The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality. Summary, ideas and proposals of a new Vatican document

(ZENIT News / Rome, 06.12.2024).- On the morning of Thursday, June 13, a new document was presented by the Dicastery for Christian Unity on the role of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) in view of an eventual unity with all the Christian Churches. The following are the highlights of the document:

***

Origin and status of the document

The study document The Bishop of Rome is the first document to summarize the entire ecumenical debate on the service of primacy in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. The origin of this text goes back to St John Paul II’s invitation to other Christians to find, ‘together, of course’, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome “may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (UUS 95). Numerous responses to this invitation have been formulated, as well as reflections on the topic and various suggestions from the theological dialogues.

In 2020, the 25^thanniversary of Ut unum sint, the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity saw an opportunity to synthesize these reflections and gather the main fruits. Pope Francis himself called for this, noting that “we have made little progress in this regard” (Evangelii Gaudium 32). Moreover, the convocation of the Synod on Synodality has confirmed the relevance of this project as a contribution to the ecumenical dimension of the synodal process.

The status of the text is that of a ‘study document’ that does not claim to exhaust the subject nor summarize the entire Catholic magisterium on the subject. Its purpose is to offer an objective synthesis of the ecumenical discussion on the subject, thus reflecting its insights, but also its limitations.

Drafting process

The document is the fruit of almost three years of truly ecumenical and synodal work. It summarizes some 30 responses to Ut unum sint and 50 ecumenical dialogue documents on the subject. It involved not only the Officials, but also the 46 Members and Consultors of the Dicastery who discussed it at two Plenary Meetings. The best Catholic experts on the subject were consulted, as well as numerous Orthodox and Protestant experts, in collaboration with the Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum. Finally, the text was sent to various Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and to the Synod of Bishops. In all, more than fifty opinions and written contributions were considered. All were positive about the initiative, methodology, structure and main ideas of the document.

Document Structure

The document offers a schematic presentation

1) of the responses to Ut unum sint and the documents of the theological dialogues devoted to the question of primacy;

2) of the main theological questions that traditionally question the papal primacy and some significant developments in contemporary ecumenical reflection: a renewed reading of the ‘Petrine texts’; overcoming the opposition between de iure divino and de iure humano; a hermeneutical re-reading of the dogmas of the primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility (Vatican Council I);

3) of some perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church: necessity or otherwise of a primacy in the Church; the criteria of the first millennium; principles for the exercise of primacy in the 21^stcentury;

4) of practical suggestions or requests addressed to the Catholic Church: renewed interpretation of Vatican I; differentiated exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome; synodality ad intra; synodality ad extra.

In addition to this synthesis, the document concludes with a brief proposal from the Plenary Assembly of the Dicastery, entitled Towards an Exercise of Primacy in the 21^st Century, which identifies the most significant suggestions put forward by the various dialogues for a renewed exercise of the Bishop of Rome’s ministry of unity ‘recognized by all concerned.

Main ideas of the Document

The Study Document points out that:

1) the dialogue documents and the responses to Ut unum sint have made a significant contribution to reflection on the question of primacy and synodality;

2) all the documents agree on the need for a service of unity at the universal level, even if the foundations of this service and the ways in which should be exercised are subject to different interpretations;

3) unlike the controversies of the past, the question of primacy is no longer seen simply as a problem, but also as an opportunity for a common reflection on the nature of the Church and its mission in the world;

4) the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome is intrinsic to the synodal dynamic, as is the communitarian aspect that includes the entire people of God and the collegial dimension of the episcopal ministry.

Among the future steps to be taken in the theological dialogues, the Document suggests the need for:

1) a better connection between the dialogues – local and international, official and unofficial, bilateral and multilateral, Eastern and Western – in order to enrich each other;

2) addressing primacy and synodality together, which are not two opposing ecclesial dimensions, but rather two mutually supportive realities,

3) a clarification of vocabulary;

4) promoting the reception of the results of the dialogues at all levels, so that they can become a common heritage; 5) theological interpretation of the current relations between the Churches, since the ‘dialogue of truth’ should not only focus on past doctrinal differences.

SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT “THE BISHOP OF ROME”

(nn. 166-181)

Theunderstanding and exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome entered a new phase with the Second Vatican Council. Since then, the ecumenical dimension has been an essential aspect of this ministry, as illustrated by successive popes. John Paul II’s invitation in Ut unum sint to find, with the help of the Pastors and theologians of all Churches, a way of exercising primacy “recognized by all concerned”, marked an epochal moment in this ecumenical awareness. That invitation finds particular support in the context of the pontificate of Pope Francis, whose teaching and practice emphasise the synodal dimension of his ministry.

ECUMENICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE MINISTRY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

The invitation inUt unum sint elicited a wide range of responses and ecumenical reflections. The ecumenical theological dialogues, official and unofficial, national and international, initiated after Vatican II, have also proven to be, during the last decades, a privileged place for research into a ministry of unity at the universal level. Identifying the main themes and perspectives, they illustrate the interest in this topic and the developments in the discussion with the different Christian traditions. They also evidence a new and positive ecumenical spirit in discussing this question.
Thisnew climate is indicative of the good relations established between Christian communions, and especially between their leaders. At a time when the relationships between Churches are intensifying, this “rediscovered brotherhood” (UUS 42) should also be re-read theologically, alongside the dogmatic differences of the past. This life of relationships includes a growing awareness of ‘mutual accountability’ between Christian communions.
It should be noted thatthe concerns, emphases and conclusions of the different dialogues vary according to the confessional traditions involved. Furthermore, not all the theological dialogues have treated the topic at the same level or in the same depth. If some have dedicated entire documents to the subject, others have only treated it in the context of broader documents, while others again are yet to address the matter. Without wanting to obscure these different approaches and accents, nevertheless the following fruits can be identified.

NEW APPROACHES TO TRADITIONALLY CONTESTED THEOLOGICAL ISSUES

One of the fruits of the theological dialogues is a renewed reading of the ‘Petrine texts’, which have historically been a major stumbling block between Christians. Dialogue partners have been challenged to avoid anachronistic projections of later doctrinal developments and to consider afresh the role of Peter among the apostles. On the basis of contemporary exegesis and patristic research,new insights and mutual enrichment has been achieved, challenging some traditional confessional interpretations. A diversity of images, interpretations and models in the New Testament have been rediscovered, while biblical notions such as episkopè (the ministry of oversight), diakonia, and the concept of ‘Petrine function’, have helped develop a more comprehensive understanding of the ‘Petrine texts’.
Another controversial issue is theCatholic understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as established de iure divino, while most other Christians understand it as being instituted merely de iure humano. Hermeneutical clarifications have helped to put into new perspective this traditional dichotomy, by considering primacy as both de iure divino and de iure humano, that is, being part of God’s will for the Church and mediated through human history. Superseding the distinction between de iure divino and de iure humano the dialogues have emphasized instead the distinction between the theological essence and the historical contingency of primacy – as expressed in Ut unum sint (UUS 95). On this basis they call for a greater attention to and assessment of the historical context that conditioned the exercise of primacy in different regions and periods.
The dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council are a significant obstacle for other Christians. Some ecumenical dialogues have registered promising progress when undertaking a ‘re-reading’ or ‘re-reception’ of this Council, opening up new avenues for a more accurate understanding of its teaching. This hermeneutical approach emphasizes the importance of interpreting the dogmatic statements of Vatican I not in isolation, but in the light of their historical context, of their intention and of their reception – especially through the teaching of Vatican II.
Studying the history of the text ofPastor æternus, and especially the proceedings of the Council and the background that conditioned the choice of terms used (‘ordinary’, ‘direct’, ‘immediate’), some dialogues were able to clarify the dogmatic definition of universal jurisdiction, by identifying its extension and limits. Similarly, they were able to clarify the wording of the dogma of infallibility and even to agree on certain aspects of its purpose, recognizing the need, in some circumstances, for a personal exercise of the teaching ministry, given that Christian unity is a unity in truth and love. In spite of these clarifications the dialogues still express concerns regarding the relation of infallibility to the primacy of the Gospel, the indefectibility of the whole Church, the exercise of episcopal collegiality and the necessity of reception.

PERSPECTIVES FOR A MINISTRY OF UNITY IN A RECONCILED CHURCH

Thesenew approaches to fundamental theological questions raised by primacy at the universal level have opened new perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reconciled Church. Many theological dialogues and responses to Ut unum sint, based mostly on arguments concerned with the bene esse rather than the esse of the Church, acknowledge the requirement for a primacy at the universal level. Referring to apostolic tradition, some dialogues argue that, from the early Church, Christianity was established on major apostolic sees occupying a specific order, the see of Rome being the first. Based on ecclesiological considerations, a number of dialogues have maintained that there is a mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality at each level of the life of the Church: local, regional, but also universal. Another argument, of a more pragmatic nature, is founded on the contemporary context of globalization and on missionary requirements.
Theological dialogues, particularly with the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, recognize thatprinciples and models of communion honoured in the first millennium (or, for the latter, until the middle of the fifth century), remain paradigmatic. Indeed, during that period, Christians from East and West lived in communion despite certain temporary ruptures, and the essential structures of the Church were constituted and shared. Certain criteria of the first millennium were identified as points of reference and sources of inspiration for the acceptable exercise of a ministry of unity at the universal level, such as: the informal – and not primarily jurisdictional – character of the expressions of communion between the Churches; the ‘primacy of honour’ of the Bishop of Rome; the interdependency between the primatial and synodal dimensions of the Church as illustrated by Apostolic Canon 34; the right of appeal as an expression of communion (Canons of Sardica); the paradigmatic character of the ecumenical councils; and the diversity of ecclesial models.
Although the first millennium is decisive, many dialogues recognize that it should not be idealized nor simply re-created, since the developments of the second millennium cannot be ignored and also because a primacy at the universal level should respond to contemporary challenges.Some principles for the exercise of primacy in the 21^stcentury have been identified. A first general agreement is the mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality at each level of the Church, and the consequent requirement for a synodal exercise of primacy. A further agreement concerns the articulation between ‘all’, ‘some’ and ‘one’, three complementary dimensions of the Church, at each ecclesial level: the ‘communal’ dimension based on the sensus fidei of all the baptized; the ‘collegial’ dimension, expressed especially in episcopal collegiality; and the ‘personal’ dimension expressed in the primatial function. Different dialogues identify the synodal dynamic inherent in the articulation of these three dimensions.
Ecumenical reflection has also contributed to the recognition that the Petrine function must be understood within the context of a wider ecclesiological perspective.In considering primacy, many theological dialogues have noted that these three dimensions – communal, collegial, and personal – are operative within each of the three levels of the Church: local, regional and universal. In this respect, a crucial issue is the relationship between the local Church and the universal Church, which has important consequences for the exercise of primacy. Ecumenical dialogues helped bring about agreement on the simultaneity of these dimensions, insisting that it is not possible to separate the dialectical relationship between the local Church and the universal Church.
Another important consideration related to the different levels in the Church is the ecclesiological significance of the regional or supra-local dimension in the Church. Many dialogues stress the need for a balance between the exercise of primacy on a regional and universal level, noting that in most Christian communions the regional level is the most relevant for the exercise of primacy and also for their missional activity.Some theological dialogues with the Western Christian communions, observing an ‘asymmetry’ between these communions and the Catholic Church, call for a strengthening of Catholic episcopal conferences, including at the continental level, and for a continuing ‘decentralization’ inspired by the model of the ancient patriarchal Churches.
The significance of the regional level is also advocated in the dialogues with the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, which emphasize the necessity of a balance between primacy and primacies. These dialogues insist that the “ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love” (O–C 1993, 14).In a reconciled Christianity, such communion presupposes that the Bishop of Rome’s “relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops […] would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church” (O–C US 2010, 7a), and that the Churches will “continue to have the right and power to govern themselves according to their own traditions and disciplines” (Coptic–Catholic dialogue, 1979).
The Orthodox–Catholic dialogue also allowed a new critical reading of the phenomenon of ‘uniatism’, closely related to the question of primacy and to an ecclesiology claiming the direct jurisdiction of the Roman See over all the local Churches, which “can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking” (O–C, 1993, 12). The historical phenomenon of ‘uniatism’ should yet be distinguished from the current reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which represent a particular paradigm of ‘unity in diversity’ due to their sui iuris status in the Catholic Church maintaining their autonomy within synodical structures. Nevertheless, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches do not recognise the present relationship with Rome of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model for future communion.
Considerations regarding the different levels of the Church lead to reflection onthe principle of subsidiarity. This principle means that no matter that can properly be dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher one. Subsidiarity is recognised as an important principle if the exercise of primacy is to guarantee the participation of the whole Church in the decision-making process. Some dialogues apply this principle in defining an acceptable model of ‘unity in diversity’ with the Catholic Church. They argue that the power of the Bishop of Rome should not exceed that required for the exercise of his ministry of unity at the universal level, and suggest a voluntary limitation in the exercise of his power – while recognizing that he will need a sufficient amount of authority to meet the many challenges and complex obligations related to his ministry.

SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

Throughout the ecumenical dialogues and responses toUt unum sint concerning primacy, various practical suggestions or requests have been made to the different Christian communions, and especially to the Catholic Church. Since the first ecumenical duty of Catholics is “to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigour the task of renewal and reform” (UR 4), they are invited to seriously consider the suggestions made to them so that a renewed understanding and exercise of papal primacy can contribute to the restoration of Christian unity.
Afirst proposal is a Catholic ‘re-reception’, ‘re-interpretation’, ‘official interpretation’, ‘updated commentary’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of Vatican I. Indeed, some dialogues observe that these teachings were deeply conditioned by their historical context, and suggest that the Catholic Church should look for new expressions and vocabulary faithful to the original intention but integrated into a communio ecclesiology and adapted to the current cultural and ecumenical context.
A second suggestionmade by some ecumenical dialogues is a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, especially between his patriarchal ministry in the Church of the West and his primatial ministry of unity in the communion of Churches, both West and East, possibly extending this idea to consider how other Western Churches might relate to the Bishop of Rome as primate while having a certain autonomy themselves. There is also a need to distinguish the patriarchal and primatial roles of the Bishop of Rome from his political function as head of State. A greater accent on the exercise of the ministry of the Pope in his own particular Church, the diocese of Rome, would highlight the episcopal ministry he shares with his brother bishops, and renew the image of the papacy.
A third recommendation made by the theological dialogues concerns the development of synodality within the Catholic Church. Putting an emphasis on the reciprocal relation between the Catholic Church’s synodal shaping ad intra and the credibility of her ecumenical commitment ad extra, they identified areas in which a growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church. They suggest in particular further reflection on the authority of national and regional Catholic bishops’ conferences, their relationship with the Synod of Bishops and with the Roman Curia. At the universal level, they stress the need for a better involvement of the whole People of God in the synodal processes. In a spirit of the ‘exchange of gifts’, procedures and institutions already existing in other Christian communions could serve as a source of inspiration.
A last proposal is the promotion of ‘conciliar fellowship’ through regular meetings among Church leaders at a worldwide level in order to make visible and deepen the communion they already share. In the same spirit, many dialogues have proposed different initiatives to promote synodality between Churches, especially at the level of bishops and primates, through regular consultations and common action and witness.