Did the new pope dismiss papal supremacy?
An article entitled “Pope Leo XIV Drops Papal Supremacy, Urging ‘Full Communion’ with ‘All Christians’”, published in the popular conservative outlet “The Stream”, has gained significant attention for its claims about the new American pope’s not-so-tacit relinquishing of papal authority.
This is the kind of statement (and news coverage) that will, or ought to, make history. Speaking at his “inaugural Mass” to more than 150,000 people assembled at St. Peter’s Square, where Matthew 16:18 is carved into the stone surrounding the piazza, the new Pope Leo XIV declared that “The Apostle Peter himself tells us that Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, and has become the cornerstone… Moreover, if the rock is Christ, Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him”.
This is a significant departure from conventional Roman Catholic interpretation, which holds that Matthew 16:18 identifies (and depends upon) Peter as the “Rock” on which Jesus built the Church. The new pope’s statement actually reflects a sentiment that was articulated in the 2016 “Chieti Document,” from an ongoing ecumenical dialogue with Eastern Orthodox churches.
In the West, the primacy of the See of Rome was understood, from the fourth century onwards, in reference to Peter’s preeminent role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome was gradually interpreted as a prerogative owed to his Petrine lineage. This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point.
Chieti and related dialogues are the fruits of a long effort by Pope Francis to reverse the strong authoritative statements of the papacy in favor of his more recent “synodality” initiatives. Papal Supremacy hearkens back to a time when the split occurred between East and West (1054). Shortly thereafter, Pope Gregory VII (née Hildebrand) issued his Dictatus Papae statement, which essentially claimed all authority in the church (and then some) for the pope. From 1378-1417, a period known as The Great Schism, there were two, and even three claimants to the papacy. It took a series of councils to untangle the situation. The conciliar movement, which emphasized the authority of councils over the papacy, remained at odds with papal supremacy for centuries. It was ultimately suppressed at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), where, according to John O’Malley, “a debate on the relative authority of pope and council” was “the nightmare that at all costs had to be avoided.”
Papal supremacy was eventually codified at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in the strongest possible terms. Among the bishops present at the council, would-be dissenters, per August Hasler, had no liberty to exercise their consciences, facing “material pressure” and “moral duress” that was “applied in every conceivable way.” During the Middle Ages and beyond, the conciliar movement remained alive (but buried). Then, largely on the prompting of the Catholic Tübingen school thinkers of the 19th century and later the 20th century “Nouvelle théologie” movement (names like Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar), the topic of conciliarism was again raised, and Pope John XXIII saw to it that the issue was discussed at Vatican II. The concept of conciliarism was embedded in discussions of “the college of bishops” in the Lumen Gentium document that came out of that council. It was later nibbled at, via various synods of bishops held over the years.
In the struggle between papal primacy and conciliarity, the sentiment behind the latter was somewhat codified by Joseph Ratzinger. Before he was pope, Ratzinger held that “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” Pope John Paul II brought up the issue again in his 1995 encyclical “Ut Unum Sint.”
“I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”
For all the complaints that conservative Roman Catholics had about Pope Francis, the one that you don’t hear about is his emphasis on synodality, which he introduced in the 2013 encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. In 2024, the culmination of that effort produced a “Summary Document” containing many of the efforts to find “a new situation” for “the primacy.” We have heard that “new situation” being vocalized by Pope Leo. Will that mean an end to the papacy? It’s not likely.
Leonardo Di Chirico, who has written extensively (and deeply) about Roman Catholicism and its doctrines, theologies, and underlying assumptions, doesn’t think that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is going to disappear, either all-of-a-sudden, nor at any time in the future. Referring to the Pope Francis initiative on “synodality” (prior to its completion), he wrote:
Rome is Catholic but it is also Roman. As it opens itself to (Catholic) synodality it strengthens the (Roman) papacy. Those who think that synodality is synonymous with evangelicalism are therefore deluding themselves. It appears to be a mode of catholicity that, while it elasticizes some aspects, it does not touch the decisive ones.
Pope Leo may or may not affect “the decisive” aspects of the papacy. But Pope Francis seemingly put his thumb on the scale in favor of conciliarity, and now, with his statement about “the Rock,” Pope Leo seems to have added his thumb to the scale. Time will tell.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
