The Ghost of Synods Past: The Synod of 1967

On September 14, 1965, Pope St. Paul VI announced the establishment of the Synod of Bishops. In doing so, he accepted a proposal advanced by Archbishop Silvio Oddi in 1959 that had gained much support in the intervening years. As Pope Paul opened the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), he said:

We intend to give you some institution, called for by this Council, a Synod of Bishops, which will be made up of bishops nominated for the most part by the episcopal conferences with our approval and called by the pope according to the needs of the Church, for his consultation and collaboration, when for the well-being of the Church it might seem to him opportune.

The following day, Pope Paul signed Apostolica Sollicitudo, his apostolic letter establishing the Synod of Bishops, “directly and immediately subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff,” rather than to a curial congregation. The Synod of Bishops was to be a permanent, consultative body, and its function was that “of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff.”

The Synod of Bishops’ general purposes were threefold:

• “to promote a closer union and greater cooperation between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops of the whole world”
• “to see to it that accurate and direct information is supplied on matters and situations that bear upon the internal life of the Church and upon the kind of action that should be carried on in today’s world”
• “to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church”

The Synod of Bishops, according to the apostolic constitution, could meet in general (ordinary) session, extraordinary session, or special session. General sessions would include heads of Eastern Catholic Churches, presidents of episcopal conferences, bishops elected by episcopal conferences, ten superiors-general of religious institutes, and cardinals who head curial dicasteries.

In addition, the pope, if he wished, could “increase the number of members of the Synod of Bishops by adding bishops, or religious to represent the religious institutes, or clerics who are experts, to the extent of 15 percent of the total number of the members.” Synod members would cease from their office upon a session’s conclusion.

At the conclusion of Apostolica Sollicitudo, the pope stated that the Synod of Bishops would have a permanent general secretary and that each synod assembly would have a special secretary.

In December 1966, Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, the Holy See’s Secretary of State, published the Ordo Synodi Episcoporum (Order of the Synod of Bishops, pp. 91-103), a document that described how synod assemblies were to proceed and the duties of various officials. Deliberations were to take place in Latin, and strict secrecy was enjoined, even with respect to a synod’s preparations and conclusions:

All who take part in the synod are bound to maintain secrecy both as regards the preparatory business and the work of the assembly. This applies particularly to opinions and votes of individuals, and to the decisions and conclusions of the assembly itself.

Participants could vote placet (yes), placet iuxta modum (yes, with a suggested amendment), or non placet (no). A two-thirds majority was required for a vote’s passage; a simple majority, for rejection.

The Order of the Synod of Bishops was revised in 1969, 1971, and 2006. Pope Francis made significant changes in Episcopalis Communio, his 2018 apostolic constitution on the Synod of Bishops. Order-like regulations published last year outlined procedures for the October 2023 synod session.

The 1967 Synod

In his 1966 pre-Christmas address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Paul announced that the first general session of the synod would begin on September 29, 1967. In February, the pope appointed Bishop Wladyslaw Rubin as the Synod of Bishops’ first general secretary; the Polish auxiliary bishop had been a prisoner of war in the Soviet Union and had ministered outside Poland ever since his priestly ordination. Rubin served as general secretary until 1979—one of only six prelates to have served in that position in the institution’s history.

In the spring of 1967, episcopal conferences began to elect their representatives to the synod session. Journalists and some bishops pushed back against the envisioned secrecy, with the Canadian bishops stating in April, “We feel it our duty to urge that all facilities be given by the Vatican to the great media of information, so that they can provide the People of God with . . . complete and accurate information on all subjects discussed.”

The election of representatives preceded the public announcement of the Synod’s agenda, whose overarching topic was the “preservation and strengthening of the Catholic faith, its integrity, its force, its development, its doctrinal and historical coherence.” In a May 24 address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Paul said that the agenda items would include the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, doctrinal questions, seminary formation, and liturgical reform. Though not announced in that address, mixed marriages—that is, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics —would be a fifth agenda item.

Rather than name one relator-general and one special secretary for the Synod, as stated in Apostolica Sollicitudo, Pope Paul named five relators (or rapporteurs) and five special secretaries, one for each agenda item. Four presidents-delegate were also appointed to preside in the pope’s absence.

