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.
[…]
“This sometimes controversial pontiff” is popular with the Left and never controversial, and is clearly controversial with the Right who struggle, many torn between allegiance to the Chair and Apostolic Tradition the two allegiances drifting apart to the point of contradictory beliefs. Why might we say this if not the facts. Two are outstanding, the refusal to respond to the Dubia on vital questions of practice, and the current ambivalence by this Pontiff on the German apostasy. The latter now come to a head with the refusal of German bishops to comply with Catholic doctrine now focused on blessing of immoral same sex relationships. If Pope Francis does not unequivocally defend the faith and if necessary provide a declaration of excommunication for Bishops Felix Genn of Münster and Georg Bätzing German Bishops Conference president that reluctance substantiates the questions posed by the Dubia cardinals. What is come to fore unless we witness a remarkable change is the machinations of a master manipulator. We can’t hedge any longer on what we’re confronted with, it’s no longer a question of where a pontiff stands when the Church has become increasingly an image of the author’s convictions explicated in Amoris Laetitia rather than Christ.
The difference between “populist” and “popularist”?
Giving full attention to our common Human Nature, rather than not; and thinking of the deep infiltration of self-inflicted original sin versus the other and gratuitous origin of supernatural grace; and thinking cross-culturally…
Is it just possible that, at least sometimes, people are more unalike than alike? What then is the danger of implicit bias, either way and probably both (unalike/alike), in setting public policy?
Small wonder that the Catholic Social Teaching, correctly understood, is not rooted in any implicit bias, but rather in the moral virtues and particularly in prudential judgment.
He longs for parishes to always be open, but demands they be closed by the state. He’s all for the marginalized against the Church- the cardinals and canon lawyers and moral theologians. But he’s all for the experts telling us what’s right about how to live in society.
The darling of the World Economic Forum, celebrity trash, faculty lounges and the kind of Catholic who reads National Catholic Reporter certainly should not be described as a populist or “popularist”. Demagogue, on the other hand, fits him to a T. And he is particularly crude one at that.
He knows nothing of what it means to be a people with a culture and identity which they have a right to preserve, and he thinks he is competent to distinguish between populism and popularism?
The wording used for article will not get the author in hot water with his colleagues at Opus Dei.
Well played, I guess.
Pope Francis is a left wing version of Donald Trump.
Pope Francis perfectly fits the model of a populist who appeals to the Left and is confrontational [poking sincere Catholic priests in the eye as in the recent CWR article] to the Right. Since he is obviously more a populist than Trump ever was, because Trump had appeal among Dems that won him the election, Francis who exacerbates the polarity between the Left and Traditional Catholics invents a word popularist to extract himself from the truth. As is his wont.
From the start of the announcement of Francis as Pope, something supernatural happened around the world. People like myself and millions of others had a strange sense of severe disappointment about the new Pope. We couldn’t even stomach to look at him. I have compassion for Francis and pray for him daily but I don’t even want to hear what he has to say. I’m one of those accused of Papolotry. When I listened to St. John Paul the Great and to Pope Benedict XVl I always knew as a fact it was God’s voice on earth. But with Francis, it’s not. I pray he steps down. This is how popular Francis is with me. Nil, Nada, Niet!
Thank you – had missed the context related to the article and the use of the word
‘ Popularist ‘ by the Holy Father – that sounds as an echo of the mission of The Lord , in the Will of The Father , for all to repent and be saved ; our intent and desire for same is precious to The Lord even if same may not take effect in the manner we imagine .
The efforts of others such as Bp.Barron also exhorting the faithful to ask for mercy and salvation for all ,also echoed in the Divine Mercy prayers – ‘have mercy on us and the whole world .
Glad to have come across the article that elaborates on the context , the words of the Holy Father that are very much in line with the mission of the Lord and as intended , to counter dangerous ‘ populists ‘ who focus on an earthly kingdom using the fallen wisdom of the world –
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2021/04/pope-francis-proposes-popularism-to-counter-populism/
Tomorrow also Feast day of Apparition of St.Michael , with the interesting narrative of how the arrow that was shot into his cave was sent back –
https://luisapiccarreta.me/archives/2338
The Holy Father as a son of Italy , thus blessed with double Feasts tomorrow along with the Octave of the Feast of St.Joseph the Worker . 🙂
May the blessings from all such abound for his life and ministry , for all to be united in the intent , to popularize with The Church , the love and the desire to live in the Divine Will that reigns in the Two Hearts .
He is not a son of Italy. He is a son of Argentina. Some would even say he is a son of the Devil.
Some would even say he is a son of the Devil.
One factor that is driving populism is the chasm that exists between the common person and the ruling establishment elites. There is one set of rules for the commoners, and apparently next to no rules for the ruling establishment elites. They are regularly caught in the position of do as I say, not as I do. Last summer’s looting and rioting was described as a “summer of love.” But when Washington D.C. got a milder one day dose of the “summer of love” last January up goes the fencing and in come the guards. This from the same people who decry fences(walls) and guards at the US Southern border. It’s easy for people who can afford to live in gated communities with personal guards to call for defunding the police. How many of the Second Amendment critics have armed guards packing heat?
*
The Catholic Social Teaching people have a real love affair with governmental solutions. The government treated as if it is all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful. It has gotten to the point of being idolatrous. The government as god. Concentrations of power that invite the corruption of those wielding this power. The Founding Fathers took great efforts to decentralize power as much as they could and established a system of checks and balances. To me this is probably why they are under attack by modern leftist demagogues who are obsessed with power. Due process and the rule of law puts a crimp in their utopian schemes.
Populism is a word so abused, it probably has no accurate definition. What I believe about Francis is that he often demonstrates an hysterically, narcissistic, neophilia and elitism and a personal understanding of Christianity that is so tarnished by personal conceit, he can not see how often he embodies those vices he projects onto those who fail to so much as join the throngs who adore him. I say often, because he is indisputably moody, and his personal beliefs change one day to the next depending on the audience, a kind of quantum mechanics world view. One day he can be avuncular towards flag carrying visiting guests from a national tour group, and another day berate another group for their “nationalism.”
He is a Pelagian who calls orthodox anti-Pelagian Catholics Pelagian with a complete absence of irony. He is a process theologian who believes even an uncertain God can change His mind. His idea of mercy excludes mercy for the victims of the sins committed by those whose desire for guilt avoidance is his supreme concern for the exercise of mercy, especially regarding sexual sins. He remains oblivious to the self-evident connection between sexual sin and the abortion he claims to decry, although even this is suspect given his affinity for population controllers within his globalist visions.
Elitists are what they are because they insist on the eventual perfectibility of humanity once the right people (themselves) are allowed to dictate the terms of utopia functioning within a super tyranny. Francis has told a conference of economists, while maintaining a straight face, to “design an economy” without money or any system of markets whatsoever. All the world’s elitists, including Francis, disdained Trump principally because, whatever his flaws, he had the good sense to be a passionate anti-elitist, in addition to pointing out, well, how intelligence challenged elitists are.
Anyone who believes that God might not be giving His Church its most extreme test in history with a loose cannon pontificate is taking refuge in populist manipulation that pretends everything is more or less normal.
Thank you for this trenchant analysis.