69.

1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 31

The Jurist 69 (2009) 31–58

THE BISHOP’S PARTICIPATION IN THE THREEFOLD

MUNERA: COMPARING THE APPEAL TO THE PATTERN
OF THE TRIA MUNERA AT VATICAN II AND IN THE
ECUMENICAL DIALOGUES

Peter De Mey*

The work of the Peter and Paul Seminar presented in this issue of The
Jurist focuses on the role of the bishop in the local church. This contri-
bution focuses on the pattern selected by the council fathers to introduce
the teaching of the Catholic Church on the bishop as teacher, liturgical
presider, and pastor within the local Church. Vatican II made use of the
figure of the tria munera to structure its reflections on the people of God
and its constitutive parts, and thus also paid attention to the bishops’ par-
ticipation in the threefold office of Christ in both Lumen gentium 25–27
(LG) and Christus Dominus 11–21 (CD).1 This re-reading of LG 25–27
also hopes to serve the goal of introducing the reader to the new Herder
commentary on the documents of Vatican II which unfortunately is avail-
able only in German.2 Since it is an essential part of the methodology of
the Peter and Paul Seminar to discuss ecclesiological topics from an ec-
umenical perspective,3 the author will, in a second step, investigate
whether the pattern of the tria munera has been received in the ecumeni-
cal dialogue—implicitly or explicitly—to reflect on the ministry of the
people of God and of those exercising episkope in the Church. The author
will limit himself to the study of a number of agreed statements from bi-
lateral and multilateral dialogues in which the Roman Catholic Church
officially takes part. The ecclesiological statements of Faith and Order,
and a number of texts from the Roman Catholic-Anglican and the Roman

* Faculty of Theology, Catholic University of Louvain.

1 This article will especially focus on LG 25–27. For an analysis of CD 11–21 see the

article of our deceased seminar member Georges Tavard, “The Task of a Bishop in his
Diocese: Christus Dominus 11–21,” The Jurist 68 (2008) 361–381.
2 Peter Hünermann, “Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über

die Kirche Lumen Gentium,” in Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vati-
kanischen Konzil, II, ed. Peter Hünermann & Jochen Hilberath (Freiburg: Herder, 2004)
263–582.
3 Cf. Myriam Wijlens, “ ‘Peter and Paul Seminar’: A Follow up by Theologians and

Canon Lawyers to the Groupe des Dombe’s Publication For the Conversion of the Church-
es,” The Jurist 64 (2004) 6–20.

31
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 32

32 the jurist

Catholic-Orthodox dialogue seemed most helpful for the question under

discussion.

I Vatican II on the Bishops’ Participation in the Tria Munera

1.The History of the Concept
This paper will concentrate on the way the bishops participate in the
threefold office of Christ. By way of introduction, however, it seems rel-
evant to highlight briefly the history of the concept and the way it is used
in the documents of Vatican II in general.4
The New Testament neither speaks in a systematic way about the
threefold office of Christ; nor characterizes the mission of the disciples
or of the leaders of the early Christian communities by means of this ter-
minology.5 In the New Testament writings, the terms prophet, teacher,
and king, however, are more often applied to Christ than to the Christian
community and its leaders. Only the Letter to the Hebrews presents
Christ as priest, and it insists on the continuity and discontinuity with the
Levitic priesthood. Finally, in the New Testament no one is called king
other than the Risen Lord. Thus, it becomes clear that the tria munera
first and foremost have to be predicated of Christ.
The first Christian communities, for their part, seem to have known the
functions of prophet and pastor, as appears from Ephesians 4:11: “The
gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some
evangelists, some pastors and teachers.”6 It is clear, however, that the re-
discovery by the council fathers of the prophetic, priestly, and royal func-
tion of the entire people of God is also rooted in the New Testament, in
which the Christian community is urged that “by this time you ought to
be teachers” (Hb.5,11) and is identified as a “holy” (1 Pe 2,5) and a
“royal priesthood” (1 Pe 2,9).

4For this historical overview the author is partially indebted to a doctoral dissertation
on the relationship between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all believers in
Roman Catholic ecclesiology, defended in 2006 at the Catholic University of Leuven by
Stefaan Franco.
5 For more information on the tria munera in the Scriptures and the early tradition see

Juan Alfaro, Die Heilsfunktionen Christi als Offenbarer, Herr und Priester. Mysterium
Salutis 3/1 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1970).
6 Biblical references are taken from The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Tes-

taments. New Revised Standard Version: Anglicized Text (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003).
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 33

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 33

The first systematic use of the trilogy was a Christological one. It was
introduced by the church father Eusebius. He explained the name of
Christ by referring to the anointing of the high priests, kings, and
prophets of the Old Testament. Chrysostom, for his part, used the trilogy
for the first time to characterize the specificity of Christian existence.
Now the figure of the tria munera becomes part of theological anthro-
pology. Through the anointing by the Holy Spirit the baptized person be-
comes prophet, priest, and king.
Medieval theology paid almost no attention to the priestly, prophetic,
and royal quality of the believing community and used the trilogy exclu-
sively to describe the prerogatives of the ordained.
It is the merit of one of the outstanding figures of the Reformation,
John Calvin, that he rediscovered the original significance of the figure
of the tria munera Christi. The originality of his approach consists in his
attention to the soteriological meaning of the term. Christ received the
threefold task by the Father so that we may be saved.7 Even if Calvin em-
phasized on Christ’s unique and perfect work of salvation, his focus on
soteriology had ecclesiological implications as well.8 One may say that
the rediscovery of the figure of the tria munera by Catholic theologians

7 See, e.g., Otto Weber, Grundlagen der Dogmatik (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des

Erziehungsvereins, 1955–1962) 2: 199–200: “Nicht sibi modo hat der Christus die Sal-
bung zum Propheten emfangen; Christus, der geistliche König, hat den Tod derart über-
standen, dass er darin mit seinen Gliedern verbunden ist; privatim ist ihm Seine Vollmacht
nicht übereignet, sondern wir haben an ihm teil; und ist schon seine königliche Herrschaft
des Vaters Wohltat und Gabe, die uns zugute kommt, so gillt das erst recht von seiner
priesterlichen Würde, in der unsere Versöhnung beruht. ( . . . ) Das pro nobis ist der cantus
firmus dessen, was Calvin über das ‘Amt’ Christi zu sagen weiss. Da geschieht nichts ‘an
sich,’ sondern alles ‘für uns’. Die Soteriologie ist nichts anderes als recht verstandene und
aufgenommene Christologie.”
8 Weber, 2: 200: “Denn das pro nobis meint stets auch, dass die Gemeinde an dem,

was Christus für sie ist und getan hat, selbst teilnimmt. Sie kann keine stumme Gemeinde
sein, wenn doch er, an dem sie hängt, der Verkündigende ist und war. Sie kann an der Not
der Menschen nicht vorübergehen, wenn sie von dem weiss, der priesterlich alle
Verkehrtheit und Not auf sich genommen hat. Sie kann sich das eigenmächtige Herrschen
der Gewalthaber nicht wohl gefallen lassen, wenn sie den kennt, der der König ist. Sie pro-
longiert sein Werk nicht. Aber sie folgt ihm nach. Weil er alles getan hat, so tut sie das
Ihrige.”
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 34

34 the jurist

in the decades before the council has been mediated by Calvin to a great
extent. 9
This is not to say that the image was completely absent in Roman
Catholic theology after the Reformation. The nineteenth century canon-
ist Ferdinand Walter applied the formula exclusively to ordained minis-
ters, so that they appeared to be the only successors of Christ’s threefold
ministry. Another nineteenth century German canonist, George Philips,
tried to reconcile Calvin’s reflections on the tria munera with Johann
Adam Möhler’s reflections on the Church as the organic body of
Christ.10 The laity, who take part in the same body, were believed to par-
ticipate in the threefold office of Christ as well, but only insofar as they
have to be sanctified, taught, and governed. In the same century John
Henry Newman also reflected on the way the Church continued Christ’s
threefold ministry, and paid special attention in this regard to the role of
theologians.11
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi explicitly
mentions the threefold office of Christ; and he is also aware that the
whole body of Christ has to conform itself to Christ. It is his opinion,
however, that the three offices of Christ have been transmitted to those
members within the body of Christ who possess sacred powers through
ordination.12 The council fathers were able to develop a different view,
because many had read Yves Congar’s Jalons pour une théologie du laï-
cat, in which the author focused on the specific way in which the laity
participate in the priestly, royal, and prophetic function of the Church as
a whole.13

