"The Bishop of Rome": Is Change Coming to the Papacy?

On Thursday June 13, 2024, the Roman Catholic Church’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity published an utterly fascinating document, whose implications are equally fascinating. The document is titled The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint. One should immediately take notice of the title. Referring to the pope as the “Bishop of Rome” is a statement in and of itself. Instead of utilizing one of the pope’s many titles that communicate power and authority on a universal scale (The Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, etc.), the document uses a title for the pope that is more localized in its authoritative capacity. This is no mistake. The document desires to present the papal office as first and foremost an office of service and promoter of unity, not an office of power and authority. The papal office “is not a supremacy of spiritual pride and a desire to dominate mankind, but a primacy of service, ministration, and love” (The Bishop of Rome, 2).

The Bishop of Rome has been many years in the making. Its genesis is traced to Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint (On Commitment to Ecumenism), in which he invited other Christians to consider how together they might find an agreed-upon way forward in which the Bishop of Rome “may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (preface to BR). Pope Francis has underscored the urgency of responding to John Paul II’s invitation, while observing that “we have made little progress in this regard” (preface to BR). Francis’s convocation of a Synod on synodality (2021-2024) has underscored the importance of this initiative. The Bishop of Rome “is the result of truly ecumenical and synodal work. It summarizes some thirty responses to Ut unum sint and fifty ecumenical dialogue documents on the subject” (preface to BR. See p. 134 ff. for a list of all the responses received regarding this question and dialogues that have taken place concerning it).

How can the office of the papacy exercise its primacy and in no way renounce what is essential to its mission, while also being open to a new way of exercising and understanding the office? This is the aim of The Bishop of Rome. 146 pages are dedicated to working through this question. The result is “an instrumental laboris, in the hope that it will promote further theological investigation and dialogue, and stimulate practical suggestions for an exercise of the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome recognized by all concerned” (BR, 9). To be clear, The Bishop of Rome is exploring how other Christian confessions can feel comfortable with coming under the primacy of the papal office for the sake of ecumenical unity. In the many responses received and in the many ecumenical dialogues that have taken place since 1995, “Four fundamental theological questions…consistently re-emerge in various ways and degrees: the scriptural foundation of the Petrine ministry; jus divinum (the divine nature of the papal office); the primacy of jurisdiction; and infallibility” (BR, 33, parentheses mine).

The remainder of the document addresses these concerns (BR 35-47 addresses the Petrine concern; 48-56 addresses the concern that Vatican I teaches that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is instituted by divine right and therefore belongs to the essential and irrevocable structure of the Catholic Church; 57-73 address the Vatican I dogmas of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction). In response, The Bishop of Rome suggests a re-reading of key Petrine texts and of Vatican I, providing a new hermeneutical approach that encourages the texts and dogmas be considered “in light of the gospel, of the whole tradition and in its historical context” (BR, 59). Above all, however, “Vatican I can only be correctly received in light of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council” (BR, 66).

What does this mean? “Regarding infallibility, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei verbum, 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’…and the Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, maintains that it is ‘the entire body of the faithful that cannot err in matters of belief…”(BR, 66). Regarding the Petrine texts and Peter’s office, Lumen gentium 22 reveals that “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” (BR, 35). There should not be a juxtaposition between Peter as head and Peter as servant, but the two should be seen as closely interrelated (see BR 41).

If what has historically divided the Church can be overcome by reinterpreting key dogmas and by providing new hermeneutical keys for reading passages of Scripture that have historically created unease, then perhaps there is hope for a reunited church. “If, according to the will of Christ, current divisions are overcome, how might a ministry that fosters and promotes the unity of the Church at the universal level be understood and exercised?” (BR, 74). Sections 74-143 are devoted to exploring this possibility. Such a church would need someone to represent it. It would need someone that is able to exercise primacy for the sake of the Church’s unity and for doctrinal clarity. Who might this be? “The only see which makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still exercises such episcope is the see of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul died. It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as has been described should be held by that see” (BR, 77).

A fascinating proposal, with equally fascinating implications. What will be the fruit of The Bishop of Rome? Are changes coming to the papacy? Is it the making of an ecumenical church council in which multiple Christian traditions are present and the unity proposed is discussed, sought, and agreed upon? (BR hints at such a council. See for example BR 128). What about the churches that do not agree to be part of this coalition? BR makes an interesting statement in this regard: “The Churches of the Reformation should ask themselves about the reasons that hinder them, at present, to conceive and recognize such ministry that would be exercised to the benefit of the communion of the whole Church” (BR, 81).

Will those who do not participate in this ecumenical initiative and potential coalition of churches be ostracized and labeled as enemies of unity? Only time will tell. In the meantime, the evangelical church needs to prepare itself so that it can articulate with biblical clarity the reasons that such communion is not possible. There was, after all, The Counter Reformation and the many anathemas of the Council of Trent that rejected and condemned the attempts of the Reformers to recover the truths of the biblical gospel. Is the Church prepared to renounce those anathemas? Is it prepared to reject Tradition as being equal to Scripture in its authority? Is it prepared to do away with its sacramental structure that elevates human nature and nullifies the biblical gospel? Is it willing to renounce its Marian dogmas that evidence its preference of Tradition over Scripture?

Or does it simply want to talk about re-reception of the past and provide re-readings, re-interpretations, and re-wordings of dogmas and theology (see BR 145-147), while never renouncing and reversing its errors and submitting them to the authority and correction of God’s Word alone? Until that happens, The Bishop of Rome seeks a unity that cannot be true gospel unity, that cannot be the will of Christ, and that cannot be led by the Holy Spirit, despite claims to the contrary (see BR 74, 53,54,72,90,157, etc.). Christ certainly desires unity in His church (John 17), and the Holy Spirit advocates on Christ’s behalf for this unity, but it is a unity defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ and created by the shared confession that Christ alone is Lord and Savior, and in His name alone is there hope for salvation and true unity.

The current Bishop of Rome does not share this conviction, and this is made clear in his encyclical Fratelli tutti (All Brothers) and in the current synodality of the Church. Drawing from Vatican II’s Nostra aetate, Francis claims we are all brothers, regardless of our religious confession. God’s love is the same for everyone. Even if you are atheist, God’s love is the same (see FT, 277 and NA, 2). The Bishop of Rome must be read through these lenses.

Is the evangelical church ready to respond to the invitation and implications of The Bishop of Rome? Is it clear on its theological convictions and identity, and does it understand those of Rome? Is there clarity concerning Rome, or is it a blind spot for the evangelical church that creates more confusion than clarity? Is it ready to stand firm on the truths of the biblical gospel which were recovered by the Reformers and then rejected by Rome? The Bishop of Rome suggests this day is perhaps coming, and the church must be ready. Is your church ready?