That question became clearer for me on reading the 2024 study document The Bishop of Rome, published by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. The document explores whether the Bishop of Rome might serve the whole Church as a visible ‘servant of unity’ in order to respond to Christ’s prayer that ‘they may all be one’ (John 17:21). In a world awash with secularism, conflict, poverty, migration and environmental crisis, Christians face profound global challenges. Our witness would be strengthened if we could speak and act together, underpinned by a ministry capable of fostering visible communion. For my part, I believe the Bishop of Rome is uniquely placed to fulfil such a role.
Most people would agree that the modern ecumenical movement was energised by the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). Unitatis Redintegratio (The Restoration of Unity) unequivocally committed the Catholic Church to sustained dialogue and collaboration with other Christians. Since then, theological conversations with (among others) Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist and Methodist partners have built trust and clarified areas of real convergence. A notable example of the latter is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, affirmed by five Christian World Communions. So, while differences remain, the ecumenical landscape (which includes the World Council of Churches) is markedly more hopeful than it was a century ago.
In 1995, building on Vatican II, Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One), inviting Christian leaders and theologians to reflect together on how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be exercised as a ‘service of love’ recognised by all Churches. That invitation generated a wide range of responses and provides much of the background to The Bishop of Rome document.
The idea of a universal ministry of unity has existed for some time. The Pope’s role in this, however, is much debated. Indeed, the dogmatic definitions of papal primacy and infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–70) remain stumbling blocks for some Christians. Outside the Catholic Church, one still finds cases where the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is viewed with suspicion. The study document does not dismiss these concerns. Instead, it proposes the possibility of a Catholic ‘re-reception’ or renewed interpretation of the Council’s teaching, which would remain faithful to its substance but situate it within a richer ecclesiology of communion.
I think such a move is sensible. It would better frame papal primacy within a broader communio vision of the Church; one explicitly built on the relationship with the Triune God (vertical communion) and among all believers (horizontal communion). From this perspective, authority would not be seen as domination, but as relational service ordered to unity in truth and love.
The study also acknowledges that Christians interpret the Petrine texts differently. Even so, ecumenical dialogue has led to a growing recognition of St Peter as a symbol of unity in the apostolic community. Consequently, in some traditions at least, there is now an increasing openness to seeing the Bishop of Rome as the true successor of Peter and, therefore, as occupying a special place in maintaining communion among the Churches.
In this regard, however, one of the most significant concerns flagged in the study was the nature of papal primacy itself. Traditionally, Catholics have described it as being of divine right, while many other Christians regard it as purely of human right. Ecumenical dialogue has helped to reframe this dichotomy by understanding primacy as both; namely, grounded in God’s will and mediated through history and tradition. In other words, it is neither a static institution dropped from heaven nor merely a human construct; rather, it is a grace-given gift from the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon the baptised to build up the Church and serve the world.
This view is important and identifies a clear connection between primacy and the importance of synodality (listening, dialogue and community-wide discernment to guide the Church’s mission). The connection draws on a time in the early Church when it was more synodal in its structure: a time when there existed a relationship of mutual interdependence between the primate (first among equals) and other Church leaders. The study suggests that practices from this period, such as the Bishop of Rome’s ‘primacy of honour’ and the role of ecumenical councils, could help restore unity today if expanded to include other traditions.
For this to be credible, however, clearer distinctions are needed within the Pope’s own ministry. A helpful proposal is to differentiate between his patriarchal role within the Latin Church and his broader ministry of unity for all Christians. Such a distinction could address fears from other traditions about domination and over-centralisation. The universal servant of unity would not function as an administrative superior over every local Church, but as a focal point for communion, reconciliation and doctrinal clarity when required.
Here the principle of subsidiarity becomes crucial. Decisions should be taken at the most local level capable of addressing them. A universal ministry of unity would intervene only when issues cannot be resolved regionally, and even then primarily to facilitate dialogue and consensus rather than impose solutions. Understood in this way, primacy becomes a ministry of love, coordination and charity rather than control.
The study also references proposals that include the possibility of a global pastoral council to foster conciliar fellowship among Christian leaders. Such a structure would help create habits of consultation and common witness. Interestingly, in this light the Catholic Church’s renewed emphasis on synodality is not just an internal matter but has broader ecumenical significance. It is for this reason that I believe it crucial for Pope Leo to continue the process of synodality with as much commitment as Pope Francis. From my experience, a more synodal Catholic Church will be one that is more recognisable and relatable to other traditions.
I realise that some will judge this vision unrealistic or even unwarranted. Others, including voices from, for example, the Baptist tradition, argue that a universal ministry of unity need not be located in the papacy at all. Those perspectives deserve respect. Even so, I am convinced that, given the historical continuity of the Roman See, the Bishop of Rome is uniquely positioned best to serve as a focal point of unity, if, that is, his ministry is exercised transparently as a service of love and not of domination.
My conviction is not merely confessional loyalty. Objectively speaking, no other office within global Christianity presently combines the historical depth, worldwide recognition, global reach, institutional capacity and potential to fulfil this function in the same way. Properly renewed, the papal ministry would become a gift not only to Catholics but to the whole Body of Christ.
While the path to full communion is long and presents many challenges, at the very least The Bishop of Rome document offers a hopeful and practical way forward for how the ministry of the Pope could be renewed to serve the unity of the Church. The key to this vision, however, is an ongoing commitment to dialogue, mutual respect and a willingness to learn from one another.
As we continue the ecumenical journey across East Anglia, I hold fast to Christ’s prayer that we may all be one. A universal servant of unity, exercised in love and humility, could help us move closer to that goal. Whether or not every Christian is yet persuaded, I think such a vision is compelling. Why would Christians of good faith not want a ministry at the service of communion, so that the Church might more faithfully reflect the reconciling love of God in an increasingly divided world?
To read the study document The Bishop of Rome, visit: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/documenti/altri-testi/the-bishop-of-rome.html