9 Ludwig Schick, Das dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. Zur Entstehung und Ent-
wiclung der Trilogien. Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII/171 (Frankfurt am Main:
Lang, 1982) 97–98: “Die Tria-Munera Trilogie Calvins war für die Entwicklung der Trilo-
gien der katholischen Theologie gravierend und darf keinesfalls im Verweis auf die pa-
tristischen Ternare zu gering veranschlagt werden. Bis zum II. Vatikanum wurden die
Trilogien ( . . . ) von Calvin und nicht von den Vätern bedingt und abgeleitet.”
10 See esp. Ludwig Schick, “Die Tria-Munera in den Schriften George Philips und in

den Dokumenten des II. Vatikanischen Konzils. Ein Vergleich,” Österreichisches Archiv
für Kirchenrecht 32 (1981) 59–76.
11 See. Avery Dulles, “The Threefold Office in Newman’s Ecclesiology,” in Newman

after a Hundred Years, ed. Ian Kerr & Alan G. Hill (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 375–399.
12 See Mystici Corporis Christi, 17: “That those who exercise sacred power in this

Body are its chief members must be maintained uncompromisingly. It is through them, by
commission of the Divine Redeemer Himself, that Christ’s apostolate as Teacher, King
and Priest is to endure.”
13 Yves Congar, Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat. Unam Sanctam 8 (Paris, Cerf,

1953). For a profound assessment of Congar’s ecclesiology, see Joseph Famerée,

69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 35

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 35

2. The Participation of the Entire People of God in the Tria Munera of

Christ according to Vatican II
The figure of the tria munera occupies a prominent position in the doc-
uments of Vatican II. Sometimes individual paragraphs contain the for-
mula; sometimes the figure is used to structure the teaching of the coun-
cil on the people of God (LG 10–12), the bishops (LG 25–27, CD 14–16),
the priests (LG 28, PO 2–4), the deacons (LG 29) and the laity (LG 34–36).
In fact one does not find forms of the tria munera in the conciliar docu-
ments which were totally unknown before. However, it is the merit of
the council to have applied the concept for the first time systematically
to different groups within the Church. This was in great contrast to pre-
conciliar Roman Catholic theology which considered it as a prerogative
of the ordained to participate in the threefold office of Christ. The texts of
the council remain sometimes ambiguous, however, in the sense that on
the one hand they insist that all Christians participate in the threefold min-
istry of Christ and on the other hand they find it necessary to defend the
position that there is an essential difference between the priesthood of all
believers and the ordained priesthood. It was left to post-conciliar theo-
logical reflection to find a solution reconciling these two convictions.
Kenan Osborne formulates the problem at stake as follows:
It is the conflict between the way in which all baptized-eucharis-
tic Christians share in the mission and ministry of Jesus, the tria
munera, and the way in which ordained clergy share in the same
mission and ministry of Jesus, the tria munera, that causes the
current theological strident problems. ( . . . ) If, on the one hand,
we say that all Christians share in these tria munera of Jesus, can
we say, on the other hand, that with ordination priests share in the
same three offices but in an essentially different form from that
of all Christians?14
In another quote from Osborne’s study on lay ministry in the Roman
Catholic Church, however, it becomes clear that the author just as many
others apparently fails to note that LG 10 does not speak about the
essential difference between the laity and the ordained but about the es-
sential difference between all believers on the one hand and the ordained
believers on the other hand.

L’ecclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II: Histoire et Eglise. Analyse et reprise cri-
tique. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 107 (Leuven: Peeters,
1992).
14 Kenan B. Osborne, Ministry: Lay Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. Its His-

tory and Theology (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1993) 546–547.

69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 36

36 the jurist

A. The official teaching of Vatican II attributes the sharing in the tria

munera of Jesus himself to all baptized-confirmed and eucharistic Chris-
tians. B. The same official teaching of Vatican II then attributes the shar-
ing in the tria munera of Jesus himself to ordained ministers. C. The
same official teaching of Vatican II then states, without any explanation,
that there is an “essential” difference between the ordained and the non-
ordained precisely in this matter of the tria munera. It is the juxtaposition
of these three positions which has raised major theological questions.15
The difference between “the common priesthood of the faithful”—the
ordained are implied in this group—and “the ministerial or hierarchical
priesthood” can never be an ontological one, because the conciliar docu-
ments operate with only one theological anthropology, which is valid for
all Christians. The difference can only be a sacramental one, since the
common priesthood of the faithful is the consequence of one’s being
baptized and confirmed in the Holy Spirit and the “ministerial or hierar-
chical priesthood” is the result of one’s ordination.16
Before focusing our attention on what the conciliar documents say re-
garding the bishop’s participation in the threefold ministry of Christ, the
author briefly mentions a few peculiarities regarding the council’s use of
the figure of the tria munera in general and its reflections on the partici-
pation of the people of God in the threefold ministry of Christ. As is well-
known, Vatican II did not develop a systematic Christology. Therefore, it
usually speaks about Christ’s threefold ministry only indirectly, in dis-
cussing the distinct ways in which all believers on the one hand and the
ordained on the other hand participate therein.17 Remarkably, both types
of texts reflect distinct linguistic peculiarities. When speaking about
the laity or about all believers, the council speaks about their participa-
tion in the priestly, prophetic, and royal priesthood of Christ. Thus, three

15 Ibid., 555.
16 See Peter Drilling, “Common and Ministerial Priesthood: Lumen Gentium, Article
Ten,” Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987) 81–99; idem, “The Priest, Prophet and King
Trilogy: Elements of Its Meaning in Lumen Gentium and for Today,” Eglise et Théologie
19 (1988) 179–206. See also David Coffey, “The Common and the Ordained Priesthood,”
Theological Studies 58 (1997) 209–236.
17 Only LG 13 briefly refers to the threefold office of Christ in its own right: “( . . . )

For this God sent his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things (see Heb 1,2), that he
might be master, king, and priest of all (ut sit magister, rex et sacerdos omnium), head of
the new and universal people of the children of God.” For references to the conciliar doc-
uments see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman J. Tanner, S.J. vol. II (Lon-
don: Sheed & Ward and Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990).
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 37

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 37

adjectives are used in the order mentioned, as appears from the following
example:
Under the title of laity are here understood all Christ’s faithful,
except those who are in sacred orders or are members of a reli-
gious state that is recognized by the church; that is to say, the
faithful who, since they have been incorporated into Christ by
baptism, constitute the people of God and, in their own way
made sharers in Christ’s priestly, prophetic and royal office (de
munere Christi sacerdotali, prophetico et regali suo modo par-
ticipes facti) . . . (LG 31)
When speaking about ordained ministry in the Church substantives are
used and the word order is different, as appears from the following
example:
For, by the sacred ordination and mission they receive from bish-
ops, priests are promoted to the service of Christ the teacher,
priest and king whose ministry they share (ad inserviendum
Christo magistro, sacerdoti et regi, cuius participant minis-
terium) . . . (PO 1)
Another difference is that the council speaks about the prophetical
task of the laity and of all believers and addresses only the ordained as
teachers. The difference is especially felt in a text like AA 2, which uses
the figure of the tria munera twice to speak about different groups within
the Church:
The office and power of teaching in the name of Christ, of sanc-
tifying and ruling (munus docendi, sanctificandi et regendi),
were conferred by him on the apostles and their successors.
Laypeople, share in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices of
Christ (muneris sacerdotalis, prophetici et regalis Christi par-
ticipes) . . .
One may wonder why the council, by treating the priestly aspect of the
people of God in LG 11 and their prophetical aspect in LG 12, apparently
was reluctant to speak about the participation of all believers in the
kingly office of Christ in chapter two,18 whereas chapter four treats

18 Most commentators are of the opinion that the participation of the people of God in

the kingly office is only hinted at in Lumen gentium 10 by way of a biblical quote: “Christ
the Lord, the high priest chosen from among human beings (see Heb 5,1–5), has made
the new people ‘a kingdom, priests to his God and Father’ (Ap 1,6; see 5,9–10).” The au-
thor wonders, however, whether Lumen gentium 9 may not have been conceived as the
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 38

38 the jurist

the participation of the laity in all tria munera systematically in LG

34–36. The history of the composition of the documents may provide
some explanation here.19 The second schema, which the pope approved
in April 1963, still had a chapter De populo Dei et speciatim de laicis.
Paragraph 24 dealt with De sacerdotio universali, necnon de sensu fidei
et de charismatibus christifidelium. The paragraph dealt with lay partic-
ipation in the royal office only in about four lines because the council fa-
thers were not used to thinking about the laity in these terms. When the
decision was made to treat the People of God in chapter two of LG and
the laity in chapter four, number 24 of the previous schema formed the
basis of LG 12 without undergoing substantial changes. The sub-com-
mission which revised chapter four4 between November 1963 and Feb-
ruary 1964, however, decided to deal with each of the offices in separate
paragraphs.
3. The Tria Munera of the Bishop in Lumen gentium 25–27
Before using the figure of the tria munera more systematically in para-
graphs 25–2720 (complete) the third chapter introduces the figure in
paragraphs 20 and 21 to speak about the bishop’s place in God’s salvific
plan and his relationship to Christ. Paragraph 20 calls the bishop a “shep-
herd” because he is “presiding in the place of God over the flock”. Here
the term “shepherd” seems to be used as a generic term summarizing

paragraph which introduces the participation of the people of God in the kingly office,
since it presents them as a “messianic people” (populus messianicus).
19 See also Alberto Melloni, “The Beginning of the Second Period: The Great Debate

on the Church,” in History of Vatican II. The Mature Council: Second Period and Inter-
cession September 1963–September 1964, Vol. III, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph
Komonchak (Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 1–115, partim.
20 Even if the author focuses on Lumen gentium 25–27, he agrees with Catherine Clif-

ford that the council was far more interested in describing “the collegial nature of the bish-
op’s office in relation to papal primacy” and has therefore, to a certain extent, paid insuf-
ficient attention to the role of the bishop within the local church. See Catherine Clifford,
“The Local Church and Its Bishop in Ecumenical Perspective,” The Jurist 69 (2009)
pages. The author analyzes the teaching of Lumen gentium on collegiality—in a similar
effort to introduce the new Herder commentary—as part of his article “Is ‘Affective’ Col-
legiality Sufficient? A Plea for a More ‘Effective’ Collegiality of Bishops in the Roman
Catholic Church and Its Ecumenical Implications,” in Friendship as an Ecumenical Value:
Proceedings of the International Conference Held on the Inauguration of the Institute of
Ecumenical Studies (Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University Press, 2006) 132–153.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 39

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 39

their role “as teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship and ministers
of government.” (LG 20)21
The next paragraph describes the bishop’s threefold task as the activ-
ity of the Risen Lord himself:
In the bishops, therefore, assisted by the priests, there is present
in the midst of believers the Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme high
priest. Seated at the right hand of God the Father, he is not absent
from the community of his pontiffs, but primarily through their
distinguished ministry he preaches the word of God to all nations
and administers without ceasing the sacraments of Faith to be-
lievers; by their fatherly office he incorporates new members
into his body by a regeneration from above; and finally it is by
their wisdom and prudence that he directs and governs the peo-
ple of the new testament in its pilgrimage towards eternal happi-
ness. (LG 21)
In his commentary the Louvain peritus Msgr. Philips observes that the
council fathers apparently had been able to overcome their traditional re-
striction of the realis praesentia to the presence of Christ in Holy Com-
munion. Thanks to their ecumenical contacts with Reformed Christians
they had rediscovered Christ’s presence in the Church’s proclamation of
the gospel. Analogically, and conscious of the fact that the realis prae-
sentia knows degrees of intensity, the council fathers also could speak
about Christ’s presence in the suffering other and in ordained ministers.
Rather than being an obstacle to the direct contact between the believer
and Christ—as many Reformed Christians would hold—Catholic teach-
ing presents the bishop as one of the instances where Christ can be en-
countered.22 In his new commentary on LG, Peter Hünermann notes that

21 See also the reflections by Myriam Wijlens in her contribution to this volume. She

also considers the terminology of shepherding in Lumen gentium. See Myriam Wijlens,
“The Doctrine of ‘the People of God and Hierarchical Authority as Service’ in the Legis-
lation of the Latin Church on the Local Church,” The Jurist 68 (2008) 328–349. As James
Coriden indicates in his contribution, Lumen gentium 20 speaks about the bishop’s munus
pastorale to stress “the unitary nature of the episcopal office.” See idem, “The Teaching
Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop and Its Collaborative Exercise,” The Jurist 68 (2008)
382–407, especially section B 1.
22 Gérard Philips, Dogmatische constitutie over de kerk “Lumen Gentium”:

Geschiedenis—tekst—kommentaar (Antwerpen: Patmos, 1967) I: 259–261, in the sub-

section entitled ‘Christus in zijn “Priesters” aanwezig.’
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 40

40 the jurist

the conciliar emphasis on “the sacramentality of the episcopal ministry”

and on the “pneumatic presence of the risen Lord and his activity in the
Church and its ministers” is a novelty in Catholic ecclesiology, which in
the past concentrated foremost on the bishop’s jurisdiction. In his opin-
ion, these lines should also not be interpreted in a Donatist sense as if
Christ’s gracious presence would depend on the bishop’s holiness. In its
effort to speak about the relationship between the bishop and Christ,
however, the council seems to have forgotten to emphasize the diaconal
character of episcopal ministry.23
It seems to have been the basic intention of the council fathers to use
the figure of the tria munera in LG 25–27 to describe the essential re-
sponsibilities of the diocesan bishop.
By way of correction of the medieval tendency to focus on the munus
sanctificandi, the prophetical office is introduced in LG 25 as the
bishop’s most important task: “Among the principal tasks of bishops the
preaching of the gospel is pre-eminent.”24 The difference from previous
drafts is remarkable. The council has decided not to present the bishop in
the first place as a teacher of doctrine. He should be an expert in ad-
dressing people directly, so that those who hear his personal witness may
identify themselves with his message. This raises questions, however, re-
garding the increase of episcopal and papal teachings since Vatican II.25
Furthermore the bishops are described as “authentic teachers” (doc-
tores authentici) because as successors of the apostles they have to pre-
serve carefully and interpret the apostolic tradition; and to that end their
teaching has been “endowed with the authority of Christ.” After repeat-
ing this traditional teaching, the council fathers describe the bishop’s
prophetic task in terms of direct communication. They “preach to the
people entrusted to them the faith to be believed and put into practice;
they illustrate this faith in the light of the holy Spirit, drawing out of the
treasury of revelation things new and old (see Mt 13,52), they make it
bear fruit and they vigilantly ward off errors that are threatening their

23 Hünermann, 414–415.
24 The exercise of the munus docendi “stands out among the most important duties of
bishops;” thus Christus Dominus 12 teaches in line with Lumen gentium 25.
25 Hünermann, 435: “Die pausenlose Produktion von bischöflichen und päpstlichen

Lehrschreiben, die weit in wissenschaftliche Fachdiskussionen hineinführen, stellt somit

eine gewisse Verkennung des eigentlichen bischöflichen Auftrages und damit auch eine
gewisse Kompetenzüberschreitung dar.”
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 41

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 41

flock (see 2 Tm 4,1–4).”26 CD presses this point even further by asking

the bishop to enter into a dialogue (colloquium) with his people (CD 13).
The author has to admit, however, that after these first seven lines the
paragraph continues in a different tone. Much more ink is spent on what
a recent commentator believes to be only a borderline case of the
bishop’s proclamation, namely that of expressing his “judgment con-
cerning faith and morals” (sententiam de fide et moribus). The council
fathers wanted to determine the level of assent which this and other types
of teaching require from the faithful. When doctrinal teaching is pro-
nounced by a bishop, the appropriate form of assent is “religious assent
of the mind” (religiosum animi obsequium). After discussing the authen-
tic teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, which elicits “religious as-
sent of will and intellect” (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obse-
quium), the council fathers arrived at the highest form of teaching
authority, the infallible proclamation of the teaching of Christ. They re-
peated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility; but at the same
time they framed this teaching in the midst of their teaching on the infal-
libility of the college of bishops.27 This conciliar preoccupation with
defining the Catholic truth in a propositional way can be deplored, be-
cause it is a real challenge for each bishop and for the entire Church to
proclaim the gospel in such a way that it takes the challenges of the dif-
ferent cultural contexts into account.28 (Complete) It is understandable,

