contents

content 2

foreword 4

Peter Neuner: Introduction 7

Synodality as understood by Pope Francis 7

Historical Examples of Synodality in the Church 8

Communion and sensus fidelium in Vatican II 9

Widespread dissatisfaction with the situation in the church today 10

Openings to synodality and their limits 10

Openings in ecumenism 12

Opening to the world 13

Approaches for a legal codification of synodality 13

An outlook 15

Synodality as understood by Pope Francis 17

Andreas Batlogg: Pope Francis and his vision: synodality as the way of the church in the 21st century 17

Historical Examples of Synodality in the Church 31

Ansgar Moenikes: Synodality. A Biblical Reflection. 31

Michael Hauber: With the Pope, but without the Emperor? 45

Michael Plattig: Obedience. Basic attitude for synodal processes 53

Anselm Grün: The advice of the brothers at Benedikt 65

Community and sensus fidelium in Vatican II 72

Martin Kirschner: Ecclesiology in action. The loci theologici as a structural model of synodality: a proposal. 72

Margit Eckholt: "Sensus fidelium". Synodality and the becoming subject of the laity 84

Dissatisfaction with situation in church today 98

Thomas O'Loughlin: Celebrating Synodality - Synodality as a Fundamental Aspect of the Christian Liturgy 98

Karin Heller: "Does the world synodal church stand or fall" with the women's question? 109

Openings to synodality and their limits 118

Paulo Suess: Departure after the Amazon Synod - synodally attentive and missionary worried 118

Kapro ń , Kasper Mariusz OFM: Synodal Church – a sacramental communion 128

Thomas Sternberg: On the "Synodal Path" in Germany 137

Anna Hennersperger: "What's the point of collecting sourdough if you can't bake with it?" A synodal process in the diocese of Passau and its conclusion. 149

Christian Bauer: Mediation, a synodal path? 158

Anna Findl-Ludescher: Practiced Synodality in the Pastoral Commission of Austria 164

Opening in ecumenism 175

Marie-Christine Hazaël-Massieux: The way to unity in diversity 175

Bernd Oberdorfer: Participation and increasing acceptance: Synodality in Lutheranism 181

Ioan Moga: New movement on an old site? Synodal practice in the Orthodox Church under scrutiny 188

Peter Neuner: Synodality in the context of ecumenism 199

Opening to the world 212

Michal Opatrný: Community work as an inspiration for consensus building in the pastoral ministry of a parish 212

Thomas Pogoda: Synodality in the claim of non-denominational “others” 222

Legal possibilities of a reorganization 230

Hans Maier: What the church can learn from the democratic state - a sketch 230

Heribert Franz Koeck: Prerequisites for Synodality in the Catholic Church 236

Alfons Maria Schmidt: Notes on Synodality in the Catholic World Church 251

Wilhelm Rees: Synodality - Possibilities of further development from a Catholic-canon law perspective 254

Outlook 267

Wijlens, Myriam: "The Church of God is called to a Synod". 267

foreword

Pope Francis has shown himself to be a reformer through speaking signs and symbolic actions. The hopes for a renewal of the church and a revival of the spirit that had determined Vatican II secured him approval in the church, but also in other Christian churches and in the general public. In a short time he managed to change the mood in the church and in society towards the church for the better. However, one would have to close one's eyes to reality if one were not to acknowledge that this spirit of optimism clearly lost momentum in the course of his pontificate. Disappointment set in that no action seemed to follow the signs and haunting words. The pope has been criticized as a man of announcements, who has no real changes in the Church in mind, but only verbally reassures, and then leaves everything as it is. In particular, the Amazon Synod had far-reaching expectations that were not met.

Nevertheless, it seems like the Pope's words and signs are based on a plan that can be tied to the concept of synodality. He implemented this plan in several stages. His programmatic speech on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops attracted attention. It was unfamiliar words when he described church and synodality as identical. He commissioned the International Theological Commission to conduct a study on the synodality of the Church. The theologians involved felt encouraged to create a forward-looking vision of a synodal church in which the communion structure of the church becomes tangible and clear.¹

The Pope divided the synod of bishops on the family into two assemblies. At a first meeting in Rome, the bishops drew up a preliminary paper that was to be discussed in the dioceses and parishes and given to the synod of bishops with suggestions from the grass roots. In a second round, their members should take up these suggestions and write the final text of the decision. The Pope wanted to ensure that the synod listened to the experiences, joys and problems of God's people. However, this request has only been taken up to a very limited extent at grassroots level. Perhaps the time available to formulate concrete ideas was too short. And finally, few Catholics expected answers from the pope and bishops on questions of marriage and sexual morality that they would have considered helpful for their concrete lives.

In the Amazon synod, the challenges facing the church in this region were documented and discussed in detail: First and foremost, the ecological problem, which deprives some peoples of their livelihood, the depressing shortage of priests, which has led to a church largely without the celebration of the sacraments, and the fact that in many places women act as de facto church leaders but are not ordained priests or deacons. The synod did not recommend any radical changes to existing canonical regulations, but did plead for special regulations and dispensations in concrete emergencies. In his post-synodal letter Querida Amazonia, the pope did not decree any specific exceptions, but expressly adopted the final document of the synod and thus did not exclude the possibility of special regulations.

These Pope's initiatives seem to be purposefully geared towards the forthcoming Synod of Bishops, in which the Church's synodality will not only be practiced, but raised to the subject of deliberations. It should be preceded by intensive preparation. In October 2021, the process was opened with a diocesan phase in which the people of God should have their say and formulate their beliefs and their image of the church. Experts were also called upon to outline their ideas. On this basis, the General Secretariat of the Synod will draw up a first instrumentum laboris. On this basis, the bishops' conferences should continue the discussion and formulate their concerns in a continental phase. These texts, together with proposals drawn up by experts at international level, are intended to serve as the basis for a second version of the Instrumentum Laboris, on the basis of which the Synod of Bishops in October 2023 is to formulate its recommendations or decisions.

In this way, according to the Pope's plan, the sensus fidelium should be inquired about and recorded as broadly as possible. This comprehensive survey of the beliefs of Christians in their different situations as officeholders, as experts or as Christian believers without public commission from the church, of women and men, is intended to provide the basis for the decisions that the synod of bishops and the pope will then take for the redesign of the Church will meet. In the process, far-reaching and currently unforeseeable decisions may become possible. Under no circumstances should this process end with a simple continuation and with the consolation that the church currently has to go through a difficult path, but that allegedly at the end of the tunnel light is already visible again. As a result of the process that the Pope initiated, the expectations in the Church have grown. It must not end in disappointment.

This book was written as part of the preparation for this undoubtedly important event for the Catholic Church. It owes itself to a process that follows a synodal orientation. The editors did not ask experts for contributions to given problems according to a fixed plan. The starting point was public appeals on the Internet, which were directed to all interested parties under the leadership of Paul M. Zulehner to express what they expect from the upcoming Synod of Bishops. More than 20,000 people took part in this online study. The results were objectively evaluated and published in a separate study.²

Within a narrower framework, experts, theologians, representatives of committees in the churches, but also specialists in opinion-forming and decision-making in the social context were asked to formulate their ideas for the synod. Fortunately, this request also met with a broad response. Comments were received from North and Latin America and particularly from Europe West and East. There were significantly more contributions than could have been included in this volume. As such, it was essential to make choices and avoid duplication. This proved to be a complex task. In order to allow those statements to have their say that were not included in this volume or that could not be integrated due to their length, they were made generally accessible in an online publication, and this in the respective original language.³

When reviewing the votes received, it proved essential to ask a few other experts for contributions in order to fill in any gaps in content. However, these suggestions by the group of editors are kept within narrow limits, they have not interfered with the opinions expressed. It is quite obvious that the ideas of the church that we have received are varied and sometimes contradictory, not all of them reflect the publisher's convictions. But that is exactly what we consider to be the specific feature of a synodal process: the starting point is not a ready-made plan, rather, at the beginning there is the acknowledgment of a wide variety, on the basis of which the believer's sense of faith is then formulated and necessary decisions are made.

We do not claim that the votes compiled here are representative of the church, grassroots or professionals. Apparently, our initiative appealed primarily to circles that hope for a broad synodalization of the church. Anyone who expects nothing good from all of this and knows they are safe and secure within the traditional authoritarian structures and the formulations of Vatican I and expects that a perhaps small but self-contained church should pave the way into the future felt through our questions little addressed. So it is not surprising that we have hardly received any statements from this world of thought. For the present book, this means that the ideas presented here are generally shaped by those who hope for synodality, support synodalization and the Pope's suggestion. It is no secret that there are also opposing currents, even in the highest church circles.

The editors would like to thank the numerous experts from seven countries who presented their thoughts and formulated concrete suggestions. In particular, we would like to thank those whose contributions were not included in this volume, who agreed to online publication, to which we refer at this point, for their willingness to do so. We would like to thank everyone who was willing to cut some of their extensive work massively in order to be able to include it in this volume. Special thanks go to the Prague theologian and sociologist Tomáš Halík, who, as in comparable publications, was able to provide valuable information about the situation of a church in a largely secularized society. And thanks go to the Grünewald publishing house, which spontaneously agreed to take over the publication, even when the text turned out to be significantly more extensive than initially planned.

We hope that the ideas and hopes collected here will contribute to the synodalization of the Church, to which Pope Francis has called not only selected bishops, but the whole people of God.

October 2021 Paul M Zulehner

Peter Neuner

Anna Hennersperger

Peter Neuner: Introduction

The present volume on synodality owes itself to a synodal process. It does not constitute documentation of a scientific conference that would have been planned by an organizing committee. The starting point was an open question to experts about what they hope or expect from the papal initiative. It is a characteristic of synodality that at the beginning there is not a ready-made plan to be underpinned by carefully selected statements. It is about taking cognizance of what is perhaps a broad diversity, from which decisions must be made. The goal is not predetermined, the result is not certain from the beginning, but can only emerge as the process progresses. Thus, no directing hand directed the creation of this volume. Rather, the starting point was the willingness to listen to what is hoped for, expected or feared.

Synodality is one of the terms that are variously referred to in American theology as "seminal locutions": terms that are introduced into the discussion with a largely open meaning and whose content only becomes increasingly concrete in the course of their official and theological use. Pope Francis underlined the openness of the term by specifying the synodal process with the terms community, participation and mission. They form the framework within which the contributions presented here move. This framework is very broad and the ideas and expectations that are attached to the Pope's initiative are correspondingly diverse.

The contributions in this volume have been arranged on the basis of these aspects of synodality prescribed by Pope Francis. The result is not a historical or systematic treatise on the problem of the synodality of the church, but a wide-ranging panopticon in which individual aspects are taken up and presented as examples for the topic raised. Even if most authors argue from a theological university background, their contributions come from very different milieus: They come from countries with clearly different religious backgrounds, come from different denominational backgrounds, argue from different professional competences. Despite all the diversity, it is evident that most of the contributions consistently address problems that turn out to be central. Biblical statements, historical examples, fundamental decisions of Vatican II, challenges of modern culture and society, visions of Pope Francis are addressed in most of the contributions. Nevertheless, it has proven to be possible and useful to structure the contributions in an overall structure. If they are each subsumed under a certain point of view in this volume, this does not mean that they should be restricted to this point of view. They are consistently fruitful for other aspects as well, precisely because these are examined under different conditions. This resulted in the structure of this volume.

Synodality as understood by Pope Francis

The starting point for the explanations is a contribution about the vision that Pope Francis connects with the concept of synodality as the way of the church in the 21st century. Andreas Batlogg, longtime editor-in-chief of the Jesuit magazine "Stimmen der Zeit", explains that the Pope is concerned with a church that is on the way together (syn-odos), in which everyone shares responsibility and works together to find solutions to the challenges seek our time. However, this introductory contribution also makes it clear that for the pope synodality does not simply mean parliamentarianism. He hopes that everyone will be willing to listen to each other and that a culture of shared decision-making will emerge. For the Pope, synodality is a spiritual process, not a struggle for majorities. It should also not be overlooked that the initiation of a synodal process would not have been possible without the personal commitment of the Pope. So his vision presupposes and implies authority.

Historical Examples of Synodality in the Church

As unusual as this vision may be in a church that is still largely hierarchical, it is not new, but can be based on many examples in its history. A second section of the book includes biblical and historical contributions in which exemplary behavior is presented that can be used today for the process initiated by the Pope.

At the beginning there is, how could it be otherwise, a biblical reflection that opens up aspects to which synodal forms of behavior can be connected. Ansgar Moenikes depicts how in the Old Testament the king is exhorted not to "lift up his heart above his brethren" (Deuteronomy 17:20), for no man shall rule over another after YHWH frees his people from oppression and slavery Has. According to the New Testament testimony, Jesus took up this message and commanded his disciples not to strive for the first places and not to argue about who was first among them. He himself exemplified the form of brotherly rule he proclaimed. His example forms the framework for a church that, following him, “should become a truly fraternal and synodal community” (p. 25). Not only the New Testament models of church are based on this example, despite all the plurality in detail, but also the repeated attempts by saints in the course of church history to follow Jesus, or, as is characteristic of reform movements, to return to this first love and to overcome forms of domination alien to the message of Jesus.

The biblical picture of an egalitarian people of God was overlaid in the early church and increasingly throughout its history by clerical and hierarchical structures in which non-clergy were devalued as "lay people", excluded from decision-making and committed to obedience to ecclesiastical authorities. Nevertheless, as Michel Hauber's contribution shows, influential lay people at least had a decisive influence on church decisions well into the high Middle Ages, including the major synods that formulated the faith and became binding for the church as ecumenical councils and their message. From Nicaea to Chalcedon and Constance lay faithful saved the unity of the Church. Given these facts, there can be no dogmatically binding reason why lay people should not actively participate in synodal processes at all levels of the church, without them a synodal church would be cut in half. The author regards the failure of the lay presence at the last three councils as a defect that should be remedied.

Suggestions for synodality can be found in the tradition of the religious orders. In a wealth of texts from the early church and advice from the founders of orders, Michael Plattig outlines the importance of obedience, which is not only etymologically but also factually based on listening. It is important to listen to God, right synodality means to listen to God together. The silence practiced in many religious orders also serves this goal, so that his word is not drowned out by nagging criticism and many words, but can also be heard in silent work and meditation. According to the wisdom of the religious fathers and mothers, listening must be accompanied by action, because "attentiveness to those who suffer and are marginalized determines belonging to Christ" (57). These spiritual experiences should become fruitful today as a basic attitude for synodal processes.

Anselm Grün, Benedictine and author of numerous spiritual publications, unfolds his reflections on the basis of chapter three of the Rule of Benedict entitled "The Calling of the Brothers to the Council". In this contribution, too, the focus is on the message of hearing. What the monk father writes about the brothers listening to each other and the abbot listening to what the brothers say and to what God wants to say through the brothers can also be a standard for the way in which a synod of bishops, listening to one another and listening to God's will, seeks what is salutary for the Church and for Christians and what does justice to people and their needs. Because according to the rule of Benedict, it is not only the brothers who have to listen to the abbot, but also the latter to the brothers. Everyone has the right to express their views and the abbot should listen to everyone. It is quite possible that the Spirit of God is speaking in the word of the youngest and least experienced brother. Listening is a mutual event, it is the prerequisite for every demand for obedience. Blind obedience is alien to the rule of monks, obedience is based on freedom. It is no coincidence that the early Christian order rules had an impact on the development of modern democratic structures in many ways. Shouldn't its principles also be made fruitful for the synodality of the Church? The directive to listen to those least experienced in the spiritual life leads the author to demand that synods should also listen “to the philosophers and sociologists, to psychologists and futurologists... whether they believe or not... And we should listen to the younger people” (64).

Community and sensus fidelium in Vatican II

Pope Francis names communion and participation as aspects of synodality. As was to be expected, many of the contributions focused primarily on the new approach of Vatican II and placed the synodal structures, which the Council not only practiced but also reflected upon, at the center of their considerations. The church is catholic only as communion. The contributions represent fundamental theological reflections on learning processes in faith in the face of profound experiences of crisis. By resorting to the doctrine of the loci theologici, as developed by Melchior Cano in the context of the Council of Trent, forms of knowledge and argumentation are developed that theology has in common with other disciplines. In addition to the loci proprii, the forms of religious knowledge that are central to the church and its message and recorded with authority, there are the loci alieni that the church shares with other disciplines. They are brought into the discussion primarily by non-officials and must be heard. This approach justifies and requires the participation of all members of the church without adopting the majority principle of parliamentary systems.

Margit Eckholt's contribution sees a decisive impetus for synodality in the words of Vatican II about the sensus fidei or the sensus fidelium. With him, the conciliar ecclesiology of the people of God opens up to a theological epistemology in which the voices of the "lay people" are also heard, because they are indispensable for the right form of the church and its message. This approach can overcome the increasingly oppressive “exculturation” of the church from modern society. It is about becoming a subject for the “laypersons” who could become a “seismograph” for upheavals and breaks in the Christian faith (91). Gender justice (92) appears as a touchstone for the inculturation capacity of the church in the modern world and at the same time for the return to Jesus' message of the kingdom of God, which is still by no means realized in the church today and leads to considerable frustration.

Widespread dissatisfaction with the situation in the church today

Many contributions show a dissatisfaction with the current situation of the church, in which there is much talk about the people of God, but in practice hardly any synodal community structures have been established. A contribution by the English theologian O'Loughlin makes this clear using the example of the liturgy. It is at the center of Christian life. But only genuine communities can authentically reflect the nature of the Church” (105). This contribution pleads for manageable worship communities whose members know each other and have equal rights as brothers and sisters. According to this idea, instead of a priest set apart by ordination, there should be a "multiplicity of interacting, officially appointed ministries" (111). The article emphatically shows how big the difference is between a community that is shaped by the idea of communion and our Sunday services. The author cannot hide his skepticism as to whether the Church is ready to put into practice the vision he has formulated. He is convinced that not only the hierarchy, but also most of the believers at the grassroots would prefer to stick to traditional customs, even if they do not meet the demand for synodality.

It is by no means an American problem alone when Karin Heller points out with great emphasis that the position of women will prove to be “the key to the paradigm shift initiated by Pope Francis from a monarchically structured to a synodal church” (119). Within the division of the church into clerics and "lay people" women are once again devalued and exculturated from the communio of God's people. Even all the fine words about their meaning and isolated symbolic acts cannot hide the fact that women “bear most of all the difficult and adverse situations of the Church”. The success or failure of the synodal process will ultimately depend on whether this situation, which is incompatible with the modern world, can be overcome or at least clearly limited, or whether the church is increasingly seen as a foreign body in it and rejected.

In the context of skeptical and critical contributions, it must also be pointed out that some theologians and non-theologians were not willing to work on this publication because they had given up hope for church reforms. Professors at theological faculties have also written that they no longer expect anything from the synod announced by the Pope. The many diocesan and supra-diocesan synods that have been held at great expense in the past few decades have hardly had any consequences for the practice of the Church and, above all, have led to widespread disappointment. In the face of these discouraging memories, there is a widespread belief that the reforms sorely awaited by the vast majority of Catholics will not happen again. After all, synods are subject to narrow canon law and the hierarchy knows how to use them to maintain their rule and prevent reforms. The concern is that even the pope will not be able to assert himself against this resistance, even if he wanted to. This thesis is exacerbated again in the accusation that the whole project is just a calculated deception. In the face of widespread dissatisfaction, the hierarchy simply wants to create a playground for would-be reformers to pitch their ideas under the illusion of actually making a difference. You have every opportunity to prevent this.

Openings to synodality and their limits

In contrast to those voices who have given up hope for reform, most contributions see synods and synodal processes as a way forward for the church. Concrete experiences have not only been frustrating, but also encouraging in many cases, especially after Pope Francis seems to have set the course again. Paulo Suess, theologian from Brazil and long-time general secretary of the Brazilian Indigenous Mission Council, who attended the 2019 Amazon Synod, can report first-hand that the thoroughly prepared working document was already aimed at "opening ways for a prophetic church within ( against the continuation of pastoral-colonial conditions) and outwards (in prophetic resistance to the destruction of man and nature)". In the search for ways of ecological and ecclesiastical decolonization, the inhabitants of Amazonia themselves participated. An "Epistemology of the South" is "an invitation to act together in the face of eco-social and pastoral challenges". (133) The author is convinced "that Pope Francis wanted to paradigmatically spell out his 'Project Church' in the Amazon region". In his post-synodal exhortation he made the final document of the synod his own, even if, to the disappointment of many, he did not immediately put into practice the specific expectations regarding the ordination of women and viri probati.

Also from South America comes the contribution of Kasper Mariusz Kaprón, who, in the face of the dramatic shortage of priests, as a result of which “people are deprived of access to the sacraments” (143), represents an understanding of the people of God who become the subject of the sacraments, especially the Lord’s Supper got to. The Church celebrates the Lord's Supper as a sacrament of the unity of man with God and with one another. Ministry and hierarchy are ministries within the people of God, whose members are all equal and who share in common the prophetic, royal, and priestly ministry entrusted to the church as a whole. Therefore, in extreme cases, which are more the rule than the exception in South America, the possibility could and should be opened up to celebrate the sacraments without the presence of an ordained priest.

Synodality is not limited to synods in the strict sense of the word, it should become a structural principle of the church. Christian Bauer sees a model in the practice of mediation that could prove itself in this process. He also recognizes a growing tribalization in the church, which has become a fragmented society. Practices have been developed in mediation on how to deal positively with controversies and how these can often, but by no means always and automatically, be transformed into productive cooperation. They can help in a synodal church to maintain unity and live fruitfully with controversy

Ms Findl-Ludescher reports on the cooperation in this institution, which is understood as a permanent synod, from her experiences as long-standing chairwoman of the Austrian Pastoral Commission. She emphasizes that, despite some disappointments and frustrations, not only pragmatic cooperation but real participation became possible (164). In many cases, the path to be taken was not predetermined, but only emerged when we walked together, i.e. in the synodal process itself. Openness, serenity and benevolence appear to be prerequisites for the synodal church. Synodality is not limited to a one-off event, it is the basic structure of church life in a complex unity.

From her own experience, Anna Hennersperger reports on the initiatives in the creation of a pastoral plan in the diocese of Passau immediately before the turn of the century, in which all elements of a synodal event were practiced and combined into a methodically consistent whole. However, the author cannot hide the fact that curial interventions have largely destroyed this plan. But with Pope Francis, the general church climate has changed. This gives hope that a new kairos will open up for the initiative, which twenty years earlier could not be put into practice, but which again is proving to be of exemplary relevance.

Thomas Sternberg, President of the Central Committee of German Catholics and, together with the Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, President of the Synodal Path in Germany, shows how the alarm at the cases of sexualized abuse, the criticism of clericalism, an ever-increasing shortage of priests and conflicts about the position of women in the church have led to the bishops' conference and representatives of the laity looking together for binding ways of finding viable and forward-looking answers to these challenges and of countering the massive loss of trust that the church is currently suffering. The forms of synodal cooperation developed within this framework by bishops, priests and lay people in the willingness to listen to one another and also to think about courageous steps are attracting worldwide attention and could become exemplary for the synodal process that Pope Francis will conduct in October 2021 in preparation for the Synod of Bishops in autumn 2023.

Openings in ecumenism

In his votes for synodality, Pope Francis repeatedly referred to ecumenism. The Christian churches have developed a variety of models of synods that can offer suggestions for developing the synodality of the Catholic Church, even if they cannot simply be adopted. In addition, synodality extends beyond the realm of Roman Catholicism. The Church is in dialogue with many churches and ecclesial communities that serve to formulate and make fruitful the Christian message in today's world. The upcoming synod of bishops should not fall behind the practice of Vatican II, in which the official observers of the Christian churches made important suggestions.

From a French perspective, Ms. Hazael-Massieux formulates an image of the Church that is committed to the idea of unity in diversity. Unity does not appear primarily as an organizational-institutional phenomenon, but as a spiritual event that takes place in common life, prayer, reading of the Holy Scriptures, celebrations and in the discovery of the richness of the other. In this context, synodality appears primarily as a matter for small and manageable groups. But these are called upon to overcome officially still established boundaries and also to practice fellowship in the celebration of the sacraments.

The contribution by Bernd Oberdorfer outlines the emergence of synodal forms of church government in German Lutheranism and, using the example of the Bavarian state church, describes how the church-governing organs (above all state synod and state bishop) “in a collaborative community and mutual responsibility” jointly represent the unity and identity of the church . The equal participation of ordained and non-ordained members is based on the Reformation doctrine of the "universal priesthood of all baptized" and aims for the most comprehensive possible participation. Synodality strives to find consensus, but does not exclude authority (e.g. of the regional bishop). Experience shows that it helps to live in mutual respect and to accept minorities, even with controversial positions.

Orthodoxy sees itself as "the Church of the Synods - from the Synod of the Apostles in Jerusalem to the present day". Ioan Moga shows that this ideal has its limits in practice. Within the autocephalous churches there are clear regulations for the composition and working methods of the synods, which, however, differ significantly between the independent churches. The members of the synods are almost exclusively the bishops, the participation of priests or even of "lay people" is little developed. The problems that the pan-Orthodox synod in Crete had to contend with in 2016 shows the difficulty of finding consensus among churches living in very different social conditions. As a consequence, the question is discussed whether an authority that exceeds that of the Patriarch of Constantinople as primus inter pares is necessary for the success of synodality.

In his plea for a synodal church, Pope Francis referred to the example of many Christian churches and emphasized that synodality must also change the office of the pope. Peter Neuner's contribution provides an overview of synodal structures in many Christian churches and shows that the view of the papacy as a service to unity, as developed in ecumenical dialogues and in Catholic theology, could represent a way to overcome the divisions of Christianity. In contrast to a dominant tendency in church officials to interpret the papal dogmas of Vatican I in the sense of traditional absolutism, an office of universal unity appears to be significant for the unity and freedom of mankind and for the global community of people, especially in a situation of increasing cultural differentiation Christians. The article pleads for making fruitful in the Synod of Bishops the view of the papacy as a service to unity in the practice and in the legal order of the church.

opening to the world

With this comprehensive view of synodality, the horizon is opened for contributions that connect to the aspect of mission formulated by Pope Francis. This happens from a double point of view: both how a synodally structured church can live and proclaim its message credibly in the 21st century and not appear as a foreign body from the outset, and what the church can learn from the achievements of modernity in society, economy and politics . Here synodality finds its fullest dimension.

Challenged by a largely secularized society, Czech pastoral theologist Michal Opatrny outlines the responsibility of the church as a whole and of each individual Christian to the world. The world appears not only as the field of pastoral activity, but also as a source of inspiration and help for theology and the church. Social work and community work are based on the signs of the times and can thus become an inspiration for church and theology. They can be fruitful for finding consensus in the Christian community and inspire the parishes to get involved locally.

From a situation that is comparable to religion and church, which he finds in Magdeburg, Thomas Pogoda develops the basic lines of a philosophy of the other, of the foreign, which precisely in its foreignness becomes a call for identity and self-discovery. He advocates not excluding the non-denominational Other, who in some societies has become the norm for the neighbor, from the process of synodalization. He is not only the addressee of missionary activities, but also subject and partner in the search for the signs of the times. Biblical examples show how, as early as the time of the New Testament, the constituting church opened up to the foreign and thereby found its identity.

Approaches to a legal codification of synodality

All of the contributions in the book contain more or less concrete suggestions as to how synodality can develop in the Church and how the synodal process and the synod of bishops that conclude it can take on a form that is appropriate to the knowledge gained. In a concluding part, concrete possibilities for a synodal church are presented.

Hans Maier, longtime Bavarian Minister of Education and President of the Central Committee of German Catholics, asks what the church can learn from the democratic state. In the modern encounter between church and state, the author pays tribute to the cautious perception of democratic orders by the 20th-century popes and the unconditional recognition of religious freedom in the Second Vatican Council. In addition, however, deficits are also visible, such as the lack of theological recognition of the human rights tradition as a whole, and the establishment of a form of government in which not only the presidents of the individual departments are accountable to the pope, but also to each other, i.e. collectively responsible for the management of the carry church. The pope should also be included in such a “cabinet” and thus freed from his “splendid isolation”. Because the top can never rule alone, there needs to be a broad integration into the faith consciousness of the believers.

From the point of view of a lawyer, Herbert Franz Köck outlines the "prerequisites for a synodality of the Catholic Church. In doing so, he pleads for the willingness to observe the time-related nature of the respective teaching, including the traditional one, and to derive from this the obligation to interpret it for the people of our time while continuously incorporating the knowledge. The article places particular emphasis on the reception of non-theological sciences, in particular the natural sciences and the social sciences. He criticizes the traditional justification of papal primacy, which he accuses of being a circular argument, but emphasizes that the papacy has developed in the history of the church and can therefore be recognized as willed by God. But precisely for this reason it is located within the framework of the church and does not stand above it. The article shows that the deficits of church legal order are that human rights are not generally recognized, that there is no separation of powers and that there are no prerequisites for an appropriate church constitution. He comes to the conclusion: "As long as the church does not give up its absolutist system of rule, no real synodality is possible" (275).

From a business point of view, Alfons Maria Schmidt formulates comments on synodality in the Catholic world church. He assumes that all believers are called through baptism and confirmation to participate in building up the church. Because the church is not immune to controversy and human imperfection, methods that are naturally practiced in business can also be used within its framework. This requires a culture of togetherness, of listening to one another, which overcomes late absolutist patterns of thought and action. The different gifts and experiences of its members are necessary for the whole to unfold. According to the author, this also applies to the relationship between the Christian churches.

In fact, all contributions are aimed at structural reforms of the church, which must then also be reflected in its legal system. From the point of view of canon law, Wilhelm Rees presents possibilities for the further development of existing structures of the church. A historical review shows that synodal structures were pushed back more and more. Following Vatican II, the Code (1983) issued a variety of provisions for synodal forms at all levels: from the parish, through the deaneries and dioceses, the ecclesiastical provinces to the universal Church. But even if synodality, as the article describes and documents in detail, is of importance at all levels of the church in the current law, it is, as the author notes, “urgently expandable. At the level of the Church as a whole, there is a demand for the bishops and thus the college of bishops to be more closely involved in the leadership, with the involvement of the faithful, ie clergy and laity”. This applies analogously to all levels of the church.

A view

In view of some skeptical and critical voices, which conclude from the many disappointments with approaches to synodal structures that nothing can come of the project initiated by Pope Francis, Myriam Wijlens' vote deserves special attention. Ms. Wijlens is Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Erfurt and Consultor of the Synod of Bishops 2021-2013. As such, she belongs to the inner circle of those who prepare and accompany the synodal process. Your contribution impressively proves that many of the concerns formulated in this volume are also being considered in the preparations for the Synod of Bishops. In addition, her contribution outlines ways in which new reflections can also be fruitful for the structure and legal order of the church. According to the tenor of this essay, canon law opens up significantly more possibilities and gives freedoms that a hierarchy, not least aimed at maintaining power, has not seen or used up to now. The fact that Ms. Wijlens is involved in the ecumenical work through her interest and in an official capacity gives hope that hoped-for and possible new reflections through the synodal process will also be conducive to the unification of Christianity. The outlook conveys confidence.

The contributions summarized in this volume show that expectations of the synodal process are very high. In fact, church practice is still primarily shaped by the papal dogmas of Vatican I, which are directed against modern intellectual developments and have rejected the ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity as incompatible with Catholic thinking. Notions of political absolutism have dominated, the church widely appearing as a pyramid in which all authority emanates from the pope, who delegates some powers to the bishops, who in turn delegate some to the priests. The "laymen" were restricted to hearing and obeying. Certainly Vatican II tried to respond to the call of Pope John XXIII. after an aggiornamento, to follow a evangelization of the church and to realize the true equality of all believers, but the council also repeated the papal dogmas of Vatican I almost verbatim and they probably shaped the post-conciliar church more than the idea of communion, and that right through to the 1983 Code.

The articles in this volume show that, according to widespread belief, cosmetic corrections are no longer sufficient; together with wordy consolations, they have only led to disappointment. Major reforms are pending and possible. The argument that the church has no authority to do this or that is always to be viewed with great skepticism. The considerations presented here show that the church can and can do many things that it is not currently practicing. History, the challenges of the times and last but not least the ecumenical commitment prove this. Even Pope Pius XII, who was certainly not willing to reform. has stated in connection with the theology of ordination "that the church can also change and abolish what it has established" (DH 3858). The scope that opens up here is considerable.

Of course, no one will expect that all the expectations formulated in this volume will be fulfilled in the synodal process and in the synod of bishops that concludes it. Not all the wishes presented are compatible with one another. But a dynamic could unfold in which, beyond the synod as an event, the church actually becomes a synodal entity. Perhaps the synodal process will become a pre-conciliar event, paving the way for a Council that will face with renewed confidence the great problems that confront the Church and Christianity today.

Synodality as understood by Pope Francis

Andreas Batlogg: Pope Francis and his vision: synodality as the way of the church in the 21st century

Andreas R. Batlogg SJ, Mag. theol., born 1962, city pastor at the Jesuit Church of St. Michael in Munich, publicist.

Summary: From the first hour of his pontificate, Pope Francis drew attention to the topic of synodality: walking together as a church. Sharing responsibility and working out joint solutions is a matter close to his heart, as the world synods of bishops have shown since 2014. At the same time, Francis emphasizes that synodality does not mean parliamentarianism. It's about a new way of listening, from which a new culture of shared decision-making can emerge. This is his vision of the church in the 21st century.

In March 2021, he answered evasively to questions - which was attributed to the imponderables of the global corona pandemic and the associated travel restrictions - the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, the Maltese Curia Cardinal Mario Grech, was surprised in May 2021 when asked how things were with the Preparations for the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the subject of synodality in October 2022 stand, with the announcement that Pope Francis has postponed them by one year, to October 2023 - because they will be preceded by a two-year synodal process. The Pope, it was then said in press reports, is sending the Church on a two-year “synodal path”.

Nobody had expected that. Rather, the unspoken question was in the room: Will Francis, who will be 85 in December 2021, even experience the Synod of Bishops in autumn 2022? If not, then what? And now also in 2023! Already written off by many, at least since the child protection summit in the Vatican in February 2019, which was overloaded with expectations, some "appreciations" have read like obituaries for some time - to someone who convinces with impressive gestures, pithy sayings and comparisons and a simple lifestyle. But all of this is interpreted more as a "change of style" - without perspectives on content and sustainable reforms. In terms of content, the first pope from Latin America announced more than he did. He remains attached to old structures, is a prisoner of the curia and fails due to resistance within the church. Words of power (which certainly did exist in the nine, soon to be ten years of the pontificate) are not so much the Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio's business as persuasion. And also, a typical Jesuit cliché: this pope is erratic, largely resistant to advice and allergic to structures. There are numerous examples of the fact that Francis can intervene in an authoritarian manner, pull certain personal details and make decisions alone, sometimes take care of the smallest details, literally fall into the house with telephone calls or lightning visits. They mostly stick in the minds of his "admirers," while his "despisers" accuse him of not showing leadership, letting things slide, and rushing from one gag to the next.

For many observers, including those who are well-disposed towards him, the question remains: Is something structurally changing in the Catholic Church? Are hierarchical, clerical (male) structures breaking up? Is the “sensus fidelium” being taken seriously at all levels? Are the “people of God” who are turning away en masse (whether by defecting or by tacit exodus) from the hierarchical Church in the face of the abuse scandal in our part of the world, really and effectively involved? Or just for appearances? The Synodal Path initiated in Germany in the spring of 2019 is also subject to this verdict and was moaned and whimpered before it even began.

Prelude: synodality – a Franciscan catchphrase. Or: A container term makes a career

"Synodality" now seems less like the all-solving magic word than as a catchphrase and passe-partout. It has become a container concept: One would like to believe that a different decision-making culture is being developed, but ... The pastoral theologian Jan Loffeld points out: "It is fatal when synodality becomes a stuffing goose for long-cherished church dreams or nightmares and so every r actually connects something else with the term in terms of content. For some, synodality then means a 'democratic church', for others the path of spiritual decision-making through discernment, for still others a 'Protestant church parliament'.” ⁴Looking at the Catholic Church in the Netherlands, whose last theological spring coincided with that of Rome Bishop appointments and a separate synod of bishops under the personal presidency of Pope John Paul II (1980) and the so-called Dutch Catechism (1966) led to a theological ice age and an unprecedented de-churching, he warns against that "unclear terms, non-transparent preliminary decisions and communication methods"⁵ lead to massive polarization that blocks every process, which also has to do with the fact that "expectation management" has not been clarified.⁶

I never tire of emphasizing again and again – even if I am suspected of using (my) mantra: Synodal processes take time! ⁷Both options have advantages and disadvantages: It is an option to authoritatively decree them from above. "The alternative to this," according to my assessment made with Paul M. Zulehner, "is to agree on reforms in broad consultation processes."⁸

In spite of all the “prophets of misfortune”, staying power has meanwhile also become an expression of confidence in my faith: As a Christian and a Jesuit, I am an optimist. I believe that God is still active in this world and in the churches today - and prevails. And here synodality plays an eminent role. With this contribution I provide a small chronology: What does synodality mean for Pope Francis? ⁹What does he trust her, what does he expect of her – and thus of us? What potential, what chances lie in a more and more synodal church?

Common path - common responsibility - common search for solutions

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn summed up the Vatican Child Protection Summit in an interview with Vatican News on February 22, 2019: "For me, this meeting, to which the Pope invited all the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences, is above all an experience of synodality. ¹⁰" The reason the Pope called bishops together was to ensure that work continued at the level of the local church: "In order to achieve a common awareness," said the Archbishop of Vienna, "but also to listen to one another and to think together about the possibilities to find a common path to a better future in which something like this won't happen again. For me, this is a very strong experience of synodality, that is, of a common path, common responsibility and the common search for solutions.”¹¹

Someone understood! Understood what the Pope wants. Understood what "the hour has come". Understood that the church that wants to have a future can only be shaped together - by listening to one another. The German Bishops' Conference (DBK) also noticed three weeks after the abuse summit: bishops alone cannot (any longer) solve the pending, pressing questions, it is only possible together - hence the invitation to the Central Committee of German Catholics (Zdk), together with to embark on a "synodal path" with the Bishops' Conference: without taboos, without censorship, with an open mind, of course, in the knowledge that there can be no special national paths in questions that can only be solved by the universal Church - by the Pope or at a Council. Some probably suspected that it was also about reducing power: about relinquishing control – and later there were doubts or an unconcealed distance from the project. Walking together, taking on and supporting responsibility together – for better or for worse – looking for solutions together: this is where the contours of a synodal church emerge. It's a huge opportunity!

“Initiate Processes”

In the ninth year of the pontificate (2021/22) - not least in view of the advanced age of the pope - the question is more urgent than before: How are the many suggestions and impulses from Francis reflected in the organizational culture and in the organizational structure of the church? Is it, as many think, with nice announcements? Is thinking along, is participation really desired? Anyone who does not confuse ordination with subordination, and who takes the organizational dogma “participation creates identification” seriously, cannot avoid perceiving and appreciating the know-how and experience of those “from below” at the grassroots level as the locus theologicus. But you have to want to do that - and here there is still an enormous need for learning in the church, in which much was decreed according to the top-down method for a long time.

That it can be frightening to subject "habits," "styles," "timetables," "languages," even "any ecclesial structure" to critical, serious scrutiny as to whether they really serve the evangelization of today's world or just "the Self-preservation”, as Francis stated in his Apostolic Exhortation “Evangelii gaudium” (cf. EG 27) of November 2013, is obvious. In the fourth chapter ("The social dimension of evangelization") of his program, one finds the much-quoted sentence "Time is worth more than space." (EG 222) It is unequivocally explained: "This principle allows us to work long-term without being obsessed with getting instant results. It helps us to bear with patience difficult and adverse situations or to accept changes in our intentions that the dynamics of reality impose on us. (...) Prioritizing space means deluding yourself that you have solved everything in the present and that you want to take possession of all the spaces of power and self-affirmation. This freezes the processes. They claim to be able to stop them. Prioritizing time means being concerned with initiating processes rather than owning spaces. Time determines the spaces, makes them bright and transforms them into links in a constantly expanding chain, without step backwards. It is about promoting actions that generate new dynamics in society and involve people and groups who push them forward so that they bear fruit in important historical events. This should be done without fear, but with clear convictions and determination." (EG 223)

The Legacy of Vatican II: Synodality

The instrument that Pope Francis relies on and that he wants to make much more use of is the synod. His vision: a much more intensively synodal working (and structured) church in the future. Francis also relies on the experience, knowledge and reflection of bishops worldwide. He wants to use their potential much more than has been the case so far.

If the side note in his first, long interview with Antonio Spadaro from the Civiltà Cattolica in August 2013 was still a nice gesture towards the Orthodox Church, the comments – and events – have since increased massively, showing that the subject synodality is not a pope's whim, a PR gimmick or an ecclesiological placebo. In his question, Spadaro recalled his sermon when the pallia were handed over to 34 archbishops on June 29, 2013, just a few weeks before the interview. With reference to the last Council, Francis spoke of the vocation of the Bishop of Rome to strengthen unity with the bishops. In concrete terms, this means: “Strengthening in unity: the synod of bishops in accordance with the primacy. We must walk this path of synodality, we must grow in harmony with the ministry of the primacy. (...) In the Church, diversity, which is a great richness, is always united in accordance with unity, like a great mosaic, in which all the stones contribute to form the one great image of God. And this must urge ever to overcome any conflict that wounds the body of the Church. One in diversity: There is no other Catholic way for us to become one. This is the way of Jesus! "¹²

Francis replied to Spadaro: “One must go together: people, bishops, pope. Synodality must be lived on different levels.” ¹³There followed immediately a reference to a post-conciliar deficient development that did not discredit the instrument suggested by the Council in and of itself, but discredited its efficiency: “Perhaps it is time to change the method of the synod, because the current one seems static to me. This can then also have an ecumenical value - especially with our orthodox brothers. From them one can learn even more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The effort of common reflection, of looking at how the Church was governed in the first centuries before the split between East and West, will bear fruit at the right time.”¹⁴

“Living synodality”, “learning the tradition of synodality”, “changing the synod method”: the Pope has been working on this consistently since 2013! And it was by no means a "pious wish"! There is a reference to this in “Evangelii gaudium”: “In dialogue with the Orthodox brothers, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn something more about the importance of episcopal collegiality and about their experience of synodality. Through an exchange of gifts, the Spirit can lead us more and more towards truth and good.” (EG 246) A statement that does not relativize the ministry of Peter, as some think, is just as important, but ties it to the college of bishops: “I also believe not that one should expect from the papal magisterium a definitive or complete statement on all questions affecting the Church and the world. It is not appropriate for the Pope to replace local bishops in evaluating all the issues that arise in their areas. In this sense, I feel the need to proceed in a wholesome 'decentralization'.” (EG 16)

The fact that Francis is serious about this is shown by his previous "synod balance sheet": 2014/15 there was a family synod, 2018 a youth synod, 2019 an Amazon synod - and now (2023) a bishops' synod on the subject of synodality itself. In January 2021 Francis called for this Italian Bishops' Conference to start a synodal path in which every diocese and every community should get involved. He doesn't give up! Other countries, including Austria, have meanwhile gotten involved in synodal processes - which by no means, as augurs believe, has pulled the tooth out of the German synodal path, which is initially causally related to the startling findings that the MHG study uncovered promoted.

An anniversary in 2015 – and a papal program announcement

On October 17, 2015, in the middle of the Family Synod, a ceremony was held in the assembly hall of the Synod Hall to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops. In his programmatic address, Pope Francis recalled from the outset that “from the very beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome” it was his intention “to enhance the Synod, which is one of the most precious legacies of the last Council session ”. Recalling his three most recent predecessors, who each wanted to increase the efficiency of this instrument in their own way, he said: “We must continue on this path. The world in which we live, and which we are called to love and serve in all its contradictions, demands of the Church an increase in her collaboration in all areas of her mission. This path of synodality is precisely what God expects from the Church of the third millennium.”¹⁵ If that's not an announcement!

Francis is well aware of the difficulties: “What the Lord asks of us is in a way already contained in the word 'synod'. Moving forward together – lay people, pastors and the Bishop of Rome – is a concept that is easy to put into words, but not so easy to implement.” A “synodal church,” the pope continued, “is a church of listening , aware that listening is 'more than hearing'. It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn: the faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome - each listening to one another and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the 'Spirit of truth' (Jn 14 :17) to discern what he 'says to the churches' (cf. Rev 2:7).”

For Francis it is clear: “The Synod of Bishops is the gathering point of this dynamic of listening cultivated at all levels of the life of the Church. The synodal path begins by listening to the people (...). The path of the synod continues in listening to the pastors. Through the Synod Fathers, the bishops act as authentic custodians, interpreters and witnesses of the faith of the whole Church, knowing how to distinguish it from the often changing currents of public opinion. (...) And finally, the synodal journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, called to speak as 'pastor and teacher of all Christians': not starting from his personal convictions, but as the supreme witness of the fides totius ecclesiae [of the faith of the whole Church]. And again: everything at a synod always takes place “cum Petro et sub Petro”.

I find this passage to be of great theological significance: “Synodality, as a constitutive dimension of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretative framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself. If we realize that 'Church and Synod are synonyms', as St. John Chrysostom says – for the Church is nothing other than the 'moving forward together' of the flock of God along the paths of history towards the encounter with Christ the Lord - then we also understand that in her interior no one can be 'exalted' above the others.”

At that time, Francis addressed three different levels of synodality: realization in the particular churches with their everyday possibilities of implementation; in the ecclesiastical provinces, ecclesiastical regions, particular councils and in the episcopal conferences; and finally in the universal church, in which two things are to be brought together: "episcopal collegiality" and "an entirely synodal church". "The Synod of Bishops," said Francis, "expresses the affective collegiality, which on some occasions can become 'effective', that binds the bishops to one another and to the Pope in the concern for the people of God."

This address was something of a lectio brevis in terms of synodality. Francis hinted that his own office could benefit from a more synodally oriented church: "I am convinced that in a synodal church the exercise of the Petrine primacy can also be better clarified. The Pope does not stand alone above the Church, but as a baptized among the baptized, in the college of bishops as a bishop among the bishops and, as the successor of the Apostle Peter, he is at the same time called to govern the Church of Rome, which is in love presides over all churches.”

At the conclusion of the synod on October 24, 2015, he took up his thoughts again. Again, he responded to tensions that had become evident during the synod: “Throughout this synod, the different opinions freely expressed – and unfortunately sometimes with methods that were not entirely benevolent – have undoubtedly enriched and enlivened the dialogue, creating a vivid picture presented to a church that does not use 'preconceived forms' (...). And - beyond the dogmatic questions precisely defined by the Magisterium of the Church - we have also seen that what seems normal to a bishop of one continent can turn out to be strange, almost scandalous, to the bishop of another continent - almost! -; what is considered a violation of a right in one society may be a self-evident and inviolable norm in another; what is freedom of conscience for some can only mean confusion for others.” It was the nevertheless that mattered: “And without ever succumbing to the danger of relativism, or even that of demonizing others, we have tried to embrace kindness fully and courageously and to join the mercy of God, which exceeds our human calculations and wants nothing else than 'ALL PEOPLE SHALL BE SAVED' (1 Tim, 2:4). In this way we wanted to place this Synod in the context of the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy that the Church is called to live and experience this context vividly.”

Anyone who is used to the style of such speeches could be amazed or had to stumble over a remark: "Dear confreres, the experience of the Synod has also made us understand better that the true defenders of the doctrine are not those who defend the letter, but those who defend the spirit; who do not defend ideas but man; not the formulas, but the gratuitousness of God's love and forgiveness. This in no way means the importance of the formulas - they are necessary! – to belittle the laws and the divine commandments, but to praise the greatness of the true God, who deals with us not according to our merits nor according to our works, but solely according to the infinite generosity of his mercy (...). The first duty of the Church is not to issue condemnations and excommunications, but to proclaim the mercy of God, to call for conversion and to lead all people to the salvation of the Lord”. The Pope's final signal was: "Indeed, closing the Synod means for the Church to really 'move forward together' again to bring to every part of the world, to every diocese, to every community and to every situation the light of the Gospel, to bring the embrace of the Church and the support of the Mercy of God!”

In his speech on the occasion of the Synod Jubilee, the Pope referred to another point, the "sensus fidelium", which comes up in the Conciliar Constitution "Lumen Gentium": "In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium I underlined this again: 'The people of God is holy in accordance with this anointing which makes it 'in credendo' infallible'. And I added: 'Every baptized person, regardless of their position in the Church and the level of education of their faith, is an active agent of evangelization, and it would be inappropriate to think of an evangelization plan implemented by qualified staff, with the rest of the believing people would only be recipients of their actions. ' The sensus fidei [the sense of faith] forbids rigidly distinguishing between Ecclesia docens [the teaching church] and Ecclesia discens [the learning church], because the flock also has its own 'sense' to recognize new ways which the Lord open to the church. It was this conviction that guided me when I desired that the people of God would be consulted in the preparation for the double synod meeting - as is and is usually done with all Lineamenta [preparatory documents]. Of course, a questioning of this kind could in no way suffice to hear the sensus fidei. But how could we have talked about the family without consulting families and hearing their joys and hopes, their sorrows and their fears? Through the responses to the two questionnaires sent to the particular churches, we have had the opportunity to hear at least some of them on issues that concern them directly and about which they have so much to say.”

Cardinal Schönborn "reads" Pope Francis

Because synodality "smells" in some ears of democratization - and the church, as is then recalled, is "not a democracy" but a divine foundation - it is instructive to recall the "accompanying reading" of this papal address: the celebratory lecture , held by Cardinal Schönborn on the same occasion. "All too often we remain in theory, in 'one should' and 'one ought'", Schönborn summed up thoughtfully, only to conclude with a view to the disciples of Jesus ("Please let us take our measurements at the Apostolic Council!"): "And exactly that is the crucial point: Jerusalem was not about deliberation or decision, but discernment of the will and way of God. Of course, fierce discussions, even arguments and intense struggles are part of the synodal path. It was like that in Jerusalem. But the aim of the debates, the aim of the testimonies, is the common discernment of the will of God. Even where voting takes place (as at the end of every synod), it is not about power struggles. party formations (which the media then like to report on), but about this communal process of forming a judgement, as we saw in Jerusalem. In the end, we hope, there will not be a political compromise based on a low common denominator, but rather this 'added value' that the Holy Spirit gives, so that in the end it can be said: 'The Holy Spirit and we have decided ' (Acts 15:28)."¹⁶

With a view to the course of the synod, the upsets that arose and the conflicts that took place there, Schönborn added: “It really needs to be further worked out what 'chiesa sinodale' can mean here. (...) It is, after all, a new term in this form, which the Pope used and used four times in the decisive speech alone. It has not yet been fully discussed what that means in detail. "¹⁷

Synodality - theological

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, also recognized the need for further clarification on the question of the relationship between universal and local churches, in which there had been a sometimes violent, ultimately authoritative dispute between two German curial cardinals years earlier: “Without the local churches cannot be the universal church and vice versa. This is an entanglement and not a pyramid. It's not in everyone's mind, we have to keep working on it. Last but not least, this also affects what the Pope means by 'chiesa sinodale'.”¹⁸

At the level of the bishops' conferences, too, a more synodal church will make changes and adjustments necessary, such as Hermann Josef Pottmeyer's speech at the ceremony "150. Return of the German Bishops' Conference in Fulda on September 28, 2017 in Fulda. The Bochum fundamental theologian emeritus spoke of a "program of the pontificate of Pope Francis". ¹⁹Pottmeyer sees the fact that the pope, in his justification for the development of a more synodally shaped church, specifically refers to his predecessors, who had a reputation for allowing Roman centralism, if not even promoting it, as an attempt to follow the line of Vatican II to set a council. He warned against confusing or mixing up the talk of a synodal church today with "ideas (...) from the political and social sphere (...), namely with democratic decision-making or corporate co-determination". Pottmeyer's reference to a "culture and spirituality of mindfulness" that is to be developed is crucial: "In all questions about possible forms of synodal participation, we should not lose sight of the heart of Pope Francis' synodal concern. This is a culture and spirituality of awareness first of all of the urging of the Holy Spirit in the spirit of the Ignatian Exercises, then towards the brothers and sisters in the faith, in whom the Spirit works in many ways; a culture and spirituality of awareness of the poor and afflicted, where Christ meets us, and of creation, our God-given home. Therefore, a synodal church puts a bottom-up communication on an equal footing with the long-dominant top-down communication. Hearing the criticism of centralism and clericalism no longer just at the grassroots level, but loudly from the top of the church, disturbs quite a few – even at the grassroots level. Because the scolded centralism and clericalism - do they not infrequently serve as an excuse for one's own passivity, since one cannot change anything and achieve anything?"

This last clue also shows that broad participation is at stake. It's no use staring at a pope and thinking he can and will "fix everything." A synodal church thrives on participation. This includes the right “staff”. It is well known that Pope Francis attaches great importance to the selection of bishops. But it is impossible for him to steer and control all of the approximately four hundred new appointments that are made each year. It depends on the input and suggestions of the congregations. He has said on many occasions that he wants bishops who are shepherds and not rulers. It was just a small sign, but typical of him: at the end of the family synod, Francis pressed a small book by the Argentine Jesuit Diego Fares ( "Il profumo del pastore") into the hands of every bishop and other participants when they left the synod hall.²⁰

It is obvious that this pope has confidence in the people of God, that he wants to include them - the survey he requested in 2013/14 for the 2014/15 family synod showed it; that he relies on a synodal church, which thus takes up a tradition that has been neglected in the course of church history. And it's not just about a different, moderate tone of voice (which would be a lot). It's about a different way of being church! The "Synodal Path", which the Church of Germany embarked on in spring 2019 and which was slowed down somewhat due to the corona virus, could help and become a model from which other local churches can learn. The decisive breakthrough in the continued and further development of the Church is that the Pope theologically justifies the principle of synodality, takes it absolutely seriously and also practices it. This is also the opinion of the Münster church historian Hubert Wolf: If the pope introduces synodality and thus subsidiarity ("an export hit") in the church, it is better served than if he brings about a decision on individual questions. Because it is about a fundamental dynamization of the world church and overcomes long-standing stagnation.²¹

It is therefore not insignificant that the International Theological Commission now has its own document, which was published on March 2, 2018, after three years of work, with the approval of Pope Francis. It also took up his statements and impulses from the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops. The title of the extensive document is: "Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church". ²²"The synodal breath and the synodal gait", this document concludes with a quote from Pope Francis from his address to the Italian Bishops' Conference at the opening of the 70th General Assembly on May 22, 2017 in Rome, "on the one hand reveal what we are, and on the other hand the dynamic of the community that inspires our decisions. Only from this perspective can we truly renew our pastoral care and adapt it to the Church's mission in today's world. Only in this way can we face the complexity of today, grateful for the path we have taken and determined to continue it with Parrhesia.”²³

Pauline boldness - to speak as one thinks and really feels - has been repeatedly called and encouraged by Francis throughout the various synods. He tolerates contradiction and abhors the mentality of mouthing the Pope (for whatever reason).

With his Apostolic Constitution "Episcopalis communio" ²⁴of September 18, 2018, Francis normatively implemented all the provisions intended to mark the path of a "constitutive synodal church". It signifies, as Curia Cardinal Michael Czerny notes, "an advance over the Second Vatican Council". Because, according to the Jesuit and under-secretary of the “Department for Migrants and Refugees” in the “Dicastery for Holistic Human Development”: “The Council took a look at the actors in the Church and the service they deserve, but this document is about that about putting the theoretical argumentation into practice in the Church. The emphasis is on listening: every synodal practice 'begins with listening to the people of God', 'continues with listening to the pastors' and culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, called to 'pastor and teacher of all Christians' speak."²⁵

The papal letter also provides a kind of methodological roadmap by dividing synodal practice into three phases: “Preparation, discussion and implementation, and every synod in the current pontificate – on the family (2014/15), on youth (2018), on Amazonia (2019) – has increasingly sought to implement this approach.” ²⁶It is evident that Pope Francis leaves the fine-tuning, the extension of his vision into the various theological disciplines as well as into the structures of the Church, to experts and bishops. But he also leaves no doubt that he has the last word, because synodality must not be confused with parliamentarianism. He sees it as his task to effectively implement the understanding of synodality in the life of the Church, based on the Second Vatican Council and in particular on the Church Constitution "Lumen Gentium" - with far-reaching consequences for the culture of discernment, consultation and decision-making in the Church. Even if the word synodality is not found expressly in the documents of the Council, "it translates and summarizes the ecclesiology of communion of the Council" ²⁷. However, synodality should not take place "in the manner of any kind of collaborative decision-making", it should rather prove to be "a basic feature of church identity: its dimension based on community, its essentially evangelizing mission under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" ²⁸. For Michael Czerny, synodality is therefore “the modus vivendi et operandi in which the church takes into account the co-responsibility of all its members, whose charisms and ministries you value and which you foster the mutual bonds of fraternal love. "²⁹

That this is a learning process – for everyone involved – is actually quite obvious. Synodality is not the general key that unlocks all locked rooms: “For the Pope, the reform of the Church comes 'from within', that is, by virtue of a spiritual process that changes forms and renews structures. Relying on the mystical Ignatian legacy, Francis emphasizes the close connection between inner experience, the language of faith and the renewal of structures. Initiating conversion processes is therefore a fundamental form of leadership and the only real guarantee that the Church as an institution can make its own in order to successfully pursue the common path of following Jesus, precisely in synodality. The intuition is this: not only does the Spirit want us to make good choices, but through the process of synodality he assures us of his assistance in order to achieve the set goal.”³⁰

Many people still have difficulties with this “reading”. It has unmistakably to do with Francis' Ignatian character. Wouldn't it be absurd to think that someone who has been shaped by Ignatian spirituality and theology for 63 years would give up his character - its proven methods and procedures practiced over decades - just because this Jesuit has now been appointed auxiliary bishop and archbishop and finally elected bishop of Rome? Whether you want to believe it or not: “The Pope has neither ready-made ideas to be applied to reality, nor an ideological plan for reform that you just have to stretch out, but he proceeds on the basis of a spirituality, gained through prayer, which translates into dialogue, deliberation, concrete response to situations of vulnerability, suffering and injustice. This is his, as Ignatius would say, 'procedure'. Francis creates the structural conditions for real and open dialogue. He pursues neither ready-made institutional optimizations nor strategies thought up at the green table with the aim of achieving better statistical results.³¹

Learning synodality means: listening to each other!

I have to admit that I have rarely read it better and more precisely than Czerny's assessment and interpretation. ³²And I'm becoming increasingly aware that Francis also disappoints or must disappoint. At first I also did not understand why in his post-synodal letter "Querida Amazonia" (2020) he did not even mention with a single syllable the overwhelming two-thirds vote of the bishops entitled to vote to allow the consecration of "viri probati" at least in the Amazon. As a result, he has lost a lot of sympathy, not only in Latin America, but above all in this country. There is no doubt that this would have sent a signal to the universal church: What is possible in the Amazon can also become reality elsewhere!

Antonio Spadaro opened my eyes in an interview that appeared in the August 2020 issue of Herder Correspondence. Anyone who wants to understand Francis must not get stuck on superficial Jesuit jargon and throw around Ignatian vocabulary: “There are very different ways of making decisions. We are used to rationally and deliberately formulating some ideas, then thinking about them and finally selecting the best ones to put into action. But that is not the way Francis decides. Discernment requires a personal attitude that wants to listen to the Holy Spirit. The focus is not on the person themselves and their abilities, but on the will of God. When Francis has an idea for reform, he doesn't just implement it, he prays about it. He listens to what this idea is doing to him inside - this is typical of the spirituality of St. Ignatius. Even when the pope has a brilliant idea that impresses him, he sits down and waits for spiritual confirmation. He prays about it, and when the idea ends up emptying him instead of empowering him, he realizes it wasn't God's will. In this respect, distinction is definitely a way of deciding things. But a path that does not focus on the prudence of a proposal, but on the spirituality and the will of God.”³³

He based this on two decisions, namely on the post-synodal letter “Amoris laetitia” (1926), which is said to have sparked heated debates, especially within the church, like no other papal letter since “Humanae vitae” (1968) ³⁴, and on “Querida Amazonia “: “When the Pope sees that a decision is ripe for an interior discernment, he also initiates it and makes it his own. This is the case, for example, in "Amoris laetitia". But there are also situations in which he may have noticed that there was a very good discussion about some ideas for reform at the synod, but that the real distinction was still missing. In these cases, he does not choke off anything and excludes nothing. He says: let's keep moving forward, let's keep thinking about it! But he doesn't make a final decision. Precisely because he feels that discernment has not yet matured: the Synod has not yet enabled him to discern and understand God's will in the matter at hand. That's how it was with the Viri probati at the Amazon Synod, for example.” ³⁵That convinced me. And the following hint is also an important pointer for understanding the synod as an instrument in general: “There is an overly functionalistic idea of a synod that is only aimed at achieving goals: we go to the synod to get this or that reform through! This attitude is already ideological. Two parties have traveled to the Amazon Synod. One wanted married priests, the other was against it, and then they quarreled with each other. It was a great discussion. But it wasn't a distinction. That is not enough for the Pope.”³⁶

" Discerning the Spirits" is a process - a spiritual process. Just as synodality is a learning process. The two-year process leading up to the Synod of Bishops is designed to engage and involve the local churches - and from this process the instrumentum laboris for the October 2023 synod will then emerge. Francis has emphasized on many occasions that a synod is not a voting parliament, that it is about listening to one another again, about a different way of dealing with one another, in order to help the Bishop of Rome make decisions.

When his creation as a cardinal became known, Reinhard Marx issued a statement (October 20, 2010). It says: “On its way through history the church is always both: teaching and learning church, proclaiming and listening church! For such a path, it is important to be open to the diverse witness of faith in the people of God, and at the same time to keep alive the spirit of communion, of unanimity. That is the most important task of the Pope and the bishops.” ³⁷Within a short period of time (on June) Francis rejected his offer of resignation as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, which was offered on May 21, 2021 and made public with the Pope’s consent on June 4 – that too as a result of a spiritual discernment. He does not want to give up Marx, either as archbishop of a major diocese or on the synodal path, not to mention his functions in the Vatican. It is remarkable that Marx himself came to the exact opposite in his distinction.³⁸

From event to process

Without exception, everyone in the church has to learn: the pope, bishops, priests, theologians, simple Christians. That's one way. With an open result. Who is ready for this? Who does not? This includes listening to the spirit: real listening, not just an assumed one, because the results have long been certain. This listening must be able to feel into reality. Synodality wants to direct the view from the event to the process. In an interview with Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Radio on May 21, 2021, Curia Cardinal Mario Grech emphasized the importance of honest listening and the participation of everyone: “The first and greatest innovation is the transformation of the Synod from an event to a process. (...) It's not about democracy, populism or anything like that; the Church is the people of God and this people, through Baptism, is an active subject in the life and mission of the Church. (...) The synodal process was not conceived at a desk, but arose out of the path of the Church itself in the post-conciliar period. (...) The entire people of God is involved in the synodal process. The importance attached to God's people is shown in the consultation, which is the founding act of the Synod. I repeat: the consultation of the people of God is already part of the synodal process, it is its first and indispensable act. The discernment depends on this consultation. Those who say that this is not relevant and that it is basically just a preliminary act probably do not understand the meaning of the sensus fidei of God's people. As I have already said, in the early church this was the only case of infallibility recognized in the church: 'the body of believers can not err in the faith'. Here everyone has their place and the opportunity to express themselves. The intention of the General Secretariat is to give everyone the opportunity to make their voices heard; this listening is the true 'pastoral conversion' of the Church. May one fruit of the Synod be that we all understand that decision-making in the Church always starts with listening, because only then can we understand how and where the Spirit wants the Church to lead us. "³⁹

Grech admits: “We must not forget that the moment of discernment is primarily entrusted to the bishops gathered in assembly. Some will say that this is clericalism, that it is the will to keep the church in positions of power. But we must not forget at least two things. The first, repeated again and again by the Pope: that a synodal assembly is not a parliament. Making them work with representation or quota systems risks resurrecting a kind of conciliarism that is already largely buried. Second, the Council says that the bishops are the 'principle and basis of unity in their particular Churches'. Bishops, then, have a discerning role that belongs to them by virtue of the service they exercise on behalf of the Church. In my opinion, the strength of the process lies in the reciprocity between advice and discernment. Therein lies the fruitful principle that can lead to further developments in synodality, in the synodal church and in the synod of bishops. But we can't know that today: the more we walk, the more we learn while walking. I am convinced that the experience of the next synod will tell us a lot about synodality and its implementation.”⁴⁰

The more we walk, the more we learn - while walking. Even when treading the path of synodality: "The synodal process," Grech is convinced, "is the litmus test for this really demanding vision of the church." ⁴¹Visions wait to be implemented and realized.

Historical Examples of Synodality in the Church

Ansgar Moenikes: Synodality . A Biblical Reflection.

Ansgar Moenikes, born in 1959, Professor of Old Testament, Paderborn Faculty of Theology.

Summary: The dominant Old Testament (and consequently New Testament) theology was social-egalitarian. So the king was not to be a ruler, not to perform any governmental tasks (such as legislation, etc.), but rather to be a brother who "was not allowed to lift up his heart above his brothers" (Deuteronomy 17:20), and YHWH was the God of liberation from oppression and slavery , from “Egypt” to which the king was not allowed to bring his people back, ie he was not allowed to oppress them again, rule over them. The Church must be renewed in the spirit of the social-egalitarian theology of the Bible and become a truly fraternal and synodal community, in which no man rules over the other. On this basis, the church must pursue its purpose: implement the biblical message of liberation, that is: liberation of people from oppression and slavery, from need and misery, from "Egypt".

According to the 3rd edition of the Lexicon for Theology and Church, the “synodal principle” is “a participation that in principle encompasses all members of the church […] It is defined as the mutual connection of the diversity of charisms in church life with the offices or services ⁴²in unity in faith and prayer. Synodal church includes a double representation, in which the responsibility for the whole and the representation of the respective base […] are mutually dependent. The indispensable services of the pope, the bishops and the pastors are linked to the co-responsibility of the people of God.” This corresponds to “the exegetical findings and the church tradition: the first Christian centuries naturally practiced synodal forms.”⁴³

This exegetical finding on the New Testament and the view of early post-New Testament church history are to be expanded and substantiated in this contribution with the question of "synodality" in the sense described in the Old Testament, in order to gain a deeper understanding. It is about the question of the relationship of the Israelites - and since the late Old Testament period: all people - to one another, as required by the (prevailing) Old Testament theology, with special consideration of leadership and direction. In order to gain an adequate understanding of this "ethical sociology", it is necessary to start with its historical premises in order to present the Old Testament "theology of society" against this background, with special consideration of leadership and guidance.

The Historical Presuppositions: Israel's Emergence and Early History

According to the biblical accounts of Israel's origin, the God YHWH rescued the emerging greatness of Israel from the slavery of Egypt and led it to the land of the Canaanites, which he gave to Israel as their possession. This story is not entirely fictitious. Research has shown that the people of Israel formed in the late 13th century BC in a lengthy, at least partially revolutionary process, essentially from the lower social strata of Canaanite society; A group of these "underdogs", the Shasu (mainly based in south-eastern Palestine), had been deported to Egypt by the great power of the time, Egypt, primarily to build pyramids, and lived there as slaves, similar to their fellow sufferers who remained in Canaan, including the Hapiru ( presumably identical to the "Hebrews"), who suffered from the feudal social structures there. However, the group in Egypt, the Shasu, was able to flee from Egypt, from Egyptian slavery, back to Canaan and, together with their fellow sufferers who remained in Canaan, emancipated themselves militarily from the Canaanite city kingships and (possibly with other groups) grew together to form their own people. This people of Israel arose as an egalitarian society, ie a counter-society oriented towards social equality to the city-kingdoms of Canaan, and was characterized by an extremely strong anti-rule consciousness. In its earliest days, Israel was not a state and therefore, in contrast to the peoples of the surrounding area, had no central authority, ie in the ancient Near East: no king who as such had the power to impose sanctions and thus exercised rulership. The Egyptian group had brought the worship of YHWH, who had supported them in the liberation from Egypt, to Canaan, and this god YHWH was a god from the desert and not from the Canaanite cultivated land and its exploitative and oppressive social order. YHWH was regarded by the newly emerging Israel as a whole as the God of liberation from Egyptian slavery, ie from Egypt, which henceforth stands as a code for slavery and oppression as a whole.

Now to the social structure of the pre-state Israelite society. Mainly four levels can be distinguished. The lowest level is the so-called father's house, the extended family; this is the smallest social unit, the economically independent core group. Several paternal families together form a clan, several clans in turn a tribe, and several tribes in turn the entire people. Up to four generations live together in the father's house, i.e. in the extended family. Here the "father" as the head is the determining authority with the power to sanction. The woman does not have equal rights with the man, slave ownership is also possible. The head of the family exercises dominion over the other family members and, if necessary, over slaves.

So within the father's house there are definitely power relations, but not outside of the extended family. There are certainly differences in property in society, but social pressure prevents these property differences from persisting or escalating: the individual depends on the cohesion of the group in order to be able to enjoy its protection. In order not to be excluded from the group, when he has something, he must win sympathy through generosity. In this way it is prevented that possessions do not accumulate too much and permanently in only a few hands and completely impoverish others. So this social pressure has a regulatory function.

The same applies to the formation of domination: strong resentments against any form of domination and against any kind of command normally prevent members of a social group from gaining power over the other members and exercising dominance over them. The heads of the extended families are at the same time the "elders of Israel", but here, outside of the extended family, have no sanctioning powers and therefore exercise no rule; rather, they are obeyed on the basis of their authority. Thus there are no forced taxes, for example for the maintenance of a royal or ruler's court, which does not exist. Of course, this anti-ruler sentiment is best explained by earlier oppression by the Egyptians and the Canaanite city-kings ⁴⁴.

How does the defense against enemies work in such a society without a central authority? Several clans of a tribe or several tribes can join forces for a joint military action. In situations in which danger arises from outside, charismatic leaders appear, who are called "saviors" in the Old Testament and who - like the elders - are followed because of their authority, their military charisma, i.e. voluntarily. Here too – as with the elders – the authority of leaders has a regulatory function, which in a state is held by the ruler who has the power to impose sanctions. This means that the military leaders in pre-state Israel, like the elders, have no power to impose sanctions, they cannot enforce military service, and there is also no standing army that would have to be supplied by forced taxes. After the danger has been averted, the charismatic "saviors" give up their leadership role and step back into their group without being superior to the other group members. These charismatic rescuers are mentioned in the Bible e.g. B. identified with Deborah, Gideon, Jiftach or Samson.

In summary, one can say that Israel was a rulerless, an "anarchic" society. More precisely, one speaks here of “ regulated anarchy”: There was no central authority that could have enforced a social order with the power of sanctions, i.e.: could regulate it, but other regulatory mechanisms, which have already been mentioned, took the place of this central authority equipped with the power of sanctions : the social pressures that ensured relative social and economic equality, and the authority of the elders and charismatic leaders on which alone the allegiance rested.

So far it can be seen that in Israel we are dealing with very special socio-historical conditions that differ significantly from those of the ancient Near Eastern environment. Israel essentially came into being in a process of emancipation from oppression and slavery to become a free, egalitarian, hostile society, also internally. Something like "synodality" in the sense described above did not first determine the earliest Christian communities, but already the earliest, pre-state Israel. Leadership did not happen on the basis of power and domination, which was enforced with the power of sanctions, but on the basis of the natural authority of individual leaders.

Hostility to power and social equality

Due to special historical circumstances, in particular the long-lasting threat from the Philistines, ⁴⁵the ancient oriental institution of kingship and thus rulership (which as such has the power to impose sanctions) was able to establish itself in Israel with David as a foreign body, so that Israel became a people “like all [other] peoples” (Deut 17:14; 1 Sam 8:5). However, this did not mean that the resentment hostile to rule was suddenly extinguished: Even after the establishment of the kingdom, the egalitarian, anti-rule and anti-hierarchical consciousness remained very strong in Israel. This led to the fact that in the Old Testament the kingship as a whole was only granted very limited power and authority, as shown in particular by the king's law, Deut 17.14-20, if it was not completely rejected as in Judg. 9.8-15 ( economic motivation); 1 Sam 8:11-17 (socio-political motivation); Judges 8:22f; 1 Sam 8:7b; 10:19a; 12:12; in Hosea (theological motivation) ⁴⁶etc. On the other hand, there is the literature in the Old Testament, which is primarily at home at the Jerusalem royal court, which, together with the kingship, has entered biblical theology as a foreign body and, like the corresponding literature from the ancient oriental environment of Israel, assigned the king far-reaching power and competence and an outstanding position (outstanding Example: PS 2).

However, literature critical of the king clearly predominates in the Old Testament. This also includes the literature, which does not fundamentally reject kingship, but subjects the respective rulers to a critical and sharp assessment that is unusual for the ancient Near East, in particular the prophetic social criticism or the many (mostly extremely) negative assessments of kings in the books of kings.

The outstanding and most significant, most prominent example of a biblical view of rulership and kingship is of course the royal law of the Torah, Dtn 17:14-20, i.e. at least the law in the Torah that bindingly defines the duties of a king. In this law, the king does not receive a mandate from YHWH to rule, i.e. no mandate to ward off external enemies (the king as supreme warlord), to provide for the people economically, for worship (the king as supreme priest), to implement justice (the king as supreme judge and legislator) and to the other tasks of an (ancient oriental) ruler and is not even empowered to rule - this is in complete contrast to the royal theology of the ancient oriental neighboring cultures of Israel. Instead, this law of the Torah forbids the king to amass wealth etc. and to "repatriate" the people to "Egypt", ie to renewed slavery (vv. 16f). The only positive demand on the king is not the mandate to rule, but: He should make a copy of the Torah, carry it with him and "read it every day of his life so that he learns to fear YHWH his God". to obey all the words and commandments of the Torah, lest "his heart be lifted up above his brethren" (vv. 18-20). According to the king's law of the Torah, the Israelite king has no subjects over whom he rules, but rather brothers over whom he may not place himself. In other words, the king is actually not a king at all. There should only be a nominal king , and only because the people want a king (v. 14; 1 Sam 8:5) ⁴⁷.

The Torah, the foundation of all further biblical and post-biblical Jewish and Christian tradition, makes the king an authority without any power and authority to rule and without being singled out from the people ! It provides that there should in fact be no ruler! We're obviously dealing with radical damage control on a larger scale here.

Social-Egalitarian Theology

This article is about a synodal constitution of the church and thus about the relationship between people. It goes closer, as indicated up to here, to a social-egalitarian relationship between people ⁴⁸. Now what does theology have to do with it? To what extent is biblical theology social-egalitarian? To what extent does the social-egalitarian impetus in ancient Israel also affect its theology? What role does “God” play here?

The societal and social constitution of Israel is also reflected in its dominant theology. JHWH, the God of Israel, does not represent a monarchical, hierarchical social structure with oppression and exploitation like the gods of Israel's neighboring peoples ⁴⁹, but rather he is the god who frees from oppression and slavery, like the very frequent reference to YHWH as the savior from Egypt Slavery in the Old Testament shows, thereby enabling Israel's existence in freedom and self-determination. According to prevailing biblical theology, YHWH's liberation from Egyptian slavery is the starting point and foundation of the history of Israel with its God and thus of all biblical and Jewish and Christian theology based on it. This history of liberation is at the same time a program of freedom and social equality: by worshiping YHWH, and this also means: by following his commandments, Israel preserves and restores the freedom from oppression, exploitation and slavery that YHWH gave in the Exodus, where it was destroyed; in this way it attains “life” in the full sense of the word (Dtn 6:24; Ez 20:11.13.21 etc.) ⁵⁰.

The socio-egalitarian impetus of biblical theology can be illustrated with a few examples.⁵¹

love

In the ancient Near East, and thus also in Israel, the idea is virulent that a subordinate entity, the subjects, has to show love to a higher sovereign, the ruler, and that the ruler bestows love on the subjects. So there is a mutual love relationship between sovereign and subject.

First to the conception of love in the environment of Israel. Here there is a love relationship between king and people or between great power king and vassals. In vassal contracts, for example, vassals are asked to love the king of the great power to whom they have a vassal relationship: the feudal lord, the great-power king, obligated his vassals to love him. It is a legally enforceable, exclusive fidelity relationship, a total devotion in obedience that includes gratitude and trust at the same time. This love of the vassal for the sovereign, the great-power king, corresponds to the sovereign's caring love for the vassal. A prominent example of this conception are the vassal treaties of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681-669 BC) for his son and heir to the throne Ashurbanipal (669-ca. 630 BC) with Median rulers ⁵². The conception of such a mutual, corresponding love relationship also exists between a king and his subjects.⁵³

Now to the divine level. Also found in many documents is the concept that the love of the (supreme) god or goddess is directed towards the king and finds its mutual correspondence in the king's love for the god. In ancient Egypt, for example, the statement "God loves the king" developed into a proper name for kings as early as the Old Kingdom: Meri-Re, "God loves me", is z. B. the nickname Pepis II. (ca. 2279-2219 BC). The love of the deity for the king is also expressed in the designation of the king as the darling of the deity, as e.g. For example, the Old Babylonian king Hammurapi appears in the prologue of his famous body of laws, the Codex Hammurapi named after him, as the “darling of Ishtar”. The king's love for the deity is also expressed in various formulations; in many Egyptian documents there is talk of the king's “loving heart” towards the deity.⁵⁴

In the theology of Israel's environment there is therefore a mutual love relationship both between king and people or great power king and vassals and between God and king. This theological conception does not know a direct love relationship between God and people - unlike the Bible: It borrows the model of a love relationship between sovereign and subordinate from its environment, but introduces a significant change by not giving the king a role that is raised above the people as appoints mediators between YHWH and people; Rather, there is a direct , immediate hierarchical love relationship between YHWH and Israel: The demanded love of the people for their God YHWH corresponds with the caring love of YHWH for his people Israel, a love that precedes Israel's love for YHWH and with the election and deliverance of Israel from Egyptian slavery by YHWH.

Says e.g. B. Moses addressed Israel in Dtn 7,7f: “YHWH did not bow down to you because you were greater than all other peoples – for you are the smallest of all peoples – but because YHWH loves you and because he kept the oath , which he swore to your fathers, YHWH brought you out with a mighty hand and delivered you out of the house of slavery, out of the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”⁵⁵

This love of YHWH for Israel corresponds to the love for its God demanded of Israel, for which a particularly prominent example is the beginning of the Sch e ma ( Jisrā ) el : “Hear, Israel! YHWH is our God, YHWH alone. And you shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” (Dtn 6:4f)

Outside of Deuteronomy we find the theology of YHWH's love for Israel formulated particularly in the prophet Hosea. Thus Hosea laments Israel's apostasy from YHWH by contrasting this apostasy with YHWH's love for Israel (Hos 3:1-4; 11:1-4 etc.).

It turns out that in the Old Testament theology of the political-theological love relationship , the king does not play a special role and does not step between YHWH and the people . Rather, a direct love relationship between YHWH as sovereign and the people as a subordinate entity is postulated. At the same time, this means that not a king, not a person rules over other people, but only God.

exceptions to this conception of mutual love between YHWH and His people . These exceptions are not surprising: with the common oriental institution of kingship, alien to the original Israel, the common oriental royal theology also found its way into Israel, and it is therefore to be expected that this was not completely without influence in Israel. So in Neh 13:26 the love of YHWH is directed towards King Solomon . And 1 Kings 3:3 speaks of Solomon's love for YHWH. In the “history of the rise of David”, in 1 Sam 18:16, the love emanating from the people is directed towards the later King David, who is not yet of office but is already on the way there.

These three passages (1 Sam 18:16; 1 Kings 3:3; Neh 13:26) are the only documents in the Bible in which the Israelite king steps between God and the people with regard to the concept of love ⁵⁶. Analogous to this, Deutero-Isaiah speaks in Isaiah 48:14 of YHWH's love for the Persian king Cyrus, whom he also calls YHWH's anointed – this against the background that Deutero-Isaiah is expecting the liberator Judas from the Babylonian captivity in Cyrus. In contrast to these traces of a common oriental conception of love, the theological conception of a direct , immediate love relationship between YHWH and his people, which is unique in the Middle East, dominates in the Old Testament.

legislation

Israel's environment , the supreme God commissions the king to legislate, and the king enacts the laws for the people. The laws and legal works of the neighboring peoples of Israel therefore go back to the king as legislator, as legislator, and he was commissioned by the supreme God. Thus the already mentioned Code of Hammurapi and its individual laws were issued by the old Babylonian king Hammurapi (1728-1686 BC) on behalf of the supreme Babylonian god Marduk; at the end of the prologue of this work of law it says - Hammurabi speaks of himself (in the first person): "When Marduk commissioned me to rule the people and to bring morals to the land, I put law and justice in the mouth of the land [ ...]. At that time I gave the following laws: "The following are the individual legal provisions, the law corpus .⁵⁷

How is this in Israel, what conception does the Old Testament represent? The law book of Israel is the Torah, the so-called Pentateuch, the first part of the Hebrew Bible. The Torah contains the well-known commandments of love of God and neighbor and the Decalogue. Even in (Jewish and Christian) religious instruction at school, the children learn as a matter of course that these and all the other commandments in the Bible come from God – and not from a king. According to the theological conception of the Old Testament, the laws of the Torah are not enacted by the king, but by YHWH. According to the prevailing conception in the Pentateuch, these laws of YHWH are proclaimed and imposed by Moses on the people ⁵⁸- one speaks here of promulgation of the laws; but: the laws go back in any case to YHWH as lawgiver , as legislator . Thus YHWH as the legislator and the people as the subordinate entity that receives the laws of YHWH and has to obey them are directly opposed to each other, while in the legislative conception of the neighboring peoples the king as the legislator commissioned by God stands between God and the people and so that it occupies a position that is prominent among the people.

This also applies to the legislative conception: according to the theological conception of Israel's environment , the king stands between God and the people; in the (prevailing) Old Testament theology, on the other hand, there is a direct relationship of domination between God and people without the king as mediator. Also in the case of legislation, which in the ancient Near East is one of the tasks of the king (the king as supreme judge and legislator), it becomes clear: according to the conception of the Torah, there is a direct relationship between YHVH and the people; JHWH - and not the king as in the theological conceptions of the ancient oriental neighboring peoples of Israel - enacts laws for the people and thus rules directly over the people, while a king does not appear here either.

Using the examples of the concepts of love and legislation, the attempt has been made up to this point to show the proper relationship of direct rulership between YHWH and his people without the king as mediator and ruler; There is no provision for man to rule over man; God alone is the ruler. These examples could be multiplied ⁵⁹. Other topoi of Old Testament theology are connected with this theological property . In the following, attention is drawn to a central topos that has also received little attention in Old Testament scholarship.

The Torah and the Classless Society

Another testimony to the social-egalitarian impetus of the prevailing biblical theology is also provided by biblical law, the Torah, which, as we have seen, represents divine (and not royal) law and thus also serves as an example of social-egalitarian theology .

First a look at the law of the ancient oriental environment of Israel: This is a multi-class law in which the punishment depends on the social class of the perpetrator and the victim. For example, For example, the already mentioned Old Babylonian Code of Hammurapi also defines three different social classes from a legal point of view: the unfree or slaves ( wardum ), the free but not belonging to the ruling family ( muškenum ), and those belonging to the ruling family ( awilum ).

In Israelite, in biblical law, in the Torah, on the other hand, the term "neighbor" ( ר ֵ ע ַ re a( ) or other social-egalitarian terms like especially “brother” ( א ָ ח ) āḥ ) in place of social class terms ⁶⁰. That means: In the laws of the Torah, the punishment does not depend on the status and class of the perpetrator and the victim, but is independent of it. The law of the Torah treats all members of society equally, which also marks a great peculiarity in the ancient Near East. This also reflects the social-egalitarian thrust of the prevailing biblical theology.

The People of YHWH and the Consciousness of Himself

One consequence of the fact that in the prevailing Old Testament theology there is a direct relationship of rulership between God and people and that the people take the place of the king is Israel's special self- image against the background of the ancient Near East. In Israel's neighboring cultures, the people's subordinate role to the king corresponds to the people's lack of self-awareness . In fact, no text is known from Israel's environment in which the people speak of themselves in the first person instead of the king. This fact is all the more meaningful in view of the immense wealth of ancient Near Eastern literature now accessible to us.

It is quite different in Israel. The short historical review Deut 6.20ff is used for illustration. In v. 21 and 23b it says: “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and YHWH brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand [...] to bring us and give us the land that he swore to our fathers Here the people speak of themselves as " we ," explaining the reason for their liberated existence: We were slaves in Egypt, and YHWH saved us from Egyptian slavery. Against this background, the peculiarity of Israel as far as the relationship to God is concerned becomes understandable, for without such a sense of unity among the people, a theology that places the people in a direct relationship with their God as their ruler would be unthinkable.

The universalization of the rule of God and its theological consequences

Here further examples of social-egalitarian theology are to be considered, which belong to the theological-historical stage of the universalization of the rule of God and thus of monotheism.

a) The universalization of the rule of God

In later Old Testament times, in the time of the Babylonian exile, Old Testament theology took a step that is sometimes referred to in biblical scholarship as a "quantum leap": It no longer acknowledged YHWH only as the God of Israel, as the one God of Israel is worshiped or is to be worshiped, but as the only God of all peoples and people (which made possible the development of non-Jewish Christianity and, for example, the so-called "mission to the Gentiles" of the Jew Paul, i.e. the missioning of non-Jews to the biblical, Jewish God and his Jewish Messiah Jesus, paved the way). The peoples of the world are invited to turn to YHWH. Thus YHWH commands in Deutero-Isaiah: “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” (Is 45:22) The people's concern is therefore for the sake of “salvation”; the salvation of Israel from Egyptian slavery by YHWH becomes the universal salvation of people of all peoples through and under the rule of the one true God, a salvation in the comprehensive sense, a salvation from every need (cf. e.g. Is 46 ,7). And Israel is a witness before the peoples that YHWH is the only true Savior God, the God of all nations and men (Isa 43:12), that he is the one who judges (Isa 51:5; 66:16), and he who who forgives (Is 55:7). Israel can testify from its own Exodus experience that YHVH is the one Savior God, as is evident from Deuteronomy 4:32-40. It is not only a witness but also a mediator, as is clear from Isaiah 55:5, where the anonymous prophet speaks to Israel: “Nations you do not know you will call; Nations that do not know you rush to you for the sake of YHWH your God, the Holy One of Israel, because he glorified you.”⁶¹

The relationship of rulership between YHWH and Israel now becomes at the same time a relationship of rulership between YHWH and all nations and people. Here, too, according to the prevailing conception of the Old Testament, there is no human king or any other hierarchical authority (as ruler over the people commissioned by God) between God and the people; here, too, God rules directly over the people.

Also according to the well-known late or post-exilic vision of an eschatological time of salvation Isa 2.2-4 // Mi 4.1-4 (cf. also Isa 42.4; 51.4) YHWH exercises himself - and not a king or a king other hierarchical authority on behalf of YHWH - his universal rule, a rule of peace, over all mankind.

b) Limited influence of ancient oriental royal theology: The expected king as a humble ruler of peace, the servant of God and Jesus as king/lord and brother

Another conception reveals the influence of ancient oriental royal theology, but only to a very limited extent. In the case of the anonymous prophet Deutero-Zechariah (who continues to write Zechariah's message and translates it into his time), in Zech. 9.9f, it is the expected king who exercises his dominion - indeed over (the reunited) Israel, but in this respect a universalistic perspective is encountered , when that king will “speak peace/prosperity to the peoples” ⁶². This king, however, is presented - in contrast to the kings around Israel - as poor and humble, as riding on a donkey - instead of on a proud war horse like the ancient oriental king (cf. Jesus in Mt 21:5), and he will exercise a reign of peace, unlike in the royal theology of Israel's environment, which depicts the king as the supreme general (commissioned by the supreme God), and similar to the conception that in YHWH professes the universal ruler of peace.

The idea of the beaten and humiliated Servant of God in the anonymous prophet Deutero-Isaiah (Is 42.1-4; 49.1-6; 50.4-9; 52.13-53.12) also belongs in this context: The Servant of God has commissioned by YHWH to bring justice and Torah not only to Israel but to the peoples, but encounters resistance, is mistreated, put on trial and executed; with his suffering and death he atones for the sins of his people. The servant of God is therefore not the radiant, powerful king as depicted in ancient oriental royal theology, but a powerless, humiliated and beaten representative of YHWH (possibly the prophet himself, similar to Jeremiah in his denominations). As is well known, this idea of the servant of God later exerted a great influence on the image of Jesus in the New Testament.

At least the first example, that of Deutero-Zachariah, points on the one hand to the influence of ancient oriental royal theology, which found its way into Israel and the Bible as a foreign body with the kingship, but on the other hand it was to be seen as a special feature that this royal image was social-egalitarian is modified and appears to be turned upside down and can thus also serve to illustrate the social-egalitarian impetus that prevails in the Old Testament.

c) Man's likeness to God

Another theological topos in this advanced theological-historical, monotheistic stage of the biblical religion has shaped and constituted the Judeo-Christian image of man like no other: that man is made in the image of God. This biblical (priestly) conception adopts the idea of the king as the image of the (supreme) God from the ancient oriental neighboring cultures, especially Egypt, but thwarts it by declaring that the human being is made in the image of God instead of the king (Gen 1:26f; 5, 1; 9:6), who as such assumes the dominion function of the king, i.e. rules over creation in place of the king (Gen 1:28) ⁶³. Even according to this social-egalitarian conception - in contrast to the corresponding conceptions of the ancient oriental neighboring peoples - a king plays no role, he does not have a special, prominent position, he is not even mentioned. Instead, according to this theological conception, there is social equality between all people.

The idea that man is made in the image of God instead of the king is therefore also an expression of that social-egalitarian and anti-government consciousness whose roots lie in the prehistory and early history of Israel and which shaped the theological history of the Old Testament – but not only the Old Testament.

Outlook: Jesus Christ – Lord and Brother, power as service. Social Equality in the New Testament and in Recent Church Documents

The social-egalitarian impetus that prevailed in the Old Testament also shapes the New Testament and other church traditions up to the present day.

As far as the New Testament is concerned, special mention should be made of the influence of the already presented king's law of the Torah, Dtn 17:14-20, on the idea of the apocalyptic king and "son of man" Jesus within the end-time speeches of Jesus (Mt 24f), in Mt 25, 31-46, as "brother of the least" ⁶⁴: According to Dtn 17,20 the heart of the king should not rise above his "brothers". Here too, as in Mt 25, the king appears as a "brother" - in complete contrast to the king in the ancient oriental royal theology, who is depicted exclusively as the ruler over subjects and not as a brother.

Christ is king, that is, lord, but at the same time brother, as is explained right down to the more recent church documents. So it says e.g. B. in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 62,1: "In her [the Blessed Mother's] motherly love she cares for her Son's brothers [...]"; loc. cit., 63: "She gave birth to the son whom God made the firstborn among many brothers [...]"; Gaudium et spes 32:5, a passage that speaks of the day of the fulfillment of the solidarity of the fraternal community established by Christ: On this day "those saved by grace come together as one family loved by God and Christ their brother give perfect glory to God [...]". Corresponding to this is the declaration of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (based on Ex 19.6 and 1 Petr 2.9) that the baptized and the people of God as a whole share in the office of priest, prophet and king of Christ. The Compendium of the Catechism (155, to 783-786) says: “The people of God [...] share in his [ie Christ's] royal office, because in their service they imitate Jesus Christ, who, as King of all made the world the servant of all [...]". And referring to Mt 25:40,45, Pope Francis teaches: “For Christians, the words of Jesus […] result in recognizing Christ himself in every abandoned and excluded brother and in every rejected or lonely sister […].”⁶⁵

It can be seen that the social-egalitarian impetus of the Old Testament is also clearly visible in biblical and post-biblical Christology and is a constitutive part of it. So if Christ himself is not only Lord but also Brother, how could people in the church be assigned the position of lords over other people?

Here is a good example from church history. Camillo de Lellis (1550-1614) is considered by the Catholic Church to be one of the two patron saints of nursing. The following has been handed down about him, which is particularly reminiscent of Deut 17.20 and Mt 25.31-46: The pope visited Camillo de Lellis' hospital. While he was nursing a patient, someone from the papal entourage asked him indignantly: “Take off your nursing gown when you speak to the Holy Father!” But he only answered: “Why? When I'm busy with Christ Himself, I don't have time to change for His Substitute!”⁶⁶

As far as the New Testament is concerned, much more could be touched on here, including conceptions in which not only the internal relationship of the respective (here: Christian) community, but also or at the same time the rule of the external power, the Romans, plays a role. Heinz Blatz, for example, shows that the Gospel of Mark contrasts the oppressive Roman power with the serving, life-enhancing and liberating power of Jesus, which is passed on to his followers for a successful life ⁶⁷. This thwarts the common concept of power and rulership, represented here by the Romans: ruling through serving ! Here we are reminded of the king of Deut 17:14-20 and Mt 25:31-46, who is indeed king, i.e. lord, but at the same time brother among brothers. Here, too, there is a contradiction in terms: just as a king as such has no brothers but subjects, so a ruler and ruler is not a servant but is served. At the same time, we are reminded here of the initially mentioned evaluation of church offices as “ministry” in Lumen Gentium , of the passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church just mentioned, and of many other church pronouncements.

A social-egalitarian, fraternal, synodal church - and then everything is fine? The church as bearer of the biblical message of liberation

As has been attempted to show, the social-egalitarian impetus is a constitutive part of the prevailing biblical theology. The church must align itself with this and become an egalitarian community. Of course, this does not mean that the social-egalitarian "program" of the Torah and the Bible as a whole and in all details can be transferred one-to-one to today's church (e.g. the social structure of pre-state Israel, as described in I.); This is of course not possible because of the changed and different framework conditions of modern societies and within the universal church, even within the Old Testament in its more than thousand-year history of origin. Rather, the Church must renew itself in the spirit of the social-egalitarian theology of the Bible and become a truly fraternal ⁶⁸and synodal ⁶⁹community.

But has this achieved the goal of the church? If this were so, it would mean that the church is an end in itself and exists only for its own sake. Many statements by church representatives seem to go in this direction, for example when it is complained that the services are becoming empty, the number of priests is decreasing or the number of people leaving the church is increasing. The Würzburg student chaplain Burkhard Hose aptly complains about such an attitude: "As long as a person drowns while fleeing in the Mediterranean or takes their own life for fear of deportation, I think it is shameful for a Christian to behave as if the greatest challenge was our time the lack of priests. As long as an old person wanders from garbage can to garbage can in the dark to collect returnable bottles that can then be exchanged for a few cents, I'm ashamed of any discussion about whether there is something like a 'loss of faith' in society , which leads to the churches becoming emptier.” ⁷⁰Instead, the victims of this refugee policy should be mourned and the victims of this social and pension policy should be treated with compassion and people in need should be fought for, whether they are fleeing or in the midst of our unimaginably rich country , no longer drowning in the sea or having to collect returnable bottles.

In many epochs of church history there is a spirit apologetic to the church and Christianity , as if the church's mission was exhausted in its own existence and in its own importance and power. During the National Socialist period, this had terrible effects when some German bishops refrained from using all their authority, especially to save Jews and other persecuted people, in order to secure the benevolence of the inhuman rulers for the church and to protect the National Socialist "bulwark" against the Nazis support atheist Soviet Union.

Many pastoral theologians are concerned about how the church can survive as an important social factor in our day and age and become attractive to people again. They actually turn the church into a company that competes with other providers of meaning, and they make spiritual "offers" and offer a "feel-good church" as a solution in order to assert oneself on the "market" of offers of meaning. The "offers" mentioned are ultimately aimed at making people "fit" for the capitalist economic system, which Pope Francis, as is well known, condemned in all desirable clarity as deadly and terrorist ⁷¹, and for its increasing signs of crisis and social and psychosocial upheavals; the church is thus in competition with other “suppliers of meaning”, similar to other companies in their “area of activity”. They want to adapt the church to today's superficial and destructive neoliberal zeitgeist in order to increase its attractiveness and thus make it "competitive".⁷²

Another example of a questionable self-image of the church is the striving for a "coalition" with the ruling politicians. For example, the mission statement of a deanery reads: “We are a reliable partner to the municipalities and politics.” That means: If politics creates social injustice or excludes the disadvantaged, the church will not oppose it, in fact it will possibly support it.

All this is not the purpose of the church! This is not what the Church is called to do! On the contrary: The church has the task of implementing the biblical message of liberation, that is: liberation of people from oppression and slavery, from need and misery, from "Egypt" ⁷³. The church must walk in the spirit of the Torah and the Gospel and orient itself to the biblical life and liberation theology and to the commandments of the liberating God in the Torah, as Jesus did ⁷⁴; the deliverance message of the Old Testament must be its foundation, standard and orientation. It must be a prophetic church that – like the prophets of old and Pope Francis and many others do today – calls for solidarity, freedom and social justice and fights oppression and exploitation, and that ultimately means trying to overcome destructive capitalism. Like the prophets of old and Pope Francis and many others today, it must rebel against the powerful and those in power when they abuse their power to oppress, exploit or marginalize people, for example when they - as is currently the case in Germany, the business lobby within and outside of government and parliament - is fighting an effective supply chain law that would improve the miserable working and living conditions of many of the world's exploited and oppressed. The church – like the prophets once and Pope Francis and many others today – must be a critical corrective in society and in the global community – against the current zeitgeist – and, if necessary, seek conflict with the powerful and those in power.

In other words, all of this means that the church must adopt the model of man, of every man, as God's image and work to ensure that people are freed from oppression and exploitation and that they are given the dignity that belongs to them as the image of God. is not taken ⁷⁵. In following Jesus, it must orientate itself on the spirit of the Torah with the commandments of the liberating God, it must translate them into today's church and society and thus into an egalitarian, humane, solidary, caring society and world community outside of the church , in short: on the Help build the kingdom of God on earth, in which there is no oppression of people by people and domination by people and the man-made capitalist economic system over people, in which every human being is accorded the same value and dignity and the insight prevails that every human being is made in the image of God . This is the life program of the biblical deliverer God.

Michael Hauber: With the Pope, but without the Emperor?

The theological significance of the committed presence of powerful lay people at the Council

Michael Hauber, born in 1978, lecturer in systematic theology at the University of Kassel and in Latin at the University of Church Music in Regensburg, high school teacher (Catholic religious studies, Latin, ancient Greek, philosophy/ethics, history).

Summary: In the article "With the Pope, but without the Emperor?" Michael Hauber uses two historical examples to show the high influence of powerful laypeople on synodal events and their results. The direct and indirect presence of rulers has ensured that Christianity has a comprehensive presence at councils, which ground the decisions and only apply them to the entirety of the made accessible to believers. The failure of the (political) lay presence at the last three councils is a defect that should be remedied; this can also be started with lower-ranking synods.

The history of (Western) Christianity can be understood – in a very simplified way – as a secularization that has continued to this day: The world is not necessarily seen as a contradiction in terms of its intrinsic value, but rather as a counterpart to the spiritual and religious and differentiated from it. The inseparable symbiosis of throne and altar (to apply the anachronistic term to pre- and non-Christian cultures and religions), which seems so natural in antiquity and the Middle Ages, ended with the French Revolution. Many a phantom pain of past power is still evident in the Catholic Church today. And yet this secularization is not only in the genes of the European Enlightenment, but has a very clear theological origin: the triune God releases his creation not into absolute, but into relative independence. He wants the world to be different from him, but also to point to him. He is abiding "maker of heaven and earth," but he is not a puppeteer. And because God and the world must be differentiated, but the world refers to God, medieval canonists and theologians have defended themselves more and more against political attacks on the church: the so-called Investiture Controversy and the Gregorian reform are still seen today as the history of the liberation of the church against secular tutelage - and conversely one can view the Reformation and Revolution as a history of the state's liberation from spiritual tutelage. In view of the high fundamental rights of “freedom of conscience”, “freedom of religion” and “freedom of opinion” one can only approve of this delayed but mutual emancipation process.

However, that does not mean that this process has gone smoothly. The fact that modern, representative-democratic constitutional states rest on a foundation of values that they are not able to bestow on themselves is well known and often treated as a taunt. In this brief sketch of the problem – this is all I want to say – I would like to consider whether, since the late Middle Ages, the Catholic Church has not lost a moderating, as it were, clerical authority, which has repeatedly reminded the Church that although God is not of of this world, but the church not only has a mission for the soul, but for the whole human being, body and soul. In other words: the subject of this article is firstly the clarification of important terms, secondly an exemplary theological-historical review in outline form of the role of the most powerful layman, namely the Roman emperor, in synods and councils, thirdly the question of what dogmatic conclusions one can draw from this role of the emperor as well as the indication of how one will have to deal with the theological-historical and dogmatic findings today.

1. Explanation of terms

No doubt: We all have basic ideas when we hear or read the terms "Roman emperor", "synod", "council" and "clergy". If a meaningful yield with benefits for the present and future is sought here, however, one cannot avoid contrasting our current understanding of these terms with a historical understanding for the sake of better knowledge (even if this is in a systematically roughly prepared and not analytically exact form happens, this is only for the sake of brevity). None of the terms mentioned are unambiguous. This is most significant in the case of the “Roman Emperor”. When Francis II laid down the crown of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, it was the crown of an empire that, in the then unbroken state and church self-image, was not a legal successor to the ancient Roman Empire, but identical to it. ⁷⁶But is this self-image correct? And what did Francis II actually have in common with Augustus? Doesn't the term "emperor" obscure the fact that there are different functions and offices here, if one can speak of an office at all with Augustus? Or in other words: What similarities does the designation justify?

In historical research it is well known that Augustus neither created nor held the imperial office. ⁷⁷The principate – that is what is called, if at all, the office that isn’t one and is nevertheless held by men between Augustus and Diocletian – consists of a wealth of accumulations of official competence . Only when these accumulations solidify in inheritances and new grants, which are not always entirely transparent, does a monarchy emerge (Augustus carefully concealed the fact that its center of power came from the military). Mind you, this is a very special kind of monarchy, because it does not assert rulership over a single people, but rather over the entire inhabited (Greek oikouméne) earth - a claim that was never actually achieved and yet is important for the Roman self-image. The principate period comes to an end with the chaotic almost five decades of the soldier imperial period. Diocletian (ruled 284-305) reforms and changes the accumulation of powers that has meanwhile become an office in such a way that one (with Mommsen) speaks of the dominant after him. Just one year after Diocletian's resignation, Constantine I came to power, who from 312 first tolerated the Christians and then successively encouraged them more and more. His sons are the first Christian emperors. ⁷⁸One must be careful not to transfer this concept of emperor, already shaped by Christianity, from late antiquity to the early days of the principate.

In addition, by the 7th century, three concepts, originating from the concrete "needs to impart power", were developed as to how one should understand the highest secular office that a Christian can hold: the Christological (singular: Constantine the Great), the Old Testament (e.g. B. Heraclius) and the hierocratic concept (prototypical Justinian I.). ⁷⁹In the first, the emperor is ⁸⁰seen as the representative of Christ on earth, in the second in the role of King David, in the latter as a priest-like ruler. If Charlemagne (crowned emperor in 800) and Otto the Great (crowned in 962) fall back on these ideas when renewing the Roman Empire, that does not mean that the two of them had their scholars research ancient theories on the imperial office and then used them for exploit themselves ideologically. There were no such theories. But the magic word Rome conveys(e) the promise of a numinous, secure state order, which one did not want to and could not do without. For the Germanic peoples of the Migration Period and after, "Rome" was not just any variant of their previous existence; Rome means civilisation, order, the rule of law, living in personal liberty and with a minimum of housing and food supplies. ⁸¹And the emperor is the center of Rome. He is the epitome of the epitome. As amusing as the translation theory of the 10th century may seem to us today - the Imperium Romanum never ceased to exist, but the people of this empire were transferred from the Italic Romans to the East Frankish Germans - one should take what is behind it seriously: The East Franconia wanted to become a "state". But one can obviously only become a state in the early Middle Ages if one – becomes Rome. And statehood always extends to religious matters, both in the ancient and in the medieval understanding. Because in the pre-modern European ideas, the welfare of the community only exists if the deity(s) deign to preserve the political system of order in a reconciled and merciful manner. The one who had to see to the mercy of the deity(s) in the first place was - the emperor.

Precisely because of this, any deviation from the religious norm, be it originally Jewish and then Christian monotheism in ancient polytheistic society, be it then "false belief" in late ancient and medieval Christian monotheistic society, is something that evokes divine wrath, and indirectly an attack on the state order. The outwardly displayed self-image of a Christian-persecuting Diocletian differs in no way from the ideology of Frederick II (1194-1250), which becomes clear in the heresy legislation.⁸²

If one wanted to try to clothe the imperial task in anachronistically modern vocabulary: one important area of responsibility would actually have been the salvation of the soul, not that of the individual, for which the priests would be responsible, but that of the collective. For without collective salvation there is no worldly welfare. If the emperor now sees himself as the ruler over the entire world, it is no wonder that the soul-healing collective of all people also belongs to this self-image.

The situation is no less complex when one considers what is meant by a cleric. The current canonical status quo seems simple: a cleric is one who has received at least the ordination of a deacon (can. 266 § 1 [CIC 1983]: “ Per receptum diaconatum aliquis fit clericus. ”); but until the last Council, a cleric was considered to be one who had received the tonsure (cf. CIC 1917, can. 108 § 1) - and to make it a little more complicated: the coupling of the cleric to the tonsure ⁸³may also currently apply to altitudinal ones Groups. ⁸⁴While ancient councils were meetings of bishops, in which deacons and presbyters participated as envoys, there were medieval councils such as the IV. Lateranense, the Council of Constance or the specter of papalists par excellence, the Council of Basel, in which non-episcopal scholars in canon law and theology, even non-clerics attended. And at the Council of Constance, this participation definitely also meant voting powers (even if it was disputed and ultimately devalued again by the nation principle). ⁸⁵Incidentally, contrary to all the polemics put forward, even at the Council of Basel lay people were never able to outweigh the clergy even remotely.⁸⁶

Even the term "council" or "synod" is ambiguous. As a rule, the general usage has stabilized to the extent that the term council means in particular (!) the 21 ecumenical councils, while the word synod is used primarily for bishops' assemblies below this highest rank (with significant deviations for the non-ecumenical imperial councils in the Roman Empire and in Visigoth Spain and Frankish Gaul). Viewed soberly, “synodos” is simply the Greek equivalent of the Latin “concilium”, which is why the Council of Constance calls itself “sancta synodus” in its decree of April 6, 1415. In addition, beyond the factual statement that the Roman Church evaluates 21 councils as ecumenical, there is basically no common definitional reason for the facticity: The early church councils were e.g. T. only local synods, which only achieved their ecumenical nature through reception, were not convened by the pope but by the emperor and were sanctioned by him, the councils of Constance and Basel are out of the ordinary anyway, while most Lateran councils are simply only relevant to canon law .

Presence of powerful lay people at councils

The following is a brief description of the important role lay people could play for and at councils. I want to present this in an exemplary way using Emperor Markian and his wife Pulcheria for the Council of Chalcedon and King Sigismund for the Council of Constance. I deliberately chose an ancient and a medieval example - there is currently no modern one (which already indicates a problem: neither in the Tridentinum nor in the two Vaticana was there a genuine commitment of politically influential laypeople comparable to the ancient and medieval examples - that Charles V. almost desperately fought for church unity and wrested the Council of Trent from the popes, which the Council was then unable to really influence, does not refute the problem report). This choice is of course debatable. The very first ecumenical council of Nikaia was deliberately not chosen - the role of Constantine the Great is impressive, but somewhat exceptional. Unlike all subsequent emperors, he was not even a Christian when he presided over the council. Certainly the first or second Council of Constantinople could have been chosen for antiquity, or the Synod of Frankfurt under Charlemagne for the Middle Ages. However, in the sense of being exemplary, the Chalcedonense and the Constantiense seem to me to be particularly suitable for making clear the role of powerful lay people.

The Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Ephesus could not finally settle the christological dispute as to how humanity and divinity relate to one another in Christ. Both the supporters of the Alexandrian side, which gave predominance to the unity of the god-man dominated by the deity, and those of the Antiochene separation or, better, distinction christology, tried to assert their position through the emperor, sometimes using unfair means. The climax of the intrigues was what Pope Leo I later called the synod of robbers ( latrocinium ) in Ephesus in 449, ⁸⁷at which the Antiochenes were suppressed, the papal delegates outmaneuvered and, basically, Emperor Theodosius II was duped. Only the unexpected fatal riding accident of the latter (which prevented interference from the Latin West and the resulting even greater loss of face) and the fall of the powerful eunuch Chrysaphius, who had supported the Alexandrian side of unification Christology, made the change possible.

The sister of Theodosius, Pulcheria, married the new emperor Markian, giving him the secure rule he needed. While Pope Leo originally did not want a new council for fear of adding fuel to the fire, Pulcheria and Markian pushed for a synod to revise the outcome of the latrocinium . Although the council, originally convened at Nicaia, was moved to Chalcedon, across from Constantinople, it was not the imperial spouses themselves who presided, but rather imperial commissioners of the assembly. When it became clear that a simple revision of the synod of 449 would not be enough, the commissioners urged a new compromise formula for Christology, with reference to moving the assembly to the West. This was unanimously approved and solemnly signed in the presence of Pulcheria and Markian. ⁸⁸The emperor's lip service that he did not want to have exercised any power through his presence is probably more of a rhetorical stylistic figure. Because without Pulcheria and Markian, who by no means only pulled the strings in the background, the Council of Chalcedon could never have taken place and orthodox Christology could never have come to a certain conclusion.

The Council of Constance

The situation in 1414 was unbearable for Western Christianity: from 1378, first two, and then from 1409 three popes fought for their spiritual supremacy (and at the same time three Roman kings for secular supremacy), the papal curiae were considered secularized and their clergymen greedy for money , in today's Czech Republic the church was in pre-Reformation turmoil, Eastern Christianity was being pressured by the Ottomans' urge to expand. None of the three popes was assertive enough, none thought of stepping back from the higher good of the unity of the church. It was the politically and diplomatically most skilful of the three pretenders to the Roman throne, Sigismund, who also prevailed against his cousin Jobst, who died prematurely, and his alcoholic older brother Wenzel, and then the Pisan Pope John XXIII. to convene a council in Constance, one might almost say, forced it. It was Sigismund who “saved” the council when the said pope wanted to break up the synod by fleeing. It was Sigismund, who through diplomatic channels the Roman Pope Gregory XII. forced the resignation by simply having the council formally convoked once again in order to allow him a respectful abdication in this way. It was again Sigismund who was able to persuade the Avignonese Pope Benedict XIII. to withdraw the last followers and to isolate him, the recalcitrant refusal to resign. In summary: without the Roman King Sigismund, who presided over the Council during the decisive, effectively Popeless phase, ⁸⁹the Western schism would never have been settled.

Was Sigismund's diplomatic approach a transgression of competence? According to current canon law provisions for a council, such a procedure would not exist at all - it would be simply impossible. And if a politician dared to do something like this Roman king, it would be considered an unfair encroachment of secular power on the spiritual. And yet Sigismund acted out of the official sense of duty of the church magistrate. The maiestas of the Roman king and future emperor simply commanded to put a stop to the devastating state of his church: the welfare – not of his home power lands, not of the Holy Roman Empire, but – of the civitas christiana belonged ex officio to the core of Roman imperial tasks. Perhaps one has to reformulate it from a church-historical perspective: the papal office was incapable of eliminating the schism. But it was not the Council alone that restored church unity as a kind of emergency task. It was the council with and under the Roman king. ⁹⁰The popes were also incapable of reforming the church - here too Sigismund was a pioneer and farsighted than others and convinced the council to commit the newly elected pope to reforms. The fact that subsequent popes delayed or even torpedoed the reform was not the fault of the king, who demonstratively held back on the papal election. ⁹¹However, it should not be ignored that Sigismund completely misjudged the causa fidei – i.e. the controversy surrounding the theology of Jan Hus. The withdrawal of safe conduct and the burning of Hus and Jerome of Prague caused the situation in Bohemia to explode indirectly. As smoothly as Sigismund managed to settle the schism, he misjudged the situation in his brother's kingdom. Part of the historical truth is that lay engagement at councils can be unsuccessful . But should that really be reason enough to forego the knowledge and skills of lay people, which help to orient the church more and more towards Christ?

A conclusion

What can one systematically deduce from this astonishingly “colorful” finding based solely on two random samples from very different church-historical contexts? And can something be derived from this for future synods and councils?

1) In any case, one can say: Among the 21 ecumenical councils there are sufficient examples of powerful non-clerics throwing all their influence into the scales in order to serve the church and faith. There was and is no reason to rule out such commitment per se , even if political combinations are sometimes unsavory intriguing. This also applies to purely clerical councils (a look at the Second Vatican Council shows that a reactionary mini-minority did not even shy away from making Paul VI look stupid so as not to have to take a single step towards reform). A council or a synod loses nothing if lay people are involved in the environment and in the concrete events . And this does not mean the construction of the stands in a council hall. If King Sigismund had not assisted the Council of Constance with all his authority as Vogt of the Roman Church, then it would have been one of the most critical moments of John XXIII. been blown up. If Emperor Markian and his wife had not pushed for a new council with all their might, the Council of Chalcedon would not have happened. It costs nothing but the virtue of humility and a willingness to learn from the clerics holding the teaching post to also listen to lay people. As a bishop one must not think that one always knows everything better. Even Christ allowed himself to be taught by the Syrophoenician woman (cf. Mk 7:24-30). Just as an aside: not on a trivial matter, but on the question of who the addressee of his message is. Even if one does not consider this pericope to be historical, but sees in it an etiology of the mission to the Gentiles, this means: The early Christians believed Jesus was capable of being taught otherwise! So there is no question of faith that a priest, bishop or pope could not learn from a layman, even from a non-believer.

2) There is no dogmatic reason to monopolize the magisterium of bishops, although of course they hold it in an excellent way. It was quite common in previous councils that non-bishops - e.g. B. religious superiors, but also cardinals without episcopal ordination - participated with voting rights . A look at the Council of Trent, at which the theological advisors first had to enlighten their (theologically and sometimes otherwise quite uneducated) bishops about the issues that then came up for discussion, teaches that the blessing of the church does not depend on the magisterium of the bishops can and shouldn't.⁹²

3) The mere physical presence of non-clergy in a council hall provides a different representation of the whole Church - and this representation represents the added value of such an assembly compared to the college of bishops teaching with and under the pope, or the pope alone. About those absent one speaks and decides differently than about those present. This is a truism – but it should always be kept in mind.

4) While papal envoys were at best present at early church councils and local synods such as in Visigothic Spain or in Frankish Gaul often enjoyed a royal but never papal presence, the pope became dominant from the Middle Ages on the councils (later considered ecumenical) (in Basel and Trent, the pope was of course represented): The more the element of the powerful layman – i.e. the emperor – was lost to the council, the more influence the pope gained . ⁹³But one will have to ask whether this dominance, which found ⁹⁴its most significant expression with the opinion that after the enactment of papal infallibility there was no longer any need for councils, was beneficial for the Church. Popes like Paul VI, John Paul II or Francis himself had and still have no slightest doubts: There is no other way of explaining why those mentioned placed and still place so much value on the institutionalization and implementation of synods of bishops and also permitted synods of particular churches. If councils are supposed to represent the church as a whole, it would also be appropriate for the overwhelming number of Christians to be represented not as bishops but in their lay status .

5) One can and should be allowed to regard purely clerical councils as deficient despite all the added value (see point 3); it is no coincidence that the last two ecumenical councils expressly made the church the subject, but then saw the church primarily as pope and college of bishops and the ministers gathered there could not think of much more on the subject of "lay people" than that all Christians have a common dignity through Baptism and Confirmation. ⁹⁵If one were malicious and read conciliar ecclesiology against the grain, one could also interpret the theological unfolding of the doctrine of the Church over the last two centuries as an act of clerical narcissism , which Pope Francis always castigates. ⁹⁶The presence of one or more powerful lay people at the Council, whom the clergy could not have ignored with gold brocade, might have ensured that the assembled bishops were at least reminded that their task is actually one of service. Mind you, in the service of the lay people, whom they are supposed to help spiritually to be Christians in everyday life, i.e. to love the neighbor, even if he or she is hostile, to love themselves and the Trinity.

6) Future synods and councils need knowledgeable lay people . With all due respect, these should not necessarily be unconsecrated members of a religious order (whom one can and should also call in). It needs people who are alive, at all ages . Nothing stands in the way of the fact that they are also politicians , if only because you cannot do without their trained speaking skills. All too often "simple" laypeople have fallen silent before the clergy's combined powers of office. I indulge in the notion that this happens less often to politicians because they have "power" behind them.

7) The simplest, most ecumenical and at the same time, because of its anachronism, probably the least practicable solution to install a powerful layman as a counterweight to the clerical council would be the restoration of a Roman imperial office. The author of these lines, god knows not a monarchist, is aware that he is irritating with such a suggestion. And that is exactly my goal. It takes the competence of a human or a body, not a title . It is not about the dreams of royalists, but about demanding legitimate lay rights and exercising legitimate lay responsibility. To do this, however, they need one or more representatives who can act powerfully , as King Sigismund was able to do 600 years ago in Constance thanks to his office. What would stand in the way of bringing in the professing Catholic Joe Biden? Or Ursula von der Leyen? Why not also delegates from the lay councils from the different countries?

The small irritation that I wanted to make here is intended to serve as inspiration for how, under the socio-political conditions of the 21st century , one can transform and fill the political ordering task of a Roman emperor in a democratic and participatory way, competence of a person or a body, not a title that a living Christianity can successfully master its inner task of reform . The theological content of this inspiration far exceeds the creative and intellectual faculties of an individual. But if I helped initiate it, I would be happy.

Michael Plattig: Obedience. Basic attitude for synodal processes

Michael Plattig O.Carm., born 1960, Professor em. for theology of spirituality at the PTH Münster, guest professor at the Gregoriana and Antonianum in Rome

Summary: Obedience is not a positive term in colloquial language, it is associated with anti-democratic authoritarian structures in society and the church. But obedience, as so-called evangelical advice, is one of the basic attitudes of being a Christian in scripture and tradition. The article tries to outline how this basic attitude is to be described and what significance it has or could have for the synodal process, despite the currently rather negative assessment.

Obedience is not a positive colloquial term. Enlightened, modern society prides itself on having overcome the power structures of authoritarian regimes built on (blind) obedience. Therefore, obedience is associated with hierarchical structures in society and church. What is the purpose of this term or even a basic attitude of obedience in the context of thinking about synodal structures?

Synodal structures are nothing new in church history, there is experience with them in the church and above all in religious orders that have laid the foundations for democratic structures, tested them and developed them further over time. It might therefore be helpful to consider their experiences for the present.

A consensus is the conviction that community processes need structures, but also basic attitudes, without which a synodal project will very quickly fail.

One of these basic attitudes is obedience, which is considered the so-called Evangelical Council and is one of the vows of most religious orders.

hearing and living

The ancient Greek word ὑπᾶκοή for obedience in the New Testament comes from ὑπᾶκούω ⁹⁷meaning "to listen" and "oboedientia", obedience in Latin comes from "oboedio (ob-audio)", to listen.⁹⁸ In German, too, obey comes from horchen, hear. ⁹⁹Obedience requires a willingness to listen.

Listening is so important to Benedict of Nursia that his Rule begins with these words: "Listen, my son, to the instructions of the Master, incline the ear of your heart, willingly accept the encouragement of the kind Father and fulfill it by deed! “ ¹⁰⁰The master is Christ, his instruction is the Holy Scriptures, the father is also Christ, who is kind, ie turns to people to help and forgive them. Hearing must lead to action, living according to the gospel's direction.¹⁰¹

Here it is summarized in one sentence and fundamentally, which opposite and which goal each obedience has in the monastic, church, Christian context, namely to listen to Christ and to live according to what has been heard in his discipleship.

The connection between hearing and living is linked to the law of God in the book of Deuteronomy: “And now, Israel, hear the laws and statutes which I teach you to keep. Listen, and you will live..." (Dtn 4:1) and the prophet Isaiah also refers to this connection: "Lend your ears to me and come to me, listen, and then you will live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you...” (Is 55:3).

Listening is linked to God's offer of the covenant; whoever hears enters into the covenant with God, into a life-creating relationship with him.

God also hears and sees, and this attention to his people leads him to liberating action: “The Lord said: I have seen the misery of my people in Egypt, and I have heard their loud lamentation against their leaders. I know their suffering.” (Ex 3:7) This fundamentally distinguishes him from idols, because “they have mouths and do not speak, eyes do not see; they have ears and do not hear, a nose and do not smell; …” Psalm 115:5 f.).

An apophthegma refers to this connection: “Abbas Mios, the son of Beleus said: Obedience stands for obedience. If someone obeys God, God also obeys him.” (Mios 1) ¹⁰²If man listens to God, obeys him, then he enters into the relationship that allows him to live, then God's promises will be fulfilled in him and he will be find salvation. God is obedient, faithful to his covenant and promise of life.

Listening to God requires engaging with Scripture and Tradition, meditating or “ruminating” (ruminatio) Scripture to make sense of it here and now.

“If you want to dig for gold, dig in the Holy Scriptures: they build up faith; it molds morals and pierces the soul with its sweetness. It is about the fullness of joy and the bliss of angels. As gold surpasses all other metals, so the understanding of Scripture surpasses all science: He who does not know the letters does not know the Scriptures. The Old Testament and the New contain the fullness of all science. You alone have to get to know them, you alone have to put them into practice. The heart of the sinner takes its form through the Old and New Testaments. The heart widens: The breadth of love widens the narrow heart. And love is wider than the ocean."¹⁰³

Listening to God means dealing with the experiences of those who have walked the path of following Christ in the history of faith, because this also reveals God's work in history and the present. On the one hand, these are the pronouncements and documents of the Church and, on the other hand, the spiritual tradition.

Edith Stein is quoted here as representative of the diverse testimonies of tradition, for whom reading a spiritual author became the turning point in her years of searching: “Carmel has been my goal for almost 12 years. Since I saw the 'life' of our St. had fallen into the hands of Mother Teresa and put an end to my long search for the true faith.”¹⁰⁴

Listening to God means dealing with the "signs of the times", with events, encounters, thoughts and experiences of contemporaries, in order to track down God's work in them. In a letter, Bernhard von Clairvaux draws attention to the fact that God can be found in everyday life: "Believe someone who has experience: You will find a lot more in the woods than in books. Wood and stones will teach you what you cannot hear from teachers. Or don't you think you can suck 'honey from the rock and oil from the hardest rock' (Deut 32:13)? Or do not the mountains drip with sweetness, and do not the hills flow with milk and honey (Joel 3:18), and do not the valleys abound in grain (Psalm 64:14)? "¹⁰⁵

Karl Rahner once very pointedly expressed these different ways of listening to God in a statement on dealing with visions, i.e. extraordinary experiences of faith: "If God also speaks to us in a variety of ways, then it is not at all clear a priori that the most important directives issued precisely through visions. Rather, they are in the gospel and ring out from the lips of the church in its 'ordinary' proclamation. And sometimes at least the spirit of God stirs in the theologians and 'movements' of the church, even if they cannot refer to visions. Lovers of revelations and apparitions should also not forget (which also happens): Christ 'appears' to us most certainly in the poor and needy. In the sacrament and in the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is offered to every Christian, God has his purest presence.”¹⁰⁶

Obedience points to the roots and foundations of Judeo-Christian, biblical faith, because faith and life come from hearing.

That is why obedience is a central value not only for religious life but for Christian life in general.

exercise

The willingness to listen is not an attitude that is simply given, even if the ability to hear is innate, it must be practiced and won over and over again, according to the conviction of monasticism. Distractions, especially those of one's own heart, are to be overcome in a constant effort, in a spiritual battle. The father of the monks, Antonius, remarks: “Whoever sits in the desert and cultivates the peace of heart is snatched from three battles: hearing, speaking, and seeing. He has only one fight to fight: against his own heart.” (Antonios 11)¹⁰⁷

This means contemplating yourself, perceiving and dealing with the thoughts in your own heart. Hearing and discerning are the important tasks of the monk in his kellion, his cell.

"Moyses: It is indeed impossible that the mind is not disturbed by thoughts. However, it is possible for anyone who strives to accept or reject them. So if their origin is not always up to us, approval and choice are in our power. . . . But, I emphasize, it is in large part up to us whether the quality of our thoughts is improved and whether the holy and spiritual [thoughts] or the earthly and carnal [thoughts] grow in our hearts. This is why frequent reading and constant meditation on Sacred Scripture are used, so that from there we are given the possibility of a spiritual treasure of memory; hence the frequent prayer of the Psalms, that thereby a constant shaking may accompany us; therefore diligence is exercised in vigils, in fasting, and in prayer, that the scarred spirit may not taste earthly things, but behold heavenly things. "¹⁰⁸

The perception of one's own thoughts in the heart happens in the space of reading and meditating on the Scriptures, the (Psalms) prayer, fasting and watching. So what is meant is not simply self-awareness or self-knowledge, but such an effort for one's own heart is embedded in the space of God's presence, of standing before God. Listening within is the movement of listening to God, which takes practice, regularity, vigilance, and sobriety. Precise and differentiated perception is important because it enables differentiation: “We must therefore carefully observe this threefold origin of thoughts [from God, from the Diabolus or from us] and all thoughts that arise in our hearts with sharp distinction distinguish them, tracing their origin, causes, and authors from the beginning, so that we can judge how we must deal with them according to the importance of their insinuations, so that we can become trustworthy coiners, according to the commandment of the Lord. Because it requires the highest level of experience and skill if one wants to determine what the purest gold is ... or what has not been refined enough by purification in the fire.”¹⁰⁹

Ignatius of Loyola provides his so-called rules of discernment with the following heading, which in itself describes a process: "Rules to somehow feel and recognize the different impulses that are caused in the soul - the good ones to accept them - and the evil ones to turn them away."¹¹⁰

The Spanish text says "sentir", which can be translated as feel, feel, perceive, hear, feel. It is therefore a differentiated process of perception, which is followed by recognition and only then by differentiation.

effort of obedience

Benedict speaks of the "trouble of obedience" or the effort to obey against the "inertia of disobedience".¹¹¹

This also applies to listening in church services. The following is narrated from Abbas Poimen: “When he wanted to go to the (worship) meeting, he first sat down by himself and examined his thoughts for about an hour. And so he went away.” (Poimen 32)¹¹² The preparation for the service is to listen to oneself and to be certain of the thoughts in the heart when listening and how listening may be hindered or promoted as a result.

As already mentioned at the beginning, the willingness to do something must go hand in hand with the willingness to listen. Abbas Philikas (Felix): “Now there are no more words. When the brothers used to ask the elders and do what they said, the Lord taught them how to speak. But now, after they only ask but do not do what is heard, God has taken the gift of the word from the elders, and they cannot find what to say, since there is none to do it!" (Philicas [= Felix])¹¹³

The indolence of disobedience or a mere superficial interest without a fundamental willingness to change block the connection between hearing, doing and living.

Therefore, for Benedict, too, the counter-movement to obedience is grumbling. “Grumbling isn't just open contradiction or justified criticism. What is meant is the mostly silent refusal of the heart. … The Lord, to whom the refusal is ultimately directed, looks at the heart, ie at the center of the person and at the hidden motivations. What is important is the constant reversal of this negative mood. Obedience is a process that leads to ever greater willingness. Benedict is not primarily concerned with instructions for action, but with leading to the reality of faith.”¹¹⁴

Grumbling is related to nagging. It is a characteristic of the complainer that the guilty are always sought outside and often remain anonymous and without a face, it is the secular and godless society, it is the loss of value, the endangerment of the West, etc. The starting point is chosen in such a way that an individual and also a community cannot change anything. A general cultural pessimism almost inevitably follows from this. Generalizations are the order of the day in the nagging culture, the present is devalued, the past tends to be revalued to the point of transfiguring it. The nagging culture maneuvers itself step by step into a hopeless situation. The problems are too great, the culprits cannot be identified, and there is no sign of a fundamental improvement in the situation. Resignation and a depressive mood are spreading, everything seems hopeless, the framework is far too broad for a light to appear on the horizon, the demands on oneself and others ("those up there") are too high for them to had a chance.

The desert fathers and mothers saw in this a perfidious strategy of the demons, namely to permanently overtax the people and thus to permanently frustrate them. Abbas Poemen: "All excess is from the demons." (Poimen 129) ¹¹⁵Some indulge in regret and self-pity. A typical whiner leads a constant monologue with himself, he needs less and less a real conversation partner.

Such a nagging rail is subliminally highly aggressively charged, because the powerlessness experienced naturally also leads to aggression. When these have little opportunity to act out, they subliminally pool and pile up, sometimes leading to the most curious phenomenon of apparent minor issues suddenly becoming major points of conflict.

This acts out frustration and aggression in places that have nothing to do with the cause, nor are they really important.

Augustine describes this aptly in his Enarrationes in Psalmos: “All who murmur are very aptly characterized in Scripture with the words: The heart of a fool is like the wheel of a chariot (Sir 33:5). What does this mean? The wheel only has to carry straw and hay, but it groans. Because the wagon wheel can't stop groaning. There are many brothers of this kind. Physically they dwell together in fellowship.”¹¹⁶

Grumbling and nagging are like cancerous growths that often spread unnoticed at first and gradually cloud and darken the mood of the individual Order member and then gradually of the community as well. The main feature is that the ability to hear is decreasing more and more.

hearing and silence

The constant practice of listening is a fundamental task and is not tied to specific places or times. A short story from the Perugia collection makes this clear in the context of the Franciscan tradition: “When Blessed Francis chose from among the brothers those whom he wanted to take with him, he said to them: 'In the name of the Lord, go two by two and two honestly on the way, especially in silence from the morning until the third hour, and pray to the Lord in your heart. Even idle or useless words should not be spoken among you.

For even though you wander, let your conduct be as honorable as when you were in a hermitage or in a cell; for wherever we stand and go we have the cell with us: for brother body is our cell and soul is the hermit dwelling within the cell to pray and contemplate to God. If, therefore, the soul does not wish to remain in rest and solitude in its cell, then a cell made by hand is of little use to the religious.'"¹¹⁷

It is not the cell that matters, but the attitude of worship and contemplation, which essentially describes attention to, and listening to, God.

Francis names a prerequisite for this in the first part of the quote, it is the preservation of silence and the avoidance of useless and idle words.

The Rule of Carmel elaborates on this in chapter 21: “But the apostle recommends silence when he prescribes quiet work, just as the prophet also testifies: 'The exercise of righteousness is silence.' And further: 'Your strength lies in silence and in hope.' Therefore we decree that after praying Compline you should keep silence until the following day's Prim is prayed. Even if silence does not need to be maintained so much in the rest of the time, one should nevertheless carefully guard against gossip, for as it is written and no less experience teaches: 'With much talk sin does not fail' and 'Whoever carelessly in the Talking is bad for him.' Then: 'He who uses many words damages his soul.' And the Lord himself says in the gospel: 'Every useless word that people speak they will have to give an account of on the day of judgment.' Therefore let everyone weigh his words and bridle his tongue, lest he stumble and fall by his speech, and his fall incurably lead to death. With the Prophet let everyone watch his ways, lest he stray with his tongue, and let him carefully and conscientiously strive for silence, which is the exercise of justice. "¹¹⁸

The first sentence of the chapter refers to 2 Thess 3:8-12, followed by Isa 32:17 (Vulgate: "et erit opus iustitiae pax et cultus iustitiae silentium") and Isa 30:15 (Vulgate: "in silentio et in spe”) quoted. These quotes characterize silence.

First, silence at work is emphasized. Work is not the opposite of prayer in the sense of "either ... or", but work is another form of prayer, of meditation. The silence at work should help to experience this as a different form of prayer. The Rule further emphasizes that according to Isaiah (Is 32), silence is the practice of justice, so it does not mean passive or resigned silence, but active, creative silence.

The strength of the monk lies in silence and hope, not in hecticness or busyness. The hope in God, the trust in him allows the monk to become calm and quiet inside, because his salvation lies in God and he does not have to create it himself, which gives him serenity, calm and peace. This source of power of silence and hope must be cultivated, not only through the silence of the night, which means more mutual consideration, but above all through the attitude of silence, which should be maintained throughout the day. Scripture and experience teach that talking a lot is not without error, in fact it is an error in itself, because it robs the monk of his source of strength. That's how it works, and that's the ascetic task of the monk's day and life, about the right balance between speaking and silence and about weighing the words. The question is whether they are really necessary or useless, perhaps an escape from the silence. Words are not to be uttered carelessly, for account will be taken of them. He who talks a lot can hardly avoid the temptation to slander and insult. Silence therefore also has to do with reverence and respect for others, with listening to others.

The Rule of Carmel makes it so clear that what is meant is a qualified silence, a silence, a kind of rest that is based on the experience of being carried by an ultimate meaning, by God, and is also geared towards the encounter with God. Finding the right measure of words, going into silence in order to seek God and also to find it with his grace is the goal of monastic life.

Another qualification of silence is the relationship with the community in which it is practiced, on the one hand out of fraternal consideration not to disturb the other at night, out of respect for the other, not to slander him, and on the other hand as an attitude of common orientation to God during the day.

A silence, then, that thrives on relationships and leads to relationships, promoting them and not wanting to prevent them. This silence is not a question of having time and leisure or of a specific technique, but a question of being supported by an ultimate meaning, by God. Silence is necessary for the sake of relationship with God and man. Silence means taking things seriously and realizing that words can slay, hurt and kill. Silence and listening describe the two sides of the same attitude.

Talking occupies space, people make themselves important and their opinions interesting. In silence, space is opened up for the opinions of others, for the word of God. Silence shows respect for the other person, not only not saying anything bad about him, but also trusting him that he has something important to say, that his opinion is significant.

This requires a healthy self-confidence that knows about one's own worth and limits and will therefore speak and remain silent at the right time. A person who is in tune with himself and secure in God need not remain silent for fear of making a mistake, embarrassment, or being misunderstood; but he doesn't have to talk to gain recognition; he does not have to express his opinion everywhere and on every topic in order to make himself important and thus make sense of himself.

Following Isaiah in the Rule of Carmel, silence is characterized as an exercise in justice. In the 32nd chapter of Isaiah it is explained in more detail what justice means: One knows one another to be safe (32:2), one sees and hears, is sensitive (32:3-4), there is no more hypocrisy, things become named (32:5-7).

obedience in the moment

Placed in a more general context, listening and obedience in dealing with the circumstances, the daily demands of life, should be considered.

The knowledge of the right action, the right decision is often not something that falls out of the sky, but it opens up in and from daily encounters, in the arguments and challenges of everyday life, in and with the community, in the world and church. Obedience means accepting responsibility for daily life and turning to God and people, not avoiding it, but living it. The temptation of the spiritual life is not to face it but to flee. For the old monasticism, this was a characteristic of Akedia, the so-called midday demon.¹¹⁹ Then there are thoughts like: “If I had been transferred to another convent then, I would certainly feel better today.” would have or did, then...". These are temptations that tend to distract from the present condition and think things would be better if some circumstance were different. This is mostly an illusion, because the situation often does not change due to a change in circumstances, but rather due to a change in attitude towards the situation or due to the transformation of the person(s) involved. Therefore, the basic challenge is to deal with what is and not to get attached to what could be different, what is dreamed, constructed or desired.

Helping deed and transformation

Obedience to the situation also requires action when required. In Lk 10:25-37, Jesus uses the behavior of the good Samaritan to explain how one becomes a neighbor and fulfills the commandment to love one's neighbour. Attention to those who suffer and are marginalized decides who belongs to Christ. A striking detail of the story is that the priest and Levite, of all people, evade this obedience and pass by. The judge of the world in Mt 25:31-46 also makes it clear that membership in the kingdom of God is decided by behavior towards one's neighbour, more precisely towards suffering and needy neighbours. Whereby the perception alone, as shown by the example of priests and Levites and the behavior of the "goats" in Matthew, is not enough, the helping deed is needed.

So there is something like an obedience to the sufferers, to the situations of the sufferers, which JB Metz ¹²⁰has called the "mysticism of the open eyes".

In his “Speech of Instruction”, Meister Eckhart sees greater love in turning to the sick: “Now, assuming that it is full and whole love, it is not the very best. This becomes clear from the following: one should refrain from such a jubilus from time to time for the sake of something better out of love and in order to do a work of love where it is necessary, be it spiritually or physically. As I have said before: If a man were in such a state of ecstasy as St. Paul was, and knew of a sick man who needed a little soup from him, I thought it far better for you to let go of the ecstasy out of love and served the needy in greater love.”¹²¹

Suffering is alleviated and those in need are helped through the perception of need and courageous action. With Francis of Assisi, this connection takes on another significant facet when he writes in his will: "Thus the Lord gave me, Brother Francis, to begin the life of penance: for when I was in sin, it came very bitter to see lepers. And the Lord himself brought me among them, and I showed them mercy. And when I went away from them, what seemed bitter to me was turned into sweetness of soul and body.”¹²²

Here an attitude of obedience, of listening in human encounters is described, which is fundamental if the meeting of people is really to become an encounter, namely that everyone involved allows themselves to be changed by the encounter. It is the openness to human and spiritual growth through encounter. The prerequisite for this is that the other person is perceived as a person and is not seen from the outset as deficient or not seen as equal.

Francis experiences a transformation in the encounter with the lepers because he overcomes his bitter revulsion. By showing mercy to the lepers as human beings, he experiences a transformation in himself, a healing, for bitterness turns into sweetness. Bitterness is not simply neutralized, but even turned into sweetness.

Obedience means maintaining this willingness to listen and openness for one's own transformation.

power and obedience

Exercising power, like obedience, is associated by some people primarily in hierarchical structures and systems. This attribution may deliberately overlook the fact that every member of a community exercises power, sometimes even through demonstrated powerlessness. The mocking sentence in religious circles, “be good to your superior, he/she could one day be your subordinate”, makes the “relativity” of the exercise of power ironically clear. Of course, this also applies vice versa: “Be good to your subordinates, they could be your superior one day.”

Exercising power is not a one-way street and everyone exercises power, and if it is the power to impose one's own bad mood or mood on others or to make one's own euphoria the yardstick for everyone's state of mind. Power and obedience are not just one-way streets from top to bottom, but they are not only related to each other in the spiritual sense and in the ideal, but also in the often unreflected reality and mutual obedience is always needed. Power can be misused, no question about it, but where power is not used responsibly, but is not used for pseudo-democratic or ideological reasons, or only works covertly and subliminally and thus uncontrolled, the consequences are often just as bad. Powerlessness can also be misused, if it serves to point out one's own weakness or alleged inability to not take responsibility and thus always burden the others in the community even more. This powerlessness is therefore highly aggressive and "life-threatening" for others. Abuse of power and powerlessness always serve the same goal, namely to actively or passively assert one's own interests.

As such, obedience fundamentally has to do with the willingness to accept responsibility and refrain from doing so to the extent honestly and reflectively possible.

Basic attitudes for synodal processes

Based on the experiences of the tradition, some basic attitudes should now be named that can be helpful for synodal processes.

preparation

Abbas Poimen's example of researching one's thoughts before the service is also a useful, preparatory exercise before synods. The knowledge of what is going on inside oneself, i.e. which thoughts, emotions, opinions, experiences, judgments and prejudices etc. are virulent with regard to the upcoming meeting at least means that a person can participate more consciously in the meeting and possibly "disorganized tendencies". , unconscious interference can be avoided.

It is important not to immediately judge or evaluate the discovered inner movements, but simply to perceive their existence and simply honestly acknowledge that nobody, really nobody, takes part in such a gathering in a completely objective way.

For longer-term preparation or simply for a conscious spiritual life, the practice of listening readiness, the training of attention and the ability to perceive.

Forms of meditation, prayer and spiritual life help with this.

Practicing self-reflection is also part of the preparation. The differentiated perception of inner movements and processes is not a matter of course, but requires practice and often support, especially at the beginning.

An iron principle of ancient monasticism was: "Don't judge!"

This is true in relation to oneself and in relationships with others. Learning to deal critically with one's own judgements, which often come about very quickly, is part of self-reflection. Life and relationships do not work without forming an opinion, but this should be as differentiated, honest and unprejudiced as possible.

Of course, this also applies to the formation of opinions in synodal processes, for which knowledge of one's own mechanisms is a prerequisite.

listening

A synodal process thrives on everyone's willingness to listen in alignment with the head of the church, Christ, and in interaction with one another.

Fellowship in the church comes about first and foremost through a common focus on Christ and only then through relationships with one another.

This willingness to listen also includes the ability to disregard one's own opinions and judgments. This opens up the possibility of real listening and the confidence that others also have something important to contribute, including the "younger ones", to quote Benedict, or more generally, even those who are not trusted.

This requires a healthy self-confidence that is independent, anchored in God in Christian terms, that knows its own value, its own strengths and weaknesses, and at the same time respectfully and humbly recognizes the value of others.

A person who is independent in this sense does not need to make himself important, to make sense of himself through his actions, through his words. But he will also not remain silent or hold back when he has recognized something as important and right for fear of making a mistake or embarrassing himself or being misjudged by others.

Such a person then also has the maturity to accept legitimate decisions of a synodal assembly, even if they do not correspond to their own opinion. He doesn't need to devalue others because of this, deny them their competence or withdraw into a pouty corner like a small child. He can also refrain from nagging and grumbling.

Be silent

Willingness to listen requires silence, otherwise hearing cannot function. Your own silence is the prerequisite for being able to listen. Silence means that the inner processes of the discussion come to rest as much as possible, so that a person is not already mentally busy formulating a reply while listening or with immediately comparing the expressed opinion with their own attitude. This is exactly what prevents real hearing. Facing silence tries to understand what the other really means and wants to say.

This avoids mere debates and creates a dialogue in which the Holy Spirit has the opportunity to experience itself in the "in between".

However, a qualified silence requires practice again and again in times of retreat and prayer.

Perhaps more silence and fewer speeches would do well for a synodal assembly, especially when it comes to (sometimes pseudo-)spiritual reflections at the beginning or end of assemblies. These, in turn, are not the place for theological self-representation, but rather an opportunity for self-assurance and reflection on what is important now. Experience has shown that silence helps a lot better than any impulses, no matter how sophisticated and reflected. “Because it is not all the knowledge that fills and satisfies the soul, but the inward feeling and tasting of things.”¹²³

allow change

Those who take part in a synodal process must be willing to accept changes, both in relation to the church and in relation to their own person. Especially when the church is understood as a living organism of which all are living members, then important developments and changes in the "body" of the church affect all members, even if they are perhaps not directly affected. That's why it's always about personal processes when it comes to church, which doesn't necessarily make the processes easier, but makes them very lively.

Those who a priori reject change disqualify themselves from synodal assemblies and indirectly claim that the present state of the Church is perfect and therefore unchangeable. The latter is simply stupid, if not downright heresy.

Obedience as a basic attitude

The necessary attitude for synodal processes is well summarized in the so-called Evangelical Council of Obedience.

The so-called Würzburg Synod, which unfortunately has almost been forgotten, comments on this in the basic document “Unsere Hoffnung”: “The path to following Jesus always leads to that obedience to the Father, which characterizes the life of Jesus completely and without which it would remain absolutely inaccessible. This obedience is also the root of the human kindness characteristic of Jesus, his closeness to the outcast and humiliated, to the sinners and the lost.”¹²⁴

Obedience to God is formative for following Christ, i.e. being a Christian, and at the same time has fundamental effects on the relationship with one’s neighbor.

This obedience keeps the basic relationship of all processes to the origin, to God in view and at the same time shapes the relationship to the other participants, demands respectful and humble interaction with one another and the ability to stand up for one's own, critically reflected conviction without hardening and without losing the ability to refrain from doing so when another insight appears.

The basic orientation, the view of the head of the Church, of the obedient Christ, enables this attitude and this development and thus enables really constructive, dialogical and goal-oriented synodal processes.

Anselm Grün: The advice of the brothers at Benedict

Anselm Grün OSB , born 1945, monk at the Münsterschwarzach Abbey since 1964, author and course leader, spiritual director of the Recollectiohaus

Summary: More than 1500 years ago, Benedict gave clear instructions on how the brothers should speak to one another and how the abbot should listen to the brothers and the brothers to one another. The abbot should never decide alone, but always call the council of the brothers together. And above all he should listen to the younger brothers, because God often inspires them what is better. These instructions are certainly also a suggestion for our church bodies today. Benedict is not assuming an ideal community, but tries to show ways in which a community that is fragile - like the church today - can find its way into the future in peace.

Benedict wrote a separate chapter in his Rule: "The Calling of the Brethren to the Council". (RB 3) What he writes about the brothers listening to each other and the abbot listening to what the brothers say and to what God wants to say through the brothers can also be a standard for the way and way in which a synod of bishops, listening to one another and listening to God's will, seeks what is salutary for the Church and for Christians and what meets people and their needs. Of course there is a difference between a community living together coming together for common deliberation and the whole church coming together through representatives from all over the world. So I would like to confine myself to the description "From the calling of the brothers to the council" and to some aspects that are crucial for any joint consultation.

Gather the whole community

Benedict also has his own “Council of Elders” with which he discusses less important problems of monastic coexistence. From this institution, canon law then set up the so-called "Senior Council". The Seniorate includes elected representatives of the Convention. And ex officio the abbot, the prior and the cellarer are always members of the seniorate. In contrast to Benedict's rule, in which the seniors have a purely advisory function, today there are decisions that the seniors make and to which the abbot must also adhere.

When there are important questions, the abbot calls all the brothers and the whole community (omnem congregationem) together. Everyone should be heard, everyone has the right to have a say, to contribute their suggestions and ideas. The principle of "the whole community" would mean today that all members of the church, the full-time and voluntary workers, but also the whole people are heard. There is no difference in rank. Everyone has the right to express their point of view. And the abbot should listen to everyone. For the synod of bishops, this also means that the bishops previously listened well to the people in their dioceses, that they make the voice of the people (vox populi) audible.

Do everything with advice

Benedict concludes his advice chapter with a quote from Jesus Sirach: "Do everything with advice, then you don't have to regret anything after the deed." (Sir 32:19, according to the Vulgate) Benedict refers this word to the abbot. The abbot should himself Don't imagine that he already knows more than the others because of his office alone. He needs to listen to the advice of the brothers. Benedict can refer to tradition here. Bishop Cyprian (Ep. 14:4) writes to his congregation: "Right at the beginning of my episcopal ministry I decided not to do anything without your advice and without the consent of the people - purely on the basis of my personal opinion." For Bishop Cyprian is It is important: "to seek a solution together, as required by mutual respect".

With the father monks in the desert, the meetings were aimed at uncovering mistakes and at forgiveness and reconciliation between the brothers. With his council chapter, Benedict connects more with the experiences of the local churches, in which the bishop does not make decisions that are beneficial for everyone solely by virtue of his office, but by listening to the presbyters and the community. But both aspects are important. The gathering of the whole community is intended to uncover grievances and reconcile the community among themselves. And they should look together for ways how the community can live well together and how it can fulfill its tasks towards the outside for the benefit of the people.

God often reveals to a younger one what is better

At the time of Benedict, the old monks were considered the truly wise monks. But Benedict wants everyone to be called to counsel. And he does not justify this with the wisdom of the young, but with it, "because the Lord often reveals to a younger man what is better" (RB 3.3). With this thought, too, Benedict can follow a tradition that, looking at the Bible, says that God speaks to the people through young men and women. Origen may suffice as an example. Origen refers to Moses, who listened to his father-in-law and did whatever he suggested. (Ex 18:24) The father-in-law is older than Moses, but he is a heathen. So he is considered to be under Moses. Origen says of Moses: "He does not listen to who says it, but to what he says. Therefore, when we find a word of wisdom from a heathen, we must not immediately despise his words along with the speaker.” With Origen, the main concern is that God was represented by a “lower” human being – and that includes them younger ones – speaks to us. We should listen carefully to what God wants to say to us through this person.

Ambrose is referring directly to younger people in his interpretation of Psalm 118. And he gives some biblical examples. The prophet Jeremiah receives the word from God: “Do not say: I am still so young.” (Jer 1:7) Ambrose explains it like this: “Of course he was young in years, but God forbids him to call himself young , who possesses wisdom and maturity. Although Daniel was a boy, he received the Spirit (cf. Dan 13:45), which made him worthy of the gifts of mature old age, so that he judged old people - he himself old age, not by old age, but by grace." ( Ambrosius, Expos Ps 118,2.15.17-18) Ambrosius takes up a popular topic that a young person can be as wise as an old man. Pope Gregory says of Benedict himself that he was puer senex, already an old man as a boy, not in his stubbornness but in his wisdom.

However, Benedict means something else in this counseling chapter: God himself often reveals to a younger one what is better. The abbot and the brothers should therefore listen carefully to see whether God is speaking to the community through this young monk. The point is that God can speak through people who objectively have less experience. But at this moment God gives him a thought that is good for everyone. In his rule, Benedict repeatedly expects God himself to speak through people, for example through a guest who points out to the abbot about grievances in the monastery (RB 61.4).

If we apply these experiences to the Synod of Bishops, then we can listen, in the spirit of Origen, to everything that wise people have to say to the Church, even if they themselves may be outside the Church. We should listen to philosophers and sociologists, psychologists and futurologists, whether they believe it or not. God can also speak to the church through these people. And we should listen to the younger people. Even if their ideas are not always mature, God can also stimulate our thinking through unfamiliar thinking. We should not immediately dismiss their ideas as unrealistic and misleading, but listen closely to see if Christ himself is not addressing something through this young man that all should consider, which, as Benedict writes, is better (melius). Better assumes that the opinions of other brothers were good. But sometimes a perspective flashes in a younger person's mind that others have overlooked. It's not just a new perspective, but one that's better, more true to reality, and a good way forward.

Ultimately, counseling is about finding out what God wants to say to the community. This requires good listening, in which one does not immediately want to contradict one's own opinion. I listen - as far as possible, without prejudice - to what the other says. Often enough we already have our preconceived notions. And while listening, we already formulate our own position in order to prove to the other person that his words do not lead any further, that they cannot possibly lead to a good solution. It is about listening that is open to every word. Because we reckon that through the other God himself wants to say something to us. So it's not about a lot of knowledge and experience, but about the openness that God can show a way through a younger one that is good for the community.

The way the brothers should speak

For Benedikt, good hearing is the decisive prerequisite for a good conversation. The rule already begins with the word "Obsculta = listen": "Listen, my son, to the instructions of the master, incline the ear of your heart, willingly accept the encouragement of the kind father and fulfill it through deeds!" (RB , Prole 1). By Master is meant Christ Himself. The monk is essentially one who listens to what Christ tells him. But this hearing does not serve to know, but to do. I only hear properly when I am also ready to fulfill through action what I have heard as God's will.

Ultimately, listening is always about listening to God's Word and God's will. But good listening also leads to another way of speaking. “The brethren, however, are to counsel in all humility and submission. They should not presumptuously and obstinately defend their own views.” (RB 3:4) The brothers should therefore express what they have heard inwardly, what God inspires them. But it's not about evaluating the various advice and opinions. Therefore, the younger brother who speaks his mind openly should not fight that his opinion is right. And it is not possible to win over as many brothers as possible for oneself and one's opinion. Nor should the older brother insist on his experience. He has had to make so many decisions, he knows what leads to success and what doesn't. It's about the courage to say what you feel without fighting for it. Rather, the many words should simply be heard. And the abbot should also listen carefully to what the brothers say. But then it's not about a discussion. Rather, it is about listening to what God wants to say to the community in a joint conversation.

This principle certainly also applies to the Synod of Bishops. You should say the words you feel inside you freely and trustingly, without considering whether it is acceptable to others. Just as little, however, should other opinions be dismissed as unqualified. It's not about evaluating the contributions of others, but about the openness to listen to what God wants to say to me and the synod in each contribution. It is therefore necessary to have silence to let the words sink in and prayer to discern in the various contributions what God thinks is a better way for the whole Church.

The abbot's decision

What God's will is not accomplished simply by unanimity. There are charismatic circles that always aim for unanimity in deliberations. But that is often a pressure that one exposes oneself to. And sometimes unanimity can also be used as a means of power. The community should pray until they all agree with me. That would be an authoritarian method.

Benedict emphasizes the authority of the abbot. It is his job to discern the voice of God from among the many voices he has heard. Therefore, "the decision is at the discretion of the abbot: what he considers more wholesome, everyone should obey him." One could also translate: what serves the health of the brothers, what serves peace. In verse 2 it says: "Whatever he thinks is more profitable, let him do it." Here it says "utilius", in verse 5 "salubrius". Utilis doesn't just mean "more useful". Rather, it is about what is appropriate, beneficial, fitting, what bears more fruit, what serves the whole better. And "salubrius" means healthier for the community, more wholesome for the brothers. Ultimately, it is about a theological concept: about the salvation of the brothers and the community.

The abbot should not decide arbitrarily. He should first listen carefully to what the brothers say. Of course he has had experiences with his brothers and so a prejudice has probably formed in his head. But he should put that aside and be open to any opinions expressed by the brothers. And he should listen inside himself: What do these opinions move in him? Which word does he feel more that is right for the community. On the one hand, the abbot has the power to decide. On the other hand, he should feel responsible to God: “The abbot, however, must always give his orders in the fear of God and in doing so, heed the Rule. He must know that he must answer without a doubt for all his decisions before God, the just judge.” (RB 3:11) His authority must not be shaped by arbitrariness, but by the responsibility that the abbot has towards God feels. Therefore, it is not a question of following the requests to speak of those with whom he feels the most sympathy. He has the task of listening to the words to hear exactly in which word God touches him the most. And he should be obedient to this word. The abbot therefore needs the gift of discerning spirits that the fathers of the monks speak of. In the abbot chapter, Benedict urges the abbot: “Let him think of the measured discernment of St. James, who said: If I overexert my flocks on the way, they will all perish in one day. Heed these and other testimonies of measured discernment, the mother of all virtues. So keep in moderation so that the strong find what they desire and the weak do not run away.” (RB 64,18f) The abbot only acquires the gift of discernment if he honestly recognizes himself and exactly perceives which thoughts come from God and which thoughts arise more from one's own ambition - or as we would say today: one's own superego.

The early monks established criteria to distinguish between God's will and one's own will. It is always about God's will when the path that we feel within us leads to more vitality, freedom, love and peace. If a path leads into fear, into narrowness, into hardship, then that is not God's will, but an expression of our own superego. So, with every word he hears from the brothers, the abbot should feel within himself : If I follow this word, will it lead to greater vitality, freedom, love and peace for the community? Or are these words about the ambition to surpass other communities or to find society's approval for one's modernity?

The authority of the abbot makes it possible to really make decisions. A community that only discusses but does not make any decisions blocks itself. The abbot should decide. But he should first think carefully about what is more healing and beneficial, what serves the community and the people around the monastery more. Therefore, the decisions are not only about the well-being of the community, but always also about the question: What is the task of the monks at this time? What is human longing and how can we as monks respond appropriately to this longing? The community should not revolve around itself, but place itself at the service of God and people. Therefore, there needs to be a sensitivity to what the monks have to say and give to the people of the world today.

The synod of bishops is also about the pope listening to all requests to speak and taking them seriously, but then he goes into himself and makes a decision that he believes is right for the synod participants, but that they above all serves the good of the Church and that it is salutary for the people whom the Church serves with her proclamation of the Good News. The Church is not an end in itself. It has the task of carrying on the message of Jesus in this world and credibly supporting it. A church that only conforms does not serve the people. With all the courage to change structures, you always need to look at the whole of humanity and also at the cosmos. The decisions of the pope should serve the church and all people in the world and they should contribute to future generations being able to live well on this earth. The Pope must not decide arbitrarily, but only by carefully listening to God's will. To do this, he needs the gift of discerning spirits.

The standard of the rule

The abbot not only has to listen carefully to what God requires of the community. He also has a clear standard to live by. This is the rule that Benedict wrote for the community: “Everyone should follow the rule as a teacher in everything, and no one may lightly deviate from her instructions. No one may follow the will of his own heart in a monastery.” (RB 3.7f) The rule is not a strict code, however. Rather, it breathes the spirit of space and freedom. But overall, the rule and the spirit that speaks from it is the standard by which the monks and the abbot are to conform.

Applied to the deliberations of the synod, this means that the standard that the members of the synod should apply to everything they discuss and deliberate on is the Holy Scriptures. They should not just repeat the Bible, but look for ways to match the spirit of the Bible today. And that also includes listening to the signs of the times. What does God want to tell us through the signs of the times. Jesus himself challenges his disciples to understand the signs of the times. (Lk 12:56) Using two historical examples, Jesus explains how we should react to the signs of the times. Jesus refers to an incident in which Pilate had many Galileans killed in sacrifice and a collapse of the tower of Shiloam in which 18 people were killed. (Luke 13:1-4) The disciples of Jesus should learn from both events to turn around and to think differently. Metanoia, a different way of thinking is required.

So the benchmark for all consultations is listening to the Bible and listening to the signs of the times. God speaks to us through the words of the Bible, but also through everything that happens in our day. It is therefore about a dialogue between what the Bible tells us and what the signs of the times want to point out to us. The Second Vatican Council adopted Jesus' thoughts on the signs of the times. The Pastoral Constitution states: "In order to carry out this mission of hers, the Church always has the duty of examining the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." (Gaudium et Spes, 4)

The Synod of Bishops is also about interpreting the signs of the times. She has to listen to the signs of the times as well as to the words of the Bible. However, like the Rule of Benedict, the Bible is not a book to hold on to every letter, but a book in which God speaks to us today. And God speaks to us in new ways every day through the ancient words of the Bible. The words of the Bible want to open our eyes so that we can correctly interpret the signs of the times and arrive at a new way of thinking.

The Synod of Bishops needs both: obedient listening to the Bible and a sensitive feeling for what God wants to tell us through the signs of the times. And the signs of the times can drive us to question some of the solutions in the church that are determined by contemporary history and to look for ways that lead us further today. Not every decision that the church has made in its long history can be considered sacrosanct, as unquestionable. The Bible invites us to question everything, but to look at and judge everything in view of Jesus' message.

Ending

For Benedict, the big question was how a community of monks could live well together in the long run, how they could remain open to God's Word and listen to the signs of the times. Benedict is careful not to create great ideal images for his community. He knows how fragile a community is. But he shows us ways how we can live together in the spirit of Jesus despite our own frailty and despite the daily conflicts and how we as a community can become a blessing for the people. Therefore, the common search for the will of God is always characterized by humility. This humility also applies to a synod of bishops. We have painfully experienced the dark sides of the Church in recent years - abuse scandal, financial machinations in the Vatican etc - so we cannot communicate with each other with the attitude that we are in possession of the truth. We are - as Benedict describes it of the monks - our whole life in search of God. It is always a humble but at the same time hopeful search for God that keeps us alive and makes us just the leaven of hope for society.

Community and sensus fidelium in Vatican II

Martin Kirschner: Ecclesiology in action. The loci theologici as a structural model of synodality: a proposal.

Martin Kirschner, born in 1974, Professor of Theology in the Transformation Processes of the Present, Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt.

Summary: Synodality is interpreted as a performative ecclesiology that is carried out in collective communication and decision-making processes and further developed experimentally. This is happening in the context of deep-reaching global crises and internal conflicts in the Catholic Church. In proximity to and distinction from democracy, the essay proposes structuring synodality from the system of loci theologici. The focus is not on sovereignty and interests, but on learning processes in faith. These demand mutual listening and learning, in a new reversal of all those involved, which takes a look at the people and positions that have been excluded up to now. In the double movement from the inside outwards (Aggiornamento) and from the outside inwards (Resourcement), it is important to face the urgent problems and to overcome the self-referentiality of the church in order to testify to the gospel of the world and to reform the church in it.

Synodality as a challenge to a performative ecclesiology in the context of global crises

Ever since Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Bishop of Rome on March 13, 2013, he has introduced a new style and breath of fresh air as Pope Francis ¹²⁵. The further development and renewal of synodality has become one of the main themes of his pontificate. The reason for this lies not only in his understanding of theology and church or in his being shaped by the Argentine theology of the people, but also in his "spiritual strategy" for dealing with conflicts, exercising his leadership office and church renewal as a spiritual process of dialogue, of discernment and a future-oriented practice in companionship, the most important criterion of which is turning to the margins, to the poor and those who have been excluded up to now. What is frighteningly revolutionary for conservatives and irritating for liberals is that Pope Francis does not prioritize the preservation of supposed orthodoxy or the implementation of a reform agenda, but aims to initiate and accompany processes that are open-ended, participatory and inclusive are. In view of the call for frank speech (“Parrhesía”), the backlog of reforms and the suppressed, destructively smoldering conflicts that accompanied the reception of the Second Vatican Council were finally able to come to an end and be dealt with after the Benedict era. However, it is completely open whether it will be possible to translate it into church renewal and a credible diaconal-missionary orientation - or whether the unity of the church will break and the message of the gospel will be crushed in the dispute between the parties.

With these controversies, the old controversy about the democratization of the church has resurfaced. Can synodality be understood as a catch-up democratization of the church – which, paradoxically, is taking place at the very moment when liberal democracy has reached its deepest crisis? Or does synodality constitute an alternative to democracy that brings out the specifics of the church as a faith community in apostolic tradition and ecumenical breadth? In the end, can such an ecclesiastical synodality represent a model for the renewal of the political in the crisis of democracy?

In the following I would like to take up the dispute about a democratization of the church that has been going on since the Council ¹²⁶and try to turn it productively by going back to the loci theologici and outlining a proposal for a specifically theological structure of synodality, the concerns of advocates and opponents of a democratization of the church. In doing so, I can only outline a few structural moments that would have to be spelled out in more detail with a view to the various places and instances of theological knowledge. My considerations aim at an understanding of synodality as ecclesiology in action, which develops further through learning through experimental design and reflective accompaniment of synodal processes. In the current crisis of church and society there is perhaps at the same time the Kairos to develop such a graded church synodality that learns from democracy and civil society, but can also come to their aid and make a contribution to new forms of global participation, political decision-making and "governance ' in the face of the crisis of capitalism. Such a process of developing a synodal ecclesiology is in full swing from the Amazon via Rome and Italy to Germany, Ireland and Australia.

With the decision to postpone the Synod of Bishops to synodality until 2023 and to integrate it into a global synodal process, the Pope is taking a decisive step further ¹²⁷. Under the title "For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission", the synodal renewal of the Catholic Church becomes the subject of a process in which it is practiced, innovatively developed and evaluated at the same time ¹²⁸. The structure of the process reflects the Pope's synodal ecclesiology, as he outlined it in the speech celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops. ¹²⁹The various levels of the church are involved in a graduated process in order to set in motion a worldwide decision-making and discernment process: from the dioceses with the participation of the people of God to the bishops' conferences , continental bishops' assemblies to the universal church event of the synod of bishops and its reception by the magisterium pope. The General Secretariat takes on a coordinating role, initiating the process with working papers and bundling the interim results. The Synod of Bishops is thus integrated as an event in a worldwide synodal process in which the entire people of God - lay people, religious orders and spiritual communities, associations, church universities and theological faculties - should be involved in a broad, graduated consultation process. This interaction of the various instances of the church, which should be opened up again to ecumenism, to the world public and to the social places of knowledge, is to be brought into discussion below with the concept of the loci theologici . The starting point is the relationship between synodality and democracy.

Synodality or Democratization of the Church? A problem indicator

In the discussions about synodality, on the one hand, a focus on liberal democracy and its standards, on modern society and its plausibility, on the principles of autonomous freedom, the separation of powers and human rights is repeatedly called for. On the other hand, such a demand is just as decisively rejected: the church is not a democracy, but is based on the theology of revelation in an order established by God, which must be obediently accepted in faith and courageously witnessed - convenient or inconvenient. The church should not be newly constituted, but must measure up to its biblical and apostolic origins in continuity with the magisterium’s interpretation – it does not come from the sovereignty of the people, but from the revelation of God, so that instead of balancing the interests of its members, the focus must be on conversion to the will of God.

In a way, Pope Francis disappoints both sides, but at the same time takes up their concerns and gives them his own twist. ¹³⁰On the one hand, he emphatically calls for a synodal renewal of the church, which also includes the exercise of the papal teaching office and, like John Chrysostom, can speak of the fact that church and synodality are synonyms. He encourages frank speech (parrhesía) and mutual listening, turning to the peripheries and appreciative accompaniment of the life stories of those who are excluded and marginalized (socially, but also ecclesiastically). This also includes the free discussion of the hot issues: family pastoral and sexual morality, clericalism, the position of women and office issues, but also criticism of the prevailing form of globalization, capitalism and neocolonialism. On the other hand, he repeatedly warns against seeing the church as a mere NGO and confusing synodality with parliamentarism or a political struggle for majorities. On the other hand, he emphasizes the importance of the synod as a spiritual process that must be supported by prayer and aim at evangelization through renewal.

Theologically, it should be neither plausible to simply reject the principle of democracy nor, conversely, to declare it the foundation of the church. However, a differentiated and critical approach to the concept of democracy is also required in the political sphere. "Democracy" is often used as a synonym for "good order" and is also used by authoritarian regimes to legitimize it. On closer inspection, the ideal called for is aimed more at a balanced “mixed constitution” in which the democratic principle in the narrower sense of the rule of the people is just one of several ¹³¹. Political populism in particular, with its play with elements of direct democracy, with criticism of representation and the media, of elites and the establishment, and with the claim to an identity with the will of the people, which excludes counter-positions at home as well as what is foreign and different, shows the inner danger of the democratic principle. Democracy as rule by the people remains ambivalent. The sovereignty of the people as a principle of legitimacy raises the question of belonging to the people, the majority principle requires the protection of the minority, the ideal of self-government only becomes concrete through processes of participation and representation, which always also produce exclusion and power imbalances. Democracy in the sense of "good order" binds the self-government of the people to the rule of law and the unconditional validity of human rights, to the separation of powers and "checks and balances"; it needs discourse and publicity, free media and an independent judiciary. A functioning, participatory and liberal community is characterized by such a complex and differentiated "mixed constitution" that is adapted to the context, the political culture and history of a country and has to be developed from this - and in which, incidentally, the Religion and the churches play an important role in their relationship to the state. A modern "democracy" is thus characterized by developing sophisticated and complex forms to implement the principles that form the normative core of democracy.

The Catholic Church only fundamentally recognized this normative core of democracy and the corresponding cultural, social and religious freedom in the course of the Second Vatican Council and only hesitantly referred to its internal structures and its specific institutional form as a faith community. ¹³²The Council provides basic guidelines here when, starting from the mystery of God, it understands the church as the messianic people of God in which all the baptized participate in the royal-prophetic priesthood of Christ on the basis of human dignity and religious freedom and are sent the gospel of the kingdom of God into the world to wear. The structure of the first two chapters of Lumen Gentium makes it clear that the theocentric constitution establishes an understanding of the church as the messianic people of God that differs from other peoples. ¹³³Its principle is not the sovereignty of the people or the religious community of interests, but the action of God, which empowers the children of God to be free and thereby aims at the salvation of all people. On the basis of baptism and faith, of sensus fidei fidelium and the participation of all believers in the offices of Christ, democratic principles can be transferred to the church, especially when the category of the (messianic) people of God is christologically founded and pneumatologically updated and expanded.

The real question then is not whether the church can be democratized or how much democracy the church can tolerate, but what specific form and configuration of decision-making and life structures correspond to the church as “God's messianic people on the way”. Beyond the ecclesiastical political charge of the signal words "democracy" and "synodality", it is then a matter of working out concretely how the theological self-understanding of the church is expressed today in ecclesiastical structures, procedures and communication processes. The differences between the political system and the church as a community of faith and witness must be taken into account. I would like to outline some aspects of this with recourse to the doctrine of the loci theologici .

The system of loci theologici as a structural element of a synodal church

The starting point is the already indicated understanding of synodality as “ecclesiology in action”. In his speech at the 50th anniversary of the synod of bishops, Pope Francis equates church and synod with John Chrysostom, understands synodality as a constitutive principle of the church that forms “the most suitable interpretative framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself”: “Exactly this path of the Synodality is what God expects from the church of the third millennium.” ¹³⁴The International Theological Commission aptly formulates that synodality is the “modus vivendi et operandi” of the church, which expresses “its nature as a community of pilgrims and as an assembly of the people of God” and its “ very own style”.¹³⁵

If the self-understanding of the church as a religious community, which is expressed in the principle of synodality, is to be translated into concrete forms of communication and structures of understanding the faith and decision-making, it is similar to structural issues, as in democracy, also about creating a corresponding culture (the “original style” of the church) to express. Societal models as such should not be the guiding principle – be it pre-modern feudal hierarchies, modern egalitarian models of order or post-modern identity constructions. Rather, it is about critically examining such models under the conditions of the present to shape processes of understanding, differentiation and knowledge in faith that enable decision-making, legitimize decisions, make faith plausible and gain authority in dealing with social and church conflicts . Ecclesiology, theological epistemology and a theology of faith communication are closely intertwined here. In order to tie this together, after the Second Vatican Council, the doctrine of the loci theologici , as developed by Melchior Cano in the context of the Council of Trent and in confrontation with the Reformation, was drawn upon in a new way. ¹³⁶In the following I would like to take up these approaches and relate them to the performativity and structures of a synodal church. When Max Seckler interprets the loci theologici as an ecclesiological system of "epistemological catholicity and structural wisdom" and as an expression of communio-ecclesiology, I pick up on this by describing the loci theologici as a structural and interaction model of a synodal church consider. However (in contrast to Seckler), the loci alieni also have a structure-forming importance, not only as areas of probation of faith, but as places of knowledge. With Hans-Joachim Sander, the importance of the loci alieni can be sharpened to the effect that authority generally (also with the loci proprii ) only arises in the difference between inside and outside: in the confrontation with one's own weakness and the strength of the other, in the Working on problems that cannot be avoided, but which cannot be solved (deductively or inductively) from one's own stock of knowledge, but must be worked on "abductively" in creative processes that enable new things to happen ¹³⁷. Authority is not confused with domination, power strategy or potestas , but understood as what can arise when one deals with experiences of powerlessness, one's own weakness and helplessness in such a way that something new can happen, others are empowered and the problem is dealt with appropriately be made possible. ¹³⁸Peter Hünermann, on the other hand, shows how the system of loci theologici can be continued and differentiated from the Second Vatican Council. He makes it clear how every theological place has its own historical context of origin and its own logic - this refers to historical testimonies and concrete groups of speakers, each with a specific form of authority.

Participation, Witness, Advocacy: How theological places come into play synodally

In a theological doctrine of principles, the locations of theological knowledge can be cited, explained and placed in relation to each other, combined with a fundamental reflection on their character as "language and truth events" ¹³⁹or on the performativity of the testimony as the basis of theological speech. ¹⁴⁰To refer the loci structure performatively to synodality as an ecclesiology in actu would also require looking for ways in which the various places of knowledge in theology come into play in a synodal process, develop authority and bring their knowledge content to bear be able. The fact that they are heard and develop authority is not a sure-fire success. The key to this lies in the participation of people, groups and functions that represent different sites of knowledge. This must be done in such a way that they appear as witnesses of theological knowledge and faith ¹⁴¹(and not as lobbyists, advocates of vested rights or lobbyists) and that they can relativize themselves at the same time and relate to other places and testimony instances (or allow them to). Claims for absoluteness and monopoly are not compatible with this – neither with regard to orthodoxy and the power of definition of “Catholic”, nor with regard to reason and a power of definition over “contemporary”. Since authority and representation are always linked to power structures, mechanisms of exclusion and (at least sublime) violence, the ability to put oneself into perspective and to listen to others also requires advocacy for those who are marginalized, excluded or made invisible.¹⁴²

This means that it is not enough to conjure up theological places as supposed authorities, but that these must also have a concrete effect in synodal processes. So if the constitutive importance of Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition is not just lip service, then taking measurements from Scripture must also have a concrete effect in the synodal process, e.g. in the symbolic enthronement of the Gospel, in spiritual reading of Scripture, in liturgy and homily , in the mandatory inclusion of exegetes from different schools and methodological orientations, perhaps even in contextual Bible studies and popular Bible reception. ¹⁴³In the same way, the magisterium does not simply constitute the “overplace” of last resort or the norma proxima , which “beats out” all other places in cases of doubt or dispute, but has a specific official testimony and decision-making function that is referred to the other places, they must stick together listening, initiate and accompany processes of discernment, whereby the necessary decisions make the church capable of action and at the same time must keep it open to the greater truth of God. Pope Francis anchors the ministry of the Bishop of Rome in a process of synodal listening: when he speaks as "pastor and teacher of all Christians", then "not based on his personal convictions, but as the supreme witness of the fides totius ecclesiae [the faith of the entire Church ], as 'guarantor of the obedience and agreement of the church with the will of God, with the gospel of Christ and with the tradition of the church'.” ¹⁴⁴In this sense, Peter Hünermann determines the interplay between the language of faith (and the entire people of God as their bearer), the language of the Magisterium and the language of theology. While theology reflects faith scientifically on a meta-level and seeks to understand the mystery of God, the unavailability and immensity of divine truth corresponds to a language of the Magisterium, which can and should present definitions in the specific negation and demarcation of concrete errors, in which positive presentation of the faith must, however, proceed in a pastoral, historically narrative and witnessing manner. In both it is dependent on the other ¹⁴⁵loci theologici . Therefore, “in the years and decades to come, it will require a considerable effort by the Magisterium to reformulate the cornerstones of the faith in a synodal form. If a synodal process is spoken of here, it is because the voice of the people is just as irreplaceable as the voice of the theologians in each new determination of the Doctrina.”¹⁴⁶

Hearing and authority, discourse and representation: how theological places are related to each other

The relationship between the people of God, scientific theology and the teaching office alone does not yet reflect the complexity of the loci theologici proprii . The loci alieni and ecumenism are not yet explicitly included in synodal understanding. Nevertheless, it is already evident here how difficult it is for the interaction of different instances of faith, their respective language, church function and world of experience to succeed. This applies all the more if this interaction is not understood according to the model of political debate or a reconciliation of interests, but as a process of knowledge and understanding in faith. The model of the sovereign subject, which represents certain interests with the power to define its decisions, is already extremely questionable from an anthropological point of view. Statements of faith are constituted “in response” between the revealing saving action of God and the free response of man, which are intertwined in the testimony. ¹⁴⁷As a witness community and sacrament of salvation, the church is constitutively referred to the performative word of God in the gospel (“creatura verbi”) and to faith as a human response to it. Faith is not an expression of religious needs or the result of voting, but comes from listening to the message and needs to be proclaimed (Rom 10:14-17). However, this process of hearing, witnessing and proclaiming is complex and reciprocal, in which all loci theologici have a specific authority and function.

In contrast, the distinction between the listening and the teaching church and the fixation on the magisterium and formal dogmas is far too schematic and polarized. It encourages authoritarianism and clericalism. With regard to the sensus fidelium and its infallibility in faith ( Lumen gentium 12) , Pope Francis states in his speech on the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops: "The sensus fidei forbids making a rigid distinction between Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens ." ¹⁴⁸Synodality requires mutual listening, dialogue and willingness to learn. Since hearing and understanding faith is constantly being shaped and reflected by one's own needs, projections, identifications and interests in power, it is ultimately about processes of new conversion - for everyone involved. ¹⁴⁹The final document of the Amazon Synod programmatically follows a path “from listening to integral conversion” (“De la escucha a la conversión integral”). Authority is recognized and renewed in such processes of hearing and responding, repentance and witnessing, not in the mere assertion, inculcation, or even monopolization of authority that are symptoms and accelerators of authority decay.

The loci theologici are consistently introduced in Melchior Cano as historical places with a corresponding authority, with the exception of natural reason. The fact that authorities are spoken of in this context corresponds to the insight that theoretical and practical insights, validity claims and also the truth of revelation are never abstract and contextless, but are anchored historically and in everyday life and must be attested. The struggle for truth must therefore refer to instances of witnessing (in the plural!) which at the same time represent different perspectives, situations, contexts of experience and often also functions and roles, and which therefore have a specific, more precisely defined authority. Reason, the ability to reflect, criticize and argue argumentative discourse is not just another such instance next to the others, but is effective in all instances and is particularly required when its authority is questioned. The interplay of active listening, the development and recognition of authentic authority in such processes and critical questioning and discursive reasoning mediates between the different places and instances.

As a "messianic" corrective, the element of representation should also be strengthened. The claim and recognition of authority as well as the rules of discourse and the different language skills of the actors always reflect and (re)produce power asymmetries, power relations and cause the exclusion and marginalization of opposing positions. This distorts the picture of reality. That is why Pope Francis repeatedly admonishes turning to the fringes as a condition of being able to see reality as a whole (including its repressed aspects). ¹⁵⁰Since the faith of the church in all authorities is based on the testimony of Jesus, who turns to the excluded, leads sinners into fellowship with God and identifies himself with the least (Mt 25, 31-46), the church as messianic God's people (LG 9) in all representation processes referred to follow this movement of Jesus to the excluded and marginalized, in a new process of self-correction and conversion. Precisely because exclusion, power asymmetries and processes of marginalization are unavoidable (and are more likely to be veiled than overcome by recourse to the ideal of discourse free of domination or to the ideal of office as “pure service” ), vicarious reference to the excluded is needed, which refers to Empowerment, asserting their positions, acknowledging their lives and initiating repentance. The primary point of reference for such representation is the cross as a sign of a wisdom and power of God that is not recognized by the powerful and ruling (1 Cor 1.18 - 2.9) ¹⁵¹and as an event in which God in the Messiah is present at the side of the Victim and at the same time positioned at the side of the perpetrator/sinner without blurring the difference between the two. Representation can mark and at the same time bridge this difference by interrupting the distinction between friend and foe, inside and outside, pure and impure through one's own presence, devotion and love and enabling a change of perspective.¹⁵²

loci proprii and loci alieni are closely related to this point . This is constitutive for ecclesiastical synodality insofar as the church, as a concrete, limited, particular and historically contingent community, is related to the universal meaning of God, his truth and justice, his will to salvation and the mission connected with it. That is why a self-referential Church is “sick,” as Pope Francis tirelessly reiterates. The external reference is constitutive for a missionary and evangelizing, diaconal “Samaritan” church “en salida” ¹⁵³, where it is negated, neglected or one-sidedly characterized by demarcation and resistance, the church perverts into a sect or into a self-referential apparatus of power. Since inside and outside can be distinguished, but not separated, and since their relationship is not static and unambiguous, but rather dynamic, porous and fluid, I formulate the considerations on the relationship between the loci proprii and loci alieni as a double movement from within outwards (which corresponds to the renewal and "preventing" of the church) and from the outside inwards (which can be understood as ascertaining from the roots and drawing from the sources). Both movements are not in competition with each other, but form the "rhythm of life" of synodality, so to speak.

Aggiornamento in the movement from the inside out: missionary renewal in the interpretation of the signs of the times through dialogue, proclamation of the Gospel and learning processes

The motivation for synodal understanding usually arises from a church interest or problem that has to do with conflict management and the need for reform. The initial movement therefore comes from “inside” at first, out of a church interest in “renewal”. At the same time, however, this is not simply an end in itself, for example so that one feels as comfortable as possible in the church, one's own identity is confirmed, one finds a home and security. Such an inward orientation would connect with the “old”: with the stabilization of the status quo or the restoration of a supposedly better past. Renewal, on the other hand, aims at a "prediction" of the church, which is not adaptation, but takes measure at the origin and thereby gains orientation for the future, so that what is necessary here and now can be done in a critical contemporaneity and presence of mind. The point of orientation is then less one's own needs and interests than the orientation towards the common mission and task in the world, which in turn can be condensed in the keyword of evangelization. “Evangelization” involves reading the signs of the times in the light of the gospel. This can only take place in dialogue, in a learning dialogue with society, with the sciences, with philosophies, cultures and religions, and must include historical experience, even in its abysses: by listening to the "cry of the poor and of the earth" and in the Remembering the victims of the past. Part of such dialogue is the proclamation of the gospel. Learning processes are initiated precisely when the message of salvation, which is the core of what is given and entrusted to us as Christians, is discussed in a dialogue and on an equal footing: at least among those who proclaim this message. By communicating what is sacred to them without connecting this with claims to dominance, they expose themselves to the other and are changed by the other's response. Whether the other person opens up to the gospel, on the other hand, is left to his or her freedom and to the grace of God. Evangelization is always self-evangelization.

The universality of the Christian message of salvation implies that no area of life (and death) may be left out in relation to the outside world: no hope and longing, no suffering and no catastrophes of meaning, also no inquiries and no criticism of Christianity, and certainly not those traumatic events which can hardly be adequately remembered and articulated, and in which the Church herself is involved. ¹⁵⁴The imperative is not, abstractly, to deal with all injustice or to deal with all of humanity's problems, but rather not to avoid what must (and can) be dealt with as a disturbance. Proceeding from problems and conflicts within the Church, synodality thus confronts the great challenges outside, which in the respective time situation affect Christians as well as those of other faiths or non-believers, not just “people of good will”, but literally everyone. ¹⁵⁵This outside cannot be limited or controlled in advance, it refers to ecumenism in the broad sense of the "common house" ¹⁵⁶and confronts the church with its purpose of serving the kingdom of God (and not itself).

Resourcement in the movement from outside to inside: the reassuring renewal of faith in going back to the sources

Precisely because the movement outwards cannot be limited to benevolent fellow human beings and solvable problems, but is repeatedly overwhelmed and can lead to aporia and despair in view of the problems, the violence and the extent of entanglement in evil structures, it is coercive a new turn to the sources of faith. However, this no longer happens in order to secure one's own identity as a Catholic Church, in order to defend oneself against or apologise for modernity, but to mobilize the resources that make it possible, despite and in view of the overwhelming power of the problems and the absurd to live with faith and trust in God, to draw hope and pass it on, to let fear and self-centredness lead you again and again into the movement of love, self-transcendence and devotion. Only in such a rhythm between inside and outside does a synodal path become a process of conversion and renewal. The movement leads from the internal church problems and transformation conflicts to a learning, diaconal-missionary orientation towards the problems of humanity, which - now from a different perspective - makes it necessary to seek anew the original power of the gospel and faith in order to be able to meet these challenges. Only when the internal church conflicts in this movement have been put into perspective in a good sense will they, too, be dealt with – so I hope – because the identity of the Catholic is no longer attached to them. In view of the cultural struggles between identitarians ¹⁵⁷and liberals, this would mean that the real challenge lies in overcoming the self-centeredness of a bourgeois church at the center in order to rediscover the mission and mission of the church by turning to the periphery.

Margit Eckholt: "Sensus fidelium". Synodality and the becoming subject of the laity

Margit Eckholt, born 1960, Professor of Dogmatics with Fundamental Theology at the Institute for Catholic Theology at the University of Osnabrück

Summary: Synodality and the idea of the people of God belong together, taking synodality seriously means making the “sensus fidei” of all believers and the voices of the laity audible in the church consultation processes. The following contribution from a systematic theological perspective recalls the idea of the people of God of the 2nd Vatican Council and, against the background of the synodal path of the German local church, goes into the current discussions about the status of "sensus fidei" or "sensus fidelium". a.

Synodality and "sensus fidelium" - the tension of synodal processes

Pope Francis has convened the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for October 2023 on the topic "For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission". When the Pope looks at "synodality", this has to do precisely with the processes of a further inculturation and an alignment of faith and life in the respective social and cultural contexts, a line of thought with which he refers to the groundbreaking encyclical "Evangelii nuntiandi” (1975) by Paul VI. reference, which is a central reference for his programmatic inaugural encyclical “Evangelii gaudium” (2013). Here he draws a link from the Second Vatican Council to the present moment of the world church, recalling the tension that is associated with the conciliar awakening and which he consciously takes up in his pontificate in order to deal with these tensions - in a spiritual sense – to open up future paths for the Catholic Church.

At the Synod of Bishops held in October 2015, the pluralism of attitudes to questions of marriage and family in the different world contexts, but also among lay people and clergy, men and women, was shown in a very lively way. This is precisely why Pope Francis said in his address of October 24, 2015 at the conclusion of the Synod of Bishops: "And - although the dogmatic questions seemed clearly defined by the Magisterium of the Church - we saw that what was normal for a bishop from a continent, alienated the other and seemed almost like a scandal...; what is considered a violation of the law in one society may be an imperative in another; what is part of freedom of conscience for some is just confusion for others. Indeed, cultures vary greatly, and any general principle requires inculturation in order to be observed and applied.” ¹⁵⁸Questions are balanced here that touch the depths of what faith, command and law, conscience, liberty, and obedience mean . They reflect the tense relationship between church and world, which is very different in terms of the world church and has led and will continue to lead to a massive "exculturation" of Christian faith in regions such as those in Europe, but also in the centers of the metropolises and megacities of the world , if forecasts of membership of the Catholic Church in the Northern Hemisphere are taken seriously. Pope Francis is aware that the issue of evangelization is the task of the entire People of God and that lay people, men and women, are particularly important here. This awareness has grown against the background of his many years of work in CELAM, the Latin American Bishops' Council, and the responsibility for the implementation of the 5th General Assembly of the Latin American Episcopate in Aparecida (2007). It is not for nothing that the Aparecida document speaks of the “missionary discipleship” of all Christians ¹⁵⁹. "Evangelii Gaudium" ties in exactly with this when it is emphasized that we are all "missionary disciples" ¹⁶⁰and this is developed with recourse to the central statements of the church constitution "Lumen Gentium" of the Second Vatican Council. “By virtue of the baptism received”, Pope Francis said, “every member of the people of God has become a missionary disciple (cf. Mt 28:19). Every baptized person, regardless of their position in the Church and the level of formation of their faith, is an active agent of evangelization... The new evangelization must include a new understanding of the vital role of each baptized person”. (EG 119)

In the following systematic-theological considerations, the Council texts and the importance accorded to the laity ¹⁶¹in the context of evangelization are recalled, and a bridge to the present-day meaning of the "sensus fidei" or "sensus fidelium" laid down in the Council texts is made context of new synodal awakenings. In the background of these considerations is the specific context of the German local church and the synodal path, which the German bishops together with the Central Committee of German Catholics at the end of January 2020 against the background of a post-publication of the so-called MHG study on the processing of the abuse of Catholic clergy young people have opened the crisis in the German local church. It is carried out with a large participation of lay people - men and women of different generations, different ecclesiastical backgrounds, from parishes, associations and theological science. In the individual forums, lay people and clergy, bishops, priests and deacons work together in equal numbers – also in numbers. The individual forums on questions of power and participation, priestly forms of life, women in services and offices in the church and questions of sexual morality are chaired by a representative of the German Bishops' Conference and a representative of the Central Committee of German Catholics, the important lay committee of German Catholicism, which was founded in 1848 at a time of growing lay and social Catholicism and, with 230 representatives, represents an important voice for the Catholic lay community in Germany to this day. ¹⁶²In other regions of the world, too, the voice of the laity has certainly become increasingly important, such as the basic communities that arose in the Latin American context in the 1960s or the "small Christian communities" in the African and Asian context and the founding of diverse centers in connection with the Aus - and further training of lay people have also helped the lay people to have an independent and theologically sound voice. German lay Catholicism is characterized by its great organizational power. A - still solid - financial foundation of the individual associations and unions enables regular meetings and working sessions, conferences and an accompanying scientific-pastoral reflection. In particular, since the 1970s and 1980s, theological-scientific work in faculties and other theological training institutions has increasingly been taken over by lay people - men and women - and thus the questions of lay people and their participation in the political and social public and in the Church have increased related to theological work. If, for example, topics of Christian sexual morality or the question of women in church services and offices are dealt with in the forums of the synodal path of the German local church, well-founded scientific work by laypeople that has been presented in the last 30 years and in which questions about church tradition and teaching are also reflected and new perspectives are formulated against the background of the perception of their “missionary discipleship” and their mission in the church.

The synodal path is characterized by a variety of consultations and - as it is called - "hearings" - by clergy and lay people, men and women, young and old. The "sensus fidelium" is given a wide space to develop: at different levels, in the synodal assembly, in the individual forums, in various working groups and consultations of the members of the synodal path. In this way, a process has started that expresses the great - enriching and challenging - plurality of faith experiences and perspectives on the different ecclesial embeddings and ties, desires and visions for this "church on the move". In the debates in the various forums on questions of participation and power, priestly forms of life, women in the services and offices of the church and sexual ethics, the tensions that have accompanied the German local church since the Second Vatican Council and the new church world crystallize affect the relationship. Here the voices of the laity are reported as responsible subjects of their faith and thus of the "sensus fidei" of all the baptized.

In the sometimes polarizing debates in the forums of the synodal path, it becomes clear that there is no tension - or even a break - between clergy or bishops and laity, but that the tensions concern the relationship between the universal and local church and on point out a tension that arises between an understanding of church teaching as it is contained in the regulations of canon law and the statements of the Roman institutions, and an understanding of church teaching that derives from a living process that is embedded in the local churches and has to be rebalanced each time of the "discernment of spirits" sees growing up, in the service of evangelization and the formation of inculturated forms of life of the Christian faith. Such a process is about giving space to experience and faith grounded in life, that is, a "sensus fidelium" accompanied by a theological reflection about a "regression" to the root of the Christian faith and that of the Spirit achieved path of the disciples of Jesus Christ and founded in the ecclesiological paradigm shift of the Second Vatican Council of the "Church on the move" can open up new liberating paths, which above all overcome the break between faith and life and help the church to have a credible presence in the modern world .

In the following considerations, this "sensus fidelium" will be examined from the perspective of how in a church that sees itself as the people of God and community of all the baptized, clergy and laity, as in a magnifying glass with the Questions of the church-world relationship initiated by the Council and break them open again in the context of the current worldwide synodal processes. Here the crossroads of the Catholic Church come to light: an ever-increasing "exculturation" of Christian faith in the plurality of modern societies and the associated loss of relevance of Christian faith or a tentative and uncertain path into the future, together with the many others, in the service of whole creation. a sustainable world community and – as Pope Francis formulated in his most recent encyclical “Fratelli tutti”, published in 2020 – “universal fraternity”. When the question of the laity and their “subjectivity” is raised in the context of the Synod of Bishops, it is not just a question of their greater participation in the church or the importance of their vote in decision-making processes in the church ¹⁶³. Rather, their "becoming a subject" also affects the bishops and their office in the same way, which they can only exercise "with" the laity in a church that sees itself as "communio". Pope Francis also has this in mind when he speaks of the "shepherds" who smell of the "smell of their sheep" (cf. EG 49). In this sense, lay people are “seismographs” for upheavals and breaks in the Christian faith, and in this way the bishop who believes “with them”, according to Augustine ¹⁶⁴, is referred to the “sensus fidelium” and can “call people to faith or strengthen in living faith" ¹⁶⁵when he also gives space to the work of the Spirit, the variety and diversity of charisms in his local church.

The Catholic Church is at a crossroads. The questions of power and participation that have repeatedly arisen in recent years, greater participation by lay people, especially women in the Church, the overcoming of clerical structures and a serious examination of modern lifestyles point to the root of a crisis that in the present considerations is named against the background of the experiences of the German local church, but which certainly also applies to the churches of the south, when many Catholics join new Christian communities and the Pentecostal churches, the lay people and especially women enable further participation. The Jesuit Michel de Certeau reflected this complex process of the pluralization of Christian faith in an impressive way six years after the Second Vatican Council in an essay on the “Language of Unity”. In view of the advancing "diversity" he points out how there are efforts, especially among those responsible, to "mark out a zone of the 'conforming' and orthodox" in view of the "abundance of efforts and initiatives" ¹⁶⁶. Pope Francis, whose "ideas" also includes Michel de Certeau, repeatedly invites people to leave such a "zone of 'conformity'" and in this also a "comfort zone". For him, the principle of synodality stands for allowing the tensions of the present moment, for understanding plurality and diversity as an opportunity. Faith, as Certeau put it in 1973 with regard to the upheavals in Latin America, is always “mediated by the particular field in which it inscribes itself. He can never be isolated. The way it is expressed there does not correspond to the way in which it is lived and practiced elsewhere and differently. … that the great 'body' of the church fragments into divergent experiences and positions even where its faith is most engaged. So it is about the status of the church today, how it is radically transformed.” ¹⁶⁷This is certainly a similar experience that is made in the context of the synodal path of the German local church, especially in the debates on the question of women in church offices. Gender justice is a touchstone for the Church's ability to inculturate into modern society. But it is also a test of whether the church itself is ready to turn to the word of God and listen to the liberating message of the kingdom of God. In this respect, faith and life break apart here in a double sense, the church has been lagging behind faith and life for a long time - and that is why, in the context of the worldwide synodal paths, there is a well-founded discussion of the "sensus fidei" and its significance for church decision-making processes and those of the magisterium regulations emergency.

