(Chur, Switzerland. kath.net) Hans Küng would have enjoyed the 2021-2024 Vatican Synod. Because he was the one who tried sixty years earlier to equate the concepts of Synod (or Council) and Church. That was supposed to make the Church a big Council that deliberated uninterruptedly.
What the most recent Vatican Synod calls for is the belated attempt to put Küng’s idea into practice. For “synodality” is now supposed to become the permanent state, the essential feature of the Church. From now on, the Church is to be not only the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but also the “synodal” Church. For “synodality” allegedly implements what Vatican Council II taught about the Church as a mystery and the People of God (Concluding Document 2024, Introduction).
Moreover, according to the 2024 Concluding Document, new “synodal” panels should be created at all levels of the Church (89, 94, 100, 107). The distinction between decision-making and advisory functions should be loosened up (92). Already existing boards should be declared obligatory (104), and their significance and authority should be strengthened (108, 129). After all, sitting at round tables is, the 2023 Synod declared “symbolic of a synodal Church” (Relatio, 1.3).
Joseph Ratzinger was the one who, in the time before Vatican Council II, took a stance against Küng’s theory in his lecture “On the Theology of the Council.”1 He put things in the right perspective and prophetically called attention to dangers that have now made their appearance at the 2021-2024 Synod.
Küng maintained that the Church as a whole is the Council called together by God, the “divinely convoked ecumenical council.” The Council as an ecclesial assembly is then the “humanly convoked ecumenical council” and thus the representation of the “divinely convoked ecumenical council.” From this assertion Küng inferred: A Council, understood in this way, must be representative of all the members of the Church. It cannot be an assembly made up exclusively of the successors of the apostles, the bishops. What Küng postulated then has now been put into practice: First, the whole People of God was consulted. And then representatives were appointed to act on behalf of this People: bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and lay people indiscriminately. In this way, these representatives were supposed to depict the entire Church as a “humanly convoked ecclesial assembly”. All of them had a “right to vote”. Consequently, this was representation in the political sense, and not the “sacrament” or mystery [of the Church].
On the contrary, Ratzinger showed that Küng was mistaken even etymologically. Küng did correctly note that the concept “Church” comes from the Greek verb “ek-kalein,” which means “to call out.” The Church is the “ekklesia,” the [feminine] “one who is called out.” But then Küng maintained that [the Latin] “concilium” was derived from “concalare”: to call together. The Church, as Council, would then be the “one who is called together.” Ratzinger proved, on the other hand, that the derivation from “concalare” is erroneous. Council and Church do not belong together etymologically. More importantly, though, Ratzinger was able to show that neither in the 22 pertinent passages of the Latin Bible nor in patristic writings is “concilium” ever the translation for the Greek “ekklesia.” “Concilium” in the ecclesiastical context is instead the equivalent of the Greek terms “synedrion” or later “synodos”.
Joseph Ratzinger then pointed out that historical findings also contradict Küng’s thesis. Phenomena of a synodal or conciliar sort first came about only around the year 160 in the fight against the heresy of Montanism. Their specific purpose in the case of a conflict was the discernment of spirits and to guard all Christendom from the threats of heresies. The scope of the Council, he argued, is therefore much narrower than that of the Church. The former has “the function of ordering and shaping” and serves the Church in this world “in the particular secular situations at any given time.”
Essentially, the Church is not a consultative assembly, but rather an assembly around the Word of God and around the Sacrament, which as an “anticipated participation in God’s wedding feast” points beyond this world and time. Every celebration of the Eucharist, every local Church is therefore ekklesia, Church. The Council, however, is not the Church and does not represent it; rather, it is merely a well-defined, temporally and thematically limited “organizational” service in the Church and for it. This is all the more true, then, of a Synod at the level of the universal or the local Church, because it is not even the assembly of all bishops.
Concerning the results of his investigations, Ratzinger remarked: “At first glance this may seem like an utterly useless academic quarrel.” But it is not, because the danger lurking in Küng’s wordplay is the following: As long as the Council is understood in terms of the Church, as a clerical service (with a time limit) to resolve a conflict in an individual case, there is no problem. For it is self-evident that the Council comes from the nature of the Church and is a part of it.
The situation changes, however, if the general public is eventually led to understand the relation between Church and Council the other way around. In other words: if the Church is understood in terms of the model of the Council. For then the following happens: “The Council as the concrete, known quantity becomes the key for one’s view of the Church, the entity which [in fact] lies deeper and should be the first object of inquiry.” Thus, the Church is dissolved into a “synedrion” or a “synode”. The Universal Church becomes a “consultative assembly,” an “organizational and political entity that we respond to not in the fundamental engagement of faith, but rather in the attitude of action.” So it is then a matter of politics, doing, and changing.