26 LG 25. Hünermann feels that again he has to add a critical comment: “Sind solche
Aussagen ernst gemeint—und davon ist bei einem konziliaren Text auszugehen—, so
stellen sich eine Fülle von Fragen hinsichtlich einer Neugestaltung der bischöflichen Ar-
beit, der Diözesen, der kirchlichen Organisation und Administration.” (Ibid., 435).
27 For a study of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Lk 22:32 in official Catholic Church

teaching—with special attention to LG 25—see the author’s article on “Authority in the

Church: the Appeal to Lk 22:24–34 in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology and in the Ecumeni-
cal Movement,” in Luke and His Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux. Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 182, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Gilbert Van
Belle & Joseph Verheyden (Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 307–323.
28 See again Hünermann, 443: “Überblickt man die Ausführungen von Artikel 25,

dessen Thema die Verkündigung des Evangeliums durch die Bischöfe ist, so verwundert,
wie stark die Aufmerksamkeit auf das “sententialiter definire”, die lehrsatzmäßige
Entscheidung und zwar besonders in der Form der definitiven, infalliblen Entscheidung
konzentriert ist. ( . . . ) Die Bezeugung des Evangeliums in der Gegenwart stellt auf Grund
der veränderten wissenschaftlichen Weltsicht und der tiefgreifend transformierten
gesellschaftlichen Zustände eine besondere Herausforderung dar. Die Fragen der “Inkul-
turation” des Evangeliums, d.h. einer auf die gegebenen Verhältnisse zugeschnittenen,
plausiblen Verkündigung, und die damit verbundenen schwerwiegenden Kommunika-
tionsprobleme werden in Artikel 25 nicht genannt. Diese Probleme lassen sich zumeist
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 42

42 the jurist

though, that, after already having dealt with the issue of papal primacy in
LG 22, the council fathers wanted to find an appropriate place to deal
with papal infallibility.
LG 26 describes how the bishop also participates in Christ’s priestly
office. The bishop appears as “the steward (oeconomus) of the grace of
the supreme priesthood” especially by celebrating the Eucharist or by
making sure that the Eucharist is celebrated everywhere in his diocese.
Thus the council recalls the prayer of episcopal consecration in the
Byzantine rite. Hünermann would have expected to read a more elabo-
rate description of the bishop’s priestly office in the opening lines of LG
26. In his opinion, participating in the priestly office of Christ means a
bishop’s “preparing and strengthening the priestly people of God for
their task to be active in world and society in a sanctifying way.”29
Because most celebrations of the Eucharist within a given diocese take
place in the absence of the bishop, the council fathers decided to devote
most of the first subsection of LG 26 to another way in which the expres-
sion “local church” is used, namely as the local congregation of the faith-
ful. The only time that priests are mentioned in LG 25–27 is in LG 26,
which says that the “local congregations of the faithful” are “united to
their shepherds.” The approach, however, in CD is much different. The
sections on the munus sanctificandi (CD 15) and the munus patris ac
pastoris (CD 16) duly stress the importance of the work of priests.30
This is not to say that the council fathers did not offer a valuable re-
flection on the local church which is also ecumenically acceptable. The

nicht durch Definitionen von Sätzen lösen.” In his contribution to this volume Gilles
Routhier similarly emphasizes that, after all, “the relationship between a bishop and his
Church is not well articulated” in chapter three of LG ; and he ascribes this to the fact that
“the writing of chapter three took place in a universalism train of thought.” See Gilles
Routhier, “A Forgotten Vision? The Function of Bishops and Its Exercise Forty Years after
the Second Vatican Council,” The Jurist 69 (2009) Page numbers. Perhaps also reference
to exact page—first page of ‘The vision of Vatican II’
29 Hünermann, 444: “Man vermisst in diesem Kontext eine generelle Zielbestimmung

dieser Funktion des bischöflichem Dienstes. Sie müsste eigentlich darin bestehen, dass
der priesterliche Dienst des Bischofs das priesterliche Volk Gottes zurüstet und stärkt für
Seine Aufgabe, heiligend in Welt und Gesellschaft zu wirken.”
30 See CD 15: “These too have been ordained true priests of the new testament to be

prudent assistants of the episcopal order.” Also CD 16: “They should always hold priests
in special regard; for they in fact take upon themselves part of the work and concerns of
the bishops and apply themselves daily to them with great zeal and industry.”
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 43

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 43

council states that the “church of Christ is truly present in all the lawful
local congregations of the faithful” and that “in these communities, al-
though frequently small and poor, or dispersed, Christ is present by
whose power the one, holy catholic and apostolic church is gathered to-
gether.” (LG 26) It is obvious that the word ‘catholic’ no longer exclu-
sively means ‘universal’ here, but refers to the ‘unity in diversity’ of all
local communities and dioceses in the Church.31
In the same way as LG 11 had explained how all the faithful actively
take part in the celebration of the sacraments, the second subsection of
LG 26 highlights the bishop’s role in celebrating the sacraments of the
Church. Hünermann is critical about this top-down description of the
way the bishop has to regulate all kinds of worship in his diocese.32. Ac-
cording to the formulation of these lines, the bishops seem to be the only
active agents in the conferring of sacramental grace: “They sanctify . . .
”, “they direct . . . ”, “they exhort and instruct” . . . Apparently the only
proper attitude for the laity is to accept passively the sacramental grace
mediated by the bishop. Hünermann sees in these lines a sad sign that the
council’s teaching on the common priesthood of all believers has not
been received integrally.33 Moreover, the postconciliar model of the ser-
vice Church could develop on the basis of such texts.34

31 See the author’s “Catholicity and Globalization: Two Roman-Catholic Approaches

and an Afterword on Paul Tillich,” in Théologie et cultures: Hommage à Jean Richard, ed.
Marc Dumas, François Nault & Lucien Pelletier (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université de
Laval, 2004) 221–240.
32 LG 26: “Every lawful celebration of the eucharist is directed by the bishop, to whom

has been entrusted the duty of presenting the worship of the christian religion to the divine
majesty, and of regulating it according to the commands of the Lord and the church’s laws,
which are further determined for the diocese by his particular judgment.”
33 Hünermann, 446: “Gerade aus diesem dritten Abschnitt geht deutlich hervor, dass

das priesterliche Wirken des Bischofs wesentlich als ein Ausspenden und Mitteilen
gedacht wird, das ein passiv empfangendes Volk voraussetzt. Nirgendwo wird gelehrt,
dass es beim priesterlichen Wirken des Bischofs um die Befähigung des Volkes Gottes
geht, mit Christus priesterlich unter den Völkern zu wirken. Man sieht an Passagen wie
der vorliegenden, wie wenig der Gedanke des allgemeinen Priestertum das Denken der
Konzilsväter durchdrungen hat.”
34 Hünermann, 446: “So wenig die einzelnen Aussagen zu bestreiten sind, so einseitig

ist der bewirkte Gesamteindruck. Das bischöfliche Amt erscheint als göttlich legitimierte
Instanz für die Erbringung spezifischer Leistungen, die den religiösen Bedürfnissen
der Menschen entsprechen. Die große Gefährdung der nachkonziliaren Kirche—beson-
ders in den Industrieländern—, sich selbst als Dienstleistungsorganisation für “religiöse
Produkte” zu verstehen, die wesentlich durch den Klerus erbracht werden, ist deutlich
vorgebildet. Indem die Zielbestimmung des Heiligungsdienstes des Bischofs fehlt,
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 44

44 the jurist

The paragraph ends with the insight—partially borrowed from the

liturgy of episcopal ordination—that the bishop can fulfil his priestly of-
fice only if this is supported by a holy life:
Finally, they have a duty to help those over whom they are placed
by the example of their manner of life, keeping their behaviour
free from all evil and, as far as they can with the help of God,
turning evil to good, so that, together with the flock entrusted to
them, they may attain eternal life.
The opening paragraph of the exposition on the bishop’s munus re-
gendi in Lumen gentium 27 is worth quoting in full:
The bishops govern the churches entrusted to them as vicars and
legates of Christ, by counsel, persuasion and example and indeed
also by authority and sacred power which they make use of only
to build up their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that the
greater must become as the younger and the leader as one who
serves (see Lk 22,26–27).
The council fathers decided to apply the title of vicarii et legati Christi
no longer exclusively to the pope but also to the bishops, which the Latin
code seems to have forgotten and the Eastern code fortunately has redis-
covered.35 The bishop is entitled to use his authority only if it is benefi-
cial for the community and is exercised in a spirit of service. Also the
opening lines of CD 16 introduce the bishop as a pastor and a father who
has to answer Christ’s call to exercise authority in the way of a servant.
In exercising their paternal and pastoral function, bishops, should be
in the midst of their flock as those who serve, good shepherds who know
their own sheep and whose sheep know them.

nämlich dem Volk Gottes zu helfen, Seine priesterlichen Aufgaben wahrzunehmen, wer-
den Verkündigung und Sakramente zu Angeboten, deren der moderne Christ, der gewohnt
ist, au seiner Vielzahl von gesellschaftlichen Angeboten auszuwählen, sich bedienen
kann.”
35 See the Latin canon 331, the first canon of the chapter on ‘The Roman Pontiff and

the College of Bishops’: “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 the pastor of the
universal 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.”
The Eastern code uses the same title regarding “the bishop of the church of Rome” in
canon 43 opening the chapter on the Roman Pontiff, but canon 178 also addresses the
eparchial bishop as “a vicar and legate of Christ.”
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 45

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 45

In what follows, however, LG 27 strongly focuses on how the bishop’s

jurisdiction relates to that of the pope. In classical canonical terminology
their power is defined as “proper, ordinary and immediate” . . . “although
its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the
church.” With regard to all three offices of the bishop, LG 21 had already
distinguished between what the Nota explicativa praevia (NEP) later
called the “ontological” conferring of the offices of sanctifying, teach-
ing, and governing during the rite of episcopal consecration, and the con-
crete exercise of “these” offices “in hierarchical communion with the
head of the college and its members.” One of the reasons why the NEP
was written was to make it clear to the council fathers that a “canonical
or juridical determination” remained necessary.
The council states only that the bishops exercise this power “in the
name of Christ.” Unfortunately it is not mentioned that the bishops also
exercise their authority “in the name of the People of God.”36 Finally, the
council repeats the traditional teaching that the three potestates are exer-
cised by one and the same person: “By virtue of this power, bishops have
the sacred right and duty before the Lord of making laws for their sub-
jects, of passing judgment on them and of directing everything that con-
cerns the ordering of worship and the apostolate.” From the perspective
of post-conciliar theology one would have expected an awareness of the
need to divide these powers at least functionally and a reflection on the
mutual accountability of the bishop and the other members of the People
of God.37 (complete)
Fortunately the last subsection speaks about episcopal authority in a
more pastoral way. On the one hand it uses the metaphor of the family.
The bishop receives the mission “to govern his family” from the heav-
enly Father (a patrefamilias). Juridical terminology, however, is not

36 Hünermann, 447.
37 Ibid., 48: “Überblickt man die Aussagen des ersten Abschnittes, so wird man im
Blick auf die Charakteristik des Episkopats von einer strikt monarchischen Konzeption
sprechen müssen. Alle drei Gewalten sind im Bischof vereinigt. Eine auch nur funktionale
Gewaltentrennung ist nicht einmal angesprochen. Das Moment der Synodalität oder einer
Rechenschaftspflicht gegenüber der eigenen Kirche, eine Konsultationspflicht von Laien
und Klerus kommen nicht vor.” Thomas Green offers similar reflections regarding the
2004 Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores. See the sec-
tion on ‘The bishop as a key figure in fostering diocesan accountability’ in “Contemporary
Challenges to Episcopal Governance: Reflections on the 2004 Directory on the Ministry
of Bishops and Other Recent Texts,” The Jurist 68 (2008) PAGE NUMBERS.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 46

46 the jurist

completely avoided in describing the relationship between the bishop

and those for whom he is responsible. In the same line they are called his
“subjects” (subditos); but he is also exhorted to listen to them and to look
after them “as truly his daughters and sons” (ut veros filios suos). The use
of the metaphor of the shepherd, however, allowed the council fathers to
emphasize once more that episcopal ministry is first of all a service to be
fulfilled after the model of the good shepherd. This section also stresses
that the bishop remains a human being, who is “subject to weakness him-
self.”

II The Use of the Pattern of the Tria Munera in the Ecumenical Dialogues
1. The Ecumenical Dialogue within Faith & Order
As mentioned in the introduction, this article focuses on those dia-
logues in which the Roman Catholic Church fully participates, and, thus
may present its own ecclesiological convictions to the other churches.
The limits of this paper mean that attention will be given only to a small
number of international dialogue statements dealing with ecclesiological
issues at the level of the local church.38 This subsection will focus on the
Faith & Order agreed statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry
(BEM) (1982)39 and on the latest draft of The Nature and Mission of the
Church (2005),40 which is still presented as ‘a stage on the way to a com-
mon statement.’
The section on ‘Ministry’ of the BEM document starts with a subsec-
tion on ‘The calling of the whole people of God.’ The text implicitly re-
veals why the pattern of the tria munera has not been presented more ex-
plicitly. The first three paragraphs relate the mission of the people of God
to all three persons of the Holy Trinity. When speaking about Christ, the
text emphasizes that his work has been “accomplished once for all”
(M 2). Therefore it did not seem appropriate to present the calling of the

38 The author does not intend to cover everything each document teaches on the local

church and its leader. For this, see Catherine Clifford “The Local Church and Its Bishop
in Ecumenical Perspective” in this volume. Rather he will investigate to what extent the
figure of the tria munera has been used to describe the mission of all believers within the
local community.
39 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper 111 (Geneva: World Coun-

cil of Churches, 1982). References to paragraph numbers in this document will be made
in brackets in the text.
40 The Nature and Mission of the Church. A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement.

Faith and Order Paper 198 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2005). References to
paragraph numbers in this document will also be made in brackets in the texts.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 47

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 47

whole people of God as a participation in the threefold office of Christ.

Perhaps the drafters of BEM thought that an explicit mentioning of the
tria munera would place an exaggerated emphasis on the relationship of
the Church to Christ. Still, the tria munera are alluded to in the section on
the Holy Spirit: “The spirit calls people to faith, sanctifies them through
many gifts, gives them strength to witness to the Gospel, and empowers
them to serve in hope and love.” (M 3). Interestingly enough, in the sec-
ond subsection on ‘The church and the ordained ministry,’ it becomes
clear that BEM has no fundamental difficulty with applying the termi-
nology of the tria munera to the people of God. This becomes clear in a
paragraph dealing with the relationship of ordained ministers and the
faithful: “But they may appropriately be called priests because they ful-
fil a particular priestly service by strengthening and building up the royal
and prophetic priesthood of the faithful through word and sacraments,
through their prayers of intercession, and through their pastoral guid-
ance of the community.” (M 17)
The structure of the tria munera is also followed, albeit even more im-
plicitly, in the general description of the mission of the ordained min-
istry: “The chief responsibility of the ordained ministry is to assemble
and build up the body of Christ by proclaiming and teaching the Word of
God, by celebrating the sacraments, and by guiding the life of the com-
munity in its worship, its mission and its caring ministry” (M 13).
Questions which receive special attention are the link between ‘Or-
dained ministry and authority’ (M 15–16) and between ‘Ordained min-
istry and priesthood’ (M 17). Each time the difference between the au-
thority and the priesthood of ordained ministers and that of Christ is
emphasized: “Christ’s authority is unique” (M 16) and “Jesus Christ is
the unique priest of the new covenant” (M 17). The text explicitly states
that “ordained ministers are related, as are all Christians, both to the
priesthood of Christ, and to the priesthood of the Church” (M 17).
When speaking about ‘The forms of the ordained ministry’ the docu-
ment makes two major claims, the second of which still deserves to be
better received in the Roman Catholic Church. The first claim is that “the
threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon may serve today as an
expression of the unity we seek and also as a means for achieving it.” (M
22) The second is that “the ordained ministry should be exercised in a
personal, collegial and communal way” (M 26).
Finally, the function of the bishop has also been described with a clear
reference to the figure of the tria munera: “Bishops preach the Word,
preside at the sacraments, and administer discipline in such a way as to
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 48

48 the jurist

be representative pastoral ministers of oversight, continuity and unity in

the Church.” (M 29)
In response to the many critical but constructive reactions of the
churches to the BEM report,41 the Faith & Order Commission decided
that it was necessary to seek a consensus on the understanding of the na-
ture and mission of the Church, a question which, according to many
critics, should have been studied carefully before addressing BEM is-
sues. In part because Faith & Order no longer seems to be a top priority
for the World Council of Churches, this work has been a long process,
which is not yet complete. Both the 1998 and the 2005 editions of the text
contain many paragraphs which indicate—in a different lay-out—areas
of divergence among the participating churches. As the author has devel-
oped in another paper, The Nature and Mission of the Church (NMC)
constitutes one of the best examples of the willingness of Roman
Catholic theologians—who fully participated in the drafting process—to
receive a metaphor of the Church which is typical for the Protestant tra-
dition: the Church as ‘Creation of the Word and of the Holy Spirit’ (NMC
9–13).42 The Roman Catholic representatives undoubtedly were able to
do so because the ‘Nature of the Church’ is approached from various an-
gles in the first chapter. The subsections on ‘The Church as People of
God’ (NMC 18–19), ‘The Church as the Body of Christ’ (NMC 20–21),
‘The Church as Temple of the Holy Spirit’ (NMC 22–23) and ‘The
Church as Koinonia/Communio’ (NMC 24–33) almost resemble the way
the Church has been described in Lumen gentium. The subsection on

41 For example, for an interesting plea to develop a more explicit Reformed theology

of ministry in dialogue with the BEM document, see Eddy Van der Borght, Theology of
Ministry: A Reformed Contribution to an Ecumenical Dialogue. Studies in Reformed
Theology, 15 (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2007).
42 See Peter De Mey, “The Church as ‘Creation of the Word and of the Holy Spirit’ in

Ecumenical Documents on the Church: An Exercise in Receptive Ecumenism,” in Re-

ceiving ‘The Nature and Mission of the Church’: Ecclesial Reality and Ecumenical Hori-
zons for the Twenty-first Century, ed. Michael A. Fahey & Paul Collins (New York– Lon-
don: Continuum, 2008) 42–54. This book is the result of a session dedicated to this Faith
& Order text by the Ecclesiological Investigations Group during the Annual Convention
of the American Academy of Religion in November 2006 and is thus one of the first books
contributing to a critical and constructive reception of The Nature and Mission of the
Church. During its annual meetings the Catholic Theological Society of America also en-
couraged scholars critically to address the 1998 draft of this text. See, e.g., Catherine E.
Clifford, “Reflections on The Nature and Purpose of the Church,” Ecumenical Trends 32
(2003) 129–137; Francis A. Sullivan, “The Nature and Purpose of the Church: Comments
on the ‘Material inside the Boxes,’” ibid., 145–153 and Jaroslav Z. Skira, “Eastern Chris-
tianity and the ‘Nature & Purpose of the Church,’ ” ibid. 34 (2005) 1–10.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 49

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 49

‘The Church as People of God’ seemed a perfect occasion to reflect quite

explicitly on the priestly, prophetic, and royal characteristics of the peo-
ple of God.
While acknowledging the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ,
whose one sacrifice institutes the new covenant (cf. Heb 9:15),
Christians are called to express by their lives the fact that they
have been named a “royal priesthood ” and “holy nation”. ( . . . )
Every member participates in the priesthood of the whole
Church. No one exercises that priesthood apart from the unique
priesthood of Christ, nor in isolation from the other members of
the body. As a prophetic and royal people, Christians seek to wit-
ness to the will of God and to influence the course of events of
the world. (NMC 19)
When describing the ‘Mission of the Church’ (NMC 34–42) the three
major areas of the Church’s mission are mentioned again: “Through its
worship (leitourgia); service, which includes the stewardship of creation
(diakonia); and proclamation (kerygma) the Church participates in and
points to the reality of the Kingdom of God.” (NMC 36)
The third chapter on ‘The life of communion in and for the world’ al-
lows us to investigate whether the text also contains explicit or implicit
allusions to the figure of the tria munera when it distinguishes the ‘Min-
istry of all the faithful’ (NMC 82–85) from the ‘Ministry of the Or-
dained’ (NMC 86–89), and, thereafter, pays attention to the ministry of
oversight before dealing with a very important problem which, however,
is not immediately relevant for this symposium: ‘Conciliarity and Pri-
macy.’ The subsection on the ‘Ministry of all the faithful’ actually repeats
the insights previously offered in the subsection on ‘The Church as peo-
ple of God’.
No less than three times does the subsection on the ‘Ministry of the or-
dained’ implicitly mention that these ministers, in their own way, fulfil a
prophetic, priestly, and royal office, faithful to the call of Jesus and under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Ordained ministers serve in the building up of the community, in
equipping the saints, and in strengthening the Church’s witness
in the World (cf. Eph 4:12–13)
Ordained ministers have a special responsibility for the ministry
of Word and Sacrament. They have a ministry of pastoral care,
teaching and leadership in mission.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 50

50 the jurist

The chief responsibility of the ordained ministry is to assemble

and build up the Body of Christ by proclaiming and teaching the
Word of God, by celebrating baptism and the Eucharist and by
guiding the life of the community in its worship, its mission and
its service.
The subsection on oversight has significantly been entitled ‘Over-
sight: Personal, Communal, Collegial’ (NMC 90–98). Even stronger
than in the BEM document it is emphasized that “at every level of the
Church’s life, the ministry must be exercised in personal, communal and
collegial ways.” (NMC 94) By insisting that all the Christian churches
exercise oversight at some level, the document hopes to have “brought to
light hitherto unrecognised parallels between episcopal and non-episco-
pal churches.” For our purposes it is relevant to mention that the ministry
of episkopè is introduced with an explicit reference to “the commis-
sioned functions of the ordained ministry, Word, Sacrament and disci-
pline.“ (NMC 94)
2. The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue
In a contribution on the reception of the figure of the tria munera in the
ecumenical dialogues, it makes sense to consider the Anglican-Roman
Catholic dialogue. Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican
Church attaches great importance to the place of the bishop in the
Church. In the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral the historical episcopate
has been mentioned as one of the four criteria which the Anglican Com-
munion deems essential for “the restoration of unity among the divided
branches of Christendom.” One can find important insights regarding the
bishops’ participation in the office of Christ in a number of ARCIC texts.
In 2000, however, while the Anglican-Roman Catholic International
Commission was still discussing its final document on Mary: Grace and
Hope in Christ,43 the highest authorities of both churches decided to es-
tablish the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for
Unity and Mission (IARCCUM), a commission consisting mainly of
bishops. This commission received the task to prepare a document which
would synthesize the results of forty years of Anglican-Roman Catholic
Dialogue. In 2007 this led to the publication of the agreed statement

43 The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, Mary: Grace and Hope

in Christ (London: Morehouse Publications, 2005). The background articles in prepara-

tion of this agreed statement have recently been published as Studying Mary: The Virgin
Mary in Anglican and Catholic Theology and Devotion, ed. Adelbert Denaux and
Nicholas Sagovsky (London: Continuum, 2007).
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 51

