게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

[ 뒤로 ] [ ] [ 위로 ] [ 다음 ]


종교 탐방

IV. Structure of the church

 교회 조직


교리적 토대

1) The nature of the church.

교회의 본질

In 1965 M.-J. le Guillou, a Roman Catholic theologian, defined the church in these terms: "The Church is recognized as a society of fellowship with God, the sacrament of salvation, the people of God established as the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit." The progress of Roman Catholic theology can be seen in the contrast between this statement and the definition still current as late as 1960, substantially the definition formulated by Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit controversialist, in 1621: "the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff." The older definition, created in response to the Protestant claims, defines the church in external and juridical terms. The more recent definition is an attempt to describe the church in terms of its inner and spiritual reality.

From the time of the earliest heresies the church has thought of itself as the one and only worshiping community that traced itself back to the group established by Jesus Christ. Those who withdrew from it were religiously no different from those who had never belonged to it. The ancient adage, "There is no salvation outside the church," was understood as applying to membership in this group. When this adage was combined with the notions contained in Bellarmine's definition of the church, lines were clearly drawn. These lines were maintained in the breakup of Western Christendom in the Reformation.

There were, however, other factors determining the idea of the one true church. The Roman Catholic Church had never excluded the Orthodox Church, which had seceded from the Roman Church in 1054, from the community of Christian believers. Furthermore, the juridical definition of the church did not include such traditional themes as the communion of the saints and the body of Christ, both of which look beyond the visible, juridically constituted church. The theme of the communion of saints refers to the church as a whole, including both the living (the church militant) and the dead (the church suffering in purgatory--a state for those who must be cleansed from lesser sins--and the church triumphant in heaven). The idea of "communion" appears in early church literature to indicate the mutual recognition of union in the one church and the notion of mutual services. (see also Index: mystical body of Christ)

The theme of the body of Christ appears in the letters of Paul (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4 and 5; Colossians 1). In modern Roman Catholic theology the term mystical has been added to "body," doubtless with the intention of distinguishing the church as body from the juridical society. Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis(1943; "The Mystical Body"), identified the mystical body with the Roman Catholic Church. Most Roman Catholic theologians and the second Vatican Council have taken a less rigorous view, trying to find some way of affirming membership in the body for those who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church. The documents of the council described the church as the "People of God" and as a "Pilgrim Church," but no generally accepted statement of membership in this church has yet emerged. The second Vatican Council also departed from established Roman Catholic theology since the Reformation by using the word church in connection with the Protestant churches. This use has caused some confusion, but the trend is now rather to think of one church divided than of one true church and other false churches.

로마 가톨릭 교회는 이단을 단죄하던 초창기부터 가톨릭 교회가 예수 그리스도에 의해 설립된 공동체에서 유래하는 유일한 예배공동체라고 생각해왔다. 가톨릭에서 이탈한 사람들은 신앙적으로 볼 때 가톨릭에 전혀 속하지 않았던 사람들과 다를 바가 없었다. 성 키프리아누스(200~258)가 3세기에 "교회의 밖에는 구원이 없다"고 가르친 것은 이를 단적으로 보여주는 예이다.

그러나 현대 가톨릭 교회는 교회와 구원의 관계에 대해 훨씬 개방적인 입장을 취하고 있다. 따라서 위의 말은 교회에서 그리스도의 현존을 미처 깨닫지 못했거나 교회생활로 부르는 그리스도의 계명을 배우지 못한 사람들(마르 16:16)이 구원에서 제외된다는 뜻은 아니라고 설명한다. 오히려 하느님이 요구하는 일을 무엇이든 충심으로 지키겠다는 솔직한 지향을 품고 있는 사람들이라면 구원에서 제외되지 않을 뿐더러, 솔직한 마음 때문에 교회에서 성원의 자격까지도 누린다는 것이다.

가톨릭 교회는 여러 가지 표상으로 교회의 본질을 설명하는데, 성인들의 친교와 그리스도의 신비체라는 개념도 이에 속한다. 성인들의 친교라는 개념은 살아있는 사람들의 교회(현세에서 투쟁하는 교회)와 죽은 사람들의 교회(작은 죄를 사함받기 위해 연옥에서 고통 중에 있는 상태와 천국에서 승리한 교회)를 포함하는 전체 교회를 의미한다. '친교'(Communion)라는 개념은 초기 교회 문헌에 나타나는데, 하나의 교회에서 일치됨을 서로 인정하고 서로 봉사한다는 뜻을 지니고 있다. '그리스도의 신비체 개념'은 바울로의 편지에 나온다. 피우스 12세는 1943년 '신비체'(Mystici Corporis)라는 회칙에서 로마 가톨릭 교회를 그리스도의 신비체로 간주했다. 그러나 대부분의 로마 가톨릭 신학자들과 제2차 바티칸 공의회는 로마 가톨릭 교회 신자가 아닌 사람들에게도 이 신비체의 일원이 되는 길을 마련해주기 위해 이보다 훨씬 완화된 견해를 취하고 있다.


2) Apostolic succession.

사도의 계승

The claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one legitimate continuation of the community established by Jesus Christ is based on apostolic succession.This does not mean that there are apostles, nor does it mean that individual Apostles transmitted some or all of their commission to others. The officers of the church, the bishops, are a college (organized group or body) that continues the college of the Apostles, and the individual bishop is a successor of the Apostles only through his membership in the college. (see also Index: collegiality)

The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff. (see also Index: holy order)

The Roman Catholic Church has not entirely denied apostolic succession to non-Roman churches. Rome recognizes the validity of orders in the Orthodox churches; this means that it recognizes the sacramental power of the priesthood but does not recognize the government of these churches as legitimate. The orders of the Anglican and the Swedish Lutheran churches, on the contrary, are not recognized by Rome, and the entire threefold quality of apostolic succession is denied them. Oriental churches in union with Rome (Eastern Catholics) are recognized as in full apostolic succession. Luther and Calvin saw clearly that their position could not be maintained if apostolic succession were necessary; they therefore affirmed that apostolic succession had been lost in the Roman Church by doctrinal and moral corruption and that the true church was found only where the gospel was rightly preached and the sacraments were rightly administered. Thus, Protestant churches generally have not accepted the necessity of apostolic succession. ( J.L.McK.) (see also Index: Anglican Communion, Lutheranism)


로마 가톨릭 교회가 예수 그리스도에 의해 설립된 공동체로부터 합법적으로 계승되어 오는 유일한 교회임을 천명하는 것은 12사도로부터 전래되어 오는 사도계승(使徒繼承)에 근거하고 있다. 이 사도계승을 상징하고 유효하게 하는 외적 표시는 현재 서품식 때 거행하는 안수이다. 성서에 의하면, 예수는 제자들 중 12명을 뽑아 사도로 삼고(마태 10:1~4, 마르 3:13~19), 그들 중에서 베드로를 단장으로 삼아(요한 21:15~17) 단체의 형태를 정했다. 각 사도는 그리스도로부터 선발되고 파견된 그리스도의 사도이지만, 그 권위는 개별적으로 받은 것이 아니라 사도단과 더불어, 베드로의 영도 아래 있을 때에만 인정된다. 사도가 권한을 갖는 것은 사도단의 일원이기 때문이다. 제2차 바티칸 공의회는 이 점을 명시하고 있다. 따라서 주교들은 개인자격으로서가 아니라 단체적으로 사도들의 계승자이며(교회헌장 20), 사제들과 부제들은 불완전하나마 진실로 주교들의 직무에 참여한다(교회헌장 22,28). 사제의 권한은 신품성사를 함으로써 개인적으로 받는 것이 아니라, 그리스도가 사도들에게 위임한 사명을 단체적으로 상속하고 지속시키는 성직자단에 입단할 때 그 권한을 받게 되는 것이다. 이 단체의 기능은 대사제인 그리스도의 직무를 하느님의 백성 가운데에서 대표로서 이행하는 것이다.

