By What Authority? Primatiality and Synodality in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy: In Quest for Better Solutions

Abstract

The major Christian denominations over the centuries have developed structures of authority and decision-making. It is intended to prove, that in the Roman Catholic Church, the focus has shifted toward primacy, while the Orthodox Churches are considered to be governed in the most synodal manner. The existing models of authority have their advantages and disadvantages, influencing decision-making and shaping synodal structures. In the article, using the methods of analysis, interpretation and comparison, the structures of authority and decision-making in the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church will be displayed, and on this basis, their strengths and weaknesses will be detected. The following questions will be answered in turn: how do primatial structures function in the churches? What is the shared responsibility for decision-making in synodal structures? What are the strong and weak points in the churches’ primatial and synodal structures? Based on the answers to these proposals, de-clericalisation of the primatial appointments and preventing synodal bodies from substantive failures will be formulated.

1. Introduction

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are heirs to the shared first millennium of Christianity, in which structures of primacy and synodality were shaped in the Christian East and West. As noted in the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group document on synodality and primatiality, “Primacy and synodality are not optional forms of Church administration, but belong to the very nature of the Church because both of them are meant to strengthen and deepen communion at all levels” (Serving Communion 2019, vol. 16, p. 100). In view of this, it is not surprising that synodal and primatial structures have developed throughout the Christian world. The first millennium was the era of the great ecumenical councils, all of which took place in the Christian East, but with the participation of the Latin Church. A common description of the formation of synodal and primatial structures in the Church of the first millennium can be found in the document of the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, the so-called ‘Chieti Document’ (Joint International Commission 2016). This is not the case for the second millennium, which was marked not only by the rupture of unity between the East and West of Christianity, but also by a somewhat different development of authority and decision-making structures. In the Christian East, permanent synodal structures were maintained while primatial structures functioned. In the West, there was an increasing strengthening of primacy, with a progressive reduction in synodal structures.

The Latin Church experienced a dispute in the 15th century over the reciprocal relationship between the Council and the Pope, resulting in a strengthening of the position of the Bishop of Rome as supreme head of the Latin Church. The strengthening of papal authority reached its apogee at the First Vatican Council, which decided on the direct jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church and the infallibility of his pronouncements ex cathedra. It was only since Vatican II that the importance of primacy in the local churches began to be reduced and synodal structures were gradually introduced. The universal council ceased to be the only form of conciliarity (synodality) in the Roman Catholic Church.

All this historical development should be given a new perspective in light of today’s context, which is drawn by the war in Ukraine and the role of the Moscow Patriarchate in it, the German ‘synodal way’ and the ‘synod on synodality’ of the Roman Catholic Church. Based on these analyses and responses, proposals for possible improvements will be formulated.

2. Results

2.1. Authority and Decision-Making in the Roman Catholic Church

Our aim is not to trace the historical development of primacy and synodal authority structures in the Roman Catholic Church, but to describe the structures that have been formed over the centuries in order to demonstrate their merits and shortcomings. These structures at the beginning of the twenty-first century constitute an arrangement of clearly distinguishable forms of primacy and a multiplicity of synodal forms.

The forms of primatial authority include first and foremost the papal office. The function of the Pope is linked in each case to the bishopric of Rome and is exercised in a one-man capacity, although assisted by the elaborate apparatus of the Roman Curia, which handles the affairs of the whole Catholic Church, not just the diocese of Rome. The canon law of the Catholic Church defines the Pope as supreme legislator (Codex 1983, can. 331–335), not subject to anyone’s judicial authority in the Church (Codex 1983, can. 1058). Since, at the same time, the Pope is the head of the Vatican state, he is not subject to anyone’s sovereignty according to civil international law.

Primate authority was traditionally associated with the function of primate of the first bishop (protos in Greek) of a country or region. Since the Second Vatican Council, the function has only had an honourable significance. The president of an Episcopal Conference, elected for a specific term, is not entitled to primate powers in the territory of the Conference over which he presides. In contrast, the actual primatial office is held by diocesan bishops in their dioceses. This includes Major Archbishops and Patriarchs (including in the Eastern Catholic Churches), who are bishops of eminent episcopal capitals. However, their authority does not extend beyond the boundaries of their own dioceses. In contrast, the primatial authority is not exercised by auxiliary bishops. The function of the auxiliary bishop is based on a kind of ‘theological prosthesis’. Having no real authority in the diocese and no theological grounding in their own right, “auxiliary bishops are called to share part of the burden of the diocesan bishops” only (Vatican II 1965, no 25). For the sake of tradition, together with their nomination, the Pope confers on them an historic, but currently non-existent, episcopal see, while commissioning them to work alongside the diocesan bishop of the existing diocese.

Synodal authority at its highest level takes the form of the conciliar authority of universal councils in the Catholic Church. However, such councils are convened extremely rarely. After the Council of Trent (1545–1563), the hiatus lasted for almost three centuries, until the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), followed by more than 90 years, until the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). According to the law of the Catholic Church, the decisions of a council have the force of law only after the Pope has signed them, in which the Pope’s close cooperation with the council and his somehow superior role over the council are both expressed. Similarly, the decisions of diocesan, regional and national synods take effect only after signature by the legitimate bishops. The clear predominance of primatial authority, both at central, regional (national) and diocesan levels, is evident in this arrangement. At the central level, a new form of synodality emerged after the Second Vatican Council: The Synod of Bishops. This is a body convened by the Pope for the consideration of the affairs of a particular geographical area, or at the level of the whole Church for the consideration of specific issues. Currently, the action of the Synod of Bishops is regulated by Pope Francis’ Apostolic Constitution of 15 September 2018 (Francis 2018).

2.2. Authority and Decision-Making in the Orthodox Churches

As in the Catholic Church, in the Orthodox Churches, there are simultaneously two forms of authority and decision-making, namely the synodal and primatial form of authority. Primatial authority is associated with the offices of patriarchs, metropolitans and diocesan bishops. As early as the fourth century, the Synod of Antioch of 341 defined in canon nine the principle of primacy: the bishops of a country should know the first (protos) among them (Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis (A.D. 341) 2021). Autocephaly, the jurisdictional independence of the Church in a given country, is derived from this principle. The largest and oldest Churches—although not all—have the status of patriarchal Churches. They are headed by a patriarch elected by the Holy Council of Bishops. In the case of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Holy Council of Bishops selects three candidates for Patriarch, and from these, the Patriarch is chosen by the Pomiestny Council, an assembly of hierarchs, priests, religious and laity from all the eparchies of the Patriarchate.

Patriarchal Churches may have metropolises headed by a metropolitan elected in the manner established in the patriarchate concerned. A patriarchal Church may have metropolises within one country as well as in other countries and states. An example of this is the Moscow Patriarchate, which has metropolises both within and outside the Russian Federation (e.g., Belarus, Ukraine). Autocephalous Churches enjoy jurisdictional independence from the patriarchates and usually cover the territory of a specific country (state). They form metropolis with a metropolitan elected by the Holy Council of Bishops of the metropolis. The lowest form of organisation is that of autonomous Churches which, although not considered part of a patriarchate, are nevertheless partly dependent on one of them.

Synodal authority in the Orthodox Churches is linked to the Holy Council of Bishops of the organisational level concerned. This is not an ad hoc body convened to undercut a particular decision, nor sitting periodically, but a permanent form of synodality, composed essentially of the bishops of a given level (metropolis or patriarchate) themselves. There is little participation in this form of synodality by the lay faithful, who have very limited influence on the decision-making process in the governance of their Church. A certain exception to this is the electing patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia, the Pomiestny Council, in which, however, the laity play a minor role (Пoлoжение oб избрании Патриарха Мoскoвскoгo и всея Руси 2013). In practice, despite the permanent form of synodality that is the Holy Council of Bishops, the Orthodox Churches are governed in a heavily clericalised manner. We can consider such a form of synodal authority as the Holy Council of Bishops as a form of collective primatiality.