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 51

Growing Together in Unity and Mission.44 It was hoped that this docu-
ment could form the basis for a joint declaration but recent developments
in the Anglican Communion seem to render this hope quite difficult at
the moment. The author will take this document as a point of departure
for his reflections and will refer to the previous ARCIC texts only for
comparison purposes.
In line with Lumen gentium the document first considers the entire
body of believers. The section on the ‘Church as communion in mission,’
however, only vaguely alludes to the threefold task which Christ as-
signed to the Church. The idea of the 1986 agreed statement on Salvation
and the Church is repeated that the Church is called to be “a living ex-
pression of the Gospel, evangelised and evangelising, reconciled and
reconciling, gathered together and gathering others.” (GTCM 18, refer-
ring to SC 28). This quote, however, forms part of a section in Salvation
in the Church (25–31) in which it is explained how the church is called to
be “a sign, steward and instrument” of “God’s eternal design, the salva-
tion of humanity”. In this section one finds a much clearer reference to
the figure of the tria munera, where it is said that “the church is called to
fulfil this stewardship by proclaiming the gospel and by its sacramental
and pastoral life.” (SC 27). The agreed statement on Church as Commu-
nion (1990), also referred to in the IARCCUM document in this section,
equally contains a clear reference to the threefold ministry of the Church
which has not been integrated in Growing Together in Communion and
Mission: “The Holy Spirit uses the church as the means through which
the word of God is proclaimed afresh, the sacraments are celebrated, and
the people of God receive pastoral oversight, so that the life of the gospel
is manifested in the life of its members.” (CC 19).
The description of the local church in the document, however, leaves
this reader with some questions. One cannot say that the synthesis docu-
ment completely gives up the idea that Anglicans and Catholics com-
monly understand the ‘local church’ in the first place as the diocese.
Paragraph 19 states: “We understand the Church to be a communion of
local churches;” and then the text adds the word “dioceses” between
brackets. Immediately afterwards, however, a definition of “a local
church” is given which has been borrowed from Church as Communion

44 International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, Grow-

ing Together in Unity and Mission: Building on 40 Years of Anglican-Roman Catholic Di-
alogue (London: SPCK, 2007).
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 52

52 the jurist

without indicating that the original text spoke about local communities.
It is said that “a local church is a gathering of the baptised brought to-
gether by the apostolic preaching, confessing the one faith, celebrating
the one eucharist, and led by an apostolic ministry.” (GTCM 18). The au-
thor also wonders why Growing Together in Unity and Mission omitted
the very clear statement of the 1976 document Authority in the Church I
that “the unity of local communities under one bishop constitutes what is
commonly meant in our two communions by a ‘local church,’ though the
expression is sometimes used in other ways.” (Auth I, 8). These lines
have been repeated in paragraph 13 of the 1999 document on The Gift of
Authority, even with the omission of the words “though the expression is
sometimes used in other ways.” It can be wondered whether the drafters
of the IARCCUM document would no longer consider this to be an
undisputed matter of agreement between both churches.
The section on ministry starts by reflecting on the relationship be-
tween the ‘ministry of Christ,’ ‘the ministry of the whole people of God,’
and ‘the ordained ministry.’ The document calls the “threefold ordering
of the ministry of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon” “providential”
and expresses the intention of both communions to be faithful to this pat-
tern. (GTCM 52) The document pays special attention to “the ministry of
oversight.”
An essential element in the ordained ministry is the responsibil-
ity for oversight (episcope), to ensure that the Church lives in fi-
delity to the apostolic faith and to transmit it to the next genera-
tion. (GTCM 55, in reference to MO 9)
The IARCCUM document refers to the consensus reached in Church
as Communion to explain that “the fullness of the ministry of oversight
is entrusted to the episcopate, which has the responsibility of maintain-
ing and expressing the unity of the Church and leading it in mission.” But
it is remarkable that precisely the same paragraph of Church as Commu-
nion to which Growing Together in Communion and Mission refers, de-
scribes this ministry of oversight as involving three aspects, tria munera.
By shepherding, teaching and the celebration of the sacraments,
especially the eucharist, this ministry holds believers together in
the communion of the local church and in the wider communion
of all the churches. (CC 45)
The definition of Growing Together in Communion and Mission
which was quoted above seems to relate the ministry of oversight only to
the participation of ordained ministers and bishops in the prophetic of-
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 53

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 53

fice of Christ. Perhaps the explanation why the IARCCUM document

presents a much more limited account of the ministry of oversight than
Church as Communion is given a few paragraphs later, when the docu-
ment repeats the reservation which the 1979 elucidation on Ministry and
Ordination had expressed regarding calling both the ordained ministry
and the ministry of the whole people of God “priestly.”
The word priesthood is used by way of analogy when it is applied
to the people of God [the common priesthood] and to the or-
dained ministry. These are two distinct realities which relate,
each in its own way, to the high priesthood of Christ, the unique
priesthood of the new covenant. (GTCM 57)
Perhaps for this reason the document refrains from elaborating on the
prophetic, priestly, and royal aspects of the ministry of the whole people
of God and of the ordained and does not give a broader definition of
the ministry of oversight. Even if this conclusion requires more careful
study of the entire document, one wonders whether the Anglican-Roman
Catholic dialogue at this stage would be willing to give up the consensus
on understanding the mission of the ordained and of the bishops previ-
ously realized in the ARCIC agreed statements and in BEM, or whether
the document has been composed too hastily—at least in the sections
treated.45
3. The Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue
As far as the international Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue is con-
cerned, we have to consult especially the 1988 Valamo document, enti-
tled The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church
with Particular Reference to the Importance of Apostolic Succession for
the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God.46

45 In a personal e-mail reaction to an earlier draft of this text, Mary Tanner, who acted

as Anglican secretary of IARCCUM, expressed her conviction that the lack of reference
to the tria munera in Growing Together in Unity and Mission was “not because the Com-
mission would have found this problematic but that it could not repeat everything that is
said in the earlier documents.” She also did not think “that the lack of reference to ‘shep-
herding, teaching and celebration of the sacraments’ implies that the Commission was in-
tending to give a more limited definition of the ministry.” Still, in her opinion the above
issue shows “the difficulty of a Commission trying to summarise a corpus of documents,
elucidations, clarifications and responses of the churches.”
46 Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversa-

tions on a World Level, 1982–1998, ed. Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, and William G.
Rusch (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2000) 652–659.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 54

54 the jurist

The introduction relates all forms of ministry in the Church to Christ

and the Spirit. “Since Christ is present in the Church, it is his ministry
that is carried out in it. The ministry in the Church therefore does not sub-
stitute for the ministry of Christ. It has its source in him. Since the Spirit
sent by Christ gives life to the Church, ministry is only fruitful by the
grace of the Spirit.” (V 5)
Before dealing with ‘The ministry of the bishop, presbyter and dea-
con’ (V 24–43), the document first discusses the relationship of the
priesthood of the believers and the ordained priesthood. Interestingly, the
document limits itself to highlighting the participation of all believers in
the priesthood of Christ.
Invisibly present in the Church through the Holy Spirit, whom he
has sent, Christ then is its unique High Priest. In him, priest and
victim, all together, pastors and faithful, form a “chosen race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims as his own”
(1 Pt 2:9; cf. Rv 5:10). All members of the Churches, as members
of the Body of Christ, participate in this priesthood, called to be-
come “a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1;
cf. 1 Pt 2:5). (V 17–18)
In line with chapter 3 of LG the section of the Valamo document deal-
ing with ‘The ministry of the bishop, presbyter and deacon’ concentrates
mostly on the ministry of the bishop. The section enumerates the tria
munera of the apostles and their successors, the bishops, and even por-
trays the bishop as an icon of Christ. The offices are mentioned in the
same order as in LG:
Just as the apostles gathered together the first communities, by
proclaiming Christ, by celebrating the eucharist, by leading the
baptised towards growing communion with Christ and with each
other, so the bishop, established by the same Spirit, continues to
preach the same Gospel, to preside at the same eucharist, to
serve the unity and sanctification of the same community. He is
thus the icon of Christ the servant among his brethren. (V 33)
We must not conclude from this, however, that the Orthodox-Roman
Catholic dialogue would grant the same priority to the office of preach-
ing as does LG. The ecclesiology which the Orthodox and the Roman
Catholic Church have developed in common is a truly eucharistic one,
whereas one finds only traces of a eucharistic ecclesiology in LG. The
priority of the office of sanctification, especially the eucharistic celebra-
tion by the bishop, is repeated four times.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 55

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 55

Since it culminates in the celebration of the eucharist in which

Christian initiation is completed, through which all become one
Body of Christ, the ministry of the bishop is, among all the
charisms and ministries which the Spirit raises up, a ministry of
presiding for gathering in unity. (V 25)
Because it is at the eucharist that the Church manifests its full-
ness, it is equally in the presiding at the eucharist that the role of
the bishop and of the priest appear in its full light. (V 34)
He who presides at the eucharist is responsible for preserving
communion in fidelity to the teaching of the apostles and for
guiding it in the new life. He is its servant and pastor. (V 37)
It is in presiding over the eucharistic assembly that the role of the
bishop finds its accomplishment. (V 41)
The last quotation continues with a reflection on the ministry of the
priests, who share in the tria munera of the bishop. “The presbyters form
the college grouped around him during that celebration. They exercise
the responsibilities the bishop entrusts to them by celebrating the sacra-
ments, teaching the Word of God and governing the community, in pro-
found and continuous communion with him.” (V 41)
Logically, this ecumenical dialogue on ministry in general would have
had to be followed immediately by a reflection on the way authority is
exercised at all levels of ecclesial life. It is typical for Orthodox ecclesi-
ologies to hold the authority of the ordained minister in balance by also
insisting on conciliarity.47 A draft text on this theme had indeed been pre-
pared in Moscow in 1990, but its plenary discussion was postponed till
the more urgent ‘problem’ of uniatism was solved .48 This text, however,

47 See, e.g., John Zizioulas, “Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach,” in

Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church: Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue,
ed. James F. Puglisi (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999) 115–125.
48 For more information on the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, see John E.

