To what extent can Gadamer’s fusion of horizons illuminate Meyendorff’s Orthodox conciliarity, Newman’s doctrine of development, and Ratzinger’s first-millennium principle as resources for rethinking Roman primacy as a service to communion?
This thesis begins from the conviction that the Catholic-Orthodox question of Roman primacy cannot be adequately understood if it is treated only as a contest over jurisdiction, or as though East and West merely represented two fixed ecclesial instincts: conciliarity on one side, authority on the other. The problem is more historically burdened, and therefore more hermeneutically demanding, than that. Roman primacy has to be read as a historically effected question of understanding, shaped by inherited prejudices, wounded memories, ecclesial habits, doctrinal developments and divergent receptions of the same apostolic past. For that reason, the thesis turns to Gadamer’s account of the hermeneutic circle in order to show how fore-conception, tradition, temporal distance, application and the testing of prejudices may open a more disciplined way of approaching the possibility of a fusion of horizons.
The first part establishes the Gadamerian framework needed for this inquiry. It traces the older part-whole relation through romantic hermeneutics, Dilthey’s historicism, Heidegger’s fore-structure of understanding, and Gadamer’s account of historically effected consciousness. This philosophical groundwork is then brought into conversation with three theological horizons that cannot simply be collapsed into one another. Meyendorff gives the Orthodox horizon in which Roman primacy is real only when precedence remains subordinate to conciliarity. Newman gives the Latin horizon in which doctrine unfolds through historical development without thereby losing continuity with its originating type. Ratzinger offers the mediating horizon: restored communion may require Rome to ask no more of the East, with respect to primacy, than was lived and formulated in the first millennium.
The second part reads the official Catholic-Orthodox dialogues as a developing hermeneutic circle rather than as a disconnected sequence of documents. Rhodes marks the procedural beginning of the dialogue. Munich supplies its Eucharistic and Trinitarian centre. Bari clarifies the relation between faith, sacraments and unity, while Valamo turns to the sacrament of order and apostolic succession. Balamand interrupts the sequence by rejecting uniatism as a method of unity. Ravenna then articulates the relation between conciliarity and authority, Chieti retrieves the first millennium as a shared criterion for synodality and primacy, and Alexandria brings the difficult memory of the second millennium into contemporary application.
The conclusion argues that the fusion of horizons explored in the thesis may not be merely theoretical. Something of it may already be taking shape in practice, wherever Roman primacy, Orthodox conciliarity and historical development are being reconfigured through shared apostolic witness before the crises of the present age. In this light, the Bishop of Rome’s primacy becomes ecumenically imaginable when it is exercised not as unilateral jurisdictional supremacy, but as visible, consultative and morally responsible service to Christian unity.