TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Two
AN EVOLUTION AND HERMENEUTICS OF
THE FOUNDATIONAL CANONS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
2.1 SOURCES OF CAN. 129............................................................................................1
2.2 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 129.......................................................................................3
2.2.1 Schema normis 1979 (Can. 96).....................................................................3
2.2.2 Schema codicis 1980 (Can. 126)...................................................................4
2.2.3 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 129)...................................................................6
2.2.4 CIC 1983 (Can. 129).....................................................................................7
2.3 SOURCES OF CAN. 204 §1.......................................................................................7
2.4 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 204 §1..................................................................................7
2.4.1 Schema populo Dei (Can. 16).......................................................................8
2.4.2 Schema codicis 1980 (Can. 201)...................................................................9
2.4.3 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 204).................................................................11
2.4.4 CIC 1983 (Can. 204)...................................................................................11
2.5 SOURCES OF CAN. 208..........................................................................................12
2.6 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 208.....................................................................................12
2.6.1 Schema populo Dei 1977 (Can. 18)............................................................12
2.6.2 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 208).................................................................14
2.6.3 CIC 1983 (Can. 208)...................................................................................14
2.7 HERMENEUTICAL INVESTIGATION OF CANN. 129, 204 §1 AND 208..................15
2.7.1 Can. 129......................................................................................................15
2.7.1.1 Sacred Order.........................................................................................16
2.7.1.2 Power of Governance (Potestas regiminis)..........................................17
2.7.1.3 Lay Members Called to Cooperate (Cooperari)..................................18
2.7.1.4 In Accordance with the Law................................................................19
2.7.2 Can. 204 §1.................................................................................................20
2.7.2.1 Christ’s Faithful (Christifideles)..........................................................21
2.7.2.2 Baptismal Incorporation a Call for Communion..................................22
2.7.2.3 Participation in Tria munera................................................................23

i
 2.7.2.4 Juridical Nature of Essential Equality and Distinction in Functions.......
…………………………………………………………………………….. 24
2.7.3 Can. 208......................................................................................................25
2.7.3.1 Principle of Radical or Fundamental Equality.....................................25
2.7.3.2 Equality of Dignity (dignitate) and Action (actione)...........................26
2.7.3.3 Cooperation to Build the Body of Christ.............................................27
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................28

ii
 Chapter Two
AN EVOLUTION AND HERMENEUTICS OF THE
FOUNDATIONAL CANONS
INTRODUCTION

The Church is societas and the Church is communio1 of the people of God,
i.e., clergy, laity and religious who form the Church (cf. can. 207, AG 2; LG 9; CCC
777).2 It is clear from the beginning ecclesiae that the laity makes up the greatest
majority of the people of God.3 As a result, after the Second Vatican Council, “a
new awareness by the laity that they are the Church and that they have a
responsibility, in a certain sense, to create the Church. They discuss questions about
the Church because they feel responsible for the Church.” 4 Therefore, after the
Council, several authors started to discuss and bring to reality in CIC 1983 the
existence and effectiveness of the rights of the faithful including the laity to be
involved in good governance of the Church.5 Hence, the following pages of this
chapter analyse foundational canons, i.e., cann. 129, 204 §1 and 208 envisaged in
ius vigens, the footing for the synodal walk of the laity in communion, participation
and mission through juridically exercising tria munera Christi in the Church.

2.1 SOURCES OF CAN. 129

Canon 1296 is located in Book I: General Norms (De normis generalibus),

under Title VIII: Power of Governance (De potestate regiminis). This canon has two
paragraphs. Canon 196 of CIC 19177 is the direct source of can. 129 §1.

1
Cf. G. BORGONOVO – A. CATTANEO (ed.), Canon Law and Communio, Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
Romae 1999, 225.
2
Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Theological Publications in India, Bengaluru 2021, n. 777.
(= CCC)
3
Cf. L.J. SPITERI, Canon Law Explained: A Handbook for Laymen, Sophia Institute Press,
Manchester 2013, 3.
4
P. PHILIBERT, Yves Congar: True and False Reform in the Church, Liturgical Press, Minnesota
2011, 39.
5
Cf. J. CANOSA, “La consideraciòn del buen gobierno en la iglesia como un derecho de los fieles”, in
Ius Canonicum 62 (2022) 124, 626.
6
Canon 129: Ҥ1 Those who are in sacred order are, in accordance with the provisions of law,
capable of the power of governance, which in fact belongs to the Church by divine institution. This
power is also called the power of jurisdiction.
§2 Lay members of Christ’s faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power in accordance
with law.”
7
Canon 196 of CIC 1917: “The power of jurisdiction or governance, which exists in the Church by
divine institution, is for the external forum and for the internal forum or conscience, whether
sacramental or extra-sacramental.”

1
 The resolution of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (now Dicastery for
the Clergy)8, indult granted by the Roman Pontiff to the President of the Pontifical
Commission for Russia and to the Ordinaries in Russia 9, Pope Pius XII’s Allocution
Quelques aspects fondamentaux de l’apostolat des laïcs 10, LG 33, AA 24, the
Apostolic Signatura’s decision for the Spécies fàcti presented by one of the Ordinary
of the dioceses of the Catholic Church requesting the Supreme Pontiff to grant the
faculty to assume the role of an ecclesiastical judge, promoter of justice, defender of
bond or assessor in cases of nullity of marriage by the laity where the shortage of
priestly experts or the ever-increasing number of marriage cases are found 11, rescript
of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes 12, decree on the
manner in which lay members may participate in the governance of the Clerical
Religious Institutions13, faculty issued by the Apostolic Signatura to allow laymen to
assume the office of judge assessors or instructor in non-marital ecclesiastical
cases14, Pope Paul VI Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi 73a15, rescript from
the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes on the question of
access to the lay brothers to the offices of the governance in the Order of Friars

8
Cf. SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE COUNCIL, Resolution Constitutionis tribunalium
ecclesiasticorum, (14.12.1918), in AAS 11 (1919), 128-133.
9
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO PRO RUSSIA, Indult Facultas laicis concessa ferendi ss. eucharistiam
catholicis in carceribus detentis (20.01.1930), n. 951, in X. OCHOA, Leges ecclesiae: Leges annis
1917-1941, Vol. 1, Editiones Instituti Iuridici Clarentiani Via Giacomo Medici, Romae 1966, 1151.
10
Cf. PIUS XII, Allocution Quelques aspects fondamentaux de l’apostolat des laïcs (05.10.1957), in
AAS 49 (1957), 924-931.
11
Cf. APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA, Decision Facultas assumendi laicos as munus iudicis ecclesiastici,
promotoris iustitiae, defensoris vinculi vel assessoris in causis nullitatis matrimonii implorari debet
a summo pontifice (11.01.1968), n. 3664, in X. OCHOA, Leges ecclesiae: Leges annis 1959-1968,
Vol. 3, Editiones Instituti Iuridici Clarentiani Via Giacomo Medici, Romae 1972, 5385.
12
Cf. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR INSTITUTES, Rescript Facultas datur
ut fratres laici eligi possint delegati as capitulum provinciale (07.02.1969), n. 3714, in X. OCHOA,
Leges ecclesiae: Leges annis 1969-1972, Vol. 4, Editiones Instituti Iuridici Clarentiani Via Giacomo
Medici, Romae 1974, 5475.
13
Cf. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR INSTITUTES, Decree De ratione qua
sodales laici regimen institutorum religiosorum clericalium participare possint (27.12.1969), in AAS
61 (1969), 739-740.
14
Cf. SECRETARIATE OF STATES, Faculty Facultas datur Signaturae Apostolicae permittendi ut viri
laici assumantur ad munus iudicis assessoris vel instructoris in causis ecclesiasticis non
matrimonialibus (01.10.1974), n. 4317, in X. OCHOA, Leges ecclesiae: Leges annis 1973-1978, Vol.
5, Editiones Instituti Iuridici Clarentiani Via Giacomo Medici, Romae 1980, 6856.
15
Cf. PAUL VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi (08.12.1975), n. 73, in AAS 68 (1976), 61.

2
Minor16, Sacred Congregation for Clergy Directive norms Postquam apostoli no. 7
and 1717 are some of the direct sources of can. 129 §2.18

2.2 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 129

Canon 129 has been formulated after a long evolutionary process and bears a
lot of difference from its equivalent canon in CIC 1917, i.e., can. 196. Therefore,
this part discusses Coetus studiorum systematic analysis Schemae, which, after
taking into account the necessity to give the laity their due in the power of
governance in the Church, led to the current formulation of can. 129.

2.2.1 Schema normis 1979 (Can. 96)

Canon 96 of 1979 Schema normis states:

Those who are in sacred order are, in accordance with the

provisions of the law, capable of the power of governance in the Church; in
the exercise of the same power, in so far as indeed it is not based on the
same sacred order, those who have not been marked with the sacred order
can have only that part which the supreme authority of the Church allows
them for each individual reasons.19
The discussion of the aforementioned canon is situated in De normis
generalibus, under the title V: De potestatis regiminis exercitio by Coetus studiorum
occurred from 26 November to 1 December 1979. 20 The Mons. Secretary at the
beginning of the discussion noted that the aforementioned can. 96 is approved by the
competent Sacred Congregation of the Roman Curia and the laity needs to be
informed about it concerning their role and what the hierarchy allows them to do in
terms of the exercise of office. The second and sixth Consultor disagreed with it.

