“The Bishop of Rome” is a document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity: it collects the fruit of the ecumenical dialogues on the Pope’s ministry in response to the invitation made almost thirty years ago by John Paul II following the steps taken since the Second Vatican Council. It is about seeking a form of exercise of primacy that is shared by the Churches that lived in full communion in the first centuries. Although not all theological dialogues “have dealt with the topic at the same level or with the same depth”, it is possible to point out some “new approaches” to the most controversial theological questions.
Reread the Petrine texts
One of the fruits of the theological dialogues is a renewed reading of the “Petrine texts”, which historically have become an obstacle to unity among Christians. “Participants in the dialogue have been challenged to avoid anachronistic projections of later doctrinal developments and to consider a new Peter’s role among the apostles.” For example, a diversity of images, interpretations, and models have been rediscovered in the New Testament, while biblical notions such as episkopé (the ministry of oversight), diakonia, and the concept of the ‘Petrine function’ have helped to develop a more complete understanding of the “Petrine texts”.
The origin of primacy
Another controversial issue is the Catholic conception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as an institution of divine right, while most other Christians understand it only as an institution of human right. “Hermeneutical clarifications,” the document reads, “have helped put this traditional dichotomy from a new perspective,” considering the primacy of both divine and human right, that is, “as part of God’s will for the Church.” and mediated through human history. The dialogues emphasized the distinction “between the theological essence and the historical contingency of primacy” and called for “greater attention and evaluation of the historical context that has conditioned the exercise of primacy in different regions and times.”
Vatican I
A major obstacle is the dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council. Several ecumenical dialogues have made “promising progress in undertaking a “rereading” or “re-reception” of this Council, opening new avenues for a more precise understanding of its teaching,” as well. in light of the historical contexts and the teaching of Vatican II. Thus, a different reading was given to the Pope’s dogmatic definition of universal jurisdiction, “identifying its extension and its limits.” Likewise, it was possible to clarify “the formulation of the dogma of infallibility and even agree on some aspects of its purpose, recognizing the need, in certain circumstances, for a personal exercise of the ministry of teaching, given that the unity of Christians is a unity.” in truth and love. Despite these clarifications, the document recognizes, “the dialogues continue to express concerns about the relationship of infallibility with the primacy of the Gospel, the indefectibility of the entire Church, the exercise of episcopal collegiality and the need for reception.”
A ministry for the reconciled Church
Many theological dialogues have recognized “the need for primacy on a universal level.” Referring to the apostolic tradition, some dialogues maintain that, from the very origins of the Church, Christianity was founded on main apostolic sees that occupied a specific order, of which the See of Rome was the first.” Some dialogues have pointed out that There is a mutual interdependence between primacy and synodality at all levels of the life of the Church: local, regional, but also universal. Another argument in favor, of a more pragmatic nature, refers to the contemporary context of globalization and missionary needs. Theological dialogues have identified some criteria of the first millennium “as points of reference and sources of inspiration for the acceptable exercise of a ministry of unity at a universal level, such as: the informal – and not primarily jurisdictional – character of the expressions of communion between the Churches; the “primacy of honor” of the Bishop of Rome; the interdependence between the primacy and synodal dimensions.
Primacy and synodality
In many dialogues it is recognized that the first millennium of Christian history should not, however, be “idealized or simply recreated”, also because a primacy at a universal level must respond to contemporary challenges. Therefore, some principles were identified for the exercise of primacy in the 21st century: A first general agreement is the mutual interdependence of primacy and synodality at all levels of the Church and the consequent need for a synodal exercise of the primacy. Another agreement refers to the articulation between “the community” dimension based on the sensus fidei of all the baptized; the “collegial” dimension, expressed above all in episcopal collegiality; and the “personal” dimension expressed by the primate function. A crucial issue is the relationship between the local Church and the universal Church, which has important consequences for the exercise of primacy. The ecumenical dialogues have helped to agree “on the simultaneity of these dimensions, insisting that the dialectical relationship between the local Church and the universal Church cannot be separated.”
Role of episcopal conferences
Many dialogues stressed “the need for a balance between the exercise of primacy at the regional and universal levels, pointing out that in most Christian communions the regional level is the most relevant for the exercise of primacy and also for their missionary activity.” Some theological dialogues with Western Christian communions, noting an “asymmetry” between these communions and the Catholic Church, call for a reinforcement of Catholic episcopal conferences, also at the continental level, and a decentralization inspired by the model of the ancient patriarchal Churches.
Traditions and subsidiarity
The importance of the principle of subsidiarity is then underlined: “no matter that can be adequately dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher level.” Some dialogues apply this principle to define an acceptable model of “unity in diversity” with the Catholic Church, arguing that the power of the Bishop of Rome should not exceed what is necessary for the exercise of his ministry of unity at a universal level and suggest a voluntary limitation in the exercise of his power while recognizing that he will need a sufficient degree of authority to meet the numerous challenges and complex obligations of his ministry.
Practical work suggestions
A first proposal is that of a new interpretation by the Catholic Church of the teachings of Vatican I with “new expressions and vocabulary faithful to the original intention, but integrated into an ecclesiology of communion and adapted to the current cultural and ecumenical context.” A clearer distinction is also proposed between the different responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, “in particular between his patriarchal ministry in the Western Church and his primal ministry of unity in the communion of the Churches.” In addition, greater emphasis is requested on the exercise of the Pope’s ministry in his particular Church, the diocese of Rome.
The third recommendation refers to the development of synodality within the Catholic Church. In particular, it suggests “further reflection on the authority of the national and regional Catholic episcopal conferences, their relationship with the Synod of Bishops and the Roman Curia.” At a universal level, they underline the need for better involvement of all the people of God in the synodal processes. Finally, a final proposal refers to the promotion of “concilia communion” through regular meetings between the leaders of the Church throughout the world, and the promotion of synodality between the Churches with regular consultations and joint actions and testimonies between bishops and primates.
