The much ballyhooed “synodality” and the “synodal way”, as currently packaged and proposed, violate the principle of subsidiarity.
And given the common misconceptions surrounding subsidiarity, that statement needs some unpacking.
What is the principle of subsidiarity?
One of the most misunderstood aspects of Catholic social teaching is the principle of subsidiarity. In its simplest form, this principle states that when it comes to social organization, if something can be done effectively on the local level, it should be left there and should not be usurped by a higher authority.
Lately, however, the principle has been misunderstood to mean that all forms of centralized governance are highly suspicious in themselves and contrary to the spirit of shared decision making, which should be the hallmark of any truly democratic form of organization. But this simply is not what the principle states. Indeed, the corollary to the localist aspects of subsidiarity (and contained within its internal logic) is the implication that if a problem is not best solved at the local level, then a higher level of authority is to be preferred.
Subsidiarity therefore demands centralization by a higher authority precisely when something cannot be done effectively on the local level. And it does so in order for truly local decision-making to be effective within its proper domain, with all forms of governance existing within a nested hierarchy of interrelated jurisdictions and with each level supporting the other.
Therefore, the notion that hierarchical forms of social organization are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity is also false.
For example, it is precisely the principle of subsidiarity that demands schools should be run by the competent educators in charge and not by the students themselves. And this holds true for the family, for most businesses, and a host of other social entities wherein decision making by those in higher authority is the only sane, and even moral, option. Thus, hierarchical forms of authority are not in any way ruled out, in principle, by subsidiarity.
Whenever we have experimented with “open” decision making in our schools and even in the family, disastrous consequences have ensued. Furthermore, the more complex, large, and pluriform a society becomes, the more it will need an integrating central authority precisely in order to guarantee and empower the proper functioning of all local authorities. In other words, subsidiarity is not a synonym for the paleo-anarchism of the Right or the radical egalitarianism of the Left. Subsidiarity is simply a prudential rule of thumb for gauging when local authority is sufficient but also, and often overlooked today, for when it isn’t.
There is, of course, grave danger that central authorities will become too powerful and ride roughshod over the local. But the reverse is also true. I am sure, for example, that most Black Americans living in the South in the 1950s and ’60s, when justice for victims of racism was needed, were more happy to see an FBI agent than a State patrolman or a local cop. And for good reason did the President federalize local national guard units to enforce the desegregation of Southern colleges. The principle of subsidiarity is therefore a useful concept for combatting the excesses of both an overweening federal Leviathan and a runaway localism of both the “don’t’ tread on me” and “Antifa” varieties.
Synodality and the nature of Church authority
But what does all of this have to do with the Synod on synodality? In a word, everything.
The term “synodality” has become a kind of cipher for ill-defined ecclesial sentiments, which long, vaguely, for a more democratic Church “of the people” and where the wings of Roman authority have been clipped. And the principle of subsidiarity is often invoked in order to criticize the centralization of authority in the Pope—as if this centralization is, in and of itself, simply in virtue of being a form of centralized authority, a bad thing to be avoided. Subsidiarity, we are told, argues against such papal centralization.
But it argues for no such thing. If a two billion strong, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-racial Church that spans the globe needs a strong central authority in order to hold it together, then subsidiarity demands this higher authority should exist and exist with real jurisdictional powers. If Anglican-style or Orthodox-style “synodality” lead to the disintegration of a proper ecclesial unity precisely because issues of decisive and constitutive importance for the whole are not best left to the vagaries of local sentiment, then subsidiarity argues for those decisions to be made on a higher and more central level.
It is comical to read many of the summaries in the recent Vatican document on the Bishop of Rome of the various ecumenical discussions that have taken place on the topic of papal authority. Almost every communion–from the Orthodox to the Reformed Protestants–agreed that some form of universal, “Petrine” ministry of unity should exist in the Church. But then came the immediate qualifications stating this authority should not have jurisdictional authority over the whole Church, nor should it presume to speak on doctrinal and moral matters for the whole with real binding authority.
And we are supposed to dialogue with this? Or worse, are we supposed to learn from the Anglicans, the Orthodox, and even the Lutherans, how to be a more synodal Church?? I have written elsewhere on the topic of this new document and the superficiality and pointlessness of its ecumenical fulminations. The document is instead, in my view, more directed at the current state of debates within the Catholic Church on papal authority in the light of a more synodal Church.
In that regard, I find it troubling how the text repeatedly states the Latin Church can learn from the East how to be more “synodal” and that the principle of subsidiarity demands we decentralize the papacy in favor of greater authority for episcopal conferences.
This assumes two things, which need to be demonstrated rather than just asserted.
First, is it really true that the Eastern churches are more synodal in the sense they are a unity within diversity and a diversity within unity? Is it true they represent an integrated dialogue of intersecting communions rather than a set of competing national identities at prayer? They tried to hold a pan-Orthodox council some years back and failed miserably since the Russians and their allies refused to attend. Is that the kind of synodalism we need in the West?
I claim the opposite. The East represents fragmentation and not a true synodal structure worthy of emulation. It looks attractive to certain kinds of Catholics who are willing to adopt any ecclesial model that frees them from Rome. But to call this model “synodal” is to so debase the term as to render it meaningless. I would further claim the Catholic Church—bloated papacy and all—has already been more truly synodal than the East in the sense that a strong centralized papacy has empowered local bishops in their struggles with oppressive local authorities. And it has encouraged true diversity on a local level precisely because such diversity is construed non-competitively as an expression of a true pluralism oriented around a “center that holds”. Without such a center such local differences easily degenerate into competitive expressions of the faith at odds with everyone else.
Subsidiarity, therefore, is wrongly invoked by the new Vatican text since what needs to be established first is that the kinds of decisions the Church needs to make in the modern world are best made on the local level and not in Rome. The text just assumes that Roman centralization is a bad thing, that it has led to bad outcomes in the Church on the whole, and that we would all be better off if the episcopal conferences had more authority.
But these are assumptions needing deeper analysis before they can just be accepted at face value without question.
Is the local Church really empowered when the Pope tells Beijing that he will no longer be the chief sheriff in the Chinese Catholic Church? Cardinal Zen begs to differ.
Would the Polish Church under Soviet rule have been better off with a weak or a strong papacy under John Paul?
Does synodality in a modern register mean a Church that is unified in name only as the Germans ordain married lesbian women to the priesthood as they tell Rome to butt out, based on the principle of subsidiarity?
Is having a “rock star” pope like John Paul II really all that bad in an era of mass media images? Would we rather have young Catholics gathering at a world youth day in Denver by the millions in order to see a popular pope or at a real rock concert where they can get a contact high from the amount of pot in the air? Or, for that matter, how many young people want to go to a youth event where Bishop Bätzing is the chief celebrity?
A legitimate decentralization of the papacy
I am not arguing here for ultramontanism or for an exaggerated sense of the Pope as a kind of “Oracle on the Tiber”. I believe in the principle of episcopal collegiality and I think there are some reforms needed for the papal office to be less bloated. In other words, we need a legitimate decentralization of the papacy, where necessary and called for by the legitimate application of subsidiarity. And, along these lines, theological reevaluation of Vatican I’s theology of the papacy needs to be done in order to develop its dogmatic affirmations in the light of Vatican II’s teaching on collegiality.
But this also requires caution and some real adults in the room lest we rush headlong into a set of centrifugal forces that will tear the Church to shreds and scatter it to the four winds. Therefore, we also need to stop invoking subsidiarity as a conversation stopper whenever someone raises a cautionary flag about the dangers of a Church now redefined “synodally” as an “inclusive Church” that includes everyone—or, paraphrasing Pope Francis, “Todos! Todos! But not you guys at the Latin Mass.”
In short, before we embrace our inner Anglican, let us first take sober stock of the many good things that have accrued in the Church precisely because we have had a strong, centralized papacy to hold things together. Let us not just assume the centralized papacy is one long nightmare from which we need to awake. Papal supremacy is at stake in this debate and traditionalists therefore are making a big mistake when, out of their legitimate devotion to the old Mass, they attack the very foundations of papal authority with claims the Pope has no real power over the ancient liturgy. I too have been critical, often strongly so, of the many pastoral moves of this papacy. But we must be sober in our criticisms lest we end up when this pope is gone with no real papacy left at all.
It should never be forgotten that, historically, the reason for the rise of a more centralized papal authority was to act as a counterweight to the intrusive and presumptuous agitations of emperors, monarchs, and secular “democratic” revolutionaries intent on turning the Church into an adjunct for total State power. And those forces are even more pronounced today where, across the West, “religion” has been redefined as an utterly subjective and private affair—and in other areas it is treated as a threat to the hegemony of the State.
Therefore, as we continue our discussions of a more synodal Church, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As it stands now, the synodal process seems to be the triumph of the bureaucratic over the personal, the layered anonymity of committees over a Church of sacramental concreteness, and of abstract notions of “process and structures” over the binding local address of the saint. As such, it stands in opposition to a truly Catholic understanding of subsidiarity, which would reverse the order of each of these.
In short, we do not need or want a hundred different national experiments, German synodal style, of what it means to be Catholic. Perhaps all we need, in the end, is just a better pope.
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.
Excellent article and further explication of the notion of subsidiarity in the Church.
The papacy IS essential to maintaining the unity of the Church. One observation though: Chapp says, “But we must be sober in our criticisms lest we end up when this pope is gone with no real papacy left at all.” Perhaps this has been the design of Francis all along in his stated objective to “make a mess.”
A strong papacy makes for effective governance at the diocesan level only when that strong papacy governs as a shepherd should (cf Augustine). A bad centralized papal governance wreaks havoc at the local level leaving us with weak, feckless men as local bishops. When you have bad papal goverance resulting in bad diocesan goverance, you wind up with a Church gone amok (take a peek at the Church in: Germany, Ireland, Italy, etc).
Agree, a truly excellent piece.
Also fully agree with Mr. Chapp’s last sentence.
“Perhaps this has been the design of Francis all along…”
There is not a doubt in my mind. We are dealing with a whole school of ecclesiology and ecumenism which has the elimination of the papacy, and indeed the perennial magisterium. Everything has been up for grabs since the mid-century council, but the deconstruction had to proceed slowly. Now sixty-five years on we recognize the pruning of religious life, simultaneous elimination of authentic catechesis and the diminishment of pious practices in the late 1960’s. Maintaining the authority of the papacy and the episcopate has been essential until it is no longer required as a tool to muzzle the remnant of the faithful.
We are in the hands of the unscrupulous. The laity and much of the clergy class can’t recognize it unless you knew the pre-conciliar Church. Those presently wielding power in Rome are quite cognizant of what they are doing, the innocents among them are impotent in the face of a tyranny which has full the force of a cultivated ignorance imparted by lack of supernatural faith fueled by mendacity and narcissism.
Some will say this perception is erroneous. Merely cast your eyes upon who receives the lash and who hold pride of place… Rome painfully mirrors the madness of the current power brokers in Washington DC. Oddly enough the Roman Catholic Church had to be taken down before our constitutional republic — note well the number of self-identified Roman Catholics enlisted in that operation.
Brilliantly said, James. Simply brilliant.
Bergoglio is to his Synodal Superlodge what Grandmaster is to the temple? And unless on October 13 Our Lady intervenes and the Synodal Superlodge Foundation Programme is stopped, the mirrors between Temple and New Church will not end there?
Have read only the title and sub-heading so far.
“The synodal process seems to be the triumph of the bureaucratic over the personal . . ”
And the U.S. Supreme Court has just overturned the Chevron principle.
Synodaling is structured infinitely. Synodaling proposes fake communication versus the revealed Communion of Christ’s Mystical Body. “Perhaps all we need, in the end, is just a better pope.” We had several saintly predecessors. The next conclave needs to hit the reset button. The heteropraxy of this pontificate must be corrected and the episcopacy renewed. Saints Peter and Paul pray for us!
Synodaling is structured infinitely. 🤣
And infidelity…
(if a Roman boondoggle is desired, at least let the papal guests Synodal as they sightsee and feast.)
Chapp’s case can be argued differently. The issue is finally about the very nature of each successor of the apostles, and therefore, about the constitution of the perennial Catholic Church as a totally unique piece of institutional architecture.
FIRST, bishops cannot delegate their institutional and personal responsibilities, as Successors of the Apostles. Episcopal Conferences or even synodal continental assemblies serve as administrative and forum conveniences. Other proposals by these bodies require unanimity (a happy redundancy!) or with two-thirds majority can be submitted to Rome for possible confirmation by the universal Church (Apostolos Suos, AS, 1998, nn. 20-24).
Citing the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops (an unambiguous “synod”), Episcopal conferences are “called to support, in a growing service, ‘the inalienable responsibility of each Bishop in relations to the universal Church and to his particular Church’ and, naturally, not to hinder it by substituting themselves inappropriately for him, where the canonical legislation does not provide for a limitation of his episcopal power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, or by acting as a filter or obstacle as far as direct contact between the individual Bishops and the Apostolic See is concerned” (AS, n. 24, internal citation from the 1985 Synod).
SECOND, less detailed but consistent with the above is the Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium (The Constitution of the Catholic Church)—Chapter 3 and the included and clarifying “Explanatory/Prefatory Note” (curiously published at the very end of the entire document).
THIRD, the admittedly difficult work toward “synodality” at least seems to involve an end run around the Second Vatican Council, plus the later clarification provided by the real Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985, and plus “Apostolos Suos–On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal [and continental!] Conferences.” The otherwise-cited “Ut Unum Sint” deals only with external relations.
(A bit of humor about “subsidiarity”….New York state Senator Moynihan used to tell how he was awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night. The Manhattan caller complained that the heat in his apartment was not working. Asked why he didn’t simply call the building manager, the caller explained that he didn’t “want to go all the way to the top unless he had to.”)
SUMMARY: the secularist descent into “proceduralism” seems to be seeping into mongrel synods, and tautological synods on synods, and scripts from experts and study groups. The Church needs to turn on the lights and rethink its homework. A substitutional (?) category of fluidity inserted between each bishop and the papacy—analogous to the third option which now enables non-liturgical blessings of irregular “couples”(?)—would be, shall we say, “inadmissible.”
Instead, what endures as ever new, from the hands of the incarnate Jesus Christ, is the irreducible difference between what the sacramental Church IS and what the Church only DOES in councils and synods.
“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” This teaching of Vatican I makes clear the scope of apostolic authority. Consequently, one claiming apostolic authority must demonstrate that he is “religiously guard[ing] and faithfully expound[ing] the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles”. If not, then no one need listen, because the claim of apostolic authority is demonstrably null. Claims of apostolic authority fall to a nadir when any claim of apostolic authority proposes anything “new”.
Natural law is how we get to subsidiarity. Under natural law, everyone has full authority and immediate jurisdiction to accomplish the duties of their state in life and nothing lower is permitted to get in the way. In terms of transmitting the Faith, the Pope has this highest duty for the entire Church; the bishop, his diocese; the pastor, his parish; the father, his household. What of the means? The father of a household does not have of himself the means of transmitting the Faith. He must obtain it from higher orders. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there are two ways to fail in the virtue of obedience. The first is disobedience. The second is failure to accept obedience. Hence the higher orders of hierarchy must either provide the lower with everything necessary to carry out the task or accept whatever bona fide effort of the lower orders. The principle of subsidiarity really is humility for authority. There is no ordinary way for a pope to transmit the faith personally to all Catholic children and catechumens. Consequently, the pope must ensure that those below him are provided with the means and actually doing their jobs so that his task may be fulfilled. Similarly, a bishop must do the same thing. The same for pastors. The same for fathers. If one of the lower orders fail to make a bona fide effort, the higher steps in to correct the issue. If the higher orders fail to provide the necessary means, then they are bound to accept the consequences.
