic Churches, Maronite Rite Series,4 (New York: Saint Maron Publications,1996)
32.
30 D. Salachas, “De cultu divino et praesertim de sacramentis,” 759.
they have the force of law within the territorial boundaries of the
patriarchal Church.31
Provision given by CCEO c. 881 §2, the Synod of bishops of the
patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Church is competent to
constitute, transfer, or suppress feast days and days of penance for
their Churches.
3.2 Particular Law of Metropolitan Churches Sui Iuris
According to canon 155 of CCEO, metropolitan churches sui iuris are
a church sui iuris as established by canon 27 CCEO, i.e., formed by a
group of faithful united by the Hierarchy according to the norms of
law, which the supreme authority of the Church recognizes expressly
or tacitly as a metropolitan church sui iuris.32 In a metropolitan
Church sui iuris, the authority to establish the particular law belongs
to the council of hierarchs of that particular Church.33 In the
Metropolitan Churches sui iuris the Council of Hierarchs is an
episcopal body that manifests the unity and communion of the
Churches belonging to it. Thus, the Council of Hierarchs is an
episcopal juridical collegial institution which as such enjoys the
juridical power in a stable manner.34
Canon 167 §1 CCEO states that the Council of Hierarchs has ordinary
legislative power to enact laws and norms, and this power can be
exercised only in those cases in which the canons expressly grant it,
but also whenever common law refers to the particular law of a
Church sui iuris. This power cannot be delegated. Can. 985 §2 CCEO
establishes “legislative power must be exercised in the manner
prescribed by law; that which a legislator below the supreme
authority has in the Church cannot be validly delegated unless
common law provides otherwise, an inferior legislator cannot validly
issue a law contrary to higher law.”35 This is a general legislative
competence, although according to another interpretation it would
31CCEO c. 150 §2.

32 N. Loda, “Le Chiesa Metropolitane sui iuris: origini, struttura e prospettive
ecclesiali,” in G. Ruyssen - S. Kokkaravalayil, Il CCEO strumento per il futuro delle
Chiese Orientali Cattoliche, Kanonika, 25 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2017) 128.
33 Roy Joseph Kaduppil, “feast days and days of penance” in John D Faris- Jobe
Abbass, A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 1(Canada:
Wilson & Lafleur,2019) 1656.
ecclesiali,” 151.
35CCEO c. 985 §2.
114 Iustitia
seem to be peremptory. Can. 167 §2 CCEO speaks of laws and norms

which constitute the ius particulare of the metropolitan Church sui
iuris, the enactment of which is the responsibility of the Council of
Hierarchs of the Metropolitan Churches. These laws and norms
cannot be promulgated unless the metropolitan has informed the
Holy See and only after receiving a written notification of receipt of
the acts of the council of hierarchs from the Apostolic See. The
metropolitan is also to notify the Apostolic See of other acts of the
Council of Hierarchs.36 CCEO can. 882 §2 gave the provision of
enactment of law on feast days and days of penance to particular law,
the council of hierarchs is competent to codify laws on this section,
but they have to follow all the norms that common law established
for the promulgation of particular law. That means codified laws on
feast days and days of penance will have the force of law only after
getting the written notification from the Apostolic See.37
3.3. Particular Law of Other Churches Sui Iuris
In other Churches sui iuris, the Churches which are neither
Patriarchal, Major Archiepiscopal, nor Metropolitan Churches can be
recognised as Churches sui iuris by the supreme authority of the
Church expressly or tacitly. If they are recognised expressly or tacitly
as Churches sui iuris in accordance with CCEO 174-176, these
Churches are immediately dependent on the Apostolic See, not only
as an individual ecclesiastical unit but also as Churches sui iuris. If
they are recognised expressly or tacitly as Churches sui iuris in
accordance with canons 174-176 of the CCEO, it is necessary for the
Apostolic See to entrust each one to a hierarch who presides over it
in accordance with common law and the particular law established
by the Roman Pontiff.38 Canon 176 CCEO states:
if common law relegates something to particular law or to the
higher administrative authority of a Churches sui iuris, the
competent authority of these Churches is the Hierarch who
presides over it in accordance with the norm of law; however, he

ecclesiali,” 154.
37 CCEO c. 882 §2.
38 D. Salachas, “Configurazione giuridica di tutte le altre Chiese sui iuris minori,”
in G. Ruyssen - S. Kokkaravalayil, Il CCEO strumento per il Futuro delle Chiese Orientali

Cattoliche, Kanonika, 25 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2017) 164-165.
needs the consent of the Apostolic See, unless it is expressly stated

otherwise.39
However, though the provision of enactment of laws on days of feast
and penance given by the common Code, the head of the other
Churches sui iuris needs the consent of the Apostolic See.40
4. Holy Days of Obligation in CCEO c. 880 §3
In the Eastern Code, the canon on holy days of obligation gives
clarity regarding the days which are obligatory for all the Eastern
faithful. Besides Sundays, five days are obligatory for all the Eastern
Catholic Churches. The canon on feast days explains,
Feast days of obligation common to all the Eastern Churches,
besides Sundays, are the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Epiphany, the Ascension, the Dormition of Holy Mary the Mother
of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, without prejudice to
the Particular Law of a Church sui iuris approved by the Apostolic
See by which certain feast days of obligation are suppressed or
transferred to a Sunday.41
Holy days obligatory for all the Eastern and Latin Churches are
Sundays, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the
Ascension, the Dormition of Holy Mary, the Mother of God, and the
Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. In addition to Sundays, five holy days
are mentioned in the Common Code of the Eastern Church. Latin
faithful are bound to observe five more holy days, which are in tune
with the culture and history of the Latin Church. They are Corpus
Christi, Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, St
Joseph, and All Saints. In the new situation of work and life, it is
difficult for the people to observe all the ten solemnities as days of
obligation.
Moreover, Catholics of different world cultures do not give equal
importance to all the feasts. It is appropriate that the law grants to
the Conference of Bishops, the authority to suppress the obligation
of some of them or transfer them to Sunday, which decisions are
effective after the confirmation by the Apostolic See.42According to
this canon, an Eastern sui iuris Church has the authority either to
39 CCEO c. 176.
40 Roy Joseph Kaduppil, “Feast Days and Days of Penance,” 1656.
41 CCEO c. 880 §3.
116 Iustitia
suppress or to transfer the observance of any of these Holy days of

obligation to a Sunday according to the Particular Law of the Church
sui iuris.43 If a particular law suppresses the common days of
obligation mentioned in CCEO or transfers them to a Sunday, it is to
be approved by the Apostolic See.44
5. Dispensation from the Obligation
In CCEO, there is no canon directly giving the dispensation of
obligatory days of feast and penance. But the parallel section in CIC
c. 1245 directly deals with the dispensation from the obligatory days
of feast and penance. In which the diocesan bishops have general
competence, but pastors may dispense, for a just cause according to
the prescript of the diocesan bishop and a superior of a religious
institute or society of apostolic life if they are clerical and pontifical
right, can dispense to his own subjects.45 In CCEO there is no parallel
legislation on this section. Canon 882 of the CCEO gives the
particular law to establish the norms on obligatory days of penance.
In this regard, according to the patrimony and custom of the
Churches, each Church can establish the norms on dispensation. For
example, c. 115 §6 of the particular law of the Ukrainian Greek
Catholic Church establishes the norms, for a dispensation from the
obligation of fast, the following provisions are to be observed: 1) The
periods of dispensed weeks in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
are: from the Nativity of Christ until the vigil of Theophany; from the
Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee to the Sunday of the
Prodigal Son; from Easter Sunday until the Thomas Sunday; and
from the Descent of the Holy Spirit until the Sunday of All Saints. 2)
There is no fast on Saturdays, Sundays, and on the days celebrating
the New Year (Dec. 31-Jan. 1) and also for the Independence of
Ukraine (Aug. 24). 3) The following are dispensed from any
obligation to fast: children up to 14 years of age; persons over 60
years of age; the gravely ill; pregnant women; postpartum mothers
and those who are breastfeeding; those who are travelling (if the
travel time exceeds eight hours); those engaged in heavy labour;
those who eat from the table of others; the poor who live from
charity; 4) In individual cases the local hierarch may grant a
43 Jose Chiramel, “Holy Days of Obligation, Fast and Abstinence in Latin and
Eastern Codes,” Studies in Church Law, 4 (2008) 464.

44 Kuriakose Bharanikulangara, Classification, Promulgation and Extension of
Particular law, 135.

dispensation from the fast, in such an instance - exhorting the faithful

to acts of piety and mercy.46
Some of the sui iris Churches have no established norms for this
section on dispensation; they have to follow the common law on this
section. In the Eastern Code, dispensation is dealt with in the section
on administrative acts. Regarding the competent person for giving
the dispensation, without mentioning the persons such as bishops,
pastors, and superiors, CCEO is using the general term such as those
who have executive power of governance as well as those who have
received such power explicitly or implicitly by the law itself or by
legitimate delegation.47
6. Observance of Days of Obligation to the Faithful
CCEO c. 7 §1 defines Christian faithful as,
Those who incorporated as they are into Christ through baptism,
are constituted as the people of God; and so, participating in their
own way in the priestly, prophetic, and royal function of Christ,
they are called, each according to his or her condition, to exercise
the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the
world.48
This canonical formation of the Code expresses the vision of the
Second Vatican Council as articulated in LG 9, 10, 12, 13, 31; UR 2,
and so forth. Baptism provides a true equality of dignity among all
the Christian faithful. This state of equality gives them not only an
opportunity but also a right and duty to engage in the mission of the
Church. This mission is a participation in the building up of the Body
of Christ. Baptism incorporates each person into the Body of Christ.
In the same way, as the Body contains different members with
different functions, the members of Christ’s Body also participate
differently, according to each one’s status. Each receives the mission
to preach the Gospel according to their conditions.49 The Christian
faithful, who have the use of reason and they are at least seven years
old, have the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, unless they are
46 The Particular Law of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archiepiscopal
Curia, Major Archeparchy of Kyiv-Halych, 2015, c. 115.
47 CCEO c. 1510, c. 979.
48 CCEO c. 7 §1.
49 George Thekkekara, “Rights and obligations of the Christian Faithful to build
up the Church,” Eastern Legal thought, 15 (2019) 204.

118 Iustitia
seriously impeded, and pastors have the corresponding duty to see

that it is practical and possible for all to fulfill this precept.50 The
obligation to participate in Mass means participating in the entire
Eucharistic celebration. Namely, participation includes the liturgy of
the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.51
Attending a television or online Mass is not a substitute for
participation in Divine Liturgy and does not fulfill the Sunday or
Holy Days of obligation. The reason is that sacramental grace cannot
be imparted or obtained through the virtual reality of
communication media. However, faculty is often granted to impart
papal blessings with attached plenary indulgence on special
occasions at particular places or periods, for example, at a particular
Church during the year of faith, at the situation of the pandemic
period of COVID-19.52 Sacramentum Caritatis explains, concerning the
worth of taking part in Mass via the communications media, that
those who hear or participate in these broadcasts should be conscious
that, under normal circumstances, they do not fulfill the obligation
of participation in Mass. Visual images can represent reality, but they
do not actually reproduce it. While it is most admirable that the
elderly and the sick participate in Sunday Mass through radio and
television, the same cannot be said of those who believe that such
broadcasts dispense them from going to Church and sharing in the
Eucharistic gathering in the living Church.53
Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter, Dies Domini explains the
participation of the Holy Eucharist of the sick and the use of media. The
Christian faithful who, because of sickness, disability, or some other
serious reason, are prohibited from taking part should, as best they can,
unite themselves with the celebration of Sunday Mass from afar, if
possible, by means of the readings and prayers for that day from the
Missal, as well as through their wish for the Eucharist as a spiritual
participation. In many nations, radio and television make joining in the
Eucharistic celebration broadcast from some sacred place possible.
Evidently, this kind of broadcast does not in itself realize the Sunday
50 Sebastian.S. Karambai, Ministers and Ministries in the Local Church: A
Comprehensive Guide to Ecclesiastical Norms (Mumbai: St. Pauls Publications, 2015)

323.
51 SC 56
52 Sebastian.S. Karambai, Ministers and Ministries in the Local Church, 324.
53 Benedictus PP. XVI, Adhortatio Apostolica Postsynodalis: Sacramentum
Caritatis (Città del Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007) 57.

obligation, which needs participation in the fraternal community

gathered in one place, where Eucharistic communion can be received in
presence. But for those who cannot take part in the Divine Eucharist for
a reasonable cause and who are therefore exempted from the obligation,
radio and television are a valuable help, mainly if attended by the
generous service of extraordinary ministers who bring the Eucharist to
the sick. Sunday Mass thus gives rich fruits to these Christians, and they
are really enabled to experience Sunday as the Lord's Day and the
Church’s Day.54
6.1. Observation of Divine Liturgy and Divine Praises
In the Eastern Code, c. 881 §1 stipulates the obligation of the
Christian faithful regarding the observance of Sunday and obligatory
days as, “Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate
on Sunday and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the
prescripts or legitimate custom of their own Church sui iuris, in the
celebration of the Divine praises.”55 CIC c. 1247 articulates that the
faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass on Sundays and other
holy days of obligation. In which Latin faithful have only the
obligation of participating in Holy Mass, but for Eastern faithful, it
clearly states that Divine Liturgy is to be according to the custom of
the Sui iuris church on divine praises. Constitution on the sacred
liturgy sacrosanctum concilium explains the term liturgy,
The liturgy, through which the work of our redemption is
accomplished, most of all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist is
the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their
lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real
nature of the true Church.56
In the Eastern Code, the canon uses the term divine liturgy, whereas
in the Lain Code, it is used to indicate divine Eucharist or Mass. The
concept of Divine Liturgy has been explained in CCEO as:
What the Lord Jesus himself did at the last Supper is perpetuated
in the Divine Liturgy by the power of the Holy Spirit through the
ministry of the priest who acts in the person of Christ at the
obligation of the Church. The Lord Jesus gave to his disciples his
Body, which was to be poured out for us, thus instituting the true
54 Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae: Dies Domini, Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1998, 54.

55 CCEO c. 880 §1.
56 SC 2
120 Iustitia
and mystical sacrifice. In this, the bloody sacrifice of the cross is

commemorated with thanksgiving, is actuated and shared by the
Church through oblation and through communion, in order to
signify and perfect the unity of the people of God and to edify the
Body of Christ, namely the Church.57 .
This shows that the Eastern Code uses the term divine liturgy exactly
the same as the Latin Code uses the term Mass. Moreover, respecting
the tradition of the Eastern Church, this law articulates that the
Christian faithful should observe the Sundays and holy days of
obligation by participating in the Divine Liturgy or in the celebration
of the Divine Praises according to the Particular Law of each Church
sui iuris.58 The observance of one’s own rite is defined as the right and
duty of the faithful. This means that the faithful have the right to ask
the Church authority for help in creating the conditions for them to
observe their own rite. Conversely, the Church authority has the
duty to remind the faithful of their obligation to observe their own
rite should they themselves be negligent in this respect. This does not
mean the exclusion of the Oriental faithful from participation in
liturgical life in the Latin Church, but awareness that such
participation must somehow be considered an exception to the rule.59
Liturgical instructions on Eastern Churches explain the meaning and
importance of the divine praises in the Eastern tradition. It states that
the Divine Praises unceasingly renew the spirit of vigilance in the
desire for the return of the Lord and sanctity of the whole day. It
enables the recalling the memory of the presence of the Lord, they
distribute His grace, permeating and inserting all existence into the
Trinitarian life and unity. According to the apostolic command, they
sanctify the faithful in the dimension of time in which they live on
earth, throughout the hours, days, weeks, months, and years, as true
prayer without a break according to the apostolic command. Calling
upon the time when the Divine Praises were maintained with special
care in the Eastern practices, not only by the monastic communities
57 CCEO c. 698.
58 Dimitrios Salachas, “Sacramentals Sacred Times and Places, Veneration of the
Saints,” in George Nedungatt, ed., A Guide to the Eastern Code, Kanonika 10 (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2002) 591.
59 C. Vasil, “Cura pastorale dei fedeli orientali cattolici senza propria gerarchia,”
in Pontificio Consiglio per i Testi Legislativi, L’attenzione Pastorale per i Fedeli

Orientali, (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2017) 102-103; F. Marini, “Il
precetto della Messa festiva: un obligo individuale per un’assemblea che clebra la
memoria pasquale,” in Quaderni di diritto ecclesiale, 18 (2005), 261.
but also by the parishes, in which all faithful could participate. The
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches reminds us of the
obligation-often easily forgotten or abandoned- to celebrate them in
the cathedrals, parishes, rectorial churches, religious communities,
and seminaries.60
The obligation of the Divine Liturgy and divine office on the day of
obligation is mentioned in OE, “The faithful are bound to take part on
Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy or, according to the
regulations or custom of their own rite, in the celebration of the Divine
Office.”61 The more relevant question of this canon was, whether this
canon describes Divine Praises as an alternative to the Divine Liturgy.
The codification committee responded by adding the clause ‘according
to the prescripts and legitimate custom of their own Church sui iuris to
avoid confusion.62 Mentioning the participation in the Divine Praises,
CCEO intends to emphasize that the Divine Praises also have a specific
importance in the Christian life.63
6.2. Reception of the Holy Eucharist
Instruction of the sacred rites Euchristicum Mysterium explains on the
Holy Communion regarding Sunday and holy day Mass anticipated
on the previous day, “The faithful who begin to celebrate the Sunday
or holy day of obligation on the evening of the preceding day may
go to Holy Communion even if they have already done.”64 Liturgical
instruction for Eastern Churches strongly recommends distribution
under both species.65 Liturgical instruction number 52 stipulates that
the Divine Eucharist should be distributed under both species of
consecrated bread and wine. The mode of distributing the
communion under the species of bread alone is just an imitation of
the Latin practice and should be abandoned without delay. So, to
Prescriptions, 96, 98.

61 OE 15.
62 Nuntia, XXVIII (1989) 122.
Saints,” 592.
64 Sacred Congregation for Rites, Instruction on Worship of the Eucharist,
Eucharisticum Mysterium, 25 May 1967, AAS 59 (1967) 539-573; in A JOINT COMMISSION

OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE, Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar,
Papal, and Curial Texts, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1982) 407.
65 O. Condorelli, “La comunione Eucaristica sotto le due Specie: La prassi Antica
e la Genesi Storica del Suo Cambiamento,” G. Ruyssen (ed.) The Holy Eucharist in
Eastern Canon Law, in Kanonika, 16 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale,2010) 100.
122 Iustitia
conclude, such practices today are to be considered a recent

invention, completely foreign to the Eastern tradition.66
Constitution on Sacred Liturgy stipulates, “that a perfect form of
participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's
communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice is
strongly commended.”67 On the basis of the teaching of the Church
and the new theological development in the Church regarding the
reception of the Holy Eucharist on Sundays and holy days of
obligation, Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states that “the
Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the divine
Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.”68
It is appropriate that participants in a banquet obtain the food from
the table at which they are participating and not from another. Any
usage to the contrary clouds the meaning of Eucharist, which
signifies the private communion of the individual person with the
Lord and the mutual fellowship in the mystical Body of Christ on the
parts of all the communicants participating in the same Eucharistic
meal.69 For this reason, CCEO c. 713 §1 articulates, “the Divine
Eucharist is to be distributed in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy
unless a just cause suggests otherwise.”70 This practice should be
considered the ordinary way, except for the communion for the sick
who are not present at the time of Eucharistic celebration.71
6.3. Abstain from Works
Canon 881 §4 CIC explains, “Christian faithful should abstain from
those work or business matters that impede the worship to be
rendered to God, the joy that is proper to the Lord’s Day or the
proper relaxation of mind and body.”72 The consecration of the feast
day consists precisely in commemorating the joy of the Resurrection.
The engagement of the cultic notion is reflected in the canonical
tradition itself: sacred rest has always been understood as Deo vacatio.
Prescriptions, 52.
67 SC 55.
68 CCEO c. 881 §3.
Prescriptions, 53.
70 CCEO c. 713 §1.
Prescriptions, 52.
72 CCEO c. 881 §4.
The prohibition of work or business that hinders the celebration does

not so much refer to assisting the Eucharistic sacrifice as to the
sacredness of the day.73 It is worth emphasizing that the subject of
sacred rest has a decisive theological and anthropological
significance. It is a question of respecting not only the divine purpose
of the person but the very human dimension of time. It is not too
difficult to see how indulging the weekly rhythm is a prelude and
access to eternity and how the loss of the sense of rest implies loss in
the culture of work. The historical and cosmic character of Christian
remembrance well sums up the consciousness of the salvific event
with the cyclical nature of time. In the Gospel message, on the other
hand, the supernatural respects and perfects nature without ever
distorting it: the divine is harmoniously combined with the human.74
Pope Benedict XVI, in His apostolic exhortation Sacramentum
Caritatis, teaches us it is mostly important nowadays to recollect that
the day of the Lord is also a day of rest from work. It is greatly to be
hoped that this fact will also be recognized and authorized by civil
society so that the Christian faithful can be permitted to refrain from
work without being penalized. Christians, not without reference to
the meaning of the Sabbath in the Jewish tradition, have seen in the
Lord's Day a day of rest from their daily efforts. This is highly
significant, for it relativizes work and directs it to the person: work is
for man and not man for work. It is easy to see how this really
protects men and women, liberating them from a possible form of
enslavement. The work is of essential importance to the fulfilment of
the human being and to the development of society. Thus, it must
always be respected and carried out with full respect for human
dignity and must always serve the common good. At the same time,
it is indispensable that people not allow themselves to be enslaved
by work or to idolize it, claiming to find in it the ultimate and
definitive meaning of life. It is on the day consecrated to God that
men and women come to understand the appropriate meaning of
their lives and also of their work.75
The true meaning of rest in the holiday and Sunday implies doing
good to others fulfilling the values of the spirit, and rebuilding the
bonds of fraternity. Free time or abstaining from work means work
73 M. del Pozzo, I Precetti Generali della Chiesa: Significato Giuridico e Valore
Pastorale, (Milano: Guiffrè Francis Lefebvre, 2015) 124.

74 M. del Pozzo, I Precetti Generali della Chiesa, 109-110.
75 Sacramentum Caritatis, 74.
124 Iustitia
that comes from charity. That means a day dedicated to charity.76

Pope John Paul II teaches us that the Eucharist is an occasion and
symbol of true brotherhood. From the Sunday Mass, there extents a
tide of charity destined to spread into the whole life of the faithful,
beginning by motivating the very way in which they live the rest of
Sunday. If Sunday is a day of joy, Christians should declare by their
real behaviour that we cannot be happy on our own or ourselves
alone. They look around to find persons who may need their help. It
may be that there are sick people, older people, children, or
immigrants in their neighbourhood or those they know, who,
precisely on Sundays, feel their isolation and need. These people
cannot be limited to occasional Sunday gestures. But presuming a
broader sense of responsibility, why not make the Lord's Day a more
powerful time of sharing, encouraging all the imagination of which
Christian charity is accomplished. They are welcoming to a meal,
people who are isolated, visiting the sick, providing food for needy
families, spending a few hours in voluntary work and acts of
solidarity: these would certainly be ways of bringing into people's
lives the love of Christ established at the Eucharistic table.77
Abstinence from daily work was a strict rule from ancient times. In
present legislation, we do not find an absolute prohibition; on the
other hand, attention is more on the matter of celebration78.
7. Time of Obligation
The obligation to participate in the Mass may be satisfied at any time
during the twenty-four hours of the feast day itself or on the evening
before it.79 The evening should be understood as any time from 4 P.M.
onwards80. CCEO c. 881 §2 states: “In order for the Christian faithful to
fulfill this obligation more easily, the useful time runs from the evening
of the vigil until the end of the Sunday or feast day.”81 The precept may
be satisfied at any Mass, in other words, not merely when the liturgical
texts are those of the Sunday or a holy day of obligation.82 OE states:
“That the faithful may be able more easily to fulfill their obligation, it is
76 R. Coronelli, “Origine e sviluppo del precetto domenicale festive,” in Quaderni
di diritto ecclesiale, 18 (2005) 239.

77 Dies Domini, 72.
80 Pius PP. XII, Constitutio Apostolica: Christus Dominus, 6 January 1953, in AAS,
XLV (1953) 14-24.

81 CCEO c. 881 §2.
82 Sebastian.S. Karambai, Ministers and Ministries in the Local Church, 324.
laid down that the period of time within which the precept should be
observed extends from the Vespers of the vigil to the end of the Sunday
or the feast day.”83 In fact, in Eastern tradition, the daily cycle begins
with Vespers and is extended into the night to culminate in the morning
with the Divine Liturgy or Oblation.84
Sacramentum Caritatis explains the useful time of obligation on
Sunday observance. It is suitable that Church communities should
arrange the time of Sunday Mass, and the activities of the Christian
community: social gatherings, programmes for the faith formation of
children, young people, and adults, pilgrimages, charitable works,
and different moments of prayer. For the good of the faithful, while
recognizing that Saturday evening, beginning with First Vespers, is
already a part of Sunday and a time when the Sunday obligation can
be fulfilled – we need to remember that it is Sunday itself that is
meant to be kept holy, lest it end up as a day empty of God.85
8. Days of Penance (CCEO c. 882)
Fasting and abstinence are the traditional penitential practices of the
Church. As the true faithful of the Church, members of the Church
must obey the norms with constancy and commitment to enter the
Pascal Mystery. Fasting and penance indicate the physical and
spiritual aspects. The physical realm is the human-corporeal reality
as a form of discipline and purification of the person expressed in not
eating and abstaining from meat and dairy products. The spiritual
reality is the sense of abstaining from vices or other acts and attitudes
with the purpose of mortifying selfishness and purifying oneself in
order to arrive at the confession of one's sins, opening one's heart to
the love of God and others. Practicing penance has as its purpose the
purification of the believer, so that one may be converted and confess
sins, in order to approach the Body and Blood of Christ and with the
aim of a reunion with Christ.86
In the Eastern Church, days of penance are to be observed in
accordance with the norms of the law of each Church sui iuris. CCEO
83 OE 15.
84 Congregation for Eastern Churches, Instruction for Applying the Liturgical
Prescriptions, 64
85 Sacramentum Caritatis, 73.
86 N. Loda, “Tradizioni divergenti: giorni aliturgici nella Chiesa Bizantina e Copta,” in
G. Ruyssen, La divina Eucaristia nel Diritto Canonico Orientale, Kanonika, 16 (Roma:

Pontifico Istituto Orientale, 2010) 150-151.
126 Iustitia
c. 882 states: “On the days of penance, the Christian faithful are
obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the
Particular Law of their Church sui iuris.”87 In parallel section of CIC
this part contains four canons. But in CCEO, this section holds only
one canon, and it is interesting that this canon gives the provision to
particular law to establish the norms as required. It gives the
provision to safeguard the custom and the practices of each Church
sui iuris.
In Eastern Churches, every Church has its own tradition regarding
the observance of penance. For example, analyzing the particular law
of some of the Churches, the uniqueness of Churches sui iuris could
be seen as per different traditions. The particular law of the Maronite
Church article 323 §2 states that fasting consists of refraining from
eating from midnight to midday, with the exception of water, which
does not break it. Abstinence consists in refraining from eating meat
and dairy products.88 The particular law of the Coptic Catholic
Church of Alessandria defines fasting and abstinence in c. 94. It
establishes that fasting is the prohibition of eating meat, milk, and its
productions and eggs, but it is permissible to eat fish. Abstinence is
the prohibition of eating and drinking from midnight until the
afternoon and is accompanied by the prohibition of eating meat,
milk, and its productions and eggs. These norms of these Churches
expressly show the traditional differences between fasting and
abstinence in their culture.89
The Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini explains: “In the Eastern
Churches, the right to determine days of fast and abstinence belongs,
in keeping with the conciliar decree on the Eastern Churches no. 23,
to the Patriarch with his Synod or to supreme authority in each
Church, acting with his Council of hierarch.”90 OE states: “It belongs
to the Patriarch with his Synod, or to the supreme authority of each
Church with the Council of the hierarchs, to regulate the use of
languages in the sacred liturgical functions and, after reference to the
Apostolic See, of approving translations of texts into the
87 CCEO c. 882.
88 The Particular Law of the Maronite Church, art. 323 §2.
89 Il diritto particolare della chiesa patriarcale Copto - Cattolica di Alessandria, Synod of
bishop of the Copto- Cattolica di Alessandria Patriarchal Church, Egypte, 2003, c. 94.
90 Paulus PP. VI, Apostolic Constitution on Penance, Paenitemini, 17 February
1966, AAS LVIII (1966), 177-198; En. trans., Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II:
More Post- Counciliar Documents, 2 (Mumbai: St. Pauls Publications, 2013) 31.
vernacular.”91 And CCEO c. 110 §1 establishes: “the Synod of bishops

of the Patriarchal Church is exclusively competent to make laws for
the entire Patriarchal Church that obtain force according to the norm
of c. 150 §§2-3.”92 The law gives the provision for the Particular Law
to establish the law regarding fasting and abstinence.93 In this regard,
the particular law can establish the required norms for each Church
sui iuris as per tradition and culture.
Comparing the particular laws of the Churches in this section, most
of them establish the obligatory days of fasting and abstinence,
giving the meaning, mode of observation, age of observation,
recommended days of fasting and abstinence, penitential seasons,
and authority competent to dispense. For example, the norms of
Maronite Church laws establish that the faithful are obliged to
observe the laws of fasting and abstinence from meat during Lent
unless a dispensation is issued for suitable reasons. Article 323 §2
states that fasting consists of refraining from eating from midnight to
midday, with the exception of water, which does not break it.
Abstinence consists in refraining from eating meat and dairy
products. The practice of acts of charity, almsgiving, and mercy,
especially towards the poor and the sick, are befitting of the
penitential season. The forty-day penitential season commences on
Ash Monday and ends on Holy Saturday preceding Resurrection
Sunday. There is no fasting on Sundays and feast days that fall within
this season, especially on the Entry of Christ into the Temple, the
feast of Saint Maron, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the
Annunciation of Mary, and so long as none of these feast days
coincides with Good Friday.94 Abstinence from meat is mandatory
on Fridays all year, except if the following holy days fall on Friday:
they are Christmas, the Presentation in the Temple, Epiphany, Saint
Maron, St. Joseph, Saint Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the
Exaltation of the Cross, All Saints Day and the Immaculate
Conception. Abstinence from meat is not mandatory on Fridays
during the period between Christmas and Epiphany, between Easter
91 OE 23.
92 CCEO c. 110 §1.
Saints,” 592.
94 Charbel Bousamra, The Particular law of the Maronite Church Analysis and
Perspective, in Dissertationes series canonica, 27 (Roma: EDUSC, 2010) 296.

128 Iustitia
and Pentecost, and during the week of the Faithful Departed

preceding the Season of Lent.95
9. The Age of Obligation
In the Lain Code, those above the age of fourteen years are bound by
the law of abstinence, and those between eighteen and sixty by the law
of fasting.96 CCEO has no such norms on the age of obligation in this
section. If the particular law does not establish any norms in this section,
general norms on the age of obligation are applied in this case. A minor,
before the completion of the seventh year, is an infant and is considered
non sui compos, that means he or she is not responsible for himself or
herself. With the completion of the seventh year, a minor is presumed
to have the use of reason and, therefore, considered sui compos (CCEO c.
909 §2). Those who habitually lack the use of reason are considered
infants and are, therefore, non sui compos (CCEO c. 909 §3). Though with
baptism, a person is incorporated into the Body of Christ, unless the law
expressly provides otherwise, only those who have completed seven
years of age are bound by the merely ecclesiastical laws (CCEO c.
1490).97 Children above the age of seven and the elderly above sixty are
also bound to fast and abstinence. However, the manner in which the
Christian faithful are to fast and abstain is determined by the particular
law of each Church sui iuris.98 For example, the particular law of Syro-
Malankara Catholic Major Archiepiscopal Church establishes that the
faithful have the obligation of fasting as: “it is obligatory for Christian
faithful between the age of twenty-one and sixty to fast on the middle
day of three days nombu, on the first Monday and all Fridays of the Lent.
The sick, those engaged in hard labour, the aged, and pregnant women
are exempted from this fasting.”99
10. Obligation Outside the Territory
The domicile (CCEO c. 912 §1) or the quasi domicile (CCEO c. 912 §2)
determines a person’s ascription to a parish or eparchy. Through
95 Kuriakose Bharanikulangara, Classification, Promulgation and Extension of
Particular law, 135.

Saints,” 725.
97 George Thekkekara, Rights and obligations of the Christian Faithful, 206.
Saint,” 725.
99 The Syro-Malankara Catholic Major Archiepiscopal Church, The Code of
Particular Canons of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Major Archiepiscopal Curia

Catholicate Centre, Trivandrum, 2012, c. 572.
domicile or quasi-domicile, each acquires his or her local hierarch

and pastor of the Church sui iuris to which he or she is ascribed
(CCEO c. 916 §1). Therefore, one’s membership in the Christian
community is determined by one’s domicile or quasi-domicile,
according to which a person becomes entitled to the right and
obligation to perform the corresponding duties.100 The possible
situations of Eastern faithful residing outside the proper territories of
their own Church sui iuris, where there is no eparchy or exarchy of
their Church, for example, member of the Ethiopian sui iuris Church
residing in Munich. The second possibility is about Eastern faithful
residing in the situation mentioned above; the territory may belong
to another sui iuris Church, or there may be small communities from
different sui iuris Churches. For example, members residing in
Munich may belong to a single sui iuris Church like Ethiopian or to
different Churches such as Chaldean, Coptic, etc. Thirdly, the
eparchy/diocese of that territory does not belong to the Church of
any of those Eastern faithful but comes under the Latin Church.
Lastly, the Eastern faithful may be scattered in different parts of the
country where they live, and if there are different local hierarchs in
that country, they will belong to different eparchies/ dioceses of that
country, depending on the place of residence of each of them.101
CCEO cannons 39-41 express the need to preserve their own rite and
membership of their Church sui iurisii.102 But in the present situation,
the migration of the people is a common phenomenon. Regarding
the Eastern Catholic Churches, their hierarchs and pastors are not
present everywhere in the world.103 In his Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation, Pope Benedict XVI expresses the pastoral care of the
Eastern faithful of those outside the native land. It states that for
those faithful who, for several reasons, needed to leave their native
countries, the Synod uttered thankfulness to all those involved in the
pastoral care of migrants. Definite attention needs to be paid to
migrants belonging to the Eastern Catholic Churches; in addition to
being away from home, they also meet the difficulty of not being able
to participate in the Divine Liturgy in their own proper rite. For this
100 George Thekkekara, Rights and obligations of the Christian Faithful, 207.
101 Sunny Kokkaravalayil, “Eastern Catholic Faithful and Their Latin Proper
Hierarchs Who are Not Designated by Roman Apostolic See or the Patriarch,” in
Eastern Canon Law, 7 (2018) 117-118.
102 N. Loda, “Gli Ordinariati per i fedeli di rito orientale in territori di rito latino
e la tensione verso la crescita ecclesiale,” in Eastern Canon Law, 6(2018) 185.

