Archabbot Hortobágyi T. Cirill OSB: Not Instead of Christ, but with Christ – Reflections from Pannonhalma on Bishop Rob Mutsaerts’s Critique of Synodality
Rob Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands, addressed an open letter to Pope Leo XIV in which he expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the Synod on Synodality. The open letter was originally published here.
Bishop Mutsaerts’s letter contains several Catholic propositions that are correct in themselves: the Church has received her identity from Christ; revealed truth is not a matter of voting; and the purpose of the Church is evangelisation, conversion, holiness, and the salvation of souls. His error lies primarily not in these propositions, but in the fact that he sets them in opposition to synodality. He criticises a form of synodality that the official documents do not teach.
The fundamental methodological problem of the letter is therefore a false dichotomy: either Christ, revelation, and mission—or listening, participation, and communal discernment.
According to the Catholic understanding of synodality, however, we listen to one another and discern together precisely so that we may obey Christ together and fulfil his mission more faithfully.
1. Why Are We Responding? – The Pannonhalma Experience
We wish to respond to Bishop Rob Mutsaerts’s letter not merely on the basis of theoretical considerations. Since 2021, we ourselves have been walking the synodal path in the fifteen parishes of the Territorial Archabbey of Pannonhalma—and our experience has been substantially different from the picture of synodality presented in his letter.
Discussions took place in approximately one hundred groups led by trained coordinators, while a further 556 people shared their experiences through questionnaires. These encounters were neither secular-style debating forums nor ecclesial opinion polls. Common prayer, the reading of Scripture, and silence formed an essential part of them: as we listened to one another, we sought to hear what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Church. One fruit of this process was the synodal document of the Territorial Archabbey of Pannonhalma, covering thirteen thematic areas, which continued to be studied in the parishes during the following years.
As the next important stage of our synodal journey, we will hold a diocesan synodal day at Pannonhalma on Saturday, 3 October 2026. Through this gathering, we wish to offer motivation and guidance for reading and receiving the Final Document of the Synod of Bishops approved by Pope Francis. We want to help participants ensure that synodal spirituality does not remain merely a theoretical concept or an institutional programme, but becomes a personally appropriated Christian disposition that can be lived out in everyday life. The day also aims to advance the synodal processes already under way in the Territorial Archabbey and to demonstrate how our local ecclesial journey is connected with the synodal movements of both the Church in Hungary and the universal Church.
In our experience, synodality has not obscured the identity and mission that the Church has received from Christ. On the contrary, it has helped us to ask more seriously how we can live out, here and now, what we have received from Christ with greater fidelity. We did not seek collectively to reinvent the essence of the Church; rather, we sought to discern how our liturgical life, mission, catechesis, diakonia, community life, and cooperation could become more evangelical.
In this endeavour, we have also been strengthened by the monastic and Benedictine tradition. Conversion, attentiveness to the Holy Spirit, listening, communal discernment, the responsibility of the superior, obedience, hospitality, and the liturgy do not stand in opposition to synodality; they are ancient and time-tested ecclesial expressions of it. In the spirit of the Rule of Saint Benedict, everyone must be heard, while the community seeks the will of God within the order of the Gospel.
For this reason, we consider a detailed examination of Bishop Mutsaerts’s argument necessary. His letter does warn of genuine dangers, but it frequently identifies possible distortions of synodality with synodality itself. At Pannonhalma, we have experienced not a search for a path independent of Christ, but a shared journey with Christ: a process in which the People of God, in the light of the Word and while invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, seek to discern how they may serve the mission of the Church more faithfully.
“Those who walk together travel safely”—Tutum iter unanimis. This experience of Pannonhalma is the point of departure for the detailed response that follows.
2. Synodality Is Not the “Invention” of the Church’s Identity
Mutsaerts’s most profound misunderstanding appears in the following passage: “Is [the Church] primarily a community that collectively searches for what it should become? Or is it primarily a divine reality that has already received what it is meant to be?”
What is the Church? Is she primarily a community that jointly seeks what she must become? Or is she primarily a divine reality that has received what she must be?
This is a false alternative. The Church has indeed received her origin, nature, and mission from Christ. At the same time, throughout her historical pilgrimage she must continually discern how to carry out this unchanging mission amid new circumstances.
The Second Vatican Council speaks both of the Church’s divine origin and of her constant need for purification: the Church is “at the same time holy and always in need of being purified” and therefore “always follows the way of penance and renewal” (Lumen gentium, 8). She does not reinvent her identity, but seeks to correspond ever more faithfully to what she has received.
The definition given in the Final Document of the Synod is unambiguous: “Synodality is the walking together of Christians with Christ and towards the God’s Kingdom, in union with all humanity.” (Final Document, 28)
It is therefore not a matter of seeking a common path independently of Christ, but of journeying with Christ and towards Christ.
3. The Primary Object of Listening Is Not Public Opinion, but the Holy Spirit
Mutsaerts suggests that the synodal process begins by collecting people’s desires and then adapts the Gospel to them. This does not correspond to the official methodology.
Synodal listening has three inseparable dimensions:
1. listening to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit;
2. listening to one another;
3. discerning together what the Spirit is saying to the Church.
Pope Francis expressed this succinctly: a synod is “not a parliament” in which interest groups negotiate, but an ecclesial event whose principal protagonist is the Holy Spirit. The basic formula of the process from the beginning was: “listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches” (cf. Rev 2:7).
Mutsaerts is right that not every desire comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet this is precisely why we speak not simply of “listening,” but of ecclesial discernment. An opinion that has been heard is not yet an ecclesial decision, and still less is it a new revelation.
4. The Sensus Fidei Is Not an Opinion Poll
The letter argues as though consulting the faithful meant producing doctrine democratically. This confuses public opinion with the sensus fidei, the sense of faith possessed by the believing people. According to the Second Vatican Council, the faithful as a whole, anointed by the Holy Spirit, share in Christ’s prophetic mission (Lumen gentium, 12). This does not mean, however, that every majority opinion is the voice of the Holy Spirit. The sense of faith:
1. operates within the communion of the apostolic faith;
2. presupposes listening to the Word, prayer, and sacramental life;
3. remains in relationship with the teaching authority of the bishops;
4. requires discernment.
The Final Document explicitly states that the baptised are capable of recognising what is in harmony with the truth of revelation, and that this capacity is exercised “in the communion of the Church” (22). Mutsaerts therefore presents a genuine danger—the absolutisation of public opinion—as though it were the official meaning of synodality.
5. Synodality Is Not Democracy, but Neither Is It Merely a One-Way Hierarchical Process
It is correct to say that revealed truth is not created by majority vote. Synodal teaching, however, nowhere claims that it is.
Catholic ecclesiology preserves the unity of three dimensions:
• listening to all, because every baptised person participates in the life of the Church;
• the particular ministry, charism, and expertise of some;
• the presidency and decision-making responsibility of one—the bishop in the local Church and the Pope in the universal Church—at the service of unity.
The Final Document clearly distinguishes communal discernment from decision-making: discernment prepares and grounds the decision, but the decision itself belongs to the pastoral authority competent under the law (87–94). There is no question of abolishing hierarchical ministry.
Mutsaerts is therefore refuting a democratic model that does not exist. The real question is not “people or bishop,” but how a bishop can exercise his authority while genuinely listening to the Church of which he himself is both a member and pastor.
6. Collegiality and Synodality Are Not Rivals
Mutsaerts asks why the concept of “synodality” is necessary when we already have the concept of “collegiality.”
The two concepts are not identical:
| Collegiality | Synodality |
|---|---|
| Refers primarily to the relationship among bishops and their relationship with the Pope | Refers to the common journey of the whole People of God |
| Flows from the sacramental nature of the episcopal order | Proceeds from baptismal dignity and ecclesial communion |
| Entails a specifically episcopal responsibility | Includes laypeople, priests, religious, and bishops |
| Is exercised with and under the successor of Peter | Is likewise exercised within hierarchical communion |
According to the International Theological Commission, synodality denotes the journeying together of the whole Church as the pilgrim People of God, while collegiality represents its specific realisation at the level of episcopal ministry. Synodality therefore does not replace collegiality, but places it within a broader ecclesiological context.
7. It Is Incorrect to Claim That Conversion Is Absent from the Process
One of the letter’s strongest assertions is: “The great absentee: conversion”. This can be refuted directly from the text. Conversion is one of the central categories of the Final Document:
• “Called by the Holy Spirit to Conversion” is the title of its first part;
• personal and communal conversion;
• relational conversion;
• conversion of decision-making processes;
• pastoral and missionary conversion;
• “synodal conversion.”
Paragraph 6 of the document explicitly states that “synodality requires repentance and conversion.” The second session of the Assembly began with a penitential vigil during which members of the Church asked forgiveness for their own sins and failures.
Mutsaerts could legitimately call for conversion to be emphasised more strongly, expressed more concretely, or articulated more clearly in Christological terms. He cannot, however, reasonably claim that conversion is absent.
8. It Is Mistaken to Set Synodality and Mission in Opposition
A recurring claim in the letter is that synodality talks about itself while the Church should instead be evangelising. The official texts, however, regard synodality not as an end in itself, but as a way of life at the service of mission.
The very title of the Synod was Communion, Participation and Mission. According to the Final Document:• the Church exists to bear witness to the risen Christ (14);
• every baptised person is “a protagonist of mission” (4);
• the synodal process aims at “renewed missionary impulse” (3);
• synodality is “orientated towards mission” (28);
• mission is the organising principle of the entire document.
A valid criticism could therefore be formulated as follows: synodal practice everywhere needs to serve evangelisation more visibly. Instead, Mutsaerts writes as though this connection did not exist at all.
9. The Opposition Between Structure and Holiness Is Mistaken
Mutsaerts constructs striking but theologically simplistic oppositions:
• a holy parish priest or a working group;
• zealous religious or documents;
• preaching or dialogue;
• conversion or participation;
• holiness or structure.
Structures in the Church do not, of course, save in themselves. They can, however, serve as instruments of holiness, communion, and mission—or become obstacles to them. The Jerusalem community in the Acts of the Apostles is at once a praying, Eucharistic, and organised community. In Acts 6, ministries are ordered so that the Apostles may devote themselves more faithfully to prayer and the ministry of the Word. In Acts 15, consultation and authoritative decision-making together serve the spread of the Gospel.
The historical claim that great reforms “almost never began with structures” is also exaggerated. Renewals initiated by saints generally had institutional consequences:
• Saint Benedict gave his community a rule;
• the Cluniac and Cistercian reforms created institutional networks;
• the mendicant orders established new forms of community life and governance;
• the Tridentine reform introduced seminaries, visitations, and new disciplinary norms.
Holiness and good structures are not rivals. A good structure is not the source of grace, but its servant framework.
10. A “Synod on Synodality” Is Not Empty Self-Reflection
Mutsaerts mocks the choice of topic by claiming that the Church is “holding a meeting about how to hold meetings.” This reduces synodality to a meeting technique. The real question is much more profound: how should the Church live out her nature as communio, take seriously the gifts of the baptised, and exercise authority in a missionary way? This includes, for example:
• recognising the charisms of laypeople;
• overcoming the isolation of priests and bishops;
• correcting clericalism;
• listening to victims;
• transparency and accountability;
• better preparation of decisions;
• incorporating the experience of local Churches;
• strengthening shared responsibility for mission.
These are not “housekeeping tasks” that distract the Church from her mission. Abuses of power, clericalism, and the blurring of responsibility directly undermine the credibility of the Gospel.
11. The Measure of the Fruits Is Unjustifiably Narrow, and the Causal Conclusion Is Flawed
It is legitimate to ask what fruits the process has borne. Mutsaerts, however, lists almost exclusively Western indicators that can be measured in the short term:
• Mass attendance;
• the number of priestly vocations;
• the practice of confession;
• knowledge of the faith;
• institutional growth.
These are important indicators, but they are not the only ones. The Synod is a global process, while Mutsaerts’s assessment proceeds primarily from developments in the Dutch, Belgian, and German Churches that he identifies as symptoms of crisis. He does not take into account, for example:
• the growth of lay responsibility for mission;
• the recognition of women’s actual service in the Church;
• listening to victims of abuse;
• mutual learning among local Churches;
• the deepening of communal discernment;
• the gradual restoration of ecclesial trust and cooperation.
Moreover, a process that began in 2021 and is still in its implementation phase cannot be judged causally after only a few years on the basis of the number of priestly vocations or Sunday Mass attendance. Declining church attendance is the result of cultural processes spanning decades. It cannot be demonstrated that synodality caused it, nor can one reasonably claim that synodality should have reversed it within a few years.
12. The Charge of Protestantisation Is Historically and Theologically Inaccurate
The letter suspects that the emphasis on participation and local communities reflects the adoption of Protestant models of Church governance. This ignores the fact that the synodal practice long predates the Reformation:
• the deliberation of the apostolic Church in Acts 15;
• the local and ecumenical councils of the first millennium;
• the principle of the ancient Church that what concerns everyone should be treated after everyone has been heard;
• monastic chapters;
• the synodal tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches;
• episcopal, presbyteral, and pastoral councils.
Chapter 3 of the Rule of Saint Benedict is particularly eloquent: in important matters, the abbot is to summon the whole community and listen to the brothers’ counsel, because “the Lord often reveals what is better to the younger”; nevertheless, responsibility for the decision remains with the abbot. In the Catholic sense, this is an almost exemplary form of synodality: listening to everyone, communal discernment, the personal responsibility of the superior, and the primacy of the Rule.
13. The Opposition Between “Quiet Believers” and Participants in Consultation Is Unfair
Mutsaerts rightly warns that those who participate in organised consultations do not automatically represent the whole People of God. This is an important methodological criticism. Yet he then proceeds to set idealised groups against one another:
• the believer who prays the Rosary versus the synodal participant;
• the young person who travels to attend the traditional liturgy versus the member of a diocesan working group;
• the mother of a large family versus the “professional ecclesial meeting participant.”
There is no reason to assume that these groups exclude one another or that one believes more deeply than the other. The task of synodality should be precisely to include both the readily heard and the quieter voices—including those of the faithful who are attached to traditional forms of spirituality.
14. The Liturgy Is Not Absent from the Synod’s Ecclesiology
According to Mutsaerts, the crisis of the liturgy received scarcely any attention. There may be some truth in the claim that the weakening of Eucharistic faith in the West ought to be addressed more emphatically. It is an exaggeration, however, to claim that synodality disregards the liturgy.
According to the Final Document, the Eucharist is “the source of communion and unity,” while the Sunday Eucharistic celebration is “the first and fundamental way” in which the holy People of God gathers (16; 26–27). A synodal Church is not a community gathered primarily around a conference table, but around the Word and the Eucharist.
The opposition between liturgy and synodality is therefore another false dichotomy: the Eucharist creates the communion in Christ that synodality must unfold in the life of the Church.
15. His Own Emmaus Example Actually Supports Synodality
The best part of Mutsaerts’s letter is his interpretation of the Emmaus story:
• Jesus draws near to the disciples;
• he asks questions;
• he listens to their disappointment;
• he corrects their interpretation in the light of the Scriptures;
• he breaks the bread;
• he sends them out on mission.
This is indeed an image of authentic synodality—but rather than refuting synodality, it describes it precisely. Synodality does not mean that every statement is true. It means that, in the presence of Christ, we listen to one another, discern in the light of the Scriptures, recognise the Lord in the Eucharist, and then set out on mission.
Mutsaerts is able to describe this correctly because, at this point, he sets aside the caricature employed elsewhere in the letter and himself presents the Christological form of synodality.
Concluding Assessment
The truth contained in the letter is that the synodal process can indeed become distorted into:
• self-serving meetings;
• bureaucratic language;
• an ecclesial opinion poll;
• a struggle among ideological interest groups;
• a source of impossible expectations;
• conformity to the opinions of the world.
It is legitimate and necessary to warn against these dangers. Mutsaerts’s error lies in identifying possible distortions with the essence of synodality itself.
To put it in didactic terms:
Synodality is not about using dialogue to invent what the Church should be. It is about the entire baptised people—with distinct ministries and responsibilities, under the leadership of the bishops and in communion with the successor of Peter—listening together to the Holy Spirit, so that the Church may live out more faithfully, in each particular age, the identity and mission she has received from Christ.
We therefore do not need to choose between:
• truth and listening;
• hierarchy and participation;
• conversion and dialogue;
• holiness and institutional renewal;
• the Eucharist and communal discernment;
• evangelisation and synodality.
Authentic Catholic synodality unites all these realities in Christ. Mutsaerts’s letter is justified where it warns against distortions; it becomes mistaken where it identifies those distortions with synodality itself.
References:
https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/news/2024-10-26_final-document/ENG—Documento-finale.pdf https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html
