Clarifying primacy for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The 30th annual Orientale Lumen Conference in Washington, D.C. brought together Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox bishops, clergy, theologians, and laity to discuss ecumenical progress and future steps. Archbishop Flavio Pace, Secretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, emphasized the conference’s focus on both international and local dimensions of Catholic–Orthodox dialogue. Pope Leo XIV’s July 31 revision of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State is presented as a juridical clarification that could advance Catholic–Orthodox relations. The conference’s theme—“Ecumenism at a Crossroad: Consensus Achieved—What’s Next?”—highlights the need for continued collaboration beyond formal agreements. The event, coupled with the new Vatican law, signals a renewed commitment to fostering unity between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
about 1 month ago
The recent revision of the Vatican City State’s Fundamental Law by Pope Leo XIV separates the Pope’s temporal sovereignty from his ecclesial primacy, offering a concrete step that may ease long‑standing Catholic‑Orthodox tensions over the nature of Roman authority. The change follows intensive ecumenical discussion at the 30th Orientale Lumen Conference and signals Rome’s willingness to clarify the juridical, not theological, basis of its independence. 1
The conference held in Washington, DC, gathered bishops, clergy, theologians, and lay leaders from Catholic, Eastern‑Catholic, and Orthodox traditions. Its theme, “Ecumenism at a Crossroad: Consensus Achieved—What’s Next?” framed dialogue as both scholarly exchange and communal prayer. 1
A key discussion point was the divergent Orthodox view of papal infallibility versus the Catholic understanding of papal primacy. An Orthodox bishop highlighted that councils are indefectible, while papal infallibility “is attached to one person,” underscoring the perceived gap between Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction and the Eastern Churches’ desire for collegiality. 1
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue subsequently formed sub‑committees on the Filioque and infallibility, deciding to address the latter first, showing that dialogue has moved from courteous meetings to substantive theological negotiation. 1
On 31 July 2026, Leo XIV issued a new Fundamental Law that removes the phrasing “in force of the munus petrinum” and instead grounds Vatican sovereignty on the Lateran Treaty as a juridical instrument guaranteeing the Holy See’s independence. Article 1 retains the Pope’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers, while Article 2 clarifies that the State’s legal order is distinct from the Roman Curia. 1
This legal distinction directly addresses an Orthodox objection that Roman primacy has been conflated with temporal power and monarchical governance. By separating the temporal sovereignty of Vatican City from the theological function of the Pope, Rome signals that “Peter is not a king” and that the city exists to protect, not define, the Petrine ministry. 1
The 2016 Chieti Document noted that, in the first millennium, the Bishop of Rome held a “primacy of honor” without exercising canonical authority over Eastern Churches, a point echoed in the 2023 “Synodality and Primacy” study which calls for a distinction between the Pope’s patriarchal role in the West and his primatial service to the whole communion. 1
Augustine’s distinction between the “earthly city” and the “heavenly city” is invoked to illustrate that temporal institutions serve the Church’s mission without constituting its essence. Leo XIV’s revision thus aligns with an Augustinian view that the Vatican’s legal status is an earthly instrument, not the theological source of Peter’s primacy. 1
The clarification removes a symbolic obstacle: the impression that papal temporal sovereignty equals ecclesial supremacy. While it does not resolve debates over papal infallibility or the Filioque, the change may build trust for further theological work, especially on the primacy‑synodality balance highlighted by the Joint International Commission. 1
Future progress will require continued synodal practice, theological courage, and humility, but the legal revision demonstrates that “symbols matter, and legal language matters” in the ecumenical journey toward unity. 1
Clarify the juridical basis for Catholic–Orthodox primacy in ecumenism
Catholic–Orthodox discussion of primacy requires distinguishing theological foundation, juridical authority, and historical forms of exercise. The central disagreement is not whether a primacy existed in the universal Church, but what kind of authority belonged to it and on what basis.
Catholic doctrine holds that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is rooted in Christ’s institution of Peter’s office and is therefore not merely a matter of ecclesiastical custom or honorary precedence. The Catholic dogmatic formulation states that Peter was established by Christ as “the chief of all the apostles” and “the visible head of the whole militant Church,” receiving directly from Christ a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
In this sense, the juridical basis is apostolic and divine in origin: the Roman primacy derives from the Petrine ministry rather than from Rome’s political importance, imperial status, or a later agreement among bishops.
Catholic teaching therefore distinguishes the following:
The ecumenical study The Bishop of Rome describes the Petrine ministry as “an enduring element in the Church of Christ,” while acknowledging that controversies arose concerning particular structures and forms of its expression.
Thus, from the Catholic standpoint, the juridical authority of the Pope is not simply a “primacy of honor.” However, Catholic doctrine also does not identify the essence of papal primacy with every historical form that it has assumed.
“Juridical” concerns the authority to govern, judge, teach, and establish obligations within the Church. It is therefore different from:
Catholic doctrine understands the Pope’s primacy as a real pastoral and juridical authority, but its purpose is the unity and communion of the Church, not centralized control for its own sake. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained that the concrete contents of the Petrine ministry must express its ultimate purpose—“the unity of the Church”—and that their extent can vary according to the necessitas Ecclesiæ, meaning the needs of the Church in particular historical circumstances.
This is why Catholic theology must avoid two opposite errors:
Catholic–Orthodox dialogue has established an important point of agreement: a universal primacy existed in the Church, and Rome occupied the first place.
The Ravenna Document stated that both sides accept “the fact of primacy at the universal level,” while also acknowledging differences regarding how it should be exercised and regarding its scriptural and theological foundations.
The Chieti Document, concerning the first millennium, described the ancient order of the patriarchal sees as placing Rome first, followed by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It characterized Rome’s position as a primacy of honor within the canonical order of the Church.