130 Iustitia
purpose, wherever possible, they should be served by priests of their

rite. In all cases, Bishops welcome these brothers and sisters with the
love of Christ. Associates with the faithful of different rites can prove
a source of mutual enhancement.104
Canon 883 §1 states, “as regards feast days and days of penance, the
Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their
own Church sui iuris can adapt themselves fully to the norms in force
where they are staying.”105 According to this canon, Eastern Catholic
faithful residing outside the territorial boundaries of their
autonomous Churches may apply the rules of the territory of
residence.106 This canon is the practical norm already explained by
OE, “individual faithful dwelling outside the area or territory of their
own rite may follow completely the established custom of the place
where they live as regards the law of the sacred seasons.”107
11. Spouses Ascribed to a Different Church Sui Iuris
Canon 883 §2 deals with the families where the spouses are ascribed
to different Church sui iuris. This norm also comes in the light of the
description of OE 21. It states in families of mixed rites, it is
permissible to observe this law according to the same rite. This law
is also an exception from the CCEO c. 40 §1. Canon 883 §2 states, “in
families in which the spouses are ascribed to different Churches sui
iuris, it is permitted to observe the norms of one or the other Church
sui iuris in the matter of feast days and days of penance.”108
According to this canon, when the parents of a family belong to
different Churches, the rules of either Church can be selected by all
members of the household.109
Conclusion
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Code, CCEO, article III of title XVI
(Divine Worship and especially the Sacraments) deals with the canon
on feast days and days of penance (cc. 880-883). The CCEO had only
four canons in this section, but in CIC, the sacred time comes under
the sanctifying office of the Church, containing ten canons. The main
104Sacramentum Caritatis, 60.

105CCEO c. 883 §3.
106 Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, Second Revised and
Augmented Edition (, New York: Saint Maron Publicaion,1996) 638.

107 OE 21.
108 c. 883 §2.
109 Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, 638.
title of both Codes shows the theological differences of Western and

Eastern traditions. For Eastern understanding, sacraments are the
primary acts of divine worship, and the main obligation on
obligatory days is closely attached to divine worship. In comparison
to the Latin Code, the Eastern Code is silent about the norm related
to dispensation from the obligation, participation in the Eucharistic
celebration in the absence of the priest, obligatory days of penance
common for Eastern Churches, the mode of observation of the
penance, and the age of obligation. The Latin Church has ten
obligatory days of feasts, along with Sundays. Eastern law
establishes five obligatory feast days common to all Eastern
Churches besides Sundays. They are the Nativity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Dormition of Holy Mary,
Mother of God, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. In CIC,
obligatory days of penance contain detailed norms on times of
penance, obligatory days of abstinence, and obligatory days of both
abstinence and fasting. However, the Eastern Code does not establish
any law common to all Eastern Churches. For safeguarding the
particular patrimony of each church sui iuris, the Eastern Code gives
the option to particular law to enact laws on competence to
constitute, transfer, or suppress the feast days and days of penance
for the individual Churches and manner of observance of fast and
abstinence.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 133-153
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORIENTAL

PROVINCE OF A SECULAR INSTITUTE OF
THE LATIN CHURCH
Justin Vadakkayil∗
Abstract
A member of the secular institute of the Latin Church from Syro-
Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church has a Syro-Malabar ecclesial
patrimony, and to live accordingly, he needs to be incorporated into
the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church both de iure and de
facto. So, is a secular institute with members of another Church sui
iuris obliged to have a province? What are the juridical effects of
such an ascription? This study tries to answer these questions and
also attempts to explain how to establish an Oriental province of the
secular institute of Lain Church. This study mainly discusses the
following aspects: a) a brief note about the Decree on Eastern
Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum; b) Canonical provisions of
CCEO for Latin religious institutes; c) Juridical need of a province
and how it is ascribed to a Church sui iuris.
Keywords: Secular Institute; Oriental Province; Canonical Provision;
Juridical Need; Ascription.
Introduction
Pope John Paul II, in the Apostolic Constitution, Sacrae Disciplinae
Leges stated that the need and role of a juridical order in the Church
is to sustain, strengthen and foster common initiatives to live a
Christian life ever more perfectly (AAS 75/1983, pars II, xv). A
religious community or an Institute, approved by the Church, has its
own juridical order and personality apart from the members
considered individually or collectively. A religious community or an
institute is a juridic person (CCEO cc. 920 - 922; 410, 504). From the
∗ Justin Vadakkayil, was ordained priest in 2011, hails from the eparchy of
Manathavady, and belongs to the Secular Institute of Schoenstatt Fathers (Kerala).
He holds a Master’s in Human Rights from Madras University and obtained a
Licentiate in Oriental Canon Law from Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore, and
a Doctorate from Pontifical University of Lateran, Rome. Currently, he serves as
Rector of Schoenstatt Study House and Regional House, Aluva, and as a Judge at
the eparchial tribunal of Irinjalakkuda.

134 Iustitia
canonical perspective, the previous legislation for the Oriental

Churches was clearly given proper guidelines with regard to the
Oriental members of a Latin Religious institutes. We see in the Motu
proprio Postquam Apostolicis Litteris on the Oriental religious
members, which offers explicit norms to be followed (PAL cc. 74 §2,
6°; 5 §1). The Second Vatican Council Decree on the Eastern Churches
Orientalium Ecclesiarum (n. 6) recommended strongly to religious
institutes and associations of the Latin Church, which are working in
Eastern countries or among the Eastern faithful, that they set up, so
far as is possible, houses or even provinces ascribed to the concerned
Eastern Church to make their apostolic work more effective. Though
the Council did not enforce any obligation yet, the Apostolic See
expects and wishes the Latin religious institutes to take the initiative
to open Oriental houses or provinces with its permission.
The Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) c. 432 is
exclusive to the Eastern Code and explicitly regards the Latin
Church. This canon aims to safeguard and promote the variety of
Churches. And also, it is addressed to all religious institutes of any
Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris and those of the Latin Church,
whose apostolate consists of ministry among the faithful of another
Church sui iuris. The canon strongly encourages the major superiors
of these institutes to establish a dependent monastery, a house, or
even a province ascribed to that other Church sui iuris with the
consent of the Holy See. Therefore, inspired by the teachings and
recommendations of the OE n. 6 and the real spirit of CCEO c. 432,
this study tries to explain how to establish an Oriental Province of a
Secular Institute of the Latin Church.
1. A Brief Note on the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the
Eastern Catholic Churches
Before considering the canonical provisions for CCEO for Latin
Religious Institutes, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks
on the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Eastern Catholic
Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE). The first words of the Decree
Orientalium Ecclesiarum are: ‘The Catholic Church highly esteems the
institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and way of
Christian life of the Eastern Churches’ Orientalium Ecclesiarum
instituta, ritus liturgicos, traditions ecclesiasticas atque vitae christianae
Justin Vadakkayil: “Establishment of an Oriental Province” 135
disciplinam ecclesia catholica magni facit.1 The Decree on the Eastern

Catholic Churches, complimenting the Lumen Gentium, admires the
dignity and unique place of the various Eastern rite churches within
the Catholic Church.2 These churches and the people they embrace
are fully Catholic and in full communion with the Pope. The
Document educates all those related to the Eastern Churches to learn
about the rites, discipline, doctrine, history, and character of the
members of the Eastern Churches. Another important step was the
strong recommendation to the Latin religious orders working in
Eastern countries and among the Eastern faithful to start houses and
provinces of the Eastern rite (OE, n. 6).
1.1 The Preface of the Decree
The preface is very much appreciated because it gives a beautiful
meaning: “The apostolic heritage of the East and the West belongs to
the full Catholic patrimony, and therefore, the Catholic Church
obliges herself to remain faithful to the whole of her patrimony for
the present time as well as for the future. This patrimony cannot be
divided. It belongs to the Universal Church, which is not identical
with the Occidental Church.”3 The Council desired that the Eastern
Churches flourish with renewed apostolic strength to carry out the
mission entrusted to them.4
1 Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Decretum de Ecclesiis Orientalibus
Catholicis: Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 21 novembris 1964 in AAS, LVII (1965) 76-89, n. 1;

(for English translation Norman P. Tanner ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Trent - Vatican II, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press
(1990) 900-907); Cfr. Thomas Anchukandathil, Into the Third Millennium in the Spirit
of Vatican II, 16, 2, (Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti College Publication, 2000) 93; Jose
Koodapuzha, “Identity, Rights and Rites in the Light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum,”
in Peter Kannampuzha, ed., Tradition and Identity of the Syro-Malabar Church,
(Kakkanad: Mount St. Thomas, 2019) 83; Rosario Francesco Esposito, Il Decreto
Conciliare sulle Chiese Orientali «Orientalium Ecclesiarum»: Testo e Commento, (Rome:
Pauline Editions, 1965) 11-59.
2 Cfr. Marco Brogi, Strutture delle Chiese orientali sui iuris secondo il CCEO,
Apollinaris, 65 (1992) 301-302; Anchukandathil, Into the Third Millennium in the Spirit
of Vatican II, 93; Koodapuzha, Identity, Rights and Rites in the Light of Orientalium
Ecclesiarum, 83.
3 John Madey, The Particular Oriental Vocation of the Nazrani Church in Communion
with Rome, (Alappuzha: Prakasam Publication, 1976) 37.

4 Cfr., Madey, The Particular Oriental Vocation of the Nazrani Church in Communion
with Rome, 37-38.

136 Iustitia
1.2 The Preservation of the Spiritual Heritage of the Eastern Churches

The third part of the Decree defines the role of the Eastern Churches
within the universal Church. “History, traditions, and so many
ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness on how much the
Eastern Churches have merited for the universal Church.”5 With
regard to this aspect, the Decree refers particularly to the Apostolic
letter of Pope Leo XIII, Orientalium dignitas;6 Motu Proprio Orientis
catholici7 of Pope Benedict XV; Encyclical letter: Rerum Orientalium8 of
Pope Pius XI. The Council praised and highly esteemed the history,
traditions, and institutions of the Eastern Churches and recognized
and confirmed them as a patrimony of the universal Church. The
Council’s Decree (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) assures the faithful of the
Eastern Churches that they can and ought always to preserve their
legitimate liturgical norms and their discipline and those changes are
to be introduced solely by reason of their own organic development.9
5 OE, n. 5, Norman P. Tanner ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Trent - Vatican
II, vol. 2, 902.

6 Cfr. Leonis XIII, Litterae Apostolicae: Orientalium Dignitas, 30 novembris 1894,
in ASS, XXVII (1894-95), 257-264.

7 Cfr. Benedictus XV, Motu proprio: Orientis catholici, 15 ottobris 1917 in AAS IX/I
(1917), 531-533. «Il Papa Benedetto XV con motu proprio «Orientis Catholici» del 15
ottobre 1917 provvide a fondare il Pontificio Istituto Orientale; quindi con successivo motu
proprio «Dei providentis» del 1 maggio 1917 istituì la Congregazione - detta allora - per la
Chiesa Orientale» (Pope Benedict XV with motu proprio “Orientis Catholici” of 15
October 1917, he founded the Pontifical Oriental Institute with the subsequent motu
proprio “Dei Providentis” of 1 May 1917 he established the Congregation - then called
- for the Oriental Church).
8 Cfr. Pius XI, Littere Encyclicae: Rerum orientalium, 8 setembris 1928, in AAS XX
(1928), 276-288.
9 OE, n. 6. (“All eastern Christian should know and be certain that they may and
should always preserve their own lawful liturgical rites and way of life, and that
changes should be made only by reason of their proper and organic development.
All these things are to be observed with the greatest fidelity by the eastern Christian
themselves. They should indeed, from the day to day, acquire greater knowledge of
these matters and more perfect practice of them and if for reasons of circumstances,
times, or persons they have fallen unduly short of this they should have recourse to
their age-old traditions. Those persons, however, who by reason of their office or of
an apostolic ministry have frequent contact with the eastern churches or their
faithful are to be carefully instructed in the knowledge and practice of the rites, law,
teaching, history and nature of eastern Christians, in keeping with the importance
of the office they hold. Moreover, it is strongly recommended to religious orders and
congregations of the Latin rite working in eastern countries or among the eastern
faithful that, in the interests of greater efficacy of the apostolate, they set up houses
1.3 Orientalium Ecclesiarum and CCEO

In fact, the principles specified in Orientalium Ecclesiarum were the
guidelines for the codification of the new Eastern Code.10 It is clear
that the Council’s Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, is to be considered
as one of the secondary documents of the Council. It was an
important document because it affirmed that unity - in - diversity
has, in principle, always been present in the Eastern Catholic
Churches.11
2. Canonical Provisions of CCEO for Latin Religious Institutes
CCEO c. 432 (no parallel canon in CIC) is the juridical provision for a
religious institute to have a house or province ascribed12 to the
Eastern Church sui iuris. The canon states; “A dependent monastery,
a house or province of a religious institute of any Church sui iuris,
also of the Latin Church, which with the approval of the Apostolic
See is attached to another Church sui iuris, must observe the
prescriptions of this latter Church, save for the prescriptions of the
typicon or statutes which refer to the internal governance of this
religious institute and the privileges granted by the Apostolic See.”
or even provinces of eastern rite as far as is possible.” Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 902.
10 Cfr. Mathew Vattappalm, The Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Origins and
Competence, (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999) 82.

11 Cfr. Andrews Thazhath, The Juridical Sources of The Syro-Malabar Church, (Kottayam:
Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1987) 285; Brogi, Strutture delle Chiese orientali sui
iuris secondo il CCEO, 304-306; Jean Paul Lieggi, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Unitatis
Redintegratio, Testi di Jean-Paul Lieggi, Angelo Maffeis, Stefano Parenti, (Bologna: Edizioni
Dehoniane, 2019) 50-53.
12 The term Ascription: the term is used with various meanings in CCEO. The
Latin term ‘adscribere’ (or ascribere) means to enter in list, to enrol or to enlist as a
member in a group or category. Canonical institution of permanent attachment to
an ecclesiastical entity is called Ascription. CIC 1917 and Motu Proprio Cleri
Sanctitati used the same term Ascription. The term Ascription is used 80 times in 56
canons of CCEO. Terms used in CCEO like enrolment, incorporation cc. 7 §1 675 §1;
aggregation cc. 469, 531, 545 §2; and co-option cc. 560, 563 §3, 568 §2 are akin to
ascription. It is used in relation to physical as well as juridical persons. Cfr. Georgge
Allumpurath, Ascription of Religious and of Religious Institutes According to CCEO,
(Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 2005) 17. CIC uses the term Enrolment or
Incardination (cc. 265-272); Natale Loda, «L’ascrizione ad una Chiesa sui iuris e la tutela
dell’appartenesza de fedeli delle Chiese Orientali Cattoliche», in Pontificio Consiglio per i
Testi Legislativi, L’attenzione pastorale per i fedeli orientali, Atti della Giornata di studio
Tenutasi nel XXV Anniversario della promulgazione del codice dei canoni delle chiese
orientali, Sala San Pio X, 3 ottobre 2015, Roma, (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 2017) 185-206.
138 Iustitia
This canon 432 also embraces the Latin Church and undoubtedly is
meant to safeguard and foster the varietas Ecclesiarum13 , which
characterizes the entire Catholic Church. The norm serves as a point
of reference for religious institutes of any Church sui iuris, including
the Latin Church, which seek to establish themselves in an area
predominantly inhabited by the faithful of another Church sui iuris.
Therefore, religious members would always be obliged to follow the
typicon or statutes14 which regulate the internal governance of their
institute. With the approval of the Holy See, the major superiors
could set up independent houses or provinces that would be ascribed
to another Church sui iuris.15
13 Ivan Žužek, in his Reflections on the Apostolic Constitution Sacri canones,

highlighted the fact that the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium can be characterized
by three key-words: unitas del patromonio fondamentale (unity of the fundamental
patrimony), varietas delle Chiese sui iuris (varieties of the sui iuris Churches) and novitas
proveniente dal Vaticano II (novelty from the Second Vatican Council). These three words
are the face of the new ecclesiology of Second Vatican Council and therefore, when we
consider or talk about the ‘varietas Ecclesiarum’ of the una, santa, catholica et apostolica
Ecclesia, we should keep in mind that the Latin Church is also part of this ‘varietas’, as a
Church sui iuris whose discipline is regulated by the Codex Iuris Canonici. Whereas the
discipline of the Catholic Oriental sui iuris Churches is regulated by the Codex Canonum
Ecclesiarum Orientalium which present itself as the code of a varietas Ecclesiarum. Cfr.
Ivan Žužek, Riflessioni circa la costituzione apostolica ‘Sacri canones’ (18 ottobre 1990), in
Understanding the Eastern Code, Kanonika 8, (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1997)
153; Ionela Cristescu, «Unitas and Varietas Ecclesiarum” and Resplendent Force, Safeguarded
in CCEO by the Relation “Ius Commune”- “Ius Particulare”», in Kanon XIX, (Kovar:
Kirchenverfassungen, 2006) 162.
14 The term Statutes or Typicon means: The term is not defined in CCEO but it
corresponds in meaning to that given in CIC c. 94. Statutes can be either particular
laws (CCEO c. 1493§2) or bylaws (c. 1502 §2). The norms or bylaws of a juridic entity
by which its purpose, constitution, government and operation are defined (CCEO
cc. 922, 925; CIC c. 94). CCEO uses the term for the fundamental Code Statutes or
Typicon (cc. 421, 424, 433) and supplementary Code as Directory. CIC uses the term
Constitution for fundamental Code and Statutes for supplementary Code. Cfr.
George Nedungatt, A Glossary of the Main Terms Used in CCEO, in Kanonika 13, in
The Eastern Code- Text and Resources, Yoannis Lahzi Gaid, ed., (Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Orientale, 2007) 158-160.
15 Cfr. Jobe Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of other
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in Georges Ruyssen (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code, A
Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 2 Revised edition, Kanonika 10,
(Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2020), 429.
2.1 Sources of CCEO c. 432 and its Canonical Significance with

Particular Examples
Canon 5 of the Postquam Apostolicis Litteris16 and Orientalium
Ecclesiarum (n. 6)17 are the sources of this canon. OE n. 6 is not
officially cited as the source for c. 432 but is considered one of the
sources that indisputably inspired the norm.18 The canon 432 is
unique to the Eastern Code and explicitly regards the Latin Church.
This canon ultimately aims to safeguard and promote the variety of
Churches (varietas Ecclesiarum) that constitute or structure the
Catholic Church. This canon is addressed to all religious institutes of
any Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris and those of the Latin Church,
whose apostolate consists of ministry among the faithful of another
Church sui iuris. The canon effectively encourages the major
superiors of these institutes to establish dependent houses, vice-
provinces, or even provinces that are ascribed to that other Church
sui iuris with the consent of the Holy See.19
Here, I would like to mention particular examples regarding the
presence of Latin religious institutes among the Eastern Catholic
faithful. There are many examples in which parts of Latin institutes
have been ascribed to the Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris. In Kerala
(India), the Capuchin Franciscans have two provinces (Aluva and
Kottayam). The Conventual Franciscans have one province, and
these provinces are ascribed to the Syro-Malabar Church. Even
though these provinces must follow their internal rule of the
institute, they must observe the common and particular law of the
Syro-Malabar Church, particularly regarding their pastoral activities
(c. 415 §1). In this manner, the CCEO norm gives one the freedom to
16 Pius XII, Motu Proprio, Postquam Apostolicis Litteris (PAL), AAS 44 (1952) 65-
150.
17 Cfr. OE, n. 6.
18 Cfr. Jobe Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of Other
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in John D. Faris - Jobe. Abbass (eds.), A Practical
Commentary to The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, vol. 1, (Canada: Wilson &
Lafleur inc., 2019) 876; Allumpurath, Ascription of Religious and of Religious Institutes
According to CCEO, 17; Brogi, Il nuovo codice orientale e la Chiesa Latina, in Antonianum,
66 (1991) 53.
19 Cfr. Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of Other
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the

Eastern Churches, 876; Dimitrios Salachas - K. Nitkiewicz, Inter Ecclesial Relations
between Eastern and Latin Catholics, (Washington, DC Canon Law Society of America,
2009) 66.
140 Iustitia
follow his or her vocation demanded by the founding charism of a

specific Latin institute. In these cases, it also works to foster and
preserve the Syro-Malabar rite of the religious who are, or will,
become members of those Latin institutes. However, if the same
candidates for these Latin institutes are not intended for a part of
their institute ascribed to the Syro-Malabar Church, the consent of
the Holy See is required for their valid admission to the institute’s
novitiate according to cc. 451 and 517 §220. In view of Jobe Abbass,
“While the phenomenon of ascribing houses or provinces of Eastern
religious institutes to the Latin Church is rare or even non-existent,
this may become more common in the future as Eastern religious
institutes are increasingly called to serve in the West.”21 The
following points are to be considered with regard to c. 432.
2.1.1 The Universal Nature of Canon 432
This canon 432 not only concerns the Latin Church (as in PAL canon
5 and in OE 4) but all Churches sui iuris, and also applies to any two
Eastern Catholic Churches.22 Jobe Abbass explains that “this canon is
undoubtedly meant to safeguard and foster the varietas Ecclesiarum
which characterize the entire Church of Christ. The norm can also
serve as a point of reference for religious institutes of any Church sui
iuris, even the Latin Church, which seek to establish themselves in an
area predominantly inhabited by the faithful of another Church sui
iuris. While religious members would always be obliged to follow the
typicon or statutes which regulate the internal governance of their
institute, major superiors could, with the approval of the Holy See,
set up dependent houses, or even provinces that would be ascribed
to that other Church sui iuris.”23 For instance, having obtained the
consent of the Holy See, the Order of Friars Minor Conventuals has
erected a province that is ascribed to the Syro-Malabar Church. While
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” 876.

21 Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of Other Institutes
of Consecrated Life,” 876.

22 Cfr. George Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, (Bangalore Dharmaram
Publications, 1993) 119.

23 Cfr. Jobe Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of other
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in Georges Ruyssen ed., A Guide to the Eastern Code,
A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches,” in 2 Revised edition,
Kanonika 10, (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2020) 429.
they follow the constitutions and statutes of the Order, they also
must observe the particular law of the Syro-Malabar Church.24
In brief, the Eastern houses or provinces of a Latin religious institute
which is lawfully erected are bound to observe the law of the proper
Eastern Church sui iuris. But at the same time, they have to follow
and are bound to follow the statues in matters of the governance and
internal discipline of the Latin religious institute to which they
belong. These houses and provinces and Eastern juridical persons
have to live the Eastern liturgical, theological, spiritual, and
disciplinary patrimony (c. 28 §1). They are also subject to the
jurisdiction of the Eastern bishop in accordance with the law. It is
clear that there will not be any change regarding the internal
governance or the internal statutes and the relations of the juridical
persons and the individual members with the major superior
(General Superior) and with the other houses or provinces of the
same religious institute.25
2.1.2 The Consent of the Holy See
If a Latin religious institute wants to ascribe a house or province to
an Eastern Church sui iuris needs the permission of the Holy See
(from the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches). There are two reasons
for this: first, the religious institute of the Latin Church cannot validly
create by itself a religious house or province ascribed to an Oriental
Church. CIC does not give any power to posit such an inter-ecclesial
act. Secondly, OE n. 4 states the proper and common authority or
“authority in inter-ecclesial relations” is the Holy See.26
2.2 Ascription of a House of Latin Institute to an Eastern Church
Sui Iuris
Religious institutes belong to a Church sui iuris whether Latin or
Oriental. They are ascribed to one of these Churches (CIC cc. 111, 112
/ CCEO cc. 29-34). For example, the Salesians of Don Bosco (SDB)
and the Jesuits (Society of Jesus) are ascribed to the Latin Church,
including their houses and provinces. They are governed by the CIC.
It is possible for them to have houses or provinces ascribed to an
24 Cfr. Abbass, “Monks and Other Religious as well as Members of other
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” Kanonika 10, 429.

25 Cfr. George D. Gallaro and Dimitrios Salachas, “Interecclesial Matters in the
Communion of Churches,” in The Jurist, 60 (2000) 274.

26 Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 119.
142 Iustitia
Eastern Catholic Church.27 Ascription is not equal to canonical

erection. In the case of a religious house or province already erected
and ascribed to the Latin Church, the legitimate authority may effect
a transfer of ascription to an Eastern Church sui iuris. The Holy See
permits it.28 Ascription of a house or province to an Oriental Church sui
iuris does not mean reservation of its membership to Orientals. Its
members can be Oriental or Latin, even as it was before ascription and
without prejudice to their rite. The equality of rites is here safeguarded
fully.29
2.3 The Ius (The Common Law and Particular Laws) of Eastern
Church Sui Iuris
A house or province ascribed to the Latin Church has to observe the
norms of CIC and also in the same way, a house or province ascribed
to Eastern Church sui iuris has to follow CCEO. The house or province,
as explained in c. 432, is to be governed by the common law30 (CCEO)
to which the Church sui iuris is subject. Therefore, in external
governance, it is subject to the hierarchy of that Church sui iuris in
matters of permission or consent of the local hierarch needed to erect
a religious house,31 vigilance,32 visitation,33 confirmation of the
dismissal of a perpetually professed religious 34 and particular law,
there is subjection to the hierarchy. This house or province is also
subjected to the particular law35 of the same Church sui iuris.36
27 Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 119; George Nedungatt, Lorenzo
Lorusso, “Churches Sui Iuris and Rites,” in A Guide to the Eastern Code A Commentary
on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Kanonika 10, 140-147.
28 Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code 120; Nedungatt, Lorusso,
“Churches Sui Iuris and Rites,” in A Guide to the Eastern Code A Commentary on the
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Kanonika 10, 141-142, 144-147.
30 Common law in the CCEO come besides the laws and legitimate customs of
the whole Church also the laws and legitimate customs common to all the Eastern
Churches (c. 1493 §1).
31 CCEO cc. 437, 509, 556, 566 / CIC cc. 609, 611.
32 CIC cc. 594, 615.
33 CCEO cc. 415 §2; 420 §3 / CIC cc. 683 §1, 397 §2.
34 CIC cc. 699 §2; 700; 701.
35 The CCEO c. 1493 §2 gives the definition of particular law (ius particulare):
“However, under the name particular law come all laws, legitimate customs,
statutes and other norms of law, which are neither common to the entire Church nor
to all the Eastern Churches.”
2.6 Two Concessions

There are two concessions to the general rule with regard to the
internal governance (There are two forms of governance: external
and internal. In external governance, a house or province is subject
to the hierarchy of the Church sui iuris to which it is ascribed. The
internal governance concerns the acts of erection of houses or
provinces, admission of candidates, formation, dismissal, election or
nomination of superiors, amendment of the statutes, convocation,
and conduct of chapters, and so on)37 of the religious institute and if
it has any privileges (The privileges38 approved and granted by the
Holy See to the religious institutes are not revoked with regard to the
Eastern house. This can be in three ways:39 (a) Those granted in
common to all religious institutes. (b) Those granted to a religious
institute in particular through its approved constitutions (for
example, exemption)40. (c) Those granted by special concession to the
religious institute, province, or house)41. The purpose was to allow
each institute to protect its proper identity and its specific charism.
The Church never allowed religious institutes to lose their identity
and specific character due to the ascription of its part to another
Church sui iuris. Therefore, the Eastern Code enables and encourages
an institute to preserve the unity in its purpose and administration.42
2.7 Candidates from Eastern Churches
If candidates from the Eastern Churches enter into a Latin religious
institute the norms of CCEO are to be observed. The norms include
their admission, formation and ordination in the case of clerical
candidates.43 CCEO c. 451 deals with the admission to a monastery
37 Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 121; Allumpurath, Ascription of
Religious and of Religious Institutes According to CCEO, 38.

38 A privilege - It is a favor granted to certain persons, whether physical or juridic,
by means of a special act, can be granted by the legislator or by the one to whom the
legislator has granted this power (CCEO c. 1531 §1).
40 CCEO c. 412 §2 (CIC c. 591) states “In order to provide for the good of institutes
and the needs of the apostolate, the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his primacy in the
entire Church, and with a view to common advantage, can exempt institutes of
consecrated life from the governance of the eparchial bishop and subject them to
himself alone or to another ecclesiastical authority.”
42 Cfr. Allumpurath, Ascription of Religious and of Religious Institutes According to
CCEO, 37-38.
144 Iustitia
and it states: “No one can be admitted licitly to the novitiate of a

monastery of another Church sui iuris without the permission of the
Apostolic See, unless it is the case of candidates who are destined for
a dependent monastery of their own Church as mentioned in canon
432.” CCEO c. 517 §2 deals with the admission to an order or
congregation, and it states: “No one is admitted lawfully to the
novitiate of a religious institute of another Church sui iuris without
the permission of the Apostolic See, unless it is a candidate who is
destined for a province or house, mentioned in canon 432, of the
same Church.” These two canons are similar in construction. From
the first part, it is evident that the permission of the Holy See is
required for the admission of Orientals to a Latin religious institute.
But an exception is given in the second part of the canon that when
there is a province or house ascribed to an Oriental Church sui iuris
according to canon 432. These norms do not obviously include the
Latin Church and are not found in the Latin code. However,
considering the legislator's intention, the ipsa rei natura (the very
nature of the thing), and the purpose of the norm, we can say that
they may also apply to the Latin Church.44
This is tacitly recommended also in the CCEO c. 432. Therefore, a
Latin religious institute or an Eastern province or house may accept
into the novitiate Eastern faithful who are assigned to the province
or house of the Eastern rite. In the same way, an Eastern religious
institute with a Latin province or a house can also accept Latin
faithful into the novitiate assigned for the province or house of the
Latin rite. With the exception of the case provided for in the CCEO c.
432 to be admitted lawfully to the novitiate of a religious institute of
another Church sui iuris, even of the Latin Church, the permission of
the Apostolic See is required. This permission does not imply by
itself also the ascription to another church sui iuris or to the Latin
Church. For example, the fact that an Eastern novice and member are
lawfully admitted to the Latin religious institute does not imply by
itself that they become a member of the Latin Church but remain
ascribed to their Church sui iuris, unless, they have obtained the
consent of the Holy See according to CCEO c. 32.45
44 Cfr. Gallaro and Salachas, Interecclesial Matters in the Communion of Churches,
275; Abbass, “The Admission of Eastern Catholics to the Novitiate of Latin Religious
Institutes,” in Studia canonica, 36 (2002) 298-302.
Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the

2.9 As Regards the Orientals who have Joined a Latin Religious

Institute
CCEO c. 40, §246 applies equally to Eastern rite and Latin rite
members in Latin religious institutes who have joined on the ground
of canons 451 and 517 §2. By the law, they are expected to live and
work in a province or house ascribed to their Oriental Church sui iuris
in accordance with c. 432. The province or religious house has the
obligation to provide proper facilities to fulfill it responsibly. The
facilities should not be limited to liturgical services but have to go
beyond to meet the demands of canon 40 §2. Nedungatt says this
consideration leads to the conclusion that if there are many Eastern
rite members in a Latin religious institute normally houses (or
provinces) are ascribed to their Church sui iuris. CCEO does not
directly oblige the institute to do so, since members may be admitted
with the indult, permitting them to conform to the Latin rite of the
institute. Once this indult has been got, their transfer to the Latin
Church is implied in Church sui iuris membership and rite. At
present, the indult grants no such transfer but Bi-ritual faculty47 to
those in sacred orders from the moment of their ordination.48
3. Juridical Need of an Oriental Province of a Secular Institute of
Latin Church
The Motu Proprio PAL on the Institutes of Consecrated Life of the
Eastern Churches (canon 74 §2, 6°) states that if a Latin religious
institute has at least a house ascribed to an Eastern Church, it may
Eastern Churches, vol.1, 899-890, 984; Gallaro and Salachas, Interecclesial Matters in the
Communion of Churches, 275; Jobe Abbass, “The Admission of Eastern Catholics to
the Novitiate of Latin Religious Institutes,” in Studia canonica, 36 (2002) 302-306.
CCEO c. 32 §1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the
consent of the Apostolic See. §2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a
certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which
has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is
presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the
transfer in writing.
46 CCEO c. 40, §2 “ Other clerics and members of institutes of consecrated life are
bound to observe their own rite faithfully and daily to acquire a greater
understanding and a more perfect practice of it”.
47 Bi-ritual faculty – it is the faculty granted to a cleric to exercise the sacred
ministry in a second rite other than his rite. It is given as an indult by the
Congregation for the Eastern Churches to presbyters or deacons who request it for
a concrete pastoral need. It is granted for a determined period of time but can be
renewed. Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 126-127.
146 Iustitia
admit Orientals.49 For instance, the secular institute of Schoenstatt

Fathers in Kerala is territorially related to the Oriental Churches in
Kerala and admitted its members exclusively from the Syro-Malabar
Church. The institute admitted its first member to the contract
(sacred bond) from the Syro-Malabar Church in 1988, and he was
ordained in 1994. Since then, there has been a rapid increase in the
number of vocations to the institute from this Eastern Catholic
Church. By 2023, the majority of the members of the institute in India
are originally from the Syro-Malabar Church. Therefore, it is
appropriate that the members of the secular institute of Latin Church
live their consecrated life in accordance with their rite. To do so fully
and expressively, the institute must establish a province that juridically
ascribes to the Syro-Malabar Church.
4. Reasons for an Oriental Province
Pope John Paul II stated that “the need and role of a juridical order
in the Church is to sustain, strengthen and foster common initiatives
to live a Christian life ever more perfectly.”50 The Church has been
witnessing the practice and profession of evangelical counsels by
individuals as well as communities according to their charism. An
ecclesiastically approved religious community or an institute has its
own juridical personality.51 It is a juridic person.52
The PAL on the Oriental religious has clear norms on admission and
for the governance of a house or province of a Latin institute ascribed
to an Eastern Church.53 The recommendation of the Second Vatican
Council’s decree on Oriental Churches (OE, n. 6) did not compel by
obligation to religious institutes working among Eastern faithful and
regions, to set up as far as is possible houses or even provinces
ascribed to the concerned Eastern Church; but indeed, the Apostolic
49 Cfr. Lawrence T. Paruthapara, Oriental Province of Latin Rite Religious Institute-
Admission and Government, (Kottayam: Jeevan Books, 2003) 46.

50 Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Constitutio Apostolica: Sacrae Discipline Leges, in AAS,
LXXV (1983), Pars II, VII-XIV (for English trans. Cfr. Apostolic Constitution in CIC,
xv).
51 Cfr. Paruthapara, Oriental Province of Latin Rite Religious Institute- Admission and
Government, 74.
52 Juridic Persons: Either aggregates of persons or aggregates of things which are
subjects in canon law of obligations and rights that correspond to their nature. They
are constituted for a purpose that is in keeping with the mission of the Church either
by the very prescript of law or by special concession of competent authority given
through a decree (CCEO cc. 920-922 / CIC cc.113-123).
53 PAL Canons 74 §2; 5 §1.
See expects the Latin religious institutes to take the initiative to

establish Oriental houses or provinces with its permission.54 For
example, a member of the secular institute of Schoenstatt Fathers
from the Syro-Malabar Church has a Syro-Malabar ecclesial
patrimony,55 and to live accordingly, he needs to be incorporated into
the Syro-Malabar Church both de iure and de facto. Since in Kerala, all
the members of the institute hail originally from the Syro-Malabar
Church it is recommended to erect an oriental province and
juridically ascribe to Syro-Malabar Church. In light of these reasons, it
is clear that Christians, irrespective of their state of life, can profoundly
live their call to holiness within their own liturgical rite, spirituality, and
culture. Thus, it is not the mind of the Church to neglect one’s own rite
in the name of religious life or apostolate.56 Therefore, it is only
appropriate that the members of the secular institute of the Latin
Church live their consecrated life in accordance with their rite. To do so
fully and expressively, the institute must establish a province that
juridically ascribes to the Syro-Malabar Church. As a result, the
province acquires a proper homogeneous juridical status.57
4.1 The Guidance of the Second Vatican Council
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches
(OE), gives the following recommendation: “It is strongly
recommended to religious institutes and associations of the Latin rite,
which are working in the Eastern regions or among the Eastern faithful,
that in view of greater apostolic efficiency, they establish houses or even
provinces of the Eastern rite.”58 This strong recommendation of the
Council is in reference to an already existing practice in the Church
54 Cfr. Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 117-118; Natale Loda,
L’evangelizzazione delle Genti nel Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium - cc. 584-594,
(Roma: UniversItalia, 2007) 83-85.
55 CCEO c. 39 stipulates “The rites (which are the sum total of liturgical,
theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage) of the Eastern Churches, as the

patrimony of the entire Church of Christ, in which there is clearly evident the
tradition which has come from the Apostles through the Fathers and which affirm
the divine unity in diversity of the Catholic faith, are to be religiously preserved and
fostered.”
Government, 79.
58 OE, n. 6; Rosario Francesco Esposito, Il Decreto Conciliare sulle Chiese Orientali
«Orientalium Ecclesiarum»: Testo e Commento, 136-141.

148 Iustitia
and to the positive outcome of having houses of Eastern Church sui

iuris religious institutes.59
4.1.1 The Intention of the Council
First and foremost, the Council is addressing to all religious institutes
as well as societies of common life, secular institutes and societies of
apostolic life. Secondly the Council recommends to these Latin
religious institutes to establish houses or provinces of the Eastern
rite. The Council does not command but strongly recommends. The
recommendation is based on the positive experience of the religious
institutes which took the initiative and sought the permission of the
Holy See to erect Eastern houses.60
4.1.2 The Purpose of the Council’s Recommendation
The Council made this recommendation in view of “greater apostolic
efficiency”.61 This apostolic efficiency is the motive of the Conciliar
counsel.62 Apostolic effectiveness among the Orientals will be greater
if there is greater appreciation and conformity to their rite, for which
the establishment of Eastern houses and provinces is a means.63
Considering the real spirit and strong recommendation of the Second
Vatican Council’s Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches (OE n. 6),
several Latin religious institutes have established Oriental Provinces.
For example, With the approval of the Holy See, the Order of Friars
Minor Conventual has erected an Indian branch which is ascribed to
the Syro-Malabar Church.64 The Latin religious institutes like, Order
of Friars Minor Capuchins (OFM. Cap), Order of Discalced
Carmelites (OCD),65 Claretian Missionaries (CMF), Order of
Carmelites (O Carm) and Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
(C.S.S.R.) have an Eastern rite (Syro-Malabar) province in Kerala and
CCEO, 17; Esposito, Il Decreto Conciliare sulle Chiese Orientali «Orientalium

Ecclesiarum»: Testo e Commento, 136-141; Lieggi, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Unitatis
Redintegratio, 97-103.
60 Cfr. Gallaro and Salachas, “Interecclesial Matters in the Communion of
Churches,” in The Jurist 60, (2000), 274; Nedungatt, The Spirit of the Eastern Code, 117-
118; Lieggi, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Unitatis Redintegratio, 103.
CCEO, 17; Lieggi, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Unitatis Redintegratio, 103.

64 Cfr. Nedungatt, A Guide to the Eastern Code, A Commentary on the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, 353.

the following religious institutes have houses ascribed to the Syro-

Malabar Church: Salesians of Don Bosco, Society of Jesus, Nobertines
Fathers (O Praem) and Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales (MSFS)
and so on.
5. Juridical Ascription of the Province
In order to have a proper juridical figure, the province has to be de
iure ascribed to an Oriental Church (for instance, Syro-Malabar
Church).66
5.1 Juridical Stature of the Province
With the juridical ascription to an Oriental Church (for example,
Syro-Malabar Church or Syro-Malankara Church), the province of
the secular institute of the Latin Church acquires a new juridical
status with the consequent juridical effects. Its juridical status and
juridical effects together constitute its juridical stature.67
5.2 Juridical Effects of Ascription
As an effect of the de iure ascription, the province of the secular
institute of Latin Church is subjected to the Syro-Malabar Major
Archiepiscopal Church in reference to its external governance. In so
doing, the province becomes Oriental and, as a result, should feel
more one with the local Church. All the houses in the province are
subjected to the eparchial bishop and statutes of the eparchy in
reference to the external governance, various apostolate, public
decorum, and to Divine worship. A house and its members have to
follow the Oriental law in liturgical celebrations. The members must
make an effort to grow in the liturgical and spiritual traditions of the
Syro-Malabar Church.68
5.3 Administration of the Province (External and Internal)
The norm of the CCEO c. 432 is applicable for the administration of
the province, and the canon says: “A dependent monastery, a house
or province of a religious institute of any Church sui iuris, also of the
Latin Church, which with the approval of the Apostolic See is
Government, 86.
Government, 87.
Government, 87.
150 Iustitia
ascribed to another Church sui iuris, must observe the prescriptions

of this latter Church, save for the prescriptions of the typicon or
statutes which refer to the internal governance of this religious
institute and the privileges granted by the Apostolic See.” With
regard to the external governance, this canon stipulates a general
principle of the observance of the Eastern Canon Law, that means the
province, by its ascription to the Syro-Malabar Church, has to be
governed by the Common Law to which the Syro-Malabar Church is
subjected (CCEO).69 Therefore, in those matters that refer to the
external governance of the province, it is subject to the hierarchy of
the Syro-Malabar Church and its particular laws. The second part of
the canon gives two exceptions regarding internal governance and
apostolic privileges.70 In matters pertaining to the internal
governance, the province is to be governed according to the
constitutions of the particular institute.
5.4 The Administration of the Temporal Goods
Acquisition, administration, and alienation of temporal goods
belong to the internal governance of the institute. Therefore, the
province has to follow the proper law and statutes of the institute
and the norms of Common law (CCEO cc. 423 - 425 and 1007 - 1054;
CIC cc. 634 - 640 and 1254 - 1310). It is also recommended to pay
attention to the particular law of the Oriental Churches on the
Acquisition and Administration of Temporal Goods.71
5.5 Apostolic Privileges of the Institute
One of the exceptions given to the general norm of CCEO c. 432
safeguards that the institute ascribed to another Church sui iuris does
not lose the privileges granted to the institute by the Holy See.72 The
main intention of the privileges granted by the Apostolic See to an
69 Cfr. Lawrence T. Paruthapara, Religious Institutes Inter-Ecclesial Legislation,

(Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientale, 2001) 52; Abbass, “The Admission of
Eastern Catholics to the Novitiate of Latin Religious Institutes,” in Studia canonica,
301-302.
70 Cfr. Paruthapara, Oriental Province of Latin Rite Religious Institute - Admission and
Government, 88.
71 Cfr. Synodal News, Bulletin of the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, vol.
7, nn. 1/2 (December), Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Curia, Mount St. Thomas
1999, 104-106.
CCEO, 38.
institute of consecrated life is to help the institute to reach perfection

more easily and efficaciously.
5.6 The Possibility of Ritual Ascription for the Members of
Western and Oriental Provinces
Baptism incorporates a person into Christ’s body, the Church (CCEO c.
7/CIC c. 96)73, and also enrolls them in a Church sui iuris (CCEO c.
29/CIC c. 111). Besides baptism, there are other means for ascribingn to
the Church sui iuris, for exampl,e a rescript74 (CCEO cc. 32 §1; 36) or
declaration according to the norm of law (cc. 33, 36). Canons of the Cleri
Sanctitati (cc. 6-15) have been revised in CCEO cc. 29-38 both in
terminology and contents concerning the ascription to and membership
in the Church sui iuris. The corresponding canons of these CCEO canons
in CIC are cc.111 and 112. (CIC is silent about the following canons of
the CCEO 29 §2; 31; 32 §2; 35; 36; 37; 38). CCEO cc. 27 and 28 clearly
defined the notions of “Church sui iuris” and “rite” respectively, and it
speaks of ascription to Church sui iuris not to rite.75 The ritual ascription
of members is given if there are many Eastern rite members in a Latin
religious institute. Normally, the province or house is to be ascribed
to their Church sui iuris. Since members may be admitted with the
indult permitting to conform to the Latin rite of the institute, the
CCEO does not oblige the institute to do so. Today, the faculty of bi-
ritualism is granted to those in sacred orders from the moment of
their ordination.76
Conclusion
The Oriental Catholics in a secular institute of the Latin Church have
not only responded to God’s call to communion through baptism but
have also bound themselves before the Church to live this baptismal
commitment more profoundly through their sacred bond. This study
emphasizes and underlines that the establishment of an Oriental
province is possible in Latin-based secular institutes. In the light of
73 CCEO Canon 7 §1. “The Christian faithful are those who, incorporated in
Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God; for this reason,
since they have become sharers in Christ's priestly, prophetic and royal function in
their own manner; they are called, in accordance with the condition proper to each,
to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfil in the world.”
74 CCEO c. 1510 §2, 3° (CIC c. 59) states, “Rescript is an administrative act which
grants a privilege, dispensation, permission or another favour.”

75 Cfr. Nedungatt, Lorusso, Churches Sui Iuris and Rites, in A Guide to the Eastern
Code A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 141-142.

152 Iustitia
the Second Vatican Council’s vision (OE, n. 6) and CCEO c. 432, it is

clear that Christians irrespective of their states of life can live their
call to holiness in a profound way within their own liturgical rite,
spirituality, and culture. Therefore, to neglect one’s own rite in the
name of religious life or apostolate may not be in keeping with the
mind of the Church.
The main argument of the study focuses on CCEO c.432 and sums up
the following conclusions: This canon has a universal character
because it includes all Churches sui iuris, Eastern and Latin. The
canon explicitly regards the Latin Church and ultimately means to
safeguard and promote the varietas Ecclesiarum that make up the
Catholic Church. According to this canon, a religious institute of the
Latin Church can have a house or a province ascribed to any one of
the Eastern Churches or the other way around, and an Eastern
institute can have a house or province ascribed to any other Eastern
Catholic Church. The ascription stated in this canon is a juridical act
that has been completed with the permission of the Holy See. The
competent authority is effectively encouraged to establish or to
initiate this ascription is the one who has the competence to erect a
house, or province according to the typicon or statutes. To ensure
uniformity regarding internal discipline, the province ascribed
would be obliged to follow the typicon or statutes that govern the life
of the entire institute while at the same time retaining whatever
privileges the Holy See may have granted the institute. With regard
to external governance, the province is subjected to the hierarchy of
the Church sui iuris to which it is ascribed and is governed by the
common law and particular law of that Church sui iuris. The rite
which is to be followed according to CCEO c. 432 is the rite of the
Church sui iuris to which it is ascribed. The Eastern norm not only
gives the freedom to pursue one’s vocation attracted by the charism
of a specific Latin institute, but also works to foster and preserve the
individual rite of the person. The oriental province of the Institute
while remaining faithful to the liturgical, theological, spiritual and
disciplinary heritage of the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal
Church, it must abide by the spirituality, charism and mission of the
Institute. By establishing an oriental province, the Secular Institute of
Latin Church opens a new horizon and becomes more universal. At
the same time, it responds to the desire of the Mother Church and
participates in her mission lively and accepting the various ecclesial
patrimonies and heritage. In Indian context, the province is not only
limited or restricted its apostolate within the jurisdiction or territories

of Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, but also it can be
extended and open houses in the territories of Latin Church and Syro-
Malankara Major Archiepiscopal Church according to the norms of
the common law (The prior written permission of the bishop of the
eparchy (diocese) within whose bounds the house is to be established,
is necessary for the validity of the act, even if the Institute is of
Pontifical right. CCEO cc. 436-437/ CIC cc. 611-612). So far, no Secular
Institute of Latin Church has implemented the recommendation of
the Council in the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church.
The Catholic Church wants to safeguard the various ecclesial
patrimonies in the Church itself since they are the heritage of the
whole Church. Therefore, the Church insists that no one should
neglect one’s own rite in the name of religious life or apostolate. In
order to safeguard the ecclesial patrimony properly, the CCEO c. 432
offers a fair resolution. Therefore, CCEO c. 432 unites the Church's
desire to preserve the heritage of each Church sui iuris. Some
religious institutes received and realized the recommendation of the
Vatican Council (OE, n. 6). Still, some have just disregarded it
because of the absence of the mandatory nature of the
recommendation.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 155-158
BOOK REVIEW
Papale, Claudio, ed., Le nuove norme sui delitti riservati: aspetti
sostanziali e procedurali (Quaderni Ius missionale 18), Città del
Vaticano, Urbaniana University Press, 2023, 134 pp., € 16,00.
The book is a collection of six articles, each by a different author, on
the norms on the delicts reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of
the Faith, which were published on 7 December 2021 and entered
into force on the next day. These norms are applicable to the entire
Church, that is to say, the Latin as well as Eastern Churches. Except
one, all articles are in Italian. These are the papers presented at the X
intensive course on delicts reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine
of the Faith, held on 9-10 May 2022, and organised by the Faculty of
Canon Law of the Pontifical Urbaniana University. Besides these six
articles, the book contains an introduction by the editor and an Italian
translation of these norms in the appendix. Five of the authors are
officials of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and one is a
professor at the Pontifical Urbaniana University. The fact that the
articles are written by experts in the field raises the expectation of
their reader.
From the book, we can gather a historical overview of those norms.
With the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, on 30 April
2001, John Paul II promulgated the norms on the delicts reserved to
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which norms
were explained in a letter sent by the CDF to Catholic bishops on 18
May 2001. With the approval of Benedict XVI, a revised version of
those norms was published by the Congregation of the Doctrine of
the Faith on 21 May 2010. Thus, the norms promulgated with the
approval of Pope Francis in 2021 are the third version of those norms.
The document contains a list of the delicts reserved to the DDF, and
certain norms on the canonical penal process both judicial and
extrajudicial.
The first article, by Matteo Visioli, examines the origin, the reasons
and the main novelty of the norms published in 2021 (which we can
call “SST-2021”). At the beginning, he asks three questions (“What
was the path taken? Why was an update considered useful only 11
years after the previous version and twenty after the first? And what
are the main innovations that the Normae 2021 have brought about?”

156 Iustitia
p. 7). They help the reader to look for their answers in the article, and
put the reader in the context of the reform and the novelty which
knowledge is important for an appraisal of other elements of the
norms of SST-2021. In the article, he clearly responds to these
questions. The article refers to archival material which were used as
sources of this study. He states that the revision was made
considering the norms given in the Come una madre amorevole (2016)
and Vos estis lux mundi (2019) which guided the revision of the norms.
He explains the factors which determined the revision which include
the praxis and experience of the CDF, certain lacunae in the norms of
2010 and the modifications made in those norms by certain rescripts,
pressure exerted by distinguished studies, and the above-mentioned
two documents, etc. Among the novelties of the SST-2021, he adds a
more concise and shorter title, the correspondence between the
norms and the revision of penal law of CIC, reception of certain
modifications in the norms between 2010 and 2021, clear distinction
between judicial procedure and extrajudicial one, extension of time-
limit, obligation of having an advocate or procurator, clarity on
delicts judged by the CDF although not reserved to it, etc. There is
some imprecision in the references to numbers of article. For
example, the delict against the sanctity of the eucharist is treated in
art. 3 of the SST-2021, but the article refers to it as art. 5 (p. 10).
In the second article, Jordi Bertomeu Farnós introduces and analyses
art. 20 §7 of the norms which is on the obligation for the accused to
have an advocate or procurator (while advocate is a defender,
procurator is a representative – both these functions together are held
by a legal representative (patronus) – p. 23-24). This is a novelty
introduced by SST-2021. He explains its meaning interpreting the
text of art. 20 §7 in its context, its purpose and the intention of the
legislator. He demonstrates how this norm is the result of a process
of improvement of procedural law and how it helps to guarantee a
more just administrative penal process. The author does not fail to
mention the difficulty of finding qualified personnel to be appointed
as legal representatives (patronus), which he presents as one of the
challenges in applying this norm.
In the third article, Claudio Papale examines the novelty in the norm
of art. 6 n. 2 on pornographic images of minors. It focuses on the
various aspects of the child pornography as it is an object of the
norms of SST-2021, taking into account the modified Latin penal law
on the same matter and of the VELM, highlighting the similarities
Book Review 157
and dissimilarities between these norms. He shows that this norm

was absent in the SST-2001, it was introduced into the SST-2010, and
improved in the SST-2021; thus, this article goes through the iter of
the novelty of the norm in question. He explains well the concept of
minor pornography from various angles and using different
examples.
In the fourth article, Andrea D’Auria examines the norm of art. 6 n. 1
on the ignorance or error on the part of the cleric regarding the age
of the minor on whom a cleric commits the delict of sexual act. This
is a novelty introduced in the SST-2021. He observes some difference
between this norm and the norm of the CIC c. 1323 n. 2 which says
“No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
… 2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept;
inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance” (translation is
from the website of the Pontifical Gregorian University). In order to
explain his point, he begins with the concept of dolus in penal law,
which he explains as awareness of violating a penal law. Then he
explains certain other points as a background for explaining the main
point of the article. The author succeeds in bringing out the contrast
between the existing general norm according to which ignorance or
error can be an extenuating or exonerating circumstance, and the
norm of SST-2021 art. 6 n.1 which says the opposite. In addition, he
briefly notes the role of the norm of art. 6 n. 1 to impose on the cleric
a duty to be extremely careful to avoid a greatly immoral act of
committing a sin against chastity, by which he is morally and
juridically bound, and in that way an additional help to a cleric who
could face such temptations (p. 69-70). However, many examples
used in the article to explain the point of invincible ignorance or error
do not apply to the case of delict against chastity with a minor,
because a cleric already is supposed to know that he is forbidden, not
only morally but also juridically (because of his obligation to celibate
chastity), to have sexual relationship not only minors but even
adults, with the exception of a married pries or deacon with his wife.
Perhaps the reason for such a contrary norm rests in that obligation;
and thus, it may have been useful to make this point a little more
explicit.
In the fifth article, Robert Geisinger studies on the moral certitude
and the related problems in the field of the reserved delicts. He points
specifically to complexities in praxis in the penal arena. The article is
divided into three parts: 1) presentation of eight canons from CIC
158 Iustitia
which are helpful in determining the approach to be taken by those

responsible for assessing whether guilt has been established; 2) a list
of twenty-six specific difficulties which may emerge as concern
reaching moral certitude; and 3) four case studies and commentary
on moral certitude. The author makes it clear that it is not a
presentation concerning what constitutes moral certitude. The
mention of specific difficulties for reaching moral certitude is useful,
especially because they give certain criteria for analysis. The
distinction between a delict and a “bad, imprudent, sinful, and even
disgusting behaviour”, which need not be delict (p. 83), is useful; an
act, in order to be considered a delict, has to be codified. Some of
those difficulties are illustrated in four case studies and their
comments which follow. The article discusses “the obstacles,
nuances, influences, pressures, prejudices, realities, interpretations,
and ambiguous proofs or accusations which can complicate the
assessment of established guilt, or not” (p. 99), in other words the
challenges involved in arriving at moral certitude in cases of reserved
delicts.
In the sixth article, Krzysztof Cisek presents the delicts against faith
(heresy, apostasy and schism) as they are part of the reserved delicts.
It briefly presents the canonical doctrine on the delicts against faith
and an analysis of different procedural questions. He makes it clear
that the delicts against the faith do not fall under the category of more
serious delicts. The exposition of the concept of heresy, apostasy and
schism is useful to understand the process and the penalty prescribed
for them. The article deals with various aspects of the norm on the
delicts against faith connecting them with the norms of the codes
(CIC and CCEO) which is very useful for a reader.
The book dwells on the novelty of SST-2021 rather than giving an
integral commentary on the whole SST-2021. For such a commentary,
a reader may have to have to look elsewhere. The articles respond to
various questions which a canon lawyer could raise and, in some
cases, to certain ambiguities or unclarity which are in the new norms.
Sunny Kokkaravalayil SJ
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 159-161
BOOK REVIEW
Perumayan, Dr Biju Varghese, The Oriental Code (CCEO) and the
Newly Revised Penal Law of the Latin Code (CIC) – A Review,
Dharmaram Canonical Studies 30, Dharmaram Publications,
Dharmaram College, Bengaluru 2023, pp. vi+ 97, Price: ₹. 250.00/
$.05.00.
Pope Francis, with the apostolic constitution Pascite Gregem Dei,
promulgated the revised Book VI of the Code of Canon Law on 1
June 2021. After the vacatio legis, the new norm officially came into
force on 8 December 2021. Earlier in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI
thoughtfully ordered the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to
go ahead with the revision process. Of course, it was based on a
crucial observation that the penal sanctions and disciplines needed
due updation, enabling those in office to become more organic and
responsive to new situations and problems. Hence, this revised book
VI is literally the fruit of nearly twelve long years of hard work. The
Revised Book VI is mainly addressed to bishops and religious
superiors, by the fact of their respective office, are called to
implement the penal discipline. It serves as a reminder that these
rules must be appropriately applied in pastoral governance when it
becomes necessary to guide the faithful, repair scandals, and reform
those who have committed a delict.
This book, The Oriental Code (CCEO) and the Newly Revised Penal Law
of the Latin Code (CIC) – A Review, written by Dr. Biju Varghese
Perumayan, consists of six chapters with a brief introduction and a
conclusion, is indeed worth reading and would be of great use to the
canonists of the both Eastern and Western Churches sui iuris. It is a
compiled and updated version of all the lectures given by the author
at Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram on the occasion of Fr Placid J. Podipara
CMI Endowment Lectures 2021-2022. This book helps one to
comprehend the novelty of the revised Book VI of CIC and to make
a comparative reading of the revised text and Title XXVII of CCEO,
which deals with penal sanctions. This book is structurally divided
into two sections. The first section (first three chapters) deals with the
context of the revision, while the second section analyses the revised
text in detail.

160 Iustitia
The first chapter gives an introductory note concerning the situation

before the promulgation of CIC and CCEO, how there was an
increased dissatisfaction among the faithful towards penal law
sanctions, and how it was seen merely as the product of old
ecclesiology being somewhat anachronistic in terms of the needs and
challenges of the time. He then diligently enumerates several reasons
behind it.
The second chapter records the response and attitude towards penal
law after promulgating CIC/83 and CCEO. In fact, the ecclesiology
of the Second Vatican Council as well as the note-worthy discussions
in the post-Conciliar period, are well reflected in the penal law of
both codes. The author also clearly explicates the major changes and
modifications in the codes. He, too, makes an observation that
despite the changes incorporated into the new codes, the new penal
law did find its due space in the ecclesiastical administration as there
was a situation probably causing the ‘non-application’ of penal law.
The context of the revision of the Book VI of CIC is the subject matter
of the third chapter. The author underscores in it the prime reasons
that necessitated the revision and penal legislation after
promulgating the codes. Correspondingly, he states that the growing
awareness of the criminal activities in the Church and the pressing
need to incorporate penal legislation made after the promulgation of
the codes were the two solid reasons that accelerated this revision in
time.
The fourth chapter highlights the novelty of the revised Book VI of
CIC. Altogether, 63 canons out of 89 have been amended, 9 were
moved, and only 17 remain unchanged in the revised Book VI.
Besides, it has also modified some titles, reordered the delicts, and
created a separate section under the title Offences against
Sacraments, bringing together all the delicts against sacraments. The
revised Book VI also introduced several new types of crime and
improved fundamental issues in criminal law, such as the right to
self-defence, the prescription of penal action, and the need for greater
precision in determining penalties. The author laudably brings out
the significance of them in detail.
The fifth chapter is exclusively dedicated to a comparative reading
of the title XXVII of CCEO and revised Book VI of CIC. The author
rightly hits the nail on the head in saying that even though both codes
have many things in common in the penal sanctions, each follows its
Book Review 161
own genius. Their main differences lie in latae sententiae penalties, the
distinction between minor and major ex-communications, censures-
expiatory penalties, and demotion penalties. And towards the end of
the chapter, the author presents observations unfailingly.
The sixth and final chapter makes a critical assessment so as to make
it clear whether the Church could meet all the expectations through
these integrated revisions and whether it has effectively managed to
reach its objective, namely, regaining the moral credibility of the
Church and reforming the morally weak priests. The bitter truth is
that the Church could not achieve it fully as expected. That being the
case, the author presents his proposals for the development of a new
comprehension and praxis of the penal law in order to attain the
purposes of the penal sanctions of the Church.
In short, this book is a valuable source material that helps one better
understand the contest of the revision and novelties of the revised
Book VI. Further, the comparative reading of the revised Book VI
with the penal law of the CCEO facilitates one to be aware of the
subtle similarities and differences in the Codes. This way, the title of
the book “The Oriental Code and Newley Revised Penal Law of the
Latin Code – A Review” suits its content very well.
Benny Sebastian Tharakunnel, CMI and Jeswin Arackamyalil

IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 163-238
XVI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
FOR A SYNODAL CHURCH:
COMMUNION, PARTICIPATION, MISSION
INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS1
For the First Session
(October 2023)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
The journey so far
A working tool for the second phase of the synodal journey
The structure of the text
A. For a synodal Church. An integral experience
A 1. The characteristic signs of a synodal Church
A 2. A way forward for the synodal Church: conversation in the
Spirit
B. Communion, participation, mission. Three priority issues for
the synodal Church.
B 1. A communion that radiates: How can we be more fully a sign
and instrument of union with God and of the unity of all humanity?
B 2. Co-responsibility in Mission: How can we better share gifts and
tasks in the service of the Gospel?
B 3. Participation, governance and authority: What processes,
structures and institutions in a missionary synodal Church?
1 https://press.vatican.va › pubblico › 2023/06/20: “Instrumentum laboris” of the
16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Press Conference to

present the Instrumentum Laboris and Methodology.

164 Iustitia
WORKSHEETS FOR THE SYNODAL ASSEMBLY

Introduction
Worksheets for B 1. A Communion that radiates
B 1.1 How does the service of charity and commitment to justice and
care for our common home nourish communion in a synodal
Church?
B 1.2 How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that
“love and truth will meet” (Ps 85:11)?
B 1.3 How can a dynamic relationship of gift exchange between the
Churches grow?
B 1.4 How can a synodal Church fulfil its mission through a renewed
ecumenical commitment?
B 1.5 How can we recognise and gather the richness of cultures and
develop dialogue amongst religions in the light of the Gospel?
Worksheets for B 2. Co-responsibility in Mission
B 2.1 How can we walk together towards a shared awareness of the
meaning and content of mission?
B 2.2 What should be done so a synodal Church is also an ‘all
ministerial’ missionary Church?
B 2.3 How can the Church of our time better fulfil its mission through
greater recognition and promotion of the baptismal dignity of
women?
B 2.4 How can we properly value ordained Ministry in its
relationship with baptismal Ministries in a missionary perspective?
B 2.5 How can we renew and promote the Bishop’s ministry from a
missionary synodal perspective?
Worksheets for B 3. Participation, governance and authority
B 3.1 How can we renew the service of authority and the exercise of
responsibility in a missionary synodal Church?
B 3.2 How can we develop discernment practices and decision-
making processes in an authentically synodal manner, that respects
the protagonism of the Spirit?
Document 1: “XVI Ordinary General Assembly” 165
B 3.3. What structures can be developed to strengthen a missionary

synodal Church?
B 3.4 How can we give structure to instances of synodality and
collegiality that involve groupings of local Churches?
B 3.5 How can the institution of the Synod be strengthened so that it
is an expression of episcopal collegiality within an all-synodal
Church?
ABBREVIATIONS
AA Vatican Council II, Decree Apostolicam actuositatem (18
November 1965)
AG Vatican Council II, Decree Ad gentes (7 December 1965)
CA St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus (1 May 1991)
CL St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles
laici (30 December 1988)
CV Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus vivit (25
March 2019)
PD General Secretariat of the Synod, For a Synodal Church.
Communion, Participation, Mission. Preparatory Document (2021)
DCS General Secretariat of the Synod, For a Synodal Church.
Communion, Participation, Mission. “Enlarge the space of your tent (Is
54:2). Working Document for the Continental Stage (2022)
DV Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (18
November 1965)
EC Francis, Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio (15
September 2018)
EG Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium (24 November
2013)
FT Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli tutti (3 October 2020)
GS Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes (7
December 1965)
IL Instrumentum Laboris
LG Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium (21
November 1964)
166 Iustitia
PE Francis, Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (19 March

2022)
SC Vatican Council II, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (4
December 1963)
UR Vatican Council II, Decree Unitatis redintegratio (21 November
1964)
INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS
Foreword
“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in
harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one
accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (Rom 15:5-6).
The journey so far
1. The People of God have been on the move since Pope Francis
convened the whole Church in Synod in October 2021. Beginning at
their most vital and elementary level, the local Churches across the
globe have initiated the consultation of the People of God, starting
with the basic question formulated in no. 2 of the Preparatory
Document (PD): “How does this ‘journeying together,’ which takes
place today on different levels (from the local level to the universal
one), allow the Church to proclaim the Gospel in accordance with
the mission entrusted to Her; and what steps does the Spirit invite
us to take in order to grow as a synodal Church?”. The fruits of the
consultation were collected at the diocesan level and then
summarised and sent to the Synods of the Eastern Catholic Churches
and the Episcopal Conferences. In their turn, each drafted a synthesis
that was forwarded to the General Secretariat of the Synod.
2. In order to serve a new stage in the ongoing synodal process,
the Working Document for the Continental Stage (DCS) was drafted
from the reading and analysis of the documents collected. The DCS
was returned to the local Churches around the world, inviting them
to engage with it and then to meet and enter into dialogue at the
seven Continental Assemblies. During this time, the work of the
Digital Synod also continued. The aim was to focus on the insights
and tensions that resonated most strongly with the experience of the
Church on each continent and to identify, from the perspective of
each continent, the priorities to be addressed in the first session of

the Synodal Assembly (October 2023).
3. This Instrumentum Laboris (IL) was drafted on the basis of all
the material gathered during the listening phase, and in particular
the final documents of the Continental Assemblies. Its publication
closes the first phase of the Synod, “For a Synodal Church:
communion, participation, mission” and opens the second phase,
composed of the two sessions[1] (October 2023 and October 2024) in
which the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
will take place. Its aim will be to continue to animate the synodal
process in the ordinary life of the Church, identifying which
pathways the Spirit invites us to walk along more decisively as one
People of God. The fruit for which we ask at the next Assembly is
that the Spirit inspire the Church’s walking together as the People of
God in fidelity to the mission that the Lord has entrusted to it.
Indeed, the purpose of the synodal process “is not to produce
documents but to open horizons of hope for the fulfilment of the
Church’s mission” (DCS, 6).
4. The journey so far, especially the continental stage, has made it
possible to identify and share the particular situations experienced
by the Church in different regions of the world. These include the
reality of too many wars that stain our world with blood leading to a
call for a renewed commitment to building a just peace, the threat
represented by climate change that implies a necessary priority of
caring for the common home, the cry to oppose an economic system
that produces exploitation, inequality and a throwaway culture, and
the desire to resist the homogenising pressure of cultural colonialism
that crushes minorities. Situations of persecution to the point of
martyrdom and emigration that progressively hollow out
communities, threatening their very survival are deeply lamented.
The local Churches have spoken of their concern to be equipped to
address urgent social realities, from the growing cultural pluralism
that now marks the entire planet, to the experience of Christian
communities that represent scattered minorities within the country
in which they live, to the experience of coming to terms with an ever
more advanced, and at times aggressive, secularisation that seems to
consider religious experience irrelevant, but where there remains a
thirst for the Good News of the Gospel. In many regions, the
Churches are deeply affected by the crisis caused by various forms
of abuse, including sexual abuse and the abuse of power, conscience
168 Iustitia
and money. These are open wounds, the consequences of which have
yet to be fully addressed. To the penitence it owes to victims and
survivors for the suffering it has caused, the Church must add a
growing and intensified commitment to conversion and reform in
order to prevent similar situations from happening again in the
future.
5. It is in this context, diverse but with common global features, that
the synodal journey takes place. The Synodal Assembly of October
2023 will be asked to listen deeply to the situations in which the
Church lives and carries out its mission. What it means to walk
together gains its missionary urgency when this question is asked in
a particular context with real people and situations in mind. What is
at stake is the ability to proclaim the Gospel by walking together with
the men and women of our time, wherever they are, and practising
the catholicity that emerges from walking together with the
Churches that live in conditions of particular suffering (cf. LG 23).
6. To the Synodal Assembly we bring the fruits gathered during the
listening phase. First of all, we have experienced the joy expressed
in the sincere and respectful encounter between brothers and
sisters in the faith: to meet each other is to encounter the Lord who
is in our midst! Thus, we were able to touch with our own hands the
catholicity of the Church, which, in the variety of ages, sexes and
social conditions, manifests an extraordinary wealth of charisms and
ecclesial vocations, and is the custodian of a treasure trove of
differences in languages, cultures, liturgical expressions and
theological traditions. In effect, this rich diversity is the gift of each
local Church to all the others (cf. LG 13), and the synodal dynamic is
a way to appreciate and enhance this rich diversity without flattening
it into uniformity. Similarly, we have discovered that there are
shared questions, even if synodality is experienced and understood
in a variety of ways in different parts of the world on the basis of a
common inheritance of the apostolic Tradition. Part of the challenge
of synodality is to discern the level at which it is most appropriate to
address each question. Equally shared are certain tensions. We
should not be frightened by them, nor attempt at any cost to resolve
them, but rather engage in ongoing synodal discernment. Only in
this way can these tensions become sources of energy and not lapse
into destructive polarisations.
7. The first phase renewed our awareness that our identity and
vocation is to become an increasingly synodal Church: walking
together, that is, becoming synodal, is the way to truly become
disciples and friends of that Master and Lord who said of himself: “I
am the way” (Jn 14:6). Today it is also a deep desire: having
experienced it as a gift, we want to continue to do so, aware that this
journey will be fulfilled on the last day, when, by the grace of God
we will become part of that throng described in Revelation thus:
“there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before
the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches
in their hands. They cried out in a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation
belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!’”
(Rev 7:9-10). This text gives us the image of a definitively
accomplished synodality, in which perfect communion reigns across
all the differences that compose it, differences which are maintained
and united in the one mission that remains to be completed: to
participate in the liturgy of praise that from all creatures, through
Christ, rises to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
8. To the intercession of these sisters and brothers, who are already
living the full communion of saints (cf. LG 50), and especially to that
of she who is first in their ranks (cf. LG 63), Mary Mother of the
Church, we entrust the work of the Assembly and the continuation
of our commitment to a synodal Church. We ask that the Assembly
be a time of outpouring of the Spirit, but even more that grace
accompanies us when the time comes to put its fruits into action in
the daily life of Christian communities throughout the world.
A working tool for the second phase of the synodal journey
9. The peculiar features marking Synod 2021-2024 are inevitably
reflected in the meaning and dynamics of the Synodal Assembly and,
thus, in the structure of the IL that serves it. In particular, the long
preparatory phase has already led to the production of a multiplicity
of documents: PD, reports of the local Churches, DCS and Final
Documents of the Continental Assemblies. In this way, a cycle of
mutually informed communication has been established among local
Churches and between them and the General Secretariat of the
Synod. The present IL does not annul previous documents or absorb
all their richness, but is rooted in them and continually refers back to
them. In preparation for the Assembly, the Members of the Synod
170 Iustitia
are asked to keep in mind the previous documents, in particular,

