Vatican City, Nov 9, 2024 / 08:00 am (CNA).
Bishop Luis Marín de San Martín is one of the key figures of the Synod on Synodality. Pope Francis appointed him undersecretary of the event, which the Spanish prelate says he has experienced as “an offer of grace” and a call “to personal conversion.”
With the recent meeting in Rome already concluded and the final document issued, the bishop emphasized in a conversation with ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner, that synodality “is a constitutive dimension of the Church,” so that, despite the fact that the assembly is over, “the process continues.”
The prelate noted that this dimension “is not an achievement” or something that is acquired, but “it exists and has always existed.” He affirmed that “the Church ‘is’ synodal” and that in this stage of “implementation” it is therefore intended to develop this dimension, “to draw out consequences and to make it concrete in the life of the Church.”
For the Augustinian, the final document “is not a recipe book for measures or a code of laws,” but rather “it opens doors, indicates paths to travel, and encourages processes” with “diverse speeds, developments, and concrete expressions, because there are geographical and cultural differences,” although with the same “deposit of faith: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
During these four years, he explained, he has tried to “listen to the voice of the Spirit to discern how to be faithful to the Lord and how to live and bear witness to the Gospel in today’s world.”
He also envisages it as an opportunity for profound renewal, which “comes from the experience of the risen Christ” and is also oriented toward the mission in today’s world, taking up cultural diversity and different challenges, “but always in communion.”
Revision of canon law in a ‘synodal key’
Regarding the proposal of the final document to revise canon law in a “synodal key,” Marín stated that “the Code of Canon Law is a practical instrument.” In this sense, he reiterated that “the deposit of faith does not change, but the laws of the Catholic Church are being renewed, so that they adapt better and are more helpful in the salvific mission that has been entrusted to her.”
“A revision of the 1983 code is requested, taking into account current ecclesiological development, so that it can provide forms, structures, and procedures in a synodal key,” he explained.
In a statement to ACI Prensa, the bishop said “there is a commission of canon lawyers that is working” to review the existing structures and processes so that they are more effective.
Among the topics reviewed, Marín mentioned “the obligatory nature of diocesan and parish pastoral councils; developing ways for the collaboration of laypeople, thus integrating the variety of ministries; expanding the possibilities of laypeople exercising ministries,” or establishing “new regional or continental structures, such as ecclesial assemblies,” as well as “determining the way to carry out transparency, accountability, and evaluations.”
Greater participation ‘without laicizing clergy or clericalizing laity’
Another consequence of the Synod on Synodality is the request for greater participation of the laity in the “decision-making processes” and that this be done through new synodal structures and institutions.
For the prelate, the participation of the laity is not a concession “but a consequence of baptism,” so that “they must assume all the responsibility that corresponds to them, without laicizing the clergy or clericalizing the laity.”
The synod undersecretary emphasized that every baptized person “must feel involved in the life and mission of the Church and participate in the discernment for decision-making, seeking her good.” A co-responsibility that, he pointed out, is differentiated, since “each person participates in accordance with his or her different ministries and functions.”
Authority as service
Referring to the words of Pope Francis, he pointed out that “the model is not the pyramid, nor the sphere, but the polyhedron.”
“The bishop and the parish priest, in order to make decisions, have the duty to consult and listen in order to discern, such that that the participating bodies have to exist and function. They will then make the decisions that correspond to them by their ministry and they will explain the decisions taken.”
Marín insisted on the need to clarify the decision-making processes and co-responsibility, since there are issues “in which the decision corresponds only to the bishop or the parish priest and others that can be taken in other instances.”
However, “there is a need to clarify the decision-making processes and co-responsibility,” the bishop added.
“Authority in the Church must always be understood and exercised as a service. Likewise, it is important to keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity; matters must be resolved at the level closest to those concerned,” the synod undersecretary explained.
‘Nothing prevents women from holding office in the Roman Curia’
With regard to the participation of women in the Church, according to Marín, the document proposes, above all, “the need for women to assume their proper role in the Church, including participation in ministries,” noting that until recently, “surprisingly, lay ministries were open only to men.”
Marín clarified that the same applies to positions of responsibility, “which can be occupied by laypeople, whether men or women.”
“In the Roman Curia there are already women in the secretariat of some dicasteries and nothing prevents them from presiding over others in the future, as laymen already do today.”
The prelate said that in some places “women perform many pastoral and administrative tasks, as well as governance, and it is appropriate to pursue this direction further.”
Regarding paragraph 60 of the synod’s final document, he said it “also raises the issue of the diaconate, which is an ordained ministry and not a lay one. It is clear that there were deaconesses in the early Church. But was it an ordained ministry? What were their functions? Was it the same in all the local Churches? To further explore the issue, Pope Francis appointed two commissions. The work of studying it continues,” he noted.
In this regard, Marín emphasized that “it’s important to note that this does not mean access to the priesthood and the episcopate; only the topic of the diaconate is being studied, which is a degree of the sacrament of holy orders, but which, as the [Second Vatican] Council recalls, is not oriented toward the priesthood but toward the ministry (deacons are not priests, as are priests and bishops). The synod asks for further clarification,” he pointed out.
