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.
[…]
I wish two things:
1. That the Vatican cease defining itself as a State. We are a Church. We exist in the world but are not of this world. States are creations of this world.
2. Stop interfering in the temporal affairs of the United States. As a Catholic, I find the Vatican’s statements unwelcome.
The Vatican has been both the Church and a city-state ever since the 1929 Lateran Treaty recognized the papacy as more than a “prisoner of the Vatican” (a consequence of the revolutionary loss of the Eternal City and the historically curious papal states to the new and larger nation-state of Italy, in 1870). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
The status as a state among states renders possible an ear and a voice among the current political idiom of nation-states, although membership in the United Nations remains that of a non-member Permanent Observer State, since 1964.
This distinctive membership restriction is surely a good thing, since it protects the Vatican and the universal Catholic Church from being identified as just another member among the 193 member states–as you correctly argue should never be the case.
Cardinal Parolin, the architect of Communist-Party-Secret-Accords is a man who should not be posturing about governing with “wisdom,” etc.
And citizens faithful to Christ have no interest in getting “dialogued” by the apostate-and-homosexual-art-curator Spadaro.
The word obtuse seems apt.
CHRIS: You say it better than I. Thanks
@ Peter Beaulieu. Always thought it curious too that the Church became the equivalent of a nation. Although the title was modified to papal states. Certainly an oddity on the surface.
You’re probably aware that Pippin King of the Franks ceded the territories it had wrenched from the expanding Germanic Lombards. At the time during the 8th century it also benefited the papacy to rely on Frankish protection rather than the Eastern Byzantine empire due to imposition of taxes, and growing disagreement on doctrine examples, iconoclasm, filioque clause.
It can be argued either way whether Italian unification during the late 19th century resulting in the loss of the papal states benefited Catholicism. The transition from a temporal power [we even had a warlord Pope Julius II expanding territory] to a visibly more spiritual authority. From the day of revolutions of Pius IX to the despotic political movements of Pius XII the greatly territorially reduced Vatican State seemed a greater presence for the advocation of justice.
Deacon, I’m not sure if my understanding is correct. If you have time, please clarify for me. Thanks. My understanding is that Vatican City is a “state” like any other nation–a very tiny State, but still a state with a seat and vote at the United Nations and the right to offer opinions, defend itself, send troops to war, provide aid for nations experiencing a disaster or conflict, etc.
But Holy Mother Church is a Church, THE Holy Catholic Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded.
One question that I have–is the Pope the “president” or “mayor” of Vatican City, or are other leaders, perhaps even non-clergy or non-religious, elected or appointed? Or is Vatican City a monarchy with no other leadership than a king (the Pope?).
The latter Mrs. Whitlock. The Pope is the Head of State. He probably has infinitely more power when it comes to the Vatican City/State than the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who is a Head of State. He can name and depose at will. He answers to no human person.
Yes “ in the World but not of the World” I’ve been saying this for a long time, but that said the reality is that the Vatican IS a state and as such must operate as one. Unfortunately the Pope has to wear two hats as both head of State and head of Church. Not an easy task and not of his making. Thus he has an obligation to act as a voice and mediator in temporal affairs. Not to take sides or make alliances like other nations do is very difficult. To study the position of the Papacy during the Second World War illustrates how difficult this can be.
Perhaps one day we will have to abandon the Vatican and become a pilgrim people, but until then we must operate within this very messy and imperfect arrangement and allow the Pope to make mistakes just like any other temporal ruler.
And, yet, there’s a difference between the Vatican and the Holy See.
These two terms are not interchangeable. Here are the new details about how all this fits together: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2023-06-05/vatican-city-state-pope-francis-issues-new-constitution/
I wouldn’t advocate abandoning the Vatican. The Vatican is no larger than any major university campus in the USA. I just think we need to stop thinking of the Pope as Head of State. He is a moral/spiritual leader of Catholics and the Catholic Church. He should be seen as if he were a CEO. There are probably bishops in the USA who have control over large swarths of real estate but have no temporal authority. The Pope is simply Bishop of Rome – primus inter pares.
Most Catholics do not know tht DT saved the NY Catholic schools. During the Wuhan virus crisis, the NY Catholic schools were dire need of funds. They needed billions to survive. The Cardinal called DT for help to save the Catholic schools: “We need billions or we will have to close.” President DT picked up the phone and in 15 minutes he raised billions. Thus he saved the Catholic schools. Amazing. See his speech at the annual Al Smith Catholic dinner for October 2024 in the presence of the Cardinal. His speech starts at min. 29:00; during the speech he looks at the Cardinal and recollects this episode at min 56ff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAwbHmrplak
Okay let’s ignore his lack of morals; his admiration of dictators; his desire to become one; his racist attitude; his threats of violence toward those who disagree with him;
May God have mercy on him and all of us who will lose precious rights under his presidency. I pray for his soul and all who voted for him
Dont bother praying for me, darling. I will pray for you. How sad that you have swallowed whole all of the untrue and slanderous propaganda about Trump which was spread around by the DEMs and their media minions. This is my third time voting Trump , and I am thrilled that he won. I have a Masters Degree,live in an urban area of a blue state, and am not remotely uninformed. Had more people not believed the untruths about him the last election, the country and the world would have likely been saved a lot of pain these last 4 years.
In this election, Trump gathered not only an electoral win but ALSO the popular vote by close to 5 million votes people who are sick of being disparaged and demeaned. A joke about being a dictator is just that–a joke. If you imagine its ok to disparage half the population of the country you need to check your thought processes. I have NEVER heard Trump make a racist remark ( another lie). And if by your fear of “losing precious rights” you are talking about the preservation of abortion, you are on the wrong forum. Trump has never suggested taking away ANY rights from any citizen( unlike the Dems, who have used censorship and lawfare with abandon and continue to do so with abandon against Trump and his lawyers). Maybe Dem governors could speak to their people about the recent election results, and liberal loss, with a tad less hysteria. It might help them.
silly and untrue description of the president. He never threatened violence against those who disagreed with him.. where did you get that? Peace? .. only under him has there been peace, not under biden or obama. How is he racist? He funded black universities, which obama refused to do. Admiration of dictators? I don’t even know how to deal with that one… check your facts.
Well, 72 million people disagree with you. What’s the probability that they’re all wrong and you are right? That would be zero according to my math.
Wisdom? We shall see. All this talk of revenge and retribution is hardly wise. Trump has an opportunity to be statesmanlike. Let’s hope that he takes the high road for a change.
I have never heard Trump talk about revenge. Although, WINNING is the best revenge I suppose. The only people talking about revenge and fighting are the democrats right now. Like the govs of California, NY and Illinois. What news media are you watching?? Take a look at something with more balance.
What virtue postering from the morally bankrupt socialist left!
I’d be happy if the Vatican tended to its own wisdom instead of lecturing others.
Given their Marxist march towards a full embrace of moral relativism, wisdom is something they they can’t even stumble over.
silly and untrue description of the president. He never threatened violence against those who disagreed with him.. where did you get that? Peace? .. only under him has there been peace, not under biden or obama. How is he racist? He funded black universities, which obama refused to do. Admiration of dictators? I don’t even know how to deal with that one… check your facts.
Did Pope Francis not call to congratulate Pres Trump? Why not?..he called Biden, and on other occasions too.
I don’t want to be negative. Lord forgive me.
Who cares if the Vatican is a state or a reclgious conclave of murmuring old MEN? We need to focus and renew our hopes for a saner world. I hope Trump will forge that new path , but his vial rhetoric and actions cause me pause. I may need help from God.
Cardinal Prolin: ““We wish him great wisdom, because this is the main VIRTUE of RULERS according to the Bible,” Note the word VIRTUE. Colossians 3:12 – “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” UNfortunatly, I saw none of this during Trump’s campaign or in his daily life. “VIRTUE”?
I still remain hopefull that November 5, 2024 will not be “a day that will live in infamy”. FDR
Colossians 3:12 – “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” Unfortunately, I saw none of this during Trump’s campaign or in
his daily life.”
To be fair, regular readers here have not witnessed any of those qualities in your hateful TDS posts either. Maybe people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
So the countless acts of personal charity by Trump, to total strangers as well as friends, do not count as any sort of virtue in your applied understanding of scriptual admonishments? And is virtue better served by your propensities for insulting characterizations that seem to infect most of your commentary?
Enough with the hand-wringing; it’s unbecoming for a man.