On October 26, 2024, the Final Document of the Second Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from October 2 to October 27, 2024, was made public. Its title: “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission.” According to Pope Francis, there will be no post-synodal apostolic exhortation. “In light of what emerged from the synodal journey, there are decisions to be made—and there will be more to come,” said the Pontiff. “I do not intend to publish an apostolic exhortation; the approved document is sufficient. The document already contains concrete guidance for the mission of the Churches in different continents and contexts. Therefore, I am immediately making it available to all; that is why I said it should be published. In this way, I wish to recognize the value of the synodal journey undertaken, which I deliver to the holy, faithful People of God through this Document.”
In this final phase of the so-called Synod on Synodality, 368 synodal “fathers and mothers” (yes, really!) participated, of whom 272 were bishops and 96 were non-bishops, gathering around round tables in the Paul VI Hall (a bit cringe, to be honest). According to Pope Francis and the Vatican Press Office, the Final Document is to be regarded as having the value of authentic magisterium. However, as Canon Law reminds us, authentic magisterium does not imply infallibility, but it does call for the faithful’s “submission of intellect and will,” allowing respectful dialogue and debate on the subject to some extent. Catholic doctrine also teaches that disobedience to certain acts is not only possible but necessary when they leave room for ambiguity or permit dangerous interpretations incompatible with the perennial deposit of faith.
Let us now examine the primary critical points raised by this Final Document.
The central issue of the Document, in fact, is “decentralization” of authority, a crucial step in the journey of revolution within the Church. The Pope stated that for female deacons, “the time is not yet ripe.” Francis did not completely dismiss the possibility of female deacons but simply postponed it for the near future.
The “Synodality” Note vs. the Note of “Unity”
As Julio Loredo, President of the Italian Association of Tradition, Family, and Property, aptly pointed out, the conservatives—perhaps unexpectedly—had a certain influence, and the expectations of the progressives, especially regarding female deacons and sexual and LGBT+ morality, were disappointed. However, the Pope’s words sound almost like a threat: “There are decisions to be made—and there will be more to come.” The central issue of the Document, in fact, is “decentralization” of authority, a crucial step in the journey of revolution within the Church.
In another context, the Pope stated that for female deacons, “the time is not yet ripe.” Unlike Paul VI and John Paul II, to name two historically recent popes, Francis did not completely dismiss the possibility of female deacons but simply postponed it for the near future. It is quite different to say, “Female deacons are impossible, out of the question,” and “The time is not yet ripe.” The logical consequence is that the “time” must first be made ripe, and then women can be admitted to the first degree of Holy Orders. Simple, isn’t it?
Related from RTV — Michael Matt on the Synod's final Document
Let us then consider how the doctrinal authority within the Synod on Synodality’s Final Document is being diminished. As stated elsewhere, one of the tactics most commonly used by revolutionaries within and outside the Church to confuse and mislead faithful souls is to adopt traditional words, empty them of their classical meaning, and refill them with new definitions. In the document, we read: “The terms synodality and synodal are derived from the ancient and constant ecclesial practice of gathering in synod. In the traditions of the Churches of the East and the West, the word ‘synod’ refers to institutions and events that have taken various forms over time, involving a variety of subjects. In their diversity, all these forms are united by the gathering together to dialogue, discern, and decide. Thanks to the experience of recent years, the meaning of these terms has been better understood and even more deeply lived. [...] Synodality is the walking together of Christians with Christ toward the Kingdom of God, in unity with all humanity. [...] Synodality is a constitutive dimension of the Church. In simple and summarized terms, synodality is a journey of spiritual renewal and structural reform to make the Church more participatory and missionary.”
In these first lines, the entire revolutionary intention of this Synod on Synodality is laid bare. Contrary to what has been written, the concept of synod has not changed over the last two millennia; it has always meant the gathering of the episcopal body under the authority of St. Peter, i.e., the Pope, to defend and define truths regarding faith and morals. It was only with the infiltration of modernist and neo-modernist thought over the last two centuries that this word began to undergo an internal transformation. Today, when we speak of a “synod,” we mean to refer to a democratic mechanism and regime.
It seems that the classic marks of the Church—unity, sanctity, catholicity (universality), and apostolicity—have been joined by “synodality,” or democracy. However, the Church has never been and cannot be democratic if it does not want to lose its identity and purpose in the world.
Beware: “Synodality is a constitutive dimension of the Church.” As many commentators have pointed out over the past few months and years, it seems that the classic marks of the Church—unity, sanctity, catholicity (universality), and apostolicity—have been joined by “synodality,” or democracy. However, the Church has never been and cannot be democratic if it does not want to lose its identity and purpose in the world. The document states further, “Synodality can be described as a path of structural reform.” The words are neither accidental nor cryptic. Someone in the Church is pushing for a full-blown revolution, a drastic change in the Church’s very structure as it has been conceived thus far.