Becoming a subject of the laity and "sensus fidei" in the context of the Second Vatican Council

Communication and participation - the ecclesiological paradigm shift of the Council

From a fundamental ecclesiological perspective, the Second Vatican Council meant a paradigm shift for the self-understanding of the Catholic Church, which it has to implement to this day on an institutional-theoretical level and with a view to the legal structure of a church that understands itself from and in different communication references. Pope Francis takes this into account when he puts the principle of synodality in the foreground and when connected with it - as the synodal path of the German local church shows - the confrontation with power and participation, with the relationship between clergy and laity, with new ones Access conditions to services and offices and especially the participation of women in leadership tasks of the church is of central relevance. The Church is no longer a world-facing, hierarchically structured "societas perfecta," a model that Cardinal Bellarmine created at the time of the Council of Trent and the demarcation of the Roman Catholic Church from the churches of the Reformation. This was dominant up to the Second Vatican Council and has increasingly alienated the church from the discourses of modernity – the questions of freedom and democracy, a historical understanding of tradition and a new, participatory structure of leadership and office. Rather, the church is the space in which people, responding to God's call and listening to God's word, as expressed in the constitution of revelation "Dei Verbum", follow Jesus Christ and develop forms of life of faith in which the liberating and the liberating power of the gospel becomes concrete, a "sign" of salvation, of union with God and among one another, as the church constitution Lumen Gentium expresses at the beginning (cf. LG 1) The church is at the service of evangelization; Jesus Christ is "the light of the nations" (LG 1), and it is the task of the church to proclaim this gospel to all creatures. Deep down, the Church is first and foremost a "mystery" because what she is she receives from the mystery of the Triune God. In order to adequately embody what she receives, the Church is defined as "the people of God" ¹⁶⁸(cf. LG Chapter 2, 9-17), which, on the journey through time, in the proclamation of the Gospel at the service of one humanity, of human dignity and the "good life". The paradigm shift in the basic ecclesiological determination of the church, which is based on the event of revelation itself, means a new relationship between church and world, so that – as post-conciliar theological work and debates have shown – the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” also has ecclesiological relevance. ¹⁶⁹The questions of mankind are also questions and related tasks of the church. The diverse challenges of the "world" have a sign character, they are "signs of God's time" (GS 10), which are of theological significance of revelation and thus of relevance for the analysis of faith and ecclesiological questions.

In this sense, the Church sees itself as the “People of God” on the way through time in the horizon of the Word of God, which from the beginning of creation opens up a comprehensive space of communication that transcends new frontiers. All new dialogues - with other Christian denominations, other religions, with the "world" in the variety of their communication references - are based here. All the baptized - and in particular the lay faithful - are at the heart of these dialogues and help shape them - at the service of humanization, or as Pope Francis will say, at the service of "universal fraternity". This word of God, which the church has to allow itself to be said again and again and to which it must always turn back - a central motif of the church constitution "Lumen Gentium" (cf. LG 8) - has been said to everyone. All the baptized, all who walk the path of faith, have the same dignity as children of God and, in the community of believers, receive a share in the mission of evangelization. This is the paradigm shift laid down in the Revelation, Church and Pastoral Constitutions, but also in the Liturgy Constitution, which defines the Church as the “communio” of all the baptized, as the “People of God” that should be characterized by brotherly and sisterly relationships.

The church forms the one priestly people of God, which is divided into clergy and laity, both are referred to each other. “Both are,” as Elmar Klinger puts it, “together the new people of God, the messianic people of God, the people of God in Christ. It is not constituted by the hierarchy, nor by the laity, but by Christ himself.” ¹⁷⁰“All the members,” LG 7 says, “must be conformed to him, until Christ is formed in them.” All are called to holiness (cf. LG, chapter 5), that is, to live for the love of God and thus become a sign of the Gospel. In baptism all believers are given the same and common dignity (cf. LG 32) to share in the mission of Jesus Christ, to exercise in him the priestly, royal and prophetic ministry. The lay faithful, according to the decree on the apostolate of the laity “Apostolicam actuositatem”, “who also share in the priestly, prophetic and royal office of Christ, carry out their own part in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world” (AA 3 ). In "Lumen Gentium" the Council Fathers fall back on the discourse of the "common priesthood" (LG 10), which is based on the biblical texts ¹⁷¹, and thus renew a view of the church, which in modern times, as a Counter-Reformation intention, has a cultic-sazerdotal official has been promoted to the priesthood has been lost. It was only remembered again with the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Mediator Dei (1947). According to LG 32, what is now emphasized is “true equality in the dignity and activity common to all believers in building up the body of Christ”i. The “common priesthood” is based on the initiation sacraments of baptism and confirmation; This is how – as LG 10 explains it – the “spiritual edifice” of the church comes into being and we are all “ordained to a holy priesthood”. In following Jesus Christ, it is important to honor God and people, to love one's neighbor in everything we do, in everyday life, on Sundays, to be merciful, as Jesus was, and out of this way of life God and his to announce "deeds of power". This is supported by prayer, by praising God together, and it is about bearing witness to Christ in the service to the world and man, and that means in concrete, practically accomplished neighborly love.

The Church Constitution emphasizes this “true equality in the dignity and activity common to all believers in building up the body of Christ” (LG 32). The laity are "incorporated into Christ through baptism, made God's people, and in their own way partakers of the priestly, prophetic and royal office of Christ" (LG 31). In doing so, they "carry out for their part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world" (LG 31). This expresses the fundamental subjectivity of the laity, they assume their responsibility for the ministry of evangelization both in the world and in the Church. As will become clear below, this is a new element in the basic definition of the tasks of the laity, which is due to the meaning that the Church Constitution will give to the "sensus fidelium" (cf. LG 12), especially with regard to the analysis of faith and thus the importance of all the baptized in recognizing the “signs of the times” is deepened. This is – as Peter Neuner put it – a farewell to a “church of estates” ¹⁷². For the church, this means a process of democratization, which Karl Rahner points out in his text about the "structural change of the church", which is still prophetic today ¹⁷³, a process that has repeatedly encountered resistance in recent years and whose crisis is reflected in the present comes to a head. The questions and challenges on the synodal path in Germany, which will arise in a similar way with regard to the synod of bishops convened by Pope Francis for October 2023, are bundled here.

The importance of the laity as subjects of faith and the sensus fidei

The apostolic exhortation "Gaudete et exsultate" on the call to holiness in today's world has received little attention in theology ¹⁷⁴. It is an important facet with which Pope Francis initiates the process of re-reading the Second Vatican Council and the "sensus fidei", the sense of faith, which is of central relevance for the people of God's ecclesiology and in "Lumen Gentium" with the "munus propheticum", the share of all believers in the prophetic office of Jesus Christ (LG 12), is grounded in the concrete, everyday and also fragile, highly plural realities of life. ¹⁷⁵In doing so, the Pope is concerned with opening up the dynamics of faith practices and, by orienting oneself on the biblical texts, to penetrate into the source of faith, from which the “church” always grows anew. In this sense, the path of Christian faith and the dynamic processes of becoming a Christian are rediscovered. All the baptized are of equal importance because of the dignity of baptism and the grace and responsibility that goes with it to live, witness and put into practice this faith. The path-character of Christian faith is newly developed, and thus synodality, life and faith experience that has grown in the complex everyday connections and contextuality belong to the basic definitions of what the church is. When Pope Francis speaks of going “to the peripheries”, this is not just a metaphor for a church that – in the sense of the Latin American origin of the Pope – makes the “option for the poor” its own, but means it a "radical" awakening, a reversal, to "become" a new church in the community of all believers - from and in all respects of the world and far beyond the borders of the church. In this respect, the Council initiated an ecclesiogenesis, and in this process the laity is of central importance. In his highly precise and extensive interpretation of the lay decree "Apostolicam actuositatem", Guido Bausenhart writes that Christians do not live "in the church", "but in the world, probably as a church in the world. However, according to its empirical dimension (cf. LG 8), the church is 'world' – on the way to being perfected into the kingdom of God... The matter of the sacramentum salutis is 'world'; what distinguishes the church from the world is its divine dimension of faith, from which it is given the gift and the task to 'sanctify' itself in its members and their living environment - according to God's one plan of salvation" ¹⁷⁶. That is why the “everyday spirituality” developed in “Gaudete et exsultate” has ecclesiological relevance, and it is precisely for this reason, according to Knut Wenzel, that the church owes “the gaining of a creative relationship to the world – and thus the gaining of its own mission – to the laity” ¹⁷⁷.

When Pope Francis sets accents in "Gaudete et exsultate" for everyday piety, spirituality and the dynamic formation of faith identities, for a deepening of faith practice and faith reflection, he is concerned with the "sensus fidelium" or the "sensus fidei", the To deepen the sense of faith of the people of God and of the individual believers in exactly this sense of ecclesiogenesis from and in the relationships to the world. The fact that the church is a community of believers, the people of God, in which each and every believer bears responsibility for the central task of the church, evangelization, is consolidated in view of this sense of faith. The Council gave the first impetus and anchored the sensus fidei in the munus propheticum Christi in Lumen Gentium: Living in faith and love, in offering the sacrifice of praise to God as the fruit of lips that confess his name (cf. Heb 13:15). The body of believers who have been anointed by the Holy One (cf. 1 Jo 2:20 & 27) cannot err in faith. And this special quality of hers she manifests through the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people when she expresses her general agreement in matters of faith and morals 'from the bishops to the last lay faithful'. In fact, it is through that sense of faith, awakened and nourished by the Spirit of truth, that the people of God are guided by the Holy Magisterium, in whose faithful obedience they no longer receive the word of men, but really the word of God (cf. 1 Thess 2, 13), the faith once given to the saints (cf. Jud 3) cannot be lost. Through him , with right judgment, he penetrates deeper and deeper into the faith and applies it more fully in life. “ (LG 12)

In the Church Constitution, the Council Fathers took up the element of “sensus fidei”, as played into the debates by John Henry Cardinal Newman in connection with the First Vatican Council. ¹⁷⁸Looking back at the Council decision of Nicaea, Newman pointed out the role of the laity in preserving the faith and supporting and developing tradition ¹⁷⁹. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council makes it clear that believers – the laity – “are not just recipients of a teaching that is guaranteed by the church officials”, they must rather “be taken seriously as independent, irreplaceable subjects of their faith” ¹⁸⁰. They have an original participation in the threefold (priestly, prophetic and royal) mission of Christ (cf. LG 10-12), which is not derived from the hierarchy.¹⁸¹

The Council thus paves the way for a redefinition of the lay apostolate in the Catholic Church. A new self-confidence of the laity certainly took shape as early as the 19th century, accentuated differently in the individual local churches. The social and political transformations after the French Revolution have led to the development of ecclesial activities and associations of lay people at the service of education, mission and social commitment alongside the working class and political involvement in the new processes of democratization. However, this lay Catholicism has been “regulated” in various ways, and with the “Catholic Action” ¹⁸²a model of lay Catholicism has emerged that has placed its activities under the direction of the Church hierarchy. As for "spiritual" things, what was to be "believed" had to be accepted in obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Important representatives of the liturgical movement such as Odo Casel or Pius Parsch did not see it differently. According to the research of the liturgical scholar Lea Lerch, the “theological appreciation of the laity” in the context of the liturgical movement was associated with “the limitation of their competence and the increased importance of the clergy in terms of both the church and society as a whole” ¹⁸³. If the Second Vatican Council refers to the "sensus fidei" and starts from the "double pole" of holiness, the mission of the laity both internally, i.e. related to ecclesiastical activities in the narrower sense, and externally in the service of "sanctification" of the world, new theological accents come into play, leading to the theological and ecclesiological paradigm shift of the world church. “The laity,” says the decree on the laity, Apostolicam actuositatem, “who carry out this mission of the Church exercise their apostolate in the Church as well as in the world, in the spiritual as well as in the temporal order. Both orders, which must certainly be distinguished, are so connected in the one plan of God that God himself in Christ wants to take up the whole world again as a new creation, in the bud here on earth, completed at the end of days. In both orders, the layman, who is at the same time a Christian and a citizen of this world, must constantly allow himself to be guided by the one Christian conscience.” (AA 5) According to LG 30, laymen are “those who believe in Christ, made the people of God and partaking in their own way of the priestly, prophetic and royal ministry of Christ, exercising in their part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world. The world character is peculiar to the laity in a special way.” It is certainly incumbent on the laity in a special way to seek the kingdom of God in everyday life in worldly realities and to bring the spirit of the gospel to bear here. However, LG 32 also speaks of the plurality of tasks of the laity and cooperation with the ministers, and LG 33 distinguishes a twofold way of participation in the saving mission of Jesus Christ and the Church by the laity: the apostolate of their Christian existence and beyond that the apostolate by taking on direct cooperation in the hierarchy.¹⁸⁴

In the theological work of the post-Council period, it is precisely the debate about the statements on the "sensus fidei" in LG 12 that leads to the tension potential of the world church: the determination of the relationship between clergy and laity and the question of the participation and say of the laity at the different levels of the church life. According to the document of the International Theological Commission on the Sense of Faith, this “sensus fidei” is an “instinct of faith” “in the sense of a freedom that has become habitual and therefore spontaneously recognizes what faith is” ¹⁸⁵. This is not a purely personal conviction in the sense of a subjective exercise of faith, but rather a gift from God and growing out of communication with God. That is precisely why the sense of faith, according to the Council text LG 12, is "infallible". In this sense, the “sensus fidei” is always also a “sensus fidei fidelium”; the ecclesial dimension of faith is inscribed in the individual's sense of faith, and thus the “sensus fidelium” is also related to a “consensus fidelium”. The current debates on the synodal path in Germany make clear the potential for tension and conflict that was and still is in this Council text.

With the sense of faith, the Council has very farsightedly taken up a central moment of the analysis of faith, without being sure of the tension that the text in LG 12 builds up between the sense of faith of the individual and the community of believers, the "sensus fidei", the "sensus fidelium" and to further name and develop the "consensus fidelium". These are tasks that are also pending in the context of the synod of bishops convened for October 2023. However, the Council bursts open the traditional comparison of "Iglesia docens" and "Iglesia discens" and opens up a "communal and communicative process" ¹⁸⁶precisely by giving the work of the Spirit of God and the manifold gifts of grace a wide scope . It thus unleashes the post-conciliar debates on the participation of the laity, on local church processes in pastoral care, catechesis and liturgy, on the status of national bishops' conferences and synodal processes, in tension with universal church regulations. The revelation constitution “Dei Verbum” points to the growth of tradition with the help of the Holy Spirit, to the free answers of all the baptized to God's call, which grow out of trusting listening to God's Word. “Understanding of the things and words handed down grows through the meditation and study of believers who ponder them in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19,51), through inner discernment that comes from spiritual experience, through the preaching of those who the successor in the episcopate have received the sure charisma of truth.” (DV 8) In this respect, as Otto Hermann Pesch points out, “there can be no valid magisterium proclamation that does not concern the believers' consciousness of faith” ¹⁸⁷; The "sensus fidelium" is in this respect not only "an echo of the teaching proclamation of the church, but it also has its immediacy to the Holy Spirit" ¹⁸⁸. According to Walter Kasper, “according to Newman, the apostolic tradition is not just entrusted to the teaching church… it is entrusted 'to the whole church in its various organs and offices per modum unius (at once)'. This means that the testimony of the laity is not only dependent on the testimony of the magisterium, but also in polar tension and relatively independent of it." ¹⁸⁹The teaching church must consider and question the "holistic testimony of faith (consensus fidelium) as iudicium or instrumentum..., when a decision of faith is to be made". ¹⁹⁰The becoming subject of the laity means that their testimony of faith has theological authority, which is also evident today in the debates about the epistemological value of the "sensus fidei" as "locus theologicus".¹⁹¹

In view of the growing importance of the "sensus fidei" or the "sensus fidelium" over the last few decades, it is certainly not possible to speak of a "magisterium of believers in competition " ¹⁹²; it is always about exercising the sense of faith throughout the Church, but it is also about the recognition of the sense of faith by the Magisterium. It is precisely here that many of the current debates crystallize on the synodal path of the German local church. Gender justice and a stronger equal participation of women in the church is not a "political demand", but has to do with this sense of faith, and in this respect it is more than legitimate that on the synodal path of the German local church in a forum on questions of service and (sacramental) ministries of women in the church. The Magisterium cannot reach decisions without consulting the faithful, as the International Theological Commission points out in its document on the Sense of Faith (cf. nn. 120-126). This is based, according to Newman, on the "conviction, grounded in the promise of Jesus Christ himself, that the consensus of the faithful 'in Christianity is the voice of the infallible church'". ¹⁹³One of the central theological tasks is to take up these perspectives on questions of synodality in the run-up to the Synod of Bishops and to make them fruitful for the debates at the Synod.

Enduring Tension and Staying Tensed - Synodality and Spiritual Discernment

“Revelation is never a pure fact, much less a past event. It was and remains an event. Man's ideas do not cease to be the place for it; they help the Church gradually to relearn what she says, what she believes”. This is how Michel de Certeau put it; “... the Church must constantly discover in the world what she bears witness to, she must always seek with people what she teaches them; it has never acquired definitive ownership of the truth; these possessions are always wrested from her in the name of what she believes and what she lives. God does not stop exiling them beyond Himself through encounters and communion with those who initially stray, then remember and renew what they have already 'remembered' as a sign of the Eternal Covenant What Certeau wrote ¹⁹⁴shortly after the Council is all the more the task of a church at the “crossroads” today: to correspond to its original reason and to be on the paths of the world with the many other signs of salvation, so that the kingdom of God can grow, so that Christian faith - with the many others - can have a fruitful effect in the sense of the "universal fraternity" that Pope Francis speaks of in "Fratelli tutti". Synodality has to do with being stretched out to the many others, but in depth above all to the other, God, and that is precisely what it is about, boldly stretching out the sense of faith and the tensions between "sensus fidei", "sensus fidelium" and endure "consensus fidelium". To do this, it is necessary, above all, to listen to one another, and this “art of listening”, according to Pope Francis, is “more” “than hearing” (EG 171). ¹⁹⁵From this listening comes the need for “distinguishing minds” and this, according to Michel de Certeau, “depends on participation” ¹⁹⁶. This will lead to a new way of dealing with authority, with power, these are precisely the processes of "declericalization" that Pope Francis is striving for. The new Christian “style” ¹⁹⁷that is emerging here is not arbitrary; he knows about insecurity and fragility, above all he needs a “strong” faith that ¹⁹⁸knows about his “weakness”, and he has a standard: the dignity and “holiness” of others.

The "lived faith" is of importance here, according to Michel de Certeau, it is "that the official language of faith should express and absorb, which it testifies to and which judges it. That is why the relationship between the faith 'experiences' (which are also languages of faith) and the doctrinal or dogmatic formulas is so important and so weighty. If this necessary bond loosens and becomes problematic when cut, what 'Christian' truth can doctrinal instruction still speak of?” ¹⁹⁹Precisely this is one of the central challenges of the current synodal processes. Certeau encourages "tolerating the differences that produce, renew, expand a Catholic 'discourse'" ²⁰⁰. “God resists particular experience through the presence of others. On the other hand, the general mediating (liturgical, catechetical, theological) formulations are opposed by the new, particular experiences that a never-tiring God allows.” ²⁰¹Precisely for this reason the church is the people of God on the way, it is itself “in the process of becoming”, therefore consultation processes are necessary among all members of God's people, consultations, hearings at different levels on synodal processes, which should also lead to new decision-making and legal regulations. ²⁰²In the spirit of the equal and common dignity of all believers, which is inscribed in the depth of the biblical faith, but also in the Council texts, lay people in particular should also be involved accordingly. This also includes the appropriate training so that they - men and women - can carry out their ministry of evangelization with responsibility. They in particular are "seismographs" for the way of the world church into the future, the growing church movements of women worldwide stand for this. Here, too, there are no one-line processes; a world church is characterized by non-simultaneity, and to that extent misunderstandings and conflicts are also part of the learning processes of a synodal church. In precisely this sense, synodality includes the “distinguishing of spirits”, as becomes clear on the synodal path of the German local church; Corresponding spiritual and supervisory forms shape, for example, the work in the forum for women in church services and offices.

This also includes the knowledge that synodal processes will not solve all questions and do not intend to do so. Even final documents do not do justice to the whole process, they remain incomplete in this sense, they rather open a new path, as has become particularly clear in the final document of the Amazon Synod "Querida Amazonia" (2020). Pope Francis put the document into perspective by providing reading instructions in the introduction and pointing out the importance of the debates at the synod and the preparatory document. ²⁰³In precisely this sense, Pope Francis encourages us to go further together as the people of God, even in the face of all tensions on synodal paths. Because synodality gives space to the “in between”, as Michel de Certeau writes, and it is precisely here that God inscribes himself, who is the only one who allows the church to “become”.²⁰⁴

Dissatisfaction with situation in today's church

Thomas O'Loughlin: Celebrating Synodality - Synodality as a fundamental aspect of the Christian liturgy

Thomas O'Loughlin, born 1958, professor em. for Historical Theology, University of Nottingham.

Summary: A synodal church starts from our fundamental ecclesial experience, which occurs when we gather liturgically, especially when we act Eucharist. The basic premise is that we are a real human community, knowing one another as friends and relating to one another. Only real communities can authentically reflect the essence of the church. This is a bottom-up activity. If we want this, then we must transform the liturgy in such a way that it begins with communion and helps it to discover its own essence. This in turn places demands on our understanding of the office and its structures. While many Catholics support synodality, their willingness to change the form of the presbytery is uncertain.

Synodality”, “collegiality”, “subsidiarity” and “koinonia” have all been key terms in Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II. But if these words are to have any meaning beyond concepts within a theoretical theological discourse, then they must describe the experience of God's people, how they live their lives in discipleship, how they relate to one another as sisters and brothers of Christ, and how it lives in the world. Conversely, if these are not words that can be used to describe what a group of Christians understand about their life as Catholics, how they relate to each other, how they belong, and how they view their discipleship as a witness of the gospel imagine, then these are just noises: empty concepts.

But if synodality - even a word that comes from the deep academic niches where canon law and ecclesiology meet - is or should be part of the building up of God's people, then where should we look to find it? And if we track her down, what would she look like? For many it is a name for a set of relationships between bishops or between groups of bishops and the Pope, for others it is a way of relating the work of parishes within a diocese and for most it is along with subsidiarity and collegiality, a vague term referring to management style - mostly mentioned when its absence is regretted or as a desired common goal. If that is all that synodality entails, then it will never have any appeal outside of a small group (bishops, presbyters, deacons and a few lay people) concerned with the governance of the church. It is also a waste of energy if it is only a concern of this group to see synodality as desirable in a broader sense because it serves the life of Christians and our common mission. In other words, if theologians see this as an ecclesiastical ideal to strive for, then our sisters or brothers must experience a difference in their discipleship lives (and we may need to see our theological debates as belonging exclusively within the academic world). However, I believe that synodality is a concept vital to the life of the whole Church and that it is a key element in the ongoing reform of the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Vatican II. From this point of view, I will examine here what it might look like - for it is a concept that manifests itself in many forms - in the realm of our public communal worship (leitourgia).

Many theologians striving for renewal of the Catholic Church dismiss the liturgical renewal of our practice as something incidental, or as an almost irrelevant issue - a "fumbling with rubrics" - to be left aside. Rather than dispute this point of view, I would like to refer to this statement by Hans Küng to those who consider the issue of exposing the theme of a synodal church to be unimportant within our liturgy:

The liturgy is and remains the center of the life of the Church. If we succeed in renewing this, won't that also have an impact on all areas of church activity?²⁰⁵

However, every statement about the renewal of our worship starts from certain basic assumptions about human nature and the nature of Christian endeavour, and in this case everything I will say in this post rests on three assumptions. The first relates to the size of human communities. While Catholics are aware that they belong to a global community that includes millions of people, we can easily overlook the human fact that the actual affective communities that affect us, in which we live our lives and within which we work, are real , are much smaller. Social psychologists point out that the maximum size of a real community in which we operate is determined by our biology and the neural networks through which we understand and engage with the world - it is a datum of our humanity as well as our need after food and fluid intake. The maximum size of this community is estimated at about 150 people, often much smaller. This is the largest community where I as an individual can have stable social relationships, where I know the others in the group, they know me and we can interact with each other in some way. ²⁰⁶This insight is less startling as an assumption if we recall that Aristotle believed that the demos within a city should be such that all could know each other by name ²⁰⁷, and it was the proverbial Greek wisdom that the assembly should be small enough should be, so that someone can make themselves heard without "having the lungs of Stentor", and the fact that most services were not held in large cathedrals, but in small village churches, not much larger than the old village synagogues, which Archaeologists in Palestine uncover, while our early Christian sources assume domestic-scale gatherings. Therefore, any concern with collegiality or synodality must have its starting point in such small communities that have human actuality. Likewise, the trend towards ever larger fictitious communities visible in the Church - the amalgamation of parishes according to the number of available presbyters or the allocation of pastoral territories according to this pattern - must not be judged on abstract theological grounds, but simply dismissed as meaningless from an anthropological point of view. Human community - and thus all ecclesiastical realities - is not fractal or scalable: we must think in terms of communities in which we humans can actually live and thrive as a starting point.

The second assumption follows from thinking in terms of communities of fewer than 150 people. While Catholics since the time of Leo XIII. While in Rerum Novarum we have often theoretically questioned the basis of individualism and advocated the notion of the common good in our social teaching, we have been far less concerned about sacramental individualism in the actual organization of our lives as Christians. Long before individualism was recognized as a style of human life ²⁰⁸, we Catholics had normalized "private Mass," made lay participation in the Eucharist a matter of private devotion and spiritual reckoning, individualized sin so much that our common failure for became invisible to us, and presented faith to us as individual survival, where a personal reckoning of worth and guilt could be balanced by such means as indulgences. The legacy of this sacred individualism is still vigorously active in our imaginations, in our behavior within the Church, and in our theology. Only by recognizing this problematic legacy can we set out on a pattern of behavior that aims to value individuals in their relationship to each other as communities and communities not as agglomerations but as networks of relationships between individuals. This perspective is both the basis for a synodal vision of the church and for a creative understanding of how the liturgy realizes and implements our vision of new life with one another and with God. It is this togetherness, the communitas of our humanity and our actions, that makes our Christian liturgy so humanly important, and which in turn makes our liturgy a real part of our journey as a pilgrim people of God.²⁰⁹

My third assumption is that such real communities are formed through remembering, remembering, and remembering. As Jan Assmann put it: “It is not 'blood' or 'descent' as such that holds a group [as family, tribe, clan] together, but the common awareness of it, the idea of common ancestry.” ²¹⁰These communities are shaped by what they remember and therefore they must realize and execute the vision of what they want to become. We can only become the people of God, conscious of the dignity of each one, if we live in 'affective communities' where each of us can realize our gospel vision. This means that the formation of identity for the Christian, the communion that is the Church, and the idea of being "total celebrant" ( participatio actuosa ) are in practice so interconnected that they cannot be separated. While many Catholics fear this vision of a liturgy that involves every member of the assembly as an actor, and since Vatican II there have been many scholarly attempts to spiritualize its meaning to the point of meaninglessness, this paper will assume that each Group that does not allow each of its members to connect affectively with it fails in its proclamation of the gospel. Consequently, the liturgy must not only shape and reshape the memory of the community, but it must do so in a way that I cannot help but be aware that I am one of the baptized, which makes me a sister or brother within established in a family of equals, as a celebrant of the great hymn of the Church, as a participant in the work of my own community, and also as a disciple who chose the way of Jesus the Anointed.²¹¹

So if synodality is to come from the grassroots, what would such a synodal local church look like? How would she express herself to herself? What follows is a series of pen drawings of a synodal church. As pen drawings, they are utopian in the strict sense: they do not exist in any place, but they are also utopian in the other sense: a vision of what can be achieved through changes in the way individual communities act and in the way how the Catholic Church could re-imagine itself as a network of real communities in its laws could emerge.²¹²

Solidarity in the body of Christ: becoming the circumstantes

Very few Catholics have ever had the sensual perception of being gathered at the Eucharistic table or of physically belonging to a synodal church. The mere thought that they might have such an experience usually frightens conservatives as dangerous novelty. When such an experience is had -- in "experimental communities," or in university chaplaincies, or in the homes of some religious orders -- it is often portrayed as the fleeting result of a softened Western liberal elite symptomatic of a post-Vatican II decay. But such "restorers" should keep these words in mind in Latin:

Memento, Domine,
famulorum famularumque tuarumet omnium circumstantiumquorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio…

This ancient prayer, long embedded in what we now call Eucharistic Prayer I, has such a sublime vision of the assembled body of Christians taking part in the celebration that no modern translation has dared to render it literally. ²¹³It goes like this:

O Lord, remember thy male servants ( famuli ) as well as (the enklitsche -que) thy female servants ( famulae ), yea (et) all who stand about ( circumstantes ), for their faith in Thee is known as their devotion evident.. .

The fact that this - "the memento of the living" - originally referred to the women and men who were actually present, who lined up around the table with the head, becomes clear from the corresponding "memento of the dead", where there is no mention of circumstantes : the The dead wait in their graves for resurrection and do not stand with the living at the liturgy!

The Venerable Roman Canon assumes that those present stand around the table beside the bishop or presbyter as he offers their collective praise and petition. They stand there because this is their table, their offering of praise to the Father in, through and with Christ - and in standing together they affirm both their priestly dignity as baptized (the act of standing) and their social dignity as human equals (standing side by side) before God. Already in the church in Corinth in the middle of the first century there was the problem of human social stratification, which contradicted the vision of community that was to characterize the disciples of Jesus. Later we find the same striving for human discernment coupled with the desire for clerical discernment, affecting the Eucharist. ²¹⁴Eventually we came to a most holy priesthood ²¹⁵(a sacerdotium ) distinct from the people of God: expressed and experienced in the architecture of a sanctuary delimited from the nave. This split church experience (a separate gathering of clergy and laity reflected in a shared ritual space) is still what is experienced in most celebrations. Until this is changed and a new experience becomes commonplace, talk of synodality is smoke and mirrors.

The solution is simple: create a level space in the building—or any room that can hold about 75 people—with no pews. Put a table in the middle and place a few chairs around it for those who can't stand. ²¹⁶The experience will not only be that of a liturgy with more participation, but also a new feeling that all present are equal as sisters and brothers with each other and with the Lord Jesus.²¹⁷

Presbyter: status or ministry

A key difference in the experience between Roman Catholic presbyters and those of the Eastern Churches and those who hold leadership positions in the churches of the 16th century Reformation - whatever they call themselves - is the way in which they consider ordination. Broadly speaking, ordination for Catholics is the moment of special election, the moment of consecration to a particular status within the Church, and the moment of conferring sacred powers proper to the presbyterate. Many Catholics like to speak of this priesthood in terms of its "ontological distinction" from the rest of the Christifideles , and so the ordination is a special personal moment for the one being ordained. It is therefore celebrated as a parallel to a wedding and remembered as a personal anniversary:

Pater sancte, qui me
ad communionem cum aeterno Christi tui sacerdotio
et ad Ecclesiae tuae ministerium nullis meis meritis elegisti…²¹⁸

The presbyter is chosen for fellowship with the priesthood of Christ and then for service in the church. There is such a division at the base of a presbyter's vision that all talk of synodality always lags behind the experience of the specificity of that priesthood.

In contrast, for most other churches, ordination is a means of ministry. Why are they ordained? So that they may perform a ministry that is needed by the people who make up the Church. Someone is ordained so that this person can serve, while for Catholics the ordination is a personal event and one can then serve. This Sazerdotalist view has deep roots in the hierarchical vision that has been dominant in Catholicism for centuries, and is deeply embedded in our practical theology through our laws regarding presbyters and our spirituality of the priesthood, as a recent study of the papal document of 1992, Pastores dabo vobis . ²¹⁹This is not going to change quickly or soon, and so the challenge is to create structures that help all Catholics, whether ordained priests or not, to re-imagine ordination in terms of a specific ministry within a community.

A starting point, already in place within the realms of canon law, would be for every congregation to take to heart Pope Francis' decree of January 2021, Spiritus Domini . Each diocese should earnestly encourage the formation of lectors and acolytes, enabling women and men to be formally called to minister in the liturgy . It would no longer be one church and one minister, but one church with a multitude of interacting, officially appointed ministries. Many will say that this is such a small step that it makes no difference, but until each congregation has a team of designated ministries, we cannot say that we are on our way to becoming a synodal church.

So what would this mean? It would mean that in every church - probably a group of fewer than 100 people - there would have to be a process of discernment as to who are the members best suited to preach the Word in the church and who are best suited to to help the congregation gather around the table. This would require a commitment to service - and to the steps along the way to service, such as formation - from both the individuals concerned, the group and the network of churches that make up the diocese. If you can see and experience the effects every Sunday that there are many ministries in this assembly all working together for the common good and serving the community as opposed to a single professional who may see himself as serving the community (since it is ontologically different from the other members), then we will have a church that is synodal in its perception of ministry. Furthermore, if in such a real congregation there were between 10 and 20 members formally commissioned as lectors or acolytes, synodality would be part of the congregation's normal thinking that there would be a widespread 'buy' for the vision of a synodal church taking place that the idea was reserved for only a few.

Before dismissing this as a first step toward church reform, one should consider the challenge this step posed to older understandings of church. So one will ask:

1. Will congregations change their perception of those delivering the readings from those who are simply “helping the priest” to those who are taking up part of the baptismal vocation to testify in the Word to the assembly of Christ to give proclaimed Good News?

2. Will these women and men see this as a ministry and part of conforming their lives to the work of Jesus?

3. Will ministers take this vision to heart as they seek lectors and encourage them to see this as genuine ministry?

4. Will presbyters take to heart that this is changing their own relationship with the church and that this change is part of the death of clericalism?

5. Will those who help out in the service of the table see it as part of their baptismal vocation and not just a "job" to "help out the Father"? Acolytes are not just 'shot altar boys', but part of the celebration of the identity of the community.

6. Will ministers recognize that this change in the law is a reminder of a deeper shift in understanding of the church that has been underway since the 1950's, but which has often had little impact on church practice?

7. Will the bishops/bishops' conferences take Pope Francis' letter to heart and actually institute these services of lector and acolyte? The bishops can hardly say that they will need much time to think - the very structures of these ministries were established thirty-nine years ago in 1972 by Ministeria quaedam (as Pope Francis now reminds us), and they already find the necessary liturgical texts in the pontifical .

Deacons: a way of relating

There has been and continues to be much debate as to whether or not it is possible for the Church to ordain women deacons: the results of these historical inquiries are destined to be inconclusive, for while there can be no doubt that in In the history of the church there were women deacons who were regarded as real ministers, they ²²⁰disappeared before the term ordination - as it is now used in reference to the "ordained ministry" by Catholics - emerged. The questions now being examined by a Roman commission are an exercise in anachronism; it would be similar if someone checked whether horse-drawn carriages obeyed the speed limit two hundred years ago. So instead of wasting time trying to "discover" a historical justification for women deacons - a notion that assumes that Catholic theology is semper eadem or some kind of inevitable historical development - it might be better to ask, how a vision of the diaconate should be part of the life of every community.²²¹

The question of his brother's murderer in the Genesis story is put to every human being: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9) - and the answer must be a resounding "Yes - I have responsibility for all my sisters and sisters." Brothers!” While on a political level it may be enough to acknowledge our universal fraternity as human beings with shared responsibility for the planet, for Christians who claim Jesus as their Brother, this brother/sister relationship is much deeper and is part of our very identity . This is a claim that is raised each time we gather as Christians in Christ to give thanks to the Father and to answer the call: orate, fratres . This universal fraternity can only be realized and experienced if it becomes the driving force of a human community. The slogan of the environmental movement: "think globally, act locally" should also be an organizational principle of both the Catholic liturgy and a synodal church.

In a community that sees this theme of service, diakonia, as fundamental to its way of relating, there are a number of connections that need to be remade. While the historical justifications for the ordination of women are elusive, those for a direct link between gathering to the Eucharist and raising money for the poor, and for a link between the assembled community and the care of the sick and housebound are clear and clear. ²²²The liturgy presupposes a network of care: those for whom we pray in the prayer of the faithful - the poor, the sick, the marginalized - we imagine ourselves welcome at our table, anticipating the heavenly feast, and we minister in the local food service and through practical action. Matthew 25:34-40 can serve as a checklist for the authenticity of any Eucharistic gathering: 'As you did to the least of my family, so you did to me.'

But such accomplished, practical concern requires skill and management, or it will be no more than pious words, and such skill will be found only in certain members of a community. Such people must be sought out, helped to recognize that these skills have an ecclesial dimension as well as a social and economic dimension, and then commissioned to express that part of the mission of that church. We should refer to those so commissioned as "deacons." It's not about outsourcing this task to proxies, it's about having those in the community who hold us accountable and facilitate group action. As Christians in the world, we affirm human solidarity and brotherhood while acknowledging in our community that we serve and care for one another.²²³

Celebrating synodality: the example of Jesus

The concept of diakonia is not to be confused with a mere religious variant of social care, nor, as so often, should it be dismissed as a confusion of Christian love with social work. Diaconia is an expression of Christian identity, which is manifested according to the principle of incarnation: by serving the sisters and brothers who are by our side and visible to us, we serve the God who is invisible to us (1 Jn 4:7-21 ). But how could we do this again in our churches and remember and enforce it?

In the Lord's Supper we are given a demonstration of the relationships that should characterize every community: We should be willing to humble ourselves and wash one another's feet in the manner of the lowest house slaves (John 13:4-20). ²²⁴This is already part of our liturgy during the Easter Triduum, but it has become a matter of spectacle, a pantomime of a text, or simply an expression of the relationship of the liturgical director - always a presbyter - with those entrusted to him. ²²⁵While this is a useful liturgy, it often simply masks a hierarchical relationship that power is power but should be exercised with humility. A closer reading of the gospel text reveals that Jesus' command is addressed to all disciples: They are to wash one another's feet. They are not asked to imitate the activity of Jesus, but to take his relationship of service among them as a paradigm for their relationship to one another. It is this web of relationships within a congregation that is expressed in the Synoptics in their dispute over size during the Lord's Supper ²²⁶and that is summed up in Luke's statement: "But I am among you as one who is like a servant/deacon ( hós ho diakonón ) is.

In the monastic tradition this communal vision of this shocking ritual of Jesus has survived as an activity that represents the relationship of the individual monks to each other within the framework of service of the community. ²²⁷As such, it is an expression of a communion in which service is central to their coming together and also the relationship that a synodal vision of a church/the church must underpin. So perhaps we need to delve into the depths of our tradition and rediscover this action of Jesus. This could be the expression of who we are in a fellowship - not even once a year on Maundy Thursday, when it tends to be confused with a pantomime or a flimsy display of humility by authority ²²⁸, but whenever the fellowship comes together to make decisions or to confirm, confirm or commission those who will have particular assignments in the fellowship - be they lectors or acolytes or deacons or whatever. But more than that, it could be done on a regular basis to remind us all how we need to model a very different kind of relationship - a covenant of caring for one another - within the church than those that create division and abuse of power in human societies. If the church is to witness to the kingdom of God and speak truth to those in power in our world, then each church must be clear in its own understanding of how the Christian vision of community/power/authority is radically different. This vision is what we theologians are striving for when we speak of a synodal vision of authority in the Church.

The vision of a church that takes diakonia seriously and celebrates it in order to inscribe it in its identity stands in radical contrast to the dominant liberal-capitalist notion of individualism as one's anthropology coupled with functional transactionalism as one's view of relationship. Diakonia is based on the reality of I - You: You are a 'you' to me because I am ready to be your servant. This is a difficult vision in any society or community, and what better time to experience it as our ecclesiastical anthropology than when I am on my knees and ready to wash your feet and ready to intercede for you in return Becoming 'you' by letting you wash my feet - in church we learn from the memory of Jesus and Peter!

The dark side of belonging: shared guilt

Many Catholics still have vivid memories of their church as the societas perfecta , a two-tiered organization of leaders ( ecclesia docens ) and followers ( ecclesia discens ), which could pompously set itself up as a role model for other churches, other religions and humanity as a whole . Even those who never accepted the departure from this ecclesiology through an inner acceptance of Vatican II have now had to abandon it in light of the continuing exposure of abuses - sexual, financial and authority - at every level of the hierarchical church. Indeed, it is the discovery of the hollowness of such claims that has been a major factor in the call for a synodal church. But the sinfulness of the Church is greater as a phenomenon than the circle of clergy and religious who have betrayed and harmed their fellow Christians: we are all involved in one way or another. Even if we put aside the egregious transgressions of Christians, such as their connivance of the Holocaust, to put it mildly, none of us are pure. We have been willing to engage in various forms of anti-Semitism for centuries; we were ²²⁹defenders of slavery well into the nineteenth century, and it seems clear that many Catholics still support racial supremacy movements ²³⁰; and we share our share of the blame for colonialism and the ruthless exploitation of the planet. Verily we pray: peccatores te rogamus, audi nos.

It is worth noting that the liturgy of the Second Temple and also the community at Qumran - these two great sources of our liturgy - both provide for a shared confession of our sinfulness, a collective guilt, and the praying hope for a collective salvation. We see this in Psalm 51 (the Miserere), where the singular is not an individual's prayer, but the singer's liturgical expression of the group's guilt. ²³¹It is this prayer that is then taken up by all in prayer, fasting and works of charity. This communal perspective, which recognizes that we sin as a social group and can only combat the effects of sin through collective action, must become the dominant theme of sinfulness in a synodal church. Through our various possessions, we cause harm to others and to creation - often with a minimal sense of responsibility for the harm done or our own guilt - and therefore we must make community-level decisions to change our lives, seek divine help, and meet our need for acknowledge divine mercy. Yet our liturgical expression of our guilt is still almost exclusively geared to an individualistic model of human existence: indeed, the anthropology underlying our canon law and practice regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the direct antithesis of our understanding of the common good and the social nature of man, which underpins Catholic social teaching.²³²

If we are to have a truly synodal church, then each church must take its common guilt for its crimes and omissions as seriously as we call each individual to confess their sins. This means that the Rite of Communal Reconciliation - Rite III in the current Ordo - must not be considered as something exceptional, to be used only in emergencies, due to the lack of the consecrated powers necessary to celebrate Rites I or II, but as an expression of a deeper awareness of our collective human situation. Its celebration must amount to a collective supplication for mercy as we find it in the liturgy for the Day of Atonement, an acknowledgment that we have all contributed to the damage of creation in our common efforts as a community, and that we as a people, as a real human community , have failed the covenant and therefore need to return to the covenant as a fellowship, seek to mend the damage, and have a renewed sense of our common discipleship. Based on the vision of the dying Moses, who points out that the people of God can choose between the common action that leads to life and that which leads to death (Dtn 30:19), the early instructions for the Christian successor, the Didache, propose a small community that must choose between these two paths. We have lost the sense that we must choose the path of life together because we have seen sin as individual actions, to the extent that we do not see even our great corporate crimes as sin. A realistic assessment of our situation must be a priority in a synodal church - and the liturgy for that is already there if we are willing to learn to use it.

Notion of Synodality: We are one loaf

Go into any Catholic church on a Sunday and observe what happens when it is time to eat the Eucharistic bread and how what happens invites experiential awareness. The people - perhaps the majority of those present - go to the front of the meeting and are handed a small pre-cut wafer in a way that will not delay the whole affair. It's functionally fast food, with all the contraptions—pre-preparation, standard sizes, vessels adapted to a crowd situation, rapid delivery procedures, every outlet identical to every other—that we've come to associate with drive-thru hamburger restaurants over the last few decades . It is a religious analogue of industrialized mass production that creates alienation within society and reduces man to the status of a consumer unit. I see this resemblance of our communion rite to a drive-thru fast food outlet as a parable for our situation in the Catholic Church today: centralized, formalistic, and devoid of interactive human engagement and measure. Instead of trying to analyze this problem in the manner of a sociologist, the theologian should offer a poetic vision to it.²³³

The starting point for this vision is a gathering of sisters and brothers around a table. In their midst and in the center of the table is placed a warm, richly fragrant loaf of bread. It's big enough for everyone gathered. The assembly itself experiences real human unity, for it is not so large that one cannot find a loaf large enough to give everyone a share. Everyone takes a piece of the bread and begins to eat it, and at the same time they hear a voice - they recognize it as Paul's - and it slowly repeats these words: 'The bread that we break is not a participation in the body of Christ ? Because there is one bread, although we are many, we are one body, because we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-7). The community continues to eat, remembering the stories and hopes that brought them together and bind them together in shared longings. Then they hear another old voice, this time in prayer, which they join: 'We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge you have given us. Through Jesus, your servant, glory be to you forever. For as the broken bread was once scattered over the mountains and then gathered and became one, so may your church be gathered into your kingdom from the ends of the earth. Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever” (Didache 9:3-4).

So what do we mean by a “synodal church”? I suspect that it must be something like this vision if it is to be anything more than a topic in a lecture on ecclesiology among theologians or an abstract principle among canonists. A synodal church will not come into being in the blink of an eye - although many of the obstacles standing in the way of its formation could be removed relatively quickly by action at any level, be it the Roman Curia, the Episcopal Conference, the individual diocese or the local level Community. A synodal church, like the pilgrim people of God, will be a work in progress. It's like a big epic poem. Any true community must see itself as a poem in the making, a poem of praise, of concern, of a group whose interaction is not only life-giving to those involved, but a witness to the living God among us.

Karin Heller: "Does the world synodal church stand or fall" with the women's question?

Karin Heller, PhD., D.Div., Dr. theological habil., Professor of Theology, Whitworth University, Spokane, WA, USA

Summary: Mutual giving and receiving is at the heart of a synodal church. Women turn out to be the key to the paradigm shift initiated by Pope Francis from a monarchically structured to a synodal church. The inclusion of women in all offices, including ordained ones, remains the necessary dynamic for the success of this undertaking.

A year after Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as the next Bishop of Rome, I received a surprising invitation. The Lateran University organized a study seminar on Mercy: Pastoral Truth in preparation for the 2014-15 Synod of Bishops on Marriage Theology and Sexual Ethics. I was one of the twelve invited speakers. The title of my entry given by the organizers was “Misunderstandings of Tolerance and the Way of Mercy”. Seven years later, this topic seems more explosive than ever to me, as it helps us, as Andreas Batlogg writes, " to endure difficult and adverse situations with patience or to accept changes in our projects that the dynamics of reality impose on us".

Today, as then, for me it is precisely the women in the church who endure the most difficult and adverse situations in the church. Synodal church and synodal path, be it in Germany or on a global church level, are certainly a huge opportunity, but they also remain a concern that the US theologian Reinhold Niebuhr expresses as follows in his serenity prayer: God, give me the serenity to accept things that I can't change the courage to change things that I can change, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other. It served as a guide for my published contribution to the preparation of the World Synod of Bishops 2014/15.²³⁴

What has changed since then? Ever since the Bishop of Rome opted for a synodal church, women are still the ones who struggle with rejection of their "full, conscious, and active participation" in church life (SC 14). Certainly the synodal path in Germany and the synodal church promoted by Pope Francis have also brought about a certain process of inculturation. Were not the German bishops exceptional pioneers in bringing women into non-ordination-related leadership positions? But despite some positive signals, there are still things for women to endure that require courage to distinguish between things that are truly unchanging and things that are changing.

Margit Eckholt expresses this dilemma as follows: " The third forum on women in services and offices in the Church is not just about the question of women in leadership positions or in sacramental ministry, but in this forum the explosive nature of the entire synodal path as an expression of a church that takes the universal church awakening of the council church seriously and defines itself as a local church in the analysis and in dealing with the "signs of the times" corresponding to the German context. ²³⁵What is expressed here can be described, in the words of Pope Francis, as an "overflowing ", going beyond what limits the view to "see the greater thing that God wants to give us" (QA 105 ). This is about overcoming a two-pronged dialectic, insofar as women and men are repeatedly pushed into stereotypical behavior by the Church's teaching office, which has more to do with cultural adaptation than with inculturation, as expressed by the Bishop of Rome in Querida Amazonia.

Inculturation is fundamentally the ability to search for “signs of the times” in every culture and every epoch and to interpret them in the light of the gospel (GS 4). This means that inculturation also sees opportunities for the development of human physical, psychological and spiritual wholeness in the position of women in church and society, which can never be separated from social justice. But if inculturation consists only of imposing the mindset of a particular group on others in whatever way, then ex-culturation develops, rooted in an exclusive male leadership style. Hence the following question: what went wrong here and what can be changed?

Women: the greater and unexpected gift of God for new and enhanced creativity

Since the early days of the Christian message, women have been inculturated by the gospel just like men. It has empowered women as well as men to develop their own synthesis of the Gospel in their lives and to unfold their inculturated perspectives for the benefit of their churches. For this reason one should be able to expect from the reception of the Gospel by both sexes, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, abundant fruits in which it "shows the Church new aspects of revelation and gives her a new face" (QA 68). What church history has consistently revealed, however, are crossbars placed in women's path by church officials, while it was rarely women who made men's missionary work sour.²³⁶

What then emerged in the last 30 years was a sexual abuse that had ravaged the Church for centuries, often preceded by spiritual abuse ²³⁷; spooky reports of priestly abuse of nuns; brutal treatment by clerics against lay people of both sexes in church employment; Bishops who were either powerless to put an end to such abuses or others who constantly swept them under the rug.

While for Pope John XXIII the woman issue was still one of the "signs of the times," ²³⁸the interpretation of this sign by his successors took place in the context of past cultures and theological systems that interpreted the gospel in the light of their sole, male-only perspectives . Instead of responding to this sign of the times "in a manner appropriate to each generation " (GS 4), popes, against the advice and objection of many Catholic men, women, and religious of both sexes, chose Aristotelian and neo-Thomistic ideas around views on sexual morality and To bring the women's question across the threshold of the 21st century with a bang and a bang, also with the help of synods. This left most of the Catholic clergy and many believers alienated and exculturated from reality in the face of the rapid development of feminist research, both in the human and theological sciences, since the 1970s.

impetus to a church model for equal coexistence and partnership in their fundamental text On Questions of the Position of Women in Church and Society . ²³⁹What was still possible in the 1980s was doomed to fail ten years later when a similar project on the position of women in church and society was put to an end by the US bishops in Rome in 1991-92. ²⁴⁰While in 1988 Pope John Paul II was still vehemently urging the US bishops to make the different but complementary roles of men and women central, it was already clear to the German bishops that any change in women's self-image would also affect men's self-image . ²⁴¹However, this still meant equal rights for men and women in the laity, which was recognized for the first time in the entire history of the Council of Vatican II. The German bishops have undoubtedly done a lot to bring women into non-ordination-related leadership positions, which Pope Francis continued after taking office in 2013 in a certainly more intensive way than his predecessors at the Curia. One can speak of a gradual process of becoming aware of what the German bishops had been aware of for decades: only mixed-gender teams make it possible to work together as partners. It is only such an experience that changes the clerical culture of discussion, with clericalism noticeably losing its influence. However, this realization must remain with a caveat if bishops are too quick to believe that it is enough to bring a one-third majority of women into the non-ordained leadership echelon to have the church's women's issue all but resolved.²⁴²

Such nominations cannot hide the fact that women still remain a second-class category, lacking the possibility of the "supreme recognition" with which priestly and episcopal ordinations are still associated in the minds of many Catholics and clergy. One does not switch from one day to the next from a monarchical to a synodal way of thinking and church model. For this reason, certain departments in the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congregation for Bishops, remained hermetically sealed to women. The narrowing down of women to women-specific areas typically identified by men alone has also been shown in the Dicastery for Laity, Families and Life established by Pope Francis in 2016 , where he appointed two undersecretaries. Thus, women certainly belong as important interlocutors in the areas of the laity, family and the protection of life, but hardly in dogmatics, liturgy or the appointment of bishops. Two years later, three female advisers were appointed at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a function that ipso facto made them appear in a subordinate position. Certainly, such necessary advances are gratifying, but they cannot disguise the reality that there is still a long way to go for women to be able to develop their talents in a “team working together in a spirit of partnership”.

The ambiguity of the scissors with their "inside" and "outside" is shown here, to express it with a picture by Margit Eckholt. "Outside" women are promoted and honored in certain areas, while "inside" almost nothing happens, because women who are discussed in Vatican positions must continue to move in a predominantly clerical and monarchical environment. Here the women's question comes up against a glass ceiling that denies them a full, conscious and active "subjectification". This is expressed again and again in the protestations of many of these women appointed to dicasteries that ordination really is not the main topic. In contrast to a post-conciliar strong "subjectization of the poor", the women's question was repeatedly brought onto the curia-correct track, including by the bishop of Rome himself. Here the following question has to be asked with Margit Eckholt: " Does the pope, with whom a new phase of the reception of the council began, do justice to the dynamics of the council's awakenings, above all the pastoral impetus of the council to take care of the ministry of proclamation Jesus Christ in all actions and practices of the church?”²⁴³

Certainly the bishop of Rome, many officials and also many believers are still on the way to a "higher level". Therefore, I would like to urgently connect the question of women in services and ordination-related offices of the Church with what Pope Francis writes at the end of Querida Amazonia . Contrary to his unfortunate statement in which he compares Catholic women theologians to "strawberries on a cake" ²⁴⁴, perhaps he and all those involved with him at the next World Bishops' Conference could see a God-ordained advantage and benefit for the world church if they were to follow him Lines point to women in all services and offices:

“ True solutions are never achieved by diluting the boldness, shirking concrete demands, or blaming someone else. On the contrary, the way out is found through an 'overflow', going beyond the dialectics that limit vision to see the greater that God wants to give us. From this gift, accepted with courage and commitment, from this unexpected gift, which awakens a new and greater creativity, the answers that dialectics have not allowed us to see will flow as if from a lush fountain.” (QA 105)

If one is willing to interpret this view of Pope Francis on ordination-related services and offices of women in the Church, then it would hardly have been possible for decades to cover up the manifold grievances of bishops, priests and religious. It is certainly to the credit of the Mannheim-Heidelberg- Gießen study (M HG) on the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests, deacons and male members of religious orders in the area of the German Bishops' Conference that at least the German bishops see the corruption of an exclusively male church government system to finally become aware. Glorification of women's virtues, which primarily benefit men, and male abuse of authority, remain two sides of the same patriarchal coin.

The majority of the German bishops have recognized that an important prevention of abuse of power in pastoral care consists in promoting mixed-gender teams in all church leadership positions. What is not said here is that such mixed teams are always carried out by ordained ministers and are therefore controlled by them. Certainly "the ministry of priests and bishops enables many to participate in the mission and thus also in responsibility in the Church", but therein lies the rub. How is prevention of the abuse of power promoted here, when “only the sacramentally based service of bishops and priests makes it possible and makes it clear that “Christ alone leads the church” or strengthens, supports and encourages the believers? ²⁴⁵With this statement, one question always remains unclear, namely that of the meaning of Jesus' sexuality. It is simply expected of clergy and believers as "normal" to believe that the meaning of Jesus' sexuality naturally coincides with what "normal" human cultures ascribe only to men, namely: solely responsible for the leadership of their families, tribes and peoples to be. Men are always the ones who make the final decision, while everyone else, including women, has to put up with it. Such culturally conditioned notions prevent one from reaching a "higher level" and effecting an ever deeper inculturation of the gospel in men and women. We have now arrived at this “more” that the women's question entails, because it cannot be separated from what the other three forums of the synodal path bring to light, namely: machismo or male clericalism, abuse of power and one sick making sexual morality.

Here the following theses should be heard and considered.

At the same time, weakening women in the area of ordination-related ministries and ministries means subjecting male ministers alone to such cultural pressures. Or officials are instructed to find support, refuge, and solutions to their problems only in clerical circles. It leads to nothing but an institutional system of cover-up. Strengthening women in ordination-related ministries and offices also means empowering men with new perspectives that open up the future, so that men in particular also remain true to their own vocation to proclaim the gospel in ministry and office.

If one really wants an inculturation of the balance of power between men and women through the gospel, then this can not only be done from men to women, but also from women to men. A single-track proclamation of the gospel by men for women can never do justice to an inculturation that presupposes mutual giving and receiving. There is no fellowship here when men simply refuse women to preach the gospel in the name of Jesus, thereby withdrawing themselves from women receiving the gospel. This one-track proclamation reduces the voice of God to that of men, speaking naturally for both men and women. The female voice of God is simply amputated and rendered inaudible. Inculturation, however, presupposes that lay people and thus also women have the opportunity to freely proclaim the Word of God in the liturgy.

The same is true of women's advisory ministry in exegesis, theology, morals, and liturgy, which men may benevolently accept but by no means have to be bindingly expressed in effective decisions. Inculturation, however, can never be content with "alibi" women.

Admission to priestly ordination viri probati will also not put an end to machismo, abuse of power and sickening sexual morality, because even in such marriages, according to Aristotelian-Neuthomasist ideas, which are still very much in the course of anthropological thinking in the Church today, men are always the leaders are chosen, while women remain those who can only exist under the leadership of men.

Finally, a truly synodal church cannot derive its authority from ordinations reserved only for men, but only from baptism. This basically opens the door to all church services and offices for all genders.

Why did God create women if not to give God's creation an " abundance ," a "greater " gift ? That men do not or do not want to see such a God-ordained gift in women is not God-ordained. The male conscious and unconscious fear of women, which is expressed covertly and openly in a wide range of misogynist words and attitudes, is a culturally conditioned fact whose origin and development will keep the human sciences in suspense for a long time to come. What exegesis and theology have to say about this cannot be decided by a "theology of women" that is tied to sex and gender, but only together by women and men who are willing to inculturate sex and gender in the light of the Gospel in their lives .

However, such an undertaking can only succeed if it is accompanied by a kenotic, i.e. power-reducing, attitude on the part of men and women. Of course, men have more power to lose than women. This in turn presupposes that men in particular have to gain authority as power with others, which also includes women , and that women then also have to stand by those men who from now on have less power to offer them.

Recommendations to the World Synod of Bishops 2023

The theme of the upcoming World Synod of Bishops, scheduled for 2023, is: Synodal Church: Fellowship, Participation, and Mission . This motto is reminiscent of diocesan synods convened by individual bishops in recent decades to breathe new life into parishes and Catholic institutions. Their only very moderate success was mainly due to the fact that quick pastoral answers were expected from these synods without being able to change the slightest bit of doctrinal regulations. ²⁴⁶As for the implementation of synodal Roman documents themselves, it is limited to what people hear, see, or read from the media, to some publications by specialists in technical literature, and in study groups organized by some parishes or in Catholic communities. In other words, Roman synods remain a distant and exculturated event for most Catholics. In order to arrive at a better inculturated result, the following recommendations to the World Synod of Bishops should be included in the discussions at all levels.

synodal community

With the synodal path , a model has certainly been created for how local, national and regional churches could become real community interlocutors in the preparation, conduct and implementation (EC Art. 4) of world synods of bishops. Simply sending questionnaires to believers asking them to express their problems and views cannot do justice to such a task. It is particularly questionable if the answers from diocesan bishops are sent to Rome via the national bishops' conferences in a completely non-transparent way. Isn't this an attempt to bring the voices of the faithful down to a common denominator controlled by bishops? Also, a synodal process or path in which the faithful may only have votes in the preparation and implementation of synods, but not in the conduct of synods themselves, is a degrading and demeaning practice. Whatever demeaning and degrading procedures, be it insidious manipulations, exploiting ignorance or gullibility, whitewashing, or even disciplinary measures in the event that strictly line-true speech, attitude or scientific research are refrained from, are not compatible with community. Nothing has harmed the Church more for decades than the frustrated trust of believers through inadequate leadership in demeanor, word, and deed.

Synodal Participation

The participation of the largest possible and, above all, diverse number of participants will depend on how one wants to solve the problem of an asymmetrical top-down leadership style. He is incarnated today by a group of men who alone claim power, in the name of God, to know and determine what it means for the entire Church to believe and act rightly. Inculturation, on the other hand, is a reciprocal, recurring event of giving and receiving that has the power to connect the new and the old, to come to new insights from different perspectives, and to bring old practices to fruition in new ways. This style of leadership differs not only from theocratic, but also from democratic systems in world history.

Here, during the preparatory and implementation phase of the World Synod of Bishops, the theologically explosive question will arise as to what power with others can and should look like in a synodal church. The fact that baptized believers, including women, could exercise episcopal rights in the Church until Vatican II is ignored by most Catholics today. It was only Vatican II that put an end to such possibilities, tying the potestas iuridictionis to the potestas ordinis , in an attempt to balance the power of papal infallibility, established as dogma in 1870. ²⁴⁷It would be important here to give all those involved the opportunity, as early as the preparatory phase, to be able to refer to relevant information relating to church history and church law. Participation is also, to use the words of Sabine Demel, “to think about the content of faith and teaching and to engage in dialogue in and with the church community in the service of truth guidance”. ²⁴⁸Here it must be noted that withholding public debate, as well as a lack of transparency, is another form of abuse against the entire community of the baptized.

A typical example of such a lack of transparency was the change in the sacramental structure of the Church with the publication of Inter Insigniores (1976) and Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), which broke with a more than 1500 year old patristic tradition. These two documents justify the exclusion of women from Holy Orders by relying on three different traditions, namely, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth called his apostles only from among the male group of his followers; the Church's unbroken tradition of admitting only men to such offices; the fact that the Church's Magisterium has consistently understood the exclusion of women as in accordance with God's plan. To these three reasons, which today have been sufficiently refuted by exegetes, theologians, and church historians, Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio sacerdotalis added adds a hitherto completely new argument, namely that "the Incarnation of the Word of God takes place in the form of the male sex".²⁴⁹ In this way, the understanding of Jesus' sexuality was tied to the solely male dimension of Jesus' humanity, as it exists in the culturally conditioned conception of men, without the convening of a synod or a council. In addition, this idea was also declared as unsolvable by the economy of salvation. It is recommended that such highly explosive decisions made by individual men should not only be put to an end. Such decisions, which are of vital importance for the proclamation of the gospel for all believers worldwide, must be reworked synodally, decided synodally and implemented synodally.

As far as the implementation phase of the coming World Synod of Bishops is concerned, it would also have to be clarified here whether all members are guaranteed equal voting rights, as is now the case with the Synodal Way, but that the resolutions of the Synodal Assembly have no legal effect, because the power of attorney of the Bishops' Conference and that of the individual diocesan bishops remains unaffected by these resolutions. ²⁵⁰As long as believers, including women, ultimately return to an advisory role only, the Roman synods will continue to arouse little interest from many believers. They risk becoming "alibi" synods.

mission

Without women, there simply will be no missionary Synodal Church . Therefore, it is recommended to the next World Synod of Bishops to go beyond the perspectives and loci limited by men alone with the question of women . Women, like men, are baptized into Christ and not Mary, implying that any representation of Christ is grounded in the discipleship of Christ of the baptized. Each and every baptized person grows into an incarnated form of service and ministry on the path of following Christ. All charisms are given to work together . Their order does not depend on gender characteristics and a polarized structure declared by humans, but on the perichoresis of the Risen Christ identifying with all the poor, sick, persecuted, oppressed, silenced, and excluded of this world, regardless of race , status or sex (Mt 25:31-46). In this the church should be distinguished from secular systems of government. Therefore, following Christ does not produce viri probati, but only personae probatae . Church ministries and offices that can only be exercised on the basis of a specific sexual difference are marked a priori by a division that cannot do justice to the nature of Christ's mission. Such divisions have to be overcome again and again in the life of all the baptized.

Cardinal Marx also speaks of such an overcoming in his farewell speech as chairman of the DBK. In it he admits that he would no longer stand by positions on women in the Church that he held as a young priest more than 40 years ago. Sitting in a group without women is not forward-looking for him. Although for him personally the exclusion of women was answered authoritatively by Pope John Paul II, this question cannot be left aside. The world church now has to speak about this, preceded by remaining open to discussion within theology and to the voice of the Word of God. ²⁵¹Here it is again urgently recommended to finally give the bishops and the faithful the opportunity to be able to speak openly and without fear of disciplinary measures on the subject of women in all church offices.

It is also recommended that the next World Synod of Bishops set the course for a theology of all the baptized, as outlined by Lumen Gentium . In this light it would then be possible to review all the other conciliar documents on the four themes of the synodal path , and to do so in a way that is not about an ideological victory on such issues, but out of a genuine concern for the common good of the universal church in an ecumenical perspective.

final word

The synodal path has certainly created a unique opportunity to put many questions that have already been shelved by individual ministers back into the light as in need of inculturation and to raise them to the higher level of the collective implementation and implementation of a world synod of bishops. Inculturation must not be confused here with a magical sacralization as it is often understood by human power structures, more or less mixed up with idolatry. Inculturation has in common with holiness that both involve a long process or journey. As the Bishop of Rome often emphasizes, the proclamation and reception of the salvific Gospel are at the heart of the journey of each individual, but also of entire peoples, “where grace is incarnated and shines forth with unmistakable characteristics”. (QA 69. 77)

This vision was brought to light by me seven years ago from the standpoint of Christian tolerance and compassion in a Lateran University auditorium. There she faced a lot of resistance. In the heart of Rome and a pontifical university, it gave me a glimpse of the long road ahead of overcoming the gap between teaching and practice. The confusion between the “ big ones” is still too deep Gospel” with a “great collection of dogmas or precepts” (QA 63). What I hope for from the next World Synod of Bishops is that they finally tackle the issue of giving and receiving together, because giving and receiving together alone leads to an upward-moving dynamic for all those involved.

Men would certainly have to muster up more courage here in order to bring themselves to a willingness to also receive something willed by God from women and non-clerics. This is about dealing with alienations that are culturally rooted in the human psyche and from which Christ redeemed us. If they are not processed, then after a while such a dynamic will freeze the gospel in culturally adapted regulations, which are then officially copied and pasted faithfully from pontificate to pontificate. Even a synodal church is not immune to such a possibility. Therefore, a synodal church must have as its cornerstone the universal call to holiness, inasmuch as Christ Himself is that cornerstone, and not a gendered vision of ecclesiastical ministries. The risen Christ is not the incarnate, but the incarnate, risen Christ. It is this Christ who endows women and men without distinction with new powers to give both a decisive voice in their social and religious environment.²⁵² In this sense, one can only hope that all participants in the process of the next World Synod of Bishops will have the courage to set a new course on the women's question. Because one thing is certain: the synodal church "stands or falls" with the women's question.

Openings to synodality and their limits

Paulo Suess: Departure after the Amazon Synod - synodally attentive and missionary concerned

Paulo Suess (84) has lived in Brazil since 1966. Doctorate with Baptist Metz on "People's Catholicism in Brazil", Dr. hc of the Universities of Bamberg and Frankfurt, expert at the Amazon Synod 2019.

Summary: In Pan-Amazonia, the Catholic Church faces great challenges from vast distances, multiculturalism, the exploitation of its people and nature by economic interests, and its own colonial legacy. The Amazon Synod discussed the resulting problems and forwarded concrete proposals to Pope Francis and to the newly founded "Conference of the Church of Amazonia" (CEAMA). The synodal listening and missionary alarmed departure is under time pressure. "And we, what are we waiting for" (EG 120)?

The large-scale pastoral action initiated by the Amazon Synod was aimed at Pan-Amazonia, with its 7.5 million km² and nine countries: Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela and French Guiana. In the individual countries, mostly only parts of their territory belong to Amazonia. Of the more than 350 million inhabitants of these countries, about 33.6 million people live in Pan-Amazonia and about 2.5 million belong to the very different indigenous peoples. About 70-80% of the Amazonian population lives in cities (cf. DP 6-22). Urban life complicates the maintenance of cultural heritage, levels it and tends to run into the arms of a metropolitan mixed culture. Scientific studies on mineral resources, forest cultures and irrigation systems in Amazonia fill libraries. Less well known are the real stories of Amazonia, its cultures and the wisdom preserved within of the people who give a human heart to the ecological lungs.

In this region, the Catholic Church faces great challenges from vast distances and concern for its many exploited residents. In addition, there is multiculturalism and the country's own colonial heritage is still alive. But the key to solving them lies in the problems: decentralization, pluriculturality and prophecy. The working document (II), which was available to the synod at the beginning, already indicated this problem in its three parts: "The Voice of Amazonia" (I): Only a decentralized church will be able to hear the voice of Amazonia through its local presence; “Holistic Ecology: The Cry of the Earth and the Poor” cannot be divided apart (II): Pluriculturality has unifying sociocultural roots and hurts; and finally in Amazonia it is about "A prophetic church in Amazonia: Challenges and hopes" (III): New ways that lead out of colonial entanglements are prophetic ways of a professing and missionary church that is ready to convert. The working document refers to “repentance” 42 times. Finally, the synod should open up ways for a prophetic church both internally (against the continued existence of pastoral-colonial conditions) and externally (in prophetic resistance to the destruction of man and nature). New processes of inculturation and intercultural encounters should pastorally spell out the Amazonian face of the Church “in the diversity of peoples, cultures and ecosystems” (IL 107). Also in the final document (DF) of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon region, the word “conversion” was found 47 times, while in Querida Amazônia, the post-synodal letter of the Pope, it occurs only once. Was Francis more realistic, because the willingness to turn around and start is a process that can also be talked down by using it too often (cf. SUESS, 2020)?

prolegomenos

The Amazon Synod is not over yet. It was October 15, 2017, at the Angelus in St. Peter's Square, when Pope Francis announced its convocation as the "Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon Region" and convened it for October 2019. The task of this Synod should be “to find new ways for the evangelization of that part of the People of God, especially the indigenous peoples, who are often forgotten and without the prospect of a peaceful future, also because of the crisis of the Amazon rainforest, the lung of vital importance to our planet”. Even then it was to be feared that Pope Francis could gamble away his own "perspective of a peaceful future" with this synod, because in his administrative context and in the fundamentalist sector of the church people, which still too much adhered to the comfortable criterion of "It was always done that way ’ (EG 33), even homeopathic units of participation, transparency and pluriculturality cannot count on being received as a matter of course. The frivolous accusation of heresy suspicion often nips necessary changes in the bud. Through this trend, the Synod should succeed in pointing out "new ways for evangelization" or even, as Francis said later, a "Church with an Amazonian face" (QA 61). It would have to be possible to uproot the undergrowth of ecclesiastical contradictions and colonial incompatibility with the gospel.

"New Ways" does not mean that all past missionary work in the Amazon, personal dedication and institutional investment, has been nothing. Nevertheless, one must ask why, after more than 500 years of missionary presence, the church has not succeeded in becoming indigenous. There are methodological and ideological reasons for this. The Amazon Synod therefore still has a long way ahead of it, blocked by rock massifs, which it must clear if it is only to correspond approximately to the horizon of expectations inspired by the Gospel, which its topic has outlined. According to Bonaventura de Sousa Santos, this synod of bishops for the Amazon region should be about an "epistemology of the south". However, an "epistemology of the South" will only exist if there is a quorum and a participation that is recognized in its proposals.

Although “new paths” involve longer processes, it must be made clear from the outset that such processes have clear horizons. And this is where your full attention is required. Middle ground on the well-worn traces of patriarchy, colonial heteronomy or technological adaptation to trends of modern acceleration in order to make up for the lost 500 years of missionary presence have not led to any pastorally useful result. The break with geographically distanced interference and culturally alien pastoral presence was announced, which in their previous format could not even meet the minimum program of sacramental fulfillment of duties in the Amazon region.

However, since one has to pay for orthodoxy within the Church with the coin of continuity, an "epistemology of the South" will always have to prove that it does not lead to a break with the gospel, but on the contrary to a break with placeless, uninculturated and historyless orthodoxy . Every understanding of faith goes far beyond the exclusively Western understanding of faith, every pastoral practice participates in the plural possibilities of its realization: "From the perspective of the excluded and discriminated, the historical record of global capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy is full of institutionalized ones and harmful lies. It is a record [...] of appropriation in the name of liberation, violence in the name of peace, destruction of life in the name of the sanctity of life, violation of human rights in the name of human rights [...], the illegal Looting in the name of law, assimilation in the name of diversity” (SOUSA SANTOS, B., 2018, p. 7f). The ideologically misused paradigm of globalization destroys cultural diversity and a regional humane scale of values that has been tried and tested for thousands of years.

An "Epistemology of the South" is not a declaration of war against other epistemologies, but an invitation to joint action in the face of eco-social and pastoral challenges. 80% of the deforested area of Amazonia became a trail for cattle herds. Due to the irresponsible destruction of the connection between nature and man, today we have cause for concern for the future not only of Amazonia but of planet Earth. Prophetic stand against global ecological exploitation through deforestation, ranching, pollution of rivers by petroleum and ore exploitation is of crucial importance for the peace and future of mankind. Therefore, the Amazon synod was also entitled to enrich the "whole church" and to inspire "all people of good will" (QA 4), that is, to be a local church call for warning, help and order to the world church and a Appeal to the possibility of living together in "many forms of harmony" (QA 61; EG 220). The afflictions of the world stop at no native hut and no skyscraper. The exploitation of Amazonia and its inhabitants, pars pro toto , has world significance. In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti on Fraternity and Social Friendship (2020), Pope Francis illuminates this perspective from the local importance of regions to global responsibility: “We all have a responsibility towards the wounded, that is, towards our own people and towards all peoples of the earth” (FT 79). In the sea of colonial exploitation there are no islands of an ideal world. We share responsibility for all of the world's victims. Will it be possible to interrupt the colonial mentality that has been culturally and politically ingrained for centuries worldwide or at least as a regional paradigm?

The Pope suggested that the inhabitants of Amazonia themselves should play a part in shaping a postcolonial, inculturated, politically and pastorally responsible local church with the face of Amazonia. And "participate" in the entire synodal event can not only mean "to be questioned" while retaining the veto right of tourist guides who are not familiar with the area, but of course also means being involved in the decision-making process. Such a process of decolonization not only wants to interrupt economic exploitation with its social and ecological consequences “from above”, which in turn would also be a colonial intervention, but also to resist authoritarian political guidelines that hide themselves under the toga of clericalism and a liberal anti-clericalism counter the missionary paradigm with finger-wagging.

From consultation to participation

Consultation could be a first step towards participation. In church documents, both nouns are mostly used synonymously. Synodality spells out many elements of the "participation of the laity in the salvific mission of the Church" ( Lumen Gentium 33). Since Vatican II (1962-1965), new forms of this participation of lay people in the pastoral life of the Church have been increasingly focused on, especially in Latin America (cf. QA 61). Through the Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio (2018), as before in his address to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops (2015), Pope Francis gave this rediscovered form of the church as a synod, which “by its very idea at the earliest times” (EC 1), some important impulses. The Synod of Bishops must be understood as a continuation of the Vatican Council in spirit and method: “This path of synodality is precisely what God expects from the Church of the third millennium. [...] The synodal path begins by listening to the people [...] according to a principle that was important to the Church of the first millennium: » Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet – What concerns everyone must be discussed with everyone become«« (FRANZISKUS, 2015). For the Pope, the Synod of Bishops is an advisory instrument that can also have decision-making power “insofar as it is bestowed upon it by the Pope” (EC 3.3). In the preparation of the synodal assemblies, it is of great importance that "particular attention is paid to the consultation of all particular Churches" (EC 7). The issues to be dealt with at the Synod should be defined by all: priests, deacons, lay people, religious and "participatory bodies of the particular Churches" (EC 7), because it is about "the Church as the whole of the evangelizing People of God" (EG 17c). The synodal process has "not only its starting point, but also its destination in the people of God" (EC 7).

In the resolutions of the III. At the General Assembly of the Latin American Episcopate in Puebla (1979) this goal was already set (CP 563-1125). Puebla speaks of "participation" more than 60 times, but mostly only in the sense of political and social "participation of the citizens in directing their own destiny" (DP 46). The poor of Latin America, according to the bishops, “not only lack material goods, but also lack full social and political participation on the level of human dignity. This is particularly true of our indigenous people, the rural population, the working class, the urban marginalized and, to a large extent, women in these social strata because of their oppression and marginalization” (CP 1135).

In Puebla , too, this participation of the people of God did not go beyond functional ecclesiastical cooperation. That in addition to executive pastoral services the people of God are also entitled to legislative tasks as an expression of their “human dignity” and belonging to the “totality of the evangelizing people of God” was not yet considered in Puebla . The resolutions of Santo Domingo (1992) and the document of Aparecida (2007) do not go so far as to say that participants in the plan of salvation are also co-responsible and not just listening contacts for the definition and realization of this plan of salvation (cf. SD 54, 56, 100, 206; DAp 213, 368). Since the Amazon Synod, requests to overcome a halved participation, i.e. also for an inner-church participation with a model character for the socio-political sphere, have been made with increasing urgency, mainly due to pastoral needs. The struggle of the Amazonian people to implement their life projects is characterized not only by resistance to exploitation, but also to pastoral delay.

The preparatory phase of the Synod of Bishops for Amazonia was linked among local pastoral leaders with the expectation that through a newly lived synodality and the sharpened way of listening to the people of God and the cry of planet earth, with a more pastorally consistent and post-colonial presence of the Church in Amazonia would be expected. The working document speaks of a “ conversion to ecclesiastical synodality” (IL 5). Although the synod is an episcopal institution, it should not be seen "separated from the other believers". This synodality is a "constitutive dimension of the Church" (EC 6) which, according to the Episcopalis Communio , can be further developed so that it "becomes more and more a privileged instrument of listening to the people of God" (ibid.).

In Amazonia there is a conflict-ridden, even warlike situation. Precisely for this reason, listening to the people of God has a deep meaning that goes beyond this region. In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti , Pope Francis pointed out the truth of the victims: "Let us heed the truth of these victims of violence, let us look at reality through their eyes and listen to their accounts with open hearts" (FT 261). In the life of the victims, the essence of historical consciousness is preserved. The enemies of the “good life” know this: “An effective way to liquidate historical consciousness, critical thinking, commitment to justice, and ways and means of integration is to de-meaning or manipulating the big words. What do some of these terms like democracy, freedom, justice, unity mean today? They have been manipulated and distorted in order to be used as instruments of domination, as meaningless inscriptions that can be used to justify any action” (FT 14).

After the Amazon Synod, it was observed that exemplary and very broad-based listening has hitherto encountered clumsiness and fear in translating what was heard into concrete pastoral steps. There was, for example, the argument that regional pastoral bottlenecks should not lead to worldwide and universal church reorganizations, as if, for example, the problem areas of women's ordination and viri probati were privileged demands of a particular church. How are parishes without priests supposed to “give the church new faces with Amazonian traits” (QA 7) if word and sacrament are not rooted in them?

In concrete terms, it would have been possible, even before the synod, to name an index of such topics that the people of God and the synod cannot decide at the moment. But that would have given the lie to the high and courageous tones of some papal pronouncements by a parallel magisterium. And who would have been authorized to profess this “teaching office” not only in fireside chats, outdoors at Roman advertising pillars or in newspaper interviews with a raised hand, but also theologically competent, and to take on the role of the unfamiliar tourist guide in the face of pastoral needs of the local churches in Amazonia?

Soliciting the region's indigenous peoples for their pastoral suggestions is not the desire of a privileged group. The option of hearing the word of others, of the poor and of the victims of historical and contemporary violence incarnate in Amazonia, is not a privilege but a sign of a pastoral ministry based on the Gospel. There is no suffering in this world that would allow us to close our ears, blindfold our eyes, and avoid those who have fallen into the hands of thieves. Therefore, Adorno's formulation is still incomplete: "The need to let suffering become eloquent is the condition of all truth" (ADORNO, 1996 5 , p. 29). It's not just about seeing and hearing the suffering that constitutes truth, but about its deconstruction. Missionary presence "on site", that is, on the peripheries of the world, always has something to do with this deconstruction of the violence that is done to creation, to people and to nature.

For church insiders it was clear from the outset that the reception of the consultation process would be controversial. Of course, Francis and his own people at the Roman Curia also knew that this hearing of the people of God and the maxims of action that can be derived from it are neither laid down in canon law nor immediately enforceable. In the run-up to the Amazon synod, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Luis Ladaria, was able to block expected desiderata of the synod in an article in the “ Osservatore Romano ” (05/23/2018). Based on Pope John Paul's Apostolic Exhortation Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on priestly ordination reserved for men only, he described the no to the ordination of women as an infallible deposit of faith over which the Church "has received no authority from the Lord" (OS 2). The fact that this could be a case of a certain revelation positivism, which expands papal infallibility beyond the limits defined by the Church's magisterium itself and ignores the process character of revelation, would probably have to be discussed again in its pastoral consequence. On the issue of viri probati , which concerns the celebration of the Eucharist by married men, the bishops gathered at Aparecida made a clear statement: “When we consider that the Eucharist is the constitutive element of the Church, we are around the many thousands of congregations who have had to do without the Sunday Eucharistic celebration for a long time" (DAp 100e). And they also say quite categorically: "Without active participation in the celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays and prescribed holidays, there can be no responsible missionary disciple" (DAp 252). Eucharistic leave touches on central mysteries of Christian life. Therefore, the Amazon Synod proposes that by-laws be established “according to which suitable men recognized in the community may be ordained priests. These should [...] live with their legitimate, stable family” (DF 111).

After the synod, the eyes of those who attended the synod in the broadest sense and with burning hearts were fixed on the Pope's reception. Catch-up coherence with the promises and normative affirmations of the church was expected of him. At the synod, what the pope could and should decide was quite openly discussed:

The Eucharistic leave of absence affects central mysteries of Christian life, objectively weakens the powers of resistance of the communities and constructive proposals are available;

The ordination of married men does not represent a break with ecclesiastical tradition - it is time "to change the criteria for the selection and preparation of the ministers authorized to celebrate, instead of leaving the congregations without the Eucharist" (IL 126);

A closer relationship between the people and the Church cannot be achieved through technological upgrades with faster ship engines, nor through political or ecological diversionary maneuvers, or through pointing fingers at governments, but through a radical pastoral conversion and decentralization of official structures. Only the Amazonian face of the church and its local presence will be able to replace the visiting pastoral practiced for centuries by a pastoral ministry of presence.

It was also quite openly discussed that the key role of women in Amazonian pastoral work should be recognized and that the Synod could not content itself with an inconsequential declaration on the dignity of women. The post-conciliar reflections on the special form of the diaconate of women and above all the voices of Amazonia on this question should be taken up (cf. IL 129c).

Why did the Pope shoot the balls that were passed to him in front of the goal back onto the field? He certainly did not want to undermine his synodal program with decisions "from above" and deepen differences of opinion within the church. In his post-synodal final document Querida Amazônia and in the inner circle, Francis indicated that most of these requests and inquiries addressed to him should be dealt with by the newly founded "Conference of the Church of Amazonia" (CEAMA). In doing so, he indirectly recalled the competence and courage of the local Churches, which he repeatedly mentioned, and said: "What is needed in Amazonia, whose problems you know better than I and the Roman Curia, because you live there, suffer there and it too loves passion should also be decided there” (cf. QA 3). And already in the first year of his pontificate, at the World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro (2013), he told the CELAM coordination group: “In our pastoral work we are still prisoners of a “culture of always the same” [...] through which we quench the power of the Holy Spirit" and "we are a little late in what calls for pastoral conversion" (JMJ 7/28/2013). And with Pope Francis, many in the Church today are asking: “What are we waiting for” (EG 120)?

From the Synod of Bishops to the Conference of Churches (CEAMA)

The process of pastoral renewal continues. At about the same time as the preparations for the Amazon Synod were taking place, discussions were taking place in CELAM about an upcoming follow-up assembly to the 5th General Assembly of the Episcopacy of Latin America and the Caribbean of Aparecida (2007). In these preparatory talks, Pope Francis suggested that instead of a sixth general assembly of the episcopacy, a "church assembly" should be convened, which would guarantee the representatives of the entire people of God a greater presence without the statutory conditions of a synod of bishops. The chosen topic, “We are all missionary disciples on the move”, should continue the basic missionary intention of Aparecida. Francis formulated this succinctly in Evangelii Gaudium : "We no longer say that we are "disciples" and "missionaries", but always that we are "missionary disciples"" (EG 120). A “church conference” could bring out the basic synodal and missionary structure of the church better than is the case with a “bishops' conference”. It is in this direction that the various statements made by the last Popes on the need for improvement of the Synod, on its increasingly synodal working method and "an ever more perfect form" (FRANZISKUS, 2015) must be understood. The synod must not only be an instrument of information for the pope, but it can also be a theological place of ever broader direct participation of the people of God, without losing its consultative function (cf. EC 3). Thus, 14 years after Aparecida, from November 21 to 28, 2021, the “First Church Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean”, which will represent the people of God more broadly, will take place, for the love of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”, in Mexico, because of the pandemic , mainly virtual, overall under the leadership of CELAM.

Let us now turn again from Latin America and the Caribbean to the sub-area of the Pan-Amazon region and the 2019 synod convened for it. Here, too, the basic intention of Pope Francis' pontificate, the full participation of the people of God in the events of the Church, was present, which he had already formulated in 2013 in Evangelii Gaudium , namely that it "would be inappropriate to think of an evangelization plan that would be carried out by qualified employees would be implemented, with the rest of the believing people only being recipients of their actions. The new evangelization must include a new understanding of the supporting role of each and every baptized person” (EG 120), so it should be a well-developed middle ground between virtuoso piety (Max Weber) and cultural Christianity.

In order to give practical continuity to the proposals begun in the Amazon Synod, in their final document, their delegates proposed “the creation of an episcopal body which [...] will pursue the task of discovering new avenues for the mission of evangelization [... ]. This episcopal body should exist as a permanent representative institution supporting synodality in the Amazon region, to which CELAM is linked by its own simply organized structure, and also collaborates with REPAM. In this way it can become the efficient channel through which many of the ideas raised during this Synod are transmitted throughout the territory of the Church of Latin America and the Caribbean" (DF 115).

Finally, eight months after the end of the Amazon Synod, the constitutive “Assembly of the Project to Establish the Conference of the Church of Amazonia” took place, which met virtually from June 26 to 29, 2020. On June 29, 2020, the institution envisaged in the final document of the Amazon Synod (DF 115) was founded as the "Conference of the Church of Amazonia" (CEAMA). In addition to a timely implementation of the Amazon Synod in pastoral reality, it has the task of establishing contacts with other church and socio-ambient networks. Again, it is noteworthy that this is not the secretariat of a new Episcopal Conference, but of an Amazonian Ecclesiastical Conference, with a representative participation of the People of God, a parallel process to the transformation of the successor assembly of Aparecida (2007) into a “First Ecclesiastical Assembly Amazonia".

CEAMA is institutionally assigned to CELAM. Dom Claudio Hummes, (Brazil), previously President of REPAM, was elected its first President to institutionalize the process of new ways for the Church and for an integral ecology in the region. The Executive Committee includes Bishop David Martínez de Aguirre (Peru) as Vice-President, Bishop Eugenio Coter (Bolivia) as representative of the Episcopal Conferences of the Amazon region, together with the Presidents of CELAM, REPAM, CLAR, CARITAS (Latin America and Caribbean), the Executive Secretary Alfredo Ferro and three representatives of the indigenous peoples: Mrs. Patricia Gualinga (Kichwa-Sarayaku, Ecuador), Sister Laura Vicuña Pereira (Kariri, Brazil) and Sister Delio Siticonatzi (Asháninka, Peru). On October 26th and 27th, 2020 CEAMA held its first general assembly virtually.

Anyone who was initially disappointed that Pope Francis did not immediately take up one or the other suggestion from the synod's final document and sanction it under canon law must perhaps recognize that the return of pastoral decisions to the Conference of the Church of Amazonia (CEAMA) is probably the right way, if he does not put off many pastoral decisions that have been repeatedly delayed since the Council. Meanwhile, with surprising speed and simplified structures, fundamentalist sects continue to pound the pegs of their presence into the soil and communities of Amazonia, where they destroy native cultures for not listening to inculturation. The Synod timidly drew attention to this, noting that "in many cases, relations between Catholics and Pentecostals, Charismatics and Evangelicals are not easy" (DF 24).

Querida Amazonia calls for courage in solving pastoral problems: "Real solutions are never achieved by diluting courage, by avoiding concrete needs or by looking for external blame" (QA 105). But looking for the proposed solution to the conflict “on a higher level” (QA 104) takes a lot of time and lacks the urgency required. While the Aparecida document calls for urgent solutions to problems at various levels 23 times, this is the case only once in Querida Amazônia : It is “urgent to ensure that the peoples of the Amazon are not deprived of the nourishment of new life and the sacrament of forgiveness is withheld” (QA 89). But the proposed solution to this, to send missionaries to the Amazon, remains part of the paradigm of visiting ministry and lacks the bold and “new ways of evangelization” in Amazonia, as promised by the theme of the Synod announced in 2017 (cf. QA 90) .

Epilogue: The Synodal Axis

Everything indicates that Pope Francis wanted to paradigmatically spell out his “Project Church” in the Amazon region. The synodal principle, with its active participation of the People of God in the life of the Church, is the common axis around which three concentric circles revolve: Pan-Amazonian (1), Latin America and the Caribbean (2), Universal Church (3); specifically: the Amazon Synod of 2019, the First Church Assembly, Mexico 2021, and the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops 2023. In the future, every general assembly of a synod of bishops will probably be preceded by regional and continental church conferences worldwide.

As the secretariat of an Amazonian church conference (CEAMA), the Amazon synod has now received a canonical structure capable of development. The Secretariat has received its institutional seat in the Latin American Bishops' Council (CELAM), in Bogota, to which it is hierarchically attached but not subordinate. The Executive Committee, in liaison with the Region, should now continue to work dynamically on the implementation of the proposals made at the Synod and on deepening their content.

The 5th General Assembly of the Episcopacy of Latin America and the Caribbean, Aparecida 2007, had the theme "Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ - so that our peoples may have life in Him: 'I am the way, the truth and the life'". It was continued in the First Church Assembly in Mexico, from October 21 to 28, 2021, whose theme was linked to Aparecida: "Missionary Discipleship on the Move". The legacy brought to Mexico from Aparecida is the missionary concern of departure that Pope Francis has placed on the agenda of the universal Church in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013) and his social environmental encyclical Laudato Si´ (2015) (EG 20-23. At If you read the final document of Aparecida again, you will find many leftover tasks for the congregation in Mexico, which concern both going to the periphery (DAp 78, 417, 517k, 518, 550) and dealing with nature with care and a new one "Lifestyle of solidary simplicity and frugality" (DAp 474a) admonish.

Not only from Aparecida, but also from the Amazon Synod, flotsam is likely to appear at the port of the church assembly in Mexico. The preparatory process for the Amazon Synod, geared towards greater participation by God's people, was also an important new experience for the church assembly in Mexico. But not only did the experience of the synodal hearing give Mexico a new dimension, but it was also inevitable that new attention should be paid to the problem of Aparecida and Pan-Amazonia.

The experiences resulting from the “church assembly experiment” for Latin America and the Caribbean will not go unnoticed at the 16th General Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops, which is scheduled to take place in Rome in October 2023. It will again be a synod of bishops, the third ring around the synodal axis. It focuses on the Synodal Church itself and three of its pillars: "For a Synodal Church: Community, Participation and Mission". On the 9th/10th October 2021 it was opened as a "process of listening to one another in the Holy Spirit" (MARIO KARD. GRECH) by Pope Francis in Rome and a week later, worldwide, in the local churches. The style of several years of preparation already practiced at the Amazon Synod, the participation of the People of God and the Pope's request to the General Secretary of the Synod "to be open to everything that comes from the local Churches" (ibid.) give reason to hope that that it will be possible to overcome internal contradictions and to come a few steps closer to the social, cultural, ecological and ecclesial dream of Francis (QA 7).

The "post-synodal apostolic exhortation" of Pope Francis, which is expected for 2024, will have the character of a testament in which he once again recommends synodal togetherness to us as clairaudience in the Holy Spirit, as a missionary-responsible concern and as a necessity of a new lifestyle that is friendlier to earth and people. He will ask us to reflect on our legacy to generations to come and make sustainable choices about how we feed, how we move, how we misuse water, earth, air and nature in our throwaway culture. Francis will remind us of the fraternity of all human beings who, as a world community, have the "care of the common home" and have the task of protecting the integrity of creation, especially the poor who are part of this creation, and peace in the world use world. And Francis will entrust us with his final dream as a Gospel imperative. In the common house there should be a common table for everyone. Your task is not to distribute the breadcrumbs that fall from the table of the rich among the poor, but to ensure that there is a place for everyone at this table (cf. FRANCIS, 2020, 142).

Literature and list of abbreviations

ADORNO, Theodor W. Negative Dialectics. In: Collected writings 6 , Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp, 1996 5 , pp. 10-412.

ApS Apostolica Solicitudo – Apostolic Exhortation MOTU PROPRIO from Pope Paul VI on the establishment of the Synod of Bishops for the whole Church, September 15, 1965.

CP Conclusões de Puebla. Resolutions of the 3rd General Assembly of the Episcopacy of Latin America and the Cribik, Puebla 1979.

DAp Documento de Aparecida . Final Document of the 5th General Assembly of the Episcopacy of Latin America and the Caribbean, Aparecida 2007, German version ed. ADVENIAT/MISEREOR; Essen/Aachen.

DF Documento Final - Final Document of the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon Region, Rome 2019.

DP Documento Preparatório - Preparatory documents for the Amazon Synod, German version ed. MISEREOR, Aachen, 2018.

CEAMA Conferência Eclesial da Amazônia - Conference of the Church of Amazonia.

CELAM Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano – Latin American Bishops' Council.

EC Episcopalis Communio – Apostolic Constitution of Pope Francis on the Synod of Bishops (2018).

EG Evangelii Gaudium – Encyclical of Pope Francis: On Proclaiming the Gospel to the World Today, 2013.

FRANCIS, Speech by Pope Francis on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops, October 17, 2015.

FRANCIS, dare to dream! Emerging from the crisis with confidence, Munich, 2020.

FT Fratelli Tutti: Pope Francis' Encyclical on Fraternity and Social Friendship, 2020.

IL Instrumentum Laboris - Working Document for the Amazon Synod (2019).

JMJ Jornada Mundial da Juventude – XXVIII World Youth Day, Rio de Janeiro, 22-28.07.2013.

LS Laudato Si´ – Encyclical of Pope Francis: On Care for Our Common Home, 2015.

MARIO KARD. GRECH, Letter from the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops of May 20, 2021 to the World Episcopate.

OS Ordinatio Sacerdotalis , Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II on Male-Only Ordination to the Priesthood, 1994.

QA Querida Amazônia - Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, 2020.

REPAM Rede Eclesial Pan-Amazônica – Network of the Catholic Church in the Amazon region.

SOUSA SANTOS, Boaventura : Epistemologies of the South. Against the Hegemony of Western Thought , Münster, 2018.

SUESS, Paolo: Pope Francis' project as reflected in the Amazon Synod of 2019: synodality, mission, integral ecology. In: SIEVERNICH M.; VELLGUTH, K. (ed.), Christianity in modern times. History, religion, mission, mysticism. FS for Mariano Delgado. Freiburg 2020, pp. 141-154.

Kapro ń, Kasper Mariusz OFM: Synodal Church – a sacramental communion

"Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?
Scriptum est: regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes deo et patri suo fecit.Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiae auctoritas
et honor per ordinis concessum sancitifcatus a deo.
Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est concessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus; scilicet ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. "²⁵³

Tertullian (c. 209)

Kasper Mariusz Kaprón is a Polish-born Franciscan who teaches at the Bolivian Catholic University "San Pablo", Cochabamba - Bolivia.

Summary: If we are all church, we are all responsible for its organization, its mission plans and projects, its finances, the election and appointment of its ministers, the celebration of the Eucharist, etc., even if we exercise this responsibility in different ways and with different Exercising intensity of devotion in the service of building up the people of God.

introduction

This article was written after the Synod of Bishops “Amazonia. New Paths for the Church and for a Comprehensive Ecology” and in the context of the global epidemic, the scale of the problem is becoming ever broader. The point is to answer the following questions: Who "does" the sacraments, who is the minister of the sacrament, who is necessary for the sacrament to be celebrated: the ordained or the ecclesial community?

Pope Francis distanced himself in the post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia , which referred to the situation in this area of the world and the lack of priests, as well as the dissatisfaction of many with new proposals such as viri probati or the ordination of women. At the same time, in Querida Amazonia , Pope Francis pointed out the great challenge facing the Church today: the strengthening of the role of the laity, which, however, cannot be equated with their clericalization. The Pope distanced himself from the idea of ordaining the laity just to ensure the celebration of the sacraments. However, he recalled that an effort should be made to see how the laity, even without ordained ministers, could fully form the Church and be conscious of having access to the fullness of sacramental grace. In his exhortation mentioned above, Pope Bergoglio also pointed out that the sacramental theme should not be limited to a functional approach, but that one should enter into the innermost structure of the Church (cf. QA 101).

The current successor of Peter indicated that the solution to the problem should be sought at a higher level (cf. QA 104). The proposal to reach a higher level can also be an indication for those seeking pastoral solutions for the time when people are deprived of access to the sacraments, as is the case with the Covid-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, clericalism is so deeply rooted in ecclesial culture and at all levels that pastoral responses offered in the face of the dramatic situation that has been lived in the world do not go beyond virtual transmissions and reinforce in the faithful the perception that without the presence of ordained ministers, they are denied access to the source of sacramental grace. However, it is very convenient for a priest to simply give masses online - not celebrate them - or conduct online services. This shows the pastoral alienation in which they were formed, and even the ministers' detachment from daily life, who are therefore unable to connect with people beyond the ambo. We have such a poor pastoral offer that in these times of crisis or in the absence of ministers one can only promise a half-hearted forgiveness that presents a God who is pausing his love. During the pandemic, it seemed grace could not leave the church premises while the virus traveled around the world.

