Primacy and Synodality in the FIRST

Primacy and Synodality 247 Primacy and Synodality in the first millennium, in the documents of Ravenna (2007) and Chieti (2016) of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

Pablo Argárate1

In this article I will refer to the understanding of primacy in the frst millennium according to the hermeneutic, historical and theological reading made of it by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in its last two documents. They study the issue of ecclesial communion from two basic and complementary notions, namely those of synodality and authority. The two documents referred to have such a similarity that they could be presented syn- optically. Both in its structure show a more or less explicit introduction, where the meaning of the two fundamental concepts of synodality / conciliarity and authority / primacy is analyzed. In the main part, the interaction of both in the local, regional, and universal triple dimension is analyzed. Within the latter there is the discussion of the primacy of the church of Rome. The “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue” between the Catholic Church and the fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches was created in 1979. The commission has so far held fourteen ses- sions, the frst being in Patmos and Rhodes (Greece) in 1980 and the last one in Chieti (Italy) in 2016. In all of them, fundamental theological aspects have been discussed in the dialogue between both churches, such as the Trinity, sacraments, “uniatism”, the sacramental nature of the Church and its ecclesiological consequences and canonical, the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the frst millennium, as well as primacy and

1 Pablo Argárate is professor and director of the Institute of Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Patrology at the University of Graz. 248 Pablo Argárate synodality in the Church2. It is precisely this last issue that occupies the documents of Ravenna and Chieti that concerns us here. Their historical framework refects the evolution of almost forty years of dialogue with their tensions, especially after Baltimore (2000) and Ravenna (2007). Indeed, after the frst, the commission was virtually paralyzed. In the case of Ravenna, the representatives of the Russian church left the session in disagreement before the fnal document was drafted. In 2013, the Moscow Patriarchate published a strongly critical document of Ravenna under the name “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church”3. In 2014 during the Amman session of the Commission no agreement was reached. The situation changes in the following one, in Chieti, a few months after the “Holy and Great Synod” of the Orthodox churches, synod to which four of the fourteen autocephalous churches (Antioch, Bulgaria, Georgia and Russia) decided at the last moment not to participate, even having confrmed their presence and approved the documents in January of the same year 2016. These diffculties refect not only tensions of the Orthodox churches with the Catholic church but, especially, among the Orthodox churches themselves. Situation that now unfortunately has worsened on the occasion of the declaration of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Indeed, because of this initiative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in September 2018, the Russian church has broken its communion with that patriarchate in 2 The meetings of Patmos/Rhodes (1980) and Munich (1982) where focused on “the Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”. The ones of Crete (1984) and Bari (1987) on “Faith, Sacraments and Unity of the Church”; the one of Valamo (1988) The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctifcation and Unity of the People of God”; the ones of Freising (1990) and Balamand (1993) on “Uniatism”; the one of Baltimore (2000) on “Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism”; the one of Belgrade (2006) on “the Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church; Conciliarity and Authority in the Church at Three Levels of Ecclesial Life: Local, Regional and Universal”; the one of Ravenna (2007) on “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”; the ones of Paphos (2009) and Vienna (2010) on “the Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium”, the ones of Amman (2014) and Chieti (2016) on “Primacy and synodality in the Church”. 3 “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church”. Primacy and Synodality 249 two stages: frst it decided to omit the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the diptychs (September 2018) and a month later decreed the rupture of eucharistic communion with the patriarchate of Constantinople. The latter, however, has not made the same decision nor the other autocephalous churches have taken sides yet, so that we cannot formally speak of a schism (at least so far). Members of the Moscow Patriarchate are now also prohibited from participating in commissions chaired by members of the patriarchate Constantinople, as is the case today of the international theological commission currently chaired by Archbishop Job (Getcha) of Telmessos. This opens a new impasse for this offcial commission, which will probably continue to meet without the presence of Russian members though. In this context, it is necessary to mention that after the crisis at the Baltimore meeting (2000), when the offcial dialogue stalled, in 2004 a parallel and unoffcial commission emerged, the “Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox- Catholic Working Group”, composed of 26 theologians (13 Orthodox and 13 Catholics, of which I myself am a member), who are not delegates of their churches but nominated based on their theological competence. This group meets annually and has approved, after long years of preparation, the document “Serving Communion. Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality” in October 2018 in Graz. This document, which consists of an introduction, three fundamental chapters: hermeneutical refections, historical observations, systematic considerations, and closes with a conclusion, is also helpful for the subject of this article. The Ravenna document of October 2007 is entitled “Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority”, while that of Chieti in September 2016 is called: “Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service of the Unity of the Church”. Both documents - as already stated - can be put in parallel since they have almost identical structures. Ravenna 2007 Chieti 2016

Introduction (1-4) Introduction I. The Foundations of Conciliarity and Authority (5-16) 1. Conciliarity (5-11) 2. Authority (12-16) 250 Pablo Argárate

II. The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority (17-44) 1. The local level (18-21) The Local Church (8-10) The Regional Communion of Churches 2. The regional level (22-31) (11-14) The Church at the Universal Level 3. The universal level (32-44) (15-19) Conclusion (45-46) Conclusion (20-21) 21 paragraphs and 16 notes with ref- 46 paragraphs and 1 note on the differ- erences to the Church Fathers and the ent understanding of the Church Ecumenical Councils.

Despite the structural similarity the differences are several. First, Chieti has half of Ravenna’s extension. At a deeper level, differences in accents and ap- proaches are seen. Chieti manifests a new context, where among other aspects a generational change is observed. Signifcant in that regard is the replace- ment of the orthodox co-chair of the commission; In place of metropolitan John (Zizioulas) is now Archbishop Job (Getcha), both of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As I mentioned, Chieti took place a few months after the synod of Crete (marked among other aspects by the absence of four churches). In Chieti, unlike Crete and Ravenna, the Russian delegates were present, but not the Bulgarians, while the representatives of Georgia objected to some of the paragraphs of the document. Regarding the content, several experts considered Chieti a document weaker than that of Ravenna, lacking balance, especially at the level of the local church. Ravenna, after starting with the quotation of Jn 17:21 (Chieti has 1 Jn 1:3-4) refers to the topics discussed in the previous meetings of the commission (reference absent in Chieti) and states:

Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and refect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority. On the basis of these common affrmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which fow from the sacramental nature of the Church4.

This relationship is in effect the frst chapter of the document (“The Foundations of Conciliarity and Authority “), where the two concepts of conciliarity and authority are analyzed. The frst one says: 4 Ravenna, 2-3. Primacy and Synodality 251

The term conciliarity or synodality comes from the word “council” (synodos in Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops exercising a particular responsibility. It is also possible, however, to take the term in a more comprehensive sense referring to all the members of the Church (cfr. the Russian term sobornost)”5.

Subsequently, a passage advances the theme of the second chapter:

This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defned thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the frst amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are frst (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the frst amongst themselves6.

In relation to authority, Ravenna refers to the New Testament concept of ex- ousia. The authority of the Church comes from its Lord Jesus Christ, who received it from his Father and communicated it to the apostles, who in turn did it to the bishops and, through them, to the whole Church. In this way, it is clarifed that the authority in the Church belongs to Christ. Exercised in his name and by the power of the Holy Spirit, it should always be a service (diakonia) of love. She is founded on the Word of God. Authority in ecclesial communion is linked to its structure (which is oriented towards salvation) and is regulated by canons and statutes of the Church. The second chapter of Ravenna (17-44) is entitled “The threefold actualization of Conciliarity and Authority” and presents three subsections: the local (18-21), regional (22-31) and universal (32-44) levels. Chieti presents instead sections: the local church (8-10), the regional communion of churches (11-14) and the Church at the universal level (15-19); sections that precede the brief

5 Ravenna, 5. 6 Ravenna, 10. 252 Pablo Argárate conclusions (20-21). Ravenna has an introductory paragraph (17) to the various subsections. It specifes the questions that will guide them, namely:

