Councils and Synods: A Conversation between Pope Francis and Robert Bellarmine

Some theologians present Pope Francis’ notion of synodality as essentially novel in Catholic ecclesiology. I will argue to the contrary that the counter-reformation theologian Robert Bellarmine anticipates synodality and should act as a resource for it. I will conclude by suggesting that these two views (Pope Francis and Bellarmine) complement each other in a way that pushes the contemporary conversation beyond the progressive/traditionalist divide.

By “synodality,” Pope Francis means an ecclesiological posture of mutual listening and giving voice to the peripheries, a governing style of “walking together” – he calls synodality an ecclesiological “style” rather than merely a governmental or ecclesiological theory. Nevertheless, he teaches that synodality is the natural outgrowth of Vatican II’s teachings about episcopal collegiality, the unity of the people of god, and openness toward the world. In other words, Francis thinks synodality is essential rather than optional for the church. Theological advocates of synodality, however, have sometimes positioned synodality as contrary to the theory and praxis of Catholicism before Francis. Gilles Routhier is one such example. He argues that synodality is constitutive of the church—that it is essential to the Gospel and the New Testament teaching about the church—and yet he implies throughout his discussion that it was absent or contradicted by ecclesial practice until Francis’ pontificate (Routhier 2021: 90ff). Likewise, despite his nuanced analysis, Massimo Faggioli asks whether synodality requires new ecclesial structures supported by canon law (Faggioli 2020: 368). This suggests that something essential to the church remains or has remained absent in an important respect, at least insofar as the church’s law and official structures lack it.

It is at this point that a tension emerges between contemporary commitments to synodality and episcopal collegiality. It is not hard to see how these two principles could come into conflict. If synodality means involving the laity in ecclesial decision-making, then they could soon foreseeably oppose the pope and the college of bishops on matters of faith and governance, and one could likewise hypothesize a situation in which the pope and the laity oppose the college of bishops. It becomes unclear in such a situation when one principle—episcopal collegiality or synodality—should yield to the other. Furthermore, promotion of papal decentralization amplifies this problem, since it becomes unclear when and how the pope should arbitrate such conflicts.

After documenting and exposing the tensions within Francis’ synodal project, I will introduce Robert Bellarmine’s discussion of communal governance, as found in his treatise “On Councils” within his Controversies. Robert Bellarmine has been called the “father” of Vatican I’s decrees on papal primacy and infallibility. However, this Catholic champion of the counter-reformation discusses “consultation” and “representation” in positive terms. Bellarmine denies that consultation and representation are necessary, and yet he still argues that both are a “good” (bonum) that contributes to the credibility and prudence of conciliar decrees (Controversiis IV.I.17). This complements synodality, since Pope Francis believes that representing and consulting the faithful will unite the church more effectively than a clericalist top-down approach. Bellarmine argues that many aspects of conciliar teaching, not to mention ecclesial legislation, are both merely fallible and “binding on consciences.” While many contemporary people and Francis himself may reject such language, they often do not reject its content. The crux of their concern is that laws and many official teachings are open to change, but they also want to maintain a common life within theological flexibility. It is for this reason, for example, that Pope Francis rejects “dogmatism” and “pharisaism” while promulgating his motu proprio on the exercise of the Tridentine mass. Bellarmine thus agrees again with Pope Francis, and his distinctions aid modern Catholics in describing Francis’s vision to traditionalists.

I will then conclude by noting three aspects in which Bellarmine balances synodality and moves past the tensions of Francis’ vision. First, Bellarmine understands consultation as a precursor to legislative judgment, so synods should prepare for councils led by bishops. This translates the consensuses and conclusions of a synod into canonical precedence. This may clash with Francis’s worry about “legalism,” but it protects the voice of the people from dismissal by enshrining it into local church law. Second, Bellarmine’s denial that representation and consultation are required simplicter for a council better qualifies what theologians like Routhier mean when they say the church “must” be synodal or “needs” to listen (Faggioli 2020: 360; Routhier 2021: 93). Bellarmine helpfully distinguishes what should happen from what must happen at a synod or a council. If one rejects Bellarmine’s distinction between necessity and a “good,” any synod could be dismissed ex post facto by discontents, effectively silencing the voices the church worked so hard to hear. Third, Bellarmine helpfully limits papal decentralization, since papal primacy can defend against colonialist rule by a privileged and powerful majority. 

Francis, meanwhile, counterbalances Bellarmine by expanding who should be consulted. Francis’s anti-clericalist agenda corrects Bellarmine’s struggles with clericalism in his own theology. He also supplies an element that Bellarmine neglects, namely, the voices of the margins.  This makes way for the welcomed replacement of Euro-centric Catholicism by global Catholicism, and best guards against colonialism in the contemporary church.

Faggioli argues that Pope Francis’s vision of synodality has both promise and limits. Bellarmine provides a resource for demarcating both and constructively grounds them within pre-conciliar theology – reform and continuity are simultaneously upheld. Synodality is not a novum; it is a recapitulation and development of the Catholic tradition. Combining Bellarmine and Francis helps reiterate synodality in both conciliar and pre-conciliar idioms and expands the concept in a way that could move beyond contemporary polemics about church governance.