the DCS and the Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies
of the different continents, as well as the report of the Digital
Synod and to use them as tools for their own discernment. In
particular, the Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies are
particularly valuable for retaining the concreteness of the different
contexts and the challenges posed by each. The common work of the
Synodal Assembly cannot disregard these sources for discernment.
The many resources collected in the special section of the Synod
2021-2024 website, www.synod.va may also be of help, in particular
the Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio and the two
documents of the International Theological Commission, Synodality
in the Life and Mission of the Church (2018) and The sensus fidei in the
Life of the Church (2014).
10. Given the abundance of material already available, the IL is
designed as a practical aid for the conduct of the Synodal Assembly
in October 2023 and thus for its preparation. All the more valid for
the IL is the description given to the DCS: “is not a document of the
Church’s Magisterium, nor is it the report of a sociological survey; it
does not offer the formulation of operational indications, goals and
objectives, nor a full elaboration of a theological vision” (no. 8). This
is inevitable given that the IL is part of an unfinished process.
Nonetheless, the IL takes a step beyond the DCS, drawing from the
insights of the first phase and now the work of the Continental
Assemblies, articulating some of the priorities that emerged from
listening to the People of God, but avoids presenting them as
assertions or stances. Instead, it expresses them as questions
addressed to the Synodal Assembly. This body will have the task of
discerning the concrete steps which enable the continued growth of
a synodal Church, steps that it will then submit to the Holy Father.
Only then will that particular dynamic of listening be completed in
which “each has something to learn. Faithful people, College of
Bishops, Bishop of Rome: one listening to the other; and all listening
to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17), to know what He ‘is
saying to the Churches’ (Rev 2:7)”[2]. In this light, the purpose of the
IL is not to be a first draft of the Final Document of the Synodal
Assembly, only to be corrected or amended. Rather, it outlines an
initial understanding of the synodal dimension of the Church on the
basis of which further discernment can be made. The Members of the
Synodal Assembly are the primary recipients of the IL, which is also
made public not only for reasons of transparency but as a

contribution to the implementation of ecclesial initiatives. In
particular, it can encourage participation in the synodal dynamic at
the local and regional levels, while waiting for the outcome of the
October Assembly. This will provide further material on which the
local Churches will be called to pray, reflect, act and make their own
contribution.
11. The questions that the IL poses are an expression of the richness
of the process from which they were drawn: they bear the imprint of
the particular names and faces of those who took part, and they bear
witness to the faith experience of the People of God and thus reveal
the reality of a transcendent experience. From this point of view, they
indicate a horizon towards which we are invited to travel with
confidence, deepening the synodal practice of the Church. The first
phase enables us to understand the importance of taking the local
Church as a privileged point of reference[3], as the theological place
where the Baptised experience in practical terms “walking
together”. However, this does not lead to a retreat. No local Church
can live outside the relationships that unite it with all others,
including that particular relationship with the Church of Rome,
which is entrusted with the service of unity through the ministry of
its Pastor, who has summoned the whole Church in Synod.
12. This focus on local Churches requires taking into account their
variety and diversity of cultures, languages and modes of expression.
In particular, the same words — think, for example, of authority and
leadership — can have very different resonances and connotations in
different linguistic and cultural areas, especially when in some
contexts a term is associated with precise theoretical or ideological
approaches. The IL strives to avoid divisive language in the hope of
furthering better understanding among members of the Synodal
Assembly who come from different regions or traditions. The vision
of Vatican II is the shared point of reference, starting from the
catholicity of the People of God, in virtue of which “each individual
part contributes through its special gifts to the good of the other parts
and of the whole Church. Through the common sharing of gifts and
through the common effort to attain fullness in unity […] without in
any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides
over the whole assembly of charity and protects legitimate
differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do
not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it” (LG 13). This
172 Iustitia
catholicity is realised in the relationship of mutual interiority

between the universal Church and the local Churches, in which and
from which there “comes into being the one and only Catholic
Church” (LG 23). The synodal process first given expression in the
local Churches has now reached its second phase in the universal
Church, with the unfolding of the two sessions of the XVI Ordinary
General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.
The structure of the text
13. This IL is divided into two sections, which correspond to the tasks
entrusted to the Continental Assemblies (and thus to the contents of
the relevant Final Documents): first of all, Continental Assemblies
were invited to undertake a re-reading of the path followed during
the first phase, in order to identify what the Church on each continent
had learnt from the experience of living the synodal dimension at the
service of mission; secondly, the Continental Assemblies were
invited to reflect on the DCS and discern the resonances produced in
the local churches of the continent, in order to identify the priorities
on which to continue the discernment during the Synodal Assembly.
14. Section A of the IL, entitled “For a Synodal Church”, attempts to
gather the insights of the path travelled so far. Firstly, it outlines a
series of fundamental characteristics or distinguishing marks of a
synodal Church. It then articulates the awareness that a synodal
Church is also marked by a particular way of proceeding.
According to the outcome of the first phase, conversation in the Spirit
is this way of proceeding. The Assembly will be invited to respond
to these insights with the aim of clarifying and refining them. Section
B of this IL, entitled “Communion, mission, participation”[4],
articulates, in the form of three questions, the priorities that most
strongly emerge from the work of all the continents, thus placing
them before the Assembly for discernment. In order to assist the
working process of the Synodal Assembly, especially the group work
(Circuli Minores), five worksheets are proposed for each of the three
priorities, allowing them to be approached from different
perspectives.
15. The three priorities of section B, developed through the respective
worksheets, cover broad topics of great relevance. Many could be the
subject of an entire Synod, and some already have been. In a number
of cases the interventions of the Magisterium are also numerous and
well defined. During the Assembly they cannot be dealt with
extensively, nor, above all, should they be considered independently

of one another. Instead, they should be addressed starting from their
relationship with the real theme of the work, namely a synodal
Church. For example, references to the urgency of devoting adequate
attention to families and youth do not aim to stimulate a new
treatment of family or youth ministry. Their purpose is to help focus
on how the implementation of the conclusions of the two previous
Ordinary General Assemblies of the Synod of Bishops (2015 and
2018) and of the successive Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortations, Amoris laetitia and Christus vivit, represents an
opportunity to walk together as a Church capable of welcoming and
accompanying, accepting the necessary changes in rules, structures
and procedures. The same applies to many other issues that emerge
in the discussion threads.
16. The commitment asked of the Assembly and its Members will be
to sustain a dynamic equilibrium between maintaining an
overview, which characterises the work outlined in section A, and
the identification of practical steps to be taken in a concrete and
timely fashion, work which is the focus of section B. On this will
depend the fruitfulness of the discernment of the Synodal Assembly
whose task will be to open the whole Church to welcome the voice
of the Holy Spirit. An inspiration for this work might come from
reflection on the articulation of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et
Spes, which “consists of two parts”, different in character and focus,
but becoming “a unified whole” (GS, footnote 1).
A. For a Synodal Church An integral experience
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties
of services but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities but it is the
same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each of them is given the
manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12: 4-7).
17. One common trait unites the narratives of the stages of the first
phase: it is the surprise expressed by participants who were able to
share the synodal journey in a way that exceeded their expectations.
For those who take part, the synodal process offers an opportunity
for an encounter in faith that makes the bond with the Lord,
fraternity between people and love for the Church, not only on an
individual level, but involving and energising the entire community.
The experience is that of a horizon of hope opening up for the
Church, a clear sign of the presence and action of the Spirit that
174 Iustitia
guides it through history on its path towards the Kingdom (cf. LG 5):
“[T]he protagonist of the Synod is the Holy Spirit”[5]. In this way, the
more intensely the invitation to journey together has been accepted,
the more the Synod has become a path on which the People of God
proceed with enthusiasm, but without naivety. In fact, problems,
resistances, difficulties and tensions are not concealed or hidden but
identified and named thanks to a context of authentic dialogue that
makes it possible to speak and listen with freedom and sincerity.
Issues that are often posed in an adversarial manner, or for which the
life of the Church today lacks a place of acceptance and discernment,
can be addressed in an evangelical way within the synodal process.
18. A term as abstract or theoretical as synodality has thus begun to
be embodied in a concrete experience. From listening to the People
of God a progressive appropriation and understanding of synodality
“from within” emerges, which does not derive from the enunciation
of a principle, a theory or a formula, but develops from a readiness
to enter into a dynamic of constructive, respectful and prayerful
speaking, listening and dialogue. At the root of this process is the
acceptance, both personal and communal, of something that is both
a gift and a challenge: to be a Church of sisters and brothers in Christ
who listen to one another and who, in so doing, are gradually
transformed by the Spirit.
A 1. The characteristic signs of a synodal Church
19. Within this integral understanding, an awareness emerges of
certain characteristics or distinctive signs of a synodal Church. These
are shared convictions on which to dwell and reflect together as we
undertake a journey that will continue to clarify and refine them,
starting from the work of the Synodal Assembly will undertake.
20. This is what emerges with great force from all the continents: an
awareness that a synodal Church is founded on the recognition of
a common dignity deriving from Baptism, which makes all who
receive it sons and daughters of God, members of the family of
God, and therefore brothers and sisters in Christ, inhabited by the
one Spirit and sent to fulfil a common mission. In Paul’s language,
“we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or
free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1Cor 12:13).
Baptism thus creates a true co-responsibility among all the members
of the Church, which is manifested in the participation of all, with
the charisms of each, in the mission of the Church and the building
up of the ecclesial community. A synodal Church cannot be

understood other than within the horizon of communion, which is
always also a mission to proclaim and incarnate the Gospel in every
dimension of human existence. Communion and mission are
nourished in the common participation in the Eucharist that makes
the Church a body “joined and knitted together” (Eph 4:16) in Christ,
able to walk together towards the Kingdom.
21. Rooted in this awareness is the desire for a Church that is also
increasingly synodal in its institutions, structures and procedures,
so as to constitute a space in which common baptismal dignity and
co-responsibility for mission are not only affirmed, but exercised,
and practised. In this space, the exercise of authority in the Church is
appreciated as a gift, with the desire that it be increasingly
configured as “a true service, and in Holy Scripture it is significantly
call ‘diakonia’ or ministry” (LG 24), following the model of Jesus,
who stooped to wash the feet of his disciples (cf. Jn 13:1-11).
22. “A synodal Church is a listening Church”[6]: this awareness is
the fruit of the experience of the synodal journey, which is a listening
to the Spirit through listening to the Word and listening to each other
as individuals and among ecclesial communities, from the local level
to the continental and universal levels. For many, the great surprise
was the experience of being listened to by the community, in some
cases for the first time, thus receiving a recognition of their unique
human worth that testifies to the Father’s love for each of his sons
and daughters. The experience of listening and being listened to in
this way serves not only a practical function but also has a theological
and ecclesial depth because it follows the example of how Jesus
listened to the people he met. This style of listening is necessary to
mark and transform all the relationships that the Christian
community establishes among its members as well as with other faith
communities and with society as a whole, especially towards those
whose voice is most often ignored.
23. As a Church committed to listening, a synodal Church desires to
be humble, and knows that it must ask forgiveness and has much
to learn. Some reports noted that the synodal path is necessarily a
penitential one, recognising that we have not always lived the
constitutive synodal dimension of the ecclesial community. The face
of the Church today bears the signs of serious crises of mistrust and
lack of credibility. In many contexts, crises related to sexual abuse,
176 Iustitia
and abuse of power, money and conscience have pushed the Church
to a demanding examination of conscience so that “moved by the
Holy Spirit” the Church “may never cease to renew herself” (LG 9),
in a journey of repentance and conversion that opens paths of
reconciliation, healing and justice.
24. A synodal Church is a Church of encounter and dialogue. On
the path we have travelled, this aspect of synodality emerges with
particular strength in relation to other Churches and ecclesial
Communities, to which we are united by the bond of one Baptism.
The Spirit, who is “the principle of the Church’s unity” (UR 2), is at
work in these Churches and ecclesial Communities, and invites us to
embark on paths of mutual knowledge, sharing and building a
common life. At the local level, the importance of what is already
being done together with members of other Churches and ecclesial
Communities emerges strongly, especially as a common witness in
socio-cultural contexts that are hostile to the point of persecution—
this is the ecumenism of martyrdom—and in the face of the
ecological emergency. Everywhere, in tune with the Magisterium of
the Second Vatican Council, the profound desire to deepen the
ecumenical journey also emerges: an authentically synodal Church
cannot but involve all those who share the one Baptism.
25. A synodal Church is called to practice the culture of encounter
and dialogue with the believers of other religions and with the
cultures and societies in which it is embedded, but above all among
the many differences that run through the Church itself. This
Church is not afraid of the variety it bears, but values it without
forcing it into uniformity. The synodal process has been an
opportunity to begin to learn what it means to live unity in diversity,
a fundamental point to continue exploring, trusting that the path will
become clearer as we move forward. Therefore, a synodal Church
promotes the passage from “I” to “we”. It is a space within which a
call resonates to be members of a body that values diversity but is
made one by the Spirit. It is the Spirit that impels us to listen to the
Lord and respond to him as a people at the service of the one mission
of proclaiming to all the nations the salvation offered by God in
Christ Jesus. This happens in a great diversity of contexts: no one is
asked to leave their own context, but rather to understand it and
enter into it more deeply. Returning to this vision after the experience
of the first phase, synodality appears first and foremost as a
dynamism animating concrete local communities. Moving to the
more universal level, this momentum embraces all the dimensions

and realities of the Church, in a movement of authentic catholicity.
26. Lived in a diversity of contexts and cultures, synodality proves to
be a constitutive dimension of the Church since its origin, even if it is
still in the process of being realised. Indeed, it presses to be
implemented ever more fully, expressing a radical call to conversion,
change, prayer and action that is for all. In this sense, a synodal
Church is open, welcoming and embraces all. There is no border
that this movement of the Spirit does not feel compelled to cross, to
draw all into its dynamism. The radical nature of Christianity is not
the prerogative of a few specific vocations, but the call to build a
community that lives and bears witness to a different way of
understanding the relationship between the daughters and sons of
God, one that embodies the truth of love, one that is based on gift
and gratuitousness. The radical call is, therefore, to build together,
synodally, an attractive and concrete Church: an outgoing Church,
in which all feel welcome.
27. At the same time, a synodal Church confronts honestly and
fearlessly the call to a deeper understanding of the relationship
between love and truth according to St Paul’s invitation: “But
speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him
who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and
knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each
part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building
itself up in love” (Eph 4:15-16). To authentically include everyone, it
is necessary to enter into the mystery of Christ allowing oneself to be
formed and transformed by the way he lived the relationship
between love and truth.
28. Characteristic of a synodal Church is the ability to manage
tensions without being crushed by them, experiencing them as a
drive to deepen how communion, mission and participation are lived
and understood. Synodality is a privileged path of conversion,
because it reconstitutes the Church in unity: it heals her wounds and
reconciles her memory, welcomes the differences she bears and
redeems her from festering divisions, thus enabling her to embody
more fully her vocation to be “in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign
and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the
unity of the whole human race” (LG 1). Authentic listening and the
ability to find ways to continue walking together beyond
178 Iustitia
fragmentation and polarisation are indispensable for the Church to

remain alive and vital and to be a powerful sign for the cultures of
our time.
29. Trying to walk together also brings us into contact with the
healthy restlessness of incompleteness, with the awareness that
there are still many things whose weight we are not able to carry or
bear (cf. Jn 16:12). This is not a problem to be solved, but rather a gift
to be cultivated. We are faced with the inexhaustible and holy
mystery of God and must remain open to its surprises as we walk
through history towards the Kingdom. This also applies to the
questions that the synodal process has brought to light. As a first step
they require listening and attention, without rushing to offer
immediate solutions.
30. Carrying the weight of these questions should not be the personal
burden of those who occupy certain roles, with the risk of being
crushed by them, but a task for the entire community, whose
relational and sacramental life is often the most effective immediate
response. This is why a synodal Church unceasingly nourishes
itself at the source of the mystery it celebrates in the liturgy, “the
summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed” and “the
font from which all her power flows” (SC 10), particularly in the
Eucharist.
31. Once the People of God are freed from the anxiety of inadequacy,
the inevitable incompleteness of a synodal Church and the readiness
of its members to accept their own vulnerabilities become the space
for the action of the Spirit, who invites us to recognise the signs of his
presence. This is why a synodal Church is also a Church of
discernment, in the wealth of meanings that this term takes on
within the different spiritual traditions. The first phase enabled the
People of God to begin to experience discernment through the
practice of conversation in the Spirit. As we listen attentively to each
other’s lived experiences, we grow in mutual respect and begin to
discern the movements of God’s Spirit in the lives of others and in
our own. In this way, we begin to pay more attention to “what the
Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Rev 2:7), in the commitment and
hope of becoming a Church increasingly capable of making
prophetic decisions that are the fruit of the Spirit’s guidance.
A 2. A way forward for the synodal Church: conversation in the

Spirit
32. Through the course of the first phase of the Synod and across all
the continents there has been recognition of the fruitfulness of the
method referred to here as “conversation in the Spirit” or “synodal
method” (cf. figure on p. 16).
33. In its etymological sense, the term “conversation” does not
indicate a generic exchange of ideas, but a dynamic in which the
word spoken and heard generates familiarity, enabling the
participants to draw closer to one another. The specification “in the
Spirit” identifies the authentic protagonist: the desire of those
conversing tends towards listening to His voice, which in prayer
opens itself to the free action of the One who, like the wind, blows
where He wills (cf. Jn 3:8). Gradually the conversation between
brothers and sisters in faith opens the space for a ‘hearing together’,
that is, a listening together to the voice of the Spirit. It is not
conversation in the Spirit if there is not a step forward in a precise,
often unexpected direction that points to concrete action.
34. In the local Churches, conversation in the Spirit has been
accepted and sometimes “discovered” as providing the atmosphere
that makes possible the sharing of life experiences and the space
for discernment in a synodal Church. In the Final Documents of the
Continental Assemblies, it is described as a Pentecostal moment, as
an opportunity to experience being Church and to move from
listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ to listening to the Spirit,
who is the authentic protagonist, and being sent forth in mission by
Him. At the same time, through this method, the grace of the Word
and the Eucharist becomes a felt, actualised and transforming reality,
which attests to and realises the initiative by which the Lord Jesus
makes himself present and active in the Church. Christ sends us out
on mission and gathers us around himself to give thanks and glory
to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Hence from all continents comes the
request that this method may increasingly animate and inform the
daily life of the Churches.
35. Conversation in the Spirit is part of a long tradition of ecclesial
discernment, which has produced a plurality of methods and
approaches. Its precise missionary value should be emphasised. This
spiritual practice enables us to move from the “I” to the “we”: it does
not lose sight of or erase the personal dimension of the “I”, but
180 Iustitia
recognises it and inserts it into the community dimension. In this

way, enabling participants to speak and listen becomes an expression
of liturgy and prayer, within which the Lord makes himself present
and draws us towards ever more authentic forms of communion and
discernment.
36. In the New Testament, there are numerous examples of this mode
of conversation. A paradigmatic account is provided by the account
of the encounter of the Risen Lord with the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35, and the explanation given in CV
237). As their experience demonstrates, conversation in the Spirit
builds communion and brings missionary dynamism. The two, in
fact, return to the community they had left to share the Easter
proclamation that the Lord is risen.
37. In its concrete reality conversation in the Spirit can be described
as a shared prayer with a view to communal discernment for which
participants prepare themselves by personal reflection and
meditation. They give each other the gift of a meditated word
nourished by prayer, not an opinion improvised on the spot. The
dynamic between the participants articulates three fundamental
steps. The first is devoted to each person taking the floor, starting
from his or her own experience reread in prayer during the period of
preparation. Others listen in the knowledge that each one has a
valuable contribution to offer and refrain from debates or
discussions.
38. Silence and prayer help to prepare for the next step, in which each
person is invited to open up within his or herself a space for others
and for the Other. Once again, each person takes the floor: not to react
to or counter what they have heard, reaffirming their own position,
but to express what from their listening has touched them most
deeply and what they feel challenged by most strongly. The interior
traces that result from one’s listening to sisters and brothers are the
language with which the Holy Spirit makes his own voice resound.
The more each participant has been nourished by meditation on the
Word and the Sacraments, growing in familiarity with the Lord, the
more he or she will be able to recognise the sound of His voice (cf. Jn
10:14.27), assisted also by the accompaniment of the Magisterium
and theology. Likewise, the more intentionally and carefully
participants attend to the voice of the Spirit the more they will grow
in a shared sense of mission.
39. The third step, again in an atmosphere of prayer and under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, is to identify the key points that have
emerged and to build a consensus on the fruits of the joint work,
which each person feels is faithful to the process and by which he or
she can therefore feel represented. It is not enough to draw up a
report listing the most often mentioned points. Rather, discernment
is needed, which also pays attention to marginal and prophetic
voices and does not overlook the significance of the points on which
disagreement emerges. The Lord is the cornerstone that will allow
the “construction” to stand and the Spirit, the master of harmony,
will help to move from cacophony to symphony.
40. The journey leads to a prayer of praise to God and gratitude for
the experience. “When we live out a spirituality of drawing nearer to
others and seeking their welfare, our hearts are opened wide to the
Lord’s greatest and most beautiful gifts. Whenever we encounter
another person in love, we learn something new about
God. Whenever our eyes are opened to acknowledge the other, we
grow in the light of faith and knowledge of God” (EG 272). This, in a
nutshell, is the gift received by those who allow themselves to be
involved in a conversation in the Spirit.
41. In concrete situations, it is never possible to follow this pattern
slavishly. Rather it must always be adapted. Sometimes it is
necessary to give priority to each one taking the floor and listening
to the others; in other circumstances to bringing out the links
between the different perspectives, in search of what makes “our
hearts burn within us” (cf. Lk 24:32); in others still, to the explication
of a consensus and working together to identify the direction in
which one feels called by the Spirit to move. But, beyond the
appropriate concrete adaptations, the intention and dynamism that
unite the three steps are and remain characteristic of the way of
proceeding of a synodal Church.
42. Bearing in mind the significance of conversation in the Spirit to
animate the lived experience of the synodal Church, formation in this
method, and in particular of facilitators capable of accompanying
communities in practising it, is perceived as a priority at all levels of
ecclesial life and for all the Baptised, starting with ordained Ministers
in a spirit of co-responsibility and openness to different ecclesial
vocations. Formation for conversation in the Spirit is formation to be
a synodal Church.
182 Iustitia
B. Communion, mission, participation: Three priority issues for a

Synodal Church
“For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have
the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and
individually we are members one of another” (Rom 12: 4-5).
43. Among the fruits of the first phase, and in particular of the
Continental Assemblies, which came to the fore thanks to the way of
proceeding just outlined, three priorities were identified that are now
proposed to the Synodal Assembly of October 2023 for discernment.
These are challenges with which the whole Church must measure
itself in order to take a step forward and grow in its own synodal
being at all levels and from a plurality of perspectives. They need to
be addressed from the point of view of theology and canon law, as
well as from that of pastoral care and spirituality. They call into
question the way Dioceses plan as well as the daily choices and
lifestyle of each member of the People of God. They are also
authentically synodal because addressing them requires walking
together as a people, with all its members. The three priorities will be
illustrated in connection with the three key words of the Synod:
communion, mission, participation. While this is done for the sake of
simplicity and clarity of presentation, it risks presenting the three key
words as three “pillars” independent of one another. Instead, in the
life of the synodal Church, communion, mission and participation
are articulated, nourishing and supporting each other. They must
always be understood with this integration in mind.
44. The different order in which the three terms appear, with mission
taking the central place, is also rooted in the awareness of the links
that unite that developed during the first phase. In
particular, communion and mission are interwoven and mirror
each other, as already taught by Saint John Paul II: “Communion and
mission are profoundly connected with each other, they
interpenetrate and mutually imply each other, to the point that
communion represents both the source and the fruit of mission:
communion gives rise to mission and mission is accomplished in
communion” (CL 32, taken up in PE I,4). We are invited to move
beyond a dualist understanding in which the relationships within the
ecclesial community are the domain of communion, while mission
concerns the momentum ad extra. The first phase has instead
highlighted how communion is the condition for the credibility of
184 Iustitia
proclamation, an insight which recalls that of the XV Ordinary

General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Young People, the Faith
and Vocational Discernment [7]. At the same time there is a growing
awareness that the orientation for mission is the only evangelically
founded criterion for the internal organisation of the Christian
community, the distribution of roles and tasks, and the management
of its institutions and structures. It is in relationship with
communion and mission that participation can be understood, and
for this reason, it can only be addressed after the other two. On the
one hand, it gives them the concrete expression: attention to
procedures, rules, structures and institutions allows the mission to
be consolidated over time and frees communion from mere
emotional spontaneity. On the other hand, it receives a meaning,
orientation and dynamism that allows it to escape the risk of turning
into a frenzy of individual rights claims that inevitably cause
fragmentation rather than unity.
45. To accompany the preparation and structure of the work of the
Assembly, five worksheets have been prepared to address each
priority, to be found at the end of this section. Each of these
constitutes an entry point to the priority in question which in this
way can be approached from different but complementary
perspectives related to different aspects of the life of the Church that
have emerged through the work of the Continental Assemblies. In
this case the three paragraphs that follow, to which the three groups
of worksheets in the appendix correspond, should not be read as
parallel and non-communicating columns. Rather, they are beams of
light that illuminate the same reality, that is the synodal life of the
Church, from different vantage points, continually intertwining and
invoking one another, inviting us to growth.
B 1. A communion that radiates: How can we be more fully a sign
and instrument of union with God and of the unity of all
humanity?
46. Communion is not a sociological coming together as members of
an identity group but is above all a gift of the Triune God, and at the
same time a task, which is never exhausted, of building the “we” of
the People of God. As the Continental Assemblies experienced,
communion interweaves a vertical dimension, that Lumen
gentium calls “union with God,” and a horizontal one, “the unity of
all humanity”, in a strong eschatological dynamism. Communion is
a journey in which we are called to grow, “until all of us come to the

unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to
the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph 4:13).
47. We receive an anticipation of that moment in the liturgy, the place
where the Church on its earthly journey experiences communion,
nourishes it and builds it up. If the liturgy is in fact the “outstanding
means whereby the Faithful may express in their lives, and manifest
to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true
Church” (SC 2) then it is to the liturgy that we must look in order to
understand the synodal life of the Church. First and foremost, it is
through shared liturgical action, and in particular the eucharistic
celebration, that the Church experiences radical unity, expressed in
the same prayer but in a diversity of languages and rites: a
fundamental point in a synodal key. From this point of view, the
multiplicity of rites in the one Catholic Church is an authentic
blessing, to be protected and promoted, as was also experienced
during the liturgies of the Continental Assemblies.
48. A synodal assembly cannot be understood as representative and
legislative, analogous to a parliamentary structure with its dynamics
of majority building. Rather, we are called to understand it by
analogy with the liturgical assembly. Ancient tradition tells us that
when a synod is celebrated it begins with the invocation of the Holy
Spirit, continues with the profession of faith, and arrives at shared
determinations to ensure or re-establish ecclesial communion. In a
synodal assembly Christ becomes present and acts, transforms
history and daily events, and gives the Spirit to guide the Church to
find a consensus on how to walk together towards the Kingdom and
to help all of humanity to move towards greater unity. Walking
together while listening to the Word and our brothers and sisters,
that is, in seeking God’s will and mutual agreement, leads to
thanksgiving to the Father through the Son in the one Spirit. In a
synodal assembly, those who gather in the name of Christ listen to
his Word, listen to each other, discern in docility to the Spirit,
proclaim what they have heard and recognise it as light for the
journey of the Church.
49. In this perspective, synodal life is not a strategy for organising the
Church, but the experience of being able to find a unity that embraces
diversity without erasing it, because it is founded on union with God
in the confession of the same faith. This dynamism possesses an
186 Iustitia
impelling force that continually seeks to widen the scope of

communion, but which must come to terms with the contradictions,
limits and wounds of history.
50. The first priority issue that emerged from the synodal process is
rooted precisely in this point. In the concreteness of our historical
reality, preserving and promoting communion requires taking on the
incompleteness of being able to live unity in diversity (cf. 1 Cor 12).
History produces divisions, which cause wounds that need to be
healed and require pathways to be forged for reconciliation. In this
context, in the name of the Gospel, which bonds need to be
strengthened in order to overcome trenches and fences, and which
shelters and protections need to be built, and to protect whom?
Which divisions are unproductive? When does graduality make
the path to complete communion possible? These seem like
theoretical questions, but they are rooted in the concrete daily life of
Christian communities consulted in the first phase. Indeed, they
concern the question of whether there are limits to our willingness to
welcome people and groups, how to engage in dialogue with
cultures and religions without compromising our identity, and our
determination to be the voice of those on the margins and reaffirm
that no one should be left behind. The five Worksheets referring to
this priority try to explore these questions from five complementary
perspectives.
B 2. Co-responsibility in Mission: How can we better share gifts
and tasks in the service of the Gospel?
51. “The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature” (AG 2).
Mission constitutes the dynamic horizon from which we are to think
about the synodal Church, to which it imparts a drive towards the
“ecstasy” that consists in “coming out of ourselves and seeking the
good of others, even to the sacrifice of our lives” (CV 163; cf. also FT
88). Mission allows one to receive the experience of Pentecost: having
received the Holy Spirit, Peter and the Eleven stand and take the
word to announce the crucified and risen Jesus to all those living in
Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2:14-36). Synodal life is rooted in the same
dynamism. There are many testimonies that describe the lived
experience of the first stage in these terms, and even more numerous
are those that link synodality and mission in an inseparable manner.
52. In a Church that defines itself as a sign and instrument of union
with God and of the unity of all humanity (cf. LG 1), the discourse on
mission focuses on the lucidity of the sign and the efficacy of the
instrument, without which any proclamation lacks credibility.
Mission is not the marketing of a religious product, but the
construction of a community in which relationships are a
manifestation of God’s love and therefore whose very life becomes a
proclamation. In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter’s discourse is
immediately followed by the account of the life of the primitive
community, in which everything became an occasion for communion
(cf. 2:42-47), which made the community attractive.
53. In this line, the first question regarding mission asks what the
members of the Christian community are really willing to hold in
common, starting from the irreducible uniqueness of each
member, by virtue of their direct relationship with Christ in Baptism
and as a dwelling place of the Spirit. This makes the contribution of
each of the Baptized precious and indispensable. One of the reasons
for the sense of wonder noted during the first phase is related to this
possibility of contribution: “Can I really offer something?”. At the
same time, each person is invited to acknowledge his or her own
incompleteness, and therefore the awareness that in the fullness of
mission everyone is needed. In this sense, mission also has a
constitutively synodal dimension.
54. For this reason, the second priority identified by a Church that
discovers itself as missionary and synodal concerns the manner in
which it is able to solicit the contribution of all, each with their gifts
and roles, valuing the diversity of charisms and integrating the
relationship between hierarchical and charismatic gifts[8]. The
perspective of mission places charisms and ministries within the
horizon of what is common, and in this way safeguards their
fruitfulness, which is compromised when they become prerogatives
that legitimise forms of exclusion. A missionary synodal Church has
a duty to ask itself how it can recognise and value the contribution
that each Baptised person can offer in mission, going out of
himself/herself and participating together with others in something
greater. “[T]to make an active contribution to the common good of
humanity” (CA 34) is an inalienable component of the dignity of the
person, even within the Christian community. The first contribution
everyone can make is towards discerning the signs of the times (cf.
GS 4), in order to maintain awareness of our common mission in tune
with the breath of the Spirit. All points of view have something to
contribute to this discernment, starting with that of the poor and
188 Iustitia
excluded: walking together with them does not only mean

responding to and taking on their needs and sufferings, but also
respecting their protagonism and learning from them. This is the way
to recognise their equal dignity, escaping the traps of welfarism and
anticipating as far as possible the logic of the new heavens and new
earth towards which we are on our way.
55. The Worksheets linked to this priority try to concretise this basic
question with respect to topics such as the recognition of the variety
of vocations, charisms and ministries, the promotion of the baptismal
dignity of women, the role of the ordained Ministry and in particular
the ministry of the Bishop within the missionary synodal Church.
B 3. Participation, governance and authority: What processes,
structures and institutions in a missionary synodal Church?
56. “The words ‘communion’ and ‘mission’ can risk remaining
somewhat abstract, unless we cultivate an ecclesial praxis that
expresses the concreteness of synodality at every step of our journey
and activity, encouraging real involvement on the part of each and
all” [9]. These words of the Holy Father help us place participation in
relation to the other two themes. Participation adds anthropological
density to the concrete character of the procedural dimension. It
expresses concern for the flourishing of human beings, that is, the
humanising of relationships at the heart of the project of communion
and the commitment to mission. It safeguards the uniqueness of each
person’s face, urging that the transition to the “we” does not absorb
the “I” into the anonymity of an indistinct collectivity. It guards
against falling into the abstractness of rights or reducing persons to
subservient instruments for the organization’s performance.
Participation is essentially an expression of creativity, a way of
nurturing the relationships of hospitality, welcome and human well-
being that lie at the heart of mission and communion.
57. From the vision of integral participation presented above emerges
the third priority also addressed at the meetings of the continental
stage: the question of authority, its meaning and the style of its
exercise within a synodal Church. In particular, does authority
arise as a form of power derived from the models offered by the
world, or is it rooted in service? “It will not be so among you” (Mt
20:26; cf. Mk 10:43), says the Lord, who after washing the disciples’
feet admonishes them: “For I have set you an example, that you also
should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:15). In its origin, the term
“authority” indicates the capacity to enable others to grow, and

therefore it is a service to the uniqueness of each person, supporting
creativity rather than being a form of control that blocks it, and a
service to the creation of personal freedom and not a binding that
restrains it. Linked to this question is a second one, charged with the
concern for concreteness and continuity over time: how can we
imbue our structures and institutions with the dynamism of the
missionary synodal Church?
58. From this focus derives a further, equally concrete, theme which
aims precisely at sustaining the dynamic of participation over time.
The theme of formation appears across all the documents of the first
phase. As repeatedly emphasized in the reports of Continental
Assemblies and, before them the reports of the local
Churches, institutions and structures alone are not enough to make
the Church synodal. A synodal culture and spirituality are needed
animated by a desire for conversion and sustained by adequate
formation. The need for formation is not limited to the updating of
content, but has an integral scope, affecting all the abilities and
dispositions of the person, including mission orientation, the ability
to relate and build community, willingness to listen spiritually, and
familiarity with personal and community discernment. Also
necessary are patience, perseverance, confidence and freedom in
speaking the truth (parrhesia).
59. Formation is the indispensable means to make the synodal way
of proceeding a pastoral model for the Church’s life and action. We
need integral formation, initial and ongoing, for all members of the
People of God. No Baptised person can feel extraneous to this
commitment and it is therefore necessary to structure adequate
proposals for formation in the synodal way addressed to all the
Faithful. In particular, then, the more one is called to serve the
Church, the more one must feel the urgency of formation: Bishops,
Priests, Deacons, Consecrated men and women, and all those who
exercise a ministry need formation to renew the ways of exercising
authority and decision-making processes in a synodal key, and to
learn how to accompany community discernment and conversation
in the Spirit. Candidates for ordained Ministry must be trained in a
synodal style and mentality. The promotion of a culture of synodality
implies the renewal of the current seminary curriculum and the
formation of teachers and professors of theology, so that there is a
clearer and more decisive orientation towards formation for a life of
190 Iustitia
communion, mission and participation. Formation for a more

