At long last, after a three year run, the conciliar circus known as the Synod on Synodality has come to an unceremonious close with the publication of its Final Document, “For a Synodal Church.”
And we should care, why?
Yeah, I get it.
From 2013 to present, the shenanigans of the Bergoglian regime have increasingly taken on the appearance of a poorly performed Saturday Night Live skit. For many Catholics with eyes to see, the clown show in Rome has become tiresome and, frankly, boring. Even the name, Synod on Synodality, is like a joke that wrote itself, a laughable tautology that fittingly represents all that the church-of-man has to offer.
Even so, I spent way more time exploring, highlighting, and examining “For a Synodal Church” than I’m prepared to admit publicly.
At first, my motive for doing so was to, God willing, bring some clarity to persons of good will who as yet do not have eyes to see the conciliar church and the man at its head for what they truly are. As it is, however, my examination of the Final Document ended up requiring more effort than I had ever imagined it would.
Along the way, my view of the Synodal program and its relevance to faithful Catholics has changed. Initially, I largely dismissed it as a blundering bureaucratic effort on the part of conciliar churchmen laboring to make their dying institution and its vapid theology seem more relevant than it actually is.
Now, however, I recognize the synodality movement as a potentially critical chapter in the whole of salvation history. Perhaps, dear reader, if you choose to devote the considerable time necessary to follow this lengthy essay to its conclusion, your opinion of synodality will also change.
The first thing to know about the Final Document is that Francis left no room for confusion as to his intent with respect to the text.
In a Note issued to accompany its publication, he wrote:
The Final Document will form part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter (cf. EC 18 § 1; CCC 892), and as such I ask that it be accepted. It represents a form of exercise of the authentic teaching of the Bishop of Rome…
NB: For those who, in good faith, look to Francis as Holy Father, this removes all justification for downplaying the gravity of the document, or dismissing it as being something less than magisterial. In citing CCC 892, Francis is making it perfectly clear that, as papal magisterium, the faithful are to adhere to this text “with religious assent.”
[NOTE: Novus Ordo Watch provides an in-depth treatment of religious assent HERE.]
This requirement rests upon the belief that “Divine assistance is given to the Successors of the Apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter,” even when doing so in a non-infallible manner. (cf CCC 892)
The Final Document itself is at pains to make certain that the text is viewed as a product of Divine assistance, so much so that it paints Francis as a Christlike figure in his calling of the Synod:
Lake Tiberias is where it all began. Peter, Andrew, James and John had left the boat and the nets to follow Jesus … The synodal journey also began like this: we heard the invitation of Peter’s successor, and we accepted it; we set out with him and followed his lead.
Based upon Bergoglio’s innumerable faithless words and deeds, even the most committed of his supporters cannot help but shudder at the comparison.
In reviewing the Final Document, one will find a number of recurring themes offered in service to something far greater (to be identified later). Among the minor themes that stood out the most to me include conversion, mission, and evangelization, each one well and truly entangled with the others, while none are ever clearly defined.
Despite the ambiguity, one thing is entirely certain: When the Synod speaks of conversion, mission, and evangelization, it does not mean to do so according to the traditional understanding of what these words mean. This was to be expected: As Pope St. Pius X warned, the modernists “change the meaning of words and things.”
For example, when the Synod urges the work of “conversion,” it’s not talking about calling to conversion those outside the Church, urging them to enter her, such as took place on the day of Pentecost when the Apostles evangelized the Jews, a prime example of the Church carrying out her God-given mission. Rather, the Synodal version concerns the idea that it is the Catholic Church herself that stands in desperate need of evangelization and conversion.
This understanding of conversion, in fact, is the mission.
The Final Document expresses awareness that the call to mission is, at the same time, the call to the conversion of each local Church and of the whole Church, in line with the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (cf. EG 30).
NB: Despite the fact that the entire Synod of Bishops venture is rooted in the Second Vatican Council, in order to grasp what is being taught in the Final Document of this most recent production, it is necessary to realize that its proximate inspiration includes Bergoglio’s 2013 exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium.
As for the specific reference to EG 30, there we find:
Each particular Church, as a portion of the Catholic Church under the leadership of its bishop, is likewise called to missionary conversion. It is the primary subject of evangelization…
Once more, the key takeaway is that it is the Church that needs to hear the call to conversion.
Without going too deeply into Evangelii Gaudium, some may remember that one of the most highly criticized statements found in that text is the following:
Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live justified by the grace of God.
NB: The grace of justification is nothing other than sanctifying grace, the same that is restored in fallen man only by way of Baptism, i.e., “non-Christians” are not justified by the grace of God. As such, this statement in EG caused quite an uproar when it was published eleven years ago. One may also recall that Cardinal Burke’s reaction at the time was to call into question whether or not there is any magisterial intent behind EG.
The reason Burke took this position is obvious. If the statement was intended, with full knowledge on the part of its author, to be received as papal magisterium, this would serve as a strong indication that he does not possess the Catholic faith much less the Chair of Peter.
No such question about magisterial intent exists with respect to the Final Document for the Synod on Synodality, which offers a related and equally untenable statement:
In every place on earth, Christians live side by side with people who are not baptized yet serve God by practicing a different religion.
[Note: I’ve confirmed that the above is an accurate translation of the Italian original.]
Let’s take a moment to carefully consider exactly what is being taught in this statement.
Is it possible for a non-baptized person to serve God in some way? If we understand “serve” to mean following God’s will in some particular action, e.g., striving to live in accordance with the natural law, or practicing acts of charity, etc., then we might argue in the affirmative. Indeed, “the Grace of Faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 234)
Note, however, that the statement in question is very specific. It proposes that a non-baptized person serves God by practicing a different [read: false] religion.
Remember, if Francis truly is the Holy Roman Pontiff, then the “ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter” now teaches something that is utterly foreign to the Catholic faith, namely, the notion that those who offer praise and worship to false gods and idols (e.g., Pachamama, Buddha, the Allah of Islam, the many false gods of Hinduism, the false God of the Talmud, etc.), specifically by the practice of their false religion, “serve” God!
Clearly, this is a blatant offense against the First Commandment. Moreover, it is an error rooted in the modernist notion, explicitly condemned by Pope St. Pius X, “that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural,” with the latter referring to that which is Divine in nature as opposed to that which is inspired by diabolical forces. (cf Pascendi 8)
Returning to the threefold theme of the Synod’s Final Document, conversion, mission, and evangelization…
Let’s take a closer look at the latter.
A good Catholic definition of evangelization, one taken from the papal bull, Inscrutabili Divinae, by which Pope Gregory XV formally established the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide in 1662, is as follows:
The spread of Catholicism and the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic countries.
With the traditional definition of evangelization in mind, consider the nonsensical statement made in Evangelii Gaudium, a text that is foundational for synodality:
The Church does not evangelize unless she constantly lets herself be evangelized.
Yes, you read that correctly. The Church must let herself be evangelized. This naturally causes one to ask: How is the Church supposedly evangelized and by whom?
The Final Document tells us:
Synodality is the specific modus vivendi et operandi of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing mission.
Get it now?
No, of course you don’t. It’s not supposed to resonate with Catholic thinkers. Even so, it will make more sense momentarily.
Thus far, we’ve established that the Church, according to the Synodal program, is ever in need of being evangelized. This work of evangelization is ordered toward the “missionary conversion” of the Church herself.
At the conclusion, we’ll consider into what the Church is called to convert. For now, the important point made in the Final Document is that this work of evangelization unto missionary conversion is to be carried out by “all the People of God.”
OK, but who exactly comprises all the People of God? The Synod tells us:
By virtue of Baptism, women and men have equal dignity as members of the People of God … The whole People of God is an agent of the proclamation of the Gospel. Every baptized person is called to be a protagonist of mission since we are all missionary disciples. For this reason, the synodal journey directs us towards a full and visible unity of Christians, as the presence of delegates of other Christian traditions testifies.
You see, in the synodal church, the heretics and schismatics are as much the People of God as the Catholics in the pews. And what’s more, every single one of them is called to take part in the “missionary conversion” of the Church!
