Synodality Correcting the Pope?

"Synodality" has not been kind to the Orthodox. As an example look at the schism between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow ongoing since 2019.

From One Peter Five

By Maxim Grigorieff, MA

A traditional Eastern Catholic view of the Synod on Synodality, part II.

In the previous part of my brief summary of the final document of the Synod on Synodality concerning the Catholic East, we found that Rome had proven more orthodox than Moscow. What had become a truism concerning Germany (the far-left Alphabet agenda) is now being vividly experienced by Catholics in Russia who for decades have been financially supported by the Germans and to whom the sensus fidei fidelium of the entire Catholic Church has made a number of serious warnings and corrections via this Synod approved by Pope Francis. The document, elevated to the rank of ordinary magisterium, also proposes to revive the ancient Pentarchy by introducing the global council of Patriarchs and other heads of the Eastern Churches under the chairmanship of the Pope, who has recently reclaimed the title of ‘Patriarch of the West,’ the one earlier rejected by the late Benedict XVI. Let us continue following the text of this Final Document.

A New Special Synod to Guard the East

Yet another suggestion made by the assembly was to organise a new special synod in order to save the Easterners from ‘forced’ latinisation. That threat had been mentioned in the text before, and now we see the proposed practical measure.

The Synodal Assembly calls for open dialogue and cooperation between Latin and Eastern bishops to improve pastoral care for Eastern believers, especially in light of the shortage of priests of their rite. The importance of ensuring the autonomous participation of Eastern bishops in episcopal conferences is also emphasised. In conclusion, it is proposed that the Holy Father convene a Special Synod to support, consolidate, and revive the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The verb “revive” (orig. rifioritura – ‘florishing again’) is just as brand-new as almost everything we have observed in the document! It has consequences of such force that they reach beyond the East, challenging the West.

A Fraternal Correction of the Pope?

The intriguing thing is, the Archdiocese of Moscow was not the only patient that suddenly got treated by the Synodal teaching (even if we don’t count all the German-oriented pro-LGBT actors who are lamenting that the Alphabet terms are missing from the final document).[1] No, there is another surprise connected to the Eastern issues.

We might be in the middle of something that many Trads all over the world so desperately wanted to witness: a fraternal correction of Pope Francis that he would accept in a most humble and authoritative manner by sealing it while refraining from taking a last word of his own. Let me explain why.

There is a big contrast between the ‘revive the Eastern Churches’ narrative of the Final Document and the joint declaration of Pope Francis that he signed along with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on Cuba in 2016. When Pope Francis acted alone, he failed to sign anything more approving of his own Eastern Churches than the following moderately apologetic lines:

Today it is evident that the method of “uniatism” from previous centuries, which involves bringing one community into unity with another by severing it from its Church, is not a path to restoring unity. At the same time, the church communities that emerged as a result of historical circumstances have the right to exist and to take all necessary measures to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful while striving for peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics need reconciliation and the finding of mutually acceptable forms of coexistence.[2]

Many bitterly noted at that time that the successor of Peter was kind  of ‘Judaising,’ or rather ‘Orthodising’ in front of the Moscow Patriarch to achieve a common ground that would be even basically acceptable for the Russian Orthodox Church. In many ways, that was the case. Just like it was also for the acceptance of Jewish Christians that Peter compromised about the faith until Paul came and corrected him. The recent Synod of Bishops, this incidental collective Paul that consisted almost entirely of ‘Jews,’ (the Latins) seems to have once again come to the defence of the ‘Gentiles’ (the Easterners)! This brand-new teaching document is speaking now of the future revival of the Eastern Churches, not of some minimal right to exist (as in the above Kirill document), as if we, the Uniate Eastern Catholics, are the illegitimate children of Rome, conceived in the vicious sin of ‘Uniatism.’ Now the bastards are invited to the table, and the guilt is recognised in relation to them as well as to the Orthodox. Those who had to defend their urge for unity with Rome ‘on the two fronts,’ (having suffered both from the Orthodox and the Catholics, an old and a new family), have been vindicated, at least in the realm of the teaching documents… With the approval of the same Pope Francis!

No more ‘Dictator Popes’?

This ‘collective Paul’ does not seem to deny the authority of Peter, which is very important, but it seems to go against tyrannical absolutism and total control that comes from a single centre in the Vatican.

When the final document speaks of Peter’s ministry in the context of synodality, it mentions ‘healthy decentralisation,’ which Pope Francis himself emphasises and which is supported by many episcopal conferences all over the world, as stated by the document. In fact, this ‘decentralisation’ has been insisted upon since the very beginning of Vatican II.[3] This means that pastors should be able to make decisions on their own issues, which they understand better by being closer, unless it threatens the unity of the Church and the integrity of her definitive teaching. According to the document, the perfect balance takes working together and sharing responsibility (134).

To move forward, the Document continues, it is necessary to clarify which questions should remain reserved for the Pope alone, and which can be delegated to bishops and local Churches. This question is also mentioned in the recent motu proprio of Pope Francis, which granted local Churches certain powers so that they can better manage their discipline while maintaining the unity of the entire Catholic Church.[4]

Synodality Means Subsidiarity?

I do understand why many Latin traditionalists might criticise this provision. Ultimately, some heretics may try to take advantage of this liberalisation to undermine the Church, taking it apart piece by piece. And they sure did try to spoil the soil, even during this Synod and each in his own particular Churches and communities. Thanks to Pope Francis who ‘nourished’ these folks, we can even name some names! On the other hand, one cannot deny that it was the over-centralisation within the Latin rite, this mental inertia of post-Tridentine Roman militarism, that led to an almost complete ban on the traditional Latin Mass ironically named after that highly standardising Council. This ‘Trent-y’ logic can be seen in Pope Francis’s Traditiones Custodes: there is one form of expressing the faith in the Roman rite, there cannot be another… But we know that the late Pope Benedict XVI followed another traditional logic – that of unity in diversity.  So… should one not give the whole Synodality gig a chance to make things better?

There is a fundamental principle in Catholic social teaching called subsidiarity. Introduced by Pope Pius XI, it emphasises the importance of addressing social issues at the most local level possible.[5] It asserts that matters should be handled by the smallest, most immediate organisations or authorities, rather than being centralised in larger institutions. This principle promotes the idea that higher levels of authority should only intervene when lower levels are unable to address a problem effectively. By doing so, subsidiarity respects individual dignity, fosters community participation and encourages personal responsibility, while also ensuring that decisions are made closer to those affected by them. Does it not ring a bell?

Having suffered almost every wound from the over-centralised machinery of Roman bureaucracy, will the Trad theologians dare to assert that the idea of subsidiarity (which goes back to Thomas Aquinas and even earlier to the mens patrum), having appeared in the context of the social magisterium, has no place in the realm of ecclesiastical government and, to a certain extent, in questions of theology and discipline of the sacraments? This transfer has been gradually accomplished with regard to the autonomy of the Eastern Churches, beginning with Leo XIII, but especially after the Second Vatican Council. We have seen that none of the Eastern Churches has fallen into heresy or schism as a result. Neither did any of them loosen the bolts of the Catholic Church, threatening its integrity. On the contrary, we now have more in common – Latins and Easterners – than at any time in modern history. So why should our Latin brothers not benefit from the same blessings as we do? The Synod, in the spirit of sharing the gifts, fully approves of this. So does the Pope. As for the heresies and other dangers to the health of Catholicism, they must be countered not with the powerful Roman antibiotic alone, but above all with the immune cells of every local Church, parish, community and movement. That is how subsidiarity has been working in medicine probably since Hippocrates.

The Role of the Vatican ‘Deep State’

As another practical step, the Assembly of the Synod emphasises that according to Praedicate Evangelium, the Roman Curia should not stand between the Pope and the bishops as a kind of third power, but rather it should serve everybody. Before proposing laws for the Papal approval, the Curia should consult with local bishops, including those from Eastern Churches. It is also important to periodically assess the work of the Curia to enhance its transparency and accountability, while these ad limina visits of bishops to Rome should become more open for discussions, resembling meetings of brothers rather than one-sided briefings and lectures (135). A Latin Trad can imagine the comfort that traditionalist bishops like Athanasius Schneider or Cardinal Burke would feel if their meetings with the Pope were more fraternal and free to quarrel, as befits the successors of the Apostles who did quarrel, than audiences with some sort of absolute monarch of the 17th century. I am not saying they are not like that. But there is a lasting impression of some Red Tape Tyranny going on in the Vatican, and the Synod is sure to have  recognised it.

The Orthodox Dream Comes True… in Catholicism

Finally, what can non-Catholic Eastern Christians make of it? Many of my Russian Orthodox brethren would dream of synodality – just as it is described in the Document – implemented by their own Churches. Eastern Orthodoxy is often seen as conciliar, when the whole Synodal process is rather the stuff of dreams to the Orthodox, not a fact of everyday life, which is curious given that the Orthodox have a fame of being ‘tradi-conservative,’ when Synodality does not seem to quite fit into the category. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox have been dreaming of it long before the very concept came into fashion in Catholicism. It has always been their main schtick: ‘togetherness’ that does not contradict the hierarchy, ‘listening’ that is mutually fit with obedience, diversity that never compromises the One True Faith. Very similar image of this ‘Synodal Church’ can be found on the pages of their numerous books about ‘how it used to be’ and ‘how it should be’ in the Church, but after centuries of post-schismatic stagnation it has almost become a nostalgic fairy tale. Just like the Pentarchy. Some thinkers[6] have been disillusioned about the possibility of ever embarking on this Synodal path, at least without some serious external impulse, a catastrophe. How otherwise, indeed, can the majority freely engage with the problems of the minority? Can the elites voluntarily care for ordinary people? Can old rivals become friends? Now the Orthodox can see that all is possible with God’s help when you are in full Catholic communion. After all, the society once called perfect, that is predominantly composed of Latin ‘monoculture,’ acknowledges its mistakes in relation to the East as it has actively, for more than a century now, been striving  to correct them while protecting the integrity of Faith bequeathed to all of us by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is something very godly, something very opposite of pride. And yes, by the way, did I mention that there are no ‘Pride’ words in the entire Document?

Photo by Michael Parulava on Unsplash

---

[1] As an example, De Bernardo F. ‘New Ways Ministry: Synod Report Ignores LGBTQ+ Issues, Offers Grounds for Future Change’ at the NWM website, an editorial, URL: https://www.newwaysministry.org/2024/10/27/new-ways-ministry-synod-report-ignores-lgbtq-issues-offers-grounds-for-future-change/

[2] Совместное заявление Папы Римского Франциска и Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла, URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4372074.html

[3] Henri de Lubac, a ghost writer of Lumen Gentium, reported on that before the end of the Council. See Henri De Lubac, The Church: Paradox and Mystery (Ignatius Press, 2022).

[4] Pope Francis, Motu Proprio “Competentias quasdam decernere” (February 15, 2022).

[5] See the encyclical ‘Quadragesimo Anno’, 1931.

[6] For example protodeacon Andrew Kuraev, a famous Russian missionary of the last two decades who is now in opposition to Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow, switching to the jurisdiction of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.