genuinely synodal spirituality is at the heart of the renewal of the
Church.
60. Numerous contributions highlight the need for a similar effort to
renew the language used by the Church in its liturgy, preaching,
catechesis, sacred art, as well as in all forms of communication
addressed to the Faithful and the wider public, including through
new or traditional forms of media. Without demeaning or debasing
the depth of the mystery that the Church proclaims or the richness of
its tradition, the renewal of language must instead aim to make these
riches accessible and attractive to the men and women of our time,
rather than an obstacle that keeps them at a distance. The inspiration
of the freshness of the language of the Gospel, the capacity for
inculturation that the history of the Church exhibits, and the
promising experiences already underway, even in the digital
environment, invite us to proceed with confidence and resolution in
a task of crucial importance for the effectiveness of the proclamation
of the Gospel, which is the goal to which a missionary synodal
Church aspires.
Rome, 29th May, 2023
Memorial of the Blessed Virgin, Mary, Mother of the Church
***
XVI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
FOR A SYNODAL CHURCH:
COMMUNION, PARTICIPATION, MISSION
WORKSHEETS
FOR THE SYNODAL ASSEMBLY
(First Session – October 2023)
WORKSHEETS
FOR THE SYNODAL ASSEMBLY
Introduction
If the entire IL “is designed as a practical aid at the service of the
conduct of the Synodal Assembly of October 2023 and thus for its
preparation” (no. 10), this is particularly true for the Worksheets
presented here. They have been prepared to facilitate discernment on
the three “priorities that most strongly emerge from the work of all
the continents” (no. 14), with a view to identifying the concrete steps
to which we feel called by the Holy Spirit in order to grow as a
synodal Church. Therefore, the presentation of the Worksheets, the
explanation of their structure and the instructions for how to use
them need to be contextualised within the wider work of the
Assembly.
The dynamics of the Assembly
The Assembly will deal with the questions posed by the IL by
alternating plenary sessions (Congregationes Generales) and group
work (Circuli Minores), as foreseen by Art. 14 of EC.
In particular, the Assembly will proceed by addressing the different
topics in the order in which the IL proposes them. It will begin by
working on Section A, “For a Synodal Church. An integral
experience” (nos. 17-42), with the aim of focusing with greater clarity
on the fundamental characteristics of a synodal Church, starting
from the experience of walking together lived by the People of God
in these two years and gathered in the documents produced during
the first phase through to the discernment of the Pastors. The
Assembly is asked to conduct its work in an integral manner
considering the experience of the People of God as a whole in all its
complexity.
The Assembly will then proceed to address the three priority issues
that emerged from the consultation phase as presented in Section B
of the IL (nos. 43-60). Each of these priorities is the subject of one of
the three parts into which Section B is divided, “in connection with
the three key words of the Synod: communion, mission,
participation” (no. 43). The order in which these three terms appear
is inverted as explained in no. 44. This order is maintained in the
Worksheets, which are also divided into three parts, each of which
takes up the title of the corresponding part of Section B, thus
highlighting the unifying theme:
- “B 1. A communion that radiates: How can we be more fully a sign
and instrument of union with God and of the unity of all humanity?”
(nos. 46-50);
- “B 2. Co-responsibility in Mission: How can we better share gifts
and tasks in the service of the Gospel?” (nos. 51-55);
192 Iustitia
- “B 3. Participation, governance and authority: What processes,

structures and institutions are needed in a missionary synodal
Church?” (nos. 56-60).
Five Worksheets correspond to each of the three priorities, each one
constituting “an entry point to the priority in question which in this
way can be approached from different but complementary
perspectives related to different aspects of the life of the Church that
have emerged through the work of the Continental Assemblies” (no.
45).
The structuring of the work in successive steps does not reduce the
dynamism that binds the two Sections. The experience of the People
of God addressed with the integrating perspective of Section A
continues to represent the horizon within which to place the various
questions posed in Section B, which remain rooted in that experience.
The Assembly will be asked to “sustain a dynamic equilibrium
between maintaining an overview [...] and the identification of the
steps to be taken” (no. 16). The latter gives depth to and makes
concrete the former, and receive in return perspective and cohesion
against the risk of dispersion in detail.
Finally, the last segment of the work of the Assembly will be
dedicated to gathering the fruits of the process, that is, discerning the
paths we will continue to walk together. The Assembly will consider
ways to continue reading the experience of the People of God,
including through promoting the necessary in-depth theological and
canonical studies in preparation for the second session of the synodal
Assembly in October 2024.
The Assembly will continue to use the method of conversation in the
Spirit (cf. nos. 32-42) that has characterised the entire synodal
process, adapting it where necessary. Through its direct experience
of this method (cf. figure on p. 26), the Assembly will then be able to
reflect with greater insight on ways to incorporate it more readily
into the ordinary life of the Church as a shared way to discern the
will of God.
How to use the Worksheets
The Worksheets are designed as a working tool to address the three
priority issues set out in Section B during the October 2023 Assembly.
They are, therefore, not chapters of a book to be read in succession,
nor are they short and more or less complete essays on a topic. They
are “to be done” and not “to be read” in the sense that they offer an
outline for prayer and personal reflection in preparation for group
and plenary discussion. Similarly, they can be used for in-depth
thematic meetings in a synodal style at all levels of Church life. They
are not meant to be dealt with in succession: each should be kept
together with the part of Section B of the IL to which it corresponds
but can be dealt with independently of all the others.
All the Worksheets follow the same structure: they begin with a brief
contextualisation of the question given in the title, each framed by
what emerged in the first phase. They then present a question for
discernment. Finally, they offer some insights, which outline various
perspectives (theological, pastoral, canonical, etc.), dimensions and
levels (Parish, Diocese, etc.). Above all, they recall the particularity
of the faces of the members of the People of God, their charisms and
ministries, and the questions they expressed during the listening
phase. The plenty of each Worksheet’s stimuli results from seeking
to remain faithful to the richness and variety of the material gathered
from the consultation, but they are not meant to be considered as a
questionnaire which requires an answer to every question. Some
insights will prove particularly stimulating in certain regions of the
world, others in different regions. Each person is invited to choose
the ones that they feel best enable the riches of their own Church
context to be shared with others. This will be their contribution to the
common task.
Each Worksheet focuses on the topic indicated by the title, taking for
granted the frame of reference represented by the IL, whose contents
are neither repeated nor explicitly cited in each instance. However,
they represent the basis for the work, together with all the documents
produced during the consultation phase: “In preparation for the
Assembly, the Members of the Synod are asked to keep in mind the
previous documents, in particular, the DCS and the Final Documents
of the Continental Assemblies of the different continents, as well as
the report of the Digital Synod and to use them as tools for their own
discernment” (no. 9). It is therefore not a question of starting from
scratch, but of continuing a journey already underway. For this
reason, as well as for obvious reasons of space, the Worksheets do
not offer a systematic treatment of each topic, nor do they address
matters in depth. The fact that the synodal process has highlighted
some points as priorities does not mean that other issues are less
important. On the basis of the consultation of the People of God, the
194 Iustitia
questions proposed in the Worksheets represent points of entry to

address the basic question that drives and guides the entire process:
“How does this ‘journeying together,’ which takes place today on
different levels (from the local level to the universal one), allow the
Church to proclaim the Gospel in accordance with the mission
entrusted to Her; and what steps does the Spirit invite us to take in
order to grow as a synodal Church?” (PD 2).
There are obvious points of contact and some overlaps between the
Worksheets. This is not a matter of repetition. In drafting, it was
understood that the Worksheets are designed to be used
independently of each other. Moreover, this highlights the rich
network of interconnections between the topics covered.
Some of the questions that emerged from the consultation of the
People of God concern issues on which there is already magisterial
and theological teaching to be considered. To give just two examples,
we can note the acceptance of remarried divorcees, dealt with in the
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, or the
inculturation of the liturgy, the subject of the Instruction Varietates
legitimae (1994) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments. The fact that questions continue to
emerge on issues like these should not be hastily dismissed, rather, it
calls for discernment, and the Synodal Assembly is a privileged
forum for so doing. In particular, the obstacles, real or perceived, that
have prevented the steps indicated by previous documents from
being realised should be considered and reflections offered on how
they can be removed. For example, if the block stems from a general
lack of information, then improved communication will be needed.
If, on the other hand, the problem stems from the difficulty of
grasping the implications of the documents in ordinary situations or
an inability of persons to recognise themselves in what is proposed,
a synodal journey of effective reception by the People of God could
be the appropriate response. Another instance could be the
reappearance of a question which emerges as a sign of a changed
reality or situations where there is a need for an “overflow” of Grace.
This requires further reflection on the Deposit of Faith and the living
Tradition of the Church.
It will be difficult for the work of the first session of the XVI Ordinary
General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops to produce conclusive
guidelines on many of these topics. This is why the Holy Father has
decided that the Synodal Assembly will be held in two sessions. The
main objective of the first session will be to outline paths of in-depth
study to be carried out in a synodal style, indicating the relevant
actors to be involved and ways to ensure a fruitful process in service
to the discernment to be completed in the second session in October
2024. Proposals on how we can grow as a synodal Church will then
be presented to the Holy Father.
B 1. A Communion that radiates

How can we be more fully a sign and instrument
of union with God and of the unity of all humanity?
B 1.1 How does the service of charity and commitment to justice
and care for our common home nourish communion in a synodal
Church?
196 Iustitia
The Continental Assemblies indicate various directions for our

growth as a missionary synodal Church:
a) In a synodal Church, the poor, in the primary sense of those living
in conditions of material poverty and social exclusion, occupy a
central place. They are recipients of care, but above all, they are
bearers of Good News that the whole community needs to hear. The
Church has something to learn and receive from them (cf. Lk 6:20,
EG 198). A synodal Church recognises and values their central role.
b) Caring for our common home calls for shared action. The solution
to many problems, such as climate change, calls for the commitment
of the whole human family. Working together to care for our
common home already provides a context for encounter and
collaboration with members of other Churches and ecclesial
Communities, with believers of other religions and with people of
goodwill. This commitment requires us to act simultaneously on a
plurality of levels: catechesis and pastoral work, promotion of better
lifestyles, and management of the Church’s assets (real estate and
financial).
c) Migratory movements are a sign of our time, and “migrants are a
‘paradigm’ able to shed light on our times”[10]. Their presence
constitutes a particular call to the Catholic Faithful to walk together.
They represent an invitation to create links with Churches in the
migrants’ countries of origin, representing also a chance to
experience the variety of the Church, including importantly through
the diaspora of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
d) A synodal Church can offer a prophetic witness to a fragmented
and polarised world, especially when its members are committed to
walking together with others for the building of the common good.
In places marked by deep conflict, this requires the ability to be
agents of reconciliation and artisans of peace.
e) “Each individual Christian and every community is called to be an
instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor” (EG
187). This implies a willingness to take a stand alongside the most
marginalised in public debate, lending a voice to their cause and
denouncing situations of injustice and discrimination whilst seeking
to avoid complicity with those responsible for injustice.
Question for discernment

Walking together means not leaving anyone behind and remaining
alongside those who struggle the most. How are we building a
synodal Church capable of promoting the belonging and
participation of the least within the Church and in society?
Suggestions for prayer and preparatory reflection
1) Works of justice and mercy are a form of participation in Christ’s
mission. Every Baptised person is therefore called to engage in this
area. How can this awareness be awakened, cultivated and
strengthened in Christian communities?
2) The inequalities that mark the contemporary world are also
present in the Church, separating, for example, the Churches of rich
and poor countries and the communities of the richest and poorest
areas of the same country. How can we overcome these inequalities,
walking together as local Churches so that we experience a genuine
sharing of gifts?
3) Along the synodal path, what efforts have been made to welcome
the voice of the poorest and to integrate their contribution? What
have we learned about how to support the belonging and
participation of the most marginalised? What needs to happen to
enable their greater involvement in our walking together and how
do we let their voices question our way of doing things when it is
insufficiently inclusive of them?
4) How can welcoming migrants become an opportunity to walk
with people from another culture, especially when we share the same
faith? What provision is made for migrant communities in local
pastoral care? How is the diaspora of the Eastern Catholic Churches
valued and how can their presence become an opportunity to
experience unity in diversity? How can links be created between the
Churches in countries of departure and arrival?
5) Does the Christian community know how to accompany society as
a whole in building the common good, or does it seek to defend only
its own vested interests? Is the Christian community able to bear
witness to the possibility of concord beyond political polarisations?
How does it equip itself through prayer and formation for these
tasks? Working for the common good requires forming alliances and
coalitions. What criteria of discernment should we use? How does
the community accompany its members who are engaged in politics?
198 Iustitia
6) What experience do we have of walking together with others

beyond the Catholic Church (individuals, groups and movements) in
care for our common home? What have we learnt? What progress is
being made to coordinate the different levels of action necessary for
effective care of our common home?
7) Walking together with the poor and marginalised requires a
willingness to listen. Should the Church recognise a specific ministry
of listening and accompaniment for those who take on this service?
How can a synodal Church form and support those offering such
accompaniment? How can we give ecclesial recognition to those
bearing an authentic vocation to contribute to a just society and care
for our common home?
B 1.2 How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that
“love and truth will meet” (Ps 85:11)?
Understanding the real and concrete meaning of the Christian call to
encounter the Lord through welcome and accompaniment emerged
as a core concern during the first phase of the synodal journey.
The DCS chose the biblical image of a widening tent (cf. Is 54:2) to
express the call to be a simultaneously well-rooted and open
community. The Continental Assemblies, speaking from their
diverse contexts, proposed other resonant images that capture the
dimension of the welcome core to the Church’s mission. Asia offered
the image of the person who takes off his or her shoes to cross the
threshold as a sign of the humility with which we prepare to meet
God and our neighbour. Oceania proposed the image of the boat and
Africa suggested the image of the Church as the family of God,
capable of offering belonging and welcome to all its members in all
their variety.
In this diversity, we can trace a unity of purpose. Everywhere the
Church is searching for ways to renew its mission to be a welcoming
and hospitable community, to encounter Christ in those it welcomes
and to be a sign of his presence and a credible proclamation of the
Gospel in the lives of all. There is a profound need to imitate the Lord
and Master in the ability to live out a seeming paradox: “boldly
proclaiming its authentic teaching while at the same time offering a
witness of radical inclusion and acceptance” (DCS 30).
On this point, the synodal path has been an opportunity to engage in
a profound encounter, with humility and sincerity. It has surprised
some to discover that the synodal style allows the questions that arise
from this encounter to be placed in a missionary perspective. These
encounters did not lead to paralysis but nourished the hope that the
Synod will be a catalyst for this renewal of mission and will prompt
us to mend the relational fabric of the Church.
The desire to offer genuine welcome is a sentiment expressed by
synod participants across diverse contexts:
a) the final documents of the Continental Assemblies often mention
those who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as the divorced
and remarried, people in polygamous marriages, or LGBTQ+
Catholics;
b) they also note how racial, tribal, ethnic, class or caste-based
discrimination, also present in the People of God, leads some to feel
less important or welcome in the community;
c) there are widespread reports of a variety of practical and cultural
barriers that exclude persons with disabilities, which must be
overcome;
d) concern also emerges that the poorest to whom the Good News is
primarily addressed are too often on the margins of Christian
communities (for example, migrants and refugees, street children,
homeless persons, victims of human trafficking, and others);
e) the documents of the Continental Assemblies note that it is
necessary to maintain the link between synodal conversion and care
for survivors of abuse and those marginalised within the Church.
The Continental Assemblies place great emphasis on learning to
exercise justice as a form of care for those who have been wounded
by members of the Church, especially victims and survivors of all
forms of abuse.
f) listening to the most neglected voices is identified as the way to
grow in the love and justice to which the Gospel calls us.
What steps can a synodal Church take to imitate ever more closely
its Master and Lord, who walks with all in unconditional love and
proclaims the fullness of the Gospel truth?
200 Iustitia

1) What is the attitude with which we approach the world? Do we
know to recognise what is good and, at the same time, commit
ourselves to prophetically denounce all that violates the dignity of
persons, human communities and creation?
2) How can we speak in a prophetic voice to expose what is evil
without further fragmenting our communities? How can we become
a Church that deals honestly with its conflicts and is not afraid to
safeguard spaces for disagreement?
3) How can we restore proximity and caring relationships as the core
of the Church’s mission, “walking with people instead of talking
about them or solely at them”?
4) In the spirit of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christus
Vivit, how can we walk together with young people? How can a
“preferential option for young people” be at the centre of our
pastoral strategies and synodal life?
5) How can we continue to take meaningful and concrete steps to
offer justice to victims and survivors of sexual abuse and spiritual,
economic, power and conscience abuse by persons who were
carrying out a ministry or ecclesial responsibility?
6) How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the
Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised,
received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete
steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the
Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried
divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?
7) How can we be more open and welcoming towards migrants and
refugees, ethnic and cultural minorities, and indigenous
communities who have long been part of the Church but are often on
the margins? How can the Church better embrace their presence as a
gift?
8) What physical and cultural barriers do we need to break down so
that people with disabilities can feel that they are full members of the
community?
9) How can we enhance the contribution of older people to the life of
the Christian community and society?
B 1.3 How can a dynamic relationship of gift exchange between the

Churches grow?
The communion to which the Church is called is a dynamic
relationship of gift exchange, which bears witness to a transcendent
unity in diversity. One of the most significant gifts of the synodal
journey so far is the rediscovery of the richness of our diversity and
depth of our interconnectedness. Diversity and interconnectedness
do not threaten but rather provide the context for a more profound
reception of our unity of creation, calling and destiny.
The synod process has been experienced in a lively and enthusiastic
manner at the local level of the Church, especially when there have
been opportunities for conversation in the Spirit. The DCS has sought
to capture this vitality while emphasising the extraordinary
convergence of issues and themes that have emerged across contexts.
During the Continental Assemblies, aspects of the life of the Church
in very different contexts were discovered as a precious gift. At the
same time, continents entered into a deeper relationship with the
diversity that characterises their various regions. These include
differences between neighbours within continents as well as diverse
expressions of catholicity in places where Latin and Eastern Catholic
Churches share the same territory, often as a result of waves of
Catholic migration and the formation of communities in diaspora. As
one Continental Assembly observed, we have experienced ourselves
very concretely as “communities of communities”, noting the gifts
and tensions this can generate.
These encounters have led to shared observations and clear requests:
a) It is desired that we might better hear and recognise the different
traditions of specific regions and Churches in an ecclesial and
theological conversation often dominated by Latin/Western voices.
The dignity of the Baptised is recognised as a key point in many
contexts, similarly for many members of Eastern Catholic Churches
in particular, the Paschal Mystery celebrated in the Sacraments of
Christian Initiation remains the focus of reflection on Christian
identity and the synodal Church.
b) the Eastern Catholic Churches have a long and distinguished
experience of synodality, shared with the Orthodox Churches, a
tradition they wish attention to be given to in the discussions and
discernment of this synodal process.
202 Iustitia
c) likewise, there are specific and particular realities that Eastern

Christians in diaspora face in new contexts, together with their
Orthodox brothers and sisters. It is desired that the Eastern Catholic
Churches in the diaspora are able to preserve their identity and be
recognised as more than ethnic communities, i.e. as Churches sui
iuris with rich spiritual, theological and liturgical traditions that
contribute to the mission of the Church today in a global context.
How can each local Church, the subject of mission in its context,
enhance, promote and integrate the exchange of gifts with the other
local Churches within the horizon of the one Catholic Church?
How can the local Churches be helped to promote the catholicity
of the Church in a harmonious relationship between unity and
diversity, preserving the specificity of each one?
1) How do we increase awareness that the Church, both one and
catholic, is already, and has been from the beginning, the bearer of a
rich and multiform diversity
2) By what gestures could all local Churches show hospitality
towards each other to benefit from the mutual exchange of ecclesial
gifts and manifest ecclesial communion in the areas of liturgy,
spirituality, pastoral care and theological reflection? In particular,
how can we facilitate an exchange of experiences and visions of
synodality between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin
Church?
3) How could the Latin Church develop greater openness to the
spiritual, theological, and liturgical traditions of the Eastern Catholic
Churches?
4) How can the Oriental Catholic Churches in diaspora preserve their
identity and be recognised as more than just ethnic communities?
5) Some Churches live in very precarious situations. How can the
other Churches take on their suffering and provide for their needs,
putting into practice the teachings of the Apostle Paul who asked the
communities in Greece to generously support the Church of
Jerusalem: “Let your abundance make up for their neediness, so that
their abundance may also make up for your neediness, and so that
there may be equality” (2 Cor 8:14)? What role can global institutions
and those of the Holy See dedicated to the service of charity play in
this regard?
6) How can we take into account and value the contributions and
experiences of the local Churches in the teaching of the Magisterium
and ecclesiastical norms at the universal level?
7) In an increasingly globalised and interconnected world, how to
develop the fabric of relations between local Churches of the same
region and also of different continents? How can increasing human
mobility and thus the presence of migrant communities become an
opportunity for building links between Churches and exchanging
gifts? How can tensions and misunderstandings that may arise
between believers of different cultures and traditions be handled
constructively?
8) How can the Church’s global institutions, starting with those
reporting to the Holy See and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia,
foster the circulation of gifts between the Churches?
9) How can the exchange of experiences and gifts be made active and
fruitful not only between the different local Churches, but also
between the different vocations, charisms and spiritualities within
the People of God, including institutes of consecrated life and
societies of apostolic life, lay associations and movements, and new
communities? How is it possible to ensure the participation of
communities of contemplative life in this exchange?
B 1.4 How can a synodal Church fulfil its mission through a
renewed ecumenical commitment?
“The path of synodality, which the Catholic Church is on, is and must
be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical path is synodal”[11]. Synodality
is a common challenge that concerns all believers in Christ, just as
ecumenism is first and foremost a common path (syn-odos) travelled
together with other Christians. Synodality and ecumenism are two
paths to walk together, with a common goal: a better Christian
witness. This can take the form of coexistence in an “ecumenism of
life” at different levels, including through inter-Church marriages,
and also through the ultimate act of giving one’s life as a witness to
faith in Christ in the ecumenism of martyrdom.
There are several ecumenical implications of the commitment to
build a synodal Church:
204 Iustitia
a) Through one Baptism all Christians participate in the sensus

fidei (supernatural sense of the faith; cf. LG 12), which is why in a
synodal Church all the Baptised must be listened to attentively;
b) The ecumenical journey is an “exchange of gifts” and one of the
gifts that Catholics can receive from other Christians is precisely their
synodal experience (cf. EG 246). The rediscovery of synodality as a
constitutive dimension of the Church is one fruit of ecumenical
dialogue, especially with the Orthodox;
c) The ecumenical movement as a laboratory of synodality. In
particular the methodology of dialogue and consensus-building
experienced at various levels in the ecumenical movement could be
a source of inspiration;
d) Synodality is part of the “continuous reform” of the Church, as it
is principally through its internal reform, in which synodality plays
an essential role, that the Catholic Church draws closer to other
Christians (UR 4.6);
e) There is a reciprocal relationship between the synodal ordering of
the Catholic Church and the credibility of its ecumenical
commitment;
f) A certain synodality between the Churches is experienced
whenever Christians from different communities come together in
the name of Jesus Christ for common prayer, action and common
witness, as well as regular consultations and participation in each
other's synodal processes.
All the Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies highlight the
close relationship between synodality and ecumenism, and some
devote entire chapters to it. Indeed, both synodality and ecumenism
are rooted in the baptismal dignity of the entire People of God.
Together they invite renewed commitment to the vision of a
missionary synodal Church. They are processes of listening and
dialogue and invite us to grow in a communion that is not uniformity
but unity in legitimate diversity. They highlight the need for a spirit
of co-responsibility, since our decisions and actions at different levels
affect all members of the Body of Christ. They are spiritual processes
of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation in a dialogue of
conversion that can lead to a healing of memory.

How can the experience and fruits of the ecumenical journey help
to build a more synodal Catholic Church; how can synodality help
the Catholic Church to better respond to Jesus’ prayer: “that they
may all be one ... that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21)?
1) This Synod is an opportunity to learn from other Churches and
ecclesial Communities and to “reap what the Spirit has sown in them
as a gift for us too” (EG 246). What can Catholics (re)learn from the
synodal experience of other Christians and the ecumenical
movement?
2) How can we promote the active participation of the whole People
of God in the ecumenical movement? In particular, how can we
engage the important contribution of those in consecrated life, inter-
Church couples and families, young people, ecclesial movements
and ecumenical communities?
3) In which areas is a “healing of memory” necessary with regard to
the relationship with other Churches and ecclesial Communities?
How can we build a “new memory” together?
4) How can our “walking together” with Christians of all traditions
be improved? How could a common commemoration of the 1700th
anniversary of the Council of Nicaea (325-2025) provide such an
opportunity?
5) “The episcopal ministry of unity is closely linked to synodality”[12].
How is the Bishop, as the “visible principle and foundation of unity”
(LG 23), called to promote ecumenism in a synodal manner in his
local Church?
6) How can the ongoing synodal process contribute to “finding a
form of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing
the essential nature of its mission, is open to a new situation”[13]?
7) How can the Eastern Catholic Churches help, support and
stimulate the Latin Church in the common synodal and ecumenical
commitment? How can the Latin Church support and promote the
identity of the Eastern Catholic Faithful in the diaspora?
206 Iustitia
8) How can Pope Francis’ ecumenical motto “Walk together, work

together, pray together”[14] inspire a renewed commitment to
Christian unity in a synodal manner?
B 1.5 How can we recognise and gather the richness of cultures and
develop dialogue amongst religions in the light of the Gospel?
Listening to people requires knowing how to listen to the cultures in
which they are embedded, in the knowledge that every culture
remains in continuous evolution. A synodal Church needs to learn
how to better articulate the Gospel within local cultures and contexts,
through a discernment that proceeds from the assurance that the
Spirit gives the Church such a breadth that it can welcome any
culture without exception. Proof of this is the fact that the local
Churches are already characterised by great diversity, which is a
blessing. Within them different nationalities and ethnic groups and
believers from Eastern and Western traditions coexist. This richness
is not always easy to live with and can become a source of division
and conflict.
In addition, our own time is marked by the overwhelming
pervasiveness of a new culture, that of digital environments and new
media. As the Digital Synod initiative shows, the Church is already
present there through the activity of many Christians, especially the
young. However, what continues to be lacking is a fuller awareness
of the potential this environment offers for evangelisation or a
reflection, particularly in anthropological terms, on the challenges it
poses.
In the work of the preparatory phase, various tensions emerged.
These need not overwhelm us but can be engaged as sources of
dynamism:
a) in the relationship between the Gospel and local cultures, with
different experiences and positions. Some see the adoption of the
traditions of the universal Church as an imposition on local cultures
or even a form of colonialism. Others believe that the Spirit acts in
every culture, making it already capable of giving expression to the
truths of the Christian faith. Others again hold that Christians cannot
adopt or adapt pre-Christian cultural practices.
b) in the relationship between Christianity and other religions. While
there are very fruitful experiences of dialogue and engagement with
believers of other religions, in some regions difficulties, limitations,
and indications of mistrust emerge and even conflict and direct or

indirect persecution. The Church wishes to build bridges for the
promotion of peace, reconciliation, justice and freedom, but there are
also situations that require us to exercise great patience and hope that
things can change;
c) in the relationship between the Church, on the one hand, and
Western culture and forms of cultural colonisation, on the other.
There are forces at work in the world that oppose the mission of the
Church, based on philosophical, economic and political ideologies
that are founded on assumptions that inimical to the faith. Not
everyone perceives these tensions in the same way, for example, with
regard to the phenomenon of secularisation, which some see as a
threat and others as an opportunity. Sometimes this tension is
interpreted in a reductionist way as the clash between those who
desire change and those who fear it;
d) in the relationship between indigeneous communities and
Western models of missionary action. Many Catholic missionaries
have shown great dedication and generosity in sharing their faith,
but in some cases, their actions have hindered the possibility of local
cultures offering their original contribution to the building up of the
Church;
e) in the relationship between the Christian community and young
people, many of whom feel excluded by the language adopted in
Church contexts, which can seem incomprehensible to them.
These tensions must first be addressed through discernment at the
local level, and there are no pre-packaged solutions. The Continental
Assemblies have emphasised a number of personal and community
dispositions that can be of help: an attitude of humility and respect;
the ability to listen and promote authentic conversation in the Spirit;
a readiness to change, to embrace the Paschal dynamic of death and
resurrection also with respect to the concrete forms that the life of the
Church takes; training in cultural discernment when local
sensibilities and spirituality appear to be at odds, and in the
accompaniment of people from different cultures.
How can we proclaim the Gospel effectively in different contexts
and cultures, in order to foster the encounter with Christ for the
men and women of our time? What bonds can we establish with
208 Iustitia
the adherents of other religions to build a culture of encounter and

dialogue.
1) What tools do local Churches use to read the cultures in which
they are embedded? How can they, in the light of the Gospel, respect
and value the cultures of the different local contexts? What
opportunities can they create to re-read the teachings of the Church
in the light of local cultures?
2) What spaces are available for minority and migrant cultures to find
expression in the local Churches?
3) Various Dioceses, Episcopal Conferences, and Continental
Assemblies have expressed the wish to be able to re-articulate
community life and especially the liturgy in accordance with local
cultures. What synodal dynamic can we put in place to meet this
desire?
4) How can formation in cultural discernment be promoted? How do
we foster, educate and give recognition to the charisms and vocations
of “translators”, i.e. those who help build bridges between religions,
cultures and people?
5) What gestures of reconciliation and peace with other religions do
we feel called to make? How do the Churches deal constructively
with prejudices, tensions and conflicts? How can we bear witness to
the Gospel in countries where the Church is in the minority, without
weakening our witness to the faith, but without needlessly exposing
Christians to threats and persecution?
6) How can the Church engage Western culture and other cultures,
including within the Church, in a manner that is frank, prophetic and
constructive, and avoiding all forms of colonialism?
7) For some, secularised society is a threat to be opposed, for others
a fact to be accepted, and for still others a source of inspiration and
an opportunity. How can the Churches remain in dialogue with the
world without becoming worldly?
8) How can we create opportunities for discernment within digital
environments? What forms of collaboration and what structures do
we need to create for the purposes of evangelisation in an
environment that lacks a territorial dimension?
B 2. Co-responsibility in Mission
How can we better share gifts and tasks in the service of the Gospel?
B 2.1 How can we walk together towards a shared awareness of the
meaning and content of mission?
It is the mission of the Church to proclaim the Gospel and make
Christ present, through the gift of the Spirit. This task belongs to all
the Baptised (cf. EG 120): synodality is constitutively missionary and
mission itself is synodal action. We are continually invited to grow
in our response to this call, renewing in a synodal manner the way
the Church carries out its mission. In the reflections of the
Continental Assemblies, this mission articulates a multiplicity of
dimensions that are to be harmonised and not opposed to each other
in the integral perspective promoted by Evangelii nuntiandi and taken
up by Evangelii gaudium. For example:
a) a heartfelt call for the renewal of the liturgical life of the local
Church as a place of proclamation through Word and Sacrament,
emphasising the quality of preaching and the language of the liturgy.
The latter requires a proper balance between the Church’s unity, also
expressed in the unity of its rite, and legitimate diversities, which a
proper inculturation takes into account[15];
b) emphasis is placed on the desire for a Church that is poor and close
to those who suffer, capable of evangelising through proximity and
charity. Following in the Lord’s footsteps, this witness goes as far as
martyrdom and expresses the “Samaritan” vocation of the Church.
With reference to situations in which the Church causes wounds and
those in which she herself is wounded, unless those involved are
properly cared for, these situations become a stumbling block for the
Church’s witness to God’s love and the truth of the Gospel;
c) a key to prophetically opposing new and destructive colonialisms
is the opening of places of unconditional service in imitation of
Christ, who came not to be served but to serve (cf. Mk 10:45). These
are places where basic human needs can be met, where people feel
welcomed and not judged, free to ask questions about the reasons for
our hope (cf. 1 Pt 3:15), and free to leave and return. For a synodal
Church, mission is always building with others rather than for
others;
d) in the digital environment, the Church is discovering an
opportunity for evangelisation. It recognises that building networks
210 Iustitia
of relationships in this space makes it possible for people, especially

young people, to experience new ways of walking together. The
Digital Synod initiative draws the Church’s attention to the reality of
the human being as a being who communicates, even in the media
networks shaping our contemporary world.
The desire to grow in a commitment to mission is not hindered by
awareness of the Christian communities’ limits nor the recognition
of their failures. On the contrary, the movement to going out of
oneself in faith, hope and charity is a way to address this
incompleteness. However, alongside the affirmation of this desire,
the Continental Assemblies also voice the lack of clarity and shared
understanding of the meaning, scope and content of the Church’s
mission or the criteria for articulating its diverse expressions. This
hampers our walking together and can divide us. Hence a demand
for new modes of formation and places of encounter and dialogue,
in a synodal key, between the different perspectives, spiritualities
and sensitivities that make up the richness of the Church.
How prepared and equipped is the Church today to proclaim the
Gospel with conviction, freedom of spirit and effectiveness? How
does the perspective of a synodal Church transform the
understanding of mission and enable its different dimensions to
be articulated? How does the experience of accomplishing mission
together enrich the understanding of synodality?
1) The community’s liturgical life is the source of its mission. How
can its renewal be sustained in a synodal way by enhancing
ministries, charisms and vocations and offering spaces of welcome
and belonging?
2) How can preaching, catechesis and pastoral work promote a
shared awareness of the meaning and content of mission? How can
it convey that mission constitutes a real and concrete call for every
Baptised person?
3) The syntheses of the Episcopal Conferences and the Continental
Assemblies repeatedly call for a “preferential option” for young
people and families, which recognises them as subjects and not
objects of pastoral care. How could this missionary synodal renewal
of the Church take shape, including by implementing the conclusions

of the Synods of 2014-15 and 2018?
4) For the vast majority of the People of God, mission is accomplished
by “engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to
the plan of God” (LG 31; cf. also AA 2). How can we raise awareness
that professional, social, and political commitment and voluntary
work are areas in which mission is exercised? How can we better
accompany and support those who carry out this mission, especially
in hostile and challenging environments?
5) The Church’s social doctrine is often considered the prerogative of
experts and theologians and disconnected from the daily life of
communities. How can we encourage its re-appropriation by the
People of God as a resource for mission?
6) The digital environment now shapes the life of society. How can
the Church carry out its mission more effectively in this space? How
should proclamation, accompaniment and care be rethought for this
environment? How can we recognise those carrying out missionary
commitment within it and create new formation paths for them?
How can we encourage the pioneering activity of young people who
are especially co-responsible for the Church’s mission in this space?
7) In many areas carrying out mission requires collaborating with a
diversity of people and organisations of different inspirations,
including the Faithful of other Churches and ecclesial Communities,
members of other religions, and women and men of goodwill. What
do we learn from “walking together” with them, and how can we
better equip ourselves to do it?
B 2.2 What should be done so a synodal Church is also an ‘all
ministerial’ missionary Church?
All Continental Assemblies discuss ministries in the Church, often in
rich and thought-provoking terms. The synodal process offers a
positive vision of ministries, placing ordained Ministry within
broader ecclesial ministeriality without creating oppositions.
However, the Continental Assemblies also note an urgent need to
discern the emerging charisms and the appropriate forms of
exercising baptismal Ministries (instituted, extraordinary and de
facto) within the People of God which participates in Christ’s
prophetic, priestly and royal function. This worksheet focuses on
these ministries, while the relationship to ordained Ministry and the
212 Iustitia
tasks of the Bishops in a synodal Church finds space in others. In

