Related Articles
Introduction: A Time of Confusion, A Call to Clarity
We live in tumultuous times within the Church. The Synod on Synodality, promoted as a “process of listening and discernment,” has sparked hope in some but deep concern in others. As Catholics faithful to the perennial Tradition of the Church, we must ask ourselves: Is this synod a true exercise of ecclesial communion, like those experienced by the Church Fathers, or an attempt to impose a new ecclesiology that dilutes sacred authority in favor of human consensus?
This article seeks to shed light on the topic from a theological, historical, and pastoral perspective, always faithful to the immutable Magisterium of the Church and alert to the risks of a false synodality that, beneath pious language, could conceal serious deviations.
I. What is Synodality? Origins and Traditional Meaning
The word synod comes from the Greek synodos (σύνοδος), meaning journeying together. Historically, synods have been assemblies of bishops in communion with the Pope, convened to address doctrinal or disciplinary matters. Clear examples include the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where the Apostles resolved the issue of circumcision, or the great Ecumenical Councils, such as Nicaea or Trent, which defined dogmas in response to heresies.
Authentic synodality has always had three characteristics:
- Hierarchical: The shepherds, successors of the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned in communion with the Pope.
- Doctrinally faithful: It did not “reinvent” the faith but defended the Tradition received from Christ.
- Pastorally oriented: It sought the salvation of souls, not adaptation to the world.
The current problem: Today, some present synodality as a horizontal process, where “the entire People of God” (including laypeople without theological formation) would have a say in matters of faith and morals, as if the Church were a democracy. This denies the divine nature of the Church, which is not a human association subject to votes but the Mystical Body of Christ, guided by its legitimate shepherds.
II. The Dangers of the “New Synodality”: Six Grave Concerns
1. Doctrinal Ambiguity: Is the Immutable Being Questioned?
The Synod’s preparatory document speaks of “open questions,” including topics such as sexual morality, women’s ordination, or Communion for the divorced and remarried. But Catholic doctrine is not negotiable:
- Christ instituted a male priesthood (Lk 22:19; Mt 16:18).
- Marriage is indissoluble (Mk 10:9).
- Moral law is objective (Rom 2:15).
If a synod suggests these truths can “evolve,” is it not denying the very nature of divine Revelation?
2. The Risk of Protestantization: When Opinion Replaces Magisterium
Luther appealed to the “private interpretation” of Scripture, rejecting the Church’s authority. Today, some promote a “Protestant-style synodality,” where the voice of the people (even dissenting groups) seems to outweigh the Magisterium.
But the Church is not a democracy. Christ did not say, “Go and vote,” but “Go and teach” (Mt 28:19).
3. Secularized Language: Inclusion or Apostasy?
Synodal documents speak of “inclusion,” “diversity,” and “listening,” but rarely mention sin, conversion, hell, or redemption. Is this not conforming the Gospel to the world, rather than converting the world with the Gospel?
St. Paul warned: “Do not be conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2).
4. Ideological Manipulation? The Danger of a Pre-Directed Synod
Many fear that, under the guise of “discernment,” the conclusions are already decided: progressive groups pushing for radical changes while traditional faithful are silenced.
If the Holy Spirit guides the Church, why does He only seem to “inspire” the agendas of the modern world?
5. The Break with Tradition: Reinventing the Church?
The Church has always been governed by Councils and Magisterium, not assemblies where lay activists demand changes. Tradition is sacred (2 Thess 2:15), not a “dead archive” to reinterpret.
6. Pastoral Harm: Confusion in Souls
The fruit of true synodality is unity in truth. But if this process generates more doubts than certainties, will it not lead the faithful away from the clear faith of always?
III. Is There a Valid Synodality? Yes, But Under Three Conditions
Traditional Catholics do not reject all synodality, only its modern distortion. To be authentic, it must:
- Submit to the Magisterium, not seek to change it.
- Exclude already-defined matters (moral and sacramental doctrine).
- Seek sanctification, not the world’s approval.
Conclusion: Fidelity in Times of Confusion
Facing the Synod on Synodality, let us remember the words of St. Vincent of Lérins: “We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
The Church does not need to reinvent itself; it needs to rediscover its eternal identity. As Catholics, our duty is to pray, discern, and, if necessary, resist with charity but with firmness, so that the Barque of Peter does not sink in the turbulent waters of relativism.
“Hold fast to the traditions you have received!” (2 Thess 3:6).
Will we rise to the challenge?
[This article is inspired by traditional Catholic Doctrine and the perennial Magisterium. For further study, we recommend the writings of the Church Fathers, the Catechism of Trent, and papal encyclicals against modernism.]
📖 Did you find this helpful? Share and join the defense of the true Faith. #FaithfulToTradition
I strongly agree with your assessment of the “Synod on Synodality,” which if you did not know the Blessed Mother forewarned us about during one of her apparitions in Garabandal in 1961. Our Lady also warned us about Vatican II in Garabandal, and when she appeared as Our Lady of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador in the 16th century. All of Our Lady’s apparitions & messages there were “officially approved” by the Church in 1611.
