By Professor Januarius Asongu

Part V: Epistemic Sovereignty, Institutional Fallibilism, and the Future of Synodality

From Ecclesiology to Epistemology

The preceding sections have argued that the recurring tension between prophets and apologists, critics and guardians of continuity, cannot be adequately explained through ecclesiology alone. The problem is ultimately epistemological. It concerns how individuals and institutions discern truth under conditions of uncertainty, historical limitation, competing interests, and structures of power.

This claim may initially appear surprising.

The debates surrounding Hans Küng, Leonardo Boff, Bernard Häring, Edward Schillebeeckx, Charles Curran, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, and numerous others are typically framed as disputes about doctrine, authority, morality, or ecclesiastical governance.

Yet beneath each controversy lies a more fundamental question:

How does the Church know when it is right?

Equally important:

How does the Church know when it is wrong?

These questions point toward the central concern of Critical Synthetic Realism.

The deepest challenge facing the Church is not merely doctrinal fidelity.

It is epistemic fidelity.

The Church must remain faithful not only to revealed truth but also to the conditions necessary for discerning that truth accurately.

The distinction is crucial.

Institutions frequently assume that fidelity to truth can be secured through authority alone.

CSR argues that authority remains necessary but insufficient.

Truth requires mechanisms of correction.

Without such mechanisms, institutions become vulnerable to epistemic closure.

Epistemic Sovereignty and the Search for Truth

One of the central concepts within Critical Synthetic Realism is Epistemic Sovereignty.

Epistemic Sovereignty refers to the capacity of individuals and communities to pursue truth free from domination by ideology, fear, tribal loyalties, institutional self-interest, coercive pressures, or structures of power that distort judgment (Asongu, 2026a).

The concept does not imply autonomy from reality.

Nor does it imply independence from tradition.

Rather, it refers to freedom for truth.

An epistemically sovereign community remains capable of correcting itself because its primary allegiance is to reality rather than to institutional convenience.

This distinction has profound implications for ecclesiology.

Throughout Christian history, prophetic figures have frequently exercised forms of epistemic sovereignty that exceeded those of the institutions surrounding them.

The Hebrew prophets challenged kings.

Jesus challenged religious authorities.

Francis of Assisi challenged ecclesiastical complacency.

Catherine of Siena challenged papal politics.

Bartolomé de las Casas challenged colonial assumptions.

John Henry Newman challenged prevailing ecclesiastical suspicions.

Yves Congar challenged institutional rigidity.

Hans Küng challenged centralized authority.

In each case, the prophetic figure appealed to realities that transcended institutional interests.

The institution frequently resisted.

History later recognized the importance of the critique.

This recurring pattern suggests that institutions often possess less epistemic sovereignty than the individuals they govern.

Such a claim may appear paradoxical.

Institutions possess greater authority.

They possess greater resources.

They possess greater legitimacy.

Yet these same advantages can become liabilities.

The larger the institution, the greater the temptation to protect itself.

The stronger the authority, the greater the temptation to equate institutional interests with truth itself.

The result is a gradual erosion of epistemic sovereignty.

The institution becomes increasingly committed to preserving its own assumptions.

Correction becomes difficult.

Criticism becomes threatening.

Self-examination becomes selective.

At this point, epistemic fracture deepens.

Institutional Fallibilism

The concept of institutional fallibilism follows directly from this analysis.

Institutional fallibilism is the recognition that all human institutions, including religious institutions, remain vulnerable to error, distortion, and incomplete understanding.

The principle is neither radical nor novel.

Catholic theology already acknowledges the distinction between divine truth and human apprehension of that truth.

Indeed, much of the Church's intellectual tradition presupposes such a distinction.

Augustine repeatedly emphasized the limitations of human understanding (Augustine, 1991).

Thomas Aquinas argued that finite minds possess only analogical knowledge of divine realities (Aquinas, 1947).

Newman's theory of doctrinal development assumes that the Church's understanding unfolds historically rather than appearing fully formed at once (Newman, 1845/1989).

Congar's theology of reform presupposes the possibility of institutional deficiency (Congar, 2012).

The originality of CSR lies not in recognizing fallibility but in extending the concept systematically to institutional life.

Institutions do not merely contain fallible individuals.

Institutions develop collective patterns of thought.

They generate habits of interpretation.

They create cultures of legitimacy.

They establish mechanisms of reward and punishment.

Consequently, institutions can become collectively mistaken even when individual participants act in good faith.

This insight helps explain some of the most puzzling moments in Christian history.

Why did ecclesiastical authorities resist Galileo?

Why did many church leaders defend slavery?

Why did ecclesiastical institutions frequently respond slowly to clerical abuse?

Why did Vatican authorities repeatedly investigate theologians later recognized as major contributors to Catholic thought?

CSR argues that these episodes reveal institutional fallibility rather than institutional malice.

The problem was not necessarily corruption.

The problem was epistemic fracture operating at the institutional level.

Entire systems became committed to assumptions that obscured aspects of reality.

Correction occurred only after prolonged struggle.

Ecclesial Memory and the Rehabilitation of Prophets

One of the most revealing indicators of institutional fallibilism is the phenomenon of retrospective rehabilitation.

History repeatedly demonstrates that figures viewed with suspicion during their lifetimes often become celebrated after their deaths.

Newman provides a striking example.

Many church leaders viewed him with considerable distrust.

Yet he later became a cardinal and eventually a canonized saint.

Congar spent years under ecclesiastical restrictions before becoming one of Vatican II's most influential theologians.

Henri de Lubac experienced marginalization before receiving widespread recognition.

Even Thomas Aquinas encountered suspicion during portions of his career.

The pattern suggests a peculiar characteristic of ecclesial memory.

The Church frequently becomes capable of appreciating prophetic voices only after those voices no longer pose immediate institutional challenges.

This observation returns us to the death of Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe.

The significance of Galabe's life extends beyond his personal accomplishments.

His death raises questions concerning how the Church remembers intellectuals, critics, and prophetic figures.

Which voices are preserved?

Which voices are forgotten?

Which voices become institutionalized?

Which voices disappear?

The answers are never merely historical.

They reveal the criteria through which institutions construct memory itself.

CSR argues that ecclesial memory functions as an epistemic practice.

Memory determines which experiences become authoritative for future generations.

Consequently, failures of memory are also failures of knowledge.

When institutions forget prophets, they often lose access to truths those prophets recognized.

The result is a narrowing of collective understanding.

Synodality as an Epistemic Project

This analysis fundamentally changes how synodality should be understood.

Much contemporary discussion treats synodality primarily as a question of governance.

Who participates?

Who decides?

Who speaks?

Who votes?

While such questions are important, they remain secondary.

The deeper issue concerns how the Church learns.

Synodality is fundamentally an epistemic project.

Its central claim is that truth becomes more visible when the entire People of God participate in discernment.

The premise reflects an ancient theological intuition.

The Holy Spirit is not confined to hierarchy alone.

Wisdom emerges from the interaction of diverse experiences, perspectives, charisms, and vocations.

The sensus fidelium therefore becomes an indispensable resource for ecclesial discernment (International Theological Commission, 2014).

From a CSR perspective, synodality functions as a corrective mechanism against institutional epistemic fracture.

The broader the conversation, the more opportunities exist for hidden assumptions to be challenged.

The more diverse the participants, the less likely it becomes that institutional blind spots will remain invisible.

The more extensive the dialogue, the greater the possibility of self-correction.

This does not guarantee truth.

No procedure can guarantee truth.

However, synodality increases the probability of truthful discernment because it expands the range of perspectives available for critical examination.

In this sense, synodality embodies what CSR calls critical synthesis.

Truth emerges through the integration of diverse insights rather than through unilateral assertion.

Why Synodality Remains Difficult

Despite its promise, synodality remains difficult because it challenges deeply ingrained institutional habits.

Many ecclesiastical leaders were formed within cultures that associated authority with certainty.

Synodality requires authority to coexist with uncertainty.

Many were formed within cultures that viewed criticism as opposition.

Synodality requires criticism to be understood as a contribution.

Many were formed within cultures that treated obedience as the primary ecclesial virtue.

Synodality requires discernment to become equally important.

These tensions help explain the resistance encountered by synodal initiatives.

The resistance is not merely ideological.

It is anthropological.

It is cultural.

It is epistemological.

Synodality requires new habits of knowing.

It requires leaders capable of listening without defensiveness.

It requires critics capable of questioning without hostility.

It requires institutions capable of self-correction without self-destruction.

Such capacities do not emerge automatically.

They require deliberate cultivation.

The challenge facing contemporary Catholicism is therefore larger than organizational reform.

It concerns the transformation of ecclesial consciousness itself.

Toward a Church of Mutual Correctability

The ultimate implication of CSR is neither the triumph of prophets over institutions nor the triumph of institutions over prophets.

Both outcomes would be disastrous.

A Church governed exclusively by prophets would fragment into competing visions.

A Church governed exclusively by managers would stagnate under bureaucratic inertia.

The future requires a different model.

CSR proposes a Church characterized by mutual correctability.

Prophets correct institutions.

Institutions correct prophets.

Theologians correct bishops.

Bishops correct theologians.

The laity correct the clergy.

The clergy correct the laity.

Each perspective remains partial.

Each requires dialogue with others.

Each remains accountable to reality itself.

Mutual correctability therefore becomes the practical expression of epistemic sovereignty.

It transforms disagreement from a threat into a resource.

It transforms criticism from opposition into participation.

It transforms authority from domination into stewardship.

Such a vision does not eliminate conflict.

Nor does it guarantee consensus.

What it offers is something more important: a framework through which conflict can become a vehicle for truth rather than an obstacle to it.

This insight brings us to the final task of the chapter.

Having examined prophecy, authority, institutional advancement, epistemic fracture, and synodality, we must now ask what these realities reveal about the future of Catholicism itself.

The answer lies not merely in structures or policies but in the Church's capacity to become a community genuinely committed to truth above self-preservation.

It is to that question that the concluding section now turns.

Additional References for Part V

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Brothers.

Augustine. (1991). The Trinity (E. Hill, Trans.). New City Press.

Congar, Y. (2012). True and False Reform in the Church. Liturgical Press.

International Theological Commission. (2014). Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church. Vatican Publishing House.

Newman, J. H. (1989). An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1845)

Asongu, J. (2026a). The Splendor of Truth: A Critical Philosophy of Knowledge and Global Agency. Wipf & Stock.