Synodality: Then and Now - In Rome and in Germany

SYNODALITY: THEN AND NOW— IN ROME AND IN GERMANY H A N S F E IC H T I NG E R “Questions of power and its exercise in the Church are real and need to be resolved, but we must not let them become a distraction from the more fundamental questions of truth, fidelity, and apostolic mission, to which all authority in the Church is ordered.” “Synodality” has become an important issue in the Catholic Church: it is the topic of the next Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (postponed to 2023), as well as a central theme of the German “Synodal Way” (Synodaler Weg) that began in 2019. It is not surprising, therefore, that it has become a key topic in contemporary ecclesiological debate. In Germany, theologians have been using the phrase synodales Prinzip for some time, understood as a participation in Church leadership (and teaching) that in principle involves all members of the Church. These theologians commonly view the “synodal principle” as a legacy of the Second Vatican Council but ascribe it to older Church practices.1 “Synodality,” by contrast, 1. A typical expression of dominant theology in the German-speaking world is Leo Karrer, “Synodales Prinzip,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche [= Communio 48 (Winter 2021). © 2021 by Communio: International Catholic Review 728 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R is a rather novel and abstract term. Historically, synods have normally been called to address specific doctrinal, disciplinary, or strategic topics. By looking at synodality itself, however, the 2023 Synod of Bishops will be dealing with itself, and with the manner in which synodical structures should be approaching their usual topics. The goal of this reflection is not to undertake a general theological or philosophical examination of synodality as a principle of decision-making and leadership in the Church. Instead, we intend to present and compare two concrete cases. One is very old and very Roman: the experiences of Pope Leo the Great with synods and councils; the other is very modern and very unRoman: the ongoing Synodal Way in Germany. Clearly, we will be comparing very different things. However, the connection between them is strong: in both cases the emphasis is on synodal practices and their meaning within the Church. Moreover, it is generally presupposed that in contemporary events like the German Synodal Way what is happening is also an act of ressourcement, that is, of reviving biblical and patristic practices that have nearly been forgotten over the centuries of Christian history. In order to assess this presupposition, therefore, it is useful to examine the historical evidence. A final connection is found in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, to which the German Synodal Way insistently refers itself, and which reaches back to the history of synods,2 especially in the way Popes John XXIII and Paul VI framed it.3 LThK], 3rd ed., vol. 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 1184. Synodalität does not have an entry in LThK, 3rd ed. 2. Cf., e.g., Christus Dominus, 36. 3. For a more comprehensive analysis, see Hans Feichtinger, Die Gegenwart Christi in der Kirche bei Leo dem Großen, Patrologia 18 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag, 2007), 119–29. For Leo’s sermons/tractactus (hereafter cited as Tr.), we refer to the Latin text in Sancti Leonis Magni Romani Pontificis Tractatus Septem et Nonaginta, ed. A. Chavasse, CCSL 138–38A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1973); English translations are taken from St. Leo the Great, Sermons, trans. J. P. Freeland and A. J. Conway, The Fathers of the Church 93 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996) (hereafter cited as FaCh 93). For Leo’s letters/epistulae (hereafter cited as Ep.) in Latin we refer either to Concilium Universale Chalcedonse. Leonis Papae I Epistularum Collectiones, ed. E. Schwartz et al., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicoum (= ACO), vol. II, parts 1–4 (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1932–36), or Sancti Leonis Magni Romani S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW 1. TH E E X PE R I ENCE OF POPE L EO A N D H IS T E ACH I NGS ON SY NODS A N D COU NCI L S Leo the Great was pope from 440 until 461. His pontificate has traditionally been accepted as a milestone in the history of the papacy, especially for how the bishops of Rome viewed their responsibility beyond their own city.4 At first glance, Leo’s concern for the Petrine ministry could appear antagonistic to synodality as a key principle of Church governance. However, as we look at his writings and practice with regard to synods, this appearance turns out to be a modern prejudice. First, Leo’s involvement with synods and councils was massive, likely going back to before his election as bishop of Rome. His experience was rooted in the fact that “synods [were] held in Rome twice a year.”5 This practice, which Leo grew up with and continued, is based on the Council of Nicaea in two ways: the fides nicaena is a crucial point of doctrinal reference, and Nicaea’s fifth canon determines how often synods are to be held.6 For Leo, conciliar decisions expressed the tradition that Pontificis Opera Omnia, PL 54 (Paris: Migne, 1881). Where available, we use the translation of the letters in Bronwen Neil, Leo the Great (London: Routledge, 2009); otherwise, translations are mine. In the notes hereafter, in parentheses, when referring to the Latin edition, we cite the page and line numbers; when referring to the Patrologia Latina (PL), we cite the column and paragraph/letter numbers. 4. Cf. Karl Suso Frank, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Alten Kirche, 3rd ed. (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 2002), 325; Basil Studer, “Leo the Great,” in Patrology, vol. 4, ed. Angelo Berardino, 7th ed. (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1994), 589–612, 607–10. 5. John Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome in Late Antiquity (New York: Routledge, 2015), 12. For more on Pope Leo and synods held outside of Rome, cf. Susan Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 61–62, 94–95 (on the slow approval of the Tome in Gaul), 113 (Leo orders a synod in Spain), and 259–83 (“Overturning the Robber Synod and Preserving Christ’s Human Nature”). 6. “It is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined. . . . And let these synods be held, the one before Lent (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn” (Council of Nicaea, Canon 5, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wallace [New 729 730 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R goes back through the Church Fathers to the Apostles; and in the councils the Spirit is at work, so that he sees even Nicaea’s canonical ordinances as divinely inspired.7 Roman synods were not just liturgical events, nor were they designed to solemnly approve what the bishop had already decided unilaterally.8 How Leo acted at those synods, however, reveals the specifically Petrine view of his office.9 He spoke in the midst of his brother bishops and fellow Roman Catholics,10 but most of all he and they were assembled “before Peter” (coram Petro).11 They were literally at Peter’s tomb in the Vatican basilica that Constantine had built, which metaphorically reminded everyone of who was really in charge and what was really at stake—the apostle himself and our fidelity to his legacy. This legacy is centered on Peter’s faith in Christ, the Lord and Savior, true God and true man,12 but it also includes Peter’s example of how episcopal and “papal” authority are to be executed and York: Cosimo, 2007], 13). Cf. Bernard Green, The Soteriology of Leo the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 180. For a description of the situation in which Leo grew up, see Moorhead, The Popes, 1–13. For more on Leo’s life, see ibid., 19–32. 7. Cf. Rudolf Lorenz, Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte: Ein Handbuch, vol. 1: Das vierte bis sechste Jahrhundert (Westen) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 79; cf. ibid., 83; Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 122. 8. More so than is acknowledged in Neil, Leo the Great, 40–41. 9. Tr. 4.1 (16.18–17.22); cf. Moorhead, The Popes, 19–21; Neil, Leo the Great, 49. On Leo’s wish to be buried next to the apostle Peter, see Moorhead, The Popes, 31–32. 10. Leo mentions synods/councils in a number of homilies on the anniversary of his natalis and on Christmas: Tr. 2.2 (8.26–32), 3.4 (13.87–14.93), 5.3 (23.52–54), 28.4–5 (141.58–144.120), 30.2 (153.22–41). See also the list of heretics in Tr. 24.4–5 (112.87–113.125). 11. Ep. 16.7 (PL 54, 702C–704); Tr. 4.4 (21.118–122). Leo mentions the tomb of Peter in many homilies for days of fasting: Tr. 13 (55.21–22), 15.2 (60.60–60.61), 16.6 (66.147–66.148), 42.6 (250.254–260a), 76.9 (486.221– 228), 78.4 (497.57–60), 81.4 (505.50–54), 86.2 (541.25–27), 88.5 (550.98– 101), 89.6 (555.97–99), 90.4 (563.133.139), 92.4 (572.83–87), 94.4 (580.75– 78). Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 40–42. 12. Tr. 3.3 (13.71–75; cf. 40–82). “This, dearly beloved, is what that confession has obtained. Since it was inspired by God the Father in the apostle’s heart, it has risen above all the uncertainties of human thinking and has received the strength of a rock that cannot be shaken by any pounding” (Tr. 83.1 [19.7–10], in FaCh 93, 23). See Tomus I ep. 28.5 = 5.5 (ACO II 2.1.30.3–5). S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW coordinated,13 as well as the standard of Christian living and witness he left behind.14 1.1. Leo as Peter’s heir In Leo’s mind, the relationship between Roman and other bishops was neither antagonistic nor to be viewed as a power balance between the center and the periphery. Those are modern concepts. Leo’s view of Peter’s authority, and of his own authority as Peter’s heir, was based on how the apostle’s legacy, most of all his confession of faith in Christ, is perennially normative.15 Leo did not formulate a doctrine on synodality but reminded himself and others of their apostolic mission and of the christological faith that is at the heart of that mission, which very much includes a soteriological dimension.16 Those fundamental attitudes also characterized how Leo dealt with (ecumenical) councils held in the East, including how he reacted to the emperor’s idea of having Leo attend.17 Leo’s petrocentrism remained the expression of a yet more fundamental christocentrism of his doctrine and piety.18 13. Tr. 4.2 (18.53–55), in FaCh 93, 26: “If he wanted other leaders to share something with him, whatever he did not refuse entirely to these others he never gave unless it was through him.” 14. Including the need for penance and humility. See Tr. 60.4 (367.87– 368.108), 95.3 (585.72–81). Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 65–68, 79–82. 