This phrase is taken from the working document prepared for The Seven Continental Assemblies that will be held in the month of March, 2023. There is no dearth in it of very clear expressions of rejection. “I distrust the Synod. I think it has been called to bring about further change to Christ’s teachings and wound his Church further,” so goes a submission from the UK Church, which is presumed to be a rigid institution unwilling to change and modernize itself, or due to a suspicion that the synodal outcome had been predetermined. It is the scandal of abuse by members of the clergy or by people holding ecclesial office that has prompted so many to quit the faith. This is an open wound that continues to inflict pain. At the same time, there is a new enthusiasm after decades of church going, people had been asked to speak for the first time.
In no.77 of the report, the Oriental Churches offer a wealth of synodal structures, which are a call to renewal today. The document quotes this from the Syro-Malabar church: “The ancient synodal structures and ecclesial processes existing in the Syro-Malabar Church (Prathinidhiyogam, Palliyogam and Desayogam) express the synodal nature of the Church at the local, regional and universal levels, and are useful for forming us to synodality. They are at the service of the parishes and communities, which discover collaborative exercise of the pastoral ministries to move forward by listening to the Holy Spirit. Moreover, there are some new initiatives and attempts which try to empower the synodal structures of the Church.” As a member of this church it is matter of pride and honour for this writer to cite its rich heritage. But does it reflect the ground reality? The ancient structures and ecclesial processes existing in the Syro-Malabar Church were entirely different from the system existing now in it. In the earlier system, which reflected the feudal and caste-ridden society of the time, ordinary Christians were kept away as outcastes who had no right to be partners in any dialogue.
This document asks to rethink liturgy, which is “too concentrated on the celebrant, to the modalities of active participation of the laity, to the access of women to ministerial roles.” It also speaks of a “Conflict which needs to be addressed in a synodal manner.” It wails over “the differences over how to celebrate the liturgy sometimes reach the level of animosity.”… “The Eucharist, sacrament of unity in love in Christ, cannot become a reason for confrontation, ideology, rift or division.” Is the Syro-Malabar Church admitting that “there are problems related to the modalities of faith inculturation and interreligious dialogue, which also affect the forms of celebration and prayer”? Are we hiding our reality? Is the Syro-Malabar Church “identifying the cornerstones of what constitutes an authentic collective experience of the Christian faith”? How far are we theologically and practically respecting the laity? How far does the hierarchal church respect the voice of the laity? Do the priests and bishops really believe in the common sensus fielium of the laity, which is the shared dignity of all the baptized? This document continually speaks of dignity and the role of women and women religious in the Church. Why are vocations to convents drying up? Is this Church still holding on to its form of patriarchy? “This tent” the Church “is a space of communion, a place of participation, and a foundation for mission.” The Syro-Malabar Church is losing its missionary fervour. Two issues that need urgent attention are seriously distorting the missionary orientation of the Church. Firstly, for upholding the claim of St Thomas Christians to upper caste status, the Church is condoning the Hindutva inspired anti-conversion drive of the federal government. Secondly. scandals have made missionary activates seem impossible in an atmosphere where a pervasive Pharisaic mentality has undermined the Church’s credibility.
The Secretary of State gives a commendable suggestion in item no.75: “While maintaining their collegiality and freedom of decision-making that is devoid of any kind of pressure, the Episcopal Conferences should include representatives of the clergy and laity of the various dioceses in their debates and meetings, in the name of synodality.” The bishops or priests are not a higher class or caste within the Church. All form one faithful in the unity of faith and baptism, which make them receivers of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Synod is not a parliament where decisions are made on the basis of majority vote. From their sense of faith as believers (sensus fidelium), they are capable of arriving at a consensus of faith (consensus fidelium).
“While maintaining their collegiality and freedom of decision-making that is devoid of any kind of pressure, the Episcopal Conferences should include representatives of the clergy and laity of the various dioceses in their debates and meetings, in the name of synodality” (Contribution of the Secretariat of State – Section for the Diplomatic Staff of the Holy See). (Number 75)