This should come as little surprise given that the Synod on Synodality is a direct fruit of the Council. Readers may recall a previous post in this space wherein we noted how the Council slyly refers to the heretics and schismatics as “the Christian people” and “the faithful,” even to the point of making them the focus of the proposed liturgical reform.
With non-Catholics providing the impetus for changing the Mass, it only makes sense that they should play a major role in changing the Church. The Final Document goes on:
The anointing by the Holy Spirit received at Baptism enables all believers to possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. We refer to this as the sensus fidei … The sensus fidei aims at reaching a consensus of the faithful … All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism. Therefore, as well as constituting the basis of synodality, Baptism is also the foundation of ecumenism … This is the reason why the Church is certain that the holy People of God cannot err in matters of belief.
I object to the notion that “the sensus fidei aims at reaching a consensus of the faithful,” a statement taken from a 2014 text produced by the Vatican’s International Theological Commission called, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church.
Implied in this statement is the idea that the sensus fidei is an active agent, when in reality it is better understood as a passive charism such as Cardinal Charles Journet described it in 1964:
[Sensus fidei] is neither a teaching nor a magisterium, but only the felt conviction of a truth.
The gravity of the Synod’s proposition, wherein the sensus fidei is broadened to include those outside the Church, cannot be overstated. This allegedly magisterial text is declaring that manifest heretics who, by definition, reject the teaching authority of the Church, are somehow an unerring source of truth, and what’s more, they are called to evangelize the Church. The mere suggestion is entirely damnable.
About the sensus fidei, Journet further wrote:
The believer, albeit in a state of grace, although fervent, can err, can mix into his faith data or feelings foreign to it. Unless enlightened as the Apostles were, he needs to be helped, directed, judged by the divinely assisted magisterium.
NB: The sensus fidei properly understood – such as it exists even among faithful Catholics who are in a state of grace – is ever reliant upon, and subject to, the sacred Magisterium.
So, where did the Synod ever get the idea that those who refuse and reject said Magisterium somehow participate in the sensus fidei such that they cannot err in matters of belief?
Why, the Council, of course.
In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, the supernatural sense of faith is expanded to include the heretics, albeit in a stealthy manner:
The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. (LG 12)
Remember, when the Council speaks of “the faithful,” it is not referring to Catholics alone but rather does it mean to include all of the Baptized, those who (in the words of LG 12) are “anointed as they are by the Holy One.”
Note as well that LG 15 is more explicit still. Speaking very specifically of the heretics and schismatics, it states:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian … They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
Is this consecration by Baptism not the same anointing by the Holy One that endows one with supernatural discernment, aka the sensus fidei?
Indeed it is. The aforementioned International Theological Commission text, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church, cites LG 15 in making the very direct, unambiguous claim that the heretics not only possess the sensus fidei, but also that the Church must take heed of their holy insights. It states:
A certain type of sensus fidei can exist in ‘the baptised who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety’. The Catholic Church therefore needs to be attentive to what the Spirit may be saying to her by means of believers in the churches and ecclesial communities not fully in communion with her.
A willingness to allow herself to be evangelized by heretics unto “missionary conversion” lies at the very heart of Synodality. At the same time, the Synod states:
The Synodal Church in action … is sustained by the ministry of the Bishops in communion amongst themselves and with the Bishop of Rome … The Successor of Peter has a unique role in safeguarding the deposit of faith and of morals, ensuring that synodal processes are geared towards unity and witness.
This presents an obvious problem. If the heretics and their alleged sensus fidei are to be granted an active role in converting the Church, doesn’t the papacy stand out as an elephant in the room just trumpeting for attention if not outright elimination?
Not to worry, the Synod on Synodality recognized that there is a “need to find a form of exercise of the [papal] Primacy that opens itself up to a new situation, [it] is a fundamental challenge both for a missionary synodal Church and for Christian unity.”
With this in mind, the Synod proposed “a rereading or an official commentary on the dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council on primacy, a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Pope.”
Not even the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I can stand in the way of Synodality!
Can it get worse?
Yes, it can, and it does. Consider the following from the Final Document [with emphasis added.]
– Dialogue, encounter and exchange of gifts, typical of a synodal Church, are calls to open out to relations with other religious traditions…
– The plurality of religions and cultures, the diversity of spiritual and theological traditions, the variety of the gifts of the Spirit … can make a particular and indispensable contribution to completing our common task.
– Catholic schools and universities play an important role in the dialogue between faith and culture … When inspired by intercultural and interreligious dialogue, their educational engagement is also valued by those of other religious traditions as a form of human development.
– The regular hosting of ecclesial assemblies at all levels is also encouraged. Without limiting consultation to members of the Catholic Church, these gatherings should be open to listening to the contributions from other Churches and Christian Communions. Attention should also be paid to other religions in the territory.
– A synodal Church commits itself to walk this path alongside the believers of other religions and people of other beliefs wherever it lives. It freely shares the joy of the Gospel and gratefully receives their respective gifts.
– Synodality enables concretely the involvement of all (the holy People of God) and the ministry of some (the College of Bishops) in the decision-making process concerning the mission of the Church. We propose that discernment may include, in a manner appropriate to the diversity of contexts, spaces for listening and dialogue with other Christians and representatives of other religions.
For those who are still with me, let’s now see if we can pull it all together.
With Satan as its remote head, it seems that the conciliar church is perhaps best understood as a seminal version of what will eventually blossom into the synodal church, provided of course that Our Lord does not see fit to intervene first.
As of this moment, the seed introduced by the Council is set to undergo a process of germination that involves what the conciliar church describes as conversion, mission, and evangelization. As addressed in the Synod on Synodality’s Final Document, this work of evangelization is the mission, and the purpose of the mission is conversion, and the subject of conversion is the conciliar church itself.
This evangelizing mission requires the conciliar church to listen to, and to gratefully receive, the input and the “gifts” of all peoples – Catholics, heretics, heathens, Jews, Muslims, etc. – each one having something of value to contribute toward the desired conversion.
Listening is absolutely central to the synodal mission; it’s a crucial part of the conciliar church constantly letting herself be evangelized, so much so that the requirement of listening is mentioned in the Final Document more than two dozen times.
There is as yet one more source of truth and wisdom to which the church must listen, one that we’ve yet to mention, namely, nature itself. The Final Document states:
Synodality and integral ecology both take on the character of relationality and insist upon us nurturing what binds us together.
What binds all the people together?
The Catholic answer is membership in the Holy Catholic Church wherein individual believers are unified in faith, in charity, and in governance as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the true vine and Source of unity.
Recall, by contrast, the Amazonian Synod and the answer provided by its Instrumentum Laboris (working document) which encouraged “mutual listening to peoples and nature,” saying that the Church must “listen to the cry of Mother Earth.”
To this end, the text exhorted all “to seek common ground through periodic meetings with representatives of other religions in order to work together for the care for our common home.”
The text went on to make plain that this eco-evangelical effort is part and parcel of synodality:
Thus a Church called to be ever more synodal begins by listening to the peoples and to the earth … [It is a church that] wants to learn, dialogue and respond with hope and joy to the signs of the times … The process of conversion to which the Church is called involves unlearning, learning and relearning
At the time, in a post dated June 21, 2019, I observed:
Though a topic of its own, I wish to mention here that this focus on “nature, Mother Earth, and the planet” is not an end unto itself; rather, it is part and parcel of the effort to bring about a One World Religion as expediently as possible in service to its counterpart, a One World Government.
The expedience of earth worship in this matter is based upon the reality that this planet is, as Bergoglio so often likes to state, our “common (temporal) home.” Thanks to this point of commonality among men, there is no more efficient way to give birth to a One World Religion than to make of the earth a divine oracle as noted above. It is as such that it is peddled to the unwary as the principle of religious unity that binds all of humankind, irrespective of any particular confession.
The time to consider that topic of its own and what it portends is now.
Should God allow, the Synod on Synodality is ordered toward germinating the seed produced at Vatican II unto the conversion of the conciliar church, that it might blossom into the One World Religion, the same that will facilitate the rise of the One World Government over which the Antichrist will come to reign.