The Orthodox Churches therefore have not generally denied that Rome held first place. The major dispute concerns the legal consequences of that primacy:
The dialogue documents expressly note that Catholics and Orthodox disagree over the interpretation of the historical evidence concerning the prerogatives of the Roman bishop in the first millennium.
The first millennium is especially significant because it offers a shared historical reference point before the later divergence between Eastern and Western ecclesial structures.
In the language of the dialogue, Rome was the first see in the ancient taxis, or canonical order. The Roman bishop was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. The phrase attributed to St Ignatius of Antioch—that Rome “presides in love”—was used by the Ravenna Document to express this position.
But the expression “primacy of honor” is ambiguous unless its content is specified. It may mean merely ceremonial precedence, or it may include substantial responsibilities:
Catholics and Orthodox have not reached agreement on whether such first-millennium functions implied a universal juridical authority or only a coordinating and appellate role within a conciliar order. The Orthodox–Catholic dialogue therefore identifies agreement on the existence of primacy, but disagreement on its mode of exercise and theological foundation.
The Orthodox interpretation has also sometimes connected the precedence of Rome and Constantinople with their imperial status, following the interpretation associated with Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which Pope Leo the Great did not receive. This differs from the Catholic emphasis on the apostolic foundation of Rome’s primacy.
The Catholic approach does not view primacy and synodality as competing systems. Ecumenical reflection increasingly presents them as mutually dependent realities.
Pope Francis is quoted as stating:
“Primacy and synodality are not two competing principles to be kept in balance, but two realities that establish and sustain one another in the service of communion. Just as primacy presupposes the exercise of synodality, so synodality entails the exercise of primacy.”
In juridical terms, this means that the Pope’s authority cannot be properly understood apart from:
Vatican II’s teaching on the sacramentality of the episcopate is particularly important. A bishop receives authority through episcopal ordination; that authority is not juridically delegated by the Bishop of Rome. At the same time, the exercise of episcopal authority remains subject to the supreme authority of the Church.
This guards against the idea that diocesan bishops are merely administrative agents of the Pope. Their episcopal authority comes from Christ through ordination, while the Pope’s universal primacy serves the unity and ordered communion of the episcopal college.
A crucial Catholic distinction is between the divine institution of the Petrine ministry and the changeable juridical forms in which it is exercised.
The ecumenical dialogue has found it more useful to distinguish between:
This distinction has partly replaced a simplistic opposition between de iure divino—“by divine law”—and de iure humano—“by human law.” The reason is that papal primacy has been shaped by changing ecclesial, political, cultural, and historical circumstances.
Accordingly, Catholic teaching does not require that every historical exercise of papal authority be treated as the only possible form. John Paul II invited reflection on “a way of exercising the primacy” that would preserve what is essential while being open to new circumstances.
The question for ecumenism is therefore not whether the Catholic Church may simply abolish the Petrine ministry. It may not, because Catholics hold its essential foundation to be divinely instituted. The question is rather:
Which aspects of the present exercise of papal primacy belong to its essential mission, and which are historically conditioned forms that could be reconfigured?
The study document observes that some features of papal primacy originally responded to genuine needs but continued after the circumstances that generated them had changed. It therefore calls for a distinction between the essence of primacy and the particular ways in which it has been exercised.
The Catholic–Orthodox disagreement can be stated juridically as follows:
| Question | Catholic position | Orthodox position reflected in dialogue |
|---|---|---|
| Is there a primacy at the universal level? | Yes | Yes |
| Which see historically held first place? | Rome, because of its Petrine and apostolic foundation | Rome held first place in the first millennium |
| Is the primacy merely honorary? | No; it includes genuine universal pastoral and juridical authority | Generally yes in the universal Church: a primacy of honor rather than power |
| Is the primacy exercised apart from the bishops? | No; it must be exercised with collegiality and synodality | No; primacy must operate within synodal communion |
| Are all historical papal prerogatives essential? | No; some forms are contingent and reformable | The extent of later papal claims is precisely disputed |
| Is the first millennium a common model? | It is an important criterion for reflection, but not a complete reduction of Catholic doctrine | It is generally treated as the normative pattern for universal primacy |
The dialogue has therefore produced substantial convergence on the necessity and existence of universal primacy, but not yet full agreement on whether the universal primus possesses jurisdiction directly over all Churches.
The juridical basis for Catholic–Orthodox primacy should not be discussed as though it were simply a contest between papal power and Orthodox independence. The deeper issue is the structure of the Church as simultaneously:
Ecumenical reflection has helped Catholic theology deepen all four dimensions. The Dicastery notes that dialogue has enriched Catholic understanding of the simultaneous reality of the local and universal Church, synodality, and the communal, collegial, and personal dimensions of ecclesial life.
This also explains why the Catholic Church can learn from Orthodox patterns of primacy without abandoning Catholic doctrine. The Catholic position is that the Bishop of Rome’s unique role is a gift for the whole Church, while recognizing that other Christian communions contain valid principles concerning the exercise of primacy that Catholics can consider.
The juridical basis for Catholic primacy is, in Catholic doctrine, Christ’s institution of the Petrine office and its continuation in the Bishop of Rome. It therefore includes more than precedence or honor. Nevertheless, the concrete exercise of that authority must be interpreted through episcopal collegiality, synodality, the authority of bishops, and the service of ecclesial communion.
Catholic–Orthodox dialogue has established significant agreement that a universal primacy existed and that Rome occupied first place, but the parties remain divided over whether that first place entailed universal jurisdiction or only a primacy of honor within a synodal order. The ecumenical path therefore concerns not the rejection of primacy, but the clarification of its theological essence, juridical scope, and synodal manner of exercise.