The Key to Understanding the Synod: “It Is a Continuation of Vatican II”

Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/27/2024 9:41:15 AM PST by ebb tide

Above: Cardinal Wilton Gregory and Fr. Vimal Tirimanna of Sri Lanka. (CNS/Vatican Media) 

Fifty years ago, in November of 1974, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre penned a brief but powerful Declaration — a manifesto against “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”

“This Reformation,” he wrote (alluding to the Protestant revolt), “born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of this historic text, the current General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fr. Davide Pagliarani, together with his two chief assistants, issued a statement in which they observe that the same “Reformation” which Archbishop Lefebvre so fiercely denounced “is still underway and continues to produce its fruits. Today, through synodality, we are witnessing the complete reversal of the very structure of the Church. The transmission of the Divine Truths, received from the Incarnate Word, is being replaced by a system, of man’s elaboration, in which God Himself no longer has a place, and in which the spirit of man breathes and no longer the spirit of the Holy Ghost. This is a diabolical reversal of the Gospel itself” (emphasis added).

Some would no doubt dismiss such talk of a “complete reversal of the very structure of the Church” as traditionalist exaggeration, but for those who have been paying close attention, this is precisely the sort of language we have been hearing from the architects of synodality themselves all throughout the Synod on Synodality (2021-2024), which concluded last month.[1]

“If we want to speak of a synodal Church,” Pope Francis said three years ago, “we cannot remain satisfied with appearances alone; we need content, means and structures that can facilitate dialogue and interaction within the People of God, especially between priests and laity. …This will require changing certain overly vertical, distorted and partial visions of the Church, the priestly ministry, the role of the laity, ecclesial responsibilities, roles of governance and so forth.”

During the same address, he also quoted Fr. Yves Congar (d. 1995), a progressive Dominican theologian at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and co-founder of the heterodox journal Concilium, who “once said: ‘There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church’ (True and False Reform in the Church).”

“It Is a Continuation of Vatican II”

Arguably the best summation of the Synod, however, was given last year by Fr. Vimal Tirimanna, C.Ss.R., a Sri Lankan theologian and Synod delegate, who said during a press briefing: “This synodal process is not a private agenda of Pope Francis; it is a continuation of Vatican II. Of course, [the] Church had so many other things to face during the last five decades or so, but now, the Vatican II theology — rather, the ecclesiology of Vatican II — is being revived” (emphasis added).

Commenting on the seating arrangement during the Synod, Fr. Tirimanna likewise observed that “[t]he round tables themselves,” at which delegates sat without distinction in the Paul VI Audience Hall, “are a symbol of the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium,” the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. And interestingly, the phrase “ecclesiology of Vatican II” is found in Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church (SLMC), a document produced by the Vatican’s International Theological Commission in 2018. It has been a foundational text throughout the synodal process and is quoted multiple times in the final document, which was approved by delegates and issued by Pope Francis this year — “an authoritative guide” which forms “part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter,” according to Francis.[2]

As I have discussed in past articles (here and here), the goal of creating “a different Church” based on “the ecclesiology of Vatican II” has been the overarching narrative promoted by Synod officials and documents over the past three years. The following paragraph from the final document confirms this fact:

Rooted in the Tradition of the Church, the entire synodal journey took place in the light of the conciliar magisterium. The Second Vatican Council was indeed like a seed thrown onto the field of the world and the Church. … The Synod 2021-2024 continues to draw upon the energy of that seed and develop its potential. The synodal journey is indeed putting into practice what the Council taught about the Church as Mystery and Church as People of God, called to holiness through continual conversion that comes from listening to the Gospel. In this sense, the synodal journey constitutes an authentic further act of reception of the Council, thus deepening its inspiration and reinvigorating its prophetic force for today’s world” (FD, 5, emphasis added).