particular:
a) There is a clear call to overcome a vision that reserves any active
function in the Church to ordained Ministers alone (Bishops, Priests,
Deacons), reducing the participation of the Baptised to a
subordinated collaboration. Without diminishing appreciation for
the Sacrament of Orders, ministries in a synodal horizon are
understood from a ministerial conception of the entire Church. A
serene reception of the Second Vatican Council emerges, with
recognition of baptismal dignity as the foundation of everyone’s
participation in the life of the Church. Baptismal dignity is readily
linked to a common Priesthood as the root of the baptismal
ministries, and the necessary relationship between common and
ministerial Priesthood is reaffirmed since they are “interrelated”
with each one “in its own special way” being a “participation in the
one Priesthood of Christ” (LG 10).
b) it is emphasised that the most fruitful place to realise the
participation of all in the Christ’s Priesthood, simultaneously valuing
baptismal Ministries and the particularity of ordained Ministry, is
the local Church. Here we are called to discern which charisms and
ministries are useful for the good of all in a particular social, cultural
and ecclesial context. There is a need to give new impetus and more
incisive competence to the special participation of the Laity in
evangelisation in the various spheres of social, cultural, economic
and political life, assuming their own responsibilities, as well as
enhancing the contribution of Consecrated men and women, with
their different charisms, within the life of the local Church.
c) The experience of walking together in the local Church makes it
possible to imagine new ministries at the service of a synodal Church.
So often, referring to the text, vision and language of LG 10-12, the
Continental Assemblies ask for greater recognition of baptismal
Ministries and that this be better expressed through enacting forms
of subsidiarity between the different levels of the Church. In this
vein, many of these questions on baptismal Ministries could be
answered through more in-depth synodal work in the local
Churches, where, based on the principle of differentiated
participation in the triple office (tria munera) of Christ, it is easier to
keep clear the complementarity between common Priesthood and
the ministerial Priesthood, thus identifying with discernment the

baptismal Ministries needed by the community.
d) an all-ministerial Church is not necessarily wholly a Church of
instituted Ministries. Many ministries flow legitimately from the
baptismal vocation, including spontaneous ministries and other
recognised ministries that are not instituted and others that, by virtue
of being instituted, receive a specific formation, mission and stability.
Growing as a synodal Church involves the commitment to discern
together which ministries should be created or promoted in the light
of the signs of the times in service to the world.
How can we move towards a meaningful and effective co-
responsibility in the Church, in which there is a fuller realisation
of the vocations, charisms and ministries of all the Baptised in a
missionary key? What can we do to ensure that a more synodal
Church is also an “all ministerial Church”?
1) How should we celebrate Baptism, Confirmation and the
Eucharist so that they are occasions for witnessing and promoting
the participation and co-responsibility of all as active subjects in the
life and mission of the Church? How can we renew an understanding
of ministry not limited to ordained Ministry alone?
2) How can we discern the baptismal Ministries necessary for
mission in a local Church, whether instituted or not? What spaces are
available for experimentation at the local level? What value should
be attributed to these Ministries? Under what conditions can they be
received and recognized by the entire Church?
3) What can we learn from other Churches and ecclesial
Communities regarding ministeriality and ministries?
4) Co-responsibility is manifested and realised primarily in the
participation of all in mission. How can the specific contribution of
those bearing different charisms and vocations be enhanced so as to
best serve the harmony of community commitment and ecclesial life,
especially in the local Churches? These charisms and vocations may
range from individual skills and competencies, including
professional ones, to the foundational inspiration of congregations
214 Iustitia
and Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life,

movements, associations, etc.
5) How can we create spaces and moments of effective participation
in co-responsible mission with the Faithful who, for various reasons,
are on the margins of community life but who, according to the logic
of the Gospel, offer an irreplaceable contribution? (Here we include
the elderly and those who are sick, people with disabilities, those
living in poverty, people without access to formal education, etc.)?
6) Many people commit to building a just society and caring for our
common home as a response to an authentic vocation and a life
choice, foregoing better-paid and established secure professional
alternatives. How can we recognise this commitment in ways that
make clear that this is not only a personal act but an actualisation of
the Church’s care for the world?
B 2.3 How can the Church of our time better fulfil its mission
through greater recognition and promotion of the baptismal
dignity of women?
In Baptism, the Christian enters into a new bond with Christ and, in
Him and through Him, with all the Baptised, with all humanity and
with the whole of creation. Sons and daughters of the one Father,
anointed by the same Spirit, by virtue of sharing the same bond with
Christ, the Baptised are given to one another as members of a single
body enjoying equal dignity (cf. Gal 3:26-28). The listening phase
reaffirmed the awareness of this reality, indicating that it must find
ever more concrete realisation in the life of the Church, including
through relationships of mutuality, reciprocity and complementarity
between men and women. In particular:
a) the Continental Assemblies were unanimous in calling for
attention to the experience, status and role of women,
notwithstanding the different perspectives present within each
continent. They celebrate the faith, participation and witness of so
many Lay and Consecrated women worldwide, often present as
evangelists and first teachers in the ways of faith, ministering in
remote places and challenging contexts, and at the “prophetic
margins”;
b) the Continental Assemblies also call for deeper reflection on the
ecclesial relational failures, which are also structural failures
affecting the lives of women in the Church, inviting us into a process
of ongoing conversion seeking to grow more fully into that identity

given us in Baptism. Priorities for the Synodal Assembly include
addressing the joys and tensions, and the opportunities for
conversion and renewal, in how we live relationships between men
and women in the Church, and namely the relationships: between
ordained Ministers, Consecrated men and women, and Lay men and
women;
c) during the first phase of the Synod, questions of women’s
participation and recognition, of mutually supportive relationships
between men and women and the desire for a greater presence of
women in positions of responsibility and governance emerged as
crucial elements in the search for more synodal ways to live the
Church’s mission. The women who participated in the first phase
expressed a clear desire that society and the Church be places of
growth, active participation and healthy belonging for all women.
They ask the Church to be at their side to accompany and promote
the realisation of this. A synodal Church must address these
questions together, seeking responses that offer greater recognition
of women’s baptismal dignity and rejection of all forms of
discrimination and exclusion faced by women in the Church and
society;
d) finally, the Continental Assemblies highlight the plurality of
women’s experiences, points of view and perspectives and ask that
this diversity be recognised in the Synodal Assembly’s work,
avoiding treating women as a homogeneous group or an abstract or
ideological subject of debate.
What concrete steps can the Church take to renew and reform its
procedures, institutional arrangements and structures to enable
greater recognition and participation of women, including in
governance, decision-making processes and in the taking of
decisions, in a spirit of communion and with a view to mission?
1) Women play a major role in transmitting the faith in families,
Parishes, consecrated life, associations and movements and lay
institutions, and as teachers and catechists. How can we better
recognise, support, and accompany their already considerable
216 Iustitia
contribution? How can we enhance it in order to learn to be an

increasingly synodal Church?
2) The charisms of women are already present and at work in the
Church today. What can we do to discern and support them and to
learn what the Spirit wants to teach us through them?
3) All Continental Assemblies call for the issue of women’s
participation in governance, decision-making, mission and
ministries at all levels of the Church, to be addressed, and for this
participation to be given the support of appropriate structures so that
this does not remain just a general aspiration.
a) How can women be included in these areas in greater numbers
and new ways?
b) How, in consecrated life, can women be better represented in the
Church’s governance and decision-making processes, better
protected from abuse in all ecclesial contexts, and, where relevant,
more fairly remunerated for their work?
c) How can women contribute to governance, helping to promote
greater accountability and transparency and strengthen trust in the
Church?
d) How can we deepen reflection on women’s contribution to
theological reflection and the accompaniment of communities? How
can we give space and recognition to this contribution in the formal
processes of discernment at every level of the Church?
e) What new ministries could be created to provide the means and
opportunities for women’s effective participation in discernment and
decision-making bodies? How can co-responsibility in decision-
making processes be increased between lay and consecrated women
and clergy in remote places and in challenging social contexts where
women are frequently the main agents of pastoral care and
evangelisation? The contributions received during the first phase
note that tensions with the ordained Ministers arise where the
dynamics of co-responsibility and shared decision-making processes
are absent.
4) Most of the Continental Assemblies and the syntheses of several
Episcopal Conferences call for the question of women’s inclusion in
the diaconate to be considered. Is it possible to envisage this, and in
what way?
5) How can men and women better cooperate in pastoral ministry

and exercising related responsibilities?
B 2.4 How can we properly value ordained Ministry in its
relationship with baptismal Ministries in a missionary
perspective?
The Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies express a strong
desire for the Synod to reflect on the relationship between ordained
and baptismal Ministries, emphasising the difficulty of doing so in
the ordinary life of communities. In the light of the teaching of
Vatican II, the synodal process offers a valuable opportunity to focus
on the relationship between the exercise of baptismal dignity (in the
wealth of vocations, charisms and ministries rooted in Baptism) and
the ordained Ministry, seen as a gift and an inalienable task at the
service of the People of God. In particular:
a) In the footsteps of the Second Vatican Council, the necessary
relationship between the common Priesthood and the ministerial
Priesthood is reaffirmed. They are “interrelated” because each one
“in its own special way is a participation in the one Priesthood of
Christ” (LG 10). There is no opposition or competition or ground for
claims between the two. Their complementarity should be
recognised;
b) The Continental Assemblies express a clear appreciation for the
gift of the ministerial Priesthood and, at the same time, a deep desire
for its renewal in a synodal perspective. They also point out the
difficulty of involving some Priests in the synodal process and note
the widespread concern for instances where Priests struggle to face
the challenges of our time, are far from the life and needs of the
people or are focused on the liturgical-sacramental sphere only. They
also express concern for the loneliness experienced by many Priests
and emphasise their need for care, friendship and support;
c) Vatican Council II teaches that “the divinely established
ecclesiastical ministry is exercised on different levels by those who
from antiquity have been called Bishops, Priests and Deacons” (LG
28). From the Continental Assemblies emerges the request that the
ordained Ministry, in the diversity of tasks, be for all a living witness
of communion and service in the logic of evangelical gratuity. They
also express the desire for Bishops, Priests and Deacons to exercise
their ministry of guidance and unity in a synodal style. This included
218 Iustitia
specific aspirations to recognise and enhance the gifts and charisms

present in the community, to encourage and accompany processes
for the communal embrace of mission, and to seek decisions in line
with the Gospel and through listening to the Holy Spirit. Also
requested is a renewal of seminary programmes so as to be more
synodally oriented and more in contact with the whole People of
God;
d) In reflecting on ordained Ministry at the service of the baptismal
life, the first phase of the Synod presents clericalism as a force that
isolates, separates and thus weakens and dissipates the energies of a
healthy and wholly ministerial Church. It indicates that formation is
the privileged way to overcome it effectively. Clericalism is not
viewed as the prerogative of ordained Ministers alone but is present
in different ways in all the components of the People of God;
e) Many regions report that trust in ordained Ministers, in those who
perform ecclesial duties, in ecclesial institutions and the Church as a
whole has been undermined by the consequences of the “scandal of
abuse by members of the clergy or by people holding ecclesial office:
first and foremost, abuse of minors and vulnerable persons, but also
abuse of other kinds (spiritual, sexual, economic, of authority, of
conscience). This is an open wound that continues to inflict pain on
victims and survivors, on their families, and on their communities”
(DCS, no. 20).
How can we promote in the Church both a culture and concrete
forms of co-responsibility such that the relationship between
baptismal Ministries and ordained Ministry is fruitful? If the
Church is wholly ministerial, how can we understand the specific
gifts of ordained Ministers within the one People of God from a
missionary perspective?
1) How does the ministry of Priests, “consecrated to preach the
Gospel, shepherd the faithful and celebrate divine worship” (LG 28),
relate to baptismal Ministries? How does the triple office of the
ordained Ministry relate to the Church as a prophetic, priestly and
royal People?
2) In the local Church Priests with their Bishops “constitute one
Priesthood” (LG 28). How can we help strengthen this unity between
the Bishop and his Priests for more effective service to the People of
God entrusted to the Bishop’s care?
3) The Church is enriched by the ministry of so many Priests who
belong to Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic
Life. How can their ministry, characterised by the charism of the
Institute to which they belong, promote a more synodal Church?
4) How is the ministry of the permanent diaconate to be understood
within a missionary synodal Church?
5) What guidelines could be adopted for the reform of seminary
curricula and teaching programmes in colleges and schools of
theology in order to promote the synodal character of the Church?
How can the formation of Priests engage more closely with the life
and pastoral realities of the People of God they are called to serve?
6) What paths of formation should be adopted in the Church to foster
an understanding of ministeries that is not reduced to ordained
Ministry but at the same time enhances it?
7) Can we discern together how a clerical mindset, whether in Clergy
or Laity, inhibits the full expression of both the vocation of ordained
Ministries in the Church as well as that of other members of the
People of God? How can we find ways to overcome this together?
8) Can Lay people perform the role of community leaders,
particularly in places where the number of ordained Ministers is very
low? What implications does this have for the understanding of
ordained Ministry?
9) As some continents propose, could a reflection be opened
concerning the discipline on access to the Priesthood for married
men, at least in some areas?
10) How can an understanding of ordained Ministry and the
formation of candidates that is more rooted in the vision of the
missionary synodal Church contribute to efforts to prevent the
recurrence of sexual abuse and other forms of abuse?
B 2.5 How can we renew and promote the Bishop’s ministry from a
missionary synodal perspective?
The ministry of the Bishop is rooted in Scripture and has developed
in Tradition in faithfulness to the will of Christ. Faithful to this
tradition, the Second Vatican Council proposed a rich teaching on the
220 Iustitia
episcopacy “The Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, who along

with the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ and visible head of the
whole Church, govern the house of the living God” (LG 18). The
chapter of Lumen gentium on the hierarchical constitution of the
Church affirms the sacramentality of the episcopate. On this basis it
develops the theme of collegiality (LG 22/23) and of episcopal
ministry as the exercise of the three offices (tria munera, LG 24-27).
The Synod of Bishops was subsequently established as body that
would enable the Bishops to participate with the Bishop of Rome in
care for the whole Church. The invitation to live the synodal
dimension with greater intensity calls for a renewed deepening of the
episcopal ministry in order to place it more solidly in a synodal
framework. In particular:
a) the College of Bishops, together with the Roman Pontiff who is its
head and never without him, is subject of “supreme and full power
over the universal Church” (LG 22). This College participates in the
synodal process when each Bishop initiates, guides and concludes
the consultation of the People of God entrusted to him and when
assembled Bishops exercise the charism of discernment in various
assemblies: Synods or Councils of Hierarchs of the Eastern Catholic
Churches, Episcopal Conferences, in continental Assemblies, and
especially in the Synodal Assembly;
b) To the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, who have undertaken
“the service of the community, presiding in the place of God over the
flock whose shepherds they are” (LG 20), the Continental Assemblies
ask for a synodal conversion. If Vatican II recalls that the “duty which
the Lord committed to the shepherds of his people is a true service”
(LG 24), the synodal process asks them to live a radical trust in the
action of the Spirit in the life of their communities, without fear that
the participation of everyone need be a threat to their ministry of
community leadership. Rather, it urges them to truly be a principle
of unity in their Church, calling all (Priests and Deacons, Consecrated
men and women, Lay men and women) to walk together as the
People of God and promoting a synodal style of Church;
c) The consultation of the People of God has highlighted how
becoming a more synodal Church also implies a broader
involvement of all in discernment, which requires a rethinking of
decision-making processes. Consequently, there is need for adequate
governance structures which respond to the demand for greater
transparency and accountability, which will impact the way the

Bishop’s ministry is exercised. This has also brought to the fore
resistance, fear and a sense of disorientation. In particular, while
some call for greater involvement of all the Faithful and thus a “less
exclusive” exercise of the Bishops’ role, others have expressed doubts
and fear the risk of drift if left to the processes of political democracy;
d) There is an equally strong awareness that all authority in the
Church proceeds from Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. A
diversity of charisms without authority becomes anarchy, just as the
rigour of authority without the richness of charisms, ministries and
vocations becomes dictatorship. The Church is, at the same time,
synodal and hierarchical, which is why a synodal exercise of
episcopal authority suggests one that accompanies and safeguards
unity. Episcopal ministry is properly reconceived and realised
through the practice of synodality, which brings into unity the
diverse gifts, charisms, ministries and vocations to which the Spirit
gives rise in the Church;
e) To proceed with the renewal of the episcopal ministry within a
more fully synodal Church requires cultural and structural changes,
a lot of mutual trust and above all, trust in the Lord’s guidance. This
is why the Continental Assemblies hope that the dynamic of
conversation in the Spirit can enter into the daily life of the Church
and animate meetings, councils, and decision-making bodies,
favouring the building of a sense of mutual trust and the formation
of an effective consensus;
f) The ministry of the Bishop also includes belonging to the college
of Bishops and consequently exercising co-responsibility for the
whole Church. This exercise is also part of the perspective of the
synodal Church, “in the spirit of a ‘healthy decentralization’”, with a
view “to leave to the competence of Bishops the authority to resolve,
in the exercise of ‘their proper task as teachers’ and Pastors, those
issues with which they are familiar and that do not affect the
Church’s unity of doctrine, discipline and communion, always acting
with that spirit of co-responsibility which is the fruit and expression
of the specific mysterium communionis that is the Church” (PE II,2; cf.
EG 16; DV 7).
222 Iustitia

How do we understand the vocation and mission of the Bishop in
a synodal missionary perspective? What renewal of the vision and
exercise of episcopal ministry is needed for a synodal Church
characterised by co-responsibility?
1) “[B]ishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ
Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest” (LG 21). What
relationship does this ministry have with that of the Presbyters,
“consecrated to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful and to
celebrate divine worship” (LG 28)? What relationship does this triple
office of ordained Ministers have with the Church as a prophetic,
priestly and royal People?
2) How does the exercise of the episcopal ministry solicit
consultation, collaboration, and participation in the decision-making
processes of the People of God?
3) On the basis of what criteria can a Bishop evaluate himself and be
evaluated in the performance of his service in a synodal style?
4) When might a Bishop feel obliged to take a decision that differs
from the considered advice offered by the consultative bodies? What
would be the basis for such a decision?
5) What is the nature of the relationship between the “supernatural
sense of the faith” (cf. LG 12) and the Bishop’s magisterial service?
How can we better understand and articulate the relationship
between the synodal Church and the Bishop’s ministry? Should
Bishops discern together with or separately from the other members
of the People of God? Do both options (together and separately) have
a place in a synodal Church?
6) How can we ensure the care and balance of the three offices
(sanctifying, teaching, governing) in the life and ministry of the
Bishop? To what extent do current models of episcopal life and
ministry enable the Bishop to be a person of prayer, a teacher of the
faith, and a wise and effective administrator, and keep the three roles
in creative and missionary tension? How can the profile of the Bishop
and the discernment process be revised to identify candidates in a
synodal perspective?
7) How should the role of the Bishop of Rome and the exercise of his
primacy evolve in a synodal Church?
B 3. Participation, governance and authority
What processes, structures and institutions are needed in a missionary
synodal Church?
B 3.1 How can we renew the service of authority and the exercise
of responsibility in a missionary synodal Church?
A synodal Church is called to uphold both the right of all to
participate in the life and mission of the Church by virtue of Baptism,
and the service of authority and exercise of responsibility that is
entrusted to some. The synodal journey is an opportunity to discern
the ways in which this can be done that are appropriate to our times.
The first phase made it possible to gather some ideas to aid this
reflection:
a) authority, responsibility and governance roles—sometimes
succinctly referred to by the English term leadership—take a variety
of forms within the Church. Authority in consecrated life, in
movements and associations, in Church-related institutions (such as
universities, foundations, schools, etc.) is different from that which
derives from the Sacrament of Orders; spiritual authority linked to a
charism is different from that linked to ministerial service. The
differences between these forms must be safeguarded, without
forgetting that they all have in common the fact that they are a service
in the Church;
b) in particular, they all share the call to be configured to the example
of the Master, who said of himself: “I am among you as one who
serves” (Lk 22:27). “For the disciples of Jesus, yesterday, today and
always, the only authority is the authority of service”[16]. These are
the fundamental coordinates by which grow in the exercise of
authority and responsibility, in all their forms and at all levels of
Church life. It is the perspective of that missionary conversion which
“aims to renew her [the Church] as a mirror of Christ’s own mission
of love” (PE I, 2).
c) in this line, the documents of the first phase express some
characteristics of the exercise of authority and responsibility in a
missionary synodal Church: an attitude of service and not of power
or control; transparency, encouragement and the flourishing of the
person; a capacity for and competence of vision, discernment,
224 Iustitia
inclusion, collaboration and delegation. Above all, the ability and

willingness to listen is emphasised. This is why there is an insistence
on the need for special formation specifically in these skills and
competences for those in positions of responsibility and authority, as
well as on more participatory selection procedures, especially with
regard to the selection of Bishops.
d) a transparent and accountable approach is fundamental to an
authentically evangelical exercise of authority and responsibility.
However, it also arouses fears and resistance. That is why it is
important to address, with an attitude of discernment, the most
recent findings of management and leadership sciences. Moreover,
conversation in the Spirit is identified as a way of managing decision-
making and consensus-building that builds trust and fosters an
exercise of authority appropriate to a synodal Church.
e) the Continental Assemblies also point to experiences in which
power and decision-making processes have been appropriated by
some in positions of authority and responsibility. They link these
experiences to the culture of clericalism and the different forms of
abuse (sexual, financial, spiritual and of power), which erode the
credibility of the Church and compromise the effectiveness of its
mission, particularly in those cultures where respect for authority is
an important value.
Question for Discernment
How can authority and responsibility be understood and exercised
such that it serves the participation of the whole People of God?
What renewal of vision, and forms of concrete exercise of authority,
responsibility and governance, are needed in order to grow as a
missionary synodal Church?
1) Is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning the
participation of all in the life and mission of the Church effectively
incorporated into the consciousness and practice of the local
Churches, particularly by Pastors and those who exercise functions
of responsibility? What can foster a more profound awareness and
appreciation of this teaching in the fulfilment of the Church’s
mission?
2) In the Church there are roles of authority and responsibility not
linked to the Sacrament of Orders, which are exercised at the service
of communion and mission in Institutes of Consecrated Life and

Societies of Apostolic Life, in associations and lay movements, in
ecclesial movements and new communities, etc. How can these
forms of authority be appropriately promoted and how can they be
exercised in relationship with the ministerial authority of the Pastors
within a synodal Church?
3) What elements are necessary in forming Church leaders for the
exercise of authority? How can formation in the method of authentic
and insightful conversation in the Spirit be encouraged?
4) How can seminaries and houses of formation be reformed so that
they form candidates for ordained Ministry who will develop a
manner of exercising authority that is appropriate to a synodal
Church? How should the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis
Sacerdotalis and its related documents be rethought at the national
level? How should curricula in theology schools be reoriented?
5) What forms of clericalism persist in the Christian community? A
perception of distance between the lay Faithful and their Pastors
persists: what can help to overcome it? What forms of exercising
authority and responsibility should be superseded as they are not
appropriate for a properly constituted synodal Church?
6) To what extent does the shortage of Priests in some regions
provide an incentive to question the relationship between ordained
Ministry, governance and the assumption of responsibilities in the
Christian community?
7) What can we learn about the exercise of authority and
responsibility from other Churches and ecclesial Communities?
8) In every age, the exercise of authority and responsibility within the
Church is influenced by the prevailing management models and
imagery of power in society. How can we become aware of this and
exercise an evangelical discernment of the prevailing practices of
exercising authority, in the Church and in society?
B 3.2 How can we develop discernment practices and decision-
making processes in an authentically synodal manner, that
respects the protagonism of the Spirit?
As a synodal Church, we are called to discern together the steps we
should take to fulfil the mission of evangelisation, emphasising the
right of all to participate in the life and mission of the Church and
226 Iustitia
drawing forth the irreplaceable contribution of all the Baptised.

Underlying all discernment is the desire to do the Lord’s will and to
grow in closeness to Him through prayer, meditation on the Word
and participation in sacramental life, which enables us to choose as
He would choose. Regarding the place of discernment in a
missionary synodal Church:
a) the Continental Assemblies express a desire for shared decision-
making processes capable of integrating the contribution of the
whole People of God, particularly those with relevant expertise, as
well as involving those who for various reasons remain on the
margins of community life, such as women, young people,
minorities, the poor and the excluded. This desire is often expressed
together with dissatisfaction with forms of exercising authority in
which decisions are taken without consultation;
b) the Continental Assemblies also note the fears of those who see a
competition between the synodal and hierarchical dimensions that
are both constitutive of the Church. However, signs of the opposite
are also emerging. In one example, the experience of a relevant
authority taking a decision within a synodal process made the
community more ready to accept its legitimacy. A second example is
the growing awareness that the lack of healthy exchange within a
community weakens the role of authority, sometimes reducing it to
a mere assertion of power. In the third example, in a region where
the number of Priests is very low, ecclesial responsibilities have been
entrusted to lay Faithful who exercise them in a constructive and
non-oppositional manner;
c) the widespread adoption of the method of conversation in the
Spirit during the consultation phase allowed many to experience
elements of community discernment and participatory consensus-
building in a manner that did not hide conflicts or create
polarisations;
d) those who perform tasks of governance and responsibility are
called to initiate, facilitate and accompany processes of community
discernment that include listening to the People of God. In particular,
the Bishop’s authority has a fundamental role to play in animating
and validating the synodal character of these processes and in
confirming the faithfulness of the conclusions that emerge during the
process. In particular, it is the responsibility of the Pastors to verify
the relationship between the aspirations of their communities and
the “sacred deposit of the Word of God entrusted to the Church” (DV
10), a relationship that allows those aspirations to be considered a
genuine expression of the People of God’s sense of faith;
e) adopting the perspective of community discernment challenges
the Church at all levels and in all its organisational forms. In addition
to Parish and diocesan structures, this also concerns the decision-
making processes of associations, movements and Lay-led groups,
where they have recourse to institutional mechanisms that routinely
involve practices such as voting. It calls into question the way in
which the decision-making bodies of Church-related institutions
(schools, universities, foundations, hospitals, reception and social
action centres, etc.) identify and formulate operational guidelines.
Finally, it challenges Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life in ways that connect the specificities of their charisms
and their own constitutions (cf. DCS 81);
f) Adopting decision-making processes that make stable use of
community discernment requires a conversion that is personal,
communal, cultural and institutional, as well as an investment in
formation.
How can we imagine decision-making processes that are more
participatory, which give space for listening and community
discernment supported by authority understood as a service of
unity?
1) What space do we make in our decision-making processes to listen
to the Word of God? How do we make room for the protagonism of
the Holy Spirit concretely and not just in words?
2) How can conversation in the Spirit, which opens up the dynamism
of community discernment, contribute to the renewal of decision-
making processes in the Church? How can it be drawn more centrally
into the formal life of the Church and so become an ordinary
practice? What changes in canon law are needed to facilitate this?
3) How can we promote the ministry of the facilitator of community
discernment processes, ensuring that those who carry it out receive
adequate formation and accompaniment? How can we form
228 Iustitia
ordained Ministers to accompany processes of community

discernment?
4) How can we foster the participation of women, young people,
minorities, and marginalised voices in discernment and decision-
making processes?
5) How can a clearer account of the relationship between the entirety
of the decision-making process and the specific moment of decision-
taking help us to better identify the responsibilities of the different
actors at each stage? How do we understand the relationship
between decision-taking and discernment in common?
6) How can and must Consecrated men and women participate in the
decision-making processes of the local Churches? What can we learn
from their experience and their different spiritualities regarding
discernment and decision-making processes? What can we learn
from associations, movements and Lay-led groups?
7) How can we deal constructively with cases in which those in
authority feel they cannot confirm the conclusions reached by a
community discernment process, taking a decision in a different
direction? What kind of restitution should that authority offer to
those who participated in the process?
8) What can we learn from the ways that our societies and cultures
manage participatory processes? What cultural models, where
adopted by the Church, prove, by contrast, an obstacle to building a
more synodal Church?
9) What can we learn and receive from the experience of other
Churches and ecclesial Communities, and from that of other
religions? What stimuli from indigenous, minority and oppressed
cultures can help us to rethink our decision-making processes? What
insights can be gained from experiences in the digital environment?
B 3.3. What structures can be developed to strengthen a missionary
synodal Church?
The Continental Assemblies express a strong desire that the synodal
way of proceeding, experienced in the current journey, should
penetrate into the daily life of the Church at all levels, either by the
renewal of existing structures—such as diocesan and Parish Pastoral
Councils, Economic Affairs Councils, diocesan or eparchial Synods—
or by the establishment of new ones. While not meaning to diminish
the importance of renewed relationships within the People of God,

work on structures is indispensable to strengthen changes over time.
In particular:
a) in order not to remain merely a paper exercise or to be wholly
dependent on the goodwill of individuals, co-responsibility in the
mission deriving from Baptism must take on concrete structural
forms. Adequate institutional frameworks are therefore necessary,
along with spaces in which community discernment can be practised
on a regular basis. This should not be read as a demand for a
redistribution of power, but the need for the effective exercise of co-
responsibility that flows from Baptism. This latter confers rights and
duties on each person, which each one must be able to exercise
according to his or her charisms and ministries;
b) this requires that structures and institutions function with
adequate procedures that are transparent, mission-focused and open
to participation; procedures that make room for women, young
people, minorities, the poor and marginalised. This is true for the
participatory bodies already mentioned, the role of each of which
must be reaffirmed and strengthened. It is also true for: decision-
making bodies of associations, movements and new communities;
governing bodies of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life (in a manner appropriate to the particular charism of
each); the many and diverse institutions, often also subject to civil
law, through which missionary action and the service of the
Christian community is realized, such as schools, hospitals,
universities, mass media, reception and social action centres, cultural
centres, foundations, etc;
c) The call to reform structures, institutions and functioning
mechanisms with a view to transparency is particularly strong in
those contexts most marked by the abuse crisis (sexual, economic,
spiritual, psychological, institutional, conscience, power,
jurisdiction). Inadequate handling of abuse cases is often part of the
problem, calling into question the mechanisms, procedures and
overall functioning of ecclesial structures and institutions, as well as
the mindset of people working within them. The search for
transparency and co-responsibility also raises fears and resistance;
this is why it is necessary to deepen dialogue, creating opportunities
for sharing and dialogue at all levels;
230 Iustitia
d) the method of conversation in the Spirit has proven to be

particularly valuable for rebuilding trust in those contexts where, for
various reasons, a climate of mistrust has developed between the
various members of the People of God. A journey of conversion and
reform, which listens to the voice of the Spirit, demands structures
and institutions capable of accompanying and supporting this
journey. At the same time, however, the Continental Assemblies
strongly expressed the conviction that structures alone are not
enough, but that a change of mindset is also needed, hence the need
to invest in formation;
e) Moreover, it also seems advisable to take action in the area of
canon law by: rebalancing the relationship between the principle of
authority, which is strongly affirmed in the current legislation, and
the principle of participation; strengthening the synodal orientation
of already existing institutions; creating new institutions, where this
appears necessary for the needs of community life; supervising the
effective application of current legislation.
A synodal Church needs to live co-responsibility and transparency:
how can this awareness form the basis for the reform of
institutions, structures and procedures, so as to strengthen change
over time?
1) How should canonical structures and pastoral procedures change
to foster co-responsibility and transparency? Are the structures we
have adequate to ensure participation or do we need new ones?
2) How can Canon Law contribute to the renewal of structures and
institutions? What changes seem necessary or opportune?
3) What obstacles (mental, theological, practical, organisational,
financial, cultural) stand in the way of transforming the participatory
bodies currently provided for in canon law into bodies of effective
community discernment? What reforms are needed so that they can
effectively, creatively and vibrantly support the mission? How can
they be made more open to the presence and contribution of women,
young people, the poor, migrants, members of minorities and those
who for various reasons find themselves on the margins of
community life?
4) How does the perspective of a synodal Church challenge the

structures and procedures of consecrated life, the different forms of
lay association, and the functioning of Church-related institutions?
5) In which areas of institutional life is there a greater need for
transparency (economic and financial reporting, selection of
candidates for positions of responsibility, appointments, etc.)? What
tools can we use to achieve this?
6) The prospect of transparency and openness to joint consultation
and discernment processes also raises fears. How do they manifest
themselves? What are those who express concerns afraid of? How
can these fears be addressed and overcome?
7) To what extent is it possible to distinguish between the members
of an institution and the institution itself? Is the responsibility for
mishandling cases of abuse individual or systemic? How can a
synodal perspective contribute to creating a culture which prevents
abuse of all kinds?
8) What can we learn from the way in which public institutions and
public and civil law strive to respond to the need for transparency
and accountability in society (separation of powers, independent
supervisory bodies, obligations to make public certain procedures,
limits on the duration of appointments, etc.)?
9) What can we learn from the experience of other Churches and
ecclesial Communities regarding the functioning of structures and
institutions in a synodal style?
B 3.4 How can we give structure to instances of synodality and
collegiality that involve groupings of local churches?
The first phase of the synodal process highlighted the role played by
synodal and collegial bodies that brought together various local
Churches: Eastern Hierarchical Structures and, in the Latin Church,
the Episcopal Conferences (cf. PE I,7). The Documents drawn up
during the various stages emphasise how the consultation of the
People of God in the local Churches and the subsequent stages of
discernment were a true experience of listening to the Spirit through
listening to one another. From this rich experience we can draw
insights to help build an increasingly synodal Church:
a) the synodal process can become “a dynamism of communion that
inspires all ecclesial decisions”[17] because it truly involves all
232 Iustitia
subjects—the People of God, the College of Bishops, the Bishop of

Rome—each according to their own function. The orderly unfolding
of this synod’s stages dispelled the fear that the consultation of the
People of God would lead to a weakening of the Pastors’ ministry.
On the contrary, the consultation was possible because it was
initiated by each Bishop, as the “visible principle and foundation of
unity” (LG 23) in his Church. Subsequently, in the Eastern
Hierarchical Structures and in the Episcopal Conferences, the Pastors
carried out an act of collegial discernment weighing the
contributions coming from the local Churches. Thus, the synodal
process has promoted a real exercise of episcopal collegiality in a
fully synodal Church;
b) the issue of exercising synodality and collegiality in instances
involving groups of local Churches that share spiritual, liturgical and
disciplinary traditions, geographical contiguity and cultural
proximity, starting with the Episcopal Conferences, demands
renewed theological and canonical reflection. Though these bodies,
“the communio Episcoporum has found expression in service to
the communio Ecclesiae grounded in the communio fidelium” (PE I,7).
c) one reason for facing this challenge emerges in Evangelii gaudium:
“It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in
the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this
sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound
‘decentralization’” (no. 16). On the occasion of the 50th anniversary
of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops, the Holy Father
specified that synodality is not only exercised at the level of the local
Churches and at the level of the universal Church, but also at the
level of groupings of Churches, such as Provinces and Ecclesiastical
Regions, Particular Councils and especially Episcopal Conferences:
“We need to reflect on how better to bring about, through these
bodies, intermediary instances of collegiality, perhaps by integrating
and updating certain aspects of the ancient ecclesiastical
organization”[18].
Question for Discernment
In light of the synodal experience so far, how can synodality find
better expression in and through institutions involving groups of
local Churches, such as the Synods of Bishops and the Councils of
Hierarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Episcopal Conferences
and Continental Assemblies, so that they are seen as “subjects of
specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority” (EG

32) in a missionary perspective?
1) The synodal dynamic of listening to the Spirit through listening to
one another is the most practical and compelling way to translate
episcopal collegiality into action in a fully synodal Church. Building
on the experience of the synodal process:
a) how can we make listening to the People of God the ordinary and
habitual way of conducting decision-making processes in the Church
at all levels of its life?
b) How can we implement listening to the People of God in the local
Churches? In particular, how can participatory bodies be enhanced
so that they are effective places of listening and ecclesial
discernment?
c) How can we re-think decision-making processes at the level of the
Episcopal bodies of the Eastern Catholic Churches and Episcopal
Conferences based on listening to the People of God in the local
Churches?
d) How can engagement at the continental level be integrated into
Canon Law?
2) Since consulting the local Churches is an effective way to listen to
the People of God, the Pastors’ discernment takes on the character of
a collegial act that can authoritatively confirm what the Spirit has
spoken to the Church through the People of God’s sense of faith:
a) What degree of doctrinal authority can be attributed to the
discernment of Episcopal Conferences? How do the Eastern Catholic
Churches regulate their episcopal bodies?
b) What degree of doctrinal authority can be attributed to the
discernment of a Continental Assembly? Or of the bodies that bring
together Episcopal Conferences on a continental or otherwise
international scale?
c) Which role does the Bishop of Rome fulfil in regards of these
processes involving groupings of Churches? In which ways can he
exercise it?
3) What elements of the ancient ecclesiastical order should be
integrated and updated to make the Eastern Hierarchical Structures,
234 Iustitia
Episcopal Conferences and Continental Assemblies effective

instances of synodality and collegiality?
4) The Second Vatican Council states that the whole Church and all
its parts benefit from the mutual sharing of their respective gifts (cf.
LG 13):
a) What value can the deliberations of a Plenary Council, a Particular
Council, a Diocesan Synod have for other Churches?
b) What insights can the Latin Church draw from the rich synodal
experience of the Eastern Catholic Churches?
c) To what extent might the convergence of several groups of local
Churches (Particular Councils, Episcopal Conferences, etc.) on the
same issue commit the Bishop of Rome to address it at the level of
the universal Church?
d) How is the service of unity entrusted to the Bishop of Rome to be
exercised when local institutions may adopt different approaches?
What room is there for a variety of approaches between different
regions?
5) What can we learn from the experience of other Churches and
ecclesial Communities concerning the groupings of local Churches
for the exercise of collegiality and synodality?
B 3.5 How can the institution of the Synod be strengthened so that
it is an expression of episcopal collegiality within an all-synodal
Church?
With the Motu Proprio Apostolica sollicitudo (15 September 1965) St.
Paul VI established the Synod as “a permanent Council of Bishops
for the universal Church”. He thus accepted the request of the
conciliar assembly to ensure the participation of the Bishops in care
for the whole Church, specifying that “this Synod […] like all human
institutions, can be improved upon with the passing of time”. With
the Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio (15 September 2018)
Pope Francis contributed to this hoped-for “perfecting”,
transforming the Synod from an event configured as an assembly of
Bishops to a listening process unfolding in stages (cf. Art. 4), in which
the whole Church and everyone in the Church—People of God,
College of Bishops, Bishop of Rome—participate more fully.
a) The Synod 2021-2024 is clearly demonstrating that the synodal
process is the most appropriate context for the integrated exercise of
primacy, collegiality and synodality as inalienable elements of a

Church in which each subject performs its particular function to the
best of its ability and in synergy with others;
b) It is the responsibility of the Bishop of Rome to convene the
Church in Synod, calling an Assembly for the universal Church, as
well as to initiate, accompany and conclude the related synodal
process. This prerogative belongs to him as the “visible principle and
foundation of unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the
faithful” (LG 23);
c) Since “The individual Bishops, however, are the visible principle
and foundation of unity in their particular Churches … in and from
these particular Churches there exists the one unique catholic
Church” (LG 23), it is the responsibility of each diocesan Bishop to
initiate, accompany and conclude the consultation of the People of
God in his Church. In light of the care that Bishops have for the
universal Church (cf. LG 23), it is also their responsibility to
cooperate in those supra-diocesan bodies that provide for the
exercise of synodality and collegiality. In this way, they perform the
function of ecclesial discernment proper to the episcopal ministry;
d) although these bodies do not bring together the entire College of
Bishops, the discernment that Pastors carry out through them takes
on a collegial character due to the very purpose of the act. Indeed,
the Assemblies of Bishops within the synodal process have the task
of scrutinising the results of the consultations carried out in the local
Churches, in which the sense of faith of the People of God is
manifested. How could a non-collegial act discern what the Spirit is
saying to the Church through the consultation of the People of God
who “cannot be mistaken in belief” (LG12)?;
e) The synodal experience to date has demonstrated that an effective
exercise of collegiality can be developed in a synodal Church. While
discernment is an act that primarily “belongs to those who preside
over the Church” (LG 12), it has gained depth and relevance in
relation to the issues to be examined thanks to the contribution of the
People of God who took part in the Continental Assemblies.
In light of the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the
Church’s synodality, episcopal collegiality and Petrine primacy,
how should the institution of the Synod be perfected so that it
236 Iustitia
becomes a secure and guaranteed space for the exercise of

synodality that ensures the full participation of all—the People of
God, the College of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome—while
respecting their specific functions? How should we evaluate the
experiment of extending participation to a group of non-bishops in
the first session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the
Synod of Bishops? (October 2023)
1) The synodal process introduces into the Church “a dynamism of
communion which inspires all ecclesial decisions”[19]:
a) How can this dynamism become the standard way of proceeding
at all levels of Church life?
b) How does the principle of authority fit into the synodal process?
c) How does the synodal process affect our understanding of
authority in the Church at different levels, including that of the
Bishop of Rome?
2) The first phase of the synodal process implements a movement
from the particular to the universal, with the consultation of the
People of God in the local Churches and the subsequent acts of
discernment first in the Eastern Hierarchical Structures and
Episcopal Conferences, and then in the Continental Assemblies:
a) how can we ensure that the consultation truly captures the
manifestation of the sense of faith of the People of God living in a
given Church?
b) How can the Eastern Hierarchical Structures, Episcopal
Conferences and Continental Assemblies strengthen the “fruitful
bond between the sensus fidei of the People of God and the
magisterial function of the Pastors” (PD 14)?
c) How desirable is the presence of qualified members of the People
of God in the Assemblies of the Episcopal Conferences as well as in
the Continental Assemblies?
d) What role might be played by ecclesial bodies permanently
composed of more than just Bishops, such as the recently established
Ecclesial Conference for the Amazon Region?
3) In the Assembly of Bishops convened in Rome, the second phase

of the synodal path expresses the universality of the Church that
listens to what the Spirit has said to the People of God:
a) How does this Episcopal Assembly fit into the synod process?
b) How does it achieve continuity with the first phase of the synodal
process? Is the presence of qualified witnesses to the first phase of
the synodal process sufficient to guarantee it?
c) If the Assemblies of Episcopal Conferences and Continental
Assemblies carry out acts of discernment, how is this further act of
discernment characterised and what value does it have?
4) The third phase involves the movement to return the results of the
Synod Assembly to the local Churches for implementation: how can
we help to fully realise the “mutual interiority” between the
universal and local dimensions of the one Church?
______________________
[1] Henceforth, for the sake of brevity and unless otherwise specified, the
expressions “Assembly” and “Synodal Assembly” refer to the October 2023 session,
at the service of which this IL is intended.
[2] Francis, Address at the ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015 (cf. PD 15).

[3] The expression “local Church” here indicates what the Code of canon law calls
the “particular Church”.

[4] Section B will offer the reasons for the inversion of the order with respect to
the subtitle of the Synod: cf. infra no. 44.

[5] Francis, Moment of reflection for the beginning of the synodal path, 9 October 2021.
institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015.

[7] For example, at 128, the Final Document states: “[It] is not enough to have
structures, if authentic relationships are not developed within them; it is actually the
quality of these relationships that evangelizes”.
[8] Cf. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Iuvenescit Ecclesia, 15 May
2016, 13-18.
[9] Francis, Moment of Reflection for the beginning of the synodal journey, 9 October
2021.
[10] XV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Young People, the
Faith and Vocational Discernment, Final Document, 27 October 2018, 25.

[11] Francis, Address to His Holiness Mar Awa III Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian
Church of the East, 19 November 2022.

[12] Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Bishop and Christian
Unity: an Ecumenical Vademecum, 5 June 2020, 4.

[13] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, 95; quoted in
EG 32 and EC 10.
238 Iustitia
[14] Francis, Address at the Ecumenical Prayer, WCC Ecumenical Centre (Geneva),
21 June 2018.
[15] Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
Instruction Varietates legitimae, 25 January 1994.

institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17th October, 2015.


[18] Ibid.

IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 239-250
_____________________________________________________________
LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE MOTU PROPRIO DATAE
VOCARE PECCATORES∗
QUIBUS NONNULLI CANONES TITULI XXVII

ET CANON 1152 CODICIS CANONUM
ECCLESIARUM ORIENTALIUM IMMUTANTUR
Vocare peccatores in paenitentiam; [...] non egent, qui sani sunt,
medico, sed qui male habent (cfr Lc 5, 31-32), missio est Domini nostri
Iesu, quam ipse Pastoribus tradidit populi sui.
In Ecclesia poenarum proposita sunt iustitiae restitutio, rei
emendatio et scandali damnique reparatio. Pastores, proinde,
sollicitudinem suam patefaciunt, cum vigilant, ut portionem populi
Dei sibi commissam intra vias Domini servent; cum, ex emendatione
fraterna, admonitione aliisve opportunis instrumentis
christifidelium mores emendare nituntur, qui errant; et etiam
demum cum poenis canonicis utuntur, ubi delicta patrata sint. Cum
Pastor ita ad delicta vitanda reosque rite puniendos agit, conscium
se esse ostendit officii sui et christifideles diligere sibi commissos.
Recta enim canonicarum legum poenalium applicatio dilectionis
erga gregem dominicum tuendum praecipuus est fructus ac
benevolentiae erga eundem christifidelem, qui delictum patraverit,
cuius poena imprimis remedium est eius sanationis.
Necessitas instrumenta regiminis postulatis pastoralibus aptandi
recentioribus annis ad opus ineundum duxit recognitionis
nstitutionum poenalium Ecclesiae. Unde factum est, ut per
∗
https://www.vatican.va › motu_proprio › documents

240 Iustitia
Constitutionem Apostolicam Pascite gregem Dei die XXIII mensis

Maii anno MMXXI normas poenales canonicas Latinas
immutaremus, itemque eadem ratione similes innovationes in
Titulum XXVII, De Sanctionibus poenalibus in Ecclesia, necnon in
canonem 1152, De actionis poenalis praescriptione, Codicis
Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium introducere cupimus, quarum
ope disciplina poenalis orientalis aptior efficaciorque sit coram
hodiernis Ecclesiarum catholicarum orientalium necessitatibus,
necnon disciplinae universali congruens.
Nam, in Codice Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium oportebat:
aliqua nova delicta censere; praescripta quaedam clarius enarrare,
quo facilius certiusque applicentur; meliorationes quasdam
technicas introducere, e.g. quoad ius defensionis, actionis poenalis
praecriptionem vel poenarum pro singulis delictis finitionem;
triginta transactis annis postquam vigere coeperunt normas mutatis
adiunctis aptare; alia praescripta statuere ad poenas tempestivius
minutiusque irrogandas, ut delicta graviora vitentur.
In opere accommodationis ad temporum novitatem provehendo
amplas Dicasterium de Legum Textibus consultationes exsecutum
est et sociato rei peritorum labore fruitum. Immutationes insuper,
quae nunc promulgantur, quoque a Dicasterio pro Ecclesiis
Orientalibus attente visae sunt.
Proinde, harum Litterarum Apostolicarum Motu Proprio datarum
virtute, 22 canones e Titulo XXVII, necnon canonem 1152 Codicis
Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium uti sequitur reformamus:
Art. 1. Can. 1402 immutatur, ut sequitur, addita etiam nova
paragrapho:
§1. Hierarcha proceduram ad poenas irrogandas promovere debet,
quando neque reprehensione, neque obsecratione, neque
increpatione satis possit iustitia restitui, reus ad poenitentiam duci et
sese emendare, scandalum et damnum reparari.
§2. Poena canonica per iudicium poenale in cann. 1468 - 1482
praescriptum irrogari debet firma potestate coercitiva iudicis in
casibus iure expressis et reprobata contraria consuetudine.
§3. Si vero iudicio auctoritatis, de qua in § 4, graves obstant causae,
ne iudicium poenale fiat, et probationes de delicto certae sunt,
delictum puniri potest, servato can. 1291, per decretum extra
Document 2: “Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio Datae” 241
iudicium ad normam cann. 1486 et 1487, dummodo non agatur de

privatione officii, tituli, insigniumaut de suspensione ultra annum,
de reductione ad inferiorem gradum, de depositione vel de
excommunicatione maiore.
§4. Hoc decretum praeter Sedem Apostolicam ferre possunt intra
fines suae competentiae Patriarcha, Archiepiscopus maior,
Episcopus eparchialis atque Superior maior instituti vitae
consecratae, qui potestatem regiminis ordinariam habet, ceteris
omnibus exclusis.
Art. 2. Paragraphus prima can. 1406 immutatur, ut sequitur:
§1. Quatenus aliquis potest praecepta imponere iuxta praescripta
cann. 1510 – 1520, eatenus potest re mature perpensa et maxima
moderatione poenas determinatas per praeceptum comminari eis
exceptis, quae in can. 1402, § 3 enumerantur; Patriarcha vero de
consensu Synodi permanentis etiam has poenas per praeceptum
comminari potest.
§2. Monitio cum comminatione poenarum, qua Hierarcha legem non
poenalem in casibus singularibus urget, praecepto poenali
aequiparatur.
Art. 3. Can. 1407 nova paragraphus adiungitur:
§1. Si iudicio Hierarchae, qui poenam irrogare potest, natura delicti
id patitur, poena irrogari non potest, nisi delinquens antea semel
saltem monitus est, ut a delicto desisteret, dato congruo ad
resipiscentiam tempore.
§2. A delicto destitisse dicendus est is, quem delicti sincere paenituit
quique praeterea congruam reparationem scandali et damni dedit
vel saltem serio promisit.
§3. Si monitiones vel correptiones frustra alicui factae sint, Hierarcha
det praeceptum poenale, in quo accurate praescribat quid agendum
vel vitandum sit.
§4. Monitio poenalis vero, de qua in can. 1406, § 2, sufficiens est, ut
poena irrogari possit.
Art. 4. Can. 1409 immutatur, ut sequitur:
§1. In lege poenali applicanda, etsi lex utitur verbis praeceptivis,
iudex pro sua conscientia et prudentia potest:
242 Iustitia
1° poenae irrogationem in tempus magis opportunum differre, si

ex praepropera rei punitione maiora mala eventura praevidentur,
nisi necessitas urgeat scandalum reparandi;
2° a poena irroganda abstinere vel poenam mitiorem irrogare, si
reus emendatus est necnon de reparatione scandali et damni
congrue provisum est aut si ipse reus satis ab auctoritate civili
punitus est aut punitum iri praevidetur;
3° poenas intra aequos limites moderari, si reus plura delicta
commisit et nimius videtur poenarum cumulus;
4° obligationem servandi poenam suspendere in favorem eius, qui
omni probitate vitae hucusque commendatus primum deliquit,
dummodo scandalum reparandum non urgeat; poena suspensa
prorsus cessat, si intra tempus a iudice determinatum reus iterum
non deliquit, secus tamquam utriusque delicti debitor gravius
puniatur, nisi interim actio poenalis pro priore delicto exstincta
est.
§2. Si poena est indeterminata neque aliter lex cavet, iudex in poenis
determinandis eas eligat quae inducto scandalo et damni gravitati
proportionatae sint; tamen poenas in can. 1402, § 3 recensitas irrogare
non potest.
In poenis clerico irrogandis ei salva esse debent, quae ad congruam
sustentationem sunt necessaria, nisi agitur de depositione, quo in
casu Hierarcha curet, ut deposito, qui propter poenam vere indiget,
quo meliore fieri potest modo, provideatur, exclusa vero collatione
officii, ministerii vel muneris, et salvis semper iuribus ortis circa
praecaventiam et securitatem socialem necnon assistentiam
sanitariam in favorem eius eiusque familiae, si coniugatus est.
§1. Quilibet innocens censetur, donec contrarium probetur.
§2. Poenis is tantum subicitur, qui legem poenalem vel praeceptum
poenale violavit aut deliberate aut ex graviter culpabili omissione
debitae diligentiae aut ex graviter culpabili ignorantia legis vel
praecepti.
§3. Posita externa legis poenalis vel praecepti poenalis violatione
praesumitur eam deliberate factam esse, donec contrarium probetur;
in ceteris legibus vel praeceptis id praesumitur tantummodo, si lex

vel praeceptum iterum post monitionem poenalem violatur.
paragrapho:
§1. Si delictum a recidivo commissum est vel ab eo qui versatur in
statu ebrietatis aliusve mentis perturbationis, quae sint ad delictum
patrandum vel excusandum consulto quaesitae, aut ab eo qui agit ob
passionem voluntarie excitatam vel nutritam vel si alia adest
secundum communem praxim et doctrinam canonicam
circumstantia aggravans, iudex debet reum gravius punire, quam lex
vel praeceptum statuit, non exclusis poenis in can. 1402, § 3 recensitis.
§2. In iisdem casibus, si poena constituta sit ut facultativa, fit
obligatoria.
§1. Remissio poenae dari non potest, nisi reum delicti patrati sincere
paenituit necnon de reparatione scandali et damni congrue provisum
est; ad reparationem vel restitutionem, reus aliis congruis poenis
urgeri potest.
§2. Si vero iudicio illius, cui remissio poenae competit, impletae sunt
hae condiciones, remissio, quatenus natura poenae spectata fieri
potest, ne denegetur.
Art. 9. Can. 1429 immutatur, ut sequitur, additis in canonis initio
novis paragraphis:
§1. Prohibitio dari potest:
1° commorandi in certo loco vel territorio;
2° exercendi, ubique aut in certo loco vel territorio aut extra illa,
omnia vel aliqua officia, munera, ministeria vel aliqua tantum
opera officiis aut muneribus inhaerentia;
3º ponendi omnes vel aliquos actus potestatis ordinis;
4º ponendi omnes vel aliquos actus potestatis regiminis;
5º exercendi aliquod ius vel privilegium aut utendi insignibus vel
titulis;
244 Iustitia
6º fruendi voce activa vel passiva in electionibus canonicis vel

partem habendi cum iure ferendi suffragium in consiliis vel
collegiis ecclesialibus;
7º deferendi habitum ecclesiasticum vel religiosum.
§2. Praescriptio dari potest:
1° commorandi in certo loco vel territorio;
2° solvendi summam pecuniae in fines Ecclesiae, iuxta rationes
iure particulari determinatas.
§3. Prohibitio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio tantum clericos
vel religiosos vel sodales societatis vitae communis ad instar
religiosorum afficere potest, praescriptio vero commorandi in certo
loco vel territorio nonnisi clericos eparchiae ascriptos salvo iure
institutorum vitae consecratae.
§4. Ut praescriptio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio irrogetur,
requiritur consensus Hierarchae loci, nisi agitur vel de domo instituti
vitae consecratae iuris pontificii vel patriarchalis, quo in casu
requiritur consensus Superioris competentis, vel de domo clericis
plurium eparchiarum paenitentibus vel emendandis destinata.
paragrapho:
§1. Privationes poenales afficere possunt tum omnes vel aliquas
potestates, officia, ministeria, munera, iura, privilegia, facultates,
gratias, titulos, insignia, tum aliqua tantum opera officiis aut
muneribus inhaerentia, quae sunt sub potestate auctoritatis poenam
constituentis vel Hierarchae, qui iudicium poenale promovit vel
decreto eam irrogat; idem valet pro translatione poenali ad aliud
officium.
§2. Potestatis ordinis sacri privatio dari non potest, sed tantum
prohibitio omnes vel aliquos eius actus exercendi ad normam iuris
communis; item dari non potest privatio graduum academicorum.
§3. Privatio etiam dari potest:
1º facultatis confessiones excipiendi vel praedicandi;
2º potestatis regiminis delegatae;
3º totius vel partis remunerationis ecclesiasticae, secundum ius
particulare determinatae,salvo quoque praescripto can. 1410.

§1. Qui aliquam veritatem fide divina et catholica credendam
denegat vel eam in dubium ponit aut fidem christianam ex toto
repudiat et legitime monitus non resipiscit, ut haereticus aut apostate
excommunicatione maiore puniatur, clericus praeterea aliis poenis
puniri potest non exclusa depositione.
§2. Praeter hos casus, qui pertinaciter respuit doctrinam, quae a
Romano Pontifice vel Collegio Episcoporum magisterium
authenticum exercentibus ut definitive tenenda proponitur, vel
sustinet doctrinam quae ut erronea damnata est, nec legitime
monitus resipiscit, congrua poena puniatur.
§3. Qui contra Romani Pontificis actum ad Collegium Episcoporum
recurrit congrua poena puniatur.
§1. Qui Divinam Eucharistiam abiecit aut in sacrilegum finem
abduxit vel retinuit, excommunicatione maiore puniatur et, si
clericus est, etiam aliis poenis non exclusa depositione.
§2. Reus consecrationis in sacrilegum finem utriusque sacri doni vel
unius in celebratione Divinae Liturgiae aut extra eam pro gravitate
delicti puniatur non exclusa depositione.
Art. 13. Can. 1443 integre sequenti textu substituitur:
§1. Congrua poena puniatur, non exclusa excommunicatione maiore:
1° qui Divinae Liturgiae vel aliorum sacramentorum
celebrationem simulaverit;
2° qui ad ordinem sacerdotalem non promotus Divinae Liturgiae
celebrationem attentaverit;
3° qui, praeter casum de quo in can. 1457, cum sacramentalem
absolutionem dare valide nequeat, eam impertire attentaverit, vel
sacramentalem confessionem audiverit.
§2. Qui deliberate sacramentum ministraverit illis qui recipere
prohibentur, puniatur suspensione, cui aliae poenae addi possunt.
246 Iustitia
Art. 14. Can. 1446 novae paragraphi adiunguntur:

§1. Qui proprio Hierarchae legitime praecipienti vel prohibenti non
obtemperat et post monitionem in inoboedientia persistit, ut
delinquens congrua poena puniatur.
§2. Qui obligationem secreti pontificii servandi violaverit poenis, de
quibus in cann. 1429 et 1430, puniatur.
§3. Qui non servaverit officium exsequendi sententiam exsecutivam
vel decretum, quo poena irrogatur, congrua poena puniatur, non
exclusa excommunicatione minore et suspensione.
§4. Qui communicare neglexerit notitiam de delicto, cum ad id
exsequendum iure canonico teneatur, puniatur ad normam cann.
1429 et 1430, adiunctis quoque aliis poenis pro delicti gravitate.
§5. Clericus qui ministeria sacra voluntarie et illegitime relinquerit,
per sex menses continuos, cum animo sese subducendi a competenti
Ecclesiae auctoritate, pro delicti gravitate, suspensione vel etiam
poenis in cann. 1429 et 1430, statutis puniatur, et in casibus
gravioribus depositione.
Art. 15. Can. 1449 integre sequenti textu substituitur:
§1. Poenis, de quibus in cann. 1429 et 1430, puniatur, firma damnum
reparandi obligatione:
1º qui bona ecclesiastica subtrahit vel impedit ne eorundem
fructus percipiantur;
2º qui sine praescripta consultatione, consensu vel licentia aut sine
alio requisito iure ad validitatem vel ad liceitatem imposito bona
ecclesiastica alienat vel in ea actus administrationis exsequitur;
3° qui quaestum illegitime facit ex oblationibus, de quibus in can.
715, pro celebration Divinae Liturgiae vel pro Liturgia
Praesanctificatorum vel pro commemorationibus in Divina
Liturgia.
§2. Congrua poena puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, firma
damnum reparandi obligatione:
1º qui ex sua graviter culpabili omissione debitae diligentiae vel
ex graviter culpabili ignorantia legis vel praecepti, delictum de
quo in § 1, n. 2 committit;
2º qui aliter graviter neglegens in bonis ecclesiasticis

administrandis repertus fuerit.
Art. 16. Can. 1453 novae paragraphi adiunguntur:
§1. Clericus concubinarius vel aliter in peccato externo contra
castitatem cum scandalo permanens suspensione puniatur, cui
persistente delicto aliae poenae gradatim addi possunt usque ad
depositionem.
§2. Clericus, qui prohibitum matrimonium attentavit, deponatur.
§3. Clericus qui aliter contra castitatem deliquerit, si quidem
delictum publice patratum sit, congruis poenis puniatur, non
exclusa, si casus ferat, depositione.
§4. Eadem poena, de qua in § 3, puniatur clericus qui vi, minis vel
abusu suae auctoritatis delictum committit contra castitatem aut
aliquem cogit ad actus sexuales exsequendos vel subeundos.
§5. Privatione officii et aliis congruis poenis, non exclusa depositone,
si casus id secumferat, puniatur clericus:
1º qui delictum committit contra castitatem cum minore vel cum
persona quae habitualiter usu rationis caret vel cui ius parem
tutelam agnoscit;
2º qui sibi devincit aut inducit minorem aut personam quae
habitualiter usu rationis caret aut eam cui ius parem tutelam
agnoscit, ut pornographice sese ostendat vel exhibitiones
pornographicas, sive veras sive simulatas, participet;
3º qui contra bonos mores sibi comparat, detinet, exhibet vel
divulgat, quovis modo et quolibet instrumento, imagines
pornographicas minorum vel personarum quae habitualiter usum
rationis carent.
§6. Religiosus, qui votum publicum perpetuum castitatis emisit et
non est in ordine sacro constitutus, delicta, de quibus in §§ 1 et 2,
committens congrua poena puniatur.
§7. Religiosus vel sodalis societatis vitae communis ad instar
religiosorum et laicus quilibet aliqua dignitate gaudens aut officio vel
munere in Ecclesia fungens, si delictum committat, de quo in §§ 3-5,
congrua poena pro delicti gravitate puniatur.
248 Iustitia

paragrapho:
§1. Confessarius, qui sacramentale sigillum directe violavit,
excommunicatione maiore puniatur firmo can. 728, § 1, n. 1; si vero
alio modo hoc sigillum fregit, congrua poena puniatur.
§2. Interpres aliique, de quibus in can. 733, § 2, qui secretum
violaverunt, et item qui notitias ex confessione habere quoquo modo
conatus est, congrua poena puniantur, non exclusa
excommunicatione minore aut suspensione.
§3. Firmis praescriptis §§ 1 et 2, quicumque quovis technico
instrumento captavit aut malitiose in communicationis socialis
mediis vel aliquo alio modo evulgavit quae in sacramentali
confessione, vera vel ficta, a confessario vel a paenitente dicuntur,
pro gravitate delicti puniatur, non exclusa, si de clerico agatur,
depositione.
Art. 18. Can. 1459 immutatur, ut sequitur, additis etiam novis
paragraphis:
§1. Episcopi, qui alicui sine auctoritatis competentis mandato
ordinationem episcopalem ministraverunt, et is, qui ab ipsis
ordinationem hoc modo suscepit, excommunicatione maiore
puniantur.
§2. Episcopus, qui alicui ordinationem diaconalem vel presbyteralem
contra praescripta canonum ministravit, congrua poena puniatur.
§3. Tum qui sacramentalem ordinationem mulieri ministrare
attentaverit, tum mulier quae sacram ordinationem recipere
attentaverit, excommunicatione maiore Sedi Apostolicae reservata
puniantur; clericus praeterea depositione puniri potest.
§4. Qui ad sacram ordinationem accesserit innodatus poena
excommunicationis maioris vel minoris vel impedimento, voluntarie
reticita, praeter id quod statuitur in can. 763, n. 1, a receptor ordine
sacro suspendatur.
paragrapho:
§1. Qui quidvis donavit vel pollicitus est, ut aliquis officium,
ministerium vel aliud munus in Ecclesia exercens illegitime aliquid
ageret vel omitteret, congrua poena puniatur; item, qui ea dona vel
pollicitationes acceptavit. Firma manet in utroque casu damnum

reparandi obligatio.
§2. Qui in officio, ministerio vel munere exercendo stipem ultra
definitam aut summas adiunctivas aut aliquid in sui utilitatem
requisiverit, congruenti poena pecuniaria vel aliis poenis, non
exclusa officii privatione, puniatur, firma damnum reparandi
obligatione.
§1. Qui praeter casus iure iam praevisos potestate, officio, ministerio
vel alio munere in Ecclesia per actum vel omissionem abusus est,
congrua poena puniatur non exclusa eorundem privatione, nisi in
hunc abusum alia poena est lege vel praecepto statuta, firma
damnum reparandi obligatione.
§2. Qui vero ex culpabili neglegentia actum potestatis, officii,
ministerii vel alterius muneris in Ecclesia illegitime cum damno
alieno posuit vel omisit, congrua poena puniatur, firma damnum
reparandi obligatione.
§1. Clericus, religiosus vel sodalis societatis vitae communis ad instar
religiosorum negotiationem aut mercaturam contra canonum
praescripta exercens congrua poena puniatur.
§2. Clericus, religiosus vel sodalis societatis vitae communis ad instar
religiosorum qui, praeter casus iure iam praevisos,in re oeconomica
delictum committit, vel graviter violat praescriptiones, quae in can.
385 § 3, recensentur, congrua poena puniatur, firma damnum
reparandi obligatione.
Qui obligationes sibi ex poena impositas violat, aliis poenis additis
puniatur.
paragrapho:
§1. Omnis actio poenalis exstinguitur morte rei, condonatione
auctoritatis competentis et praescriptione.
§2. Actio poenalis praescriptione exstinguitur triennio, nisi agitur:
250 Iustitia
1º de delictis Sedi Apostolicae reservatis, quae normis specialibus

subiciuntur;
2º firmo praescripto n. 1, de actione ob delicta, de quibus in cann.
1449, 1450, 1451 et 1453 §§ 1-4 et 6-7, 1463, 1464, 1466, quae
praescriptione exstinguitur septennio vel de ea ob delicta de
quibus in can. 1453 § 5, quae viginti annorum spatio praescribitur;
3º de delictis, quae non sunt iure communi punita, si iure
particulari alius terminus praescriptionis statutus est.
§3. Reo ad normam can. 1474 citato vel modo praeviso in can. 1190 §
3, certiore facto de exhibitione accusationis libelli iuxta can. 1472 § 1,
praescriptio actionis poenalis suspenditur per tres annos, quo
termino elapso vel interrupta suspensione cessationis processus
poenalis causa, rursus currit tempus, quod adiungitur ad illud iam
decursum pro praescriptione. Eadem suspension pariter viget si,
servato can. 1486 § 1, n. 1, ad poenam irrogandam per decretum extra
iudicium procedatur.
§4. Nisi aliud iure cautum sit, praescriptio decurrit ex die, quo
delictum patratum est, vel, si delictum est permanens vel habituale,
ex die, quo cessavit.
Quaecumque his Litteris Apostolicis Motu Proprio datis decreta
sunt, firma atque rata esse statuimus, contrariis quibuslibet peculiari
etiam mentione dignis minime obstantibus, iubentes, ut per
editionem in actis diurnis L’Osservatore Romano publici iuris fiant
et vigere incipiant a die XXIX mensis Iunii anni MMXXIII ac deinde
in Actis Apostolicae Sedis, commentario officiali, praelo dentur.
Gloriosae et benedictae semper Virginis Mariae, quae «Theotokos»
verissime vocatur et universalis Ecclesiae eminet Mater
misericordiae praecelsa, et beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli
intercessioni actuosam exsecutionem renovatae disciplinae poenalis
orientalis fidenter committimus.
Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die XX mensis Martii, in
sollemnitate S. Ioseph, Sponsi Beatae Mariae Virginis et Ecclesiae
universalis Patroni, anno Domini MMXXIII, Pontificatus Nostri
undecimo.
FRANCISCUS
_______________________________________________________
Copyright © Dicastero per la Comunicazione - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 251-268
TITLE XXVII.
PENAL SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH∗
CHAPTER I.
DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Can. 1401 Since God employs every means to bring back the erring
sheep, those who have received from Him the power to loose and to
bind are to apply suitable medicine to the sickness of those who have
committed delicts, reproving, imploring, and rebuking them with the
greatest patience and teaching. Indeed, they are even to impose
penalties in order to heal the wounds caused by the delict, such that
those who commit delicts are not driven to the depth of despair nor
are restraints relaxed unto a dissoluteness of life and contempt of the
law.
Can. 1402 §1. The hierarch must initiate a procedure to impose
penalties when justice cannot be sufficiently restored through
reprimand, entreaty, or rebuke, when the offender must be led to
penance and self-correction, and when scandal and damage must be
repaired.
§2. Any contrary custom being reprobated, a canonical penalty must
be imposed through a penal trial as prescribed in cann. 1468-1482,
with due regard for the coercive power of the judge in the cases
expressed by law.
§3. If, however, in the judgment of the authority mentioned in §4,
there are grave causes that preclude a penal trial and the proofs
concerning the delict are certain, the delict can be punished, having
observed can. 1291, by an extra-judicial decree according to the norm
of cann. 1486 and 1487, provided it does not involve a privation of
office, title, or insignia, a suspension for more than one year,
demotion to a lower grade, deposition, or major excommunication.
§4. This decree can be issued, besides by the Apostolic See, within the
limits of their competence, by the patriarch, major archbishop,
eparchial bishop, and the major superior of an institute of
∗ Translated by Dr Sean Doyle and shared it with Iustitia by Chorbishop John D.

Faris.

