Good News? Synodal Final Document Proposes “Pentarchy 2.0”

Mr Grigorieff looks at the Synod Final Document through the eyes of a Byzantine Russian Catholic. He is preparing for the Russian Catholic Priesthood.

From One Peter Five

By Maxim Grigorieff, MA

The Synod on Synodality has just concluded in Rome. As if to end the restless period with a final surprise, it was hours before the Final Document was published when Pope Francis announced that he would not publish any teaching document of his own that would be based on the Synodal suggestions, as was customary in the past even during this pontificate. Rather, the Pope elevated the Final Document to the level of ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church without any further consideration, correction or personal sealing (according to his recent Episcopalis communio).[1] While indeed, nothing should come as a surprise if it is done by the Surprising Pope himself, one cannot deny the move was unprecedented in the history of the Church.

Although translations into various languages are still being prepared in Rome, I looked at the Italian original text in search of references to the Eastern Catholic Churches and will briefly share what I found comparing it with my initial expectations that were, to say the least, quite moderate. Why was I so sceptical? I had my reasons from my view watching what was going on in two Romes, the First and the Third alike.

Due to all the fuss that was being made about the Synod by the Alphabet ideologues (the fuss that has been stirred up by Pope Fransis hosting transgenders in Rome, promoting (now) Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe and (still) Father James Martin SJ on the very stage of the Synod), I was fully convinced that the whole set of Eastern topics would be nothing more than another trope in the modern Leftist agenda that is predicated on the Oppressor vs Oppressed dichotomy (which certainly had to serve the interests of the radicals within the Church). In other words, as an Eastern Catholic, I was preparing to be dressed up like Amazon indigenous people in order to play their role in some bigger game. I was looking forward to some unintentional good words, questionable intentions and veiled suggestions on behalf of some very prominent European bishops and Western theologians who do not really care for me and my Eastern Catholic Church. But first let me make an important digression.

Synodality in Moscow

Having been involved in the Synodal affairs here at home, I observed many things. The Final report on the preparation process for the Synod of Bishops in the Archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow[2] did not even mention Eastern Catholics directly at all, despite the Easterns constituting a quarter of the total number of the seminarians back at the time. At this time, even in Russia where it is native and normative on the cultural scale, the Byzantine rite is badly marginalised within the Catholic minority. People don’t usually want to speak about it, but the reasons are clear: according to the mind of the Holy See for centuries in taking care to preserve the ancient eastern Catholic rites (a sentiment repeated again at Vatican II and by Pope St. John Paul II), canon law automatically makes any convert to Catholicism a Catholic according to the rite of his baptism. In other words, if a ‘native’ and ‘practising’ Russian Orthodox Christian becomes Catholic (as I did), he automatically becomes a Russian Catholic of the Byzantine rite. But so do all those people who were baptised in the Orthodox Church but either never practised it, ‘having met Christ,’ as they say, in the Latin Church (which is fine), or consciously detest and reject the Byzantine rite, considering it defective (which is a doctrinal problem). Rome understands that there are peculiarities to be taken into account, that is why one can ask the Holy See to give a permission to change the rite. At the same time, to emphasise the underlying teaching and theology about the rites and Churches, it never made it the matter of free personal choice.

In the end, due to the carelessness of some Latin priests who were indifferent to the law and the anti-Eastern xenophobia of other priests who were indifferent to our local Eastern Church here in Russia, a collapse occurred in the Roman Catholic Church in this country: half of the parishioners and seminarians are not their own, but are in a kind of leasing, not to say of many marriages that are later deemed invalid due to jurisdiction problems. In other words, ritually and canonically, these are Byzantine Catholics attending Latin parishes throughout Russia who are misinformed about their own identity and status in the Catholic Church. That is a shame and a true calamity. And the Moscow ‘Synodal Path’ did not find a better way to solve the problem than to propose changing the rules of the game, hoping to have all the dues paid by a sort of bankruptcy or default. That is why the document says:

Many pastors and laypeople, recognizing the importance of preserving the richness of rituals in the Church and understanding the Holy See’s desire to resist Latinization, simultaneously emphasise that the current canonical practice regarding “rite change” violates the freedom of the faithful. Therefore, they request the Conference of Bishops to propose to the Holy See changes to the norms so that a baptised individual, who was baptised in childhood in one of the rites outside the Catholic Church but has had no contact with it, can freely choose which rite they wish to belong to at the time of joining the Catholic Church’ (emphasis added).[3]

What this means is that the Moscow Synodal Process expressed disagreement with the Roman wish to preserve the Eastern Churches, not to let them die, as well as the protest against the underlying Catholic ecclesiology and teaching of various Popes and Councils of recent centuries based on some Liberal premises akin to those underlying Alphabet agenda! Moscow Liberals claim that the right to ask for a change of rite is not enough: one must be able to choose the Church and rite like gender identity, if I am to find a comparison. Speaking of which…

What the document did mention instead was the unholy tetragrammaton – LGBT. Four times, forever introducing the ideological virus into the Russian Church’s official business. As you might suppose, Russia is a very conservative country, that is why our Catholic activists preferred ye olde four-letter form instead of the more recent LGBTQIA+ that you are used to there in the ‘degenerate West.’ But as you can also imagine, this shameful fact did not bring me much hope for the Final Document of the Synod.

But as it has just turned out, I was wrong. Thankfully.

Unity within Diversity

In the Final Document of the Synod it is reaffirmed and declared that the Bishop of Rome, as the guarantor of unity in diversity, is to protect the uniqueness of the Eastern Catholic Churches, respecting their rich traditions in theology, canon law, liturgy, and pastoral ministry. These churches have their own decision-making structures, such as the Synod of Bishops and various councils of different levels – all those being inherently ‘synodal.’ The Eastern Catholic Churches operate independently from Latin structures, maintaining their Eastern identity and autonomy, while remaining in full communion with Rome. The document admits that there has not always been kindness between the Latins and the Easterners. That is why it says it is important to remember the past in order to heal old wounds and find new ways for coexistence. The relationship between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches should be built on the exchange of gifts, cooperation, and mutual enrichment (p. 132).

A Revival of the Pentarchy?

To strengthen relations between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Synodal Assembly proposes setting up a Council of Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitans of the Eastern Catholic Churches, chaired by the Pope of Rome. This council, being an icon of synodality, would serve as a tool to promote unity by ensuring the proper blood circulation of the liturgical practices, theological heritage, canonical norms, and spiritual experiences of both East and West. Given the migration of Eastern believers to Latin-dominated regions, the document admits there is a risk of losing their identity. To address this issue, it is essential to develop mechanisms and guidelines aimed at maximising cooperation between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (p. 133).

There are consequences at the local and the global levels.

What it means locally for the West and Russia

Of course, the original context of the document refers to the refugees who are coming from the countries of the Middle East and Ukraine. Upon arriving in lands dominated by Roman Catholic and generally Western culture, they start to be influenced by natural processes of assimilation, which may also be accelerated by their hosts. The bishops and the entire people of God, according to this document, oppose this homogenising, with the Pope’s direct approval. One can easily project and imply this Synodal thought to the situation in Russia, where the Byzantine Church culture, however native and primary, is poorly represented in the Catholic minority population. Sometimes it is the case due to natural reasons, which can and should be fought against, as stated in the Final Document, this most recent ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church. Some other times the development is inhibited artificially, which requires immediate action:

1. The introduction of the proper hierarchical structure for the Russian Church of the byzantine rite (as we still have no caput at pater of our own);
2. Greater attention to the proper liturgical and theological formation of Eastern seminarians in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Decree on the Eastern Churches of the Second Vatican Council (something we occasionally get denied, although I am not to judge anybody);
3. Intensifying the instruction of new converts in a manner that will explain the Church’s actual teaching on how exactly a baptised person belongs to the Catholic Church: through and in his or her own Particular Church, within this or that Church sui iuris, imbedded in their own rite – be it the Latin or one of the Eastern ones, that are equally valid and praised.

I dare say that at least some of those who have been in charge here in Russia and maybe some of those from the Vatican might not be extremely happy with the proposed salutary changes. But the situation must change and hopefully it will.

