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.
[…]
It is good that they met over the suffering caused by the Ukraine invasion. Schisms are best solved when men turn to the Lord for counsel.
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths
Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!
Lord Jesus walk with us so as we stumble you lift us up.
Hmmm. Did their ‘bilateral interaction’ include a game of Tiddlywinks? The world goes on, little knowing and not at all caring what either ‘leader’ thinks or said.
Some of us do care what they think and say. This is why we comment on nthem.
OOPS. My earlier comment failed to reference Joe Bukuras’ report in CWR: “Three hurt when Catholic charity’s van struck by artillery fire in Ukraine”
Unfortunately, Patriarch Kirill is on the side of the war criminal Putin; and Putin is the singular reason for the war and the killings in Ukraine that include innocent families, women and children. When Russian bombs target residential buildings and hospitals, then those involved in whatever capacity, ie., by being actively engaged in the war or by supporting it, become criminals.
‘Bright as the sun, fair as the moon, terrible as an army set in battle array ..’ –
the above image of the little shared chuckle of the Brothers 🙂 , ? an occasion of the Holy Spirit recalling in their memory , their own boyhood innocent devotion to The Mother ..memories of hearing about Fatima .. the irony of both being brought to a historical island that was under communism , to help bring forth good will , in the blessing of many who suffered under the rebellion , to hear the whispering –
‘ do not be afraid ‘ …
even as the world screams the opposite – to be afraid of life and of holiness ..
Rereading the accounts of the Fatima apparition can be an occasion of being more appreciative of the ongoing work the Bl.Mother does in many hearts , a glimpse of the suffering of the Holy Popes in trying to carry out their related roles, amidst all the misunderstandings ,the mountains of prideful divisions , accusations of being negligent etc : etc : .
Yet , they have The Mother as the model , in doing God’s Will , in gentle , patient steps as at Fatima , calling The Church to echo Her Heart to invite all, to instill more trust that All the Bishops of the world – of Germany too can join , at the heart level at the least for now .. to help do away with the spirit of apostacy and rebellion that manifest in myriad ways .. for the ‘children ‘ all over too to chuckle
as in those Irish smiles .. both the born and to be born , blessed to be in ‘snake free ‘ lands amidst saintly lives .
http://www.comingofthekingdom.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/44-Saints.pdf
The Pontiff Francis, in his recent Havana Accord with Kirill, joined his voice with Kirill in expressing mutual contempt for Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine, who they labelled with the contemptuous title “Uniates” (a term of derision deliberately used by Kirill and Pontiff Francis).
In their eyes, the Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine are to be condemned because they want to preserve their Eastern Christian liturgy and theology and culture, while pledging to be in communion with the Pope in Rome, apparently to signal the importance to them of unified teaching authority on faith and morality.
Kirill and Pontiff Francis signed their Havana Accord to show their contempt for the desires of Ukrainian Catholics.
Fr. Richard Kiley and Damian Thompson of England discuss this gesture of their contempt in a podcast this month, which I will post in my next comment.
This Havana Accord reveals what matters to men of the ilk of Kirill and Pontiff Francis: Christians are not to be united, but is to remain divided, with the Body of Christ dismembered, and the pieces remaining in their personal control.
On the subversion of the Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine by Kirill and Pontiff Francis, and what is called the “sneering” treatment of them by Kirill and Pontiff Francis in their Havana Accord, here is the podcast of Damian Thompson and Fr. Benedict Kiely, both Catholics in England.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/in-ukraine-and-china-a-power-obsessed-vatican-is-betraying-heroic-catholics
Whatever we may assume regarding Russian Patriarch Kirill, his support of Putin is a form of indebtedness for Vladimir’s revival of Russian Orthodoxy from the ash heaps of Stalinist policy. Kirill was a friend of Benedict XVI, the two had an affinity. Although, there’s the issue of justice.
The dogs of war are snarling, bearing their fangs, prepared to leap if the provocation that usually triggers world conflict appears. For Austria Hungary it was Serbia’s presumed unwillingness to assume responsibility for the assassination. An excerpt of Franz Josef’s ultimatum gives a sense of the stakes,
“Serbia recognizes that the fait accompli regarding Bosnia has not affected her rights and consequently she will conform to the decisions that the Powers may take in conformity with Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. In deference to the advice of the Great Powers, Serbia undertakes to renounce from now onwards the attitude of protest and opposition which she has adopted with regard to the annexation since last autumn. She undertakes, moreover, to modify the direction of her policy with regard to Austria-Hungary and to live in future on good neighbourly terms with the latter. The history of recent years, and in particular the painful events of the 28th of June last, have shown the existence of a subversive movement with the object of detaching a part of the territories of Austria-Hungary from the Monarchy. The movement, which had its birth under the eye of the Serbian Government, has gone so far as to make itself manifest on both sides of the Serbian frontier in the shape of acts of terrorism and a series of outrages and murders”.
Franz Josef’s demands assumed Serbia’s responsibility for assassination, based on Serbia’s intent to detach the South Slavic territories from Austria Hungary. In comparison during recent negotiations with Ukraine Russia suggested a Sweden form of neutrality, Ukraine permitted to retain its government and its military.
The difference is stark. Nonetheless, the media, pundits, political analysts, virtually everyone [perhaps except for media’s Tucker Carlson] insist we increase armament transfer to Ukraine including first line offensive weapons, to “win the war against Russia”. A seeming impossible expectation unless the world does everything short of sending in its own military.
If this increasing momentum continues, the insistence on providing everything possible growing in virtual rabid fervor will increase the longevity of the war, increase markedly the military casualties on both sides, and increase in far greater proportion the death toll and misery of Ukrainians. Perhaps, result in nuclear conflict [Russia has a measured tactical nuclear capacity, Putin has placed his nuclear systems on high alert] and if applied in Ukraine might erupt into full scale world nuclear war.
This policy of abeyance to a negotiated settlement, and the determination for a Ukraine victory is irrational, and immoral.
So what you suggest is that the west should not arm the Ukrainians who should allow Russia to take over their country. Agreed that this would save many lives etc but what would happen next? The idea that Ukrainian sovereignty would be preserved in any negotiation with Putin’s regime is illusory. And who would be next to suffer from Russian Imperialism? Moldovia, Georgia, Finland, Sweden and then the rest of Europe. It seems that Ukrainians are prepared to die for their independence from a totalitarian state? Is that wrong? Any more that somebody who is prepared to die for their faith? And given the desires of the Ukrainians should the West just stand by and let Ukraine be destroyed or are they wrong in providing arms to the Ukrainians to defend themselves?
Personal pacifism may be admirable but doing nothing whilst one’s neighbour attacked by criminal is hardlyshowing love to that neighbour.
It could be that Kirill is a Russian first and then a Christian, however, let us pray that Pope Francis could get Kirill to see things differently.
Patriarch Kirill expresses beliefs similar to Benedict of the moral collapse of the West evident in W Europe. His ‘stated position’ is that he supports Vladimir’s opposition to Western [decadent] influence pressing eastward. That needless to say doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Robert Royal in response to Francis’ visit hoped he [the pope] would elicit a reproval of the invasion, although he seemed to realize that doesn’t seem likely.
The best we can hope for is a Ukraine Russia agreement on the latest proposal that Ukraine adopt a Sweden type neutrality Putin agrees Ukraine retain its independent government and its military. The rest hinges on the status of Crimea [Putin seeks Ukraine’s acquiescence of Russia annexation] and the eastern minor provinces that previously declared independence from Ukraine. For sake of peace I hope they can agree to some form of settlement. Otherwise the killing and suffering continues with possible conflagration.
So the world is supposed to ignore the annexation of Crimea by brute force? And just when did the eastern provinces genuinely vote to become indepenent?