How do institutional elements of the Church visibly express and ser- ve the mystery of koinonia? How do the canonical structures of the Churches express their sacramental life? To this end we distinguished between three levels of ecclesial institutions: that of the local Church around its bishop; that of a region taking in several neighbouring local Churches; and that of the whole inhabited earth (oikoumene) which embraces all the local Churches7

In its analysis of the local church, Ravenna, starting from a marked Eucharistic ecclesiology of communion, points out that ecclesiastical communion is framework and criterion for the exercise of authority. At the same time, it points out that through that communion of all the members of the community, the local church appears as a “synodal”. The emphasis is on the participa- tion of all members in obedience to the bishop, “who is the protos and head (kephale) of the local Church.” Similarly, it is affrmed that “all charisms and ministries in the Church converge in unity under the ministry of the bishop, who serves the communion of the local Church.” Chieti shows here one of the biggest differences with respect to the Ravenna document by partially diluting the balance that the latter manifested between bishop and community. Chieti stresses that it is Christ who is the head and whose presence is made visible by the bishop. Anyway, it affrms an inter- dependence between the proestos and the community and it is a constitutive element of the local church. The bishop is “guarantor and servant of unity” and acts as a mediator between his community and the other churches. In this weakening of the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Ravenna, we can read between the lines, even when nuanced, the position of the Patriarchate of Moscow 2007. In it, in fact, the role of the bishop was already markedly and unilat- erally highlighted: “At the level of the diocese the primacy belongs to the bishop”, grounding this affrmation with biblical, patristic and canonical references. “Within the Church, the bishop has full sacramental, administrative and magisterial power.” In Chieti, all references to the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Ravenna are missed. Even when Chieti mentions the Eucharist, it does so to uphold the bishop’s authority: “The bishop’s sacramental power is

7 Ravenna, 17. Primacy and Synodality 253 expressed more fully in the Eucharist.” In this context, the only function of the community is to obey him. Ravenna had instead expressed:

Synodality, however, also involves all the members of the community in obedience to the bishop, who is the protos and head (kephale) of the local Church, required by ecclesial communion”8.

In relation to the regional level, Ravenna writes:

Since the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn.52 and 53)9.

This regional level is manifested in different areas: province, metropolis, pat- riarchy. The document briefy mentions the emergence of metropolitan and patriarchal structures along with new confgurations and developments in the second millennium: new patriarchates and autocephalous churches in the East and episcopal conferences in the West. It is extremely important that both Ravenna and Chieti and the Russian document cite, all of them, the Apostolic Canon 34 in reference to the regional level of communion.

A canon accepted in the East as in the West, expresses the relationship between the local Churches of a region: “The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is frst (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the frst (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit”

8 Ravenna, 20. 9 Ravenna, 22. 254 Pablo Argárate

On the universal level, communion is required not only among neighboring Churches but also with all churches in space and time. It is the “one” Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. This communion does not allow the modifcation of that creed by a local church or any fundamental point regarding the ministry. Ecclesial communion requires canonical rules and disciplinary norms. The Ravenna document presents communion at the universal level under two diverse situations: the extraordinary, of the ecumenical councils, and the ordinary. In relation to the extraordinary situation, it maintains:

In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches – in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fdelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils10

The document continues explaining what are the conditions that make a synod an ecumenical council. These are fundamentally two: constituency and reception. In relation to the latter, it is explicitly stated that: “this reception process is interpreted differently in the East and in the West according to their respective canonical tradition”. The document also notes that the Catholic church considers some “councils” that took place in the West after the break- up of communion. At this point, Chieti offers further clarifcation regarding the relationship of the Bishop of Rome with the common ecumenical councils:

Though the bishop of Rome was not personally present at any of those councils, in each case either he was represented by his legates or he agreed with the council’s conclusions post factum”11.

Interesting are the criteria offered by the same document regarding the reception of a council as ecumenical. For this he quotes the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea II:

For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement (symphonia) of the heads of 10 Ravenna, 35. 11 Chieti 18. Primacy and Synodality 255

the churches, the cooperation (synergeia) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs (symphronountes). An ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils. Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council12.

It deserves to be pointed out that already in this passage, the role of the bishop of Rome is distinguished even terminologically from that of the other patriarchs. In the aforementioned passage it is also seen that, at least on some occasions, the bishop of Rome exercises a sort of confrmation of the conciliar decisions. Regarding the second situation of universal communion, the normal one, Ravenna argues:

During the frst millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order ( taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinonia. ”13.

In other words, during ordinary time the ecclesial communion at the universal level was expressed by consultations, appeals to the sees and letters of communion that a patriarch sends to the others upon being elected to his offce. Chieti will return to this point when she gives more details about how appeals work:

Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the de- position of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica

12 Chieti 18. 13 Ravenna, 40. 256 Pablo Argárate

(343) to establish rules for such a procedure. Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692). The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople, and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East”14.

The text focuses on appeals to Rome. It is also seen that these are not an ex- clusive privilege of this church since others made both to Constantinople and to other venues (without further specifcation) are mentioned. In all cases it is stated that the object of the appeals are disciplinary matters. Important is that the document clarifes that appeals come not only from the West but also from the East. In this respect, they manifest the (universal) communion of the Church, without indicating however that the bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over the East. In this statement, some of the conclusions regarding the recog- nition of the role of that bishop are advanced, without accepting, however, consequences that were subsequently extracted from it in the West. In this way it is a factor of communion but without jurisdiction. Chieti’s document offers even more interesting aspects when referring to the election of a new patriarch and the communion letter he wrote in this context.

When a new patriarch was elected to one of the fve sees in the taxis, the normal practice was that he would send a letter to all the other patriarchs, announcing his election and including a profession of faith. Such ‘letters of communion’ profoundly expressed the canonical bond of communion among the patriarchs”15.

The concept of taxis comes from the Trinitarian theology especially from the treatise of St. Basil “On the Holy Spirit”, where he introduces the notion of order within the equality of divine persons. Extrapolated to ecclesiology, it came to express a precise order among the different churches while affrming

14 Chieti, 19. 15 Chieti, 17. Primacy and Synodality 257 their equality. Taxis here designates a strict order of precedence between the fve main sees of the old Church from the 5th century: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Constantinople was introduced in second place in the Council of Constantinople (381) and subsequently affrmed in canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451); decision that Rome did not ac- cept. Jerusalem was established as a patriarchate after Chalcedon. That is why it is commonly referred to as “pentarchy” when referring to these fve main sees. Ravenna had already stated in the context of the ecumenical councils that:

These councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the fve major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). 16.

This order (taxis) is expressed above all in the liturgical context of the Eucharistic celebration. Diptychs are read there and communion with the other churches is celebrated in the names of their patriarchs. In this way these diptychs refect the underlying order (taxis). In the particular case of the election of a new bishop for those major offces Chieti states:

By including the new patriarch’s name, in the proper order, in the diptychs of their churches, read in the Liturgy, the other patriarchs acknowledged his election. The taxis of the patriarchal sees had its highest expression in the celebration of the holy Eucharist. Whenever two or more patriarchs gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, they would stand according to the taxis. This practice manifested the eucharistic character of their communion17.

In this way, order (taxis) is an expression of universal communion that is per- formed eminently in the Eucharistic celebration. Ravenna designates this order as “old”, while Chieti speaks of a “canonical tradition” and specifes it by stating how it emerged and what it means for the frst see.

Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the fve patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the frst

16 Ravenna, 35. 17 Chieti, 17. 258 Pablo Argárate

place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specifc order, according to the canonical tradition”18.

Chieti thus gives a foundation to reconcile order between the fve sees, un- derlining that Rome is the frst seat and that this primacy is honorary. Thus, through order (taxis) we have reached the central question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Similarly, Ravenna refers to the primacy, however not explicitly attributed to the seat but to his bishop: “the bishop of Rome [is the] protos among the patriarchs.” Let us now pay attention to the further clarifcation made by the two documents when expressing agreements and disagreements of the two churches in this regard. Chieti argues, as has been seen, that this primacy was considered a presbeia tes times. The term presbeia literally means a “seniority,” a pre - cedence or priority in seniority, precedence that leads to privileges or prerogatives. Indeed, in this sense of “prerogative”, it is used in the famous canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus, presbeia tes times would mean an honorary precedence. In this way, Chieti’s position regarding the Roman primacy can be summed up in the following statement: in the undivided church, the seat of Rome occupied frst place in the order among the fve patriarchates and exercised a presbeia tes times. This statement is much more concise than the one Ravenna argued. This document is based on agreements and disagreements of the churches in the interpretation of the Roman primacy.

Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the frst place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the frst millennium19.

Ravenna does not talk about presbeia tes times but refers to the traditional appointment of Ignatius de Antioch, who affrms a presidency “in love”. In addition, it establishes the function of protos for the bishop of Rome. Chieti 18 Chieti, 15. 19 Ravenna, 41 Primacy and Synodality 259 will not, at least explicitly. Both Ravenna and Chieti present the interpretation of the primacy among the divergences of the churches. Ravenna has just affrmed that these discrepancies are not new but date back to the frst millennium. Chieti argues that those different interpretations occurred “gradually” and are related to the link between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter. In both cases the disagreement focuses on the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome. Chieti’s passage in this regard says:

In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the frst of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point”20.

According to Chieti’s interpretation, a parallel is established in Western understanding between Peter’s relationship with the rest of the apostles and the relationship between the bishop of Rome and the rest of the bishops. The document concludes that the Eastern churches did not share this understanding on the basis of different scriptural and patristic interpretations. Something similar had written Ravenna, without referring however to the relationship with the apostle Peter. Ravenna attempts to summarize the whole question by holding:

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affrm the following points: 1. Primacy at all levels is a practice frmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church. 2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations21.

It is implicitly stated that there are no disagreements regarding the primacy at the local and regional levels. The divergences concern the interpretation of

20 Chieti, 16. 21 Ravenna, 43. 260 Pablo Argárate the Roman primacy in its exercise and bases. That is why the document points to a better understanding of the exercise of that primacy in the communion of all churches. Ravenna also clarifes that the prerogatives of the protos are verifed at each level, not only in the universal.

In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth cen - tury, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the fve patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church. 22.

Chieti’s document concludes by pointing out the co-implication of the notions of synodality and primacy in the structures of the Church and the continuing awareness of universal communion in the frst millennium:

Throughout the frst millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church. 23.

From this detailed study of the documents in question (Ravenna and Chieti), it can be concluded that despite the difference in accents, in new ecclesial situations, both texts present an extremely similar structure and discuss the relationship between two essential dimensions of the Church, namely synodality and primacy. The documents see these notions as co-implicated in all levels of ecclesial life, even though Chieti tends to clarify some statements of Ravenna. In other words, in the local church as well as in the regional

22 Ravenna, 44. 23 Chieti, 20. Primacy and Synodality 261 and universal church, synodality requires a primacy as a factor of unity, and primacy has its raison d’être in the synodality of the Church. This correlation is evident in the case of the apostolic canon 34, whose immediate context is the regional one but which can also be applied to the other two levels: local (where however the bishop has a unique place) and the universal. On this basis, one can think of the particular case of the universal primacy in the Church. Both documents indicate both the fundamental agreement (recogni- tion, at least in the undivided Church, of the primacy of the bishop/ church of Rome) and disagreement (linked both to the interpretation of this primacy [jurisdiction, relationship between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter], as well as its scriptural, patristic and theological bases) among the churches. In other words, the differences lie in the understanding of the exercise of that primacy (which in no way means for the Eastern churches an acceptance of universal jurisdiction) and its prerogatives. These differences are not new and gradually emerged. I would like to close this study with the conclusion drawn by Ravenna:

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specifc function of the bishop of the “frst see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the frst and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the frst millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of resto- ring full communion between us24.

24 Ravenna, 45.