252 Iustitia
consecrated life who has ordinary power of governance, all others

being excluded.
Can. 1403 §1. Even when it is a question of delicts that carry an
obligatory penalty by law, the hierarch, after having heard the
promoter of justice, can abstain from a penal process and even
abstain totally from imposing penalties, provided that, in the
judgment of the hierarch himself, all these conditions simultaneously
concur: the offender, not yet brought to trial and moved by sincere
repentance, has confessed his delict to the hierarch in the external
forum and has appropriately provided for the reparation of the
scandal and harm.
§2. However, the hierarch cannot do this if it involves a delict that
carries a penalty whose remission is reserved to a higher authority
until he has obtained permission from that authority.
Can. 1404 §1. In the matter of penalties, the more benign
interpretation is to be made.
§2. It is not permitted to extend a penalty from one person to another
or from one case to another, although an equal or even more serious
reason is present.
Can. 1405 §1. A person who has legislative power can also issue
penal laws insofar as they are truly necessary to provide more
suitably for ecclesiastical discipline as well as strengthen with an
appropriate penalty a divine law or an ecclesiastical law issued by a
higher authority, observing the limits of his competence by reason of
territory or persons.
§2. Particular law can add other penalties to those already
established by common law for some delict; however, this is not to
be done except for a very serious reason. However, if common law
establishes an indeterminate or facultative penalty, particular law
can establish a determined or obligatory one in its place.
§3. Patriarchs and eparchial bishops are to take care that, insofar as it
is possible, penal laws of particular law are uniform in the same
territory.
Can. 1406 §1. Insofar as one can impose precepts according to the
prescripts of cann. 1510-1520, one can, after a thorough consideration
of the matter and with the utmost moderation, threaten determined
penalties by precept, with the exception of those enumerated in can.
Document 3: “Penal Sanctions in the Church” 253
1402, §3. The patriarch, however, can threaten even these penalties
by precept with the consent of the permanent synod.
§2. A warning containing the threat of penalties by which the
hierarch enforces a non-penal law in individual cases is equivalent to
a penal precept.
Can. 1407 §1. If, in the judgment of the hierarch who can impose the
penalty, the nature of the delict permits it, the penalty cannot be
imposed unless the offender has been warned at least once
beforehand to desist from the delict and has been given a suitable
time for repentance.
§2. An offender who has sincerely repented of the delict and has also
made suitable reparation for the scandal and damage, or at least has
seriously promised to do so, must be considered to have desisted
from the delict.
§3. If warnings or reproaches have been given to someone in vain,
the hierarch is to issue a penal precept in which he precisely orders
what must be done or what must be avoided.
§4. However, the penal warning mentioned in can. 1406, §2 suffices
for being able to impose a penalty.
Can. 1408 A penalty does not bind the guilty party until after it has
been imposed by a sentence or decree, without prejudice to the right
of the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council to establish otherwise.
Can. 1409 §1. In the application of penal law, even if the law uses
perceptive words, the judge can, according to his or her own
conscience and prudence:
1º defer the imposition of the penalty to a more opportune time if
it is foreseen that greater evils will result from an overly hasty
punishment of the offender, unless the need to repair scandal is
pressing;
2º abstain from imposing a penalty or impose a lighter penalty if
the offender has reformed and has appropriately provided for the
reparation of the scandal and damage, or if the offender has been
or, it is foreseen, will be punished sufficiently by civil authority;
3º moderate the penalties within equitable limits if the offender
has committed several delicts and the sum of the penalties
appears excessive;
254 Iustitia
4º suspend the obligation of observing the penalty if it is the first

offense of one who has been commended heretofore by an entirely
upright life, provided the reparation of the scandal is not pressing.
The suspended penalty ceases absolutely if the offender does not
commit an offense again within the time determined by the judge;
otherwise, the offender is to be punished more severely as the one
guilty of both delicts unless in the interim the penal action for the
first delict has been extinguished.
§2. If a penalty is indeterminate and the law does not provide
otherwise, the judge in determining the penalties is to choose those
which are proportionate to the scandal that was caused and to the
gravity of the damage; however, he cannot impose the penalties
enumerated in can. 1402, §3.
Can. 1410 The imposition of penalties on a cleric must preserve for
him what is necessary for his adequate support, unless it is a question
of deposition. In this case, the hierarch is to take care that, if the
deposed cleric is truly in need because of the punishment, he is
provided for in the best possible way, but excluding the conferral of
an office, ministry, or function, and always safeguarding his rights
arising from insurance and social security as well as health insurance
for him and for his family if he is married.
Can. 1411 No penalty can be imposed after a penal action has been
extinguished.
Can. 1412 §1. One who is bound by a law or precept is also subject to
the penalty attached to it.
§2. If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the law more
favorable to the accused is to be applied.
§3. However, if a later law abolishes a law or at least the penalty, the
penalty immediately ceases irrespective of the manner in which it
had been imposed.
§4. Unless other provision is expressly made in common law, a
penalty binds the offender everywhere, even when the authority of
the one who imposed the penalty has lapsed.
Can. 1413 §1. A person who has not completed the fourteenth year
of age is not subject to a penalty.
§2. However, a person who has committed a delict between the
fourteenth and eighteenth year of age can be punished only with
penalties that do not include the privation of some good, unless the
eparchial bishop or the judge, in special cases, thinks that the reform
of that person can be better accomplished in another way.
Can. 1414 §1. Each person is considered innocent until the contrary
is proven.
§2. A person is only subject to penalties who has violated a penal law
or penal precept, either deliberately or by seriously culpable
omission of due diligence or by seriously culpable ignorance of the
law or precept.
§3. When an external violation of a penal law or penal precept has
occurred, it is presumed that it was deliberately done until the
contrary is proven. Concerning other laws or precepts, the same is
presumed only if the law or precept is violated again after a penal
warning.
Can. 1415 If, according to common practice and canonical doctrine,
an extenuating circumstance is present, the judge must temper the
penalty established by law or precept, provided, however, there is
still a delict. Indeed, according to his judgment, the judge can also
abstain from imposing a penalty if he thinks that the reform of the
offender as well as reparation of the scandal and damage can be
better accomplished in another way.
Can. 1416 §1. If a delict has been committed by a recidivist or by one
who is in a state of drunkenness or other disturbance of the mind that
is intentionally sought out to perpetrate or excuse the delict, or by
one who acts due to willfully stimulated or stoked passion, or if,
according to common practice and canonical doctrine, another
aggravating circumstance is present, the judge must punish the
offender more severely than the law or precept has established, not
excluding the penalties enumerated in can. 1402, §3.
§2. In these same cases, if a penalty has been established as
facultative, it becomes obligatory.
Can. 1417 Those who conspire together to commit a delict and are
not expressly named in a law or precept can be punished with the
same penalties as the principal perpetrator or, according to the
prudence of the judge, with other penalties of the same or lesser
gravity.
256 Iustitia
Can. 1418 §1. A person who has done or omitted something in order
to commit a delict and yet, contrary to his or her intent, did not
commit the delict is not bound by the penalty established for a
completed delict unless the law or precept provides otherwise.
§2. If the acts or omissions are by their nature conducive to the
execution of the delict, however, the perpetrator is to be punished
with an appropriate penalty, especially if scandal or some other
grave damage resulted; however, the penalty is to be lighter than the
one established for a completed delict.
§3. A person who voluntarily ceased from carrying out the delict that
had been initiated is freed from any penalty if no damage or scandal
has arisen from the attempted offense.
Can. 1419 §1. A person who can dispense from a penal law or exempt
from a penal precept can also remit the penalty imposed by virtue of
the same law or precept.
§2. Moreover, the power of remitting penalties can also be granted to
others by the law or penal precept.
Can. 1420 §1. The following can remit a penalty imposed by virtue of
the common law:
1º the hierarch who initiated the penal trial or imposed the penalty
by decree;
2º the hierarch of the place where the offender actually resides,
but after having consulted the hierarch mentioned in n. 1.
§2. These norms also apply regarding penalties imposed in virtue of
particular law or a penal precept, unless the particular law of a
Church sui iuris provides otherwise.
§3. However, only the Apostolic See can remit a penalty imposed by
the Apostolic See, unless the remission of the penalty is delegated to
the patriarch or others.
Can. 1421 The remission of a penalty extorted by force, grave fear, or
fraud is null by the law itself.
Can. 1422 §1. The remission of a penalty can also be given to an
unknowing offender or conditionally.
§2. The remission of a penalty must be given in writing unless a grave
cause suggests otherwise.
§3. Care is to be taken that the petition of remission of a penalty or

the remission itself is not divulged, except insofar as it is either useful
to protect the reputation of the offender or necessary to repair
scandal.
Can. 1423 §1. Without prejudice to the right of the Roman Pontiff to
reserve to himself or others the remission of any penalty, the synod
of bishops of a patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church can, by a
law issued because of serious circumstances, reserve the remission of
penalties to the patriarch or major archbishop with respect to his
subjects who have a domicile or quasi-domicile within the territorial
boundaries of the Church over which he presides. No one else can
validly reserve to himself or to others the remission of the penalties
established by common law except with the consent of the Apostolic
See.
§2. Every reservation must be interpreted strictly.
Can. 1424 §1. The remission of a penalty cannot be granted unless the
offender has sincerely repented for the delict committed and has also
adequately provided for reparation of the scandal and damage; the
offender can be obliged to reparation or restitution by other
appropriate penalties.
§2. However, if, in the judgment of that person who is competent to
remit the penalty, these conditions have been fulfilled, the remission
is not to be denied, insofar as possible considering the nature of the
penalty.
Can. 1425 If several penalties bind a person, a remission is valid only
for the penalties expressed in it; a general remission, however, takes
away all penalties except those that the offender in bad faith kept
silent about in the petition.
Can. 1426 §1. Unless another penalty is determined by law, according
to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, penalties can be
imposed that require some serious work of religion or piety or
charity to be performed, such as certain prayers, a pious pilgrimage,
a special fast, alms, spiritual retreats.
§2. Other penalties are to be imposed on that person who is not
disposed to accept these penalties.
Can. 1427 §1. Without prejudice to particular law, a public rebuke is
to occur before a notary or two witnesses or by letter, but in such a
258 Iustitia
way that the reception and tenor of the letter are established by some
document.
§2. Care must be taken that the public rebuke itself does not result in
a greater disgrace of the offender than is appropriate.
Can. 1428 If the gravity of the case demands and especially if it
concerns recidivists, a hierarch can, in addition to the penalties
imposed by sentence in accord with the norm of law, place the
offender under supervision in the manner determined by an
administrative decree.
Can. 1429 §1. A prohibition can be given:
1º against residing in a certain place or territory;
2º against exercising, everywhere or in a certain place or territory
or outside a certain place or territory, all or some offices, functions,
or ministries, or only some tasks attached to offices or functions;
3º against placing all or some acts of the power of orders;
4º against placing all or some acts of the power of governance;
5º against exercising some right or privilege, or using insignia or
titles;
6º against enjoying active or passive voice in canonical elections,
or taking part in ecclesial colleges or councils with the right to
vote;
7º against wearing an ecclesiastical or religious habit.
§2. An order can be given:
1º to reside in a certain place or territory;
2º to pay a sum of money for the purposes of the Church,
according to the rationale determined by particular law.
§3. A prohibition against residing in a certain place or territory can
affect only clerics, religious, or members of a society of common life
in the manner of religious; however, the order to reside in a certain
place or territory can affect only clerics ascribed to an eparchy,
without prejudice to the law of institutes of consecrated life.
§4. To impose an order to reside in a certain place or territory requires
the consent of the local hierarch, unless it is a question either of a
house of an institute of consecrated life of pontifical or patriarchal
right, in which case the consent of the competent superior is required,

or of a house designated for the penance and rehabilitation of clerics
of several eparchies.
Can. 1430 §1. Penal privations can affect all or some powers, offices,
ministries, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or
insignia, as well as only some tasks attached to offices or functions,
that are under the power of the authority that establishes the penalty
or of the hierarch who initiated the penal trial or imposed the penalty
by decree; the same applies regarding penal transfer to another
office.
§2. Privation of the power of sacred orders is not possible, but only a
prohibition against exercising all or some of its acts, in accordance
with the norm of common law; likewise, privation of academic
degrees is not possible.
§3. A privation can also be given:
1º of the faculty of hearing confessions or of preaching;
2º of delegated power of governance;
3º of all or part of ecclesiastical remuneration, as determined
according to particular law and without prejudice to the prescript
of can. 1410.
Can. 1431 §1. Those punished with a minor excommunication are
deprived of the reception of the Divine Eucharist. In addition, they
can be excluded from participation in the Divine Liturgy and even
from entering a church if divine worship is being publicly celebrated
there.
§2. The sentence itself or the decree by which this penalty is imposed
must determine the extent of that penalty and, if the case warrants,
its duration.
Can. 1432 §1. A suspension can be from either all or some acts of the
power of orders or governance, or from either all or some acts or
rights connected with an office, ministry, or function; however, the
sentence itself or the decree that imposed the penalty is to define the
extent of that suspension, unless it is already determined by law.
§2. No one can be suspended except from acts that are under the
power of the authority that establishes the penalty or of the hierarch
who initiates the penal trial or imposes the suspension by decree.
260 Iustitia
§3. A suspension never affects the validity of acts nor the right of
residence if the offender has any such right by reason of an office,
ministry, or function; however, a suspension prohibiting a person
from receiving benefits, remuneration, pensions, or any other such
thing entails the obligation of making restitution for whatever has
been received illegitimately, even if in good faith.
Can. 1433 §1. A cleric demoted to a lower grade is prohibited from
exercising those acts of the power of orders and governance that are
not consonant with this grade.
§2. However, a cleric deposed from the clerical state is deprived of
all offices, ministries, or other functions, ecclesiastical pensions, and
any delegated power; he is rendered unqualified for them. He is
prohibited from exercising the power of orders and he cannot be
promoted to higher sacred orders and is equivalent to lay persons in
respect to canonical effects, with due regard for cann. 396 and 725.
Can. 1434 §1. Major excommunication, in addition to all the things
mentioned in can. 1431, §1, prohibits the reception of the other
sacraments, the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals,
the exercise of any offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever, the
placing of acts of governance, which, if they are nonetheless placed,
are null by the law itself.
§2. A person punished with a major excommunication must be
prevented from participating in the Divine Liturgy and in any other
public celebrations whatsoever of divine worship.
§3. A person punished with a major excommunication is forbidden
to benefit from privileges previously granted to himself or herself.
The person cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, ministry, or other
function in the Church, or a pension, nor can the person appropriate
the benefits attached to them. The person also lacks active and
passive voice.
Can. 1435 §1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or
sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is
in danger of death.
§2. If the penalty prohibits the administration of sacraments or
sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition
is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the Christian
faithful in danger of death.
CHAPTER II.
PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS
Can. 1436 §1. A person who denies some truth that must be believed
by divine and Catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally
rejects the Christian faith, and does not reconsider, though
legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with
a major excommunication; moreover, a cleric can be punished with
other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§2. In addition to these cases, a person who obstinately rejects a
teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising
authentic magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who
affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not
reconsider, though legitimately warned, is to be punished with an
appropriate penalty.
§3. A person who takes recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff
to the College of Bishops is to be punished with an appropriate
penalty.
Can. 1437 A person who refuses subjection to the supreme authority
of the Church or communion with the Christian faithful subject to it
and, though legitimately warned, does not obey, is to be punished as
a schismatic with a major excommunication.
Can. 1438 A person who deliberately omits the commemoration of
the hierarch in the Divine Liturgy and in the divine praises as
prescribed by law, and does not come back to his or her senses,
though legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate
penalty, not excluding major excommunication.
Can. 1439 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand
their children over to be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic
religion are to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
Can. 1440 A person who violates the norms of law concerning
participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) can be punished
with an appropriate penalty.
Can. 1441 A person who employs sacred objects for profane use or
for an evil purpose is to be suspended or prohibited from receiving
the Divine Eucharist.
Can. 1442 §1. A person who has thrown away the Divine Eucharist
or has taken or retained it for a sacrilegious purpose is to be punished
262 Iustitia
with a major excommunication and, if a cleric, also with other

penalties, not excluding deposition.
§2. A person guilty of consecrating both or one of the sacred gifts for
a sacrilegious purpose, in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or
outside of it, is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict,
not excluding deposition.
Can. 1443 §1. A person is to be punished with an appropriate penalty,
not excluding major excommunication:
1º who has simulated the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or the
other sacraments;
2º who has attempted the celebration of the Divine Liturgy while
not having been promoted to the priestly order;
3º who, aside from the case mentioned in can. 1457, has attempted
to impart sacramental absolution or has heard a sacramental
confession when being unable to give absolution validly.
§2. A person who has deliberately ministered a sacrament to those
who are forbidden from receiving it is to be punished with a
suspension, to which other penalties can be added.
Can. 1444 A person who has committed perjury before an
ecclesiastical authority or who, though not sworn, has knowingly
affirmed a falsehood to a judge under lawful questioning, or has
concealed the truth, or who has induced others to commit these
delicts, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
Can. 1445 §1. A person who has used physical force against a bishop
or has caused him some other serious injury is to be punished with
an appropriate penalty, not excluding deposition if he is a cleric.
However, if the same delict has been committed against a
metropolitan, patriarch, or indeed the Roman Pontiff, the offender is
to be punished with a major excommunication, whose remission, in
the last case, is reserved to the Roman Pontiff himself.
§2. A person who did the same to another cleric, religious, member
of a society of common life in the manner of religious, or a lay person
in the act of exercising an ecclesiastical function is to be punished
Can. 1446 §1. A person who does not obey the legitimate order or
prohibition of his or her own hierarch and who, after a warning,
persists in disobedience is to be punished as an offender with an

§2. A person who has violated the obligation of maintaining the
pontifical secret is to be punished with the penalties mentioned in
cann. 1429 and 1430.
§3. A person who has not performed the duty of executing an
executive sentence or decree by which a penalty is imposed is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding minor
excommunication and suspension.
§4. A person who has neglected to report a delict when bound to do
so by canon law is to be punished according to the norm of cann. 1429
and 1430, with other penalties also being added according to the
gravity of the delict.
§5. A cleric who has abandoned sacred ministries voluntarily and
illicitly for six continuous months with the intention of removing
himself from the competent authority of the Church is to be punished
according to the gravity of the delict with a suspension or even with
the penalties mentioned in cann. 1429 and 1430, and with deposition
in more serious cases.
Can. 1447 §1. A person who incites sedition or hatred toward any
hierarch or provokes his subjects to disobedience against him is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding a major
excommunication, especially if the delict was committed against a
patriarch or indeed against the Roman Pontiff.
§2. A person who has obstructed the freedom of ministry or election
or ecclesiastical authority, or the legitimate use of the temporal goods
of the Church, or a person who has intimidated an elector or one who
exercises power or ministry, is to be punished with an appropriate
penalty.
Can. 1448 §1. A person who in a public show or speech, in published
writing, or otherwise using the instruments of social communication
utters blasphemy, seriously injures good morals, or expresses insults
or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty.
§2. A person who joins an association that plots against the Church
is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
264 Iustitia
Can. 1449 §1. A person is to be punished with the penalties

mentioned in cann. 1429 and 1430, with due regard for the obligation
to repair the damage:
1º who steals ecclesiastical goods or prevents their proceeds from
being received;
2º who alienates ecclesiastical goods or undertakes an act of
administration concerning them without the prescribed
consultation, consent, or permission, or without another
requirement imposed by law for validity or liceity;
3º who illegitimately makes a profit off of the offerings referenced
in can. 715 for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or for the
Liturgy of the Presanctified or for commemorations in the Divine
Liturgy.
§2. A person is to be punished with an appropriate penalty, not
excluding privation of office, and with due regard for the
obligation to repair the damage:
1º who due to his or her seriously culpable omission of due
diligence or due to his or her seriously culpable ignorance of a law
or precept commits the delict mentioned in §1, n. 2;
2º who has been found to be otherwise seriously negligent in the
administration of ecclesiastical goods.
Can. 1450 §1. A person who has committed homicide is to be
punished with a major excommunication; a cleric is to be punished
in addition with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§2. A person who has procured a completed abortion is to be
punished in the same manner, with due regard for can. 728, §2.
Can. 1451 A person who has kidnapped or unjustly detains, has
seriously wounded or mutilated, or has inflicted bodily or mental
torture on a person is to be punished with an appropriate penalty,
not excluding a major excommunication.
Can. 1452 A person who has caused serious injury to anyone or
seriously harmed his or her good reputation with a calumny is to be
compelled to offer appropriate satisfaction; however, if the person
has refused, he or she is to be punished with a minor
excommunication or suspension.
Can. 1453 §1. A cleric who lives in concubinage or otherwise persists

in an external sin against chastity causing scandal is to be punished
with a suspension. If he persists in the delict, other penalties can
gradually be added, up to deposition.
§2. A cleric who has attempted a forbidden marriage is to be deposed.
§3. A cleric who has otherwise committed a delict against chastity, if
in fact the delict has been perpetrated publicly, is to be punished with
appropriate penalties, not excluding deposition if the case so
warrants.
§4. A cleric who by force, threats, or abuse of his authority commits
a delict against chastity, or who forces someone to carry out or
submit to sexual acts, is to be punished with the same penalty
mentioned in §3.
§5. A cleric is to be punished with privation of office and other
appropriate penalties, not excluding deposition if the case so
warrants:
1º who commits a delict against chastity with a minor or with a
person who habitually lacks the use of reason, or with someone
for whom the law recognizes an equal protection;
2º who grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually
lacks the use of reason, or a person for whom the law recognizes
an equal protection, to expose himself or herself pornographically
or to participate in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or
simulated;
3º who, contrary to good morals, obtains, keeps, shows, or
distributes, in any way and by any means, pornographic images
of minors or of persons who habitually lack the use of reason.
§6. A religious who has taken a public, perpetual vow of chastity and
is not constituted in a sacred order is to be punished with an
appropriate penalty if he or she commits the delicts mentioned in §§1
and 2.
§7. A religious or member of a society of apostolic life in the manner
of religious and any lay person enjoying some dignity or carrying out
an office or function in the Church, if he or she commits a delict
mentioned in §§3-5, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty
according to the gravity of the delict.
266 Iustitia
Can. 1454 A person who has falsely denounced someone for a delict
is to be punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding a major
excommunication, especially if the one denounced is a confessor,
hierarch, cleric, religious, member of a society of common life in the
manner of religious, or a lay person appointed to an ecclesiastical
function, with due regard for can. 731.
Can. 1455 A person who has produced a false ecclesiastical document
or asserted a falsehood in it, or has knowingly made use of any false
or altered document whatsoever in an ecclesiastical matter, or has
changed, destroyed, or concealed an authentic document is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty.
Can. 1456 §1. A confessor who has directly violated the sacramental
seal is to be punished with a major excommunication, with due
regard for can. 728, §1, n. 1; however, if he broke this seal in another
manner, he is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
§2. A translator and one of the others mentioned in can. 733, §2 who
has violated the secret, and likewise a person who has attempted in
any way to gain information from a confession, is to be punished
with an appropriate penalty, not excluding minor excommunication
or suspension.
§3. With due regard for the prescripts of §§1 and 2, any person who
by any technical means has captured or has maliciously made public
by means of social communication or in some other way that which
is said by the confessor or the penitent during sacramental
confession, whether real or simulated, is to be punished according to
the gravity of the delict, not excluding deposition if it concerns a
cleric.
Can. 1457 A priest who has absolved an accomplice in a sin against
chastity is to be punished with a major excommunication, with due
regard for can. 728, §1, n. 2.
Can. 1458 A priest who in the act, on the occasion, or under the
pretext of confession has solicited a penitent to sin against chastity is
to be punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding
deposition.
Can. 1459 §1. Bishops who have conferred episcopal ordination upon
someone without a mandate of the competent authority, and the one
who has received ordination from them in this manner, are to be

punished with a major excommunication.
§2. A bishop who has conferred diaconal or presbyteral ordination
upon someone against the prescripts of the canons is to be punished
§3. Both the person who has attempted to confer sacramental
ordination on a woman and the woman who has attempted to receive
sacramental ordination are to be punished with a major
excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric
can be punished with deposition.
§4. A person who has undergone sacramental ordination while
bound by the penalty of major or minor excommunication or by an
impediment that was intentionally concealed, besides what is stated
in can. 763, n. 1, is to be suspended from the sacred order that was
received.
Can. 1460 A person who has approached the civil authority directly
or indirectly to obtain by its intervention sacred ordination, an office,
a ministry, or another function in the Church is to be punished with
an appropriate penalty, not excluding a major excommunication and,
in the case of a cleric, even deposition.
Can. 1461 A person who has conferred or received sacred ordination
through simony is to be deposed; however, a person who has
administered or received other sacraments through simony is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding a major
excommunication.
Can. 1462 A person who has obtained, conferred, or usurped in any
manner whatsoever, illegitimately retains, or has transmitted to
others or carried out an office, a ministry, or another function in the
Church through simony is to be punished with an appropriate
penalty, not excluding a major excommunication.
Can. 1463 §1. A person who has given or promised something so that
someone who exercises an office, ministry, or other function in the
Church would do or omit something illegitimately is to be punished
with an appropriate penalty; likewise, the one who has accepted such
gifts or promises. In each case, the obligation remains firm to repair
the damage.
268 Iustitia
§2. A person who in exercising an office, ministry, or function has

demanded a fee beyond what has been determined or additional
amounts or something for his or her personal advantage is to be
punished with an appropriate monetary penalty or with other
penalties, not excluding privation of office, with due regard for the
obligation to repair the damage.
Can. 1464 §1. In addition to the cases already foreseen by law, a
person who, by act or omission, has abused power, an office, a
ministry, or another function in the Church is to be punished with an
appropriate penalty, not excluding privation of them, unless another
penalty has been established by law or precept for such an abuse,
with due regard for the obligation to repair the damage.
§2. However, a person who through culpable negligence has
illegitimately placed or omitted an act of power, office, ministry, or
other function in the Church causing damage to another is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty, with due regard for the
obligation to repair the damage.
Can. 1465 A person who, ascribed to any Church sui iuris, including
the Latin Church, and exercising an office, a ministry, or another
function in the Church, has presumed to induce any member of the
Christian faithful whatsoever to transfer to another Church sui iuris,
contrary to can. 31, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
Can. 1466 §1. A cleric, religious, or member of a society of common
life in the manner of religious who exercises a trade or business
contrary to the prescripts of the canons is to be punished with an
§2. A cleric, religious, or member of a society of common life in the
manner of religious who, aside from the cases foreseen by law,
commits a delict in a financial matter or seriously violates the
prescriptions enumerated in can. 385, §3 is to be punished with an
appropriate penalty, with due regard for the obligation to repair the
damage.
Can. 1467 A person who violates the obligations imposed on himself
or herself through a penalty is to be punished with other additional
penalties.
IUSTITIA
Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023
Page: 269
TITLE XXIV
TRIALS IN GENERAL
Can. 1152 §1. Every penal action is extinguished by the death of the
accused, by pardon granted by competent authority, and by
prescription.
§2. A penal action is extinguished by prescription after three years,
unless it is a question of:
1º delicts reserved to the Apostolic See, which are subject to special
norms;
2º with due regard for the prescript of n. 1, an action concerning the
delicts mentioned in cann. 1449, 1450, 1451 and 1453, §§1-4 and 6-7,
1463, 1464, and 1466, which is extinguished by a prescription of seven
years, or an action concerning the delicts mentioned in can. 1453, §5,
which has a prescription of twenty years;
3º delicts that are not punished under common law, if another time
limit of prescription has been established by particular law.
§3. For an accused cited according to the norm of can. 1474 or in the
way foreseen in can. 1190, §3, with him or her having been notified
of the presentation of the libellus of accusation according to can. 1472,
§1, prescription of a penal action is suspended for three years. When
this time has elapsed or the suspension has been interrupted due to
the cessation of the penal process, the time runs again, which is
added to the time that has already run for prescription. The same
suspension equally has force if, having observed can. 1486, §1, n. 1, a
process is undertaken to impose a penalty by extra-judicial decree.
§4. Unless the law provides otherwise, prescription starts running
from the day on which the delict was committed or, if the delict is
continuous or habitual, from the day on which it ceased.

OTHER DHARMARAM JOURNALS
Journal of Dharma (Dharmaram Journal of Religions and Philosophies,
ISSN: 0253-7222): Started in 1975, Journal of Dharma is an earnest attempt on
the part of DVK to bring together scholars from all over the world and from
across diverse cultures and traditions to seriously deliberate upon issues
pertaining to religions and philosophies. Apart from serving as a forum for
the exchange of ideas and experiences regarding approaches and methods
towards religious and philosophical quests of humanity, this quarterly
journal encourages research in interreligious studies and dialogue.
Editor-in-Chief: Dr Mathew Attumkal
Email: mattumkal@dvk.in
Asian Horizons (Dharmaram Journal of Theology, ISSN: 0973-9068): Asia,
with its wider horizons, has a noble vision to offer to the world towards
its integral growth and interdependent development in the third
millennium. The world is looking to Asia for enlightenment and harmony
of life. AH offers a forum for genuine investigation of and reflection on
the Jesudharma in the Asian context marked by economic poverty, cultural
diversity, and religious plurality, in order to discern the way towards the
glory of God and the flourishing of humanity on earth.
Editor-in-Chief: Dr Joby Jose Kochumuttom
Email: kochudvk@gmail.com
Vinayasadhana (Dharmaram Journal of Psycho-Spiritual Formation,
ISSN: 0976-0946): With a view to facilitating the emergence of mature
and integrated religious leaders, Vinayasadhana offers a forum for
genuine investigation of and reflection on the ‘Christ Formation’ in
various centres of formation marked by socio-cultural diversity.
Scientific studies published by this journal hopes to facilitate the
emergence of persons fully human and fully alive capable of living the
kingdom values giving glory to God.
Editor-in-Chief: Dr Thomas Parayil
Email: thomasparayil04@yahoo.co.in
Herald of the East (Dharmaram Journal on Chavara Studies, ISSN: 2394-
2290): This journal is a CMI venture to encourage and publish multifaceted
studies on the life, vision and mission, and contributions of Kuriakose Elias
Chavara, a man of transformative vision and determined action to
transform the Christian community and the society at large.
Editor-in-Chief: Dr Naiju Jose Kalambukattu,
Email: kalambukattunaiju@gmail.com
http://dharmaramjournals.in
Distance Education
Dharmaram Academy for Distance Education
(DADE)
Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bengaluru 560 029
Pontifical Athenaeum of Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law
www.dade.in
DADE Offers Courses in the Following Disciplines:

1) PG Diploma in Philosophy
2) PG Diploma in Counselling Psychology
3) PG Diploma in Theology
4) PG Diploma in Canon Law
5) PG Diploma in Formative Spirituality
6) PG Diploma in Biblical Studies
7) PG Diploma in Spiritual Theology
Objectives:
• Promote mature leadership among all
• Make theological, philosophical and religious studies easily
accessible to all
Features:
• Open to all with a degree from a recognised
College/University
• Total Course fee Rs. 6600/- Registration in Progress
• Free accommodation during the ten days of contact classes in
Bangalore in the second half of the month of May every year.
For Enquires and Admission, Contact:
• For further information visit: www.dade.in
• Email Contact: dadebangalore@gmail.com
• Fax: 080-41116000; Tel: 080-41116227, 41116333; 9480732249
• Postal Address:
• Dr Benny Tharakunnel CMI, Director, DADE
Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram
Dharmaram College P.O. Bengaluru 560029, INDIA

Primacy and Synodality According To The Common Tradition of The Church in The First Millennium

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Primacy and Synodality According To The Common Tradition of The Church in The First Millennium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUSTITIA

Vol. 14, No. 1, June 2023

PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY ACCORDING TO

Iustitia: Dharmaram Journal of Canon Law (ISSN: 2348-9789)

an attempt to evaluate the origin, development, and functioning of

1 Cf. P. Trembelas, Dogmatique de l’Eglise orthodoxe, vol. 2, Burges 1967, 398-399:

P. Duprey, “The Synodical Structure of the Church in Eastern Theology,” in One in

Inspiration of Synodality,” in Christian Orient, vol. 46/1 (2023) 9-26.

places throughout Asia that examined the new doctrines of the

3 Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book V, chapter 16; Sources

council was in some places given to the bishop of the metropolitan

5 J. D. Zizioulas, “The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of First

metropolitan cities.7 Since the beginnings of Christianity, synods

7 Cf. C. Vogel, “Unité de l'Église et pluralité des formes historiques

15-90. This book is also available on www.academia.edu.

History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine, edited by Margaret M.

Bologna 1997, 54 & 68.

2. Apostolic Canon Thirty-Four as the Basic Principle Regulating

(editio secunda, A. Friedberg et A. L. Richteri, edd.) Graz 1959, col. 607.

never hesitated to recognize the ancient tradition of the Apostolic

15 Trullo, canon 2: Greek, Latin and English text in G. Nedungatt and M.

In a few simple words, this canon affirms the conciliar or synodal

19 R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” Kanon 9 (1989) 212.

classico: il sinodo come stile di vita nella Chiesa ortodossa d'oriente,” in A.

Canon,” 94; cf. also R. Poptodorov, “Protos and Conciliarity,” 212-213.

2.2. Synodal Principle

23 Cf. The commentary of Balsamon, PG 137, col. 106-107; P. Duprey, “The

Canon,” Kanon 4 (1980) 93.

Perspective,” in The Jurist 48 (1988) 378.

della struttura sinodale,” 230; “L'istituzione patriarcale e sinodale,” 247-248; E.

be considered primarily as means of power, domination, and

29 Cf. P. Pallath, “Liturgy Makes the Church: Towards a Catholic Sacramental

Harkianakis, “Über die gegenwartige Situation der orthodoxen Kirchen,” Kyrios 6

“Protos and Conciliarity,” 207-214; J. Meyendorff, “Ecclesiastical Organizations in

existence of primatial power at various levels, namely metropolitan

33 Cf. C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles,I, 1, 540-542; J. Meyendorff, “Ecclesiastical

Organization,” 7; Orthodoxie et catholicité, 28-29; P. L‘Huillier, “Collégialité et

oecumenicorum decreta, a cura di Giuseppe Alberigo e altri (edizione bilingue),

most probably presided over by Bishop Flaccillus of Antioch. In the Synod 97

It behooves the bishops of every province to acknowledge the

Eastern bishops participated; most of them belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch.

canons des synodes particuliers, 110-111.

oecumenicorum decreta, 100; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 92-93.

20; council in Trullo c.8; council of Carthage (419) c. 76.

oecumenicorum decreta, 144; Les canones des conciles œcuméniques, 258-259.

canonical matters within his patriarchate.43 In the sixth canon of

oecumenicorum decreta, 8-9; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 28-29.

canon of the same council recognized the special position of

162-167; The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1, 538-548; P. Schaff, History of

– we issue the same decree and resolution concerning prerogatives of

54 Chalcedon, canon 28: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I, 99-100;

patriarches,” 543-544; W. De Vries, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen

complaints against metropolitans could be brought either before the

29; H. Fuhrmann, “Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate,” Zeitschrift

decreta, 91 et 94; Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 76-77 et 82-83.

Les canons des conciles œcuméniques, 170.

became an autonomous catholicate in the fifth century.60 According to

60 Cf. G. Amadouni, “L'autocephalie du katholicat Armenien,” in I patriarcati

“Entstehung und Entwicklung der autonomen Ostkirchen,” 64-65; Oriente Cristiano

(edd.), 542 and 593.

tradition and custom sanctioned by the ecumenical councils

66 W. De Vries, “The Origin of Eastern Patriarchs,” 50-59; “La S. Sede ed i

71 Constantinople IV (869-870), canon 21: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I,