사도의 권한은 가르침의 권한, 성사 집행의 권한, 교회통치의 권한에 한정된다. 로마 가톨릭에서 사도계승은 오직 로마 교황이 인정해야만 정당성을 갖게 되며, 또한 사도신경에서 '사도적'이라는 말은 로마 교황의 수위권 아래 있는 이 3가지 권위를 의미하는 것이다. 그러나 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이후 학자들은 가톨릭 교회 밖의 신앙공동체에서도 사도계승성을 인정할 수 있는 근거를 찾으려고 애썼다. 하느님은 성사를 통해서만 역사하는 것이 아니며, 사도들의 직무는 주교 직무에서뿐 아니라 전체 교회 안에서도 지속되어야 하며, 그리스도의 예언자적·사제적·왕적인 3가지 사명에는 전체 교회가 참여하므로(교회헌장 30) 이들 직무를 사도와 주교의 직무에 국한할 것이 아니라는 것이다. 더구나 제2차 바티칸 공의회는 가톨릭 교회에 속하지 않는 신앙공동체를 '교회'로, 그 구성원을 '형제와 자매' 및 '그리스도 교인'으로 부르고 있다. 그러므로 가톨릭 교회 이외의 교회에서 수행되는 직무도 부분적으로 사도계승성을 지닌다고 본다.




1) The papal office.

교황 집무실

The word papacy (Latin papatia, derived from papa, "pope"; i.e., father) is of medieval origin. In its primary usage it denotes the office of the pope (of Rome) and, hence, the system of ecclesiastical and temporal government over which he directly presides.

The multiplicity and variety of papal titles themselves indicate the complexity of the papal office. In the Annuario Pontificio, the official Vatican directory, the pope is described as bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the Apostles, pontifex maximus ("supreme pontiff") of the universal church, patriarch of the West, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, sovereign of the state of Vatican City, and servant of the servants of God. In his more circumscribed capacities as bishop of Rome, metropolitan of the Roman province, primate of Italy, and patriarch of the West, the pope is the bearer of responsibilities and the wielder of powers that have their counterparts in the other episcopal, metropolitan, primatial, and patriarchal jurisdictions of the Roman Catholic Church. What differentiates his particular jurisdiction from these others and renders his office unique is the Roman Catholic teaching that the bishop of Rome is at the same time successor to St. Peter, prince of the Apostles. As the bearer of the Petrine office, he is raised to a position of lonely eminence as chief bishop or primate of the universal church.

Basic to the claim of primacy is the Petrine theory, according to which Christ, during his lifetime, promised the primacy to Peter alone, and, after his Resurrection, actually conferred that role upon him. Thus John 1:42 and, especially, Matthew 16:18 f.: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Also John 21:15 f.: "Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep." Vatican I, in defining the Petrine primacy, cited these three texts, interpreting them to signify that Christ himself directly established St. Peter as prince of the Apostles and visible head of the Church Militant, bestowing on him a primacy not merely of honour but of true jurisdiction. In defining also that the Petrine primacy was, by Christ's establishment, to pass in perpetuity to his successors and that the bishops of Rome were these successors, Vatican I cited no further scriptural texts. In defining further, however, that the Roman pontiffs, as successors in the Petrine primacy, possess the authority to issue infallible pronouncements in matters of faith or morals, the council cited both Matthew 16:18 f. and Christ's promise to Peter at the Last Supper: "But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:32). (see also Index: papal primacy, Vatican Council, First)


교황직(라틴어로 'Papatia', 아버지란 뜻의 'Papa'에서 유래)이라는 말은 지상에서 그리스도를 대리하는 교황의 직위와 재치권(裁治權)을 가리키는 말로서 중세에 그 기원을 두고 있다. 일차적인 의미는 교황(로마)의 집무실을 가리키며, 따라서 교황이 직접 관장하는 교회적·세속적인 정부를 나타낸다. 교황의 집무실이 특별한 이유는 로마의 주교가 수위제자인 성 베드로의 후계자라는 로마 가톨릭 교회의 가르침 때문이다. 베드로 집무실의 재임자로서 교황은 보편적인 교회의 최고 주교 또는 수좌(首座)로서 홀로 탁월한 지위를 가진다.

교황의 수위권 주장의 토대는 베드로 수위 제자설인데, 이는 그리스도가 공생애 기간 중 베드로에게만 수위권을 약속했으며(요한 21:15~17), 그리스도가 부활한 후 실제로 베드로에게 그 역할을 맡겼다는 주장이다.


2) Ancient and medieval views of papal authority within the church.

교회안에서 교황의 권위에 대한 고대 및 중세의 시각들

Of the Petrine texts, Matthew 16:18 f. is clearly central and has the distinction of being the first scriptural text invoked to support the primatial claims of the Roman bishops. Before the mid-3rd century, however, and even after that date, some Western, as well as Eastern, patristic exegetes (early Church Fathers who in their interpretation of the Bible used critical techniques) understood that by the "rock" Christ meant to refer not to Peter but to himself or to the faith that Peter professed. Nevertheless, in the late 4th and 5th centuries there was an increasing tendency on the part of the Roman bishops to justify scripturally and to formulate in theoretical terms the ill-defined preeminence in the universal church that had long been attached to the Roman Church and to its bishop. Thus, Damasus I, despite the existence of other churches of apostolic foundation, began to call the Roman Church "the apostolic see." About the same time the categories of the Roman law were borrowed to explicate and formulate the prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The process of theoretical elaboration reached a culmination in the views of Leo I and Gelasius I, the former understanding himself not simply as Peter's successor but also as his representative, or vicar. He was Peter's "unworthy heir," possessing by analogy with the Roman law of inheritance the full powers Peter himself had wielded, which he interpreted as monarchical, since Peter had been endowed with the principatus over the church. (see also Index: patristic literature)

On the purely theoretical level the distance between the claims advanced by Leo I and the position embodied in Vatican I's primacy decree is not great. Medieval popes, such as Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Innocent IV, clarified by their practice as well as by their theoretical statements the precise meaning of that fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) over the church to which, according to some scholars, Leo I himself had laid claim. In this they were aided not only by the efforts of publicists such as the Italian theologian and philosopher Aegidius Romanus (d. 1316), who magnified the pope's monarchical powers in unrestrained and secular terms, but also by the massive development during the late 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries of a highly romanized canon law. Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140), the unofficial collection of canons that became the fundamental textbook for the medieval student of canon law, laid great emphasis on the primacy of the Roman see, accepting as genuine certain canons that were the work of 8th- and 9th-century forgers--such as two principles that the 1917 Code of Canon Law restates: "that there cannot be an ecumenical council which is not convoked by the Roman Pontiff" and that "the First See is under the judgment of nobody."

The prevalence of such ideas and the absence of a formidable challenge to papal primatial claims during the High Middle Ages explains the lack of any conciliar definition of the Roman primacy at the great "papal" general councils of that period. Hence it took the (abortive) attempt at reunion with the Orthodox Church at the Council of Florence in 1439 to evoke the first solemn conciliar definition of the Roman primacy. This definition was included in the decree of union with the Greeks (Laetentur Coeli), and it went as follows:

We define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles, that he is the true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church, father and teacher of all Christians, and [we define] that to him in [the person] of Peter was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of nourishing, ruling and governing the universal church; as it is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the holy canons.


3) Early-modern and modern views of papal authority.

