Synod on Synodality: A Ripe Fruit of the Second Vatican Council (4)

The first article examined the first part of the Final Document (FD), which endeavors to define synodality, which it more or less succeeds in doing thanks to the texts of the International Theological Commission (ITC). The second article looked at the way in which clergy are stripped of their task. The third dealt with the conversion of processes, or the application of a “democratic” structure to the Church.

This fourth article considers the “exchange of gifts and the network of bonds” in the Church, which the Synod proposes that “we need to cultivate” in “new forms.” This chapter opens with lengthy sociocultural considerations on “territory,” “space,” “time,” “Urbanisation,” “population mobility,” “digital culture”...(nos. 110-13).

No. 114 concludes that “These social and cultural developments challenge the Church to reconsider the meaning of ‘local’ in its life and to review its organisational structures so that they can better serve its mission.” In other words, we need to “reconsider the configuration” of the parish, and highlight the “‘intermediate’ spaces between the local Church and the universal Church – such as ecclesiastical provinces and national and continental groupings of Churches.”

Next comes a definition of the “Church, both at the local level and by virtue of its Catholic unity,” which “aspires to be a network of relationships which prophetically propagates and promotes a culture of encounter, social justice, inclusion of the marginalised, communion among peoples and care for the earth, our common home” (no. 121). So this is a parish...

It is in this network that the “exchange of gifts” circulates, which “is of crucial significance in the journey towards full and visible unity among all Churches and Christian communions” (no. 122). Thus, “The example of the saints and witnesses to the faith from other Christian Churches and Communions is also a gift that we can receive, including by inserting their memorial - especially that of the martyrs - into our liturgical calendar” (no. 122). Thus achieving what Pope Benedict XIV declared impossible...But no matter.

“Episcopal Conferences and Ecclesial Assemblies”

This section is interesting for three reasons. Firstly, it allows establishment of a principle for the destruction of Catholic unity, which was called for in particular by the Synodal Synthesis of Belgium: “A synodal style allows local Churches to move at different paces” (no. 124), and therefore to have differentiated truths, according to time and place.

Secondly, it asks for clarification on “the domain of the doctrinal and disciplinary competence of Episcopal Conferences,” a curious request, especially as it is associated later with the following: “specifying that decisions made by an Episcopal Conference impose an ecclesial obligation on each Bishop who participated in the decision in relation to his own diocese” (no. 125).

This can be seen as a demand for alignment: or, on the contrary, as a protest by certain bishops who want to remain masters in their own right. But, all things considered, it would be good to make this clarification, as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller recently requested in a remarkable article.

Finally, following the same Cardinal's wish in his article, it is asked to look at “the institution of particular councils, both provincial and plenary. The periodic celebration of these councils was an obligation for much of the Church’s history and is currently provided for in the canon law of the Latin Church (cf. CIC can. 439-446)” (no. 129). This is rather unexpected.

The Pope

One had to expect some “daring” requests regarding the papal office, and there was no shortage of them. First, in no. 134: “A synodal reflection on the exercise of the Petrine ministry must be undertaken from the perspective of the ‘sound “decentralisation”’ (EG 16) wanted by Pope Francis and many Episcopal Conferences.”

Decentralization that would concern the discipline and executive power of local Churches and ecclesial institutions. This is becoming worrying, because even discipline refers to doctrine. But it is not unimaginable.

In no. 137, the Primacy is directly concerned: The Synod welcomes the recent publication of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, which opens avenues for further study.” What follows will clarify the thinking.

It is about nothing less than challenging Vatican I through a “rereading or an official commentary on the dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council on primacy, a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Pope, the promotion of synodality within the Church and in its relationship with the world and the search for a model of unity based on an ecclesiology of communion” (no. 137).

What will this “rereading” look like? It will undoubtedly go in the direction of redefining the Primacy according to “the first millennium,” which means, in the mouths of those who use this reference, that it is rather a Primate of honor, as the Orthodox claim. Today, however, this is a heresy according to Vatican Council I.

Finally, no. 138 imagines “ecumenical synodal practices, including forms of consultation and discernment on questions of shared and urgent interest, as the celebration of an ecumenical Synod on evangelisation could be.” Where it is clear that the members of the Synod no longer have the Faith.

Because evangelization is a matter for the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. What can those who do not have the Catholic Faith teach, if not schism or heresy? And it is with them that we should associate to mix the power of Christ with the leaven of destruction, all for the sake of evangelization? How could such a text be approved by 348 votes to 7?

The ecumenism of the Council shows its poisonous power, which is now poisoning Catholic minds and robbing them of the treasure of the Faith.