This is the key to understanding the Synod, which, in many ways, was a continuation of the battle between what attorney and author Christopher Ferrara has called “the party of Catholic Tradition on the one hand, in continuity with all that the Church has handed down in her doctrine and practice through the centuries … and, on the other hand, the party of innovation, modernization, liberalization, adaptation, indeed revolution in the Church.”[3]

This is the battle that was waged during the Council, and it continues in the Church today. Let us briefly consider a few examples and draw some connections between the Council and the Synod.

Emphasis Shift in Ecclesiology

During Vatican II, the “party of innovation” was successful in causing a significant emphasis shift in ecclesiology, the branch of theology that deals with the nature and constitution of the Church. Fr. Tirimanna illustrated the shift quite well when he celebrated the seating arrangement of Synod delegates as representing “a concentric Church, not a pyramidal Church.”

Prior to the Council, emphasis was traditionally placed on the Church’s sacred hierarchy and the dignity of those who belong to it. Pope Pius XII, for example, taught in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943): “That those who exercise sacred power in this Body are its chief members must be maintained uncompromisingly,” and further, “Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the universal Church” and “should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles…” (MCC, 17, 42).

“At the same time,” he said, “when the Fathers of the Church sing the praises of this Mystical Body of Christ … they are thinking not only of those who have received Holy Orders, but of” those in religious life and the laity, as well. “Indeed, let this be clearly understood, especially in our days, [that] fathers and mothers of families, those who are godparents through Baptism, and in particular those members of the laity who collaborate with the ecclesiastical hierarchy in spreading the Kingdom of the Divine Redeemer occupy an honorable, if often a lowly, place in the Christian community…” (MCC, 17).

Thus, Pius XII honored all the members of the Church while emphasizing the special dignity and role of the hierarchy, in accord with St. Ignatius of Antioch’s ancient teaching (ca. A.D. 110): “Apart from these [bishops, priests, and deacons], there is no Church” (Epistle to the Trallians, 3).

The “ecclesiology of Vatican II,” on the other hand, “stresses the common dignity and mission of all the baptized, in exercising the variety and ordered richness of their charisms, their vocations and their ministries” (SLMC, 6).

“Having set forth the functions of the hierarchy,” begins the fourth chapter of Lumen Gentium, “the Sacred Council gladly turns its attention to the state of those faithful called the laity. Everything that has been said above concerning the People of God [second chapter of LG] is intended for the laity, religious and clergy alike. But there are certain things which pertain in a special way to the laity, both men and women, by reason of their condition and mission. Due to the special circumstances of our time,” which are not specified, “the foundations of this doctrine must be more thoroughly examined” (LG, 30).

While Lumen Gentium does note that the common priesthood of the faithful differs from the ministerial priesthood “in essence and not only in degree,” it also emphasizes that they “are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ” (LG, 10).

“Let the spiritual shepherds recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibility of the laity in the Church,” the document says. “Let them willingly employ their prudent advice. Let them confidently assign duties to them in the service of the Church, allowing them freedom and room for action. Further, let them encourage lay people so that they may undertake tasks on their own initiative. Attentively in Christ, let them consider with fatherly love the projects, suggestions and desires proposed by the laity” (LG, 37).

In some ways, these exhortations are good and can lead to positive lay collaboration with the hierarchy. However, they can also be used by the “party of innovation” as a mandate for lay prominence (if not dominance), which was a major topic throughout the Synod and is promoted in the final document:

“The lay faithful, both men and women, should be given greater opportunities for participation, also exploring new forms of service and ministry in response to the pastoral needs of our time in a spirit of collaboration and differentiated co-responsibility,” including “increased participation of laymen and laywomen in Church discernment processes and all phases of decision-making processes (drafting, making and confirming decisions)….” (FD, 77)

While the final document says “the authority of the Bishop, of the Episcopal College and of the Bishop of Rome in regard to decision-taking is inviolable,” it also asserts that such authority “is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies,” going so far as to call for “a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective, clarifying the distinction and relation between consultation and deliberation and shedding light on the responsibilities of those who play different roles in the decision-making process” (FD, 92).

If consulting and heeding the laity becomes mandatory for bishops in regard to governing their dioceses, this would certainly qualify as a revolution in ecclesiology.

Another Shift: From Conversion to Dialogue

Another seismic shift that occurred during the Council, which was very apparent throughout the Synod, involves the very definition of the Church and her stance toward non-Catholics.

Whereas Pius XII reiterated Catholic dogma that the “true Church of Jesus Christ … is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church” (MCC, 13), Lumen Gentium introduced a novel distinction between “the one Church of Christ” and “the Catholic Church,” stating that the former “subsists in” the latter (LG, 8). While it is possible to give this phrase an orthodox meaning (with the aid of significant and somewhat labored nuance), it is also true that the ambiguity has led many to embrace the error that the “Church of Christ” is somehow larger and more encompassing than the Catholic Church.

In the same vein, Lumen Gentium outlines the novel teaching that the Church is somehow “linked with” all manner of non-Catholics (LG, 15), the latter being “related in various ways to the people of God” (LG, 16): other Christians, Jews, Muslims, “those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God,” and even “those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God” (“without blame,” despite the contrary teaching of Romans 1:18-20 and Vatican I’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith, Ch. 2, art. 1).

When such novelties are coupled with certain statements found in Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) and Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions), the impression is given that the Church no longer views non-Catholics as “erring, and driving into error” (2 Tim. 3:13), but rather as fellow travelers who are “linked with” the Church “in various ways.” Here are a few examples:

• “… some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.” (UR, 3)

• “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [i.e., heretical and schismatic sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” (UR, 3)

• “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” (NA, 2)

• “The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.” (NA, 2)

The Council itself warns against the deception “of the evil one” for non-Christians (LG, 16) and that “[w]hosoever … knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (LG, 14). It says that non-Catholics cannot “benefit fully from the means of salvation” which is “only through Christ’s Catholic Church” (UR, 3). Paul VI also made clear during the Council that the purpose of dialogue is conversion (Ecclesiam Suam, 68) and later that “the Church is necessary for salvation” (Credo, 23). Nevertheless, thanks to the “party of innovation” the emphasis shift placed dialogue in opposition to conversion, minimizing the call to the world to embrace the Catholic Faith as the sole means of salvation. Sadly, the Synod exclusively promoted this false dialogue from the beginning.

Take, for example, the official Synod handbook (2021), which insisted that “no one — no matter their religious affiliation — should be excluded from sharing their perspective and experiences [during the consultation phase], insofar as they want to help the Church on her synodal journey of seeking what is good and true.” The Working Document for the Continental Stage (2022) likewise affirmed: “A synodal process is incomplete without meeting brothers and sisters from other confessions, sharing and dialogue with them, and engaging in common actions” (DCS, 22).

We find similar language in the final document issued this year:

• “Being in the world and for the world, [the People of God] walk together with all the peoples of the earth, in dialogue with their religions and their cultures, recognising in them the seeds of the Word [a phrase found in the Conciliar decree Ad Gentes],[4] journeying towards the Kingdom.” (FD, 17)

• “We reaffirm the commitment of the Catholic Church to continue and intensify the ecumenical journey with other Christians, by virtue of our common Baptism and in response to the call to live together the communion and unity among disciples for whom Christ prayed at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 17:20-26).” (FD, 40)

• “In every place on earth, Christians live side by side with people who are not baptized yet serve God by practicing a different religion [similar to Francis’s false claim, “All religions are a path to God”]. We pray solemnly for them in the liturgy of Good Friday and we strive together with them to build a better world, imploring the one God to free the world from the evils that afflict it.” (FD, 41)

• “The plurality of religions and cultures … are an invitation to each person to confront his or her own unconscious bias, resist the temptation of being at the center, and open oneself to the acceptance of other perspectives.” (FD, 42)

The phrase “plurality of religions” is reminiscent of the Document on Human Fraternity (DHF) — a document Pope Francis has said “does not move one millimetre away from the Second Vatican Council” (see here for analysis) — and its false claim that “[t]he pluralism and the diversity of religions … are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” The Synod’s final document recalls the signing of DHF by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam in 2019 and says, “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” (FD, 123).