Vatican II has consequences. The sacramental life of the Church after Pope Paul VI does not ask for and therefore does not provide everything necessary to live an ordinary life. The new order of Baptism easily demonstrates this: What does the child ask for through the parents? Baptism! In the old rite What does the child ask for through the godparents? The Faith! Why has the post Vatican II seen people leave the Church in droves? They have Baptism and not the Faith. Consequently, the higher orders in the Church are perhaps not obedient when it comes to the Latin Mass because they do not provide the means and will not accept the bona fide efforts of those below them. Furthermore, collegiality has destroyed all correction for those except the politically unpopular. Pope John Paul II would excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops, but wouldn’t touch those who openly contradicted Humanae Vitae.
What is a father to do when he is not provided the means to transmit the faith to his children? He goes and finds some. If that means happens to be not to the pope’s or bishops’ liking, then that’s not the father’s problem, that’s the pope’s or bishops’ problem of not doing their job.
Maybe I’m not reading enough about synodality and how it is currently being employed, but I have yet to come across a notion of synodality as it is being depicted here in this article. I figured that the question of celibacy would be left to the local level (after synodal discussion), but Francis did not do that. Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but the question of celibacy seems to me to be an issue that should be resolved on a more local level. Synodality is so important, because clerics for the most part are just not in touch with so much in the world, and so many clerics do not think they need to be. But what is the point of synodality if the Pope is just going to keep re-asserting the same old. At least there is an attempt at synodal listening, but I’m not sure the courage is there to actually move on it.
The cynical remark (Todos, Todos, except you guys with the Latin Mass) ruined this article for me. It’s amazing that someone with so much theology lacks the discernment to see the arrogance in such a tone.
We read: “Maybe I’m not reading enough about synodality and how it is currently being employed…” Indeed.
Arrogance? Bluntly telling the truth is arrogance?
Would love to hear you speak on this topic at a Friday night worker meeting in NY city… God Bless
I would like that actually. The New York Catholic Worker house does such great work.
What we need (among other things) are popes and cardinals and bishops that are not outlaws who reject the authority of Jesus and live “to queer the Church,” like the Pontiff Francis, and his “friends” and “selectees” such as McCarrick and McElroy and Hollerich.
Exactly. It amazes me how many people don’t understand that the true purposes behind so much of what is being packaged as synodality is the baptizing of the rainbow religion. Papal authority, and as we see in Germany, episcopal authority in general, have to be deconstructed in order to achieve this. A new ecclesiology, using the verbiage of the old but hollowing out and inverting its meanings in an act of Orwellian doublespeak, is emerging. And this new ecclesiology will emphasize a “church of surprises that is doing a new thing”. And those who oppose it will be labeled as fearful nostalgics who cling to their backwardist bigotries. In short, these people don’t actually give a shit about the papacy at all. All they want is the resuscitation of the revolution of 1965-78. I am not claiming that Pope Francis agrees with all of this. But he has reempowered that wing of the Church.
Baptizing the rainbow religion? Really? You’ve come to that? Larry Chapp sounds very much like the conspiracy theorists on the political right. Alex Jones in an alb.
Pretty nasty, even for you Thomas James.
Wow! Thanks, Larry for for being so candid and addressing the elephant in the room:
“It amazes me how many people don’t understand that the true purposes behind so much of what is being packaged as synodality is the baptizing of the rainbow religion.”
You are spot on correct!
(Am having a little trouble this morning posting on this website, so I hope this is not a double posting.)
I fear there is more to it than that, Margaret. The Rainbow Religion is but one construct of the Freemasonic new world that Synodal Superlodge seeks to embody in Bergoglioism’s New Church – erected in the ruins of Post-Conciliarism.
Good stuff from Larry Chapp.
While Larry Chapp’s concerns about preserving clear church authority are understandable, his analysis miserably shows a deep misunderstanding of Pope Francis’s teaching on the ecclesiology of synodality. While better informed and more sincere than many who are blinded for simply being antagonistic and disloyal to the Pope, Chapp’s misreading leads to an incomplete and inaccurate critique of synodality. Chapp describes synodality as “ill-defined ecclesial sentiments, which long, vaguely, for a more democratic Church “of the people” and where the wings of Roman authority have been clipped.” The International Theological Commission in its 2018 document clearly defines that, “synodality denotes the particular style that qualifies the life and mission of the Church, expressing her nature as the People of God journeying together and gathering in assembly, summoned by the Lord Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel” (Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, 70). For Pope Francis, “synodality” is not merely a procedural mechanism but a fundamental aspect of the Church’s form, style, and structure rooted in Vatican II’s vision of the Church as the People of God united in “communion” that involves all its members: laity, clergy, and hierarchy. For those old enough to recall, with the same Vatican II ecclesiology, Francis today spotlights “synodality,” whereas John Paul II and Benedict XVI earlier emphasized “communion.” Contrary to the claims of the Pope’s detractors, Francis is not inventing something new today. Chapp’s critique erroneously portrays synodality as moving towards ecclesiastical democracy undermining hierarchical authority. Pope Francis’s teaching on synodality, as expounded by the ITC and the preparatory documents of the Synod, is more nuanced. In the Pope’s vision, synodality does not negate the hierarchical nature of the Church but actually complements it by fostering a more participatory and inclusive approach to decision-making. It is about creating spaces for genuine dialogue ad discernment where the voices of all the faithful can be heard and contribute to the Church’s mission. Chapp’s misinterpretation is due to his failure to see the Pope’s integrative aspect of the synodal ecclesiology. Chapp’s discussion of subsidiarity within synodality demonstrates his basic misapprehension. Subsidiarity which advocates decision-making at the most local level possible is indeed important in Catholic Social Teaching. However, Pope Francis clearly integrates subsidiarity within the broader framework of communion where local decisions are made in dialogue with the universal Church. Chapp favors a model of Church authority that is more centralized and highly juridical. The Pope on the other hand views authority as rooted in service and pastoral care that aligns with the ecclesiology of synodality, where bishops, presbyters, and leaders listen, accompany, and serve the People the God. Chapp’s critique here fundamentally falls short of capturing the richness and depth of the ecclesiologies of synodality – and of communion – flowing from Vatican II’s theology of the Church as the People of God (Lumen Gentium, chapter 2) as now envisioned and expounded by Pope Francis.