교황의 권위에 대한 근대의 시각들

This decree was the basis for the solemn definition that Vatican I promulgated in 1870 as part of its dogmatic constitution (Pastor Aeternus). Having asserted as a matter of faith the primacy of Peter and the succession of the popes in that primacy and having quoted in full the Florentine definition, the constitution clarified what is to be understood by "the full power of nourishing, ruling, and governing" the church, which, according to that definition, inhered in the pope's primacy. Unlike the conciliar definition arrived at in Florence, Pastor Aeternus specified this to include the pope's judicial supremacy, insisting that there is "no higher authority," not even an ecumenical council, to which appeal can be made from a papal judgment.

This definition marked the culmination of a development reaching back at least to the 4th and 5th centuries. But the doctrinal development that culminated in Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility cannot lay claim to a comparable antiquity. There has always been much discussion about the meaning of the prerogative of infallibility and what it implies about the status of individual doctrinal pronouncements of the church's teaching authority. The notion that the church (conceived as the community of the faithful) is by virtue of Christ's own promise infallible--in the sense that it cannot totally deviate from the truth--is clearly scriptural in foundation and was not questioned even by the Protestant Reformers. Similarly, the notion that a preeminent authority attached to the doctrinal pronouncements of the Roman Church and its bishops was of great antiquity, long predating the extension of papal jurisdictional claims by the 4th- and 5th-century popes. But the combination of these two notions--i.e., the identification of the supreme teaching authority of the universal church with that of the pope, and the claim that the infallibility promised to the church itself was possessed also by the pope acting as its head, thus guaranteeing the inerrancy even of his individual doctrinal pronouncements--is essentially a modern theological development and one characteristic primarily of the Roman or Ultramontane (propapal) theological school. This school rose to prominence in the 16th and 17th centuries; one of its most distinguished representatives was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621). Though it drew from earlier materials--notably from the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and from the writings of such medieval theologians as St. Thomas Aquinas, Aegidius Romanus, and Augustinus Triumphus--the Ultramontane school derived much of its initial strength from the papalist reaction that followed in the wake of the conciliar movement, and it was shaped very much in opposition to the claims that the conciliarists and their Gallican successors made on behalf of the general council. This is evident in the solemn definition of the doctrine promulgated by Vatican I, with its insistence that the ex cathedra definitions of the pope (those made from "the chair," or papal throne), "are irreformable of themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church." The conciliar debates indicate that this sentence was intended to exclude the Gallican notion that a papal definition could not claim infallibility unless, subsequently or concomitantly, it received episcopal assent. Despite the maximalist (extremist) tendencies both of subsequent Catholic apologists and of their Protestant critics, the sentence apparently was not intended to restrict the church's infallible teaching authority to the pope alone or to suggest that the pope was free to define doctrine without making every effort to take into account the mind of the church.

Nevertheless, after 1870, when the memory of the heated conciliar debates had faded away, maximalist interpretations became prominent. In particular, there was a marked tendency to stress the absolute and unlimited nature of papal jurisdictional power and to end in favour of the papacy the hitherto unresolved question of the source of episcopal jurisdiction. In response to this development, Vatican II, in its dogmatic constitution, De Ecclesia (1964), while endorsing Vatican I's teaching on papal primacy and infallibility, also focused on the nature of episcopal authority. It insisted that bishops "are not to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise an authority which is proper to them," since, "by divine institution . . . [they] . . . have succeeded to the place of the apostles as shepherds of the Church" and are themselves, in fact, "the vicars and ambassadors of Christ." Also, "Just as, by the Lord's will, St. Peter and the other apostles constituted one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter and the bishops as the successors of the apostles are joined together." This college, "together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head" is "the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church," a supreme authority that it can exercise in more than one fashion but "in a solemn way through an ecumenical council." The supreme authority in the church can be exercised not only personally by the pope himself but also in a collegial fashion by the whole episcopate, which of necessity includes the bishop of Rome as its head. (see also Index: Vatican Council, Second, apostolic succession)

In so emphasizing the doctrine of episcopal collegiality, Vatican II was responding to the findings of modern New Testament and patristic scholarship concerning the nature of the primitive and ancient church, and it insisted that it was restoring an ecclesiological emphasis of great antiquity. Recent medieval scholarship indicates that this emphasis persisted into the Middle Ages and survived, in the writings of canonists and theologians, side by side with the more prominent concern with the papal primacy. The great conciliarists active at the Council of Constance made an unsuccessful attempt to effect a stable balance between these two emphases, and even in the modern period, despite the growing prominence of Ultramontane views and their eventual triumph at Vatican I, the collegial concern was never fully displaced. It was not lost sight of by the Gallican theologians of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries who, however much their subservience to the exigencies of royal policy may have damaged their credibility, apparently are now recovering in Catholic eyes, at least, a certain measure of esteem.


4) Eastern Orthodox and Protestant views and critiques.

동방정교회 및 개신교의 시각과 비판

i) Eastern Orthodox views and critiques.

동방정교회의 시각과 비판

The recovery of this ecclesiological emphasis has an importance outside Roman Catholic theology. It has never ceased to dominate in the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, with their stress on episcopal equality, their respect for the autonomy of the national or regional churches, and their insistence that the supreme teaching authority in the universal church resides (if anywhere) in the collegial decisions of the bishops assembled together in an ecumenical council. Up to the 11th century Byzantine churchmen and theologians certainly accorded some sort of primacy to the church of Rome and its bishop. But with the growth of papal claims to a universal jurisdictional power, with the growing conviction that the Roman Church had fallen into heresy, and above all with the disastrous crusading onslaught on Byzantium in 1204, the attitude of Orthodox churchmen to Rome underwent an understandable shift. Though Byzantine theologians rarely questioned the fact of Peter's primacy among the Apostles, they concluded that their own fundamentally collegial ecclesiology necessitated the rejection of the primatial claims advanced on behalf of those who claimed to be uniquely his successors. The very attempt by the bishops of a single local church to claim a monopoly on the Petrine succession was regarded as something of a deviation, in that all bishops, insofar as they professed the faith of Peter, were to be understood as his successors.

In the modern period, then, the Eastern Orthodox churches have been unanimously adamant in their rejection of the papal claims to primacy and infallibility. Orthodox theologians are often careful to insist that what they are rejecting is not the notion of primacy itself but rather that actual primacy of jurisdiction as it was conceived in the Latin Middle Ages and as it has been exercised by Rome in the modern period--with its apparent corollary that all power in the church is to be regarded as proceeding outward from the primatial office and its concomitant tendency to stifle independent life in the local churches. The original primacy of honour, which these theologians argue, was one accorded to the Roman bishops by emperors and ecumenical councils, they clearly regard as a different matter altogether. Given this fact, and also the common ground shared in ecclesiological matters by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, Vatican II's affirmation of episcopal collegiality may soften the edges of the Orthodox rejection of the papal primacy.


ii) Protestant views and critiques.

개신교의 시각과 비판

The impact of that doctrine on Protestant thinking is more difficult to predict. Historically, the Protestant rejection of papal claims has been much less qualified than that of the Orthodox. Thus, in the view of the 20th-century theologian Karl Barth, Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility completed the process by which the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the Christian belief in the unique character of divine revelation, identified itself instead with that revelation, and made the pope's teaching "the infallible revelation for the present age." Philipp Melanchthon, the Lutheran author of the Augsburg Confession of 1530, may have been willing to admit that a truly evangelical pope had a certain superiority over other bishops; however, even if one de-emphasizes Luther's denunciations of the pope as the Antichrist, the rejection by the major Reformers and their successors of the Petrine theory and of papal primacy by divine institution is absolute. Peter, they argued, exercised no primacy. The powers communicated to him were the powers communicated to all the Apostles. By the "rock" Christ meant himself; upon him the church is founded, and in Matthew 16:17 f. Peter stands only as the type or figure of the Christian faithful who believe in Christ as the sole "rock." (see also Index: Protestantism)

Unlike such medieval predecessors as the Waldenses or the political philosopher Marsilius of Padua, who had likewise attacked the Petrine theory, the Reformers did not base their attack upon the historical argument that Peter had never visited Rome. This argument was embraced by many a liberal Protestant theologian of the 19th century, but in the 20th it has lost most of its appeal. In the mid-20th century some Protestant theologians shifted toward the Roman Catholic understanding of the status and meaning of Matthew 16:17 f. According to Oscar Cullmann (the French Protestant biblical critic and theologian) any sound exegesis of the relevant scriptural texts points to the conclusion that Peter enjoyed a preeminence among the disciples even during Christ's lifetime; that the "rock" in Matthew refers not to Christ or to the faith of Peter but to his person; that Christ promised him, therefore, the leadership of the church; and that after the Resurrection Peter actually exercised that leadership. Though Cullmann argued that Peter did so only for a short time, being replaced in the leadership by James, other Protestant scholars have disagreed and have claimed for Peter a more enduring role. All, however, continue with Cullmann to distinguish sharply between conditions in the apostolic and post-apostolic church, to deny on exegetical grounds that the "primacy," or leadership, promised to Peter was intended to be passed on to any post-apostolic successors, and to insist on historical grounds that no such succession in the primacy actually occurred in the primitive church. Nevertheless, because of the degree of convergence already occurring between the Roman Catholic and Protestant exegesis of the Petrine texts, because of the reexamination of the Catholic tradition begun by Vatican II, and because of the growing Protestant sense of the need for some striking symbol of unity in the worldwide Christian community, some Protestant ecumenists in the last third of the 20th century have shown a degree of openness to the papal office that would have been unimaginable only 50 or 60 years before.


5) Historical conceptions of the relationship of the papacy to the world.

교황직의 세계에 대한 관계의 역사적 개념들

Theories concerning the relationship of the papacy to the world at large have both reflected the established political conceptions of the day and been in tension with them. The pope has been conceived successively as a leading dignitary in an imperial church headed in effect by the emperor, as a majestic potentate possessed of a supreme and direct authority even in temporal matters, and as a primarily spiritual figure who had in temporal matters no more than an indirect power of intervention. With the post-Reformation fragmentation of Christendom, the growth of secularism, and the emergence of the unified modern state claiming within its own borders jurisdictional omnicompetence, even such attenuated claims to an indirect power became increasingly anachronistic. In the 20th century, in his relations with the world at large, the pope, while affected by the conventions regulating the relationships of heads of state with one another, possesses primarily a moral authority deriving from the dignity and prestige of his office. The strength of that authority, however, depends upon his moral standing as a person, upon the persuasive force of his cause, and upon the degree of enthusiasm it can arouse within the church.


교황직과 외부 세계의 관계는 일반적으로 그 시대에 확립되어 있던 정치적 관념을 반영해왔고, 그 관념과 긴장상태를 유지해왔다. 교황은 황제가 통치하는 제국 교회의 지도적 성직자로 간주되기도 했고, 속사(俗事)에서도 최고의 직접적 권한을 가지는 위엄있는 군주로 간주되기도 했고, 세속 일에서는 단지 간접적인 중재의 힘만을 갖는 근본적으로 정신적인 지도자로 간주되기도 했다. 종교개혁 후 그리스도교의 분열, 세속주의 성장, 국경내의 사법적 전권을 주장하는 통일된 근대국가의 출현으로 세속적인 일에 대한 교황의 간접적인 권한 행사마저도 점차 시대착오적인 것으로 인식되었다. 20세기에 들어와 외부 세계와의 관계에서 교황은 국가 수뇌들간의 외교적 관례에 따르면서도, 근본적으로는 교황청의 위엄과 위광(威光)에서 비롯되는 도덕적 권위를 가지고 있다. 그러나 그 권위의 힘은 한 인간으로서 교황이 갖는 도덕적 명망, 그 가르침의 설득력, 교회를 활성화시킬 수 있는 열의에 달려 있다.


6) Contemporary teaching on papal authority.

교황의 권위에 대한 현시대의 교리

After the mid-20th century some voices were raised in Roman Catholic circles questioning both the doctrine of papal infallibility and the exercise of the papal primacy--at least as it is envisaged in the teaching of Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law. The church's official teaching on the papal office remains that of Vatican I, solemnly reaffirmed at Vatican II. Nevertheless, the latter council's juxtaposition of the doctrine of episcopal collegiality with the existing teaching on papal primacy and infallibility created something of a dilemma in Catholic ecclesiology. Though the text of De Ecclesiahad insisted that the doctrine of episcopal collegiality in no way impugned the pope's primacy, a minority of the council fathers remained unconvinced and were commonly said to have been won over by the explanatory note that the Theological Commission by papal authority appended to the decree as an "authentic norm of interpretation." The note is framed in much more juristic terms than is the decree itself, and, in discussing the possession by the College of Bishops of "supreme and full power over the whole Church" it insists that "there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively," that "necessarily and always, the College carries with it the idea of its head" so that the bishops acting independently of the pope cannot be considered to constitute a college. At the same time, the note insists that "since the Supreme Pontiff is the head of the College, he alone can perform certain acts which in no wise belong to the bishops, for example, convoking and directing the College, approving the norms of action etc.," norms that "must always be observed."

Already in 1964 there were some who regarded this note with considerable misgiving, feeling that it withdrew from the bishops, in practical and legal terms, that supreme authority in which they had been said, on theological grounds, to be sharers. Subsequent events did little to dispel such misgivings. Despite the unquestionable vitality shown at its 1967 and 1969 meetings, the Synod of Bishops was not really allowed to function as a decision-making rather than a merely advisory body, and it was no more consulted than were the bishops as a whole when, in 1968, the pope promulgated Humanae Vitae(the encyclical on birth control)--considered by some observers to be the most divisive papal initiative of recent times and one that amounted to a de facto negation of collegiality.

Because of the dissent over Humanae Vitae and the tension engendered by the rigour of the pope's stand on the much-debated problem of clerical celibacy, attention probably will focus increasingly on the old and difficult question of the limits of papal power. Because of this, considerable importance attaches to the current revival of interest in the late medieval conciliar movement and to the assertion made by some Roman Catholic scholars (if hotly disputed by others) that a continuing dogmatic validity must be accorded to the decree Sacrosanctapromulgated in 1415 by the Council of Constance.This decree declared that the general council possessed an authority superior to that of the pope in matters pertaining to the faith, the ending of the schism, and the reform of the church. Those who assert this view do not always wish by so doing to cast any doubt on the dogmatic validity of Vatican I's teaching on papal primacy and infallibility, but the efforts thus far made to demonstrate the compatibility of the respective teachings of the two councils (i.e., Constance and Vatican I) remain somewhat less than persuasive.





1) The Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals.

교황청과 추기경단

In the day-to-day exercise of his primatial jurisdiction the pope relies on the assistance of the Roman Curia, a name first used of the body of papal assistants in the 11th century. The Curia had its origins in the local body of presbyters (priests), deacons (lower order of clergy), and notaries (lower clerics with secretarial duties) upon which, like other bishops in their own dioceses, the early bishops of Rome relied for help. By the 11th century this body had, on the one hand, been narrowed down to include only the leading (or cardinal) presbyters and deacons of the Roman diocese, while, on the other hand, being broadened to embrace the cardinal-bishops (the heads of the seven neighbouring, or "suburbicarian," dioceses). From this emerged the Sacred College of Cardinals, a corporate body possessed, from 1179 onward, of the exclusive right to elect the pope. This right it still possesses, as it does the right to govern the church in urgent matters during a vacancy in the papal office. Recent popes have extended the size of the Sacred College beyond the traditional limit of 70 and have attempted, with growing success, to broaden its national complexion and to make its membership more representative of the church's international character.

Cardinals are selected by the personal choice of the pope, in consultation with the cardinals in Rome at the time, in a consistory, or solemn meeting, which is secret. The cardinals reside either as bishops in their own sees or in the Vatican as the highest rank of papal advisers and officers in the Roman Curia.

During the Middle Ages the cardinals played an important role as a corporate body, not only during papal vacancies, as today, but also during the pope's lifetime. In the 12th century the Roman councils that popes had hitherto convoked when urgent matters were at hand were replaced by the assembly of the cardinals, or consistory, which thus became the most important collegial (corporate) body advising the pope and participating in his judicial activity. Eventually it began to make oligarchic claims to a share in the powers of the Petrine office and attempted, with sporadic success, to bind the pope to act on important matters only with its consent. During the 16th century, however, with the final establishment of the Roman congregations (administrative committees), each charged with the task of assisting the pope in a specific area of government, the significance of the consistory began to decline, and with it the importance of the cardinals as a corporate body. At the same time, there was an increase in the power and influence of the "curial" cardinals--those cardinals who did not administer local dioceses but served as the pope's representatives in important foreign affairs or resided permanently in Rome, holding responsibilities in the curial congregations, tribunals, and offices that proliferated in the course of the next three centuries. (see also Index: Petrine theory)

By the early 20th century the growth of the Roman Curia had produced a bewildering tangle of administrative and judicial bodies, in which neither temporal and ecclesiastical functions nor executive and judicial powers were clearly demarcated. The reforms of Pius X (reigned 1903-14) and Benedict XV (reigned 1914-22) clarified and streamlined the work of the Curia, introducing a measure of order into its maze of overlapping jurisdictions. But in the wake of the complaints about abuses of curial power that were voiced at the second Vatican Council (along with requests for an internationalization of curial staff and a modernization of curial functions and procedures), Paul VI pledged himself to act.

Though Paul VI (reigned 1963-78) made some changes in detail, his reforms left intact the basic curial structure created by Pius X, with its tripartite division of the various curial bodies: the Roman congregations composed of cardinals nominated by the pope (e.g., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the former Holy Office and direct descendant of the Roman Inquisition); the tribunals, three in number, which compose the judicial branch of the Curia and one of which, the Rota, handles matrimonial cases; a group of offices, councils, and secretariates, the most important of which is the Secretariate of State, presided over by the cardinal secretary of state, who now emerges as the pope's "prime minister." To promote a higher degree of coordination among the various jurisdictions, provision was made for regular meetings of department heads, summoned and presided over by the cardinal secretary of state. Similarly, to prevent bureaucratic empire-building, most curial appointments were to be made for an initial term of five years. Finally, in response to Vatican II's request, some diocesan bishops were to be present at the plenary sessions of the congregations, efforts were to be made to internationalize the curial staff, and there was to be some attempt to consult the laity. These reforms went into effect in January 1968.

교황은 교회의 수좌로서 일상적인 업무를 결정할 때, 교황청 내의 각 부서, 즉 성성(聖省)의 보필을 받는데, 성성이라는 명칭은 11세기 교황 보좌단 칭호에서 유래한다. 추기경단은 이 교황 보좌단에서 발전한 것이며, 1179년 이래로 교황을 선출하는 독립적인 권한을 행사하고 있다. 최근의 교황들은 전통적으로 70명 이내로 되어 있던 추기경단 수 제한을 폐지하고 추기경들의 국적의 폭도 넓혔으며, 각 추기경이 교회의 국제적인 성격을 대표하도록 하고 있다.

추기경은 교황이 직접 선발하나 교황은 추기경을 선발할 때 교황청의 추기경들과 협의하거나 추기경 비밀종교 회의를 거친 후 결정한다. 추기경들은 자기 관구에서 주교로 재직하거나 바티칸에서 교황의 최고위 고문과 성성의 임원으로 재직한다.


2) The college of bishops.


It has been noted that in Roman Catholicism the college of bishops is the successor to the college of the Apostles. This is said in spite of certain differences between the two offices. The Apostles in the New Testament were a college (except for Paul, not one of the Twelve); the bishops are individual officers, and their collegial function has not been operative in recent centuries. The Apostles had a power that was not defined locally; every Roman Catholic bishop is a bishop of a place, either a proper area, a jurisdiction, of which he is the ordinary (as he is called in church law), or a fictitious place, a see no longer existing, of which he is named titular bishop. Such a monarchical officer does not appear in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Ignatius of Antioch, whose letters (written about 107) provide an early description of the Christian community, was clearly a monarchical bishop, and he did not think himself the only one of his kind; thus, the institution must have arisen in apostolic or early post-apostolic times. (see also Index: apostolic succession)

The bishops in Roman Catholic belief succeed to the apostolic power, which is understood as the power to teach Catholic doctrine, to sanctify the church through the administration of the sacraments, and to govern the church. The residential bishop is supreme in his territory in this threefold function, having no superior other than the Roman pontiff. An archbishop governs a metropolitan see, usually the largest or oldest see in a region of several dioceses called a province. The metropolitan archbishop convokes and presides at provincial synods, or meetings, and has certain rights of visitation; but he has no jurisdiction in the suffragan, or subordinate, sees. The power of the bishop in governing is only over his own diocese; even there, however, it is not absolute, because church law provides the bishop with certain advisory bodies.

Until the second Vatican Council the Roman Catholic Church had not dealt with the ambiguity of two concurrent jurisdictions, pontifical and episcopal. The pope cannot define or limit the powers of a bishop; the powers are "ordinary," inhering in the office itself. The second Vatican Council accepted the emphasis that recent theologians have laid on the collegial character of episcopacy, and the supremacy of the pope is understood as supremacy in the college; the pope needs the college of which he is head, although the first Vatican Council declared that he needs neither its consultation nor its approval. It is now understood that such solitary action should be the emergency rather than the rule; and the synod of bishops, established after the second Vatican Council, was a step toward involving the body of bishops in the policy of the entire church, hitherto formulated exclusively by the Roman see.

The qualifications for a bishop as defined in church law, which is known as canon law, are so general as to suit candidates for any office in the church, major or minor. Bishops have been chosen by the pope since the 11th century; the qualifications are not made public, and the decisions depend on a number of factors that are difficult to assess. In modern practice most bishops have been career administrators in the church, rarely pastors or scholars. Election is a much older tradition, and there have been many calls for a restoration of election of bishops. But because the selection of bishops is a basis of Rome's power over the whole Catholic Church, Rome has been generally unsympathetic to these calls.

Bishops in modern times are more visible as managers of the business of the diocese than as pastors and teachers. The responsibilities of the office are great and demand leadership and the ability to delegate business to a competent staff. A common criticism from certain quarters within the Catholic Church in the mid-20th century was that the episcopacy has been conceived more in terms of power than in terms of leadership. One of the reasons for setting up episcopal conferences of nations and regions following the second Vatican Council was to promote leadership by giving bishops the strength that lies in community. No authentic "Catholic" activity is conducted in a diocese without at least the tacit approval of the bishop; his disposal of funds and persons makes it evident that the activity will flourish much more vigorously if it enjoys his active support and encouragement. His power to discourage or forbid activities, which he is free to use according to his own sole judgment, is both a strength and a weakness of the Roman Catholic structure.

