The “Synodality” Scam
Fatima Perspectives #1252
In the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI invented the novelty of the “universal Synod,” not part of the Church’s divine constitution but a merely human contrivance involving a select group of bishops meeting regularly in Rome to discuss and debate matters of doctrine and discipline — as if the Church were a kind of parliamentary democracy.
Even Pope Francis, in Episcopalis Communio (EC), adverts to Pope Paul’s admission that his invention, “like every human institution, could be further improved with the passage of time.” Yet, in his address on the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul’s invention, Francis smuggles in the idea that “Synodality, as a constitutive element of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretive framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself.”
By a mere verbal sleight of hand, Francis has turned a human invention into “a constitutive element” of the Church, even though it did not exist for the first 1,965 years of the Church’s history. Worse, in EC he announces his “commitment to build a synodal Church” and declares: “I am persuaded that in a synodal Church, greater light can be shed on the exercise of the Petrine primacy.”
Upon this synod Francis will build his church. Literally. That is, he actually believes he has the power to construct an entirely new model of the Church based on a human invention that did not even exist until 1965. To recall his astonishing “dream” as enunciated in Evangelii Gaudium:
“I dream of a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.”
But, of course, it is all a rhetorical ruse, another empty neologism to join all the others that have proliferated since the Council: e.g., “collegiality,” “dialogue,” “interreligious dialogue,” “ecumenism,” the “new evangelization,” and so on ad nauseam. And into these empty vessels is poured the exercise of raw power in service of the same revolution that has convulsed the Church for more than half a century, a revolution Dr. Douglas Farrow rightly describes as a “conquest,” which “[i]f it is not stopped, the gates of Hades will prevail against the Church, which will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves.”
In this case, the empty vessel of “synodality” is filled with the exercise of power by none other than Francis. For as anyone who is not willfully blind can see, the Roman synods he directs are mere stage shows in which the bishops assembled are extras in a play whose entire script has been written long before the curtain rises. Hence, in a recent interview with Edward Pentin, Bishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney revealed, in so many words, that the entire “youth Synod” was a sham designed to ram through a Final Document most of the Synod Fathers could not even read because it was provided only in Italian and only at the Synod’s conclusion: “Yes, it [the Final Document] was read so fast the translators struggled to keep up, and the fathers could not take notes in their own language. So, we were not always sure what we were being asked to vote Yes or No to.”
The Final Document, written by Francis’ handpicked draftsmen, is pervaded with the notion of “synodality” even though, as Bishop Fisher notes, “it wasn’t in the working document, it wasn’t in the general assembly discussions, it wasn’t in the language-group discussions, it wasn’t in the reports from the small groups — it just appeared, as if from nowhere, in the draft final document.” As Fisher rightly complained, the Synod Fathers were forced into “voting on it in a matter of minutes, and under terrible pressure of time, with no opportunity for further amendments. To me, that’s not the way to make doctrine.”
No, but it is the way for Francis to “make doctrine” — or rather, to pretend to make doctrine. For as the First Vatican Council solemnly declared, the Pope has no such power:
“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
In EC Francis has the audacity to declare that the documents he has force-fed the participants in his sham synods are “the outcome of the working of the Spirit…” (¶ 5). But at this point in the post-conciliar debacle, the faithful know better. They know they are being defrauded yet again, and that they are living in the time of “false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)
Whoever thinks this assessment is beyond the pale need only look at the state of the Church today and ask himself honestly whether this is the work of good shepherds. The honest answer should be that given by Dr. Farrow: that what we are witnessing is an attempted “conquest” of the Church which, were it successful, would mean that the Church “will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves.”
The revolution will fail, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph. The only question is how long the Church will have to suffer the indignities heaped upon her by those who abuse the power with which God has entrusted them. Such is the mystery of iniquity prophesied in the Third Secret of Fatima.