16
Cf. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR INSTITUTES, Rescript Quaestio de
accessu fratrum laicorum as officia regiminis in ordine fratrum minorum proponi nequit ante
promulgationem codicis iuris canonici recogniti (21.08.1978), n. 4584, in X. OCHOA, Leges
ecclesiae: Leges annis 1973-1978, Vol. 5, Editiones Instituti Iuridici Clarentiani Via Giacomo
Medici, Romae 1980, 7477.
17
Cf. SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CLERGY, Directive Norms De mutua ecclesiarum particularium
cooperatione promovenda ac praesertim de aptiore cleri distributione postquam apostoli
(25.03.1980), in AAS 72 (1980), 343-364. (= PA)
18
Cf. A. VIANA, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA
(eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal, Canada 2004, 819; R. MAURO, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in A CURA DELLA REDAZIONE
DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO ECCLESIALE, Codice di diritto canonico commentato, Ancora Editrice,
Milano 2001, 176.
19
Canon 96 of 1979 Schema Normis: “Potestatis regiminis in Ecclesia, ad normam praescriptorum
iuris, habiles sunt, qui ordine sacro sunt insigniti; in exercitio eiusdem potestatis, quatenus quidem
eodem ordine sacro non innititur, ii qui ordine sacro non sunt insigniti eam tantum partem habere
possunt quam singulis pro causis auctoritas Ecclesiae suprema ipsis concedit.”
20
Cf. EX ACTIS PONTIFICIAE COMMISSIONIS CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus
studiorum: De normis generalibus”, in Communicationes 23 (1991) 2, 211-221.

3
The fifth Consultor proposed that the text approved by the competent Sacred
Congregation of the Roman Curia cannot be substantially modified; however, the
participation of the laity in the ecclesiastical offices can be given priority. The
second Consultor suggested an alternative text of the certain Conference of Bishops,
i.e., “...even the power called jurisdiction, which is a divine institution in the
Church, can only be held by those who are distinguished by the sacred order,
according to the different degrees of the order.” 21 The fourth Consultor stressed the
importance of the Holy Order in the assuming of the ecclesiastical office. But then
the first Consultor noted that the laity participated in the triple functions (tria
munera) by baptism and so by definition they are sacred and that an office without
relative rights did not exist. The first Consultor’s opinion went along with the fifth
Consultor, i.e., the laity can have what they were instructed by the authority of the
Church. Finally, the majority of the Consultors, i.e., 3 out of 6 agreed to use the draft
text of can. 96 as a basis for further formulations. 22 However, the Mons. Secretary
observed that the word ‘to instruct (instruere)’ is applied to the power but not to its
exercise. Nonetheless, the second Consultor declared a contrary opinion “in so far as
it is not based on the same sacred order (quatenus quidem eodem ordine sacro non
innititur).”23 Lastly, all the above-mentioned changes are incorporated into the
successive Schema codicis of 1980.

2.2.2 Schema codicis 1980 (Can. 126)

Canon 126 of 1980 Schema codicis states:

Those who are in sacred orders are, in accordance with the

provisions of law, capable of the power of governance, which in fact
belongs to the Church by divine institution. This power is also called the
power of jurisdiction; in the exercise of this same power, insofar as it is
not based on the same sacred order, Christ’s faithful can be part of it
which for individual reasons the Supreme Authority of the Church grants to
them.24

21
EX ACTIS PONTIFICIAE COMMISSIONIS CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulus V: De
potestatis regiminis exercitio”, in Communicationes 23 (1991) 2, 220: “…etiam potestas
iurisdictionis vocata, quae quidem ex divina institutione est in Ecclesia, tantum ab iis haberi potest,
qui ordine sacro sunt insigniti, iuxta diversos ordinis gradus.”
22
Cf. EX ACTIS PONTIFICIAE COMMISSIONIS CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulus V:
De potestatis regiminis exercitio”, in Communicationes 23 (1991) 2, 220.
23
EX ACTIS PONTIFICIAE COMMISSIONIS CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulus V: De
potestatis regiminis exercitio”, in Communicationes 23 (1991) 2, 221.
24
EX ACTIS PONTIFICIAE COMMISSIONIS CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulus V: De
potestatis regiminis exercitio”, in Communicationes 23 (1991) 2, 221: Canon 126 of Schema Codicis
1980: “Potestatis regiminis, quae quidem ex divina institutione est in ecclesia et etiam potestas
iurisdictionis vocatur, ad normam praescriptorum iuris, habiles sunt, qui ordine sacro sunt insigniti;

4
 Coetus studiorum showed disagreement concerning the laity not being
capable of the power of governance (habiles potestatis regiminis) formulated in the
previous Schema normis 1979. Coetus once more brought up the issue of the laity
being incapable of the exercise of the power of governance. 25 Therefore, one of the
Consultors named Bernardin proposed to modify can. 126 of 1980 Schema codicis
to the previous Schema normis 1979.26 Taking into consideration of the previous
Schema, the Consultors Palazzini and Freeman initiated a change of words as, “And
also called the power of jurisdiction (et etiam potestas iurisdictionis vocatur).”27
However, the Consultors Freeman, O’Connell and Bernardin stated that the Code has
well-defined terminology and does not use two terms indicating the same institution
Church and divine institution.28 Yet, the final response of the Consultors is, “It seems
necessary that the text should remain, because previously there is always a question
of the power of jurisdiction; by keeping the word ‘this (hoc)’, all can know what
kind of power it is about.”29

Once again, the amended text is proposed as follows:

“Those who are in sacred orders are, in accordance with the

provisions of law, capable of the power of governance, which in fact

in exercitio eiusdem potestatis, quatenus eodem ordine sacro non innititur, christifideles laici eam
parttem habere possunt quam singulis pro causis auctoritas ecclesiae suprema ipsis concedit.”
25
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 37; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI
RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulum VI: De personis physicis et iuridicis”, in Communicationes 14 (1982) 2,
146.
26
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 37-38.
27
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens synthesim
animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema codicis
iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 38.
28
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 38; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI
RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulum VI: De personis physicis et iuridicis”, in Communicationes 14 (1982) 2,
146.
29
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens synthesim
animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema codicis
iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 38; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO,
“Titulum VI: De personis physicis et iuridicis”, in Communicationes 14 (1982) 2, 146: “Necesse
videtur ut maneat textus, quia antea semper quaestio fuit de potestate iurisdictionis; servato boc
verbo, omnes scire possunt de quanam potestate agatur.”

5
 belongs to the Church by divine institution. This power is also called the
power of jurisdiction.”30
Can. 126 of 1980 Schema codicis established that those who are lay faithful
can have that part that the supreme authority of the Church grants to each individual
cause, so they can exercise their power of governance insofar as it is not based on a
sacred order, one of the Consultors added after the slight modification of the above
text. Taking all the aforementioned suggestions Coetus instructed that the questions
raised above be committed to be resolved by the Plenary Assembly of the
Commission.31

2.2.3 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 129)

Canon 129 of 1982 Schema codicis states:

Those who are in sacred orders are, in accordance with the

provisions of law, capable of the power of governance, which in fact
belongs to the Church by divine institution. This power is also called the
power of jurisdiction; in the exercise of this same power, Christ’s faithful,
however, may have part of it, which for individual reasons the supreme
authority of the Church grants to them.32
Canon 129 of 1982 Schema codicis incorporated all the suggested changes
proposed by can. 126 of 1980 Schema codicis and the Plenary Assembly of the
Commission. The Consultors remained satisfied with can. 129 of 1982 Schema
codicis. Still, Coetus added the word ‘tamen’ (however) concerning the exercise of
the power of jurisdiction by Christ’s faithful, in the individual cases the supreme

30
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens synthesim
animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema codicis
iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 38; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO,
“Titulum VI: De personis physicis et iuridicis”, in Communicationes 14 (1982) 2, 146-147:
“Potestatis regiminis, quae quidem ex divina institutione est in ecclesia et etiam potestas
iurisdictionis vocatur, ad normam praescriptorum iuris, habiles sunt qui ordine sacro sunt insigniti.”
31
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Titulum VI: De personis
physicis et iuridicis”, in Communicationes 14 (1982) 2, 149; A.W. BUNGE, Las claves del còdigo: El
libro I del codigo de derecho canònico, San Benito, Argentina 2006, 259; See the resolution by the
Plenary Assembly of the Commission in. G. MAZZONI, “Ministerialità e potestà”, in GRUPPO
ITALIANO DOCENTI DI DIRITTO CANONICO (ed.), I laici nella ministerialità della chiesa, Edizioni
Glossa Srl, Milano 2000, 80-84; CONGREGATION FOR THE INTERPREATTION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS,
Congregatio plenaria: diebus 20-29 Octobris 1981 habita, Typus Polyglottis Vaticanis, Vatican City
1991.
32
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Schema novissimum iuxta
placita patrum commissionis emendatum atque summo pontifici praesentatum, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Romae 1982, 21; “Potestatis regiminis, quae quidem ex divina institutione est in Ecclesia
et etiam potestas iurisdictionis vocatur, ad normam praescriptorum iuris, habiles sunt, qui ordine
sacro sunt insigniti; in exercitio eiusdem potestatis, christifideles laici tamen eam partent habere
possunt, quam singulis pro causis auctoritas Ecclesiae suprema ipsis concedit.”

6
authority of the Church grants to them.33 In the end, can. 129 of 1982 Schema
codicis is incorporated in can. 129 of CIC 1983 with two separate paragraphs with
few further changes.

