Between the Theory and the Praxis of the Synodal Process Tracey Rowland THE TERM “SYNODALITY” has flourished under the papacy of Francis but has also become something of a “weasel word” in the sense that it means different things to different people. Just as weasels are good at using their slender elongated bodies to duck, weave, and slither under fences into chicken coops and other places where they are not wanted, the word “synodality” can change its theological shape depending upon the precise theological content given it by the person using it, and thereby justifying more than one form of ecclesial governance. As Angela Franks has suggested, synodality is a concept that needs a sound theology.1 Clearly there is an understanding of synodality that is consistent with centuries of ecclesial tradition. The word synod comes from the Greek σύνοδος, meaning “assembly” or “meeting,” and is analogous with the Latin word concilium, from which we get our English word “council.” Synods have occurred throughout Christian history, at least as far back as the second century. What is distinctive about the current enthusiasm for this term of ecclesial governance is its association with new criteria for choosing the delegates and the protocols for governing the discussions within synodal gatherings. Whereas in the past it has mostly been bishops who have been invited to participate in the discussions, synods in the pontificate of Francis have been characterized by the inclusion of large [End Page 233] numbers of lay Catholics and by an openness to “discussing” and “exploring” matters of long-settled magisterial teaching. I. St. John Henry Newman on Consulting the Faithful The idea of extending the catchment field for synod delegates is defended by reference to the concept of the sensus fidelium. This concept is relatively new in Catholic scholarship. Many authorities trace its classic expression to an essay published by John Henry Newman in 1859 titled: “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.” At the time of its publication Newman was the editor of a journal called The Rambler, and there were tensions between prominent lay people and members of the episcopacy about aspects of Catholic education. The bishops of the era did not think that lay people should interfere in decisions they were making about the education of Catholic children. Newman differed from the bishops in his judgment and wrote his now famous article, in which he said: I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church in its various constituents and functions per modum unius, manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the [church] doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies, rites, ceremonies, and customs, by events, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect; granting at the same time fully, that the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides solely in the Ecclesia docens.2 This statement of principle has two limbs. The first is that the tradition of the Apostles, the deposit of the faith, manifests itself in many different ways, through many different agencies, including the beliefs of the lay faithful. The second is that “the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides solely in the [End Page 234] Ecclesia docens.”3 These two concepts, the “apostolic tradition” and the “Ecclesia docens,” the latter more commonly called the magisterium, are extremely important. If these two “planks” in the barque of Peter are splintered, then it is hard to see how it can possibly keep afloat. Newman thought that the barque had almost sunk in the fourth century during the Arian crisis because the Ecclesia docens failed to remain true to the deposit of the faith. He wrote: There was a temporary suspense of the functions of the “Ecclesia docens.” The body of Bishops failed in the confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicæa, of firm, unvarying, consistent...
Read full abstract
Jun 16, 2023
Aji Susanto + 5
Open Access