Undermining Petrine Authority
Such a model of synodality, if truly carried out, would have disastrous consequences. First, the note of unity would be seriously undermined. The unity of the Church is based on its hierarchical structure, which flows from priests to bishops to the Pope, by virtue of the authority conferred by Christ upon the apostles, and especially on Peter and his successors. We could say the Church has a triangular structure, from a wide base to a point at the top. At the same time, the Church operates subsidiarily: the Pope, as the living rule of faith and guarantor of unity, safeguards doctrine and morals and intervenes only in cases affecting all churches worldwide; for all other issues that can be resolved at lower levels, he does not intervene. This, in short, is the traditional way of governing the Catholic Church.
A democratic reform, replacing this hierarchy with decisions based on majority votes or popular ballots, would create internal divisions, fragmenting the Church into groups with different views and interests. In fact, we already see this problem today: every parish priest seems to act as a “pope” within his own parish. Such a structure would undermine the unity that Christ intended, where the faithful are united under a single guide and doctrine, and would lead the Church to conform to society’s changing opinions rather than the unchanging truth.
Pope Francis has always seemed oriented toward leading the Church with a democratic approach. However, this style of governance has created a paradox: on the one hand, the increased openness to discussion has led to doctrinal confusion and fragmentation; on the other, instead of promoting the governance autonomy (note: not doctrinal) of local Churches, Francis has created and maintained a strong centralization, intervening in local and disciplinary issues and strengthening control from the Vatican.
Pope Francis, certainly inspired by modern political models typical of Europe and South America, has always seemed oriented toward leading the Church with a democratic approach, apparently open to debate and consultation (as evidenced in the synods and in his statements encouraging greater lay participation and a synodal Church). However, this style of governance has created a paradox: on the one hand, the increased openness to discussion has led to doctrinal confusion and fragmentation, with differing interpretations on key matters of faith and even on who holds supreme authority; on the other, instead of promoting the governance autonomy (note: not doctrinal) of local Churches, Francis has created and maintained a strong centralization, intervening in local and disciplinary issues and strengthening control from the Vatican. This duality—doctrinal democratization and centralized governance—has destabilized the Catholic order and made it more challenging for the faithful to navigate.
The Church: From Opponent to Courtier of History
The document repeatedly emphasizes the image of a Church that “accompanies” and “heals,” a concept valid in itself but risky if not framed within the broader vision of the Christian mission. Defining the Church as a “field hospital” risks obscuring its essence as an ark of salvation, reducing it to an auxiliary and philanthropic entity. A Church concerned only with “accompaniment” and “care” could lose its evangelical vocation and forget that its ultimate goal is the salvation of souls, not mere temporal, or even psychological, well-being. This approach, apparently intended to welcome people, risks, in reality, abandoning them by depriving them of the redemptive truth and offering only temporary assistance. As the little-known Italian historian Andrea Emo once said, “For many centuries, the Church was the protagonist of history; then it took on the no less glorious role of antagonist of history. Today it is merely the courtier of history.” This Declaration appears to make official the intentions of those at the Church’s highest levels to be nothing more than courtiers, companions, or “nurses” of history, while gladly leaving the role of authority—i.e., origin, author, source of doctrine and morals—to other players, namely states and supranational institutions like the UN and the European Union.
If this new understanding of synodality is carried forward, the Church could lose its identity, no longer being salt and light for the world, but merely a follower of it—and not a very impressive one at that.
Synodal Consultation: New and Sole Source of Revelation?
The Catholic Church has always taught that there are only two sources of Revelation: Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition (initially oral, later written, especially in the works of the Fathers), interpreted exclusively by the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops united with him. In contrast, this Document seems to suggest that the sources of Revelation should no longer be interpreted by the Magisterium in this sense but by the People of God. This intent is highlighted by the round table discussions held during the Synod, where there was no head of the table, not even the Pope himself.
The Pope seems reduced to someone who ratifies what the people have democratically established.
The document states: “Thanks to the anointing of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism, all believers possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, called the sensus fidei. It consists in a certain connaturality with divine realities. [...] From this participation arises the ability to intuitively grasp what conforms to the truth of Revelation within the communion of the Church. For this reason, the Church has confidence that the holy People of God cannot err in believing when the totality of the Baptized expresses its universal consensus in matters of faith and morals.” A concept correct in itself and reiterated in the Constitution Lumen Gentium (n. 12) of the Second Vatican Council, which also clarifies that the People of God must remain “under the guidance of the sacred magisterium, which allows, if faithfully obeyed, the reception of not merely a human word, but truly the word of God.”
The Document, however, while specifying that “the exercise of the sensus fidei is not to be confused with public opinion,” seems in practice to reduce it to public opinion, especially when we see that the term “Magisterium” appears only three times and never significantly.
Those who view synodality positively as a tool for renewal must consider that structural and spiritual renewal of the Church cannot ignore the historical and theological roots that guarantee its stability. If this new understanding of synodality is carried forward, the Church could lose its identity, no longer being salt and light for the world, but merely a follower of it—and not a very impressive one at that.
Spoiler - we know that this will never truly come to pass.
Latest from RTV — TRUMP WINS BIG: What Happens Now?
