New Vatican constitution corrects Francis-era anomaly, experts say
Pope Leo XIV promulgated a new Fundamental Law of Vatican City State that removes reference to the “munus petrinum” linking papal sovereignty to the Petrine office. The change corrects what historians view as an anomaly introduced by Pope Francis in 2023, returning the basis of papal authority to the precedent set by earlier constitutions. Experts note that the new preamble emphasizes Vatican City’s creation under the Lateran Treaty to guarantee the Holy See’s absolute independence and sovereignty. The new law replaces the 2023 constitution and is the fourth Fundamental Law in Vatican history, with the previous ones issued in 1929, 2000, and 2023.
about 2 months ago
Pope Leo XIV has issued a new Fundamental Law for Vatican City State, replacing the 2023 constitution promulgated by his predecessor, Pope Francis. The revision removes the reference to the “munus petrinum” (the Petrine office) as the basis for papal temporal authority and formally allows laypeople, as well as women, to head the city‑state’s governing commission. 1
The 2023 law stated that the pope exercised sovereign power “by virtue of the Petrine office,” linking his temporal authority directly to his role as Peter’s successor. Historians argue that this formulation was unprecedented and theologically problematic. The 2026 Fundamental Law eliminates that language, returning to the traditional view that the pope’s temporal power is independent of the apostolic primacy and serves spiritual authority. 2
The new text is the fourth Fundamental Law in Vatican City’s history. The first, issued by Pope Pius XI in 1929 after the Lateran Treaty, established the city‑state to guarantee the Holy See’s independence. Pope John Paul II revised it in 2000, and Pope Francis introduced the 2023 version. Pope Leo’s 2026 law restores the pre‑1930 wording that affirms the pope’s “fullness of governing authority” without invoking the Petrine office. 1 2
A November 2025 motu proprio allowed the presidency of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State to be held by someone other than a cardinal. The new Fundamental Law incorporates this change, regularizing the appointment of Sister Raffaella Petrini as governor and opening the position to any qualified layperson, regardless of clerical status. This reflects the view that the city‑state’s civil administration does not require sacramental ordination. 2
Giovanni Maria Vian, a historian of Christianity, describes the Francis‑era wording as an “anomaly” that incorrectly suggested the pope’s temporal power derived directly from Peter’s apostolic authority. He emphasizes that such power only emerged in the early Middle Ages, long after the apostolic period. Father Roberto Regoli, an ecclesiastical historian, stresses that temporal authority must remain subordinate to spiritual ministry and that the removal of the Petrine reference restores theological accuracy. Both agree that the most significant aspect of the new law is the redefinition of the origin of papal temporal authority. 1 2*
Reaffirm papal sovereignty in Vatican law, excluding “munus petrinum.”
A Vatican law may reaffirm the Pope’s sovereignty over Vatican City State without using the expression munus petrinum. The crucial distinction is between the theological foundation of the papal office and the juridical description of the Pope’s authority as sovereign of a state.
Catholic teaching holds that the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction over the universal Church. The First Vatican Council teaches that the Roman Pontiff’s authority is not merely supervisory or directive, but includes “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction” over the universal Church, its pastors, and its faithful.
The same doctrine is expressed by Pius XII: the Roman Pontiff’s jurisdiction is “truly episcopal” and immediate, and the faithful are bound by hierarchical subordination and obedience in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and the government of the universal Church.
Accordingly, removing the phrase munus petrinum from a constitutional text would not, by itself, diminish the Pope’s Petrine ministry. The papal primacy is grounded in the divine constitution of the Church, not in the terminology chosen by the civil constitutional law of Vatican City State.
The sovereignty of Vatican City State serves the independence and freedom of the Holy See. Pius XI described the sovereignty associated with the Roman Pontiff as extending beyond ordinary national boundaries and insisted that it must not be subject to another human authority or law.
This principle concerns the Pope’s freedom to exercise his universal ecclesial mission without subordination to a civil power. It does not mean that the Pope’s spiritual authority is identical to the territorial sovereignty of Vatican City State. The two realities are related but conceptually distinct:
The distinction is important because the Pope’s universal jurisdiction does not depend upon the possession of a territorial state. Rather, territorial sovereignty protects the practical independence necessary for the exercise of the papal office.
In this context, excluding munus petrinum would most plausibly represent a terminological and constitutional clarification, not a denial of the Petrine office.
The expression munus petrinum can refer to the office or ministry entrusted by Christ to Peter and continued in his successors. A state constitution, however, may choose to describe sovereignty in more direct juridical terms: the Pope is the sovereign of Vatican City State, possesses supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, and exercises that authority through the organs established by Vatican law.
Such wording could avoid possible ambiguity between:
The available materials show that Vatican legislation already treats the Pope as the effective source of the state’s legislative and judicial arrangements. For example, a 2024 decree ordered how Vatican legislative measures acquire legal force and required their publication and observance. Likewise, Vatican judicial authorities exercise criminal jurisdiction over offenses affecting the security, fundamental interests, or patrimony of the Holy See.
These examples demonstrate that papal sovereignty can be articulated through concrete legal powers without making munus petrinum the operative constitutional formula.
The Church’s doctrine rejects any account of the Pope as merely an honorary president, coordinator, or inspector of the universal Church. The teaching of Vatican I explicitly condemns the view that the Roman Pontiff possesses only a power of inspection or direction rather than full and supreme jurisdiction.
Therefore, a revised Vatican constitutional formulation would remain compatible with Catholic doctrine if it continues to affirm that:
Pius XI’s principle is especially relevant: the sacred sovereignty connected with the Roman Pontiff must not be subject to another human authority or law.
The exclusion of munus petrinum may also reflect a desire to prevent a misunderstanding of Vatican sovereignty as though it were simply an automatic consequence of a theological phrase. In constitutional law, sovereignty should be stated with precision. The law may therefore affirm the Pope’s authority directly, rather than rely on terminology whose theological meaning is broader and whose legal meaning may be uncertain.
This would be consistent with the principle that the concrete exercise of papal primacy can vary according to the needs of the Church. Scholarly analysis of the primacy notes that the fact that a function was exercised by the Pope in one historical period does not by itself mean that it must always remain reserved to him, nor does the absence of a function in the past prevent its later being exercised as part of the primacy.
The constitutional form can therefore change while the substance of papal authority remains unchanged.
The sources supplied establish the Catholic principles of papal primacy, ecclesial independence, and Vatican legal authority. They do not, however, contain the text of the reported new Fundamental Law of Vatican City State or its official explanation of why munus petrinum was omitted. Consequently, it is not possible from these sources alone to determine whether the exclusion is intended as:
Any stronger claim about the drafters’ precise intention would go beyond the available evidence.
Excluding munus petrinum from Vatican constitutional law need not weaken or reject the Pope’s Petrine ministry. Theologically, the Pope remains the Successor of Peter with supreme, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction over the universal Church. Juridically, Vatican law may express his sovereignty in the more precise language of state constitutional authority and institutional competence. The essential requirement is that the revised law preserve the Pope’s independence from every other civil power and clearly recognize his supreme authority over Vatican City State.