Vatican City, Oct 30, 2024 / 15:25 pm (CNA).
Theologians and others involved in the October gathering of the Synod on Synodality met this week to offer their expert opinions on the synodal process as it moves into the “reception” or implementation phase.
The academic congress — “From the Council to the Synod: Rereading a Church’s Journey, 60 Years on Since Lumen Gentium (1964–2024)” — was hosted by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome from Oct. 28–30.
“We are still in this synodal process, and with the approval of the final document, in fact, the third phase of the synod opens, which is that of reception,” said Father Dario Vitali, a theology professor and theological coordinator at the Synod on Synodality assemblies.
Speaking during the conference’s opening Oct. 28, Vitali said: “It will be the Churches above all that will do the work [of implementation], but it also becomes important to have an event like this in which theological experts and canonists who participated in the synod sessions can offer their reflection after having served in the assembly, a reflection based on expertise.”
The congress, which immediately followed the monthlong gathering of the second session of the Synod on Synodality at the Vatican, featured many of the experts who presented at four theological forums during the synodal assembly.
Those included theologians Father Gilles Routhier, Father Carlos Galli, Cardinal-designate Archbishop Roberto Repole, Thomas Söding, and canonists Myriam Wijlens and Father José San José Prisco.
Synod leadership also participated in the three-day academic event, including the synod’s general secretary, Cardinal Mario Grech, and the synod’s special secretaries Jesuit Father Giacomo Costa and Father Riccardo Battochio.
“It is urgent to foster dialogue between pastors and those engaged in theological research,” Grech said in his opening remarks Oct. 28.
“We could say that for something that closes, there is something else that opens,” he continued. “The final document that is the mature fruit of the consensus reached is now returned to the holy people of God, because there is circularity between the universal Church and local Churches.”
“The stage of celebration ends and the stage of reception begins,” he said.
On the second day of the conference, which was focused on the theme of synodality and the role of the bishop, French Canadian theologian Routhier highlighted how “bishops’ conferences are not simply a grouping of hierarchs,” that is, bishops, “but express the ‘communio ecclesiarum,’” the communion of Churches.
Wijlens said in her presentation that “with this synod, Pope Francis has invited us to enter into a process of reconfiguration of the active principles of the Church,” and “the people of God have entered into this new path,” which represents a “Church on the move where canonical norms must provide for the implementation of this path and not stifle it.”
The third day of the conference was titled “The Church and Her Institutions: A Reinterpretation from a Synodal Perspective.”
Grech spoke at length about the connections between the Second Vatican Council and the Synod on Synodality and said he was joyful that Pope Francis chose to approve the synod’s final document, allowing it to participate “in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.”
“It seems to me that I can say that Vatican II has been the inspirational model, the certain horizon for the path accomplished until today, a sort of compass to orient the path of the Church, our path,” the synod leader said.
“It is not out of place,” he continued, “to speak of the synod as a moment of mature, or at least more mature, reception of the council.”
“It could be said that the final document re-proposes the ecclesiological doctrine of the council. In fact, one catches here an advance in line with the council but one that significantly advances the council’s doctrine,” Grech said.
“But the final document does not just take up the council: It rethinks it, translates it, embodies it in processes,” he added. “As in the case of the third part, devoted to the conversion of processes, here participation in decision-making processes is a matter that the council had not intended to touch.”
Veronica Giacometti, Antonio Tarallo, and Marco Mancini of CNA’s Italian-language news partner ACI Stampa contributed to this report.
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.
I’ll go with Catholic Unscripted, Oct. 29, 2024.
Cardinal Grech is quoted as saying:
“It could be said that the final document re-proposes the ecclesiological doctrine of the council.”
Um, I don’t think so, Cardinal.
Respectfully, Vatican II’s teachings are so clear, so undeniable, so beautiful. Nothing I’ve seen from this bureaucratic Synodolytrous blather-fest can even begin to compare.
What’s this, a victory chant for the laity, but with the laity not invited? Walk the talk…
One is almost reminded of synodal ineptness on the bridge of the Titanic, with the hireling orchestra still playing on deck even as the ship slipped into the sea. Memories differ as to whether the lyrics were “Nearer my God to Thee,” or “Autumn,” or Songe d’ Autumne…”
But, as for today and the Barque of Peter, here with the clear ring of truth is a post-synodal dirge from layman George Weigel at First Things–“Overhyped, Overmanaged, Underwhelming—and Providentially Heartening” (10-28-24): https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/10/letters-from-the-synod-2024-12
Your antagonism towards the band that tried to provide some comfort in the face of certain death speaks very poorly of you, in addition to being wildly off topic.
An important comma, the ineptness was on the bridge. Going too fast in iceberg waters (the owner overriding the captain); the officer-of-the-deck restricting too-few binoculars to the bridge and away from the higher-up lookouts; and then ordering a turn to the LEFT (!) enabling the 300-foot long gash instead of a more survivable head-on collision, and then reversing the left propellers which causes cavitation bubbles such that the blades have no traction at all. And, the presumption that the ship–any ship–is unsinkable. The orchestra and the entire ship’s company all sorta sailing together, synodally.
But, I agree that there should be a better analogies…On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle CHALLENGER broke apart 73 seconds into its flight. The cause of the disaster? The failure of external “O-ring” seals rendered brittle by the weather…A significant detail—foreseen and reported by an underling, and then ignored by “hot-button” potentates in the launch center.
