Synod forum: Primacy and synodality in a communion of Churches

By Antonella Palermo

A fourth theological-pastoral forum organized in the context of the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops aimed at a more profound understanding of some aspects of the relationship between the authority of the Bishop of Rome, “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful” (Lumen gentium, 23), and the Synod of Bishops, a body founded in 1965 by Paul VI.

Wednesday’s forum, running currently with another focussed on the relationship of local Churches to the Universal Church, was held at the General Curia of the Jesuits, in Rome.

From caesaropapism to papolatry

The theme of the Petrine ministry, in the circular dynamic of synodality-collegiality-primacy, was addressed by theologian Fr Dario Vitali, professor of Ecclesiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and consultant to the Synod of Bishops.

On the basis of the hermeneutic assumption that “every model of Church corresponds to a model of ministry, and every model of ministry reveals a correlative model of Church,” the theologian illustrated the historical evolution of this relationship by distinguishing the Church's journey in three phases, over three millennia.

In the first phase, one can speak of synodality without primacy; in the second, in the Latin Church, of primacy without synodality. Fr Vitali then suggested a third phase, “hopefully, of synodality and primacy.”

In a Church conceived as communio Ecclesiarum, a “communion of Churches,” where the ultimate unity at the institutional level was the articulation of the ecclesial body into patriarchates, the Churches in the first millennium recognised a primacy not of the Bishop of Rome, but of the Church of Rome.

By reason of its antiquity, its glory (Sts Peter and Paul had died here), and its fidelity to apostolic doctrine, the Sedes Romana, the See of Rome, was recognised, Vitali explains, as the last instance in conflict resolution.

The synodal exercise of judgement par excellence was the ecumenical council, a visual representation of the Ecclesia tota, the whole Church, as each bishop re-presented his Church, and together they re-presented the Catholica.

“It was the emperor, not the pope, who convened the councils,” he recalled, “and it was the actual principle of unity of the Church, as the head of the Christian people.”

Don Vitali continued his exursus by pointing out how the papacy reacted against the extreme outcome of caesaropapism in the West, profoundly changing the model of the Church, with the Pope claiming a role as universal guide, because of Christ’s mandate to Peter. This marked a shift from sedes, the See, to sedens, the one who held the See; from the Church of Rome to the Roman Pontiff.

The Bishop of Rome had a power of jurisdiction over all the Churches and the Church ceased to be communio Ecclesiarum. “The imbalance led apologetic theology to develop what Congar called papolatry,” the priest emphasised, “with a model of a visible pyramidal, hierarchical, monarchical Church that was the perfect mirror of the figure and function of the Supreme Pontiff.”

Collegiality, if it is only ‘affective,’ is weak

With the Second Vatican Council, the question of collegiality arose, while the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, value and nature of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible Magisterium was reaffirmed, Fr Vitali observed. “However, the model remains of a universal Church,” he said, “so much so that the failure to exercise collegiality in the post-conciliar period is solid proof that a universal model of the Church does not bear two subjects of ‘full and supreme authority over the entire Church.’ This is demonstrated by the fact that after the Council a weak vision of collegiality was imposed, that of affective collegiality, which in fact translated into a reinforced form of the exercise of primacy.”

Yet, Lumen Gentium “constitutes a clear and definitive departure from the conception of the Petrine ministry based on the primacy of jurisdiction,” Fr Vitali insisted, noting that “in and from the particular Churches there is the one and only Catholic Church.”

He argued that if one considers a bishop not as vicar of the Pope but of Christ Himself in his Church, “this is irreducible to a territorial circumscription of the Church, but it is a particular Church; that is to say, portio Populi Dei [a portion of the People of God] in which the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is present and acts.

In the particular Churches is the ‘one and only’ Catholic Church

According to the Fr Vitali, “the ongoing synodal process is delivering to the Church a new, original exercise of primacy” that corresponds to the model of the Church as a communion of Churches.

It is the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of unity of the Church, who calls all the Churches to synodal action.

This, he said, “is not a matter of a mere notarial function,” but instead means that the Pope is “is not the first, last, and only instance; if anything, the first, when he initiates processes; the last, when he concludes them.”

In this circular relationship of unity and diversity, the Pope places himself on the side of unity: as Bishop of the particular Church of Rome, with all its peculiarities, he is at the service of the unity of the Church, as guarantor of the communion of the Churches.

“This reading,” Vitali concluded, “more than a novelty, is the faithful reception of the principle of catholicity formulated by the Council,” where it is stated that “within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time ensuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it” (LG 13).

Too many bishops without a people

He recalled Paul VI's establishment of the Synod, which he believed would develop into a true “deliberative body.” The role of the bishop of Rome, he added is to ratify the decisions of the Synod.

Dr Catherine Clifford, professor of theology at St Paul University, Ottawa, Canada, focused her remarks on the point in the Instrumentum laboris (n 41) that emphasises that the communion of the faithful is at the same time the communion of the Churches.

“The Church is in the bishop and the bishop is in the Church,” she said, while pointing out a contradiction based on the fact that today almost half of Catholic bishops (emeriti, auxiliaries, nuncios, curia bishops...) are not pastors of any Church.

Serving non-existing Churches, she noted, is not consistent with their role in the synod body, so it is important to “re-establish the link between the bishop and an existing local Church.”

She also cited the Chieti Document of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission, which clearly places primacy in the light of Christ’s teaching, “Whoever desires to be first, will be the last of the servants.”

She concluded by noting that recent developments in synodal practice in various contexts around the world reflect a tendency not to emphasise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome but to shift the focus instead to the dimension of collegiality.

For a healthy decentralisation in the Church

From Valladolid, Father José San José Prisco, of the Fraternity of Diocesan Worker Priests, Dean of Canon Law at the Pontifical University of Salamanca, dwelt on how to develop a healthy decentralisation in the Church, linked to the principle of subsidiarity.

“Already in ’67, this guiding principle was affirmed in order to advance the reform of canon law,” he emphasised.

Prisco also insisted on the need to restore to the dioceses the characteristic of not being “mere administrative circumscriptions.” The Council, he recalled, teaches that bishops receive their task of governance directly from Christ and calls for bishops to be considered vicars of Christ and not of the Roman pontiff: this, he stressed, is not a danger for the Church. It is a matter of finding harmony between two subjects (pope and bishops) in order to guarantee unity without suffocating diversity, so that plurality is not a source of division but of consolidation of ecclesial communion, so that neither subject annihilates the other.

Although the 1983 Code of Canon Law has not clarified what the actual delimitation of what is reserved to the Pope is, Fr Prisco concluded, and there is a motu proprio, Competentias quasdam decernere, that entrusts bishops and religious superiors with certain competences, the communion of Churches requires mechanisms of consultation and interchange. Respect for the competencies of local bishops must not lead to anarchy.

A Church with open doors

Australian Timothy Costelloe, archbishop of Perth and president of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, said the opening the doors in this Synod to priests, women, and lay people as members with full voting rights and no longer placed in the last row as was the case in the past was a positive development.

“It shows us the equality and unity of all,” he said, adding, “Unity is communion of mind and heart, of spirit and action, and of faith at the service of the Church's evangelising mission.”

He noted that this gives rise to the question, “Does the Synod, both as a permanent institution and when gathered in assembly, have the resources to fulfil its task?”

Archbishop Costelloe praised the method of conversation in the spirit that “serves to free oneself from prejudices.” He pointed out: “The Synod must convert us from a competitive approach to a spirit of listening because in this way it will be of real and effective help to the Pope.”

The Archbishop concluded by raising several practical questions: Should the Synod office be restructured in favour of the local Churches? If so, how? And could the reports become documents to be published?

What are we willing to give up for the Church to be one?

In the space reserved for questions from the audience, the Bishop of Chieti, Bruno Forti, also spoke in his capacity as a member of the international mixed commission between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which produced the Ravenna document and previously mentioned Chieti document.

The Chieti document, he recalled, constituted a very intense and high moment of sharing and openness; while in Alexandria the Orthodox component (the Russians and Serbs were absent due to political events) showed resistance to the idea of an acceptance of the role of “protos” applied to the Bishop of Rome.

How can this ecumenical issue be resolved, he asked in such a way that the bishop of Rome has a role as the last resort of the communion, as it was in the councils of the ancient Churches.

Vitali responded by posing a question: “What are we willing to surrender for the Church to be one?”

The proliferation of auxiliary bishops: are they needed?

Bishop Alain Faubert, from Quebec, addressed the issue of so-called dioceses without a people, asking how we can return to the former situation.

Dr Clifford pointed out that there would be no need to ordain more members in the Curia, saying, “We have created an anomalous situation.”

Fr Vitali noted that there are around 3,000 dioceses, and more than 6,000 bishops. When titular bishops were introduced, their help was needed; but now their numbers have grows so vast that they have become “a tumour.”

Approximately half of all bishops are residential bishops. Of the remaining 50 percent, approximately half (25% of the total) are “emeriti,” that is, retired bishops; while the remaining are “titular” bishops – bishops not in charge of a particular local Church.

The question was asked, given the proliferation of auxiliary bishops, if these are really needed?

This raised a further question of whether the tradition was even valid; and whether, if the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop (as tradition teaches), we should begin to distinguish between bishops who have a particular flock, a people, and those who do not.

Wanting synodality cannot be reconciled with wanting war

Among the requests made by those present was that of a theologian from Missouri who called for a better selection of bishops, since many “did not promote the Synod,” and some “do not even know what synodality means.” He mentioned situations of abuse of power in America that have traumatised young people.

Finally, a priest asked about the anthropological implications of the speeches at the forum. Fr Vitali responded, “If the people are called to walk together, they do not do so as a shapeless mass, but as the Church; and therefore, they need a leader who can exercise power in an extraordinary form of communion that realises, where it is, the Gospel of the time according to situations and cultures.”

Fr Vitali concluded by recalling what he believes is a rarely quoted passage from Pope Francis’ speech for the 50th Anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops, where the Holy Father says synodality is a banner among peoples and a witness to a humanity that often calls for a mode of solidarity, justice, and peace but then hands over its destiny to those who produce wars instead.