For a while now, a growing number of smart people have been asking for a definition of “synodality” (aka “walking together”), which is a complete innovation and seems to be an endless process whereby predetermined outcomes are managed and attained… on paper, at least. Wondering about synodality are
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke
Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, Archbishop of Cologne
A group of unnamed bishops participating in the 2024 Synod
The International Theological Commission: “synodality is a ‘linguistic novelty which needs careful theological clarification’”.
Etc.
During his recent trip to San Marino and Rimini, Leo XIV met with members of Communion and Liberation. HERE He tiptoed up to a definition of “synodality”. Let’s call it for future reference the “Rimini Definition” (RD).
As he moved toward his “definition” he quoted an address by Francis in 2024 to Participants in the Jubilee of the Synodal Teams and Participatory Bodies. He offered this curious observation about “listening”, that is, “We need to continue to discover how valuable it is,…”.
So, one might ask, is listening something to be “discovered”? Indeed it seems that we lost “listening” and it has been reclaimed. Leo:
In recent years, we have rediscovered the synodal and missionary dimension of being the Church, which calls us, first and foremost, to learn to listen to one another.
Rediscovered? It is consummated, I guess. So, we are now a “listening Church”? I thought we were a teaching and witnessing Church (cf. Christ in Matthew 28:16-20 and The Great Commission). But then I’ve not been been invited to “walk together” in the synodal process. Oh well.
Leo went on…
This is a journey that also calls for the renewal of every association and ecclesial movement. I invite you, both within the Communion and Liberation Movement and within the particular Churches to which each of you belongs, to undertake this experience of walking together [See? He says it too!]. It involves each person listening, allowing himself or herself to be transformed by the faith of others, [What if they are poorly forned?] and together, discerning new insights, taking further steps and responding courageously in obedience to the Holy Spirit. [Here it comes…] Synodality is not the name of a process, but the very nature of a people who, through friendship and encounter with others, come to recognize that they belong to God alone. In this way, authority is transformed into service, one that honors differences and fosters their harmony.
“Honors differences”… unless they involved celebrating the Mass that the Latin Church had for millennium.
Let’s see that again…
Synodality is not the name of a process, but the very nature of a people who, through friendship and encounter with others, come to recognize that they belong to God alone. In this way, authority is transformed into service, one that honors differences and fosters their harmony.
One might be forgiven for wondering if Leo hasn’t been apprised of those who have been asking for a definition.
However, I am not sure this cleared up anything. For example, Leo said “God” not “Christ”.
Also, what is “nature of a people”. “Natura populi”? “Essentia populi“?
Let’s take a step back.
Robert Prevost is an Augustinian. What does Augustine offer for this topic?
In the political and theological thought of St. Augustine, populus (a people) is defined in The City of God as a multitude of rational beings united by a common agreement as to the objects of their love.
A true populus is bound together not merely by laws, but by what its members collectively value and love. This definition allows Augustine to contrast the earthly community (civitas terrena bound by the love of temporal things) with the heavenly community (civitas Dei bound by the love of God). The “king” of the former is the devil and the “king” of the later is “Christ” (not a vague “God”). Augustine uses populus specifically to denote a unified, conscious polity rather than a random crowd (turba) or a mere ethnic group (gens). This concept is explored in texts like The Populus of Augustine and Jerome by Jeremy DuQuesnay Adams and HERE. One can consult also Gerard O’Daly Augustine’s City of God and, especially, R. Dodaro, Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine.
Note also the notion of synodal listen transforming “authority” into “service”. Gosh, no one in the history of the Church has connected “authority” and “service”. No… wait…
- Mark 10:42–45; Matthew 20:25–28: Christ contrasts apostolic authority with pagan domination: “Whosoever will be chief among you, shall be the servant of all.” The model is Christ himself, who came “to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.”
- Luke 22:24–27: During the dispute about precedence, Jesus says, “He that is the leader, as he that serveth.” He does not abolish leadership; he defines its Christian manner.
- John 13:1–17: Jesus, whom the disciples rightly call “Master and Lord,” washes their feet. His service proceeds from his authority and reveals how that authority must be exercised: “I have given you an example.”
- John 21:15–17: Peter’s pastoral commission is expressed as service: “Feed my lambs … feed my sheep.” His authority over Christ’s flock is a responsibility grounded in love for Christ.
- Acts 6:1–6: The Apostles exercise authority by appointing seven men for the diakonia, or service, of the community. Different ministries serve the same ecclesial body.
- Acts 20:28–35: Paul instructs the Ephesian presbyters to guard the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made them overseers. He recalls his own labor and Christ’s saying: “It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.”
- 1 Corinthians 3:5–9; 4:1: Paul calls apostolic ministers “servants” through whom the faithful believed and “the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”
- 2 Corinthians 4:5: “We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus.” Apostolic authority serves Christ by serving his people.
- 1 Peter 5:1–4: Presbyters must “feed the flock of God,” neither domineering nor seeking profit, but becoming examples to the flock under Christ, “the prince of pastors.”
Thus the New Testament does not say that authority must be transformed into service. Authority instituted by Christ is already ordered toward service. What must sometimes be transformed is the sinful manner in which authority is exercised.
The Church Fathers has something to say about authority as service.
St. Augustine of Hippo: “For you I am a bishop; with you I am a Christian. The former is the name of an office received; the latter is the name of grace. The former is danger; the latter is salvation.” (s. 340). And “Let it therefore be the office of love to feed the flock of the Lord.” (io eu 123, 5 – Sit amoris officium pascere dominicum gregem. Pastoral government is an officium amoris, an office or duty of love. Authority remains while love determines its purpose and manner. St. John Chrysostom “For with us also a ruler is then most a ruler, when he is the servant of all.” (On Matthew 65, 4). St. Gregory the Great: “The highest place is well governed when he who presides rules over vices rather than over his brethren.” (Reg 2, 6: Tunc autem bene regitur summa, cum is qui praeest vitiis potius quam fratribus dominatur).
More recently: St. John Paul II: “The authority of Jesus Christ as head coincides then with his service, with his gift, with his total, humble and loving dedication on behalf of the Church.” (Pastores dabo vobis, 21) Benedict XVI: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ.” (General Audience, 26 May 2010).
So, it seems that there has already been a strong connection of “authority” and “service” before the synodal process of “rediscovery”. Aren’t Popes historically – from the time of Gregory the Great (+604), the “servus servorum Dei… servant of the servants of God“? Leave aside that Francis reduced it, at least in the Annuario Pontificio, to a historical title along with Vicar of Christ (!), emphasizing above all others “Bishop of Rome”. Leo/Prevost has not restored it, but rather has kept the “historic title” distinction in the Annuario. However, he has used it multiple times in the titles of documents, for example, in the erection or suppression of dioceses: “LEO EPISCOPUS – SERVUS SERVORUM DEI – AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM”. A millennial formula.
Back to the Rimini Definition.
There is an annoying pattern in scholarly writing in certain titles which use the phrase, “X Blah Blah and Y Blah Blah: Toward a Definition of Blah Blah”.
Leo might be reacting to calls for a definition of “synodality” and he is working his way “toward” one.
This formulation Leo provided during his talk to CL in Rimini is nice, but, salvo meliore iudicio, theologically inadequate as a definition of synodality.
First, saying that synodality is “the very nature of a people” confuses the Church’s nature with one proposed manner of expressing it. The Church’s nature arises from her divine constitution by Christ with the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit as the Mystical Body of Christ, the People of God, and the sacrament of salvation. Synodality might – with better paramets – describe one aspect of her communal life, but it cannot be identified with her nature.
Second, no one disputes that “friendship and encounter with others” are valuable Christian dispositions. However, they do not explain what makes a gathering either “ecclesial” or “synodal”. Secular associations also cultivate friendship, encounter and, often difference in harmony. The Rimini Definition omits baptism, profession of the apostolic faith, sacramental communion, the Eucharist, episcopal governance, and obedience to the revealed deposit. I admit that in a short talk, one can’t include everything. However, those points don’t take long at least to mention and, I think, they have been considered essential (in the past at least) in ecclesiology.
Third, people do not merely “come to recognize that they belong to God alone.” Through baptism they actually belong to Christ and are incorporated into His visible Church.
Fourth, authority is not “transformed into service.” In the Church, authority is already constituted by Christ as service: “The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45). Its exercise may require purification, but its nature cannot be transformed by a synodal process. Nor does service eliminate hierarchy, jurisdiction, or the bishop’s personal responsibility to teach, sanctify, and govern. However, from what synodality has so far advanced, it is precisely the hierarchy that is being eroded by the confused mingling of lay people in the synodal process. It is as if they are trying to rewrite Lumen gentium.
Finally, “honors differences and fosters their harmony” lacks a criterion for judging differences. Some differences are legitimate expressions of Catholic unity. One might mention the desire for Traditional sacred worship. Others contradict revealed truth or moral law. One might mention the relentless advancement of the sodomy agenda without correction from authority … in service to the truth and the good of souls. Harmony cannot be the supreme criterion. Communion in truth must govern the discernment of which differences the Church can accommodate.
Moreover, when agendas do clash, sometimes the fight is, in charity, necessary.
It is one thing to criticize the Rimini Definition. It is another to attempt a more satisfactory formulation.
How about:
Synodality is the ecclesiastical process of walking together without defining the destination, listening to everyone without identifying who is right, and multiplying consultations until responsibility for the eventual decision becomes impossible to locate and then doing what was predetermined regardless of the time of listening.
Okay… that’s a bit snarky.
Snark doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
Trying again for something more serious, leaving aside (aka abandoning the concept of the “Synod of Bishops“):
Synodality is (read: ought to be) the occasional and limited participation of the baptized in the Church’s consideration of concrete issues, under the guidance of their legitimate pastors, through prayer, consultation, discernment, in fidelity to Scripture, and in continuity with Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.
There. I fixed it.
For this purpose, I know of nothing better than to meditate on the fact that our Lord, with Whom we are to treat, is both God and man, and to think over the reasons for which He comes down upon the altar. Surely such a stroke of love
WVC on Rediscovering Listening and Service: Toward a Definition of “Synodality” (aka “walking together”): “@pcg It is a refreshing take from Bishop Eleganti. One elephant in the room that he doesn’t really address, though,…”