Signaling a desire to maintain fidelity to the Church’s doctrinal tradition, Pope Paul named Cardinal Michael Browne, O.P., a former Angelicum rector and Dominican master general remembered as “tradition’s voice at Vatican II,” as the relator of the doctrinal discussion. Manifesting his support for liturgical change, Pope Paul named Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro and Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., as the relator and special secretary of the liturgical discussion. At the time, the two were the president and secretary of the Consilium, the commission for the implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

In synod assemblies of recent decades, a working document (instrumentum laboris) has been published beforehand, with the relator-general’s report (relatio) delivered at the beginning of deliberations. The 1967 Synod of Bishops was different: there was no instrumentum laboris, but most of the reports (relationes) were sent to participants beforehand, in June and July.

Preparations for the Synod did not dominate the life of the Church in 1967. In March, St. Paul VI issued his social encyclical Populorum Progressio—an encyclical that Pope Benedict XVI thought significant enough to commemorate with his own social encyclical Caritas in Veritate (2009). In April, Italian writer Tito Casini published The Torn Tunic, which caused a stir in Rome because of its criticisms of the Consilium’s work.

In May, Pope Paul issued his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, upholding the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin rite, much as the Second Vatican Council had done less than two years before (Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16). On June 29, Pope Paul inaugurated a Year of Faith in honor of the 1900th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. The pontiff clearly desired to shore up the Church’s faith: a year earlier, the controversial Dutch Catechism had been published.

Once the synod began, the Vatican relented on the absolute secrecy envisioned in the Ordo Synodi Episcoporum. Msgr. Fausto Vallainc, then director of the Holy See Press Office, was permitted to attend the synod discussions and to brief the press on the content of the participants’ speeches—without divulging who said what. Father Edward Heston, C.S.C., then a press office official, and Msgr. Dominique Pichon, the French bishops’ spokesman, were later granted similar privileges. Apart from the official briefings, there were leaks to journalists as well, and following the synod, some participants wrote about what transpired.

Catholics in the United States could thus read about the synod in their weekly diocesan newspapers. After its conclusion, books about the synod (p. 50, note 5)—still available in libraries and on the used book market—appeared in French, Italian, and English. Inside the Synod, written by then-Dominican Father Peter Hebblethwaite, was generally even-handed; Synod ’67, written by Redemptorist Father Francis X. Murphy and former Redemptorist Gary Mac Eoin, was far more tendentious. Both books are valuable because they contain English translations of synodal texts —translations that are not available online, and are quoted in this article.

The Synod opens 

The first ordinary general assembly of the Synod of Bishops, with 197 synod fathers, opened on September 29, 1967, with Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica (brief video). Pope St. Paul VI’s opening homily and address are among the most important texts of his pontificate, but are available only in Latin and Italian on the Vatican website.

In his homily, Pope Paul preached that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a mystery of faith and a mystery of charity. The assembly’s principal objective, he said, is “the preservation and strengthening of the Catholic faith, its integrity, its strength, its doctrinal and historical coherence and the acknowledgment of faith as the indispensable foundation of the Christian life.”

“The solicitude for doctrinal fidelity, which was so solemnly declared at the beginning of the recent Council, must therefore direct our postconciliar times,” Pope Paul continued, as he warned of

insidious dangers which even from within the Church find utterance in the work of teachers and writers …. frequently desirous rather of adapting the dogma of the faith to secular thought and language, than of adhering to the norm of the Church’s Magisterium. Thus they allow free rein to the opinion that one may forget the demands of orthodoxy and select from among the truths of the faith those which instinctive personal preference finds admissible, rejecting the others, as if the rights of moral conscience, free and responsible for its acts, may be claimed in preference to the rights of truth, foremost among which are the rights of divine revelation.

The following day, in his opening address (brief video), Pope Paul recalled the consultative purpose of the Synod of Bishops and lamented the absence of Cardinals Stefan Wyszyński and Karol Wojtyła. Poland’s Communist government did not permit Wyszyński to attend, and the future St. John Paul II remained in Poland out of solidarity with Wyszyński.

Pope Paul mentioned that no non-Catholic representatives had been invited to the synod because it dealt with matters internal to the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, he encouraged the bishops to keep in mind the ecumenical ramifications of their deliberations, before he concluded with a plea for peace amid conflicts in the Middle East and Vietnam.

Revision of Code of Canon Law

The Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Code of Canon Law, instituted by St. John XXIII in 1963, had completed much work under the leadership of Cardinal Pietro Ciriaci and Cardinal Pericle Felici, drafting potential revisions to 380 out of the 2,414 canons. Pope Paul sought the opinions of the synod fathers on the principles on which the revision should continue; Cardinal Felici, who declined to make the draft canons available to the Synod fathers, was the relator.

The relatio under discussion included ten general principles, embedded in which were some specific proposals:

• canon law is juridical and should merely “define and safeguard rights and obligations,” rather than propose “a rule of faith and morals”
• conflicts between the internal forum and the external forum should be reduced
• the Code should become more pastoral and characterized by “a spirit of charity, humanity, and moderation” in addition to justice. In this context, the relatio characterized canon law as similar to a sacrament because it is ordered to salvation.
• special faculties should be explicitly listed in the Code, so that bishops did not have to seek recourse to the Curia unnecessarily
• there should be a greater implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, with more decisions made by local bishops
• rights should be safeguarded, and the equality of all the baptized recognized
• to safeguard rights, appeals to a higher authority should be permitted for administrative as well as judicial decisions, and “as a general rule, it is desirable that all trials be public, except in special conditions”
• jurisdictions such as dioceses are composed of persons, rather than solely determined by territory
• penalties should be reduced, but not eliminated
• the Code should be restructured

During the discussion, some bishops spoke out against the description of canon law as quasi-sacramental, with Belgian Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens (according to Murphy and Mac Eoin) criticizing the idea as a “Jewish concept” because it linked law and salvation. There was strong support for the principles of subsidiarity and charity, with some synod fathers arguing for a Code less rooted in Roman law and more rooted in the Gospel. Some participants favored a speedy revision; others, a thorough revision, even if it took much time.

Although they suggested numerous amendments, the synod fathers voted in favor of the ten principles with near unanimity, with none of them receiving more than two non placet votes.

The revision of the Code continued under the leadership of Cardinal Felici and Cardinal Rosalio José Castillo Lara, S.D.B., with Pope St. John Paul II promulgating the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church in 1983.

Doctrine

In 1966, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a brief letter to presidents of episcopal conferences on “errors arising from the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.”

Cardinal Browne’s relatio, presented on October 4 and entitled “On Dangerous Modern Opinions and on Atheism,” echoed and expanded on that letter. Reprinted in full in Hebblethwaite’s work, it lamented contemporary errors in fundamental theology, Christology, ecclesiology, morality, and sacramental theology.

“The task of the Church is therefore to see that the dangers and errors which threaten to corrupt the deposit of faith should be eradicated, and at the same time to promote deeper theological reflection and pastoral care in the way which Vatican Council II opened up,” Cardinal Browne said.

In the following days, prominent prelates from around the world criticized the relatio—some for its tone, others for its content—with Cardinal Suenens offering particularly blistering criticism. Speaking on behalf of the English bishops, Cardinal John Heenan (who later published his contribution) said that “before discussing errors, the Synod should say a word in praise of the many theologians who are working hard to present Catholic teaching in a way people can grasp.”

“It is not a question of denying Catholic doctrine but of studying its evolution,” he added. “A new syllabus of errors would be of great harm to the Church.”

As the synod fathers discussed the role of theologians, Archbishop Pablo Muñoz Vega, S.J., of Quito (Ecuador) suggested an international commission of theologians. Prelates who criticized the relatio lent their support to the suggestion, as did Cardinal Ottaviani.

With Cardinal Browne’s relatio clearly lacking broad support, the synod fathers, in ballots on October 11 and 12, elected an eight-member commission to draft a new report to replace the relatio; Croatian Cardinal Franjo Šeper gained the most votes. Pope Paul added four members to the commission. After Cardinal Šeper declined his appointment as head of the commission, Pope Paul ignored Šeper’s request and made clear he was to lead it.

Over the next two weeks, the commission drafted a seven-page report, later published in the Irish journal The Furrow, that criticized “unwarranted innovations, false opinions, and even errors in the faith” while stating that theologians “must be given the necessary freedom to investigate new questions and to further the study of the old ones.”

Cardinal Šeper’s commission formally proposed the creation of an International Theological Commission whose members would be elected by episcopal conferences. The commission also called for “a positive pastoral declaration concerning questions involved in the doctrinal crisis of today, so that the faith of the People of God may be given secure direction.” The synod fathers voted in favor of the commission’s report by a wide margin, with only four non placet votes.

