(LifeSiteNews) — A recent article from the Society of St. Pius X noted that although the Synod on Synodality’s October session in Rome avoided the approval of female “ordination” to the diaconate, there were nonetheless serious problems with the session:
We are almost relieved that the final text of the synod avoided the worst. It is a small consolation that should not obscure the fact that this session did, after all, outline a shift, under the control of the bishops, toward a greater supervision of the laity. The session also contemplated a change in the relationship between the Holy See and the local Churches that could ‘eventually upset the current balance of the Catholic Church, which is highly centralized in the Holy See, where many things are decided,’ as noted by the head of Le Figaro’s religion section.
This observation brings to mind two of the main manipulative tactics of the Synod on Synodality: (a) using more egregious proposals to give cover for seemingly less egregious assumptions, and (b) persuading serious Catholics to debate the merits of the Synod’s topics rather than call into question the legitimacy of the Synod itself. Both tactics are worth considering in some detail.
Using more egregious proposals to give cover for seemingly less egregious assumptions
Throughout the Synodal process we have heard about certain headline issues under consideration, including the ordination of women and blessings for same-sex unions. At the same time, though, the Synod’s documents have consistently discussed topics that have received comparatively little attention, such as structuring the Synodal Church to better attain ecumenical goals.
As one prime example of this, we can consider the following excerpts from the Synod’s final document:
- “From Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit comes the identity of the People of God.” (final document, 15)
- “In the holy People of God, which is the Church, the communion of the Faithful (communio Fidelium) is at the same time the communion of the Churches (communio Ecclesiarum), which manifests itself in the communion of the Bishops (communio Episcoporum), due to the very ancient principle that ‘the Church is in the Bishop and the Bishop is in the Church’ (St. Cyprian, Epistle 66, 8).” (final document, 18)
So according to the first statement, it appears that the sole criteria for inclusion in the “People of God” is baptism — and indeed many of the Synodal documents reinforce this interpretation. In the second statement, we learn that the People of God is the “Church.” In other words, according to the Synod, all the baptized (including Protestants) are already members of the Synodal Church. This is, of course, not true with respect to the Catholic Church. However, relatively little attention has been given to this rather monumental issue because the Synodal documents have treated it as an operating assumption, and directed debates to the more obvious matters such as ordination of women. Thus, they have sold us on seemingly “minor heresies” by getting us to focus on their debate of more egregious proposals.
Debating the merits of topics rather than condemning the entire process
Even worse, the entire Synodal process has been a blatant assault on the way in which the Catholic Church safeguards the truths entrusted to it by God. The preposterous premise of the Synod is that the Synodal Church determines its religious truths by listening to all of the baptized people (including non-Catholics) and allowing their consensus to define what the Church believes. The Synod tells us that the Holy Spirit guides and safeguards that process — this is pure blasphemy. To a large extent, though, Francis and the Synodal architects have persuaded us to focus on the topics under consideration rather than the process itself.
Remarkably, the International Theological Commission’s study from 2017 entitled “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church” essentially admitted that the Synodal process consisted of a blasphemous inversion of Catholicism:
Taking up the ecclesiological perspective of Vatican II, Pope Francis sketches the image of a synodal Church as ‘an inverted pyramid’ which comprises the People of God and the College of Bishops, one of whose members, the Successor of Peter, has a specific ministry of unity. Here the summit is below the base. ‘Synodality, as a constitutive element of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretative framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself . . . Jesus founded the Church by setting at her head the College of Apostles, in which the Apostle Peter is the ‘rock’ (cf. Matthew 16,18), the one who must ‘confirm’ his brethren in the faith (cf. Luke 22,32). But in this Church, as in an inverted pyramid, the top is located below the base. Consequently, those who exercise authority are called ‘ministers,’ because, in the original meaning of the word, they are the least of all.
For the past three years, Francis and his Synodal architects have tried to persuade the world to accept this “inverted pyramid” as the true model for their Synodal Church. This would not be so problematic if they also made it clear to the world that the Synodal Church is an ape church set up in opposition to the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, though, they have successfully duped many observers into believing that the Catholic Church is the same as the Synodal Church.
As bad as all of this is, it affords faithful Catholics an opportunity to honor God and the Catholic Church that He has given us. Rather than debating specific topics related to the Synod we can simply condemn the entire process as a blasphemous insult to God. When they effectively ask us whether we want “a lot of heretical blasphemy” or “just a little heretical blasphemy,” we have a right, and even a duty, to unambiguously tell them that under no circumstances can Catholics accept any heretical blasphemy. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!