Liturgical celebrations as an expression of synodality
One of the paragraphs that received the most votes against it was No. 27 on “studying how to make liturgical celebrations an expression of synodality.” The proposal received 312 votes in favor (87.8%) and 43 against (12.1%).
“Given the importance of the relationship between liturgy and synodality,” Marín continued, “it is suggested that a study group be entrusted with the task of making liturgical celebrations more expressive of synodality.”
“In my view,” he continued, ”it refers above all to three lines of further study: how to strengthen communion, so that those celebrating are the community united in the risen Christ and not a sum of disconnected, unknown and solitary individuals; how to promote differentiated participation, avoiding considering ourselves mere spectators; how to involve all of us in the shared mission, in evangelization. In short, I believe that the key is in how to live and make present the love (caritas), which identifies us as Christians.”
‘Overcome the mentality of power and develop that of service’
The undersecretary also noted that the assembly asked for “clarification on what the criteria are for the selection of bishops and how the local Church should enter into the selection process.”
Along these lines, he indicated that it is “necessary to overcome the mentality of ‘power’ and develop that of ‘service.’ There is no doubt that the more closed in a group is, the greater the risk of elitism, which is why a greater involvement of the people of God is requested.”
However, he emphasized that there are practical difficulties, especially in large dioceses, where knowledge of possible candidates is limited. “Other difficulties we find in participation: only believers? Those who practice [the faith]? Everyone? Also in the way of conducting the consultation, avoiding election campaigns and pressure from organized groups.”
“The principle is clear: to broaden the consultation and allow for greater participation. But an in-depth study, proceeding calmly, is required. That’s why the pope has created a working group on this subject. Let us await its conclusions,” Marín indicated.
‘The deposit of faith doesn’t change and cannot change’
As for those who, “with goodwill, feared a change in doctrine, they have already seen that this is not the case. The deposit of faith does not change and cannot change. It’s a matter of going deeper into it, formulating its expression and developing it in the time at hand, as the Church has done throughout its history,” Marín affirmed.
“The synodal process arises from the action of the Holy Spirit and necessarily requires conversion of the heart. If not, we will understand nothing. The common thread that links the different parts of the document is, in fact, an invitation to conversion: called by the Spirit to conversion; conversion in relationships; conversion in processes; conversion in interconnectivity; conversion for the mission. For this, it is necessary that love be, truly, the common thread,” he concluded.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Yes, the deposit of faith doesn’t change and cannot change. Bishop de San Martin is correct. Whereas loose concepts such as ‘Overcome the mentality of power and develop that of service’ suggest what we’ve suffered since 2013, that premises such as concrete conditions, primacy of conscience with self created absolutes such as ‘we cannot displace conscience’ [see Amoris Laetitia], an allusion to the untenable adherence to permanence in doctrine has shown that adherence to doctrine can be exploited by the enlightened progressive.
Rather than outright attempts to literally change the deposit of faith the enlightened have learned to dance around it. Sort of like an Argentine tango. Such that would leave Saint Vincent of Lerins bedazzled by the ingenuity of the hermeneutics however incoherent.
“Lex Orandi, lex credendi. The rule of prayer is at the same time the rule of our faith. If we change the rule of prayer, we risk changing the rule of faith. Faith is also, of a sort, the result of our cult, of our liturgy, because we exprime our faith. If we change the expression of our faith in a way that is so serious and important, changing even the words of consecration for example, we risk our faith being altered.”
Mgr Marcel Lefebvre “Bilan de 15 années post-conciliaires d’obéissance aux réformes” 1980.
We read: “The deposit of faith does not change and cannot change” and about a polyhedron rather than a pyramid, whether upright or inverted. But the ambiguities remain…Three self-evident questions:
FIRST, Benedict proposed, instead, an elipse (!) with two centers: the papacy encircled in union with the other successors of the Apostles (as articulated in Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 plus the Explanatory Note). So, what’s the difference between a doctrinal (?) Synod of Bishops and an informative but categorically different Town Hall Meeting with 25-percent non-bishops (read Synod on Synodality)?
SECOND, while the faith does not change, what does it mean to obliquely divorce faith from exemptions in morals (the praxis nestled in Amoris Laetitia, and now enabled in Fiducia Supplicans)? Especially when the violated natural law (of which the Church is neither the author nor the arbiter) and moral absolutes are now explicitly incorporated into the Magisterium:
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’!] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 115).
Cultural situations as in local contexts…
THIRD, so what, exactly, is the specific role of national and continental assemblies (contexts!), now that the synod Final Report recommits, finally, to the 2018 guidance of the International Theological Commission, including this grounding:
“…It is essential that, taken as a whole, the participants give a meaningful and balanced image of the local Church, reflecting different vocations, ministries, charisms, competencies, social status and geographical origin. The bishop, the successor of the apostles and shepherd of his flock who convokes and presides over the local Church synod, is called to exercise there the ministry of unity and leadership with the authority which belongs to him” (“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church,” n. 79).
…NOT a perennial reality inverted into a different model with “The Church in the Life and Mission of Synodality”. As with councils, even real synods are only what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS.
So, yes, how to “listen,” but clearly without grooming the Church into what it is not? Is anyone in the back room “study groups” really listening?
Brief comments:
Quote: “During these four years, he explained, he has tried to “listen to the voice of the Spirit to discern how to be faithful to the Lord and how to live and bear witness to the Gospel in today’s world.”
I wonder why all those synodality almost always say “Spirit undefined” and not “the Holy Spirit”?
Quote: “Referring to the words of Pope Francis, he pointed out that “the model is not the pyramid, nor the sphere, but the polyhedron.”
I followed the link to see what “polyhedron” is and saw something that looked like a football. I think it is fitting: not a pyramid (vertical), not a flat (horizontal) building but something that can be played by those who are not a part of “the polyhedron” wish.
What is funny about the comment by Bishop Luis Marín de San Martín is that a pyramid IS a polyhedron. A polyhedron is a three-dimensional geometric object made up of polygonal faces with straight sides. The humble cube is also a polyhedron but I doubt that is what the Bishop (or Pope Francis) has in mind for their new model of the Church. They are probably envisioning a polygon made up of hundreds of faces, as in the computer-generated images that people like to “ooh!” and “aah!” over, as though they are contemplating something profound.
The real problem is what you have alluded to: what does it mean to conceive of the Church as a polyhedron? Or an inverted pyramid (one of the more recent management-theory fads)? Not much, from what I can see.
Quidnunc mentality, gawper, buttinski, tattling, outlandish connectivity, demanding closeness -signs of intellectual pride, immaturity and driven psychological errancy but when it is ascribed to the action of Holy Ghost forming polyhedrons and inverted pyramid, it is mounting up to either insanity or the abominable.
Viz, “synodality”, catch-as-catch-can organizing and facilitating processes from a Papacy that denounces institutionalisms and wants to exemplify spiritualizing.
Should I put this as a question or as statement -: The Holy Father actually expects everyone to be graced to receive it as illumination and to excel in it as communion?
Help, dear editor and readers: Under the heading – ‘Liturgical celebrations as an expression of synodality’ is this self-negating paradox:
“One of the paragraphs that received the most votes against it was No. 27 on “studying how to make liturgical celebrations an expression of synodality.” The proposal received 312 votes in favor (87.8%) and 43 against (12.1%).”
The Bp. reasons how liturgy could express synodality and why a study should be done: “In short, I believe that the key is in how to live and make present the love (caritas), which identifies us as Christians.”
He seriously wonders how to make present love in the liturgy? Apparently this guy wouldn’t have much of a three-dimensional view of the reality of love if Jesus Himself delivered it. In the liturgy.
The link to the Final Document does not work.
The Barque of Peter has gone through many rough squalls over the centuries and taken on much water, but has always stayed afloat and righted its course. It is important that we stay on board and trust God to help the pilot to keep us all safe. We must quell any attempt at mutiny and work together (Synodality?) in order to allow this to happen. The journey through time has brought the Barque into many different waters and the ship’s rigging has been changed time and again in order to face these new challenges. We must be willing to change now as well. The deck hand may not understand why the changes are being made but he must do his job and do his part in making them work. In short we must trust God, stay humble, seek holiness, and do our part.
James, blind obedience is Communism.
The Catholic has a conscience and a duty to follow it.
Blind obedience created the post-conciliar wreckage, the clergy blindly tearing down the Sanctuaries.
Blind obedience to the wolves of sankt gallen is a recipe for total shipwreck.
Either Catholic Truth as handed down until 1958 is true or it is false. To suggest it is otherwise than True undermines the entire faith.
It is therefore false that we should hold to the modernist ecumenical New Church priniciple that baptism is irrelevant and any religion will do.
Could this be a backwardist Bishop?! Don’t bet on it. We all know that everything we believe as Catholics is up for grabs. After a decade of progressive appointments and policies, who can honestly say with any level of certitude what this pontificate considers deposited by Christ versus fair game for corruption by endless Synodaling. Honestly, name even a handful of dogmas that are off limits to destruction by the darlings of this Pope?
Enough! In God we trust, everyone else must bring data. Give your list on non-negotiable dogmas. Why should we be impressed when a Bishop declares the minimum standard required to not be heretical? We are hitting bottom when it is comforting news that a Bishop close to the Pope believes that what Christ taught and did is what we should believe and do. You don’t say?!
“ For all my blood in Rome’s great quarrel shed;
For all the frosty nights that I have watch’d;
And for these bitter tears, which now you see
Filling the aged wrinkles in my cheeks;..
Thy kiss is comfortless as frozen water to a starved snake.”
Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Act 3, Scene 1
Synodalism is a paganism in an unfolding infancy trying to root into the deposit of faith AND the faithful; heralding man over Christ and instrumentalizing Revelation.
The thing is it already thrives religiously in societies. The Church should be witnessing against it -which is part with VATICAN II- not giving it safe harbour.
Jesus Christ never allowed, “Sow the field with only cockle, as much of it as you can, all, all, all; and make sure it fully comes in at the harvest, for reality is greater than ideas.”