What it means for the entire Church and the dynamic of Ecumenism

When I first read about the suggested introduction of this ‘Council of Patriarchs’ led by the Pope, I suddenly realised that it all very much resembles the ancient system of Pentarchy I heard so much of when I was in the Russian Orthodox Church. The Pentarchy refers to five major episcopal sees of the early Christian Church that were considered to hold special authority and significance back in the first millenium. These sees were:

1. Rome – led by the Pope, traditionally viewed as the chief apostolic see;
2. Constantinople – “Second Rome,” the capital of the Byzantine Empire, important for its political and theological influence that were the actual cause of the city getting a silver medal in this race during the Byzantine era;
3. Alexandria – known for its rich theological tradition and early Church Fathers.
4. Antioch – one of the oldest Christian communities, significant in the spread of Christianity.
5. Jerusalem – the original centre of Christianity, holding deep historical and spiritual significance, although that see had faded in population and influence long before even the first Ecumenical Council.

The initial Pentarchy emerged within the Byzantine theological thought as a way to organise ecclesiastical authority and maintain unity within the Universal Church under the Eastern Roman Empire, within the Roman universe. (It was also central to the Eastern Orthodox debate with the Roman Catholic claims of the Papacy in the first millennium, but that is beyond the scope of these short comments).[4] Was it a successful project?

On the one hand, the Pentarchia did reflect the geographical and theological diversity of the early Church, emphasising the importance of these key patriarchal sees, starting from the see of St. Peter. On the other hand, the whole thing was very much based on civil authorities and cultural Romanitas, as it is clearly seen from the history of the initial Ecumenical Councils that were sponsored and organised by greenhorn Christian Caesars (sometimes at the cost of severe doctrinal and canonical contamination), not to mention a few schisms that arguably would not have happened if there had been more Church, less Roman politics involved into the regulation. After all, with no Orthodox Caesars around for a while, the Pentarchy had faded into a memory, a fairy tale, another fancy item in the museum of the Christian East. It had been the case. Until a few days ago.

The Pentarchy 2.0 proposed by the Synodal Assembly and approved by the Successor of Peter includes many more hierarchs than five in order to involve every historic Church in union with Rome regardless of their mutual background and rivalry, which used to be severe in far too many cases… It is also intended to be a much more regular and effective institution, more independent from any particular political environment. After all, this Pentarchy 2.0 would be not a single council to repeat once every century, but something like the existing “Bishops Conferences” among the Latins or, more traditionally, the “Holy Synods” of the eastern churches.

The proposed Council does not simply divide this world into canonical fiefs, rating the hierarchs according to the primacy of honour that is due to each of them. (This is something the Eastern Orthodox world has been very much engaged in, for it is the only thing they can do with the antique mummy of initial Pentarchy that died from a series of schisms, finally detached from its head,  Rome.) Instead, this new ‘Pentarchal’ council would ideally prevent or quickly stop the malicious processes of competition and xenophobia that has led the Church to the abyss too many times in hisitory. Will it help to restore the unity with the rest of the Christian East? One cannot say yet for sure, but the move will certainly make a huge difference, because it is so unprecedented and challenging for the (yet) non-Catholic Churches.

In the next part, we will discuss what other changes are proposed by the Final Document regarding relations with different Christian Churches on the issues that have been most pressing for this dialogue: Uniatism, the universal authority of the Roman bishop, the danger of ‘church dictatorship,’ and more. We will even see how Pope Francis, at least on paper, has essentially heeded the voice of the entire Church and his fellow bishops (whom I call the ‘collective Paul’) to correct some very painful injustices against Eastern Catholics in which he himself participated while dealing with the Moscow Patriarch Kirill in 2016.

---

[1] As Haynes points out his report, “Under Francis’ own 2018 Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio, once the final document of a synod ‘is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.’” On the meaning of the term “ordinary Magisterium,” see the work of OnePeterFive contributing editor, Dr. John Joy, On the Ordinary & Extraordinary Magisterium (Arouca Press, 2nd ed.).

[2] Итоговый отчет процесса подготовки к Синоду епископов в Архиепархии Божьей Матери в Москве, URL: https://cathmos.ru/documents/itogovyj-otchet-proczessa-podgotovki-k-sinodu-episkopov-v-arhieparhii-bozhej-materi-v-moskve/

[3] Ibid, p. 45

[4] On this, see the work of Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Emmaus Road, 2022).