In July 2024, in Rome there was a presentation of a new, landmark document for the Roman Catholic Church with the title “Bishop of Rome”. Later various discussions of the document took place in different places. In particular, on October 10, 2024, a seminar of the Ukrainian Christian Academic Society (UChAS) was held in Lviv, at which among other (catholic) representatives, Volodymyr Bureha, professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church proposed his vision on some aspects of the document.
It is important that the document itself was prepared by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, and therefore it was built in the light of ecumenical experience. That is why it has a subtitle “Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical ‘Ut unum sint’”.
The title page states that it is a “study document”, in other words a bridge between past and future debates on the subject of Papal primacy. The text has 147 pages and includes 4 chapters:
- Ecumenical reflection on the ministry of the Bishop of Rome,
- Fundamental theological questions,
- Perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church,
- Some practical suggestions or requests addressed to the Catholic Church.
From the perspective of an outstanding researcher of the text, a concise summary of the four lengthy chapters which is formulated on pages 107–115 is a significant relief for the assimilation of the presented material. Thereafter hypothetically possible directions for further discussions are offered.
It is worth noting that the approved text is significantly different from Papal encyclicals or other similar messages of the head of the Vatican. In his preface, the prefect of the aforementioned Dicastery, Kurt Cardinal Koch, makes an important explanation that the document “does not claim to exhaust the subject nor to summarize the Catholic magisterium on it. Its purpose is to offer an objective synthesis of recent ecumenical developments on the theme, thus reflecting the insights but also the limitations of the dialogue documents themselves” (p. 1).
As can be seen from the subtitle of the document, the 1995 encyclical of Pope John Paul 2. “Ut unum sint” (from Latin – “So that all may be one”) was the starting point for the current document. Then John Paul 2. outlined his main aspiration as follows: “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” (§95).
So, in accordance with its full title, the large-scale text “The Bishop of Rome” is an attempt “in a new and benevolent ecumenical spirit” (p. 118) to consider additionally – but not exhaustively – the essentially ecumenical encyclical “Et unum sint”, as well as to outline the current state of scientific development of the core topic – Papal primacy in the Church.
The creation of the researched text was carried out taking into account the latest scientific achievements in the field of key theological disciplines. As the document itself states, “on the basis of contemporary exegesis and patristic research, new insights and mutual enrichment has been achieved, challenging some traditional confessional interpretations” (p. 108).
For decades after the Second Vatican Council, the topic of primacy and synodality in the Church was one of the most frequently discussed on different levels. In particular, in 2019, the document of the group of St. Irenaeus of Lyon “Serving Communion: Re-Thinking the Relationship Between Primacy and Synodality”. It was result of many years of cooperation between Orthodox and Catholic theologians.
It is in this perspective that in the last chapter of the document “Bishop of Rome”, which is devoted to possible vectors of thematic debates in the 21-st century, the document makes an important methodological remark that “primacy and synodality are not two opposing ecclesial dimensions, but they are rather two mutually constitutive and sustaining realities, and therefore should be addressed together” (p. 119).
The nature of this and other similar theses is not intrusive or binding, instead it states and reflects the desire to harmonize both forms of church mentality and enable a fruitful theological dialogue between their bearers. Therefore, in general, the discussed document should be interpreted as an intermediate result, which involves further disclosure of the potential of both ecclesiological positions for a common goal – to go beyond established stereotypes and to activate mutual exchange of ideas regarding the essence of the Christian Church and its functioning.