Erickson, “Episkopé and Episcopacy in Modern Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue: An Ortho-

dox Perspective,” in Unfailing Patience and Sound Teaching: Reflections on Episcopal
Ministry, ed. David A. Stosur (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003) 93–110; Joseph
Famerée, “Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe: Bilan et perspectives,” in Deux mille ans
d’histoire de l’Eglise: Bilan et perspectives historiographiques. Revue d’histoire ecclési-
astique, special no., ed. Jean Pirotte & Eddy Louchez (Leuven—Louvain-la-Neuve, 2000)
504–521; and Jaroslav Skira, “Ecclesiology in the International Orthodox-Catholic Ecu-
menical Dialogue,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (1996) 359–374.
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 56

56 the jurist

was used as starting point of the work of the newly composed interna-
tional dialogue commission which resumed its activities in the autumn of
2006 and has been approved by the Joint International Commission for
Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Or-
thodox Church during its meeting in Ravenna from October 8–14,
2007.49
Something very remarkable occurs regarding the figure of the tria
munera in the introductory section on ‘authority’ of this 2007 document.
Whereas the Valamo document still used the vocabulary of “functions”
and spoke about “the task” of the bishop, the tria munera almost seem to
have become tria potestates now. The document first reminds us that
“Jesus Christ our Lord exercised this authority in various ways whereby,
until its eschatological fulfilment (cfr. 1 Cor 15, 24–28), the Kingdom of
God manifests itself to the world: by teaching (cfr. Mt 5, 2; Lk 5, 3); by
performing miracles (cfr. Mk 1, 30–34; Mt 14, 35–36); by driving out
impure spirits (cfr. Mk 1, 27; Lk 4, 35–36); in the forgiveness of sins (cfr.
Mk 2, 10; Lk 5, 24); and in leading his disciples in the ways of salvation
(cfr. Mt 16, 24)”(12). The apostles and bishops have received a mandate
to exercise this triple form of authority in a similar way. Their authority
“includes proclamation and the teaching of the Gospel, sanctification
through the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, and the pastoral di-
rection of those who believe (cfr. Lk 10, 16)” (12).
In the following pages, however, the authority of the bishops is quali-
fied in a number of different ways. Just as the Valamo document called
the bishop “the icon of Christ the servant among his brethren” (V 33), the
Ravenna document is aware that following the example of Christ all au-
thority in the Church must be exercised as “a service (diakonia) of love.”
(14) Secondly, it is repeated that the only Lord of the Church is Christ
Jesus himself who allows others to participate “in his authority.” (13) The
authority of the ordained minister is, thirdly, always a gift to the commu-
nity and includes the participation of the community.50 The authority of

49 The so-called Ravenna Document, entitled Ecclesiological and Canonical Conse-

quences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity
and Authority, can be consulted on the Vatican website.
50 R 13: “ The authority linked with the grace received in ordination is not the private

possession of those who receive it nor something delegated from the community; rather, it
is a gift of the Holy Spirit destined for the service (diakonia) of the community and never
exercised outside of it. Its exercise includes the participation of the whole community, the
bishop being in the Church and the Church in the bishop (cfr. St Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8).” The
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 57

the bishop’s participation in the threefold MUNERA 57

the ordained minister should also be characterized, fourthly, by “the love

between the one who exercises it and those subject to it.” (13) In the 1990
Moscow draft of this statement, but, remarkably enough, not in the
Ravenna document, the bishop’s authority was further relativized by the
reference to another form of authority, that of sainthood. This form of au-
thority should not be played off against the ordained ministry, but “even
shows its finality.”51
Conclusion
After a brief historical prelude we began our exploration of the figure
of the tria munera,, with an analysis of the way Vatican II described the
ministry of all the faithful and of different groups of faithful. Contrary to
pre-conciliar ecclesiology all the faithful are believed to participate in
various ways in the threefold ministry of Christ. It has become clear that
LG 25–27 promised to offer a blueprint of the ministry of the bishop
within the local church, but that the council fathers decided to use these
paragraphs also partially to highlight the pope’s teaching authority (LG
25), to note the sanctifying office of the minister of the local community
(LG 26), and to reflect on the division of power between bishops and
pope (LG 27). Recent commentators also deplore the preoccupation with
the bishop as teacher of doctrine (LG 25) and the lack of attention to the
mutual accountability of the bishop and those under his authority (LG
27). Even if it becomes clear that an eventual revision of LG could not
transcend paragraphs 25–27, these paragraphs still contain most valuable
insights for the elaboration of a sound theology of the (diocesan) bishop.
He has to be an expert in preaching and communication; there should be
no contradiction between his way of life and his liturgical life; and his
leadership should be truly pastoral, and should continuously be inspired
by the self-denying authority of Christ.
It seems to the author, however, that most ecumenical dialogues are
willing to structure their reflections on the mission of the entire people of

Valamo text contained a similar idea but related it to Saint Augustine : “ In all this, how-
ever, he remains a member of the Church called to holiness and dependent on the salvific
ministry of this Church, as St Augustine reminds his community : ‘For you I am a bishop,
with you I am a Christian.’ ”
51 M 18–19: « La vie sacramentelle de l’Eglise a pour but la conformité de chacun de

ses membres au Christ dans l’Esprit Saint. De la sorte la tradition de l’Eglise, tant en Ori-
ent qu’en Occident, reconnaît à la sainteté une autorité propre. ( . . . ) L’autorité attachée
au témoignage de la sainteté toutefois n’entre pas en concurrence avec le ministère or-
donné. Elle montre même sa finalité. »
69.1:Jurist 3/4/09 11:37 AM Page 58

58 the jurist

God, and of the ordained and those exercising episkopè, by referring to

the tria munera, but not exclusively to the threefold office of Christ. The
Anglican-Roman Catholic international dialogue offered us the most
beautiful description of the prophetic, priestly, and royal office of all the
faithful, by referring to their situation of “evangelised and evangelising,
reconciled and reconciling, gathered together and gathering others.” In
all the dialogue statements we have studied, the office of ordained min-
isters and of those exercising episcope has been described by means of
verbs expressing the well-known tria munera: “The chief responsibility
of the ordained ministry is to assemble and build up the Body of Christ
by proclaiming and teaching the Word of God, by celebrating baptism
and the Eucharist and by guiding the life of the community in its worship,
its mission and its service.” (Faith & Order). “By shepherding, teaching
and the celebration of the sacraments, especially the eucharist, this min-
istry holds believers together in the communion of the local church and
in the wider communion of all the churches.” (ARCIC). “[T]he bishop,
established by the same Spirit, continues to preach the same Gospel, to
preside at the same eucharist, to serve the unity and sanctification of the
same community” (Orthodox-Roman Catholic). Undoubtedly the Ro-
man Catholic participants in these dialogues will have proposed their fa-
vorite way of reflecting on this three-fold ministry to their dialogue part-
ners; but apparently the representatives of the other churches were not
convinced that it was appropriate to state that all believers on the one
hand and the ordained on the other hand participate each in their own
way in the threefold office of Christ. A profound respect for the unre-
peatable character of the salvific work of Christ on the part of these
churches seems to preclude a more extensive reception of the Roman
Catholic ecclesiology of the tria munera in the ecumenical dialogues.