The Bishop of Rome in Ecumenical Perspective | One Body

Nicholas Jesson

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Large white chair with inlaid colours, the cathedra of the Bishop of Rome, surrounded by empty darkened bench, the chancel of St. John Lateran.

The cathedra of the Bishop of Rome in the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Wikimedia Commons.

The Bishop of Rome in Ecumenical Perspective

by Nicholas Jesson

At the heart of Catholic ecumenism, there is a paradox. For Catholics, the papacy stands as a focus of unity. The pope exercises a primacy within the church as the successor to the apostles of unity, Peter and Paul, who established the church in Rome and whose tombs continue to be places of pilgrimage. Yet, despite this ministry of unity, the papacy itself is the greatest obstacle to unity in the church today.

In 1995 Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical on Christian unity, Ut Unum Sint, “That All May be One.” Known for his many great (and long) encyclicals and other letters to the church, the saintly John Paul invited us to a spiritual conversion both as individual Christians and as a church. He spoke about how the cause of Christian unity is not an appendix to the church’s work but an integral aspect of our mission as the body of Christ called to unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. He reminded us that spiritual ecumenism is at the heart of the ecumenical movement, and he invited us to pray regularly for the unity that Christ willed for the church. He called us to work, together with other Christians, in justice and social action for the common good.

He acknowledged that for many Christians separated from us, the history of the papacy and its claims to exercise authority in the church and world constituted an original cause of division that continues to be a source of irritation and a reminder of the great chasm between our churches. He noted that central to the papal claims is that he is the successor to the apostle Peter, the first among the Twelve. This “primacy” is a character, or charism, not only of the pope, but also of patriarchs of the Eastern churches, archbishops within their metropolitan territories, and bishops within their presbyterate. Primacy, like other charisms, is a gift of the Holy Spirit for building up the church in unity. The pope as primate of the universal church has a universal ministry of unity.

Recognizing the paradox that he is called to a universal ministry of unity, yet his ministry constitutes a continuing barrier to unity, he invited Christians from all churches to help him “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (UUS #95). Over the past 29 years, this invitation has received serious attention from churches, ecumenical dialogues, and theologians across the theological spectrum. Earlier this year, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity (DPCU) published a report that “harvests the fruits” from responses to Ut Unum Sint from thirty churches and fifty ecumenical dialogues. The 146-page study document, titled The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (hereafter BoR) offers a comprehensive synthesis of these responses.

A continuing and perennial problem in ecumenical dialogue is that the agreed statements, after years of careful discussion and mutual learning, tend to be left on the shelf to gather dust. Yet this “harvesting” project is not about recycling previous reports. Instead, it attempts to take stock of the distance that we have travelled through these dialogues, and to mark the broad consensus that we have achieved on numerous issues that have previously divided us. It is an exercise in reception of the agreements that we have achieved. As we have described elsewhere, “reception” is a process whereby the church sifts and evaluates the results of church councils, historical events, or in this case, ecumenical dialogues. In reception, the church begins to express these developments within its teaching and learning. Although it is not a “teaching document” with magisterial authority such as an encyclical or instruction, this study document notes a profound degree of consensus on the neuralgic issue of papal primacy.

In the final chapter of The Bishop of Rome, the DPCU identified four practical proposals arising from the responses to Pope John Paul II’s invitation in Ut Unum Sint (see ch 4 and #178-181):

The re-reception or re-interpretation of the teaching of Vatican I, particularly on papal primacy and infallibility.

To make a clearer distinction between the different roles and responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, especially between his patriarchal ministry within the Church of the West and his primatial ministry of unity in the communion of churches, East and West.

The development of synodality within the Catholic Church.

The promotion of ‘conciliar fellowship’ or other forms of synodal encounter among leaders of different churches.

