SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:

TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING

We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have communion [koinonia] with us;
and truly our communion [koinonia] is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.’
(1 Jn 1:3-4)

1. Ecclesial communion arises directly from the Incarnation of the eternal Word of God, according to the goodwill
(eudokia) of the Father, through the Holy Spirit. Christ, having come on earth, founded the Church as his
body (cf. 1Cor 12:12-27). The unity that exists among the Persons of the Trinity is reflected in the communion
(koinonia) of the members of the Church with one another. Thus, as St Maximus the Confessor affirmed, the
Church is an ‘eikon’ of the Holy Trinity.(1) At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ prayed to his Father: ‘Protect them
in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one’ (Jn 17:11). This Trinitarian
unity is manifested in the Holy Eucharist, wherein the Church prays to God the Father through Jesus Christ
in the Holy Spirit.
2. From earliest times, the one Church existed as many local churches. The communion (koinonia) of the Holy
Spirit (cf. 2Cor 13:13) was experienced both within each local church and in the relations between them as a
unity in diversity. Under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church developed patterns of order and
various practices in accordance with its nature as ‘a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit’.(2)
3. Synodality is a fundamental quality of the Church as a whole. As St John Chrysostom said: ‘"Church"
means both gathering [systema] and synod [synodos]’.(3) The term comes from the word ‘council’ (synodos in
Greek, concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, for common deliberation and action in caring for the Church. Broadly, it refers to the active participation
of all the faithful in the life and mission of the Church.
4. The term primacy refers to being the first (primus, protos). In the Church, primacy belongs to her Head
– Jesus Christ, ‘who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-
eminence [protevon]’ (Col. 1:18). Christian Tradition makes it clear that, within the synodal life of the Church
at various levels, a bishop has been acknowledged as the ‘first’. Jesus Christ associates this being ‘first’ with
service (diakonia): ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all’ (Mk 9:35).
5. In the second millennium, communion was broken between East and West. Many efforts have been made
to restore communion between Catholics and Orthodox, but they have not succeeded. The Joint International
Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, in its
ongoing work to overcome theological divergences, has been considering the relationship between synodality
and primacy in the life of the Church. Different understandings of these realities played a significant role
in the division between Orthodox and Catholics. It is, therefore, essential to seek to establish a common
understanding of these interrelated, complementary and inseparable realities.
6. In order to achieve this common understanding of primacy and synodality, it is necessary to reflect upon
history. God reveals himself in history. It is particularly important to undertake together a theological reading
of the history of the Church’s liturgy, spirituality, institutions and canons, which always have a theological
dimension.
7. The history of the Church in the first millennium is decisive. Despite certain temporary ruptures, Christians
from East and West lived in communion during that time, and, within that context, the essential structures of
the Church were constituted. The relationship between synodality and primacy took various forms, which can
give vital guidance to Orthodox and Catholics in their efforts to restore full communion today.
The Local Church
8. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which Christ is the head is present in the eucharistic synaxis
of a local church under its bishop. He is the one who presides (the ‘proestos’). In the liturgical synaxis, the
bishop makes visible the presence of Jesus Christ. In the local church (i.e. a diocese), the many faithful and
clergy under the one bishop are united with one another in Christ, and are in communion with him in every
aspect of the life of the Church, most especially in the celebration of the Eucharist. As St Ignatius of Antioch

-1-
taught: ‘where the bishop is, there let all the people be, just as, where Jesus Christ is, we have the catholic
church [katholike ekklesia]’.(4) Each local church celebrates in communion with all other local churches which
confess the true faith and celebrate the same Eucharist. When a presbyter presides at the Eucharist, the local
bishop is always commemorated as a sign of the unity of the local church. In the Eucharist, the proestos and
the community are interdependent: the community cannot celebrate the Eucharist without a proestos, and
the proestos, in turn, must celebrate with a community.
9. This interrelatedness between the proestos or bishop and the community is a constitutive element of the life
of the local church. Together with the clergy, who are associated with his ministry, the local bishop acts in the
midst of the faithful, who are Christ’s flock, as guarantor and servant of unity. As successor of the Apostles, he
exercises his mission as one of service and love, shepherding his community, and leading it, as its head, to
ever-deeper unity with Christ in the truth, maintaining the apostolic faith through the preaching of the Gospel
and the celebration of the sacraments.
10. Since the bishop is the head of his local church, he represents his church to other local churches and in
the communion of all the churches. Likewise, he makes that communion present to his own church. This is a
fundamental principle of synodality.
The Regional Communion of Churches
11. There is abundant evidence that bishops in the early Church were conscious of having a shared
responsibility for the Church as a whole. As St Cyprian said: ‘There is but one episcopate but it is spread
amongst the harmonious host of all the numerous bishops’.(5) This bond of unity was expressed in the
requirement that at least three bishops should take part in the ordination (cheirotonia) of a new one;(6)it was
also evident in the multiple gatherings of bishops in councils or synods to discuss in common issues of doctrine
(dogma, didaskalia) and practice, and in their frequent exchanges of letters and mutual visits.
12. Already during the first four centuries, various groupings of dioceses within particular regions emerged.
The protos, the first among the bishops of the region, was the bishop of the first see, the metropolis, and his
office as metropolitan was always attached to his see. The ecumenical councils attributed certain prerogatives
(presbeia, pronomia, dikaia) to the metropolitan, always within the framework of synodality. Thus, the First
Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), while requiring of all the bishops of a province their personal participation
in or written agreement to an episcopal election and consecration - a synodical act par excellence - attributed
to the metropolitan the validation (kyros) of the election of a new bishop.(7) The Fourth Ecumenical Council
(Chalcedon, 451) again evoked the rights (dikaia) of the metropolitan – insisting that this office is ecclesial, not
political (8) - as did the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), also.(9)
13. Apostolic Canon 34 offers a canonical description of the correlation between the protos and the other
bishops of each region: ‘The bishops of the people of a province or region [ethnos] must recognize the one who
is first [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 first [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’.(10)
14. The institution of the metropolitanate is one form of regional communion between local churches.
Subsequently other forms developed, namely the patriarchates comprising several metropolitanates. Both a
metropolitan and a patriarch were diocesan bishops with full episcopal power within their own dioceses. In
matters related to their respective metropolitanates or patriarchates, however, they had to act in accord with
their fellow bishops. This way of acting is at the root of synodical institutions in the strict sense of the term,
such as a regional synod of bishops. These synods were convened and presided over by the metropolitan or
the patriarch. He and all the bishops acted in mutual complementarity and were accountable to the synod.
The Church at the Universal Level
15. Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be
recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first
place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition.(11)
16. 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 first of the apostles.
(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and
the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
17. When a new patriarch was elected to one of the five 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. 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

-2-
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 communion.
18. From the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) onwards, major questions regarding faith and canonical
order in the Church were discussed and resolved by the 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. The Church’s understanding of the criteria for the
reception of a council as ecumenical developed over the course of the first millennium. 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 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.(13) Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion
for the ecumenicity of a council.
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary
matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish
rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) 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,(16) 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.
Conclusion
20. Throughout the first 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.
21. This common heritage of theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices from the first
millennium constitutes a necessary reference point and a powerful source of inspiration for both Catholics and
Orthodox as they seek to heal the wound of their division at the beginning of the third millennium. On the basis
of this common heritage, both must consider how primacy, synodality, and the interrelatedness between them
can be conceived and exercised today and in the future.

ENDNOTES
1) St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia (PG 91, 663D).
2) St Cyprian, De Orat. Dom., 23 (PL 4, 536).
3) St John Chrysostom, Explicatio in Ps 149 (PG 55, 493).
4) St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8.
5) St Cyprian, Ep.55, 24, 2; cf. also, ‘episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur’ (De unitate,
5).
6) First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 4: ‘It is preferable that a bishop be established by all the
bishops of a province; but if this appears difficult because of a pressing necessity or because of the distance
to be travelled, at least three bishops should come together; and, having the written consent of the absent
bishops, they may then proceed with the consecration. The validation [kyros] of what takes place falls on the
metropolitan bishop of each province.’ Cf. also Apostolic Canon, 1: ‘A bishop must be ordained by two or three
bishops’.
7) First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 4; also canon 6: ‘If anyone becomes a bishop without the
consent of the metropolitan, the great council decrees that such a person is not even a bishop.’
8) Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 12: ‘As for cities that have already been honoured by
the title of metropolis by imperial letters, let these cities and the bishops who govern them enjoy only the honour
of the title; that is, let the proper rights of the true [kata aletheian] metropolis be safeguarded.’
9) Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), canon 11 grants the metropolitans the right to appoint the
treasurers of their suffragan dioceses if the bishops do not provide for it.
10) Cf. Council of Antioch (327), canon 9: ‘It is proper for the bishops in every province [eparchia] to submit
to the bishop who presides in the metropolis’.
11) Cf. First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 6: ‘The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis
shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a
similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces, the
prerogatives [presbeia] of the churches are to be preserved’; Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople,
381), canon 3: Let the bishop of Constantinople … have the primacy of honour [presbeia tes times] after the

-3-
bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome’; Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 28: ‘The
Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives [presbeia] to the see of older Rome since that is an imperial city; and
moved by the same purpose the one hundred and fifty most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives
to the most holy see of New Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power
and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in
ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her’ (this canon was never received in the West); Council in
Trullo (692), canon 36: ‘Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at the God-
protected and imperial city, and those of the six hundred and thirty who met at Chalcedon, we decree that the
see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges [presbeia] with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly
regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that see is and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be
ranked the see of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the see of Jerusalem’.
12) Cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 96, 2-3.
13) Cf. Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787): J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collectio, XIII, 208D-209C.
14) Cf. Synod of Sardica (343), canons 3 and 5.
15) Cf. Council in Trullo, canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons of Sardica as
recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cassation in cases already judged in Constantinople.
16) Cf. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17.

-4-