2.3. Primatial or Synodal—Strengths and Weaknesses

Both primatial authority and synodal authority—besides their undoubted advantages—also have their drawbacks. The advantage of primatial authority is speed and efficiency. One-man decision-making, even when consulting non-committal advisors, also indicates the personal responsibility of the Pope, patriarch, metropolitan or bishop. This responsibility can only be limited to a moral dimension if there are no effective procedures for dismissing a hierarch who takes decisions that are detrimental to the community of the Church or even incompatible with the Christian faith. The solutions adopted in the Catholic Church, in which the deposition of a hierarch from office can only take place from a central level, i.e., by the Pope, show particular weakness here, and even this is not a simple task. By contrast, there is no procedure for the removal of the Pope. While this issue may seem purely hypothetical, as it would be difficult to identify a Bishop of Rome who should have been removed from office in recent centuries, this does not change the fact that the structures of the Catholic Church are not prepared for such an eventuality.

Although, in the Orthodox Churches, the same Holy Council of Bishops (or Pomiestny Council) that elected a hierarch to the episcopal, metropolitan or patriarchal could in principle decide on deposition. In practice, it is extremely difficult to depose a hierarch who has embezzled from his dignity. An evident example is the figure of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All-Russia, widely criticised for openly and impiously supporting the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine, including calling for the killing of Ukrainians and blessing the Russian military to this end (Arredondas 2022).

Another weakness of primatial authority is the high degree of clericalisation of the manner of appointment to the office. This applies to both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. In the Catholic Church, the Pope is elected by a predetermined college of electors called a conclave, composed exclusively of cardinals previously appointed to that dignity by the deceased (or abdicating) Pope or his predecessors. In turn, the cardinals are all bishops, which means that the lay faithful are excluded from the process of electing the Pope. Patriarchs of the Catholic Eastern Churches are elected by Holy Councils of Bishops, according to their particular law, and so are Major Archbishops. Other bishops, archbishops and metropolitans, on the other hand, are appointed by the Pope. Here again, the general faithful are excluded from the decision-making process, further excluding the People of God from influencing the governance of those so appointed. The situation is not altered by the right of some dioceses to present candidates for bishops to the Pope, as the appointment still comes directly from the Pope.

The situation is similar in the Orthodox Churches, where the protos of a given level (patriarch, metropolitan, bishop) is appointed by the Holy Council of Bishops, in which the laity do not participate. The situation is not altered here by the case of the election of the patriarch of Russia and All-Russia by the Pomiestny Council, composed of clergy and laity, since this Council can only elect from among three candidates put forward in advance by the Holy Council of Bishops, and in principle it does not happen that this Council exercises its right to extend the list of candidates (Пoлoжение oб избрании Патриарха Мoскoвскoгo и всея Руси 2013). The same is true for the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The metropolitans of Turkey present three candidates to the government in Ankara, from among whom they themselves choose one to be the patriarch, while the government only has the right to remove whomever it wishes from the list of candidates (Imach 2015, p. 151). Here, the patriarch is elected without the participation of the lay faithful. The thing is repeated in the case of the election of a bishop: this is done each time by the Holy Council of Bishops, composed, of course, of the clergy themselves.

Weaknesses in the synodal form of exercising authority can be diagnosed in three areas. Firstly, a situation of so-called dispersed responsibility, in which participants share responsibility for decisions, can lead to a lack of a sense of personal responsibility on the part of individual synod members and a tendency to agree with the trend shown by the majority. The second danger is the inadequate identification of teaching sources. The Catholic Church in Germany fell into such a trap at its own request by adopting human experience as a teaching source for its ‘Synodal Way’. Meanwhile, according to two thousand years of Church practice, the sources of teaching can only be Scripture and Tradition, as transmitters of the one Divine Revelation. The danger of a ‘dictatorship of relativism’ arising from accepting human experience as a source of teaching was pointed out by Cardinal Kurt Koch, which was the reason for the violent reaction of the German bishops (Koch 2022). The wrong direction of the German ‘Synodal Way’ had already been pointed out by Pope Francis in his remarks to the German bishops (Vatican News 2022).

The third danger is that the synodal assembly misunderstands the process of discernment in matters of faith and Church life and confuses this process with democratic processes. In the process of discernment, it is a matter of knowing a given truth in the light of God’s revelation as closely as possible and then applying the result of this knowledge to the current situation of the Church. Adopting the rules of democracy, in which truth is created by the will of the majority, does not apply to synodal discernment.

A complete novelty that has emerged in the Catholic Church in recent years is the launch of a process called the ‘Synod on synodality’. This synod, which derives from the institution of the Synod of Bishops as an institution that advises the Pope on a particular range of issues, this time aims to direct the life of the Catholic Church towards ‘greater synodality’. The idea is that the synod initially convened for 2021–2023 and extended to 2024 “… is intended as a Synodal Process. The aim of this synodal process is not to provide a temporary or one-time experience of synodality, but rather to provide an opportunity for the entire People of God to discern together how to move forward on the path towards being a more synodal Church in the long-term. A basic question prompts and guides us: How does this journeying together allow the Church to proclaim the Gospel in accordance with the mission entrusted to Her; and what steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow as a synodal Church?” (Synodus Episcoporum 2022). This synod is at the beginning of a journey in which the diocesan stages have been followed by national syntheses. The next stages will be continental assemblies, which will lead to a central-level assembly. It is impossible at this stage to judge anything about this phenomenon since the process is still ongoing and at this stage, its results cannot be determined.

The advantage of the synodal form of exercising authority in a broad formula of representativeness is the inclusion of a possible large part of God’s people in the process of discernment in matters of faith and Church life and in decision-making concerning the community represented at the synod. The representativeness of the synod participants at each level contributes to a greater involvement of the faithful in matters of faith and Church life. At the same time, the involvement and interest thus generated facilitates the reception of synodal decisions, which the faithful can regard as having been made on their behalf by their representatives.

3. Discussion: How to Improve the Existing Models of Authority—Some Tentative Proposals

On the basis of the above description of the forms of exercising authority in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Churches, as well as on the basis of the demonstrated strengths and weaknesses of the individual elements, one may be tempted to formulate some practical recommendations. They will not be ready-made, fully mature legal solutions, but rather outline the direction in which improvements in the exercise of primatiality and synodal authority could go. The proposals outlined below will apply to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

3.1. What Seems to Be Beneficial for Primatiality?

The primatial forms of authority in the Church do not need drastic change. However, improvements are needed to make these forms of exercising authority more effective on the one hand and more susceptible to really listening to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit on the other. The centuries-old practice of linking primatial authority to episcopal dignity should be maintained, while preserving the appointment of only unmarried men to this dignity. This practice is now common to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. What should change, however, is the way in which the candidate for the primatial office of each level is chosen. In order to move away from ecclesiastical centralism and clericalism, the local Church, which the bishop will later serve, should be involved in the selection of the candidate for bishop. This participation could take the form of election by a representative body in which both clergy and laity, both men and women, would be represented. This would require the establishment of new representative structures, or the modification of existing ones. A similar procedure could be envisaged for the election of metropolitans, patriarchs and even the Pope.

Voices calling for the lay faithful of both sexes to be given a real say in the election of the hierarchy do appear from time to time, but do not generate deeper discussion. In Poland, Damian Wąsek’s book Nowa wizja zarządzania Kościołem [A New Vision for Church Governance] was published in 2014, arousing far less interest in Church circles than it should have. Among other things, Wąsek formulates a possible option for reforming the dignity of the cardinal. If the functions of cardinals were to be taken over by permanent synods of bishops, acting in an advisory capacity to the Pope, the title of cardinal could be purely honorary, granted also to laymen, including women (Wąsek 2014, p. 126). If one were to creatively develop Wąsek’s intuitions, one could project that the reformed college of cardinals, consisting of bishops, priests and laymen of both sexes, would at the same time constitute the college of electors of the Pope—the Bishop of Rome. Contrary to the thought formulated by Wąsek, participation in such a college could not mean a purely honorary function awarded for meritorious service to the Church but would have to equate to a strong mandate derived from election in local Churches, for example, at the level of ecclesiastical provinces or national Churches.