Did you know that Saint Padre Pio “denounced” Vatican II, and especially the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. That is why Padre Pio “refused” to obey the personal request of Pope Paul VI that he say the New Mass. In good conscience Padre Pio could not say that Mass, because he knew it was indeed very “offensive” to Our Lord & Our Lady with the design of the New Mass completely “taking the focus off the Eucharistic Jesus dwelling in the Tabernacle in His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity” and putting the primary focus of the Mass on the priest saying the Mass – and “away from” the High Priest, Jesus! The principal architect of the New Mass was a priest by the name of Annibale Bugnini, and he was high-ranking Freemason and active member of the French & Italian Masonic lodges during and following Vatican II. That was discovered and disclosed to Pope Paul VI by 3 prelates who he knew well and greatly respected. They were Cardinal Dino Staffa, Cardinal Silvio Oddi and then Archbishop Edouard Gagnon who was a peritus at Vatican II serving as a canon lawyer. Regrettably, Pope Paul VI after being presented with three tomes of documents, on two separate occasions, that absolutely “verified” Bugnini and his close friend Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops were active Freemasons – chose to take “no action” against these Masons. He allowed Baggio to remain in his position of deciding who would and who would not become a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church and approved Bugnini to retain his position as the Deputy-Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. At this point in my message, you are most likely wondering how I know these facts. Because I am a friend of a priest, Fr. Charles Theodore Murr, who lived in Rome for 7 years and worked at the Vatican as the Secretary of Archbishop Edouard Gagnon. Moreover, I was a seminarian from 1968-1975 with the SMA Fathers (Society of African Missions), and I met with a priest in 1973 who had known Padre Pio very well. So, I knew that Padre Pio knew that Vatican II was greatly influenced by Freemasons and by “demonic forces” working through Baggio, Bugnini, Pope Paul VI, who was self-proclaimed “modernist” and his “liberal” Council fathers, who were in the majority at Vatican II. For the record, Padre Pio informed Pope Paul VI: “For pity sake, end the Council quickly!”
Sincerely in Jesus, Mary & Joseph! Larry Welch
Nota bene: I was one of the many “victims” of Vatican II’s “anthropomorphic/horizontal theology” that essentially mirrored the “heretical” theology of Teilhard de Chardin. I recently wrote an article detailing what I know about Vatican II and what was going on “behind the scenes” at that infamous Council Our Lady warned us about. If you would like a copy of that for yourself & your readers, let me know. In the interim, have a blessed & holy day!
Dear brother Larry,
Thank you sincerely for sharing your experience and testimony with such courage and clarity. I read your words as those of a friend who has suffered and reflected deeply on the wounds left in the Church by certain currents of the twentieth century. I share your sorrow and your astonishment at events that, as you rightly say, have in many places shifted devotion and the supernatural sense of the liturgy away from its true center.
I am deeply moved by your mention of Our Lady’s apparitions in Garabandal and in Quito under the title of Our Lady of Good Success, and by how you interpret them as prophetic warnings about what was to come. It is part of Catholic tradition to take such heavenly messages seriously and to discern them in the light of the living faith of the People of God. As you point out, we must also recover the centrality of Christ in the Eucharist: the Holy Mass is not a social event or a celebration centered on the priest, but the Sacrifice of the Lord and the true Presence that dwells in the Tabernacle.
I truly appreciate your highlighting of Saint Padre Pio and his courageous coherence. The testimony of the saints—who do not seek popularity but the truth of the Gospel—will always be a beacon for those of us who love the liturgy in its traditional form. I understand your indignation regarding the information that links certain individuals to Masonic influences and to projects that, in some way, diverted the Church’s liturgical sensibility. These are matters that deserve to be investigated, weighed with prudence, and brought to light with truth, so that fidelity to Christ may not be obscured.
I also want to say that your appeal to the responsibility of pastors is essential. When decisions are made that affect the worship and faith of the people, the faithful have the right to seek clear answers—and above all, to ask for spiritual reparation wherever devotion has been wounded. This is not a spirit of revenge, but a longing for restoration: that the liturgy once again directs everyone’s gaze toward the One who is its true center—the Eternal High Priest, Christ Himself.
Lastly, I am very interested in what you mention about Father Charles Theodore Murr. His work and testimony are, as you indicate, a valuable source for understanding many of the “behind-the-scenes” events. I would be delighted to reference your article and share it with my readers; well-documented testimonies such as yours help to clarify and to build paths of renewal and fidelity. With your permission, I will quote your text and Father Murr’s work when I publish it, fully respecting your authorship and your insights.
I join you in prayer that, amid pain and controversy, Eucharistic reverence and the truth of the Catholic faith may shine ever more brightly. May Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Padre Pio, grant us light and strength to remain faithful to the deposit of faith.
With affection in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph