Statue of St. Peter in front of St. Peter’s Basilica. / Credit: Vatican Media
Rome Newsroom, Jun 13, 2024 / 09:42 am (CNA).
The Vatican published a 130-page study on papal primacy on Thursday containing suggestions from Orthodox and Protestant Christian communities for how the role of the Bishop of Rome might look in a future “reunited Church.”
The study document, titled “The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogue and Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint,” is the first Vatican text since the Second Vatican Council to outline the entire ecumenical debate on papal primacy.
In addition to identifying the theological questions surrounding papal primacy in ecumenical dialogue, the document goes a step further to provide suggestions “for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church,” including “a differentiated exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.”
The end of the text published on June 13 includes a section of proposals from the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity on “the exercise of primacy in the 21st century,” including recommendations for “a synodal exercise” of papal primacy.
Synodality
The dicastery concludes that “growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church” and that “many synodal institutions and practices of the Eastern Catholic Churches could inspire the Latin Church.”
It adds that “a synodality ad extra” could include regular meetings among Christian representatives at the worldwide level in a “conciliar fellowship” to deepen communion.
This builds off of dialogue with some Orthodox representatives who have asserted that “any restoration of full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will require, on both sides, a strengthening of synodal structures and a renewed understanding of a universal primacy – both serving communion among the churches.”
At a Vatican press conference on June 13, Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary-general of the General Secretariat of the Synod, said that this study document is being released as a very “convenient time” as the Church prepares for the second session of the Synod on Synodality in the fall.
A representative of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, who joined the press conference via video link, underlined that “the synodality of the Catholic Church is an important criterion for the Oriental Orthodox churches on our way to full communion.”
Defining responsibilities of the pope
The Catholic Church holds that Jesus made Peter the “rock” of his Church, giving him the keys to the Kingdom and instituting him as the shepherd of the whole flock. The pope as Peter’s successor is the “perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful,” as described in one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium.
The new study document proposes “a clearer distinction be made between the different responsibilities of the Pope, especially between his ministry as head of the Catholic Church and his ministry of unity among all Christians, or more specifically between his patriarchal ministry in the Latin Church and his primatial ministry in the communion of Churches.”
It notes the possibility of “extending this idea to consider how other Western Churches might relate to the Bishop of Rome as primate while having a certain autonomy themselves.”
The text notes that Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches emphasized the importance of regional leadership in the Church and advocated “a balance between primacy and primacies.” It adds that some ecumenical dialogues with Western Christian communities also applied this to the Catholic Church by calling 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.”
Invoking the principle of subsidiarity, which means that no matter that can properly be dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher one, the text describes how some ecumenical dialogues argued 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.”
“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,” it says.
‘Rewording’ of teachings of Vatican I
Another concrete proposal put forward by the dicastery is “a Catholic ‘re-reception’, ‘re-interpretation,’ ‘official interpretation,’ ‘updated commentary,’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of Vatican I,” particularly with regard to definitions on primacy of jurisdiction and papal infallibility.
The First Vatican Council, which took place between 1869 and 1870 under Pope Pius IX, dogmatically defined papal infallibility in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus, which said that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church on a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world, the defined doctrine is irreformable.
An Anglican representative who spoke at the Vatican press conference highlighted how certain aspects of Vatican I have been a particular “stumbling block” for Angelicans.
The study document released by the Vatican pointed to how arguments have been made in ecumenical dialogue that some of the teachings of Vatican I “were deeply conditioned by their historical context” and suggested 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.”
It describes how some ecumenical dialogues “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,” it adds.
‘That they all may be one’
The document summarizes responses by different Christian communities to Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical on Christian unity, Ut Unum Sint (“That They All May Be One”).
In particular to the Polish pope’s invitation in the encyclical for Christian leaders and theologians to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on papal primacy.
“It is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry. I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek — together, of course — the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned,” John Paul II wrote.
Ut Unum Sint says that the bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter has a “specific duty” to work for the cause of Christian unity.
The study document published by the Vatican is the result of more than three years of work summarizing some 30 responses to Ut unum sint and 50 ecumenical dialogue documents on the subject.
Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholics experts were consulted in collaboration with the Institute for Ecumenical Studies at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, noted at the press conference that one of the fruits of the ecumenical theological dialogue in the past three decades has been “a renewed reading of the ‘Petrine texts,’” in which dialogue partners were invited to “consider afresh the role of Peter among the apostles.”
The Vatican notes that the “the concerns, emphases and conclusions of the different dialogues varied according to the confessional traditions involved.”
As a study document, its goal is only to offer “an objective synthesis of the ecumenical discussions” on papal primacy, and “does not claim to exhaust the subject nor summarize the entire Catholic magisterium on the subject.”
Cardinal Koch explained that Pope Francis gave his approval for the dicastery to publish the document, but this does not mean that the pope approved every sentence.
Ian Ernest, the director of the Anglican Center in Rome, thanked Catholic leaders for publishing the new document, which he said “opens up new perspectives for ecumenical relations on the much debated question of the relationship between primacy and synodality.”
“As the personal representative of the archbishop of Canterbury, I am delighted that one of the most comprehensive and detailed responses to St. John Paul II’s invitation in Ut unum sint was given by the House of bishops of the Church of England in 1997,” he said.
Ernest described the Anglican Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting as examples of “synodality at work,” which enable the Anglican communion “to prayerfully understand the ecumenical dialogues and new perspectives which touch on … important doctrinal aspects.”
In response to questions from journalists, Cardinal Grech acknowledged that different Christian churches have different ways of conceiving synodality.
Grech noted that the synthesis report from the 2023 assembly of the Synod on Synodality asked theologians to examine “the way in which a renewed understanding of the episcopate within a synodal Church affects the ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the role of the Roman Curia.”
He added that “the debate is still open” as the Church continues the synodal process with the second assembly in the fall.
[…]
Deftly spoken, Mr. Altieri. Rupnik is every bit the “inveterate creep.”
In fact inveterate creepiness seems to be a resume enhancer in Bergoglio’s Dark Vatican.
Hopefully Jesus will have pity on his little ones who are wandering in confusion like sheep with inveterately creepy shepherds.
Accurate comment, dear ‘brineyman’’. Only let’s not forget their HYPOCRISY.
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that Joseph Sciambra encountered the unwelcome sign in the Church and so left. What has really changed since 2002? After all, a predator/abuser and a possible predator enabler were placed in charge of cleaning up Dodge City. Serial abusers have little to fear from consequences. The Church does not have a lock on the market of mercy however, but the Zulocks apparently went too far. The Islamic world seems unrestrained in putting the stick about. I wear a Star of David pin — Israel’s Old Testament justice horrifies establishments everywhere and so their cries for mercy. It’s as if a John Patrick Shanley or an equivalent were scripting the Vatican and its secular partners. Prison is one thing; death row confessionals would be something quite other. Jesus wept. He weeps alone.
I have come to the conclusion that high ranking members of the Catholic clergy are intrinsically incapable of a. telling the truth and, b. doing the right thing. In others words, these clergy have seriously disordered consciences; they actually believe the lies they tell and think that the evil they do are virtues.
Thank you, Mr. Altieri for, once again and in blunt language, connecting all the dots in this most recent chapter of stunningly repugnant moral turpitude by the Church’s high prelates and the Papa Pachamama who has coddled and protected them. Let’s be very honest. They are, one and all, “inveterate creeps”. The disturbing question I wish you would address is how a practicing Catholic can possibly be “in communion” with such degenerates and how they can in moral and canonical fact claim that they in fact hold the offices and prelatial dignities that they claimed. Even beyond that, is it possible to comprehend that each and all of them have spent years, decades, and even clerical lifetimes offering daily blasphemous and sacrilegious Masses?
“The answer appears to be . . . .”
Does, doesn’t it?
Thank you for this. Another pathetic PR stunt by a pontificate that answers to and uses sexually sick, powerful men. As if God is fooled…Our colossal Church crisis is at root a faith crisis.
Perhaps AI can help us connect the dots to further expose how these episcopal wolves appoint and cover for each other. And we can all be more attuned to the voices of victims.
There is Hell to pay…
Speaking of a faith crisis, why should Pope Francis seek justice for victims of episcopal sexual abuse when he can save the planet from “ecological sins”? Pope Jellyby
“St. Francis did not love humanity but men, so he did not love Christianity but Christ.” Chesterton
In “recent months,” according to the Pontiff Francis and his nunciator for Belgium, “grave new elements have come to light” in the case of the “incestuous-sodomist-predator-EXCELLENCY-EMERITUS” Vanghelgue, 14 years after his sex abuse of his 1st nephew was exposed in the Belgian newspapers, and 13 years after his sex abuse if his 2nd nephew was exposed.
At this very late stage in the story, the “rebuttable presumption” (as they say in the courtroom), is that a bishop sodomizing the boys of his own family is definitely NOT a grave offense in the eyes of the Pontiff Francis and many (perhaps most?) of our bishops.
A case in point to drive home this presumption is to remind ourselves that the (so-called) “Society of Jesus” would not and did not expel Reverend Rupnik for sexually abusing dozens of nuns. They would only expel him for disobeying an order they gave him.
So: demonic sex abuse of boys (and nuns, or anyone), and profaning the sacrament of Holy Orders, and undermining the foundation of respect wholesomely desired and given to faithful and holy priests, and defying the Commandments of Jesus Our King = NOT A GRAVE OFFENSE.
But: insubordination to the same Pontiffs and Bishops (who show their indifference to victims of the sex abuse, their disregard for faithful priests and bishops, and their contempt for the authority of Jesus), any INSUBORDINATION AGAINST THEM is what they hold to be a GRAVE OFFENSE.
This is the sum of what’s at stake for these narcissists: their egos, and the deference “owed to them” by “underlings,” are on the line.
Their concerns are the same as the senior management in the Belgian authorities and the University of Louvain: deference and decorum must be preserved.
CiM: A home run….no, a Grand Slam!
Or, ‘The first duty of the bureaucrat is to preserve the bureaucracy.’
How does McElroy become a cardinal with his disgraceful handling of Rachel Mastrogiacomo? Big Mac pays his promoter back by carrying the papal water and making a mess. McElroy, Vangheluwe, Daneels, Rupnik. Birds of a feather seem to a protected species in the Vatican.
Does “creepyness” come in degrees? Are we all also tainted with it? Is it possible for us to discern where we stand in relation to others in our relative culpability for our own “creepyness” I have observed that throwers of stones usually live in glass houses. How strange. Oh what fools we mortals be! 🫣 Cheer up for God loves us not for what we are, but for what we could be. Yes, the Church MUST Judge, but even the judge’s feet are planted in clay.
Dear James Connor, isn’t that the same excuse the Nazi collaborators relied on?
This comment will probably not pass muster, but – in many of these abuse cases, I’ve often asked myself this – wouldn’t a well-aimed kick have been of some benefit? Followed by #2 if necessary.
Methinks that such would have been more than appropriate in ‘the case of the creepy cardinal’.
The 1st task for Pope The Next will be to begin restoring the faith of the faithful in those who are supposed to be “watching” over the flock.
Can’t those who have been abused by clergy just make it public and perhaps such victims can join together in a class action suit and maybe the Catholic legal group led by Tom Fitton offer them free legal services. It’s worth a try. Also choose men of high standards mentally, emotionally and spiritually to form seminary students. And let all those teachers be closely monitored.
Florence: Yours is a great idea but here’s another: How about the men of the town just form a posse? That should have been done just after the 1st 12 year old boy was sodomized by a cleric.
Kind of a strong suggestion from a deacon, I would think.
If you would only wear a cowboy hat, your perspective would change.
The current rot in the Church calls for a spirited response.
A darn good suggestion, “I would think,” James Connor.
Basically, what DEBP is suggesting is that when a system runs amok it generally requires a feedback loop to stabilise it.
So let’s get conversing about how we loyal-to-Christ Catholics can provide regular and persevering corrective feedback to manage the scandalously unChristian, unCatholic clergy misfeasances and malfeasances. Maybe that should be the first item on the agendas of all our current Church synods . . .
Reportage of clerical sexual abuse has to my knowledge never included the element of sacrilege the Rupnik case has — The criminal behavior of this perverted wannabe is crowned by his abuse of the elements of the Holy Eucharist in his concupiscent activity. Every tile of his mosaics should be ground to dust.
Get the jackhammers.
Yes, there have been elements of sacrilege in other cases. Although I doubt anyone has toted up a global score, I recall hearing of instances of perversion practiced on the parish altar. And the two cases of which I have personal knowledge happened in the context of catechism class for little girls.