In According to the text published in We are Church on April 5, 2020 , ²⁵⁴Tomáš Halík came to the conclusion: “ I do not see a happy solution in the fact that artificial substitutes in the form of television broadcasts of Holy Masses were used too quickly during the ban on public worship. A move towards 'virtual piety', towards 'distance eating' and kneeling in front of the screen is a strange thing indeed. Perhaps we should learn the truth of Jesus' word: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.' [...] Perhaps this 'emergency' is just an indication of a new form of church, but of which there have already been precedents in history.”

We know very well that the liturgy - as defined by the etymology of the word ( λάος - people and έργον —work, Doing ) and as Vatican II emphasizes , particularly in the documents Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen Gentium - is the work of the whole people of God. Therefore, the whole people of God, the Church, is the subject of liturgical action by virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful received in Baptism. The people fulfill their tasks under the presidency of an ordained person who acts officially, ie carries out the ministry. Fulfilling this mission means being a sign of unity: making visible and promoting the unity of the congregation. However, the liturgy is not a magical rite, and the priest is not a magician with supernatural abilities to transform one thing into another. It is the assembly that celebrates the Eucharist and the ordained takes a leading role in the language of "we". ²⁵⁵It is the church that "makes" the Eucharist and expresses through the Eucharist what it is itself, namely the body of Christ, according to the well-known statements from Ecclesia de Eucharistia. If we want to use the traditional and expert term "consecration", it is more correct to say that the consecration is carried out by the whole assembly and not only by the priest. The Commandment of Christ "Do this in memory of me " is for all of God's people and not just a select group of people. Therefore it is necessary to give up once and for all to see the priest as a magician and to treat the words of consecration as a magic formula. the Presence of an ordained minister - a sign of unity - is necessary in a normal situation, but in an extreme situation one can imagine that without this presence the celebration is fully valid.

It is therefore necessary to give due consideration to the value and beauty of the common priesthood of the faithful. Only in this way can the Church really be understood for what it is: not as a religious service agency that priests administer for their clients (the faithful), but as a synodal people going together, that of God into the world sent to be the leaven that all may find him and live in communion with their Lord. In the church everyone has responsibility for their mission and everyone needs to feel like their protagonists.

The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity (communion) and that is why the presence of the bishop (or the priest as his representative) is so important, but it is not the minister who transforms bread into body and wine into blood; his mission is to be the key to unity. The whole community, expressed in the Eucharist, celebrates the Eucharist.

Therefore, in an extreme situation, such as the absence of a minister, we can imagine the Eucharist without the presence of the priest, but we cannot imagine it without the community, without the people of God. And that fellowship must be real, not spiritual or virtual. This is why theologians, especially liturgical scholars, show so much resistance when it comes to participating in the liturgy over the Internet. In the situation of the pandemic and the lockdown or in the reality of the Church in Amazonia, one could imagine allowing the celebration of the Eucharist in a parish without a priest, but it makes no sense to celebrate the liturgy only through the priest, without the Communion, that is, through a priest who brings together unassembled people in the unity of God's people.

Sacramental Sign of the Synodal Church

Such sacramental theological and ecclesiological questions are closely related to the concerns of the forthcoming World Synod of Bishops on the synodalization of the church. The logic of the Eucharistic assembly can become a theological logic of the proclaimed synodal process of the whole universal Church.

The Church grows where Christians celebrate their faith and teach others to accept it, thereby creating deep bonds between those who believe in Jesus together. The church was born and spread widely throughout the world because Jesus' disciples testified and believed that he was risen and alive forever. Jesus and the Spirit create or found a church that is to proclaim the kingdom of God and establish it in all peoples (cf. LG 5). Consequently, the concern of the church must be the same as that of Jesus: to bring together the people of God (the new Israel) before the coming of the kingdom (of God) that has already begun with Him, to make them the true people of God who are “the peoples of all nations”.

The Church that wants to respond to what Jesus wanted must renounce the patriarchal structures of domination in the organization, paternalistic conditions in relationships (cf. Mk 10:42-45) and unity in the search for unity between communities ( cf. John 17:11,20-23). All members of the ecclesial community are equal; among all members of the ecclesial community there is a primacy of love, of service (cf. Jn 21:15-17), the ability to forgive (cf. Mt 18:21-22) and the mutual willingness to lay down one's life (cf .John 15:3). All members of the community are responsible for the way and organization of the Church (cf. 1 Cor 12; Gal 3:26-29). Here is the basis of the Church's synodal structure, which derives from its sacramental structure: from "being a sign".

John XXIII, who convened the Council, had asked the Church to ask itself the following question: "Church, what do you say about yourself?" God and the unity of all mankind ” (LG 1), which produces the formula “Church is community” : Christ established the church “to be a community of life, charity and truth” (LG 9). The Council describes the Church as a community of believers, a community of particular churches, an ecumenical community, a sacramental community and an eschatological community. The Church sees itself not as a human group whose principle of unity is of a juridical nature and whose purpose is of a utilitarian type, but as a messianic people whose principle of unity is brotherly love, which involves communication, equality and reciprocity and whose purpose is to be a sacrament of fraternal communion in our Cain-shaped world (cf. LG 9).

The Church is faithful to herself when she acts as the servant of universal fraternity among human beings, even at the cost of neglecting her institutional interests. Its existence is only legitimate if it serves the kingdom of God and is faithful to its mission, "sent to the peoples of God to be the all-embracing sacrament of salvation". (AG 1). The aim of the Church's mission is to build up the kingdom of God and to be the symbol and minister of that kingdom.

The Church, the sacrament of universal communion, has its origin in the Trinity. So it is the people of God the Father, the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit. Structured in the image of the Trinitarian community, it makes a pilgrimage together with all creation to the fullness of history in communion with God (cf. LG 2-4). Participating in the life of the Trinitarian love of God, the church is called and empowered to be the "sacrament" of divine communion among human beings, both in its own social form and in the ministry of universal reconciliation for humanity and all creation ( see LG 1). The Trinitarian mystery of God underpins the shaping of the church as communion and as a sacrament of "the utopia of equality, respected differences, full communion and just relations with society and history".²⁵⁶

God's people are the historical subject of everything we attribute to the church. God's people are that portion of humanity that recognizes that they have been called together by God and formed by the Spirit to make Jesus Christ visible in the world and to continue His mission to establish the Father's universal fraternal kingdom. In other words, God's people are the sacrament of human salvation, the seed and principle of the kingdom, and the icon of the Trinity in the world. The mystery of the Church is not the mystery of a holy authority, but of the people gathered by God, of the communion among the members of this people, in which there is no longer Jew or Greek, master or slave, male or female.

So if we are all church, we are all responsible for its organization, its missionary plans and projects, its finances, the election and appointment of its ministers, the celebration of the Eucharist, etc. , even if we exercise this responsibility in different ways and with different intensities of devotion in the service of building up God's people. ²⁵⁷The need to build a synodal church is the best human basis from which to carry out the reforms (structural and organizational) that the church needs if it is to remain faithful to its status as a sacrament of God's communion with man.

Co-responsibility and synodality involve listening to everyone to discern what the Spirit is saying to the churches. Whoever says "discernment" says "hear". The Spirit "speaks" through various media such as listening to the scriptures, the silence of prayer, the rereading of life and events with faith, the signs of the times, the confrontation of views, the sensus fidelium, theological reflection, witness of the saints, pastoral authority, etc. The Spirit has been given to the whole Church, and no ecclesiastical institution or agency can appropriate it. A synodal church is a church that listens because it wants to discern in terms of witness. The greatest involvement in discernment as a church testifies to “God communicating in human adventure and in response to Christ in reconciled humanity receiving fellowship in the life of God. ²⁵⁸". It is everyone's responsibility to make a call that awakens the community of believers to recognize, recognize and at the same time defend their responsibility as subjects, as members of God's people, endowed with their Spirit.

The people of God, who have gathered the Word in one place in the Holy Spirit and under the direction of the ministerial ministry for the praise of God, are called to be a sign of unity and reconciliation. This requires a distinction in how this announcement is made. Synodal life then presupposes an adequate understanding of the Church and the role of the ministries in her. In fact, synodality cannot be expected if the Church is not perceived as the people of God and if the whole Church is not considered to be the subject of the threefold Munus Christi is . The synodal life not only allows to propose a form of the Church that better corresponds to her nature and in which each baptized person takes an active part in the life of the Church and is responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel, but also promotes an ecclesial experience that is a consciousness designed for what the church is. In this way, it enables Christians to develop an active participation. In other words, if the synodal life presupposes an understanding of the Church as God's people, it can also be said that it promotes the emergence of a Church subject and of subjects. This will be a place of learning and active participation of all. So if synodality is not to be reduced to a vague principle, to an abstract conception, it needs concrete forms and a consistent expression. The synodal principle must be expressed specifically in synodal reality or synodal practice. Synodality, a concrete expression of communion among the members of a local Church, in order to be realized, needs institutional frameworks, figures or forms that allow it to be actualized, specific practices and procedures that allow its realization and attitudes that favor it . Synodality, like every sacramental sign, needs its visible manifestation. This forces us to review the theological model that caused the crisis, characterized by a clerical culture that is reflected above all in the worship, ministry and centralism of its entire structural organization. ²⁵⁹The relationship between the hierarchy and the people of God is one of the key elements in moving towards reform and repositioning collegiality within synodality. Francis' words to the Chilean bishops are illuminating: "Renewal in the ecclesiastical hierarchy alone does not lead to the transformation to which the Holy Spirit impels us". ²⁶⁰"In this faithful and silent people lies the immune system of the Church" (private letter to the bishops of Chile). [Hence] "I invite all diocesan institutions - whatever their field - to consciously and clearly seek spaces of communion and participation, so that the anointing of God's people can find its concrete mediations to manifest itself."²⁶¹

Within this framework, the prevailing ecclesiastical model can be overcome. This means understanding all subjects as equal members of God's people and overcoming the pyramid model. Recognizing all believers as equal in horizontal relationships (through baptism and the common priesthood) requires rethinking the interaction and channels of participation between all of them from a perspective that privileges all, not parts. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to overcome the processes of clericalization of ecclesiastical culture and sazerdotalization of ministries ²⁶², which have caused a large part of the hierarchy to lose "direct contact with the people of God".²⁶³

However, it is not simply about reversing positions of power in the church or turning the pyramid upside down. Authentic ecclesiological change takes place by including everyone in the category of God's people, called believers, with equal dignity and therefore subject to the same duties and rights, because "in the people of God we are all united to one another, and we have the same basic laws and duties. We all participate in the royal priesthood of God's people. The pope is one of the believers: bishops, priests, lay people, religious, we are all the believers.” ²⁶⁴In the words of De Smedt: “It should be noted that hierarchical power is temporary. (...). What is permanent is God's people; What is provisional is hierarchical service.” The permanent is what defines and qualifies it, not the temporary.²⁶⁵

The novelty of this inversion of the pyramid is not just a redistribution of ecclesial co-responsibility (it is not of a functional nature), but lies in considering the People of God as an active and fundamental subject of the Church's mission. This vision opens up the need to involve all of God's people in the role of teaching, sanctifying and governing, interacting together and sharing equal duties and rights in relation to the mission of the church. No believer can be excluded from any church structure, for the ultimate purpose and reason for being part of the church in any institutional way is the mission accomplished through the participation of all in the three munera Christi —priest, prophet, and king—and not determined by the exercise of official authority by the ordination.

Placing hierarchy within God's people and making it a broader issue among all believers is the basis for overcoming clericalism, which "has a tendency to diminish and devalue the grace of baptism (...) and which forgets that the sacramentality of the Church belongs to the whole people of God (LG 9-14) and not just to the chosen and enlightened few.” ²⁶⁶Hence “the fact that mission has the entire people of God as its responsible subject, and requires the exercise of authority within synodality (...). Synodality therefore seems to be the most important and fruitful prospect for a united Church, in which the recognition of the sacrament of pastors always remains linked to the appreciation of the sacrament of baptism and the charisms of all believers.”²⁶⁷

conclusion

The people of God are thus the authentic subject of celebration and offering - in extreme situations - the possibility of celebrating the sacraments without the presence of the ordained priest. The basis of such a practice is a broad concept of the sacraments, the common priesthood of the baptized and a not purely functional but rather sacramental perception of the ordained ministry. We know well that the exercise of the universal priesthood is expressed and exercised in the liturgy in a privileged way. Undoubtedly, as John Paul II wrote years ago, there is a certain “ambiguity and repeated levelings between the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, about little respect for certain ecclesiastical norms and regulations, about arbitrary interpretation of the concept of 'representation', about the tendency to 'clericalize' the laity and the risk of creating a de facto ecclesiastical service structure parallel to that found in the sacrament of the Ordo.” (CL 23) We only have to ask whether these concerns do not express the voices of the most pyramidal ecclesiological conception and of the bishops in whose dioceses clergy abound. In view of the complex ecclesial reality today , it is necessary to study the various theological, liturgical, legal and pastoral problems arising from the current great flowering of the ministries entrusted to the laity, also taking into account the uses and customs of the local Churches. Without fear of a wider use of the term "ministry," the church should be concerned with clarifying what this means and educating the Christian community to exercise its ministerial responsibilities.

One of the most important consequences of the pandemic for the baptized was the closure of all places of worship and all churches. And yet it was not an aliturgical time, but rather liturgically profound and rich, precisely not only for the participation in ceremonies in the media, but for something deeper: for the experience of the families, which assumed the passion of the Lord in the passion and the Experiencing the suffering of the sick, in prayer, in experiencing help for the lonely elderly and in mutual cooperation. The protagonists of this liturgy were not ordained as ministers, but were the families. A church in homes was promoted, in which the laity were the protagonists. Many felt that this closure of churches was just a pastoral brace and that after the pandemic they would revert to the situation before. But some claim with all certainty that this was an auspicious and merciful time, a kairos, a sign of the time when God wants to reveal something to us. At an ecclesial level, we can think that the Spirit has invited us from a clerical church to a truly sacramental church, and not just sacramentalistic .

The sacramentalist and clerical church would be the one that thinks only of the administration of the seven sacraments, which has the clergy as protagonist and the house of worship as its self-referential center, while marginalizing the laity, and with it evangelization, the initiation of the faith , neglected prayer. This is the Church that is unable to form a Christian community, nor a responsible laity. We do our best to ensure that children and young people receive the sacraments , but many pastors are saddened to see that after receiving them, young people quickly turn away from the Church and the number of believers dwindles.

The sacramental church is doing all it can to accomplish what Jesus commanded when he said, "Do this in memory of me." At the last supper, Jesus introduced the Eucharist, but the Gospel of John placed the emphasis on washing at the last supper of the feet and the new commandment of brotherly love, complemented the liturgical dimension with the existential one, thus preventing the Eucharist from becoming a mere empty rite. Returning to the sacraments means appreciating them as "sensitive and effective signs of grace" in the light of faith and the Word, lest they become magic or mere ritual.

The motto is: "the Eucharist makes the Church"; without the Eucharist there is no fully constituted Church, but this sentence must be completed with its counterpart: "The Church makes the Eucharist". It is made by every community and without the authentic fabric of an ecclesial community there would be no Eucharist. Unfortunately we have been dragging our way through many centuries of theology practicing a sacramental conception in which its communal dimension has been veiled. The individualistic privatism of modern man accepts and accentuates this deformation. Individualism came to propose the primacy of God-I relationships as the most important in life and sacramental practice, so that an exclusivism was sometimes achieved in which the I-neighbor relationships were excluded. The corollary of such spirituality is that the emphasis is placed on the vertical relationships in a cohesive form, offering a cult that neither expresses nor promotes the following of Jesus. One insists on religious observance while in practice and unconditionally one kneels before idols of power and having. The practice of private fairs is a more obvious example of this error.

The causes from which these practices derive are quite obvious. Suffice it to mention the dominance of the “I” as the main center of modern Western culture, based on the thinking of some philosophers such as: the “I” and its relation to the object (Kant); the "I" in relation to history and the state (Hegel) or the "I" and its relation to death (Heidegger). The participation of the "other" or "alterity" was excluded from the story: "The other is the orphan, the widow, and the stranger". ²⁶⁸It is clear that with the worship of the "I" a relationship of domination and appropriation of the "other" has arisen. The "other" is subdued and forgotten or reduced to that which guarantees my personal well-being.

The sacramental doctrine of the Second Vatican Council seeks to transcend the individualistic and utilitarian mentality of the sacraments that have made them magical rites, cultural traditions, and personal devotions, and restores the link between sacrament and life. Francisco Taborga, one of the proponents of liberation theology, writes in his book Sacraments, Practices and Feasts: “Transcendence to the future is real only through the mediation of transcendence to the other. Nobody is liberated alone, because freedom is radically open to the freedom of the other. And he is only truly free when he does not liberate himself (there is no future in being master). This dialectic of fraternity presupposes transcendence towards the other, the recognition of the other, not in the domination or power of the ego. It's about living the real community where everyone is brother to the other. [...] The practice springs from the sense of community, it is a gift that comes from the other. And anyone who identifies this poor man with the face of God feels called by something completely different. Freedom is a gift from God through others.”²⁶⁹

This theological teaching, which presents the whole body of the Church as the indispensable subject of every sacramental act, can be summarized as follows: Jesus Christ is the main subject of the liturgy, its active bearer and sustainer, who carries out the decisive action. Through Christ the priest his church is priestly and it is priests who belong to it. For Christians are all clothed in priestly dignity by joining the Church through the profession of faith and baptism. The particular priesthood of the church is based on the common priesthood of all the baptized: the church is not priestly because they are those who form it. Vice versa. Those who join the Church are priests because they belong to the body of Christ, which is priestly. And from here we understand another aspect of the traditional teaching on the administration of the sacraments, when it teaches that the whole Church is a minister of the sacraments. And so it is, because the presence of Christ is given in the history of the church and through its mediation the action of Christ reaches people. From here one must conclude that the sacraments are Christ's work for and through the Church. Through the Church, because only through her ministry is Christ's ministry par excellence, and for the Church, because she is perfected through sacramental acts, as proposed by the Second Vatican Council.

The whole Church is present in every sacramental celebration, for the sacraments are never about private acts, but about public and ecclesial ones (even if the circumstances of the celebration are lonely). Therefore, every sacramental celebration is always an act of the Church. The minister is therefore a simultaneous representative of Jesus Christ, in whose name he acts, and of the Church in which he celebrates the sacraments ; he celebrates them in the name of Christ and of the whole Church [in persona totius Ecclesiae], for in the end these are the actions of Christ and his Church. The peculiar efficacy of the sacraments is not that they are the only efficacious signs, but rather that they are the efficacious signs for the formation of the believing community.

Thomas Sternberg: On the "Synodal Path" in Germany

Thomas Sternberg, born 1952; theologian, literary and art historian; 2015 – 2021 President of the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK); President of the Synodal Path 2019 -2021.

Summary: The article describes the reason, themes and structure of the synodal path of the Catholic Church in Germany in the context of the current church situation. The starting point and its thematic orientation follow the findings of the interdisciplinary study on sexualised violence in the area of clerics and male religious from 2018 (MHG study) on the structural causes of the crimes. The process is designed as a participatory process outside the restrictive requirements of canon law with the equal participation of bishops, clergy and laity on the basis of baptism and confirmation in the sense of the decrees of Vatican II, as inculcated by Pope Francis for the preparatory process for the 2023 Synod of Bishops on synodality. It can thus be an example of the practice of synodality.

Synodality as a way of the third millennium

During the ad limina visits of the German bishops in Rome, the Pope repeatedly pointed out that he also wanted a "Chiesa Sinodale" for Germany. But what is meant by this? At the celebration of the establishment of the synod of bishops on October 27, 2015, he named the difficulties with the following phrase: “This path of synodality is exactly what God expects from the church of the third millennium. In a way, what the Lord requires of us is already contained in the word synod. Moving forward together - lay people, pastors and the Bishop of Rome - is a concept that is easy to put into words, but not so easy to implement.”

On April 24, 2021 he announced the XVI. Synod of Bishops on Synodality with the theme "For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission". It was originally planned for 2022 and has been postponed to 2023 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. A preparatory process precedes the synod, similar to what was the case with the family synod, preparations as in the survey for the family synod 2014/16 and the youth synod 2018.

The preparatory document for a trial that opened four weeks later followed on September 7th. It says under the heading: “A constitutive synodal Church”: “The Council underlined that the body of the faithful, by virtue of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, all of whom have received in Baptism, 'cannot err in faith. And this special quality of hers she manifests through the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people when, from the bishops to the last lay faithful, she expresses her general agreement in matters of faith and morals" - he quoted the Council document Lumen Gentium 12.

On September 18, the Pope again made it clear that this path was more a matter of style than specific issues. The community is not an exclusive club, but the home of all people in the neighborhood. "Keep the doors and windows open, don't limit yourself to only considering those who come to you or accepting only those who think like you, because that's going to be three, four, five percent, no more. Allow everyone access!” he said critically. In the beginning there is listening. "Don't be afraid to engage in dialogue" and "Be prepared for surprises".

On October 10, 2021, the Pope then opened the preparatory process in Rome, a week later it should be started in all of the more than 4,000 dioceses of the Church. Synodality becomes an issue in a number of ways: a synodal process precedes a synod of bishops, in which - albeit exclusively consecrated men - are to discuss forms of synodality in the church. In paragraph 7 of the preparatory document, the synodal path in Germany is acknowledged without being explicitly named: “It is a reason for great hope that quite a few churches have already begun meetings and more or less structured processes of consultation with the people of God. Where they have been arranged in a synodal style, the sense of the Church has blossomed again and the participation of all has given a new impetus to ecclesial life."

With this remark we are at a synodal experiment that Catholics in Germany have been conducting since the end of 2019 under critical international observation. With 27 million Catholic believers in Germany and Austria, however, they represent just 2% of the 1.345 billion Catholics. The synodal path in Germany also differs in terms of occasion, topics and goals, but shows such clear thematic overlaps that essential elements of its first results can be incorporated into the global preparatory process. How did this process come about?

The "Synodal Path"

On March 13, 2019 in Lingen, northern Germany, the 68 German bishops dealt with the results of an interdisciplinary study during their spring plenary meeting, which deals with the scope and reasons for the sexual abuse of clerics and male members of religious orders in the decades of the Federal Republic and the Church in Germany since 2010. It is called the MHG study after the places where it was worked out (Mannheim-Heidelberg-Giessen). It shows three thematic areas that are the cause of the possibility of sexualised violence in the clerical context. First of all, there is the criminal exploitation of power asymmetries, as can be seen in almost all cases of sexualised violence.

The study states: “Sexual abuse is above all an abuse of power. In this context, the concept of clericalism is mentioned as an important cause and a specific structural feature for sexual abuse in the context of the Catholic Church. ²⁷⁰Clericalism means a hierarchical-authoritarian system that can lead to an attitude on the part of the priest to dominate non-consecrated persons in interactions because he has a superior position qua office and consecration. Sexual abuse is an extreme outgrowth of this dominance. For church leaders, an authoritarian-clerical understanding of office can mean that a priest who has committed sexualised violence is viewed more as a threat to his own clerical system and not as a danger to other children or young people or other potential victims. Then covering up what happened and protecting the system can gain priority over the ruthless disclosure of corresponding acts. Church reason understood in this way promotes secrecy, cover-up and inappropriate reactions such as the transfer or sanctioning practices identified in sub-project 6, which serve more to protect the institution and the accused and ignore the interests of those affected. "

A second complex are questions about the priestly way of life, which does not primarily concern celibacy, but rather the consequences of the exaltation of the office in clericalism or lack of control. The third factor mentioned is the church's sexual morality, which is far removed from everyday Christian life but creates a problematic relationship to sexual issues.

The bishops - they decided unanimously - wanted to engage in a process of dealing with these problem areas together with lay people. The partner should be the Central Committee of German Catholics, which with its three pillars - 40% members from associations, institutions and communities, 40% from the diocesan councils and 20% individuals elected by them - represents a representative representation of lay people in the church in Germany. After deliberations there, some framework conditions were defined: it should not be a pure discussion process, but geared towards clear decisions; it should be carried out on an equal footing with lay people and bishops and thus not take place according to the restrictive specifications of the 1983 canon law. A form should also be found that would not require a lengthy approval process from Rome.

With regard to those affected, the Catholic Church in Germany wants to regain trust where it has lost it or where it never had it. In this awakening, the outdated and hardly viable distinctions between "clergy" and "lay people" are to be abandoned. The unbroken bishop or clergy fixation of many debates prevents productive activities. Together with everyone in the Church, with men and women, young and old, priests, bishops, religious, volunteers or professionals, with all members of our Church who are of good will, we want to set out towards a renewed credibility of our lead church.

The plenary assembly of the ZdK supplemented the topics resulting from the MHG study with another field: "Women in the services and offices of the church", which was not only to be dealt with as a cross-cutting topic, but in a fourth forum. In the summer of 2019, the drafting of the statute and rules of procedure followed, first preparatory meetings and finally the approval of both the bishops' conference and the ZdK. In addition to the 68 bishops, the 230-strong synodal assembly includes 68 members elected by the ZdK in three pillars. They are supplemented by advisers, representatives of the councils of priests, religious orders, deacons, pastoral advisors and others. Also in order to avoid clerical preponderance, 15 people under the age of thirty were selected by the youth associations in a tendering process. In the composition of the total of 230 synods, care was taken to ensure that at least half the participation was made up of women apart from the ordained men. Since then, members and consultants have been working on basic texts and votes in four forums. The presidency consists of the chairman of the bishops' conference and his deputy on the one hand and the president and one vice-president of the ZdK, supplemented by the general secretaries. Five of these six people - Cardinal Marx, Thomas Sternberg, Karin Kortmann, Hans Langendörfer and Stefan Vesper - have now been replaced by their successors - Bishop Bätzing, the new President of the ZdK, a Vice President, DBK Secretary General Beate Gilles and ZdK Secretary General Marc Frings - replaced.

The process encountered a situation in which there is considerable dissatisfaction and anger reaching into the core communities. Not least through leaving the church, the annoyance is also expressed by those for whom this step does not represent the ultimate consequence of a long-standing alienation, but who come from active and closely church-related circles. The protest movements that have been forming again and again for decades are an example of this: the successful Maria 2.0 movement, which focuses primarily on the participation of women. The number of people leaving has now far exceeded the 200,000 mark and, together with the demographic factor, means that the Catholic Church in Germany has shrunk by over 400,000 people in 2020 alone. Even if this process can also be observed in the Protestant Church, the public excitement in the Catholic area is significantly higher. In a recent poll of trust in institutions for the Catholic Church, Institut Forsa put the Catholic Church at just 14%, while Pope Francis scores at least 29%.

There is also a widespread loss of trust among the Catholic faithful in Germany. “Angry Christians” are speaking out more and more frequently, mostly older people, who have been committed to the church for decades, have been brought up in a pious manner and live a Christian life; Women and men who express their basic anger about developments in pastoral work and the church with impatience and anger. The reforms of the council were and remain an urgent task for their church, which they have rubbed themselves raw against over the decades. The current loss of trust was triggered, but not solely due to the uncovering of clerical abuse. The uncovering of these crimes expressed a pent-up resentment, which was particularly due to the reforms that were implemented more than 40 years ago after the Dresden Synod in the East and the Würzburg Synod in the West, or only half-heartedly implemented, which implement the Second Vatican Council in the German situation wanted, relates. A whole series of reform approaches have remained printed paper since 1975.

A ecclesiastical standstill was due to the death of the reform Pope Paul VI. occurred. The church historian Wilhelm Damberg puts it this way: “Since 1978, under Pope John Paul II, efforts were being made to completely capture and stop the dynamic of the post-conciliar problem themes in the discourse – and with some success, because this is the only way to explain that the agendas of 1970 are so extraordinarily similar to those of 2020 as if they had been flash-frozen back then. […] However, the “Synodal Way” will no longer be able to easily fall back on answers that were considered in the 1970s – because the world has moved on and the national church, which was once the synod’s frame of reference, is memory.”

The traffic jam has become particularly dramatic when it comes to women in leadership positions in the church. Our congregations have long lived from the great commitment of women - in this respect the church has long had a female face. Pope Francis said in Rome last June: “It is a salutary process: the growing presence of women in social, economic and political life, nationally and internationally, and also in ecclesial life. Women have a full right to be actively involved in all areas and this right must also be upheld and protected through legal means where necessary.”

Despite some success in filling key positions in the Vicariate General, the issue is increasingly focused on ordination. The Roman disregard of the historically documented ordination of women deacons, as had already been suggested in Würzburg, has been left undone for 50 years. Such debates have been initiated to varying degrees in all major religions. In December 2017, at a congress on Catholic offices for women, ten theses were formulated, the third of which aptly states that it is not the access of women to church offices that requires justification, but their exclusion. The debate about the opening of the ordained ministries to women must be conducted.

Another area of current problems results from the dramatically worsening pastoral situation in the congregations. The shortage of priests has now reached such a level that the parishes can no longer all be filled with priests. This personnel situation will worsen considerably in the coming years. In 2020 there were 36% fewer priests in Germany than in 1990. Priestly ordinations have fallen from 295 to 55 per year over the past 30 years. For several years now, the replacement rate has been 1:11, which means that for every 11 priests who have left the priesthood, only one newly ordained person succeeds. The situation is still alleviated by the admirable commitment of old priests from the strong cohorts of the Council period. But this solution is not permanent. Many bishops are trying to save the canon law requirement of priestly leadership by dismantling church structures. The number of parishes has since declined by 25%, with further shrinkage. On site, too, we need the community that comes together for church services, that does social work, that gives testimony of their faith, that forms the community. And how should those who are on the fringes of the church, or who have not found it at all, be perceived in large pastoral spaces?

Solutions are sought in the steadily growing centralized diocese administrations, which since 1950 have been administering the church contributions collected by the state (for a fee), the so-called church taxes, and suffocating any attempt at subsidiarity. In the future it will be increasingly important that "lay people" build their church themselves and do not wait for full-time employees. These pastoral issues are pressing and cause considerable trouble, but like so many others, are not the subject of the Synodal Path.

The superimposition of dealing with abuse and the general backlog of reforms raises high expectations that can hardly be offset by the possibilities of the synodal process. The idea that the Catholic Church, like the regional churches of the EKD, can make decisions at will meets the implicitness of a global church that does not see itself within the limits of the national order. In this respect, the distinction between what can also be implemented at national level according to current church law - which is not so little! - and what is to be submitted to a universal church, that is, "Roman" agreement, is particularly important. The votes will make this distinction, not least to make it clear what lies within one's own reform competence. But the other questions also turn out to be extremely important, even if "Rome" tries to intimidate reformers with ever new "responses", "instructions" or comments.

Unlike the cross shots that the synodal path has been exposed to since its very beginnings, the astonishing and so personally formulated statement of the Pope dates back to June 29, 2019. This letter, which was not addressed to the bishops but to the faithful in Germany , is and will remain significant for the actors in the process. Right at the beginning it says: "We are all aware that we are not only living in a time of change, but rather in a turning point that raises new and old questions, in view of which a discussion is justified and necessary. […] As on that occasion, I would like to offer you my support, make known my closeness on the common path and encourage you to seek a frank response to the current situation.” which he uses the Council's long-disregarded keyword of "aggiornamento". The fact that in the following he warns to be considerate of the world church and emphasizes the primacy of evangelization is due to his office as well as his basic approach and remains an obligation. The Pope's instructions and admonitions remain the synodal mandate and incentive. The aim of the synodal process is not to polish the church and retain as many members as possible, but to make those affected aware of sexualised violence and to aggravate such crimes on the one hand and to gain trust on the other.

The first plenary assembly of the Synodal Path took place in Frankfurt at the end of January 2020. It was shaped by a new togetherness, the prerequisite for which lay in the much-maligned, non-binding inter-diocesan discussion process “Believe in Today” of the Bishops’ Conference between 2011 and 2015. In the five conferences and especially in the final text discussed at the last meeting, it became clear that lay people and clergy, bishops, women, men, old people, young people, religious and theology professors can communicate in such a way that only the argument, not office and title counting. On January 31, 2020, the synodal members in civilian clothes marched together into the cathedral for the opening service - a beautiful new picture of church! The alphabetical seating arrangement in the plenum did the rest for community. A “good spirit from Frankfurt” developed in the consultations with their spiritual “observance”, which made the difficult votes on the forum staffing and the rules of procedure possible with large majorities.

And then on March 17 came the first lockdown of the Covid-19 pandemic. Two of the forums were able to be set up in face-to-face meetings, the other two, like all other meetings, had to be limited to digital chat sessions. As difficult as this is for a dialogical process, the development of the first texts was astonishingly constructive. The second date for the synodal assembly was replaced by five regional assemblies, each bringing about 50 people into conversation. The following synodal assembly was conducted digitally without a voting mode, which, among other things, opened up the opportunity for representatives of the advisory councils for those affected, which had been constituted in the meantime, to have their say. Their votes and the support of the synodal path once again made the reason for and the objective of the synodal path clear: dealing with the causes of sexualized violence and orientation towards those affected.

From the start, media attention was very high, both nationally and internationally. In the meantime, a wealth of essays and books on the process and its topics have emerged. Critical voices are not only to be found in the corner media of the extreme conservatives. The grotesque accusation that schismatic reforms are being planned at the national level can easily be countered. More serious is the criticism from canon law experts who criticize the nature of the process outside the canonical order. It ranges from "Nullum" to "Deception".

This criticism is unjustified insofar as a real synodal order with equal votes of the faithful, independent of the consecration, is only possible in a free, non-canonical procedure. The legal form is chosen in such a way that the votes to be decided with a blocking majority of the bishops and the non-male members require the bishops to come into force in order to be legally valid, unless they have a reservation of approval by the universal church, i.e. by Rome, or even as preparation of a council are to be understood. The foreseeable refusal of implementation by individual bishops is to be got over insofar as such a measure without solidarity is limited to the bishop's term of office and is also hardly practicable as a particular rule of a single diocese. As far as the question of synodality is concerned, the synodal resolutions cannot be thought of as confirming a right that prevents such a form. It sees itself more as a contribution to the further development of precisely this restrictive canon law. In this respect, the political work of a parliament can be compared, which works on the further development and renewal of the law, not on its mere interpretation.

A wealth of very important topics is undoubtedly missing, but this path only deals with the topics that can be understood from its genesis. However, if it is successful, the consequence may be a perpetuation of synodal structures that will in future also deal with the issues that are now excluded. The first "litmus test" was the second synodal assembly, which had to take the first substantive votes on the texts presented in "first reading" in Frankfurt in the first days of September 2021. It went surprisingly well. Despite great irritation at the Roman decisions on bishops' resignations, the atmosphere was one of concentrated work. Over 150 pages of text templates, 13 out of 16 templates were voted on with majorities between 76 and 92%; including the preamble and orientation text, the basic theological texts of three forums and a series of "action texts" were approved with modifications that had previously been submitted in an electronic application process and dealt with by application commissions

The good spirit of Frankfurt could be experienced again despite the huge pandemic-friendly hall. The fundamentally critical voices remain in the minority, but were clearly heard. Two voices from other European countries attested to the assembly's exemplary culture of debate. International and national attention was considerable. For the organizers, the process and result of the meeting were very relieving, as the ability to find consensus and the fundamental willingness to reform of a very clear majority of the synodal members from all groups showed. For hygienic reasons, the celebration of the Eucharist had to be celebrated in the meeting hall: it became an impressive sign of the anchoring of all participants in what is the "source and peak" in the life of the believers.

A special task is to shape the synodal process as a spiritual one. This is achieved through spiritual accompaniment in the plenary and forum sessions. "Halts" with prayer and meditation interrupt the process and are also designed to interrupt discussions that are becoming too heated. This element of the process, which everyone wants, deserves special attention. It would be a danger if necessary arguments were prevented by the reference to “clergy”. The second hurdle of the synodal path has been successfully taken, the next step will have to be taken with the first text votes in the second reading. Despite the one and a half year delay and the associated extension of the route until the beginning of 2023, there is reason for optimism. How does this process relate to the new international process of the world church?

Synodal practice as a model!

Despite the different occasions, topics and goals, the synodal path in Germany and the preparatory process for the 2023 Synod of Bishops have one thing in common, the question of the possibilities, areas of application and forms of synodality in the church. For the transferability of the approaches already developed, the extensive paper of Forum I "Power and Separation of Powers in the Church - Joint Participation and Participation in the Mission" is of particular importance. The 40-page text was discussed in the first reading and confirmed with over 80% of the votes as the basis for further deliberations. This text can also be found at www.synodalerweg.de .

It says there: "We are committed [...] to changing the applicable church law in such a way that it establishes a system of separation of powers, decision-making participation and independent power control that is appropriate to the church and based on the independent dignity of each baptized person. We are convinced that, for the sake of the vocation of the entire people of God, that structure based on the monopoly of violence must be overcome, according to which the legislature, executive and judiciary are bundled exclusively in the office of the bishop and at the parish level all managerial authority lies with the pastor, which he delegates in part to others , but can also take it back at any time in the event of a conflict.” For this purpose, a “church charter of fundamental rights” is recommended as the basis for structural considerations in order to make the principles of fairness, transparency and control effective. It is not a question of the truth of faith, but of the structuring of the social structure of the church. "We are committed to ensuring that the criteria of participation and legality, transparency and control, professionalism and protection of confidence apply in all areas of activity in the church, from financial regulation to personnel development to planning processes."

This raises the question of an ecclesiastical administrative jurisdiction, as was already demanded and described by the Würzburg synod, but never experienced a Roman examination let alone an implementation. The reason that this important matter was not included in the canon of the deliberations of the synodal path is due to the new attempt for Roman approval, which was already unanimously decided by the bishops' conference , with a new, more concrete application, which has now been developed by a group of canonists and under the leadership of the Archbishop of Bamberg, Dr. Ludwig Schick in Rome, whose urgent response is once again taking an unbearably long time.

Other topics of Forum I are also of great importance for the questions of the preparatory process. Last but not least, this includes the permanent introduction of a synodal body at the level of the German Bishops' Conference. This synodal council was already the subject of the deliberations of the second assembly on October 1, 2021 in Frankfurt. It states: “In order to draw an important practical conclusion, against the background of can. 127 and can. 129 with all the baptized and confirmed a synodal council of the Catholic Church in Germany, with which the bishops' conference is closely connected and which is in close contact with the dioceses." This council is intended to enable the continuation of what was in the synodal assembly of the ongoing process was developed. It is to meet twice a year and – in a smaller number of people – reflect the composition of the synodal path. It should also be his task to check and regularly evaluate the implementation of the resolutions.

On distrust of democratic forms

It is not only this text that encounters deep-seated reservations about democratic procedures in the church, which are often justified with reference to the hierarchical structure of the church and a dogmatic tradition that eludes majority decisions. Here, too, the reversal of the levels of the church as a spiritual and sociological entity is central. It deserves close attention to where the aversion to democratic structures comes from. If one looks at the church tradition, democratic processes and procedures from the time of the "Council of the Apostles" around the year 48 can be seen again and again (Acts 15:1-11; Gal 2:1-10). Elections, votes, majority requirements, term limits, separation of powers, control and accountability are documented in the history of religious orders and church ordinances, as well as in the election process for the head, the pope. In 1059, the Lateran Synod passed a papal election decree, according to which the cardinal bishops should first consult in a papal election, then the cardinal priests and cardinal deacons should consult them and finally obtain the consent of the faithful. For 805 years, the election has been carried out in a closed process, the conclave.

The same applies to the tradition of the synods, which clarified ecclesiastical disputes and established regulations in different spatial structures. The resolutions of the early North African or Gallic synods are well documented and a treasure trove of information about the ecclesiastical life of the early church. In his invitation to the preparatory process, the Pope also addresses this oldest tradition of the Church. The idea of centrality between the autonomous local churches with their bishop and the pope as bishop of Rome, has always been a fiction that is mainly fed by the extremely increased demands of the papal office under the special conditions of the 19th century. The Pope speaks in 2015 of the levels that canon law describes in CIC 431-459: “The first level of the exercise of synodality is realized in the particular Churches. […] The second level is that of the ecclesiastical provinces and ecclesiastical regions, the particular councils and, in a special way, that of the episcopal conferences. "

The methods of democratic self-understanding are absolutely not dispensable for people of the present. This also applies to pre-modern administrative and governmental procedures, such as those preserved in Rome. The former President of the ZdK, Prof. Dr. As early as 1968, Hans Maier, in a widely translated publication, suggested procedures that are common in all modern governments; including the cabinet principle and more. In the re-editing of the text fifty years later, he asks: “Can Rome remain below the level of differentiation of its secular legal partners in the long run? I am afraid that ecclesiastical legal thinking has not yet discovered the fallible human being, who is limited in his physical and mental powers and dependent on supplementation and control by others”. ²⁷¹Why shouldn't the principle that whoever pays taxes also decides how they are spent not also apply in the Church? What would speak against temporary leadership positions, the approaches of which were already introduced by Paul VI with the retirement of bishops? The self-understanding of contemporary man can assume that election to a committee results in greater competence than a mere advisory function - as canon law tries to prescribe for the councils. The modern self-image assumes the possibility of genuine participation.

At the same time we experience de-democratization, for example in the case of municipal mergers, which have a parallel in the municipal reorganizations of the 1970s. Their mistakes are currently being continued in the church. All of this contradicts the structural principles of church social teaching, above all subsidiarity. This social principle from Catholic social teaching with sources from Thomas Aquinas and the reformers of the 16th century to the social encyclical "Rerum Novarum" of 1891 has gained great importance politically and socially. Subsidiarity means the self-determination and personal responsibility of the lower level of a social form for everything that this level can do itself. Only when this is not possible does the next higher level step in to help and support. In its classic formulation it reads: "Just as what the individual can achieve on his own initiative and with his own strength must not be taken away from him and assigned to social activity, so it violates justice, what the smaller and subordinate communities can achieve and lead to a good end, to claim for the wider and higher community; any social activity is, in its essence and concept, subsidiary; it is to support the members of the social body, but must never crush or absorb them.”²⁷²

If one applies the principle of subsidiarity to the ecclesiastical communities, other responsibilities arise than they seem logical in the thinking of a hierarchically structured church. The importance of the episcopate, which has been significantly expanded since the Council - at that time as a result of subsidiary thinking - and the priest-centered view of a community to be cared for pastorally would be supplemented by the subsidiary support of self-responsible Christians, as corresponds to the self-image of people in modern times. Already Pius XII. stated in 1946 that this principle also applies to the church: “They also apply to the life of the church, regardless of its hierarchical structure.” ²⁷³. Since the introduction of the parish councils in 1976, a large number of motivated women and men have experienced not only effective cooperation but also disappointments resulting from the discrepancy between a real assumption of responsibility and decision-making authority, which is a matter of course in a democratic community today, and the legally defined mere advisory function.

The inclusion of all believers and the participation of the entire people of God, repeatedly demanded by the Pope at the beginning of the global synodal path, are essential for a synodal rethinking of the church. Nevertheless, the preparatory document of September 7 also contains anti-democratic formulations that show mistrust in parliamentary procedures. Doubts about the adoption of democratic principles rub shoulders with the statement of the people of God's sense of faith: "the consultation of the people of God in no way entails the adoption within the Church of the principles of democracy, which are based on the principle of the majority." Where does this fear come from? of real participation, the fear of democracy in the church? The images in the minds and speeches of the church are wrong: shepherds and sheep are not opposed here, but as can already be seen in the medieval mosaics of Rome: the apostles too, we are all sheep of the one shepherd Jesus Christ.

Baptized and Confirmed

In November 2013, in his first teaching on the “joy of the gospel”, Pope Francis formulated: “The laity are simply the vast majority of the people of God. There is a minority in their service: the ordained ministers. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the lay faithful in the Church. We have a large but insufficient number of lay people with a deep-rooted sense of community and great fidelity to commitment to charity, catechesis, and the celebration of the faith. But the awareness of the responsibility of the laity, which emerges from Baptism and Confirmation, is not shown everywhere in the same way.” (EG 102)

A long way has been covered in the years since the Council. Exactly 48 years earlier, on November 9, 1965, the German bishop of Essen, Franz Hengsbach, pointed out in the council hall of the Peterskirche that on this day for the first time a council resolution dealt with the mission of the laity. The following day, the document entitled “Apostolicam actuositatem” achieved a voting result of 2201 votes in favor, 2 against and 5 invalid votes. On November 18, the document was approved by Pope Paul VI. proclaimed as valid teaching of the Church - five years to the day after the beginning of the Council deliberations on this subject. The document has a strange title; what is “apostolic ministry”? In connection with this it says: "In order to give more weight to the apostolic work of the people of God, the Holy Synod now urgently addresses the lay Christians, of whose specific and in every respect necessary part in the mission of the Church it has already spoken elsewhere." ( AA 1)

Elsewhere, that means the earlier decrees on the liturgy, ecumenism, means of communication, education and above all on the Church, "Lumen Gentium". A difficult term that makes it difficult for us - as is often the case when reading the Council texts again - to follow what is meant. This had even been noticed at the Council: it had been proposed to speak of "de participatione laicorum in missione ecclesiae - about the participation of the laity in the mission of the church", but this did not find a majority.

It was about more than just words: the Council Fathers attached importance to the fact that not just any part in the work of the Church was meant, but rather the statement that all the baptized have a part in the work because they themselves are the Church. Lay people meant here all believers with the exception of the ordained and religious orders. The role of the laity should be addressed in this document.

According to this document, the empowerment of the laity is not based on an assignment, but results solely from participation in the mystical body of Christ. The word "lay apostolate" means the full participation of lay people in the mission of the church and is thus an expression of the common priesthood of the faithful for the work of the church. "The laity have the duty and right to the apostolate by virtue of their union with Christ the head." (AA 3) Through baptism and confirmation they become - according to 1 Peter 2 - the "holy people" of a general "royal priesthood". This applies to both women and men, to married people and to single people.

Pope Francis elaborates this thought in Evangelii Gaudium: “It must not be forgotten that when we speak of priestly authority we are “at the level of function and not at the level of dignity and holiness. The ministerial priesthood is one of the means Jesus uses to minister to his people, but great dignity comes from baptism, which is available to all. The conformation of the priest to Christ the Head—that is, as the principal source of grace—does not involve an elevation that puts him at the head of all the rest. In the Church, functions 'do not establish the superiority of one over the other'. In fact, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops." (EG 104)

As good as these statements sound, as much as they are tied back to the theology of the Vatican Council, as often as they have been used by the popes since Paul VI. were repeated - the ecclesiastical reality lags far behind and the canon law of 1983 does not follow. Synodality as a spiritual process and decision-making function, with the participation of representatives of all those who have been baptized and confirmed, the perception of minorities and individual prophetic voices, is best tried out in practice. The synodal path in Germany can show how synodality works in the church. The first two sessions show a broad consensus with a relatively small group of dissenters and individuals expressing fundamental concerns or opposition to the whole process. The search for unanimous positions should not be confused with the requirement for unanimity. Requiring unanimity on important issues in a larger assembly is an almost impossible proposition. For this purpose, the medium of separate votes for minority groups is a suitable medium for speaking up. A synod in Rome in 2023 will discuss which new forms of synodality are to be implemented in the universal church. Since this is a Synod of Bishops, it will be a male-only decision. The question is how a credible participation beyond the previous questioning can already be guaranteed at this synod.

The basic questions of the efforts of the synodal path are to do justice to those affected by working through the structural causes of sexualized violence by clerics and to prevent such crimes in the future as far as possible. The evangelization that Pope Francis wrote in our register means more and different things than clumsy missionary work with the Bible in hand. Evangelization means the gospel-oriented transformation of the world, society, church and last but not least ourselves, in order to be able to give credible testimony of what and who carries our lives. It is also about living our faith authentically again and speaking about it, and being able to be honest seekers with seekers. How do we get our Christian positions to be heard socially and politically?

It must be made clear to the many embittered, angry and critical believers that serious work is being done on reforms and that the church is more than purple cassocks and red riding hoods. The past few years of the Covid 19 pandemic have offered plenty of illustrative material to clarify the essence of faith. The public debates completely overlooked the extremely stressful personal changes. Nora Bossong, a writer from Berlin, put it this way in her acceptance speech at the Thomas Mann Prize award ceremony in June of this year: as in the Magic Mountain, the question arises: “Far away from the everyday, which we have learned to take seriously, it arises us for a year and a half now. We learned something about fear and vulnerability, about loneliness and death, we learned about arrogance and hubris, also about freedom and solidarity, unfortunately especially when they didn't happen, and it happened to us that dying is not that easy out of the shadows, as our society has practiced.”

In the spreading quarrel with the social structure of the Roman Catholic Church, a reference to the holiness of the Church according to Pope Francis, as he describes it in his letter to the faithful in Germany, is comforting and edifying: "Therefore pay close attention to every temptation that leads to it of wanting to reduce God's people to an enlightened group that does not allow one to see, rejoice in, and give thanks for the humble, scattered holiness. This holiness that lives in the patient people of God: in the parents who bring up their children with so much love, in the men and women who work to bring home daily bread, in the sick, in the elderly religious who keep smiling. In this consistency of daily progress I see the holiness of the militant Church. Often this is the 'holiness next door' of those who live near us and who are a reflection of God's presence”.

Believers are needed! - People are needed who, with their lives, bear witness to a life that is more than producing and consuming, that can tell of the joy of faith. The synodal processes serve to ensure that we as a church can do this credibly again. Even the "synodal path" as an experiment in a largely canon law-free space is itself a "step of change" towards a new coexistence of clergy and laity. It reflects the realization that power must be shared and its exercise justified.

Anna Hennersperger: "What's the point of collecting sourdough if you can't bake with it?" A synodal process in the diocese of Passau and its conclusion.

Anna Hennersperger, born 1955, pastoral theologian, parish counselor and supervisor, Passau

Summary: On the way to the turn of the millennium, the diocese of Passau, under the expert guidance of its then diocesan bishop, Dr. Franz X. Eder, on the synodal path to a new pastoral plan. This should open up a good pastoral path into the future for the diocese via a mission statement and at the interface between mission statement and projects. The joint path – planned and carried out in three phases – generated a strong response and, associated with it, a great spirit of optimism within the diocese. A church-wide, centralized tendency prevented – through Roman intervention – the sustainable implementation of the jointly developed options for the future and brought the process to a standstill. Nevertheless, the Pastoral Development Passau (PEP) was and is a vivid example of well-managed synodality.

Ahead of the times?

It is not unusual or uncommon for anyone throughout Church history to be ahead of the curve in what he or she recognized and then acted in that way consistently. After all, how else should there be development or innovation if not through people who think beyond the existing and act accordingly? From a church perspective, we can also assume that much was moved by the power of God's spirit, which blows where and when it wants. And many a heresy has made it possible to clarify what belongs to the traditional body of faith and what does not. The early councils bear witness to this.

Church sees itself as the people of God on the move. However, it is also an institution (cf. LG 8). Institutions guide - according to a general definition - "the actions of people, limit the arbitrariness (the free will ) of individual action, define the common framework for action and associated obligations" ²⁷⁴.

In this respect, the boundaries in institutions are usually very clearly drawn. Individuals or groups who exceed the scope of what is stipulated in the regulations can expect sanctions. The palette is wide and varies from century to century. At times, even crossing borders in theology was life-threatening; border crossings anyway. Even if death at the stake is no longer a threat nowadays, the withdrawal of the license to teach or the obligation not to be allowed to publish anything hits hard on those who have been or are being forced to do so. The list of those who went beyond the contemporary boundaries in theology and ecclesiology, or who were far ahead of their time in thinking, is extensive. It includes such prominent names as Galileo Galilei, Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, Martin Luther, Ignaz von Döllinger, Alfred Loisy , Ives Congar, Hans Küng and − with a requirement for pre-censorship, which subsequently amounted to a temporary ban on publication – including Karl Rahner.

You can be ahead of your time not only in terms of content, but also in terms of method. This applies to the example of a very successful synodal process in a diocese, which is presented below. Even if it seems as if the Pastoral Development Passau ²⁷⁵ventured into new territory, this path as such was actually new. Through him, however, it became evident to all those involved what an invigorating dimension synodality carries within itself as a structural principle of the church. "According to the understanding of tradition and also of the Second Vatican Council, the unity of synodal and 'hierarchical' constitution belongs both theologically and empirically as a structural principle to the constitutive self-realization of the Catholic Church."²⁷⁶

Synodality is rooted in the theological nature of the Church. In the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, the Council Fathers expressed the wish "that the venerable institutions of synods and councils flourish with renewed vigour" ²⁷⁷in order, as the text goes on to say, "to make it possible for the growth of the faith and the maintenance of discipline in the various churches can be taken care of according to the circumstances of the time" ²⁷⁸. In this respect there would be no "ahead of the times", but "according to the times".

However, the overall climate and the existing or non-existent openness to synodal processes in the large organization play a decisive role. Because it can happen that dark thunderclouds suddenly appear where a longer period of fine weather is actually announced locally.

So if the balance between hierarchical and synodal, between the whole Church and particular Churches, is not in the always sensitive balance, but is very one-sidedly centralized, a synodal process that is geared towards development and change can very quickly be perceived as threatening by the headquarters and therefore in be sanctioned as a result.

A synodal process in a time window

At the end of the 1990s, a corresponding time window was open in the Diocese of Passau, but not universally. Towards the end of John Paul II's pontificate, centralist tendencies had solidified to the point of sclerotic phenomena. There was little to no faith in the power of diversity. The principle of unity to the point of eliminating standardization clearly dominated.

Cardinal Karl Lehmann once illustrated this at an event in Munich with the following example. During the period of thorough revision and the associated new edition of the German-language prayer and hymn book "Gotteslob", the dioceses were asked to submit their own diocesan hymns to "the Romans" for review and approval. This means that a diocese's special collection of songs that had been cultivated, handed down and grown for centuries could certainly be discarded at the stroke of a pen by an undersecretary of a congregation.

Cardinal Schönborn emphasized in a speech in the Vatican on the occasion of the ceremony for "50 Years of the Synod of Bishops": " Synodality means "being on the way together". Whoever is on the way together needs a clear goal. Method comes from Meth ὁ dos : "way to something". If the syn- ὁdos is to succeed, the meth- ὁdos is crucial . The debates about the method of the synod are not incidental to the organization. They play a very important role in determining whether the syn - ὁdos leads to the goal.” ²⁷⁹However, as Cardinal Schönborn explained, it can only do this if the method-ὁdos is recognized as such and not disavowed or dismantled. More on that at the end of this post.

It was high time

The first Passau pastoral plan entitled “On the way to the disciples' community” dates from 1977. Some of it was implemented in the mid-1990s, while others had survived. Because twenty years later, a multitude of new social, cultural, ecclesiastical and pastoral challenges could not be overlooked. They were also evident in the diocese of Passau, which had been relatively stable in terms of the church for many years, and made it clear that the things that were taken for granted in the national church were not only coming to an end, but for the most part had already come to an end. In a dean's conference, Bishop Eder said that it was raining through the roof of the Volkskirche because it had holes in it.

In order to take account of the new requirements and to open up and enable a good way into the future, a model of pastoral care should be found, which should determine the pastoral work of the diocese in a sustainable and binding manner for a few years. As such, it should be clear, unambiguous and be formulated in a motivating way and consistently oriented towards the gospel of Jesus Christ. The core tasks and associated priority services and working methods of pastoral care should be defined. The aim was a theologically responsible, thorough renewal of pastoral care at all possible levels of the diocese, accompanied by means of organizational advice. This is on the basis of the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council “Church in the World Today” to search for the signs of the times (signa temporum) and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. "In this way it [ the church - author's supplement ] can then, in a manner appropriate to each generation, give answers to people's enduring questions about the meaning of the present and future lives and about the relationship between the two." (GS 4, cf .also 11).

Mission statement processes were standard in many large companies in the mid-1990s. Mission statements provide information about a company's mission, vision and values. They enable employees to find their way around and to identify with. To the outside , they convey a concise image of the corporate philosophy. The good experiences with such processes were also adopted for the non-profit sector.²⁸⁰

A synodal path in several stations: Pastoral Development Passau (PEP)

Bishop Franz X. Eder decided - for the reasons mentioned above - to set up a model process for the Diocese of Passau. The decisive factor here was the basic decision not to set the model through him or together with the heads of the main departments of the episcopal ordinariate and the deans and then to subsequently campaign for its reception among the church people. Rather, the path of searching and deciding should proceed in a synodal manner. In his pastoral word for the first Sunday of Lent in 1998 on pastoral development in the diocese of Passau, he says: " Everyone is asked to do this, not just the experts. Because we are all church. We are those who have been baptized and confirmed in the Spirit and have received the gifts to rebuild and build on the inherited house of our church together. The joint path should also be ²⁸¹open-ended – which repeatedly aroused skepticism in the process. Some people who were suspicious initially assumed that there were already finished papers that were still in a drawer somewhere and that it would be a mock trial. The fact that this was not the case became clear from the process-oriented approach and the great transparency in the individual stages.

The option for a synodal path had consequences both for the principles guiding action and for the overall design of the project, which was planned for the period from autumn 1997 to Pentecost 2000. Spirituality and dialogue, leadership through guided synodality, transparency, participation (participation) and decision-making were the central headings of the action-guiding principles. One publication says about participation: “Participation in the path of the future of pastoral care goes from “little” to “much”. It is given to experts as well as laypeople, individuals as well as groups, distant as well as close ones.” ²⁸²Trust, modesty and honesty were considered to be style-defining.

The path was led by a leadership group, which was made up of synods: bishop, vicar general, three cathedral canons as well as representatives of the professional groups and the diocesan council formed the so-called "Pastoral Working Commission". Under the presidency and direction of the bishop, this knew itself to be responsible for all the basic decisions of the process.

In the summer of 1997, a managing director who, as a theologian and pastoral consultant, also had extensive professional competence in organizational development, was commissioned with the basic design of the entire path. The development of the individual process steps was placed in the hands of a project group consisting of four priests, two full-time women and one volunteer man. The scientific and pastoral theological accompaniment was provided by the Viennese pastoral theologian Paul M. Zulehner and Isidor Baumgartner from the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Passau.

After a kick-off event in autumn 1997, at which interested parties were informed about the basic orientation and encouraged and invited to participate, the first phase of the overall process, which was divided into three phases, began.

Phase 1 consisted of 73 one-hour so-called “church talks”. These were conducted, recorded and documented with individuals over a period of four months by fifteen specially trained interviewers using guidelines. The range of interviewees was extensive. People were selected who live in the diocese and play a responsible role in social and church life. These included chairmen of the parish council as well as volunteers in other pastoral fields, politicians from various parties, religious superiors, the rector of the university, clergy, full-time employees. The interviewees were asked about their personal vision of the church and how it is changing, what hinders or promotes the implementation of the vision, what building blocks of a pastoral future could be and what needs to be developed - based on the gospel of Jesus Christ and the challenges of the time. Strong sentences from the interviews were, for example:

“Let's do a perestroika, a conversion! Let's take a look: What do people need, and what are we here for?"

"What use is the most solemn service with lots of incense, the most powerful sermon, if there is no diakonia, no help for the poor?"

"What use is the collected pile of sourdough if nothing is baked with it?"

After a scientific evaluation, the results of these discussions were published internally in a summarized summary. With the title “Worth talking about: 73 church talks”, a first text was available, which formed the basis for phase 2.

The synodal movement was from the inside out. It should open and widen. Phase 2 was therefore under the motto: "Those who want to participate can do so". In a letter before Pentecost in 1998, the bishop issued an extensive invitation: As many parish councils, associations, orders, working groups and communities as possible, as well as those working in categorical pastoral care, should think about their future ideas for pastoral care in their respective groups in one-day retreats and bring the results into the process. On the one hand, this retreat should advance the deliberative group itself and at the same time enrich the pastoral path of renewal. The results of the retreats were condensed into a short protocol and formed the basis for a first draft of the pastoral plan. The bishop literally: “With this invitation, I want to ensure that everyone who wants to can participate in this important journey. And at the same time it is said that this work will have a personal, local and diocesan benefit.”

The response to the bishop's invitation was very great. Between autumn 1998 and spring 1999, 315 different groups came together for so-called "PEP retreats". For the small and manageable diocese of Passau, this meant that the participation was enormous and the spectrum varied. It went from parish councils to youth groups, school classes, teams from diocesan offices and working groups to church associations, Caritas institutions, religious orders, pastoral workers and initiative groups, even beyond the diocesan area. For example, a group of free voters and the football department of a sports club in the Bavarian Forest helped shape a PEP retreat. In the end, around 4,300 people from the diocese of Passau and beyond set out with 134 moderators, came together, paused, found themselves biblically, named the strengths and weaknesses of the experienced church and formulated further information.²⁸³

In phase 2, which was very formative, the participation of the diocese was almost contagious and felt like wildfire.

In addition to the invitation to retreats, the annual pastoral conference for the full-time employees was also used for phase 2. Using the "Open Space" method, participation rooms for topics and concerns of sustainable pastoral care were opened in three conferences. These were actively used by priests, community officers, employees at Caritas and diocesan offices, pastoral officers, deacons and deanery managers. The results of these consultations were also the basis for the draft of the pastoral plan. Overall, the result was surprising: Of course, the so-called permanent reform issues were discussed. But it became clearer: the many people didn't want a thousand new things in the church - they wanted quality and credibility! Dialogue and communication, spirituality and real faith, pastoral care close to God and people. This should be further developed in a concentrated, cooperative and sustainable way - with the people and in the structures of the diocese.

Passau Pastoral Plan 2000

The second partial result of the process was the draft of the Passau Pastoral Plan 2000. It was drawn up by a seven-person temporary workshop group that was appointed and determined by the bishop. Four priests and three lay people, two external and five internal, developed a compact draft containing 13 projects from the extensive available material at the interface of the mission statement and projects (plans). These in turn were structured according to "appreciation, goal that we want to achieve and measures that lead to the goal". The draft was biblically founded and anchored in the heart of the gospel, Jesus' double commandment to love God and love one's neighbor. "Close to God and the people" therefore became the motto and model of the church in Passau. On the way into the future, it should be measured by its closeness to God, which becomes close to man.

The final phase was determined by the further and also corrective work on the draft.

Phase 3 was scheduled from autumn 1999 to spring 2000. Once again, everyone who wanted to take part was able to deal with the draft text and the projects contained therein and contribute their comments or additions in writing. It turned out that some important issues such as the question of justice in the one world, or the perception of the special living situation of people with disabilities ... have not been or have not been sufficiently considered. Phase 3 in the balance sheet turned out to be the hour of the "prophets". Because the “forgotten” topics were given space through the critical view of the design from several perspectives. This showed how important it was that many levels and voices were heard.

Helmut A. Höfl, Managing Director of Pastoral Development, commented in an internal letter on this critical phase of the process: “ Of course there was also a lot that was unfinished, one-sided, and not thought through to the end. Once again, 222 groups set out. Over 2000 Christians from the people of God, 450 pastors and the advisory bodies and councils of the diocese worked through the text. With the help of 198 moderators, 69 priests and 129 pastoral workers, they did backbreaking work! Again suggestions, corrections, requests piled up. The problems of the draft were clearly evident: language, commitment, implementation of the pastoral plan remained unclear for many. Much was still missing: topics such as child and youth work, ecumenism, creation and the environment, "One World", religious education and school pastoral work. Some missed the prophetic bite, the resoundingly new. They felt the price of the common synodal path, which wants to take many into account and let them come along.”

And again, an intensive phase of revision of the draft followed. The last corrections and additions were made by Bishop Eder himself, who is responsible for his overall leadership role. A file in which these additions can be traced still exists.

Since the implementation of the projects also had to be planned before the conclusion of the identification phase, the nine projects that had been planned were prioritized. A large majority voted for the priority implementation of project 1 "Dwelling in the mystery of God". In second place was project 8 “Further development of pastoral care structures”.

Pentecost 2000 marked the completion of the first large part of the pastoral development in Passau. At a solemn Pentecost vigil, diocesan bishop Dr. Franz X. Eder put the pastoral plan into effect on the eve of this symbolic festival with the impressive participation of many people from the whole diocese in Passau Cathedral. ²⁸⁴Then he handed it over to the vicar general and the cathedral chapter as well as the representatives of the diocesan council, the deanery councils and the individual parishes. The latter signed it on Pentecost Sunday during the services in their respective parishes in order to become effective for a prosperous development of the diocese.

The synodal principle

"The Passau Pastoral Plan 2000 is based on the participation of the people of God and the approval of its councils and advisory bodies as well as the leadership of the diocese." ²⁸⁵So the bishop in his introduction to the pastoral plan. With this statement, he continued synodal understanding from the 3rd century, as practiced by the church father Cyprian of Carthage (+258) as a basic maxim for his office. In a letter to the presbyters and deacons of his congregations, Cyprian wrote: "But to the letter addressed to us by our fellow priests, Donatus and Fortunatus and Novatus and Gordius, I could not answer alone, because from the beginning of my episcopal ministry I decided not to do anything without your advice and without the consent of the people merely on my opinion. "²⁸⁶

The pastoral development of Passau was characterized by emergence. ²⁸⁷Something new, “third” had emerged along the way. Everyone involved in the process felt that. Speaking and thinking theologically and believingly, it is probably not bold to speak here of a noticeable work of the Spirit of God. The new thing, however, was still being tested. It had yet to be implemented and proven. But the time window for this was too tight. Bishop Eder initiated the pastoral development towards the end of his term of office in order to be able to hand over "the house" to a successor in good order. In hindsight, it turned out that the synodal path in the diocese should have been taken much earlier. The implementation of the projects, the practice of a synodal togetherness would have required stable leadership, more time and freedom than was actually the case.

The goals of pastoral development along the synodal path were limited from the outset to what could be achieved by the diocese itself in order to remain credible. The so-called “world church reform themes”, which were of course named at the retreats and pastoral conferences, were collected in a “depot”. They were to be passed on as urgent by the bishop to the Roman headquarters. The fears expressed by some in the process that the depot could possibly become a "dump" were unfortunately confirmed by the reform issues still awaiting reform.

Resistance

Those responsible did not pay enough attention to the dimension of the resistance. Every change, every new path creates resistance. Resistance is a necessary part of change and learning processes, its absence, not its presence, should be thought-provoking. For where there is no resistance, there is no change. Resistance is only not shown where the new thing is perceived as too succinct in the eyes of those affected, or where all those involved or affected are convinced from the outset that the planned change will not be feasible or implementable anyway.

There was resistance in the diocese, which was a good sign. Some voiced this loudly at different meetings: It was a way to break up and then get together again. However, it was not articulated clearly enough by others. Was it based on (ecclesiastical) experience or assumptions: One is not heard anyway, or the respective objections are not taken seriously?

Some resistance, however - like a river bed in a flood - found new ways: In the Roman headquarters, people were informed about the new pastoral plan surprisingly quickly and well.

The pastoral plan had been announced in Rome. There was a cold headwind that came in several spurts. Seven congregations had dealt with the manageable document "Passau Pastoral Plan 2000". Cardinal Battista Re, head of the Episcopal Congregation, "demanded the bishop either to withdraw the pastoral plan or to 'correct' the offending passages of the text" ²⁸⁸. Pastoral care centers in the parishes ensure that the parish (parish community council and church administration) is heard and appropriately involved.” ²⁸⁹That was too much participation. One also took offense at the fact that the word “chief shepherd” did not appear enough. The suggestion that the dean should be supported by a management team was also not well received. ²⁹⁰The wording was probably also suspicious: “Participation and involvement is made possible at all levels. This is done by disclosing decision-making processes and transparency of all essential processes.”²⁹¹

The Roman interventions against the pastoral plan, on the other hand, were not carried out openly and transparently, but under the obligation of those affected to maintain secrecy and confidentiality.

Decommissioning as an order

The second headwind became effective in 2002 in the person of the successor to Bishop Franz X. Eder, who had meanwhile retired. The successor had (directly or indirectly) the task of bringing the diocese back "on the right path" and thus ultimately bringing the implementation of the pastoral plan to a standstill. And so it happened - despite all other verbal assurances by him. In his first pastoral word at the beginning of the Easter penitential period, he said: " The Passau pastoral plan (PEP), which I was given with great expectations, rightly placed this all-important accent at the beginning with the heading "Dwelling in the secret of God". . I like to pick that up. The fact that through the service of the church in Passau people experience the closeness of God is also my 'Project No. 1 '.²⁹²

The implementation of the new would have required a corresponding willingness on the part of management, coupled with a change in management style. However, it was rather the opposite. In 2003, Bishop Schraml announced the "change of emphasis" at the spring plenary assembly of the diocesan council: "We must and will readjust the future of our pastoral care - not abolish pastoral development, but adapt it to the pastoral needs and priorities, to the current financial and personnel conditions.”²⁹³

On December 8, 2003, the "Pastoral Development Passau" office was closed and implementation was given to the line - to the episcopal pastoral office. Some projects continued tentatively, others were "excavated" on behalf of the bishop with the help of canonical reports.

what was left An invigorating and also dangerous reminder for all those who were actively involved in the PEP and experienced church anew on the synodal path. The successor at the time also felt this in many places.

Twenty years too early - twenty years later

The synodal diocesan time window that was open under Bishop Franz X. Eder - comparable to the universal church awakening of the Second Vatican Council - once led his successor to say: "He opened all the windows and I'm now in a draft".

Now, thanks to the persistent initiative of Pope Francis, the synodal time window is opening in Rome. How long, that remains to be seen. However, the emphasis has shifted significantly.

It would currently be inconceivable that a bishop like Franz X. Eder would be so humiliatingly reprimanded by Rome as was the case in 2000. Pope Francis writes in his “government statement” Evangelii Gaudium: “ It is inappropriate for the Pope to replace local bishops in evaluating all the issues that arise in their areas. In this sense, I feel the need to move forward in a salutary 'decentralization'. "²⁹⁴

Pope Francis thus ties back to what was in the Council decree "Christus Dominus" ²⁹⁵was stated in Article 11: "The diocese ... forms ... a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is truly active and present." Similarly also in number 23 of the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" . Each local church is to be understood as a complete particular church. She has everything that the whole thing has. It is characterized by the many people of all ages, genders and backgrounds that God has brought together to become his people. Everyone whose calling is celebrated in baptism has a calling from God Himself.

The guidelines from the preparatory document of the synodal process announced by Pope Francis "For a synodal church: 'Community, Participation and Mission' were courageously implemented in the Pastoral Development Passau (PEP) more than twenty years ago and have proven their power. In hindsight, the diocese was well positioned pastorally for the years to come. Of course, the topics and content that were introduced were decisive in the process. However, what was more decisive overall was the experience of walking together as the people of God, which motivated people to stand up for the gospel in the manageable diocese in the long term. As can be read in the pastoral plan: “ Never before have there been as many women and men in the church in Passau as there are today who are willing to contribute their strength, imagination and time. They do this in the conviction that they are making a contribution to a Christian and thus also to a humane world... The high motivation of the honorary and full-time employees is a great treasure for the church in Passau. "²⁹⁶

In this sense, Cardinal Schönborn is to be fully agreed: “ If the syn- ὁdos is to succeed, the meth- ὁdos is crucial . "²⁹⁷

Christian Bauer: Mediation, a synodal path?

Church in search of the creative third.

Christian Bauer (*1973 in Würzburg) has been a professor of pastoral theology and homiletics in Innsbruck since 2012 and has been chairman of the working group for pastoral theology since 2019.

According to Pope Francis, the Church must find a synodal, ie common path between destructive conflict and constructive crisis. Proven techniques of mediation can help to discover a broader horizon together and keep it open. However, this is made more difficult not only by the quasi-monophysitic ecclesiology of the pope, but also by asymmetric tribalizations on the part of the ecclesiastical right.

Francis may be the first pope ever to have spoken about mediation. In his most recent book , dare to dream , he says that this form of structured conflict management is an “art of civil society dialogue” ²⁹⁸that brings together “different views on a higher level”: “Instead of […] declaring war […], we need Processes that make it possible […] that we can walk together without the need to destroy anyone. […]. […] Mediators help with this task. […] In law and politics, the mediator plays a role analogous to that of the Holy Spirit in the synod, he holds the differences together until new horizons open up.” ²⁹⁹Mediators can also prove to be tools of the Holy Spirit within the church – and Unfortunately, not all conflicts can be mediated there either. Even if a synod is not mediation stricte sensu , one can still learn something from it. Part of the personal experience of this post is that I am also a mediator myself. I completed my relevant training in 2002 at the Berlin Institute for Conflict Culture. Against this background, the following is first about the papal program (1) of the synod, then about mediation as a possible tool for this process (2) and finally about the associated problem (3) of an asymmetrical tribalization of the church.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis strikes me as a wise old chess player who knows he doesn't have many years to reform the Church. So he's already thinking about the train after next. Or to put it in one of his own metaphors: It is about “sowing that is harvested by others ” ³⁰⁰. In doing so, the pope is less changing previous doctrinal decisions than the procedural way in which they come about. He seems to be concerned with a really lasting change in the church in the spirit of Jesus, in which the non-use of his primatial power serves to strengthen synodal church practice - any authoritarian papal government would contradict this basic option. As a good Jesuit, Francis focuses on the manera de proceder and, above all, changes the procedures of magisterial decision-making. He intervenes in the machinery of ecclesiastical power (keywords: curia reform, upgrading of synods and bishops' conferences) and aligns these institutional procedures with his goal of a Jesus-inspired church reform ³⁰¹.

Right at the beginning of his pontificate, Francis declared in Evangelii gaudium that he was not concerned with "occupying spaces" in the church (EG 223), but rather with "initiating further processes" (EG 223). In his final Christmas address to the Roman Curia , he introduced a remarkable distinction: crisis and conflict are "two different things ³⁰². " In a crisis, a creative spirit is at work that brings about unity. In quarrels, on the other hand, a destructive spirit that sows discord. On the synodal path in Germany one can experience both: productive crisis and destructive conflict. According to the Pope, one has to be lived through, the other has to be overcome. Crises require discernment processes (“Which spirit guides us?”), while conflicts require mediation procedures (“How do we find our way out of the conflict?”) – and both call for a permanent transgression that leads right into the heart of the mystery of God (“ Deus semper maior ") .

The Pope calls the crisis a "time of the Holy Spirit" ³⁰³in which confidence can grow that "things are just taking on a new shape" (ibid.) . This requires distinctions that lead to decisions. And at the same time decisions that call for distinctions. It is about processes of spiritual “discipline in communion” ³⁰⁴that make it possible to go a step further and at best lead to a creative breakthrough that allows something new to emerge from the crisis: “We saw this at the synod on the family, which aimed to do this to overcome some 'casuistic' ways of thinking [...]. [...] The evil spirit hindered [...] discernment [...] and thereby led to crippling conflicts. […] Ultimately, however, the Spirit saved us, in a breakthrough towards the end of the second synodal assembly […]. […] Breakthroughs can happen, often at the last minute, and they lead to agreements that let us move forward.”³⁰⁵

For Francis, the Holy Spirit is the "main actor of the synod" ³⁰⁶. In the synodal 'distinguishing of the spirits', it is an unmistakable sign of his presence when there is a breakthrough in the sense of the 'overflowing' of something creative third party that leads out of church-political confrontations: “In this case, the overflowing came from connoisseurs of the holy Thomas Aquinas [...]. [First] […] the teaching of Thomas that no rule can apply in every situation [led] the synod to agreement […]. […] This was the great breakthrough that the Spirit gave us: a better synthesis of truth and mercy in a new understanding fed by our own tradition. […] A similar polarization occurred at the Amazon Synod in October 2019 […] but this time without the solution of an overflow […]. " ³⁰⁷While there was a spirit-induced breakthrough at the family synod, the pope felt that the time for it in 2019 was not yet ripe - which is why it is "not over" for him ³⁰⁸and its issues remain open: "There was [...] ] a well-informed discussion, but no distinction, which is different than reaching […] a relative majority. […] For me, this was crucial to the final discernment as I pondered the post-synodal writing.”³⁰⁹

A synodal church not only leaves behind a contradictory "either - or" on its common path ("syn-odos") ³¹⁰, but also an all too comfortable "both - and" ³¹¹. Rather, it advances into that area of “neither – nor” ³¹², whose double negation, according to Michel de Certeau ³¹³, one of Pope Francis’s declared favorite authors, keeps the synodal discourse on God open in principle: Neither you are completely right – nor am I completely right, because God is much bigger anyway. In this way, complementary dichotomies can be transcended - and the space for a "third hypothesis" opens up ³¹⁴: "In terms of difference theory, 'effects of the third' always arise when intellectual operations no longer merely oscillate between the two sides of a distinction, but the distinction as such to the [...] problem becomes. In ³¹⁵order for this to happen, synodal paths are needed that do not understand different positions as destructive opposites, but rather as constructive differences, which release a third thing that is not yet known, which only shows itself dia logou : in the open and therefore always risky dialogue.

Process: Mediation

In a similar context, mediation is not about solving a conflict for the disputing parties, but rather about providing them with a protected framework in which they can work on their problem themselves and, at best, also solve it - can, but do not have to. Because even here there is no guarantee of success. Mediation starts with creating space. Only when the chairs are pushed apart does a thriving culture of debate become possible. Because if you want to engage in constructive discussions with one another, you first have to engage – quite literally. Just like the brawlers in a school class first have to be separated from each other. For everything that can (but does not have to) follow, mediation has three quite optimistic 'statements of belief ' ready:

First, the disputants have everything they need to resolve the conflict - except the support of an 'all-partisan ' outsider.

Second: You have to get at the personal needs behind the positions represented in each case.

And finally, thirdly: Once contact between the conflicting parties has been re-established, the solution will come naturally.

This requires well-protected spaces for mutual contact (from Latin tangere = to touch), in which the respective stories behind the positions can be told and heard. Only then can you flip up your visor, make yourself touchable and thus vulnerable ³¹⁶. Real contact doesn't only 'affect ' ' purely peripherally ' , but rather in the innermost center of one's own existence. That can also happen - but it doesn't have to. Because there are also differences that cannot be mediated. This also applies to synodal processes. These, too, are not a discourse free of domination in a power-free space. Even if bishops or other officials try to shed their role, it still remains in the room. Michel Foucault: "The idea that there can be a state of communication in which truth games could circulate without [...] the effects of compulsion seems to me to belong to the order of utopia [...]. I believe that there can be no society without power relations [...]. So the problem is not trying to resolve them in the utopia of completely transparent communication, but rather giving oneself legal rules [...] that allow power games to be played with the least amount of effort.”³¹⁷

If mediation nevertheless succeeds under these conditions, it is usually on the path of the three basic convictions mentioned. It then points in the direction of a not yet existing third, which is neither simply a compromise of the 'lowest common denominator ' nor a synthesis in the sense of the Hegelian world spirit, which soars to ever new heights via thesis and antithesis. Mediation stays on the ground. Like so many other things, it can only fail because of too much Hegel. Because 'medi-ation ' is also about finding a new centre: the media res . This, however, is not a Hegelian resolution of differences at a higher level, but rather the joint discovery of something unprecedented. At the end of a mediation, something really new has emerged that, at best, is shared by everyone involved. This new center is not a platonic idea that has 'always existed ' and only needs to be realized. Successful mediation is therefore not only anti-Hegelian, but also anti-Platonic.

We need appropriate synodal places where conflicts can be openly addressed and dealt with, so that their destructive potential is contained and their creative potential released. Differences must be cultivated. Any purely appellative rhetoric of ecclesiastical unity is in danger of covering synodal conflicts like the 'gravy principle ' and suffocating all life underneath. Aversion to conflict is a hostile impediment to the potential productivity of the plural and diverse. The much-vaunted 'unity in reconciled diversity ' can not be claimed, it can only be made possible. Because it too is God's work and our contribution. It has a fundamental grace index ( "We cannot make it"), and it is eschatologically open ("We cannot hold on to it or even complete it") - but a coincidence of opposites only exists in God. On the human side, all of this requires not only the willingness to reflective self-difference, but also to at least a temporary change of perspective ³¹⁸- preferably in real life in a temporary exchange of desks by all actors involved. Or at least metaphorically, following the Native American wisdom not to judge anyone unless we've walked in their moccasins for at least a day.

Problem: Talking to the right

Francis is a holy old bird who evidently genuinely believes in what he says and writes. Despite all justified criticism, you have to take that into account if you want to do it justice. Like Pope John, he seems to be a “real Christian” ³¹⁹: “John XXIII. has proved that in our world even a pope can lead a Christian life.” Unfortunately, the implicit ecclesiology of his concept of synodality has a monophysitic-spiritualist side, because he underestimates the ³²⁰“human element” in the “realitas complexa” (LG 8) of the church. (LG 8): "If one interprets the Church according to the categories of conflict - right and left, progressive and traditionalist - [...] one betrays her true nature: she is a body in constant crisis precisely because it is alive [...]."³²¹ Francis emphasizes the spiritual character of the church as "the mystical body of Christ" (LG 8), but underestimates its political character as a "visible assembly" (LG 8). One does not have to share the Pope's church-political optimism that their "hierarchical organs" (LG 8) will at some point follow the synodal spiritual experiences of the "spiritual community" (LG 8). Because by no means all those involved breathe this free and open spirit: " The most important thing is the synodal spirit: to meet one another with respect and trust, to believe in our unity, and to receive the new that the spirit wants to reveal to us."³²²

The "tribalistic divisions" ³²³that the pope rightly criticizes in society can also be found in the church: the one people of God is divided into at least twelve tribes, some of which have very different feelings about the church and the world. Again, the "absence of honest dialogue in our public culture" makes it difficult ³²⁴to create a "common horizon to move towards" ³²⁵. And the church must also learn to deal with its conflicts "in such a way that we don't slip into polarization " ³²⁶and instead allow "new thinking that can transcend this division" in matters of dispute within the church ³²⁷.

If that is not possible, then what is needed is the “willingness to endure the conflict and to make it the starting point of a new process” ³²⁸. Even that will not always succeed immediately: "Discernment in the midst of a conflict sometimes requires setting up camp together and waiting for the sky to clear up." ³²⁹As in mediation, so it also applies to the synodal paths of the Church, with to look for a creative third party with great patience and perseverance. You can learn from the Cold War and agree on confidence-building measures. Or from the right-wing populist threat to open societies ³³⁰. It might also help against tribalization within the church to go to those who think and feel differently and to talk to them. face to face To ask her about her story and also to tell her own story. Not reacting to gut feelings with arguments in your head. To dare more synodality, or better: to dare synodality at all. Because you cannot defend the goal of an open church (like that of an open society) with a closed mind.

In the process, one also encounters hard right-wingers in the church who represent authoritarian, identitarian and totalitarian extreme positions. Here, too, the 'horseshoe theory' of a symmetrical radicalization of right and left does not apply, which ³³¹would suggest a church-political “false conclusion of the golden mean”. Rather, an asymmetrical tribalization can be observed on the side of right-wing Catholics, who claim a church “monopoly on the interpretation of truth” ³³². A synodal attitude, on the other hand, requires greater spiritual maturity, which is based on the ability to reflect on self-difference: I can relate to myself again. And I can actually let God be greater than one's own views: "The experience of the Synod not only makes it possible to walk a common path despite our differences, but also to seek the truth and absorb the richness of conflicting tensions. […] The aim is […] to […] search together for the will of God and thereby reconcile the differences” ³³³. If successful, this synodal opening to the horizon of a greater God enables a contrapposizione of different points of view, which “does not erase the contrasts, but prevents them from being made absolute” ³³⁴. That sounds really good. It's just a pity: There are Catholics with whom you can't just talk. And unfortunately there are also Catholics with whom one simply cannot talk. The Pope probably has a few stories to tell about this...

Literature:

Arendt, Hannah: The Christian Pope. Comments on the 'Spiritual Diary' of John XXIII, in: Der Merkur (1966), 362-372.

Bauer, Christian: Church as Societas Jesu. On the trail of succession with Pope Francis, in: Paul M. Zulehner/Tomas Halik (eds.): Tailwind for the Pope. Why we are Pro Pope Francis, Darmstadt 2018, 120-127.

Bauer, Christian: Wounded Wanderer? Michel de Certeau - a biographical search for clues, in: Christian Bauer/Marco Sorace (ed.): God, elsewhere? Theology in conversation with Michel de Certeau, Ostfildern 2019, 13-75.

Bauer, Christian: Home in an open world? Resources for a late modern sense of coherence, in: Strube, Sonja (Hg), Accepting the stranger – counteracting group-related enmity. Theological Approaches, Freiburg/Br. 2017, 153-168.

Borghesi, Massimo: Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Una biografia intellectuale. Dialettica e mistica, Milan 2 2018.

Certeau, Michel de: La faiblesse de croire, Paris 1987.

Delbrêl, Madeleine: Nous autres, gens des rues. Texts missionnaires, Paris 1966.

Koschorke, Albrecht: A new paradigm of cultural studies, in: Esslinger, Eva and others (ed.): The figure of the third. A cultural-scientific paradigm, Berlin 2010, 9-31.

Michel Foucault, L'éthique du souci de soi comme pratique de la liberté, in: Id., Dits et Écrits II (1976-1988), Paris 2001, 1527-1548.

Pope Francis: Opening of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2019/october/documents/papa-francesco_20191007_apertura-sinodo.html

Pope Francis: dare to dream! Emerging from the crisis with confidence, Munich 2020.

Pope Francis: Christmas Speech to the Roman Curia, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2020/december/documents/papa-francesco_20201221_curia-romana.html .

Spadaro, Antonio: Il governo di Francesco. È ancora attiva la spinta propulsiva del pontificato?, in: civiltà cattolica, https://www.laciviltacattolica.it/articolo/il-governo-di-francesco/ .

Zorn, Daniel-Pascal: Logic for democrats. A guide, Stuttgart 2017.

Anna Findl-Ludescher: Practiced Synodality in the Pastoral Commission of Austria

Anna Findl-Ludescher, born 1965, assistant professor for pastoral theology in Innsbruck, possibly chairwoman of the Austrian Pastoral Commission.

Summary: The Austrian Pastoral Commission (PKÖ) is presented as the permanent synod of the Austrian Church. Synodal action is a common path in which the participants agree on how successful life according to God's will can always be made possible. Both the goal and the concrete path are only discovered when we walk together. Necessary for success is an attitude that is characterized by “expose – deal with – engage”. This attitude creates honest openness towards the path and those who are going along, as well as the serenity to let each other be church. The various formats of the PKÖ: meetings, conferences and (liturgical) celebrations reflect a basic principle of synodality: synods are not held, they are celebrated.

“ Set forth without a map,
and know that God is found along the way,
and not at the destination. "³³⁵
(Madeleine Delbrel)

The term synodality is currently on everyone's lips.³³⁶

Although the idea that synodality is part of the very essence of the church is by no means new, in discussions about it one often senses reluctance on the one hand and resignation on the other. All too often it seems as if the term is used as a rhetorical device to appease angry churchgoers, when in reality it ultimately remains a fleshless illusion. For it is precisely in the context of the German synodal path that it becomes clear again and again that synodality, insofar as it is merely added as an accessory to the current clerical-hierarchical organizational structure, can bring about no more than non-binding discussion processes. ³³⁷At the same time, however, this fleshless form of synodality further nourishes the hope for a synodal church in which non-ordained ministers are assigned decision-making competence and authority to act. This is mainly due to the fact that the synodal path is less a common path of conversion and much more a long-awaited concession to the people of the church, who have the illusion of being able to come to binding decisions together, despite contrary and sometimes very clear signals from Rome upholds, and so does, despite the commitment to “jointly seeking steps to strengthen Christian witness” ³³⁸- leads to more and more frustration and increasingly to a hardening of the fronts.

While the balance in this regard seems rather sobering at the moment, experiences with synodality can also be cited, which increasingly rely on self-empowerment and the resulting increase in participation and thus encourage. It is not just a matter of restructuring processes in individual dioceses, but also of an all-Austrian body that has been in existence for more than fifty years , which puts synodality into practice and, through advice and networking, not only enables cooperation but also real participation ³³⁹: This is how the Austrian Bishops' Conference came about with the establishment the Pastoral Commission of Austria (PKÖ) already at the end of the 1960s, following the idea of the Second Vatican Council, to set up synodal elements at different levels of the church in order to enable more participation and co-determination of all the baptized through advisory and dialogue committees. The fact that the PKÖ still exists today as a kind of permanent synod beyond its original purpose (helping to shape the Austrian synodal process) and is still involved in decision-making processes as an advisory and networking body indicates that synodality is not understood here as a on a single process or a single, time-limited project, but as walking a path together over the long term.

With a view to my experiences from 17 years of work on the board (since 2016 as executive chairwoman) in the PKÖ, an alternative picture of the synodality already practiced to the current understanding is to be drawn in the following, which is based on the assumption that the path to be taken is by no means predetermined , but that it is only shaped by those walking along together, so that it only arises (also in terms of content) while walking. With this understanding of practiced synodality, the common path is not in the foreground, but walking together. In connection with the reflection on the many, sometimes challenging and yet mostly positive experiences that I was able to collect in the PKÖ, the conviction arose again that it is time for the Austrian church to put aside the fear of walking together (!). to break up and move on . Therefore, finally, an option for the possible progress of the Austrian Church as a fellowship should be offered.

The Pastoral Commission of Austria

The PKÖ was set up in 1968 by the Austrian Bishops' Conference as their official advisory body on pastoral issues. Her first major task was to help shape the "Austrian Synodal Process" (1972 - 1974). The main task given to her was to "give advice" to the Austrian Bishops' Conference. In addition, however, this commission is also an institution in which synodality is constantly updated and continued.

The PKÖ is composed as follows: Ex officio members are all heads of pastoral care in Austria. The same applies to the respective bishop who is responsible for the area of "pastoral" within the bishops' conference and the general secretary of the Austrian Pastoral Institute. By election or delegation, many institutions are represented by one member (e.g.: Presidium of Catholic Action, Caritas, school authorities, religious orders conference, priests' council, professional association of pastoral assistants, consortium of Austrian pastoral theologians, etc.), each diocese also sends a lay representative or a lay representative in the PKÖ. Thus, the PKÖ is a body in which many pastorally relevant experiences, decision-making powers, observations and expertise come together. If you agree on something common here, this can have “decisive” effects.

A term of office lasts five years. While the competent bishop presides, the executive chairperson is elected by the members of the commission. Likewise, a board (seven people from among the members) is elected for the respective period. The PKÖ meets for three commission meetings per year, with a board meeting in between. Current topics and events in church and society are discussed in the board of directors. These discussions form the basis for the deliberations in the PKÖ meetings. The selection of topics and strategic considerations for the entire work of the Commission are the responsibility of the Executive Board. The organization, coordination and implementation of all activities is supported and is the responsibility of the ÖPI (Austrian Pastoral Institute) and its Secretary General.

A fixed point in addition to the meetings of the commission and the board of directors are the annual pastoral conferences, which are open to all interested parties. Every year in the first half of January, between 300 and 350 people come together for three days. The pastoral conference serves for further education and discussion, it offers a forum for getting to know each other and for networking of all kinds, for personal inspiration and for communal (liturgical) celebrations. With the selection of the topic and the speakers as well as with the decision regarding the design and the working methods, the PKÖ sets milestones for the Austrian church every year. In addition to this large conference, the PKÖ repeatedly organizes study days where PKÖ members meet other players in the Austrian church, eg members of spiritual movements or church reform movements. These different activities show that and how the PKÖ strives to help shape the church in Austria as a "permanent synod".

Synodality as a constitutive dimension of the church³⁴⁰

Behind this form of synodality practiced in the PKÖ is a fundamental understanding of the term, which has ecclesiological implications. Synodality understood in this way does not simply exist in addition to the clerical official church or to the actually hierarchical structure of ecclesiastical institutions. If it is simply "thought of" as a principle of order or mode of assembly, then a not unfamiliar picture emerges: synodal assemblies are held, the impulses of which can ultimately be arbitrarily taken up by the decision-makers - or not. However, if one considers synodality not only as a discursive theory, but as a practice of decision-making, its original function as a constitutive dimension of the church as the pilgrim people of God becomes (again) visible. This will be briefly explained below.

Church on the way to a successful life

The church is the space in which believers walk together as part of God's people. ³⁴¹At the same time, the church is the space in which the will of God should be expressed as a decisive criterion for decision-making and action. The church space is therefore not a vacuum, decisions cannot be “made” here, cannot be produced, but only taken in the sense that the options already exist and that one of them must be accepted or taken. ³⁴²In this understanding, a tried and tested form of Christian decision-making sounds: the distinction of the spirits according to Ignatius of Loyola, which is also about recognizing the will of God and aligning the upcoming decision with it - even and especially when the option in question contrary to your own will. However, aligning a decision with the will of God also suggests that synodality can neither be practiced in a church understood as a monarchy nor aimed at a democratically organized community. Accordingly, options for action and the decision about them must be based on which option contributes to a (more) successful life in the spirit of God, which option – in the Ignatian sense – leads to more fruit and more comfort. ³⁴³But if God's will now strives for a successful life, then the path to be taken together is human life as such. While the path to be followed serves the purpose of a successful life, walking claims to be a successful life that is based on the promises of the Old Testament : having land means having space to develop and to be able to shape your life; Having offspring means living in different generations, seeing new life in view and growing; Being a blessing for everyone means that one's own life reaches beyond oneself and one's own group and also enables others to live a successful life.

For those who recognize synodality as a constitutive dimension of the church, as an attitude that opens up space for decision-making, the pure self-preservation of an autonomously functioning institution can neither be a motivation for nor a goal of synodality. Both the initial spark and the direction for synodal action in the sense described above can only ever be the striving for (re)successful human life. Anyone who wants to act synodally must therefore not pursue a goal in the sense of producing top-down decisions, but must first and foremost allow and agree on how life according to God's will can succeed to it participate . With regard to institutionalized pastoral processes, this means that anyone who wants to act synodally must want to come to an understanding with those who are going along about how successful life (in the concrete, existing forms) according to God's will (in its very different ways of expression) can be made possible can. If you want to act synodally, you first have to discover both the goal and the path itself by walking together.

Church as a community of companions

Synodality is therefore not just a concession to the other, both with regard to the leadership level and with regard to the church community, it does not just happen by chance, but is an active activity. Synodality requires an act of will to which everyone who goes have to let in. One could also say that synodality as a constitutive dimension of the church ³⁴⁴means the constant willingness to be a companion on the way, which is directed towards discovering the truth more and more in walking together and thus coming to life. This willingness, as long as it is meant seriously, always leads to a departure, but the path to be followed only emerges while walking. The uncertainty implied in the departure demands openness, serenity and benevolence from the companions:

Openness – towards the path and those who follow

Where a departure is decided from a synodal attitude, this departure entails uncertainty in two directions. So it remains questionable, especially at the beginning, whether you know everyone who is going along – and if so, how well you know them. In addition, anyone who has ever traveled with people outside of their own family knows: no matter how well you think you know a travel company in advance, you almost always discover unknown sides of the fellow travelers. Therefore, for this departure, if it is to be a real synodal departure, a fundamental openness towards the participants is necessary, which does not judge right or wrong, true or untrue and good or bad, but recognizes that truth can exist in different living spaces, communities and groupings may take a different form or even require it. At the same time, it must be clarified from the outset that there can be no predetermined path and no defined goal, since the path is determined by those who go along with it. Synodal action, synodality as walking together cannot be based on the idea of defining one truth, one way of life, one universal rule, or wanting to convince others of one's own position along the way. On the contrary: synodality as a space that generates life-enhancing conditions succeeds when the fellowship can use the potpourri of life stories, positions and experiences creatively to shape the path and find it enriching for the decision-making process.

Serenity - let each other be church

With regard to processes within the church, the following applies to most of us: we often avoid those forms of liturgical, ritual, but also socio-political and socio-cultural practice of faith and life that seem foreign to us. Just that otherness, which actually arouses curiosity and could be enriching for one's own, sometimes has a threatening effect on one's own preferences and attitudes - especially when one's own is constructed by a certain form of demarcation from the outside. Synodality as an attitude, on the other hand, not only tolerates the diversity of the often very different Catholic movements, institutions, organizations, forms of leadership, etc. Those who live synodality as an attitude are curious about what is foreign, show what is their own and learn again and again to let others be part of a very colorful Catholic world. ³⁴⁵Anyone who lives synodality as an attitude needs the basic understanding that everyone can take something away from everyone.

Goodwill – meet at eye level

A medieval traveling party can produce a motley picture: people walking, people riding, people being carried in palanquins or being driven in carriages. At that time, such a traveling community may have gone a common path despite the differences in status, but can you still imagine that today? A group of pilgrims in which some walk, others ride, others cycle and some are even driven from station to station in a company car? It is unlikely that such a group will walk a path together, because only those who are on an equal footing with their companions can walk a path together. Shaping the path together, exchanging information about the course of the path and the weather conditions, sharing provisions and advising one another, and taking one another seriously does not require everyone to always advance together in the group at the same pace, it is crucial but still: everyone has to walk, no one rides, no one is carried on a sedan chair, is on the road on a bicycle, or is driven from station to station in a company car.

practiced synodality

Synodality understood in this way is neither the goal nor the organizing principle of a body, but primarily means the willingness of each individual to want to walk a path together. However, this requires a basic synodal attitude:

Wanting to walk a path together implies that you want to look in the same direction when walking , even if you walk away from each other or in groups. Wanting to walk a path together means that you have to get involved in a vision in the group and set out in its direction. However, the vision does not serve as a predefined goal, but above all it is what keeps the community moving forward. Such a vision, which according to tradition has inspired many generations to move on, is found in the promises of the Exodus, renewed in the gospel by the coming kingdom of God: posterity, land, and blessing for all. A synodal church needs such a target vision, because “without this target vision, synodality degenerates into a technique of power and ends in a revolving bitterness or in the most diverse forms of stoic composure. "³⁴⁶

As becomes clear from the tasks and structures of the PKÖ, the PKÖ, although the danger is always present, does not revolve around itself, but fulfills its purpose of working "downwards and upwards" by enabling its members to participate on the one hand and on the other hand conveys advice to external clients or in the direction of decision-makers. The tasks and roles of the PKÖ as well as its synodal orientation can be summarized in one picture:

The church in Austria is on the move as a pilgrim people of God. Just as the group on a large pilgrimage is made up of music, devotional, altar boy, youth, riflemen and other groups, the Austrian pilgrim people of God is not a uniform mass, but is made up of subgroups and small groups that have different roles and competencies and express their belonging to the community in very different ways. The groups set out together as a community and, driven by the promise of a successful life for everyone, are on the road together with their shepherds, the decision-makers. The task of the PKÖ, as a merger of the delegates from the many sub-groups, is now regularly on the road, but above all to "convene" a break at forks in the road, in which the delegates come together and exchange information about the "signs of the times", i.e. about what they learned and left on the way and right of the wayside where there is injury or irritation or difficulty, who needs assistance walking or a longer break. In addition, there can be an exchange as to whether pioneers from subgroups have already explored any of the paths, whether there are reservations or fears about the fork in the road. At the same time, these breaks also serve to celebrate together, which can relieve the delegates and network with each other, so that they can return to the subgroups strengthened, with new input and with the memory of the target vision. The steering committee of the PKÖ keeps an eye on whether someone has been forgotten or has not turned up, bundles and sorts the impressions and ideas and gives the experiences and assessments regarding the path covered and the path still to be taken to the appropriate decision-makers - for example the bishops' conference - further.

Although this sketch naturally represents an ideal image, the implementation of which depends on many different factors - and above all on the people involved and their commitment - it coincides with a lot of experience gained in the PKÖ. However, the picture should not hide the fact that walking together is also work and requires a significant amount of active involvement from the members and leaders of the PKÖ: they have to expose themselves, deal with them and commit themselves.

If synodality as an attitude means a willingness on the part of those involved to develop into concrete fields of action and to get involved in the new beginnings, the path and the community, then the members of the PKÖ must be willing to actively participate - because those who want to act synodally cannot remain silent Be a member or guest student. Since all members should enrich and help shape the process through their own experiences and positions, everyone is called upon to repeatedly expose their own life and faith practice or that of the respective group to the others , for example by formulating and introducing their own topics. At the same time, all those involved are called upon to endure “other things” within the committee – i.e. other forms of expression of Christian faith and life – and to deal with them . Last but not least, it is also important to stand up for the common path taken externally , to represent the concerns of the committee externally and to promote their implementation in your own group.

Practicing synodality as an attitude in a body poses a special challenge for those who are responsible for accompanying the path and leading the body. For the board management, it cannot primarily be a matter of bringing in something of your own. Rather, an essential task is to deal with what has been brought in by taking up topics, linking different threads together, returning impulses to the different groups and thus encouraging the members to walk together. Such a management model implies that management roles should not be understood as a strong position of power, but rather as a service in the sense of process support and motivation. Responsible leadership of a community means seeing and getting involved less as a city or mountain guide and more as a scout, map reader and companion. If a community is led by a city or mountain guide - i.e. by a person who has walked the path before and reached the goal before, or who at least thinks they already know the right way - that's the way it is hardly possible to openly let the path and the already uncertain destination emerge from the accompaniment while walking. The same applies: If you follow your own, predefined goal while walking, it is easy for you to influence the walkers towards this goal and thus try to harmonize them in a certain direction. In this respect, a synodal body like the PKÖ needs leaders who keep an eye on the path and those who are going, without pursuing their own goal in terms of content. Synodal leadership is therefore trying to open up spaces inside, in the PKÖ, in which those who are walking can let their gaze wander: Which people, communities, groups are going with them and who are the people walking with them? How are we related to each other? What luggage do the individuals carry, how are they traveling, where do they come from and why are they joining the community, or are they just there by chance? What could be the next intermediate goal and how can we continue along this path together? At the same time, it is up to the board management to advocate for the inclusion of the options developed and the concerns of their members in the respective processes vis-à-vis the decision-makers – who ideally are at least not involved in a managerial function in the process .³⁴⁷

The images that are associated with synodality here may conceal an important principle for actually existing synodal bodies, which has already been mentioned above: Since decisions in the church area can never be pure majority decisions, a synodal body itself cannot be equipped with direct decision-making powers be. A synodal body like the PKÖ can – as long as it is taken seriously in its constitution and with its tasks – be the space in which those involved and those affected are permanently networked and in which current topics are taken up and worked on. On the one hand, this encourages the members to participate and, on the other hand, such a body then has the task of uncovering points at which decisions are necessary in the first place and to think through their possible options or to bring them into conversation with concrete realities of life. Understood in this way, the PKÖ can be viewed as a body in which participation in decision-making processes is made possible, although at first glance the competence of the body is limited to advice. Perhaps giving advice is even a particularly important function, since the church decision-makers are ultimately dependent on options for a decision to be made being uncovered and thought through or backed up with content - and where would there be more room for the experiences and assessments of those involved and affected than in such a networked and networking body?

Practiced synodality – an unrealistic ideal?

The work of the PKÖ shows that synodality understood as an attitude is not an unrealistic ideal and not a fixed idea, but that it is already being practiced in parts of the Austrian Church. The annual pastoral conference in particular is an important resource for most of the participants and for the Austrian Church as a whole. In addition to the joint development of content-related topics, it enables exchange and networking between those who are involved in decision-making processes and those who are affected by decisions , through all levels. In addition, it clearly shows that life in a church inspired by the gospel as a community of believers can also make a difference in terms of working and meeting together: people not only work together, but also eat, celebrate and live together. Pastoral conferences are not held, but celebrated. If the right spirit blows, then one can experience what the modern mystic Madeleine Delbrel tells of in her text "Liturgy of the Outsiders":

" And because your eyes wake up in ours,
because your heart opens in our heart,
we feel
our feeble love blossoming,
expanding like a rose,
tender and limitless,
for all these people who are here around us. "³⁴⁸

My experiences of the last five years as executive chairwoman of the PKÖ have led me to the assessment that synodality as a constitutive dimension can be an inclusive – i.e. not excluding, but open, inclusive – and future-oriented way of thinking about the church. However, synodality, especially with regard to participation and empowerment, only unfolds its power when it is not only practiced in the context of individual assemblies or in a time-limited framework, but when it becomes a permanent attitude accepted by all participants and the church thus opens up all levels are thought of as synodal. Of course, a synodal body like the PKÖ is always faced with challenges such as a lack of visibility or the question of a lack of influence on church-political decisions. In addition, further questions arise, especially with a view to the currently ongoing synodal processes in other parts of the universal church: Can what works on a small scale have an effect? How are synodal committees composed, according to which criteria are members and leaders selected? Can synodality be initiated from above or only enforced "revolutionarily" from below? Above all, however, the question arises as to what effect synodality can have if it is only practiced in an all-Austrian body? And: doesn't that contradict their postulated claim as a constitutive dimension of the church?

Such questions are justified, but primarily relate to organizational-theoretical concerns directed at the interior of the church and bear witness to the fear of change and loss, which covers up the actual promise of walking together: the promise of a successful life for everyone. For those who are already on the road as a community, this promise can mean, in view of the above statements, being able to be Catholic in all freedom. However, it is all too easy to forget that this promise, which resonates in the promises of the Exodus and in the Gospel, is not only called into the interior of the Church. Unless it is only ³⁴⁹reproduced (or provoked) in the context of a laboratory situation, this promise must not only apply to those who are already there, but it can and must apply to all people of good will ³⁵⁰. In view of the fact that the voice of the gospel is increasingly being drowned out by the noisy inner and outer sounds of our time, I believe that a synodal awakening is also urgently needed in the Austrian Church. When we, as a pilgrim people of God, are concerned with the question “what [...] we [have] to say to women and men in Europe today – with all the suffering, with so much 'I' and so little ' We'" ³⁵¹, then everyone for whom the gospel is important is called upon to really set out together.

Should the Austrian church decide to break out again, it could take advantage of the experience of the PKÖ. For example, it can be stated that synodality does not work without the participants seeing themselves as actively involved and thinking and doing accordingly. In addition, the long-term synodality in the PKÖ has the advantage that all participants will find a reliably contactable mediation, advisory and networking committee here, which is planned at regular intervals, but also at short notice and offers space to pause, get together and let one's gaze wander can. With regard to the management level, it has proven helpful in recent years if the decision-makers are involved, but they are not the initiators and also not the leaders in a synodal body - in the sense of a separation of powers. For example, in the Synodal Path of the German Catholic Church, it can be observed that the established decision-makers in particular sometimes have difficulties in prioritizing walking together and ignoring their own content-related goals. Finally, both the framework conditions and the common vision of goals, from which and towards which the path can emerge in walking together, must be developed and clearly communicated at the beginning. Because only if no false hopes are aroused, but all those involved nevertheless commit to walking together (and also to the results of possible consultation and decision-making processes), can all those taking part develop the necessary self-confidence and competence awareness that is needed to actively contribute. Both the framework conditions for such a departure and the target vision must not only be viewed as a concession or as the lowest common denominator, on the contrary: perhaps it is worth thinking big here in particular: the more open, the better, because the ultimate goal is uncertain anyway and no more than the vision of the promises. Precisely because the people of God is larger than the Church, a new awakening should not only serve self-reflection, but would have to be turned outwards and also be experienced there.

Perhaps some readers will now reply that we are already on the way together, that the people of God are pilgrims, and that in some Austrian dioceses there have already been awakenings. This objection is not wrong, but the understanding of synodality developed above implies that the process of walking together is essentially unfinished. Therefore, one singular event is not enough. In addition, true common walking in all openness and at eye level remains difficult (or impossible?), as long as the Church in Austria is not thought of as synodal in the above sense at all levels. We are on the road as a church in Austria, but are we really all going together? Do we also look at those who are not there as a matter of course? Does the life of our Christian community extend beyond ourselves? Do we still remember the target vision together, the promise that we trust and that we are allowed to carry to the outside world? Haven't we ticked off the last synodal process with satisfaction and, after returning to our communities, small groups and churches, settled down where we had arrived? Aren't we used to thinking small and being satisfied with the lowest common denominator?

Certainly, a new synodal departure would be a risk, because we don't have a map on which the path and the goal are marked. We would have to rely on the fact that the path is created by walking together and that God can be found along the way. But the risk of synodality holds the option of a (more) successful life – both for those for whom walking is becoming increasingly difficult because they are up to their knees in the system, and for those who have turned away or have not yet experienced it allowed what it means to walk a path together . So what's stopping us from thinking big and setting out?

opening in ecumenism

Marie-Christine Hazaël-Massieux: The path to unity in diversity

Marie-Christine Hazaël-Massieux, born 1947, Emeritus Professor (Linguistics and Linguistics), University of Aix-Marseille; Teaching activity in the fields of patristics, church history and ecumenism, in particular at the Institute for Science and Theology of Religions in Marseille.

Summary: It is important not to confuse the ecumenical purpose with its goal: Christian unity. When, in certain places, Christians set out in a prophetic way to truly live unity, a symphonic unity that can only be received by grace, what are the consequences for synodality, but above all for life from of baptism and the spiritual life (life in the Spirit) of the Christians concerned? Should we continue to indulge in an attitude of separation that is undoubtedly more convenient and less intrusive, leading to us separating at meals? If we accept Christ's invitation, isn't the Eucharistic table the place of communion, the place that produces the unity willed by God: "that they may be one"?

Living ecumenism is certainly important, but for many this is limited to joint services during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity or even to the organization of conferences where one listens to a Catholic, a Protestant, or an Orthodox. Studying the Bible together is of particular importance. But often ecumenism seems to stop halfway, and this path is blocked by prohibitions that must not be transgressed, whatever they may be. They concern, for example, the question of offices, the problem of the sacraments, and prevent a real "communion" by rejecting the confession of the other - because it allegedly deviates from the true faith and everyone claims it for themselves.

The way to unity in diversity

Only recently did Pope Francis give synodality a new impetus by describing it as a communion of clergy and laity and at the same time as a path to the unity of the Church. The Pope wants to move forward in the connection of these two goals, which are often pursued separately, and describes ecumenism as an important path. The Vademecum of December 4, 2020 on “The Bishop and Christian Unity” states: “The effort to build a synodal Church - a mission to which we are all called, each according to the role assigned to him by the Lord entrusted - has important ecumenical implications, for both synodality and ecumenism denote the process of a common journey". ³⁵²This text assigns the bishop, who is at the center of synodal efforts, an important role also for ecumenism. "As shepherd of his flock, the bishop has a special responsibility to bring everyone together in unity". The bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches ” (LG 23:1). Service to unity is not just one of the many tasks of the bishop, it is fundamental for all of them.

The question arises whether ecumenism, instead of being the result of synodality, could become the way to it.

Although it is very important to promote synodality by emphasizing the central role of the whole people of God ³⁵³, the question remains whether this is a true path to unity or perhaps rather an attempt to forget God and to remain within the structures of the Church! A life of unity is given by the grace of God, who takes hold of us through faith. This must not be confused with a reorganization of the church as an institution, even if this is indispensable for finding fellowship with God. The role of clergy and laity concerns the governance and structure of the Church, but it is most important on a spiritual level, in that all are made "priests, prophets and kings" through baptism. The distribution of charisms complements and brings everyone together to bring to others what God gives them. This raises the question of whether synodality and ecumenism are really the way to Christian unity. Sometimes it seems that above all they make the differences and differences concrete.

It is therefore a matter of reflecting on the place that synodality should take in our churches. Beyond establishing a synodality of priests and lay people, it should make possible an ecumenical synodality of Christians of different origins to meet regularly for common reading of the Bible and its commentaries, for prayer left to the unpredictable influence of the Holy Spirit, for one another conversion and the discovery of the riches of others. This could then also open up a community in which the Holy Spirit reveals himself and opens us to the sign/sacrament of communion. Shall we continue to maintain the attitude of separateness and disunity that is comfortable and undemanding, and remain separate at the feast?

Sometimes the experience of communion is so important that it transcends the ecclesiastical institutions, which have become accustomed to delineating, and perhaps even reinforcing, boundaries between the Christian paths. Certainly there are models for such community celebrations, but they are not officially and officially recognized. That is why they always have a limited and temporary effect and depend on the will of the respective participants. Wouldn't it be time to propose an "ecumenical synodality" (going together) among Christians, animated by the same desire to concretize their unity through meetings that (on an equal footing) include Catholics, Lutherans and all bring together interested Christians in different regions?

Such ecumenical-synodal encounters (which should have some degree of official recognition) should always begin with a scripture reading and an exchange of experiences on the selected texts. They should be characterized by attentive listening and exchange. A time of prayer (in the style of lectio divina, prayerful reading of the Bible), attention to the “other” and genuine personal conversion should follow. This prayer time would prepare for listening and sharing. After beginning to get to know each other in small "synodal meetings" in Bible reading and prayer, a time of encounter should follow in which, in an ecumenical search, the meaning and value of synodality here and now will be deepened, drawing on the listens to others without trying to cherish old disputes and breakups.

Such small synodal encounters require participants who have a good knowledge of the Bible and secure theological skills, who as far as possible avoid any a priori and prejudices towards the assembled brothers and sisters, and who, above all, bring with them a great willingness To live unity now and to strengthen it more and more. Regular meetings would automatically shape the rhythm and the way of working. It goes without saying that "lay people" and "clerics" should be present: they are all baptized, ready for such a commitment and aware of the urgency of such deepening. In order to avoid meetings that are too large and difficult to organize, such groups could be formed in different countries, geographical regions, with different representatives. They are all "open" to inspiration (a word in which we hear "spiritus" referring to breath and breath cf. Spiritus Sanctus), and thus to conversion and to love of neighbour.

It is time today to begin this practice of lived unity, in the diversity of who we are, shaped by the diversity of the churches to which we belong. In view of the rigidities and the prohibitions that each of them has set up and which we know only too well, true communion here and there is only possible if we are prepared, in our own Christian responsibility, to overcome the obstacles that have been declared insurmountable . We find each other as brothers and sisters and are happy about it! This is happening within a communion that makes communion, once the obvious symbol of our separation, what it always should have been: the place of our deepest and definitive encounter. We're finally together because we share the same bread and wine , not because we've solved all the problems that supposedly prevented us from sharing them . finally are we ready to open the "table" to all our baptized brothers. Are these signs (our baptism, communion in communion, asking forgiveness together in the face of our divisions and God's forgiveness reuniting us) something different for us today than an expression of the deepest love of Christ, who gave his life so that we have it in abundance , finally being one with our brethren as the Son and Spirit are one with the Father.

We have to acknowledge that at the moment some of those responsible do not want to or cannot support such a unity within the framework of our Sunday services, but we should not give up living it anyway and accept our differences with confidence and joy. As the Lord God walked in the evening breeze and gazed with joy at the variety of trees and plants in His Garden of Eden, we discover the joy of being different. We give each other the many gifts that the Lord has given to his Church, we listen to the blowing of the Spirit, which blows where it wills. To live this unity now - and not to postpone it until later, when even the most reluctant theologians have admitted that it is possible - is simply to love one's brother or sister as oneself, with him or her this multiple to share gifts received from God, for all that we think we possess comes from Him. These gifts of others, in contrast to our own, allow us to discover a little more each day of the infinite love with which Christ loved us. Because the small differences in our statements of faith and our rites allow us to better grasp the enrichment of our faith through the other. The small "synods" mentioned above would greatly facilitate regular worship meetings so that the frontiers erected by human hands and hearts can be opened.

Shouldn't we pay attention to what the Jerusalem congregation, sometimes referred to as the "Council of the Apostles," is teaching us? Would the results met and preserved in the nascent Church have come about if, in addition to a willingness to meet and listen to the other, there had not been beforehand what we must revive and allow within ourselves, to work in the one church? Today we who profess to be followers of Christ already have much in common:

a Trinitarian belief, despite sometimes differing formulations;

a communion in the Word of God and its proclamation, with its preaching, each listening to and appreciating the other;

a true openness to the unexpected of the spirit that always surpasses us;

and consequently at the heart of the Christian life for all men what mission means . This is not understood as 'the conversion of the Gentiles', but rather as our own conversion through true encounter with the other, both inside and outside the Church - if these terms still have meaning, where institutional boundaries are no longer at issue. In this way it is revealed to us that each of our brothers and sisters is indeed the "face of Christ" to us and that it is Christ whom we welcome when we welcome our brother or sister.

A "return" to the situation "before the separations" is completely utopian, because the world is no longer the same and our churches have evolved in this world or in these worlds. If we observe the criteria of an ecclesiology of communion in which a basic consensus of faith can support legitimate differences, it is appropriate to love this difference, that is, to live in reconciled difference and to "love one another", with that love, with who the Lord loved us by loving the very things that make us different. It is the first gift for all of God's creation: "God created every animal of the water, of the air, and of the earth according to their kind" (Gen 1:20-21), also the plants, the flowers, the trees in their diversity. Then it was the turn of man, whose descendants were as numerous as the stars in the sky, but again in immeasurable variety, yet always, to the delight of God and our delight, considered in boundless love. Hence the different cultures, the different ways of life, the different tastes that prevail here and there. The beauty of men and women lies in their difference, which allows us to glimpse the wholeness of what God is, expressed in the diversity of gifts that our brothers and sisters, so different from us, constantly bring to us . This experience allows us to love more because it is a revelation of fullness, precisely because of being different, of difference. They give meaning to every difference and allow us to embrace our differences too!

The Ecumenism Decree of Vatican II prophetically calls all Christians to conversion of heart (an idea that is a central theme of Dombes' group):

“There is no genuine ecumenism without inner conversion. For out of the renewal of the spirit, out of self-denial and out of the free flow of love, the desire for unity grows and matures. Therefore we must implore of the divine Spirit the grace of sincere self-denial, of humility and patient service, and of brotherly kindness to one another... All believers in Christ should know that the more they seek, the better they promote, even practice, Christian unity strive for pure living according to the gospel. The more intimate the communion that unites them with the Father, the Word and the Spirit, the more intimately and easily they will be able to deepen mutual brotherhood.” (UR 7)

Since 1965 there have been advances in the Catholic Church, but there have also been many setbacks ³⁵⁴. Above all, however, we must recognize that "we cannot pray properly" and that we do not know enough how far prayer carries the Spirit within us - which always already implies our conversion - and that we do not consider the rites as "signs" ("Sacraments") of our unity.

Isn't that exactly the center of Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis' 2020 encyclical, where the Pope says of the Good Samaritan:

“It is love that breaks the chains that isolate and divide us by building bridges; love that makes it possible for us to form a large family in which we all feel at home [...]; Love that tastes of compassion and dignity.” (No. 62)

It is the gift of this perfect "fraternity" given to us with this mutual love that leads ecumenism to its goal: reconciliation in full communion. May the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper cease to be the "sacrament" of division, the stumbling block, and once again become the sign and means of our mutual love.

This unity, which is always realized in diversity, and the outlines and goals of which are to be specified here, presupposes that one does not confuse “diversity” with “opposite”: by being different and not opposing one another, we are all one for the other Opportunity to gift each other, we become gifts to each other. It is a unity in which conflicts have disappeared, a unity in many facets, a "symphonic" unity whose splendor can only be emphasized.

This diversity is evident in different areas. In particular, the following should be highlighted:

Scripture

The reading of the Scriptures and their different interpretations that characterize every biblical reading. One cannot and must not restrict the different interpretations that are evoked by the different references. Mentioning everything that rings out in a sentence, a verse, a word is a richness that comes precisely from our differences, a "gift" given when one realizes that "listening" and "discovering ' represent a path offered to us by the 'other'.

liturgy

In every liturgy the Holy Spirit is at work. It is a gift to all, coming from God and leading to God, if it is not a contest of rules, a contest for "headings" and putting them first. Here, too, it is a question of listening, namely to the Holy Spirit. This becomes possible if one does not deny that new forms of worship that we are discovering through the brothers and sisters that we have hitherto ignored are, precisely for us, an essential opportunity to improve the relationship of every person and every prayer community with God to see. It's about seeing God with new eyes and a new heart, rather than being locked in your ways. It is precisely the small changes compared to our all too routine practice that create joy about a new relationship, the intensity of which we were not aware of.

sacraments

In this way, the chapter of the “signs” (sacraments) can be opened in our lives, whereby we will by no means ignore the sacrament of forgiveness. Who would be so vain as to believe that it is he who grants forgiveness, even if the formula of absolution mostly suggests this to those who still receive this sacrament. The priest says, "I forgive you all your sins," and makes the sign of the cross. Surely he continues "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". But one is used to this formula, so that many penitents ascribe forgiveness to the "I" of the priest - especially since he can also refuse absolution.

The significant changes in the practice of the sacrament of penance over the centuries of church history are well known. Its forms have evolved considerably from the great penitential celebration, through auricular confession and individual absolution, taking on very different forms, including daily penance, exemplified by the monasteries (cf. the daily Liturgy of the Hours of Compline). The time allotted in Sunday evangelical worship for confession of sins and asking for forgiveness and giving thanks for God's mercy can be a great discovery for the Catholic who finds some aspects of the confessional ritual rather embarrassing. If today many people renounce the "sacrament of penance and reconciliation", it should be noted that thanksgiving to God for his mercy comes second. Given the harshness of some practices, which vary according to place and time, the sinner does not always succeed in grasping the meaning of this celebration, which is above all a sign of God's infinite love. Practices are frozen or they are declared to be obligatory, while precisely in such a field that is “uncertain” for everyone, the always surprising but not necessarily “sensitive” reception of the spirit of light and peace can only be a free gift, i.e. grace, and the modalities of its reception are ultimately very secondary. On the other hand, the modalities of reception are very secondary compared to the trust that can be found in the infinite love and mercy of God.

communion

As for the sacrament of "Communion," so often used as a pretext to perpetuate our divisions, is it not precisely our rejection of "others" that makes it the locus and manifest sign of our separation? Who among the ministers specially charged with its administration and the proclamation of its meaning would be so naïve as to believe that they would personally play a significant and effective role in the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the bread and wine? Conversely, without any fellowship, can the minister's presence alone be enough to "transform" the bread and wine, even if he speaks the right words? Isn't this position of faith responsible for the fact that the central meaning of communion in "communion" is easily lost? It was during a meal at which he was gathered with his disciples that, on the eve of his passion, Jesus Christ performed the signs he commanded us to repeat "in memory of him." When the disciples met him on the way to Emmaus, it was again at a meal, when there were at least two of them, that they could recognize Christ and he commanded them to return immediately to Jerusalem to bear witness to the community. Does not confidence in some kind of magical power of the host consecrated elsewhere and elsewhere by the priest often lead to a loss of the true meaning of this sign given by Jesus, which would allow us to "distinguish the body"?

Anointing of the Sick

The anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, which also serve to denote the various manifestations of God among the assembled believers, always presuppose the presence of a prayer community - be it at baptism, at confirmation, at the "ordination" to the offices , at the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick: that sacrament which the Catholic Church is increasingly encouraging to receive in the midst of the assembled community. If the sick person is not transportable and is near death and cannot attend a church, a community of a few relatives, a few "brothers and sisters" can still gather around him, who have come together to convey the meaning of their presence testify.

It's the spirit

It is the Spirit invoked upon the gifts (bread, wine, oil, etc.) - those gifts which have been prepared by the assembled Christian community with more or less love (for we are weak towards God); who assures us that God is present, as Christ said according to Matthew: "I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Mt 28:20). Even our lack of love is forgiven when habit leads us to perform the prescribed gestures more out of concern for the rubrics than out of love. It is an offense against them when we exclude anyone who comes to Communion and humbly asks to be with us. That is what we are doing when we claim that access to the meal is reserved for those we consider "conforming" and, for example, in a Catholic church , deny it to those Protestants who honestly profess to be so. How many bishops tirelessly repeat that we are not ready today, that we must wait... Waiting for what? The hour of reconciliation of our divided churches is being delayed by men for theological or disciplinary reasons we have erected throughout history, while the love of God, ignoring these obstacles we erect and removing them in His breath of wind... Sure, like Eli, you can't see the slight breeze, but God is there, even if he's only showing himself from behind.

The point here is not so much to create a "model" for lived unity, but rather to use prophetic symbolic acts. Even if this unity is still lived in small groups and discreetly, the joy about it is no less great! God always calls us to meet him with discretion: not to show him off, not to make a demonstration of our faith lived in the stillness of an intimate encounter. We know so little and so limited who God is in himself! We only know a little bit about what He has done for us! How presumptuous it would be to want to "convert" our brother to our God! When we accompany a loved one for a moment, it is about inviting them to find life again, to be themselves, as Jesus did with the leper in Mark 1:40-45. However, contrary to Jesus' request for discretion, he made his healing known everywhere, so that Jesus could no longer enter the city openly. No problem! If need be, Jesus retreats to lonely places! We follow him there together and receive the sign of his love in abundance.

Bernd Oberdorfer: Participation and increasing acceptance: Synodality in Lutheranism

Bernd Oberdorfer, born in 1961, Professor of Protestant Theology with a focus on systematic theology and contemporary theological issues at the University of Augsburg.

The article outlines the emergence of synodal forms of church government in German Lutheranism and, using the example of the Bavarian state church, describes how the church-governing organs (above all state synod and state bishop) “in a collaborative community and mutual responsibility” _together_ represent the unity and identity of the church. The equal participation of ordained and non-ordained members (which is also reflected in the local congregations) is based on the Reformation doctrine of the “general priesthood of all the baptized” and aims for the most comprehensive possible participation. A digression takes a look at approaches to global leadership responsibility in the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).

In the discussions about the "synodal path" of the Roman Catholic Church, synodality, more precisely: that form of synodality that is not limited to bishops' assemblies, but includes the equal participation of the non-ordained, was widely perceived as something originally Protestant. ³⁵⁵In view of this, it is perhaps surprising that this form of synodality, unlike in the Reformed tradition, which was presbyterian-synodal from the beginning, is found in the German Lutheran state churches - of which I will use the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria (ELKB) as an example below – has not been practiced historically for very long. Its introduction owes much to developments in the 20th century, after initial approaches in the 19th century. Like the office of the regional bishop (called “church president” in Bavaria until 1933 ), the institution of the “state synod” essentially only came into being after the First World War, when the “national church government” ended after the end of the monarchy and the task arose to structurally shape the self-regulation and self-organization of the church.

But of course it is no coincidence that one did not only think of episcopal leadership functions linked to ordination, but at the same time instances were created that ensured the co-determination of non-ordained church members. Rather, this corresponded to the in fact "primitive" Reformation insight that the "universal priesthood of all baptized" excluded an exclusive leadership claim of ordained ministers. The Bavarian state church therefore developed a network of leadership structures in which ordained and non-ordained work together in a balanced way. In the first part of this article, I want to outline this network and particularly outline the function of the state synod. ³⁵⁶A second section discusses approaches to global leadership responsibility in the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). At the end, more general reflections on the effects of synodal church leadership follow.

Community based on the division of labor, mutual responsibility: the state synod in the network of church-governing bodies

The church constitution of the ELKB from 1999 ³⁵⁷, which goes back to the fundamental new version of 1971, names four “organs governing the church” (Art. 41): state synod, state synodal committee (as the executive body between the six-monthly meetings of the state synod), state bishop or State Bishop and State Church Council (in that order).

Interestingly, with the exception of the provincial bishop, who must be ordained to the ministry (cf. Art. 60 [1]), all church-governing bodies are mixed committees made up of ordained and non-ordained . This also applies to the regional church council, which, in addition to the regional bishop, the regional bishops and the senior church councils in charge of the regional church office, who are pastors, also includes non-theological senior church councils (usually lawyers). While the ordained form the majority in the state church council, the church constitution expressly stipulates a majority for the non-ordained for the state synod and state synodal committee (cf. Art. 44).

It is true that in the reality of the synod there is by no means a closed block of ordained opposed to a closed block of non-ordained. But the mere possibility that, purely arithmetically, the ordained could even be outvoted on constitution-amending questions marks the weight that is ecclesiologically ascribed to the non-ordained. Here, of course, the networking with the other church-governing organs prescribed by the constitution has a balancing effect. What is clear, however, is that church leadership is not an exclusive specific feature of ordained ministry.

Now the church constitution does not impose indiscriminate all-competence on each of the four instances; neither does it form a hierarchy between them. Rather, it speaks of all four instances leading the church “in a community based on the division of labor and mutual responsibility” (Art. 41 [1]). All church-governing organs are jointly "responsible for ensuring that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria fulfills its task in teaching and life, proclamation and pastoral care, order and administration and preserves its unity and freedom" (Art. 41 [2]). "Division of labour" means that the individual bodies assume overall responsibility in different ways, that they perceive different facets of overall responsibility in such a way that although they each act in an unreasonable manner, they refer to one another and are dependent on one another. This means that none of the four organs can claim to exclusively represent the identity and unity of the church through its actions . They can only do this together, in "mutual responsibility," as the church constitution says.

This regulation is intended to prevent going it alone, and the aim is to seek the broadest and most comprehensive consensus possible. Theologically guiding is the idea of the magnus consensus from Confessio Augustana, Art. 1, the unanimous agreement based on conviction - an agreement that is not strictly quantifiable, but nevertheless excludes both authoritarian solo efforts and narrow battle votes.

What tasks are now assigned to the state synod? In general, the following applies: the synod is “called upon to jointly form the will of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria” (Art. 42 [1]). It is so because it "embodies the unity and diversity of communities, institutions, and ministries" (ibid.). So it is a representative body.

That is why people like to speak of the “church parliament”. Experts don't like to hear that. This reluctance is not entirely obvious, however. For there is no doubt that the emergence of synodalism is historically closely connected with political constitutionalism and parliamentarism in the 19th century and owes its persuasive power to a considerable extent to this connection.³⁵⁸

However, it is correct that the state synod does not function like a political parliament in every respect:

Thus, the distinction between the legislative, executive and judiciary (separation of powers) cannot be readily applied to church conditions.

The distinction between the government faction and the opposition also does not reflect the synodal reality: the regional bishop is not the 'head of government', and the regional church council is not the 'government'.

In general, the idea of competing “parties” fighting for power by asserting particular interests should be avoided. Should a fundamental distrust of the structures of parliamentary decision-making processes be articulated in this, this would require critical reflection. But that is not necessarily the case. The need to preserve the specific character of church self-government in relation to the corresponding political mechanisms is more likely to be the guiding principle.

After all, the state synod is not elected directly by the “church people”, but by the church councils of the local congregations.³⁵⁹

Incidentally, the last-named is an indication that the structured cooperation of the church-governing organs reflects the structural conditions in the church communities in a certain respect. Because according to the Church Constitution (Art. 21 [1]) “every church congregation (…) has a church council (…); in it, pastors and church leaders work together in the leadership of the church community.” This consists of the “pastor(s) appointed to serve in the church community” and the church leaders “elected and appointed by the community members and church leaders” (Art. 22 [1]); he elects "a shop steward" from among his number (Art. 22 [3]). The presidency of the church council is usually “the person commissioned with the parish management” (Art. 23 [1]). Recently, however, the church council can introduce a different regulation “with the majority of its members entitled to vote” and look after another, non-ordained member with the presidency. Even at the elementary level of the local congregation, church leadership thus takes place in a “community based on the division of labour” and “mutual responsibility”.

Back to the state synod: Despite the reservations against equating it with political parliaments, the church constitution names the first tasks of the state synod as strikingly analogous to parliaments

“ the right of ecclesiastical legislation” and

the election of the regional bishop (Art. 43 [2]).

The Synod (cf. ibid.)

also "decides" the "order of church life", a quasi-normative self-description of the church,

"decides on the introduction and amendment of the agenda, hymnal and catechism text" and

has the right to decide on the establishment of permanent posts and generally on the budget of the regional church.

What seems to be missing is responsibility for church teaching. However, this is in fact contained in the overall provision: "The state synod can negotiate all church matters and decide on tasks that result from the mission of the church for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria." (Art. 43 [1]) In any case, the right to legislate cannot be thought of without theological implications, because the church conditions are supposed to be ordered in accordance with the gospel and confession. And the right and duty to examine this gospel and confessional conformity cannot be attributed exclusively to the ordained office (and certainly not exclusively to the regional bishop).

Decisions that affect church teaching must therefore also be taken jointly, in the orderly interaction of the organs governing the church. Fundamental decisions such as the introduction of the ordination of women (1975) ³⁶⁰and the approval of the regional church before the signing of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (1998) ³⁶¹therefore required the formal approval of all church-governing bodies.

Digression: Worldwide synodality? Leadership responsibility in and through the Lutheran World Federation

Especially in comparison with the Roman Catholic Church, which sees itself as a universal church and also reflects this in its leadership structures, the question arises as to whether ³⁶²forms of global coordination including leadership competences are also developing in Lutheranism beyond the regional churches and possibly their national associations have developed. This aspect should be touched upon here at least in an excursus.

A universal church consciousness and the need for its institutional articulation have essentially only emerged in Lutheranism since the 20th century. In the course of the missions accompanying colonialism (above all in Africa, selectively also in Asia) or through migration (above all in North and South America), Lutheran congregations had already come into being in a widespread manner; for a long time, however, they were widely perceived only as filiations of the European mother churches. However , their increasing independence, which allowed them to become “partner churches”, made the establishment of forms of cultivating solidarity a design task. The reason for founding the “Lutheran World Federation” (LWF) in 1947 was initially the coordination of 'fraternal' reconstruction aid for the churches particularly affected by the destruction of the World War; From this grew the “World Service” department, whose development work projects make up 90% of the LWF's budget today. However, the shared responsibility for the world was based on a Lutheran sense of community and promoted it at the same time. Increasingly, the LWF found itself moving from a “federation” to a “fellowship” of churches. The 1990 General Assembly in Curitiba carried out a corresponding addition to the name: "The Lutheran World Federation - A Communion of Churches".

This has internal and external consequences. Internally, the task of mutual “accountability” arises from the fundamentally declared full mutual church fellowship of the member churches, especially ³⁶³in the case of different positions in teaching and practice. While the individual member churches are not formally dependent on the global approval of the LWF for their decisions, they cannot simply turn a blind eye to the discourse in and with the other member churches if they want to live up to the commitment to full communion that they have made . The controversies about homosexuality and the ordination of women show that considerable tensions can arise from this .³⁶⁴

Externally, the LWF can act as a global interlocutor in interdenominational dialogues, representing the communion of its member churches. A classic example of this is the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (CEFR) drafted between the LWF and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Church Unity and formally signed by their respective Presidents in a joint act in 1999.

Of course, the example of the GER also shows the limits of comparability between the instances of the LWF and the leadership structures in the national churches. Certainly, the “General Assemblies” of the LWF (which take place every six to seven years) and the “Council” – elected by them – have synodal structures in their composition, in that they are mixed bodies with (equal) ordained and non-ordained members, reflecting the diversity of the member churches represent. The President – elected by the Assembly – must be ordained and is usually a bishop of a member church. The general secretary, who is not mandatory but regularly ordained, heads the “Office of the Church Communion” in Geneva, but is not a member of the Council. These instances act – in the words of the Bavarian church constitution – “in a collaborative community and mutual responsibility”. But they don't form anything like a 'world church leadership'. Their decisions are binding only insofar as they affect the LWF as an organization itself. They have no binding authority over member churches. The GER could therefore only be signed after an overwhelming majority of the member churches had given their final and binding formal approval by decision of their respective church-governing bodies in a highly laborious reception process. ³⁶⁵In other words, the LWF provided the draft resolution that was submitted to the member churches for adoption. The authority of the LWF does not consist in a formal right of intervention, but rests solely on the persuasiveness of the arguments put forward and on the binding effect of the overarching sense of communion. There are no plans to increase the LWF's formal leadership authority over its member churches, and this would probably also meet with their determined opposition. In any case, a worldwide church leadership would have to follow the structures of shared responsibility in every conceivable form, which I have outlined using the example of the Bavarian regional church.

Participation and increased acceptance: Effects of synodal church leadership

What can be learned from this example of the decision-making processes of synodal church leadership in Lutheranism? In comparison to the current "synodal path" of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, it should of course be noted that the state synod is not an unusual, deliberately temporary discussion forum, but is firmly integrated into the legally defined structures as a regular form of church leadership. But the empirical values from the synodal work could then provide information for further developments in other churches beyond the denominational individual case.

First of all, it is noticeable that the decision-making processes in the state synod aim for the most comprehensive consensus possible. The fear that decisions on questions relevant to teaching would be exposed to contingent majorities, interest-driven lobbying and votes due to the synodal structure proves to be rather unfounded based on empirical experience. On the contrary, the consensus orientation leads to decelerated processes of reflection and discussion, in which at least such a high degree of understanding should be achieved that minorities can then also support the (in one way or another unavoidable) decision or at least do not have to interpret it as a reason for separation.

The consensus orientation is reinforced by the above-described integration of the state synod into the network of church-governing organs. The principle of “a community based on the division of labor and mutual responsibility” marks the task of seeking common solutions with an open mind. This structurally secured requirement for cooperation is intended to avoid going it alone, as well as enduring and militant conflicts between the organs of church leadership.

This does not rule out conflicts, but makes them comparatively rare. The church constitution grants the regional bishop a kind of veto right here: he can dissolve the regional synod if he considers its resolutions to be contrary to scripture and confession. However, he can only do this once for the respective resolution. So if the newly elected state synod repeats the decision, he cannot intervene again. Only the discussion about the ordination of women in the 1970s came close to this extreme case, the introduction of which the then regional bishop Hermann Dietzfelbinger could not support for theological reasons. Nevertheless, he refrained from dissolving the synod - perhaps because he was aware that this measure would only have a suspensive effect in view of the broad support for the ordination of women in the regional church, perhaps because he too shied away from a confrontation with the synod for the sake of unity. In any case, his early retirement paved the way for a successor, Johannes Hanselmann, whose election by the synod was certainly due to his willingness to make the synodal resolution legally binding by signing it. In view of the undisputed acceptance that the ordination of women has since found in the regional church as a practice in accordance with Scripture and confession, the procedure has proven to be suitable for recording and representing the – in Catholic terms – sensus fidelium .

Exactly this seems to me to be the genuine strength of a network of church-governing organs that constitutively includes synodal forms. The broad and non-hierarchical, not only advisory but also co-determining participation of all church members helps to integrate and make fruitful the various competencies and gifts that exist in the church, and can thereby also strengthen the cohesiveness and acceptance of resolutions. Last but not least, it also avoids religiously justified differences in authority and in this respect corresponds to the Reformation understanding of the community. In contrast to an exclusively synodal order, the ordained office also retains the weight it deserves in the network of church-governing organs; it is not 'disempowered' but integrated. Of course, the balanced interaction as such does not yet guarantee any resolutions that are in accordance with Scripture and confession - of course, no form of church leadership can provide such a guarantee -; but it provides good conditions for all voices to have their say appropriately. In the end, of course – here as in all churches – the work of the Spirit decides anyway, ubi et quando visum est Deo (CA 5) ³⁶⁶.

Ioan Moga: New movement on an old site? Synodal practice in the Orthodox Church under scrutiny

Ioan Moga, born 1979, Associate Prof. for Orthodox Theology (Systematic Theology) at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna

Summary: The orthodox talk of the "synodal structure" of the church seems to be the ideal image of a highly ambivalent reality: at the level of the autocephalous churches, synodality is clearly regulated in the various statutes; on the universal level it is a desideratum or at most a platform that quickly reaches its limits in times of crisis. Is the orthodoxy aware of this ambivalence? - The contribution tries to show that the functioning of synodality at the regional level (autocephalous churches) corresponds to a pastoral awareness. In order for synodality to also function on the universal Church level, it would have to be lived as a communicative event. The essay is a plea for a participatory synodality in the sense of a pastoral commitment to the people.

Synodality today - an ongoing Orthodox work site and a Roman Catholic promise

Synodality ³⁶⁷is now the talk of the town when it comes to current reforms in the Roman Catholic Church. We owe this primarily to Pope Francis, who made the call for “more” synodality one of his priorities at the beginning of his pontificate. More synodality - that was and still is a hopeful promise of Francis' tenure. Although this call has already been linked in "Evangelii gaudium" (2013) to the "experience of synodality" of the Orthodox Church and interpreted as an "exchange of gifts" between East and West (EG 246), the echo was in the Orthodox behave right in the world. For example, the detailed document “The Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church” ³⁶⁸(2018) by the International Theological Commission was not well received in Orthodox theology. One asks oneself: What else does the Orthodox Church actually expect? Here comes a Pope, opens up to the traditional Orthodox principle of synodality, and the Orthodox Church remains cautious.

There are several possible answers to this. One thing is certain: the Roman advance comes at an unfavorable time for the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox synodal life at the universal level has been in an ice age since the Synod in Crete (2016) and since the ongoing deep ecclesial crisis surrounding the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Or should one rather say: in the birth pangs of a new design corresponding to modernity? One thing is certain: the much-awaited, solemnly announced climax of this synodality in modern times (namely: the “Holy and Great Council” in Crete 2016) rather revealed a deep wound: the orthodox synodality at world level only works when the weather is nice. Or, to put it more precisely: it exists on the level of a common ecclesiological-liturgical awareness of belonging together, it has proven itself in individual local conflicts (e.g. the Bulgarian question in the 1990s) and in the diaspora (Orthodox Bishops' Conferences since 2009), lags but solid or even standing still in case of necessary fundamental renovation work. The diagnosis of this crisis varies: there is talk of a “crisis of primacy” (Getscha ³⁶⁹) but also of a “crisis of synodality” (Vletsis ³⁷⁰).

However, it is clear to any honest theologian that this crisis is at odds with the practice and ethos of the early church: in this synodality was not a fair-weather instrument, but primarily a means of overcoming crises. A - if not the - remedy to address doctrinal, canonical and other problems in the Church. Even if synodal crisis management in the early church was a laborious path that brought no general guarantees of reconciliation or church unity, it was undisputedly the most important instrument for dealing with crises. I will not go into details regarding additional political or primatial elements in these early church processes.

However, the simple question in view of this age-old synodal tradition is: why, in all these years since the beginning of the ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine, has the synodal ethos of the Orthodox Church not been able to bring the conflicting parties to one table (meaning altar and negotiating table) (from the conference apart from in Amman 2020)? Why does a synodal church find it so difficult to communicate and overcome conflicts through dialogue? The questions sound and are also naive. However, they correspond to an ecclesiastical reality that has seemingly lost its divine-human naivety (in the sense of an eschatological honesty). After all, it's not about canonical subtleties, but about the credibility of the church's spiritual claims and thus about the salvation of the people.

This inner-Orthodox crisis is indirectly a dampener even for Pope Francis, because it seems to confirm the traditional Roman Catholic view of primacy, at least for the inner-Catholic conservative circles: In times of crisis, only a primacy of jurisdiction proves its worth, a theologically based primus sine paribus . And for the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, this crisis is leading to a deadlock: the Orthodox Church cannot credibly question the primacy of Roman jurisdiction if it is not able to establish a functioning synodal working method (with a primus inter pares , however equipped, at the tip) between autocephalous churches. She is on the defensive.

This status quaestionis is well known. Further nuances would certainly be necessary. In view of this contradictory situation (the "Church of Synodality" is in a synodal crisis, precisely at a historical point where the "Church of Primacy" would accommodate it), the question must be asked quite carelessly: What is the Orthodox Church doing wrong, that they bridge the gap between a theological vision of synodality as a basic principle of orthodox ecclesiology and the desolate reality of the church and church politics fails to make it at world level ? We already have many approaches to answering this question, both in the area of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue (the relationship between primacy and synodality ³⁷¹) and in the theological debate after the synod in Crete. ³⁷²But my question is not in the direction of an ecclesiological model of reconciliation (between the Constantinople and the Moscow model), but rather in the sense of an applied ecclesiology, an ecclesiology that is aware of its pastoral responsibility towards people.

I propose two steps for this essay: first, to look at how synodality works within the framework of the autocephalous churches and, above all, how are crisis processes regulated there and what that could mean for the construction site "synodality at the world level"; second, to discuss to what extent the constant ambivalences in the modern synodality discourse of orthodox ecclesiology hinder a pragmatism that has grown in our age of communication and at the same time a vital pastoral realism.

The functioning synodality at the regional level: the search for a “golden formula”

Diversity and dynamics of synodal structures

The traditional talk of the "synodal structure" (or the "synodal constitution") of the Church ³⁷³certainly has not only to do with the strong traditional consciousness of the Orthodox Church (ecumenical synods, synodal processes in the early church). It finds itself again as a functioning reality on the level of the respective autocephalous churches.

The leitmotif of the ideal, reciprocal coexistence of primacy and synodality at the local, regional and universal level, which was widespread especially after the Ravenna document (2006), is a construct or at least a beautiful desideratum that is not currently being realized in either the one church or the other becomes. The following applies to the area of the Orthodox Church: At the local level , synodality exists “very limited” ³⁷⁴or is “almost non-existent” ³⁷⁵, here “synodal organs are only advisory organs of the bishop” ³⁷⁶; If you want more synodality here, the suspicion of democracy is obvious. On a universal level , synodality is again a historical entity (ecumenical synods), but the path from the pious anamnesis of the first millennium to the active actualization of this reality is a difficult one.³⁷⁷

If we look for an original model of a functioning synodality in the contemporary Orthodox Church, what remains is the so-called "regional" level: here synodality is an institutional, well-functioning leadership reality of the autocephalous churches. A theological reflection on the mechanisms of this functioning is missing.

So the question is: How are crisis processes resolved within the synodal structures of the autocephalous Church? Can we learn something from this for crisis processes on a universal level? As is well known, the status of synodality in the individual autocephalous churches is quite diverse, we are dealing with “a variety of synodal systems” ³⁷⁸: The “Council of Bishops in every patriarchate, as the supreme legislative and administrative body, has a certain overall competence ” ³⁷⁹. Nevertheless, in questions of composition, regularity, competence, the importance of the individual representative bodies (the so-called "permanent synods"), but also in the question of the other synodal bodies expanded with priests and lay people - in all these questions one discovers a large one , historically and culturally grown diversity . ³⁸⁰When comparing the statutes of the individual autocephalous orthodox churches, Johannes Oeldemann distinguishes "two structural models: a hierarchical, purely episcopal model (examples: Constantinople and Serbia), in which the assembly of all bishops bears ultimate responsibility and a 'corporate' model associated with elections ( Examples: Russia and Romania), in which, in addition to the bishops, elected representatives of the clergy, monasticism and lay people are involved in the supreme church leadership. A purely primatial model does not exist in the Orthodox Church.”³⁸¹

In addition to this diversity, there is also a certain dynamic : Synodal structures change again and again in the individual autocephalous churches. For example, in the Romanian Orthodox Church, in the last almost 100 years since 1925 (proclamation of the Romanian Patriarchate), we have three statutes (1925, 1949, 2008), which fundamentally shift the emphasis in the occupation, relevance and determination of the relationship between the various synodal and primatial organs brought with it, each of them experiencing several minor and major amendments. The current statute from 2008 already experienced a first major change in 2011, further changes and additions followed in the years that followed; these subsequent changes were published in the official gazette of the Romanian state on February 11, 2020 and the new version of the statute thus acquired the character of state church law. These included questions about the election of the patriarch, the judiciary in the case of accused bishops, Orthodox associations and foundations, etc. ³⁸²This dynamic certainly has its background, which cannot be gone into now: but it shows nothing other than a well-functioning institution who always wants to perfect herself - even in the face of current challenges. Given this strong diversity and dynamism, the question arises as to why the Orthodox Church appears so rigid and uncreative at the world level. About that a little later.

Increasing primatialization?

But what else do we learn from these regional forms of synodality? I refer here selectively only to the statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church.

In the current statute of the Russian Orthodox Church ³⁸³, the Bishops' Council acts as the final authority "in disputes between two or more bishops" and "in matters of ecclesiastical crimes by bishops and heads of synodal institutions " ³⁸⁴. At the same time, the Patriarch of Moscow has strong powers in crisis situations. In this context, Anapliotis speaks of a "church-political 'reserve function' for crisis situations in the area of enforcing synodal decisions." ³⁸⁵Thus the Patriarch "can accept cases for examination that are connected with misunderstandings between bishops if they voluntarily and without formal court proceedings entrust to his mediation; the patriarch's decisions in such cases are binding on both parties” (Statute, IV.x ³⁸⁶); he "gives fraternal advice to the bishops both as to their private life and as to the fulfillment of their episcopal duties" (Statute, IV.w ³⁸⁷) and "verifies the fulfillment of the episcopal duties of the diocesan bishops" (Statute, IV.t ³⁸⁸), etc. The other numerous powers that belong to the "canonical power" (Statute IV.7 ³⁸⁹) of the Patriarch of Moscow show very clearly that the "honorary primus" is understood by the statute as an active, leading figure who mediates between the different synodal bodies.

The situation is similar according to the current statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church ³⁹⁰: Although the Holy Synod is the highest authority in all areas of work, which decides administrative issues (such as foundation, dissolution, territorial reorganization and change of dioceses) with a two-thirds majority, the functioning is nevertheless of the Holy Synod would be inconceivable without the clear guiding, mediating and intervening powers of the Patriarch. According to the latest version of the statute, he has 49 powers! For example, "in the event of action directed against the Church by a diocesan assembly, at the request of the diocesan bishop," the Patriarch can ³⁹¹dissolve that diocesan assembly. This is an example of a primatial function having - in emergencies - a local synodal organ (to assist the local bishop). Other such examples could be ³⁹²given: The Patriarch has a relatively large scope to intervene in crisis situations in the dioceses. Already after the 2011 amendment, canonists had concluded that "the patriarch [...] has been given more powers" ³⁹³. This tendency is still present through the changes introduced in the statute between 2011-2019. It thus confirms an observation that Johannes Oeldemann already made in 2016, namely that we are dealing with an "increasing 'primacy' in various autocephalous Orthodox Churches: "...in recent years there has been a stronger focus on the respective primates and a related centralization within the individual patriarchates. This is currently particularly noticeable in Russia and Romania, but also applies to other orthodox patriarchates. "³⁹⁴

Is “increasing primatialization” evidence that concretized synodality cannot function well without a primacy with clear and strong powers? Or rather an expression of a current centralization as a defensive means against democratizing and pluralizing tendencies within the ecclesiastical corpus? So are we dealing with a service to synodality or with a centralist pull? This question will be difficult to answer. One thing is certain : based on the two short examples, a reality that is also known from pastoral and church-political practice can be clearly confirmed: the functioning synodality in the orthodox autocephalous churches includes an active and crisis-prone ministry of the primate . In the specific case, it is practiced more or less collegially, more or less self-confidently by the individual heads of the autocephalous church. I won't go into the casuistry. In terms of statute, however, the head of an autocephalous orthodox church is more than just a "primus inter pares" : Theologically (official theologically) this formula may be correct, but in terms of church and administrative law the special position of clear powers becomes visible, which ensure a crisis-proof functioning of the church enable the whole ecclesiastical system .

In other words, the synodal practice of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches shows a strong realism while preserving a theological minimalism . Because, although from the theological point of view the patriarch should always remain and be only a "primus inter pares", the concrete ecclesiastical reality grants this office (and after it: the statutes, which are supposed to guarantee the functioning of the ecclesiastical organism) a number of powers and privileges.

In search of a pastoral identity of Orthodoxy on a world scale

On the universal level, the same main actors lose this realism and, depending on church-political interests, plead either for the strict respect of theological minimalism ( primus inter pares as an honorary function - according to the Moscow Patriarchate) or for a canonical-historical over-interpretation (the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or in the dogmatic area, the attempt at a theology of "primus sine paribus"). Why does the Orthodox Church refuse to transfer its syondal-primatial realism from the regional level to the universal level?

This question may be answered with answers in the sense of church-political calculations, the personal vanities of those involved, global political interests, internal church tensions, etc. But I think it goes a little deeper. The "historically evolved special position of the patriarch" ³⁹⁵(so Anapliotis) on the level of the autocephalous churches and the realism thus revealed is based on a pastoral identity . This, in turn, has also grown historically, has a national (or in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate: multinational) tinge and is culturally conditioned. But it is primarily a pastoral identity. Before the eyes of every synod of bishops and every head of an autocephalous church stands the concrete people of the church, concrete pastoral-missionary challenges, but also cultural processes .

At the universal level of the Orthodox Churches there is a lack of awareness of them pastoral identity almost entirely: How the Church of Alexandria understands and practices mission, church building, catechesis, etc. is hardly noticed or discussed in Romania or in Serbia and vice versa. Pastoral reform processes in one autocephalous church will correspond to opposite developments in the other sister churches. The principle of the communicating tubes only works to a limited extent on a pastoral-theological level between the autocephalous orthodox churches. This leads to massive non-simultaneities, whereby the awareness of a common, pan-Orthodox pastoral approach is not so pronounced. Precisely for this reason the synod in Crete primarily wanted a pastoral council for common pastoral problems of the 21st century , unfortunately it half-failed because it was far too eager for hasty solutions to pent-up problems and too little time for the process of listening to one another on issues fundamental to a pastoral identity left. Because not only delegated bishops have to grow into this pastoral identity, but the whole people of the church. In order to get this far, the suggestion of the Romanian Patriarch Daniel to hold regular pan-Orthodox councils every 7 or 10 years would have to ³⁹⁶become a pastoral (not church-political) self-commitment!

My thesis: There is no golden formula for the relationship between primacy and synodality. In order for the inner-Orthodox crisis of synodality and primacy to have a good outcome at world level, clever strategies or antinomian formulas in the sense of a chalcedony of synodality are not needed. No! More mutual pastoral listening and constant anchoring in the concrete reality of the Church is needed. In what way? The awareness of an ecclesiological belonging together (there is one Orthodox Church) must be strengthened by the experience of a common pastoral identity , so that in the end functioning synodal-primatial structures can also prove themselves on a universal level. Otherwise it remains with ecclesiastical-political quarrels, which instrumentalize the pastoral reality on site rather than serving it.

Currently, this pan-Orthodox pastoral identity plays out on two registers: piety (pilgrimages, Mount Athos as a point of reference, contemporary saints as pan-Orthodox identity figures and bridge builders) and diaspora (e.g. the opportunity and the challenge of giving common Orthodox religious education in Austria and in Germany). One register manages without structures, the second needs structures (the bishops' conferences are a step in this direction). In my opinion, the diaspora experience of togetherness is the key to the growth of a common pan-Orthodox pastoral identity that could promote synodal-primatial structures on a universal level. However, as long as the diaspora situation is still understood as an "exceptional state" of orthodoxy and the bishops' conferences in the diaspora do not have their own representatives - in addition to the representatives of the autocephalous churches - in pan-Orthodox processes, this valuable pastoral identity remains practically unused.

Theological approaches: for an anthropological foundation of synodality as a corrective of ecclesiastical self-discourses

Cultivated ambivalences in the theological discourse on synodality

However, the lack of pastoral theological sensitivity to the universal unity of orthodoxy is not the only problem in this complicated situation. At the same time, we are dealing with cultivated ambivalences in the area of systematic theological discourse . There are some commonplaces in the manual-like orthodox discourse on synodality in the 20th century (to this day, actually), such as:

the (Eastern) Church has not developed a theology of synodality (or of the ecumenical council) (this thesis should be read in connection with the talk of a priority of apophatic, experiential theological ecclesiology);

the ecumenical synods were events, not institutions; accordingly, world-level synodality is not an institution but a charismatic event, a gift, not a task;

Synodality is primarily a liturgically anchored and experienced expression of ecclesial communion ( koinonia ).

The list could go on. However, these three points seem to me to be central. There is already a contradiction between points 1 and 3: because if there is no traditional theology of synodality, why is the Eucharistic-ecclesiological embedding of synodality so strongly emphasized? But that's not the real problem. In my opinion, the main problem lies in the fact that these three leitmotifs come into conflict with theological and ecclesiastical reality:

Regarding point 1. In the context of the ecumenical dialogue, but also in the course of the conciliar inner-Orthodox process, a theology of the synod has emerged – since the 1960s; it is not uniform, but we are dealing with such a theology of synodality or of the ecumenical council; To still deny it can be interesting in the ecumenical process of profiling in the sense of apophatic self-restraint, but in the inner-Orthodox process synodal-theological reflection and debate is more than necessary.

On point 2. Synodality on a world level cannot be left to a charismatic eventful pneumatomonism in the 21st century. The strong institutional anchoring of the individual autocephalous Orthodox Church demands institutional maturity, a certain consistency and clear regulations at the level of the world church - even with a minimal pan-Orthodox synodal statement. Because the political (unifying) factor of the Old (or Byzantine) Church is no longer there and in the age of post-globalization one cannot rely on social unification processes. A pastorally accountable and institutionally professed ethos of Orthodox unity is needed in the 21st century world. Synodality at the universal level cannot function at an eventual level, but only as a binding institution(s). Autocephaly needs syncephaly and vice versa. Just as a diocesan bishop within an autocephalous church cannot exercise his pastoral ministry to the detriment or even against the pastoral challenges of the neighboring diocese, but as part of the synod of bishops, understands his autonomy as part of a synodal whole, so the autocephalous churches cannot do pastoral ( such as communion of the faithful) as a means of church politics (such as at the time in the Ukraine crisis). If autocephaly is not also syncephaly at the same time, then speaking of the one Orthodox Church is pastorally irrelevant and therefore self-contradictory.

On point 3. Synodality is, in fact, on all levels, primarily a liturgical and thus present-eschatological reality. But synods are at the same time historical events and the institution of episcopal councils, permanent synods, etc. at the regional level are not just doxological gatherings, but governing bodies. Therefore, from an ecclesiological perspective, synodality cannot and must not deny this historical dimension. A Monophysite ethos of synodality gets nowhere. This also includes the need not only to remain in prayer in crisis situations, but also to do what social or political institutions do in internal crisis situations: have good will and find the appropriate channels for communication .

In summary, it takes:

a stronger reflection on an applied, i.e. pastorally responsible, theology of synodality,

an institutional regimentation of synodal (and thus also primatial) organs at the universal level and

a humble learning from profane crisis management experts how to communicate again in frozen, canonically and ecclesiastically deadlocked conflicts.

For the second point (reform of the synodal structures), there are interesting and very concrete reform proposals from the German-speaking countries by Anastasios Kallis ³⁹⁷and Athanasios Vletsis ³⁹⁸, how the synodal and primatial organs of the Orthodox Church could be designed at world level in the future. For the third (crisis management) one would have to dare to do interdisciplinary work. It remains for me to contribute to the first point (theology of synodality).

Anthropological perspectives of synodality: communicative self-commitment

Johannes Oeldemann distinguishes three "models of an orthodox theology of synodality in contemporary orthodox theology: a model that starts with Eucharistic ecclesiology" (e.g. Zizioulas), "a second model that is based on a trinitarian justification of ecclesiology" (e.g. Staniloae) , and a third model “which one might call pneumatological ecclesiology” ³⁹⁹which he equates with Sobornost ecclesiology. I will not go into Oeldemann's analysis; it essentially corresponds to the most important trends in orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century.

As a supplement to this, I would advocate an anthropological foundation for synodality in what follows . ⁴⁰⁰In several contributions to the question of synodality in the 1970s, the ⁴⁰¹Romanian orthodox theologian Dumitru Stăniloae not only advocated a trinitarian theological perspective, but also emphasized the anthropological foundation of what he calls “synodicity”. Every person is “a dialogical being” ⁴⁰²because they can only deepen and recognize their own human nature in dialogue with other people. The "nature of human synodicity " ⁴⁰³is based on the Christian doctrine of images. Stăniloae calls this human being designed for communication “natural or creaturely synodicity” ⁴⁰⁴: It manifests itself in a general form in every kind of social gathering, but above all in the institution of the family and – typical for Stăniloae – also in the belonging to a nation. Family and nation, however, as moments of a human, natural "synodicity," represent unstable realities because they are threatened by abuses of all kinds. It is only in Christ and in the Church that this communicative basic human condition is completed in the sense of a "healthy balance between unity and diversity".⁴⁰⁵

the ecclesiological discourse on the church as a place of experience of the divine-human community ( koinonia ). What is interesting about St ăniloae, however, is that the principle of synodality (or “synodicity” in his case) is anchored in the anthropological aspect of the ability to communicate and show solidarity. Ecclesiastical synodality is thus understood as the perfecting of a natural given : for the relationship between unity and diversity does not first exist in Christian thinking about the Trinity, but in the basic human tension between belonging to the same species, society, culture, family circle on the one hand, and individual vocation and life history of the individual on the other hand. “Synodicity” is an anthropological fact ( communication ) and becomes a new ecclesial reality in the event of Pentecost, in which the fullness of personal life does not contradict the fullness of unity ( communion ).

But the point is elsewhere: St ăniloae thinks this aspect further in the sense of a constant anthropological corrective of institutional synodality : for him, ecclesiastical-institutional synodality (in the sense of, for example, the synod of bishops as the leadership structure of the church) is embedded in this anthropological synodality and can and can must be able to express it. He therefore emphasizes that the episcopal ministry is pars in toto, not pars pro toto. This means that not only must every bishop act as part of his community, but that the synod of bishops ⁴⁰⁶must never give up the awareness of being "part of this general synodicity". It would therefore be unimaginable for bishops and synods of bishops to govern alone: it must always be kept in mind that “no one can preserve this [apostolic] legacy more faithfully than the church as a whole” ⁴⁰⁷. And the communication between bishops or synods of bishops and the so-called "church people" is not a one-way street: it is not about "ruling over the [believers]", but them according to their dignity (subjects endowed with freedom and reason) to spiritual maturity and freedom to lead.⁴⁰⁸

This anthropological dimension of a theology of synodality - of which St ăniloae spoke in 1977 - seems to me to have been forgotten in the inner-Orthodox discourse today. However, it is crucial for understanding (and solving) many construction sites in pan-Orthodox cooperation: Synodality is where we communicate with people - before God, of course .

A pleonastic interjection: more participatory synodality!

However, before synodality becomes a central feature of the church (or even of a denomination), it is a self-commitment to communication among one another within the church. The concept of "participation" is being rediscovered by theologians today. Synodality cannot be understood without a participatory perspective, indeed a paticipatory synodality is a pleonasm. Because – as Stăniloae rightly remarks – a synod of bishops is not only synodal because the bishops share a common, ie dialogical, collegial leadership of the church among themselves and under the leadership of a primus inter pares . no Synods of Bishops are synodal and sacred because they are meant to embody and express the whole participatory reality of the Church. The bishop does not represent himself, but a local congregation with whom he lives in deep, participatory – liturgical and social – communion.

The synodal-primatial crisis of orthodoxy at the world level certainly has many causes. In the context of this essay, I have primarily advocated a pastoral perspective.

In my opinion, the blockades (such as those in the Ukraine crisis) cannot be solved with church-political strategies or overcome with canonical and historical arguments: the decision-makers need a stronger pastoral awareness of the people on site. Just as at the regional level the Orthodox Church, for pastoral reasons, knows an unbelievable dynamic and diversity of functioning synodal and primatial structures, so it must also work at the world level (in the sense of a "syncephalia") - if the awareness of the pastoral challenges of world orthodoxy would really be there. Again, care must be taken that all Orthodox worldwide gain a stronger pastoral identity among themselves. Only in this way can and should synodal (and thus also primatial) structures be institutionalized on a world level and ensure a dynamic form of orthodoxy in the 21st century.

Closely related is the rediscovery of the participatory dimension of synodality at all levels, from top to bottom and vice versa. Canonical, church-political, historical and cultural motives must not ignore or even block this communicative basis of the church . Firstly, because it would distance the Church from the pastoral reality and thus also from the soteriological concreteness of the ecclesial vocation; second: because the Holy Spirit can only act when people are in dialogue (i.e. syn-odos ), synodally moving together (synod is not an expression, not a self-celebration, but a premise of the pneumatic present); thirdly, because one must not jeopardize the credibility of the Church as the divine-human perfection of the human.

Peter Neuner: Synodality in the context of ecumenism

Peter Neuner, born 1941, professor em. for Dogmatics and Ecumenical Theology, Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Munich

Summary: In his plea for a synodal church, Pope Francis referred to the example of the Christian churches and emphasized that synodality must also change the office of the pope. The essay provides an overview of synodal structures in ecumenism. He shows that in contrast to a dominant tendency in church officials to interpret the dogmas of Vatican I in the sense of a traditional absolutism, in theology the papal office is understood as a service to unity. This has stimulated the ecumenical discussion. The article pleads for making this view fruitful in the synod of bishops for the practice and the legal order of the church.

Pope Francis repeatedly referred to the Christian Churches as a model for how the Catholic Church could rediscover its synodal form ⁴⁰⁹. The International Theological Commission considered synodality to be a central issue "for the ecumenical efforts of Christians", "because it represents an invitation to walk the path to full communion together" ⁴¹⁰. In a reflection on synodality, it is obvious to question relevant experiences from ecumenism as to what they can bring to the Catholic Church.

Synodal models in the ecumenical churches

The Churches of the East

All ecumenical churches have synodal structures, Orthodoxy calling itself "the Church of Synods - from the Synod of the Apostles in Jerusalem to the present day" ⁴¹¹. On a universal, regional and local level, it knows itself to be synodal. Accordingly, synodality is part of the essence of the Church insofar as it is designed in analogy to the Trinity and consequently as a unity in community. Centralist and universalist concepts are consequently rejected.

The 14 generally recognized churches of orthodoxy differ significantly in their structures, also in the concrete form of their synods and in their relationship to the respective patriarch or archbishop. The (pan-Orthodox) council, to which the heads of all autocephalous churches and all orthodox bishops belong, has the highest authority. The right to convoke pan-Orthodox councils and to preside over them rests with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, as primus inter pares, has an honorary precedence over the other bishops. But this honorary precedence does not imply any legal authority.

In practice, the autocephalous churches are scrupulous about their independence, but on the other hand important decisions require the consensus of all churches. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which met in Crete in 2016, showed how difficult it is to find this unanimity in the very different situations and challenges in which the Orthodox Churches are currently living. The Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch and most recently the Church of Russia canceled their participation. This brought the project to the brink of failure. Nevertheless, the Synod carried out its program and passed important documents, the importance of which depends on the extent to which they are now received by Orthodoxy as a whole.

As a result of these experiences, the question was also raised within Orthodoxy as to whether synodality does not presuppose authority, and whether such authority is indispensable for consensus ⁴¹². Undoubtedly, the Catholic Church can learn from the synodality of the Orthodox Churches, both in terms of their theological basis and their concrete forms, but also their obvious limitations.

The Reformation Churches

In the evangelical churches, synods do not have the theological importance that they have in orthodoxy ⁴¹³. Essential characteristics of the church are word and sacrament, the structures in which it takes shape belong to the human order ⁴¹⁴. Because of the emphasis on the universal priesthood, authority in the church is not reserved solely for (ordained) ministers; rather, lay people, as baptized members, also have a mandate in the governance of the church. According to the principle "cuius regio eius religio", princes introduced the Reformation in their areas and established regional churches. Despite all their autonomy, these do not see themselves as isolated entities, but rather “as a territorially limited manifestation of the universal church” ⁴¹⁵.

After the end of the sovereign church government, collegiate bodies took over church leadership functions. They elect the regional bishop or church president. These are members of the synod and have important rights within it, at least the right to speak and the right to veto. The regional churches have developed a differentiated system of how the church-going organs work together and remain capable of acting even when there are different convictions, without minorities being impaired in their convictions of conscience. Synods strive for unanimity in questions of faith, majority decisions are avoided as far as possible. One does not simply apply parliamentary practices, rather complex and often time-consuming procedures should make it possible to reach a consensus.

The Reformed Churches have a slightly different tradition in that the Reformation was introduced here by the cities. "An ecclesiastical legal concept developed that was shaped by the cooperative spirit of the city culture and fundamentally took synodal structures into account" ⁴¹⁶. They closely followed the social order of Zurich and Geneva and adopted their democratic forms. This corresponded to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

The Free Churches

In the Reformed tradition, the church is primarily understood locally and regionally, and higher-level institutions have hardly any authority to issue directives. The consequence is a wide diversity, which is even more pronounced in the free churches. They see themselves as independent, not only from state, but also from supra-communal authority. The conscience of the individual, which is bound by Scripture, is respected, but at the same time we strive for common knowledge and the formation of will. There are no degrees of consecration and no distinctions of status; the priesthood of all believers forms the structure. Pastors do not stand in a personal succession, but are appointed as teachers by and for the congregation. Around 500 congregations in Germany belong to the Federation of Free Evangelical Congregations. According to the constitution, resolutions of the annual “Bundestag” should be “taken unanimously” ⁴¹⁷. Where this cannot be achieved, adjournment and common prayer should prepare the way for community.

The Anglican Communion

In the Anglican tradition, synodal elements are combined with the concept of episcopate in historical succession. The Anglican Communion sees itself as part of the Church of Jesus Christ, in which 40 legally independent ecclesiastical provinces come together. There is no Anglican canon law, communion is ensured through the instruments of communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting ⁴¹⁸. The concept of “comprehensiveness” recognizes very different configurations of the church, which would probably be considered incompatible in other traditions.

The unitary model of the Church of England can be understood as an example. The General Synod is made up of three houses, the house of bishops, that of priests and that of lay people. They each vote separately on upcoming issues. In questions of faith and the constitution of the church, a decision requires a two-thirds majority of all three houses, none of the organs can be overruled, none of them can decide for themselves.

Methodism, which emerged from the Anglican tradition and whose synodal structures are classified under the terminology of “conferences”, has some peculiarities. There are district and district conferences, the annual conference for larger areas, the central conferences at the European level, and the general conference for the whole church. “The annual conference is the fundamental body of the church” where the most important decisions are made ⁴¹⁹. It is headed by the bishop, whose powers are limited, however, as the decisions are ultimately made by the competent bodies.

The Churches of the Utrecht Union

The Church of England is in full communion with the Old Catholic Church, which in its structure also combines the office of bishop with synodal bodies. It arose as a result of the controversy surrounding the First Vatican Council, in which a break with the teaching of the Church and with the episcopal office was seen. On the other hand, one saw oneself in communion with all the churches that emerged from the criticism of the unjustified claims of the popes. Based on this conviction, the Union of Utrecht was formed in 1889. It sees itself as a community of independent churches, each of which organizes its affairs according to its own needs.

In the Old Catholic Church, the bishop runs his diocese together with the synod to which he belongs and from which he is also elected. Members of the synod are the clergy working in the diocese and the elected representatives of the parishes, with every 300 parishioners appointing a delegate. In practice, this results in a ratio of two-thirds lay people and one-third ordained.

Finding consensus in the World Council of Churches

This brief overview shows that all Christian churches have developed structures in which their believers have their say, but also in which authority is guaranteed that is not simply subject to a majority decision. Synodality also has a spiritual dimension and differs from parliamentary institutions. In particular, the churches have sought ways in which different positions can remain in communion with one another and respect one another without falling into arbitrariness. This challenge arose in a special way in the World Council of Churches. Differing opinions are the rule here, and yet the member churches are determined to stay together and together bring the Christian message to the attention of the world public. Certainly the situation in the Ecumenical Council is different from that in the churches, it is not a church and it has no authority over its member churches, its decisions have no authority other than the strength of their arguments. For this very reason, the Ecumenical Council was repeatedly challenged to reflect on the quality of its decisions. For the Roman Synod of Bishops, these reflections of the WCC are of no small importance. Both are structured universal church-global, both have to do justice to very different cultural circumstances. In this respect, it makes sense to take note of the Council's reflections on decision-making in the effort towards synodality in the Catholic Church.

When the WCC was founded, it was initially committed to the majority principle, as practiced in the parliaments. Especially since the beginning of the 1990s it has become increasingly clear that several churches, especially from the Orthodox Church, could not agree to some decisions of the Council, for example on fellowship in the Lord's Supper or on ethical questions. Following the 1998 Harare Assembly, a “Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC” was set up, which decided to replace the majority rule with a consensus process. In jointly responsible texts, in which long consultation and intensive spiritual preparation are reflected, the different convictions to which the churches are committed should also become clear ⁴²⁰. There should be no winners and no losers.

Vatican I and its ambiguous reception

Faced with the rejection of the papacy by all non-Roman churches, Pope Paul VI. In 1967, when he visited the WCC in Geneva, he found himself well aware that his office was the greatest obstacle to ecumenism. Just fifty years later, Pope Francis declared in his vote on synodality that this would ultimately also affect his own office. In an ecumenical reflection on synodality, it is appropriate to ask how a papacy could be formed in the context of synodality and whether it could be ecumenically fruitful.

An overview of the way in which the dogmas of Vatican I were interpreted reveals a surprising two-pronged approach: on the one hand there is the reception by the Church officials, on the other hand the interpretation in historical, practical and systematic theology.

The official interpretation of the church has extensively interpreted the dogmas of 1870. A few examples. In the controversies surrounding modernism at the beginning of the 20th century, the church and its teachings were understood as unchanging over time and identified with an idealized Middle Ages. What was considered "modern" was widely condemned as heretical in the pontificate of Pope Pius X. Pope Benedict XV in 1917 promulgated the Codex, in which the papal dogmas were incorporated unchanged. Citing Vatican I, he claimed to be above the law of the Church. Of particular importance was the stipulation that the pope could freely appoint the bishops of the world. Pope Pius XII continued this understanding of the church. All ecclesiastical authority, especially all teaching authority, was awarded to the papal magisterium. This alone determines what the right teaching is, which must be recognized by the shepherds and the faithful in filial obedience. The theologians have to provide the evidence, not how, but that this message - explicit or implicit - is contained in Scripture and Tradition. If they cannot do this, they have failed in their task and can no longer be theologians. No coincidence that only Pius XII. referred to the dogma of infallibility in the definition of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven (1950). In the context of this "creeping infallibility" the Catholic Church appeared more and more as a papal church ruled by an absolute monarch, submission to him became the central criterion for church fellowship.

In tension with this extensive interpretation of Vatican I is the reception by theology, but also by bishops, who were open to their insights. The importance of historical testimonies was disputed as early as the Council of 1869/70, and the historical problems raised by the papal dogmas have not gone silent since then. Not all of the Council Fathers followed the motto of Archbishop Manning of Westminster that dogma could conquer history. Nevertheless, the bishops of the critical minority submitted to the decisions of Vatican I, albeit often under considerable pressure. Many bishops expected that the Council, interrupted by the Franco-Prussian war, would soon resume and then issue decrees that would overcome the Pope's isolation and establish his involvement in the faith of the Church. Because much of what should have been said about the Church was not addressed by the Council. This continuation did not take place, Pope Pius IX, and the group of infallibilists had achieved their goal; they had no interest in restrictive clarifications. But the realization that the dogmas of 1870 were one-sided could not be suppressed ⁴²¹. As early as 1875, the German bishops rejected Bismarck's criticism that they were now only " officials of a foreign sovereign... who, by virtue of his infallibility, is a completely absolute one, more so than any absolute monarch in the world" (DH 3112). They saw no justification for the accusation that they were lackeys of papal absolutism in the dogmas of Vatican I.

The opening of theology to historical consciousness, the realization that the formulations of faith and the structures of the church have become and are therefore also open to further development, has led to the modernism crisis and to the controversies surrounding the nouvelle théologie. It also determined the theological view of Vatican I. On its 50th anniversary, the papal dogmas were hardly mentioned and, in the context of Vatican II, the restrictive conditions were primarily discussed. The ecclesiastical and the systematic-theological interpretation of the papal dogmas were far apart.

The tension between the two paths of interpretation also determined Vatican II. Even the announcement of a council by Pope John XXIII. met with opposition in the Roman Curia. What is the point of a council after Vatican I ascribed all authority in the church to the pope alone and defined him alone as the sole source of all ecclesiastical authority and all knowledge of truth?

In fact, the Second Vatican Council, as an event, revived the synodal element. In its understanding of the Church as the people of God, in its appreciation of the laity, in its effort to achieve an aggiornamento, it chose an approach that formed a counterpoint to absolutist ideas. Twenty years after the conclusion of the Council, an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the “Future from the Power of the Council” even stated that “'Communio' ecclesiology is the central and fundamental idea of the Council documents”, it forms “the basis for the order of the Church “. The people of God are “one community, therefore there must be participation and responsibility at all levels” ⁴²².

This effort for participation and shared responsibility was discussed in Vatican II, particularly in determining the relationship between the bishops' primacy and collegiality. The Church Constitution says of the bishops that "by Christ's foundation and ordinance they are held to care for the whole Church" (LG 23). As a college, i.e. in synodal fellowship, they have the highest authority in the church. This is a clear counterpoint to the papal dogmas of Vatican I and thus a correction of the traditional one-sidedness.

But alongside these formulations and in obvious tension with them, Lumen Gentium also includes the dogmas of Vatican I and it is emphasized that the college of bishops can only act together with the pope and under his authority. In particular, the wording of the nota praevia adheres to this approach. As Joseph Ratzinger criticized in his commentary on the Council, the statement that “the Pope, as the highest shepherd of the Church, can exercise his powers at any time as he sees fit” seems to “attribute to the Pope an almost absolutist abundance of power” ⁴²³.

How did these tense statements come about?

It is not surprising that the change of perspective in Vatican II met with resistance; representatives of the conservative minority considered it dangerous, if not downright heretical. It is a characteristic of the councils that they do not make majority decisions but strive for consensus. Especially Pope Paul VI. tried to find compromises that should also make it possible for the conservative minority to agree. Where agreement on content could not be achieved, the controversial positions were juxtaposed on various occasions. By juxtaposition, "the battles of the council were fought between the majority and the minority. ⁴²⁴" Everyone was able to find their own convictions, and the opposing position was accepted, probably in the hope that their own interpretation would eventually prevail. Thus, in Vatican II, texts from Vatican I also found their way, which obviously contradict the spirit of the Aggiornamento. It was precisely these texts that the Roman Curia subsequently referred to and governed the Church as if it had been written by John XXIII. convened Council never took place.

This process of a split interpretation of papal dogma with an expansion of primatial official powers and a gradual infallibility also survived Vatican II. After the anti-modernist oath had been quietly abolished in 1967, Rome introduced a new oath of service in which not only belief in the dogmas of the church and obedience to the utterances of the "ordinary magisterium" must be sworn. With the “definitive” decisions, an intermediate stage has been introduced: “I also firmly recognize and hold fast to everything and everyone that is definitively presented by the Church regarding the doctrine of faith and morals”. Even where popes do not speak with the claim of infallibility, they can decide "definitely" and reject deviations from these statements as incompatible with the faith. In the context of moral-theological statements in particular, reference has been made to these definitive statements.

While no one reckoned with the definition of infallible teachings after Vatican II, the Roman magisterium, in response to Hans Küng's criticism of infallibility, once again spoke of infallibility with a clarity that was hardly thought possible. Pope Paul VI and especially Pope John Paul II made extensive use of the rights conferred on them by the doctrine of primacy. Reference is only made here to the encyclical Humanae vitae, to the new regulation with which the Curia took over the decision on the nihil obstat procedure, to the ban on the German bishops from continuing the program of Donum vitae.

Synodal processes are regulated in the Code of 1983, on the other hand Canon 331 decrees that the Pope has “by virtue of his office in the Church supreme, full, direct and universal ordinary power which he can always exercise freely”. Although canon law states that the pope exercises his office in connection with the other bishops, he alone can "determine whether he exercises this office personally or in a collegial association" (can. 333 § 2). It is obvious: the dogmas of Vatican I have been extensively interpreted by church officials and they still determine the church today.

In view of this exciting history of impact, the papal dogmas require a relecture. Already Pope Paul VI. During his visit to the WCC, he described his office as “the primacy of service, of helping, of love” , thereby giving up ideas of an absolutist monarchy . In his ecumenical encyclical, Pope John Paul II called on the theologians of the Christian churches to work with him to seriously investigate the question of how “a form of exercise of primacy can be found that does not in any way renounce the essentials of its mission, but opens up to a new situation” ⁴²⁵. But what is this essence that has taken on very different forms over the course of history and is now intended to be revealed in this relecture?

In 1978, Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal and Archbishop of Munich, published the papers at a conference of the Catholic Academy in Bavaria on the nature and mandate of the Petrine ministry and gave the book the title “Service to Unity” ⁴²⁶. In this volume, Walter Kasper stated that " paradoxically, the interpretation of Vatican I that is practically universally accepted in today's theology does not represent that of the then victorious Council majority, but of the then oppressed and defeated Council minority . " ⁴²⁷In Catholic theology today, the papacy is generally understood as a service to the unity of the church. Emphasizing them was most appropriate given the challenges of the 19th century. Thus formulated Vatican I that the primacy was instituted so that the "unity of faith and communion may be preserved" (DH 3051). In accordance with this statement, the service of the unity and freedom of the church is understood throughout the systematic, practical and historical theology as the content of the papal dogmas. This idea has proved fruitful in the ecumenical dialogues.

The Question of the Pope in the Ecumenical Discussion

In the current situation, where it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the unity of the church across linguistic and cultural borders, a service to universal unity is of considerable importance. The world denominational bodies and the WCC cannot adequately guarantee this universal dimension of the church. And the unity model practiced in Orthodoxy is generally not considered to be ecumenically receptive, not least in view of the 2016 pan-Orthodox synod in Crete. As early as 1975, the Lutheran Catechism for Adults stated that "the non-Roman churches (have not) lived up to a convincing model of how the unity of the church could gain visible form", and from this drew the conclusion: "The position of the other church communities in relation to the papacy will change will depend largely on Rome's ability to convincingly portray the papacy as a service of unity and a sign of unity. ⁴²⁸"

Based on this approach, rapprochements have emerged in the ecumenical dialogues that can be described as encouraging in view of the mutual distortions up until the first half of the 20th century. For example, the document “Communio Sanctorum” (2000) states: “A universal Church service to the unity and truth of the Church corresponds to the nature and mission of the Church, which is realized at the local, regional and universal level. It is therefore fundamentally to be regarded as appropriate. This ministry represents all of Christianity and has a pastoral function in all particular churches ⁴²⁹. " Significant and pioneering approaches have been achieved in the official dialogues with Orthodoxy ⁴³⁰and with the Anglican community ⁴³¹.

An ecumenical recognition of the papacy would, of course, presuppose its profound reform, since "monarchical absolutism in the Church would mean a violation of Christ's commandment" ⁴³². The idea that full church unity is only possible when the pope is recognized in the way that his office unfolded in the official reception of the dogmas of 1870 would prove all ecumenical hopes to be illusory. Only if they are overcome can the Catholic Church show itself capable of ecumenism.

The challenge to the structures of the Catholic Church

But is the view of Vatican I dogmas as formulated in theology and in a number of ecumenical texts compatible with the doctrinal doctrine of the Catholic Church?

In fact, the reinterpretation of the papal office as a service to unity has long been taking place not only in theology, but also in church officials. Pope Francis describes his office primarily as that of Bishop of Rome, so he sees himself first as the bishop of a local church. What makes the church the church takes place locally, local churches are the church, not administrative units of the universal church. But part of being a church is that they are in communion with the other local churches, that they are not self-sufficient in isolation. They are all Church, but not the whole Church. In their openness to each other, they can represent the universal church in each place. Joseph Ratzinger summed it up as follows: "To be Catholic means to be cross-connected" ⁴³³. In this perspective, the Church does not appear as a pyramid with the Pope at the top, but rather as a network in which the local Churches meet. They are held together by many ties, not only, but not least also by the bishop of Rome. His office thus appears primarily as a communication center with which all particular churches are in communion and thus maintain unity among themselves.

Since time immemorial, the Roman bishop has held the title “Servus Servorum Dei”, servant of the servants of God. This implies a prior reality of the Church as God's people prior to primacy. A service can only be understood in terms of that for which it is intended. Thus, primacy and synodality not only prove to be complementary and equally original, as variously formulated in ecumenical documents, but primacy is to be understood from the perspective of the church as the people of God and within this framework. As Vatican II explained, the starting point is the church as a community. In order to make their unity possible, according to the Catholic understanding, primacy is indispensable, but it has a subsidiary effect, so it should only intervene where the synodal structures are not up to a concrete challenge. In this sense the code changed from the concession system to the reservation system in 1983 ⁴³⁴. A change of perspective is required, which starts from synodality and understands the primacy actually and not just verbally as a service to the community. In any case, the decision as to whether an intervention by the universal church office is indicated or necessary for the sake of unity cannot be made by this office alone.

This fundamental message of serving the unity of the Church was formulated in 1870 within the framework of political absolutism. Unlike a unity guaranteed by authority, Pope Pius IX. and the majority of the Council Fathers of Vatican I do not think unity. However, it was not this way of thinking that was dogmatized, but rather the pope's service to the unity and freedom of the church. Vatican I established this service as indispensable, but not the frame of thought adopted from absolutism. The theological development of the past 150 years shows that this does not represent the dogmatically binding content, but the dominant but highly contemporary and one-sided way of thinking among the bishops of Vatican I. The message of service to the universal unity of the church is what is binding on faith, not absolutism, even if this has been adhered to in church officials and in a certain way even expanded, right up to the code of 1983.

This interpretation by no means dismisses the dogmas of Vatican I and their insistence on authority. The experiences of the various Christian churches and the ecumenical community show that for the sake of successful synodality, authority is indispensable. Without it, there is a risk that the diversity of beliefs will dissolve into a featureless pluralism, or that minorities, who may not be at fault, will be marginalized and oppressed. Authority can protect minorities and guarantee their freedom of conscience without breaking the unity of the church. As shown, the Christian churches have developed models of how synodality and authority are communicated to one another and how differing ideas can live together without the unity having to be broken ⁴³⁵. Service to the universal unity of Christianity is an interpretation of papal primacy that takes up the central idea of Vatican I without falling prey to the one-sidedness of absolutist ideas.

As a rule, the doctrine of infallibility is seen as the main problem in the ecumenical question about the pope, and here an understanding is usually considered impossible. First of all, it should be noted that the dogmatic formulation of Vatican I turned out to be extremely complicated. In 1870, the forces that sought unqualified infallibility, if possible by acclamation, did not prevail . The final text contains numerous conditions, one can seriously question whether they can be fulfilled at all.

In Vatican I, the integration of papal infallibility into the faith of the church was particularly controversial. Because this was not guaranteed and infallibility appeared to be a personal privilege of the pope, the minority bishops left the council; they didn't want to agree to that. But contrary to first appearances, the incorporation of papal infallibility into the faith of the church is also recorded in the definition of Vatican I, when the pope is attributed that infallibility "with which the divine Redeemer wanted to see his church equipped" (DH 3074 ). The primary subject of infallibility is the church, held in faith by the Spirit of God. The church is not protected from heresy because it has an infallible pope, but the pope may speak infallibly because and when he formulates the faith of the church. In fact, Vatican I did not define an individual infallibility of the pope, but integrated it into the faith of the church, even if efforts to express this more clearly in 1870 failed ⁴³⁶.

This interpretation is not refuted by the formulation that ex cathedra decisions of the pope are irreformable in themselves (ex sese) and not because of the consent of the church (non ex consensu ecclesiae). In 1870, this formulation was directed against the demands of Gallicanism, which wanted to make the binding nature of papal pronouncements dependent on subsequent ratification by the bishops ⁴³⁷. It is only the faith of the Church that the Pope can formulate in a binding manner, not his own imagination or his individual piety or experience of faith ⁴³⁸.

Vatican II speaks first of all of the sensus fidelium with which the people of God as a whole are endowed and which is why “the faith cannot err” (LG 12). Only then does the Church Constitution speak of the infallibility of the Council and the Pope. With this the incorporation of the infallibility of the pope into the faith of the church is recorded ⁴³⁹.

Vatican I paraphrases ex cathedra declarations as speeches by the pope "in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians". Only doctrinal statements that apply to all Christians can therefore claim the character of infallibility. According to Vatican II, non-Catholics now also deserve “the honorable name of Christian, and they are rightly recognized by the sons of the Catholic Church as brothers in the Lord” (UR 3). If one takes this statement seriously, it is entirely in agreement with the wording of Vatican I to conclude that the pope is only protected from heresy and heresy if and insofar as he formulates the faith as 'shepherd and teacher of all Christians', as it is held in the consensus of Christianity as a whole.

In any case, it should be noted that as early as Vatican I, the office of the Pope was described as a task for all Christians, and that it therefore has an eminently ecumenical task. The vision of an office that serves the universal unity of Christianity and is able to formulate the Christian message, especially in critical situations when faith is in danger of being falsified, would be of great importance for ecumenism. A service to unity could contribute to maintaining the fellowship of Christianity, especially in a situation of increasing cultural diversification, when it is becoming increasingly difficult to express this in generally acceptable formulations.

Suggestions for the 2023 Synod of Bishops

Synodality implies that the church as a whole is grounded in the message of Christ and keeps it present in history. The promise applies to her that, despite all the confusion, she will not lose sight of the goal given to her and that she will always be led back on the right path. This confidence is not based on trust in their members or their officials, but in the Spirit of God who will not abandon them, despite their shortcomings. All members of the Church are called to a common witness and apostolate in the world, and all voices in this many-voiced choir must be heard and listen to one another. This applies to all levels of the church, for the local congregations as well as for the regionally constituted state churches and the dioceses, it also applies to the universal church, which according to the biblical view is also a church and not just the sum of independent churches.

Synodality has an eminently ecumenical dimension, as is also made clear in the votes of Pope Francis. The Synod of Bishops 2023 should suggest that this is not overlooked: on all levels and in all the different challenges in which the church lives. Official observers of the Christian Churches were invited to Vatican II, who played an important role in its development, not only by their presence, but also in the formulation of the documents, especially in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

Now, more than 50 years after the Council and after decades of intensive ecumenical work, the Synod of Bishops should not fall behind this model. It would be most appropriate to invite representatives of those churches with which the Pontifical Council for Unity has entered into official dialogue, notably representatives of the world confessional federations but also of the WCC. They might not have voting rights, but care should be taken to ensure that the Synod engages in appropriate dialogue on any suggestions they make. Ecumenical voices should be heard and their suggestions brought to fruition. That could only enrich the synod and create trust between the churches.

In terms of content, the synod should not least address topics that have been discussed in many ways in the ecumenical discussion over the past decades and in which agreement or a "differentiated consensus" could be achieved, but which have not yet found any reception in church officials. Where the rejection of the partner churches is no longer indispensable for the sake of the Christian message, one must not continue to cling to it out of habit. Synodality implies diversity and thus an attitude that, despite all existing differences, emanates from the community. According to a well-known formulation by Joseph Ratzinger, it is not unity that must be justified, but separation, and this in each individual case. The synod should agree that the ecumenical questions, which theology no longer sees as dividing churches, should also be declared settled by church officials. This applies in particular to the recognition as churches, the communion in the Lord's Supper, it applies to the understanding of ministry and to problems that still arise in marriages and families of different denominations. In addition, the question of the ordination of women, or at least the ordination of women deacons, should probably be continued. It is probably a sign of the times that almost all Christian churches in the past decades, after often considerable controversy, have accepted it or at least no longer consider it incompatible with the Christian message.

Since the office of the bishop of Rome is understood in theology and at least partially in ecumenism as a service to the unity of the church, this should also be included in church law and replace provisions that are rooted in absolutist conceptions. A service to unity would have to be described in terms other than those used in the 1983 Code in can 331 and can 333 §2. It should be made binding that the pope exercises his office in community with the bishops and how his involvement in the consensus of the church and Christianity takes concrete form. In particular, regulations would have to be made on how to proceed in cases of conflict. Keywords that come to mind here spontaneously are separation of powers, mediation bodies, legal protection for those who are unable to assert themselves.

It is very important to note that the papal office must be endowed with power and authority, otherwise it would not be able to fulfill its mandate, especially in difficult situations. In particular, it should be noted that unity also has a temporal dimension, meaning unity throughout history. Like any office, the papal office is a service to the apostolicity of the Church and to the message that it has not conceived. Without reference to the authority associated with his office, Pope Francis could not initiate the project on the synodality of the Church. This aspect of the papal dogmas of 1870 is indispensable, it must and can be retained and derived from the idea of synodality.

The Christian churches have developed different models of how to combine authority with synodality. They could be a suggestion for a legal order in which synod and pope work together and include the bishop of Rome in the synod of bishops. The pope could limit his authority in the power granted to him and undertake to exercise his authority within the framework of the synod and in consensus with it. In a reconciled Christianity he could have a different jurisdiction for the Roman Catholic particular Church than for the other particular Churches, which could retain their proven legal systems. Canon law knows instruments for how different responsibilities can coexist ⁴⁴⁰. Regarding the issue of infallibility, Farfa Sabina's dialogue group made the suggestion that "the Pope should explain that in the future he and his successors will normally only bring about dogmatic decisions through a broad prior public discussion, with the participation of the bishops, the representatives of the other churches and with the help of the respective expertise, as corresponds to the prevailing tradition of the church" ⁴⁴¹.

In fact, there are already diverse synodal structures in the Catholic Church, on the basis of which Pope Francis' concerns could be taken into account to a much broader extent. It is a noble task for canonists to develop models that do justice to the theology of the papacy as a service to the unity and liberty of the Church and Christianity. Hopefully the synod of bishops will find the courage and strength to propagate decisive steps towards this.

opening to the world

Michal Opatrný: Community work as an inspiration for consensus building in the pastoral ministry of a parish

Michal Opatrný, born 1978, Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, Charity Studies and Social Work, Faculty of Theology, South Bohemian University, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

Summary: The first section of this article operationalizes the concept of pastoral ministry in the sense of the Second Vatican Council and presents it as the responsibility of the church as a whole and of each individual Christian for the world. The world is not just the field for pastoral application speculative theological insights, but it is also a source of inspiration and help for theology and the church. Therefore, in a second section, the contribution concludes that the church and especially theology in the world must recognize the signs of the times as signs of God's will. The next section formulates the central principles of community work. Finally, the understanding of social work and community work as a sign of the times and as inspiration and support for church and theology is the goal of the fourth and fifth section. The fourth section focuses on consensus building in the parish, while the fifth section looks at the contribution of the parish to the local community. Finally, the sixth and final section pleads for participatory and diaconal pastoral care for the sake of the synodality of the Church.

Pastoral work as a service to the world must not be inspired solely by the signs of the times. It must always also be a pastoral service, ie a service of the church to the world. A profession that is geared towards finding consensus in the world and in society is social work. His main method is community work, both in general and in the specific practices that serve to build consensus in the local community. It is about consensus building eg in a neighborhood, town, village, administrative region or county, block of flats or on a certain street etc. Although social work is a typical profession in secular society, it also represents a source of inspiration for both theology as well as for pastoral ministry (Opatrný, 2013). It is a science but also an art (Grady, Keenan, 2014). This contribution is intended to address the methodology of consensus finding in social work, to understand more closely community work as a pastoral task of the church and the parish, and to derive consequences for the synodality of the church from this.

Pastoral service to the world

In Catholic theology, the term "pastoral" is not simply a designation for the activities of the clergy and selected lay people. At least since the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965) it has been the general term for the task (lat. munus) of the Catholic Church in the world (Widl, 1997) (Knobloch, 1996). On the one hand there is the pastoral service in the sense of the tasks of the clergy and theologians, on the other hand the term describes the task of every Catholic Christian (Gaudium et Spes, 44). All who are in pastoral service can only fulfill their central task in solidarity (Gaudium et spes, 1) interaction with the world (Bopp, 2006), ie with society, culture and with each person. Because the world and the historical context of the respective life and social events are also the context of the Christian faith. This cultural framework affects and shapes the Christian faith, it is the context of God's call to human beings to realize their humanity. Consequently, pastoral ministry is proclamation of the gospel not only in a verbal but also in an existential sense. The gospel must be communicated through an appropriate life practice, and such practice is not possible without a proper understanding of its historical, social and cultural context. The gospel must therefore be communicated with an appropriate life practice and understanding of the world, both as shown by Jesus Christ (Mette, 2005) (Gaudium et spes, 45).

The Second Vatican Council and its Pastoral Constitution therefore speak not only about the fundamental principles of the Church's support of the world (Gaudium et Spes, 40; 41-43), but also about the help that the Church receives from the world (Gaudium et Spes, 40; 44). While it may seem to many Christians, and especially Catholics, that today's world and culture, on the one hand, and the Church and Catholicism, on the other hand, are vastly different and in direct opposition to one another, the truth is that this world should be viewed as a source of inspiration and an aid to the understand church. This view is the culmination of the understanding of gospel inculturation (O'Collins, 2006). This also applies when there are deep-seated conflicts or when the Christian faith is persecuted by public institutions (Gaudium et Spes, 44). All of this can become a sign to seek God's will in certain life situations and to recognize the signs of the times in the world.

Reading the signs of the times and social work

The term sign of the times is used in a variety of ways in Catholic theology. The starting point is the pericope Mt 16:1-4, in which Jesus describes himself as a sign of the times. His word says that he is the sign from God: a sign that those who oppose him cannot see or comprehend. Figuratively, the term is used for God's message of His will and purposes as seen in the events of history. In this figurative sense, God expects an appropriate response from Christians to the challenges of the day. Christians are therefore capable of recognizing this message and deriving a corresponding life practice from their concrete actions (Opatrný, 2013). The years before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), as a sign of the times, had historical events that made possible in particular a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians (John XXIII, 1963). For the Periti - the advisers to the Second Vatican Council, whom Pope John XXIII. who were particularly close intellectually - were signs of the times, especially the changes in the social and global sphere. According to these Periti, these events called Christians to take a stance on their faith and to respond to them in a concrete way (Chénu, 1968). In later stages of development, situations in which non-Christians no longer understood the kerygma of Christianity, i.e. the content of faith and the moral teaching of Christianity and their Catholic proclamation, were understood as a sign of the times. According to Theobald (2006), this situation represents a call to Christians to better grasp the kerygma and to search for better ways of communicating it in an appropriate and timely manner. According to Sander (2005), signs of the times are events that make people decide whether to behave as humans or as non-humans and act accordingly. Consequently, the human response to concrete challenges must be in accordance with God's will, because God identifies with those people whose human dignity is at risk. This implies the demand for human dignity as a clear criterion for the often vague term humanism. Behaving and acting humanely in a given situation means protecting and promoting human dignity.

Given the church's task of seeing its pastoral ministry as an interaction with the world in solidarity, it is possible for theology to look at the kairos, the time given by God, and to ask how to respond to it - like the church of their basic tasks (Greek: koinonia, martyria, leitourgia, diakonia) during this time (Zulehner, 1991). So when the question is asked in this book how synodality can be realized in the Catholic Church and what the synod in 2023 should have in mind regarding synodality, this also implies aspects of social work and its methods.

Social work supports vulnerable, poor and vulnerable people and their families and communities. Social work supports people whose human dignity is in danger; they are the very people with whom God identifies himself. In addition, social work is geared towards overcoming social problems - it supports both people and society (Horner, 2018) in overcoming problems in their coexistence (Engelke, Spatscheck, Borrmann, 2016). Social work is therefore not only an ethics of concrete action, but above all an ethics of thinking (Staub-Bernasconi, 2018), a so-called "moral profession" (Müller, 2007). Social work is about transforming abstract values into principles from which a helping practice grows (DuBois, Krogsrud Miley, 2018). Reading social work and its approaches as a sign of the times should be part of the pastoral task and become an important source of inspiration, support and concrete help for the church and theology (Opatrný, 2013), not only in the context of synodality , but also very well in him.

Community work – the central principles

Of the four main traditional aspects of social work (individual case work, family work, support group work and community work), community work is more oriented than the other three towards consensus among different people and groups, but also across society as a whole. Therefore, this section aims primarily to present community work as an inspiration for community formation in the church, especially in the parish. Of course, this does not exclude other inspirations that church, theology and pastoral care experience through social work.

Community work stands alongside the other, more complex aspects of social work. In addition, it is also linked to local and municipal politics, especially social politics. However, not only in practice, but also in studies and theory, it often receives little attention (Dudley, 2016) (Hill, Donaldson, 2012). Community work is not aimed directly at a specific client or support group. Rather, it is oriented towards a social system consisting of relatively constant connections and relationships between people who are locally connected (home, community, neighborhood) and live in that place over a longer period of time (Havrdová et al., 2013). However, the word community is a broad term within which community work in social work means the development of a territorial community (Navrátil, 2001). This means that community work is mostly as locally oriented as pastoral work in parishes. First and foremost, social work in the community is based on social capital theory. This theory describes society or a part of it (eg the local community such as a village, a neighborhood or a block of flats) in terms of the relationships between its members. The density and quality of the network of relationships are of crucial importance (Havrdová et al., 2013). Density indicates the number of relationships between different members of a society. Quality describes the ability to mobilize relationships to assist a member in solving or coping with problems.

Helping a community means building and developing its social capital by engaging people in the network of relationships of society as a whole (Dudley, 2016). However, if they live in socially confined spaces, it is necessary to start improvement from those locations. Community work is the most appropriate method. By mobilizing their human capital (i.e. the knowledge and skills of specific people) and collaborating on easily and quickly achievable goals (Havrdová et al., 2013), social work with the community work method can improve the life situation of marginalized people by changing their social system and improve the connection of them with the whole of society. Special social services such as youth centers or counseling centers, the establishment of self-help groups, or cooperation with local actors within regional and municipal social policy can be very helpful.

Community work as a stimulus for the synodal development of the church community

Community work is a broad approach to promoting social cohesion and trust in the local community. Depending on the social context, there are various particularly helpful approaches in practice. Two principles for supporting social cohesion and mutual trust are particularly relevant: identifying core group members and working with this core group, and identifying small and quickly achievable goals (Havrdová et al., 2013).

The core group consists of trusted individuals within the community. They are people of natural authority, people of recognized experience who have long enjoyed the respect and trust of the community. The goal of the social worker should be to identify such people in the community and to engage them in community work. In doing so, the collaboration of trusted members is the modus procedendi in promoting social cohesion and trust throughout the community. It is paradigmatic as an example of the possibility and feasibility of community members working together. Such an example encourages other members of the community to get involved as well. Furthermore, such cooperation strengthens social cohesion; the fruit of this is a growing trust within the community, ie a general trust among all its members.

Aiming for small and easily achievable goals is critical to both working together in the community and developing the confidence to overcome problems. The small goals that the community should achieve can usually be achieved quickly. So the main task of the social worker is to meet the needs of the community ie the common needs of its members − to identify and rank them in the form of goals, starting with those that are easily achievable and ending with those that are difficult and only achievable through complex approaches. Then the social worker must pursue the easiest goals to which he must win some members of the community. As a rule, these are the members of the core group and their closest relatives, friends and neighbours. When they achieve the small and simple goals, self-confidence grows in the group and in the community, and people become able to achieve even more difficult and complex goals according to the order of the community's needs. With these goals, which are not so easy and quick to achieve, the connection between the members of the community grows and with it their social capital. The community can then be able to deal with their problems on their own (without a social worker) and find the confidence to do so. In addition, the mutual trust of the members of the congregation increases.

These core principles of community work are also applicable to the pastoral ministry of the parish or other ecclesial community. In terms of the signs of the times, pastoral theology can draw on community work and its principles and use them to strengthen cohesion among parishioners and between the parish and the local community (e.g., in a neighborhood or parish), as in the next section is performed. Such an application of community work principles can transform parish pastoral care from an authoritarian (Neuner, Zulehner, 2013) “one man show by a big boss” (Steinkamp, 1999), i.e. the pastor and other clergy, into a participatory and transform diaconal pastoral.

As mentioned above, in Catholic theology the concept of pastoral ministry is the essence of the mutual solidarity relationship between the Church and the world. In this way, the principles of (secular) community work can help church pastoral to fulfill this task. The following questions are intended to clarify and specify this.

Questions about the core group principle:

Which church members have natural authority? That means: It is not necessarily the people who always and in every case agree with the pastor and agree with him.

Which members of the congregation are able to persuade and attract other members to participate? That means: It is not the people who assert themselves and only push for their own ideas and goals.

Which church members know how they perceive others? That is: They perceive the church members without regard to others, they think of others, they are considerate of non-church members, of the wounded, the weak and the poor in the church.

Which members of the parish have the trust of the other parishioners? That is, they are asked for advice and help, they feel comfortable formulating and expressing the ideas of other members, and they are able to do so appropriately and effectively.

Questions about the quickly reachable goal principle:

What are the main needs of the community?

Is there a lack of fulfillment of the four basic tasks of the church?

Is there a need for education or more spiritual guidance?

Is there a spiritual and a faith dryness?

Is there a need for different spiritual direction within the different spiritualities in the Catholic Church?

Are there technical problems, eg the humidity of the church building, is a sound system required, etc.?

Which groups of church members have which needs (eg seniors, young people, men and women, families, single people)?

Which needs are easy to solve and which are difficult and can only be solved with complex approaches?

What needs can the parish solve on its own? Which need diocesan, local church, or community support?

Who from the core group can check what the needs are in a given situation?

Which need should you start with? What are the indicators to solve this need?

Who should be responsible for this? The parish priest? A deacon or lay minister? A member of the core group or member(s) of the parish?

All of the above questions, and possibly more than these, should be answered by the pastor or other person responsible for the parish in order to follow the core group principle of the community development approach to social work. The first set of questions about the core group leads to putting together a group of workers, eg a pastoral team or a pastoral council. The second area should also be answered by the people in the core group, ie you have to look for common answers in the discussion. However, the recognition of the needs of parishioners is only supported and strengthened by the parish if the parishioners are also included in the process indicated above all by the first set of questions.

Nevertheless, finding consensus in the parish does not simply mean following any ideas or misjudgments of its members. Needs orientation is ensured by the selection of the members of the core group. Therefore, the members of the core group should be church-experienced people (Zulehner, 2003), ie parishioners with a credible life history in the parish, who are also trustworthy because of their professional work and private family life.

The church community as an actor in community work

In fact, even when the religious community is not committed to community work, it is often the focus of developments in the community in which it is located (Dudley, 2016). On the other hand, because of radical ideas and interpretations of community work, the churches are often reticent about community work (Vondrasek, 2006) (Martinek, 2010). Nonetheless, in the history of social work in some countries, the collaborative engagement of congregations and parishes has been very important and meaningful to social service (Hill, Donaldson, 2012). This is not surprising given social capital theory, since members of religious communities have expanded social capital with other members of the same parish or community or with other members of the same religion (Stachová et al., 2009). The theological literature has argued that the Christian community and parishes should also be agents of community work (Vondrasek, 2006). If we look at the parish community in a local community, it unites different people based on their faith, belief and membership in a particular church. Due to their religious community, these people have more opportunities to mobilize their social capital, for example to find a doctor or tradesman or lawyer in their community. They can also mobilize this network to find support beyond the parish or community. Thus, parishes are at least implicitly and passively part of the community and influence its life and ultimately community development. Therefore, in this section, the role of the parish in the development of the local community (eg in a municipality, a city or a district) is also briefly discussed. It is an important part of pastoral ministry, understood as the mutual relationship between church and world.

In the Czech capital, Prague, there are two large housing estates typical of former communist countries from the 1970s and 1980s. They were built for hundreds of thousands of residents. No churches were built during the communist period (1948-1989). In the 1990s the Office of the Catholic Archbishop of Prague planned the construction of new churches. However, these were not referred to as Catholic churches or parishes, but as community centers. However, they did not serve social work or community development (Martinek, 2010) (Tichý, 2006). Referring to the new churches as community centers should be a terminology of how to talk about building churches in secular society. This example shows the relationship between churches and community development. Although the churches are not explicitly involved in community development, they at least implicitly perform important functions in the local community (Opatrný, 2015), arguably also fulfilling their social mission in the community. This is how the influence of the parish on the local community (here the Prague metropolis district) is possible and also takes place in a very secular country like the Czech Republic.

Thus the parish can be an organizer or at least a participant in the community work process in the neighbourhood, town or village, eg due to changes in urban development (Nixon, 2014). However, experiences from the second half of the 20th century with attempts to establish community development as an important part of pastoral and social ministry in parishes in Austria and Germany have not been successful (Vondrasek, 2006). However, it is possible to provide examples of better practice.

Example 1: In the event of a flood, as happened in 2002 in the Štěchovice commune in the Central Bohemian Region in the Czech Republic, the church building and the parish hall were the center of help: a depot for material help, food, drinking water, temporary shelters for survivors, etc. This was mainly because they are on a hill. Nevertheless, such a depot and such accommodation also required the active cooperation of the parishioners. In this way, they were involved in the service process in the community and were able to continue to participate in community development and rehabilitation projects after the flood.

Example 2: In 2018, the congregation of the Church of Czech Brethren in Chrást u Plzně (West Bohemian Region in the Czech Republic) opened its own garden behind the parish house to the whole local community as a community garden and playground for children. The garden with seating, a gazebo and a cross is open to everyone to spend their free time. It is also a center for encounters, events, concerts, church services, etc. In this way, the church community supports community life in the community through openness and maintenance of its infrastructure and, with the events, also community development. Such activity of a congregation is part of its diakonia - the social service of the church (Vondrasek, 2006).

Promote participatory and diaconal parish pastoral for the synodality of the church

The two examples already mentioned show that community work is well applicable to pastoral practice. Despite practical applicability, reading the signs of the times is more important in theology and pastoral work. The fact that the inspiration of pastoral work in community work can promote the synodality of the church is particularly important for the interpretation of social work as a sign of the times (see Section 2). Only then can one think about the applicability. For the poor church - church of the poor (Pope Francis), namely the diaconal church, is therefore important, in an established profession that is oriented towards the people, first read the signs of the times (see section 3) instead of following their own paths on the looking for a green field. The already described inspiration of theology and pastoral work through community work therefore consists of two things. Firstly, community work is inspiration for communication and for the exchange of information in the parish (see section 4), secondly, it is not possible without the participation of the parish in the development of the social and political community (see section 5), where the parish has its seat. The Church's pastoral mission is to be realized in the world and in exchange with the world (see Section 1), not without the world.

The strengthening of the synodality of the church can therefore be achieved through participatory and diaconal parish pastoral care. These two ways of pastoral are also linked in the inspiration of community work, so it is possible to formulate the following basic principles for both. If one follows these basic principles, which serve to find consensus in various communities, then the synodality of the church is also promoted.

1. In community work, the changed perception of authority is important. The social worker should not claim for himself primary authority in the social or political community, but seeks those who already have authority in the community to build the core group. This changed understanding of authority is also important for the church milieu. Working in the spirit of community work in the parish means renouncing the formal authority of ministers in favor of the authority of those who have authority in the parish – ie those with experience of the church. Because the church-experienced people in the parish are well connected as a social network, this improves communication in the parish – and with it, consensus-finding. In this way, pastoral priorities will change.

2. Community work relies on prioritization of goals and progressive (“rolling”) development. Priority is given to the needs of the church or community and its members. Small goals are to be pursued first. The core group of those in authority in the church should first formulate the small and quickly achievable goals, later the more complex and enduring ones, to gradually saturate the needs of church members. To start from the other side, that is, from high and general goals, would be to overwhelm community interaction and mutual trust with complex demands on specific members. Therefore, inspiration from community work for pastoral care is an important stimulus for planning in the church. Instead of following complex and global goals that come from above in pastoral care, ie from the diocese, ecclesiastical province or Apostolic See, the church-savvy members should pay attention to the needs of parishioners as well as members of the political and social community where the parish is located , in order to formulate these appropriate pastoral goals. In this way, growth towards more and more complex goals and trust in the community becomes possible. The networking of church-experienced people is an important prerequisite for an improved consensus finding in the parish and between the parish and the local political or social community and its members.

3. It is essential for community work to build and connect social networks instead of drawing boundaries and erecting barriers. It is important to build trust between social networks and people (Havrdová, et al., 2013). Mutual trust is also important for any fruitful consensus finding. Inspiration of pastoral work through community work also means renouncing that mentality of exclusivity, which emphasizes and even seeks the differences and differences between people, in order to say who is allowed to participate and who is not - whether in the prayer group, religious instruction, communion or in the discussion about diaconal activities of the congregation. It is also important to renounce the mentality of church and community exclusivity in the parish, which wants to draw and build boundaries and barriers to the social and political community. In this principle, the pastoral and diakonia of the congregation, the self-related activity with the activity towards others and neighbors are united. For the sake of a diaconal parish and church, the participatory view of pastoral care is necessary. The joy and hope, sorrow and fear of today's people (Gaudium et Spes, 1) can only be shared by that community of Christians who are connected to the world. Building networks is what constitutes the diaconia of a congregation that wants to be able to find consensus and is an actor in consensus finding.

All these principles, as well as the previous chapters, initially remained related to the parish level. The level of the diocese and the whole church were not yet taken into account. From a community work perspective, only such an approach is appropriate. Social networks and mutual trust can only be built from below. It is not the other way around, as the social sciences testify and practical social work shows. It is also part of reading these signs of the times that the church office, theology and the synod refrain from plans "top down" in order to be inspired in the world for finding a consensus "bottom up".

literature

Second Vatican Council (1965). Pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes on the Church in the Modern World . Rome.

Bopp, Karl (2006). " Gaudium et spes " A constitutional redefinition of church pastoral. In: Lechner, Martin, Bopp, Karl, Medel, Fernando Berrios. The Arrival of the Church in the Modern World: The Impact of the Pastoral Constitution " Gaudium et Spes " from a German and Chilean Perspective . Munich.

DuBois, Brenda/Krogsrud Miley, Karla (2018). Social Work: An empowering profession. Boston.

Dudley, James R (2016). Spirituality Matters in Social Work: Connecting Spirituality, Religion, and Practice . New York-London.

Engelke, Ernst/Spatscheck, Christian/Bormann, Stefan (2016). The Science of Social Work: History and Basics . Freiburg i. Br.

Grady, Melissa/Keenan, Elizabeth (2014). Beyond the manual: Using research and evidence in social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal 42, 101-106.

Havrdová, Zuzana et al. (2013). With život ve svých rukou: O oblastech a postupech práce komunitního pracovníka ve vyloučených lokalitách . Praha: Český západ and Charles University, Faculty of Humanities together with public service company Cheiron T.

Hill, Anthony J./Plitt Donaldson, Linda (2012). We Shall Overcome: Promoting an Agenda for Integration Spirituality and Community Practice. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 31 : 1-2, 67-84.

Horner, Nigel (2018). What is Social Work?: Contexts and Perspectives . Transforming Social Work Practice Series. London.

Chénu, Marie-Dominque (1968). People of God in the World , Paderborn.

John XXIII (1963). Encyclical letter Pacem in terris o n Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty . Rome.

Knobloch, Stephan (1996). Practical Theology: A Textbook for Study and Pastoral Care . Freiburg-Basel-Vienna.

Martinek, Michael (2010). Teologický a pastorační aspect komunitní práce. In Martinek, Michael et al. Praktická teologie per sociální pracovníky . Prague.

Mette, Norbert (2005). Introduction to Catholic Practical Theology . Darmstadt.

Muller, Wolfgang. C (2007). From active charity to helping as a profession. In Lob-Hüdepohl, Andreas, Lesch, Walter, Ethics of Social Work: A Handbook . Paderborn-Munich-Vienna-Zurich.

Navratil, Pavel (2001). Theory of a method of social practice . Brno.

Neuner, Peter/Zulehner, Paul M. (2013). Thy Kingdom Come: A Practical Doctrine of the Church . Mainz.

Nixon, David (2014). Towards a Theology of Urban Regeneration: Stories from Devonport. International Journal of Public Theology 8 :2, 223-245.

O'Collins, Gerald (2006). Living Vatican II: The 21st Council for the 21st Century . New York.

Opatrný, Michal (2013). Sociální práce a teologie: Inspirace a podněty sociální práce pro teologii . Prague.

Opatrný, Michal (2015). Community Centers in Prague Archdiocese: New places of community work or places of new pastoral. Roczniki Teologiczne LXII, Vol. 6: 5-20.

Sander, Hans-Joachim (2006). Theological Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes . In Hünermann, Peter, Hilberath, Jochen (eds.). Herder's Theological Commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Vol. 4. Freiburg-Basel-Vienna.

Stachová, Jan/Bernard, Josef/Čermák, Daniel (2009). Sociální kapitál v České republice av mezinárodním srovnání . Sociologické study 09/5. Prague.

Steinkamp, Hermann (1999). The Gentle Power of Shepherds: The Relevance of Michel Foucault to Practical Theology . Mainz.

Staub-Bernasconi, Silvia (2018). Social work as an action science: social work towards critical professionalism . Stuttgart: UTB.

Theobald, Christoph (2006). On the theology of the signs of the times: meaning and criteria today. In Hünermann, Peter (ed.). The Second Vatican Council and the Signs of the Times Today . Freiburg-Basel-Vienna.

Tichy, Radek (2006). Komunitní centra na pražských sídlištích: Závěrečná zpráva z výzkumu . Arcibiskupství pražské, interní material.

Vondrasek, Bernhard (2006). Charity and Empowerment: Theological Perspectives in Community Work. In Krockauer, Rainer, Bohlen, Stephanie, Lehner, Markus (eds.). Theology and Social Work: Handbook for Study, Further Education and Career . Munich.

Widl, Maria (1997). Small Pastoral Theology: Realistic Pastoral Care . Graz-Vienna-Cologne.

Zulehner, Paul M. (1991). Pastoral theology: Fundamental pastoral: Church between commission and expectation, Vol. 1. Düsseldorf.

Zulehner, Paul M. (2003). People Priests in Vibrant Congregations: A Plea for Congregational Presbyteries . Ostfildern.

Thomas Pogoda: Synodality in the claims of non-denominational “ others”

Thomas Pogoda, born 1977, Dr. theol., director of the specialist academy for parish pastoral in the Diocese of Magdeburg

Summary: The increasing religious freedom in society calls for consequences for synodal processes. Based on the otherness of the other person, as described by Bernhard Waldenfels in his Phenomenology of Otherness, the author subjects selected texts from the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles to a relecture. This enables conclusions to be drawn for an understanding of synodality with non-denominational fellow human beings.

What can the learning process inherent in synodality ⁴⁴²look like for a church on its way into the 21st century? More precisely: How can synodality be shaped for a church that increasingly finds itself in a non-denominational majority society? And further: How can the Christian community ally itself with the non-denominational in the defense of human dignity, in the development of a peaceful coexistence of peoples and in the preservation of creation?⁴⁴³

The following article will pursue the synodality in relation to the non-denominational "Others": from a phenomenological observation (a) to a biblical consideration (b) to thesis-like conclusions (c).

Interacting with the “Others”

In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis calls on the Christian community to take a new step ⁴⁴⁴– which should lead this community out of itself and existing habits: Missionary departure means change. First of all, it is the change that makes a new start possible or promotes it. At the same time, the missionary path should change the disciples themselves in and through the encounter with the "others" - the counterparts on their path. Your intentions and orientations will be changed and, if necessary, placed on a new basis.

These connections are also confirmed in studies on the phenomenon of "foreignness", such as those undertaken by Bernhard Waldenfels. ⁴⁴⁵Waldenfels very clearly reminds of the fact of "otherness", which ⁴⁴⁶is to be recognized in the absence of a common "guiding, mediating and centering authority". Dialogue then does not appear to be an appropriate form of interaction, especially with non-denominational “others”. Missionary dialogue offers must critically question whether they do not already provide a certain horizon of understanding and thus run the risk of assuming "traits of violence" towards the "other" / the stranger in their concern for dialogical reconciliation.

Accordingly, instead of a “global dialogue, Waldenfels recommends [rather] regional[...] discourses[...]”, ⁴⁴⁷and therein the mode of the “question”. The question opens up "a space for understanding, action and encounters on a large and small scale [... because] it breaks through the obviousness of what is obvious and creates points of reference where answers can build on." ⁴⁴⁸This shows that the "other" approaches with a question as a claim that challenges one to answer one's own. Especially an interaction of non-denominational and denominational makes this obvious. What is needed here is the discourse approach, in which questions are formulated for the other person or - and this is perhaps what precedes - in which there is a willingness to come up with one's own answers to the "other" or "foreign" in the question of " connect to others”. As a consequence, this means that the type of one's own speech is a response to the "others", that the "otherness" - in Waldenfels' words the "other order" - respects.

Here “a delimitation” is indicated, which leads to the “dissolving of the border between what is one’s own and what is foreign”. ⁴⁴⁹Waldenfels recommends "acting and thinking on the limit." He therefore describes "experience as a confrontation" that takes place "with others and with others in the context of an intermediate sphere", where "an assignment and an interaction between the experiencing, the experienced and the fellow experiencing" become possible. ⁴⁵⁰This event represents “a cooperation with strangers”, which is neither a strict separation nor amalgamation, but a processual experience between “our own” and “foreign”. Waldenfels calls this complex reality an “interweaving”.⁴⁵¹

Waldenfels characterizes the phenomenological observation according to which the interaction with the "other" leads to a change in one's own nature. This moment of a possible and factual change must be considered with a view to a synodality with the non-denominational “others”: it is rather to be expected.

Her missionary journey changes the Christian community

In order to grasp this changing moment on the missionary path theologically, it helps us to take a look at the Lucanian double work, which is a model book ⁴⁵²or a basic description of missionary commitment in the church. ⁴⁵³Here the call to departure is named: for example when Jesus sends his disciples ahead of him into the places, houses and living spaces of the people (Lk 10, 1-12) or when he sends out the twelve in the ascension scene (Lk 24, 50- 53; more clearly then in Acts 1:4-11). The Acts of the Apostles then describes the path that leads from Jerusalem to the center of the world at that time, to Rome. Ultimately, there is a path that leads from the periphery to the center.

At the same time, there are striking passages in the Lucanian double work that focus on the necessity of change on the missionary path. I would like to cite three particularly clear moments here: the healing of the slave of the Centurion of Capernaum (Lk 7:1-10), the conversion and baptism of the Centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18) and the so-called "Council of the Apostles". (Acts 15:1-35). In all three cases there is an interaction with the "others" that leads to a change.

In the scene surrounding the Centurion of Capernaum (Luke 7:1-10) ⁴⁵⁴, the "other" refers to a non-Jewish, pagan Roman officer, who is described here in the Gospel of Luke as in the Acts of the Apostles as well as other people as "God-fearing". ⁴⁵⁵The centurion lived with a certain openness towards Judaism. At the same time, he did not belong to this community and had not or could not confess himself to it by converting. However, with the help of the elders of this same community, he approaches Jesus with a request to save the slave - later the centurion's friends will also meet Jesus, so that Jesus will not enter the centurion's house. Two things are of interest here. Once the pagan centurion received support from the elders of the Jewish community of Capernaum: They conveyed the officer's request to Jesus, made it their own and vouched for him (Luke 7:4f). But then Jesus also seems to see the centurion anew, who perceives the faith of the "other" with amazement and appreciatively draws the attention of his companions to it (Luke 7:9). The slave will probably recover, but Jesus will not (yet) visit the house of the centurion.

In the encounter with the "others" messengers are needed who advocate for the "others" and speak for them. At the same time, the encounter with the "others" - even if this is indirect, as in this case in Capernaum - means the possibility of changed perceptions and assessments. In this case, a belief – attitude, value, etc. – has been encountered that was not previously anticipated, but may not be in 100% agreement with one's understanding of beliefs, attitudes, or values.

Later in the Lucanian double work, the figure of a "god-fearing" centurion appears again, which is used to illustrate a very striking change for the further course of the young Christian community's missionary commitment (Acts 10:1-11:18). ⁴⁵⁶This time, however, the initiative comes from God himself - mediated by a messenger who visits the Centurion Cornelius in a vision (Acts 10:3-6). God had noticed his godly way of life - in the gift of alms and in prayer - and the Roman officer should now send some - also pagan - men to Simon Peter (Acts 10:7-8). Peter also experiences a vision that deals with impurity and purity, which alone belongs to God (Acts 10:9-16). Finally, three of Cornelius' envoys seek him out, who invite him to the Roman officer's house. This encounter prompts Peter - who had evidently previously refused table fellowship with Gentiles - to take in these three Gentiles. Peter will enter the house of Cornelius and interprets his vision of the sovereignty of God over purity and impurity as an impulse that human criteria cannot determine who is pure or impure or - put in a new context - who does not belong or belongs (Acts 10:28-29). Finally, against the background of Cornelius' account, Peter formulates a crucial sentence that marks the step that young Christianity has taken out of the national realm of the Jewish community: "Truly, now I understand that God does not look at the person, but that he welcomes in every people who fears him and does what is right. (Acts 10:34-35) ⁴⁵⁷This knowledge of Peter is confirmed in the description of the Acts of the Apostles by the fact that the Holy Spirit descends on the Gentiles, which leads to the baptism of Cornelius ( Acts 10: 44-48). As Peter did before, the companions of Jewish origin also learn that God is greater in what belongs to him: the Holy Spirit has also come to the pagan “others”.

At this point it becomes clear that the messengers, who themselves come from the circle of the "others", make the encounter possible and thus give orientation to people who follow Jesus. These orientations of the "others" then lead to conclusions and also to changes. An important finding from reading Acts 10 should be that the Holy Spirit has also descended on these "others", which is no longer the exclusive of the "own". God's idea of the development of his own is mediated through the Holy Spirit in the middle of human history.⁴⁵⁸

However, a community discernment is obviously needed so that this effectiveness of the Holy Spirit is also recognized as relevant or that the insecurity caused by such a fundamental change among the Christian brothers and sisters is also overcome. The aftermath of the scene in Caesarea—now back in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18)—represents the first glimpses of such a communal distinction, which consisted first in Peter recounting his encounter with the heathen Cornelius and while also offering his interpretation of what he experienced: “When I began to speak, the Holy Spirit descended on them, as on us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord: John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then God gave them the same gift as gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who am I that I should hinder God? When they heard this, they calmed down, praised God and said: God has also given the Gentiles the gift of conversion to life. (Acts 11:15-18)

With this determination, the identity of the young Christian community changed very emphatically: While it had previously been shaped and sustained by its origins in Judaism, the encounter with the pagan “others” led to a lasting redefinition of its own self-image towards a Christian community whose members also recruited from among other pagan people. By dealing with the claim made by Cornelius - first indirectly through his messengers and then personally towards Peter - the young Christianity finds its answer regarding their further development of the community. The Acts of the Apostles marks God himself as the origin or cue-giver of this claim, who in this way confronts the Christian community on hitherto unknown, foreign paths.

The change resulting from the baptism of Cornelius and his house showed the formation of the church of Antioch and also the missionary journey that Paul and Barnabas embark on. Both are - probably even more than Peter - in contact and living together with Gentiles, who then join the Christian community as Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas appear in the account of Acts as called by the Holy Spirit and commissioned by the laying on of hands, fasting and prayer of the community (Acts 13:2-3). In doing so, these two become intermediaries for these "other" Christians in their ministry, which gained importance just when the coexistence of parishioners with a Jewish background and parishioners with a pagan background became difficult because of the different reference to the purity regulations. In order to deal with these questions as well, the community of Antioch once again chose a path of communal discernment. This time it is Paul and Barnabas - as experts in the Gentile-Christian ways of faith and advocates for their concerns - and other representatives of the church who set out to settle a dispute with the apostles and the elders of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35). . ⁴⁵⁹The question that Paul, Barnabas and his companions bring with them to Jerusalem causes controversy here too, as they reported their experiences with the Gentile-Christian brethren.

This leads to that synodal discernment process which - traditionally referred to as the "Council of the Apostles" - is ideally represented in the Acts of the Apostles. In this context, Peter activates his experience with Cornelius and recalls the events of Caesarea: his proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the gift of the Holy Spirit that took place. Ultimately, Peter's concern here is to enable the Gentile Christians to participate (barrier-free) in the Christian community that corresponds to their origin - and which is why the commandments of the Torah are not necessary for them (Acts 15:7-11). Paul and Barnabas can once again report on the “signs and wonders” that God worked among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Finally, James interprets the experiences of Peter (as well as Paul and Barnabas) in the light of Jewish tradition - here the prophets (Amos 9:11-12 LXX or Jer 12:15, Isa 45:21) - and advocates a compromise solution , which, however, contains a step of "epochal importance" for the young Christian community: The missionary commitment among the Gentiles is recognized and this "other" way to Christ is possible and introduced in addition to the way out of Judaism. ⁴⁶⁰As in the description of Peter's experiences, the Acts of the Apostles also links this path to a changing shape of the young Christian community with the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit, because "the Holy Spirit and we have decided" ultimately qualifies the result of the community discernment (cf. Acts 15:28).

The Lucanian double work draws a spiritual-theological historical ⁴⁶¹picture in which encounters, claims and the resulting responses of the young Christian community come into view, which is a strongly identity-changing moment of the acceptance of "others" who have not yet belonged to one's own cultural and religious tradition the hitherto "own" community mean. Mechanisms that initiate these processes or that help to interpret them clearly emerge in these pictures: the recognition of the life of the "others" - the belief and lifestyle of the centurions; a mediation of messengers who advocate for the "others" - be it representatives of these "others" or the "own" ones who bring in their experiences and observations and make them available; communal distinction in synodal events. Ultimately, it is about perception and interpretation of the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in these "other" areas, which does not remain without effect on "one's own". It becomes clear that missionary commitment - that is, the encounter with the "other" - always contains the possibility of changing what is "one's own". The historical picture of the Acts of the Apostles ultimately indicates that the Holy Spirit in the confrontation of the Christian community with the "others" produces a new form for this community.

Considerations for a synodal event with the non-denominational "Others"

(1.) A basic prerequisite for thinking about the formation of synodality is that the space in which synodality takes place is the following of Jesus' disciples. Since this discipleship is first and foremost a mission, which points beyond what is “one’s own”, the focus inevitably falls on the “others” – and thus also on the non-denominational “others”.

Synodality is the mechanism with which the disciples, in their different tasks, ministries and talents, come to an agreement on how the common path of discipleship can be shaped. In a synodal event, disciples reflect on their path of discipleship and the experiences made on this path in the light of the Gospel. Thus, synodality is the framework in which change processes can be mapped and developed on the path of succession.

(2.) Stimuli to these change processes come from outside the previous horizon of experience, thus questioning what is “one's own” and thereby calling for an answer. With the answer, one's own self-image changes by being formulated in terms of something "other". In other words: the claim of the question of the "other" forms the answer of the "own" in this way. Both are linked with each other.

In the light of faith, the perspective of God - the Holy Spirit - appears, who also addresses the "one's own" with the claim of the "other" and in which the answer of the "one's own" is spoken to the "other".

In the encounter with the non-denominational “other” the believing “own” is confronted with a claim. This claim is filled with the experiences of their non-denominational living environments, in which people are looking for a good and fulfilling life. In this claim of "God's 'other' people" ⁴⁶²the disciples are required to respond to the non-denominational "others" with regard to their own discipleship. This can lead to changes in one's own path of succession, it links one's own path with the "others".

(3.) With their approaching claims, the non-denominational “Others” are already part of a synodal event. The encounter inevitably leads to an answer from “one's own”, even if an answer to the question inherent in the claim is closed off.

The synodal events can be the space to actively face up to this claim. However, this is subject to possibility – risk? – that the encounter with non-denominational “others” leads to a change. This change can give a different direction to the path of discipleship. It can change the shape of the fellowship. It can make the attitudes of the disciples grow. In any case, the church will develop under the demands of non-denominational “others”. In other words: the claim of non-denominational “others” can be an element of renewal.

(4.) In order for the claim of non-denominational “others” to be perceived in a synodal event, suitable forms and methods are needed.

This claim can be perceived most clearly by the non-denominational “others” being able to have their say directly in a synodal event. However, this will require an active search for what can be a common theme – a common horizon of understanding. Here it will be necessary - because the otherness of the "other" has to be respected - not to declare one's own perspective as the default standard. Consequently, all that remains is an active listening to the claims expressed by the non-denominational “others”. The search for an answer can then be linked to this. An operationalized form could be that guests - perhaps they can also have a stronger status that goes beyond being a guest - take part in their own synodal search. ⁴⁶³In this way, the kind of entanglement in which claim and response are related to each other would be conceivable.

The claim of non-denominational "others" can also be reflected in the fact that the siblings share their experiences with one another and thus indirectly give this claim a voice. Here it must be taken into account that in this case the claim of the “others” has already begun to be entwined with the “own” or the interaction of the “own” with the “others”. At the same time, the claim of the "others" has already approached. It may be that some members of the community, because of their specific service to the community of the "own", take on an "advocacy" representation of the non-denominational "others" and their claims as well as an interpretation and explanation of this. Precisely this could be the specific profile of a missionary service ⁴⁶⁴- as it is ascribed to Peter, Paul and Barnabas in the above-mentioned passages of the Lukan double work.

(5.) As a hermeneutical prerequisite for the meaning of the claim of the non-denominational “others” it can be assumed that – according to biblical experience – the Holy Spirit also has an effect in and through the “others”.

The non-denominational “others” are also under and in the activity of the Holy Spirit. In addition, it is completely irrelevant whether the addressing "other" locates himself in this horizon or not. This localization can only be perceived in the eyes of faith itself. At the same time, the Holy Spirit stands for the dissolving or connecting element that also addresses the “ own” in the claim of the non-denominational “other”. For the Christian "own" this means, with the perception of the claims of the "others", also to listen to this joint claim of the Holy Spirit and to reckon with it. At the same time, however, it becomes clear that this hermeneutic prerequisite only applies to the “own” and cannot be explained as a common basis for the interaction of the “own” with the “others”.

(6.) Against this background, it becomes clear that dealing with these claims is part of a very complex event that requires the joint attention and effort of all those involved in a synodal event.

The process of discernment, as described by spiritual theology, appears to be the appropriate form to search for and formulate an answer that is appropriate to “one's own” and to the spirit in the claim of the non-denominational “other”. . In doing so, one must be aware that the "other" is always a part of this process of differentiation, since it is entangled with the "one's own". The way in which this entanglement is then also translated into forms of action and methods will be based on how open the “own” and the “other” are to one another and what the subject of this distinction is. Is it about a common concern for a good life for the people?

Legal possibilities of a reorganization

Hans Maier: What the church can learn from the democratic state - a sketch

Hans Maier, born 1931, professor em. for Christian worldview, theory of religion and culture at the Faculty of Philosophy, Theory of Science and Religious Studies at the University of Munich. Bavarian Minister of State for Education and Culture 1970-1986. President of the Central Committee of German Catholics 1976-1988.

Summary: Church and state have learned from each other since they existed, ever since they faced each other as independent entities. The article traces this mutual learning from the Investiture Controversy (the first concordats in history!) to the modern age and the present. In the process, positive results can be seen in the church: the cautious perception of democratic orders by the 20th century popes, the unconditional recognition of religious freedom in the Second Vatican Council. However, deficits are also visible: there is a lack of adequate, i.e. theological, recognition of the human rights tradition as a whole and also the comprehensive acquisition of democratic governance, which, in addition to the authority to set guidelines and the departmental principle, would also have to include the collegiality of all church members. So there is still a lot to learn “synodalically” for the future.

prehistory

Church and state can learn from each other, they are neighbours. For both, “how it is governed” plays a major role. Of course, this presupposes that these powers are independent, that they meet one another on an equal footing. Such a counterpart developed in Europe for the first time in the 12th century, during the time of the Investiture Controversy, that "struggle for the right order in the Christian world" ⁴⁶⁵.

Since that time, two legally independent structures, church and state, have stood opposite each other in one Christianity. For the first time in world history there are also treaties between them, concordats. ⁴⁶⁶In this way a model is being tested which from then on should prove itself for centuries to come: state and church in the relationship of the treaty, speaking and negotiating with one another on an equal footing, regulating common problems in "mixed zones" in a different and peaceful way, on both sides basically appropriating the renouncing others. That was a promising form of freedom and balance - equally removed from the Caesaropapism of the East and from the beginnings of a papal theocracy ⁴⁶⁷.

interactions

Within this framework, forms of mutual influence between church and state developed in the high and late Middle Ages, in modern times and in the present. Some of the most important are outlined briefly in the following sketch.

canonical

Classical canon law, introduced by the Decretum Gratiani (around 1140), summarized the entire law of the Church for the first time. The main legal sources were the sound of the council, synod resolutions and papal letters and decrees. At that time, not a single political community had a similarly extensive, reflexively founded law. It is therefore no wonder that canon law has had an exemplary effect on the development of European states over the centuries. Much was transferred from spiritual to secular contexts. Again and again Sacerdotium and regnum exchanged their mutual ideas and prerogatives. ⁴⁶⁸The Italian legal historian Sergio Mochi Onory traced this path in a classic way by revealing the canonical sources of the modern understanding of the state.⁴⁶⁹

absolutism

Conversely, the unified state power that arose with the modern state (Jean Bodin) had a visible effect on the internal order of the church. She was unrestricted in her tendency, valued absolute freedom of movement and generally broke away from the law and tradition (“legibus absoluta potestas”). This also applies to the supreme authority, the Pope. In recent centuries, although his external, territorial means of power dwindle more and more over time (and finally disappeared altogether with the Papal States between 1871 and 1929), he finally became an absolute ruler within the Church who exercised his full power can use and exercise freely and indefinitely. “The papal primacy of jurisdiction is not limited by any human violence. He is a real and not just an honorary primate.”⁴⁷⁰

For a long time, from the 12th to the 16th century, the Pope had always carried out his government duties with the help of experienced employees - in case of doubt the cardinals. The central deliberation and decision-making took place essentially within the framework of the consistories – these were the plenary assemblies of the cardinals present in Rome or at other places where the popes stayed with the pope. ⁴⁷¹The pope's advisors gave the popes a helping hand, they participated in the papal government; sometimes they even took over the leadership of the church themselves - in the case of weak or hesitant church leaders. Depending on historical circumstances and personal circumstances, the church government thus oscillated between forms of an (enlightened) monarchy and those of an elitist aristocracy.

That changed with the Reformation. This forced the church, which was in distress, to tighten its regime. Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) gave the Roman Curia a different shape; new central authorities arose, and the cardinals, once papal advisors, became heads of departments at the head of these congregations. From then on, they no longer participated as a group in the papal formation of opinion and will. "The irreplaceable role of the consistory as a place of controversial deliberation has been lost" - this is how even a conservative observer like the canon lawyer Georg May critically judges this change.⁴⁷²

On the other hand, the pope was able to make decisions all by himself in the future, using his own full powers – but in difficult situations (French Revolution, Napoleon, Risorgimento in Italy) he also stood alone and without assistance.

division of departments

The transformation of the curia into a modern system of government in turn served as a popular example for numerous states in Europe. In fact, Pope Sixtus V's approach was new and spectacular: with the stroke of a pen, the executive in Rome was systematically broken down; Congregations with distinct portfolios were created, responsible for the Inquisition, Index, Council, Bishops, Orders, Consistory, Signatura gratiae, Rites and the Vatican Printing Office. It was the model for future offices, ministries and governments in many European countries.

In the papal government, each of these offices was headed by a cardinal. From now on, the cardinals were completely absorbed in administrative work. They came to the Pope only as individuals, on demand and on demand, never in a group. They also never met together at regular intervals as "the Pope's cabinet"; Rather, the individual departments stood next to each other like blocks, almost isolated – this remained the case well into the 20th century. In this way, what is commonly called a “government” did not emerge in Vatican Rome in recent times: this would have required meetings of all department heads with the Pope at regular intervals, with preparation, agenda, voting and binding resolutions, all of them, too the outvoted, bind.

To put it in modern terms: the papal “competence to issue guidelines” – in fact unlimited – and the ministerial “departmental competence” – related to the department – are almost unrelated to each other in the government of the church to this day. There is no well-established mediation between the two, no constant mutual exchange. It lacks the element of collegiality, joint advice and responsibility, such as has recently appeared everywhere in modern Western democratic states alongside the competence to set guidelines and the departmental principle. ⁴⁷³There are no guidelines for solving unexpected crises, and normally there is even no communication between the departments - each department head sits in his own tower, behind his own wall.

balance sheet

With this we are approaching the present. It is characterized by diverse ambivalences, hopes and disappointments. The exchange between church and state has unexpectedly taken on new forms in the 20th century. They are less conspicuous, more diffuse and difficult to assess.

On the one hand, the church has settled its old dispute with modern democracy, which dominated the entire 19th century, in several stages. The development ranges from Pope Leos XIII. Encyclical "Graves de communi" (1901) - here the word "democracy" was first included in the Christmas speech of Pope Pius XII of 1944, the encyclical "Pacem in terris" by John XXIII. (1963) to the spectacular speech of Pope John Paul II on June 1, 1980 at Le Bourget Airport in France. The Church's change of perspective from (Jacobin) France to the freer Anglo-Saxon states and their understanding of democracy, which took place during the Second Vatican Council, played a decisive role in this. ⁴⁷⁴Today, in the democratic public, the church almost naturally stands for peace, reconciliation between peoples, preservation of creation, global universality, equal treatment of ethnic groups and nations. Their position on the outside, in and towards the world, has changed. Thus, the relationships of believers to Judaism, to other denominations and religions, also to agnostics and unbelievers, were described in the Second Vatican Council with new, no longer delimiting, but empathetic words and concepts, which created trust and aroused hopes.

On the other hand, two important processes have not progressed significantly in the church in recent decades, despite various new attempts: first, the full reception, the personal and that means the theological appropriation of human rights (1); and second, the further development of the Roman “government from the cabinet” into a functional “cabinet government” (2). Both processes play a crucial role in the question before our eyes in this outline, namely what the church can learn (or could learn) from the “neighbouring state”.

human rights

Human rights in the world and in the Church: are there analogies, parallels, contradictions, opposites?⁴⁷⁵

Human rights and human dignity are unthinkable without the centuries-long work of Christian education and training in the West. They could only develop in a world that was shaped by the awareness of the infinite value of the individual soul. But it is also undeniable that the Catholic Church viewed the idea and movement of human rights as they emerged in the modern revolutions since the 18th century with skepticism, even with open rejection, for a long time before the popes of the 20th century approach made.

In itself, the One Humanity was a Christian figure of thought from the beginning. It determined both the teachings of the Church Fathers on the universality of humanity and the concept of humanity of the Spanish and Dutch international lawyers of the 16th and 17th centuries. But since the Christian world never encompassed the whole world, its universality kept falling to pieces. It was not uncommon for Christian humanity to become a counterpart between Christians and heathens, universal human obligations became Christian internal ethics in an occidental context that was only gradually expanding.

In view of this situation, it was crucial that the Enlightenment broke the concept of humanity from its Christian anchoring - that is, that the concept of man prevailed over that of Christian in contemporary discourse of the 18th century. "Are Christians and Jews more Christians and Jews / as human beings?" Lessing asks his Nathan. ⁴⁷⁶In this way, autonomy and freedom, man's "end in itself" (Kant) became the basis of human dignity and human rights - a process of lasting effect for the 19th and 20th centuries. The church first had to laboriously catch up with this advantage of the "worldly world" in numerous adjustments and receptions.

It was not until the Second Vatican Council, in its “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (1965), that the individual and community solemnly proclaimed the right to social and civil freedom in religious matters. This was in view of the fact that "all peoples are becoming more and more one, that people of different cultures and religions are coming into closer contact with one another and that the sense of one's own responsibility is growing".⁴⁷⁷

As a demand, freedom of religion not only connects all the baptized, all church classes – clergy, religious, lay people – with one another, it also connects the church with the state in a new way. It is the first of the basic rights that grew up in the worldly sphere and that has gained full validity in the Catholic Church. Not only does the aforementioned declaration of the Second Vatican Council apply to it, it is also unmistakably in the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983, which is not always inclined towards the ⁴⁷⁸Council the state from which comparable injunctive relief was wrested by the human rights movement.

There is undoubtedly a nucleus here for a catalog of basic church rights. Admittedly, no such training has taken place to this day. One can study this, among other things, in the right to express opinions towards church officials; According to the CIC, it applies to “all ecclesiastical estates ”, but is immediately restricted and conditioned again: Expressions of opinion must be communicated to the spiritual pastors “while preserving the integrity of faith and customs and reverence for the pastors and observing the general benefit and the dignity of persons” ⁴⁷⁹. You will also look in vain for steps towards real equality for believers in the CIC. Although the Church Code grants women the right to marry at the age of 14 ⁴⁸⁰, women cannot hold offices that require ordained or managerial powers. ⁴⁸¹And the biggest barrier that still applies today is known: “Only a baptized man validly receives holy consecration.”⁴⁸²

government

Finally, let's go back to "government". Rome overcame the dualism of advisers and heads of departments (secretaries of state) in advising the supreme leader, the Pope, that still exists in the USA to this day. This was the basis of its progressiveness compared to most European states since the 16th century. What has not succeeded to this day (and was probably never consistently striven for) was the development of mediating collegial structures both internally and externally. If they had been established, they would have brought the departments together into one overall association, a government, and they would have brought the pope out of his splendid isolation - following on from the earlier consistories of cardinals as joint curial advisory bodies.

Why would the repetition of collegial structures of government be an important task in future reforms of the Roman Curia? I repeat what I wrote 10 years ago in my essay Does Rome Need a Government? First, departmental power must be involved; it must not become independent, it must serve as a part of the whole – otherwise it will lead to uncontrolled going it alone. (We have experienced such solo efforts several times in recent decades - for example in the resolution of the Dutch crisis after Vatican II, in the confrontation with the Lefebvre movement, in dealing with the churches of the Reformation and - particularly disturbing - in the "Vatileaks" of the year 2012). Secondly, overall policy requires not only coordination between the departments, but also joint support and representation of the decisions made by all those involved according to the principle of collegiality. Third: The top can never rule alone (here is also the physical limit of papal absolutism, which is clearly visible today!), it needs many hands and helpers; it requires an effective and loyal administration that "implements" its policies.⁴⁸³

So there is still a lot to learn – for the church as well as for the democratic state. I don't think either of them should stop observing each other carefully and drawing conclusions from their own mistakes and those of others. But you should also be prepared to record what was successful on both sides and pass it on to posterity. Again and again it is important to look in the mirror of each other in terms of good faith, willingness to learn and review, legal behavior and, in the end, simple decency. Because only with the help of such constant and thorough measuring and comparison will state and church progress in the future.

Heribert Franz Koeck: Prerequisites for synodality in the Catholic Church

Heribert Franz Koeck, born 1941, Austrian expert in international law, European law and legal philosopher. In Austria, he belongs to the group of Catholic laypeople who advocate a reform of the Catholic Church in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Summary: In the church, too, legitimate authority ("power") appears in three functions: legislation, government (administration) and judiciary. Because of their absolutist system of rule, the three powers have not yet been separated, so there is no system of reciprocal checks and balances . Nor is their practice subject to any control by God's people. Synods should be the form through which the people of God participate in the three branches of the Church. True synodality is of course not possible without turning away from the absolutist regime. This would require a whole new church constitution. There are already concrete proposals for such a plan on the table. So far, however, they have not even been considered by the church leadership because they do not want their power to be restricted.

Law as the basis of intra-church relationships

Pope Francis is planning a World Synod of Bishops for 2022 on the subject of “Synodality in the Catholic World Church”. In this context, Paul M. Zulehner, Tomáš Halík, Peter Neuner and Anna Hennersperger have invited participants to write expert opinions on the topic of "Synod" from various aspects and perspectives. Since I am primarily a legal scholar in terms of my education and work, this is what characterizes the following article. This corresponds to my view that all ecclesiological questions can ultimately be reduced to a legal common denominator, since it is about the relationship between people in and to their community, the church, and such relationships are fundamentally of a legal nature, because the right to extends to all human relations: iustitia est ad alterum .⁴⁸⁴

This does not mean that all aspects of ecclesiology have been exhausted with the juridical denominator. From what has just been said it also follows that the relationships of people to one another and to their community must also be put into legal categories, because where there is a plurality of people there must be an order, and where there is such is theirs Always a legal basis. One must not withdraw from this insight, even if one places theological considerations in the foreground in ecclesiology. But the question of the role of the synod can only be made understandable in the larger context of the question of the necessary structure of the church or - quite banal - the question: "Who is allowed to do what in the church?" And " Who is not allowed to do what?" Since “may” and “may not” have a direct relation to “freedom”, the right also has the function in the church, the freedom of the individual from encroachment by others – be they individuals too, be they “organs” endowed with authority of the institution – to protect. This must be expressly pointed out.

When we are dealing with synodality, then we must do so as a matter of principle. We cannot start from the "actual state" of the church; Rather, only the "target state" can be guiding. You also have to orientate yourself by it if the "target state" is not found in the "actual state" or only in traces.

Two ways of thinking

Now at the latest it must be pointed out that there are two approaches to the problems to be discussed here.

The traditionalist approach

The first is based on traditional teaching, without taking into account its necessary time-relatedness and deriving from it the obligation to interpret this traditional teaching for the people of our time while constantly incorporating the findings of non-theological sciences (natural sciences, social sciences). That would be more than translating into today's language (as was done, for example, with the German standard translation of the Bible); it is an interpretation of previous teachings (concepts) based on new insights for new circumstances or relationships. I call this approach the “traditionalist” one; one could also call him the “fundamentalist”.

The modern approach

The traditionalist approach is opposed to that approach which does exactly what the traditionalist fails to do, i.e. which observes the necessary time-related nature of the traditional teaching and derives from this the obligation to present this traditional teaching for the people of our time while constantly incorporating the findings of the non-theological to interpret sciences (natural sciences, social sciences). This approach has meanwhile found a home in the church, even if it is more effective in the various disciplines of theology than in the practice of the church government, which still tends towards the traditionalist approach. It is commonly called the historical-critical approach; one can also call him the "modern" because of his orientation towards the people and the problems of today.

After these necessary clarifications we turn to the church and its "constitution".

The Constitution of the Church

Traditionalist view: A church from "above" to "below"

According to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, the church is constructed from "above" to "below". At the top is the Pope as the supreme body in all areas, i.e. in legislation, enforcement (government, administration) and jurisdiction. The Pope himself is not subject to any other jurisdiction. To round off the omnipotence of the Pope, the First Vatican Council in 1870 declared his direct “ordinary” competence over all members of the church, including the bishops, and in all church matters; and to prevent any contradiction on the part of members of the church, including the bishops, the same council defined the infallibility of the pope even "without the consent of the church" in doctrine and morals.

And since the Pope alone decides how far the exercise of his “ordinary” competence extends and what all belongs to the area of faith and moral teaching and what he can therefore proclaim as “infallible truth”, no loophole seems open anymore, the system therefore to be seamless. Thus, in 1870, what had just been overcome in the state sector was taken to the extreme in the church, namely absolutism, which in its purest form means the absolute power of the ruler "by the grace of God".

The question of legitimacy

Nevertheless, this seamless system is "hanging in the air". Within it, the question is not even asked and therefore not answered as to what justifies ("legitimates") this papal omnipotence and infallibility. And – this is overlooked by the advocates of absolutism within the church – this question can be answered neither by the omnipotent nor by the infallible pope. This would be like Baron Münchhausen's attempt to pull himself out of the swamp by the braid ("Münchhausen principle"), which would result in a logically unacceptable vicious circle .

Such legitimation can therefore only come from outside, that is, from the church through divine authority. There are only two ways to do this. Either the omnipotence and infallibility of the pope is already part of the order of creation and thus already based on natural divine law ( ius divinum naturale ). Or it is given on the basis of a power of attorney within divine revelation and is therefore part of revealed divine law ( ius divinum positivum ). According to the traditional teaching of the Church, the papacy rests on divine foundation. Of course, this view cannot be justified by the omnipotent and infallible Pope (logical exclusion of the Munchausen principle). It can therefore find support only in the history of the Church and papacy.

Legitimation from scripture and tradition?

The traditionalist doctrine of the Church adheres to what has long been regarded simply as traditional doctrine, before the modern approach to reception and interpretation was known, and even today disregards the latter. First of all, it ties in with the promise of primacy and its transfer to Peter, as described in the Gospels in Mt 16:18 and John 21:15-17. Then of the special role that Peter played in the early church in Jerusalem, and finally of the fact that he - via various stations, such as Antioch in particular - finally came to Rome, where he died a martyr's death and was buried and finally in the church tradition as first bishop of Rome is considered.

According to Roman teaching, the awareness of a special responsibility of the Roman community, in particular of the Roman bishop, for the whole church and its parts can, according to Roman teachings, arise from the Roman intervention in the disputes of the community of Corinth - as depicted in the 1st Letter of Clement - the occurrence the Roman bishop Victor I (189-199) in the Easter dispute, in which he excommunicated all of Asia Minor, and the Roman bishop Stephen I (254-257), who in the dispute with Cyprian of Carthage, the so-called heretical dispute, as first demonstrably referred to the promise of Peter.⁴⁸⁵

After that, the understanding of primacy. even in the face of resistance from within the Church, theoretically developed further and also practically enforced until it found its comprehensive expression in the teachings of Vatican I on the Roman universal primacy and the infallibility of the pope in questions of faith and was renewed or confirmed by Vatican II.

Who interprets scripture and tradition?

It is obvious that the Pope himself cannot interpret Scripture and tradition, which are supposed to support the "papal church" in the first place. Such a foundation would again be based on an inadmissible vicious circle . This is also out of the question due to the logical exclusion of the Munchausen principle.

This shows that any legitimacy of the ecclesiastical order through Scripture and tradition, especially within the framework of the traditionalist approach, can only come from the individual believer himself, if and when he allows himself to be convinced by these sources. In this respect, there can be no binding declaration regarding the competence of the pope by the pope himself. Rather, it must be recognized by the individual believer himself as the plausible content of the act of faith he is to undertake.

The modern approach: church as “God's people” and communion

The view that assumes the church as the people of God and as communion (that is, as a community of believers) takes a different path. According to her, the church - like every human community - is constructed from "below" to "above". This means that the "ultimate" power of the church does not lie with the pope or the hierarchy, but with the faithful. This does not rule out that Jesus Christ gave his church at least a rudimentary order.

However, this would not be necessary for the existence of a leadership office in the church. In the state, too, there is an office (often highly developed in modern states) that usually consists of three parts (legislation, administration and judiciary), which has developed (“grown naturally”) without being directly instituted by God. It is true that earlier rulers, especially in antiquity, traced their rule directly back to (often a specific) god. In the form of “divine right” Christian rulers have also claimed (at least in empty phrases) a legitimation of their rule by God up to the present day. In the meantime, all such theories, such as those that wanted to trace the office of prince back to Adam, the “father of all men ” , have long since been abandoned as unhistorical.

Legitimacy through natural law

Nevertheless, state power is legitimized by divine law, if not by revealed law, then by natural divine law. Thus Paul can say (Rom 13:1-2): “Everyone should render due obedience to the holders of state authority. For there is no state authority that does not come from God; each is ordained by God. Therefore, whoever opposes the authority of the state is opposed to the order of God, and whoever opposes it will be subject to judgment.”

The same must of course also apply to ecclesiastical authority. In this sense, mutatis mutandis , it must also mean for them: “Everyone renders due obedience to the bearers of ecclesiastical authority. For there is no ecclesiastical power that does not come from God; each is ordained by God. Therefore, whoever opposes the ecclesiastical authority is contrary to the order of God, and whoever opposes it will be subject to judgment.”

Legitimation of ecclesiastical structures by virtue of the factual existence of the church

Therefore every ecclesiastical authority as such is already legitimated by God by virtue of the existence of the church . The pope and bishops can therefore also belong to it and do in fact belong to it. In this respect, it makes no decisive difference whether the ecclesiastical power was actually used by Jesus – as claimed in traditionalist ecclesiastical teaching – or whether it developed under customary law. In any case, it comes from God.

It seems important to me to state this, for it relieves the burden on the exegetes of the New Testament and on the church historians, who have to illuminate the first Christian centuries, to unite the scant and often inconsistent beginnings of the apostolic and early post-apostolic times having to provide complete proof that Jesus Christ prescribed exactly those forms of church violence that have developed over time.

Result: Both approaches are sufficient to legitimize church violence

We can thus conclude the first part of our considerations by stating that both approaches, the traditionalist one of church teaching and the "modern" one, which is based on the historical-critical method, lead to the recognition of the existing church power as "willed by God" . .

The exercise of ecclesiastical power

This does not, however, relieve us of the right and duty to reflect on the right way of exercising ecclesiastical authority. This is also necessary in connection with the institution “synod”.

In and of itself, both approaches should also come to an agreement regarding the right way of exercising church power. This cannot depend on whether the ecclesiastical authority is based on the ius divinum naturale , i.e. natural law, or on the ius divinum positiveum , i.e. divine revelation; for both forms are divine right.

In the course of two Christian millennia there have been differing opinions on the manner in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised; and we are compelled to think about it today. For also as far as state power is concerned, hardly anyone still takes the view that Paul's saying that all power comes from God covers its exercise even if it is to be regarded as "unjust" in the sense of the church's natural law doctrine and therefore the " violence” itself into an “unjust” one.

Same principles for state and church

Since the time of Paul there has been progress in knowledge about the manner in which state power is exercised; and it corresponds to this that there has also been such progress in knowledge in the area of the exercise of ecclesiastical authority. And since we have established that ecclesiastical power, like that of the state, emanates from God, the exercise of power in the ecclesiastical sphere must also be based on the same principles as in the sphere of the state.

Now the principles for the exercise of state power since the 19th century have been worked out in the area of church social teaching, whereby a progress in knowledge can also be seen in this period. The popes of the 19th century, for example, described democracy and human rights as "absurd" ideas, while in the 20th century a radical about-face took place in these areas in particular. An important cornerstone of this development is the declaration of the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom Dignitatis humanae ⁴⁸⁶.

Role model: The values of the European Union

What, then, are the principles to be demanded of the state? The wording in Art. 2 of the Treaty on the European Union, which can be seen as a successful specification of the values enshrined in natural law. There it says:

“The values on which the Union is founded are respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities . These values are common to all Member States in a society characterized by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.”

Art. 21 (1) TEU shows that not only "European values" are meant by this, but that these values are regarded as universal:

In its action at international level, the Union is guided by the principles which have inspired its own birth, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to promote throughout the world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principle of equality and the principle of solidarity, and respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.”

These principles are also to be transferred mutatis mutandis to the church because they are rooted in natural law and - as has already been shown - must also apply to the church as principles of natural law.

Controversial relationship between ius divinum naturale and ius divinun positivum

But here again opinions differ. The traditionalists claim either - on the fundamentalist track - that the ecclesiastical order as it is was given by Jesus as a ius divinum positivum , so that it would be neither necessary nor possible to bother with the ius divinum naturale . ⁴⁸⁷Traditionalists, unwilling to rely solely on this fundamentalist argument, do not rule out the possibility of a contradiction (however apparent) between natural law and revelation, but claim that in such a case natural law must be interpreted in the light of revelation because the more specific rule will take precedence over the more general.

Lex specialis principle and mandatory law

Here, then, an attempt is being made to introduce an argument based on the legal principle lex specialis derogat legi generali . However, this happens unjustly, because this principle is only applied where the lex generalis is a so-called "flexible right". On the other hand, legal principles contained in the lex generalis cannot be overridden by special law, because the latter must not violate these principles. Rather, these are so-called mandatory law that cannot be derogated from.⁴⁸⁸

Interpretation of norms in the overall legal system

Otherwise, revelation is only available in parts (ie in selective sentences), but natural law is a closed system. Therefore, the principle also applies here that each norm may only be interpreted in the context of the legal system as a whole, and in such a way that they do not contradict each other in the end. In this sense, Francisco de Vitoria already ⁴⁸⁹stated that nothing which is lawful by nature can be forbidden by the gospel; ⁴⁹⁰and conversely, nothing that is inherently forbidden can be permitted by the gospel. The decisive legal basis is therefore natural law; positive law can only be considered insofar as it does not violate the principles of natural law.⁴⁹¹

The traditionalists are far removed from this insight. Since they also set the tone in the Curia, canon law still repeatedly violates natural law. This is particularly important in the area of human rights .

digression. Church according to ius divinum naturale and church according to ius divinum positivum - a comparison

Let us compare the two types of church in a pure form – the one based on revelation, ie the ius divinum positiveum , and the one based on natural law, ie the ius divinum naturale .

According to the "traditionalist" view, there is a church founded by God through Jesus.

According to the "modern" view, there is a church founded by God, which consists of the Christian believers.

According to the "traditionalist" view, Jesus Christ endowed the church with an inner order because every human community needs such an order.

According to the "modern" view, the inner order of the church could already develop on the basis of the ius divinum naturale , because every human community needs such an order.

According to the "traditionalist" view, the leadership of the church through Peter and the other apostles was established by Jesus.

According to the "modern" view, Peter and the apostles led the church from the beginning because it needed such a leadership and Peter and the apostles had already occupied a special position at the time of the "earthly" Jesus.

According to traditionalist views, Jesus Christ decreed that the apostles should have successors so that the church could proclaim the gospel and celebrate the sacraments instituted by Jesus until the end of time.

According to the "modern" view, the continuation of the work of the apostles fell quite "naturally" to their successors, because the continuation was required by the factual continued existence of the church and had to be taken over by suitable persons in the exercise of their responsibility (again based on natural law).

According to the "traditionalist" view, Peter and his successors performed the necessary "service to unity" within the framework of what was factually possible.

According to the "modern" view, the Church of Rome, later the Roman Bishop, was the only one who claimed to be responsible for the unity of the Church as a whole and, for this purpose, often claimed to intervene in the affairs of other (partial) Churches to be able to

According to the “traditionalist” view, the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop (called “Pope”) was developed more and more over the course of two Christian millennia, until it finally culminated at the First Vatican Council with the doctrine of universal episcopacy and the infallibility of the pope reached.

According to the "modern" view, the development of the doctrine of the primacy of the pope in the second Christian millennium was made possible by the fact that after the schism between the Latin Western and the Greek Eastern Churches of 1054, the position of the pope practically coincided with that of the Latin patriarch - the function of the the latter merged with the function of the former, while local Latin patriarchates ⁴⁹²remained transient.

According to the "traditionalist" view, the Greek Church would have repeatedly recognized the primacy of the pope in the repeated attempts at "church union" with the Latin Church, but would have repeatedly "broken" this church union.

According to the "modern" view, the Greek Church, which had practically shrunk to the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a result of the Islamization of North Africa and large parts of (West) Asia, while the other Eastern Patriarchates only continued to exist nominally, first received help from the West against the Arabs , thereafter sought against the Turks. Since church union was seen in the West as a prerequisite for such help, the Greeks would have accepted such a union several times, albeit reluctantly, without it being able to gain acceptance among the people, the monks and a large part of the clergy. When the last major church union at the Council of Florence in 1439 did not have the desired practical success (effective military aid for Constantinople by the Latins) and the Turks destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1453, that was the end of the union.

According to the "traditionalist" view, there can only be one church. This must be catholic in the original sense of the word, ie all-encompassing.

In the "modern" view, it is a logical postulate that there can only be one Church. This is therefore all-encompassing and can be described as "Catholic" in the language of the first Christian millennium - even if not directly as a modern denomination.

According to the "traditionalist" view, the maintenance of church unity can only be maintained by a central authority. This must have all the means required to maintain unity and therefore ultimately have the last word in everything (i.e. in teaching and discipline). This is secured by the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pope, which is secured by papal infallibility.

In the "modern" view, it is a logical postulate that the Church must be "held together" in doctrine and discipline, and that this can only be accomplished by an ultimate "apex." Due to the factual constitution of the church, as it now exists due to tradition, this apex can only be the Roman bishop, i.e. the pope.

According to the "traditionalist" view, a straight path leads from the establishment of the Petrine primacy by Jesus to the exercise of the primacy of the pope by the respective bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter.

According to the "modern" view, the exercise of the primacy by the bishop of Rome is a logical postulate based on the previous development of the church (claiming the primacy by the Roman bishop and the absence of effective competitors).

From the comparison of the "traditionalist" and the "modern" view just presented, it follows that both views lead to the same result: the primacy of the pope is a logical postulate from previous church history, regardless of whether it was given a special divine foundation by Jesus or is based on a general divine authority based on natural law, which was made concrete through church practice in the course of church history.

Persistent differences about the manner in which church power is exercised

This is the starting point for the question of the correct exercise of church office and thus also of the function of synods in the context of church life. In and of itself, one should assume that on this point, despite the different approaches from which the "traditionalist" and "modern" justifications of primacy start, there is not a fundamentally different view given the fact that they both lead to the same result should exist. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Traditionalist-fundamentalist view

The "traditionalist" view depends on the traditional exercise of the primacy, which is essentially based on Jesus' words to Peter "On this rock I will build my church" (Mt 16:18) and the words to the disciples: "He who hears you, hears me" (Lk 10, 16) and therefore does not want to allow any criticism of the Pope's conduct of office; for what applies to the disciples (now: the bishops) in general must also apply to Peter (now: the pope) in particular.⁴⁹³

Of course, these words of Jesus require interpretation; for it is evident that they cannot apply to the preferences expressed by the pope or bishops in non-ecclesiastical matters such as food and drink. But even in church matters this can only apply where there cannot legitimately be different opinions. Personnel and factual decisions, but also the exercise of the so-called ordinary teaching post, are not included. ⁴⁹⁴For this reason, traditionalists have repeatedly tried to extend the "infallibility" of the pope, be it to his legislative acts ⁴⁹⁵or to his ordinary magisterium (e.g. encyclicals and other papal writings ⁴⁹⁶). Ultimately, the traditionalists are of the opinion that the top priority must be: papa omnia potest – the pope can do everything.

Modern (critical) view

The "modern" view, on the other hand, begins with the nature of the church as a human community. Although the church is “the people of God,” the same principles apply to it as to other communities. This does not preclude a priori that further principles could apply to the church as a community of believers in Christ; but the principles already valid for every human community by virtue of natural law can not be abolished or restricted by such additional “Christian” principles.

Church teachings on the relationship between church and state

Since the church has repeatedly had to defend itself against state interference in its internal affairs in the course of modern times and has had to reject the assertion that only the state is a "perfect community" because it alone has the means necessary for the preservation of man , the church doctrine worked out in the 19th century that it too is a "perfect community" because it also has all the means necessary for the preservation of people as Christians.

Since then, it has also been the case on the part of the church that both institutions, the state and the church, are sovereign in their respective areas, ⁴⁹⁷i.e. are not subject to any other power, whereby the demarcation of state and church is based on their own and indefensible, i.e. not on any other institution achievable purpose: the state is responsible for the temporal (“temporal”, also “secular”) well-being of its members (citizens), but the church is responsible for the eternal (in contrast to the qualification “secular” also called “spiritual”) well-being of its members , i.e. the Christian believers, responsible; it is only for this purpose that the church may also use “worldly” means, i.e. also dispose of such means. Because of this overlapping of the claim of the state and the church to certain "secular" means, the church considers a cooperative relationship between state and church to be expedient, but derives from the human right to religious freedom to be respected by the state, in particular to its collective exercise, the entitlement to the necessary funds.

Institutional Parallelism

From what has just been said, it follows that the church's teaching on the relationship between church and state also assumes an institutional parallelism between the two communities, which only differ in their different purposes. So far, however, the church has only drawn conclusions from this theoretical institutional parallelism to the extent that this was advantageous for the "power" of the existing church institutions; but it has hesitated where this "power" would have experienced a limitation (in any case inherent in itself). Incidentally, instead of "power" it would be better to speak of "competence" in general, but in particular of (the individual) "competences".

The Church's lagging behind in institutional parallelism

This insight should also have led to the church developing its natural law potential just as much as the state. In fact, however, it remained at the level that was still in vogue in the states in the 19th century as a reaction to the various revolutions (of 1789, 1830 and 1848), namely neo-absolutism, until this subsequently changed had to convert to a constitutional state. But while this absolutism had its heyday and at the same time late period as "enlightened absolutism" in the 18th century, one could rather speak of an unenlightened absolutism in the church, which in the 19th century also made the Papal States the most backward European state next to Turkey made, which favored its dissolution between 1860 and 1870.

The ecclesiastical as absolutist system

At a time when most states had already left it behind, this absolutism was attempted to be codified in the Church by the First Vatican Council in 1870 with the declarations of the universal episcopate and the infallibility of the pope. Despite the recognition of the collegiality of the bishops, the Second Vatican Council was not able to change anything because the pope imposed a nota explicativa praevia ⁴⁹⁸on it, according to which the bishops, even as a college, never met without his head, the pope, but only with and to work under him. Therefore nothing has changed in the practice of Rome up to now; the popes have not yet opened up the possibility of a truly collegial bargain.

Deficits of the existing ecclesiastical order

Therefore, the ecclesiastical order shows considerable gaps and shortcomings. One looks in vain for the recognition of those values which are listed as examples in Art. 2 TEU and which we have already shown above.⁴⁹⁹

If one compares the current order of the church with the demands that exist on the state according to the current state of political science, and which are all based on respect for human dignity and the freedom of the individual, then there is no democracy in the church, none Equality, no rule of law and no respect for human rights, no pluralism, no non-discrimination, no tolerance, no justice, no solidarity and no equality between men and women .

human rights

The most serious factor here is probably the fact that the church has never committed itself to human rights, from which one can derive not only the rights of the individual, but also principles for the organization of the church and its work.⁵⁰⁰

Respect for human rights would mean that neither canon law as such nor any act of legislation, government (administration) or judiciary may violate human rights enshrined in universal ⁵⁰¹or regional ⁵⁰²international law. This also includes the free choice of status and profession; therefore, the enjoyment of one of these rights should not be conditional on the waiver of the other. This also applies to the calling to the priesthood and to marriage.

The other points will also be addressed shortly. But first a word about the separation of powers.

separation of powers

As in the state, there can be no absolute separation of powers in the church either. Any constitution that is supposed to guarantee a functioning system must ultimately unite powers. Therefore, the final decision must lie with the people and their representatives, the legislature, and here again with the organ that is responsible for constitutional legislation (constitutional legislature). This is currently the Pope and should properly be the Ecumenical Council.⁵⁰³

But what is possible is a relative separation of powers, as there is in all free-democratic states. It is rarely a question of whether to preserve or disintegrate. However, where such a decision is not pending, the separation of powers ensures mutual control of the three powers and is therefore an instrument for protection against (competence) abuse.

In the church, too, one can subsume the organs under the “three powers”, namely legislation, administration (governing, executive ) and judiciary; but in the church there is neither a real separation of powers nor a system of checks and balances that ensure that these powers are checked against one another. Rather, the Pope is supreme lawgiver, supreme governor, and supreme judge.

Other missing prerequisites for an appropriate church order

These points can only be shown briefly here.

Even the traditionalists will not deny that there is no democracy in the Church.

Equality means equality before the law . However, inequality already exists due to the separation of church people into clergy and laity and, moreover, is violated by certain internal church rules such as prima sedes a nemini iudicatur .

law would mean that everyone has the right to have "his matter" decided by an independent and impartial court existing by law , ⁵⁰⁴which in terms of composition and procedure meets today's requirements, i.e. independent through orality, immediacy and free assessment of the evidence is characterized by any rules of evidence restricting this free assessment of evidence.

There is also no legitimate pluralism in the Church ; otherwise, differences of opinion regarding the doctrine and discipline of the Church, insofar as they remain within the framework of this pluralism, should not be sanctioned by judicial or administrative means. Here the activity of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in particular is currently in trouble. The refusal of the missio canonica for the traditionalists unpopular professors and other theologians can suffice here as a reference. In addition, however, the other congregations also try to ignore the legitimate pluralism in the Church within the scope of their competences. This is particularly true of the Congregation for Bishops.

Discrimination occurs in the Church in many different ways. Discrimination through disregard for legitimate pluralism has just been mentioned. But there is also discrimination based on sexual orientation or simply (as already mentioned) based on the choice of status or profession . A particularly important area, which is therefore also expressly mentioned, is the discrimination against women in the church; in particular, there is still no access for women to the ordained ministry.

Where there is discrimination of all kinds, there is no tolerance and no justice . And as far as solidarity is concerned, it is structurally lacking where, for example, "employees" of the church - be it from the clergy or from the laity - fail to comply with certain prohibitions (which in any case often violate natural law) with their function as well lose their bourgeois livelihood and are dependent on alms (whether from the state or from private individuals). In addition to lay employees, clerics and religious people are also affected (often unnoticed).

Functions of a genuine synodality

However, since this article is about synodality in the church, it must be shown what status synods (could) have in the church. Synods would be an important instrument in the area of ecclesiastical legislation as well as ecclesiastical government (administration) and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This has to do with the fact that the church office is not there for itself, but exclusively for the people of God, and that therefore the leadership in the church must be what Abraham Lincoln once called the basis of every free society, namely a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".⁵⁰⁵

In order for this to be guaranteed, the office holders must ultimately be subject to the control of God's people in the exercise of their office. For the “spiritual ministers” must, mutatis mutandis , have to do what Jesus said in relation to the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). So the spiritual ministers are there for the people of God and not the people of God for the ministers.

The authority ("violence") in the church

The "violence" ⁵⁰⁶in the church is also shown there in its various functions. In the church - as in the state - violence appears in three functions: legislation, government (administration) and judiciary.

Synods are the form through which the people of God participate in the three branches of the Church.

But the people of God are too numerous to exercise all powers directly. So the people of God must act through organs. This means that there must be legislative, governmental (administrative) and judicial organs in the church.

The ecclesiastical "violence" in three functions. Or: The three "powers" in the church

legislation

As for legislation, the people of God can exercise it only through a representative body. Synods represent the people of God. But in order to ensure that this representation is actually given, the people of God must be able to choose their representatives themselves.

The example of the state shows that the representatives can only be determined by elections, and by those that meet the requirements of representative democracy. These elections must therefore express the free will of the members of God's people. In order to express this free will of the members of God's people, the choice itself must be free. This is best guaranteed by the fact that the election is secret, i.e. it cannot be determined retrospectively who voted for whom. Since there is no fundamental inequality among God's people, all members must have an equal vote. And since the people of God must also be able to control their representatives and be able to recall them if necessary, the elections must be held regularly.

government (administration)

As for the government as the supreme administrative organ, this too must depend on the will of God's people. This means that government at all levels of ecclesiastical administration must be supported by the confidence of the corresponding synod at that level. If it loses that confidence, it must resign and make way for a new government based on the synod's confidence.

However, the control of the government exercised by the people of God through the synod is not the only possibility. As the example of the states shows, where the election of the head of state is done directly by the people and not by parliament, a fruitful tension is created between the "representatives of the people" and the "president of the people", which also contributes to what is happening in the State doctrine called the system of check and balance . Where such a popular election is planned, political control by the people is ensured by the fact that the "People's President" must also stand for re-election by this people.

Applied to the church, this means that all governing bodies at all levels are directly elected by the people of God or their affected part. This also and especially applies to the "monocratic" organs. Given the current structures, this means, roughly speaking, that the pastor must be elected by the parish community, the bishop by the diocese, but the pope by the universal people of God. Wherever a direct election by the people of God - or its respective part at the various church levels - does not appear feasible or expedient for practical reasons, the election must take place indirectly, i.e. by elected representatives of the people of God.

Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction)

Can the people of God also exert influence in the area of the third estate - the judiciary or "judiciary" - through synods? Jurisdiction is also carried out by ecclesiastical organs. In order to comply with the principle of a "fair" trial, these must above all be independent, i.e. they must meet the human rights criteria for independent courts or judicial bodies. The universal and regional human rights treaties list these criteria. They exclude both cabinet justice and lynching or ostracism.

But independent judges and independent courts must also be staffed with people. This is done in procedures designed to ensure their independence. These procedures must be regulated by law. This means that the people of God, through the synod responsible for the relevant level, enact the respective legal regulations for the appointment of judges. Whether it also participates directly (e.g. through elections) in the appointment of individual judges depends on these regulations. The extent to which the need to stand for re-election after a certain period of time promotes or impairs a judge's independence remains to be seen here. A review of the legality of his activities can only be carried out by an independent court.

elections and terms of office

The fact that the members of the synod, like the elected governing bodies, have to face regular re-election means that they are all elected only for a limited period of time. The necessary control by the people of God excludes that the members of the synod or the elected governing bodies can exercise their activities for an indefinite period (eg for life). Since all members of the synod and all executive bodies are only elected for a specific period of time, the question of a possible “voluntary” resignation does not arise; the office expires with the passage of time.

This does not rule out the possibility of re-election. In order to avoid "calcification" of the structures through multiple re-election, however, such re-election must be ruled out or linked to conditions that ensure that no practical "suicide" of a specific office or a specific function is possible.

result

I hope that I have adequately outlined the church's "target state" in connection with synodality in the above. It is obvious that this "target state" bears no resemblance to the church's "actual state".

If one comes to this conclusion, then the question arises as to what needs to be changed in detail in the constitution, what in the law of the church so that the "actual state" corresponds to the "target state". You would have to write a whole new constitution, a whole new canon law .

It's not impossible, but it's not promising either. I agree with Otto Hermann Pesch, who writes in his Catholic Dogmatics based on ecumenical experience ⁵⁰⁷after working out the principles that govern church institutions: “As a dogmatist, I will take care not to present specific programs for church reform in which all “ higher ” officials , all experts in canon law and also pastoral theologians immediately recognize “ naivety ” , “ unworldliness ” and “ personal wishful thinking ” . ⁵⁰⁸One only has to replace “dogmatist” with “lawyer” in the quote.

Besides, concrete proposals for a new church constitution are already on the table. In particular, reference should be made to the relevant work by Leonard Swidler. ⁵⁰⁹Such drafts have not even been considered by the official church.

As long as the church does not maintain its absolutist system of rule, genuine synodality is not possible.

Alfons Maria Schmidt: Notes on Synodality in the Catholic World Church

Alfons Maria Schmidt, born in 1953, professor of general business administration, specializing in human resources management, course director for health and social management i. R., Plauen State Academy

Summary: Synodality is a structural principle of Church action. It starts from Jesus Christ and moves towards him. All believers share in the blessings of revelation and the expectation of salvation. Different talents and gifts of grace are required to contribute to the structure. However, human imperfections do not make it easy to reach a consensus. However, this must not lead to a slacking in effort. Diverse structures, flexibility and dialogue can help to preserve what is important and allow deviating forms of expression in secondary aspects. Synodality in and between the Christian churches ultimately appears necessary in trust in the uniting power of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who thinks about synodality in the Catholic world church will inevitably encounter a variety of very important individual questions and individual aspects. However, this does not take away from the need to deal with the issues raised from a fundamental point of view. Individual questions and individual aspects appear subordinate here. Because the meaning and content of synodality comes before form and design. Irrespective of the respective manifestation, there is ultimately the personal responsibility of each individual Christian as an individual and as part of the worldwide faith community.

Synodality is a structural principle of Church action. For all Christians, regardless of today's forms of expression, it lies in the basic experience of early Christianity. Structured decision-making processes are ultimately reflected in a time-bound practice that requires continuous, serious review and further development. The fact that the views differ significantly in part lies in the nature of the development and the individuality of the individual believers.

This is reason enough to seriously and responsibly deal with today's forms of synodality beyond power and influence, to question the practice and to think about improvements. Ultimately, it must be a matter of doing what is currently affordable and gradually reducing existing imperfections. For this, in addition to the work of the Holy Spirit, the effort of the people in the time seems necessary.

The following incomplete considerations try to deal with synodality from a fundamental point of view without illuminating individual forms of expression in more detail. The individual thoughts can probably only contribute to raising awareness and possibly lead those who are more qualified to go beyond what follows and to shape the necessary dialogue in an enriching way. All of us can and must learn new things over and over again in order to do justice to the responsibility we have to assume.

legitimation

As part of God's chosen people and part of a royal priesthood (common priesthood), believers share in the blessings of revelation and the expectation of salvation. Baptism and Confirmation calls them to participate in the construction and to contribute their distinctive individual talents in a beneficial way. Being part of the community means helping, encouraging, supporting, supporting and, where necessary, warning on the way through time by means of advice and action.

The different competencies and experiences in particular can be useful as an enrichment in the process of modernizing the succession. A view restricted to the episcopate and thus restricted to it misses the whole fullness of the groping search of the people of God for the right way. The existing management function is not rejected. However, it needs to be supplemented by an honest and open dialogue, which has an impact on the resulting measures.

The limitations of the Code suggest a fear of the blowing of God's good Spirit. It is promised to the church, not just to individuals or to a level of consecration. However, it is crucial to start from the revelation and to seriously investigate and understand what the message expects from us for today and tomorrow. Without a doubt there are important and less important questions, there are the immovable and newer forms of expression that convey the essentials in a contemporary way.

Openness and flexibility in the formal and informal seems to be a viable way to do justice to today's circumstances. The decisive starting point here is what needs to be discussed and shaped. There can be a variety of helpful ways that promote initiative and commitment and achieve results that connect and strengthen, that take the tasks of the church - beyond personal sensitivities - into account in the best possible way.

consensus building

Today's forms of consensus finding in society and the church are complex and multifaceted. They are shaped by past developments that have an evolutionary character, that strive to generate progress in knowledge and to deal responsibly with the task given - the use of entrusted talents. Ultimately, the decisive factor will be which form of consensus-finding is suitable for doing justice to the task and responsibility and thus providing the necessary follow-up within the framework of what is feasible.

Expanded and deepened competence is undoubtedly of great importance, but the variety of different experiences made must not be ignored. At the beginning of the exchange of well thought-out convictions, the desired result of the consultation cannot yet be certain. Power and influence gained through hierarchy have to take a back seat to what the message conveyed by Jesus Christ suggests and demands in terms of consequences.

Of course, the greatest possible agreement, supported by the good spirit of God, is to be striven for. However, if there is fundamental agreement, this will only be possible in a variety that takes into account the differentiated nature of the circumstances in the universal church. The Western view that has prevailed up to now and its binding definition is a restriction that seems inappropriate when one is trying to create unrestricted access to the good news, to invite everyone to share in the hope it conveys and to make community a tangible experience.

One will have to accept that consensus-building today cannot simply take place through power decisions. Struggling for insight and knowledge is necessary and sometimes also enduring dissent. Enduring each other patiently, aware of the common struggle, is an expression of the knowledge of human imperfection. The honest effort to find viable answers that are in accordance with the revealed message is legitimate.

structure and cultivation

The only thing that can be said about the structure and cultivation of synodality here is that the formality that is certainly necessary competes with the flexibility that is just as necessary, and that both are necessary. So you will have to use and accept different forms of dialogue as well as different commitments in the consultation results. It makes sense here to handle what is of central importance on the one hand and secondary aspects (e.g. individual manifestations of piety) on the other hand differently.

Dialogue at eye level should be both top-down and bottom-up, at local, deanery, diocesan and universal church levels. Irrespective of their special role and task, ministers are also part of the flock of Jesus Christ in need of redemption. It seems questionable if unconsecrated Christians have at most limited rights to be heard. Not taking the latter seriously comes close to rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit among Christians beyond the ministers.

The decisive factor is probably the chance to gain new insights through new forms and to delve deeper into the mysteries of divine revelation. It is always to be recognized that human cognitive ability is limited and divine work is unlimited. Neither the episcopacy, nor the clergy, nor Christians in general will succeed in fathoming the wisdom of God comprehensively. There appears to be modesty in behavior and an advertising appearance.

Structures and procedures are to be measured by whether they are suitable for doing justice to the task and the necessary clarification, whether they are suitable for being received and accepted by the crowd of believers and for having a fruitful effect on them. This requires a culture of togetherness that is characterized by Christian hope and confidence and strives for perfection in discipleship - a discipleship that can also be a burden in the face of the storms of life.

Synodality in and between the Christian Churches

Synodality in and between the Christian churches appears necessary from the point of view of the unity of Christianity that is to be striven for. Ultimately, however, the open exchange of ideas will also have to be part of normal social interaction beyond formal consultation and decision-making processes. What counts here is taking the other person seriously. As a rule, he has reasons for his respective position that need to be examined and which cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Allowing yourself to be enriched by the practices of others and using previously unused models and practices does not appear to be a departure from right belief, but rather an opportunity to strengthen and enrich it. The fact that ecumenism can be strengthened in this way is ultimately a desired additional plus that should not be underestimated. In fact, clarity and unambiguousness in the essence of the Christian faith and a differentiation in the respective forms of expression are not mutually exclusive.

A look at the church's many misguided paths must suggest to us that, beyond human efforts, the right course is ultimately determined by God and the right balance is found. In this way, the divine revelation forms the appropriate key to which orientation is recommended. In the future, people will probably find new approaches and gain more knowledge in a changed reality. After all, we know that we are and will remain in God's hands.

summary

The action of the church follows time-bound structural principles. These have to ensure that the work of the church promotes the sanctification process of God's people. On the one hand, divine revelation is decisive and, on the other hand, human fallibility must be taken into account. The legitimacy for including all believers lies in the need to use the many different gifts of grace and differing experiences of each individual for the common good.

Openness and a variety of forms increase access to deeper insight, to penetrating the core of faith and to contemporary forms of expression of being a Christian. The value of the respective forms ultimately depends on the extent to which they are suitable for achieving the goal of honest efforts to strengthen faith and make it visible. In this context, not only officials are required, but all believers, who are not only entitled to limited hearing rights.

Structures are subordinate to the objective. The former, in all their imperfections, have to serve the church's mission, to spread the faith in an unadulterated manner and to accompany and support believers on the way to perfection. Last but not least, models and procedures of other Christian churches strengthen ecumenism. Testing and further developing concrete forms of design is reserved for an open dialogue at eye level.

Wilhelm Rees: Synodality - Possibilities of further development from a Catholic-canon law perspective

Rees, Wilhelm, Prof. Dr. theological habil., born 1955, Professor of Canon Law at the Institute for Practical Theology at the University of Innsbruck.

Summary: Synodality has played a different role in different eras of the history of the Roman Catholic Church. A hierarchical, centralized structure became more and more prevalent in which synods and in particular the co-responsibility of lay people no longer played a role. The Second Vatican Council wanted to revive synods. Provisions on this were therefore also included in the Church Code of 1983, the Codex Iuris Canonici. The ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council and the desire for strengthening and renewal of synodality, which has become increasingly apparent in recent times, and the associated decentralization and participation of lay people, make it seem necessary to change canon law norms. This contribution aims to provide impetus for this.

Pope Francis is convinced that synodality can offer "the most appropriate interpretative framework for understanding hierarchical ministry". ⁵¹⁰The Pope thinks of all levels of the church and thinks "that in a synodal church the exercise of the Petrine primacy can also be better clarified".⁵¹¹

Synodus (syn-odos) means: to be on the way together or to set off together. ⁵¹²For Heribert Heinemann, the word "synodal" expresses "most aptly" the common "responsibility of the people of God". ⁵¹³However, synodality has played a different role in different periods of the history of the Catholic Church. Provisions on synodal action can be found - even if the term synodality as such does not appear, similar to the Second Vatican Council - in the currently applicable ecclesiastical codes of the Roman Catholic Church, ie the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983 (CIC/1983), and the code of law for the Catholic Eastern Churches, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium of 1990 (CCEO), which - like the Orthodox Churches - attaches greater importance to this area. ⁵¹⁴However, these regulations and standards are open to further developments. Knut Walf had already remarked in 1996: "In today's Catholic Church, there can be no talk of genuine collegial or synodal bodies if collegial action is a prerequisite for synodal structures."⁵¹⁵

synodality in the life of the Church

In general, the early church in Jerusalem wanted to be a brotherly and sisterly church. ⁵¹⁶Synods have been a permanent fixture in the east since the 3rd century and in the west since the 4th century. ⁵¹⁷From the 9th century onwards, the diocesan synod "as the official assembly of the church district under the bishop's presidency took on the character of a canonical institution, but without diminishing the bishop's right to legislate". ⁵¹⁸It was attended by “the higher and lower diocese clergy, cathedral and monastery chapters, abbots, abbesses, priests and other clergy, but also lay people, in particular the high nobility of the diocese, episcopal officials and vassals and the episcopal ministerials […], but also citizens of the episcopal city”. As Konrad Hartelt states, however, in the period that followed, “an increasingly hierarchical, centralized church structure” prevailed in the West, while the East “continues to ⁵¹⁹live in a synodal constitution – and this up to the present day ”. ⁵²⁰From then on, "Roman centralism" also determined "the form and importance of the synods". ⁵²¹Lay people who had previously been represented at diocesan synods almost completely disappeared in the 13th and 14th centuries. ⁵²²Benno Löbman rightly notes that the diocesan synod, which was once an assembly of the whole local Church, "in the second millennium [became] an assembly of the bishop with part of his clergy. The hierarchical structure of the Church in clergy and laity no longer allowed lay participation. ⁵²³Peter Neuner deserves approval when he emphasizes that in the course of church history the view of the church as the people of God "was superimposed by a structure in which the ministry combined more and more powers". ⁵²⁴Lay people became addressees and recipients.

Synodality in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici

Due to the image of the church that prevailed at the time, Klaus Mörsdorf identified the papal primacy and the episcopate as “the fundamental pillars of the church constitution” according to the provisions of the 1917 ecclesiastical code, i.e. the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 (CIC/1917), both of which “based on divine decree” (cf. c. 108 § 3 CIC/1971). ⁵²⁵However, as Norbert Witsch notes, "a diverse network of synodal processes and institutions can already be identified for the old Codex".⁵²⁶

Revival of synodality by the Second Vatican Council

A look at the texts of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) shows that this Council wanted to revive the synods (cf. Art. 36 para. 1 and 2 Vatican II CD). In general, the reorientation of ecclesiology and the associated new image of the church became important. The new view of the church should be "conducive to dialogue, the synodal element and the togetherness of all Christian believers in the church". ⁵²⁷This brings joint responsibility and joint decision-making into view. Lay people are thus also called to “exercise their co-responsibility in joint decision-making and decision-making” in synodal processes together with bishops, priests and religious.⁵²⁸

The Second Vatican Council emphasized the importance of the episcopate and the collegiality of the bishops (cf. Art. 18-27 Vatican II LG, esp. Art. 22-23 Vatican II LG) and emphasized that the college of bishops with its head, the Bishop of Rome , "also bears the highest and full power over the whole church" (Art. No. 22 para. 2 VatII LG; also Art. 4 VatII CD).

Overall, the church is primarily ⁵²⁹seen as communion. In more detail, Karl Rahner spoke of “structural change in the church as a task and an opportunity”, although he did not ignore the question of the democratization of the church. ⁵³⁰For him, a "clearer participation" of the laity "not only in the appointment of ministers in the church, but also in other decision-making processes in church life" was indicated.⁵³¹

Synodality in the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici

The CIC/1983 contains provisions on the Ecumenical Council (cf. cc. 337-341 CIC/1983; cc. 50-54 CCEO), on the particular Councils (cf. cc. 439-446 CIC/1983) and on the Episcopal Conferences (cf . cc. 447-459 CIC/1983) as well as to the Synod of Bishops (cf. cc. 342-348 CIC/1983), the Diocesan Synod (cf. cc. 460-468 CIC/1983; cc. 235-242 CCEO) and the so diocesan (cf. especially cc. 511-514 CIC/1983; cc. 272-275 CCEO) and parish councils (cf. c. 536 §§ 1 and 2 CIC/983; c. 295 CCEO). The ecclesiastical legislature thus adheres to the previous synodal institutions at the various levels, ie the universal church, the ecclesiastical province and the particular churches, modifies them and also creates new ones following the Second Vatican Council.⁵³²

Synodality at the level of the universal Church

As the Pope alone has full, supreme, immediate and universal authority over the universal Church (cf. cc. 331; 332 § 1; 333 §§ 1 and 2 CIC/1983; cc. 43; 44 § 1, 45 §§ 1 and 2 CCEO), so - in contrast to the First Vatican Council and the CIC/1917 - the highest authority over the whole Church is also granted to the college of bishops together with the Pope (cf. c. 336 CIC/1983; cf. c. 49 CCEO). The exercise takes place through the participation of the individual bishops in an ecumenical council (cf. c. 337 § 1 CIC/1983; cf. c. 50 § 1 CCEO) and through their participation in a joint official act without a local meeting (cf. c. 337 § 2 CIC/1983; cf. c. 50 § 2 CCEO).

The Synod of Bishops is a new institution of the Church and, as Aymans - Mörsdorf emphasize, "in the recent history of the Catholic Church [...] without precedent". ⁵³³It goes back to Pope Paul VI. and the Second Vatican Council. Like the Ecumenical Council and the joint official acts of the bishops scattered around the world, it too is under the direct authority of the Pope. How many and which diocesan bishops participate in the respective synod of bishops depends on the respective type of assembly, which the pope alone determines.

Synodality at the level of the particular church associations

The ecclesiastical legislator knows particular councils, which can be celebrated in the form of a plenary or provincial council. As Pope John Paul II emphasized, “it is precisely because of the participation of priests, deacons, religious and laity, albeit only in an advisory capacity, that there comes not only communion between bishops in particular councils, but also communion among particular Churches directly to expression”. ⁵³⁴The tasks of the particular councils, which the early church already knew, are today largely performed by the more flexible episcopal conferences.

Synodality at the diocesan and parish level

a) Diocesan Synod

At the diocesan level, the diocesan synod "occupies a prominent place in the bishop's governance". ⁵³⁵It is "an assembly of chosen priests and other faithful of the particular Church who, for the good of the whole diocesan community, provide helpful assistance to the diocesan bishop" (c. 460 CIC/1983). As Hans Paarhammer remarks, this definition "clarifies that the members of the synod, by taking part in the synod, also participate in the leadership of the diocese by the diocesan bishop". ⁵³⁶The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops expressly obliges the diocesan bishop "to value the organs of participation provided for by canon law". ⁵³⁷However, it is also "unambiguously" recalled that these bodies "are not based on the standards of a parliamentary democracy because they are of an advisory and not a decision-making nature". ⁵³⁸Thus the diocesan synod is essentially comparable to the Roman synod of bishops. However, "with the opening of the diocesan synod to participants from the ranks of the laity", ie men and women, as Heribert Schmitz emphasizes, "an essential desideratum has been fulfilled". The Directory ⁵³⁹for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops clearly states that the Synod must be composed “in the image of the particular Church”, that is, it must “reflect the diversity of vocations, apostolic tasks and social and geographical origins which characterize the diocese “. ⁵⁴⁰At the same time, the Governing Board has also imposed restrictions on the requirements of the CIC/1983, although it should be noted that a Governing Board can only enact implementing provisions, but not bring about a change in the law. With regard to the members of a diocesan synod, the Directory points out “that the clergy are entrusted with a predominant role in accordance with their task in the ecclesial community”. ⁵⁴¹Tensions to the in c. 204 § 1 CIC/1983 (cf. c. 7 § 1 CCEO) and c. 208 CIC/1983 (cf. c. 11 CCEO) anchored common responsibility of all Christian believers become visible.

If the diocesan synod is given by the ecclesiastical legislature to the competence and discretion of the diocesan bishop and seen as a helpful support “for the good of the whole diocesan community” (cf. c. 460 CIC/1983; c. 235 CCEO), the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of bishops to put the diocesan synod back in the service of the whole church. ⁵⁴²Certain changes were made by the new Ordo Synodi Episcoporum published on September 29, 2006.⁵⁴³

b) Diocesan Pastoral Council

The Diocesan Pastoral Council (cf. cc. 511-514 CIC/1983; c. 272-275 CCEO) is a consultative body at the diocesan level with the task of “governing under the authority of the bishop all that pertains to pastoral work in the diocese , to examine, to advise and to propose practical conclusions thereto” (c. 511 CIC/1983; cf. c. 272 CCEO). The council is made up of the faithful, “both clergy and members of institutes of consecrated life, and above all lay people” (c. 512 § 1 CIC/1983; cf. c. 273 § 1 CCEO). However, setting it up is not mandatory, but recommended.

c) Parish Pastoral Council

The parish pastoral council, which is not compulsory, has only advisory votes, is presided over by the parish priest and "governed by the norms established by the diocesan bishop" (c. 536 § 2 CIC/1983). In contrast, c. 295 CCEO does not provide any requirements for the presidency and voting rights, but leaves the regulation to particular law. In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Christi fideles laici" of December 30, 1988, Pope John Paul II expressly attributed special importance to the parish pastoral council. ⁵⁴⁴However, in the Instruction of August 13, 1997 on certain questions concerning the collaboration of lay people in the ministry of priests, the consultative element is clearly emphasized and stressed that these councils "can in no way become decision-making bodies".⁵⁴⁵

synodality of the future

Pope Francis emphasizes that the "path of synodality" is "what God expects of the Church of the third millennium". ⁵⁴⁶In order to renew and strengthen this path, various canonists have given clear suggestions.

universal church

a) Ecumenical Council and United Actions of the Bishops

Since "a legal limitation of the primacy", as Oskar Stoffel already emphasized, "in the opinion of most theologians and canonists is incompatible with the Second Vatican Council", ⁵⁴⁷with regard to the actions of the Pope only self-limitation by himself seems possible, like this already mentioned by Karl Rahner. ⁵⁴⁸Konrad Hartelt sees the additional confirmation of the Council resolutions by the Pope demanded by the ecclesiastical legislature "at least as superfluous". It could "even be suitable to obscure the portrayed togetherness between the head and members of the college of bishops at the Council, ie to shift it in favor of an additional and here no longer necessary activation of the papal primatial power lying outside the conciliar act". ⁵⁴⁹Since the Pope can already call “a few others who are not bishops” to the Ecumenical Council today (cf. c. 339 § 2 CIC/1983), Richard Puza “sees the possibility open for the future [...], also on the participation of the whole people of God in the ecumenical council”. ⁵⁵⁰However, Thomas Schüler and Thomas Neumann remark that an ecumenical council "is hardly workable". ⁵⁵¹Adrian Loretan thinks "in the age of 'e-voting' and 'online' conference circuits" of "new forms of work for the college of bishops" in the sense of "worldwide communication". ⁵⁵²Since these, in contrast to an ecumenical council, are easier, faster and easier to handle, they should be used more intensively in the practice of church life in the future and enable the individual (diocesan) bishops to be more closely involved in the governance of the whole church. In general, Thomas Stubenrauch sees the CIC/1983 "not quite up to par with the conciliar teachings", since he presents the provisions about the pope and those about the college of bishops "in two separate articles", but a combination of the two articles "the bond between the two bearers the highest ecclesiastical authority” would better express.⁵⁵³

b) Synod of Bishops

The establishment of the synod of bishops is “capable of development”, all the more so as “the applicable law in c. 337 § 3 CIC or c. 50 § 3 CCEO expressly provides that it is for the Pope, according to the needs of the Church, to develop ways in which the college of bishops is to carry out its task collegially in relation to the universal Church". ⁵⁵⁴Thomas Schüller and Thomas Neumann suggest that the Pope, if he "really means it seriously", should "not only assign a more open culture of discussion, but also fundamental decision-making authority" to the synod of bishops. “More than that, he would have to change the nature of the synod of bishops as an organ of the pope and set it up as an organ of the college of bishops in association with the pope […]. This would result in a right of initiative for the representatives of the synod of bishops to feed their own topics into the synod of bishops and to discuss them. Furthermore, it would make sense to hold the synod of bishops regularly every three years and not to leave it to the pope and his curia to decide whether and when and on what topics a synod of bishops should be convened. [...] In addition, the number of members appointed by the Pope, above all from the Roman Curia, should be significantly limited, but the number of representatives elected by the bishops' conferences should be significantly increased [...]. If the Pope does not want to implement a decision of the Synod of Bishops that has been decided with a corresponding 2/3 majority by virtue of his office, he would be obliged to justify his decision in a comprehensible manner”. ⁵⁵⁵Already today it would be according to c. 343 CIC/1983, it is possible for the Pope to transfer decision-making powers to the Synod of Bishops in certain cases. The church has already made further developments. The Apostolic Constitution "Episcopalis communio" on the Synod of Bishops, promulgated by Pope Francis in 2018 ⁵⁵⁶, emphasizes that the bishop is "at the same time a teacher and a learner" (No. 5). It also provides that the Synod of Bishops must "become more and more a privileged instrument for listening to the People of God" and that it must therefore "not be detached from the rest of the faithful" (n. 6). It is of great importance that "particular attention is paid to the consultation of all particular Churches - also in the preparation of the synodal assembly". More specifically, the bishops are to “put before the priests, deacons and lay faithful of their churches, whether individuals or appropriate associations, the questions to be dealt with in the synodal assembly”, as well as to men and women consecrated to God and to the priestly and pastoral council ( #7). “Some others who do not have the munus episcopale” can also be called to the assembly (n. 8). These innovations are already being applied with a view to the Roman Synod of Bishops planned for autumn 2022. For the first time, a woman, Nathalie Becquart, will also have the right to vote, due to her appointment as Undersecretary of the Synod Secretariat. ⁵⁵⁷New approaches can also be seen in the preparatory document for the Roman Synod of Bishops 2023 and the worldwide synodal process beginning on October 9th and 10th, 2021. ⁵⁵⁸Thus, the document notes that the Pastors of the Church are not afraid "to listen to the flock entrusted to them", adding that the "consultation of the People of God" does not mean, however, "the adoption of the principles of democracy, based on majority rule, in the inside the Church” (n. 14).

Particular Church Associations

a) Episcopal Conference

George Nedungat notes with regard to the bishops' conferences that in both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, following the example of the synods of bishops in the Orthodox Churches, these could be “promoted to synods with legislative and judicial powers”, which “entails a decentralization of the Church leadership would entail”. ⁵⁵⁹Pope Francis also thinks of upgrading the bishops' conferences in the apostolic exhortation "Evangelii gaudium". ⁵⁶⁰In general, bishops' conferences could help to promote synodal processes. Thus, the International Theological Commission emphasizes that at the level of the universal Church, “a more precise approach to the preparation of the assemblies of the Synod of Bishops [can] enable the Bishops’ Conferences to contribute more effectively to the synodal processes involving the whole People of God, through the Consultation of the lay faithful and experts in the preparatory phase.”⁵⁶¹

b) Particular councils

It has already been seen as an advantage of the particular councils that the bishops are not only among themselves, but also advise all believers and representatives of various church institutions together, even though there have not been such assemblies in recent times. Markus Graulich refers to Pope John Paul II and his invitation to “give life back to the very old institution of the ecclesiastical province”, which however “seems to have gone unheeded”, and calls for the particular councils and metropolitans to be strengthened. ⁵⁶²Whether and to what extent the particular councils, ie the provincial and plenary councils, will be of greater importance in the future depends on the bishops of the respective ecclesiastical province, ie the metropolitan and the suffragan bishops or the members of the respective bishops' conference. ⁵⁶³In contrast to the current regulation, voting rights should be extended to all members. A look at the patriarchal convention of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is comparable in terms of composition (cf. cc. 140-145 CCEO), shows that “all members have equal rights” here. ⁵⁶⁴With regard to a plenary council, Karl Rahner had already pointed out that "an actual decision-making right of the synod as such, which would in principle also bind the bishops' conference and the individual bishop", in his view would be "dogmatically possible".⁵⁶⁵

diocese and parish

a) Diocesan Synod

As Dietmar Konrad remarks, the diocesan synod is currently "not a decision-making process, but only an opinion-forming process. It is characterized one-sidedly by the hierarchical predominance of the diocesan bishop, the synodal element is neglected, a communication process between the bishop and the faithful is not legally guaranteed and depends solely on his good will". ⁵⁶⁶The synodal element is “relativized” by the fact that the synodal members only have advisory voting rights. ⁵⁶⁷According to Thomas Schüller and Thomas Neumann, “all members of the diocesan synod should not only have the right to consult, but also the right to make decisions. It should be possible for the members of the synod to feed their own topics into the deliberations of the synod”. In the event that the diocesan bishop "does not support a decision, he would have to justify it", whereby it should not be sufficient "that he only refers to the preservation of the faith and the law of the Church". ⁵⁶⁸Sabine Demel also remarks: “On the one hand, the proportion of lay representatives at the diocesan synod must be increased. Secondly, the appointed representatives of God's people are to be given decisive voting rights. Thirdly, the decision-making authority of the assembled community must be strengthened insofar as the bishop's right of objection is limited to a necessary minimum. According to this, the bishop should no longer be able to change or even override the decisions of the assembly made with a qualified majority at his own discretion, as has been possible up to now. Rather, he should always be bound to the implementation of these resolutions, unless he can assert a reduction in the content of the faith or fundamental violations of the law . Looking ⁵⁶⁹back on the joint synod of the dioceses in the Federal Republic of Germany (1971-1975), Demel sees a further development of the diocesan synod as well as new forms of assembly possible, "which would not first have to be anchored in the church as a whole, but could already be implemented in every diocese: The The diocesan bishop binds himself to the representative council of the assembly of the diocesan people of God by elevating the advisory vote of the synodal members to a decisive vote. [...] With such a bishop's self-commitment to the decisions of the consultation processes, these representative forms of assembly of the diocesan people of God would be transformed relatively easily from non-binding discussion groups to real organs of participation in the sense of the church's self-understanding of communion and the people of God". ⁵⁷⁰But if it weren't necessary, especially at a diocesan synod, to also allow believers in Christ who live in a situation that the Church considers "failed" to have their say, if the "well-being of the whole diocesan community" (cf. c. 460 CIC /1983) should be advised? Since no time intervals are currently specified for convening a diocesan synod and only a small number of diocesan synods have recently taken place or have been replaced by synod-like processes, it might be worth considering setting a deadline for holding them again. The International Theological Commission expressly demands that "the participation of 'all' [...] must be promoted through consultation in the process of preparing the synod". ⁵⁷¹In general, according to Markus Graulich, "the role of the councils at the level of the particular churches needs to be reconsidered" if the diocesan synod is to be "revived with new life". ⁵⁷²As a result of the non-convening of diocesan synods, can the lack of co-responsibility of laypeople for a diocese be compensated for by the diocesan pastoral council?

b) Diocesan Pastoral Council

Thomas Schüller and Thomas Neumann demand that the diocesan pastoral council become "legally binding" so that the believers can really participate in the sense of co-decision. Furthermore, the faithful should “elect their representatives themselves to this body” and “have at least a say” on all relevant aspects of the diocese. Both remember, “stronger c. 127 CIC regarding the rights of consultation of the faithful in the statutes of pastoral councils”. In canon law, there is nothing to prevent diocesan bishops from binding themselves to the advice and approval of the diocesan pastoral council for important and pastorally significant decisions through the particular law they have put into effect. ⁵⁷³Similarly, Sabine Demel also warns of the lack of co-determination and consultation rights, "since the diocesan bishop is completely free to ask the advice of the diocesan pastoral council on matters ". There is “not a single official act of the bishop whose legal effectiveness is tied to the action of the diocesan pastoral council”. ⁵⁷⁴Demel therefore calls for a church reorganization in such a way that this council “is to be set up “firstly as an obligation (no longer just as an option), that secondly it is representative according to the principle of delegation by election (no longer according to the principle of appointment by the bishop) and thirdly, that he has at least a say in all central matters of diocesan life" if this council is to be "an adequate space for the development of the believer's sense of faith". ⁵⁷⁵Even now, participation and co-decision could take place through self-commitment of the diocesan bishop. Heribert Hallermann also demands that the pastoral councils "be granted appropriate hearing and approval rights in the statutes to be issued by the diocesan bishop, so that the obligation to participate becomes clear". ⁵⁷⁶In general, Hallermann considers it necessary "in the interest of a better developed culture of consultation and shared responsibility in the church" to further develop the currently existing councils and committees "uniformly into synodal committees of shared responsibility".⁵⁷⁷

c) Council of Priests

In certain matters, the Council of Priests not only has the right to consult, but also to give consent (cf. c. 500 § 2 CIC/1983; cf. c. 269 § 2 CCEO). However, Sabine Demel draws attention to the fact that "there are no cases of application of a right of consent", so that the diocesan bishop "ultimately can exercise his power of leadership completely freely". ⁵⁷⁸In their opinion, however, the respective diocesan bishop could commit himself to such a right of consent on a voluntary basis via the respective statutes (cf. c. 496 CIC/1983; cf. c. 265 CCEO).⁵⁷⁹

d) Parish Pastoral Council

With regard to the Parish Pastoral Council, the International Theological Commission "seems it necessary to revise the canonical norm, which at present only proposes the establishment of a Pastoral Council, and instead to make it obligatory". ⁵⁸⁰In most German dioceses the parish councils are against the wording of c. 536 CIC/1983 designed as decision-making bodies. However, the Congregation for the Clergy, in the Instruction issued on June 29, 2020 “Pastoral conversion of the parish at the service of the ⁵⁸¹Church ’s missionary mission ”, has strengthened the role of the parish priest and recalled the consultative role of the lay faithful in the Parish Council.⁵⁸²

Ending

Synodality was and is important at all levels in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is in urgent need of improvement. At the level of the Church as a whole, there is a demand for the bishops and thus the college of bishops to be more closely involved in the leadership, with the involvement of the faithful, ie clergy and laity. At the level of the particular church, efforts should be made to strengthen the respective bishops' conferences and to involve lay people more closely through a say or co-decision and thus synodality. The International Theological Commission rightly notes that “the concept of synodality […] is broader than that of collegiality because it includes the participation of all in the Church and of all Churches”. ⁵⁸³Markus Graulich sees synodal structures and synodal processes as “a way in which everyone can participate in the one mission of the church. Synodality is therefore a modality of action in which all members of God's people walk together.” ⁵⁸⁴It is therefore, as the International Theological Commission notes, “to activate deliberative processes of the entire people of God” ⁵⁸⁵and certain “paradigms that still exist today are often present in ecclesial culture”, because they express an understanding of the Church that has not been renewed by the ecclesiology of communion. These include: the concentration of responsibility for mission in the ministry of pastors, the insufficient appreciation of the sacred life and charismatic gifts, the rare appreciation of the specific and qualified involvement of lay people - among them especially women - in the respective areas of competence “.⁵⁸⁶ A old legal principle says: "Quod omnis tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet." (Innocent III.). It is up to the leaders of the Church and, above all, to their willingness to revive and strengthen this principle.

outlook

Wijlens, Myriam: "The Church of God is called to a Synod".

Theological and canonical challenges to the Synod 2021-2023

Myriam Wijlens, born 1962, Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Erfurt, Germany. Member of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, and Consultor to the Synod of Bishops.

Summary:

introduction

"The church of God is called to a synod". ⁵⁸⁷These are the introductory words of the preparatory document of the 2021-2023 Synod on Synodality, ⁵⁸⁸which bears the official title: “For a Synodal Church. Communion, participation and mission.” ⁵⁸⁹On October 10, 2021, Pope Francis solemnly opened the synod for the universal church and a week later the synodal process began in the local churches as bishops around the world celebrated the opening in their respective dioceses. For two years the Church will conduct a process of consultations in the dioceses, episcopal conferences and continental structures. A “fundamental stage will the celebration of the XVI. Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2023, which will be followed by the implementation phase, which in turn will involve the particular Churches (cf. EG, art. 9-21)” (PD Synod 2021-2023 , n. 1).

As early as 2015, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis emphasized that synodality will be an important topic for the Church: "What the Lord asks of us is in a way already contained in the word 'synod'. Moving forward together - lay people, pastors and the Bishop of Rome - is a concept that is easy to put into words, but not so easy to implement.” ⁵⁹⁰In addition to the challenge of putting synodality into practice, the synodal process requires theological considerations, the canonical ones have implications. Some of these would require a fruitful exchange of specialists in theology and canon law and would also benefit from cooperation, since the respective disciplines alone will not be able to solve the problems. In principle, separate research groups should be organized for each of the topics listed below. Within the framework of this study, the questions that could be dealt with in such groups can only be hinted at.

The introductory sentences to this study already show aspects that require a theological reflection: First the documents speak of a synod in which the whole Church is involved: it is not just a synod of bishops. The question arises as to how this is to be classified theologically. Secondly the process reveals the implementation of the teaching that the Church exists in and out of the local Churches ( in quibus et ex quibus - LG 23). It is therefore not a one-way street, but the question of which ecclesiological thoughts play a role here must be pursued. Alongside these aspects, there are issues that are either to be discussed now or to be considered in the context of an increasingly synodal Church. Thirdly, it is repeatedly emphasized that the Church is neither a democracy nor a parliament. What does this mean and what does the proposal to make decisions by consensus mean? Fourthly, in connection with this topic, the eye must be directed to the committees that advise and decide: who is speaking, in whose name and with what authority? What does it mean to represent and witness to a community's faith? Fifth, in the context of the synodal changes, questions arise regarding lay leadership. They must be discussed within the teachings of the sacra postetas and the three munera . Sixth, against the background of the financial and abuse scandals, a synodal church will not only be able to limit itself to advising and making decisions, but will also have to face the issue of accountability and the transparency associated with it. In the outlook, the question is raised as to what role canon law and canonists play in the process of change. It is worth considering how a dynamic rather than a static interpretation and application of existing law can play a constructive role.

Six theological-legal themes

Synod of the Universal Church and the Synod of Bishops

"The Church of God is called to the Synod". Pope Francis opened the Synod on October 10, 2021. The question arises: is this the Synod of Bishops called for 2023? The answer is: no. Hitherto the synods have taken place as synods of bishops under the leadership of the pope. However, the synod that has now opened expresses an understanding of synodality in which the whole people of God are on the move in the synodal process. The synod is thus much more than a gathering of bishops. “It is a process open to all believers and to which all local churches should make a significant contribution. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that all the baptized, whether ordained or lay, are called to participate actively in the Church's salvific mission (LG, 32-33)” ( Vademecum 1.3). The new understanding of the synod is manifested in its logo, which shows men, women, children and the physically challenged walking together with the bishop walking in their midst. The logo bears the subtitle: "Synod 2021-2023". The synod expresses some fundamental changes brought about by Vatican II. To understand and appreciate these changes it is necessary to go back to Vatican II. Two important aspects in particular must be considered: the ecclesiological redesign in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium ( LG ) and the new understanding of revelation, which is expressed in particular in the dogmatic constitution on revelation Dei Verbum ( DV ).

An Ecclesiological Reconfiguration of God's People and Hierarchy

The ecclesiological achievements of Vatican II can only be fully appreciated if viewed against the background of Vatican I. The latter had dealt primarily with the papacy and promulgated the two papal dogmas: the primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility. Because of the war in Europe, the council had to be broken off before it could deal with the relationship between pope and bishops and between pope and episcopal college. The Second Vatican Council addressed the open questions in Chapter III of Lumen Gentium, entitled “The Hierarchy”. The chapter teaches that through consecration and hierarchical communion, bishops become members of the college of bishops. (The relationship between the bishop and the local church was not developed, which later caused problems). The chapter also clarified that the pope alone, as well as the college of bishops with but not without the pope, holds supreme authority in the Church. It can teach infallibly. The Council also teaches that the diocesan bishop is the vicar of Christ for the diocese entrusted to him ( LG 26); he is not the deputy of the pope. The Council was able to develop these ideas because it drew on the so-called doctrine of the collegiality of bishops and related this to the doctrine of the papacy, which, not least in the ecumenical context, is also referred to as the doctrine of the Petrine ministry.⁵⁹¹

In addition to these doctrinal clarifications, the bishops assembled at Vatican II - including the Pope - saw how fruitful it was for the Pope, for the bishops, and for the Church as a whole to meet in person, listen to one another, and receive first-hand information . It enabled them to become aware of the richness and challenges, diversity and unity of the Church in all parts of the world. As a result, the Council Fathers not only demanded an internationalization of the Roman Curia, but also considered regular meetings of bishops from all over the world to be useful. These would enable the direct exchange of information and allow solutions to be found to pending questions in joint consultations. However, the bishops were also aware that it would not be possible for them all to meet regularly. The doctrine of the collegiality of bishops and the shared experiences led to the idea that a representative of the college of bishops could meet regularly with the pope. However, it was not clear what powers this body should have: decisive or merely advisory. Some critics even feared that such a body could curtail the pope's powers. Probably to avoid further discussions, Pope Paul VI decided. the creation of a new institution, which he called the Synod of Bishops, giving it essentially only an advisory vote, with exceptions being permitted. The establishment of the Synod of Bishops as an institution happened on September 15, 1965, just a day after the opening of the fourth and final session of the Council.

What is important is the theological basis of this body. The composition appears to have membership of the college of bishops as the only requirement. ⁵⁹²The bishops' conferences elect some bishops from their area, the number of bishops depending on the size of the bishops' conference. The bishops' conference thus serves merely as an instrument to ensure a certain representation - in the sense of a geographical spread - of the college of bishops. Those elected need not be diocesan bishops, they may be titular or retired bishops. ⁵⁹³In fact, since the establishment of the body, the bishops assembled in the synod do not participate in their capacity as diocesan bishops. In summary, it can be said that the Synod of Bishops served to put into practice the teaching on the relationship between the Pope and bishops (as members of the college of bishops). It was not intended as an institution to give expression to doctrine about the relationship between the local churches and the universal Church or to teaching about God's people.

At the same time, however, the Council Fathers decided on a more far-reaching decision, which is decisive for today's understanding of synodality, because in the draft of Lumen Gentium , in which there were chapters on the hierarchy, the laity and the religious, they introduced another chapter, in which is carried out what they all have in common. It should be placed in front of the chapters on the hierarchy (III), on the laity (IV) and on the consecrated life (V) as chapter II of Lumen Gentium , entitled “People of God”. This Chapter II contains what is common to all the baptized, expressing that all believers together form the people of God because they are baptized into Christ. All share in the threefold office of Christ. Therefore, this chapter also contains a reflection on the relationship with other Christians and with the non-baptized ( LG 14-15). The chapter formulates the doctrine of the infallibility of the church ( LG 12), not just that of the pope or of the pope with the bishops. It affirms that the Church as such and as a whole has a missionary mandate. This teaching makes it clear that the Hierarchy is in the service of this task.

Why is it necessary to mention all this? The problem with Lumen Gentium is that although the Council inserted the chapter on the “People of God”, it did not draw any consequences for Chapter III on “The Hierarchy”. Chapters II and III stand side by side, so to speak, without a new synthesis having been developed: in theology one speaks of juxtapositions. The post-conciliar church found itself confronted with dealing with this and some other juxtapositions. ⁵⁹⁴However, given the Council's decision to place the chapter on "The People of God" before the chapter on "The Hierarchy", the juxtaposition can be resolved by an appropriate hermeneutic of Vatican II, in which Chapter III on "The Hierarchy" must be interpreted through the lens of the teaching expressed in Chapter II on the "People of God."

A crucial point in this regard was the promulgation of the Code of 1983. A careful analysis shows that the legislature often expressed only one aspect through canonical norms, while other aspects received less weight or were even completely neglected. An example may clarify this: If a bishop wants to lead his diocese without the involvement of lay people, he can do so to this day. While the legislation provides for canonical institutions in which lay people can participate, such as the diocesan pastoral council, the diocesan synod, the Treasury, a lay judge, etc., it is up to the bishop to decide whether or not to take up these opportunities. Another example concerns the norms concerning the exercise of the magisterium, which oblige the faithful to some extent to obedience or submission, without at the same time an obligation on the bishops to ascertain the sensus fidei fidelium .⁵⁹⁵

In order to appreciate the magnitude of the ecclesiological change, it is helpful to recall the deeper theological reasons for emphasizing the relevance of what all have in common and that the people of God as such are church. They lie in the Second Vatican Council's understanding of revelation and in the role of the Magisterium of the Church.

New understanding of revelation: sensus fidei fidelium

When the Council Fathers gathered in Rome for the Second Vatican Council, they brought with them an understanding of revelation that proceeded from a hierarchically ordered conception. The revelation was thus transmitted from Christ to Peter (and the other apostles), and the popes, and from them to the bishops, the priests, and finally to the laity, who had to accept the teaching in obedience. It was a purely top-down model that was very Christomonistic in its foundation. Furthermore, Revelation was understood as a set of teachings, formulated in the form of propositions, which believers had to memorize. To assist them in this, catechisms have been prepared. The second chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, as well as the Dogmatic constitutions on divine revelation show a new understanding: revelation is not so much a sum of propositions as an encounter of persons with God: men and women meet God personally. God speaks to them as a friend and takes up fellowship with them ( DV 2). ⁵⁹⁶The Word of God is heard and accepted by all, including the consecrated. It all starts with listening to the Word of God, which is for everyone. However, this Word of God can only be understood under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through a complex interaction of all believers, each and every individual according to his or her position and function. "This faith cannot be accomplished without the grace of God that precedes and helps, and without the inward assistance of the Holy Spirit, who must stir the heart and turn it to God, open the eyes of the mind, and 'make it easy for everyone to assent and believe the truth '. This spirit constantly perfects the faith with his gifts in order to deepen the understanding of Revelation more and more” ( DV 5). The church of God is therefore a listening and learning church before it is a teaching church.

This understanding touches on the concept of tradition: tradition happens through all believers. LG 12 uses the term sensus fidei fidelium for this: the sense of faith of all believers. This also affects the understanding of infallibility: the church as a whole is infallible ( LG 12). This doctrine was never contested but was largely forgotten, to the point where on the eve of Vatican II the infallibility of the Church was reduced to passive infallibility, while the infallibility of the Pope in particular was seen as active infallibility. As a result, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, there was a danger that the infallibility of the Church would be seen as dependent on the infallibility of the hierarchical magisterium. By studying in particular the Fathers of the Church ⁵⁹⁷, Vatican II has regained the insight that revelation in the people of God takes place in a complex web of relationships between all believers, from the laity to the bishops. Such an understanding is only possible in the light of the teaching that all believers participate in the threefold ministry of Christ through baptism and receive manifold charisms ( LG 14), and the teaching that the Holy Spirit is at work in every human being ( LG 14).

However, the Holy Spirit does not work in isolation. Different people depend on each other: the individual cannot believe without the community. At the same time, the common belief is realized in the lived belief of the believers: there it finds its most comprehensive and diverse expression. Therefore, the lived faith is an important testimony and a source of faith and thus a locus theologicus. Hence the need for common listening and mutual obedience and respect for lay and hierarchy. All of this is expressed in LG 12: All believers cannot err in matters of faith. The believing church, the church in credendo, is infallible, and judgment in questions of faith is awakened and sustained by the spirit of truth. It is not exercised solely under the direction of the Magisterium, but there is a circularity between the sensus fidelium and the Magisterium. ⁵⁹⁸While LG 12 still sees the people of God “under the guidance of the holy Magisterium in faithful and reverent obedience”, DV 10 articulates a circularity between the people of God and the shepherds: “ Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture form the one holy thing left to the Church Treasure of the Word of God. Full of devotion to him, the whole holy people, united with their shepherds, perseveres constantly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in the breaking of bread and in prayer (cf. Acts 8:42 Greek), so that in adhering to the faith that has been handed down, in its realization and his confession there is a unique harmony between rulers and believers" ( DV 10 ).

The infallibility of the so-called Magisterium ⁵⁹⁹is thus embedded in the infallibility of the Church. Infallibility in docendo is part of infallibility in credendo.

Consequences for synodality

Pope Paul VI's As explained above, the synod of bishops established in 1965 resulted on the one hand from the experience that it is advantageous for the pope and the bishops to regularly discuss relevant topics together and on the other hand had its theological basis in the new understanding of the relationship between the papacy and episcopal collegiality. The Synod of Bishops thus followed the teaching expressed in particular in the third chapter of Lumen Gentium on the hierarchy, but not that expressed in the second chapter on the “People of God”.

However, Pope Francis is looking for a form to express the insights contained in Chapter II about the people of God and all that it implies, and concludes that a "journey together" is required. From the beginning of his pontificate he emphasized the need to put God's people at the center. He sees the hierarchy as serving God's people to fulfill their mission.

While in the past synods on the family, youth and the Church in Amazonia the listening took place in the preparatory phase of the synod, with the opening of the synod on synodality in 2021 the Pope integrated the preparatory phase into the actual synod work. In this way, the synod has not only become an expression of the doctrine of the collegiality of the bishops, but of the church as the people of God. The Church convened in the Synod 2021-2023 will celebrate the XVI in October 2023. Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The teaching on the collegiality of bishops expressed in the third chapter of Lumen Gentium is thus integrated into the teaching expressed in the second chapter on the “People of God”. In this way the various positions of Vatican II were reassociated: they were reconfigured. It is important to note that Pope Francis did not add anything new, but, faithful to the intention of the Council Fathers, he revisited their message when they demanded that the Council should first express what is common before making differentiations.⁶⁰⁰

The interaction between the local church and the universal church

"The Church of God is called to the Synod". A week after Pope Francis opened the synod for the universal Church, the bishops in the dioceses around the world have also opened the synodal process. So from the beginning there is a lively interaction between the universal Church and the local Churches. Theologically, there are a number of aspects to consider here: First, Vatican II affirmed that the local churches are not just parts of the universal church, but that they are the whole church ( LG 26). Every diocese is a portio populo Dei : it is the realization - not part - of the universal Church (cf. CD 11 and c. 369 CIC/1983 ), which is entrusted to the bishop to govern. The liturgy of episcopal consecration makes it clear that a diocese does not have a bishop, but a diocese has a bishop who is ordained to serve in it.⁶⁰¹

This is linked to a second aspect: Vatican II emphasized that the church exists in and out of the local churches ( “in quibus et ex quibus”, LG 23). The local church and the universal church cannot exist without each other. It's like a cake: one part of the cake cannot be without the whole cake, and yet the part forms and contains everything that makes the cake. Although the Pope initiated and opened the synod, the process around the subject of the synod begins with the people of God in the local churches. At this stage it is important to realize that the achievements of Vatican II were so fruitful because the local churches offered and shared their gifts and insights for the good of the whole church gathered in a council. The Germans, for example, introduced new insights into the liturgy. French-speaking theologians enriched Vatican II with their studies of the Church Fathers. The American Church made its contribution in terms of religious freedom. Numerous other contributions could be mentioned. The Council has reflected on the fruits offered to it and decided what can be accepted insofar as it contributes to the edification ( ad aedificationem ) of the Church as a whole. What some local churches offered to the whole church was taken up and received for the good of all. The process of reception was therefore of great importance. Indeed, it was not the universal Church that presented its insights to the local Churches in a top-down fashion, but there was a profound interaction based on a circularity between the different entities that proved beneficial to all. ⁶⁰²The in quibus et ex quibus is thus a constantly flowing process.

The current synod exhibits a striking parallelism: the fruits of the exchanges of people in the local churches on how to be a more synodal church are being offered at different levels of the universal church. It is important to note what the Holy Spirit says about how believers should interact with one another, not just for the sake of dealing with one another, but to strengthen the task of each and everyone and the church as a whole in their commission to spread the good news proclaim.. Therefore, under the direction of the bishop, the people of God examine in prayer what the Spirit says about how it can be the Church of God in this time and place. This requires attentive and prayerful listening. On behalf of their dioceses, the bishops will share the results with the region's bishops, who lead the other local churches in the bishops' conference.

Notably, the Vademecum mentions that the report that the bishop is to produce should reflect the diversity of views and opinions expressed. It “ should reflect the voices of the people and what emerges from their analysis and dialogue, and not a set of generalized or doctrinally correct statements. ” ( Vademecum , Appendix D). So the report should not just contain what the bishop thinks the whole church or the pope should or want to hear. It is not about the account of the diocesan bishop as a person, but about the views and beliefs of those who make up the local church. In other words, the report of the communio fidelium is to be formulated in the local Church. The Bishop bears witness to the faith of the Church entrusted to him: to her hopes and joys, her sorrows and her sorrows.

quibus et ex quibus is not only about an interaction between the local and the universal Church, but there are also two consultations at the supra-diocesan level. In a first phase, the bishops are invited within a bishops' conference to jointly discuss the results from their local churches and to work out what these reports mean for the area of their conference ( Vademecum, No. 3.2). On the basis of the reports submitted by the Bishops' Conferences, the Secretariat of the Synod will draw up a first version of the Instrumentum Laboris . This will be the "working document" for the seven continental meetings of the Church, such as the CCEE for Europe, the CELAM for Latin America, and the FABC for Asia. They should explain what the Instrumentum laboris can mean for their continent. These seven documents will be submitted to the Secretariat for the Synod.

From an ecclesiological point of view, it is remarkable that these supra-regional institutions are included. It means an acknowledgment of the sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum for neighboring dioceses and conferences within a socio-economic culture, and at the same time an acknowledgment of the complexity and diversity of the world. It is also intended to express “that every bishop bears simultaneous and inseparable responsibility for the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care and care for the universal Church”.⁶⁰³

The final documents of the seven continental meetings will serve as the basis for the second Instrumentum Laboris , which in turn will form the basis for the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2023. This is followed by the reception phase, in which the local churches are involved (PD 1; Vademecum 3.5.). It should be borne in mind that “ cultures [are] very different from one another, and every general principle [must] be inculturated if it is to be observed and applied. In this way it can be seen that the synodal process has not only its starting point but also its destination in the People of God, upon whom the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit, granted through the assembly of Pastors, are to be poured out ” ⁶⁰⁴.

The "in quibus et ex quibus" will thus bring about a constant exchange between the local Churches and the universal Church, as well as between the faithful and the Churches in the neighboring dioceses. This process is intended to strengthen the relationship between the local Church and the universal Church and to express the catholicity of the Church. As LG 13 states: “By the power of this catholicity the individual parts add their own gifts to the other parts and to the whole Church, so that the whole and the individual parts increase out of all who commune with one another and work together in unity to fullness.[… ] Hence, finally, between the different parts of the church there are bonds of an intimate communion of spiritual goods, of apostolic workers, and of temporal resources. The members of the people of God are called to this community of goods, and the words of the apostle also apply to the individual churches: 'Serve one another, each one with the gift of grace as he has received it, as good stewards of the manifold gifts of God' (1 Peter 4, 10)."

Another key point in this interactive process is clarification of the ecclesiological position of the diocesan bishop. He will be more than ever To be a witness of the faith (testis) of the local Church entrusted to him. In this way, the desired process unfolds the relationship between the communio fidelium , the communio ecclesiarum and the communio episcoporum.

However, such a process also reveals a theologically sensitive issue, namely the ecclesiological position of retired and titular bishops. Titular bishops bear no responsibility for the overall pastoral care of a particular local church. There are different titular bishops: Auxiliary bishops support the diocesan bishop in the pastoral care of the diocese, others hold offices in the Roman curia or the nunciatures, for example. They are all members of the College of Bishops by virtue of their ordination. As long as the Synod of Bishops was an assembly of ordained bishops, the connection with the local churches was not of central importance. Recently, however, there has been a growing awareness - also from an ecumenical perspective - of the theological relevance of the relationship between the bishop and the respective local church. ⁶⁰⁵Already Pope John Paul II declared: “ The bishops assembled in the Synod represent above all their own particular Churches; however, they also take into account the contributions of the Episcopal Conferences from which they are sent and whose opinions they express on the issues to be dealt with. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis showed that he is in line with Pope John Paul II, recalling that he had prayed on the eve of the 2015 Synod on the Family: “Of the Holy Spirit we ask for the Synod Fathers ⁶⁰⁶above all, the gift of hearing: listening to God so that with Him we hear the cry of the people; of listening to the people so that we may perceive there the will to which God is calling us.” Francis explained: “ Finally, the synodal journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, called 'pastor and teacher of all Christians '⁶⁰⁷ to speak: not on the basis of his personal convictions, but as the supreme witness of the fides totius ecclesiae [of the faith of the whole Church], as the guarantor of the obedience and conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ and to the Tradition of the Church .” ⁶⁰⁸These references make clear the connection between the bishop and the people of God and the fact that the bishop - including the bishop of Rome - testifies to the faith of the community entrusted to him, not to his individual convictions. However, these considerations also show that the role of the titular bishops in synods of bishops requires careful theological reflection in the light of the teaching expressed in the triad ⁶⁰⁹communio fidelium, communio ecclesiarum and communio episcoporum .

Neither democracy nor parliament: finding a consensus

In connection with synods, one hears again and again that the church is not subject to the rules of democracy and that it is not a parliament. The preparatory document writes:

“…the consultation of the people of God in no way implies the adoption within the Church of the principles of democracy, based on the principle of majority voting. Indeed, the basis for participation in any synodal process is the shared passion for the common mission of evangelization and not the representation of conflicting interests” (PD Synod 2021-2023 14) .

On Saturday October 9, 2021, the day before the opening of the 2021-2023 Synod, Pope Francis said: “ I emphasize that the Synod is not a parliament, that the Synod is not an opinion poll; the synod is an ecclesial event and the protagonist of the synod is the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit there is no synod. "⁶¹⁰

What can these warnings mean? Perhaps some will quickly answer that there are no votes in the Church. However, this is not true, because in fact many church bodies vote, also on questions of faith: In the Second Vatican Council there was even a very advanced system of "electronic" voting. In plenary and particular councils as well as in bishops' conferences, the members vote not only on organizational matters such as statutes or elections, but also on questions of doctrine. And yet the goal seems to be to find not only the necessary majorities, but a consensus. The Second Vatican Council puts it this way: “ The body of believers who have the anointing of the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn 2: 20-27) cannot err in the faith. And this special quality of hers she manifests through the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people when she expresses her general agreement in matters of faith and morals 'from the bishops to the last lay faithful'. Namely, through that sense of faith which is awakened and nourished by the spirit of truth.” ( LG 12). This means that the community strives for consensus on matters of faith - which is not the same as unanimity. While unanimity, like majority, stems from the legal world ⁶¹¹, consensus building can be understood as a process of discernment led by the Holy Spirit in which to seek truth. ⁶¹²As a rule, such a process is time-consuming and laborious, it is characterized by mutual listening. It presupposes that there is room for a thorough discussion of the subject in question, with the opportunity for a genuine disputatio in which various arguments, accompanied by prayer, are presented and carefully considered. Consensus is a manifestation of God's involvement in the decision-making process. The Council of Jerusalem already testified to this. It means everyone participates, but it doesn't imply everyone speaks with equal authority. In this context one can recall the principle: quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. ⁶¹³Achieving consensus - which can be moral consensus - is thus different from merely counting votes or establishing a majority. In this context, the Apostolic Constitution on the Synod of Bishops Episcopalis Communio ( 2018) is of interest when it emphasizes that a consensus in the sense of a morally unanimous vote is necessary in the Church. The document does not speak of juridical unanimity: “ In the Church, in fact, the purpose of every collegial body, whether deliberative or deliberative, is always directed towards the truth or towards the good of the Church. If it is then a matter of determining the common belief, the consensus Ecclesiae not won by counting the votes, but is the fruit of the action of the Spirit, which is the soul of the one Church of Christ. Therefore, the vote of the synod fathers, "if morally unanimous, has a qualitative ecclesial weight that goes beyond the purely formal aspect of the advisory vote".⁶¹⁴

The issue of majority and consensus is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church. In 1994, the Unifying Church in Australia (UCA) changed its agenda from a controversial to a consensus-based style. In 2002, a special commission on Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches (WCC) proposed changing session procedures to consensus decisions. The background was the growing uneasiness that the voices of minorities were not being adequately represented in WCC decisions. Since 2005, the World Council of Churches has made its decisions by consensus when an issue touches on questions of faith. He does not use a parliamentary model. The theological justification is noteworthy:

“The WCC is called to witness to unity in a world marked by tensions, antagonisms, conflicts, wars and rumors of wars (cf. Matthew 24:6). In this situation, the WCC can bear witness not only through its programs and decisions, but also through the way it carries out its duties. He can shape his statutes and policies to reflect a faith that "works by love" (Galatians 5:6). This means that the member churches and their representatives treat each other with respect and seek to build up the church together in love (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-6; 14:12).

Some churches around the world, but also some sections of the WCC itself, have come to believe that consensus decisions more accurately reflect the nature of the church as described in the New Testament than the 'parliamentary' decision-making process. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 Paul speaks of the members of the body, which all depend on one another. In a holistically functioning body, the gifts of its individual members are combined into a whole. So too in an ecumenical body: it works best when it makes the best use of the skills, history, experience, commitment and spiritual tradition of all its members.

Consensus processes allow more room for deliberation, exploration, questioning and prayerful reflection and are less rigid than formal voting processes. By substituting the requirement of collaboration for contentious debate, the consensus process helps the assembly (or commissions and committees) to seek together the spirit of Christ. Instead of seeking to win the debate, participants are encouraged to engage with each other and try to 'understand what the will of the Lord is' (Ephesians 5:17).

The consensus process in decision-making also encourages listening to one another in prayer; it demands understanding between the ecclesiastical traditions. At the same time it demands discipline from the participants and from the chairmen. Of course there have to be rules. The goal, however, is to achieve consensus, and not just to determine the will of the majority. But when consensus has been reached on a subject, then all who worked on it can say with certainty, "It is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28)."⁶¹⁵

Although the Roman Catholic Church has only observer status on the World Council of Churches, it is a full member of its Faith and Order Commission. Through her delegates in this commission, she was able to gain experience with the method of consensus decision-making instead of voting. ⁶¹⁶If being a synodal church also means listening to and learning from other churches and ecclesial communities, then the Roman Catholic Church should take note of these methods of consensus building in a synod of bishops as well as in other bodies and evaluate them in the light of its reflect on their own ecclesiology. Against the background of the statement made by Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, at the opening of the Synod 2021-2023, this even seems necessary:

“While I am aware that even in a council the assent of the fathers is measured by the vote, but I wonder and ask you if we should not reflect on this point to find other solutions to check assent . Is it so impossible to imagine, for example, that one resorts to voting on the final document of the Synod of Bishops and its individual numbers only when consensus is not certain? Isn't it enough to put forward reasoned objections to the text, perhaps signed by a minimum number of members of the assembly, which will be decided with an addendum for further discussion, and go to the vote as a last and unwanted instance? I limit myself to these few questions, not to propose a solution, but to point out a problem that we need to think carefully about.”⁶¹⁷

A study of synodality should also deal with the phenomenon of the so-called lobby groups, which are by no means alien to the Church and are already mentioned in Sacred Scripture. In any case, it must be ensured that all voices are heard and not just those who have enough money to take advantage of the media and other forms of modern technology.

Representation, reflection and witnessing

The issues of diocesan bishops witnessing to the faith of the people entrusted to them and democracy in the Church have already been addressed. But being a synodal church also means meeting in structures such as synods of bishops, diocesan and parish pastoral councils, and presbyterian councils. This raises the question of who speaks or decides in these bodies, with what authority and in whose name. This affects the role, the function and the task not only of the bishops but of all members of bodies in the dioceses and the parishes. It is about the composition of these bodies. Should they be a faithful or good representation of eg the diocese or parish or should they rather reflect the diocese or parish . In this context, the use of language in the norms relating to priestly and diocesan pastoral councils deserves attention. The Council of Priests is to “represent” the presbytery of the diocese ( repraesentare - c. 495 §1 and 499), taking particular account of the different ministries and regions of the diocese. The Diocesan Pastoral Council, on the other hand, is intended to “really reflect” ( revera configure) the whole part of the People of God that makes up the diocese , and "The different regions of the diocese, the social conditions and the vocations, as well as the part that the members have in the apostolate individually or together with others, must be taken into account." (c. 512 §2 CIC).

This begs the real question: Who are the people in these bodies and who do they represent? What is their legitimacy based on? What does it mean for them to participate in the reflection process and in the decision itself ( decision making and decision taking )? Do they reflect, recognize and speak about their own beliefs? Do they speak or are they expected to speak on behalf of others and express their beliefs? For example, do bishops in a bishops' conference bear witness to the faith of their church, or do they express their own views in the light of their individual faith? The issue of representation is of considerable theological relevance in a synodal church, not just sociologically but also theologically.⁶¹⁸

Laity and the exercise of governance: sacra potestas and tria munera

A central theme in a synodal church is undoubtedly the participation of lay people in the decision-making processes and thus in the governance of the church. It touches on the relationship between the ordained and judicial powers, as well as participation in the threefold office of Christ, the tria munera. It is a complex issue that could not be finally resolved even at Vatican II and which gave rise to some remarks in the Nota Explicativa Praevia added to the Lumen Gentium .

Since the Second Vatican Council, canonists have had heated debates about the possibility of what they often call the participation of “non-ordained” people in governance. While some conclude from history in particular that ordination is not, or not always, a prerequisite for the exercise of managerial or judicial power, others refer to the so-called theory of sacra potestas as formulated by Vatican II, and argue that authority cannot be exercised by non-ordained persons or by non-clerics. The 1917 Code of Canon Law had stipulated that only clerics could exercise judicial power (c. 118). However, until 1972 clergy also included those who had received tonsure but not ordination to the diaconate, and thus would today be considered lay.

After the Second Vatican Council, the discussion of laity and jurisdiction became particularly heated when it came to the formulation in c. 129 in Codex (1983). Since 1971 male laymen could be appointed judges, first for matrimonial matters and since 1974 also for other cases. Since 1983, laypersons in general - including women - could be appointed to the office of judge, but they could only exercise this office in a judiciary with two other clerics. The controversial discussions continued even after 1983, since some canonical provisions did not seem to be entirely compatible, such as that lay people could be assigned the office of judge within the Church (c. 1421 § 2), but only clerics could receive offices for the exercise of which ordination or ecclesiastical governance is required (c. 274). ⁶¹⁹Nevertheless, after the Codex was promulgated in 1983, the Church actually experienced a further development, insofar as lay people were given offices in parishes and dioceses as well as within the Holy See, which were associated with a certain power of leadership.

Not only factual developments, which can certainly be described as legitimate developments praeter ius and not necessarily contra ius , but also new legal provisions that both Pope Benedict XVI. as well as Pope Francis, call for a new theological-canonical reflection. Pope Benedict XVI amended Canons 1008 and 1009, providing that those who have received episcopal or priestly ordination are given the mandate and ability to act in persona Christi capitis , while deacons “receive power to give to the people of God in the Diaconia to serve the liturgy, the word and love”. ⁶²⁰This has implications for the term "cleric" and calls for reflection on the theological basis for the exercise of governance by deacons.

Pope Francis amended the law (c. 1421) by providing that the college of three judges in matrimonial matters no longer had to be a clerical majority, but could be a lay majority, including both men and women. Apparently no distinction is made as to whether the cleric in question is a deacon, priest or bishop; even the married deacon, who is a cleric after all, is not excluded. ⁶²¹In ecclesiastical criminal proceedings it is possible for laypersons to be given the office of judge. The standards explicitly provide that a dispensation can be obtained for this. In addition, Pope Francis recently stipulated that lay judges can also be appointed in Vatican courts hearing allegations against cardinals, papal legates and bishops. Women are not excluded.⁶²²

According to canonical teaching, judges in the ecclesiastical courts have executive authority. The bishop - or, as is customary, the court vicar - assigns the case to judges, but once appointed he cannot instruct them how to rule in the specific case . Once someone has been appointed judge in a particular case, he/she acts and decides independently. It should be noted that in cases of marriage annulment, for example, the judges determine canonical civil status within the community: they can establish that the person is no longer to be considered married but single. The change in status entails a change in rights and obligations.

These canonical provisions require thorough theological reflection in order to draw the ensuing consequences for the participation of lay people in other areas of governance. In order to do this, it is essential to begin with careful consideration to determine the status quaestiones . The question usually raised is whether an "unordained" person can exercise judicial power or participate in the potestas regiminis . Perhaps it would be more fruitful not to approach the question from the perspective of the "unordained" but to approach it on the basis of participation in the threefold office of Christ by virtue of baptism and in connection with the delegation of the authority which the diocesan bishop holds for his diocese reflect.⁶²³

Accountability in a Synodal Church

The Church of God is called to Synod to reflect on how to become a more synodal Church. As a result, the word "listening" has become a key word in the many talks and documents. Undoubtedly, listening is a crucial moment in the process of making a decision. On this basis, decisions must be made. However, the scandals of spiritual, financial, and sexual abuse in the Church show that there is still one more step to take, and that is to think about accountability, that is, about responsibility and accountability in relation to official duties. This would include assessment of judgement, ability, skill and competence. ⁶²⁴Currently, pastors and priests are accountable to their bishop, and bishops are accountable to the pope. In a way, the periodic visitations and the ad limina visit are instruments. If there are indications of serious problems, an extraordinary visitation or, in the case of bishops, an apostolic visitation can be ordered. In financial matters, church leaders in many countries are accountable to civil authorities.

In recent years, Pope Francis has enacted new regulations that provide for more severe consequences - up to and including impeachment - for those "who, through negligence, have committed or omitted acts which have caused serious harm to others, whether natural persons or a community in its entirety. The damage can be physical, moral, spiritual or pecuniary. Also, but not only as a result of these norms, a number of bishops lost their office ( officium ⁶²⁵) or were even dismissed from the clergy.

The accountability of the leadership of a local church is understood primarily "vertically". However, as the church moves from a hierarchical to a more synodal understanding, the question must be asked what this may mean for accountability.⁶²⁶

As early as 2007, the American canon lawyer Robert J. Kaslyn published a study on accountability within a “communio” ecclesiology. He writes:

“The communio , which is the church, springs from the saving work and the saving will of Jesus Christ; the Church continues to fulfill her divine mission through time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to the consummation of the world. This communio does not exist as a static but as a dynamic reality: the Church is on the way to her final destination. Meanwhile, all believers have a duty to remain in fellowship with one another and with God, and that duty necessarily involves accountability to one another and to God. This accountability can be viewed both from the perspective of the community of believers ( communio fidelium ) and from the perspective of the constitutive role of the hierarchy within the church (communio hierarchica) . An analysis of these two perspectives will help to understand the inherent accountability of the episcopacy. Nevertheless, the fundamental unity of communio must not be lost. 'The communio of the churches and the collegiality of the bishops is grounded in the more fundamental communio which is the church, the people of God itself'.”⁶²⁷

In his reflections on the communio fidelium , Kaslyn quotes Cardinal Walter Kasper: “'With this aspect of communion ecclesiology, the idea of the church as a societas inaequalis has been fundamentally overcome. It states that being a common people of God precedes all distinctions of offices, charisms and ministries.' The communion is made up of the whole people of God, each making his or her crucial contribution to the life of the Church, as willed by God and guided by the Spirit. This emphasis does not diminish the importance of hierarchical communion - the bishops are the authentic teachers of the faith - but rather locates this specific of communion within the whole Church as instituted by Jesus Christ, ie the communio fidelium. Furthermore, all members of God's people, including all bishops and the bishop of Rome, must maintain communion with one another and with God; consequently they are necessarily accountable to one another and to God. If accountability is understood to take place within , to be motivated by, and directed towards communion both theologically and teleologically, then that responsibility is firmly anchored in traditional ecclesiological concepts and understandings.”⁶²⁸

Kaslyn concludes that there is a twofold movement in communion ecclesiology: in spatial categories it is both horizontal and vertical. Horizontally, all believers, including bishops, are members of communio , with a commitment to maintaining unity with one another and with God. Vertically, all believers live in communion with God, who communicates with each individual through Jesus Christ under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, for Kaslyn there is a communio fidelium and a communio hierarchicum. The latter presupposes the former, and each bishop must “cultivate fellowship with all the faithful, in addition to hierarchical communion with the other bishops, including the bishop of Rome within the college of bishops.”⁶²⁹

The issue of accountability in a synodal church requires further theological reflection, on the basis of which canonical structures may need to be adjusted. The ecumenical dimension must not be forgotten. The question that needs to be raised is how other churches and ecclesial communities reflect on accountability theologically and how they ensure its implementation in practice. In 2021, the Peter and Paul Seminary, an international research group of theologians and canonists, launched the research project Accountability in a Synodal Church to discuss the theological, canonical and ecumenical dimensions.

An Outlook: The Role of Canon Law and the Canonists

The project of transition from a very hierarchical to a more synodal Church requires a conversion of all her members. The issues mentioned in the previous section certainly require a theological reconsideration, which must be followed by an evaluation of the existing canonical norms, which may have to lead to a reform of some of these norms. Such a reform will not be possible without the canonists being ready for what what Pope Paul VI. referred to as novus ⁶³⁰habitus mentis . What is required is a new attitude of mind, that is, a readiness open to new insights that arise from listening to what the Spirit has to say, which must be reflected in the light of the Church's tradition and also with the surrounding world. This will require new models and structures that enable these insights to be successfully implemented. In this way the community of believers will be able to live in accordance with their convictions and be best equipped to become a truly missionary church. It takes new lenses to hear the message, understand the situation, and thus find new and appropriate solutions for the present with an eye to the future.

There is often a belief that church law needs to be revised before anything can change. Behind such a view, a static understanding of the law could be revealed. Everyone who applies the law must be aware that the development does not primarily take place through new legal regulations, but also and above all through new (theological) knowledge - including the results of the ecumenical dialogues, which then lead to interpretation and application have to come to fruition. The 1983 Code cannot be interpreted with the theological understanding that prevailed at the time of its promulgation, for the continuing development of theology (and other disciplines such as medicine, psychology, etc.) must be reflected in the interpretation and application of the law. This happened already after the Second Vatican Council, when the 1917 Code of Laws was still in force. The law could not and was no longer interpreted with the theology and teaching which determined the Catholic Church in 1917, but the teaching of the Second Vatican Council determined its interpretation. The canonists ascribed historical relevance to the mens legislatoris , lest the law prevent the Church from living what it taught. ⁶³¹Something similar must happen in our time. Because the Holy Spirit moves the community of faith, the law must not prevent it from living accordingly, but its interpretation and application must also be caught up in the dynamic development of doctrine.

1)

International Theological Commission: Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, Rome 2018, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_ge.html  ↵

2)

Zulehner, Paul M.: An epochal opportunity for reform. On the synodal path of the Catholic world church, Ostfildern 2021.  ↵

3)

This can be accessed free of charge as an e-book at www.zulehner.org . The title is: Synodalization of the Catholic World Church. Experts contribute, ebook, Vienna 2022.  ↵

4)

Loffeld, Jan: How effective can a synodal process be today? On hooks and eyes of an ecclesiological necessity, in: Anzeiger für die Seelsorge 130 (2021/7-8) 32-37, 37.  ↵

5)

AaO.  ↵

6)

See Batlogg, Andreas R.: Synodale Kirche, in: StZ 234 (2016) 73-74.  ↵

7)

See Batlogg, Andreas R./Zulehner, Paul M.: Der Reformer. Learning from Pope Francis – an appeal. Würzburg 2 2020, 178-181 (“Top-down or bottom-up: synodal processes last!”).  ↵

8)

See Batlogg, Andreas R./Zulehner, Paul M.: Der Reformer. Learning from Pope Francis – an appeal. Würzburg 2 2020, 178-181 (“Top-down or bottom-up: synodal processes last!”).  ↵

9)

See Batlogg, Andreas R.: Der evangelische Papst. Does Francis keep his promises? Munich 2018, 178-181 ("Synodality: Church on the way"); Batlogg, Andreas R./Zulehner, Paul M.: The Reformer, esp. 135-156 ("Synodality - the way of the church of tomorrow?").  ↵

10)

Quoted from: https://www.vaticannews.va/de/vatican/news/2019-02/schoenborn-kinderschutz-abuse-pbc2019-interview-vatiab.html.  ↵

11)

AaO.  ↵

12)

Quoted from: https://www.vatican.va content/francesco/de/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_omelia-pallio.html.  ↵

13)

Spardaro, Antonio: The Interview with Pope Francis. Ed. Andreas R. Batlogg. Friborg 2013, 54.  ↵

14)

AaO. 54 f.  ↵

15)

Quoted from: htpps://www.vatica.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html. – All further quotations of this speech refer to this source.  ↵

16)

Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal: Speech on the occasion of the ceremony "50 Years Synod of Bishops" (October 17, 2015), in: id. (ed.), vocation and mission of the family. The Central Texts of the Synod of Bishops. With a commentary by Fr. Michael Sievernich SJ. Friborg 2015, 66-79, 78.  ↵

17)

AaO.  ↵

18)

"God thinks bigger". A conversation with DBK Chairman Cardinal Reinhard Marx, in: HerKorr 69 (2015) 17-21, 19.  ↵

19)

Documentation: www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2017/2017-163a-Festakt-150- Jahre-Bischofskonferenz-in-Fulda-Vortrag-Prof.-Pottmeyer.pdf.  ↵

20)

See Fares, Diego: Il profumo del pastore. Il vescovo nella visione de Papa Francesco. Prefazione di Antonio Spadaro. Milan 2015; cf. his article, taken from the Civiltà Cattolica and translated, “Shepherds, not rulers. Pope Francis on the figure of the bishop”, in: StZ 233 (2015) 507-522.  ↵

21)

See Wolf, Hubertus: The many smells of sheep. Why subsidiarity is the key to reforms in the Catholic Church, in: Paul M. Zulehner – Tomáš Halík (ed.), Tailwind for the Pope. Why we are Pro Pope Francis. Darmstadt 2018, 139-158.  ↵

22)

Documentation: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_ge.html; also accessible in a "Quaestio disputata" with twelve evaluating, top-class contributions from various theological disciplines in: Markus Graulich - Johanna Rahner (ed.), Synodality in the Catholic Church. The Study of the International Theological Commission in Discourse (QD 311). Friborg 2020, 318-388.  ↵

23)

Quoted from AaO. 388; the original is available at: https://vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2017/may/documents/papa-francesco_20170522_70assemblea-cei.html .  ↵

24)

Documentation: https:://vatican.va/content/francesco/de/apost_constitutions/documents/papa-francesco_costituzione-ap_20180915_episcopalis-communio.html.  ↵

25)

Czerny, Michael Cardinal: Synodal Church, in solidarity with the poor, in: StZ 239 (2021) 185-196, 190. – This article originally appeared in Italian in the Civiltà Cattolica and has also been translated into French ( Études ) and English ( thinkingfaith ) was published – an indication that there was widespread interest in launching this interpretation by a close collaborator of the Pope.  ↵

26)

AaO. 190 f.  ↵

27)

AaO. 186  ↵

28)

AaO. 185  ↵

29)

AaO. 186  ↵

30)

AaO.  ↵

31)

AaO. 194  ↵

32)

See Andreas R. Batlogg, Andreas R.: “Fratelli tutti” – read in Ignatian terms. How religious spirituality and theology affect Pope Francis, in: MThZ 72 (2021) 91-107.  ↵

33)

"This is a pontificate of sowing, not reaping." The Pope's confidante Antonio Spadaro in conversation, in: HerKorr 74 (2020/8) 20-24, 22.  ↵

34)

Cf. Sievernich, Michael: On the art of personal and pastoral "distinction" in the context of the family, in: ThpQ 196 (2016) 355-370.  ↵

35)

"This is a pontificate of sowing, not reaping," 22.  ↵

36)

See my Francis blog: https://andreas-batlogg.de//2019/09/amazonas-synode-signals-aus-rom/; as well as: https://andreas-batlogg.de /2020/02/nachrufe-auf-papst-franziskus/  ↵

37)

Quoted from: https://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/kardinal-marx/cont/61424.  ↵

38)

See my assessments: https://andreas-batlogg.de//2021/06/der-lotse-will-von-bord-zum-ruecktrittsgesucht-von-kardinal-marx/; as well as: https://andreas-batlogg.de/2021/06/ruecktritt-abgelehnt-mach-weiter-ab-als-erzbischof-von-muenchen-und-freising/.  ↵

39)

Quoted from: https://vaticacnnews.va//de/vatikan/news/2021-05/kardinal-grech-interview-synodos-episcoporum-reform-synode.html.  ↵

40)

AaO.  ↵

41)

AaO.  ↵

42)

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council expressly evaluates the ecclesiastical offices as "ministry".  ↵

43)

Karrer, Leo: Synodal Principle, LThK 9, special edition. 2009 (revised edition of the 3rd ed. 2000), 1184.  ↵

44)

Mühlmann, Wilhelm Emil: Chiliasm and Nativism. Studies on the psychology, sociology and historical casuistry of the overthrow movements, Berlin 2 1964, 362, points out in a different context to the sometimes strong effect of the "assimilated, pent-up, collective-psychic 'moods'". Although people have a short historical memory, it is "wrong to conclude from this that the experiences gained in group contact, [...] the humiliations, the humiliations, the constant habitual compulsion to 'walk the lower way' , would be forgotten.” This of course also applies to the experiences of the pre-Israelite “underdogs” in Canaan and Egypt, who survived in the people and then in the state of Israel and showed their effect particularly in the resistance against the kingship.  ↵

45)

Saul was the first to hold permanent (and not just for the limited duration of a temporary external threat) leadership, but did not yet have sanctioning powers, as David later did, and was therefore not yet a ruler, not a king.  ↵

46)

See Moenikes, Ansgar: The Basic Rejection of Kingship in the Hebrew Bible. A contribution to the religious history of ancient Israel, BBB 99, Weinheim 1995; idem., The Rejection of Cult and Politics by Hosea, Hen. 19, 1997, 3-15.  ↵

47)

The institution of kingship in Israel is therefore not taken for granted, both in literature (1 Sam 8-12) and historically, as in Israel's neighboring cultures in the ancient Near East, but goes back to the (negatively judged) desire of the people.  ↵

48)

Moenikes, Ansgar: The social-egalitarian impetus of the Bible of Jesus and the commandment to love as the quintessence of the Torah, Würzburg 2007.  ↵

49)

Social norms, which the king had to follow during his reign, also applied in Israel's neighboring cultures in the ancient Near East, but from the point of view of pre-state Israel with its strong anti-government resentment, one person's power and rulership over other people already applied, in the ancient Near East: power and rule of the king, who as such had the power to impose sanctions and could levy compulsory taxes for the royal court and forcibly recruit for military service, etc., as oppression and exploitation.  ↵

50)

For more details see Moenikes, Ansgar: Challenges of the Church in the Present. The Old Testament as a starting point and foundation, in: Rüdiger Althaus (ed.), In verbo autem tuo, Domine - On your word, Lord. Festschrift for Archbishop Hans-Josef Becker on his 70th birthday, PaThSt 58, 2018, 353-369, 358-361 (Lit.).  ↵

51)

For the following cf. Moenikes, Ansgar: Gottessrecht. On the Proprium of Biblical Theology, ThGl 99, 2009, 63-73, 67-73.  ↵

52)

In research, the English term “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon” (VTE) is mostly used.  ↵

53)

Cf. on this subject: Moran, William L.: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy, CBQ 25, 1963, 77-87; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972; Emma Brunner-Traut, Liebe, LÄ 3, 1980, 1034-1048, 1039f.1045 (lit.); Assmann, Jan: Political theology between Egypt and Israel, Munich 2 1995, 101-105; Steymans, Hans Ulrich: The neo-Assyrian treaty rhetoric of the "Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon" and Deuteronomy, in: Georg Braulik (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, ÖBS 23, Frankfurt a. M. et al. 2003, 89- 152, 122.  ↵

54)

See Brunner-Traut, Liebe , 1040f.1045f (ref.).  ↵

55)

See also Deut 4:37; 10:15. The love of YHWH is directed towards both the fathers and Israel, but the object of YHWH's election is Israel alone.  ↵

56)

A love emanating from the king towards the people is not at all proven.  ↵

57)

For cuneiform legal literature as a whole, see Ries, Gerhard: Prologue and Epilogue in Laws of Antiquity, Munich 1983, 44-51.74. On Egypt see Otto, Eberhard: Prolegomena on the Question of Legislation and Jurisdiction in Egypt, in: Festschrift for the 70th birthday of Professor Dr. Hermann Kees, Wiesbaden 1956, 150-159, 150f; Schmid, Hans Heinrich: Justice as a world order. Background and history of the Old Testament concept of justice, Tübingen 1968, 52.  ↵

58)

Original and rare: from YHWH himself, see e.g. B. Deut 6:17; see Lohfink, Norbert: Law of Yahweh or Law of Moses? The assignment of subjects to words for "law" in Dtn and in German literature, in: ibid., Studies on Deuteronomy and on Deuteronomistic Literature II, Stuttgart 1995 (first publication: 1990), 157-165, especially 163-165; Moenikes, Ansgar: Torah without Moses. On the history of the Moses Torah, Berlin – Vienna 2004, 64-68.  ↵

59)

About the concept of covenant , because in the ancient Near East only the Old Testament knows the theological conception of a covenant between God and people, in which a king also plays no role.  ↵

60)

Ruwe, Andreas: Next / Next 1st, in: Frank Crüsemann et al. (ed.), Social History Dictionary for the Bible, Gütersloh 2009, 403f, 403.  ↵

61)

Trito-Is 56:1-8 later clarifies what the turning of the proselytes to YHWH and thus their acceptance into YHWH's congregation actually means: adhering to YHWH's covenant and observing YHWH's commandments, including the ritual commandments, exemplified by the Shabbat commandment of rest. As is well known, the demand for the proselytes to follow the ritual commandments will later be disputed among the Jews, who see Jesus as the expected Messiah, and will be rejected by Paul (against James).  ↵

62)

Cf. Moenikes, Ansgar: in the Old Testament (pre-apocalyptic time), ZRGG 40, 1988, 289-306, 303f.  ↵

63)

See only Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute: God image (AT), in: The scientific Bible lexicon on the Internet ( www.wibilex.de ), Stuttgart, created 2017, especially 3.2.3. (Ref.).  ↵

64)

Gallagher Branch, Robin: The Messianic Dimensions of Kingship in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 as Fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew, VeEc 25, 2004, 378-401, shows that the kingship of Jesus as it is in the New Testament, especially in Matthew , is testified to, corresponds exactly to kingship as prescribed in Deut 17:14-20, and that Jesus obviously knew this law and was guided by it.  ↵

65)

Pope Francis, Encyclical Fratelli Tutti. On fraternity and social friendship, 85.  ↵

66)

Feldmann, Christian: Fighter - dreamer - artist of life. Great figures and saints for every day, Freiburg et al. 2005, 325.  ↵

67)

Blatz, Heinz: the power. A contemporary and religious-historical study of the Markan miracle narratives, NTA 59, Münster 2016.  ↵

68)

As Deut 15:12 shows, in the "brother" and "neighbor" ethics of dominant biblical theology (which, as we have seen, seeks to push back a hierarchical stratification of society, class society, and its socio-economic consequences), the " sister” meant; cf. Braulik, Georg: The Book of Deuteronomy, in: Erich Zenger et al., Introduction to the Old Testament, Stuttgart 3 1998, 125-141, 139.  ↵

69)

Based on the definition of the “synodal principle” given by Leo Karrer at the beginning of the article in the 3rd edition of the Lexicon for Theology and Church.  ↵

70)

Hose, Burkhard: Be loud! For a politically committed Christianity, Münsterschwarzach 2018, 123.  ↵

71)

Evangelii gaudium, paragraph 53 (in German translation: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html); Speech at the III. World Meeting of Social Movements from 2.-5. November 2016 in Rome.  ↵

72)

See the apt problematization of this "strategy" in Fuhs, Hans F.: People of God - YHWH's relatives. Basic church structures in the Old Testament, in: Josef Ernst (ed.), Church in transition, Paderborn 2003, 21-42, 22-28, and the excellent analysis by Herbert Böttcher, On the way to an "entrepreneurial church" following the falling (post) modern age, Exit! Crisis and criticism of the commodity society 17, 2020, 179-238.  ↵

73)

See Moenikes, Ansgar: Liberation and the Kingdom of God on Earth, in: Paul M. Zulehner – Tomáš Halík (ed.), We share this dream. Theologians from all over the world argue Pro Pope Francis, Ostfildern 2019 (EPUB; without page numbers, alphabetically by author name); idem., Challenges of the Church in the Present – The Old Testament as Starting Point and Foundation (as note 10), 358-369.  ↵

74)

See Moenikes, Ansgar: On the Significance of the Old Testament for Christianity, ThGl 97, 2007, 55-69 .  ↵

75)

An impressive example of this ecclesiastical struggle is the Capeltic coffee cooperative, founded by the Jesuits and led by Fr. Arturo Estrada, in the coffee mountains of southern Mexico, to which 315 farmers belong. While these farmers used to have to toil for a pittance on the finca of a coffee baron, today they can grow coffee in freedom and self-determination on their own land and thus earn a decent and dignified life. Liberation from the "house of slavery in Egypt" (Ex 20:2; Deut 5:6) happened here.  ↵

76)

Significantly, the LThK 3 distinguishes between the concepts of emperor only by referring to the Art. Imperium Romanum for the Roman emperors of antiquity: Wirth, Gerhard/Engels, Odilo: Art. Kaiser, Kaisertum, in: LThK 3 5 (1996), 1132 -1136, here: 1132, and Gottlieb, Günther: Art. Imperium Romanum, in: LThK 3 5 (1996), 436-438. Unfortunately, the last-mentioned art. is no help in distinguishing the various reference objects behind the word Kaiser (which one can hardly blame the author or his art. for). See also Ferdinand Seibt, Gloss and Misery of the Middle Ages. A finite story, Munich 1992, 23-37.  ↵

77)

See Bernstein, Frank: The beginning: The supposed empire of Augustus, in: Hartmut Leppin et al. (ed.), Empire in the first millennium. Scientific companion volume to the state exhibition “Otto the Great and the Roman Empire. Empire from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, Regensburg 2012, 17-54.  ↵

78)

See Turner, Martin: Main features of the Roman Empire, in: Hartmut Leppin et al. (Hgg.), Empire in the first millennium. Scientific companion volume to the state exhibition “Otto the Great and the Roman Empire. Empire from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, Regensburg 2012, 95-116. Dreher rightly confines himself to the empire of the principate period, the basic features of which differ significantly from those of the dominant period. Cf. next Freund, Stephan: Lines of tradition of the empire from antiquity to the Middle Ages, in: Hartmut Leppin et al. (eds.), Kaisertum in the first millennium. Scientific companion volume to the state exhibition “Otto the Great and the Roman Empire. Empire from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, Regensburg 2012, 211-228, here: 212-218.  ↵

79)

See Leppin, Hartmut: Empire and Christianity in late antiquity, in: Hartmut Leppin et al. (ed.), Empire in the first millennium. Scientific companion volume to the state exhibition “Otto the Great and the Roman Empire. Empire from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, Regensburg 2012, 153-172, here: 165-170.  ↵

80)

Leppin rightly points out that Justinian approached the limit of the role of the priest, but did not exceed it (Leppin, Kaisertum und Christen in der Spätantike, 170). This finding can be extended to all Eastern Roman-Byzantine emperors, but not to the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (against Elze, Reinhard: Art. ordination, in: LThK 2 5 [1960], 279-281, here: 279, the simply accepts the neo-scholastic finding that the consecration of emperors is not a sacrament. However, the question of whether a sacrament exists is in itself anachronistic); According to their consecration rites, the Roman kings and emperors of the Middle Ages have a (priority) share in the office of bishop (“ particeps/princeps ministerii nostri ” [ie episcoporum; MGH IV. Legum II {ed. by Georg Heinrich Pertz}], 389) and are analogous to Christ, the mediator between God and men, mediator between clergy and people (" mediator Dei et hominum te mediatorem cleri ac plebis in hoc regni solio confirmedet " [MGH IV. Legum II {ed. by Georg Heinrich Pertz}, 390 ]). The unspoken but necessary theological condition of both mediations is that the respective mediator is both at the same time, between which he is supposed to mediate: Christ, that is, God and man, while the king, on the other hand, is layman and clergyman.  ↵

81)

Of course, that was and is an ideal picture. And of course you can smile about it. The reality of Rome was different. And yet this ideal has had a tremendous impact and has become style-forming to this day. Even if none of the African or Syrian refugees want to become Romans: If they want to go to Europe because they want to lead a life with a bit of clean water, shelter and work, then there is nothing behind it other than a multiply transformed idea of Rome.  ↵

82)

See Rader, Olaf B.: Friedrich II. The Sicilian on the imperial throne. A biography, Munich 2019, 190-194.  ↵

83)

A side note: The repeated suggestion that the pope should appoint women to be cardinals, because from the Middle Ages lay people had also become cardinals, is argumentatively pointless. I am not aware of any case in which a layman became a cardinal according to contemporary understanding. The minimum condition was the tonsure. So they were always clerics. Only until 1972 did the Roman Church know clerics who were not sacramentally ordained.  ↵

84)

In any case, it is not clear to the author of this article to this day whether Pope Benedict XVI's re-admission of the unreformed liturgy, which he declared as never having been abolished (a declaration which is difficult to reconcile with Paul VI's unequivocal declarations of abrogation), also revives the canons of the CIC of 1917 corresponding to the outdated liturgy or whether this re-admission sets new law within the framework of the CIC of 1983 or moves exclusively within this framework without new law being set.  ↵

85)

See Frenken, Ansgar: Scholars at the Council. Case studies on the importance and effectiveness of university members at the Council of Constance, in: Heribert Müller/Johannes Helmrath (eds.), The Councils of Pisa (1409), Constance (1414-1418) and Basel (1431-1449). Institution and people (lectures and research, published by the Constance working group for medieval history, vol. LXVII), Ostfildern 2007, 107-147, here: 116-118.  ↵

86)

See Schmidt, Bernward: The Councils and the Pope. From Pisa (1409) to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Freiburg – Basel – Vienna 2013, 74.  ↵

87)

See the lucid overall representations of Dünzl, Franz: History of Christological Dogma in the Old Church (ed. by Michael Bußer/Johannes Pfeiff), Freiburg - Basel - Vienna 2019, 127-145; Frank, Karl Suso (with the collaboration of Elisabeth Grünbeck): Textbook on the history of the Old Church, Paderborn - Munich - Vienna - Zurich 3 2002, 281-285.  ↵

88)

See Dünzl: History of Christological Dogma in the Old Church, 137f.  ↵

89)

See Schmidt: The Councils and the Pope, 54.  ↵

90)

See Schmidt: The Councils and the Pope, 54-56.  ↵

91)

See Schmidt: The Councils and the Pope, 56.  ↵

92)

Cf. Walter, Peter: What does and to what end does one study the history of theology? An academic farewell speech, in: Freiburg University Papers (published on behalf of the rector of the Albert Ludwig University) 210, Freiburg 2015, 61 (with reference to Bishop Ketteler of Mainz).  ↵

93)

A separate discussion (which cannot be done here) would have deserved the theological relevance of the seating order dispute at the Council of Florence during the union negotiations in 1438-39: Here Pope Eugene actually wanted to be in the middle of the space between the parties of the Latin West and of the Greek East preside. The Orthodox vehemently rejected this, because the Pope himself was a party. So Eugen had to side with the Latins, and opposite him was not the patriarch of Constantinople, but the Byzantine emperor, albeit a step lower. Incidentally, this was also the last time that a secular power was prominently present at a council - a secular power that, paradoxically, had more prestige than real influence, since the Byzantine emperors already owned little more than Constantinople and the Peloponnese.  ↵

94)

See Pesch, Otto Hermann: The Second Vatican Council. Prehistory - Course - Results - Posthistory, Würzburg 2001, 29.  ↵

95)

I freely admit that this formulation is exaggerated. But the dignity of the baptized is and remains just beautiful poetry as long as it is not linked to manifest, enforceable rights and, if necessary, enforceable against the clergy. See Pesch: The Second Vatican Council, 204-206.  ↵

96)

See https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/2273-wider-den-theologische-narzissmus; Philipp Müller, Francis ' Struggle Against Clericalism. Narcissism and Striving for Power in the Church, in: StdZ 43 (2018), 237-244.  ↵

97)

See Langenscheidt's Pocket Dictionary of Ancient Greek - German, 37th edition, Berlin and Munich 1976, 452.  ↵

98)

See The Little Stowasser, Latin - German School Dictionary, Munich 1971, 341.  ↵

99)

See Kluge, Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 24th edition, Berlin / New York 2002, 339.  ↵

100)

Prologue to the Rule of Benedict 1; quoted from: Puzicha M., Commentary on the Rule of Benedict, St. Ottilien 2002, 47.  ↵

101)

Cf. Puzicha, Michaela: Commentary on the Rule of Benedict, op.cit., 47f.  ↵

102)

Quoted according to the instructions of the fathers, ed.v. Bonifaz Miller, 3rd unchanged. Edition, Trier 1986, 194.  ↵

103)

Anthony of Padua, Sermons I1; quoted from: Rotzetter A. (ed.), Love - All suffering snatched away. Franciscan Mysticism, Mainz 1998, 47.  ↵

104)

Stein, Edith: A contribution to the chronicle of the Cologne Carmel. How I came to the Cologne Carmel, in: Stein E., Complete Edition Vol. 1, Freiburg 2002, 345-362, here 350.  ↵

105)

Bernhard von Clairvaux letter 106 to Magister Murdach; quoted from: Bernhard von Clairvaux, Complete Works Vol. II; Innsbruck 1992, 773ff.  ↵

106)

Rahner, Karl: Visions and Prophecies. On mysticism and the experience of transcendence, ed. Josef Sudbrack, Freiburg 1989, 79.  ↵

107)

Quoted from: Instruction of the Fathers , loc.cit., 17 including note 11 (460).  ↵

108)

John Cassian Collatio 1:17; quoted from: Johannes Cassian, Conversations with the Fathers. Collationes Patrum, part 1, trans. and allowed v. G. Ziegler, Sources of Spirituality 5, Münsterschwarzach 2011, 76f.  ↵

109)

John Cassian Collatio 1:20; quoted from: Johannes Cassian, Conversations with the Fathers, op.cit., 79.  ↵

110)

Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises 313; quoted from: Ignatius von Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, based on the Spanish original text. v. Peter Knauer, Wuerzburg 1998, 127.  ↵

111)

Cf. Prologue of the Rule of Benedict 2; quoted from: Puzicha: Commentary on the Rule of Benedict, loc.cit., 47.  ↵

112)

Quoted from: Instruction of the Fathers, loc.cit., 217.  ↵

113)

Quoted from: Instruction of the Fathers, loc.cit., 301.  ↵

114)

Puzicha: Commentary on the Rule of Benedict, loc.cit., 135.  ↵

115)

Quoted from: Instruction of the fathers. loc. cit., 237.  ↵

116)

See Aug., EnPs. 132.12; quoted from: Puzicha: Commentary on the Rule of Benedict, loc.cit., 265.  ↵

117)

Collection of Perugia 108:19-23; quoted from: Dieter Berg and Leonhard Lehmann (eds.), Franziskus-Quellen, Kevelaer 2009, 1191.  ↵

118)

Carmel rule. URL: http://www.karmelitorden.de/karmelcms/spiritualitaet/ordensregel.html. [Status as of October 19, 2011].  ↵

119)

See, for example, Evagrios Pontikos, On the Eight Thoughts, esp. and trans. v. G. Bunge, Instructions of the Fathers 3, Beuron 2007, 59-62; Bunge, Gabriel: Akedia. The spiritual teachings of Evagrios Pontikos on tedium, 4th revised and expanded. Edition, Würzburg 1995.  ↵

120)

Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver/Metz, Johann B.: Sustainability. Search movements in Christianity, Freiburg 1987, 106; see also Metz, Johann B: Mysticism of the open eyes. When spirituality breaks out, Freiburg 2011.  ↵

121)

Meister Eckhart, German sermons and tracts, ed. and trans. v. J. Quint, Zurich 1979, 67f.  ↵

122)

Francis of Assisi, The Testament 1-3, quoted from: Berg D. / Lehmann L. (ed.), Franziskus-Quellen, Kevelaer 2009, 59.  ↵

123)

Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises 2; quoted from: Ignatius von Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, loc.  ↵

124)

Synod resolution Our hope, in: Joint synod of the dioceses of the Federal Republic of Germany, resolutions of the general assembly, official complete edition I, Freiburg 1976, 104.  ↵

125)

I would like to thank Konstantin Kamp for proofreading and valuable advice when preparing the text.  ↵

126)

On the democratization debates immediately after the Council and the upheavals of the late 1960s, which then became virulent again in the 1990s in the context of the desire for church people, see for example: Ratzinger, Joseph/Maier, Hans (eds.) (1970): Demokratie in the church. Opportunities and Limits, Limburg (new edition 2000); Lehmann, Karl (1971): On the Dogmatic Legitimation of a Democratization of the Church, in: Concilium 7 (1971) 171-181; Liebmann, Maximilian (ed.): Democracy and Church. experiences from history. Graz - Vienna - Cologne 1997 (Graz contributions to the history of theology and contemporary church history, 10).  ↵

127)

See http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en.html – there you will find the press release on the new synodal program that Pope Francis signed on April 24, 2021 and that was published shortly before Pentecost; also an explanatory interview with the General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Grech, and an overview of the course of the process.  ↵

128)

This interweaving of theory and practice, of the negotiated object, form of communication and procedure, in which the Church as a subject of action is transformed at the same time, I call a “performative ecclesiology”: it arises in “going together” (syn-odos), in one focus on the matter directed and at the same time self-reflective execution, in which the church and its self-understanding change in a theologically justifiable way. The immanent criterion of such a process is the congruence in execution or the avoidance of a performative self-contradiction. As a criterion immanent in practice, this develops a special authority and normativity, as can currently be observed in the Archdiocese of Cologne, where the way in which abuse is clarified has come into conflict with its own claims and, in turn, the accusation of abusive dealings with victim representatives and a lack of exposed to transparency.  ↵

129)

See Pope Francis (2015): Speech at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops. In: Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference (ed.): The vocation and mission of the family in the church and world today. Texts on the Synod of Bishops 2015 and documents of the German Bishops' Conference, Bonn (working aids, 276), 23-33. The documents on synodality are available online at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/index_en.htm .  ↵

130)

See the ambivalent conclusion in Hilberath, Bernd Jochen: Synodality instead of democracy? Or: Who distinguishes the spirits? (May 11, 2021). Available online at https://www.feinschwarz.net/synodalitaet-statt-demokratie/ (last updated on May 27, 2021). In contrast, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin shows how Pope Francis' call to synodality aims at long lines and a process of conversion of the church that goes deeper than the adaptation of democratic elements: The Long Game. Pope Francis's vision of synodality, June 1, 2021, in: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/long-game?utm_source=Main+Reader+List&utm_campaign=927b198711-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_407bf353a12-927b   ↵

131)

Of course, it depends on the understanding of democracy as an organizational principle. Michael Seewald, for example, summarizes democracy through the interaction of the principle of equality, the majority principle, the principle of control and the principle of binding norms. In contrast, I start from the basic meaning of democracy as “rule by the people”, which is highly ambivalent in its normative core (popular sovereignty, majority principle, identity between those who govern and those who are governed) and cannot be easily transferred to the church. See Seewald, Michael (2021): Dogmatic experiments on democracy as an organizational principle of the Catholic Church. In: Word and Answer 62, 26-31.  ↵

132)

Cf. for brief introductions, which at the same time refer to the differences between church and state: Hünermann, Peter (2007): Demokratie und Kirche. In: Word and Answer 48, 34-38; Wiedenhofer, Siegfried (1998): Synodality and democratization of the church from a dogmatic perspective. In: Peter Inhoffen, Kurt Remele and Ulrike Saringer (eds.): Democratic processes in the churches? Councils, Synods, Councils. Graz (Theology in Cultural Dialogue, Vol. 2), 73-99.  ↵

133)

Cf. Lumen gentium 9: As the “people of acquisition” and assigned to the covenant of God with Israel, the church as messianic people has Christ as its head; This justifies "as a status the dignity and freedom of the children of God, in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in a temple." The status of freedom corresponds to the "law of love" and the goal of the kingdom of God to protect the whole of creation " unto the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). See Kirschner, Martin (2013): Church of the Poor and Signs of Messianic Hope. on the theological constitution of the church in "Lumen gentium" 8 and 9. In: ThQ 193, 220-230; Kirschner, Martin (2015): Relocation of the Church to the Side of the Poor. Outline of a Messianic Ecclesiology of Poverty. In: Markus Luber and Jorge Gallegos Sánchez (ed.): A poor church for the poor. Theological significance and practical consequences. Regensburg: Pustet (World Church and Mission, 6), 95-119.  ↵

134)

Pope Francis, Discourse at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops (Fn 5) 28.25.  ↵

135)

See International Theological Commission, Synodality in Life and 

Mission of the Church of March 2nd, 2018, No. 70 (VAS 215, 58).  ↵

136)

In doing so, I draw (with the work of Elmar Klinger and Bernhard Körner in the background) above all on the approaches of Max Seckler, Peter Hünermann and Hans-Joachim Sander and try to make the system of the loci theologici fruitful for a conflict theory of theological truth-finding: cf Kirschner, Martin (ed.) (2017): Dialogue and Conflict. Investigations into places of theological knowledge. Ostfildern. Neulinger, Michaela (2018): Between dolorism and perfectionism provides an introductory overview of the discussion. Outlines of a political theology of vulnerability. Paderborn (Society - Ethics - Religion, Volume 15), 28-57. 

See, inter alia: Seckler, Max (2013): Faith and Faith: Contributions to Fundamental Theology and to the Catholic Tübingen School, Volume I: Outlines of a task. On the theological doctrine of principles and knowledge. Tuebingen, 257-310; Hünermann, Peter (2003): Dogmatic theory of principles. Faith - tradition - theology as language and truth events. Muenster; Id. (2016): Language of Faith - Language of the Magisterium - Language of Theology. A historical orientation. Friborg (Quaestiones disputatae, 274); Sander, Hans-Joachim (1998): The outside of faith - an authority of theology. The problem of difference in the loci theologici of Melchior Cano. In: Hildegund Keul, Hans-Joachim Sander (ed.): The people of God. A place of liberation. Wuerzburg, 240-258; Sander, Hans-Joachim (2019): Topological Dogmatics Volume 1: pursuing spaces of faith. Ostfildern, 13-70; 365-389.  ↵

137)

See Sander, Faith Spaces (fn. 12) 55-70. This change from a manageable logic of deduction from existing teaching or induction from what is already known to the confrontation with problems and surprises that cannot be controlled but require a joint search for new answers can be theologically opened up for action interpret the Holy Spirit. The much-vaunted "spiritual character" of a synodal path does not arise from the fact that problems are suppressed, structural debates suppressed and instead invoking piety and prayer, but that one radically faces the problems and challenges and allows the loss of control that is associated with it . It is precisely in this that piety and prayer show themselves as a trust in God that also entrusts oneself to God's possibilities in church politics, without wanting to control or manipulate the outcome of synodal processes in advance. Synodality as strategy development, political arena and spiritual process mutually intensify: cf. Kirschner, Martin; Heckmann, Christian (2020): Experience of crises and conflicts of transformation in the Catholic Church. Experiences in the Synod Process of the Diocese of Trier. In: Conflict Dynamics 9.1, 10–19. DOI: 10.5771/2193-0147-2020-1-10.  ↵

138)

Sander works this out in his topological dogmatics in ever new attempts. Biblically, in Paul's letters to the Corinthians, the paradoxical power structure of such authority becomes tangible, which can only be attested to as the wisdom and power of God by referring to the "folly of the cross" and which proves its strength in weakness.  ↵

139)

See Hünermann: Dogmatic Principles (Fn. 12).  ↵

140)

See Arens, Edmund (1989): Witnessing and Confessing: Elementary Acts of Faith. Dusseldorf; Werbick, Jürgen (2015): Theological Methodology. Freiburg in Breisgau.  ↵

141)

An example of how witnessing requires courage and develops authority is Mara Klein's statement at the first General Assembly of the Synodal Path: By addressing the issue of dealing with abuse, she* has also acknowledged that she is "diverse" and thus a reality makes visible and testifies to what is not foreseen in the church and is kept silent; in uncovering this reality, she gains an authority that others cannot avoid and to which they must relate.  ↵

142)

For example, the vocation stories of women on the synodal path only became visible when Philippa Rath created a public forum for them with a publication: Rath, Philippa (ed.) (2021): "... because God wants it that way". Women talk about their calling to be deaconess and priestess. Freiburg: Verlag Herder. Sexual violence and spiritual abuse destroyed biographies and poisoned the gospel long before it found public recognition, for example, through the courageous actions of Klaus Mertes or through the testimony and advocacy of Doris Wagner. Yet such advocacy is urgently needed to uncover hidden, repressed, and rendered invisible realities and to break the fatal spell that keeps them out of public view.  ↵

143)

In terms of teaching authority, such a broad access to Scripture is initiated in the final chapter of the revelation constitution "Dei Verbum", which locates the effectiveness of the Word of God and the reception of Holy Scripture in the life of the church: This can neither be monopolized by the teaching authority nor by scientific exegesis, but needs the interaction of all theological places so that "the word of God may take its course and be glorified (2 Thess 3:1)" - DV 26:1. Such a breadth is only possible if synodality is understood as a comprehensive, participatory process rooted in the church people and not as a one-off event and legally defined procedure.  ↵

144)

Pope Francis, Discourse at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops (fn. 5) 28.  ↵

145)

See Hünermann: Sprache des Faiths (Fn 12), esp. 78-163.  ↵

146)

AaO. 166  ↵

147)

See Dirscherl, Erwin (2013): The human word of God and its presence in time. Reflections on the basic orientation of the church. Paderborn (Studies on Judaism and Christianity, 26).  ↵

148)

Pope Francis, Discourse at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops (Fn 5) 26.  ↵

149)

“A synodal church is a church of listening [...]. It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn: the faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome - each listening to one another and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the 'Spirit of truth' (Jn 14 ,17) in order to recognize what he 'says to the churches' (cf. Rev 2:7).” (AaO. 27) This process of mutual listening was particularly clear in the Amazon Synod and structures the texts of the Synod and the Post-Synodal Exhortation "Querida Amazonia" (QA); Pope Francis calls for listening to the Synod's final document there, since "many people who know the Amazonian problem better than I and the Roman Curia have collaborated on it, because they live there, suffer with it and love it passionately". QA 2).  ↵

150)

You have to go to the fringes of existence to see the world for what it is. I have always believed that the world is clearer when seen from the periphery.” Pope Francis (2020): Dare to dream! Out of the crisis with confidence. In conversation with Austen Ivereigh, Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 19. Cf. Scannone, Juan Carlos (2015): "One can grasp reality better from the periphery" The poor and society in Evangelii Gaudium. In: Markus Luber and Jorge Gallegos Sánchez (ed.): A poor church for the poor. Theological significance and practical consequences. Regensburg (World Church and Mission, 6), 43-56.  ↵

151)

See Pope Francis, Speech at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops (fn 5) 29f.: “For the disciples of Jesus yesterday, today and always the only authority is the authority of service, the only power is the power of the cross , true to the words of the Master: 'You know that the rulers oppress their people and the powerful abuse their power over the people. It shall not be so among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave' (Mt 20:25-27).” The hierarchical constitution of Church must allow itself to be measured by this criterion.  ↵

152)

Hans-Joachim Sander interprets such pre-existent devotion as an interruption of the "dangerous code 'me and the others'", which is considered the basic code of defining identity construction in the political sphere (distinguishing between friend and foe, politicization processes - Carl Schmitt) and sacrificial violence (René Girard). can. Such breaking of the spell of death in devotion and substitution must be clearly distinguished from a misunderstood sacrificial spirituality, which submits to death and violence for the sake of the holy and can even reach the cult of death and violence. See Sander, Faith Spaces (fn. 12) 175-189. 

