Synodality’s Been a Problem for a Long Time

Reading Church history is about an education in complexity. Take, for instance, the history of the Arian heresy in the fourth century.

The Church in the fourth century was certainly a “synodal Church,” a phrase that has become a code word for some. The examples of the synods following the Nicene Council are worth looking at in terms of the newly discovered concept of “synodality.”

The Emperor Constantius was a layman but, like his father Constantine, one very concerned for the doctrinal unity of the Church. Constantine convoked the Council of Nicaea, and Constantius followed his example in wanting to help the Church leaders overcome the difficulties of dissent and disunion in the Church.

Constantius was advised by some bishops who were at odds with St. Athanasius and with the status quo of official Christology. He was aware that bishops at Tyre (335) had decreed the deposing of Athanasius from the see of Alexandria, which had been the whole intent of the synodal fathers.

The synod at Tyre was followed by another in Antioch in 341. The occasion was the dedication of a church whose construction had been initiated by Constantine. There were 97 bishops present, although there was no representation of the bishop of Rome nor any other Latin bishop. The synod confirmed that Athanasius was no longer bishop of Alexandria and published some canons, a few of which were eventually included in the canons of the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Julius, on hearing of the synod, wrote to the participants, “dear brethren,” and said their decision on the deposition of Athanasius warranted another, more representative, synod.

This suggestion resulted in another synod in Sardica (Sofia, Bulgaria) in 343. This was an initiative of the Western emperor, Constans, and approved by his brother Constantius. The imperial ideal was that this meeting would be a council like Nicaea. The pope was “represented” at the synod and there were 90 Latin bishops besides. The Western bishops brought with them some of the deposed Eastern bishops, including Athanasius. It was an early example of “east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet,” because there was no joint session of the bishops, nor contact between the Greek and Latin bishops. The Greeks would not accept the participation of Athanasius, and the Latins exonerated him of all charges. The synod was a disaster.

The Arians and Semi-Arian parties did not give up, however, so there was another series of synods in Sirmium, five altogether, which revealed a split among the heretics but was consistently against Athanasius. Further synods followed in Arles (353) and in Milan (355). Altogether, Athanasius wrote that there were “ten or more” synods of the heretics against orthodoxy.

Athanasius was in exile, and there were two more synods against him and the Nicene Creed, in Rimini and in Seleucia in 359. He wrote a book about these called De Synodis, in which he argued that these synods were marked by dishonesty and duplicity.

St. Hilary of Poitiers, exiled like Athanasius, but residing in the Eastern part of the Empire, also wrote a book De Synodis. He also critiqued synods that had hidden agendas and were manipulated. St. Hilary was a hero of the conflict with Arianism, something more associated with St. Athanasius. It is interesting that it is thought that the two allies never met.

Synodality in the fourth-century Church was how the anti-Nicene heretics operated. The basic criticism of these synods was their prejudice against the orthodox bishops and orthodox interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was an explosion of “synodality.”

Ammianus, a pagan historian cited by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, said of the feverish synodality of the times that:

“The highways were covered with troops of bishops, galloping from every side to the assemblies, which they call synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.”

Eventually, Athanasius triumphed, even though Pope Liberius had a moment of equivocation (both St. Hilary and Athanasius seem to agree on this) and there was unity among the orthodox Catholics. The solution was not the synodal path, however, but the death of the emperors, the steadfastness of Rome, and the consensus of the faithful. This is St. John Henry Newman’s conclusion, even though he said Liberius made a mistake signing under duress an ambiguous statement, of which he repented later.

All of this history contributes to what gives me pause about the reverential treatment of the word “synodality” that is heard almost everywhere now. I was glad to hear the interventions of Cardinal Müller and of Bishop Mutsaerts. The process of synodality is not a matter of faith but of strategy. The synod is supposed to be a listening mechanism, not, as the good Dutch bishop says, a permanent form of church governance.

A synod is a Church meeting “to discuss the doctrinal and pastoral needs of the Church” in the definition given in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an instrument for the hierarchy to promote creative leadership that is responsive to the needs of the faithful.

There is good reason for a lack of confidence in the efficacy of the synodal structures we have seen heretofore. Just as in Athanasius’s time, there is a threat of political and theological agendas infiltrating in the process. Those most eager for the listening aspect of “synodality” do not seem to extend the opportunity for a hearing to all. Recent events in Rome about a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Peter make it seem that all will be heard, including those who want significant changes in the Church’s stand on some moral issues, except the so-called “trads.”

Synodality is susceptible to use as a shibboleth by those who have agendas, hidden and otherwise. To be uncomfortable with it offends some people. However, things are more complicated than a slogan can express. It is to be hoped that the bishops ponder all this and think of history.

It might be good to hit some of the history books for a more cautious approach to synodality.