This is exactly what has made its appearance now with the Vatican “Synods” project since 2021. On the occasion of the Synod in October 2023, demands were made for the development of consultative bodies and panels, for the creation of new ministries [Ämter] and for “synodality” as a permanent state of affairs. Joseph Ratzinger prophetically foresaw the consequences of this sort of activism that is enamored with structures: “[From that perspective,] those who see the constants in [the Church] and want to hold them fast are just ‘hitting the brakes’. But then we must also realize that we have not engaged what the Church itself in every age has viewed as its most distinctive and most essential elements.”
In other words: The Church is denatured. From a mystery of faith, it degenerates into a malleable political entity.
The project of synodalism is, therefore, ultimately the expression of a theological error about the nature of the Church. The Church is no longer believed in terms of the Word of God and the sacraments, but rather is understood in a political, representative way. In the past, theological errors have always led to tensions in the Church. The current practice of representative democracy in synodal camouflage will likewise lead to conflicts between bishops, priests, and lay people, because the first two groups are no longer respected for what they are essentially, and the last-mentioned group is turned into opponents vying for spiritual authority, misunderstood as power. If that does not split the Church, it will at least paralyze it. And this is true not only at the global level, but also in dioceses and parishes.
Yet it may also be that God will come to the assistance of His Church through the sensus fidelium (the “mind of the faithful”) of the bishops, priests, and lay persons. The laity worldwide (surprise!) have given their opinion by their minimal participation, which has to be measured per thousand instead of in percentages. Their striking disinterest is an expression of the fact that they have other needs and worries. They are waiting for someone to communicate to them, for their concrete, everyday lives as Christians and citizens, a spirituality that does not busy them with ecclesiastical circles of chairs but rather gives them signposts showing how they can live out their Christian and ecclesial mission credibly and effectively in an obviously secularized world.
They hunger for the bread of faith, and they are looking for shepherds who will give them this bread and not the stones of failed Church politics. Because the Church gathers around the Word of God and the Eucharist, not around round tables.
(Note: The English translation by Michael J. Miller is published by CWR with the kind permission of kath.net.)
Endnote:
1First published as Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur Theologie des Konzils,” Catholica 15 (1961): 292-304. Reprinted in Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Werke vol. 7/1, pages 92-120.
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.
There is almost nothing good that could be said of Kung.
Two points and a quote:
FIRST, in addition to Kung vs Ratzinger, to fully understand “synodality” it’s necessary to consult a third great theologian and historian, Henry Ford! Said he about the dustbin of history: “history is just one damn thing after another…” Recalling, here, that like “synodality” (2021-2024), the Ford Motor Company also designed a forwardist machine that also promised to have something for everyone. It also lasted three years, the “Edsel” (1858-1960) and then also disappeared in the rear-view mirror. The critical public said the front end looked like a “toilet seat.”
SECOND, therefore, about the Church’s “sensus fidei,” The corruption of recent synodality is not that it “listened,” but that it didn’t listen enough. This, from the International Theological Commission, he real ‘sensus fidei’: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html Especially n. 12 on the required and defining predispositions, and n.44 citing the Second Vatican Council on the meaning of sensus fidei:
QUOTE: “…The article (Lumen Gentium, n. 12) which mentions the sensus fidei teaches that, having ‘an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27)’, the ‘whole body of the faithful…cannot err in matters of belief’. The ‘Spirit of truth’ arouses and sustains a ‘supernatural appreciation of the faith [supernaturali sensu fidei]’, shown when ‘the whole people,…“from the bishops [!] to the last of the faithful”…manifest a universal [!] consent in matters of faith and morals’. By means of the sensus fidei, ‘the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium)[!], and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men [!], but truly the word of God [!] (cf. 1 Thess 2:13)’.”
SUMMARY: Hello, a town-hall meeting is not “the word of God!”
Pope Leo XIV: Distinct from roundtable synodality, the “Synod of Bishops… naturally retains its institutional physiognomy.” https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/06/26/pope-leo-xiv-pope-francis-legacy-of-synodality-is-a-style-attitude/
Synodality = Edsel.
Synods, Synodality, Synodalism, Synodambulism, Synodistas etc., etc., = talk, talk, and more talk. Talking endlessly about everything but saying nothing.
The Church is meant to act. Jesus used words like “Come”, “Go”, “Send”, “Proclaim”, “Love” – all commands to DO SOMETHING. I don’t recall Jesus ever saying to “have a meeting to discuss something.”
Our Church is commanded to preach the Gospel so that hearts might be converted. Our Church is not commanded to sit around and do a lot of talking about arcane topics. Kuhn evinced the kind of effete intellectual snobbery that Jesus loathed.
Thank you, dear Monsignor Martin Grichting, for a concise and convincing article.
Take-away message: “Councils & synods are among the tools that The Church occasionally uses to help clarify certain specific questions. It is not licit to employ them for determining what The Church is and does. That matter has been well defined by The New Testament and The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Too easily ‘synodality’ becomes a questioning: “Did God really say . . ?”
Hans Kung. Say no more.
Let’s pray that the ’70s are well and truly over.
I would be happy to read “Zur Theologie des Konzils.” Has it ever been translated into English?
“A Council, understood in this way, must be representative of all the members of the Church. It cannot be an assembly made up exclusively of the successors of the apostles, the bishops. What Kung postulated then has now been put into practice: First, the whole People of God was consulted. And then representatives were appointed to act on behalf of this People: bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and lay people indiscriminately. In this way, these representatives were supposed to depict the entire Church as a “humanly convoked ecclesial assembly”. All of them had a “right to vote”. Consequently, this was representation in the political sense, and not the “sacrament” or mystery [of the Church].“
Prior to Vatican II, a Baptized Catholic who would claim “At the heart of Liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”, would reveal that they had become, in essence, a Protestant. What Hans Kung postulated and has now been put into practice in the Synod, was the erroneous notion that one can deny The Unity of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion, and remain in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church , simply by voting that Jesus The Christ was mistaken in regards to His Teaching regarding the Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death, and the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. In essence, the ideology behind the synod is not to affirm The Deposit of Faith, but to create a counterfeit magisterium, and thus a counterfeit church, that replaces The Word of God, Who Is Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate, with the word of man who desires to define what is True, Beautiful, and Good. Can anyone else explain how it is possible for an atheist materialist overpopulation alarmist globalist who denies the Sanctity of human life from the moment of creation to natural death, and the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, to subsist within The One Body of Christ without being told out of charity for the Salvation of Souls, that they have, in essence, separated themselves from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church?
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.” – The Charitable Anathema Of Jesus The Christ.
“He who is not with Me, is against me.”
The synod was an attempt by those who deny the Deposit of Faith regarding the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony , to change The Deposit of Faith. By virtue of this fact , one can declare the synod ideology is anathema.
The only purpose of a perpetual synod is to implement perpetual change.
A synod can never be equated to or placed on the same level as a Church Council. All of the previous councils held since the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles was to discuss, clarify and codify specific Church Doctrine.
A valid Church Council includes the invocation of the Holy Spirit for guidance, the discussions of specific topics, binding declarations regarding those topics and closure of the Council.
A never-ending synod does none of these things.
At best, it will result in the protestantation of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, leaving it both divided and leaderless. But, I suspect that such has been the intention all along.
“They hunger for the bread of faith, and they are looking for shepherds who will give them this bread and not the stones of failed Church politics. Because the Church gathers around the Word of God and the Eucharist, not around round tables.”
By gathering around tables, we may be able to share bread with the poor and listen to them looking for prophets.
Synodality, as Gandalf said of the ring, “is altogether evil.”
“Essentially, the Church is not a consultative assembly, but rather an assembly around the Word of God and around the Sacrament” (Msgr Grichting).
Fr Hans Kung was a close associate of Cdl Carlo Martini Archbishop of Milan who initially devised and promoted the concept of Synodality, a restructuring of the Church as a permanent consultative body formulated at St Gallen Switzerland. Francis I when archbishop Buenos Aires was mentored by Cdl Martini.
Swiss Msgr Martin Grichting sets the record straight on the implausibility of restructuring the Mystical Body into a think tank discussion forum on doctrine – for the stated end of modernization of a presumed archaic doctrinal structure. The appointment by Francis I of Cdl Jean-Pierre Hollerich as Relator General of the Synod speaks to the radical direction of the Synod.
From our own USCCB in their document –
Unpacking Synodality:
Understanding and Engaging the Synodal Path
“At the USCCB Plenary Assembly in 2021, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio (Papal Ambassador) to the United States, shared his insights on synodality with the bishops, where he responded to several concerns or questions that have arisen when considering this Synod. He explained that:
• Synodality is not a meeting about meetings or an abstract concept.
> It is a way to help address the reality of our present situation.
• The Synodality is not about changing traditional truths about Christian doctrine.
> It is about how our teachings can be applied in the changing context of our times.
• Synodality is not a parliament underpinned by a political battle.
> It is about being vulnerable yet moving us toward a better place.”
Each statement indicative of what a synod is not is contradicted by the reality that we have witnessed subsequent to these published tenets. If they are going to claim nothing in Catholic Faith and Morals is going to change, then why have a synod at all?
Each statement defining what a synod is, contains ambiguities that directly imply fundamental changes to the Faith and Morals of the Church.
The bottom line is, the purpose of the synod is to change the Catholic faith from within, while telling us the whole time that nothing will change. This sounds like marxism at its most fundamental.