Attempts to change Church governance to synodal model have failed throughout history

LifeSite News ^ | January 23, 2026 | Bruno Jambor, Ph.D.

[ebb tide]

Attempts to change Church governance to synodal model have failed throughout history

Changing the leadership structure of the Church to make the Pope more like a CEO has been tried several times. Each time, God's intervention prevented it from succeeding.

The rumbling after the conclusion of the two-day consistory held recently at the Vatican is a warning that a storm is brewing and we should prepare for it. Pope Leo XIV called the Vatican II Council “the guiding star of the Church’s path.” That star led the consistory to “lay the groundwork for the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missae,” to “prepare a new catechism to study the teachings of the Council,” and to change the governance of the Church from a monarchical model to a synodal one, where the Pope is a sort of chief executive officer, tasked to implement the decisions of a large number of cardinals, selected bishops, and hand-picked members of the laity.

We are told to interpret the signs of the times as an irreversible step into the future, triggered by Vatican II, which was a “visitation of God to his Church,” to encourage us to abandon the irrelevant past and admit that we live now in a post-Christian secular world. Therefore, we should adapt our preaching the gospel to emphasize a personal conviction rather than a crusade to convert the unbelievers. We should seek reconciliation with all the people of goodwill around us.

Upon closer review, the plan looks more like a new attempt at implementing programs tried in the past that have all failed because God’s intervention prevented them from succeeding.

The guiding star of the Church is not Vatican II but the Holy Spirit. Unlike communism, the Church is nor revolutionary: She continues to maintain, unchanged, the teachings of her head, Jesus Christ, throughout the centuries. “Sun and moon will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” The Holy Spirit did not become active after Vatican II. It has been guiding the Church in times past.

We are told to interpret the signs of the time, but all signs indicate that we should go full reverse thrust because “a bad tree cannot produce good fruits.” Starting at Vatican II, the Church has been shedding members like a comet sheds mass around perihelion: It is melting away. No attempt at convincing the faithful that it is a time of “kairos,” a “new epoch,” can make it look better. Some console us, saying that the end of Christendom, which they see as having happened, is not a defeat but a chance to return to what is essential: “the hope that continues to make way into the hearts” of the people who still believe. This amounts to praising a condition of accepted subordination, of cultural, religious, and legal restrictions. The word for it is dhimmitude. It describes the condition of Christians who live under the sharia law of Islam. It is something that Leo XIV witnessed during his trip to Turkey, the land that was first converted to Christianity by St. Paul, and is now less 1/10th of one percent Christian. It is the result of accepting a synodal governance model for the Church.

The Church in Constantinople existed under the tutelage of the emperors. When Emperor Constantine moved his capital to that city, he was invited to call the Council at Nicea in 325 to combat the Arian heresy. He became the protector and supervisor of the patriarch and bishops, a synodal tradition continued by all succeeding emperors who named and exiled patriarchs according to their pleasure. The Pope in Rome kept the prerogative to approve the selection of patriarchs by sending a synodic letter. The Church in Constantinople was synodal, walking together with the emperor, but under his rule, and also with the Pope, far away in Rome, and then the local churches. It was far from the concept of Peter guiding and confirming his brethren with the help of Jesus Christ the King.

Over a millennium, the synodal Church kept moving farther away and finally separated from the mother Church in Rome. The pretext was the Filioque: the declaration that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son. The dispute was invented by Patriarch Photius in the ninth century, although it had been accepted as dogma by both sides — Rome and Constantinople — since its definition in the fourth century. It lay smoldering until it was reinvented by Patriarch Cerularius in the 11th century. In 1054, a synod of eastern churches decreed that Cerularius was the only one representing the true Christian faith. After that schism, Cerularius was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX. Then, in 1274, Emperor Michael VIII Palæologus sent dignitaries from the patriarch to the Council of Lyon to reconcile the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church. The dignitaries sang the Credo during the closing ceremonies and repeated filioque three times to emphasize their acceptance of it very clearly. By that declaration, the Eastern Church renounced the synodal model and rejoined the monarchical model of Rome. The schism seemed over. But at home, Photius and Cerularius were still heroes. A new emperor, Andronic II, exiled Patriarch Beccus and those who supported the union. The schism continued, fueled by the synod. The outcome was eventually fatal for the Eastern Church: Constantinople was invaded by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the residents fell into dhimmitude.

In the meantime, in 1303, an attempt was made by the King of France, Philippe the Fair, to coerce Pope Boniface VIII to resign and be replaced by a council that would elect another pope. Boniface refused and was slapped across the face by thugs sent by King Philippe. Soon after, the Pope died, and the papacy was moved to Avignon, followed by the Great Western Schism where three popes vied for supremacy. The situation lasted until Pope Martin V was recognized as the real pope in Rome. But the attempts to make the Pope a chief executive reporting to a council, or a synod, were far from over.

A war had been smoldering between France and England for close to 100 years. The University of Paris was a powerful motivator of the movement to democratize the Church and weaken the popes and was allied with the King of England, who had similar inclinations about the papacy. England was about to conquer France and establish a dual monarchy under the English king. That is when Joan of Arc was chosen by God to liberate her country and become an instrument to buttress the papacy. That latter role is usually eclipsed by her military exploits. Her intervention to bring the rightful king to be anointed in Reims was the first part of her mission. She had another one, more difficult. She was captured, condemned and burned as a relapsed heretic by her enemies. Why was she burned? Why make such a travesty of a trial to defame her? It was obvious, as she repeatedly declared, that she was sent to serve God first and France second. Had the English been successful, the papacy would have been in a difficult position to resist the threat of becoming subservient to councils. Joan’s miraculous intervention made her the sworn enemy of those who wanted to transform the Church into a body controlled by councils. She had to be discredited as a heretic and burned to hide the fact that God had intervened in history to save his Church and the papacy by means of saving France from being taken over by England. Joan’s role became clear after her martyrdom, when the main accusers who had participated in her trial all took part in the infamous Council of Basel that ended electing, for a time, an antipope: Felix V. The power behind that council was again the University of Paris, Joan’s sworn enemy.

Arianism and a host of other heresies did not succeed in destroying the Church, but the concocted dispute about the filioque caused a schism that endures. To reunite Christianity and rebuild Christendom, which are noble causes that should not be abandoned, the Catholic Church needs to give up her current attitude of dhimmitude and follow the advice of Joan of Arc: “Men must fight, then God will give them the victory.” Her victories were caused by a direct intervention of God on her side. When she met the enemy in decisive battles, ready to fight and die for God’s cause, the enemy, strangely, lost courage and fled. For the Church, to win, she must abandon the attitude of compromise and face the opposition squarely, confident that God will intervene. No dialog. No compromise. No changing dogmas or the structure of the Church, but a frontal attack by presenting clearly the essential truths of the faith, using the tools of modern technology. Our weapon is the truth of Scripture, sharper than a two-edged sword. The battle should start with defending the role of the Pope.

Starting in the days of Photius, the strategy of the evil one has changed from a frontal attack on the nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Trinity to a more devious attack on the role of Peter. Christ said to Peter, “Behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith does not fail. And when you are converted, confirm your brethren.” That promise was made to Peter only, not to his brethren.

The Church, headed by a pope who is the sole monarch and representing Jesus Christ, has enormously suffered, but has always come out victorious in the battles with those who would “rethink the faith, the mission, and the organization of the Church” as is planned today. It is certain that she will come out victorious again. This is a new episode of the same battle, but it is unlike the previous ones because the attack comes this time from inside the Vatican. It will no doubt be opposed by the king himself, who will send a captain to guide the troops, as he did with Joan of Arc.

The more important the mission is, the more improbable is the one chosen by God to accomplish it. It will be interesting to see what method Christ will use to defeat the enemies of his Church. Hold on to your seats; it might be earth-shaking.

---

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: failures; modernists; sinnodalchurch; vcii

[ebb tide]

Ping

[kinsman redeemer]

...good thing THE Church hasn't changed.

[ebb tide]

Yes, it is a good thing.

[kawhill]

“Changing the leadership structure of the Church to make the Pope more like a CEO has been tried several times.” I’ve had a CEO twice in my life both said they weren’t impressed..I said I wasn’t either.