Great work, Deacon. Bravo.
Thanks for the comment. I am not arguing in the essay for the papacy as an absolute monarchy or even one that is highly juridical, which is an idea that Pope Benedict criticized and rightly so. And I agree, as I made it clear in the essay, that an ultramontanism that sees the pope as an Oracle on the Tiber is not the way to go. And I made it clear that Vatican I needs to be revisited in the light of Vatican II and its teaching on collegiality. I also say that the papacy does indeed need some reforming along those lines. And as a card carrying member of the “team Communio” club I am well aware of the Communio model for ecclesial life. And Pope Francis does indeed quite often speak in this way. He also speaks out of both sides of his mouth most of the time, and his actions are often at odds with his words, so you will excuse me if I take what he says about synodality with a grain of salt. Because the people he has put in charge the synod (e.g. Cardinal Hollerich) do not share those same fine views of a collegial Church bound by Tradition.
You also seem to make the same mistake made by so many that the “people of God” (Lumen Gentium 2) means “the laity” and it does not. It means the entire church, hierarchy included and is utilized by the Council in order to emphasize that we are all first and foremost “pilgrims” sojourning toward God. It is not some hackneyed notion of a “people” over and against the hierarchy who represent some kind of underrepresented polity that we must now, finally, listen to. We should listen tot the laity. But sometimes we also need to teach them. Because quite frankly most of the laity in the West are full of really bad ideas.
As my friend Kevin Clay once said to me, “the trouble with popes is that they die”. Thisis the biggest weakness of any concept of the pope as an absolute monarch. Because no matter how good a pope may be, or a string of popes, you are only one crap Pope away from mayhem as we now see. One lousy pope can undo the great work done by a string of 10 good ones. Which is why some notion of the papacy as constrained by Revelation as this has been understood in the Tradition (complex topic I know…) has to be emphasized.
Your comment is full of fine theology, with which I agree, and full of fine words about what this Pope is really up to in his synodalism. I just don’t agree that this pope is simply trying to implement a more collegial papacy in line with real subsidiarity which is informed by an ecclesiology of communion. The real test of what he is up to is indicated by his personnel decisions. And they indicate a sociological drift rather than a theological one. They indicate not an ecclesiology of communion but an ecclesiology of bureaucratic structures and renewed “processes”. And they indicate a strong lean toward accommodating the dogmas of the new rainbow religion. I would trust this pope more if he had put a Cardinal O’Malley type in charge of the Synod rather than a cultural capitulator like Hollerich.
But when I say that maybe all we need is a “better pope” I meant it in contrast to the nonsense of things like the German synodal way. That is how I drew up the contrast in that last sentence. What I am criticizing in the essay is a bad take on subsidiarity as a mandate for the deconstruction of hierarchical apostolic authority in the Church, which is a sacramental reality, and its replacement with purely trendy and largely sociological models of “structures and process”. Thus, my last line is meant to convey the idea that if we have a lousy pope that no amount of restructuring will matter. And for better of for worse, the Church is indeed better off with a strong papacy, with a good pope at the helm, than a weak papacy, with a figurehead pope, and the Church governed by the Teutonic schnitzel of an ersatz synodalism that is just a cover for baptizing the sexual revolution.
And I do think that the need for a strong papacy in light of the powerful forces in the world that threaten to tear the Church apart is a no brainer. I do not want a “brave new synodal Church” where God is doing a “new thing”. Because as it turns out there is nothing new about what is being proposed at all: capitulation to Caesar, the Zeitgeist, Moloch and Mammon. The Germans are a case in point. Last year the German Church lost around 400,000 Catholics. Bishop Bätzing uses that fact to say that the Church is in crisis and this is why we need the reforms of the synodal way. And yet in that same year (2023) the Protestant denominations in Germany lost around 350,000 which continues a decade’s long trend of Protestant implosion in Germany. Batzing conveniently ignores this fact because it demolishes his argument for surrender to modern German “values”. The Protestants have had for a long time all of the so-called “reforms” that Batzing wants. And yet it has not helped those denominations in any way. It has not stopped the flight from the faith. But according to the synodal myth makers and their narrative, this is the kind of “process” we need more of even if we do not like all of the conclusions the Germans reach.
In short, I see the rhetoric surrounding synodalism differently than you do. I see it as the actual destruction of real synodality. I see it as a nightmarish dystopian gobbledygook of Orwellian double speak and silly sociological buzzwords drawn from secular therapeutic culture dressed up as a Communio ecclesiology. I think it is a Trojan horse, or at least a stalking horse, for the promotion of ideas that are actually foreign to the Gospel.
I stand by my claim. Give me another John Paul or Benedict in a papacy that is collegial rather than this endless blather about synodalism in a cacophonous and fractured world. Personnel is policy. “Gute leute muss man haben. Gute leute.”
So glad to hear you say the obvious:
“He also speaks out of both sides of his mouth most of the time, and his actions are often at odds with his words, so you will excuse me if I take what he says about synodality with a grain of salt. Because the people he has put in charge the synod (e.g. Cardinal Hollerich) do not share those same fine views of a collegial Church bound by Tradition.”
Speaking out of both sides of his mouth is sadly the modus operandi of Pope Francis, as for example, when he denounces abortion, but welcomes numerous abortion proponents to the Vatican and gives them smiling photo ops.
Spot on, Margaret.
Francis says abortion is murder yet welcomes and embraces adamantly pro abortion politicians (and comedians). What he does undermines anything orthodox he says.
Double-tongued Doublespeak is Freemasonry’s calling card. Only saying. Not suggesting the accusations that Bergoglio was seen inside a lodge (film Message in a bottle) are true. How could they be? He’s the,Pope, right?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A30NvrOLLpw&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fromrome.info%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY
Cogently argued, but only half a loaf….The cited INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION (2018) also affirmed clarified:
“…It is essential that, taken as a whole, the participants give a meaningful and balanced image of the local Church, reflecting different vocations, ministries, charisms, competencies, social status and geographical origin. The bishop, the successor of the apostles [!] and shepherd of his flock [!] who convokes and presides over the local Church synod, is called to exercise there the ministry of unity and leadership with the authority [!] which belongs to him” (n. 79).
Instead and from the start, he synodal vademecum cast the bishops “primarily as FACILITATORS” and this eclipsing has continued. The mongrelized Synod on Synodality seems to be both consultative and apostolic at the same time; it merges laity and bishops in the same body, adopting the “non-synod” model of der Synodal Weg; it mingles such “synods” with various “experts” and now with “study groups” and, unlike real synods with specific a specific mission, it throws everything from various grievances, to long-settled issues, and to doctrine all on the table at once.
Since Vatican II there have been almost two dozen special, ordinary and extraordinary SYNODS. Of the three extraordinary synods, the first, the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, was convened as a 20-year pulse check to prevent “divergent” interpretations of the Council and to clarify that the Church is both a “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium) and charismatic (e.g., the “universal call to holiness”).
But AMNESIACS don’t value or even remember this stuff or all of what the ITC actually wrote.
Instead, just another “backwardist” clarification from before the Great Dawn of 2013. Dismissed paperwork obstructing the Church from new intuitions or whatever, and from becoming the desired “mess” that Pope Francis has explicitly advocated. And, that his lieutenants have incrementally advanced, all toward the goal of an “inverted pyramid” church (lower case).
One case in point, for example: why is Jimmy Martin a favored attendee of the self-validating Synod on Synodality, and even a photo-op advisory to the Dicastery on Communications, while Courage is excluded from (what’s that word again, oh yes) the synodal “DIALOGUE”? Etc. etc. etc.
This is a good essay. My own notion of subsidiarity was probably a bit out of whack until Dr. Chapp explained the corollaries of a more precise definition of the term. All too often, we get behind a banner or its caricature without understanding what it truly represents.
I too am concerned that the next Pope will be an extreme reaction to the current situation– so weak and afraid of his own shadow that everyone, from left to right and north to south, walks all over him– and we certainly don’t need that sort of man to deal with the difficult situation in China, for example. We need a good, wise, and strong Pope. Such a man could actually build consensus without needing to restort to governing by motu proprio.
It is hard to fault the Orthodox for not having a form of synodality that unifies the diversity of all the separate Churches when they don’t want that in the first place. Nor do they want a pontiff-like figure who is central to all of the Churches and serves as a source of unity. Perhaps Roman Catholics believe that the Orthodox should want that, but that is a different matter, too big for me.
The situation with the Eastern Catholic churches is more complex, and harder for me to understand because of the presence of the Pope. But similar to the Orthodox, as well as I understand it, their synodal practices are rooted in the Synod of Bishops or Holy Synod for each Church. Laypeople may advise and consult with the Holy Synod but they do not vote. Only bishops vote.
Those attributes would seem to make Eastern synodality unsuitable from the point of view of a Roman Catholic looking for an alternative way of handling synodality. It also makes it unsuitable for those Catholics looking for a synodal model that gives more authority to laypeople, including voting, as the current Synod on Synodality proposes to do. Why the leadership of the Synod on Synodality fails to realize this and keeps trying to reference Eastern synodal practices as an inspiration for their own ideas is hard to understand. Because the “synodality” that they seem to envision only has a few points of contact with Eastern synodal practices. It’s even harder to understand why someone like Cardinal Koch wouldn’t grasp it. The Eastern representatives at last year’s Synod on Synodality clearly explained it in a way that even I could understand and outlined the differences and potential conflicts between Eastern practices of synodality and what the Synod seemed to envision. But no one seemed to pay attention.
As always when I write about Eastern matters, I appreciate any corrections/ clarifications because I am still learning.
You are correct in what you have written and I was very glad to read your unbiased comment. However, I would like to add something that other Eastern Orthodox have already said including during “Synod of Synodality”: “synodality” as it is presented by the Vatican has nothing to do with our practices. Hence the fundamental mistake of the author of this essay: the Vatican is not attempting to borrow anything from the Eastern Orthodox Church (whether our practices are “good” or “bad” for the Roman Catholic Church is another matter).
As for:
“Why the leadership of the Synod on Synodality fails to realize this and keeps trying to reference Eastern synodal practices as an inspiration for their own ideas is hard to understand.”
I think they do it because they want to back up their strange ideas with our (Eastern Orthodox) practices, for the purpose of giving them some credibility. Several Orthodox bishops (observers) protested that notion during “Synod of Synodality” but I do not recall they were responded to. It is a tactic of “Synod of Synodality”, not to react to a challenge and not to engage in a meaningful discussion – and this is why by the way it has nothing not just with Eastern Orthodox practices but also with the undivided Church (before the Schism).
I will also add, because you appear to be interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church, that we are “fragmented” only to a Roman Catholic eye. We never think of ourselves as “Russan Orthodox” or “Antiochian Orthodox” but “Orthodox” because we share the same doctrine, Liturgies, tradition and practices. While my extensive travels I would go to any Orthodox church (of any jurisdiction) available, no problem, I felt home – and no one had a problem with me greeting me as their own so the Orthodox Church is universal, no matter what Roman Catholics think of it. I keep saying to the Roman Catholics (including here) that to understand what the Eastern Orthodox Church is one must worship with us for some time. The same is true for the Roman Catholics – to understand you an Orthodox must worship with you for some time (something I have done, for ten years). In fact, you do not even need to go to the Orthodox church to understand it – you can go to the Byzantine Catholic Church (i.e. your own). Alas, very few Roman Catholics are interested in their own Byzantine Church.
One correction, Anna. You should not refer to us as “Roman” Catholics. We are Catholics…period. Some of use are Roman Rite Catholics while others of us are Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc, etc. Together we constitute the Catholic Church. The Pope is not the head of Roman Catholic Church but the Catholic Church. Thanks.
By using this word in the latter comment, I meant exactly “those who practice Roman Liturgical Rite”. It is those who usually do not know much about their Eastern brethren within the Catholic Church. I also use the term “Roman Catholics” when I write “Eastern Orthodox”, for a balance. We do not speak about ourselves as “Eastern” but only “Orthodox”; I am bending to a convention.
Another nuance is that the words “Roman Catholic” is sometimes used meaning “in communion with Rome” unlike Orthodox who are also Catholics (“I believe in one holy catholic apostolic Church” is our Creed as well).
Finally, I googled it and it appears that your own disagree with you:
“In the archived discussions of the Council Fathers, it is made clear that the note Roman here is used to describe not simply the Church of the City of Rome as head of all the local churches, but to the Catholic Church as a whole; that is to say, the note Roman is proper to Christ’s whole Mystical Body.”
https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-462.html
Whatever it is please be sure that I did not try to be offensive.
Anna, I do not at all think you were trying to be offensive. I was simply offering to you – an Orthodox – a clarification about how we Catholics define our Catholicism.
That we share the same Catholicism is evident to us as we are permitted to receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox liturgy (although admittedly the Orthodox do not approve of such a practice and it’s not mutual).
Another aspect to my comment about our referring to ourselves as Catholic is that those who affiliate with the Eastern Rite churches in the Catholic Church might take it as an affront to refer to the Roman Catholic Church rather than to the Catholic Church which it is.
Without strong central authority upholding the teachings of the faith we get what is described in the message of Akita: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
One faith, One Church, One Baptism, aligned in one teaching in One Body of Christ. Not, individual churches around the world proclaiming to be the one church but each living and teaching their own things.
It means Jimmy Martin needs to teach the one faith in morals handed down to the Church through Christ that the pope is called to defend.
Beg to differ. Subsidiarity applies to civil societies, not the Body of Christ. All jurisdiction is a participation in the Pope’s – NO subsidiarity on that count.
We are not at liberty, if we wish to remain Catholic, to “re-examine Vatican I’s theology on the papacy” is not an option, because it’s dogma. Vatican II’s confused references to collegiality need to be re-examined in the light on Vatican I. Vatican I was dogma, and universally accepted. Vatican II’s famous series of equivocations excite nothing but well-meaning disagreements on how to interpret them, or revulsion.
VATICAN II outlines initiatives and approaches in non-dogmatic things, that’s all. Just as there are many ways to reject VATICAN I, there are many ways to confuse VATICAN II.
Not true. There are two dogmatic constitutions in Vatican II. Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. And the teaching on episcopal collegiality, which was formulated as a development and qualifying of the dogmas of Vatican I, are in Lumen Gentium. I know traditionalists love to say that the Council was “purely pastoral and issued no new dogmas” but that is deceptive. It issued no new dogmas, but it developed several in both Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium, and those developments carry full dogmatic magisterial weight. Therefore, we are not free, as so many claim, to simply ignore Vatican II on the grounds that it was “merely” a pastoral council.
I don’t deny the dogmatic Documents and have acknowledged this elsewhere in CWR comboxes.
I also said in CWR comboxes that Paul VI dogmatically fixed the BVM’s title, Mother of the Church – a new dogma.
That there could be magisterial development in the Documents dogmatic, sacred or other, is entirely plausible and acceptable to me AND fits to my assessment of “pastoral”. The position I outline and my embrace of the debate on “pastoral” is strengthened that way Larry Chapp! Main point of my response to you! I was just engaging Miguel Cervantes on the thing he turned out here.
In said earlier comments in CWR, I indicated that Paul VI called for further study of the BVM’s “other titles”; pastorally inducing toward Redemptrix instead of halting everyone by it not exigent for the Council deadlines.
The word subsidiarity will bear a confused and /or unhelpful meaning if applied to the hierarchy or communion. It makes sense to keep have a differentiated vocabulary.
I say “unhelpful” because many legitimate situations of communion do not originate in the Holy See. They come from God and Holy See exists to affirm, protect, share order.
I say Holy See. The present stress is “Apostolic See”. I can speculate why and I am reminding them here that what detracts from holiness won’t be apostolic or VATICAN II.
This brings us to “pastoral council”. The Council never meant to carve in a dogma out of pastoral. What it does is indicate orientation in working through a certain era.
We can expand on the import of “pastoral” with sapiential and prudential. These would buttress and guide sense of faith, fortifying of Tradition and service of Magisterium.
Elias. Not sure what you intended by instances of “legitimate communion” coming from God rather than the See of Rome. The Catholic position is – no legitimate communion with the Mystical Body in this world without communion with Rome. The Church could do without Judas, but not without Saint Peter.
Whatever Vatican II’s pastoralism, there are expressions that are equivocal, and which are commonly given dangerous interpretations. It appears to create a new episcopal jurisdiction which is autonomous from that of the Pope, to assert that false religions have rights, and other issues. The very fact that well-meaning Catholics argue about the meaning of these expressions and whether their common interpretations are legitimate of not, is proof that the Council needs authoritative interpretation by the Church as soon a possible. The situation is not unprecedented. The Council of Constance caused half a century of confusion. The Church eventually made the necessary declarations and the confusion subsided.
Thanks for your considered reply.
I said “legitimate situations” of communion not “legitimate communion”. The communion that happened at Fatima didn’t start with the Pope and hardly had his personalized involvement by the time of the deaths of Jacinta and Francisco. It eventually required a needed recognition from Holy See. It was authentic and real and a grace from heaven not initiated in the Papacy and not dependent on it for its actual reality. It led its visionaries to be submissive to the hierarchy. So this is but one example.
I believe my simple formula allows VATICAN II to work and thrive as it is meant to do consistent with the Church’s commission and general experience. What will develop is recognition of the sanctity of those involved who gave life to its impulse and vision. We had this discussion at CWR in the past. I gave Mother Teresa’s witness as a right form and expression of what is intended. Mother Teresa encouraged all her wards, in prayer, in the ways they could pray. I am not saying she bought them into the Mass to assist them to pray that way. She offered them the consolation of her vocation and charity.
Some situations will be made overly complicated by the confusions you cite making life very difficult and even fruitless for the faithful who even could be saints. The Church is not confined to pronounce on such situations purely out of VATICAN II; nor confined to interpret VATICAN II solely by that.
All grace is mediated through the Mystical Body, and therefore communion (conscious or not) with the Church on earth led by the Pope. Please don’t give lots of meanings to communion in a discussion about Church structure – you’re not helping anybody in that.
The only charitable thing one can do is insist on Christ’s doctrine. There’s nothing charitable about heresies or indulging them. Of course there are ways of engaging those who are not Catholic.But the truth is not an “obstacle” as long as there is charity. Vatican II’s problems are textual as well as contextual, and so will the “solution” be. There is simply no getting around this.
You mean the structure is not meant to share and have its parts in the communion? I don’t mean that.
“It is comical to read many of the summaries in the recent Vatican document on the Bishop of Rome of the various ecumenical discussions that have taken place on the topic of papal authority. Almost every communion–from the Orthodox to the Reformed Protestants–agreed that some form of universal, ‘Petrine’ ministry of unity should exist in the Church. But then came the immediate qualifications…And we are supposed to dialogue with this?”
If the purpose of dialogue is simply a predetermined goal, then it will seem “comical” (as in laughable or ridiculous) to engage diminished or distorted theological understandings on any topic. If the dialogue, however, is one of both truth and love, then it will be “comical” in another sense. As Ralph C. Wood argues in The Comedy of Redemption: Christian Faith and Comic Vision in Four American Novelists, comedy is a literary form that issues in life and resurrection. In Flannery O’Connor’s story “Revelation,” Ruby Turpin receives a mysterious sacramental vision through her pigs. If it is indeed true that being and love are convertible (David L. Schindler), then being together in worship as well as dialogue is a way of loving God and others. It calls for patience as in Tolstoy’s wonderful story, “God See the Truth, But Waits.”
Let us not, as you rightly remind us, throw the baby out with the bathwater.