The Petrine Texts in the New Testament

Jesus said to Simon, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). This and other New Testament texts suggest that Peter was first among the disciples and later leader among the apostles. Yet, Christians have long disagreed over the meaning of these Petrine texts. The classic Catholic interpretation suggests that Peter’s ministry as leader among the apostles is a blueprint for the church’s essential structure. The ministry of Peter, known by theologians as the “Petrine ministry,” is understood to be a charism associated with bishops and particularly the pope. Against this, the classic Protestant interpretation has argued that it is not the person of Peter or his successors that is the rock, but his confession “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16). On this confession, the church of Christ will stand “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (v. 18).

The study document The Bishop of Rome reports a renewed understanding of the various Petrine texts. According to this new understanding, Petrine ministry is understood not as a unique endowment of individual bishops, but as an aspect of all episcopal ministry. Episcopos, the Greek New Testament term meaning an overseer, has been translated in English as bishop, and their ministry is episcopé or “oversight.” Considerable dialogue on the nature and exercise of episcopé has allowed many churches to reform their ministries of oversight and even to reintroduce the historic episcopate. Several dialogues highlight the role of the episcopos as a minister of unity. In the dialogue about the New Testament Petrine texts, we discover “a new appreciation for the special ministry given to the Twelve, and within the Twelve, to Peter” (BoR, #35; International Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, The Presence of Christ in Church and World, 1977, #95). Related to that is “a new appreciation of the analogy that has been drawn between the role of Peter among the apostles and that of the Bishop of Rome among his fellow bishops” (see Lumen Gentium #22). As long ago as 1981, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission reported:

It is possible to think that a primacy of the bishop of Rome is not contrary to the New Testament and is part of God’s purpose regarding the Church’s unity and catholicity, while admitting that the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for this (ARCIC, Authority in the Church II, 1981, #7).

Despite this low estimation of the New Testament warrant for a Petrine ministry, the same dialogue had earlier noted that the “pattern of complementary primatial and conciliar aspects of episcopé serving the koinonia [communion or fellowship] of the churches needs to be realised at the universal level” (ARCIC, Authority in the Church, 1976, #23). A certain practicality has allowed some churches to recognize a ‘petrine function’ that is not exclusive to the Bishop of Rome. Instead, they propose that there is a form of Petrine ministry exercised sometimes by a person, sometimes by a particular bishop, patriarch or church president, and sometimes by particular churches that “serve to promote and preserve the oneness of the church by symbolising unity, and by facilitating communication, mutual assistance or correction, and collaboration in the church’s mission” (Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States, Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy, 1973, #4).

It should be noted that the high regard of many Evangelicals for Pope John Paul II rested not on his role as pope but on his evangelical witness. They saw in him a firm commitment to public proclamation of the Gospel and as such were able to see him as a Christian leader calling all churches to common witness and service. The broad consensus of the dialogues appears to be voiced by the Russian Orthodox in 2013: “Primacy of honour accorded to the bishops of Rome is instituted not by God but men” (BoR #48). The International Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue asked in 1972: “whether the primacy of the pope is necessary for the church, or whether it represents only a fundamentally possible function” (The Gospel and the Church, #67).

Papal Primacy and Infallibility

Considerable difficulties for many churches rest with the historical experience of papal ministry. Claims for special papal prerogatives and authority can be found as early as the first centuries, yet the growth of papal authority in the second millennium reached its apex in 1870’s Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of papal infallibility. While papal primacy had been frequently claimed as a primacy of jurisdiction as far back as the 11th century, Vatican I set forth a doctrine of infallibility that was rooted in earlier claims of teaching authority. Already exercised in the 1854 proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, “the doctrines of the primacy of jurisdiction and of the infallibility of the pope were not yet defined as dogmas” until 1870 (BoR #57). These papal dogmas have proven to be obstacles to dialogue as much as the two Marian dogmas that they support.

