(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.
Agreed.
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.
At times you’re more witty than scholarly, or maybe you’re both. Yes, Ford did crudely and unconsciously reflect the wisdom of Ecclesiastes regarding the repetitions of history.
The most repetitious fact about all the talk about talking is why we need to ignore what motivates endless talk. More often than a search for creative witnessing to evangelize the world, which any Catholic can do individually at any time or place, we seek ways to avoid it. We avoid it because the primary purpose of meaningless talk is a desperate search to find ways to live with our sins.
How true, dear Edward J Baker: “. . a desperate search to find ways to live with our sins.”
Another example is provided by Gospel Study programmes that are sprinkled (judiciously!) with sceptical observations (without references to proper alternative explanations). Ipso facto: such ‘errors’ indicate Catholics shouldn’t take seriously New Testament revelations & Christ’s moral commands!!!
As you indicate, the desire to normalise sins energises every sort of perversion of faith. Reminds one of Genesis 3:1 – “Did GOD really say . . ?”
Perspectives of ‘renovation’ (closely alied to reincarnation theology) are part of this ‘adjusted’ New Testament cosmology, conspicuously contradicting the clear prophesies of Jesus & His Apostles regarding exclusive ‘salvage’ of all who lovingly obey GOD’s commands, & the dissolution of our universe. e.g. John 14:2
But why believe Jesus’ words about our Heavenly Home when, according to so many contemptuous ‘experts’ the New Testament is riddled with errors!!!
Yet, simple & sincere Catholics might reflect on much of today’s theology in terms of: “Satan, we are not ignorant of your schemes!” 2 Corinthians 2:11
The Truth will prevail – meanwhile our ministry is to encourage all who sincerely seek to be salvaged by the Truth, undeceived by ‘cosmic renovation’ heresies, no matter who promulgates them!
Always in the love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
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.
Hear, Hear!!! Thanks, Diogenes
Dear DR & BJ – whilst deeply sympethizing with your sentiment, I’d want to be more specific.
We humans are distinct in the vast amount of verbal communication we employ. Let’s recall that our LORD Jesus Christ did an enormous amount of talking! Apostles like Saint Paul also. CWR is a contemporary example of extensive & intensive communication among seriously committed Catholics (mainly). CWR might even be thought of as a role model for meaningful & fruitful synodality – especially since it is open to all, unlike the programmatic-synods currently engineered by many Catholic hierarchs. As you say: their findings are void!
Shouldn’t we be approving of as much talk as possible about GENUINELY CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN LEGIT DISCUSSION TOPICS, whilst abjuring any proliferation of self-destroying questioning of our Apostolic foundation stones . . ?
All of us need to remember genuine Catholics are saintly citizens who are part of GOD’s household, with the apostles and prophets as our foundations and CHRIST JESUS Himself as our main cornerstone. We are being built into a house where The Holy Spirit of GOD dwells – see Ephesians 2:19-22. Awesome!
Qustioning the foundation stones and The Cornerstone is suicidal.
Personally, I’m very happy when Catholics have extensive & on-going honest conversations based on all that the Apostles of Christ have bequethed us as they were moved by The Holy Spirit of GOD, and that the Magisterium has provided for us in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Can we agree that talk is good, when based on firmly established Catholic truth.
Ever in the incomparable love of Jesus; with blessings from marty
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?
I too would be interested in the essay. Seewald (Ratzinger’s biographer) and/or Peter Kwasniewski note that Cardinal Frings’ speech at Genoa in 1961, co-written by Ratzinger, reflected Ratzinger’s notions. https://actingpersonblog.wordpress.com/2024/09/10/the-genoa-speech-ratzinger-frings/
Also see https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/international-news/new-biography-describes-great-influence-of-fr-joseph-ratzinger-in-vatican-ii/
Ratzinger’s books preceding the Council may also help: Episcopacy and Primacy, and Revelation and Tradition. Both these are on Archive which you can read after joining (no cost) as a member.
It appears that the 1961 lecture-turned-journal-article has not been translated into English, judging from two bibliographies of Ratzinger’s early works compiled by members of the Schuelerkreis and another German scholar. This is probably because the article also expressed provisional, perhaps overly optimistic positions that the author quickly moved beyond during and after the Council. At any rate, wait a few years and it will be included in the American edition of volume 7/1 of the Complete Works, to be published by Word on Fire.
“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.
Dear William Horan:
“By gathering around tables, we may be able to share bread with the poor and listen to them looking for prophets.”
How then has The Church, for nearly 2 millennia, shared bread with the poor and birthed wonderfully godly prophets, without a round table in sight?
Monsignor Martin Grichting supports the sensible use of councils and synods BY The Church but never OVER The Church.
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.
It’s Jean-[Claude] Hollerich.
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.
You are right, dear Paul Rasavage, many of our clergy have somehow become yoked to marxism, or freemasonry, even satanism; sometimes they have occult allegiances with all three evil systems that deny the absolute authority of King Jesus Christ.
“Alas for you, scribes & pharisees, you hypocrites! You have shut up the Kingdom of Heaven . . neither going in yourselves nor allowing others to go in.” Mt 23:13
Yet, we have not been deserted by GOD.
