Synod on Synodality: The “Instrumentum Laboris” (2)

The way in which the IL presents the results stems from immanence, in which what counts is not the objective result, but what people think or feel during a discussion or an exchange on a given subject. The assembly of this “experience” did not lead to a definition, but to a description – an apprehension – of what a synodal Church is.

The IL proposes, still from the angle of the method, the systematization of this method under the title: “A way forward for the synodal Church: conversation in the Spirit.” [§A2.] It is necessary to reflect on this method and especially on its theological presuppositions.

A Method Discovered by the Synodal Process

“Through the course of the first phase of the Synod and across all the continents there has been recognition of the fruitfulness of the method referred to here as “conversation in the Spirit” or “synodal method” (no. 32).

The text tries to explain the scope of this method: “the term 'conversation' does not indicate a generic exchange of ideas, but a dynamic in which the word spoken and heard generates familiarity, enabling the participants to draw closer to one other. The specification ‘in the Spirit’ identifies the authentic protagonist” (no. 33).

“Gradually the conversation between brothers and sisters in faith opens the space for a ‘hearing together,’ that is a listening together to the voice of the Spirit’” (Ibid.) Thus, as in a council, for which the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ, the conversation between the faithful can result in receiving a particular illumination.

The document continues: “In the local Churches, conversation in the Spirit has been accepted and sometimes ‘discovered’ as providing the atmosphere that makes possible the sharing of life experiences and the space for discernment in a synodal Church” (no. 37). The community thus becomes able to receive and discern new revelation, or at least to interpret Revelation in a new way.

“In the Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies, it is described as a Pentecostal moment, as an opportunity to experience being Church and to move from listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ to listening to the Spirit” (Ibid.). The term Pentecostal reaffirms this community's ability to receive.

The Purpose of This Method 

“In its concrete reality, conversation in the Spirit can be described as a shared prayer with a view to communal discernment for which participants prepare themselves by personal reflection and meditation” (no. 37). The goal is therefore to discern, but to discern what and how? This is specified in the three steps of this method.

“The first is devoted to each person taking the floor, starting from his or her own experience reread in prayer during the period of preparation. Others listen in the knowledge that each one has a valuable contribution to offer and refrain from debates or discussions” (Ibid.).

During the second stage “each person takes the floor: not to react to or counter what they have heard, reaffirming their own position, but to express what from their listening has touched them most deeply and what they feel challenged by most strongly” (Ibid.).

Finally, the third step “is to identify the key points that have emerged and to build a consensus on the fruits of the joint work, which each person feels is faithful to the process and by which he or she can therefore feel represented.. . . discernment is needed, which also pays attention to marginal and prophetic voices and does not overlook the significance of the points on which disagreements emerges” (no. 39).

The method seems crucial in the eyes of the writers. Thus: “Bearing in mind the significance of conversation in the Spirit to animate the lived experience of the synodal Church, formation in this method, and in particular of facilitators capable of accompanying communities in practicing it, is perceived as a priority at all levels of ecclesial life” (no. 42).

The Reason for the Method

What explains the need for this method is first of all the deep inclusive desire: “a synodal Church is open, welcoming and embraces all. There is no border that this movement of the Spirit does not feel compelled to cross, to draw all into its dynamism” (no. 26). All must be understood by all humans. All can participate and must be listened to.

This is particularly important for the ecumenical dimension of the Church, as explained below: “Through one Baptism all Christians participate in the sensus fidei (supernatural sense of the faith; cf. Lumen Gentium 12), which this is why in a synodal Church, all the Baptized must be listened to attentively” (B 1.4 a).

This assertion is fundamental and deeply erroneous. This error on sensus fidei is at the foundation of the idea of a synodal Church and in fact makes it all weak, even futile. First of all, it is totally foreign to Scripture and Tradition to say that the sensus fidei extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Church - in other words, among other non-Catholic Christians.

The profound reason is that this sensus fidei, which can be translated as “sense of the faith” or even “instinct of the faith,” depends directly on the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, it cannot be found among those who are not subject to the Magisterium and even less among heretics.

Another reason is that, contrary to what is supposed – and sometimes affirmed – in the document, the faith of the faithful is in no way a source of the Magisterium, nor a theological source. The Magisterium is above all the reception of the teachings of Christ through the Church, from which it draws all that it is. It is the faith of the faithful who have received this teaching.

The whole Church and the synodal process appear suspended on the apparition of a “novelty” in the Church through the sensus fidei, certainly taken up and “discerned” by the hierarchy, but novelty all the same. It is a distortion of the sensus fidei brought about by the Second Vatican Council, parallel to the elevation of the common priesthood of the faithful to the detriment of the consecrated priesthood.

With a little exaggerating, it becomes a question of transposing modern democracy onto the institution of the Church: after a “consultation of the base,” and going through various channels, the novelty emerging from the People of God must be discerned, even theorized or dogmatized in order to “reform” the Church.

This serious error can only lead to an impasse: if the people thus consulted and exalted come to propose elements contrary or divergent to the faith, what will episcopal discernment do? If it refuses, the disappointment – and the demand – will be commensurate with the feeling of frustration experienced. If it accepts, it will then introduce inconsistency into the Faith.