Once the condition of the representativeness of the People of God in the election of the hierarchy is fulfilled, it would also be necessary to guarantee an effective procedure for the removal from office of a person who has failed or who has openly misappropriated the dignity assumed. This would mean introducing the principle: anyone who has been appointed to an office can also be removed from it. The Church should have a procedure for dismissing those who harm it through their own incompetence or blatant impiety, or who, through great sin or heresy, have lost their legitimacy to exercise authority. The case of the Moscow Patriarch Kirill, who in the name of promoting Russian religious nationalism, a component of the so-called Russian World (Russkii Mir) (Gallaher and Kalaitzidis 2022), declared a holy war (Surzhko Harned 2022), recurs here. “We have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance” (Smith 2022). One cannot disagree with the theologian and scholar of Russia’s national security doctrine, Marcin Składanowski, who demonstrates that “Patriarch Kirill’s criticism of Western liberal democracy is, at first sight, strictly political. It responds to contemporary political requirements in Russia itself. (…) Kirill’s criticism responds to the political interests of the Russian establishment” (Składanowski 2020, pp. 11 and 17). Voices calling for the deposition of the patriarch by the Synaxis, i.e., the assembly of the patriarchs of the ancient Eastern Churches, appeared to be pure speculation in the absence of existing procedures yet to be developed, which all Orthodox Churches would have to agree to adopt (Hudson 2022).

The power to depose the Bishop of Rome could be vested in an extraordinary synod, which would, in this case, have to be convened at the request of a sufficiently large number of its members, and an absolute majority, for example, of at least two-thirds of the members of the synod, would be required to decide on the Pope’s deposition. The very high level of performance of the Petrine ministry by successive Popes over the past centuries, including today, does not encourage the development of a procedure for the potential removal of a Pope from office. However, should not the Church have such a procedure, even so that it never has to use it? After all, there have been Popes in history who have misappropriated their vocation to such an extent that they have been declared antipopes.

It seems much more necessary to develop a procedure for the dismissal of bishops who, for various reasons (e.g., grave and public moral transgression, loss of faith, heresy, incurable conflictuality), should not continue to hold office. So far, diplomatic pressure is used, which does not always prove to be effective. In order to remove Archbishop Milingo (a hierarch involved in shamanism who had married into the Moon sect) from the diocese, he had to be transferred to… Rome, while he was only excommunicated when he made an unlawful ordination of bishops (Pullella 2009). It was not until the paedophile scandals that rocked the Catholic Church that criminal procedures were issued, on the basis of which the Pope dismisses from office or even transfers to the secular state priests, bishops and cardinals, as it was the case of card. McCarrick (Chuck and Connor 2022). However, such procedures should also be available at the level of local churches, e.g., national churches. This would merely be a restoration mutatis mutandis of what was already known in Christian antiquity. The Council of Sardica in 344 decided that a bishop deposed from office by a metropolitan had the right of appeal to Rome. This testifies indirectly to the use of procedures for the deposition of bishops by metropolitans (Council of Sardica (A.D. 344) 2021).

3.2. What Seems to Be Beneficial for Synodality?

In considering changes in synodal structures, the first point to be made is that the Church (in its historical realisation also as the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches) has the right to change in the sense of shaping its structures to best suit its vocation, which is to communicate salvation in Jesus Christ. In doing so, a very strict distinction must be made between the unchanging deposit of faith which the Church must carry through the centuries without distorting anything. What can be subject to change, and what has been subject to change over the centuries in the process of formation, is the historical form of the Church’s implementation, the way it is structured, the way it is governed. Both primatial and synodal authority belong to the latter sphere, that is, the historical realisation of the Church. This, in turn, has been subject to change through the centuries and can continue to be subject to change in order to bring the deposit of faith intact and unbroken to contemporary men and women.

