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.
[…]
Today, the Church rejects the death penalty in all cases because it “counters the inviolability and the dignity of the person” and denies guilty people the “hope of redemption and reconciliation with the community,” he said.
But is the above statement true? No.
“As a consequence, any use of lethal force that is not strictly necessary for (self-defense and preservation of life) can only be considered an illegal execution, a state crime.”
Wrong all these years? No.
From here on, I can only resist Bergoglio …his vile, treacherous traitorous, tone deaf, (and most of all) hypocritical regard he has towards China…his cronyism centered in homosexuality…his trivialization of marriage and the Eucharist…his rigged “synodal” Church…his disdain for Scripture and Tradition and the “pious faithful.”
Exactly right, Joseph. We have a Pope Frankenstein who is ripping the Church apart. If this is not heresy, what is when the clear and certain teaching of both the Old and New Testaments as uniformly followed by Tradition and every pope over 2,000 years are dismissed as ignorant rubbish?
Pope Francis won’t say ‘intrinsically evil.’
Both the Pope and John Finnis are trying desperately to reconcile the Church’s past on capital punishment.
And not succeeding..
“Prohibiting gay civil unions is an offense against human dignity!”
It needs to be said plainly: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic.
“Liberalism is a heresy.”
So for two thousand years the Catholic Church, the Bible, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and 265 previous Popes were wrong by holding that the Death Penalty could be morally just in principle, but Pope Francis somehow right by coming to the opposite conclusion?
More likely the opposite is true.
Assuming that eternal life — in heaven or hell — awaits us after our brief sojourn on earth, anything that redounds to our salvation must be counted as more valuable than human life itself. Far from being inhumane, then, a death sentence is one of the greatest blessings we sinners can receive. By focusing the mind on the mortality that most of us ignore, it provides a compelling incentive for reconciliation. This applies even to those rare few who’ve been falsely convicted.
How many “victims” of capital punishment (not to mention terminal illness) might have been damned without the knowledge of their imminent demise? Do they share our mortal squeamishness in paradise? Not likely. They undoubtedly conclude, and rightly so, that we place too much emphasis on this life and too little on the next.
Laughable from commentators – the outrage over losing their moral satisfaction over killing people.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Some teachings are rooted in Scripture, and are also confirmed by the words of Christ, and also have been preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit for two millennia. The teaching that the state has the authority to put criminals to death is one of those teachings. Human nature hasn’t changed. God hasn’t changed. That which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church for two millennia cannot be legitimately contradicted or reversed, not even by a pope, because that is tantamount to saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake. And if the Holy Spirit makes mistakes, or Christ has not kept his promise that the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church forever and guide it into the truth, then the whole basis for Catholicism collapses.
The assertion that the death penalty is “inadmissible” contradicts two millennia of Church teaching, which was rooted in the Scriptures and had been confirmed by the words of Christ where He acknowledged Pilate’s authority to put people to death, saying that such authority had been given him “from above.”
There are translations that I prefer over Young’s Literal Translation which I used here, but I used the YLT because it gets the Greek word exousian right, translating it as “authority,” instead of as “power” as it often is in English translations of these verses. Anybody holding a hammer who can sneak up behind somebody else has the power to kill them. That isn’t the same as having the authority to kill them. Christ was obviously talking about Pilate’s authority, not his power, and acknowledges his God-given authority to put criminals to death by saying it was given him “from above.” He also makes clear that Pilate is sinfully abusing and misusing that authority as Pilate had already admitted that he found no fault in Jesus (John 19:4, Luke 23:4,15).
If Bergoglio wants to abolish truly unjust instances of the sinful misuse and abuse of the death penalty, he should start with the contemporary, militantly atheistic, radically secularized state pretending to have the authority to confer upon women the right to sentence their own unborn children to death, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. These blatantly criminal executions of innocent children have taken the lives of two billion children in the last 45 years of “legal” murder. That is more people than the entire human population of planet Earth at the beginning of the 20th century.