Might we be REMINDED of the also forwardist 2024 Synod on Synodality almost breaking apart four years into its flight?..But, then, jettisoning the explosive “LGBTQ” slogan (removed from the Final Report)…And, too, rediscovering the synodal course trajectory from the ignored 2018 International Theological Commission. Especially this:
“…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 [not “primarily as facilitators”!] 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” (Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, 2018, n. 79).
QUESTION: Yes, how to “listen” to significant technical details from the laity or whomever, but without a new tribe of “hot-button” clericalists aborting coherent governance/doctrine into an inverted trajectory—the “inverted pyramid” (c)hurch? From the Final Report: Church authorities in the Barque of Peter “may not ignore” conclusions (“conclusions”?) reached by consultative, participatory bodies…“May not ignore” meaning what?
Surely not meaning the square circle of “may not reject”? Surely not double-speak voice overs against the successors of the Apostles of Lumen Gentium, nor deafness to the voice of Dei Verbum? Surely not local-option colonialism under continental red and purple hats? Think “continental drift” of Africa and others under the divisive Fiducia Supplicans…
So, this from so-called “rigid bigots”: Isn’t constant change the deepest rut of all?
Third phase “reception?” The Vatican can tie me to the rack. I refuse to join yet another denomination of Protestantism.
This Synod has just caused confusion, and has harmed the understanding of Catholics from around the world by causing conflict with and to Tradition and doctrine. It has been without any degree of listening to the Holy Spirit, but rather the imposition of a preset end point. Though I think the pope and his entourage of progressives are disappointed that they are consistently met by the those who still value Tradition, doctrine, and scriptural foundations.
The Church does not create doctrine out of whole cloth! This pope is determined to follow after the world at the expense of what should be our focus – Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.
It seems that the purpose of bishops conferences in the US and Europe is to suppress and suffocate the voice of good shepherds, and decapitate and dismember the Body of Christ, and replace it with a “queer church.”
Exhibits: these “Eminences” of the queer-royal-court: Hollerich, McElroy, J. Tobin, Cupich, Radcliffe, Schonborn, Grech, etc, etc.
As Pope Benedict XVI observed, these conferences have no authority from Jesus.
They are concocted by men who prefer to preach “a different gospel.”
My advice: Give the Church 25 years to digest this Synod and then make whatever conclusions the Church wishes to draw from it. And before that time, refrain from making changes that are ill-considered and which we might regret. After all, 25 years is a drop in the bucket considering that the Church has been around 2,000 years.
or for eternity….
Addendum to my post about waiting for 25 years before drawing any conclusions about this Synod: The Church waited almost 400 years before codifying Sacred Scripture as definitive at the Council of Rome. Obviously, the Church had at its disposal Scripture in the interim years but all was not settled for a long, long time (and that was during a time when the eschaton was believed to be imminent).
So now we no longer have One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but “Churches.” “It will be the Churches above all that will do the work….”
“the Church at….” 🤭
In Laodicea, I think you mean.
Excellent observation.
That’s the model for “decapitating the Body of Christ” (to use the theme created by Fr. Robert Imbelli).
“Sojourners” who have “moved beyond Jesus” (to quote the neo-pagan “nun” Ms. Laurie Brink of the LCWR) are simply looking for a bishop or pontiff who will sacramentalize their “queer ideology.”
That’s the purpose of McElroy and Hollerich et al.
Ends not with a bang but rather a whimper. The hot air is slowly seeping out of the already deflated, limp balloon 🎈. Meanwhile the barque sails on, its course unaffected.
It is impossible to make sense of this mess without reference to the writings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
“debate welcomed and encouraged”? Perhaps “moderation”should be changed to obliteration! 🫣 God bless
Rereading a Church’s Journey may read rewriting a Church’s journey. CNA offers nothing substantive except to describe a process of implementation that doesn’t identify what should be implemented, rather a vague reference to the need for pastors to consult with “those engaged in theological research” (Cdl Grech). It reminds me of Queen Esther telling King Ahasuerus that she and her people were in mortal jeopardy, the King responding, Who and where?
The analogy is meant to underline the gravity of referring to what a pastor [and bishops, and bishops conferences] should teach, instill, educate his parishioners [what happened to Christ?]. Nothing can have greater import for the parishioners and the Church. Or as Bob above apprehends with clear vision that “It will be the Churches above all that will do the work”, clearly not the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.
Why “identify what should be implemented”?
“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all'” (Lewis Carroll, “Alice in Synodaland”).
These gentlemen need be yanked from their desk jobs and given something constructive to do…a few years occupancy at La Grande Chartreuse or a decade in the South Bronx might wake them up. Anything to get them off there seats — to their knees or on their feet. Presently they serve no purpose but to substitute the New World Order for the One True Faith.
That actually is too often the problem of our secular world leaders; no real life experience, never gotten their hands dirty in effect.
Sounds like they had three days of back-patting and celebrating themselves.
“The stage of celebration ends and the stage of reception begins,” [Cardinal Mario Grech] said.
Watch for incoming!
“Reception” stage? I must be skipping ahead.
I’m already at the “upchuck” stage.
Using the phrase “the people of God” when actually meaning “synod delegates in lockstep with ‘progressive’ secular ideology” is not just an example of hubris at its finest, but an insult to those of us who see this entire synodal process as less than inspired or inspiring. Speak for yourself, Ms. Wijlens, and keep “the people of God” out of it.
Disgusting to read the comments! Totally prejudiced and one-sided!