The bishop is assisted in governing the diocese by a staff called, like the staff of the pope, a curia. The structure of the staff is to some extent determined by canon law--e.g., vicar general, chancellor, and official, or head, of the diocesan tribunals. Otherwise, the bishop at his discretion may appoint a staff according to the needs of the diocese. In modern times a great amount of diocesan business has settled upon the bishop. This has become a constant strain on the structure of the Roman Catholic episcopacy; it cannot be a strength when so much of the time of the supreme officer must be consumed by purely routine business. (see also Index: Roman Curia)

The power of the bishop over his clergy has been absolute, with almost no effective restraint except the human kindness of the bishop. This appeared to be changing, following the second Vatican Council, with the institution of senates of priests. The council strongly recommended that bishops introduce priests into the decisions of the diocese, but this was left to the discretion of the bishop.


로마 가톨릭 교회는 주교단이 베드로를 중심으로 구성되었던 사도단의 계승이란 점을 강조해 오고 있다. 그리스도는 베드로에게 수위권을 주었지만 단독으로 교회를 사목하게 하지 않고 동료 사도들과 형제적·공동체적 일치 속에서 사목했다. 같은 이유에서 베드로의 계승자인 교황은 사도단의 계승자들인 동료 주교들과의 일치 속에서 교회를 다스린다. 주교들의 단체적 성격이 가장 강하게 드러나는 때는 공의회를 소집하여 함께 모이는 경우이다. 가장 최근에 열린 공의회는 1962~65년의 제2차 바티칸 공의회이다. 이 공의회 마지막 회기중에 교황 파울루스(바오로) 6세는 교회에 주교들의 단체적 협력을 도입하는 새로운 제도를 만들었는데, 이것이 곧 '주교 회의'이다. 주교 회의는 전세계 주교를 대표하는 모임으로 교황이 소집하며, 교회가 당면한 문제와 사목문제를 협의한다. 이 협의를 통해서 주교들은 교황을 단체적으로 보좌하며, 전세계 주교 및 신자의 의사와 관심을 교황에게 제출한다.

로마 가톨릭 교회에서 주교는 사도권을 계승한다고 믿는데, 이 사도권이란 가톨릭 교리를 가르치고, 성사집행을 통해 교회를 성화시키고, 교회를 통치하는 권한이다. 한 지역에 상주하는 주교는 그 관할지역에서 이 3가지 직분을 수행하며, 로마 교황을 제외한다면 최고의 상급자이다. 가톨릭 교회에는 많은 지역교회 또는 교구가 있다. 대주교는 수도교구, 즉 통상적으로 한 지역에서 가장 규모가 크거나 오래된 교구로서 여러 교구를 포함하는 관구(管區)를 관장한다. 관구 대주교는 관구회의나 교회회의를 소집·주재하며, 사목 방문권을 갖고 있으나, 관구관할교구, 즉 예하 교구에 대한 관할권은 없다. 주교는 자기 교구만을 관할하는 권한이 있다. 교구를 맡고 있는 주교를 교구장이라고 하는데, 그 교구에서 행사하는 권한을 지적하는 칭호이다. 때로는 교구장에게 한 사람 또는 그 이상의 보좌주교 또는 부주교를 두어 신자들을 돌보는 일을 돕게 한다. 그러나 주교의 권한은 자기 교구에서조차도 절대적이 아니다. 왜냐하면 교회법은 주교가 일종의 자문기관을 두도록 규정하고 있기 때문이다.

현대에 와서 주교들은 사목자나 교사라기보다 해당 교구의 업무 관리자로서의 모습을 더 두드러지게 보여주고 있다. 주교의 직책은 책임이 매우 중대하며 지도력뿐 아니라 유능한 참모에게 업무를 위임할 수 있는 능력이 요구된다. 주교는 교구를 다스리면서 교황의 참모진과 같은 성격의 교구성 참모진의 도움을 받는다. 참모진의 구성은 어느 정도까지는 교회법에 의해 규정된다. 그밖의 경우 주교는 자신의 재량으로 교구의 필요에 따라 참모를 임명할 수 있다.

예하 성직자에 대한 주교의 권한은 주교의 인간적인 온정을 제외하고는 효과적인 제지책이 없을 정도로 절대적이다. 그러나 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이후 사제평의회가 구성되면서부터 점차 변화하고 있다. 제2차 바티칸 공의회는 교구의 의결과정이 원칙적으로 주교의 재량에 속한다는 것을 인정했으나 주교들에게 이 과정에 사제들을 참여시킬 것을 강력히 권고하고 있다.


3) Ecumenical councils


Regional councils of bishops to settle doctrinal and disciplinary questions appeared in the 2nd century. The first general council representing the bishops of the whole world (the Greek oikumene referred to the inhabited world) occurred at Nicaea in Asia Minor in 325. The council was convoked not by an ecclesiastical authority but by Constantine, who wished to have a final decision on the Arian controversy. (According to Arius, the Son of God was a creature of similar but not the same substance as God the Father.) The representatives of Constantine's bishop, the bishop of Rome, presided over the council. The Roman Catholic Church has held 21 such assemblies. The chronological distribution of the last three (Trent, 1545-63; first Vatican, 1869-70; second Vatican, 1962-65) shows that in modern times the ecumenical council has been convened less frequently. (see also Index: Nicaea, Council of, Arianism)

Canon law defines an ecumenical council and its procedure; actually, the law represents the procedure followed in the convocation of the first Vatican Council. There is no real criterion for an ecumenical council, and one can say only that those councils are ecumenical that the Roman Catholic Church regards as ecumenical. The Orthodox Churches recognize the first eight only.

The ecumenical council is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme authority. With the pope this makes two supreme authorities; the Roman Church reconciles this logical dilemma by asserting that the ecumenical council, acting with the pope, is supreme. Only the pope can convoke an ecumenical council, and he or his legates must preside. There are no limits to the competence of an ecumenical council, but its decrees must be approved by the pope for validity.

The scandals of the Great Western Schism which at its worst saw three men claiming the papacy, and the corruption of the papal court during the 15th century led to the movement of conciliarism, according to which the ecumenical council was the means of saving the church from scandal and corruption. Much of the policy of the Roman see since that time has been devoted to the suppression of any conciliarist sentiments. This has naturally led to questions about the value of ecumenical councils, which are cumbersome and expensive, when an omnicompetent office such as the papacy is prepared to handle the business of the Roman Catholic Church. Both the first and second Vatican councils illustrated the values of the ecumenical council. Apart from the public and psychological impact produced by a consensus so broad, the council not only makes available for the church a fund of worldwide wisdom and experience not available to the Roman Curia but also seems to generate a state of mind that raises the members of the council above their normal level of thought and action.


교리와 규율상의 문제를 해결하기 위한 지역 주교회의는 2세기에 나타나기 시작했다. 전세계 주교를 대표한 최초의 전체 공의회는 325년 소아시아의 니케아에서 개최되었다.

교회법은 공의회와 그 절차를 규정하고 있는데, 사실상 이 교회법이 채택한 것은 제1차 바티칸 공의회의 절차이다. 공의회에 대한 어떤 실제적인 기준은 없으며, 단지 로마 가톨릭 교회가 에큐메니컬한 것으로 간주하는 교회회의를 공의회라고 말할 수 있을 뿐이다.