All of this stands in stark contrast to the Church’s traditional emphasis on the need for non-Catholics to convert in order to be saved. This is the focus of the traditional Good Friday prayers, the contents of which are radically different in the Missal of Paul VI (1970).

As for “journeying towards the Kingdom,” the Roman Catechism (1566) explains that every time we pray the Our Father, we are asking “God that the kingdom of Christ, that is, His Church, may be enlarged; that Jews and infidels may embrace the faith of Christ and the knowledge of the true God; that schismatics and heretics may return to soundness of mind, and to the communion of the Church of God which they have deserted; and that thus may be fulfilled and realized the words of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Isaias: Enlarge the place of thy tent [Isa. 54:2],”[5] which ironically was the Scriptural theme of the Working Document for the Continental Stage of the Synod.

Needless to say, the language found in the Roman Catechism is not replicated in any of the Synod texts produced over the past three years, nor do those texts provide any reminders that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 10).

“Permanent Revolution”

The term “revolution” denotes the repudiation and replacement of something old with something new. In various ways and to varying degrees, this is what happened during Vatican II. In the words of Fr. Congar, “the Church has peacefully undergone its October Revolution” (Le Concile au jour le jour: deuxième session, 1964).

As with all revolutions, however, there are always some who want to push the envelope further, and the same is true in the Church. Examples from the Synod include the call for a female diaconate (which remains on the table — see FD, 60) and the acceptance of “alternative lifestyles” associated with the “LGBT” acronym (vaguely alluded to in FD, 50), both of which obviously go beyond the letter of Vatican II. And yet, they are consistent with the radical spirit that animates “the party of innovation, modernization, liberalization, adaptation, indeed revolution in the Church.”

Two years ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò observed that “the intolerable excesses that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has indulged in for almost ten years are simply the coherent application in the ecclesial sphere of the principle of permanent revolution theorized in the social sphere by Marx, Engels, and Trotsky. The idea of ‘permanent revolution’ arises from the observation of the ideologues of Bolshevism that the proletariat was not so enthusiastic about communist methods and that, if they wanted to spread class struggle throughout the world, it was necessary to force it by means of authority and make it irreversible: because only in the Revolution does the χάος [chaos] occur that drives the subversive action against the social order.”

Viganò went on to say on the time: “This is why the Synod on Synodality is necessary, that is, the establishment of a sort of ‘permanent Council,’ or rather a ‘permanent aggiornamento’ [see DCS, 101] which makes itself the promoter of supposed instances of the base — the ecclesial version of the proletariat — such as the female diaconate and the ‘radical inclusion’ of couples who are divorced and remarried, cohabiting couples, polygamists, and homosexual couples with adopted children who adhere to the LGBTQ movement.”

Ultimately, we must keep in mind these wise observations made by Professor Roberto de Mattei in 2018:

The pontificate of Pope Francis certainly represents a leap forward in the process of the Church’s auto-demolition, following the Second Vatican Council. However, this is only a stage, the last one of this process: we could say that it represents its ripe fruit.

The essence of the Second Vatican Council was the triumph of pastoral theology over doctrine, the transformation of pastoral theology into a theology of praxis, the application of the philosophy of Marxist practice to the life of the Church. For the Communists, the true philosopher is not Karl Marx, the Revolution’s theorist, but Lenin who carried out the Revolution, proving Marx’s thought. For Neo-Modernists, the true theologian is not Karl Rahner, the principal ideologue of the revolution in the Church, but Pope Francis, who is fulfilling this revolution, putting Rahner’s thought into pastoral practice. There is no rupture, therefore, between the Second Vatican Council and Pope Francis, but historical continuity. Pope Francis represents Vatican II in action (Emphasis added).