Take a look at this photograph of a beautiful child at 18 weeks after conception, which appeared on the cover of an April, 1965 edition of LIFE Magazine:
Beautiful Child
Hundreds of millions of beautiful children as far along or farther along than the child shown in that photograph have been brutally murdered — unjustly sentenced to death. That is what is inadmissible. (All abortion is inadmissible, but there is no excuse — not even for the worldly — to tolerate the mass murder of what are clearly innocent children. My two-year-old grandson, upon seeing that photograph, exclaimed “Baby!”)
John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, called this “murder” and insisted we had an obligation to defy civil authorities. Bergoglio objects to the death penalty for dangerous murderers, and has yet to call for the world-wide abolition of the death penalty being unjustly applied to innocent children.
It is time to revisit the claims that Bergoglio’s election to the papacy was not valid. A genuine Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from officially teaching error.
I know certain people think the book by Professors Feser and Bessette volume provides proof of an unchanging Catholic tradition on the death penalty. Some of the examples in this book are not that convincing when you study them carefully. For example, Pope Innocent I’s 405 Letter to the Bishop of Toulouse not only supports the right to carry out the death penalty but also torture (PL 20, 499). Pope St. Nicholas I, however, in his letter to the Bulgarians in 866 says that “neither divine nor human law” allows such torture (Denz.-H, 648). This shows that what Innocent I expressed in his 405 letter about torture and the death penalty was hardly definitive. It’s also important to note that, after being asked whether it’s permissible for people after baptism to administer torture (tormenta) or a capital sentence (capitalem … sententiam), Innocent I says: “About these matters we read nothing definitive from the forefathers” (De his nihil legimus a majoribus definitum; PL 20, 499). This one simple sentence completely refutes Feser and Bessette’s claim that there was a definitive magisterial tradition upholding the legitimacy of the death penalty in the early Patristic Age. Pope Innocent I explicitly states that he reads “nothing definitive” from the forefathers on this matter. The fact that Pope Nicholas I in 866 rejects the legitimacy of torture likewise proves that Innocent I’s 405 letter to the Bishop of Toulouse cannot be considered a definitive magisterial judgment. Pope St. Nicholas also tells the Bulgarians: “….without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul” (Epistula 97, cap. 25). Since the lives of criminals on death row can be saved, executing them would be as inadmissible for Pope St. Nicholas I (r. 858–867) as for Pope Francis.
Feser and Bessette also appeal to the “profession of faith” prescribed for a group of Waldensians by Innocent III in 1208 and amended in 1210 (Denz.-H 790-797). Innocent III’s profession states that the death penalty can be carried out by the secular power under certain conditions “without mortal sin.” This is hardly a hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the death penalty. It’s simply a judgment on the subjective culpability of the one who carries out the sentence for the secular power. If this judgment were definitive, then nothing in the 1210 profession of faith could change. This same profession, though, also requires Catholics to oppose “manifest heretics… even unto death … as adversaries of Christ and the Church” (Denz.-H 796). This requirement, though, was not reaffirmed by Vatican II, which looks upon Non-Catholic Christians—who are in material heresy on many points of dogma—as “separated brethren” (Decree on Ecumenism, 3). Sometimes only with the passage of time can we know which teachings are definitive and which are open to development. The Magisterium is the authority to decide this, not private scholars like Professors Feser and Bessette.
Not even the Magisterium has the authority to contradict that which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church for twenty centuries, and the truth of which was confirmed by the words of Christ recorded in the Gospels (See my post above.) Furthermore, the legitimacy of the death penalty in principle was clearly taught by St. Paul, and how Paul’s teaching was understood in the Early Church is made clear by St. Irenaeus (died 155 A.D.), who explains how the death penalty protects human dignity, and why God granted the state such authority, and assures us of God’s punishment of unjust civil authorities: