By The Pillar
September 29, 2026
A meeting is set to begin Tuesday in Lebanon. All the bishops of the synod of the Syriac Catholic Church have been invited to attend, though it is not clear how many will come — or if they will be joined by their patriarch, Ignatius Youssef III Younan.
Indeed, it is not clear if the meeting will take place at all, what it might decide, and if the Holy See will consider it a legitimate meeting, should it go ahead.
What is clear is that whatever happens, it will be an historic event, likely to shape or reshape the relationship between Rome and the East for decades, if not centuries to come.
The meeting has been called by the senior bishop of the Syriac Catholic Church to consider and vote upon the removal of the patriarch under the norms of a new papal motu proprio, issued just weeks ago, which allows for the bishops of an Eastern Church’s synod to depose their head for damaging communion.
While the patriarch is afforded the opportunity to defend himself, there is no legal definition for the harm to communion the bishop can be accused of causing, nor standard of proof for anyone to meet or answer.
In any event, it is not believed Youssef will attend the synodal meeting. Indeed, he has branded it unlawful, saying that since he had already convoked a synodal meeting for November, the peremptory session called to vote on his leadership cannot go ahead.
It’s also unclear how many bishops might stay away, either in deference to or solidarity with their patriarch. And it is even unclear how many bishops’ votes would be needed to remove him.
According to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, a synodal meeting is validly convened if a simple majority are present. Meanwhile, Mutua Concordia, the papal motu proprio allowing for the voting out of a patriarch requires “a secret ballot of at least two-thirds of the members of the Synod enjoying a deliberative vote,” but doesn’t specify if the two-thirds required is of those in attendance and voting, or those eligible to attend regardless of how many come.
As such, it seems inevitable that Pope Leo — whose ratification is required for any vote to remove a patriarch — will be asked to step in and rule either on the validity of the meeting itself, or any result it might produce.
It is, less than a month from the promulgation of Mutua Concordia, a striking misfire for a law that promised to advance “mutual agreement” among the bishops of Eastern Churches, their leaders, and Rome. And as Leo considers when and how he will inevitably be asked to intervene, it seems there are very few scenarios to avoid major ripple effects far beyond the Syriac Catholic Church.
As a first consideration, Leo, either personally or through the curia, will probably have to clarify the intent and scope of his still brand new law, and answer the patriarch’s claim that his prior calling of a synodal meeting pre-empts a special meeting being summoned to effectively put him on trial.
There is no obvious point in the text of Mutua Concordia which answers this question clearly. The wording of article 1 certainly appears like it revises canon 106 of the Eastern Code in such a way that Youssef’s convocation forestalls any other meeting, but clearly at least some of his bishops read it differently.
Indeed, it is not clear if the meeting will take place at all, what it might decide, and if the Holy See will consider it a legitimate meeting, should it go ahead.
What is clear is that whatever happens, it will be an historic event, likely to shape or reshape the relationship between Rome and the East for decades, if not centuries to come.
The meeting has been called by the senior bishop of the Syriac Catholic Church to consider and vote upon the removal of the patriarch under the norms of a new papal motu proprio, issued just weeks ago, which allows for the bishops of an Eastern Church’s synod to depose their head for damaging communion.
While the patriarch is afforded the opportunity to defend himself, there is no legal definition for the harm to communion the bishop can be accused of causing, nor standard of proof for anyone to meet or answer.
In any event, it is not believed Youssef will attend the synodal meeting. Indeed, he has branded it unlawful, saying that since he had already convoked a synodal meeting for November, the peremptory session called to vote on his leadership cannot go ahead.
It’s also unclear how many bishops might stay away, either in deference to or solidarity with their patriarch. And it is even unclear how many bishops’ votes would be needed to remove him.
According to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, a synodal meeting is validly convened if a simple majority are present. Meanwhile, Mutua Concordia, the papal motu proprio allowing for the voting out of a patriarch requires “a secret ballot of at least two-thirds of the members of the Synod enjoying a deliberative vote,” but doesn’t specify if the two-thirds required is of those in attendance and voting, or those eligible to attend regardless of how many come.
As such, it seems inevitable that Pope Leo — whose ratification is required for any vote to remove a patriarch — will be asked to step in and rule either on the validity of the meeting itself, or any result it might produce.