In her dissertation, Agnes Engel explores the theological and pastoral-psychological significance of the change of perspective and develops concrete criteria for a practice of dialogue that enables a change of perspective: "Get perspectives - let go of persuasion - set up a protective space - let yourself be guided - provide a model - take experience seriously and biography appreciate - pursue emotions - check the coherence of arguments - support empathy - strengthen identity - address fear and encourage - counteract stereotypes and devaluation - allow yourself to be questioned - promote dialogue - implement results". Engel, Agnes (2019): "... in the role of a real person". A pastoral-psychological study of the method of changing perspectives in internal church dialogue. With a foreword by Klaus Kiessling, Ostfildern, 323-350.  ↵

153)

The talk of an "iglesia en salida" is one of the basic motives of the pontificate. Both the everyday going out of a door and the exodus motif as a basic movement of faith sound more clearly here than in the German translation “Kirche im Aufbruch”.  ↵

154)

This is one of the reasons why the unreserved reappraisal of the abuse issue is of central importance for the renewal of the church; similar to the great historical traumata and catastrophes such as anti-Judaism and the Shoa, colonialism and a European cultural imperialism on a collective level.  ↵

155)

Cf. the framework of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes. This begins with "joy and hope, sorrow and fear of the people of this time, especially of the poor and afflicted of all kinds", which the disciples of Christ share and which find resonance in their hearts because in their "pilgrimage to the kingdom of the Father “ are at the same time with all people on the way (syn-odos) (GS 1). It culminates in an all-encompassing call for an all-encompassing dialogue that corresponds to this unlimited communion and does not even exclude those “who oppose the Church and persecute her in many ways” (GS 92.5).  ↵

156)

The turn to a synodal church under Pope Francis also includes the initiatives surrounding the encyclical Laudatio si', with which the Catholic Church appears as a global civil society actor and as a networker in the care of the common house. With Veritatis gaudium , the Pope is calling on Catholic universities and educational institutions to work on a paradigm shift in an interdisciplinary manner. In the Amazon Synod and the processes in which it is embedded, the demand for an integral conversion from a key region of the planet was substantiated. Synodality not only aims at reforms within the Church, but is also a contribution to that worldwide understanding and cooperation that is essential if life on the planet is to have a future. The fact that these aspects are given so little attention in the German discussions may also be due to the fact that they will demand far more far-reaching changes from the rich societies of the global centers than the reform debates in the church.  ↵

157)

The term seems more appropriate to me than to speak of "conservatives" or "traditionalists", because the focus is less on the preservation of the faith or appreciation of tradition than on the construction of a closed Catholic identity that can be distinguished from others in order to establish one's own identity stabilize and control the (ever smaller) interior. Such a mentality is less an expression of courage than it reflects a cross-denominational and cross-cultural zeitgeist phenomenon.  ↵

158)

Pope Francis, Address of the Holy Father at the Closing of the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 24 October 2015, in: https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa- francesco_20151024_sinodo-conclusione-lavori.html (28.2.2021)  ↵

159)

Aparecida 2007. Final Document of the 5th General Assembly of the Episcopate of Latin America and the Caribbean, 13-31. May 2007, published by the Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference, Bonn 2007, see eg DA 28-30, etc  ↵

160)

Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium on the Proclamation of the Gospel in the World Today, Bonn 2013: “Every Christian is a missionary to the extent that he has encountered the love of God in Jesus Christ; we no longer say that we are 'disciples' and 'missionaries', but always that we are 'missionary disciples'.” (EG 119)  ↵

161)

In this essay the term "lay" is used as it is used in the conciliar texts - in a positive sense and not only as a "distinction" from the clergy. Certainly, the definition of the term remains unclear and "fluctuating", as Peter Neuner in particular made clear in his work. The term "layman" originally distinguished "the believers from the unbelievers, the people from the non-people, the Christians from the non-Christians". From this point of view, ministers are also “lay people”. In the absence of a better term, this essay will stick to the word "layman" - and perhaps it can serve as a hint to think further together. Cf. Peter Neuner, Laymen in the area of tension between dogmatic guidelines and church tasks, in: Benedikt Kranemann/Myriam Wijlens (ed.), Gesendet into den Weinberg des Herrns. Lay people in the Catholic Church today and tomorrow, Würzburg 2010, 13-30, here: 14.  ↵

162)

The General Assembly of the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) has around 230 members. 97 members are elected by the Working Group of Catholic Organizations in Germany (AGKOD), 84 members come from the diocesan councils, 45 members are elected as individuals. See https://www.zdk.de/organisation/instrumente/ (February 28, 2021)  ↵

163)

According to the statutes of the synodal path in Germany, resolutions made will not be binding for the individual diocesan bishops: Article 11 (5): “Resolutions of the synodal assembly have no legal effect of their own accord. The power of the bishops' conference and the individual diocesan bishops to enact legal norms within the framework of their respective competence and to exercise their teaching office remains unaffected by the resolutions.", in: 

https://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/Satzung-des-Synodalen-Weges.pdf (28.2.2010)  ↵

164)

LG 32 refers to Augustine: "Where I am frightened by what I am for you, what I am with you comforts me. For you I am bishop, with you I am a Christian. The former designates office, this grace, that danger, this salvation.” (Quote from Serm. 340, 1: PL 38,1483)  ↵

165)

Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops "Christus Dominus", CD 12  ↵

166)

Certeau, Michel de: Is there a language of unity?, in: Concilium 6 (1970) 38-45, here: 38.  ↵

167)

Certeau, Michel de: Le Chili après coup, in: Projet No. 80, December 1973, 1151-1158, here: 1158.  ↵

168)

See: Eckholt, Margit: Together on the way to succession. People-God-Thoughts in the context of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, in: Rellies - Journal for Catholic religious education 20 (2016) 6-11; Faber, Eva-Maria: People of God, in: Mariano Delgado / Michael Sievernich (ed.), The great metaphors of the Second Vatican Council. Their importance for today, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna 2013, 168-185; Klinger, Elmar: The People of God at the Second Vatican Council. The Revolution in the Church, in: Yearbook for Biblical Theology 7 (1992) 305-320; Rahner, Karl: The people of God, in: ibid., Complete Works, Vol. 21/2 The Second Vatican Council. Contributions to the Council and its interpretation. Edited by Günther Wassilowsky, Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2013, 801-806.  ↵

169)

Cf. here only: Eckholt, Margit: Becoming a world church on Vatican II: Departure for a “new catholicity”, in: Edith Stein Yearbook 6 (2000) 378-390; die .: Go to the periphery. In the Footsteps of Poor Jesus – From Vatican II to Pope Francis, Ostfildern 2015; on the debates on the pastoral constitution: Sander, Hans-Joachim: Theological Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World Today Gaudium et Spes , in: Herder's Theological Commentary on the Second Vatican Council, ed. by Peter Hünermann / Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 4, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna 2005, 581-886, especially 827-869.  ↵

170)

Klinger, Elmar: The Office of the Laity in the Church. The theology of the people of God after Vatican II, in: ibid./Rolf Zerfaß (ed.), The Church of the Laity. A course setting, Würzburg 1987, 67-85, here: 71.  ↵

171)

A key example is 1 Pet 2:5: “Be built up like living stones as a spiritual house, into a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices pleasing to God through Jesus Christ.” Cf. also AA 3: “They will consecrated to be a royal priesthood and a holy people (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-10), that by all their works they might offer up spiritual offerings and bear witness to Christ in every part of the earth.”  ↵

172)

Neuner, Peter: Farewell to the Church of the Estates Plea for a theology of the people of God, Freiburg i.Br. 2015; Neuner, Peter: The position of the layman in a changing image of the church, in: Sabine Demel (ed.), More than just non-clerics: laymen in the Catholic Church, Regensburg 2001, 35-56.  ↵

173)

Rahner, Karl: Structural change in the church as a task and opportunity, Freiburg 1972; See also the article by Karl Lehmann, On the Dogmatic Legitimation of a Democratization in the Church, in: Concilium 7 (1971) 171-181.  ↵

174)

The Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre held a conference on "Gaudete et exsultate" in October 2019, see Eckholt, Margit: Llegar a Ser Cristiano en Medio de Las Fracturas Del Presente. Perspectivas sobre la "Santidad" a partir de los impulsos del Concilio Vaticano II, in: Revista Teocomunicação 2019, n. 2 "Santidade e responsabilidade pública", in: http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/ teo/issue/view/1412 (28.2.2021)  ↵

175)

Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et exsultate on the call to holiness in today's world (03/19/2018), ed. from the Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference, Bonn 2018; Pope Francis refers here to the texts of the Council and the reflections on the "sensus fidei" in EG 119-121.  ↵

176)

Bausenhart, Guido: Theological Commentary on the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam actuositatem , in: HThK Vol. 4, Freiburg i. Br. 2005, 1-125, here: 104.  ↵

177)

Wenzel, Knut: Short History of the Second Vatican Council, Freiburg 2005, 168.  ↵

178)

Cf. Neuner: The position of the layman in a changing image of the church, 54/55; Newman, John Henry: About the testimony of the laity in questions of faith doctrine, in: Polemical writings (Selected Works Vol. IV), Mainz 1959, 253-292, here: 271-273.  ↵

179)

For the importance of Newman see Siebenrock, Roman: Truth, Conscience and History. A systematic theological reconstruction of the work of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Sigmaringendorf 1996.  ↵

180)

Knapp, Markus: "Place" of the sense of faith. Melchior Cano and the Second Vatican Council, in: Thomas Söding (ed.), The Sensing of the People of God. A discussion with the International Theological Commission, Freiburg/Basel/Vienna 2016, 213-232, here: 215.  ↵

181)

See also Schick, Ludwig: Participation of the laity in the threefold office of Christ. A program to be realized, in: Theological Reports 15 (1986) 39-81.  ↵

182)

See the new study by Große Kracht, Klaus: The hour of the laity? Catholic action in Germany in the European context 1920-1960, Paderborn 2016 (with further references).  ↵

183)

Lerch, Lea: Desired individualization? Laity and clergy in the perspective of the liturgical movement, in: Gregor Maria Hoff/Julia Knop/Benedikt Kranemann (eds.), Office - Power - Liturgy. Theological Interjections for a Church on the Synodal Path, Freiburg i.Br. 2020, 87-105, here: 105.  ↵

184)

Especially in the context of the German local church, new offices for lay people have emerged against this background, such as pastoral officers. As part of the synodal path, the assumption of leadership responsibility by lay people is discussed above all, for example, in individual German dioceses such as the diocese of Osnabrück, there is practice of participatory community leadership.  ↵

185)

AaO. See the document Sensus fidei and sensus fidelium in the life of the Church. The text of the International Theological Commission of 2014, in: Söding (ed.), Der Sensing of the God's People, 13-76, no. 49-59.  ↵

186)

Rahner, Johanna: Clergy and Laity. Genesis and transformation of a typical Catholic paradigm, in: Markus Graulich / Johanna Rahner (eds.), Synodality in the Catholic Church. The study of the International Theological Commission in discourse, Freiburg i.Br. 2020, 170-195, here: 182.  ↵

187)

Pesch, Otto Hermann: The Second Vatican Council. Prehistory - Course - Results - Posthistory, Würzburg 2002, 185.  ↵

188)

Kasper, Walter: The Doctrine of Tradition in the Roman School. Collected Writings Vol. 1, ed. by George Augustin and Klaus Kramer, Freiburg i.Br. 2011, 190.  ↵

189)

AaO.  ↵

190)

Grieser, Heike: Listening to the People of God? Remarks from a church-historical perspective on a challenge since early Christian times, in: Söding (ed.), Der Sürsinn des Gottesvolk, 159-189, here: 159/160, with reference to John Henry Newman (cf. note 3 of the essay). “The “infallibility of the universal Church came into effect at that time through the testimony of the laity. But these are then an active, relatively independent tool of the infallible church,” according to Walter Kasper, Die Lehrung von der Tradition in der Römerische Schule, 192.  ↵

191)

Margit Eckholt (The believers as a place of theological knowledge. Becoming a subject in faith in community and theological knowledge, in: Agnes Slunithschek/Thomas Bremer (ed.), The believers' sense of faith as a place of theological knowledge. Practical and systematic theology in conversation, Freiburg i. Br. 2020, 96-122) and Julia Knop ( Sensus and Mission of the Church, 253) see a "locus theologicus" in the sense of faith in the structure of the other loci theologici . Markus Knapp sees the sense of faith connected to the "locus theologicus" of the church (The "Place" of the sense of faith, 223).  ↵

192)

Knop, Julia: Sensus and Mission of the Church. The sense of faith of believers in the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, in: Söding (ed.), Der Sürsinn des Gottesvolk, 235-257, here: 247. Julia Knop refers here to a formulation by Fries, Heinrich: Sensus fidelium. The Theologian between the Magisterium of the Hierarchy and the Magisterium of the Faithful, in: Theological Reports 17 (1989) 55-77; cf. also: Medard Kehl, Die Kirche. A Catholic Ecclesiology, Würzburg 4 2001, 432-435.  ↵

193)

Söding: Der Sense for God in the Church People, 99. Söding quotes John Henry Newman's 1859 article in Rambler magazine: On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, ed. by John Coulson, Lanham et al. 1961, reprint 2006, 63.  ↵

194)

Certeau, Michel de: From Involving to Distinguishing (Part I). Task of Christians after the Second Vatican Council, in: Geist und Leben 93 (2020) 318-326, here: 322. The text was published in 1996 in the French magazine "Christus": De la participation au discernement: tâche chrétienne après Vatican II , in: Christ 13 (1966) 518-537.  ↵

195)

Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium on the Proclamation of the Gospel in the World Today (Announcements of the Apostolic See 194) Bonn 2013.  ↵

196)

Certeau: From Involving to Distinguishing, 319.  ↵

197)

Certeau speaks of a new "style of Christian action and thought" that "takes the form of discernment, which depends on participation" (From Involving to Discerning, 319).  ↵

198)

See Certeau, Michel de: La faiblesse de croire. Texts établi et présenté par Luce Giard, Paris 1987 (German translation: Belief weakness, Stuttgart 2009).  ↵

199)

Certeau: Is there a language of unity?, 40.  ↵

200)

Certeau: Is there a language of unity?, 42.  ↵

201)

AaO.  ↵

202)

The canon lawyer Sabine Demel draws attention to this again and again, see eg Demel, Sabine: Right living in the church – claim and reality. Sexual Abuse Inquiries, in: 146-163. For example, it cancels the provision in c. 212 § 1 CIC/1983, which states that Christian obedience is to be performed "with awareness of one's own responsibility" (162).  ↵

203)

Pope Francis: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation QUERIDA AMAZONIA, ed. from the secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference, Bonn 2020, QA 2: "I heard the speeches at the synod and read the contributions of the working groups with interest. With this Apostolic Exhortation I want to express the resonance that this journey of dialogue and discernment has evoked in me. So I will not unfold here all the questions that were set out in detail in the final document. Nor do I intend to replace or repeat it here.” “At the same time, I would like to officially present the final document… I have therefore preferred not to quote the final document in this Apostolic Exhortation, rather inviting you to read it in its entirety .”  ↵

204)

Cf. Certeau, Michel: The stranger or unity in diversity, Stuttgart 2018, e.g. 91-120; ders., PanikSchwachheit, Stuttgart 2009, 49: He speaks here of the “principle of an incessant transgression” and in it of a “'middle' that reveals itself, has a constantly attractive effect and so through the variety of things that are related to it (ie God, note. the author) leading up to episodes, decisions and consents that builds existence”.  ↵

205)

My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs (Grand Rapids, MI, 2002), 285.  ↵

206)

This is often referred to as "Dunbar's number," after Robin Dunbar, who studies that there is a fixed relationship between primate brain size and their average group size. See Dunbar, Robin: Grooming: Gossip, and the Evolution of Language (Cambridge, MA, 1998) for an introduction to a body of literature.  ↵

207)

Politics 1 326b.  ↵

208)

Individualism was a term first mentioned by Alexis de Tocqueville in his Reflections on American Society (Democracy in America, New York, NY, 1945, 318), and he described it thus: “Every man withdrawn into himself , behaves as if the fate of everyone else is alien to him. For him, his children and his good friends form the entirety of the human species. As for his intercourse with his fellow-citizens, he may mingle with them, but he does not see them; he touches her but does not feel her; he exists only in himself and for himself alone. And if, under these conditions, a sense of family remains in his spirit, there remains no sense of society.” This famous quote can be used liturgically: Does it describe your experience when you are gathered for the Eucharist? If so, then it is the strongest argument for a synodal liturgy.  ↵

209)

The term comes from the anthropologist and liturgical scholar Victor Turner; for a new expression of this ritual need for community, see Sennett, Richard: Together: The Ritual, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, London 2012.  ↵

210)

Assmann, Jan: Form as a Mnemonic Device, in: Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A Draper, and John M. Foley (ed.), Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark, Minneapolis, Mn., 2006, 67-83 , here 67.  ↵

211)

This element of choice - I chose to follow / religion is a choice for me - is the great cultural divide between our time and previous societies: in a secular age, religion is optional. This subject is explored by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age, Harvard, CT, 2007.  ↵

212)

For this self-presentation in their laws, see: Sacramental Languages and Intercommunion: identifying a source of tension between the Catholic and the Reformed churches, Studia Liturgica 47(2017), 138-150.  ↵

213)

The origins and Latinity of this petition are discussed in my post The Commemoratio pro vivis of the Roman Canon: a Textual Witness to the Evolution of Western Eucharistic Theologies? Examined in: Juliette Day and Markus Vinzent (eds.), Studia Patristica: Early Roman Liturgy to 600 71(2014) 69-91.  ↵

214)

Cf. Leonhard, Clemens: Morning salutations and the Decline of Sympotic Eucharists in the Third Century, Journal of Ancient Christianity 18 (2014) 420-42.  ↵

215)

Note the symbolism of the prayer as the priest approaches the table in the unreformed rite: "Aufer a nobis... iniquitates nostras: ut ad Sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire."  ↵

216)

For the connection between theology and experienced space, see Vosko, Richard S.: Art and Architecture for Congregational Worship: The Search for a Common Ground, Collegeville, MN, 2019; and Giles, Richard, Re-Pitching the Tent: Re-ordering the church building for worship and mission in the new millennium, Norwich, 1996.  ↵

217)

See Richard Hurley, The Eucharist Room at Carlow Liturgy Centre: The Search for Meaning, in: Worship 70, 3(1996) 238-352.  ↵

218)

Missale Romanum, 1969 ff., Collection from the Mass on the anniversary of one's own priestly ordination.  ↵

219)

AaO.  ↵

220)

See Pylvänäinen, Paulina, Agents in Liturgy, Charity and Communication: The Tasks of Female Deacons in the Apostolic Constitutions, Turnhout, 2020.  ↵

221)

Note the approach of John N. Collins in Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources, Oxford 1990.  ↵

222)

See my contribution Reading, and re-reading Justin's account of "the Eucharist", in: Anaphora 12 (2018/9) 67-110.  ↵

223)

Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 93, which presents the Church's work as a service to all men, which we might call diakonia.  ↵

224)

The possible roles of foot washing in the liturgy are explored in my book Washing Feet: Imitating the Example of Jesus in the Liturgy Today, Collegeville, MN 2015.  ↵

225)

See my contribution From a Damp Floor to a New Vision of Church: Footwashing as a Challenge to Liturgy and Discipleship, in: Worship 88 (2014) 137-50.  ↵

226)

Mark 10:42-5; Matthew 20:25-8; and Luke 22:24-24-7.  ↵

227)

The various monastic rules envision this as reinforcing an ethos of mutual service and humility, not simply the humanity of a ruler to the ruled, and as a gesture of inclusive welcome (according to a particular reading of Gen. 18 ,1); see Washing of Feet, 17-20.  ↵

228)

Which was forgotten for centuries and whose ritual dynamics paralleled that of the imperial/royal washing of feet (which have also fallen out of use). The ritual did not embody mutual service, but acted as a glove for the fist of authority. See Sachslehner, Johannes: Hitler's Man in the Vatican: Bishop Alois Hudal, Graz 2019.  ↵

229)

See, for example, Archbishop Kenrick's defense of slavery in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century: Francis Patrick: Theologia Moralis, Philadelphia 1841 (Mechelen 1860), Tract 5, Ch. 6 (De servitute), nn. 35-41 [vol. 1, 164-168].  ↵

230)

See Dodd, Liz: The Tablet Interview: Jim Wallis, in The Tablet 27 February 2021), 8-9.  ↵

231)

See Miller, Shem: The Role of Performance and the Performance of Role: Cultural Memory in the Hodayot, in: Journal of biblical Literature 137 (2018) 359-382, here 371 and 374.  ↵

232)

By this I mean that corpus of the Magisterium that ranges from Rerum novarum (Leo XIII. 1891) to Fratelli tutti (Francis 2020).  ↵

233)

For the meaning of "a loaf" - a human object - as distinct from a generic name for a foodstuff ("bread"), see my contribution, Translating Panis in a Eucharistic Context: A Problem of Language and Theology, in: Worship 78 (2004). 226-235; and to the way they used the term in the earliest communities, such as those who used the Didache and wrote to Paul.  ↵

234)

Heller, Karin: I Fraintendimenti della Tolleranza e La Via della Misericordia, in Misericordia e Verità Pastorale, a cura di Juan-José Pérez-Soba, Siena 2014, 157-178. Or see my English version: https://digitalcommons.whitworth.edu/theologyfaculty/4/  ↵

235)

Eckholt, Margit: Synodal way and the women, in : Living pastoral care. 2 (2020) 114.  ↵

236)

See McGuinness, Margaret M.: Called to Serve. A History of Nuns in America, New York 2013.  ↵

237)

See the final report by Cardinal Marx after the DBK General Assembly in Fulda on September 26 , 2019 . fulda/detail/ .  ↵

238)

Pacem in Terris, 21-22. April 11, 1963. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html   ↵

239)

Marx, Reinhard: Freedom, Munich 2020, 108-109.  ↵

240)

https://www.ncronline.org/news/ctsa-backgrounder-pastoral-letter-women-never-was .  ↵

241)

Marx: Freedom, 110.  ↵

242)

Marx: Freedom, 113.  ↵

243)

Eckholt: The Synodal Way and Women, 117.   ↵

244)

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1508/-women-theologians-are-the-strawberry-on-the-cake-says-popeder   ↵

245)

Marx: Freedom, 111.  ↵

246)

de Bremond d'Ars, Nicolas : « Un Synod pour changer ? », Catholicisme en Tensions . Sous la direction de Céline Berauld, Frédéric Gugelot et Isabelle Saint-Martin, Paris 2012, 113-126.  ↵

247)

Wolf, Hubert: Crypt. Suppressed Traditions of Church History, Munich 2015, 45-59.  ↵

248)

Demel, Sabine: Equality in the Church - but only up to the stop sign Sacrament of Holy Orders?, in: Women in Church Offices. Reform movements in ecumenism, Freiburg 201 8, 385.  ↵

249)

Inter Insigniores, Paragraph 5: The Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ . http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_ge.html   ↵

250)

See Articles 3.2 and 11.5. https://www.synodalerweg.de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/Satzung-des-Synodalen-Weges.pdf .  ↵

251)

See https://www.domradio.de/themen/reformen/2020-07-10/kardinal-marx-zu-frauen-und-reformen  ↵

252)

Some examples of this would be Zacchaeus, whom Jesus restores to the status of a "son of Abraham", or the crooked woman who, through her healing, receives the status of a daughter of Abraham. (Lk 19, 9 and 13, 16), or the woman who was totally excluded from social life for 12 years because of her bleeding and whose self-confidence and faith in Jesus gave her the status of a "daughter" in the house of God. But certainly theologically most important example is Mary Magdalene, who is empowered with apostolic preaching from the risen Lord. For this reason, she probably crystallized the most misogynist reactions in the course of church history, in that the Legenda Aurea of Jakobus de Varagine (1228-1298) downgraded her to a “penitent prostitute” and as such was portrayed a thousand times in art history as a “model” for everyone Christian women received .  ↵

253)

"Aren't we lay priests too? It is written, 'He hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.' The difference between the priesthood and the laity was determined by the authority of the Church and by God's sanctified ranking among the clergy. Where no ecclesiastical status is established, you offer the holy sacrifice and administer baptism and are priest for yourself alone; Of course there is a church where three are together, even if they are lay people.” Tertullian: De exhortatione castitatis, 7.3. – Related literature: Legrand, Hervé M.: The Presidency of the Eucharist According to the Ancient Tradition, in: Worship 53 (1979) 413-438. – Faivre, Alexandre: Les laics aux origines de l'Église, Paris 1984. – Beneden, Pierre van: Did lay people celebrate the Eucharist without ordained ones? On Tertullian's "De exhortatione castitatis" 7,3, in: Archiv für 29 (1987) 31-46. – “De exhortatione castitatis”, classified differently than in the LThK [Freiburg 8 (1964), 1371] [Altaner/Berthold, Stuiber/Alfred: Patrologie, Freiburg 81978, 158], comes from the pre-Montanist period. – In addition to Tertullian, the church historian Theodoret von Cyrus (393 to probably 466) also reports on this: Church History 1,23,5.  ↵

254)

https://wir-sind-kirche.at/sites/default/files/halik-theologie-pandemie1.pdf (date of access: 02/14/2021)  ↵

255)

Gerhards, Albert: Renewal of church life from the service. Contributions to the reform of the liturgy. Practical Theology Today 120, Stuttgart, 2012, 263-273.  ↵

256)

Boff , Leonardo : Church: Charisma and Power. Militant Studies in Ecclesiology, Bogota 1989, 43.  ↵

257)

Gonzalez Faus, José Ignacio: Why the Church?, Barcelona 2003 , 13.  ↵

258)

Routhier, Gilles The community challenge. A repeat of Vatican II, Montreal/QC - Paris 1994, 36.  ↵

259)

See Congar , Yves: Essential Structures for the Church of the Future, 60 (1970) 304.  ↵

260)

Francis, Letter to the People of God in Chile (May 2018).  ↵

261)

AaO .  ↵

262)

See Parra, Alberto: The Process of Sazerdotalization. A Historical Interpretation of Church Ministries, Theologica Xaveriana 28 (1978) 79-100  ↵

263)

Francis, Christmas congratulations to the Roman Curia (December 21 , 2013)  ↵

264)

AaO.  ↵

265)

AaO.  ↵

266)

Francisco, Letter from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America (March 19, 2016).  ↵

267)

Dianich, Severino: Law and Theology. Eclipsology and canonism for a reform of the Church, Bologna 2015, 123  ↵

268)

Guillot, Daniel E.: Introduction to: Emmanuel Levines, Entire and Infinite. Practice On Externality, Salamanca 2002, 13.  ↵

269)

Taborga, Francisco: Sacraments, Practice and Feast, Madrid 1987, 30-33.  ↵

270)

Doyle, Thomas: Clericalism: Enabler of Clergy Sexual Abuse, in: Pastoral Psychology 54 (2006,3) 189-213.  ↵

271)

Maier, Hans/Ratzinger, Josef: Democracy in the church, possibilities and limits, new: Kevelaer 2020, 97f.  ↵

272)

Pius XI: Encyclical Quadragesimo anno, 79.  ↵

273)

Acta Apostolicae Sedis 38, 151.  ↵

274)

See.: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution , as of 09/17/2021.  ↵

275)

Often abbreviated to PEP in the following.  ↵

276)

Kehl, Medard: The Church. A Catholic Ecclesiology, Würzburg 2 1993, 104.  ↵

277)

CD Article 36, paragraph 2 .  ↵

278)

AaO.  ↵

279)

www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2015/2015-039-Ansprache-Kard.-Schoenborn.pdf , 3rd status from 09/19/2021.  ↵

280)

Cf.: Heller, Andreas: "We want to learn how to serve, because we are quite good at serving!": Opportunities and risks of developing models in church organizations, in: Caritas 98 (1997) 9-16. - Mletzko, Uwe: The model as a theological element of quality assurance, in: Diakonie (Yearbook) 2001, 69-72.  ↵

281)

The shepherd word, in: Pastoral development Passau. Intermediate status September 1998. A text and work booklet, Passau 1998, 19-23, here 21.  ↵

282)

Pastoral Development Passau. Intermediate status September 1998. A text and work booklet, Passau 1998, 14.  ↵

283)

See: Pastoral Development Passau. Intermediate status May 1999. Documentation of the exam days.  ↵

284)

The bishop of Passau (Hg): Passau pastoral plan 2000. God and the people close, Passau 2000.  ↵

285)

Passau Pastoral Plan 2000, 4th  ↵

286)

Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. XIV., in: Valentin Thalhofer (ed.), Library of the Church Fathers. Cyprian's complete letters, second volume, Kempten 1879.  ↵

287)

See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergenz , as of September 30, 2021.  ↵

288)

Zulehner, Paul M.: Dowry. Autobiographical of a different kind, Ostfildern 2014, 133.  ↵

289)

Passau pastoral plan 2000, 29.  ↵

290)

AaO.  ↵

291)

Passau pastoral plan 2000, 28.  ↵

292)

Pastoral message from Bishop Wilhelm Schraml at the beginning of his work and at the Easter penitential period in 2002, Passau, February 24, 2002.  ↵

293)

The implementation of the Passau pastoral plan - and what the diocesan council says about it, in: Passauer Bistumsblatt No. 12 - March 23, 2003, 6.  ↵

294)

Secretariat of the German Bishops' Conference (ed.): Pronouncements of the Apostolic See No. 194. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium of the Holy Father Pope Francis on the proclamation of the Gospel in the world today, 24 November 2013, 19.  ↵

295)

See: Christ Dominus. Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, adopted October 28, 1965.  ↵

296)

The bishop of Passau (Hg): Passau Pastoral Plan 2000. Close to God and the people, 24.  ↵

297)

www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2015/2015-039-Ansprache-Kard.-Schoenborn.pdf , 3rd status from 09/19/2021.  ↵

298)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 102.  ↵

299)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 108f.  ↵

300)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 120.  ↵

301)

See Bauer: Church as Societas Jesu .  ↵

302)

Pope Francis: Christmas Address to the Roman Curia [unnumbered online resource].  ↵

303)

Pope Francis: Christmas Address to the Roman Curia.  ↵

304)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 113.  ↵

305)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 114f; 121  ↵

306)

Pope Francis: Opening of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region .  ↵

307)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 115f.  ↵

308)

Pope Francis, quoted by Spadaro : Il governo di Francesco [unnumbered online resource].  ↵

309)

Pope Francis, quoted from Spadaro : Il governo di Francesco.  ↵

310)

Certeau: La faiblesse de croire, 223.  ↵

311)

Certeau: La faiblesse de croire, 223.  ↵

312)

Certeau: La faiblesse de croire, 223.  ↵

313)

See Bauer: Wounded Wanderer.  ↵

314)

Certeau: La faiblesse de croire, 223.  ↵

315)

Koschorke : A new paradigm of cultural studies, 11.  ↵

316)

Cf. on the vulnerability discourse www.verwundbarkeiten.de.  ↵

317)

Foucault: L'éthique du souci de soi comme pratique de la liberté, 1546.  ↵

318)

See also the beautiful fairy tale reversal The Story of Wicked Hansel, Wicked Gretel and the Witch by Paul Maar, which I owe to Anni Hennersperg (“Then I would like to have Little Red Riding Hood told about it by a wolf”).  ↵

319)

Arendt: The Christian Pope, 362.  ↵

320)

Delbrêl: Nous autres, 293.  ↵

321)

Pope Francis: Christmas Address to the Roman Curia.   ↵

322)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 121.  ↵

323)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 100.  ↵

324)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 100.  ↵

325)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 101.  ↵

326)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 102.  ↵

327)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 102.  ↵

328)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 103.  ↵

329)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 122.  ↵

330)

See Bauer: Home in an open world.  ↵

331)

Zorn: Logic for Democrats, 299.  ↵

332)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 112.  ↵

333)

Pope Francis: Dare to Dream, 108; 121  ↵

334)

Borghesi: Jorge Mario Bergoglio , 80.  ↵

335)

Delbrel, Madeleine: God secure a place. Texts - Poems - Prayers. Edited by Annette Schleinzer, Munich 5 2018, 39.  ↵

336)

I would like to thank Paulina Pieper, who was instrumental in the creation of this article. Your cooperation is reflected both in content-related considerations and in concrete formulations.  ↵

337)

Experiences of participants in the "Dialogue for Austria" (1997-1998) point in a similar direction.  ↵

338)

General assembly of the Germans Bishops' Conference, General Assembly of the Central Committee of German Catholics: Statute of the Synodal Path, Article 1 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 (online), page 2, to be found at: https://www.synodalerweg.de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/Satzung- des-Synodalen-Weges.pdf (last checked on: 03/28/2021).  ↵

339)

For the fundamentally necessary change from a cooperative to a participatory pastoral see Findl-Ludescher, Anna with the collaboration of Pieper, Paulina: "Throw your fear in the air". Impulses for church change in unsettled times, in: Ernesti, Jör / Lintner, Martin / Moling, Markus (eds.): The Corona Crisis. God's punishment or opportunity? (Brixner Theological Yearbook Vol. 11/2020), Brixen 2020, 75-88.  ↵

340)

See Körner, Bernhard: Differentiate together – decide together. Synodality in a document of the International Theological Commission, in: das prisma. Contributions to Pastoral, Spirituality & Theology, vol. 32, 01/2020, pp. 60-66.  ↵

341)

Again and again it is ignored that the people of God are greater than the church. Although this article deals with the experiences in the inner church space, the ecclesiological perspective must always consider the much larger space and those who are "outside", because "there is no God for Catholics. That would be an idol. Our God is the God who made heaven and earth. That is why he is at work in everything. God inside and outside - this enables a new perspective on our commitment as a church. That was the liberating perspective of Vatican II. […] She has exceeded the internal church horizon and was just able to reformulate her mission.” (Zerfaß, Rolf: Lebensnerv Caritas, Freiburg i.Br. 1994, 104f.)  ↵

342)

In a different context, Körner distinguishes between decision-making and decision-taking (cf. Körner: Differentiating together)  ↵

343)

For a short but concise introduction to the subject of "distinguishing spirits", see Kiechle, Stefan: Sich Decision (Ignatian Impulse Vol. 2), Würzburg 2004. Of course, the will of the majority of the church people can correlate with the will of God, which is important but that no compelling causal relationship can be assumed.  ↵

344)

Roman Siebenrock speaks of friendship as a necessary condition for synodality (cf. Siebenrock, Roman: "I am with you every day until the end of the world". Outline of a theology of the synodality of the church and of the whole people of God in six theses, in: das prisma. Contributions to Pastoral, Spirituality & Theology, 32nd year 01/2020, 28-36). Here he describes friendship as "a way of life that in principle excludes no one [...] and that is always based on recognition and freedom." [31-32]. I agree with this understanding, but in everyday language "friendship" is a very strong term that demands a lasting connection that goes beyond the path. The concept of companionship, on the other hand, is procedural and at the same time refers to the eventuality that fellow travelers can turn or turn around on the way.  ↵

345)

On this point, a synodal attitude always harbors a certain residual risk of not understanding or not being understood. Enduring this final lack of understanding can be tedious and exhausting. Since one can be asked for one's own position or should be asked about it, a synodal attitude also corresponds to a spiritual attitude in that it has to be practiced again and again and ever more deeply.  ↵

346)

Siebenrock: Draft of a theology of synodality, 30.  ↵

347)

Of course, the managers have a supporting role, which ultimately also includes certain decision-making competencies in the context of exploratory and design tasks. In this respect, a synodal body stands and falls not only with the commitment of those involved, but also depends on the competencies of the leaders and on whether they pursue their own interests or see the big picture as the actual concern.  ↵

348)

Delbrel, Madeleine: Liturgy of the Outsiders, in: ibid.: Securing a Place for God, 134 – 137, here 134.  ↵

349)

Cardinal Zuppi responds to the question of whether a new pastoral formation must be developed for the challenges of our time as follows: “Basically it is about the Gospel. Certain things are not dealt with in the laboratory, where great experiments are carried out, but there is little adventure, encounter, creativity, generativity. Many truths can be distilled in laboratories, but the gospel must be lived on the street.” (“Cardinal Zuppi: ‘Francis chases us out of the house with the broom’” (interview with Roland Juchem), www.katholisch.de (Online -Source without page references), to be found at: https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/29085-kardinal-zuppi-franziskus-jagt-uns-mit-dem-besen-aus-dem-haus (last checked on: 03/28/2021)).  ↵

350)

See Maria 2.0: “Theses Maria 2.0”. To all people of good will! (Online source without page reference), to be found at: https://thesen-maria-2-0.jimdosite.com (last checked on: 03/28/21).  ↵

351)

"Cardinal Zuppi: 'Francis chases us out of the house with the broom'".  ↵

352)

Pope Francis: Address for the 50th and Anniversary of the Establishment of the Synod of Bishops, October 17, 2015, citing the Address to the Delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of June 27, 2015, Introduction No. 4  ↵

353)

It should be remembered that in Lumen Gentium the chapters are in the following order: “The Mystery of the Church”, “The People of God”, and only then is the bishop mentioned.  ↵

354)

See, for example, the insistence on " subsistit in" in 2007.  ↵

355)

The following article is a significantly revised, partly abridged, partly expanded new version of Oberdorfer, Bernd: Synodality in Lutheranism - using the example of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, in: Una Sancta 75 (2020), 128-137.  ↵

356)

In doing so, I partially fall back on the considerations of my contribution: A community based on the division of labor and mutual responsibility. On the relationship between synodal and episcopal episcopies in contemporary Lutheranism, in: Wenz, Gunther et al. (eds.) : Ekklesiologie und Kirchenverfassung. The institutional form of the episcopal ministry, Munster et al., 123-136. There are also references to ecclesiastical literature.  ↵

357)

Digitally available at: https://www.bayern-evangelisch.de/downloads/ELKB_Kirchenverfassung_Stand_2020.pdf  ↵

358)

However, the synods introduced in the Bavarian state church in 1849 (i.e. in the historical context of the - failed - anti-monarchist revolution) were only advisory bodies without decision-making powers until 1918. The actual decision-making body was the state consistory located in the Ministry of the Interior, which was headed by a consistory president who was not necessarily ordained. The function of the summus episcopus was assigned to the (in Bavaria, Catholic!) king within the framework of the concept of sovereign church government. In the newly created church constitution of 1920, the office of “church president” combined the functions of chief consistorial president and summus episcopu only met again in 1946) and, on the other hand, opposed the pressure of the state to bring it into line with the church's own spiritual logic: Episcopal church leadership is sine vi humana, sed verbo (CA 28).  ↵

359)

This also makes the turnout in church council elections an ecclesiologically relevant variable. Because if only a fraction of the community members take part in the elections, the noble claim of “lay participation” stands on feet of clay. In this regard, it is encouraging that in the last church council elections in 2018, turnout increased significantly (namely by 35%) from 19.8% to 26.7% (according to official ELKB figures). That may seem little compared to political elections. But for a voluntary (and, for most members, recreational) social association, this signals a remarkable level of connectedness that seems to extend well beyond the realm of regular churchgoers.  ↵

360)

See Oberdorfer, Bernd: The ordination of women in the Lutheran Church, in: Orthodox Forum 16 (2002), 213-220.  ↵

361)

See Hauschildt, Friedrich (ed.): The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Documentation of the creation and reception process, Göttingen 2009, 660-674.  ↵

362)

In Germany, for example, the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (VELKD), founded in 1948, to which not all Lutheran regional churches belong.  ↵

363)

See: Understanding the Gift of Communion. The Quest for a Shared Self-Understanding of the Lutheran Communion. A Reader, Geneva 2014. Available online at: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/DTPW-Self-Understanding_Communion-low.pdf.  ↵

364)

See Bernd Oberdorfer: Irritated community. Ecumenical Hermeneutical Implications of the Homosexuality Discussion in the Lutheran World Federation, in: EvTh 76 (2016), 68-78.  ↵

365)

See the documentation by Hauschildt, loc  ↵

366)

BSELK 101.  ↵

367)

This essay is the somewhat abbreviated German version of my English essay: Synodality as syncephaly? A plea for a pastoral-participative renewal of the pan-Orthodox practice of synodality, in: Bremer, Thomas/Brüning, Erich/Kizenko, Nadieszda (eds.), Orthodoxy in Two Essences? The Conflict in Ukraine as Expression of a Fault Line in World Orthodoxy, 2021 [in press].  ↵

368)

See https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_ge.html (accessed on: September 13, 2021).  ↵

369)

Getcha, Job: The Perspectives and Challenges of Primacy and Synodality in the Orthodox Church Today, in: The Ecumenical Review 72 (3/2020) 369.  ↵

370)

Vletsis, Athanasios: Synodality and autocephaly: an impossible balancing act? The Crisis of Synodality in the Orthodox Church and the Role of Its Autocephalous Structures, in: Catholica 74 (2/2020) 141-158.  ↵

371)

See the document: Serving the Community. Rethinking the relationship between primacy and synodality. A study by the joint orthodox-catholic working group St. Irenäus, Paderborn 2018.  ↵

372)

See Ioan Moga, Reception as a Chance to Break Out. Perspectives of the Orthodox Church after the Crete Synod, in: Orthodox Forum 31 (2017) 119-125.  ↵

373)

See Evdokimov, Paul: Orthodoxy, New York 2011, 165. Nikolaou, Theodor: Believe and research. Selected Studies in Greek Patristics and Byzantine Intellectual History, St. Ottilien 2012, 173 and 215.  ↵

374)

Anapliotis, Anargyros: Synodality in the Church Constitution of the Orthodox Church, in: Una Sancta 2 (2020) 104-109, here 109.  ↵

375)

Gescha, Job: The Perspectives, 360.  ↵

376)

Anapliotis, Anargyros: Synodality in the Constitution of the Church, 109.  ↵

377)

I will not go into the reception of the pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. As expected, some see in it “a genuine manifestation of synodality at the beginning of the 21st century” [so Getscha, Job:The Perspectives, 368] or even “par excellence a communio ecclesiarum, […], the zenith of conciliarity” [so Maxim Vasiljevic, Synodality: A Misinterpreted Vision, in: Vasiljevic, Maxim/, Jeftic, Andrej (eds.), Synodality. A Forgotten and Misapprehended Vision. Reflections on the Holy and Great Council of 2016, California 2017, 123]. Others deny the pan-Orthodox character of the Council.  ↵

378)

Vletsis, Athanasios: Achilles heel or panacea? The synodality (in) of orthodoxy and its ecumenical implications, in: Ostkirchliche Studien 68 (2019) 21.  ↵

379)

Anapliotis, Anargyros: Synodality in the Constitution of the Church, 107.  ↵

380)

See, for example, Anapliotis, Anargyros: Primus and synod in the statutes of the Orthodox Church using the example of the ecumenical and Moscow patriarchates, in: Böttigheimer, Christoph/Hoffmann, Johannes (eds.), authority and synodality: an interdisciplinary and interconfessional overview of ecumenical Opportunities and ecclesiological desiderata, Frankfurt aM 2008, 275-295.  ↵

381)

Oeldemann, Johannes: Synodality in the Orthodox Church, in: Catholica 70 (2016) 143.  ↵

382)

See https://basilica.ro/en/romania-gazettes-updated-statute-for-organization-of-romanian-orthodox-church/ (published on: 20/02/2020, accessed on 10/09/2021).  ↵

383)

cf. Anapliotis, Anargyros (ed.), The Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church (2013), the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the German Diocese of ROKA, Munich 2015.  ↵

384)

Ibid., 89.  ↵

385)

Ibid., 39.  ↵

386)

Ibid., 94.  ↵

387)

Ibid., 93.  ↵

388)

Ibid.  ↵

389)

Ibid., 91.  ↵

390)

Statutul pentru organizarea și funcționarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române (2008, republicat 2020): http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/222799 (accessed: 21.04.2021). See also Romanian Orthodox Metropolis for Germany, Central and Northern Europe (ed.), Organizational and Functional Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church (2011), Sibiu – Bonn 2012.  ↵

391)

Ibid., Art. 26 (36).  ↵

392)

Eg ibid., Art. 26 (24).  ↵

393)

Anapliotis, Anargyros: Introduction to the Romanian Statute and the structures of the Romanian Patriarchate, in: Romanian Orthodox Metropolis for Germany, Central and Northern Europe (ed.), Organizational and Functional Statute, 37.  ↵

394)

Oeldemann, Johannes: Synodality, 147.  ↵

395)

Anapliotis, Introduction, 30.  ↵

396)

This proposal found its way into the message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, but has not really been discussed since. See Bartholomaios von Arianz et al. (eds.), Synodos. The Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, June 18-26, 2016), Bonn 2018, 44: "...the proposal was made to make the Holy and Great Council a regular institution".  ↵

397)

See Kallis, Anastasios: The Jerusalem Council of 2054. A Vision of Church Fellowship, Münster 2012.  ↵

398)

Cf. Vletsis, Athanasios: Orthodox Synodality between Ideal and Reality: Plea for a Synodal Church or the Teaching of the Pan-Orthodox Council, in: Una Sacta 75 (2/2020) 110-121. Vletsis pleads here not only for a "kind of parallelism between the synodal organs in the individual autocephalous churches" (114), but also for an "institutionalized design" or "regulation" of synodal life (115) on a universal level. In another essay, Vletsis substantiates his vision in terms of a reform program of synodality at all three levels. Cf. Vletsis, Ortodoxie "reloaded" or the end of orthodoxy? The Ukraine conflict as an opportunity for a new "format" in the Orthodox Church, in: Una Sancta 74 (2019) 164-166.  ↵

399)

Oeldemann, Johannes: Synodality, 135.  ↵

400)

See my contribution: Moga, Ioan: Synodality between desideratum and reality: An orthodox contribution, in: Communio. International Catholic Journal 43 (2014) 148-155.  ↵

401)

Stăniloae, Dumitru: Natura sinodicităţii , in: Studii teologice (9-10/1977) 605-615 .  ↵

402)

Ibid. , 605.  ↵

403)

Ibid., 606.  ↵

404)

Ibid., 606.  ↵

405)

See ibid., 607.  ↵

406)

Ibid., 615.  ↵

407)

Ibid., 614.  ↵

408)

cf. ibid., 612.  ↵

409)

See Andreas Batlogg's contribution in this volume #-#  ↵

410)

the Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church (2018), n. 9.  ↵

411)

So in the encyclical of the Holy and Great Synod, in: Hallensleben, Barbara (ed.), Unity in Synodality. The official documents of the Orthodox Synod on Crete, Münster 2016, 39.  ↵

412)

Vletsis, Athanasios: "The role of a primus is almost indispensable for the consensus procedure of synodal decision-making and should therefore be redefined", in: Syodality and Autokephaphielie: an impossible balancing act?, in: Catholica 74 (2020) 158.  ↵

413)

Oeldemann, Johannes: Primacy and synodality, in: Berkmann, Burkhard Josef/Anapliotis, Anargyros (ed.), The relationship between the local, regional and universal levels in the church constitution, Münster 2020, 29-52.  ↵

414)

However, most Lutheran theologians consider the ministry of the church to be so closely linked to word and sacrament that it is indispensable for the right form of the church.  ↵

415)

Munsonius, Hendrik: Universality in Particularity: Evangelical Lutheran Church Constitution, in: Berkmann, Burkhard Josef/Anapliotis, Anargyros (ed.), The relationship between the local, regional and universal level in the Church Constitution, Münster 2020, 143-164, here 147f .  ↵

416)

Wriedt, Markus: loc.cit. 144.  ↵

417)

AaO 149.  ↵

418)

Engelhardt, Hanns: The relationship between the local, regional and universal levels in the constitutions of the Anglican Communion and its provinces, in: Berkmann, Burkhard Josef/Anapliotis, Anargyros (ed.), The relationship between the local, regional and universal levels in church constitution , Münster 2020, 123-142, here 124.  ↵

419)

Klaiber, Walter: The conference decides - synodality in Methodism, in: Una Sancta 75 (2020) 138-144, here 140.  ↵

420)

Heller, Dagmar: Consensus. Decision Making in the World Council of Churches, in: Una Sancta 75 (2020) 160-167, here 166 .  ↵

421)

A rather lonely voice was that of Bishop Dinkel of Augsburg, who justified his signature under the papal dogmas with the fact that the description of infallibility has so many limitations that the dogma "must be viewed as a victory of the minority rather than as a victory for the majority" ( Aubert 284).  ↵

422)

Documented Kasper, Walter (ed.), Zukunft aus der Kraft des Konzils, Freiburg 1986, 33f., 37.  ↵

423)

Ratzinger, Joseph, in: LTHK 2 EI, 356.  ↵

424)

Pottmeyer, Hermann Josef: Before a new phase in the reception of Vatican II, in: Der–Alberigo, Guiseppe/Jossua, Jean-Prierre (eds.), The reception of the Second Vatican Council, Düsseldorf 1986, 47-65, here 60.  ↵

425)

Ut unum sint No. 95.  ↵

426)

Dusseldorf 1978.  ↵

427)

Kasper, Walter: Service to the unity and freedom of the church, in: Joseph Ratzinger (ed.), Service to unity, 81-104, here p.87  ↵

428)

Evangelical Catechism for Adults, Gütersloh 5 1989, 907.  ↵

429)

Bilateral working group of the German Bishops' Conference and the VELKD, Communio Sanctorum, Paderborn-Frankfurt 2000, 19.  ↵

430)

See the Ravenna document (2007); Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church, in: Documents of Growing Agreement Vol. 4, 833-848, and the document of Chieti (2016) in: Orthodox Forum 32 (2018) 63-68, as well as the text of the St. Irenaeus, In service to the community, Paderborn 2018.  ↵

431)

Of particular importance is the ARCIC document "The Gift of Authority" (1998), which states a "complementarity of primacy and conciliarity as elements of episkopé in the Church" and "a universal primacy exercised in a collegial manner within the framework of synodality", as he has in fact "always been associated with the Bishop of Rome and the Apostolic See", declared ecumenically fruitful.  ↵

432)

As early as 1974, the official dialogue group in the USA, in: Heinrich Stirnimann - Lukas Vischer (ed.), Papsttum und Petrusdienst, Frankfurt 1975 91-140, no. 57.  ↵

433)

Ratzinger, Joseph: Collected Writings Vol. 12, Freiburg 2010 250.  ↵

434)

This means that all powers are no longer originally ascribed to the pope alone and that he grants some of it to the subordinate officials and bodies (possibly temporarily), but that he can reserve certain powers for himself. However, it is currently still his decision alone as to what he reserves for himself and what he leaves to bishops and synods. Synodality cannot be exhausted by the fact that the pope (and the curia) renounce some powers that they have claimed in their traditional all-and-one competence.  ↵

435)

Vatican II has described it as the task of the Pope to "protect lawful differences and at the same time ensure that the peculiarities not only do not harm unity, but rather serve it" (LG 13).  ↵

436)

That this interpretation is correct is proven not least by the fact that even after Vatican I theology did not rule out the possibility of a heretical pope. Should the pope present a teaching that contradicts the faith of the church with the ultimate commitment, he would be a heretic or at least a schismatic. In view of the history of reception of Vatican I, it is not surprising that canon law does not provide for this case. But it is obvious that a heretic or schismatic who has separated himself from the denomination of the Church could no longer be pope. In this case, the situation would be comparable to that after the death of a pope, in which the church is by no means incapable of acting. See Neuner, Peter: On a Relecture of Primacy and Infallibility, in: Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 71 (2020) 24-40.  ↵

437)

In Vatican I, the faith deputation officially specified that the “non ex consensu ecclesiae” should only exclude subsequent ratification by the bishops in the spirit of Gallicanism.  ↵

438)

One may well ask whether it was prudent to repeat the phrase "not with the consent of the Church" in Vatican II, when by the middle of the 20th century Gallicanism was no longer a challenge to be averted. Improper interpretations of this formulation were almost inevitable.  ↵

439)

In this context, it also deserves to be noted that a truth can only ever be true from itself ("ex sese"), not from the consensus of any group whatsoever. Even the most comprehensive consensus does not make a statement true, otherwise it would no longer be possible to distinguish between truth and mass suggestion. No consensus, but neither can the verdict of an authority create truth.  ↵

440)

The CIC 1983 already applies only to the Latin Church, the Eastern Churches united with Rome have a different legal system with the CCEO (1990), and the Christians who are not in full communion with Rome are largely unaffected by this legal system.  ↵

441)

Group of Farfa Sabina, Community of Churches and Petrusamt, Frankfurt 2010, 184f.  ↵

442)

See the introduction by Andreas Batlogg in this volume.  ↵

443)

Cf.: Franziskus, Apostolisches Schreiben Evangelii Gaudium über die Verkündigung des Evangeliums in der Welt von heute. 24. November 2013, Bonn 2013, 257“As believers we also feel close to those who do not profess to be members of a religious tradition but sincerely search for truth, goodness and beauty […]. We see you as valuable allies […].”  ↵

444)

See:Franziskus, Apostolisches Schreiben Evangelii Gaudium über die Verkündigung des Evangeliums in der Welt von heute, 27.  ↵

445)

See the key works by Waldenfels: Waldenfels, Bernhard: The sting of the stranger, Frankfurt am Main 1991. - Id., reply register, Frankfurt am Main 2016, etc. - Id., topography of the stranger. Studies on the Phenomenology of the Foreign 1, Frankfurt am Main 2013. A brief overview of Waldenfels' considerations is provided by: Müller-Funk, Wolfgang: Theorien des Fremden. An introduction, Tübingen 2016, 121–133.  ↵

446)

See.:Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 43–45   ↵

447)

See:Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 46-50.  ↵

448)

Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 46.  ↵

449)

See:Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 62–64.  ↵

450)

See:Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 64–65.  ↵

451)

See:Waldenfels, Der Stachel des Fremden, 65–71, hier 65.  ↵

452)

Cf. for a basic understanding of the genre and spelling of the Acts of the Apostles: Backhaus, Knuf: Luke the Painter: The Acts of the Apostles as intentional history of the Christian first epoch, in: Historiography and fictional narratives, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007, 30-66.  ↵

453)

Cf. on this connection for the Acts of the Apostles: Söding, Thomas: Ein Gott für alle. The start of world missions in the book of Acts, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 2020.  ↵

454)

See also: Wolter, Michael: The Gospel of Luke, Tübingen 2008, 267-273.  ↵

455)

For an overview of these “God-fearing” see: Siegert, Folker: Gottesfechtige, in: Görg, Manfred/Lang, Bernhard: Neues Bibel-Lexikon. A - G, Zurich 1991, 931-932, 932 or in detail: Wander, Bernd: God-fearing and sympathizers. Studies on the pagan environment of diaspora synagogues, Tübingen 1998.  ↵

456)

See: Schneider, Gerhard: The Acts of the Apostles, Part II. comment on chap. 9:1-28:31, 54-85. See also: Söding, Ein Gott für alle, 41-43.  ↵

457)

All scriptures are quoted from the 2016 Revised Standard Translation.  ↵

458)

So: Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Acta Spiritus Sancti: the meaning of the four sendings of the Spirit for the Acts of the Apostles, in: ThPh 88 (2013), 194-210, 210.  ↵

459)

For this scene in Acts see: Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte II. Teil, 168–189u.Söding, Ein Gott für alle, 205–220.  ↵

460)

Wilckens, Ulrich: Jesus' death and resurrection and the emergence of the church from Jews and Gentiles, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011, 266-267  ↵

461)

For this interpretation in relation to the Acts of the Apostles, see:Backhaus, Lukas der Maler: die Apostelgeschichte als intentionale Geschichte der christlichen Erstepoche.  ↵

462)

For the idea of "God's 'other' human being" see: Tiefensee, Eberhard: Rethinking "mission": "Ecumenism of the third kind" with God's "other" human beings, in: Augustin, George/Eterovic, Nikola: Mission in secular society. A matter close to my heart, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 2020, 224-240.  ↵

463)

The observers of the other denominations at the Second Vatican Council are recommended as a model for this; see: Velati, Mauro: Separati ma fratelli: gli osservatori non cattolici al Vaticano II (1962-1965), Bologna 2014.  ↵

464)

On this connection with regard to an understanding of permanent deacons in the civilian profession see: Pogoda, Thomas: Scouts und witnesses. Permanent Diaconate: A Response to Stefan Sander, in: HK 75 (2021), 39-40.  ↵

465)

This is what Gerd Tellenbach calls the Investiture Controversy in his seminal work: Liberta Church and World Order in the Age of the Investiture Controversy (1936), 196.  ↵

466)

Westminster, Troyes 1107, Worms 1122 are the first concordats in history.  ↵

467)

Gregory VII already failed with his plans for papal supremacy, especially Boniface VIII, who in his bull "Clericis Laicos" (1296) questioned the taxation of clerics by secular authorities, but thereby provoked the objection of French jurists - with the first , proclamations of a secular state law anticipating modern secularism.  ↵

468)

Schramm, Percy Ernst: Sacerdotium and regnum in the exchange of their privileges, in: Studi Gregoriani, tom. II, Rome 1947.  ↵

469)

Onory, Sergio Mochi: Fonti canonistiche dell'idea moderna dello Stato, Milan 1951.  ↵

470)

Schwandernwein, Hugo: The Pope, in: Handbook of Catholic Church Law, third, completely revised edition, ed. von Haering, Stephan/ Rees, Wilhelm/Schmitz, Heribert: Regensburg 2015, 447-468 (447).  ↵

471)

I would like to thank Prof. Klaus Schatz SJ, Frankfurt am Main, for further information.  ↵

472)

May, George:; Art. Roman Curia, Lexicon for Theology and Church, third, completely revised edition, ed. by Walter Kasper, Vol. 8 (1999), 1287-1290 (1289).  ↵

473)

In this respect, the Vatican system of government resembles that of the United States, which from its origins in the 18th century to the present day has also consisted exclusively of two elements: the president and the administration, which works according to factual and technical aspects. The heads of department there are state secretaries, not ministers, and there is no such thing as a Council of Ministers that meets regularly; in the American constitution, a "cabinet" is not mentioned at all (see Hans Maier, The cabinet government, origin, mode of operation, current problems; meeting reports of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, phil.-historical class, vol. 2006. Issue 4, 6 f.).  ↵

474)

More detailed on the subject of church and democracy: Maier, Hans: Catholicism and Democracy, Freiburg 1983; idem., The Catholics and Democracy, in: Gabriel, Karl/Spieß, Christian/Winkler, Katja (ed.), Religious Freedom and Pluralism. Lines of development of a Catholic learning process, Paderborn et al. 2010, 135-154; idem., the trailblazer. John Courtney Murray SJ and his contribution to the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom, in: Historisches Jahrbuch vol. 133 (2013), 149-151.  ↵

475)

The following is based on my essay "Church and Human Rights - Human Rights in the Church", published in: Yearbook for Christian Social Sciences, Vol. 55 (2014), 21-42.  ↵

476)

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Nathan the Wise (1779), Act Two, scene five. The verse continues: “Ah! if I had found one more in you / whom it is content to call / a man."  ↵

477)

Hamer, Jérôme/Congar, Yves: On religious freedom. Latin and German text. Comments on the Council Declaration, Paderborn 1967 (quote 49). Most recent commentary on Dignitatis humanae: Siebenrock, Roman A.: Theological Commentary on the Declaration of Religious Freedom (= Herder's Theological Commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Vol. 4, ed. by Hünermann, Peter and Hilberath, Bernd Jochen), Freiburg 2005 ( further literature there).  ↵

478)

There it says in c. 749 § 2 CIC: "Homines ad amplectendam fidem catholicam contra ipsorum conscientiam per coactionem adducere nemini umquam fas est."  ↵

479)

c. 212 §§ 1-3 CIC.  ↵

480)

c. 1083 § 1 CIC.  ↵

481)

c. 274 § 1 CIC.  ↵

482)

c. 1024 C.I.C.  ↵

483)

Maier, Hans: Does Rome need a government? In: Voices of the times, vol. 219 (2001), 147-160; now also in: id., Christianity and the Present. Collected essays, Freiburg 2016, 275-293.  ↵

484)

See Introduction: Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the state , in: Schönberger, Rolf (ed.), The destiny of man and the meaning of the state, Contributions to Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the state , 9-28, Baden-Baden 2017.  ↵

485)

Augustine's formulation that Peter comes from Petra shows that this view did not ultimately prevail without further ado; But Petra is the church as a whole. See Schraut, Andreas: "Petrus a petra, petra vero ecclesia": Mt 16:18 in Augustine, in: Augustiniana , vol. 57, no. 3/4 (2007) , 321-344.  ↵

486)

1965  ↵

487)

An example of this attitude is Dodaro, Roberto (ed.), "Remaining in the truth of Christ": Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, Würzburg 2014, in which conservative cardinals, even before the Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family, opposed any change in practice in favor of civilly married "remarried divorced" protested. Their protest contributed to the fact that such a change was discussed positively by the majority at the synod, but was only considered in a footnote in the Pope's post-synodal letter, which also allows for different interpretations.  ↵

488)

Anyone who wants to find out more about this should refer to the publications on jus cogens and Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties.  ↵

489)

1483-1546. Vitoria was the founder and first head of what is known as the Salamanca School. The scholasticism practiced there in modern times built on Thomas Aquinas and his natural law thinking and made the same fruitful for the new circumstances at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries.  ↵

490)

De potestate civili, 8.  ↵

491)

See the (extensive) overview Messner, Johannes: Das Naturrecht, Berlin 7 1984.  ↵

492)

Eg the Patriarchate of Aquilea, later Grado, finally Venice.  ↵

493)

This view was still of Pius XII. represent.  ↵

494)

In Opus Dei one tries to circumvent this problem by claiming that the superior, by virtue of his special ministerial grace, is always better able to make such decisions. This means that any criticism can be cut off from the ground up from the start. But there is no official grace that makes the superior practically infallible.  ↵

495)

In legislation, attempts were made to justify this by saying that the Pope could not order anything that violated natural law. Conversely, nothing ordered by the Pope could violate natural law.  ↵

496)

This also applies to the apostolic exhortation Ordinatio sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II from 1994.  ↵

497)

Thus Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885).  ↵

498)

At the behest of Paul VI. This explanation of the concept of collegiality (of the bishops) was published in the Council Acts, directly following Lumen Gentium . To this day it is extremely difficult to convey the peculiarity of Catholic collegiality (each with and under a “head”) at all. See Kathpedia , Nota explicativa praevia.  ↵

499)

See above, IV.2.  ↵

500)

See Heizer, Martha / Hurka, Hans Peter (eds.): Co-determination and human rights. Plea for a Democratic Church Constitution , Kevelaer 2011, and the contributions contained therein.  ↵

501)

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  ↵

502)

Notably in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights  ↵

503)

The Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 – almost fifty years after Vatican I (!) – emphasized in can. 228§ 1: "Concilium oecumenicum suprema pollet in universam ecclesiam poestate".  ↵

504)

See Article 6(1) of the ECHR.  ↵

505)

Thus the Gettysburg Address of the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, delivered on November 19, 1863.  ↵

506)

The term "violence", which comes from the general state doctrine and has long been adopted by the Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticaum, does not mean the use of brute force, but authority ( authority, potestas ).  ↵

507)

2 vols., the first vol., the history of the people with God in 2 parts, Ostfildern: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 2008, the second vol., the history of God with the people , Ostfildern 2010.  ↵

508)

Pesch, Otto Hermann: Catholic Dogmatics from Ecumenical Experience , Vol. 2, Ostfildern 2010, 94.  ↵

509)

See in particular Swidler, Leonard: Toward a Catholic Constitution , Spring Valley, NY: Crossroad, 1996. A list of publications by Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, can be found inter alia in WIKIPEDIA, entry “ Leonard Swidler”. See also Koeck, Heribert Franz: From the protection of basic rights in the church to the main features of a church constitution, in: Kraus, Georg/ Hurka, Hans Peter/ , Erwin (ed.): Breaking out of the torpor. Council texts newly commented on by church people. With a foreword by Hans Küng, Berlin 2015, 289 ff.  ↵

510)

Francis, Speech at the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops on October 17, 2015, in: AAS 107 (2015), 1138-1144 (Italian), here 1141 f. Most of the official documents cited can also be accessed online.  ↵

511)

Francis, Discourse (note 1), 1144; the following remarks are based on Rees, Wilhelm: Synoden und Konzile. Historical development and legal provisions in the church codes of 1917 and 1983, in: Rees, Wilhelm/Schmiedl, Joachim (eds.): Non-binding advice or collegial control? Canon law considerations on synodal processes (= Europe's synods after the Second Vatican Council, Vol. 2), Freiburg im Breisgau 2014, 10-67.  ↵

512)

Aymans, Winfried: The synodal element in the church constitution (= MthStkan, Vol. 30), Munich 1970, 7 f.  ↵

513)

Heinemann, Heribert: the church or renewal of synodal institutions? A question about the understanding of the church, in: Fürst, Gebhard (ed.), Dialogue as self-actualization of the church? (= QD 166), Freiburg im Breisgau 1997, 270-283, here 278.  ↵

514)

See Oeldemann, Johannes: Primacy and synodality. Reflections on the understanding of authority in the church from an ecumenical perspective, in: Berkmann, Burkhard Josef/ Anapliotis, Anargyros (eds.): The relationship between the local, regional and universal levels in church constitution. A comparison between the law of different Christian denominations (= contributions from the Center for Ecumenical Research Munich, Vol. 7), Berlin 2020, 29-52, be40-45; idem., Synodality in the Orthodox Church, in: Catholica 70 (2016), 133-148.  ↵

515)

Walf, Knut: Common reference points for synodal structures and rights?, in: Puza, Richard/Kustermann, Abraham Peter (eds.): Synodal law and synodal structures. Specifics and developments of "synodality" in the Catholic Church (= FVKS, vol. 44), Freiburg Switzerland 1996, 87-99, here 98.  ↵

516)

See Hartelt, Konrad: The diocesan and regional synods in the German-speaking area after Vatican II. Legal-historical and legal-theological aspects of the realization of the synodal principle in the structure of the church of the present (= EThSt, vol. 40), Leipzig 1979, 5-7, here 5, which speaks of "brotherly congregation". Also Söding, Thomas: Advise and decide. Synodal processes in the focus of early Christianity, in: Graulich, Markus/Rahner, Johanna (ed.), Synodality in the Catholic Church. The study of the International Theological Commission in discourse (= QD 311), Freiburg im Breisgau 2020, 42-94.  ↵

517)

See Weckwerth, Andreas: The synods of the early church - democratic structures in late antiquity?, in: Graulich / Rahner, Synodality (Note 7), 95-116.  ↵

518)

Plöchl, Willibald M.: History of Canon Law, Vol. 1: The law of the first Christian millennium. From the early church to the great schism, Vienna and Munich 21960, 343.  ↵

519)

Feine, Hans Erich: Ecclesiastical Legal History. The Catholic Church (Ulrich Stutz in memory), Cologne 5 1972, 215.  ↵

520)

Hartelt, Regional Synods (note 7), 24; also Hornung, Christian: The Roman bishop and the authority of the early church councils, in: the same, Merkt, Andreas/Weckwerth, Andreas (ed.), bishops between autarky and collegiality. Variations of a tension ratio (= QD 301), Freiburg im Breisgau 2019, 29-44.  ↵

521)

Hartelt, Regional Synods (note 7), 26.  ↵

522)

See Hartelt, Regional Synods (note 7), 30.  ↵

523)

Löbmann, Benno: Renewal of the synodal element in the post-conciliar church, in: Siegfried Hübner (ed.), Theologisches Jahrbuch 1973, Leipzig 1973, 486-506, here 498.  ↵

524)

Neuner, Peter: The position of the laity in a changing image of the church, in: Demel, Sabine (ed.), More than just non-clerics. Laity in the Catholic Church, Regensburg 2001, 35-56, here 38.  ↵

525)

See Mörsdorf, Klaus: Textbook of Canon Law based on the Codex Iuris Canonici. Founded by Eduard Eichmann, Vol. I: Introduction, General Part and Personal Law (= WH), Paderborn 111964, 338 f.  ↵

526)

Witsch, Norbert: Synodality at the level of the diocese. The provisions of the universal church law of the Latin Church (= KStKR 1), Paderborn 2004, 31.  ↵

527)

Puza, Richard: The synodal principle in historical, legal theological and canonical meaning, in: Fürst, Dialog (note 4), 242-269, here 247.  ↵

528)

Hartelt, Regional Synods (note 7), 75; also Hallermann, Heribert: At a loss – or well advised? The advice of the diocesan bishop (= KStKR 11), Paderborn 2010, 27-58.  ↵

529)

See Meckel, Thomas: Art. Communio - Catholic, in: LKRR, Vol. 1 (2019), 518-520; also John Paul II, Constitutio Apostolica “Sacrae disciplinae leges” of January 25, 1983, in: AAS 75 (1983), Pars II (separate fascicle) of January 25, 1983, VII-XIV, here XII; Latin / German: Codex Iuris Canonici, Latin-German edition, Kevelaer 82017, XVIII/XIX.  ↵

530)

See Rahner, Karl: Structural change in the church as a task and an opportunity (= Herder Library, vol. 446), Freiburg im Breisgau 1972; on the latter aspect especially ibid., 127-130.  ↵

531)

Rahner, structural change (Note 21), 129.  ↵

532)

On changes Berkmann, Burkhard Josef/Stümpfl, Tobias: Synodality and collegiality in the CIC/1917 and in the CIC/1983, in: Krämer, Barbara/Thull, Philipp (ed.): Der Codex Iuris Canonici im Wandel. Lines of development from CIC/1917 to today, Würzburg 2021, 161-174.  ↵

533)

Aymans - Mörsdorf, KanR II, 225; ibid., 225 f., emphasize that historical points of contact are the so-called "Roman" or "Lateran synods" (4th-11th centuries) or the "co-government of the college of cardinals" between the 12th-16th centuries. Century could be. Also Schmiedl, Joachim: Communio in the Corpus Christianorum. Synodality at the councils between the Lateran and Constance, in: Graulich / Rahner, Synodality (Note 7), 117-135.  ↵

534)

John Paul II, Adhortatio Apostolica Post-Synodalis "Pastores gregis" de Episcopo ministro Evangelii Iesu Christi pro mundi spe of 16 October 2003, n. 62, in: AAS 96 (2004), 825-924, here 908.  ↵

535)

Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of 22 February 2004, n. 166; German: VapSt No. 173, Bonn 2006, 228 f., here 229; Hirnsperger, Johann: The diocesan synod. Comments on the relevant norms of the CIC with special reference to the instruction of March 19, 1997, in: Isensee, Josef/Rees, Wilhelm/Rüfner, Wolfgang (eds.), Dem Staate, was des Staats – der Kirche, was der Kirche . Festschrift for Joseph Listl on his 70th birthday (= SKRA, vol. 33), Berlin 1999, 855-873; abducted in: Rees, Wilhelm/Müller, Ludger (eds.), Synodal Processes in the Catholic Church, Innsbruck 2016, 55-75.  ↵

536)

Paarhammer, Hans: The diocesan synod in its current legal form. Notes on current law and particular new developments in church synodal life at the diocesan level, in: Lüdicke, Klaus/Paarhammer, Hans/Binder, Dieter A. (eds.), Neue Positionen des Kirchenrechts, Graz 1994, 81-117, here 92 f.  ↵

537)

Congregation for Bishops, Directory (note 26), n. 165, 227, with reference to John Paul II, Epistula Apostolica "Novo Millennio ineunte" Fratribus in Episcopatu, presbyteris et diaconis, religiosis viris et mulieribus, laicis fidelibus universis Episcopis clero fidelibus: Magni Iubilaei Anni MM sub exitum of January 6, 2001, no. 45, in: AAS 93 (2001), 266-309, here 298.  ↵

538)

Congregation for Bishops, Directory (note 26), n. 165, 227, with reference to John Paul II, Novo Millennio ineunte (note 28), n. 45, 298 f.  ↵

539)

Schmitz, Heribert: The consultation organs of the diocesan bishop, in: HdbKathKR3, 620-637, here 625.  ↵

540)

Congregation for Bishops, Directory (note 26), n. 169, 230.  ↵

541)

Congregation for Bishops, Directory (note 26), n. 169, 230.  ↵

542)

Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory (note 26), n. 168, 229 f.  ↵

543)

Cf. Ordo Synodi Episcoporum of September 29 , 2006, in: AAS 98 (2006), 755-779; also Secretaria Status, Rescriptum ex audientia of 29 September 2006, ibid., 755; on this Markus Graulich, The new version of the Ordo Synodo Episcoporum, in: AfkKR 176 (2007), 154-176.  ↵

544)

Cf. John Paul II, Adhortatio Apostolica Post-Synodalis "Christi fideles laici" ad Episcopos, Sacerdotes Diaconos atque Religiosos Viros ac Mulieres omnesque christifideles Laicos de vocatione et missione laicorum in Ecclesia et in mundo, 30 December 1988, n. 27, in: AAS 81 (1989), 393-521, here 441.  ↵

545)

Congregatio pro Clericis, Pontificium Consilium pro Laicis, Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, Congregatio pro Episcopis, Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione, Congregatio pro Institutis vitae consecratae et Societatibus vitae apostolicae, Pontificium Consilium de Legum textibus interpretandis, Instructio " Ecclesiae de mysterio” de quibusdam quaestionibus circa fidelium laicorum cooperationem sacerdotum ministerium spectantem of August 15 , 1997, Art. 5 § 2, in: AAS 89 (1997), 852-877, here 868.  ↵

546)

Francis , Discourse (note 1), 1139.  ↵

547)

Stoffel, Oskar: Commentary, in: MK CIC, c. 337, para. 4 (as of April 1991).  ↵

548)

See Klausnitzer, Wolfgang: The Pope as a guarantor of unity, in: Dennemarck, Bernd/Hallermann, Heribert/Meckel, Thomas (eds.), From separation to unity. Efforts for the Pius Brotherhood (= WTh, vol. 7), Würzburg 2011, 63-88, here 85; also Wilhelm Rees, "There are many old and outdated structures, we must renew them" (Francis, homily in July 2013). Visions and wishes of Pope Francis with a look at the writings of Johann Hirnsperger, in: Hasenhütl, Franz/Rauch, Matthias (ed.), Johann Hirnsperger on his 65th birthday. A review of the ceremony on December 7, 2016 (= association for the promotion of the Catholic Theological Faculty), vol. 16/2017, H. 1, Graz 2017, 19-49, be24-27.  ↵

549)

Hartelt, Konrad: The Ecumenical Council, in: HdbKathKR 2 , 347-353, here 351 f.  ↵

550)

Puza, Principle (note 18), 260.  ↵

551)

Schüller, Thomas/Neumann, Thomas: Democracy and truth - decision-making processes in the church from a canonical perspective, in: ZevKR 60 (2015), 265-293, here 286.  ↵

552)

Loretan, Adrian: Synodal Structures within the Catholic Hierarchical Church. Inquiries based on the "dignity of the human person", in: Berkmann / Anapliotis, relationship (note 5), 97-122, here 114 and 115.  ↵

553)

Stubenrauch, Thomas: The Pope as primus inter pares and supreme authority in the Catholic Church. On the reception of a central topic of the Second Vatican Council in the two ecclesiastical codes, in: Demel, Sabine/Müller, Ludger (eds.): Coronation or Devaluation of the Council? The constitutional law of the Catholic Church reflected in the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, Trier 2007, 74-103, here 87.  ↵

554)

Aymans – Mörsdorf, KanR II, 232. Also John Paul II, Pastores gregis (note 25), no. 58, 902 and 903, admits that the synod of bishops “remains always capable of improvement in its procedural modalities”, although he expresses it means that the bishops in the synod of bishops "perceive their participation in the governance of the whole church".  ↵

555)

Schüller / Neumann, Democracy (note 42), 286 f.  ↵

556)

See Francis, Apostolic Constitution "Episcopalis communio" on the Synod of Bishops of September 15, 2018, in: AAS; also at: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/apost_constitutions/documents/papa-francesco_costituzione-ap_20180915_episcopalis-communio.html (accessed 08/30/2021).  ↵

557)

See Vatican News, Pope appoints Undersecretary for Synod of Bishops – with suffrage. Pope Francis appointed two undersecretaries for the synod of bishops this Saturday ; including for the first time a woman who will fill this office for the Synod of Bishops. At synods, undersecretaries have voting rights. Who are Sister Nathalie Becquart and Father Luis Marín de San Martin? (6 February 2021): https://www.vaticannews.va/de/vatican/news/2021-02/vatican-appointment-undersekretaere-bischofssynode-becquart-marin.html (accessed 30 August 2021 ).  ↵

558)

See Vatican News, The Preparatory Document for the Synod verbatim. On the way to the synod (07/09/2021): The text of the preparatory document for the synod - Vatican News (accessed 07/09/2021).  ↵

559)

Nedungatt, George: Ecumenism and the Reform of Canon Law, in: Concilium 52 (2016), 555-563, here 558; also Loretan, Structures (note 43), 109 f.  ↵

560)

See Francis, Adhortatio Apostolica “Evangelii gaudium” Episcopis, Presbyteris ac diaconis viris et mulieribus consecratis omnibusque christifidelibus laicis de Evangelio Nuntiando nostra aetate, 24 November 2013, n. 32, in: AAS 105 (2013), 1019-1137, here 1033 f.  ↵

561)

International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”, 2 March 2018, n. 91: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_ge.html (accessed 30/08/2021) ; abducted in: Graulich / Rahner, Synodality (note 7), 318-388, here 369.   ↵

562)

See Graulich, Markus: Synodality as a characteristic of a missionary church. Postulates and desiderata from a canon law perspective, in: Thomas Meckel, Matthias Pulte (eds.), Ius semper reformandum. Reform proposals from canon law (= KStKR 28), Paderborn 2018, 115-127, here 123, with reference to John Paul II, Pastores gregis (note 25), no. 62, 908 f.; also Graulich, ibid., 126 f.  ↵

563)

So already Rees, Synods (note 2), 65.  ↵

564)

Huber, Christian: The office of the diocesan or eparchial bishop between autonomy and commitment, in: Demel / Müller, Krönung (note 44), 147-176, here 168 f.  ↵

565)

Rahner, Karl: On the theology of a "pastoral synod", in: Hübner, Jahrbuch (note 14), 507-518, here 513; cf. ibid., 516 f.  ↵

566)

Konrad, Dietmar: The status and fundamental importance of canon law in the understanding of the Protestant and Catholic Church (= JusEccl, vol. 93), Tübingen 2010, 107.  ↵

567)

So Konrad, Rang (note 57), 106.  ↵

568)

Schüller / Neumann, Democracy (Note 42), 288.  ↵

569)

Demel, Sabine: Trust in the work of the spirit. Room for development for the believer's sense of faith, in: HK 68 (2014), 524-529, here 528.  ↵

570)

Demel, Sabine: Art. Diocesan synod and alternative forms of synodal processes, in: this, Handbuch Kirchenrecht. Basic terms for study and practice, Freiburg im Breisgau 2010, 125-128, here 127 f.; also this., Synods - synodal processes - synodality. The post-conciliar development in the area of the German Bishops' Conference, in: Rees / Schmiedl, advice (note 2), 68-86, here 76-79, in contrast to Lüdecke, Norbert/Bier, Georg with the collaboration of Anuth, Bernhard Sven: Das Roman Catholic canon law. An introduction, Stuttgart 2012, 259.  ↵

571)

International Theological Commission, Synodality (note 52), n. 79, 363.  ↵

572)

Graulich, Synodality (note 53), 122.  ↵

573)

Schüller / Neumann, Demokratie (Note 42), 290; also Huber, Amt (note 55), 173 f.  ↵

574)

Demel, Trust (note 60), 527.  ↵

575)

Demel, Trust (note 60), 527.  ↵

576)

Hallermann, Heribert: Counseling and Advocacy. Forms of joint responsibility in the diocese, in: Ilona Riedel-Spangenberger (ed.), Legal culture in the diocese. Basics and Perspectives (= QD 219), Freiburg im Breisgau 2006, 300-321, here 319.  ↵

577)

Hallermann, Beratung (note 67), 319.  ↵

578)

Demel, Sabine: Art. Presbytery and Council of Priests, in: this, Handbuch (Note 61), 518-522, here 520 f.; also Georg Bier, The legal status of the diocesan bishop according to the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983 (= FzK, vol. 32), Würzburg 2001, 241 f.  ↵

579)

Cf. Demel, Sabine: Art. Presbytery and Priests' Council, in: this, Handbuch (note 61), 518-522, here 521.  ↵

580)

International Theological Commission, Synodality (note 52), n. 84, 365.  ↵

581)

See Kalde, Franz: Parish pastoral council, parish council and parish property management council, in: HdbKathKR3, 737-745, here 739-741.  ↵

582)

Cf. Congregation for the Clergy, Instruction “The Pastoral Conversion of the Parish Community at the Service of the Missionary Mission of the Church” of June 29, 2020, esp. n. 111 and 113: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican /news/2020-07/vatikan-wortlaut-instruction-pastorale-umkehr-pfarrgemeinden-deu.html (accessed August 30, 2021); See Wilhelm Rees, Cooperative Pastoral Care from a Canonist Perspective. Vatican gives German bishops directions for parish and community reforms, in: Gemeinde ohnepriest (Hirschberg Magazin), vol. 73, issue 3-2020, 8-11.  ↵

583)

International Theological Commission, Synodality (note 52), n. 66, 355.  ↵

584)

Graulich, Synodality (note 53), 120; also ibid. 125.  ↵

585)

International Theological Commission, Synodality (note 52), n. 65, 355.  ↵

586)

International Theological Commission, Synodality (note 52), no. 105, 375 f.  ↵

587)

The present study is based on a presentation given at a symposium on synodality organized by the Centro pro Unione and held in Rome on October 14, 2021. This paper has been modified for presentation at the Canadian Canon Law Society Annual Meeting on October 26, 2021 and for the Tillard Lecture at the Pontificia Università San Tommaso d'Aquino, Instituti di Studi Ecumenici in Rome on October 26, 2021 November 19, 2021 revised again. It was first published as 'The Church of God is Convoked in Synod': Theological and Canonical Challenges Concerning the 2021-2023 Synod, in: Centro Pro Unione – Bulletin, Autumn 99 (2021), 34-56. It is subsequently published in Spanish, French ( Studia canonica 55 [2021] ) and Italian . The present German version is a greatly shortened and slightly modified version by the author.  ↵

588)

Secretariat for the Synod : Synod 2021-2023 . For a Synodal Church. Communion, Participation and Mission , (Rome: Synod of Bishops, 2021). https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/document/common/preparatory-document/word_pdf/DOCUMENTO-PREPARATORIO-TEDESCO.pdf (access: 08.12.2021)  ↵

589)

On March 7, 2020, the theme of the synod was formally announced. Press release of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, March 7th, 2020. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2020/03/07/200306b.html (accessed: October 21, 2021)  ↵

590)

Pope Francis : Speech “Celebrating 50 Years of the Establishment of the Synod of Bishops” October 17, 2015; https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-francesc_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html (accessed December 21, 2021).  ↵

591)

Attention to the language used is of great importance in finding a way forward ecumenically. Pope John Paul II called on leaders and theologians of other churches to help him find a way for the primacy he holds as "Bishop of Rome" to be ecumenically accepted. See John Paul II: Ut unum sint, 95-96. In this context see also e.g. the group by Farfa, Sabina : Communion of Churches and Petrine Ministry: Lutheran Catholic Convergences, Grand Rapids 2014.  ↵

592)

The first norms of 1965 state: “The synod of bishops, through which bishops selected from the different regions of the world give more effective help to the supreme pastor of the church , will be achieved in such a way that it is a) a central ecclesial body , which b) is representative of the entire episcopacy.” Paul VI : Motu proprio Apostolica sollicitudo , AAS 57(1965) 775-780, here 776; German translation: Apostolica Sollicitude, in: HerderKorrespondenz 19 (1964/65), 642.  ↵

593)

so-called authentic interpretation - which thus has the force of law - affirmed the following question: "Whether bishops emeritus, as mentioned in can. 402 § 1 [= retired bishops, both diocesan and titular bishops] are named by the bishops' conference as members of the synod of bishops according to the norm of can. 346 § 1”, AAS 83 (1991), 1093.  ↵

594)

The Council used the juxtaposition of different theologies as a method of renewal. The old and the new were juxtaposed. See Witte, Henk: Reform by means of juxtapositions: A challenge to the interpretation of Vatican II documents, in: The Jurist 71 (2011) 20-34.  ↵

595)

In promulgating the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II seems to have been aware of the juxtapositions, for he gave indications for the interpretation or application of the law in this regard when he stated: "It follows that that fundamental new , that, without ever deviating from the Church's legislative tradition, is found in the Second Vatican Council - especially as far as its ecclesiology is concerned - also constitutes what is new about the new Code. However, among the elements that express the true and particular image of the Church, the following should be mentioned in particular: doctrine, which presents the Church as the people of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, 2) and hierarchical authority as ministry (cf. ibid ., no. 3); […] the doctrine according to which all members of the people of God, each in their own way, participate in the threefold ministry of Christ, the priestly, prophetic and royal. Linked to this teaching is that of the duties and rights of the faithful, and especially of the laity […]. If, then, the Second Vatican Council has extracted from the treasury of tradition both old and new, and its novelty consists in these and other elements, then it is evident that the Code also has the characteristic of joy in novelty and novelty in fidelity reflect and adapt to it in its content and specific expression." John Paul II: Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges, AAS 75 (18983) vii-xiv. German translation: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/de/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges.html (accessed: December 30, 2021).  ↵

596)

The biblical scholar and co-author of Dei Verbum, Cardinal Augustin Bea, explains that the word "friends" implies a meeting of equals. Scripture describes Abraham as God's friend (Isa. 41:8 and James 2:23). In the Book of Wisdom, people are referred to as God's friends and prophets (Wisdom 7:27). Jesus also refers to the apostles as friends (Lk 12:4 and Jn 15:14-15), but the terminology implies that all disciples are meant: "What Jesus said to his first apostles, he said through them to all his disciples in all times. [...] The thought of friendship between God and man thus expresses more clearly the generosity of God who deigns to treat man as an equal. This is the new and characteristic element of the text, in which God presents himself as man's friend”. Bea, Augustine: The Word of God and Mankind, London 1967, 43.  ↵

597)

Shortly before the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the Belgian theologian Gustave Thils presented an extremely important study on the infallibility of the people of God: Thils, Gustave: L'infallibilité de peuple chrétien "in credendo": Notes de théologie posttridentine , BETL 21, Paris 1963.  ↵

598)

See Dario Vitali's extremely insightful article , which traces the whole tradition of sensus fidei in relation to and mutual interaction with the Magisterium, in Vitali, Dario: The Circularity between sensus fidei and Magisterium as a Criterion for the Exercise of Synodality in the Church, in: Antonio Spadaro/ Carlos Galli (ed.), For a Missionary Reform of the Church: The Civiltà Cattolica Seminar. New York/Mahwah, NJ 2017, 196-217.  ↵

599)

The term “magisterium” for teaching authority is not without problems: it probably arose in the 18th century in discourses between theologians and canonists, and was widely accepted in the 19th century, especially in connection with the discussions of the First Vatican Council. See Congar, Yves: Droit ancient et structures ecclesiales, London 1982, VII, 85-98.  ↵

600)

In a previous study, I reflected in particular on the Pope's speech. And used the terms “push the reset button” and “reconfiguration” to express what Pope Francis has done. It is extremely important to understand that he did not add anything that was not already contained in Vatican II, but simply reconfigured the various teachings in relation to one another, thereby overcoming the juxtaposition. Wijlens, Myriam: Reforming the Church by Hitting the Reset Button: Reconfiguring Collegiality within Synodality because of sensus fidei fidelium , in: The Canonist 8 (2017), 235-261.  ↵

601)

In 2008, the international research group Peter and Paul Seminary addressed the topic, "The Local Church and its Bishop: Receiving the Vision of Vatican II," The studies are in The Jurist 68 (2008), 321-498 and 69 (2009) 1-170 published. Of particular relevance to the current topic are Villemin, Laurent : Theology of the Relation of The Bishop to his Diocese in the Ceremonial of Bishops, in: The Jurist 68 (2008), 408-417 and Wijlens, Myriam : The Doctrine of the People of God and Hierarchical Authority as Service in Latin Church Legislation on the Local Church, in The Jurist 68 (2008), 328-349.  ↵

602)

At a conference in 2012 at the University of Erfurt, experts from theology and canon law reflected on the process of the mutual reception of the local and universal church. The Australian theologian and expert on the sensus fidei fidelium , Ormund Rush , reflected on the importance of the sensus fidelium in the interaction between the local and universal church: Rush, Ormund: Sensus fidelium and catholicity: local and universal in conversation with God, in Wijlens, Myriam (eds.), The Mutual Reception between the Local Church and the Universal Church: The Second Vatican Council and the Church in East Germany , Erfurter Theologische Studien 46 (Würzburg, 2014), 151-160.  ↵

603)

AK Episcopalis communio, No. 2; here reference is made to LG 23 and CD 3.  ↵

604)

AK Episcopalis communio, No. 7.  ↵

605)

It should be remembered that when the Synod of Bishops was instituted in 1965, the Church had no experience of retired bishops. This was only introduced during the Second Vatican Council. Within the college of bishops, the relationship between titular and retired bishops on the one hand and diocesan bishops on the other would have been quite different from what it is today.  ↵

606)

ohn Paul II: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis, 58. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis.html (accessed: December 21, 2021).  ↵

607)

footnote , the Pope refers to Vatican I, the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, July 18, 1870, chap. IV, Denz. 3074. Cf. c. 749 § 1.  ↵

608)

The text referred to here is Pope Francis: Address to the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, October 18, 2014. In this address, Pope Francis explains the concept of synodality and the role of bishops and the pope. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141018_conclusione-sinodo-dei-vescovi.html (accessed December 21, 2021).  ↵

609)

The position of titular bishops in a bishops' conference poses a similar challenge. Cf. Wijlens, Myriam: Representation and Witnessing in Synodal Structures. Rethinking the munus docendi of Episcopal Conferences in Light of communio fidelium, communio ecclesiarum and communio episcoporum , in: Studia canonica 53 (2019), 75-106.  ↵

610)

Pope Francis: Address at the opening of the synod on October 9, 2021, see https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/speeches/2021/october/documents/20211009-apertura-camminosinodale.html (Access: December 21, 2021).  ↵

611)

See Hattenhauer, Hans: On the history of consensus and majority principles, in: Hattenhauer, Hans/ Kaltefleiter, Werner (eds.): Majority principle, consensus and constitution, Heidelberg 1986, 1-22. - De Dreu, Carsten KW/de Vries, Nanne K. (ed.): Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation, Malden, MA 2001.  ↵

612)

For an introduction to discernment in a synodal church: Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council, Document for Community Discernment at the 1 st Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean Mexico 2021: https://mcusercontent.com/e0fbbeecffe9831bf1ef67a4a/files/7e17de32 -cddb-4bd0-a03b-4df29e14457b/Discernimiento_EN.pdf , and also : Methodological Guide to the Process of Listening to the People of God on Pilgrimage in Latin America and the Carribean (accessed on December 30, 2021). See also Örsy, Ladislas: Discernment: Theology and Practice, Communal and Personal, Collegeville, MN 2020.  ↵

613)

The phrase quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet was originally supplemented with et approbari debet . The First Vatican Council dealt with the question of the need for the reception of the teaching. See Congar, Yves: Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet, in: Revue historique de droit français et étranger , IV. Série 36 (1958), 210-259; Condorelli, Orazia : Quod omnes tangit, debet ab omnibus approbari. Note sull'origine e sull'utilizzazione del principio tra medioevo e prima etá moderna”, Ius Canonicum 53 (2013), 101-127; Hauck, Jasmine Quod omnes tangit debet ab omnibus approbari: A legal rule in the dialogue of the two rights, Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Canonical Section, 99 (2013), 398-417.  ↵

614)

Pope Francis: Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio on the Synod of Bishops, September 15, 2018, German translation : https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/apost_constitutions/documents/papa-francesco_costituzione-ap_20180915_episcopalis-communio.html#_ftn10 (accessed December 21, 2021), 7.  ↵

615)

World Council of Churches: Guidelines for the organization of meetings of the World Council of Churches. (Geneva: WCC, 2014) 1-2. See: https://www.oikoumene.org/sites/default/files/Document/pb1g-manual.pdf ( accessed December 29, 2021). Till Tabart reported on behalf of the World Council of Churches in her book Coming to Consensus: A Case Study for the Churches (Geneva: WCC, 2003).  ↵

616)

The Faith and Order Commission has in consensus z. B. Adopted their convergence document The Church Towards a Common Vision (Geneva: WCC, 2013) and the study document Churches and Moral-Ethical Judgment: Fostering Dialogue to Strengthen Unity (Geneva: WCC, 2021).  ↵

617)

Cardinal Mario Grech expressed his thoughts in English during his address to the annual meeting of the Canadian Canon Law Society on October 24 , 2021. On September 9, 2021 Cardinal Grech said: “In questa dinamica ecclesiale si innesta facilmente la tentazione di risolvere l'ascolto attraverso le dinamiche democratiche ; soprattutto di conferire al voto un valore che rischia di trasformare l'Assemblea sinodale in un parlamento, introducendo nella Chiesa le logiche della maggioranza e della minoranza. Per quanto sia consapevole che also in concilio il consenso dell'aula è misurato dal voto, mi chiedo e vi chiedo se non dobbiamo riflettere su questo punto, per trovare altre soluzioni per verificare il consenso. Molto spesso incontrando le assemblee ecclesiali ed altri gruppi siamo interpellati sulla questione del voto! E so impossibile immaginare, ad esempio, di ricorrere al voto sul Documento finale e sui suoi numeri singoli solo quando il consenso non sia certo? Doesn't it make sense to have motivated tasks related to the document, set by a certain number of members of the assembly and solved with a confrontational addendum, and consider voting as a last resort and undesirable? Mi limito a queste poche domande, non per dare una soluzione, ma per segnalare un problema su cui dobbiamo attentamente riflettere.” See https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/document/common/opening/12. -MESSAGGIO_GRECH-IT.pdf.  ↵

618)

Brian Thierney points to three forms of representation. The first is symbolic representation or personification, in which a whole community is represented in a figurative sense in the person of its head. When a constitutional monarch pays a state visit, he is considered a representative of his people. The second meaning is called mimesis : An assembly represents an entire society because its composition faithfully reflects all the different elements that make up society. The third meaning is delegation or empowerment : a community confers on an individual, through a specific act of choice, the right to act on its behalf. Thierney, Brian The Idea of Representation in the Medieval Councils of the West, in: Concilium , 187 (1983), 25. See also some relevant studies in Faggiolo, Massimo/Melloni, Alberto (eds): Repraesentatio: Mapping a Keyword for Churches and Governance , Christianity and History, Vol. 3, Münster 2006.  ↵

619)

Excellent studies on the discussion are provided by Beal, John: "The Exercise of the Power of Governance by Lay People: State of the Question", in: The Jurist 55 (1995) 1-92 and Ackermann, Konrad Maria: Die sacra potestas im Werk by Alfons Maria Stickler and Klaus Morsdorf. Systematic legal considerations on the possibility of laypersons participating in ecclesiastical governance, Canon and Religious Law, 32, Münster 2020.  ↵

620)

Pope Benedict XVI: Apostolic Exhortation Omnium in mentem, October 26, 2009. See: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/de/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici.html (accessed on December 30, 2021 ).  ↵

621)

Pope Francis: Motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Jesu of August 15, 2015, AAS 107 (2015), 958-970.  ↵

622)

Pope Francis abolished the privilege of cardinals and bishops to have their cases heard only by the pope himself, which meant in practice that only cardinals and bishops heard those cases, and ruled that the courts of Vatican City State, where lay people as Judges sit, can hear these cases. A condition is attached to it: "The court judges with the prior consent of the Pope". The rationale for the change is “to ensure the equality of all members of the Church in their equal dignity and position, without privileges dating back to ancient times and out of proportion to the responsibilities each individual has in building the Church. This requires firmness in belief and coherence in behavior and action.” Pope Francis : Motu proprio Amending the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Bodies of Vatican City State, 30 April 2021. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio- 20210430_competenza-organigiudiziari.html (accessed on December 21, 2021).  ↵

623)

First reflections on a changed formulation of the question of lay people and jurisdiction can be found in Wijlens, Myriam: Ecclesial Lay Ministry, Clergy and Complementarity, in: Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC, 64 (2002), 27-47 .  ↵

624)

Kaslyn, Robert J. Accountability of Diocesan Bishops: A Significant Aspect of Ecclesial Communion, in: The Jurist 67 (2007), 109-152, here 111.  ↵

625)

Pope Francis: Motu proprio, "Come una madre amorevole" (English: "Like a loving mother"), June 4, 2016 , art. 1. See: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20160604_come-una-madre-amorevole.html (accessed: 30.11.2021).  ↵

626)

Cardinal Oswald Gracias, one of the six cardinals advising Pope Francis, spoke on February 22, 2019 at a conference for the presidents of bishops' conferences over the abuse crises. He urged that bishops face up to their responsibilities in a truly synodal church, where they do not appeal to "their" commissions, "their meetings," etc. Gracias, Oswald: Accountability in a Collegial and Synodal Church. (https://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-gracias-protezioneminori_20190222_en.html (accessed: December 21, 2021).  ↵

627)

Kaslyn: loc . cit ., 116. Kasper quotes Walter Kasper here: Theologie und Kirche, Mainz 1987, 285. Kaslyn refers in his study to Yves Congar and Walter Kasper, among others.  ↵

628)

Kaslyn: ibid., 117-118 .  ↵

629)

Kaslyn: loc.cit., 121 .  ↵

630)

Paul VI: Address to the Pontifical Gregorian University, December 14, 1973, AAS 66 (1974) 10, English translation “Canon Law and the Church's Pastoral Mission”, Canon Law Digest (CLD) 8: 100-101 and id. : Address to the Roman Rota on February 4, 1977, AAS 69 (1977), 153.  ↵

631)

See e.g. B. Schwandernwein, Hugo: "The spirit of legislation as a dynamic factor of interpretation", Revue de Droit Canonique 22 (1972), 313-332; Potz, Richard: The validity of canon law norms: Prolegomena to a critical-hermeneutic theory of canon law, Church and Law 15, Vienna 1978; Pree, Helmuth: The evolutionary interpretation of the legal norm in canon law , Linzer Universitätsschriften, Monographen, 6, Vienna 1980; Schulz, Winfried: “The spirit of the council as a maxim of interpretation of the canonical legal order? On the Interpretation of the Kodikar Rules of Interpretation”, Appolinaris 55 (1982), 449-460.  ↵

Created with Writer2ePub

by Luca Calcinai