I would simply add that the Synod on Synodality, like Pope Francis, represents Vatican II in action — that is, some of its letter and certainly its revolutionary spirit.

The answer to this “permanent revolution” in the Church was summed up nicely by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, one of the Synod Fathers, last year: “God does not need us to give His Word an update or the Church an upgrade. Instead of listening to ‘human precepts and doctrines’ (Col. 2:22), we are to adhere to ‘the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness’ (1 Tim. 6:3). Let us forsake the vain project of using our limited human logic to ‘reform’ God’s word in accord with alleged paradigm shifts. We are the ones who need to reform and conform to God.”[6]

Editor’s note: A shorter version of this article appears in the November-December 2024 issue of Inside the Vatican magazine.

[1] “Concluded” relatively speaking, that is, since according to the final document (n. 9): “The synodal process does not conclude with the end of the current Assembly of the Synod of Bishops [Oct. 2024] but also includes the implementation phase. As members of the Assembly and as synodal missionaries within the communities from which we come, we feel it is our responsibility to promote this process.”

[2] In his official Note intended to accompany the final document, Pope Francis states: “The local Churches and Church groupings are now required to implement, in the various contexts, the authoritative indications contained in the Document, through processes of discernment and decision-making envisaged by law and by the Document itself.” And furthermore: “The task of accompanying the ‘implementation phase’ of the synodal journey, at the basis of the guidelines offered by the Final Document, is entrusted to the General Secretariat of the Synod together with the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia (cf. EC 19-21).”

[3] Christopher A. Ferrara, False Friends of Fatima (Pound Ridge: Good Counsel Publications, 2012), p. 11.

[4] Concerning this phrase, Professor Romano Amerio (d. 1997) explains, “It is true that the Fathers of the early centuries, such as Justin Martyr and the Alexandrian writers, taught that the seed of the Word [i.e., Christ Himself; cf. John 1] had been scattered abroad among the human race; but they also taught that man’s religious insights had been darkened by the effects of original sin, and even by evil spirits [i.e., demons] who, as St. Augustine says, tempted man to adore them or to adore other mere mortals.” (Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century [Kansas City: Sarto House, 1996], pp. 572-573). He goes on to note that the early Church Fathers who employed the concept of “seeds of the Word” did not do so in order to affirm paganism as intrinsically good. St. Justin Martyr (d. ca. A.D. 165), for example, used the phrase “seeds of truth” in his First Apology (Ch. 44), but in the context of arguing that all men are ultimately dependent upon Divine Revelation.

[5] Catechism of the Council of Trent (Gastonia: TAN Books, 2017), pp. 565-566.

[6] Last week, His Eminence published a summary of “seven sins against the Holy Spirit” with reference to the Synod, which is well worth reading.

Hey! FReepers!
Help Fill The Tank!
How About It? Huh?
It Ain't Askin' Too Much
Ya Know....

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.

The Council itself warns against the deception “of the evil one” for non-Christians (LG, 16) and that “[w]hosoever … knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (LG, 14). It says that non-Catholics cannot “benefit fully from the means of salvation” which is “only through Christ’s Catholic Church” (UR, 3). Paul VI also made clear during the Council that the purpose of dialogue is conversion (Ecclesiam Suam, 68) and later that “the Church is necessary for salvation” (Credo, 23). Nevertheless, thanks to the “party of innovation” the emphasis shift placed dialogue in opposition to conversion, minimizing the call to the world to embrace the Catholic Faith as the sole means of salvation. Sadly, the Synod exclusively promoted this false dialogue from the beginning.

1 posted on 11/27/2024 9:41:15 AM PST by ebb tide

To: Al Hitan; Fedora; irishjuggler; Jaded; kalee; markomalley; miele man; Mrs. Don-o; ...

2 posted on 11/27/2024 9:41:56 AM PST by ebb tide ("The Spirit of Vatican II" is nothing more than a wicked "ideology" of the modernists.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson