Notes on the Biblical Foundation of the Document of the International Theological Commission, “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a profound and well structured analysis  of the biblical foundations of synodality. Precise clarification of terminology is to be noted. 

In my opinion the idea of the direct transposition of the inner life of God onto the church should be more developed and explained. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Page 7 line 18 from bottom should be: It is an imprint…

While transliterating Greek into English, should be „Perihoretic”.

Phonetical transposition to Spanish (perijoretic) sounds strange.

Author Response

I thank you very much for your careful reading and observations, as the feedback helps me to rethink some questions.
I have corrected the English questions you pointed out to me.
I agree with you that the correlation between the inner life of God and the church should be further explored. I have tried to expose this at the beginning and in fact in a first version of the article the very structure responded to this question, but it was rejected and, for this reason, I restricted myself to the biblical field which is my speciality. In fact, as I suggest at the end in the conclusions, I believe that the more ecclesiology goes deeper into this question, the easier it would be to base it on the biblical level as well. I am sorry for not having been able to develop it adequately and I personally also see it as a challenge that I hope to be able to address better in the future. Thank you for your feedback. Yours sincerely

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article takes part in the lively discussion around the theme synodality offering additional, clarifying perceptions for the discussion, although one article can't, and it shouldn't try to, say all about the topic, how to form a coherent whole of the biblical arguments behing the theology of synodality. 

One thing I would encourage the writer to reflect is whether the balance between "constitutional" and "operational" aspects could be more balanced. It is clear that the document of the theological commission is not practical, but its arguments have practical implications. 

On page 9 in the beginning of one paragraph there is the text: "Fort he Bible access to truth..". Should be probably: "For the Bible access to truth..."

The text is mostly clear and the arguments logical, but perhaps you proof-read it one more time in order to make sure the line is followed through the whole article.

The theme is important and interesting. It is good to point out also the missionary, extra-ecclesial dimension of synodality. Perhaps also the ecumenical dimension, which for example Pope Francis has underlined, should be emphasized more?

Author Response

I thank you very much for your careful reading and observations, as the feedback helps me to rethink some questions.
I have corrected the English questions you pointed out to me.
I share with you the observations you have made. It was not easy for me to write the article because I come from the biblical field and I had to deal with questions of ecclesiology. I tried to articulate it in a coherent way, but it was not easy. After your comment I went back to reread the article to see where I could give it more unity, but as happens when you are so deep in it, I could not distance myself to see where I could improve. 
I also agree with what you say about ecumenism. In the first version I actually indicated it, but as many topics were opening up, in the end I decided to leave it implicitly included in those paragraphs where I illustrate with biblical passages that truth can come through unsuspected characters. To make it a little more explicit I have added a small phrase: at the end of page 12 in the sentence: ‘The Bible is full of examples of how God's truth comes through marginalised and outcast characters in the religious world, given their origin or their incompetence in the matter, or from another religion’.
I hope I have responded to your observations which I share and which I am sorry if I have not been able to resolve better. Yours sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent paper. Well documented and referenced. It is a good introspection into the Synodal dimension in agreement woith the teaching of the present papacy but also shows in a clear way the line of continuity from the Second Vatican Council onward. 

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your attention and for reading the article, as well as for your very positive assessment of it. However, in addition to two very positive evaluations, the third reviewer's and the editor's evaluations were not so favourable. For this reason I have had to modify some aspects. I am sorry that you have to read the article again, as I understand that it is double work, but I hope that the new corrections will make it clearer.  

Among the suggestions made to me, the most decisive one was to improve the thread between the sections. In reality, the essay arose out of a concern about the biblical foundation offered by the ITC document which, although I consider it to be very well done, suffers from certain aspects, especially if synodality is understood as a constitutive element of the Church. For this reason I tried to look for an articulation that would weld the Trinitarian Mystery with the category of the People of God without having to make an explicit assessment or criticism of the document.

Although I have not given up this idea, the exposition now follows the thread of the purpose: to make some annotations to the biblical foundation of the document. In my opinion, making this explicit - something that was latent before - helps the argumentation and the purpose of the article, which is more oriented towards biblical theology than towards fundamental or dogmatic theology.

In the article you will find in blue what I have added new. Some paragraphs have been rearranged. Others have been removed, but I have not pointed this out in order to avoid making the reading too cumbersome. As can be seen at a glance, sections 1, 2 and 3 are mainly reworked at the beginning and at the end (trying to improve unity), while 4 and 5 are reworded. In the latter two you will find paragraphs that are the same, but as I have moved them around I thought it would be better to highlight them in blue. In section six there are hardly any changes, although I have removed some things and placed others elsewhere.

In the conclusion I have added a short summary that recapitulates the journey and a first annotation that has to do with the methodological difficulties that I encountered when writing the article and that are related to the objections that were made to me, because as a biblical scholar I am not so proficient in the field of ecclesiology and finding an articulation that did not follow the salvific historical exposition that the ITC document follows in its biblical foundation has been complex for me.

I hope it is now better expressed. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having read the text with interest, since it is an interesting perspective, I caught some aspects not made explicit, but which would have helped the understanding of the whole article. 

I am referring to the analysis of the words the author uses: synodal and communion. In the context of the study where he refers to the Trinity it would seem that the two words are synonymous.  Was this the original intention? 

Otherwise, I congratulate the author for the biblical and theological synthesis he has presented here.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your attention and for reading the article, as well as for your very positive assessment of it. However, in addition to two very positive evaluations, the third reviewer's and the editor's evaluations were not so favourable. For this reason I have had to modify some aspects. I am sorry that you have to read the article again, as I understand that it is double work, but I hope that the new corrections will make it clearer.  

Among the suggestions made to me, the most decisive one was to improve the thread between the sections. In reality, the essay arose out of a concern about the biblical foundation offered by the ITC document which, although I consider it to be very well done, suffers from certain aspects, especially if synodality is understood as a constitutive element of the Church. For this reason I tried to look for an articulation that would weld the Trinitarian Mystery with the category of the People of God without having to make an explicit assessment or criticism of the document.

Although I have not given up this idea, the exposition now follows the thread of the purpose: to make some annotations to the biblical foundation of the document. In my opinion, making this explicit - something that was latent before - helps the argumentation and the purpose of the article, which is more oriented towards biblical theology than towards fundamental or dogmatic theology.

In the article you will find in blue what I have added new. Some paragraphs have been rearranged. Others have been removed, but I have not pointed this out in order to avoid making the reading too cumbersome. As can be seen at a glance, sections 1, 2 and 3 are mainly reworked at the beginning and at the end (trying to improve unity), while 4 and 5 are reworded. In the latter two you will find paragraphs that are the same, but as I have moved them around I thought it would be better to highlight them in blue. In section six there are hardly any changes, although I have removed some things and placed others elsewhere.

In the conclusion I have added a short summary that recapitulates the journey and a first annotation that has to do with the methodological difficulties that I encountered when writing the article and that are related to the objections that were made to me, because as a biblical scholar I am not so proficient in the field of ecclesiology and finding an articulation that did not follow the salvific historical exposition that the ITC document follows in its biblical foundation has been complex for me.

I hope it is now better expressed. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay aims to draw an analogy between immanent Trinitarian life and the synodal existence and operation of the Church. This is an interesting idea, however the implementation is less successful. The essay has no clear-cut argument, the connection between the sections is not made explicit, it has no overall structure and it includes several heterogeneous themes which do not form a unity and are eventually impossible to follow. The numbering of parts and sub-sections is too complicated and too multi-levelled, it does not help the reader in discerning units of thought and the logic of the argument.

 

The text does not define its understanding of synodality, but it apparently works with the inherent presupposition that synodality consists in relationality. The analogy between the Trinity and synodality remains vague and superficial.

 

The essay has several unclear ideas, statements and phrases, non-English words (“perijoresis”, Trinidad), the spelling of terms is often inconsistent (Church versus church, Lumen Gentium versus Lumen gentium, People of God versus people of God etc.), there are errors (e.g. Ecclesia dicens instead of discens).

 

I suggest that the author narrow down the theme and focus on a particular topic in a well-defined field (e.g. biblical theology). In my view, the current text does not meet the standard of a well-argued article and therefore is unsuitable for publication in the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are Spanish terms in the English text and also idioms which are foreign as well as unclear formulations of ideas.

Author Response

First of all, I thank you for your attention and for reading the article, as well as for your assessment regarding the improvement. I have tried to follow what I have been told. I hope I have understood it well. I have removed everything that was specifically suggested to me or could be misleading.

Among the suggestions made to me, the most decisive one was to improve the thread between the sections. In reality, the essay arose out of a concern about the biblical foundation offered by the ITC document which, although I consider it to be very well done, suffers from certain aspects, especially if synodality is understood as a constitutive element of the Church. For this reason I tried to look for an articulation that would weld the Trinitarian Mystery with the category of the People of God without having to make an explicit assessment or criticism of the document.

Although I have not given up this idea, the exposition now follows the thread of the purpose: to make some annotations to the biblical foundation of the document. In my opinion, making this explicit - something that was latent before - helps the argumentation and the purpose of the article, which is more oriented towards biblical theology than towards fundamental or dogmatic theology.

In the article you will find in blue what I have added new. Some paragraphs have been rearranged. Others have been removed, but I have not pointed this out in order to avoid making the reading too cumbersome. As can be seen at a glance, sections 1, 2 and 3 are mainly reworked at the beginning and at the end (trying to improve unity), while 4 and 5 are reworded. In the latter two you will find paragraphs that are the same, but as I have moved them around I thought it would be better to highlight them in blue. In section six there are hardly any changes, although I have removed some things and placed others elsewhere.

In the conclusion I have added a short summary that recapitulates the journey and a first annotation that has to do with the methodological difficulties that I encountered when writing the article and that are related to the objections that were made to me, because as a biblical scholar I am not so proficient in the field of ecclesiology and finding an articulation that did not follow the salvific historical exposition that the ITC document follows in its biblical foundation has been complex for me.

I hope it is now better expressed. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf