[Catholic Caucus] The cardinals dodge the key issue

Phil Lawler's Substack ^ | January 8, 2026 | Phil Lawler

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] The cardinals dodge the key issue

Liturgy is off the agenda for the consistory

Help is not on the way.

Yesterday, in a cautious optimistic post about this week’s meeting of the College of Cardinals, I observed that “it is difficult to imagine how the consistory could discuss the liturgy without immediately raising the most contentious subject under that heading: the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass under Traditionis Custodes.”

Well, the cardinals managed to shatter my hopes immediately. Even before my comments were posted, they had voted to take the topic of liturgy off the agenda for the consistory. Instead the two-day meeting will focus primarily on… wait for it… synodality.

Synodality: the same topic that was discussed at the last two meetings of the Synod of Bishops. The same topic that was discussed at an unprecedented number of preparatory meetings, at which Catholics who work for the church talked with each other about how to broaden their conversations. Synodality: a topic that has utterly dominated conversations in ecclesiastical circles for several years now, without producing any clear understanding of what the word mean.

When you meet with your fellow parishioners after Sunday Mass, do you find that the conversation turns to synodality? Neither do I. It’s not a topic that ordinary, faithful Catholics discuss. Yet it has become the favorite— even obsessive— topic for conversations among church officials.

Readers who have followed my writing long enough will recall that when Pope Francis was elected, my first reaction was enthusiastic. I was excited by his rejection of a “self-referential” model of the Church— a model in which Church leaders devoted their attention and energy to in-house programs and problems, rather than to the administration of the sacraments and the spread of the Gospel. Unfortunately his papacy was a betrayal of that promise, producing an even more “self-referential” approach, which was nowhere more evident than in the dogged pursuit of synodality.

Of all the topics that the cardinals might have chosen, as they seek to advise Pope Leo on his guidance of the universal Church, how could synodality top the list? Aren’t the cardinals concerned with the widespread defection of young people from the faith— or, if they take the “glass half full” attitude, anxious to understand the recent signs of a new interest in Catholicism among that same rising generation? Aren’t they worried about the breakdown of families, societies, and even nation-states? About the challenge of Islam? About drug abuse and suicide and nihilism and the revival of paganism? Most important of all, don’t they recognize the primary importance of the celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit of Christian life?”

By the way the consistory also dropped from its agenda a proposed discussion of Praedicate Evangelium and the reform of the Roman Curia. Insofar as the cardinals are advising the Pontiff on his care for the universal Church, and the Curia exist to serve the local churches, surely the cardinals— who interact regularly with the Curial offices, if they do not serve on them— should have some informed opinions on the subject. Are the changes initiated by Pope Francis bringing a genuine reform, or just another shuffling of the organizational chart? The consistory chose not to address that question, either.

Oh, the cardinals can still address those other topics, if they choose to do so. “One theme does not exclude another,” Matteo Bruni, the director of the Vatican press office, assured reporters. “A way found be found to address them within the others.” So a determined cardinal might still raise questions about the liturgy. But the consistory has already determined that it will not be a major topic. Don’t change the subject: synodality!

In his address to the opening session, Pope Leo told the cardinals: “We must not arrive at a text but continue a conversation.” It seems the Vatican translation of his talk is inaccurate; it might better have been rendered as: “We don’t need to arrive at a text…” But the slip in translation is revealing; as rendered, the Pope’s statement suggests that the goal of the consistory is not to reach any clear conclusion, not to set a clear direction. If so, then this consistory is not a problem-solving meeting, not an action-oriented meeting, but a self-referential meeting.

And yet in that same discourse the Pope pointed beyond the confines of the Synod Hall, beyond the exchanges among the prelates, to remind them:

Furthermore it is not the Church that attracts, but Christ; and if a Christian or an ecclesial community attracts, it is because through that ‘channel’ flows the lifeblood of charity that cascades from the Heart of the Savior.

There is hope for the future of the Church expressed in such a simple, clear expression of fundamental Christian faith, centered on Christ. This is a message the world needs to hear, a message the world can understand.

As for “synodality,” if after all these years of palaver our Church leaders have not arrived as a common understanding of what it means— and yet they persist in the relentless discussion— one might be forgiven for concluding that the Vatican translation was not inaccurate, that the goal of the consistory is not to speak clearly.

---

TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: frankencardinals; mass; sinnodality

[ebb tide]

As for “synodality,” if after all these years of palaver our Church leaders have not arrived as a common understanding of what it means— and yet they persist in the relentless discussion— one might be forgiven for concluding that the Vatican translation was not inaccurate, that the goal of the consistory is not to speak clearly.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[JimRed]

What was the original reason for the Latin Mass anyway? I’ve heard two given; one that all Catholics regardless of native language could understand it, and the other that few but the elite could understand it.

[irishjuggler]

Sir, not counting the Last Supper as well as other initial liturgies celebrated by the Apostles themselves in Aramaic, the earliest Christian liturgies were generally in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the eastern side of the Roman Empire. Starting around the time of Pope Victor (c. A.D. 190), Latin was introduced into liturgies in the western side of the Roman Empire and gradually over the next few centuries supplanted Greek except for a few parts that remained in Greek (e.g., “Kyrie eleison...”) or Hebrew (”alleluia”, “amen”, “hosanna”). Almost certainly Mass in Latin would have been intelligible to almost any western European hearing it for most of the first millenium, but as Latin devolved into myriad dialects (literally 100s of Spanish, Italian, French variations), Latin would have become less and less intelligible to the average person. But it’s worth noting that in say, A.D. 1200, there was no single “Italian language.” In Venice, the dialect was quite different than the dialect in Genoa which was quite different than the dialect in Naples which was quite different than the dialect in Florence, so what are you going to do? Constantly retranslate the liturgy into every local dialect? It made total sense to stick with Latin as unifying element of the western Catholic Church.

And it STILL makes sense. The fact is that anyone who goes to a Latin mass can follow along with a side-by-side translation hand missal if they so choose. Latin is a great unifier among Catholics. I was at the Angelus in Rome last summer, and Pope Leo said in Latin and then followed with singing the Salve Regina in Latin. Catholics from all over the world (Europe, Africa, Philippines) who were familiar with the Latin were able to join in. That wouldn’t have been true if he did it Italian or Spanish.