For both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, it could be of benefit to draw consequences from the theological category of sobornost’. Since the whole Church is, by its nature, conciliar and the whole Church is the bearer and guardian of infallibility and truth (Hackel 2002), restricting the composition of synods at particular levels to clerics is not only an expression of clericalism, but eliminates the majority of the Church’s faithful, i.e., the laity, from the decision-making process concerning them. The theological idea contained in the category of sobornost’ should be creatively combined with the well-known category of sensus fidelium from Latin theology. The universal sense of faith of the People of God has already proved its truthfulness and effectiveness in the history of the Church, e.g., in bringing the Church out of the Arian heresy. A postulate would therefore be to introduce a broad representation of Church members, clergy and laity, into the synods. The technical implementation of this postulate needs detailed reflection; here, we propose it as a principle for the functioning of the synods. Clearly, these could not only be synods of bishops, but synods of bishops, priests and laity, with the principle of ordaining only men being maintained. For while the organisation of the structures of the Church belongs to its earthly implementation, and is thus in the domain of the ius humanum, the determination of the proper subject of ordination derives from the direct will of Christ, and thus belongs to the ius Divinum and cannot be changed.

The category of sensus fidelium could also be implemented in carrying out the election of a bishop, a metropolitan, a patriarch and also a Pope. This would require far-reaching changes in the current ways in which these elections are carried out. However, it is important to consider how much these changes are needed in order for the Church to effectively proclaim the Gospel now and in the future. The current way in which Church structures function is not the way they were known in the first centuries of Christianity and is certainly not a fixed solution forever.

Another postulate is the introduction of permanent synodal structures, i.e., structures that are not convened just to deal with a task. The permanence of structures does not exclude the tenure of members. However, in order that such permanent synodal bodies may not lead to a degeneration of the deposit of faith, two theological safeguards must be introduced. The first is to develop an understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. The mysterious nature of the Church, which is not merely an assembly of believers but their essential unity with the living and present Christ, eludes purely sociological approaches. Understanding the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ safeguards against reducing the understanding and description of this community in purely sociological terms, and further safeguards against the introduction of democratic rules familiar from non-ecclesial communities. The second is the discernment of truth, carried out in prayer and discussion, which is the task of the synodal bodies. It is to be carried out, we believe, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who instructs believers in the ways of salvation. It is precisely this: finding ways to effectively lead people to salvation, rather than seeking technically efficient Church governance, that should be the concern of all synodal bodies.

4. Materials and Methods

The main research hypothesis of the article is that the primatial and synodal structures developed in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Churches—in addition to their undeniable strengths—also have some weaknesses and as such need to be changed for the sake of the future life of the Church and the proper fulfilment of her mission. The methods of analysis, interpretation and comparison used in this article make it possible to show the current state of synodal and primatial authority in the Church and then to detect points of fundamental concern. Having detected weaknesses in the structures of authority and decision-making, I discuss possible methods for improving these such important institutions of ecclesiastical life. The materials used relate directly to the composition and functioning of the structures of authority in the Churches discussed. Other references to websites and articles are mainly of an exemplifying nature. Finally, my own theological speculations go in the direction of seeking ways to reformulate the shape and understanding of both primate and synodal authority. Thus, I place this article in the current theological discussion around synodality in the Roman Catholic Church, which may be equally useful for Orthodox Churches.

5. Conclusions

The analysis and discussion carried out above have shown that, both in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Churches, the structures of primatial authority and synodal authority show certain imperfections. On the basis of the material gathered, the following conclusions can be drawn from the considerations made above:

• For the effective fulfilment of its mission, the Church can and should adapt its structures, including primatial and synodal structures. The fulfilment of the Church’s mission is paramount, which cannot be hindered by attachment to currently existing structures and ways of functioning.
• The proposed changes boil down to the introduction of representativeness of the whole faithful in the election to primatial functions (which should remain linked to the episcopate). At the same time, effective procedures for dismissal from primatial functions are needed. Making these changes would reduce clericalism in the Church.
• A theological exploration of the categories of sobornost’ and sensus fidelium would help to introduce synodality into the daily functioning of the Church.
• Synodality and primacy should be in mutual balance: one form should not dominate the other.
• An understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ will safeguard against a reduction of her understanding in purely social terms and against reducing her to a purely sociological phenomenon.
• Remaining committed to Scripture and Tradition as the sole transmitters of Divine Revelation will safeguard the Church against a degeneration of the understanding of her nature and mission, which can easily result from accepting human experience as the source of Revelation.