It is, less than a month from the promulgation of Mutua Concordia, a striking misfire for a law that promised to advance “mutual agreement” among the bishops of Eastern Churches, their leaders, and Rome. And as Leo considers when and how he will inevitably be asked to intervene, it seems there are very few scenarios to avoid major ripple effects far beyond the Syriac Catholic Church.
As a first consideration, Leo, either personally or through the curia, will probably have to clarify the intent and scope of his still brand new law, and answer the patriarch’s claim that his prior calling of a synodal meeting pre-empts a special meeting being summoned to effectively put him on trial.
There is no obvious point in the text of Mutua Concordia which answers this question clearly. The wording of article 1 certainly appears like it revises canon 106 of the Eastern Code in such a way that Youssef’s convocation forestalls any other meeting, but clearly at least some of his bishops read it differently.
Stepping in early to clarify the law, and nullify the meeting set to begin today, would seem to be the pope’s best first course of action since it would, at the very least, buy time until November for matters to proceed in a more orderly manner.
But even such a seemingly time-buying move by the pope could have knock-on effects, appearing to support the patriarch’s assertion that he is the target of a coordinated effort to depose him, rather than the subject of a truly organic and internal set of concerns among the synod at large.
It would also be read by some as a check on the first use of his own new law, one which — at least according to Youssef — is the brainchild of the Vatican prefect for Eastern Churches, Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti.
Simply put, Leo stepping in to slow things down would be read at least by some as proof of the patriarch’s case — that he’s the victim of an attempted putsch, orchestrated by named malcontents within his own Church and aided by the cardinal.
Youssef has also accused the cardinal of speaking openly about wanting to engineer the ouster of other Eastern patriarchs, something which, if true, will have already rung loudly in the ears of his peers.
On the other hand, should Leo choose to allow the meeting to proceed — presumably to a vote to remove the patriarch — he might reasonably claim to be allowing the Syriac Church to govern itself and preferring not to meddle in internal affairs. In a vacuum, that might be a prudent posture for a pope to adopt. But given the particulars of this case, it would mean that the patriarch will undoubtedly claim it is further evidence of Rome clearing the way for his removal by a star chamber process. This would be even more the case if attendance at the session were closer to the minimum 50 percent of synodal members than 100. And, of course, in any event, Leo would be called up to ratify a vote to remove, likely presenting him with the unpalatable choice of either blessing a result potentially arrived at by a less-than-two-thirds majority of the full synod, and without the patriarch having been there to state his case, or vetoing it and setting up a second round of voting in November without having addressed directly the patriarch’s canonical arguments or his accusations against Gugerotti.
But even such a seemingly time-buying move by the pope could have knock-on effects, appearing to support the patriarch’s assertion that he is the target of a coordinated effort to depose him, rather than the subject of a truly organic and internal set of concerns among the synod at large.
It would also be read by some as a check on the first use of his own new law, one which — at least according to Youssef — is the brainchild of the Vatican prefect for Eastern Churches, Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti.
Simply put, Leo stepping in to slow things down would be read at least by some as proof of the patriarch’s case — that he’s the victim of an attempted putsch, orchestrated by named malcontents within his own Church and aided by the cardinal.
Youssef has also accused the cardinal of speaking openly about wanting to engineer the ouster of other Eastern patriarchs, something which, if true, will have already rung loudly in the ears of his peers.
On the other hand, should Leo choose to allow the meeting to proceed — presumably to a vote to remove the patriarch — he might reasonably claim to be allowing the Syriac Church to govern itself and preferring not to meddle in internal affairs. In a vacuum, that might be a prudent posture for a pope to adopt. But given the particulars of this case, it would mean that the patriarch will undoubtedly claim it is further evidence of Rome clearing the way for his removal by a star chamber process. This would be even more the case if attendance at the session were closer to the minimum 50 percent of synodal members than 100. And, of course, in any event, Leo would be called up to ratify a vote to remove, likely presenting him with the unpalatable choice of either blessing a result potentially arrived at by a less-than-two-thirds majority of the full synod, and without the patriarch having been there to state his case, or vetoing it and setting up a second round of voting in November without having addressed directly the patriarch’s canonical arguments or his accusations against Gugerotti.