Of course, Vatican I was not the last word on the primacy and infallibility of the pope. Vatican II offers a significant clarification. Not long after Vatican II, the young theologian Joseph Ratzinger used the term relecture, a re-reading of the tradition, to account for the dogmatic-historical process by which these dogmas of the earlier Council were re-appropriated and re-presented by the later Council. A general hermeneutical rule is identified “that the results of Vatican I must be read in the light of statements of Vatican II” (#61). Regarding infallibility, Vatican II’s Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) affirms that “the living teaching office of the Church ... is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (DV #10). Lumen Gentium situates infallibility within the entire body of the faithful, who cannot err in matters of belief (LG #12).

A similar relecture occurs concerning primacy of jurisdiction. In its teaching on the sacramental character of episcopacy, Vatican II connects the sacramental and juridical powers given in ordination. Thus, the bishop’s authority derives from ordination and not from a delegation from the pope, as some had held following Vatican I. Lumen Gentium articulated an understanding of episcopal collegiality, rooted in the understanding that bishops by their ordination become part of a College of Bishops, successors to the apostles and thus share in a ministry of service to the whole people of God (LG #21).

The dialogues have helped to clarify that infallibility is not a personal charism of the pope but is a gift to the whole church. Insofar as the pope is infallible, it is as the one who articulates the faith of the whole church. “He is gifted with the same infallibility which Christ bestowed on his Church” (Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the U.S., Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church, 1978, #14). Even Vatican I understood that there are limits to the papal exercise of infallibility. As The Bishop of Rome study document explains:

Infallibility is not absolute in that it is limited not only by its subject and by its act, but also by its object, since the pope cannot pronounce a new teaching, but only give a more developed formulation of a doctrine already rooted in the faith of the Church (depositum fidei) (see Pastor Aeternus, IV).

Similarly, ARCIC explained that “infallibility means only the preservation of the judgement from error for the maintenance of the Church in the truth, not positive inspiration or revelation” (Authority in the Church II, 1981, fn 7). Infallibility “is a term applicable unconditionally only to God, ... to use it of a human being, even in highly restricted circumstances, can produce many misunderstandings” (#32). They caution that the doctrine of papal infallibility has given exaggerated importance to all papal statements.

With the clarification that papal infallibility be understood within the broader authority given to the church, the Lutheran members of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in the U.S. said that they were called:

to consider how vital it is for the churches to speak ... with one voice in the world and how a universal teaching office such as that of the pope could exercise a Ministry of unity which is liberating and empowering rather than restrictive and repressive (Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church, 1978, #18).

The Catholic members of the same dialogue recognized that:

There remains an important ecumenical task incumbent on Catholics: infallibility has to be further examined in light of the primacy of the gospel and of Christ’s saving act (#75).

Although Vatican I does not exclude consultation with the bishops, it wasn’t until Vatican II that the full teaching on episcopal collegiality was developed. In Lumen Gentium, the Council taught that the college of bishops, in union with its head, the pope, exercises supreme and full authority over the Church and can infallibly proclaim the faith of the Church (see LG #22 and #25). There is no doubt that the reception of Vatican II is still ongoing. Collegiality has been implemented through episcopal conferences and other regional gatherings of bishops for consultation. The Synod of Bishops established after the Council by Pope Paul VI was for many years unable to engage in a full open exchange of views, partially due to the limited expectations presented to it and partially because of the synodal procedures themselves. Under Pope Francis, the Synod has begun to develop into a body that permits a free interchange of ideas. This is largely due to Pope Francis’ commitment to synodality, walking together as a church.

Primacy and Synodality

We have already written extensively on synodality in this blog. It is important to understand that collegiality and synodality are different expressions of the same understanding of the church as the people of God. While collegiality emphasises the role of the bishops, synodality is a way of being together as church which involves all the people of God. Many of the early ecumenical dialogues from the post-Vatican II ecumenical springtime spoke about conciliarity or conciliar fellowship. For our purposes, these are concepts similar to synodality, except that they emphasize the structures of deliberation rather than the spiritual exercise of listening to the Spirit.

Guided by the responses to Ut Unum Sint from churches and dialogues, The Bishop of Rome encourages us to understand primacy and synodality together. Rather than treating primacy as a peculiar gift given to the pope, the study document explains that, properly understood, papal primacy and the Petrine ministry of unity serve to gather the people of God together, to lead them in listening to the Spirit, and to articulate the faith of the whole church. This has resonance both internally within the Catholic Church in its structures of authority and externally in the church’s dialogue with other Christians, with people of other religions, and with the world.

The Orthodox-Catholic dialogue has been particularly helpful in articulating the integral relationship between primacy and synodality. In two reports, one focusing on the first millennium and the other on the second millennium, they offer a model for how primacy developed in the undivided church, how synodality functions in the Eastern churches, and how these two might together offer a model for a reunion between East and West.

Numerous dialogues have encouraged their churches to find ways of cooperating and working in their common mission. The International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) offered a number of creative and practical suggestions in their report Growing Together in Unity and Mission (2007). IARCCUM has also pioneered a model of “bishop pairing” that matches a Catholic and an Anglican bishop from each of 27 countries to facilitate their work together and to develop relationships of mutual support and accountability. This model has recently been adopted by the Anglican-Lutheran and the Anglican-Methodist dialogues as well. The Bishop of Rome study document encourages ‘conciliar fellowship’ between church leaders at various levels to make visible and deepen the communion that they already share.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let us look again at the four DPCU proposals identified in The Bishop of Rome. These four each reflect discussions already begun among Catholic leaders and theologians, in some cases for many decades.

The re-reception or re-interpretation of the teaching of Vatican I, particularly on papal primacy and infallibility. As we have seen above, this re-reception has already begun in Vatican II and is continuing in the ecumenical dialogues and the synodal processes initiated by Pope Francis.

To make a clearer distinction between the different roles and responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, especially between his patriarchal ministry within the Church of the West and his primatial ministry of unity in the communion of churches, East and West. Some careful attention to his diplomatic role as a world leader and sovereign of Vatican City (see #151, 179) is also essential. We should note that the papal title “Patriarch of the West” has been used by the Bishop of Rome since 642. Since 2006, the title has been absent from the Vatican’s yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio, where all of the formal titles appear in a long list. In the 2024 edition released recently, the title reappears. There was no official comment when it disappeared from the list but considerable discussion was generated. Perhaps its return is a response to the DPCU proposals. Or, perhaps the more mundane explanation is that it was dropped by mistake. In any case, recognizing a distinction in the papal roles regarding the East and the West is helpful both for the ecclesial integrity of Eastern Catholic churches and for the ecumenical integrity of our relations with Orthodox churches.

The development of synodality within the Catholic Church. As the church develops its synodal patterns, imbalances in the exercise of primacy will begin to be resolved. The internal (ad intra) synodal life of the Catholic Church will establish credibility for its ecumenical commitments ad extra. Among the proposals emerging from various ecumenical dialogues were the synodal reform of the bishops’ conferences and of the relationship between individual dioceses and the Roman Curia. Another proposal is a “general pastoral council” at the world level similar to diocesan pastoral councils and parish pastoral councils. If implemented well, the regular participation of representative clergy and lay members in a consultative assembly ensures not only that all voices are heard, but that the ministry of all the baptized is valued in the pastoral discernment of the community.

The promotion of ‘conciliar fellowship’ or other forms of synodal encounter among leaders of different churches. Among the suggestions offered, the inclusion of ecumenical guests when Catholic bishops travel to Rome for their ad limina visits, something that is already happening occasionally. Other suggestions include inviting ecumenical observers to participate in diocesan, regional, and national gatherings. In Canada, ecumenical guests are regular participants in the CCCB plenary meeting each fall. At a local parish level, working together in local ministerial associations establishes a common commitment to Christ’s mission in each town and neighbourhood.