From January 7-8, 170 Cardinals and Pope Leo XIV met at the Vatican for the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals. The 93-year-old Bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen denounced the the process of Synodality as an “ironclad manipulation” and pointed out how the Holy Spirit was invoked during the Synod in a manner that was “ridiculous” and verged on “blasphemy.”
In the 3 minutes that he was allotted to speak, he addressed Pope Francis’ accompanying note to the final document of the Synod on Synodality, a process that spanned three years, from 2021–2024.
With Cardinal Zen’s permission, his statement was published on The College of Cardinals Report. Read his exact words below and see the article here.
On the Accompanying Note by the Holy Father Francis
The Pope says that, with the Final Document, he gives back to the Church what has developed over these years (2021–2024) through “listening” (to the People of God) and “discernment” (by the Episcopate?).
I ask:
- Has the Pope been able to listen to the entire People of God?
- Do the lay people present represent the People of God?
- Have the Bishops elected by the Episcopate been able to carry out a work of discernment, which must surely consist in “disputation” and “judgment”?
- The ironclad manipulation of the process is an insult to the dignity of the Bishops, and the continual reference to the Holy Spirit is ridiculous and almost blasphemous (they expect surprises from the Holy Spirit; what surprises? That He should repudiate what He inspired in the Church’s two-thousand-year Tradition?).
The Pope, “bypassing the Episcopal College, listens directly to the People of God,” and he calls this “the appropriate interpretative framework for understanding hierarchical ministry”?
The Pope says that the Document is magisterium, “it commits the Churches to make choices consistent with what is stated in it.” But he also says “it is not strictly normative …. Its application will need various mediations”;“the Churches are called upon to implement in their different contexts, the authoritative proposals contained in the document”; “unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching”; “each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its tradition and needs.”
I ask:
- Does the Holy Spirit guarantee that contradictory interpretations will not arise (especially given the many ambiguous and tendentious expressions in the document)?
- Are the results of this “experimenting and testing,” e.g. (of the “creative activation of new forms of ministeriality”), to be submitted to the judgment of the Secretariat of the Synod and of the Roman Curia? Will these be more competent than the Bishops to judge the different contexts of their Churches?
- If the Bishops believe themselves to be more competent, do the differing interpretations and choices not lead our Church to the same division (fracture) found in the Anglican Communion?
Perspectives on Ecumenism
- Given the dramatic rupture of Anglican communion, will we unite ourselves with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who remains with only about 10% of the global Anglican community), or with the Global Anglican Future Conference (which retains about 80%)?
- And with the Orthodox? Their Bishops will never accept Bergoglian synodality; for them, synodality is “the importance of the Synod of Bishops.” Pope Bergoglio has exploited the word Synod, but has made the Synod of Bishops—an institution established by Paul VI—disappear.