Catholics who steep themselves in The New Testament & The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lovingly obeying Jesus, are given Holy Spirit discernment of false spirits, and cannot be misled by these hypocrites, no matter how high they climb.
Ever taking courage from The Lamb; love & blessings to all from marty
“• 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.”
What those statements do: it is a psychological manipulation. How they do this: they create a grey area, an undefined space for a similarly undefined action.
Let’s separate “•” from “>”. First “•”, a negative definition of synodality. “Negative” = minus quality is very important here; nothing that characterizes synodality in positive = plus terms is being said:
• Synodality is not a meeting about meetings or an abstract concept.
• The Synodality is not about changing traditional truths about Christian doctrine.
• Synodality is not a parliament underpinned by a political battle.
I.e., those lines say nothing concrete. An author creates something like “apophatic theology” of synodality. Apophatic theology treats God as One who cannot be known thus He should be described via what He is not; so does the “apophatic synodal theology” here, it seems. The listener learns nothing concrete about the nature of synodality but he is comforted with the knowledge that it does not change “traditional truths about Christian doctrine”. He thus will be less resistant to that unknown “synodality”.
Now the “>” positives:
> It is (synodality) a way to help address the reality of our present situation.
> It is about how our teachings can be applied in the changing context of our times.
> It is about being vulnerable yet moving us toward a better place.”
Before we had a minus (“it is not”) as a major characteristic of that enigmatic “synodality”; now we are presented with the positive results of that (still undefined), synodality. We do not know what it is but it will bring us to a better place. While I was typing that, I suddenly had an association with the Holy Communion. Indeed, we can never fully know how communion acts in us but we know it will bring is to a better place… no, to Christ. Here is the difference. Let us make a little experiment. The Lord said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Let us consider those lines again in the light of His words:
“I am the Way” = “It is (synodality) a way to help address the reality of our present situation.”
“I am the Truth” = “It is about how our teachings can be applied in the changing context of our times.”
“I am the Life” = “It is about being vulnerable yet moving us toward a better place.”
Initially I was planning to show how the original text (quote above) is a psychological manipulation. It is about deliberately avoiding definitions of “the product” and using various techniques to relax a listener so he would “buy” it. But what transpired during my analysis is far deeper and, I believe, it is the truth. Synodality is nothing else but a promised new communion, with some undefined “people” which is swapping the true communion, with Christ the Person in the Blessed Sacrament. Then it is entirely logical that “synodality” defines the Church. The new sacrament is superseding the old, Christ.
Anna, I’d go with your notion about these statements being attempts at “manipulation”. Manipulation is tantamount to deception which in my book is equated with lying. Having seen the inner workings of some diocesan structures I have come away appalled and disgusted with how easily hierarchical structures in the Church lie. If Christ is the Truth as He says He is, we have a serious problem in a Church that cannot speak the unvarnished Truth.
Here is the mission of the Church: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” –Mark 16:15-16
First of all, nobody knows what “synodality” is, even Eastern Orthodox to whom Pope Francis attributed it, for some reason. We do not have “synodality” as a modus operandi, we have the Synod which has nothing to do with touchy-feely stuff. And so, instead of going into the debris of Kung and similar to his theology, I will simply give here the definition of the Church and synod as they are given in the Eastern Orthodox encyclopedia. I find it to be very refreshing, after reading Kung’s speculation:
“The Church:
1) In the fullest meaning of this word the Church of Christ means the gathering chaired by Our Lord Jesus Christ which includes in angels, the Old Testament righteous released by Our Saviour from Sheol and brought into the Kingdom of Heaven, and all Orthodox Christians, living and deceased, joined together via their faith and love in Christ Jesus.
2) The Church is also a society of people who believe In Christ which has its hierarchical and organizational structure.
3) In the narrowest and most literal meaning of this word, the church is the temple of God, the building.
The Creator and the Head of the Church is God incarnate, Jesus Christ. The Church cannot be created by people who have a common belief like it happens in sects. The Church was created by Christ and people can enter it via the second birth – baptism and remain in the Church, joining with Christ (being in communion with Him). And so, we do not create the Church and call God into it but it is God who created the Church and is calling us into it.”
And so, the Church is defined by its supernatural origin, “from above”.
On the other hand:
“Synod (from Greek “sinodos” – a gathering, a council) is an administrative and consulting body (gathered around the Patriarch) of the Orthodox Churches which consists of the bishops. It is a kind of a committee which works together with Patriarch on immediate issues (various situations in the Church). However, both Synod and Patriarch are entirely subjected to “Archbishops’ Council” which is the highest governing body of the Orthodox Church (it decides matters of theology, canonical, pastoral etc.)
And so, “Synod” is just a coordinating organ in the Church which governs together with Patriarch between the “Archbishops’ Councils” and nothing else. It is the nature of the Church that defines the Synod, the need to have the Synod, not vice versa. And, since the Orthodox Synod is elected for the purpose of dealing with concrete problems (like prohibitions of priests-abusers, contacts with other Churches, missionary work, publishing etc.) one will not find the Vatican “synodality” there.
The question we might fruitfully ask is whether the Council, as an ecclesial structure, is of divine right.
From what we gather in the New Testament, Jesus is never recorded as convening a Council — something which, in His context, could only have taken the form of a formal meeting of the Apostles. What we do see is a pattern of frequent gatherings between Christ and the Twelve, moments of instruction and decision in common. While there is no juridical institution of a Council as such, the Apostles, after the Ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, seem to have understood this structure to be implicit in Christ’s way of forming and governing them. This is what gives rise to the first Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
This reflection is partly inspired by the thought of a Dominican theologian, whose insights suggest that while the conciliar form was not directly instituted, its divine origin may be inferred from the Christological mode of apostolic guidance — later actualised through the Spirit in the collegial discernment of the Apostles.
That said, the convocation of Councils belongs properly to the Petrine office, since Peter is the Vicar of Christ and principle of visible unity. The Synod of Bishops, by contrast, is of ecclesiastical right, having been instituted by Pope St Paul VI in 1965. The more recent Synod of the People of God was instead desired by Pope Francis.
As for synodality itself, I believe it can be seen as flowing from the Church’s very marks — her universality and her holiness. Even if it has come to fuller consciousness in the present time through the ecclesiological developments encouraged by Pope Francis (building on the conciliar vision of the People of God), one could argue that synodality — rightly understood — is implicit from the beginning in the Church’s very nature.
It’s worth recalling that this emphasis on the holiness of the People of God, as a priestly people, was already present — though not without distortion — in Luther’s proposals. The principal flaw was his failure to distinguish adequately between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood.
The concept of synodality, in its own way, is also preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly in the notion of sobornost’. Yet, as you well know, Orthodoxy — not being a universal communion around and under the Pope — remains a communion of local Churches, and so synodality takes shape chiefly within the limits of each national or regional Church. The Pan-Orthodox Council, for all its spiritual and theological depth, has historically reflected a focus on the whole sometimes to the detriment of real unity — leading, as you noted, to recurring internal tensions.
In the Protestant world, one finds something analogous — though with the further complication that, unlike Orthodoxy, Protestantism lacks the apostolic succession and sacramental structure that sustains ecclesial unity. What remains is baptism, and from that alone an attempt at common identity. The result has been a far more radical fragmentation, especially at the level of doctrine.
No, no, and no again. I made it very clear how we, Eastern Orthodox, understand the term “synod” and why we do not have “synodality”. “Synod” is a governing organ totally subdued to the Archbishop’s Council which is the highest authority in the Orthodox Church.
In Russian language we have the adjective “sinodal’niy” that is “synodal”. It is used as a definition for something done by the Synod like “Synodal translation of the Bible”.
You wrote:
“The concept of synodality, in its own way, is also preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly in the notion of sobornost’.”
Let us be clear: you are using the invented word “synodality” as the Vatican does, to define “something”. That “something” has nothing to do with the Orthodox “sobornost” hence “sobornost” cannot “preserve” synodality. Please note that we have “sobornost” and we do not have “the notion of sobornost”. It is the reality. What is “sobornost”? – Let us use the Orthodox encyclopedia again:
“Sobornost’ is a theological notion that means unity and wholeness of the Church, the unity of all its members under the Church’s Head, Christ. The word “Catholic” (from Greek “all embracing/universal”) is the expression of the highest degree of fullness, wholeness and universality.
In effect, Sobornost’ is a definition of the Church (given in my previous comment). The Church is the supernatural Body with its Head, Christ, and humans its members bound together by the Eucharist (the Person of Christ). “It is “we are one in Christ mystically”. It is about Christ and communion with Him. It is He who keeps us together, not anyone else. “Sobornost” is the realization of that mystical reality and putting it into practice. Sobornost does not “preserve the concept of synodality, it preserves the Orthodox ecclesiology which is all about the union of human and divine, in Christ (theosis). “Sobornost” is hugely mystical and has its origin in the divine Revelation. To put it primitively, sobornost’ is a relationship of a human being with Christ and between each other, bound by Christ Who grants a progressive thesis. The Church is “a nursery” for that process. All Church’s activities in the world flow from that theosis (this is analogical to the Roman Catholic mystics, “contemplation always leads to action”).
On the other hand, an invented by the Vatican term “synodality” conveys “something” that has purely human origin. Instead of communion of everyone with and in Christ (as Orthodoxy teaches), it is offering a (seeming) communion of humans with each other without Christ.
“Synodality” says: “we must listen, we must foster experiences of communion, inclusivity, etc”.
“Sobornost’” is: “the smallest member of the Church is the bearer of the seed of the divine Revelation and called to theosis, to be like Christ. Thus, a holy fool can denounce a sinful Patriarch (he can because he is in Christ more than Patriarch, despite sitting in dung). You are all one in Christ and you are equal in Christ”. It is always “in Christ” Who is the only measure.
I cannot see any similarity, can you?
Thank you, Anna. I now better appreciate the essential point you’re making — that sobornost’ is not a notion or concept, but a lived mystical reality, grounded in the Eucharistic and Christic unity of the Church, not in any sociological or deliberative model. It is not “something like” synodality — it is, as you rightly insist, a direct manifestation of Orthodox ecclesiology, rooted in theosis and the divine-human communion in Christ.
You are also right to note that, for the Orthodox, a “Synod” (in its concrete institutional form) is subordinated to the supreme ecclesial authority of the Archbishop’s Council — and that the adjective sinodal’nyi refers strictly to actions taken by such a Synod, not to an abstract style of governance or mutual listening.
What I was attempting to say — though clearly I put it clumsily — was not that sobornost’ and synodality are identical (they are not), but that there exists, from the Catholic point of view, a distant resonance, not a theological equivalence. That resonance lies in the fact that both traditions affirm the necessity of communion in Christ, and both acknowledge the importance of discerning together — though in radically different frameworks.
You are entirely right to challenge the use of synodality as an ecclesiological catch-all, particularly if it obscures the Christocentric and mystical unity that, for Orthodoxy, is essential and foundational. In Catholic theology too — at least in its most faithful expressions — any true communion must be in Christ, not merely horizontal or anthropological. Synodality, if properly understood (and not reduced to a slogan or process), is meant to be a way of expressing that same theological conviction: that the Holy Spirit speaks through all the baptised, and that all true discernment is a participation in Christ’s own guidance of the Church.
Still, I grant that the term is recent, ambiguous, and easily misused — and that from the Orthodox vantage point it may appear dangerously horizontal or procedural. Your critique is well taken, and I will certainly reflect on how better to distinguish — or avoid conflating — these two very different realities.
Thank you again for the depth and precision of your response. I always learn from your comments.
Anna, people like Giosue are in a “listening” mode to assimilate what they hear back into the synodalism and have it as synodality-burgeoning, hence, for eg., “Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops but Francis wanted synodality for the People of God instead”, or, another eg., “synodalists are holy”.
Things that were not there to start with and things not there at all, that, in effect, “the Holy Spirit has granted to come forth differently in a new way” you must suppose.
Our Lady of Fatima has already overthrown all of it, when she called for the consecration of Russia preemptively. By which she ousted conforming the Roman Church via adaptations from Orthodox whether well-founded or not. And “synodality” is not even well-founded. Among other things, we -Holy Roman Church,- are supposed to bring you to the prerogatives of the BVM, now being shared with you in a small way here.
And by which consecration she gave Russia’s conversion the privilege and primacy of right. In the face of which we are encountering so much rebellion among men and dioptrics from hell to the very distraction of the Pope and his diffidence.
To paraphrase the Orwell’s famous observation, some ideas are so stupid only self-anointed progressive theologians and their stubbornly unrepentant proteges can believe them.
I am a simple, fairly well educated man. My head explodes reading all this. It brings no peace to my soul. It does not aid
in my salvation. I reject this synod nonsense.
https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/fr/cardinal-koch/20220/conferences/The-Church-as-Communion-in-the-Theological-Vision-of-Joseph-Ratzinger-Benedict-XVI.html
Ratzinger’s vision of the Church as communion is here made clear.
Those who dismiss “synodality” as meaningless, confusing, or unclear often mask a deeper resistance, not to a vague concept, but to the renewed vision of Church that Vatican II proclaimed and Pope Francis faithfully received. Synodality is not an ecclesial novelty or bureaucratic drift; it is the lived reception of the Council’s teaching that the Church is the “People of God” journeying together in “communion, participation, and mission” (Lumen Gentium 9–12). The 2024 Synod’s Final Document (30) clarifies this in three integrated ways: 1) as a “style of life and mission” grounded in mutual listening and co-responsibility; 2) through “structures and processes” that reflect subsidiarity and foster authentic discernment; and 3) in “programs and policies” that form all the baptized for full participation. To call this “confusion” is to ignore the Spirit-led clarity emerging through a global, prayerful, and deeply ecclesial process. What is often framed as problematic concern is in truth plain dissent and antagonism toward Pope Francis and Vatican II itself. Articles like this and the pattern of editorial tone of Catholic World Report through the years and the comments generated out of these reflect this reactionary spirit, clinging to a clericalist past, resistant to the Church walking forward together, afraid of the very communion and mission to which Christ calls his People today. And by the way, Pope Leo XIV has reaffirmed his full continuity with this synodal vision, emphasizing that it is not optional reform but the Spirit’s call for the Church in our time.
According to that interpretation of “People of God” the Church by VATICAN II is indistinguishable from Christian groups not in full communion and destined for syndicalisms with incomparable non-Christian movements of whatever strain; and anyone querying it is against the Papacy and Magisterium and deforming Tradition.
From what I can see Pope Francis had a very hard time of it and found no time in the end to look at sobering questions like these.
“The People of God” can turn to The people of Satan on a dime. They are and cannot be other than sinners living with their own arrogance and self-delusions like every group of sinners who ever walked the face of the earth.
Deacon Dom are you aware that there are secretive groups organizing themselves as constituent units and founded parts of “the new People of God”?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/freemasonic-lodge-hails-pope-francis-work-as-deeply-resonant-with-their-principles/
Thanks for the informative link, dear Elias Galy. But, sadly, it’s likely the truth you have advanced will be ‘water off a duck’s back’:
Since: (from reliable local information) it seems your interlocutor is part of a parish where clergy and leading lay are all committed freemasons. That parish is part of an archdiocese whose current episcope is a big freemason; in a tradition begun by Archbishop Duhig during his lengthy reign from 1917 to 1965.
Well-informed cradle Catholics in Brisbane describe how: “Catholics could get nowhere in Brisbane, because the city was run by the masons. Then, James Duhig joined them and led many other Catholics into the lodges, enabling Catholics to achieve the highest levels. Duhig himself was knighted and honored by masons.
There’s a huge data-base about the very Non-Christian rituals of freemasons.
Commentators who downplaye FM’s shocking divergences from Catholic spirituality might be readily corrected with a few insights on actual FM initiation procedures.
Some extracts from an interview with Tanya (not her real name) by Dr Ana Mendez-Ferrell might be salutary [and, yes, many women have been initiated into FM, up to & beyond the 3rd, Master Mason Degree].
When Tanya’s brother – a senior FM – died tragically suddenly, she inherited all the original instruction manuals of the order. She sought to become a FM, hoping for resolution of her inner strife. Yet, after being initiated, Tanya felt deeply revolted by the lodge’s twisting of Bible teachings to suit pagan, unchristian, purposes.
This was her discernment: “Anyone who is in search is an easy prey. Freemasonry appears noble & of goodness but it is Satan’s greatest ruse to overwhelm the ego with dainties, entangle the human soul, & drag it to his eternal abyss.”
On the evening of Tanya’s initiation, she describes how a hooded man greeted her at the door of the lodge. She was blindfolded and led through the lodge to a ‘reflection’ room. Blindfold removed she was shocked to see a table with a human skull, and an open coffin nearby. The walls were decorated with symbols of death. She had to knock on the table 3 times to invite her initiator to begin induction. She was instructed to fill in an application on a triangular sheet of paper.
For the following two hours, Tanya was led, blindfolded, through a sequence of rooms where she was exposed to a gamut of intimidating & bloodcurdling sounds & bodily impacts. Each fear-inducing assault was explained as supposedly necessary “to build good character”!
At the end her initiator pierced her skin & she was made to use her own blood to sign a document unread. It turned out to be a false confession of the most horrendous personal crimes & offenses!
‘Magnanimously’ her FM initiator stuck her ‘confession’ on a sword, lifted it up, & set it on fire. Tanya was then told this symbolized her new status as a lodge member, with every freemason, from then on, always forgiving & concealing any & all future offenses & crimes that she or any fellow mason might commit.
The ‘initiation by ordeal’ experienced by Tanya is typical of FM ‘degrees’.
Higher degrees place demands on men that can include gross sexual immoralities and even homicide. Strict hierarchical dominance is enforced; absolute secrecy imposed; bloodcurdling punishments threatened. Breaches can cost you your life.
Masonic occultism & secrecy regarding hand-grips & passwords seem secondary to the secrecy required over initiation acts that breach the criminal code. This is the main motivation of what FMs call ‘brotherly love’. Terror is the predominant spirit that knits them together in the bond of fear. Unearned preferrments are a reward. This is the ‘The stick & the carrot’ operating unseen beneath the fabric of our society and even within some Catholic archdioceses.
That is, of course, categorically different to what genuinely Catholic Christians mean by loving & serving each other, in obedience to King Jesus Christ.
There’s much more that could be described but this is hopefully enough to overcome the misconception that freemasonry is an innocent, boy’s club. From the very first, apprentice, Blue Lodge masonic initiation is demonic denial of ‘The Truth that will set you free’; manifestly anti-Christ; of spiritual darkness.
Is it any wonder that abominable abuses arise in freemason poluted parishes?
Always seeking to hear & lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Thank you most kindly, good Dr. Very telling reveal and it is helpful to me. During the Cosmopolitan Explosion of the 50’s and 60’s short-wave radio was the rage among certain people who had never been to war and were not agents of the Cold War. Yet it amounted to a full slate of international espionage in its own right.
A reason the lodge protects and promotes deviance and perversion is to retain the power and possession over those who are fallen by licence not only blackmail.
Etymologically, NT readers recall the council judging Jesus guilty of blasphemy.
“sanhedrim(n.)
supreme council and highest ecclesiastical and judicial tribunal of the ancient Jews, 1580s, from Late Hebrew sanhedrin (gedola) “(great) council,” from Greek synedrion “assembly, council,” literally “sitting together,” from syn- “together” (see syn-) + hedra “seat” (from PIE root *sed- (1) “to sit”)….
“Abolished at the destruction of Jerusalem, C.E. 70….”
~etymonline.com
“Synodality” derives from Greek “syn” and “hodos”: Syn (together) and hodos (way, path, system).
Synodality and sanhedrin are similar in more ways than one.
~etymonline.com
The error was the reigning pontiffs neglecting to excommunicate Küng. Providing the long leash to the bold heretic has given a whole subspecies of katholics in collars and jeans the erroneous rationalization that they can promote any shade of theory or morality they wish.
The irresponsible exercise of papal authority has brought us to this day…and it wasn’t just Francis. We need a Leo the lion, but he appears more the house cat.
Inflammatory and combative comment.
Yes, dear Martha, but a warning OH SO NEEDFUL!
For: “The time is near. Let the evil doers still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” Rev 22:11
Let’s not think the apocalypse is a long way off. It’s every moment we are alive!
Once off the rails of authentic Catholic Christianity it needs spiritual dynamite to re-rail these proud and self-determining catholics. Let alone the hoodwinked freemasons & witches in The Church; there a miracle is needed. Time is short!
Ever in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
And painfully accurate.
But also accurate and to the point.
You might want to read Christ’s messages to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. Most of them contained rebukes. The message to the church at Laodicea was particularly blunt.
Martha: Is it more “inflammatory and combative” as the piles of corpses and rivers of blood of the unborn aided and abetted by the junk theology that relativizes the endowed immutable moral precepts of God?
Bravo, James!
Thank you to the author and James for his comment. They remind me of Fr. Aidan Nichols work The Shape of Theology. If I recall, Fr. Nichols explored three ways of understanding the task of a theologian:
1. Nichols emphasizes the balance between theology’s service to the Church and the academic freedom needed for theological inquiry. Theology is a charism that obediently serves the Body of Christ. Theology should be a prayerful and faithful exploration of divine revelation that should enrich and guide the entire Church, including its leaders.
2. Theology is not just a tool for bishops. This was a common abuse under the pontificate of Pius XII, et al. This abuses the theologian as a lackey.
3. Nor is the theologian above the bishops, telling the incompetent bishops what to think and teach. This was the opinion of the heretic, Hans Küng. This is also the “style” of Synodaling as promulgated by the last pontificate. Synodaling is a mob of self-styled theologians seizing power to talk Catholicism to death.
“That said, the convocation of Councils belongs properly to the Petrine office…”
What does that do to the first seven ecumenical councils?
Who do you suggest to “properly” convene the next Council – Trump? Even he only pretends to be the Pope with the help of AI.
But what is the answer to the question?
Not a single one of the first seven ecumenical councils was called by a reigning bishop of Rome, i.e., a pope, so how can it possibly be said that “the convocation of Councils belongs properly to the Petrine office”? The statement is obviously false, as the history of the Catholic Church amply demonstrates.
Surely you don’t reject the first seven ecumenical councils?
Taken directly from the “Catholic Answers” website (by Carl Keating) –
“Aside from the first general gathering of the bishops of the Church—the Council of Jerusalem, which occurred around A.D. 50 (Acts 15) and which is usually not counted as an ecumenical council—there have been 21 ecumenical or general councils of the bishops of the Catholic Church. (The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the first seven as ecumenical councils.)
A council is recognized as ecumenical once its works are approved by a pope. The pope does not need to attend a council for it to be an ecumenical council. The earliest councils were held in the East, and the reigning popes usually sent legates to represent them. Later these popes approved the decrees of the councils, thereby verifying that they were ecumenical councils.
Some councils, such as Ephesus, have been mainly doctrinal in their work; others, such as Vatican II, have been mainly pastoral. Doctrinal definitions are capable of being promulgated infallibly; pastoral decisions, although binding, are not subject to infallibility.
1. Nicaea I
325
Pope Sylvester I, 314-335
Emperor Constantine, 306-337
Decisions: Condemned Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ (elements of Arianism have reappeared in our own time); defined the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; fixed the date for Easter; began formulation of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
2. Constantinople I
381
Pope Damasus I, 366-384
Emperor Theodosius, 379-395
Decisions: Recondemned Arianism; condemned Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; completed the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
3. Ephesus
431
Pope Celestine I, 422-432
Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450
Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers.
4. Chalcedon
451
Pope Leo the Great, 440-461
Emperor Marcian, 450-457
Decisions: Condemned Monophysitism (also called Eutychianism), which denied Christ’s human nature.
5. Constantinople II
553
Pope Vigilius, 537-555
Emperor Justinian I, 527-565
Decisions: Condemned the Three Chapters, writings tainted by Nestorianism and composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, and Ibas of Edessa.
6. Constantinople III
680
Pope Agatho, 678-681
Emperor Constantine IV, 668-685
Decisions: Condemned Monothelitism, which held Christ had but one will, the divine (this heresy arose as a reaction to the monophysite heresy); censured Pope Honorius I for a letter in which he made an ambiguous but not infallible statement about the unity of operations in Christ (an episode commonly used by anti-Catholic writers as an argument against papal infallibility, but for the real meaning, see Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pages 227-229).
7. Nicaea II
787
Pope Hadrian I, 772-795
Emperor Constantine VI, 780-797
Decisions: Condemned iconoclasm (which was mainly confined to the East), a heresy that held that the use of images constituted idolatry; condemned Adoptionism, which held that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption, thereby denying the hypostatic union.”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-21-ecumenical-councils
So, DJR, does this answer your question?
Thanks so much, dear Paul Rasavage, for copying for us this very pertinent and crystal clear summary.
To my eye it’s remarkable how all these councils of the Catholic Church major on correction, never on innovation!
Where stuff gets added to our original Apostolic deposit of faith (like barnacles, toredo worms, and algae on the keel of a boat) the councils authorized by a Pope largely functioned to efficaceously identify the invading matter & cleanse it off by clearly REITERATING orthodox Apostolic teaching. Always recalling this was given to the New Testament authors by Christ, under their anointing by The Holy Spirit.
From personal experiences, one would think it is long past time to convene a Doctrinal Council to cleanse the keel of The Church from this plethora of sceptical, faith destroying, pseudo-academic, Christ-demeaning, heterodox cling-ons that too many publicity-seeking clerics & academics have burdened us with.
Science progresses by innumerable novelties; Christianity flourishes by loving faithfulness.
When will our scholars wake-up to the difference?
Ever seeking to hear & lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
All of the comments to this excellent article confirm my suspicions regarding the true purpose and intent of synodality, which is nothing less than to neutralize if not outright destroy the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from within, spreading this subtle attack by means of confusion over many generations. Obviously, with Christ as our Head, it will not succeed, but this diabolical novelty will inflict untold damage, including divide the Church and, worst of all, result in the loss of an untold number of souls.
For us who hold fast, the penalty will be excommunication.
This is our Sacred History: Salvation is of The Jews- From The Father, Through, With, And In His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son,Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love, The. Most Holy Blessed Trinity.
https://biblehub.com/drb/john/4.htm
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion”, due to The Unity of The Holy Ghost; For It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, Oh God , Almighty Father, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church Exists.
Hans Kung’s error was due to his inability to affirm The Filioque, and thus his inability to affirm The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus his inability to affirm The Office Of The MUNUS, and thus The Ministerial Office of The Papacy Instituted By Jesus The Christ.
Deacon Dom,
To date, everything about synodality has been vague and abstract, even your elements noting its supposed strengths.
Our surety is in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I would say that most everyone who frequents CWR does so out of a strong and sincere longing for holiness and to grow closer to God.
In light of PFI, who rejected the title, “Vicar of Christ”, who did nothing in response to the pachamama abomination and who himself said that “he may be the one who destroys the Church”, etc., etc., etc., his tenure was in stark contrast to the holy pontiffs who preceded him.
Synodality, we’re told, is a journey. No synodalite has yet to identify the destination. The only journey we Christians need take are steps toward Christ with our crosses on our shoulders.
The Lord God says, “Do not look for me in an empty waste.”
I choose to stay the course with the Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium that I know and recognize, rather than start out on a journey that could well end in perdition.
“I know My sheep and my sheep know Me.”
If others choose to follow a different shepherd, that is their choice by free will.
How to BE communio without unDOing the reality of the Church as both charismatic and institutional?
Stated differently, how to “walk with” the smell ‘of’ the sheep without stepping into Hans Dung’s smell ‘from’ the sheep?
Well said, daer Paul Rasavage: “I choose to stay the course with the Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium that I know and recognize, rather than start out on a journey that could well end in perdition. “I know My sheep and my sheep know Me.” If others choose to follow a different shepherd, that is their choice by free will.”
We need to be taught that our enormous and ancient universe, the Milky Way Galaxy, our Solar System, The Earth and all of its mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology is for ONE ultimate purpose (causing a cosmic aching, as in childbirth – Gal 4:19): to permit human beings to freely choose or refuse GOD.
Out of many diverse ideas about God, we Christ-followers have been blessed to know exactly what an amazing Love Being the Trinitarian GOD is. Our New Testament and Catechism of the Catholic Church make it perfectly clear how, through obedient faith & trust in GOD’s Love in Jesus Christ, we can become one with GOD and have the proof in our daily experiences of GOD’s own Holy Spirit. As we celebrate together in our Holy Eucharists.
“Whoever keeps His commandments lives in GOD and GOD lives in them. We know that GOD lives in us by The Holy Spirit that GOD has given us.” 1 Jn 3:24
To those that do not have The Holy Spirit this is all an unfathomable mystery. They want to organize The Church in accord with the only spirit they know: the world spirit. A primordially doomed ambition!
Yet, with the enduring love of Jesus, we’ll persevere in prayer for them.
Synodalism is embarrassing and confounding today those who had the power to stop its activated outflow, that began about 25 years ago; and correct and admonish it when it came up in front of them as a kind of “innocence”, that needed firmness to do that at the time. They went and facilitated it instead and so now, they need more courage than ever to pull away from it and humility to step past and disown the complexities.
Monsignor: You’ll have to excuse me for being rather skeptical about this article that you’ve written. You write: “Ratzinger proved, on the other hand, that the derivation from “concalare” is erroneous.” My question is why don’t you reiterate the proof here.
In any case, your article failed to convince me in the slightest. It seems to me that the very fact that the Holy Father moved the Church in the direction of synodality vindicates Kung. In Dei verbum we read: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience…” That is the first part.
The second part begins thus: “…and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
In other words, the official teachers of the Church, the bishops, are not to ignore this development of tradition among the believers, who study and contemplate scripture and what has been hitherto handed on, but rather they are called to listen to the faithful, their “sense of the faith”, which arises from the gift of their faith, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, their unique experiences in life, etc. The magisterium is thus not a “closed society”, an elite theological cabal of anointed intellectuals who alone have insight into the meaning of the Word of God. They are servants of the Word whose task it is to discern, to listen, to observe, and to evaluate in light of their own charism. That is why Pope Francis has called us to become a more listening Church. There are a plethora of people to listen to who have made great strides in theology and our understanding of Scripture and the spiritual life, all from various angles.
I don’t think you can argue that Kung made some sort of etymological error that led to his conciliar theology, sort of like Hegel who began his logical castle with a metaphysical error, treating being as a genus, as if Kung proceeds in such a deductive manner. What your article reveals is that you have acquired a certain habitus, an intellectual disposition, which is fine, but very limited. That’s why we need a synodal Church. Otherwise, the Church’s formulated self-understanding will be limited to that of celibate clerics trained in a certain way, who see things from a very limited angle. The magisterium has the task of interpreting and discerning, but that is preceded by listening, and when prelates stop listening to the faithful, the Church as a whole suffers delays and setbacks.
Sadly, dear Thomas James, your attempt to present a rational critique has a rational flaw. You (and other synodalists) illicitly subject the Foundation Stone to the same renovating processes as licitly apply in decorating the upper stories of The Church.
That Foundation is The New Testament Word of GOD (i.e. King Jesus Christ – His life, His words, and His commands). It will STAND, even when heaven & earth dissolve. See Matthew 24:35; magisterially applied in The Catechism of the Catholic Church for the benefit of countless generations of Catholics (and any other Christians who single-minedly listen to Christ). This is GOD’s most direct encounter with humanity [NB our most precious direct encounter with GOD!] By cosmic definition: unalterable and worthy of adoration, praise, worship, and all of our loving obediennce.
The Churches One Foundation Stone is obviously not subject to being moved – by synodality or anything else. The decor of the upper stories has always been constantly renewed and adapted according to local needs. The furniture gets moved around by clerical decisions AND by the preferences of everyone in each local church. That defines the legitimate place for synodal consultations, etc. YET:
Under the guise of synodalism, rebels are illegitimately seizing on what they’ve been longing for: an opportunity to sabotage the very Reason for the existence of The Church. At heart they’re humanists, chanting: “GOD’s dead! Let’s seize the property!” See Matthew 21:33-39; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19.
So, let the reader take note!
Ever seeking to lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Mr. James, given your absolute, positive support of synodality, please tell us what changes you believe should be made to Catholic Faith and Morals by means of this new mechanism implemented by PF1.
Lose mandatory celibacy, especially for the Amazon region. And women Deacons.
The pool from which to choose good candidates for priesthood is too small. We do get some good ones, but way too many personality disorders. And too much clerical misogyny in the Church. Patriarchy is obsolete. The church insists on hanging on to it.
“Patriarchy is obsolete.”
Yeah, fatherhood is so pre-2013. Something should inform God the Father.
Patriarchy, not fatherhood, is obsolete.
Thomas James: You might try looking elsewhere for a realization of your ecclesial fantasies. Much of what you write I’d place in the category “acting out”.
Please keep in mind that ordaining a woman has the same sacramental efficacy as baptizing a cat.
Note that there are three critical elements to imposing a valid sacrament – form, matter and intent.
The form refers to the liturgical rite of the sacrament itself.
Intent refers to the dispenser of the sacrament, in the case of the female deacon, this requires a Bishop to dispense the sacrament. But, ah yes, the matter, which refers to the recipient of the sacrament. In the case of baptizing a cat, there is no need as a cat does not have Original Sin on its soul. Therefore, baptism neither imposes or bestows the intended sacramental grace upon the matter.
In the case of ordaining women, either to the permanent diaconate or the priesthood, the matter is lacking.
The Anglicans have fallen into deep corruption by embracing homosexuality and “ordaining” women. Their ordinations are invalid from the Catholic perspective since they not only broke from the pope, their rite of ordination rite rejects the reality of transubstantiation.
Again, the Catholic Church is not a democracy in which the majority rules. Christ did not include women among the first twelve apostles, so no pope from St. Peter to Leo XIV has or will set a precedent.
Well said. I would add, that the Church is not an arbitrary dictatorship, where the Pope can do whatever he likes. Christ’s teaching rules, whether that is taught by Scripture, the oral teaching of the Apostles, or the practices of the Apostles.
You provide evidence that the last pontificate was merely a rerun of the sixties. It was a grossly tragic failure the first time. There was no need for the repeat provided us by cardinals with a hankering for their good old seminary days. The catechized faithful recognize it as toxic deconstruction with a luciferian motivation. Theology is an occupation of the knees, not the seat of the pants.
Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Yes! “Theology is an occupation of the knees, not the seat of the pants.”
We can date most of the current woes of The Church to the day that our clergy decided to dispense with the hours of the Daily Office, that is the hours of prayer of The Holy Breviary they used to draw strength from.
How could they have thought that giving up their hour-by-hour scriptural encounter with King Jesus Christ was progress? What a deception!