2.2.4 CIC 1983 (Can. 129)

The finally promulgated text of can. 129 of CIC 1983 prescribes:

§1 Those who are in sacred orders are, in accordance with the

provisions of law, capable of the power of governance, which in fact
belongs to the Church by divine institution. This power is also called the
power of jurisdiction.
§2 Lay members of Christ’s faithful can cooperate in the exercise
of this same power in accordance with the law.34
Canon 129 §2 is derogated completely from the previous can. 129 of 1982
Schema codicis, i.e., in the exercise of this same power, Christ’s faithful, however
(tamen), may have part of it, which for individual reasons the supreme authority of
the Church grants to them (eam partent habere possunt, quam singulis pro causis
auctoritas ecclesiae suprema ipsis concedit). The newly promulgated text is “Lay
members of Christ’s faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power in
accordance with the law.” It means the lay members of Christ’s faithful can
cooperate (cooperari) in the power of jurisdiction which is bestowed by the power
of sacred order in accordance with the law itself and no need for individual cases,
the supreme authority of the Church is granted to Christ’s faithful.35

2.3 SOURCES OF CAN. 204 §1

Canon 204 §1 is placed in Book II: The People of God (De populo Dei),
under Part I: Christ’s Faithful (De Christifidelibus). The source for can. 204 §1 is the
various numbers quoted from LG 9 -17, 31, 34-36, AA 2, 6-10.36

33
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Schema novissimum iuxta
placita patrum commissionis emendatum atque summo pontifici praesentatum, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Romae 1982, 21.
34
Canon 129 of CIC 1983: Ҥ1. Potestatis regiminis, quae quidem ex divina institutione est in
ecclesia et etiam potestas iurisdictionis vocatur, ad normam praescriptorum iuris, habiles sunt, qui
ordine sacro sunt insigniti.
§2. In exercitio eiusdem potestatis, christifideles laici ad normam iuris cooperari possunt.”
35
Cf. A.W. BUNGE, Las claves del còdigo: El libro I del còdigo de derecho canònico, San Benito,
Argentina 2006, 260.
36
Cf. J. FORNÉS, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA
(eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal, Canada 2004, 13.

7
2.4 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 204 §1

There is no equivalent canon in CIC 1917 for can. 204 §1. Therefore, the
systematic discussion process started from scratch by Coetus to arrive at the present
formulation of can. 204 §1. Canon 204 §1 is created to provide Christifideles with
their theological and juridical status in ecclesia, which was given less weight in the
prior Code.

2.4.1 Schema populo Dei (Can. 16)

Canon 16 of populo Dei states:

By the name Christ’s faithful are understood all men who, having
been incorporated into Christ by baptism, have been constituted into the
people of God, and who, by this reason have become partakers of Christ’s
priestly, prophetic and kingly each one, according to his particular condition
of law, to fulfil the mission that God has entrusted to the Church in the
world.37
In the first session of 16 October 1979, Coetus took up the discussion of the
aforementioned can. 16 of populo Dei.38 In the beginning, the first Consultor raised
concern about the definition of ‘Christ’s faithful (Christifideles)’ proposed by can.
16 of populo Dei and offered a modified definition. 39 Nevertheless, the second
Consultor suggested the definition put forth by some of the Episcopal Conference as
“the quality of being a member of the Church and in this respect, the union by grace
with Christ.”40

After the above discussion, a new discussion on the incorporation into Christ
(incorporati Christo) and being constituted (constituti) members of the Church
occurred. The Consultors agreed that incorporation into Christ belongs more to the
sphere of grace, while incorporation into the Church expresses an essentially
37
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 59; “Nomine
christifidelium intelleguntur homines qui, utpote baptismo Christo incorporati, in populum Dei sunt
constituti, quique hac ratione, de munere Christi sacerdotali, prophetico et regali pro parte sus
participes facti, unusquisque secundum propriam condicionem iuridicam, ad mission quam Deus
ecclesiae in mundi adimplendam concredidit exercendam vocantur.”
38
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 54.
39
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 59; “Christ’s
faithful who, having been constituted as the People of God by baptism, have been incorporated into
Christ, and who, in this way, have become partakers of Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal office in
their own way, are called, each according to his own particular condition of law, to carry out the
mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfil in the world.”
40
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De populo
Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 59.

8
juridical aspect. In the aforementioned text, the Relator indicated his voice to keep
the text as it is. However, the President of Coetus preferred the usage of ‘in baptism,
the people of God are constituted and are incorporated in Christ.’ 41 In the end, “The
Mons. Secretary asked the Consultors whether to retain can. 16 as an introductory
canon or else the mention of ‘rights and duties’ must also be added to it. For this
suggestion, the Relator and the first Consultor agreed. The Realtor put forward
another question regarding ‘Who is considered the People of God? (Christifideles)’,
and is the expression People of God reserved only for Catholics? For this, the
Attorney stated that in CIC those who are in full communion with the Church are
called Christifideles. To which the Relator replies by stating that those who are
baptized but are not in full communion with the Church are also called
Christifideles.42 However, the fourth Consultor accepted the proposal made by the
first Consultor at the beginning of the discussion.

The Mons. Secretary proposed to put a vote on whether to change the

expression ‘for your part (pro parte sua)’ to ‘his way (suo modo)’ in the text of can.
16 of populo Dei. In favour of the phrase in the text of the Council, ‘his way (suo
modo)’ proposed the expression of ‘for your part (pro parte sua)’ which explicates
not only the mode of exercise of tria munera, but also real participation. The first
Consultor preferred the word ‘in his own way (suo modo)’ because of the better
emphasis it mentioned about the difference between the ‘Christifideles.’ The Relator
reiterates his preference for both the expression ‘for your part (pro parte sua)’ and
for the original text of the Council. The expression ‘for part of him’ also includes ‘in
his own way (suo modo)’. The Relator also returns to the first part of the already
amended text, “As Christians…” and proposes to say ‘Christ’s faithful are those
who, by baptism… (Christifideles sunt qui utpote baptismo…),’ because it gives a
normative definition.43 All the proposed changes are included in Schema codicis
1980.

2.4.2 Schema codicis 1980 (Can. 201)

Canon 201 of Schema codicis 1980 states:

41
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 59.
42
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 60.
43
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 61.

9
 Christ’s faithful are those who, because by baptism incorporated
into Christ, are established in the people of God and who for this reason,
sharing in their own way in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly role of
Christ, are called, according to the proper juridical condition of each, {to
carry out the mission which God gave the Church to fulfil in the world.}44
Cardinals Siri, Philippe, Parecattil, Bafile and Palazzini and Excellency
Stewart didn’t like the above-said Schema codicis 1980. The Consultors sensed that
the text is better in can. 1 of the Schema of 1977 populo Dei45 or the text of can. 5
Schema LEF and decided to add it in the Code as it is. The reason is, here and other
places in the Code deals with Christ’s faithful, namely those who are in full
communion with the Catholic Church through the bonds of the profession of faith,
the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance (cf. can. 11 §1). 46 During the
discussion concerning can. 201 Cardinal König opined that baptism completes the
other sacraments of initiation (cf. cann. 270 §1, 595 §2).

After the final discussion at the end, the Consultor Archbishop Bernardin
specified that according to LG 31, the following words must be said at the end of the
canon, i.e., the juridical, for their part, exercise the mission of the whole Christian
people in the Church and the world. The rationale is that the Church comprises
Christians who are called by baptism to the service and mission of the Church. So,
Coetus responded that the above-given opinion can’t be accepted, because LG 31
refers especially to Christian laymen, while can. 201 should be more open.47
44
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De populo
Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 61; E.N. PETERS
(ed.), Incrementa in progressu 1983 codicis iuris canonici, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal 2005,
143; G. GHIRLANDA, “De variis ordinibus et condicionibus iurisdicis in ecclesia”, in Periodica 71
(1982) 3, 379: Canon 201 of Schema codicis 1980: “Christifideles sunt qui, utpote baptismo Christo
incorporati, in populum Dei sunt constituti, atque hac ratione, de munere Christi sacerdotali,
prophetico et regali suo modo participes facti, secundum propriam cuiusque condicionem iuridicam,
ad mission {quam Deus ecclesiae in mundo adimplendam concredidit exercendam vocantur}.”
45
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 55; Canon 1
of the Schema populo Dei 1977 and can. 5 Schema LEF: “Baptismo homo ecclesiae Christi
incorporatur et in eadem constituitur persona, cum officiis et iuribus quae christianis, attenta quidem
eorum condicione, sunt propria, quatenus in ecclesiastica sunt communione atque nisi obstet lata
legitime sanctio.”
46
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 50; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI
RECOGNOSCENDO, “Liber II: De populo Dei: Animadversiones generales pars I ad can. 201”, in
Communicationes 14 (1982) 1, 157.
47
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 50; PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI
RECOGNOSCENDO, “Liber II: De populo Dei: Animadversiones generales pars I ad can. 201”, in

10
2.4.3 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 204)

Canon 204 of Schema codicis 1982 states:

Christ’s faithful are those who, since they are incorporated into
Christ through baptism, are constituted the people of God. For this reason,
they participate in their own way of priestly, prophetic and kingly office
of Christ, are called, each according to his or her particular condition, to
exercise the mission which God entrusted to the Church to fulfil in the
world.48
A few slight modifications are done in the aforementioned canon considering
can. 201 of Schema codicis 1980. In can. 201 of Schema codicis 1980 cited that it is
by baptism (utpote baptismo) that Christ’s faithful are incorporated into Christ.
Whereas, can. 204 of Schema codicis 1982 modifies it as through baptism (per
baptismum). And Who (atque) is omitted in the revised Schema. The office (De
munere) of Christ (Christi) is modified into muneris Christi (office of Christ).
While, in can. 201, sacerdotali, prophetico et regali (in the priestly, prophetical, and
kingly office of Christ) wordings are in the ablative case, which is modified in can.
204 of Schema codicis 1982 as sacerdotalis, prophetici et regalis (of priestly,
prophetic and kingly) in the genitive case.49

2.4.4 CIC 1983 (Can. 204)

The finally promulgated text of can. 204 of CIC 1983 states:

§1 Christ’s faithful are those who, since they are incorporated into
Christ through baptism, are constituted the people of God. For this reason,
they participate in their own way in the priestly, prophetic and kingly office
of Christ. They are called, each according to his or her particular condition,
to exercise the mission which God entrusted to the Church to fulfil in the
world.
§2 The Church, established and ordered in this world as a
society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of
Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.50
Communicationes 14 (1982) 1, 157; J. KOMONCHAK, “The Status of the Faithful in Revised Code of
Canon Law”, in Concilium 147 (1981) 7, 38.
48
Canon 204 of the Schema codicis 1982: “Christifideles sunt qui, utpote per baptismum Christo
incorporati, in populum Dei sunt constituti, atque hac ratione, muneris Christi sacerdotalis,
prophetici et regalis suo modo participes facti, secundum propriam cuiusque condicionem iuridicam,
ad missionem {exercendam vocantur, quam Deus ecclesiae in mundo adimplendam concredidit}”;
49
Cf. E.N. PETERS (ed.), Incrementa in progressu 1983 codicis iuris canonici, Wilson & Lafleur
Ltée, Montréal 2005, 143.
50
Canon 204 of CIC 1983: Ҥ1 Christifideles sunt qui, utpote per baptismum Christo incorporati, in
populum Dei sunt constituti, atque hac ratione, muneris Christi sacerdotalis, prophetici et regalis
suo modo participes facti, secundum propriam cuiusque condicionem, ad missionem exercendam
vocatur, quam Deus ecclesiae in mundo adimplendam concredidit.
§2 Haec ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in ecclesia catholica,
a successore Petri et episcopis in eius communione gubernata.”

11
2.5 SOURCES OF CAN. 208

Canon 208 is cited in Book II: The People of God (De Populo Dei), under
Part I: Christ’s faithful (De Christifidelibus), in Title I: The Obligations and Rights
of all Christ’s faithful (De omnium Christifidelium obligationibus et iuribus). Canon
208 has one paragraph. For can. 208, no equivalent canon is found in CIC 1917.
However, in the journey of evolution and the formulation of can. 208, LG 32, GS 49
and 61 are the basic direct sources.51

2.6 EVOLUTION OF CAN. 208

Canon 208 has been developed from scratch after a long discussion by
Coetus studiorum taking into account the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
As a result, this section attempts to give the Christifideles the canonical status by
discussing the methodical evolution of the numerous Schemae relevant to can. 208.

2.6.1 Schema populo Dei 1977 (Can. 18)

Canon 18 of Schema populo Dei states:

§1 Although in the Church of Christ, Christ’s faithful have different

offices and roles, all mutually acknowledge the true equality in common
dignity and action, which obtains among them by virtue of their common
baptism, and they must respect the fraternity by which they are for this
reason linked to one another.
§2 However, those who are constituted in the Church as ministers
of the sacred, on the basis of this ministry, all Christian faithful should
follow with reverence.52
In the discussion held on 18 October 1979, the Mons. Secretary raised the
question concerning the word ‘common action (actio communis)’, which proposed
the direction to have equality among Christifideles. The word ‘common action
(actio communis)’, an expression already existing in the LEF speaks of
collaborating in the building up of the Body of Christ. Consequently, the Relator
stressed that equality among Christifideles is established through baptism. For this

51
Cf. J. FORNÉS, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA
(eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal, Canada 2004, 41.
52
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De populo
Dei” can. 18”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 78; Canon 18 of Schema populo Dei: “§1 Etsi in
ecclesia Christi diversa christifidelium sint officia et munera, veram in dignitate at actione communi
aequitatem, quae unius baptismatis ratione, inter eos viget, omnes agnoscere, atque fraternitatem qua
hac ratione inter se devinciuntur observare tenentur.”
§2 Illos tamen qui in ecclesia ut sacrorum ministri constituuntur, huius ministerii ratione, omnes
christifideles reverentia prosequantur.

12
opinion, the third Consultor firmly specified that through baptism equality gives
way to ‘dignity (dignitate)’, not ‘common action (actio communis)’.53 Another
Consultor partially agreed with the Relator and discoursed that on account of the
baptism, and not ‘common action (actio communis)’, that facilitates the apostolate
of all the faithful, and in their active participation, each ‘in his own way (suo
modo)’, in the common mission of the Church. However, the Mons. Secretary
declared that the canon essentially supported equality based on ‘account of baptism
(ratione baptismi)’. Therefore, the Mons. Secretary proposed suppressing the
expression ‘in dignity and action in common’.54 Everyone agreed.

Therefore, §1 is thus amended as:

Although in the Church of Christ, Christ’s faithful have different

offices and roles, all mutually acknowledge the true equality which obtains
among them by virtue of their common baptism and they must respect the
fraternity by which they are for this reason linked to one another.55
Paragraph §2

Concerning the Second paragraph of can. 18 of Schema populo Dei, the

second Consultor puts forward the proposal made by the two Episcopal
Conferences, i.e., “The Christian faithful is obliged to take account of the rights of
others and of their own duties toward others, as well as the good of the whole
Church, indeed in these lands governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in
the communion of God; therefore, even in the exercise of their rights, what the holy
Shepherds as teachers and leaders in the Church teach and establish is bound to be
followed in Christian obedience.”56 The second Consultor disagreed with the
proposal of the two Episcopal Conferences but stressed that it can be indicative of
the development of the canon. Hitherto, the third Consultor preferred the word

53
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” can. 18”,, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 79
54
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” can. 18”,, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 79; E. SPEDICATO, “La dignità del
christifidelis nella dinamica costituzionale del codice di diritto canonico”, in Periodica 112 (2023),
51.
55
Canon 18 §1 of Schema populo Dei 1977 amended text; “Etsi in ecclesia Christi diversa
christifidelium sint officia et munera, veram aequalitatem, quae unius baptismatis ratione, inter eos
viget, omnes agnoscere, atque fraternitatem qua hac ratione inter se devinciuntur observare tenentur.”
56
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” can. 18”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 79; “Obligantur christifideles rationem
habere et iurium aliorum et suorum erga alios officiorum necnon boni totius ecclesiae, his quidem in
terris a successore Petri et episcopis in cius communione gubernatae; quare etiam in iuribus suis
exercendis, illa quae sacri pastores tamquam magistri et rectores in ecclesia docent et statuunt
christiana oboedientia responsabili sectari tenentur.”

13
‘obedience (obsequium)’ instead of ‘reverence (reverentia)’ which is mentioned in
the proposed text of two Episcopal Conferences. The rationale to prefer the word
‘obedience (obsequium)’ is that it expresses more responsibility. However, the
Mons. Secretary clarified that ‘reverence (reverentia)’ means with respect; the least
that can be asked of Christians toward sacred ministers. 57 The Mons. Secretary
further stated that the text proposed by the aforementioned Conferences highlights
that Christifideles must become aware of their own rights, and their duties towards
others, etc. The Mons. Secretary then proposed that §2 be deleted and all the
Consultors agreed.58

2.6.2 Schema codicis 1982 (Can. 208)

Canon 208 of Schema codicis 1982 states:

Flowing from their rebirth in Christ, there is a genuine equality of

dignity and action among all of Christ’s faithful. Because of this equality,
they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to
the building up of the Body of Christ.59
Canon 208 of Schema codicis 1982 was the one that resulted from the
corrections made in the last two working sessions of the special group, which
occurred from September 24 to 29 of 1979, and from 7 to 12 January 1980. 60 After a
lengthy deliberation on can. 208 of Schema codicis 1982 Coetus inserted can. 9 as
verbatim into CIC 1983 in Book II: De populo Dei, as Title I: Obligations and
Rights of All Christ’s Faithful, because LEF was not promulgated giving the canon
number.61

57
Cf. S. HOLLAND, “Equality, Dignity and Rights of the Laity”, in The Jurist 47 (1987) 1, 117.
58
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” can. 18”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 80.
59
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO AD CODICEM IURIS CANONICI AUTHENTICE INTERPRETANDUM, “Canones
“Legis ecclesiae fundamentalis” qui in codicem iuris canonici inserendi sunt, si ipsa “Lex ecclesaie
fundamentalis” non promulgabitur”, in Communicationes 16 (1984) 1, 91; Canon 208 of Schema
codicis 1982: “Inter christifideles omnes, ex eorum quidem in Christo regeneratione, vera viget quoad
dignitatem et actionem aequalitas, qua cuncti, secundum propriam cuiusque condicionem et munus,
ad aedificationem corporis Christi cooperantur.”
60
Cf. D.C. PALANCA, La ley fundamental de la iglesia: Historia y analisis de un proyecto legislativo,
Eunsa Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 1991, 469.
61
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens
synthesim animadversionum ab em.mis atque exc.mis partibus commissionis ad novissimum schema
codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Romae 1981, 350; C.M. FABRIS, “I diritti dei fedeli come espressione giuridica
dei valori propri dell’uomo battezzato”, in L. NAVARRO – F. PUIG (ed.), Il fedele laico, Giuffré
Editore, Milano 2012, 283.

14
2.6.3 CIC 1983 (Can. 208)

The finally promulgated text of can. 208 of CIC 1983 states:

Flowing from their rebirth in Christ, there is a genuine equality of

dignity and action among all of Christ’s faithful. Because of this equality
they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to
the building up of the Body of Christ.62
2.7 HERMENEUTICAL INVESTIGATION OF CANN. 129, 204 §1 AND 208

Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation, originally the theory and method of

interpreting difficult texts.63 The goal of the hermeneutical investigation applied here
is to explore the same foundational canons that offer the possibilities for the laity to
exercise tria munera Christi vita ecclesiae through the synodal journey after a
lengthy exposition of the evolution of cann. 129, 204 §1 and 208 through various
Schemae.

2.7.1 Can. 129

One of the major influences of the Second Vatican Council on the revision of
CIC 1983 is that of reconsidering the ecclesiological position of all faithful 64 and re-
evaluating the status held by can. 11865 of CIC 191766 through the question of who
can hold the power of governance in the Church and the role of the laity. 67 So,
immediately after the Ecumenical Council, Coetus through can. 71 §468 of Schema
LEF 197769 tried to answer the mentioned question. But later on, LEF is not

62
E.N. PETERS (ed.), Incrementa in progressu 1983 codicis iuris canonici, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal 2005, 148; Canon 208 of CIC 1983: “Inter christifideles omnes, ex eorum quidem in
Christo regeneratione, vera viget quoad dignitatem et actionem aequalitas, qua cuncti, secundum
propriam cuiusque condicionem et munus, ad aedificationem corporis Christi cooperantur.”
63
Cf. M. INWOOD, “Hermeneutics”, in E. CRAIG (ed.), The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York 2005, 367-368.
64
Cf. M. WIJLENS, “Title VIII: The Power of Governance”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J.
GREEN (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India,
Bengaluru 2019, 183.
65
Canon 118 of CIC 1917: “Only clerics can obtain powers, whether of orders or ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and benefices or ecclesiastical pensions.”
66
Cf. R.A. Hill, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN – D.E. HEINTSCHEL
(eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1985, 93.
67
Cf. A. VIANA, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA
(eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal, Canada 2004, 819; J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum
Press, Venezia 20156, 574.
68
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO “Coetus specialis: ‘De lege
ecclesiae fundamentali”, in Communicationes 13 (1981) 1, 72; Canon 71 §4 of Schema LEF 1977:
“Potestate regiminis in ecclesia gaudent qui gubernationis ministerio divinitus in eadem instructi sunt,
atque in eadem exercenda partem habent ii qui eam ad normam iuris legitime obtinuerint.”
69
Cf. K. GILLESPIE, Ecclesiastical Office and the Participation of Lay Faithful in the Exercise of
Sacred Power, Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, Roma 2017, 370-371.

15
promulgated, the systematic formulation of the various Schemae by the Pontifical
Commission for the Revision of Code of Canon Law took up the aforesaid cause and
tried to bring the solution into can. 129 of CIC 1983.70 Even, can. 97971 of CCEO
being the equivalent canon to CIC 1983 states along these lines.

2.7.1.1 Sacred Order

The term ‘order’ denoted some office in the Church to which the Bishops
specifically admitted a person.72 This admission is done through a sacred rite called
‘ordinatio’, which means ‘incorporation into an ordo’.73 This sacramental act
integrated a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons (cf. CCC 1537-
1538). Through this act, the ordained person became a part of the sacred order and is
called a cleric (cf. cann. 1009 §1, 207 §1). In CIC 1917, through the ordination one
didn’t receive any power of governance in iure.74 Whereas, ius vigens in can. 274
§175 offering it in iure. In Iure is specified through making a general declaration that
those by virtue of sacred order are capable (habiles) of obtaining the power of
governance in the Church (cf. can. 129 §1).76 This means that exercising the power
of governance (potestas regiminis) or power of jurisdiction (potestas iudicialis) has
the sacred order as its root.77 However, “all clerics do not exercise the same power in
the same way or to the same extent.” 78 Therefore, can. 129 §1 introduces the clause,
‘in accordance with the provisions of law’. Taking into account this provision, those
who are in sacred order fulfil tria munera Christi in various ways (cf. can. 1008).

70
Cf. G. MAZZONI, “Ministerialità e potestà”, in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTI DI DIRITTO CANONICO
(ed.), I laici nella ministerialità della chiesa, Edizioni Glossa Srl, Milano 2000, 84
71
Canon. 979 §1 of CCEO: “Those who have been constituted in a scared order are qualified, in
accordance with the norm of law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine
institution.
§2 Other members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of the power of governance
in accord with the norm of law.”
72
Cf. J. PULICKAL, A Dictionary of Canon Law, Biblia Publications, Aloor 2004, 286.
73
Cf. M. KOCHUPURACKAL, “Sacred Ordination”, in Canonical Studies 23 (2009), 39.
74
Cf. R. DI INTERLANDI, “Il laico, soggetto passivo della delega”, in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale
33 (2020) 3, 313.
75
Can. 274 §1 of CIC 1983: “Only clerics obtain offices the exercise of which requires the power of
order or the power of ecclesiastical governance.”
76
Cf. J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum Press, Venezia 20156,
585; J.I. ARRIETA, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 114.
77
Cf. J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum Press, Venezia 20156,
585.
78
G. SHEEHY et alii (eds), The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon
Law, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1995, 76.

16
2.7.1.2 Power of Governance (Potestas regiminis)

Prior to the formulation of CIC 1983, two canonical schools argued their
positions on who can exercise and participate in the power of governance (potestas
regiminis) or power of jurisdiction (potestas iudicialis). The Roman School
emphasised historical examples and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council to
testify to the laity exercising the governance. On the contrary, the Munich school
stressed the sacrament of holy orders and the oneness of sacred power (power of
governance).79 Hence, this school held the opinion that the laity can’t exercise the
power of governance.80

Taking into consideration aforesaid suggestions of both the schools and a

long heated debate at the preparatory Schemae of can. 129, ius vigens came up with
a satisfactory answer to who can hold the power of governance in the Church. 81 To
arrive at the answer, certain terminological modifications initiated, i.e., the power of
governance, CIC 1917 uses the expression ‘the power of jurisdiction or governance
(potestas iurisdictionis seu regiminis; cf. can. 196 of CIC 1917).82 Whereas ius
vigens went further in the usage of the word “governance” (regimen), which denoted
not just the juridical power but legislative, judicial and executive as well. 83 It also
offered the various persons the possibility to exercise these powers and participate in
the life and mission of the Church. 84 Keeping this in mind ius vigens offered an
answer as those who are in sacred order in accordance with law are capable (habiles
sunt) of the power of governance and laity are called to cooperate (cooperari) in the
same power in accordance with the law (cf. an. 129). Therefore, the laity in ius
vigens is called to a synodical walk in the Church by cooperating in the various
aspects of tria munera Christi in accordance with the law (cf. an. 129 §1).

79
Cf. P. SKONIECZNY, “Potestas sacra według Klausa Mörsdorfa – założenia teologiczne, struktura,
sposób przekazywania i charakter”, in Annales Canonici 9 (2013), 27.
80
Cf. M. WIJLENS “Title VIII: The Power of Governance”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J.
GREEN (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India,
Bengaluru 2019, 185.
81
Cf. E. MALUMBRES, “Los laicos y la potestad de régimen en los trabajos de reforma codicial: Una
cuestión controvertida”, in Ius Canonicum 26 (1986) 52, 563-625.
82
Cf. A.W. BUNGE, “La administraciòn en la iglesia después del còdigo de 1917”, in Anuario
Argentino de Derecho Canònico 17 (2011), 30-31.
83
Cf. V.D. PAOLIS – A. D’AURIA, Le norme generali: Commento al codice di diritto canonico,
Urbaniana University Press, Roma 2008², 421.
84
Cf. J.P. BEAL, “The Exercise of the Power of Governance by Lay People: State of the Question”, in
The Jurist 55 (1995) 1, 1.

17
2.7.1.3 Lay Members Called to Cooperate (Cooperari)

According to can. 274 §1, only clergy are allowed to hold positions that
entail the power of governance. Regarding the laypersons can. 129 §2 merely states
that they ‘can cooperate’ in the exercise of the power of governance. This radical
novelty of can. 129 §2 is considered complex and, apparently in contradiction with
can. 129 §1 of the same canon.85 The reason for the contradiction according to Luigi
Chiappetta is, “The pastoral function of the governance belongs by law only to
clerics, awarded of sacred order (cf. can. 129 §1). However, in the spirit of openness
to the Second Vatican Council, even the laity can give their effective collaborate in
this function (cf. can. 129 §2), excluding, however, the offices which require the
exercise of the priestly order (cf. cann. 150, 521 §2, 274 §1).”86 Julio Gracia Martin
opines how the laity can be capable of cooperating, “The laity can cooperate mean
working together with one another. In this cooperation, each one contributes with his
own part to carry out the same work. To cooperate in the exercise of the power of
governance is to exercise the same power that the person with whom one
cooperates.”87 The word ‘cooperation (cooperari)” has been defined by J.H. Provost
in various meanings. According to him, coordination of efforts, direct participation
in the work of another, and collaboration with the principal agent are all examples of
cooperation and together they result in a significant amount of engagement in the
exercise of the power of governance.88 Thus this can be done even in tria munera
Christi by laypersons.

Richard A. Hill as a contrast opinion for the aforesaid, “Canon extends to lay
persons a role of cooperation in the exercise of the power of governance for
individual causes provided it has been granted by the Holy See. And no authority
below the level of the Holy See can permit such cooperation in the exercise of
jurisdiction by a person who has not been ordained.” 89 In other words, the delegation
can be done to the laity by the Holy See. But Juan Ignacio Arrieta, evaluating the

85
Cf. G. ANASTASIO, “Canones circa instituta vitae consecrate et societates vitae apostolicae vagantes
extra partem eorum propriam”, in Commentarium pro Religiosis et Missionariis 64 (1983), 90.
86
L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni
Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 202.
87
J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum Press, Venezia 20156, 588.
88
Cf. J.H. PROVOST, “The Participation of the Laity in the Governance of the Church”, in Studia
Canonica 17 (1983), 434-435; P. HANS, “Consultation in the Administrative Decision Making of a
Diocesan Bishop: The Law, the Principles and the Praxis”, in Studies in Church Law 17 (2022), 249.
89
R.A HILL, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN – D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds),
The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1985, 93.

18
ordained holding potestas states, “This doesn’t mean laypeople are incapable of the
effects expressed in can. 10, but that they may cooperate in the exercise of this
power.”90

Secondly, the possibility of the laity can cooperate (cooperari) is because of

the common baptism which allows them to participate in tria munera Christi in their
own way in the Church (cf. can. 204 §1).91 Gerard Sheehy states that the
participation of the laity is rooted in the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the
participation of all the baptised in the one priesthood of Christ and the roles
entrusted specifically to the laity by the hierarchy. 92 Therefore, to exercise some
offices in the Church requires “potestas sacra; others, however, demand only the
exercise of the sacramental munera received in baptism.”93

2.7.1.4 In Accordance with the Law

According to can. 129 §2, the laity is called to cooperate (cooperari) in the
power of governance ‘in accordance with the law’. The clause ‘in accordance with
the law’ is applied in a broad sense. The reason is that the right to exercise may
come from juridical or statutes or the supreme authority could admit under this
clause the lay people, in universal and in particular law, to ecclesiastical offices. 94
The Mons. Pio Vito Pinto stresses that the aforementioned clause is also closely
related to Lumen gentium which specifies that the laity is also suitable for exercising
certain ecclesiastical offices by virtue of tria munera received through baptism (LG
33).95 The clause ‘in accordance with the law’ also raises the question of the laity
exercising the power of governance and whether the laity can be delegated the
power of governance.96 In conclusion, the question concerning the exercise of the

90
J.I. ARRIETA, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 114.
91
Cf. J.E. GONZÁLEZ GRENÓN, “Los laicos en el código a treinta años de la exhortación apostólica
christifideles laici”, in Anuario Argentino de Derecho Canònico 24 (2018), 83.
92
Cf. G. SHEEHY et alii (eds), The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of
Canon Law, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1995, 76-77.
93
J.I. ARRIETA, “Commentary on Can. 129”, in J.I. ARRIETA (ed.), Codice di diritto canonico: E
leggi complementari commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, Roma 2004, 143: “Della potestas sacra; altri,
invece, richiedono unicamente l’esercizio dei munera sacramentali ricevuti con il battesimmo.”
94
Cf. J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum Press, Venezia 2015 6,
589.
95
Cf. P.V. PINTO (ed.), Commento al codice di diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del
Vaticana 2001, 79.
96
Cf. M. WIJLENS, “Title VIII: The Power of Governance”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J.
GREEN (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India,
Bengaluru 2019, 185.

19
power of governance in ecclesia by the laity is still being debated. From this
perspective, it can be stated that neither can. 129 §2 nor can. 274 §1 denies the
ability of the laity to have and exercise the power of governance but limits it to
offices which do not require either the power of order.97 Therefore, ius vigens keeps
opening the possibilities for the laity to cooperate in several ecclesiastical offices
which do imply the power of governance and not those offices of persona Christi
capitis.98 The law emphasizes, “Lay people found to be suitable are capable of being
admitted by the sacred Pastors to those ecclesiastical offices and functions which, in
accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge” (can. 228 §1). On the
other hand, both clerics and laity are called to follow the prescription of the law, i.e.,
both divine and ecclesiastical laws within their functions. 99 In this view, ius vigens
leaves ample opportunities in the administrative, sacramental, and judicial arena for
various offices for the laity to exercise the tria munera Christi.

2.7.2 Can. 204 §1

Can. 204 §1 offers the theological-juridical physiognomy of Christifideles100

arising from baptism, i.e., through baptism constitutes the people of God, participate
in the triple function of Christ, and each baptised is called each according to his or
her particular condition to exercise the mission of Christ in the world. In short,
Christ’s faithful are those who are incorporated into Christ by baptism and become
part of the People of God (cf. can. 204 §1).101 Therefore, this canon must be read in
connection with can. 96 concept of persona Christi in ecclesia.102 Here, the legislator
intended to define the juridical condition of the faithful. 103 The entire purpose of the
hermeneutics of can. 204 §1 is to show how the laity, who are part of Christifideles

97
Cf. J.G. MARTIN, Le normae generali del codex iuris canonici, Marcianum Press, Venezia 2015 6,
589.
98
Cf. A. MONTAN, Il diritto nella vita e nella missione della: Chiesa introduzione normae il popolo
di Dio, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, Bologna 20062, 169.
99
Cf. A.W. BUNGE, Las claves del còdigo: El libro I del codigo de derecho canònico, San Benito,
Argentina 2006, 262.
100
Cf. G. INCITTI, Il popolo di Dio. La struttura giuridica fondamentale tra uguaglianza e diversità,
Urbaniana University Press, Città del Vaticano 20232, 49; E. SPEDICATO, “La dignità del christifidelis
nella dinamica costituzionale del codice di diritto canonico”, in Periodica 112 (2023), 45.
101
Cf. J.F. ORTIZ, “Capítulo IV: Los sujetos del ordenamiento canonico”, in I.M. DE AZPILCUETA,
Manual de derecho canonico, Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 1988, 158.
102
Cf. J. FORNÉS, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA
(eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée,
Montréal, Canada 2004, 14; M. AGOSTINO, Il popolo di Dio e la sua struttura organica, Pontificia
Università Lateranense Facoltà Di Teologia, Roma 1988, 19.
103
Cf. L. SABBARASE, I fedeli costituti popolo di Dio, Urbaniana University Press, Roma 2000, 19.

20
can journey with the Church through tria munera Christi by way of the juridical
conditions.

2.7.2.1 Christ’s Faithful (Christifideles)

The term Christ’s faithful (Christifideles) is a matter of debate in the

revision of ius vigens whether it referred to all baptised persons or only to
Catholics.104 The answer to the term is drawn from the ecclesiology of the Second
Vatican Council (LG 9-17, 31, 34-36).105 Therefore, Christ’s faithful according to
can. 204 §1 participate in the priestly, prophetic and royal powers of Christ, which
gives some reason to analyse the comprehension of this threefold power and office
relating it to the clerics and the laity respectively (cf. can. 204 §1).106 The
Christifideles are broadly classified into the pastors, religious and laity (cf. can.
207).107 Here laity is a figure in an immediate qualification not in relation to the
priests and the religious, but rather by baptism incorporated into Christifideles.108
Eugenio Corecco, states, “It becomes necessary to fall back on the more general
norm in can. 204, which though valid for all the faithful without distinction, in the
final analysis, includes the laity only according to the sacramental definition of the
laity as described in LG 31.”109 Therefore in current parlance, the term Christ’s
faithful designates every person who is an object of the pastoral care of the sacred
minister.110 This indicates that the laity is part of the Church and can’t be treated in

104
Cf. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, “Coetus studiorum “De
populo Dei” I sessione: Seduta del 16 ottobre 1979”, in Communicationes 12 (1980) 1, 60-61; G.
SHEEHY et alii (eds), The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law,
Geoffrey Chapman, London 1995, 115.
105
Cf. M. DEL POZZO, Lo statuto giuridico fondamentale del fedele, Ediciones Pontificia
Università della Santa Croce, Roma 2018, 17; V. TIZIANO, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in A CURA
DELLA REDAZIONE DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO ECCLESIALE (ed.), Codice di diritto canonico
commentato, Ancora Editrice, Milano 2001, 223.
106
Cf. G.T. JUHÁSZ, “Status of “Christ’s Faithful” - A Philosophical and Canonical Overview”, in
Folia Theologica et Canonica 5 (2016), 131-132; J.H. PROVOST, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in J.A.
CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN – D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary,
Geoffrey Chapman, London 1985, 122.
107
Cf. M. AGOSTINO, Il popolo di Dio e la sua struttura organica, Pontificia Università Lateranense
Facoltà Di Teologia, Roma 1988, 19.
108
Cf. G.M. CARRIQUIRY LECOUR, “Il laicato dal concilio Vaticano II ad oggi: Esiti positivi,
difficolta e fallimenti”, in L. NAVARRO – F. PUIG (ed.), Il fedele laico, Giuffré Editore, Milano 2012,
84.
109
G. BORGONOVO – A. CATTANEO (ed.), Canon Law and Communio, Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
Romae 1999, 250.
110
Cf. A. MONTAN, Il diritto nella vita e nella missione della: Chiesa introduzione normae il popolo
di Dio, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, Bologna 20062, 191.