In June 1968, eight months after the Synod ended, Pope St. Paul VI concluded the Year of Faith by promulgating the Credo of the People of God. Although the Credo—in whose drafting Cardinal Charles Journet and Jacques Maritain played a significant role—contained no reference to the 1967 Synod, it did correspond to the synod fathers’ call for a “declaration concerning questions involved in the doctrinal crisis of today.”

Pope Paul established the International Theological Commission in 1969. Even as he accepted the synod fathers’ proposal to establish the Commission, he disregarded their call for members to be elected by episcopal conferences, deciding instead on papal appointments.

Less than three months after the synod’s conclusion, Cardinal Ottaviani retired, and Pope Paul named Cardinal Šeper as his successor.

In one of the ironies of twentieth-century ecclesiastical history, Cardinal Šeper—the man chosen above all others by the synod fathers to draft the alternate document to Cardinal Browne’s relatio—would himself condemn errors in a manner reminiscent of the relatio. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1968-1981), he published documents against errors in theology and ecclesiology and in writings by Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, and other works, such as the Catholic Theological Society of America’s Human Sexuality. Cardinal Šeper’s statements on procured abortion, sexual ethics, the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood, and other topics provided doctrinal stability during a turbulent time in the Church’s history.

Seminaries

In 1965, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council called upon episcopal conferences to draft programs of priestly formation for approval by the Holy See (Optatam Totius, n. 1). In his relatio, Cardinal Gabriel-Marie Garrone, pro-prefect of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, said that these programs should address moral, spiritual, and pastoral formation as well as intellectual formation, and should be written in collaboration with those who work in seminaries.

Although he expressed satisfaction with the intellectual formation of seminary faculty, Cardinal Garrone said that faculty needed additional formation in order to lead seminarians “to a true sense of the presence of God, to a love of prayer, to an authentic love of the Church.” He called for caution in the contemporary experiment of involving seminarians in the running of seminaries.

In the discussion that followed, some prelates called for greater experimentation and restructuring of seminary life, while others called for a return to greater austerity. Still others spoke about continuing formation, a crisis of priestly identity, and seminary education in impoverished nations.

Cardinal Ottaviani called for a more thorough screening of seminarians, and Bishop Fulton Sheen of Rochester (N.Y.), a papal appointee to the synod, spoke about the immaturity of the seminarians of the 1960s. He proposed that the age of ordination be raised by two years.

In a statement that Murphy and Mac Eion said provoked the first applause of the synod, Bishop Sheen said:

It is our task to eliminate the divorce which has been set up between Christ and His Cross. Christ without the Cross is only an effeminate image, while the Cross without Christ leads only to persecution and harsh cruelty. Only the wounded Christ could convert the doubting Thomas, and only wounded seminarians can convert a world doubting and shrouded in so many errors.

During the discussion on seminaries, the synod fathers sent a message to the World Conference for the Lay Apostolate, which was then meeting in Rome. The World Conference, in turn, sent a message to the Synod of Bishops, expressing hope that the consultative structures could be formed at all levels of the Church in which the laity could be elected to participate and join in discussions with bishops.

Cardinal Garrone called for votes on whether it was opportune

• for the Vatican to publish a basic program of priestly formation
• for episcopal conferences to establish advisory commissions composed of seminary faculty
• for representatives of the Roman Curia and episcopal conferences to hold meetings about seminary formation
• for future seminary faculty to have specific preparation prescribed by episcopal conferences, whether at a special institute or existing schools
• for a special commission to be established to organize such institutes
• for religious orders to cooperate in the work of educating diocesan seminary faculty

By wide margins, the synod fathers voted in favor of each of these proposals, with the last proposal receiving the most non placet votes (thirteen).

In 1970, Cardinal Garrone, as prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, issued a basic program of priestly formation, the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (pp. 321-384). which offered universal guidelines to assist episcopal conferences in their work of developing programs of priestly formation. The Ratio was revised in 1985 and 2016.

Mixed marriages

In 1563, the fathers of the Council of Trent, out of a desire to end clandestine marriages, decreed that for a Catholic marriage to be sacramentally valid, the parties had to exchange their vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses. This requirement of canonical form affected mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, as well as marriages between two Catholics.

The canonical discipline that arose from Trent’s decree, extended and clarified in 1907, provided that the Holy See could dispense from canonical form “for a most grave cause.” Canon law also forbade mixed marriages unless the local bishop granted a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship or mixed religion. Among the conditions for the granting of the dispensation was the non-Catholic party’s stated commitment that the children would be baptized and raised as Catholics.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal Ottaviani, published an instruction on mixed marriages in 1966 that modified the canonical discipline while maintaining canonical form. Under the 1966 instruction, the non-Catholic party was “invited to promise, openly and sincerely, that he or she will not create any obstacle to the fulfillment” of the Catholic party’s obligation to raise the children in the Catholic faith. “If the non-Catholic later believes that he or she cannot make this promise without harming his or her own conscience, the Ordinary should refer the case with all its elements to the Holy See.”

Additional modifications were under discussion at the 1967 synod. Instead of being sent the text of the relatio, the synod fathers received a list of eight questions to consider, with arguments for and against each. Because of the ecumenical ramifications, the list was jointly prepared by Cardinal Paolo Marella, head of a Vatican commission on mixed marriages, and Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J., president of Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

When Cardinal Marella began five days of discussion with his October 16 relatio, he surprised the synod fathers by denouncing mixed marriages rather than focusing on the questions. He was quoted as saying, “Although God commands us to have charity for all, he also forbids any association with those not of the household of the Faith.”

In the discussion that followed, some synod fathers—like Archbishop John Dearden of Detroit, speaking on behalf of the American hierarchy—argued that Trent’s discipline of canonical form had stood the test of time and should be retained. Others, especially from Western Europe, argued that mixed marriages contracted in the presence of a Protestant minister should be recognized as valid.

Speakers differed over whether mixed marriages should be strongly discouraged or seen as opportunities to promote Christian unity and share the Catholic faith. They also differed over how to address cases when the non-Catholic party, in conscience, could not promise not to hinder the Catholic party’s commitment to raise their children in the Catholic faith.

After five days of discussion, the synod fathers formally manifested their opinion on the eight questions. They voted by a majority—but not by the required two-thirds majority—to recommend retention of the terminology of mixed marriage and canonical impediment of disparity of worship and mixed religion.

By large majorities, the synod fathers

• rejected proposed new terminology, such as “interconfessional marriage”
• rejected a proposed elimination of the impediment of canonical form
• rejected a proposed revision that would maintain Trent’s discipline of canonical form for marriages between two Catholics, but would have declared that non-observance of canonical form would not render a mixed marriage invalid

The synod fathers agreed, by large majorities, that for dispensation from the impediment, it is enough for the competent authority to

• “have the moral certainty that the Catholic party is exposed to no danger of losing the faith and is ready to do everything in his power to ensure the Catholic baptism and education of the children”
• “have the moral certainty that the non-Catholic party is aware of the obligation in conscience and at least does not exclude the Catholic baptism and education of the children”

By large majorities, the synod fathers also recommended that local bishops be granted the authority to dispense from canonical form; that pastors take into account “the spiritual background of the parties” when recommending whether mixed marriages be celebrated within Mass or outside of Mass; and that bishops should devote greater pastoral care to mixed marriages.

In 1970, Pope Paul issued Matrimonia Mixta, his apostolic letter on mixed marriages. The Church, he wrote, discourages mixed marriages, but recognizes that “man has the natural right to marry and beget children.” Thus, the Church, “by her laws, which clearly show her pastoral concern, makes such arrangements that on the one hand the principles of divine law be scrupulously observed and that on the other the said right to contract marriages be respected.”

Pope Paul, as the synod fathers had recommended, granted bishops the authority to dispense from canonical form, in accord with norms to be issued by episcopal conferences.

Pope Paul wrote that the Catholic party is “gravely bound to make a sincere promise to do all in his power to have all the children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.” Modifying the 1966 instruction, he added that “at an opportune time the non-Catholic party must be informed of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that he is cognizant of the promise and obligation on the part of the Catholic.”

The liturgy

During their final week of deliberations, the synod fathers considered twelve proposed changes to the Mass and the Divine Office. Their discussion was overshadowed by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras’ groundbreaking visit to the Vatican, which resulted in a common declaration, three months after Pope Paul’s own historic visit to Istanbul.

Cardinal Lercaro’s relatio was received with “animated and prolonged applause,” according to Murphy and Mac Eoin, signifying broad support for the changes that would take form in the Novus Ordo (1969) and Liturgy of the Hours (1971).

In the discussion that followed, some bishops called for an accelerated pace of liturgical change, while others called for a slower pace. In discussing authorized experiments, Archbishop Dearden and others lamented unauthorized liturgical abuses. Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, the Secretary of State—who earlier in the year had deplored Tito Casini’s criticism of the work of the Consilium—called for a greater retention of Latin and Gregorian chant.

On October 24, the third day of deliberations, the synod fathers went to the Sistine Chapel to attend a Missa normativa, or prototype of the Novus Ordo, celebrated by Father Bugnini. While part of the Mass was in Latin, most was in Italian. The recessional hymn, according to Hebblethwaite, was Sarah Adams’s “Nearer, My God to Thee,” famously sung during the sinking of the Titanic.

“Many of the bishops were dissatisfied with it [the Missa normativa], an opinion which I share,” Archbishop George Dwyer, a strong proponent of liturgical change, wrote a week after the synod. Cardinal Heenan, who earlier had criticized Cardinal Browne’s efforts to rein in erring theologians, offered strong criticism of the Missa normativa as well. Father Bugnini later wrote that “the experiment was not a success and even had an effect contrary to the one intended.”

Nonetheless, when the time came for the votes, the synod fathers supported most of the proposed changes by the required two-thirds margin.

Although the synod is primarily a consultative body, Apostolica Sollicitudo provided that a synod assembly could have “the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Paul granted the synod fathers this deliberative power over four questions. By the requisite majority, the synod fathers approved proposals to

• include three other Eucharistic Prayers in addition to the Roman Canon
• add the words “quod pro vobis tradetur” (“which will be given up for you”) to the formula of consecration
• remove the words “mysterium fidei” (“the mystery of faith”) from the formula of consecration
• allow the Apostles’ Creed to replace the Nicene Creed at Mass

The removal of the words “mysterium fidei” provoked the greatest opposition, with 48 non placet votes.

On the consultative questions, the synod fathers approved

• the Missa normativa in principle, with 43 non placet votes
• a revised penitential rite at the beginning of Mass
• the composition of common chants in addition to the introit, offertory, and Communion chant
• the retention of all 150 psalms in revising the Divine Office, with 25 non placet votes
• the proposed revised structure of Lauds and Vespers
• the proposed revision to Terce, Sext, and None, with only one of these three daytime hours to be obligatory
• the proposed structure of the Office of Readings

The synod fathers failed to approve by a two-thirds majority the proposal to replace the Epistle and Gospel at Sunday Mass with a First Reading, Second Reading, and Gospel, for an “experimental period” (72 placet, 41 placet iuxta modum, 59 non placet). The proposal was eleven votes shy of the 124 needed (according to Hebblethwaite) at this stage of the synod.

When Pope St. Paul VI promulgated the new Order of Mass in 1969, it nonetheless included a First Reading, Second Reading, and Gospel on Sundays. When the pope promulgated the Liturgy of the Hours in 1971, he disregarded the synod fathers’ strong consensus in favor of retaining all 150 psalms—”a few of the Psalms and verses that are somewhat harsh in tone have been omitted,” he wrote—even as he accepted their consensus on other questions related to the revision of the Divine Office.

Conclusion

As the synod drew to a close, the synod fathers issued a message for peace on October 28 and attended the Mass for the Feast of Christ the King in St. Peter’s Basilica on October 29. Pope Paul devoted his homily to St. Benildus Romançon, whom he canonized that day.

The synod then concluded with the pope’s closing address, read aloud by Father Amleto Tondini, a prominent Latinist.

“First of all, we must raise our minds and hearts to the kingly rank of Christ, both to broaden and protect our sure belief in divine things, and also to be animated by an ever more ardent love in our daily lives,” the pope wrote. “As you return to your sees, then, venerable brethren, remember that you have been sent forth to announce the kingdom of Christ … Since the Synod which we have held aims only at the good of the Church, each one of us must promise, like Paul the Apostle, to ‘spend and be spent’ (2 Cor. 12:15) for the Spouse of Christ.”

The pope concluded:

Finally, before you leave us, permit us to give each of you, as a pledge of love, a symbol of union, and a proof of brotherhood, the kiss of peace. We wish also to present to you the gift of a pectoral cross, confident that when you wear it, you will remember the days you have spent here with us, and will consider it a bond perpetually uniting yourselves to us and to one another.

• Related at CWR: “The Ghost of Synods Past: The Synod of Elvira” (January 20, 2024) by J.J. Ziegler