Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has warned against a conception of synodality that, in his view, introduces into the Catholic Church a model inspired by Protestantism, based on the democratic election of its members and the participation of pastors and laity with “equal voice.”
The Church historian traces this conception to ideas formulated by Martin Luther in 1520 and concludes that it is “incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology.”
Brandmüller, 97 years old and former president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, develops his argument in an essay titled “Regarding ‘Synodality,’” published by Sandro Magister.
In the text, he questions the lack of definition surrounding the term, claims the properly episcopal character of synods, and warns against the “uncritical” incorporation of secular structures and democratic procedures into the life of the Church.
A “clear and unequivocal definition” still missing
“Since Pope Francis, people have been speaking continuously of ‘synodality,’ in different contexts and with different meanings. However, a clear and unequivocal definition of the term is still lacking,” Brandmüller begins.
The cardinal turns to Goethe’s Faust to illustrate the problem and recalls the dialogue between Mephistopheles, dressed as a professor, and a student. The latter objects that words must correspond to an idea, while Mephistopheles replies that, wherever ideas are lacking, a word always arrives in time.
To avoid what Brandmüller calls the “traps” of Mephistopheles, he considers it necessary to begin by establishing what a synod properly is.
“In the classical Catholic conception, a synod is an assembly of bishops gathered for the collegial exercise of their magisterial and pastoral ministry,” he explains.
When all the bishops of the Church are convened and meet under the presidency of the Pope or his delegates, it is a general or ecumenical council. Acting cum et sub Petro, Brandmüller notes, it possesses the highest magisterial and pastoral authority and may proclaim definitive and infallible doctrines to which obedience of faith must be given.
When the bishops gathered belong to a group of particular Churches—for example, an ecclesiastical province or region—it is a particular council, which exercises the magisterium ordinarium and whose decrees require confirmation by the Holy See.
“In both cases, the bishops act by virtue of the magisterial and pastoral power they have received through sacramental ordination,” he emphasizes.
Brandmüller even questions the name of the Synod of Bishops
The cardinal extends his reasoning to the Synod of Bishops instituted by Paul VI in 1965 through the motu proprio Apostolica sollicitudo.
Brandmüller does not question “the necessity or the opportuneness” of this institution, but recalls that it was created as a consultative body of the Pope. Its participants are individually summoned by the Pontiff, and their mission is to advise him, not to proclaim doctrines, make decisions, or legislate.
For this reason, he considers that even in this case the term used may lead to confusion.
“For reasons of conceptual clarity, it would be appropriate to avoid the term ‘synod’—which in this context lends itself to misunderstandings—and to find a different and more suitable designation,” he maintains.
Priests and laity cannot exercise the ministry reserved to bishops
Brandmüller extends this objection to more recently created bodies in which, in addition to bishops, priests and faithful of both sexes participate as representatives of the entire People of God.
For the cardinal, in these cases one cannot properly speak of a synod either, “since neither priests nor laity can exercise the magisterial and pastoral ministry conferred exclusively on bishops through the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
This does not mean, he clarifies, that the laity must be excluded from collaboration in the life of the Church. Brandmüller expressly acknowledges that “it is naturally possible to entrust competent laypeople with a function as experts.”
However, when such collaboration exists, he calls for “carefully avoiding any inappropriate use of the words ‘synod,’ ‘synodality,’ and other equivalents” and for using a designation that correctly reflects the nature of the body.
“Secular structures and democratic procedures”
Brandmüller considers that behind the emergence of this type of body lies a broader tendency to incorporate contemporary political models into ecclesial structures.
“It is evident that the establishment of such bodies proceeds from the will to implant, in a more or less uncritical way, secular structures and democratic procedures into the life of the Church, in order to keep pace with the times,” he states.
His criticism, therefore, is not directed at the possibility of consulting priests or laity, but at configuring structures in which the differences arising from the sacrament of Holy Orders are diluted through democratic procedures and equality in decision-making capacity.
A model inspired by Luther that grants “equal voice” to all
It is at this point that Brandmüller establishes a direct relationship between certain current conceptions of synodality and the Protestant model.
The cardinal maintains that this approach amounts to introducing into the Catholic sphere “a type of synod inspired especially by the Protestant model,” whose members are democratically elected from among pastors and men and women from different professional and cultural backgrounds, “all with equal voice.”
Brandmüller traces this conception to Martin Luther’s polemical writings of 1520.
According to the cardinal, Luther denied that the institution of the sacrament of Holy Orders went back to Jesus Christ and held that Baptism was sufficient to make any man or woman a priest, bishop, and pope.
Brandmüller draws a blunt conclusion from this: “It is evident that such a conception of synodality is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology.”
Brandmüller questions the evolution of episcopal conferences
The prelate places the emergence of episcopal conferences within this historical process, linking their birth to the end of the Ancien Régime, to the European system of “throne and altar,” and to the rise of the modern secular state.
When episcopal conferences began to develop in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century, he explains, their frame of reference “was not the hierarchical structure of the Church, but the respective state.”
For this reason, their consultative and decision-making activity initially dealt with issues related to the situation and action of the Church within the modern secular state. Doctrinal, liturgical, and sacramental matters were excluded, with the exception of marriage, whose legal regulation was also claimed by the states following the Napoleonic model.
The doctrinal authority granted during the pontificate of Francis
Starting from this historical conception of episcopal conferences, Brandmüller directs a specific criticism at Evangelii gaudium.
The cardinal considers it “highly problematic” that Francis recognized in the apostolic exhortation an “authentic doctrinal authority, albeit limited,” for episcopal conferences.
Brandmüller maintains that an episcopal conference does not constitute a hierarchical level situated between each bishop and the Pope.
“Also in doctrinal matters, the episcopal conference is not an intermediate hierarchical instance nor the organ of a national Church capable of entering into competition with the magisterium of the universal Church or of threatening the doctrinal primacy of the Pope,” he affirms.
A “neo-Arian ecclesiological” tendency
Brandmüller maintains that, since the end of the nineteenth century and especially in Europe, episcopal conferences have progressively displaced synods, while their form and functioning have adopted political models.
The prelate considers it difficult to ignore that this phenomenon expresses a “growing secularization of the understanding of what the Church is.”
To describe it, he uses the expression “neo-Arian ecclesiological” tendency.
According to Brandmüller, this tendency does not expressly deny the supernatural character of the Church, but progressively relegates it to the background until it ends up viewing the Church fundamentally as “a social entity.”
Recovering synods to halt the secularization of the Church
In the face of this evolution, Brandmüller concludes his reflection by proposing to restore the historical importance of the synods of particular Churches, precisely because he considers that they correspond to properly ecclesial structures and not to political territorial divisions.
“Over against these episcopal conferences with political contours, the synods of particular Churches—faithful to authentically ecclesial hierarchical structures—should be restored to their original importance,” he maintains.
The cardinal also proposes that these episcopal assemblies recover with greater intensity their liturgical dimension, following the practice documented since the sixth century and the forms provided by the episcopal ceremonial promulgated under John Paul II.
For Brandmüller, recovering these properly episcopal synods would not be merely a terminological or organizational question, but a response to the progressive secularization of the understanding of the Church.
“In this way,” he concludes, “the process of secularization of the Church could be effectively blocked, and at the same time an important step could be taken toward that ‘de-worldliness’ whose urgent necessity Benedict XVI recalled.”