21
isolation within Christ’s faithful. The definition of Christifideles is also found in
can. 7 §1 of CCEO.111

2.7.2.2 Baptismal Incorporation a Call for Communion

According to can. 204 §1 Christifideles are those who have received the
sacrament of baptism, through which they are configured to Christ with an indelible
character and incorporated into the Church.112 In other words, through baptism, all
Christ’s faithful are formed in the likeness of Christ (LG 7) and incorporated into the
one body of Christ (LG 15).113 This juridical status of Christifideles indicates that the
sacrament of baptism is the primordial element that integrates a person into the body
of the faithful.114 Thus, communio that is assumed here through baptism is not just
having a spiritual meaning but creates a juridical ordering. 115 Even, “The spirit of
communio of Vatican II includes the active participation of the laity in the work of
the Church,”116 Therefore, the laity through communio actualises two juridical
conditions, i.e., first, the person in virtue of baptism, participates in tria munera
Christi. Second, the person receives a call (vocatio) to exercise the mission of the
Church in the world.117 These juridical effects are equally enjoyed by Christifideles,
including the laity as well. Because in communio, there are no first and second
members, no professionals and amateurs. All are gifted, all are mandated, and all are

111
Canon 7 §1 of CCEO: “The Christian faithful are those who, incorporated as they are into Christ
through baptism, are constituted as the people of God; and so, participating in their own way in the
priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, they are called, each according to his or her
condition, to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world.”
112
Cf. G. GHIRLANDA, Il diritto nella chiesa mistero di communione: Compendio di diritto ecclesiale,
GB Press, Roma 20177, 97; J.H. PROVOST, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in J.A. CORIDEN – T.J.
GREEN – D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Geoffrey
Chapman, London 1985, 122-123.
113
Cf. F.G. MORRISEY, “The Laity in the New Code of Canon Law”, in J. HITE – D.J. WARD (ed.),
Reading, Cases, Materials in Canon Law: A Textbook for Ministerial Students, The Liturgical Press,
Collegeville 1990, 324.
114
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 166.
115
Cf. C. FANTAPPIÈ, “Chiesa e sinodalità: per un confronto con Eugenio Corecco”, in Ephemerides
Iuris Canonici 58 (2018) 2, 465.
116
J.E. CONNELL, Invalidating and Incapacitating Laws in the Code of Canon Law, St Paul’s
University, Ottawa 1994, 179; M. NOBEL, “Canon Law - History and Notion - and the Concept of
Synodality” in Folia Theologica et Canonica 7 (2018), 228.
117
Cf. A. LONGHITANO, “Parte I: Il popolo di Dio”, in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTI DI DIRITTO
CANONICO (ed.), Il diritto nel mistero della chiesa, Pontificia Università Lateranense, Roma 20013,
23; R.J. KASLYN, “Introductory Can. 204”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (eds), New
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bengaluru 2019, 245-
246; J.H. PROVOST, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN – D.E. HEINTSCHEL
(eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1985, 123.

22
responsible.118 Hence, the baptismal juridical conditions influence not only the
relationship between God and a particular individual but also necessarily involve a
specific community of faithful.119 The term condition used here has a broad meaning
and is understood as juridical (iuridicam).120 In other words, through baptism, a
baptismal communio fidelium develops amongst Christifideles.121 Thus, canonically
communio is the dynamic relation of unity among persons expressed profoundly
through the relation initiated in baptism.122 It is therefore possible to conclude that
the laity is not dissociated from these juridical requirements, which call for
communio via baptism as a member of Christifideles.

2.7.2.3 Participation in Tria munera

In can. 204 §1 Christifideles juridical condition flows from incorporation

into Christ by baptism constituting the ontological and functional participation.123 In
other words, “by virtue of participation in tria munera Christi, Christifideles is
recognized as fully belonging to the common priesthood.” 124 Furthermore, “there is a
gradation in the exercise of tria munera Christi in Christifideles, each one according
to one’s juridical capacity and sacramental competence.” 125 Thus, the laity being
incorporated into Christ through baptism is mandated to participate in tria munera
Christi (AA 3, LG 33), i.e., in priestly power by the passive acceptance of
sanctification and of witnessing it.126 The prophetic power by transmitting and
defending it, in the light of revelation, their natural reasoning learned from the
divine teaching (cf. can. 229 §1). The royal power by words and example and
governance they should bring up those entrusted to them to be obedient members of
118
Cf. V.J. WEIGERBER, “The Renewal of Canon Law in the Spirit of a Communion”, in CLSA
Proceedings 72 (2010), 43.
119
Cf. R.J. KASLYN, “Introductory Can. 204”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (eds), New
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bengaluru 2019, 245.
120
Cf. L. ADOLFO, “Capitolo III: I fedeli cristiani”, in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTO DI DIRITTO
CANONICO (ed.), Corso istituzionale di diritto canonico, Ancora Editrice, Milano 2005, 116.
121
Cf. L. GEROSA, Canon Law, The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., London-New
York 2002, 214.
122
Cf. J.J. MYERS, “The Juridical Relevance of Communio”, in PONTIFICUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM
TEXTIBUS INTERPRETANDIS, Ius i vita et in missione ecclesiae: Acta sympossii internationalis iuris
canonici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Roma 1994, 267.
123
Cf. L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni
Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 299.
124
E. SPEDICATO, “La dignità del christifidelis nella dinamica costituzionale del codice di diritto
canonico”, in Periodica 112 (2023), 50.
125
A. VADAKUMTHALA, “Relevance of “Parish Leadership” by Laity: An Analytical Study of Can.
517 §2 and Experience and Perspectives on its Application from the Church in India”, in Canonical
Studies 24 (2010), 64.
126
Cf. P. ERDŐ, Teología del derecho canónico. Una aproximación histórico-institucional,
Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2002. 115-116.

23
the Church.127 To conclude, the three functions of baptism (tria munera), which arise
from the unity of the sacrament in which the laity partake starting from the
governing function necessarily connected to the other canons on the teaching (cf.
can. 759) and sanctifying functions (cf. can. 835 §4), which have provisions made
for the cooperation of laity in their exercise as well.128

2.7.2.4 Juridical Nature of Essential Equality and Distinction in Functions

The juridical nature of essential equality and distinction in functions is

explicated through the clause ‘each according to his or her particular condition’ (cf.
can. 204 §1). This juridical-constitutional status is attained by the faithful through
the sacrament of baptism.129 Lumen gentium explicates in similar lines that baptism
is the foundation for the community for holiness and apostolate in the Church.
However, diversity implies that the state and conditions of life are realised in people
through specific vocations (cf. LG 32). At the ecclesial level, it is said that can. 204,
§1 emphasises the equality of the Christian faithful by their incorporation into Christ
through baptism and their constitution as the People of God, and consequently
through their participation in tria munera Christi. On the juridical level, tria munera
Christi is received by each Christifideles and is put into action differently, i.e., those
in the Holy Order have a different function than that of the laity. 130 The implication
is that people who hold office in the Church such as bishops, priests, and deacons,
have their own juridical rights and duties to fulfil as ministerial priesthood as well as
the laity via common priesthood, each having their specific duties to fulfil in the
hierarchical organisation of the Church.131

The basis for this juridical nature of essential equality and distinction in
functions is the profound unity and harmony about hierarchical principle tempered
by the principle of equality, and, in turn, the principle of equality is integrated and
activated by the principle of organization and functional diversity flows from
127
Cf. J. RATZINGER, Reflections on the Instruction Regarding the Collaboration of the Lay Faithful
in the Ministry of Priests (29.04.1998), in L’ Osservatore Romano (29.04.1998), 18.
128
Cf. M. FRANCIS, “An Exegesis of CIC Canon 129 §2”, in The Canonist 11 (2020) 1, 68.
129
Cf. O.T. REEGEN, “The Rights of the Laity”, in N. EDELBY – T. JIMENEZ-URRESTI – P. HUIZING,
The Sacraments in Theology and Canon Law, Paulist Press, New York-New Jersey 1968, 17; J.
FORNÉS, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA (eds),
Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal,
Canada 2004, 14.
130
Cf. A. MONTAN, Il diritto nella vita e nella missione della: Chiesa introduzione normae il popolo
di Dio, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, Bologna 20062, 192.
131
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in J.I. ARRIETA (ed.), Codice di diritto canonico: E
leggi complementari commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, Roma 2004, 186.

24
Scripture.132 Pio Vito Pinto looks at the juridical nature of essential equality and
distinction in functions from a different angle as “the juridical repercussions
resulting from the separation of the laity from holy ministers with regard to
determining the state of the faithful as belonging to one category or the other, and in
connection to the discipline of the relative and distinct roles. However, by
examining the charismatic structure of the Church, which is also the basic and all-
encompassing structure of all ecclesiastical life, one may distinguish between the
many parts that make up the people of God. From this point of view, therefore, there
is no longer a bipartition (clerics-layperson), but a tripartition (clerics-lay-religious),
which leads to distinguishing the sacred ministry of the clerics from the secular
ministry of the laity.”133

2.7.3 Can. 208

The Second Vatican Council teaches that within the diversity of the Church’s
members, there is a fundamental equality rooted in the sacrament of baptism. 134
Canon. 208 as the introductory canon of the obligations and rights of all
Christifideles explicates this teaching together with all Christifideles including the
laity.135 This novelty is referred back to can. 86 of CIC 1917 affirming that man
constituted as a person into the Church through baptism, with all the rights and
obligations proper to Christians.136

2.7.3.1 Principle of Radical or Fundamental Equality

In CIC 1917, the Church was perceived as a society of inequality, depending

upon whether one had received ordination or not. 137 Whereas can. 208 opines that
flowing from their (Christifideles) rebirth in Christ there is genuine equality (cf. can.

132
Cf. L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni
Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 307.
133
P.V. PINTO (ed.), Commento al codice di diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del
Vaticana 2001, 116.
134
Cf. L.J. SPITERI, Canon Law Explained: A Handbook for Laymen, Sophia Institute Press,
Manchester 2013, 5; A. CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, Paulist Press, New
York/Mahwah New Jersey 2007, 32; L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento
giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 306; J. FORNÉS, “Commentary on Can.
204”, in Á. MARZOA – J. MIRAS – R. RODRIGUEZ-OCAÑA (eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code
of Canon Law, Vol. 2/1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal, Canada 2004, 15.
135
Cf. J. ABRAHAM, “The Rights and Obligations of the Laity”, in Canonical Studies 10 (1996), 49.
136
Cf. L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni
Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 305.
137
Cf. R.J. KASLYN, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (eds),
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bengaluru 2019,
258.

25
208). To Vanzetto Tiziano, the radical equality shoots “From baptism, that is, from
configuration to Christ and participation in his threefold mission (cf. cann. 204 §1,
849), there follows the existence of the fundamental and radical equality between all
members of the Church about dignity (dignitate) and action (actione).”138 Speaking
of this principle of radical equality Javier Hervada intends that all people who have
been baptised are on an equal footing with the laity. One is not a member of the
faithful to a greater degree for having received the sacrament of order or an
ecclesiastical office.139 This implies that those who are in sacred order and those who
are common faithful laity are equal in the Church because of baptism and the
juridical condition flows from the rebirth in Christ. Therefore, radical equality
within the Church is sacramental and stems from baptism into Christ. 140 Due to the
virtue of the principle of equality, all faithful enjoy the juridical status formed from
the rights and obligations based on the participation that baptism involves the life of
Christ. The juridical status of the faithful contains rights, capacities, and obligations,
but not potestas, or power per se.141

2.7.3.2 Equality of Dignity (dignitate) and Action (actione)

“In the light of the history, theology and ever developing realization of the
inherent dignity of the human person, the Code gives constitutional status to the
rights of the human person.”142 The principle of inherent dignity is achieved in the
Church by baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a
person (cf. can. 96).143 The equality of dignity is acquired by all Christifideles from
the mere fact of being a subject of law and being called to a supernatural end. The
equality of dignity means equality regarding the enforceability of the law and an

138
V. TIZIANO “Commentary on Can. 208”, in A CURA DELLA REDAZIONE DI QUADERNI DI DIRITTO
ECCLESIALE (ed.), Codice di diritto canonico commentato, Ancora Editrice, Milano 2001, 227.
139
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 172.
140
Cf. J.A. CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah New
Jersey 2007, 33; R.J. KASLYN, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J.
GREEN (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India,
Bengaluru 2019, 258.
141
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 204”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 166.
142
J.A. CORIDEN, “A Challenge: Make the Rights Real”, in The Jurist 45 (1985) 1, 3.
143
Cf. D.J. WARD, “The Rights of Christians Within the Code of Canon Law”, in J. HITE – D.J.
WARD, Reading, Cases, Materials in Canon Law: A Textbook for Ministerial Students, The Liturgical
Press, Collegeville 1990, 181.

26
equal vocation for sanctity or union with God through love, which is the
supernatural end of all people.144

Concerning the equality of action, there is the principle of variety that exists
side by side with the principle of equality. 145 That is “inequality is established by
virtue of the different ministries that are exercised in the Church in order to fulfil the
one mission of the Church.”146 Hence, ecclesiastical powers such as munera as a
ministerial function and common faithful participate and serve it according to their
own status for the mission of the Church. 147 Sacred pastors, ministers or nobles and
simple faithful, despite the hierarchical diversity of their functions and
responsibilities, have the same dignity (dignitas) that of children of God and are all
equally committed (actio), each according to one’s condition and one’s duties in
spreading the Kingdom of God, in building the Body of Christ.” 148 Therefore,
Augustine could exclaim on the anniversary of his episcopal consecration “For you I
am a bishop, with you I am a Christian: first is the name of an office. The second is
grace…Do I feel more joy in being redeemed with you, than seeing placed above
you?149

2.7.3.3 Cooperation to Build the Body of Christ

According to can. 204 §1 Chirstifideles, through baptism, participate in the

priestly, prophetic and kingly mission of Christ in their own way, each according to
his or her particular condition. 150 However, can. 208 calls them distinct as ordained
and the laity, are complementary and supportive of one another since all

144
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 173.
145
Cf. J. HERVADA, “Commentary on Can. 208”, in E. CAPARROS – M. THÉRIAULT – J. THORN (eds),
Code of Canon Law Annotated, Librairie Wilson & Lafleur inc., Montréal 20224, 173.
146
G. GHIRLANDA, “De variis ordinibus et condicionibus iurisdicis in ecclesia”, in Periodica 71
(1982) 3, 380; P.V. PINTO, Commento al codice di diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città
del Vaticana 2001, 113.
147
Cf. L. CAVALAGLIO, “Potestas and Munus in Contemporary Canon Law”, in Apollinaris 88
(2015), 207.
148
L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni
Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 304.
149
Cf. AUGUSTINI, Sermo in die ordinationis suae, CCCXL, PG 38, col. 1483: Vobis enim sum
episcopus, vobiscum sum christianus; L. CHIAPPETTA, Il codice di diritto canonico: Commento
giuridico-pastorale, Vol. 1, Edizioni Dehoniane, Roma 1996, 304: “Per voi sono vesco, con voi sono
cristiano: Il primo e il nome di un ufficio, I secondo della grazia… Sento piu gioia nell’essere redento
con voi, che nel vedermi posto al di sopra voi.”
150
Cf. G. SHEEHY et alii (eds), The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of
Canon Law, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1995, 115.

27
Christifideles are called to participate in Christ’s redemptive work through
baptism.151 In both canons ‘in accord with the condition proper to each one’ and ‘in
accord with each one’s own condition and function’ clearly indicate that while
baptism is the common denominator for all the Christifideles, there is also diversity
among the members of the mystical Body of Christ. All do not have the same
condition or function about cooperating in the building of the body of Christ. 152 This
connotation creates communio between every member of the Catholic Church for
exercising the common mission, according to everyone’s proper role and function in
the same Church.153 Concerning the cooperation in building the body of Christ the
ordained faithful can act in persona Christi or the name of Christi capitis, and
therefore participates in the munera Christi differently from the laity who have
received the common priesthood.154 “The ontological functional-sacramental
inequality between the faithful, which moreover, does not conflict with the equality
of participation of all the faithful in the same statute of baptized persons and the
mission of the Church, produces on the level of law the distinction preciously
between sacred ministers and laity.”155

Conclusion

Although the laity travelled hand in hand with the Church via baptism until
CIC 1917 they were regarded as second-class Christians.156 In CIC 1917 the role of
the laity is defined in a rather negative way. 157 They are considered the recipient of
the action of the clerics, with a greater emphasis on what they are prohibited from
doing in the Church rather than on the essentials of their vocation. 158 This thesis's
second chapter explains how Coetus studiorum of CIC 1983, through several

151
Cf. L.J. SPITERI, Canon Law Explained: A Handbook for Laymen, Sophia Institute Press,
Manchester 2013, 6.
152
Cf. J. AUMANN, “The Role of the Laity in the Church and in the World”, in Angelicum 65 (1988)
2, 159.
153
Cf. L. DE MAERE, “The Rights of Christ’s faithful at the Service of the Ecclesial Communio”, in
PONTIFICUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS INTERPRETANDIS, Ius i vita et in missione ecclesiae:
Acta sympossii internationalis iuris canonici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Roma 1994, 232.
154
Cf. L. NAVARRO, “Capitolo II: Il fedele laico”, in GRUPPO ITALIANO DOCENTI DI DIRITTO
CANONICO (ed.), Il diritto nel mistero della chiesa, Pontificia Università Lateranense, Roma 20013,
141.
155
P.V. PINTO (ed.), Commento al codice di diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del
Vaticana 2001, 116.
156
Cf. C. 12, q. 1, c. 7, Gr., in FRIEDBERG, I, col. 678.
157
Cf. E. ZENATTi, La nozione di “laico” nel dibattito preconciliare: Alle radici di una svolta
significativa e problematica, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome 1998, 73.
158
Cf. L. SABBARESE, Canon Law: An Overview, Urbaniana University Press, Roma 2017, 63.

28
Schemae, enabled the laity to recognise their tria munera Christi, which is integrated
into ecclesiology in the nineteenth century.159

Ius vigens explicates that the laity is part of Christifideles through baptism
(cf. can. 204 §1) are called for the equality of dignity and action (cf. can. 208) with
clerics and to cooperate in the exercise of tria munera Christi in the Church (cf. can.
129 §2). On the other hand, the baptismal condition constitutes the basis and plan for
the building up of the ecclesial community.160 This condition paves the way for two
consequences. First, populo Dei possesses a role in exercising the functions of Jesus
Christ’s priest, prophet, and ruler. Through this participation, the Christian faithful
continue the mission of Christ entrusted to the Church: to proclaim the gospel and
thus continue the work of redemption. The second consequence, each of the faithful
receives and accepts a specific vocation from God. 161 The laity also through baptism
equally participates in the function of priestly, prophetic and king of Christ,
fulfilling in the Church and the world their part in the mission of the whole people of
God.162 Therefore, the third chapter practically puts across what are the specific
areas in ius vigens that are open for the laity to have a fruitful synodal walk cum
ecclesia by active agents in tria munera Christi.

159
Cf. H. RIKHOF, “The Ecclesiologies of Lumen gentium, Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis and the
Draft Code”, in Concilium 147 (1981) 7, 61.
160
Cf. M. DE POZZO, “La classificazione dei diritti foundamentali dei fedeli nella dottrina
canonistica”, in Ius Ecclesiae 26 (2014), 537.
161
Cf. R.J. KASLYN, “Introductory Can. 204”, in J.P. BEAL – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (eds), New
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bengaluru 2019, 247
162
Cf. J.R. VILLAR, “La sinodalidad en la reflexión teológica actual “, in Ius Canonicum 58 (2018),
73.

29