15. Tr. 3.4 (13.84–87), in FaCh 93, 23 : “Regard him as present in the lowliness of my person. Honor him. In him continues to reside the responsibility for all shepherds, along with the protection of those sheep entrusted to them. His dignity does not fade even in an unworthy heir.” See also Tr. 2.2 (8.35–39). Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 68–73. 16. Cf. Green, The Soteriology of Leo the Great, esp. 249–50; Studer, “Leo the Great,” in Patrology, 602–04; Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, vol. 2/1: Das Konzil von Chalcedon. Rezeption und Widerspruch (451– 518), 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 175–82; Neil, Leo the Great, 27–29. 17. Neil, Leo the Great, 43. 18. Tr. 5.4 (24.78–83), in FaCh 93, 32: “Peter . . . does not cease to preside over his see but unfailingly maintains that fellowship which he has with the eternal Priest. That stability which he received from Christ the rock (by having himself been made “rock”) has poured over onto his heirs as well. Whenever there is any show of firmness, it is undoubtedly the shepherd’s fortitude that 731 732 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R Moreover, it is interesting to note in Leo’s works how Peter plays a mediating role for doctrinal and disciplinary authority in the Church, while for the continuation of the priesthood as such this is not the case.19 First and foremost, the Church belongs to Christ, and in virtue of Christ’s choice it becomes the apostolic Church, in which Peter (and his heirs) plays a central role; only then is it also the Church of the Church Fathers, the synods, and the empire. This is Leo’s specific emphasis, and it has consequences for how he approaches questions of faith and Church governance. Leo’s views were rooted in his unique position and experience. As the Roman bishop, he possessed exceptional independence from imperial interference into matters of his Church.20 He also had an already unique authority over other bishops, especially in areas closer to him and within the Western empire but also on a universal level. This is why at synods held (and presided over by him) in the “Old Rome,” he tried to create a certain level of precedent for imperial councils held close to the “New Rome” (Constantinople).21 Leo’s attempts to influence the outcome of councils in the East were based both on his Petrine self-confidence and on his trust in the authority of the synods themselves. Most importantly, however, neither Eastern nor Western synods were allowed to go beyond the inspired coherence that Leo saw between what is taught by the gospels, the Apostles, the symbols of faith, and the Church Fathers,22 in particular by the confession of Peter appears.” Tr. 4.2 (18.52–53), in FaCh 93, 26: “Great and wonderful a share in his power did God see fit to bestow upon this man.” Ep. 10.1 (PL 54, 629AB): “Assumed into a share of indivisible unity.” On Peter’s unique relationship to Christ, see Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 62–64. 19. This direct relation to Christ is often overlooked by students of Leo who focus on his thought regarding Peter. For more details, see Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 57–58, 191–201. 20. On Leo’s cooperation with the court, see Moorhead, The Popes, 23–24. 21. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 119–24. 22. Ep. 15.17 (PL 54, 691A), in Neil, Leo the Great, 93: “For on no account should one who takes up the office of preaching the faith be allowed to dare argue against the gospel of Christ, against apostolic teaching, or against the confes-sion of the whole church.” See also Ep. 102.2 = 53 (ACO II 4.53.23– 27); Tomus I ep. 28.1= 5.1 (ACO II 2.1.25.5–7); Ep. 59.2 =34 (ACO II 4.34.23– 24), 123.2 = 69 (ACO II 4.77.25–26). S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW and the decisions of the Fathers of Nicaea.23 Leo demonstrates in his Tomes and the attached florilegia that his own teaching is faithful to this network of Catholic tradition, which ultimately goes back to divine revelation.24 A doctrinal statement can only have authority and can only be correctly interpreted as an expression of the “apostolic faith” to the extent that it builds on and stands within the context of this normative tradition. This creates a high level of doctrinal stability but also a certain room for different expressions and emphases.25 For Leo and his contemporaries, as Susan Wessel rightly puts it, “The very concept of intellectual change was anathema to an ideology committed to the view that change never took place. In a Christian society that valued tradition and continuity with the past, change and innovation were certainly not qualities prized in a bishop.”26 Not only for Leo, the continuum of tradition was the guarantee of continuing connection with Christ’s message and salvation,27 as well as with Holy Scripture: Where else would theological arguments acquire their weight and validity? What else can offer the hermeneutical rules and limits? What Leo condemned about the “Robber Synod” was the betrayal of apostolic doctrine, which was also connected to 23. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 129–32 (“Das Schema Evangelium—Apostel—Symbolum—Väter”). 24. Ep. 34.2 =13 (ACO II 4.16.35–17.2), about Tomus I ep. 28 (ACO II 4): “Writings . . . from which your charity and the whole church will know about the old and unique faith... what we hold as divinely handed over and what we preach as unchangeable.” See also Tr. 83.1 (519.7–519.8, 520.18); Ep. 27=6 (ACO II 4.9.6–7), 31.4 =11 (14.30–15.2), 32 =10 (12.13–16), 45.2 = 23 (24.16); Tomus II ep. 124.1=113 (ACO II 4.159.17–19); Tomus III ep. 165.3.9–10 =104 (ACO II 4.11.16–11.17, 4.118.15–119.2). On the unique influence of Tomus I, see Moorhead, The Popes, 25. 25. Ep. 139.4 = 82 (ACO II 4.93.18–21); Tr. 98, in Léon le Grand, Sermons IV, ed. R. Dolle, SC 200 (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 300. 26. Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 6. It sounds slightly reductionist, however, to say that, when “intellectual changes did occur, the new ideas were to be expressed in language that made them seem to be consistent and continuous with those from the past.” 27. Ep. 59.2 =34 (ACO II 4.34.22–24). Cf. Studer, “Leo the Great,” in Patrology, 603–04. 733 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 734 disorder and threats of violence.28 Even at Ephesus in 449, both sides in principle rejected any doctrinal innovation, and “not only as a rhetorical ploy but as a sincere expression of a common ideology.”29 While in Ephesus this was mostly a reference to Nicaea, Leo appealed to a deeper apostolic teaching, relativizing Nicaea to the apostolic faith of Peter. Inevitably, this makes Nicaea a legitimate expression of that faith and, we could even say, a development. 1.2. Leo’s leadership Leo was not simply a “traditionalist.”30 He described, for instance, how an “unheard of ” practice was introduced for the sake of improving participation and consultation at the Roman synod, and he was very pleased with it for “more safely arriving at the truth.”31 Like his contemporaries, Leo believed that continuity and tradition led inexorably to the truth that was the teaching of the orthodox. He shunned innovation as the method of heretics. To break with the past was to invite not only doctrinal falsehood and error, but the same chaos that his way of imagining the world was meant to alleviate. It was to violate the well-forged connections to the past and to undermine one’s place in the world in the present.32 However, this “unheard of ” practice in no way suggests that his own leadership would be scaled back. It was quite the opposite, precisely because the overarching goal remained the same: “arriving at the truth.” This applied, in particular, to not contradicting the established Catholic doctrine. At the same 28. On imperial family letters, which also express Leo’s position, see Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 262–63. 29. Ibid., 266; cf. 267. 30. Again, this is a modern concept. See also Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 131– 32. 31. Ep. 166.1 (PL 54, 1191A–1193A): “Novum et inauditum antea genus consultationis”; “ad veritatem, adhibita cognitione multorum, certius pervenire possemus.” 32. Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 7. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW time, however, theological “continuity and tradition” cannot be reduced to the repetition of previous formulations (e.g., from Scripture or Nicaea) word for word. Leo’s own texts put on display specific kinds of interpretation and explanation that do not “break” from the past. As widespread as constructivist concepts of truth may be today, we should be careful not to ascribe them to ancient authors. Leo did not, for instance, tell “the fiction . . . of a unified Church”33 but rather proposed a hierarchical vision of it, sometimes pointing out practical ways to achieve it.34 Leading up to Chalcedon, Leo endeavored to ensure, for a number of political, pastoral, but most of all doctrinal reasons, “that the new council should not review matters of doctrine, but merely confirm what the Tome had settled”; while the council did not limit itself to just that, this “stipulation eventually resulted in the Chalcedonian synthesis that Christ consisted in two natures united in one person, without confusion, change, division, or separation.”35 Leo’s letters and Tomes, before and after Chalcedon, build on Nicaea without diminishing any of its decisions. Leo’s “sense of Christian unity . . . defined his ideology of Christian romanitas,”36 but he had no time for compromises on matters of faith (as proposed by the emperor Leon). Such politically motivated compromises today may seem “reasonable” and “consensus-building,” but for Leo taking off the doctrinal edges for the sake of political gain remained an illegitimate strategy. It would also presuppose, at least implicitly, that the truth about Christ is not the highest criterion. If Chalcedon were partially enforced in such a utilitarian manner, it would have felt imperialist even to the Egyptian churches that ultimately did not adopt its definitions.37 In order to avoid any doctrinal concessions, especially in the post-Chalcedonian phase, Leo displayed real leadership 33. Ibid. 34. Cf. Studer, “Leo the Great,” in Patrology, 608–09. Delegating authority was also an imperial practice. Cf. Moorhead, The Popes, 18. 35. Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 42. 36. Ibid., 41. 37. Cf. ibid., 50. 735 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 736 skills.38 Undeniably, Leo’s strategy was evolving.39 He accepted the imperial plan to call a new council (to correct the AD 449 “Robber Synod”) only “after the opportunities for negotiation and reconciliation had been exhausted.”40 Once Marcian replaced Theodosius as emperor, the situation changed, and Leo suggested that a council might no longer be needed or should at least be delayed. If one were to be held, it should not reexamine doctrine “that had already been established”41 but only focus on disciplinary matters. If it were to formulate doctrines, Leo’s Tome must be embraced as the standard, based on the faith of the gospels, prophets, and Apostles.42 At least implicitly, this makes the Tome also the standard for interpreting Nicaea, which at the time was viewed as the supreme council. Unless we take Leo’s doctrinal interest seriously, we have to see him as either unaware of what he is doing and why he is doing it or as cunningly camouflaging his papal hunger for power with pious verbiage. We would have to see Leo’s success as dependent merely on his strong personality and his political and rhetorical abilities. For Leo, however, what synods are and what constitutes a successful synod depends on Christ’s presence. At the same time, the success of a council was also connected to a series of practical and political considerations, including his own leadership. Leo knew that there is no such thing as an undirected and unstructured synod led directly by the Spirit. Instead, the one who presides in the deepest sense has to be the Savior himself. That is why radical fidelity to his self-revelation is the conditio sine qua non. The obligation of all who have authority in the Church is to guarantee this fidelity. Leo’s interactions before, during, and after Eastern synods were often about leadership and, in that sense, about power. After 449, besides the need for a new council, Leo saw the need for a new model for a council, one in which the question of presidency was central, and thus also the role of his Roman 38. Cf. ibid., 260–61; Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 38–40. 39. Cf. Moorhead, The Popes, 25–29. 40. Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 270; cf. 271. 41. Ibid., 271. 42. Cf. ibid., 273. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW legates.43 No decision could stand without (at the very least not against) Petrine faith and principle. Preparing for Chalcedon, Leo wanted to make absolutely sure that the faith of Peter was its basis, which required a new level of Roman supervision, if not leadership. This was itself grounded in Rome’s radical devotion to the apostle before whom the Church of Rome gathers, prays, and makes synodal decisions. We learn from Leo’s life that there is no (necessary) contradiction between the papal and the synodal principles—quite the opposite. The Roman bishop is at home in his synod, which plays a crucial role in his election and in how he exercises his ministry, certainly when it comes to issues reaching beyond the city. Moreover, a synod without leadership is utopian, de facto led by unacknowledged forces or even openly manipulated. Leo proposed a model of Petrine leadership that is clearly visible, canonically legitimate, and focused on transmitting the apostolic faith as its primary mission. This has massive hermeneutical consequences: everyone—the council, the emperor, the pope, and the whole Church—is under the authority of faith in Christ as preeminently expressed and protected by St. Peter and his heirs.44 Leo’s petrocentrism is how he opposed any attempt to take out pieces from the intricate mosaic that is the apostolic faith and Church. In Leo’s time, the opposition was not between a conciliar and a papal concept of the Church but rather between legitimate and illegitimate synods. For Leo, the principal criterion between them was fidelity to the apostolic proclamation (and therefore to Nicaea). In his mind, there was certainly no appeal from the Roman synod to something higher, while imperial Eastern councils needed to be confirmed by his judgment, in turn supported by synods. From a contemporary point of view, Leo’s ideas about synods might appear limited by the fact that only bishops could attend. If we take a closer look, however, the laity is also present. First, Leo felt strongly connected to the Catholic community in 43. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 120. 44. Tr. 3.3.4 (138:13, 75–77, 14.94–99). Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 68–86, esp. 84–86. 737 738 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R Rome45 and was only able to fulfill his role as Peter’s heir thanks to their support.46 Second, there is the interesting case of an assembly in Rome in AD 443, involving both clergy and laity, after a group of Manicheans had been apprehended.47 Third, Leo acknowledged that the imperial family had a crucial role to play in how councils are organized, conducted, promulgated, and enforced.48 The emperors and their families represented the whole empire, in which, by God’s gift, they exercised power and had a mission.49 These considerations open a door for how we might imagine today’s mission of the laity in the Church—and it is a substantial role. We should not view this role as merely symbolic or merely as a concession to the real power distribution. Leo’s letters to imperial family members were polite, rhetorically correct, even tactical and deferential, trying both to persuade and to convince, but they left no doubt that those wearing purple were equally subject to Christ and to the apostolic faith.50 For them in particular, Leo’s three Tomes were normative.51 Compromises for the sake of doctrinal appeasement were false. When Leo called someone (e.g., imperial family members) 52 “inspired,” that actually meant that the apostolic faith has been placed in their hearts by God, and this faith is the 45. Tr. 4.4 (21.119–122); 5.4 (24.80–90). 46. Tr. 1 (5.10–18, 6.24–27); 58.1 (339.7–9). 47. Cf. Moorhead, The Popes, 30–31. 48. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 113–19. 49. Ep. 24.1= 2 (ACO II 4.3.13–19); 162.2 = 99 (ACO II 4.106.19–21); 164.1=103 (ACO II 4.110.27–29). 50. Ep. 148 = 92 (ACO II 4.98.34–99.1): “You so have resisted the impudence of the heretics that you were declared custodians of the Chalcedonian faith for the sake of peace in the whole world.” See also Ep. 156.3 = 97 (ACO II 4.102.30–33). 51. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 113–19. 52. Ep. 45.1= 23 (ACO II 4.24.1–2): “It is certainly thanks to divine inspiration that you were able to provide a remedy against these things that had been committed against the faith.” See also Ep. 84.1= 42 (ACO II 4.43.19); 117.2 = 63 (ACO II 69.24–27); 118.1.2 = 65 (ACO II 72.3–4. 26). S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW same as Peter’s.53 Leo kept adapting and learning that he did not have the power of positively predetermining the results of synods, but he did give normative orientation and, even more so, he negatively drew lines to indicate what is out of bounds in terms of dogma and discipline.54 Guarding those boundaries was the nature of his authority, making the difference between holy assemblies and robber synods. In conclusion, Leo had a exalted idea of synods that is realistic at the same time. Synodal decisions possess great authority but are subject to conditions: they can only be legitimate if they are clearly faithful to apostolic doctrine and to previously established doctrinal and disciplinary norms (in particular at Nicaea). His role as heres Petri was to remind everyone positively of the apostolic faith, in which the doctrine of two natures in one person is prefigured, as well as to uphold canonical discipline. Christ himself is present in assuring the doctrinal fidelity of councils under conditions overseen by the successor of Peter, guaranteeing that the framework laid out by the Apostles, evangelists, and Council Fathers is respected. In this process, many can play an inspired role. Inspiration, in fact, consists in the apostolic faith being instilled in someone today. 2 . TH E SY NODA L WAY: NAT U R E A N D G OA L S The Synodal Way, a quasi-synod of all the dioceses of Germany,55 catapults us into a world far removed from Leo’s time. Now, as we examine the Synodal Way, we are looking at an ongoing event, no longer at finished councils and their permanent consequences. 53. Tomus III ep. 165.10 =104 (ACO II 4.119.3–4): “You should know that also our preaching is united with the faith by which you have been divinely inspired.” Ep. 54 = 9 (ACO II 4.11.13–14); 156.3 = 97 (ACO II 4.102.35–103.1). Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 118; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, vol. 2/1, 151–52. Cf. the notion of “teaching” as helping others to perceive what is true in James V. Schall, A Student’s Guide to Liberal Learning (Wilmington: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000), 36–38. 54. Cf. Feichtinger, Gegenwart, 129–32, 301. 55. Official information and documentation on the Synodal Way is available at https://www.synodalerweg.de. It is partially available in English at https://www.synodalerweg.de/english. 739 740 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 2.1. How the Synodal Way began The genesis of the Synodal Way is deeply connected to the sexual abuse crisis in the German church, which revealed (relatively late in comparison with other parts of the world) numerous cases of sexual abuse of minors by German clerics. This crisis has caused the Church to reexamine her relationship to society at large. To confront it, the German bishops conceived of the Synodal Way as a way to focus on the Church’s mission and credibility—issues that are, obviously, related to questions of doctrine and discipline. Before the Synodal Way started, a large research project known as the “MGH Study” had been commissioned not only to ascertain the historical facts of the sexual abuse crisis but also to look for systemic causes.56 The study limits itself to male perpetrators among clergy and religious, acknowledging that no comparable research has been done for similar institutions (other churches, schools, sports associations, etc.).57 The study is careful in its analysis of the fact that it found a disproportionate number of boys having suffered abuse.58 In the public reception, however, the study has been interpreted in such a way that celibacy and clerical leadership are seen as the major cause of sexual abuse and why it was handled so badly, while the influence of homosexuality is generally viewed as close to irrelevant.59 The MGH Study itself, and especially the manner in which it has been interpreted within the Synodal Way, pays scant attention to the phenomenon 56. The full text and a summary of the “MGH Study” are available at https://www.zi-mannheim.de/en/research/research-associations/mhgstudy-sexual-abuse.html. See also the review of the MGH Study by noted psychiatrist Manfred Lütz, “‘Missglückte Studie’: Manfred Lütz kritisiert Forschungsprojekt über Missbrauch,” Catholic News Agency Deutsch (September 24, 2018), https://de.catholicnewsagency.com/article/missgluckte-studie-manfred-lutz-kritisiert-forschungsprojekt-uber-missbrauch-0367. Lütz criticizes its lack of statistical evidence and its exaggerated interest in media attention. 57. See Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit, “MHG Studie Endbericht Zusammenfassung,” A.3, p. 9, available at https://www.zi-mannheim.de/ fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/forschung/forschungsverbuende/MHGStudie-Endbericht-Zusammenfassung.pdf. 58. “MHG Studie Endbericht Zusammenfassung,” A.3, pp. 9–19. 59. Debate on this issue is certainly not finished. See D. Paul Sullins, “Is Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy Related to Homosexuality?” National Bioethics Quarterly 18, no. 4 (2018): 671–97. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW of child abuse in German society at large and to the shocking numbers involved in such abuse.60 When it comes to causes, the MGH Study lacks a reliable statistical and comparative basis, often formulating hypotheses that, by their very nature, cannot be tested without more research (on comparable institutions).61 A sober analysis of both the merits and limits of the MGH Study is crucial to our theme because its results have conditioned the structure and the direction of the Synodal Way, the attitudes of most of its participants, and its ongoing public perception. The Synodal Way aims to improve the conditions of spreading and hearing the Gospel today, mainly by clarifying four areas of ministry. For each area a “forum” (workgroup) has been set up: 1) (separation of ) power in the Church; 2) priestly life and ministry; 3) women in Church offices; 4) flourishing relationships. More specific goals of the Synodal Way are to make progress in abuse prevention and to institute administrative tribunals in the Church. The problems with this setup and how it relates to the results of the MGH Study are twofold: 1) on the level of structural causes, the study results remain hypothetical; 2) while preventing sexual abuse is an all-important task, by itself it can offer only one of the bases on which deep ecclesial renewal needs to rest. Unless this need for ecclesial renewal is explicitly and systematically acknowledged, the focus on abuse risks becoming a distraction from other crucial issues. There is even the danger of “moving on” from the original focus on abuse victims to the alleged structural causes of the abuse. This would threaten to eclipse the necessary prevention measures, as attention shifts to other groups and their interests. 2.2. The Synodal Way’s constitution and membership The particular nature and goals of the Synodal Way are also manifested in how its participants were selected. About a third of the 60. For a recent overview of the presence of minor abuse in German society, see the journalistic essay by Muri Darida, “Auch Sie kennen einen Täter,” Die Zeit Online ( June 2, 2021), https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2021-05/ sexueller-kindesmissbrauch-gesetzesverschaerfung-schutz-kinder-praevention-sexualisierte-gewalt-oeg. 61. Cf. “MHG Studie Endbericht Zusammenfassung,” A.4, pp. 12–13. 741 742 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 230 members come from both the German Bishops’ Conference (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz, DBK) and the Central Committee of German Catholics (Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken, ZdK), the umbrella organization of Catholic councils and associations. The remainder represent major ministries, stakeholders, and institutions, mostly laypeople but also priests and deacons.62 Synodal motions pass if they are accepted by two-thirds of synod members and Bishops’ Conference members. These rules reveal how the Synodal Way was originally conceived as a joint venture between the Bishop’s Conference and the Committee members,63 and how it still in some ways recognizes the special role of bishops.64 As a whole, the synod’s membership is like a corporative chamber, where the different groups within the Church are represented.65 Moreover, the synod’s membership is remarkably nondiverse from an ethnic point of view, and it is in no way representative of Catholic congregations in Germany today, especially those in its larger cities. In constituting itself, the Synodal Way had taken notice of the “Letter to the Pilgrim People of God in Germany” that Pope Francis sent on June 29, 2019.66 The Pope’s words 62. The complete and detailed list, “Mitglieder Synodalversammlung,” published by Der Synodale Weg, is available at https://www.synodalerweg. de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/Dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/KontaktdatenMitglieder-Synodalversammlung_Stand-27.05.2021.pdf. Additionally, the apostolic nuncio and representatives of neighboring bishops’ conferences and ecumenical partners are invited as observers. Presidency is exercised jointly by the (vice) presidents of DBK and ZdK. 63. Cf. “Satzung des Synodalen Weges,” Der Synodale Weg, arts. 6, 7.1, 8.4, 9, 15, available at https://www.synodalerweg.de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/ Dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/Satzung-des-Synodalen-Weges.pdf. 64. The latter is also apparent in that decisions do not have immediate canonical effect unless adopted by the German Bishops’ Conference and/or local dioceses. Any decision that affects the universal Church would be sent as votum to the Holy See. Cf. “Satzung des Synodalen Weges,” arts. 11, 12.2. 65. A typical feature for the Church today, in particular in Germany, is the fact that the synodal assembly contains more auxiliary bishops than priests, never mind actual pastors. 66. This letter has been published online by the Vatican in German, Italian, and Spanish: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/letters/2019/ documents/papa-francesco_20190629_lettera-fedeligermania.html. Cf. “Satzung des Synodalen Weges,” Präambel; German Bishops’ Conference, “Papst Franziskus schreibt Brief an das ‘pilgernde Volk Gottes in Deutschland’” S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW were received as encouragement to seek an appropriate response to the present situation as well as a reminder to preserve unity with the universal Church and to prioritize evangelization, connecting the spiritual dimension with structural issues. The question of God is central in seeking the way God wants to walk with his people. Confessing that the Church has darkened the image of God, she still trusts in the Spirit to renew her so she can witness to Christ as the light of the world.67 In its constitution, the Synodal Way emphasizes its reliance on biblical inspiration and, at least implicitly, its continuity with Vatican II.68 However, this is a reliance on a particular exegetical tradition of both the Bible and the last council, which has dominated German theology for many decades. Its crucial element is the underlying “progressive” intention, which has to be fully appreciated and must not be a limine condemned as heretical. In order to achieve its goal, the German focus is on two things: 1) acknowledging positive elements in contemporary culture (or more generally in realities outside the Catholic tradition); and 2) identifying parts of Catholic doctrine and practice susceptible to change.69 Although this can be legitimate and fruitful, we must not underestimate the hermeneutical consequences of these preliminary decisions. We also cannot overlook how profoundly different such an approach is from the guiding motivations and goals of Leo the Great, who in this case is but one representative of a nearuniversal conviction that dominated how synods were understood and undertaken for a very long time. ( June 29, 2019), https://www.dbk.de/presse/aktuelles/meldung/papstfranziskus-schreibt-brief-an-das-pilgernde-volk-gottes-in-deutschland. “Papst Franziskus unterstützt deutsche Katholiken beim ‘synodalen Weg,’” Katholisch ( June 29, 2019), https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/22169-papstfranziskus-unterstuetzt-deutsche-katholiken-beim-synodalen-weg. 67. Pope Francis, Letter to the Pilgrim People of God in Germany, 7. 68. Cf. “Satzung des Synodalen Weges,” Präambel. 69. On how Vatican II positioned itself with regard to the culture of its time, see subsection 3.1. of the present essay. 743 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 744 2.3. The Synodal Way’s theological approach One area, and arguably the most important one, in which the Synodal Way wants to make progress is by “further developing” (weiterentwickeln) Church doctrine and practice.70 This goal was clear from the beginning and has been evident in the negative reaction to the more recent Vatican document prohibiting the blessing of quasi-marriages.71 The Synodal Way wants to move ahead by fully appreciating the reality of people’s lives today and the new insights of human sciences. Consequently, the Roman document is presented as an “interjection” (Zwischenruf ), emphasizing those formulations that allegedly contain “dynamic” language open to further development. Such interpretation is not without bias, and it is based on the conviction that what the Church teaches on homosexual acts and unions right now is just the status quo of a doctrine that is evolving in a predetermined direction. More fundamentally, for the Synodal Way the sources of knowledge about God are “an up-to-date interpretation of Holy Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium”; “our deliberations are nourished . . . by current knowledge in theology and the human sciences, as well as the sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful for the faith.” 72 Such statements are both traditional and not traditional; they illustrate what the quasi-synod actually means by defining itself as a “way of repentance and renewal.” 73 Along with large swaths of the German church’s life and theological culture, the Synodal Way wants to bring a traditional understanding of divine revelation closer to where people are today, and, subsequently, to start the work of evangelization. 70. For a recent study on development of doctrine, see Guy Mansini, “The Development of the Development of Doctrine in the Twentieth Century,” Angelicum 93, no. 4 (2016): 785–822. 71. “Segnung homosexueller Paare: Lehre der Kirche im Dialog mit der Lebenswirklichkeit halten,” Pressemeldung Der Synodale Weg, no. 026 (March 16, 2021), https://www.synodalerweg.de/service/aktuelles/meldung/segnung-homosexueller-paare-lehre-der-kirche-im-dialog-mit-der-lebenswirklichkeit-halten. 72. Ibid. 73. “Satzung des Synodalen Weges,” Präambel. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW Its methodology, therefore, is different from how successful evangelistic movements in other countries think and operate.74 The Synodal Way wants to create favorable conditions for evangelization but is made up of people who have very little experience in evangelization and not much desire to learn from others. This is a problem, because unless “we learn how to evangelize by actually evangelizing,” 75 we may not learn much; we misconceive the conditions for evangelizing, and we are unfit to teach others. Despite, or due to, its particular structure and composition, the Synodal Way also claims a new kind of authority. It wants to make “binding decisions” but is not able to provide the canonical authority for them, precisely because it constitutes a new kind of Church leadership.76 This involves both risk and opportunity. These canonical uncertainties, however, are but an expression of substantial theological, or rather doctrinal, issues.77 For the German dioceses, the Synodal Way, in all its pronouncements to this day, fosters what has already taken place in many other Christian groups around the world, namely yielding too easily “to the temptation of accommodation to the latest trends 74. See, e.g., some of the highly innovative initiatives in the United States and Canada (both countries being massively affected by abuse cases): https://amazingparish.org/; https://divinerenovation.org/; https:// rebuiltparish.com/; https://cco.ca/, https://focus.org/, https://netusa.org/, https://netcanada.ca/. Cf. Michael White and Tom Corcoran, Rebuilt: The Story of a Catholic Parish (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2021); James Mallon, Divine Renovation: From a Maintenance to a Missional Parish (Toronto: Novalis, 2014). 75. Michael Hall, Intentional Accompaniment: An Apprenticeship for a New Generation of Builders (Ottawa: Catholic Christian Outreach, 2021), 63. 76. Cf. the letters to the German Bishops’ Conference by the Congregation for Bishops (Prot. N. 485/2019, September 4, 2019); and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Prot. N. 3330.2019, August 1, 2019), available at https:// www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/dossiers_2019/201909-04-Schreiben-Rom-mit-Anlage-dt-Uebersetzung.pdf. 77. Cf. the critical assessment by Cardinal Walter Kasper in “Inhaltlicher Geburtsfehler,” Passauer Bistumsblatt 24 ( June 13, 2021), 9–11, available at https://www.bistum-passau.de/artikel/kardinal-kasper-ueber-synodalenweg. See also Norbert Lüdicke, Die Täuschung: Haben Katholiken die Kirche, die sie verdienen? (Darmstadt: WBG/Theiss, 2021), which suffers, however, from a somewhat cynical tone. 745 746 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R and fads of the culture around us, often naively and uncritically accepting the dictates of a society that is largely post-Christian.” 78 Many participants of the Synodal Way nostalgically hold onto their need to be positioned at the center of society. Recognizing that the era of Christendom is waning is difficult. Like other Christians, however, Catholics in Germany and elsewhere need to recognize that accommodation (often masked theologically with claims that the goodness of creation means we should avoid escapism, that the gospel “redeems” every sphere of life, that the gospel needs to be “incarnated” in people’s everyday existence, and so on) comes at a price when practiced in a culture that prizes human autonomy as the basic building block of our common life together. Such radical autonomy diminishes the goodness of being and must be resisted.79 The majority of delegates to the Synodal Way probably believe that they are prioritizing evangelization, as Pope Francis urged. In reality, however, this is not the case. The majority believe that serious, if not radical, changes need to be made to Church doctrine and practice before any effort to evangelize can be possible. That approach, however, follows an outdated model, which current promoters of evangelization have abandoned. The Synodal Way’s approach, therefore, is only hypothetically evangelistic. It presumes that people need to believe (in) what you say, so that they start to behave accordingly in turn, so that they want to and can belong to the Church. At least in our world, however, this is not the order of things. Our own credibility does not first and foremost depend on what we say (which can be hard to understand and accept), but on having a real interest in the other, building a relationship, and thus creating a sense of belonging, or at least a desire to belong. Only on this basis can people come to embrace what the Church believes, celebrates, and transmits through her living tradition. Only then, finally, will they begin to live and behave accordingly, to conform their lives 78. Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 28. Boersma’s analysis not only applies to his own evangelical tradition. 79. Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 28. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW to the example of Jesus and to the divine commandments in which consists the love of God (1 Jn 5:3).80 The Synodal Way’s emphasis on changes to Church order is a veiled inward focus on matters of the clergy and Church employees. This leads to an emphasis on the maintenance of societal position and Church structure. Even if evangelization is on the Synodal Way’s horizon, it is not prioritized in the way it would have to be in order to make a difference. Consequently, when synod participants and documents ask for “clarifications” (about Church doctrines), here lies a veiled petition for change. The changes coming to the Church from the outside are huge and will become more daunting. As much as some might prefer this, doctrinal and structural change is not what we need first and foremost. Rather, we need to be radically faithful and committed to sharing the message of the Gospel. If Church reform is based or focused on anything else, it will not produce the changes in Church governance that are actually needed—and it will fail, as it should. 3. COM PA R ISON As we look at the differences between Pope Leo’s experiences and current events in Germany, we could be discouraged from attempting any kind of comparison. The times and the situations are so far apart, the goals and the structure of the synodal assemblies are so different. Yet we cannot overlook some similarities (if somewhat external): Leo’s Roman synods were most often about resolving rather practical questions, and only exceptionally were they about doctrinal issues. Even Chalcedon was not exclusively christological, for instance. The Synodal Way also is mostly about Church practices, about how the Church has to speak and act, for the very specific goal of regaining credibility in society. This aim of reconnecting with society was foreign to Leo (and most of the Church’s conciliar history), but there is a certain continuity between the Synodal Way and the Second Vatican 80. This paragraph is adapted from my “The German Synodal Odyssey,” Faith Magazine, September/October 2021, available at https://www.faith.org. uk/article/the-german-synodal-odyssey. 747 748 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R Council’s desire for a new engagement with the contemporary world. Vatican II, in fact, is the most important bond connecting the Synodal Way to the Church’s synodal tradition. We saw how Leo wanted to prepare for and predetermine the outcome of councils held in the East by holding synods in Rome in advance. Analogously, the Synodal Way in Germany would like to influence decisions to be made at the universal level. Concerning decisions made “in Rome” today, on the one hand, we have to ask if the ordinary synodal structures of the Roman Curia (congregations and consistories) currently have a meaningful impact. On the other hand, the Synods of Bishops seem to be gaining ground. As noted above, the next one in 2023 is entitled “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission,” and Pope Francis wants it to be prepared at the level of dioceses and nations.81 That is not precisely what Pope Leo had in mind, but there are parallels. Despite these analogies, the comparison between the Leonine model and current synodal projects in Germany (and in Rome) sets off serious philosophical and theological alarm bells. There is no inherent danger in the bottom-up approach that both the Synodal Way and the next Synod of Bishops embrace. Rather, the danger lies in the tendential substitution of listening to and learning from tradition with listening to the lived experiences of Christians. What is the proper relation between divine revelation and the realities of (Church) life? The temptation today is to reconstruct faith teachings from actual practice. This may sound innocuous or even desirable, but in practice it means subordinating what the faith bestows, promises, and demands to very particular, temporary, and inevitably deficient realizations of it. This is a reductionism. We also need to remember that our choice of analytical tools predetermines the outcome of our analysis and evaluation, at least unless we take extensive measures to correct that dynamism. Theologically, we need to be careful about following 81. For more information on the 2023 synod and its preparatory phases, see “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission,” XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (21 May 2021), available at https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/05/21/0314/00693.html#en. More complete information is available at http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en.html. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW approaches that, despite their professed grounding in lived experience, turn out to be top-down. Such approaches are prejudiced from the start by theological interests and thus invalidate the very idea of listening together to God’s will and word. In particular, we have no “synodal principle” from God’s revelation, just as we have no “principles” of sacramentality or Incarnation. God did not reveal such principles; he revealed himself: the Son of God “was incarnate” and left us “the sacraments.” The principles (incarnational, sacramental, or synodal) are, in reality, something like theologoumena,82 that is, they are (part of ) our attempts to understand the divine self-communication, which, among other things, requires us to put into a coherent whole, as best we can, the many elements we find in Scripture and tradition. We cannot, however, use these principles as tools to deconstruct what is explicitly expressed in Scripture and handed down to us in tradition. The most important question here is not whether the Synodal Way formally possesses the required doctrinal and canonical authority but whether it is able to recognize itself as bound by the authorities that are beyond the reach of any council, and specifically by the sacramental constitution of the Church. If we want to take seriously that the Church today needs to make the best decisions especially for the sake of evangelization, we have to ask ourselves if synods are appropriate as the only or even the main tools.83 Synods originate as seats of judgment on right doctrine and as canonical legislators and tribunals. The idea of also using them to direct and unify pastoral action is relatively new. There are signs of this in the reform decrees of Trent, but that council, which was focused on defending and 82. Karl Rahner’s definition of theologoumenon can be found in LThK, 2nd ed., vol. 10 (Freiburg: Herder, 1965), 80–82 (my translation), as quoted in Albert Raffelt, “Theologumenon,” LThK, 3rd ed., vol. 9, 1462: “A sentence making a theological statement which cannot immediately be considered as official Church teaching, as a sentence of dogma requiring faith, but rather as the result and expression of endeavoring to understand the faith by creating correlations and by comparing dogmatic teachings with the whole (secular) experience of a person (or a period in time).” 83. See also the emphasis on “the harmony of sentiments and decisions” by Paul VI in his Address during the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican City, 7 December 1965), https://www.vatican.va/content/ paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html. 749 750 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R confirming Catholic identity, mainly contrasts Catholic teaching with Protestant positions.84 The Second Vatican Council, however, was announced as a “pastoral event” for the whole Church, and it gave rise to a number of subsequent synods, both national and diocesan. While the dogmatic constitutions (and some other texts) of Vatican II have had great impact on Catholic theology, those subsequent synods were mostly concerned with the practical application and translation of Vatican II documents into the liturgical and pastoral life of the Church.85 Most of those postconciliar synods, despite their interest in dialogue (with other Christians, religions, and nonbelievers) were still rather blind to the specific needs of evangelization, as outlined first by Pope Paul VI’s Evangelii nuntiandi in 1975.86 3.1. Vatican II as mediator between Pope Leo and the present day The Synodal Way sees itself in continuity with the last council, which, in turn, John XXIII had related to the whole history of the councils, ecumenical and particular, and to the binding legacy of Catholic doctrine, without forgetting the present time with its needs and expectations. Missing from the Synodal Way is a strong reference to the unifying force and obligatory character of doctrine.87 84. Cf. the conclusive judgement by Klaus Ganzer, a leading expert on Trent, in “Trient: 3. Konzil,” LThK, 3rd ed., vol. 10 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 225–32, 230–31. 85. Giuseppe Alberigo and Peter Walter, “Vatikanische Konzilien: B. Vaticanum II,” LThK, 3rd ed., vol. 10, 561–68, 561, 567. 86. From today’s point of view, also the “Messages” addressed to various groups at the closing of the Second Vatican Council remain opaque with regard to evangelization. They can be conveniently consulted among the speeches of Pope Paul VI in 1965 at https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ en/speeches/1965.index.html#speeches. 87. For critical, alternative viewpoints, see especially the website Synodal Contributions: https://www.synodale-beitraege.de/en. A majority of bishops rejected a proposal that would have excluded voting on proposals contrary to Catholic doctrine (and focused rather on evangelization). See “Neuer Anlauf nach Ablehnung durch die Mehrheit der Bischöfe,” Dom Radio (September 15, 2019), https://www.domradio.de/themen/reformen/2019-09-15/neueranlauf-nach-ablehnung-durch-die-mehrheit-der-bischoefe-gegenentwurfvon-woelki-und-voderholzer. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW In this sense, Vatican II is, on the one hand, the bridge between the current German project and the broader synodal tradition. On the other hand, however, the Synodal Way and Vatican II are not in agreement regarding the importance of doctrinal fidelity. Can the Synodal Way, therefore, become part of the Catholic synodal tradition if it does not want to be bound by Catholic doctrine? For a deeper insight into this question, we should look at how Pope St. John XXIII opened, and Pope St. Paul VI concluded, Vatican II, which famously did not go exactly as John XXIII had planned with his Curia (unlike the Roman diocesan synod of 1960, which had been a kind of trial run for the council and took only a week).88 In his speech at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, Pope John XXIII laid out his conception of the council as the place to arrive at a more balanced, less negative view of the times and to find better ways of making Christian “doctrine reach the manifold areas of human activity.”89 This explicitly evangelistic goal will be reached, however, only if the Church looks both “to the holy patrimony of the truth received from the ancients” and “to the present,” with its new situations and opportunities for the Catholic apostolate. According to John XXIII, the council’s task regarding doctrine was threefold: first (and foremost), to defend and spread it; second, to reexamine it in order to transmit it faithfully; and third, to reject errors by better explaining it.90 Following the 88. Cf. the speeches John XXIII gave at the opening and closing of that synod in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 52 (1960): 191–200 (24 January), https://www. vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/it/speeches/1960/documents/hf_ j-xxiii_ spe_19600124_sinodo-laterano.html; and 297–306 (31 January), https:// www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/it/speeches/1960/documents/hf_ jxxiii_spe_19600131_sinodo-clausura.html. 89. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, Discorso del Santo Padre Giovanni XXIII (Vatican City, 11 October 1962), 5.5, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/ it/speeches/1962/documents/hf_ j-xxiii_spe_19621011_opening-council. html: “Ma perché tale dottrina raggiunga i molteplici campi dell’attività umana, che toccano le persone singole, le famiglie e la vita sociale, è necessario prima di tutto che la Chiesa non distolga mai gli occhi dal sacro patrimonio della verità ricevuto dagli antichi; ed insieme ha bisogno di guardare anche al presente, che ha comportato nuove situazioni e nuovi modi di vivere, ed ha aperto nuove vie all’apostolato cattolico.” 90. See ibid., 5, 6, 7. The choice of words in the titles of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Pope John’s opening speech is interesting: the Latin phrases are “Praecipuum Concilii munus: doctrina tuenda at promovenda” and “Qua ratione 751 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R 752 example of Vatican I and Trent, the new council reexamined Christian teaching as a whole, more broadly and more deeply. The doctrine itself remains “certain and immutable” but must be deepened and explained according to the needs of the present time: “One thing, in fact, is the deposit of Faith, that is, the truths that are contained in our venerable doctrine, another is the way in which these are proclaimed, but always in the same sense and with the same meaning.”91 As is well known, this approach includes the choice to deal with errors not by way of condemnation but by patiently proposing the Church’s teaching and by the witness of Christian charity.92 St. Leo the Great must have been pleased that, very much like he himself did at Roman synods of the fifth century, St. John XXIII pointed to the fact that the new council was assembled at the tomb of St. Peter and needed heavenly assistance in order to fulfill its mission. John XXIII, however, also reminded participants of the great expectations of people around the world, which the council would have to satisfy.93 We already noted that Paul VI in 1965 specifically cites Pope John’s 1962 reference to “the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine.”94 Paul then looks back at the concluded council as having been principally concerned with the Church, her nature, life, and task, based on a “theocentric and theological concept of man and the universe.”95 This concept is seen as the soul of the way in which the Church understands and interacts with “the modern world” in her desire and “need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in hodie doctrina promovenda sit.” (These subtitles may have been added later.) On the Vatican website, they are translated into Italian as “Compito principale del Concilio: diffendere e diffondere la dottrina” and “In che modo va sviluppata oggi la dottrina.” 91. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 6.5. 92. Ibid., 7.2–3. On fostering Christian unity, see also ibid., 8.1–3. 93. Ibid., 9.1–6. 94. Paul VI, Address during the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council. 95. Ibid. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change.”96 Paul already defended the council’s “authentic manifestations” against charges of “excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking . . . at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the council itself.”97 For Paul VI, such accusations assume a false dichotomy. To understand the council properly, it is crucial to appreciate its choice to concern itself with “man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality.” The council did so in a “deliberately optimistic” fashion, focusing on human “greatness” and “the good that survives in him” rather than on “man’s wretchedness” and “profound weakness.” Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warning, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.98 In saying this, Pope Paul VI makes crucial distinctions and remains clear on two things: first, that the Church has to relate to human reality, as complex as it is, not to some idealized or demonized version of it; and, second, that this reality has not somehow become normative, thus relativizing and compromising what divine revelation promises and demands or blinding the Church’s perception of the deep problems in how human beings view themselves today. Consequently, Paul VI and the leaders of the Synodal Way do not see eye to eye about the hermeneutical value of Lebenswirklichkeit (reality of life). Both want to perceive correctly and honor the reality of human lives in their time, but 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid. 98. Ibid. 753 754 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R while Paul VI (with Gaudium et spes, 4) goes about this “in the light of the Gospel,” the Synodal Way aspires to a kind of higher understanding, reached by combining Scriptural and traditional teachings with new scientific insights and societal trends. The shift is subtle, but the difference it makes is deeply significant. Keeping in mind these tensions between Vatican II and the Synodal Way, rereading Leo’s letters and sermons reminds us that, on the one hand, we can have unbreakable trust in synodal assemblies; on the other, much work needs to be done to make them bear fruit, and it all starts with fierce fidelity to traditional doctrine. While Leo’s first concern was defining that doctrine, he also worked hard to explain and communicate it, especially in the wake of Chalcedon. In this sense, Leo would agree with John XXIII (and Paul VI) that the greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively. . . . The Lord has said: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice.” The word “first” expresses the direction in which our thoughts and energies must move.99 The priority of being faithful to traditional teachings could hardly be expressed more forcefully. It is on this solid basis that both what Vatican II said and how it was said was “channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need.”100 This was, in fact, the pastoral impetus driving the council and its anthropocentric approach, which Pope Paul defines as ultimately christological and theocentric: In everyone we can and must recognize the countenance of Christ (cf. Matt. 25:40), the Son of Man, especially when tears and sorrows make it plain to see, and if we can and must recognize in Christ’s countenance the countenance of our heavenly Father “He who sees me,” Our Lord said, “sees also the Father” ( John 14:9), our humanism becomes Christianity, our Christianity becomes centered on God; in 99. Ibid., quoting Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 5.1, 5.4. 100. Paul VI, Address during the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW such sort that we may say, to put it differently: a knowledge of man is a prerequisite for a knowledge of God.101 In the eyes of Paul VI, the council was about God, Christ, the Church, and the concrete human person. This was a huge project, and certainly not one without tensions. At the council’s opening, for instance, John XXIII demanded that it reexamine all Catholic doctrine. Yet this does not mean that it becomes a project of reconstructing Catholic teaching. By pointing to the interconnection between the various parts of Church doctrine (on God, Christ, salvation, the Church, and human nature), Paul VI makes something like a “patristic move” toward a better understanding of the unity of the various teachings.102 The point is well taken and serves as an analogue to Leo’s insistence on the need for conciliar decisions to be made within the framework of evangelic/apostolic and patristic/traditional teaching. A reference to this coherence and continuity is missing from how the Synodal Way conceives its own work. Its reference to Vatican II remains vague. The Synodal Way, more so because it is a German enterprise, would have to make clear that it rests on the council’s decisions and intentions, as framed by Popes Paul and John—not by postconciliar Teutonic imaginations. German theologians, in particular, often refer to Vatican II as the “first ignition” of something radically new (not only new theologies), a kind of metacouncil that reframes all previous doctrines, even leaving behind the nouvelle théologie. The Synodal Way, apparently, wants to reread Scripture and tradition in the anthropocentric light of today’s lived experiences. This may sound like an innocuous dialectical continuation of Vatican II, but in reality such an interpretation of Vatican II is hard to square with papal insistence, at the council and subsequently, that the intent never was, and cannot be, to reexamine doctrine with any intention other than to understand it more deeply and communicate it more effectively. Actually, this (evangelistic) goal can only be reached if any temptation 101. Ibid. 102. See the classic study on the synthetic nature of patristic thought: Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church, ed. Andrew Louth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). The German original was published as Gott und unsere Erlösung im Glauben der alten Kirche (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1985). 755 756 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R to modify and adapt doctrine is resisted. This is a psychological and hermeneutical conditio sine qua non. This is why John XXIII distinguished between doctrine and the way of proposing it, and why Paul VI explained Vatican II’s decision not to negate the understanding and presupposed teaching of the Church precisely for the sake of reaching the people of its time. The difference between the Synodal Way and Vatican II (not to mention Pope Leo) is also accentuated in the fact that we need to interpret carefully the language of “developing” doctrine (as we saw above, in particular from Gaudet Mater Ecclesia). John XXIII and Paul VI did not see themselves as having the mission or authority to “develop doctrine”103 actively—indeed, both underscored the fundamental need to receive and explain it with radical fidelity. What they did is reexamine, interpret, explain, and propose Catholic doctrine in ways and language that were more accessible to their contemporaries. In this process, doctrine is in fact developing but precisely at the hands of those committed to transmitting it faithfully and integrally, not focused on how they could actively develop it—which would mean to change it. Importantly, faithful transmission, not “developing doctrine,” must be the principal and stated goal, so that any actual development is a consequence and by-product. Doctrine develops authentically precisely when it is not done explicitly for the sake of achieving pastoral or missionary goals. If we transmit the doctrine unaltered, then and only then can the true, unabridged message of Christ (not some accommodated, compromised, or reductionist version) reach people today. The many ongoing debates about the development of doctrine, the continuity of Vatican II with prior teachings, and the continuity of subsequent magisterial and theological positions with both Vatican II and earlier teachings, clearly reveal that today many disputes remain unsettled and serious confusion in the Church persists. Fidelity to Catholic tradition, as we learn from Pope Leo, is itself a complex 103. The core analytical question is whether “develop” is used as a transitive or intransitive verb: are we “developing it,” or is “doctrine developing”? Intentionality, like who exactly the subject in these phrases is, matters a great deal, never mind the inevitable role human agents play. Theologically, the Holy Spirit remains the ultimate agent of doctrinal development in any case. Cf. Joachim Drumm, “Dogmenentwicklung,” LThK, 3rd ed., vol. 3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 295–98, esp. 298. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW undertaking, and today this fidelity can certainly not be claimed with a simple, even ritualistic reference to Vatican II. 3.2. The Church and the world Besides the question of substantial fidelity to Catholic teaching, there is an additional aspect to consider. The constitution and composition of the Synodal Way seems designed to aim at a consensus among the different groups in the Church, most notably among the bishops. The Synodal Way wants to offer more than organized opportunities for dialogue. It wants to make decisions with a high level of authority, even if they may be more morally than legally binding.104 It remains to be seen what will happen, first, if the synodal decisions do not reach full consensus but are passed, with perhaps substantial majorities, for instance, and/or, second, if the decisions are not subsequently implemented as desired, or not in all dioceses, or if they are outright rejected as contrary to Catholic doctrine, law, or practice. Reaching consensus may have been too demanding a goal from the start, and perhaps even one that was predictably unrealistic. At this point, it certainly seems hard to reach. The real issue, however, is not whether the desire for consensus was false from the start but, more radically, whether institutions designed to create consensus are the right choice given the Synodal Way’s goal to restore the Church’s credibility in Germany for the sake of evangelization. Current experts in evangelization would agree that we need to invest in trust before we can even start witnessing to the message of Christ, but this investment has nothing to do with adapting the Church’s doctrine and governance to the expectations of our interlocutors.105 It was Leo’s view, as we saw, that consensus is one of the signs of the inspired fidelity of conciliar decisions to the faith and/or binding Church order. Today, however, how helpful can 104. The Synodal Way aims at gaining “binding knowledge” (verbindliche Erkenntnisse). Cf. “Fragen und Antworten zum Synodalen Weg,” Der Synodale Weg, https://www.synodalerweg.de/faq. It positions itself between a formal synod (which has canonical authority) and dialogue processes (as what took place in Germany from 2011 to 2015). 105. Cf. Hall, Intentional Accompaniment, 36–39. 757 758 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R consensus or majorities be in an assembly like the Synodal Way, precisely because it wants to learn from a society that is drifting away from its Christian roots? This societal context has a strong impact especially on churches that traditionally were more or less identical with society at large. The real question is what is necessary today for the evangelistic mission and the pastoral/catechetical work of the Church in Germany. It is not about what the majority of German Catholics are comfortable with or used to. Whether the right question can be asked and answered by an apparatus like the Synodal Way is more dubious than is commonly assumed. The Synodal Way and Vatican II both want to reestablish points of contact and influence between the Church and contemporary society. This is necessary and laudable, and not only from a pragmatic standpoint. The issue, however, is that these have to be points where contemporary (and often quickly evolving) society comes into contact with true (slow to develop) teachings, unless these teachings are to be diluted in direct contradiction to Vatican II and Catholic tradition as a whole. The high level of uniformity and authority to which conciliar decisions are aspiring is reserved for such timeless, enduring doctrine alone. The same level of uniformity is not required, and may very well be inappropriate, for pastoral and missionary work. If the German Synodal Way continues along the path it has been taking until now, it will become a bad experience of synodality, which could damage the concept far beyond the dioceses of Germany. By postponing the next Synod of Bishops, and by preparing it at the local and national level, the Holy See may very well be attempting to minimize that damage. The Roman “Synod on Synodality,” because of its topic and the structure of its preparatory phase, will be an opportunity for the Church as a whole to recommit herself to the plan of God as revealed in Scripture and tradition. Listening to each other is an essential aspect of the life of the Church, but it must be a “prophetic listening” that helps our communal and individual listening to God and lets us be guided by the Holy Spirit.106 We may find it hard today to embrace Leo’s confidence in “continuity and tradition,” 106. Cf. Evangelii gaudium, 171, 174, 280. For a practical introduction to prophetic listening, see Hall, Intentional Accompaniment, 13–24. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW but without them we not only lose touch with “the truth that was the teaching of the orthodox”107 but also with the Jesus of the gospels, the apostolic faith, and the Church’s past and present. Pope Leo’s christological focus is, ultimately, about an encounter with the real Jesus who is present in his Church in many ways. That is the (soteriological) point of any doctrine on the Incarnate Son of God. The “signs of the times” are to be acknowledged, but they can only be understood “in the light of the gospel,” something that is regularly omitted when people make reference to that phrase from Gaudium et spes 3. This light must not be confused with the signs themselves.108 We can and must preserve our confidence in Christ’s promise that the Church will stand until the end of time, but it is his Church that will stand, the one faithful to apostolic teaching, not our diluted versions of the Church or her teachings. 3.3. Power and its abuse The Synodal Way is first and foremost a debate about how the Church is structured and, therefore, governed. From a hermeneutical point of view, this focus on power instead of truth and, consequently, on how doctrine should be developed instead of preserved, cannot be underestimated. It constitutes a significant departure from the Church’s synodal tradition, up to and including Vatican II. Because the Church’s sacramental constitution is itself a matter of faith, this becomes a debate about doctrine. By the same logic, though reversed, the Synodal Way’s proposals about power and its distribution in the Church (workgroup 1) seem to be geared toward making changes in other areas (workgroups 2–4): once power has been shifted, these changes can be made. It cannot be denied that in handling abuse cases, diocesan governance has failed on a grand scale, and not only in Germany. Proposals to make some changes to governance and 107. Wessel, Spiritual Rebuilding, 7. 108. Cf. Kasper, “Inhaltlicher Geburtsfehler,” 10, with implicit reference to Gaudium et spes, 3. 759 760 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R oversight therefore come as no surprise.109 Behind the Synodal Way’s idea, however, that the Church can become more credible (and better governed) by adopting more liberal-democratic principles stands the particular experience of the Federal Republic (of Germany) in whose political culture Christians and Christian institutions still play an important role. However, as functional as the German political, legal, and economic systems may be, German society today produces a horrifying number of minors who are sexually abused, with an overwhelming number of cases undetected, and this social reality is largely unacknowledged and denied.110 At a deeper level, one can also feel the influence of the faith in progress (Fortschrittsglaube) that is so typical of modern liberalism.111 Yet the idea that the hierarchical constitution of the Church needs to be updated with, if not replaced by, (more) democratic structures remains curiously paradoxical: it means replacing the current system, allegedly bound to political models of ancient and medieval empires, with new, more participatory structures that are, however, equally political in nature. The indications we have from Vatican II for an ecclesiology of communion112 are not to be confused with postmodern political models. To do so would be to underestimate tragically the differences between Church and state, and between how the Church and the liberal tradition view human beings, societies, and themselves. The Church’s mission is to evangelize, with all that entails. For the sake of that mission she has received her specific sacramental constitution, which for that purpose is quite different from that of states. If the Church wants to serve and anticipate the Kingdom of God, the lordship of Christ needs to shine in her brightly with all its consolations and challenges to contemporary Christians and the postmodern remnants of Christendom. The Church in Germany, in that regard, has more to learn than to teach. 109. Cf. Matthias Ambros, Kontrolle kirchlichen Verwaltungshandelns (Darmstadt: WBG, 2020). 110. Cf. Darida, “Auch Sie kennen einen Täter.” 111. Cf. Bedrich Loewenstein, Der Fortschrittsglaube: Europäisches Gesichtsdenken zwischen Utopie und Ideologie (Darmstadt: WBG, 2015). 112. Cf. the classic book by Cardinal Paul J. Cordes, Communio: Utopie oder Programm?, Quaestiones Disputatae 148 (Freiburg: Herder, 1993). S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW On a more practical level, as the Synodal Way continues it should seriously attempt to learn from churches/denominations in whose constitutions synods play a central role, taking into account that single elements of a church’s structure and culture cannot simply be transplanted into another church. Churches are very complex organisms. Learning from other churches might help prevent the Germans from falling into the same schismatic tendencies that brought some Protestant denominations to the brink of disintegration. This is especially true for questions of sexuality and marriage, where “salvation by liberation” often rules as an overly simplistic principle. Similarly, two-level models for life-partnerships (between sacramental and nonsacramental forms) and for the priesthood (between celibate and noncelibate priests)113 need to be exposed for the unsustainable caste systems they are. Questions of power and its exercise in the Church are real and need to be resolved, but we must not let them become a distraction from the more fundamental questions of truth, fidelity, and apostolic mission, to which all authority in the Church is ordered. In the twenty-first century, to hold on to the belief that the challenges facing religions can be met first and foremost by adapting liberal-democratic opinion and policy-making, presuming that this is the way of coming to the right questions and answering them appropriately, is outdated and borderline irrational. In all the texts and declarations we currently have from the Synodal Way, the language of “genuine conversion” is curiously absent.114 This absence makes the Synodal Way unkerygmatic, despite its alleged orientation to evangelization. Last but not least, there is another elephant in the synodal chambers: the Germans need to face questions about money. The Synodal Way needs to reflect on how much the elusive figure of the “Church-tax payer” (Kirchensteuerzahler) has assumed a disproportionate role in how Germans understand the Church. 113. Again, the practices and traditions of Eastern Churches cannot simply be transplanted in the Latin Church. 114. Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2020), n. 62. For definitions of conversion, see also Redemptoris missio, 46; Deus caritas est, 1. 761 762 H A NS F EICH T I NGE R The Church in Germany is far from being a poor Church,115 and the Synodal Way acts as though this is no issue at all. People in Germany can only continue to lament the “lack of priests” and “shortage of vocations” because in theory the German Church could afford more priests. But its vast financial resources depend nearly entirely on the state’s collection of the Church tax, paid by all who identify as Catholic to the state, that is, mostly by people who hardly ever engage with the Church. The picture would be different if practicing Catholics alone had to finance their clergy and employees. The German Church tax creates an exaggerated sense of how institutionally present the Church needs to be in German society, as well as a false impression of the condition in which the Church finds itself, as if it only needed more (and other) ordained clergy. Moreover, the Church tax goes to the dioceses, not the parishes. This creates an unbalanced diocesan centralism and excessive direct diocesan influence on the life of local parishes. In reality, however, the ordinary Catholics identify with their parish and their faith, while the diocese plays a distinctly secondary role. This model of Church financing severely hampers a sense of stewardship, which is an essential aspect of becoming missionary, with negative consequences for parishes and parishioners as the primary agents of evangelization. Supporting parishes includes the need to supervise and organize, but German dioceses need to embrace fully their primary role, which is to support the parishes as the primary faith communities. CONCLUSION Much like with prayer, synods in the Church must not be understood as instruments to change or somehow adapt the plan of God to our plan—the opposite must be the case. We listen and talk to each other to become better able to pray and listen to the word and will of God. If the specific goal of a synod is to renew Church practices and order, its focus must be on revealed truth, and this truth can certainly not be taken for granted today, even 115. Cf. Pope Francis, Audience to Representatives of the Communications Media (Vatican City, 16 March 2013), https://www.vatican.va/content/ francesco/en/speeches/2013/march/documents/papa-francesco_20130316_ rappresentanti-media.html. S Y NODA LIT Y: T H E N A N D NOW less so than in the 1960s. If the Synodal Way’s analysis is mostly about power, that says more about its participants (and their presupposed, perhaps unconscious, philosophies) than about the Church and her sacramental constitution. The Synodal Way’s desire to organize paradigm shifts and actively develop doctrine so as to alter the course of Christianity once and for all reveals a lack of humility and is a sign of bad theology. Postmodern attempts to reconcile divine revelation and people’s lived experiences, in particular, always lead to reductionism and theological appeasement. Despite all failures, past and present, and with all the fragile vessels of which the Church consists, the light of divine revelation is not extinguished in her and never will be. Her doctrine, faithful to God’s word, is the ultimate metatheory because it is an irreplaceable connector to the real and living Christ. From Pope Leo’s Christology we can learn that any encounter with Christ needs to be on his terms. The goal for a synod, therefore, cannot be to accommodate God’s promises and demands to our present capacities and interests but to liberate and transform us as we help each other, and hold each other accountable, in receiving, understanding, appreciating, and spreading God’s message and grace. This is the “light of the gospel” without which we cannot read the “signs of the times” (Gaudium et spes, 3), or, in the words of the Roman Canon: only by “holding on to the truth” are we able to “hand on the Catholic and apostolic faith.” H ANS FEICHTINGER is adjunct professor of theology at Saint Paul University, as well as pastor of St. George’s Parish and St. Albertus’s Parish, in Ottawa, Canada. 763