It sounds so reasonable. The idea of running the church via synodal governance. Why wouldn’t you give everyone a say in how the church is run? What could possibly go wrong? This is the question every Catholic should be pondering given that the Vatican, spurred on by the Church in Germany, is now considering unleashing this protestant model within the Catholic church.
Please note -before reading further- there is a significant difference between a church that holds synods, in order to knock around theological ideas, and a church led by synodal governance. The first is not beholden to votes, the second is. This debate is about how much power we grant synodal voting.
As a former Anglican, who understands the model of governance too well, I argue giving synods any more power than at present would be cancerous to upholding the faith of the ages. This is why:
Synods favour the world over Christ
Ever since Barabbas was released, condemning Jesus to execution, majority consensus has routinely failed the faith. At baptism it is made clear we engage in a spiritual battle against the world – we are not called to endorse its opinions by majority vote. For this reason the voice of true faith has often been marginal in history, a lonely cry in the wilderness, for our path is narrow and difficult not easy and broad. When emphasis is given to synodal voting it is not historic faith that tends to endure but the zeitgeist. The lowest denominator dictates. We have seen this repeatedly in modern Anglicanism. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it right. At the reformation St. John Fisher would have lost a synodal vote, the bishops who sold Rome out would have won. But which was truly serving Christ and the unity of the church?
Synods over politicise the divine
Synods bring to the life of faith the mechanisms of political state. Soon the church is divided into opposition parties, for and against, and lobbying begins in earnest. The floors of synod become a blood bath in which Christian charity is the first victim. Suddenly every doctrinal matter that ought be settled and safe, is open to novel debate. The result is divisive and corrosive because the very process favours innovation as it consumes resources, time and energy. Soon the beast takes on a life of its own and nothing is left sacred. The faith, which St Paul argued should be the same yesterday, today and forever, becomes subject to change at a whim by means of popular vote.
Synods ensure a slippery slope
in 1970, at the outset of synodal governance in the Church of England, traditionalists warned it would prove a slippery slope leading away from doctrinal faith into an era of modernist subjectivism. History proved them right. For who could deny that synodal changes within it have led that ecclesial body ever further from the historic Christian faith? Things unthinkable a generation before quickly came to pass for the entire process favours change. If a vote fails just lobby harder then hold it again! This clearly happened with female ordination. The vote failed repeatedly but was never said to be settled until the motion finally passed by a whisker. Then, and only then, did synod proclaim ‘God has now spoken’ Make no mistake- synods serve modernists not traditionalists. It favours those wanting to change faith not preserve it. Which should give pause to any Christian desiring to stand by the faith of the Apostles.
Synods disempower critics
Once the synodal system is up and running debate becomes the only means by which traditionalists can preserve the faith of the ages. Yet, as pointed out, the entire system works against this aim. The problem then for traditionalists is that they are forced to debate the very things they believe should not be open to debate. You have lost before you have started because you are forced to legitimise a process you do not believe in. What then should the traditionalist do? Protest becomes the only option. A refusal to take part at all.
St. Nicholas understood this fact which is why, during the council of Nicea, instead of debating with Arius he punched him on the nose. St Nicholas believed that spending a night in the cells for brawling was better for God than surrendering ground by debating truth with heretics. Which is to say that St Nicholas believed the Gospel was truth and that truth is not subjective. Truth is not open to debate. Divine truth should be protected not hurled to the lions of the synod chamber. The truth is worth fighting for not conceding within a political cauldron.
That is why NOW IS THE TIME to resist the calls for change. Catholics who value objective truth must make it clear we do not want to be ruled by protestant forms of synodal governance. We have to say ‘not in my name’ whilst refusing to be fobbed off or seduced by false assurances that synods will never be abused in this way. As a former Anglican I have heard that chestnut before. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!
Note instead how the very clergy in Germany pushing for synodal governance are the same who defied Rome last month by publicly (and scandalously) blessing gay unions. Only a fool can’t see what modernists want these synodal gatherings for. They want to force change. They want to follow where Anglicanism went before.
Let us pray then and resist changing the governance of our Catholic faith. Because if we don’t the Catholic life as we know it ends and we will be delivered into a liberal and protestant future. When the C of E launched its Synod it promised growth, relevance and renewal but what it ended up with was terminal decline, division and innovation. Pray God history doesn’t repeat itself on this side of the Tiber and that the gates of hell really do prevail.
St Nicholas pray for us.
But traditionalists have always had their say in C of E synods. The quality of debate in female ordination was good ( whatever one’s views ) and generous provisions were – rightly – made for opponents of this measure.
Many of us ( including me ) who have, over time, come round to being pro-women priests regard ourselves as very much traditionalists in many other ways. ( eg. liturgy, hymns, vestments ). It is possible, despite what people say. Several Tory MPs with an interest in Anglican affairs are pro-women priests/bishops.
I wasn’t wanting to enter the debate as such, Timothy, that is all water under a bridge. Save to say my point wasn’t about giving various people a voice in a synod and providing for them- it was that the very system itself fails orthodoxy by putting sacred non negotiable aspects of faith up for debate.
As to the ‘generous provision’ I cannot help but note that ONLY the victors who supported Women’s ordination enthusiastically promote this narrative. The ones to whom the generosity was actually shown either left the C of E because they felt forced out or else remain but grumble that they were forced into a ghetto with no real hope of preferment etc…
When the Holy Spirit is demoted or ignored in Christianity, lots of things can go wrong even if the form of governance is in line with Scripture. The mind of Christ is needed for proper functioning.