A New “Synodal Church” Undermines the Catholic Church

Thank God that men like Bishop Schneider are willing to stand up and defend the Church when it is attacked from the highest quarters!

From The Catholic Thing

By His Lordship Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana

Many questions have arisen about the current “synodal process,” and therefore in order to be of service to Christ’s flock, I would like to address some important points of the Instrumentum Laboris for the October 2023 Session of the Synod on Synodality. This Working Document or Instrumentum appears to undermine the Divine constitution and the Apostolic character of the life and mission of the Catholic Church, substituting for them an invented “synodal church,” inspired predominantly by Protestant, social and anthropocentric categories. Below are several principal areas of concern.

The Divine constitution of the Church is undermined.

Episcopal authority is undermined by the Instrumentum Laboris in two principal ways. First, by demanding a “greater involvement of all the Faithful and thus a ‘less exclusive’ exercise of the Bishops’ role” (B 2.5, c), and by fostering a “community discernment process” (B 3.2, 7). Second, by making episcopal authority dependent on and accountable to non-hierarchical advisory bodies, following secular institutions. (See B 3.3.8)

Papal authority is undermined in two principal ways. First, by suggesting that “the convergence of several groups of local Churches (Particular Councils, Episcopal Conferences, etc.) on the same issue” should “commit the Bishop of Rome to address it at the level of the universal Church.” (B 3.4) Second, by suggesting that “local institutions” in different regions may “adopt different approaches” than the Bishop of Rome, which he ought to accept. (B 3.4.)

• But the following Magisterial affirmation remains valid: “The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism.”[i]

The hierarchical structure of the Church is undermined by an ambiguous use of the word “ministry,” which is unhelpfully attributed to both the ordained and the non-ordained, as when it attempts “to foster an understanding of ministries that is not reduced to ordained Ministry.” (B 2.4, 6)[ii]

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “It must be recognised that language becomes uncertain, confused, and therefore not useful for expressing the doctrine of the faith, whenever, in any way, the difference ‘of essence and not only of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is blurred.”[iii] “Only in virtue of Sacred Ordination does it [ministry] obtain that fullness and univocity of meaning that tradition has always attributed to it.”[iv]

The hierarchical structure of the Church is also undermined by imposing “facilitators” who will “accompany communities. . .at all levels of ecclesial life” (n. 42); and by making the following a priority: “call[ing] for the issue of women’s participation in governance, decision-making, mission and ministries at all levels of the Church.” (B 2.3. 3)

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “it will also be necessary to ensure that at every level – in language, in teaching, in pastoral practice, in governance choices – the sacred ministry is presented in its ontological specificity, which does not allow fragmentation or undue appropriation.”[v]

The unity of the sacrament of Holy Order is undermined by “calling” the Church to “question” the diaconal ordination of women: “call for the question of women’s inclusion in the diaconate to be considered.” (B 2.3, 4)

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” and because the Sacrament of Ordination is one, women cannot be sacramentally ordained at all.[vi]

Divinely revealed moral law is undermined in three principal ways.

First, there are grave omissions by the absence of any discussion of sin, the Ten Commandments, and the virtue of chastity.

Second, the so-called LGBTQ movement is implicitly promoted, which includes promoting homosexual activity and the current world-wide totalitarian “gender ideology.” Thus, the Instrumentum Laboris laments “those who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as. . .LGBTQ+ Catholics” (B 1.2 a); and it calls the Church “to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example. . .LGBTQ+ people, etc.” (B 1.2, 6)

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. . . .The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.”[vii]

Third, immorality regarding marriage is implicitly promoted, when the document laments those “who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as the divorced and remarried, people in polygamous marriages” (B 1.2 a); and when it calls the Church “to welcome those who feel excluded. . .because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, etc.” (B 1.2, 6)

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “As far as the sexual sphere is concerned, we know the firm position [Jesus Christ] took in defense of the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Mt 19:3-9) and the condemnation pronounced also against simple adultery of the heart (cf. Mt 5:27-28). . . .[I]s it realistic to imagine a ‘permissive’ Christ in the field of married life, in matters of abortion, pre-marital, extra-marital or homosexual sexual relations? Certainly, the primitive Christian community, taught by those who had known Christ personally, was not permissive. . .the numerous passages in the Pauline letters that touch on this matter (cf. Rom 1:26 ff; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19). . .are certainly not lacking in clarity and rigor. And they are words inspired from above. They remain normative for the Church of all times.”[viii]

 “[I]t is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life). . .the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” (Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, 251)[ix]

The Life and Mission of the Church is undermined.

The Apostolic and supernatural character of the life and mission of the Church is undermined in three principal ways.

First, there are grave omissions by the absence of a discussion of Eucharistic adoration, the Cross of Christ, and man’s final end in eternity.

Second, there is a worldly bureaucratization of the Church, the promotion of a kind of a neo-Pelagian heresy of action through an increase of structures and meeting sessions, with the key words “consensus-building” and “decision-making” used as if the Church were a human-focused business.

Third, there is a subjectivistic “pentecostalization” of the life of the Church by presumptuously attributing to human dialogue, non-official prayers, and mutual exchange of views a vague spiritual quality such as the “conversation in the Spirit,” (cf. nos. 32-42) “called by the Holy Spirit.” “protagonism of the Spirit.”

• But the following Magisterial affirmations remain valid: “The Church ‘is, by its very nature, a reality different from mere human societies’ and that, therefore, ‘it is necessary to affirm that the mentality and praxis existing in certain cultural, socio-political currents of our time cannot be automatically transferred to the Church itself.’”[x]

Other grave harms are committed.

First, the apostolic law of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church is undermined by calling for “a reflection be opened concerning the discipline on access to the Priesthood for married men, at least in some areas.” (B 2.4, 9)

Second, a materialistic ideology of ecology is promoted by prioritizing “caring for the common home” (n. 4), and by claims that “climate change, calls for the commitment of the whole human family. Working together to care for our common home.” (B 1.1. b)

• But the following Magisterial affirmation remain valid: “If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. . . . Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others.”[xi]

 Conclusion

The Instrumentum Laboris for the October 2023 Session of the Synod on Synodality essentially promotes, albeit in a more sophisticated manner, the same heterodox ideas put forward by the German Synodal Path.

It substitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with a fantasy “synodal church” that is worldly, bureaucratic, anthropocentric, neo-Pelagian, and hierarchically and doctrinally vague – all the while masking these features behind unctuous expressions such as “conversation in the spirit.”

But we do not believe in – nor would anyone give his life for – a “synodal church.” We believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and we hold fast to His unchanging divine truth, for which countless Catholic martyrs have shed their blood.

June 29, 2023—Solemnity of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

__________

[i] Complete Quotation: “The Roman Pontiff – like all the faithful – is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, October 31, 1998, n. 7).

[ii] See also the following statements: “to overcome a vision that reserves any active function in the Church to ordained Ministers alone (Bishops, Priests, Deacons), reducing the participation of the Baptized to a subordinated collaboration” (B 2.2. a); “The experience of walking together in the local Church makes it possible to imagine new ministries at the service of a synodal Church” (B 2.2. c); “spontaneous ministries and other recognized ministries that are not instituted” (B 2.2. d).

[iii] Complete Quotation: “To speak, therefore, of the ‘participation of the lay faithful in the pastoral ministry of priests’ it is necessary, first of all, to reflect carefully on the term ‘ministry’ and the different meanings it can take on in theological and canonical language. … It must be recognized that the language becomes uncertain, confused, and therefore not useful for expressing the doctrine of the faith, whenever, in any way, the difference ‘of essence and not only of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is blurred (cf. Lumen Gentium, 10). At the same time, by not clearly distinguishing, even in pastoral practice, the baptismal priesthood from the hierarchical priesthood, one also runs the risk of devaluing the theological ‘proprium’ of the laity and forgetting ‘the specific ontological bond that unites the priest to Christ, the High Priest and Good Shepherd’ (John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis, 1)” (John Paul II, Address to the Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the Congregation for the Clergy, 22 April 1994, n. 4).

[iv] Complete Quotation: “When, on the other hand, the term is differentiated in the relationship and comparison between the different ‘munera’ and ‘officia’, then it must be clearly perceived that only in virtue of Sacred Ordination does it obtain that fullness and univocity of meaning that tradition has always attributed to it. Clarifying and purifying language becomes a pastoral urgency because, behind it, there can lurk much more dangerous pitfalls than we think. From everyday language to conceptualization, the step is short” (John Paul II, Address to the Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the Congregation for the Clergy, 22 April 1994, n. 4).

[v] John Paul II, Address to the Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the Congregation for the Clergy, 22 April 1994, n. 6.

[vi] John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994, n. 4.

[vii]  Complete Quotation: “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.). The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, June 3, 2003, n. 8).

[viii] Complete Quotation: “In particular, as far as the sexual sphere is concerned, we know the firm position [Jesus Christ] took in defense of the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Mt 19:3-9) and the condemnation pronounced also against simple adultery of the heart (cf. Mt 5:27-28). And how can one not be impressed by the precept to ‘pluck out one’s eye’ or ‘cut off one’s hand’ in the event that such members are an occasion of ‘scandal’ (cf. Mt 5:29-30)? Having these precise evangelical references, is it realistic to imagine a ‘permissive’ Christ in the field of married life, in matters of abortion, pre-marital, extra-marital or homosexual sexual relations? Certainly, the primitive Christian community, taught by those who had known Christ personally, was not permissive. Suffice it to refer here to the numerous passages in the Pauline letters that touch on this matter (cf. Rom 1:26 ff; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19). The Apostle’s words are certainly not lacking in clarity and rigor. And they are words inspired from above. They remain normative for the Church of all times” (Pope John Paul II, Meeting with Young People in Amersfoort, Netherlands, May 14, 1985).

[ix] Complete Quotation: “In order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church. For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357). The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan. Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, 251)” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, 15 March 2021).

[x] Complete Quotation: “It must always be remembered that the Church ‘is, by its very nature, a reality different from mere human societies’ and that, therefore, ‘it is necessary to affirm that the mentality and praxis existing in certain cultural, socio-political currents of our time cannot be automatically transferred to the Church itself’” (cf. Congregation for Clergy, Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests, 17) (John Paul II, Address to the Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the Congregation for the Clergy, 22 April 1994, n. 3).

[xi] “If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 51).