Granted, it would be expensive to remove and replace Rupik’s hideous “art,” surely it could at least be plastered or painted over? The distinction between sinful artist and his art only fits when the art itself is beautiful. This stuff ain’t, regardless of its appeal to Those in High Places.
The laity in the pews have become numb to all this sexual abuse of minors. They do not trust the hierarchy any more. The damage has been done and will take decades to repair.
Will: God’s memory last much longer than man’s.
Armageddon, Rev 16, is a battle between Yahweh and all who who reject his sovereignty.
Yahweh wins.
All. No matter what church or religion they claim.
Going back to the Garden, we find that obedience to the rule of the sovereign is acceptance of his rulership. (“If you eat from it you will die.”)
Elsewhere, in case we missed the point, “The wages of sin is death.”
The answer to all our problems is God’s Kingdom. Per Ps 37:29, is that a good deal? If so, you should investigate your standing before it. Just to make sure, right?
There will be many surprised, as noted at Mt 7:21 ff. One surprise not mentioned there will be for those who have never considered this question or its answer: How many arks did Noah build?
All this is clarifying background to my brief answer to your comment in re “decades”.
Brief answer: Please read Mt 24:14; we don’t have decades. That should make us happy, if we’re sure we’re on God’s side.
Otherwise …
Mt 18:15-17.
From the Son of God.
Four steps; three verses.
Even for the most serious sins, notice the first goal: gain your brother.
Second goal, fair play: ‘two or three witnesses’; first-hand knowledge understood.
And, at each step, repentance and positive change also understood, to go for the next step.
Third goal, keep the congregation, and Yahweh’s name, clean. “hallowed be thy name”, isn’t it?
By now this malefactor is likely the subject of very public knowledge. So the last goal is to disassociate him and the congregation from each other.
In the time and place when our Lord spoke these words, they could mean only excommunication, (disfellowshipping in some venues).
None of these steps should take anything like 14 years.
I read recently that some Catholic site had decided to continue installing Rupnik mosaics at its site. I don’t remember where. But I am appalled. A bare wall with his mosaics ripped out and ground into dust would be most fitting. I simply couldn’t go to a place where his work is on the walls, and I certainly couldn’t worship there.
And it says everything that it took a national government in a country the Pope wants to visit to force the Vatican to do something about Vangheluwe’s status. He’ll is very real and very real people go there. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Please pray for the world and the country.
At this erra in church history, it is hard not to conclude that we are being shepherded by a large number of hired hands, who surrender some sheep to the wolves to ensure their own comfort, safety, status, or agenda.
One must not forget that Danneels was a member of the Saint Gallen mafia and that he boasted he was among those who lobbyied for the election of Jorge Bergoglio during the last conclave in stark contravening against the “Universis Dominici Gregis” instructions issued by the last pope JP II, punished by an “ipso facto” excommunication.
Too little, too late. This Pontificate’s credibility on the sexual abuse issue has been irrevocably destroyed due to Rupnik, Znachetta, and McCarrick. No reform will come as long as Francis remains Pope, which will hopefully not be long.
So many of you, in reply to OPs like this one, remain in your Catholic Church afterwards, it’s apparent.
Why?
Some sources estimate there are over 20,000 religions/churches in the world. Why not look around? Some will reply, ‘But the RCC was founded by Christ and is therefore the only true faith. My response is, ‘If he can’t protect it (and you) any better than he has, then your faith may be seriously misplaced.’
How sad.
Dear Doug, read The New Testament [esp. 1 Peter 1:6 & 7]
There’ve been bad apples in The Church from its start, nearly 2,000 years ago.
Only pagans demand: “What can GOD do for me!”
Catholics & other true Christians ask: “What can I do for God and for others.”
We “remain in your Catholic Church” because we experience the love of God in all things, & greatly desire to have its fullness, face-to-face eternally.
Give it a try, dear Doug. ‘Tis not to be missed.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
My response is, ‘If [Christ] can’t protect it (and you) any better than he has, then your faith may be seriously misplaced.’
How sad.
A highly illustrative case of total misunderstanding, dear Doug!
Jesus Christ, THE LORD, is fully protecting His own, who persevere in this world, unto an eternity of bliss (life that is really Life), where the hurtful things of this earthly life will not even be a bad dream.
“Son, remember that in this life you received good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is being comforted in Heaven, while you are in agony.” see Luke 16:25.
Dear Doug, never forget: “He who laughs last, laughs best!”