로마 가톨릭 교회는 공의회를 최고의 권위로 인정한다. 공의회와 교황은 2개의 최고 권위이다. 로마 교회는 교황과 함께 보조를 맞추는 공의회가 최고의 권위를 갖는다고 주장함으로써 이 논리적 딜레마를 조정한다. 오직 교황만이 공의회를 소집할 수 있으며, 교황이나 교황의 사절만이 회의를 주재할 수 있다. 공의회의 권한에는 제한이 없으나 공의회에서 정한 교령(敎令)은 교황의 인준을 통해서만 효력을 발생한다.

제1차, 제2차 바티칸 공의회는 공의회의 가치에 대해 설명했다. 공의회는 매우 광범위한 합의에 의해 산출된 대중적·심리적 영향은 접어놓더라도 교황청에서 입수할 수 없는 전세계적인 경험과 지혜의 자원을 교회가 이용할 수 있게 해줄 뿐만 아니라, 공의회 회원이 통상적인 생각과 행동 수준보다 더 높은 정신 상태를 갖도록 한다.


4) The priesthood.


The title of priest (Greek hiereus) is given to no church officer in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the office appears in the 2nd century, no doubt with the development of the monarchical episcopate; the bishop needed assistance in his threefold task of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, and the priest exercised this power as an officer of the bishop. A priest is either a member of a diocese or of a religious community; but in the exercise of the threefold ministry every priest is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the ministry is conducted. (see also Index: clergy)

The priest is by definition a cultic officer, and the title designates the second element of the office, the work of sanctification. Certain ambiguities in the Roman Catholic clerical hierarchical system appear clearly in the priesthood. Ordination empowers the priest to administer the sacraments, but he cannot use this power except by receiving "faculties" (proper permission or license) from a bishop. Teaching and preaching are not powers conferred by ordination, but they are subject to the same "faculties." The priest is lowest in the system of government and actually does not govern unless he is a pastor. Governing is not exercised by curates (priests who assist the pastor) or by the large number of priests engaged in specialized works that can hardly be called ministries: administration, teaching, scholarship, journalism, and other activities. (see also Index: pastoral care)

The pastor of the parish is the model priest; in spite of the fact that in large parishes the pastor may be primarily an administrator, Catholics experience their church directly through the parochial clergy. Catholics hear sermons, worship, receive the sacraments, and look for religious counsel and direction in their parish. Many Catholics, particularly in the United States, have their children educated in a school run by the parish. The parish is also the centre of activities ranging from recreation to adult education and to social works, all under the direction of the clergy. In Roman Catholicism the parochial clergy are genuine pastors; the pastoral office has often been reduced for the bishop and is barely visible in the pope. The strength of the Roman Catholic Church historically has been rooted in its priests, especially in its parochial clergy.

Roman Catholicism for centuries has fostered a distinct clerical identity, symbolized by clerical garb, which sets priests as a class apart not only from non-Catholics but from Catholics. The most striking feature of this class, celibacy, has stirred up considerable dissatisfaction in the modern church with celibacy as well as a feeling that it interferes with the ministry. Critics point out that neither in the New Testament nor in the pre-Constantinian church was there a clerical class; the whole church was a people set apart with a mission to the unbelieving world. Because of this dissatisfaction with celibacy and issues related to it there have been a significant number of departures from the priesthood and an alarming fall in the number of candidates. (see also Index: habit)


〈신약성서〉는 사제라는 칭호를 어떤 교회 관리에게도 부여하지 않았다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이 직분은 2세기에 나타나는데, 이는 절대적 권한을 갖는 주교직의 발달과 함께 나타났음이 분명하다. 주교가 가르치고, 성화(聖化)시키고, 다스리는 3중의 직무를 수행하는 데 도움을 필요로 하게 되었으며, 사제는 주교의 보조자로서 권한을 행사했다.

본당 신부는 전형적인 사제이다. 규모가 큰 본당에서는 주로 행정가로서 역할을 수행하지만, 가톨릭 신자들은 본당 신부를 통해 직접 교회 생활을 하게 된다. 가톨릭 신자들은 본당에서 강론을 듣고 미사를 드리며 성사(聖事)를 받고 신앙 상담과 지도를 받는다. 오락에서부터 교육과 사회사업에 이르기까지 광범위한 활동이 본당을 중심으로 이루어지며, 이 모든 활동은 본당 신부의 지도 아래 이루어진다. 역사적으로 볼 때 로마 가톨릭 교회의 힘은 교회의 사제들, 특히 본당 신부들에게 그 바탕을 두고 있다.



수도 단체들

1) Hermits and monks.

은둔자와 수도사

Religious communities in the Roman Catholic Church consist of groups of men or women who live a common life and pronounce vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience (the evangelical counsels). The aim of such a life has traditionally been regarded as the achievement of Christian perfection (theologically defined as perfect love); thus it is an option only for a minority of the members of the church. Roman Catholic theology has never quite rationalized the elitism implicit in this idea nor escaped the implicit denigration of the lay state; but up to modern times both religious and seculars have overcome the need for rationalization by mutual respect and mutual services. (see also Index: monasticism)

The origins of the religious life are seen in the anchorites, or hermits, of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, who escaped sin and temptation by flight from the world, mostly in the deserts of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine. Flight from the world became the rule of the cloister, forbidding both free entrance of "externs" into the enclosure and free egress of religious from the enclosure and imposing supervision in all dealings with seculars. The evangelical counsels meant a life of solitude and destitution and an effort to attain union with God by prolonged, almost constant contemplation. Where large numbers of hermits assembled in the same place, cenobitism (common life) emerged, and the hermits or monks (Greek monachos, "solitary") elected one of their members abbot (Aramaic abba, "father"). Eastern monasticism produced the rules of Pachomius and Basil in the 4th century, and travelers (most notably John Cassian) introduced monasticism into the Latin Church. Eastern monasticism, principally because of a lack of discipline, dissipated much of its energy and had no further influence on the West. Western monasticism was dominated by the rule of Benedict of Nursia in Italy, who founded his communities in the 5th century. (see also Index: cenobitic monasticism)

The Benedictine Rule emphasized less austerity and contemplation and more common life and common work in charity and harmony. It has many offshoots and variations, and it has proved itself sturdy; it is the longest continuous religious community in the Roman Catholic Church, and it has survived many near collapses and reforms. The monk did not join an "order" but a monastery. Benedictine monasteries were almost always located in remote areas. However, because the labour of the monks transformed them into food-producing areas, they became centres of settlement. Thus the monks who had fled the world found that the world sought them out for services, which they gladly rendered. Whatever charitable works existed, were done by them. The monks were also the only people who did anything to preserve the learning of antiquity. They supported church reform and furnished many reforming popes and bishops. Benedict did not put contemplation into his rule; prayer was fulfilled by the chanting of the divine office (a set form of liturgical prayer), celebrated at specific times during the day.

2) Mendicant, friars and clerks regular.

탁발수도사, 수사 및 정규 수사

The 13th century saw the rise of the mendicant friars (Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians). The friary was like a monastery, with common life and the divine office in choir; but the friars made excursions, sometimes at great length both in time and distance, for apostolic works, mostly preaching. All of the mendicant orders had apostolic work in mind in their foundation, and they desired a mobility that was had neither by the monks nor the diocesan clergy. They were thus at the ready disposal of the pope, and the principle of clerical exemption (exemption from the jurisdiction of the bishop) became much more important than it had been for the monks. Originally, the friars did not need even the approval of the bishop to preach in his diocese, although this freedom has been restricted in modern times. Preaching became almost the specialty of the mendicant friars in the Middle Ages, and they were important in the foundation of the universities of the Middle Ages.

The 16th century saw the emergence of the third major form of religious life, that of the clerks regular. These communities were formally and frankly directed to the active ministry. Even the friary, with the divine office in choir and other monastic restrictions, was dropped; they wore no distinctive religious habit. According to Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the best-known example of clerks regular, their life imitated the manner of living of devout secular priests. The Jesuits, almost by accident, had no particular ministry and placed themselves at the disposition of the pope. The clerks regular had even greater mobility than the friars and had the resources to undertake specialized works. Since the 16th century the works of religious communities have been education, foreign missions, preaching, and theological scholarship. Orders founded since the 16th century have adopted the manner of life of the clerks regular.

로마 가톨릭 교회의 수도 단체들은 공동생활을 하고, 청빈·정결·순명(복음적 권고에 따르는 것)의 3대 서약을 통해 자신을 오로지 하느님께 봉헌하며, 복음적 권고를 실천하고 증거하는 남성 또는 여성들의 집단으로 구성된다. 수도생활의 목적은 전통적으로 그리스도인의 완성(신학적으로 완전한 사람으로 정의됨)에 도달하는 것이며, 따라서 수도생활은 단지 소수의 가톨릭 신자들만이 스스로 선택해서 하는 생활이다. 수도단체의 전통은 2,3세기의 은수자들로부터 비롯되었다. 후에 수도단체의 실제생활은 후대의 수도원 생활과 규율을 규정한 베네딕투스 수도회 회칙으로 공식화되었다.

3) Nuns and brothers.

수녀와 조수사(助修士)

Religious communities of women until the 17th century were entirely contemplative and subject to rigid cloister, although from the 16th century onward they began to admit girls into the convent not as novices (those admitted to probationary membership in the community) but to educate them as gentlewomen. The modern communities of women all stem from the type of community instituted in France in the mid-17th century by Vincent de Paul under the name of the Daughters of Charity At first these women were not religious and deliberately so; Vincent did not wish cloister. The group was founded to help the poor and sick and to train their children in religion and the rudiments of education. These have remained the major works of the communities of women.

Religious communities are orders if the members (or some of them) pronounce solemn vows; they are congregations if the members pronounce simple vows. Solemn vows are perpetual; simple vows may be perpetual or temporary. The difference is subtle; solemn vows, although dispensable, were meant to be a more permanent and durable consecration than simple vows. Men who make religious profession but who do not receive the sacrament of holy orders are "brothers." (see also Index: religious order)

Secular institutes have arisen since World War II. They are not religious (and therefore do not pronounce the three vows), have little or no common life in a common residence, have no superior but rather a manager of the few common affairs, and intend to bear Christian witness in the world in any type of secular employment.






The laity as a class do not appear in the New Testament; there could only be a laity when a clergy had come into being. When the laity appear, they are the passive element of the church. If the office of the clergy is conceived as teaching, sanctifying, and governing, then the function of the laity is to be taught, sanctified, and governed. Misleading identification of the church with the clergy (and, within the clergy, with the hierarchy) results.

The modern term Catholic Action (especially under Pius X and Pius XI) meant in general the assistance of the laity in the mission of the church. Yet, as it was more closely defined, the mission of the church was still entirely clerical, and lay action was accessory to the mission proper. The laity were merely the arm of the hierarchy. Furthermore, lay action fell under close direction and supervision of the hierarchy and clergy. It is not surprising that an action so vaguely defined, so patronized, and so uninspiring aroused relatively little response.

Much of the 19th and 20th centuries saw the Roman Catholic Church engaged with anticlericalism in the "Catholic" countries of Europe; this seems to be a peculiarly Roman Catholic phenomenon. Actually, anticlericalism is a rejection of the medieval belief in the power of the clergy to direct all the decisions of the layperson that they thought themselves entitled to direct. Reaction in an exaggerated form nearly excluded the clergy from any activity except public worship in some countries.

The second Vatican Council definitely rejected clericalism. It called "secular" all nonecclesiastical activity and declared that the secular is the proper area of the layperson. This means that laypersons are the judges of how to realize their Christian destiny in the secular sphere. Proper does not mean exclusive, but the statement implies that the clergy can offer only principles and general directions, not make specific decisions. The Roman Catholic Church intended to make the laity the channel of its relevance in the world.

The council also took steps against the passive role of the laity in ecclesiastical life. It recommended the establishment of lay councils in each diocese and in each parish. This has moved slowly because Roman Catholics are not accustomed to the idea and are uncertain about how it should be implemented. As the secular is the proper but not the exclusive area of the laity, so the ecclesiastical is the proper but not the exclusive area of the hierarchy and the clergy.


하나의 계급으로서 평신도는 〈신약성서〉에 나타나지 않는다. 아마도 성직자가 생겨나면서 비로소 평신도라는 개념도 생겼기 때문일 것이다. 평신도들은 교회의 수동적 요소에 불과했다. 교회의 직분이 가르치고 성화시키고 다스리는 것으로 이해된다면, 평신도의 기능은 주로 가르침을 받고 성화되고 다스림을 받는 것으로 이해된다.




The earliest individual church law was called a canon (Greek kanon, "rule, measure, standard"); the canons were finally called Canon Law. Church laws appear almost as soon as church authority, and some passages of the New Testament reflect early rules; whether they should be called law at this primitive stage is doubtful. Laws of dioceses or of regions appear even before Constantine; they were formed by diocesan synods or regional councils. Laws for the whole church appear with the earliest ecumenical councils. Canon Law remained scattered pieces of papal, conciliar, and diocesan legislation until the 12th century. The first collection and synthesis of Canon Law was made by Gratian in 1142, the Decretum GratianiTo this collection in the next 400 years were added the decretals (papal decrees on points of law) produced in the reigns of Gregory IX (1234), Boniface VIII (1298), and John XXII (1317) and two collections known as Extravagantes (1500). These formed the Corpus Juris Canonici("Body of Canon Law"); no further collection of laws was made later than the Corpus. Effectively, although not formally, Canon Law included the opinions of canonists interpreting the Corpus.

This unsatisfactory and cumbersome collection led to calls for codification. No doubt the desire was influenced by the production of the Napoleonic Code, which became the basic law of most of the nations of western Europe. The codification was begun by a document of Pius X (1904) and was completed, directed by Cardinal Pietro Gasparri throughout, under Benedict XV (1917); it became law in 1918. This code remained the basic law of the Roman Catholic Church until 1983, when a new Codex Juris Canonici was instituted. (see also Index: law code)

The history and structure of church law are treated more fully under CHRISTIANITY: Canon law


가톨릭 교회는 교회의 모든 권한이 그리스도로부터 오며(마태 28:18), 그리스도께서는 하느님 백성의 선악, 교회 및 신앙의 성장을 위해 제자들에게 다스릴 권한을 부여했다(마태 16:19)고 믿는다. 따라서 이렇게 위임받은 사목권에 의해 교황과 주교들은 법규를 내놓았다. 최초의 개별적인 교회법은 캐논(Canon:'규칙'·'자'·'표준'을 뜻하는 그리스어 'kanon'에서 유래)으로 불렸는데, 이 '캐논들'이 마침내 교회법(Canon Law)으로 불렸다. 교회법들은 교회의 권위와 거의 같은 시기에 나타났으며, 〈신약성서〉의 일부 구절들은 초기의 규칙들을 반영한다. 교회법이 최초로 수집·종합된 것은 1142년이었다.



[ ] [ 위로 ] [ 목차 ] [ 역사 ] [ 종교개혁과 반 개혁 ] [ 교회의 조직 ] [ 신앙 ] [ 한국의 천주교 ] [ 참고문헌 ]


 게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?

[ 뒤로 ] [ ] [ 위로 ] [ 다음 ] Homepage

This page was last modified 2001/09/23