Synodality is often framed as a tool for ecclesial unity that does not force uniformity. Consequently, it can be viewed with a degree of innocence, assuming that creating dialogical spaces will inevitably lead to positive outcomes—or, at worst, none at all. Even its critics primarily focus on the synodality's nonperformativity or the limited impact of those outside the ecclesial hierarchy. However, a closer examination of historical examples reveals a more sinister potential. The concept of "walking together" is inherently dependent on the direction of that journey. The Council of Constance serves as a pertinent example—while lauded for its conciliar efforts that ended the so-called "Western Schism," its treatment of Jan Hus also exemplifies the limitations of synodal discernment by juxtaposing dissent and authority and ultimately showcasing the violent consequences of lay involvement. Taking the Council as a starting point, this paper will argue that to treat synodality seriously as a pathway for being a church together, we must acknowledge its potential for negative and even violent outcomes, as well as its deeply contextual and embedded character.