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.
Posted on 07/16/2025 9:13:15 AM PDT by ebb tide
As Undersecretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, Sister Nathalie Becquart now has a mandate to take all the putrid fruits of the Synod and "to implement those fruits with creativity, in the diversity of the context of the local Churches.” She and the Synodal teams are not called to make the local dioceses and eparchies more holy, orthodox, or fervent. Instead (as described below), Sister Becquart wants to compel each local church to experimentally “listen to the Spirit” to determine how to become more Synodal.
In her July 7, 2025 interview describing the new Synod on Synodality document, “Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod,” Sister Nathalie Becquart described how the “implementation phase” of the Synod will focus on local churches (i.e., dioceses and eparchies):
“[P]ope Francis endorsed directly the final document of the Synod. So now it's part of the ordinary Magisterium, and it is asked now to put it into practice, to implement those fruits with creativity, in the diversity of the context of the local Churches. So, we are now in this phase because it’s not enough to have a document and just to leave it on the shelf, but it has to be taken up by the local Churches discerning how to already put into practice the recommendations of the Final Document.”
As Undersecretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, Sister Becquart now has a mandate to take all the putrid fruits of the Synod and "to implement those fruits with creativity, in the diversity of the context of the local Churches.” She and the Synodal teams are not called to make the local dioceses and eparchies more holy, orthodox, or fervent. Instead (as described below), Sister Becquart wants to compel each local church to experimentally “listen to the Spirit” to determine how to become more Synodal.
The disciplinary and theological diversity that Sister Becquart and her Synodal teams want to create among local churches will not result from the way in which Divine Providence operated over the course of many centuries. Rather, that diversity will be artificially imposed by those who want to make use of the ideas that Bea and others built into the Vatican II documents.
All of this deserves serious consideration, and yet we cannot appreciate the full picture unless we first understand how Cardinal Augustin Bea thought about local churches in terms of the ecumenical structures he planted in the Vatican II documents. With that knowledge, we can then turn to how the Synod on Synodality’s new document lays out the plan to hijack local churches to more fully implement the Vatican II revolution. Finally, and most importantly, we can consider Pope Leo XIV’s role: will he stop the diabolical madness, or will he pacify serious Catholics into accepting further attacks on the Church?
In his biography of Cardinal Augustin Bea — “Because he was a German!”: Cardinal Bea and the Origins of Roman Catholic Engagement in the Ecumenical Movement — Fr. Jerome-Michael Vereb emphasized how important the topic of local churches was to Bea:
“Bea wrote in 1959 that the role of the local Church and the responsibility of its bishop must be the very first item to be addressed at the Council.” (p. 210)
As we know, Bea was one of the most important figures at Vatican II and was responsible for many of the ideas about ecumenism that found their way into the Council documents. As Bea wrote in his “Vatican Council Ecumenical Report” (in Peace Among Christians), the role of individual bishops, and the local Churches they represent, was vital to the ecumenical movement:
“In order to show the significance of this doctrine from an ecumenical standpoint, it shall suffice to mention the position the episcopate occupied in the Christian Orient, and the role played by the alliance of the diocese with the patriarchates and auto-cephalic Churches. Furthermore, when one considers the extent to which the Pope’s primacy is frequently equated with the most extreme type of centralization in the thinking of non-Catholic Christians, then one will also understand how important it was to the concept of unity when the Second Vatican Council clearly and solemnly proclaimed the doctrine that it was the assembly of bishops of the entire Catholic Church, with St. Peter’s successor at its head, which represented the highest authority within the Church.” (p. 41)
Bea sought to overcome objections of non-Catholic Christians to the Catholic Church through various means, including by a deemphasis of the centralized power of the pope. One way, among others, to accomplish this was to push for enhanced roles for bishops and the laity, which are features that play prominently in the Synod on Synodality.
Bea also saw the local churches as a source of ecumenical advances that would be too dramatic (or heretical) to inaugurate more broadly. We have a concrete illustration of this from Fr. Stjepan Schmidt’s biography, Augustin Bea: The Cardinal of Unity:
“We would conclude by observing that when the Second Vatican Council speaks of ecumenism it is clearly aiming not at conversions but at reconciliations between the Catholic Church and other churches. . . We would also add that here too Bea strongly stresses the specific responsibility of local churches, and in particular of bishops, just as he does in other contexts. Referring to a plan that someone had sent him for a possible ‘United Evangelical Church,’ (analogous to the United Oriental Churches), Bea observes that such a suggestion must be handled through the bishops of the territories in question. When Bea refers to the Sammlung Movement, he follows the exact same line, saying that in these matters no one should go over the bishops’ heads and make a direct visit to Rome.” (p. 253)
Thus, Bea suggested that the bishops could make advances in Christian unity (and other matters) in their local churches by circumventing possible obstacles from Rome. In his 1966 address at the Ecumenical Center in Geneva, Bea identified the ways in which these ideas made their way into the Vatican II documents:
“A certain diversity on the theological level is legitimate and salutary. This is expressly stated in No. 17 of the Decree on Ecumenism which was approved almost unanimously during the third session of the Vatican Council. . . No. 23 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church expresses this idea no less clearly: ‘By divine Providence it has come about that various churches established by the apostles and their successors have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. . . . This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is particularly splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church.” (pp. 140-141)
As we read how the new Synodal document has developed these ideas, it is important to recall that the disciplinary and theological diversity that Sister Becquart and her Synodal teams want to create among local churches will not result from the way in which Divine Providence operated over the course of many centuries. Rather, that diversity will be artificially imposed by those who want to make use of the ideas that Bea and others built into the Vatican II documents. Sister Becquart suggested as much in her interview:
“We can say synodality is the way to understand the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council in this stage of the reception of the Council. So, it's nothing else but just continuing the reception of the Second Vatican Council.”
Cardinal Bea surely would have agreed with her.
There are, apparently, no real criteria for selecting the Synodal team members other than diversity and a willingness to engage in a process that has already been widely recognized as destructive for the Catholic Church.
In a few passages, the new Synodal document emphasizes the need for creativity and experimentation during this process of implementing the directions of the October 2024 Final Document (FD) of the Synod on Synodality:
* “Furthermore, the implementation phase is an opportunity to preserve that exchange of gifts which fosters the communion of local Churches within the one Church, manifesting its Catholicity while respecting legitimate diversity. The creativity that inspires new ways of practising synodality and enhances the fruitfulness of mission springs from these differences.”
* “Implementation of the FD requires addressing and discerning these tensions as they arise in the circumstances in which each local Church exists. The path to advance is not to seek an impossible arrangement that eliminates tension in favour of one of the sides. Rather, in the here and now of each local Church, it will be necessary to discern which of the possible balances allows for a more dynamic service of the mission. It is likely that different decisions will be reached in different places. For this reason, in many areas, the FD opens up some spaces for local experimentation, for example regarding ministries (cf. FD, nos. 66, 76, 78), decision-making processes (cf. FD, no. 94), accountability and evaluation (cf. FD, no. 101), and participatory bodies (cf. FD, no. 104). The individual Churches are invited to make use of them.”
* “The FD repeatedly emphasises that ‘Local Churches need to find ways to implement these changes,’ and in fact, this is the task to be addressed during the implementation phase. It is therefore not possible to indicate among the FD's many areas of attention those that are to be considered universally priority. Local circumstances may quite legitimately make it important and urgent to address a particular issue that does not have the same priority elsewhere: this may be the case of relations between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches in some areas, or of ecumenical momentum or inter-religious dialogue in others, which will require giving a specific form, including a structural and institutionalised one, to the commitment to walk together.”
For those who had the stomach to read the above passages from the new Synodal document, is there any hint in them that the implementation of FD is aimed at making Catholics holier, more orthodox, or more fervent? Of course not — the overarching theme is an urgent need to implement changes simply because they are new, diverse, and experimental. Any local churches that follow this will almost invariably look less Catholic as a result.
Who, though, will be encouraging the local bishops, clergy, and faithful to engage in this godless experimentation? Sister Becquart and her fellow Synodal architects answer that in the new document:
“Synodal teams with an appropriately diverse composition will more easily become laboratories of synodality, internally experimenting within themselves the dynamics they are called to promote among the People of God. Their role in the implementation phase is first and foremost to promote and facilitate the growth of synodal dynamism within the concrete contexts in which each local Church lives; to identify appropriate tools and methodologies, including those for formation; and to carry out the necessary initiatives to ensure that the necessary steps are taken. Synodal teams are usually formed at the diocesan or eparchial level, but where possible, their presence at the deanery or parish level is also desirable. In various ecclesial contexts, interesting experiences are already developing, showing how these teams, when appropriately connected with one another, can contribute to making the synodal process more widespread and participatory.”
There are, apparently, no real criteria for selecting the Synodal team members other than diversity and a willingness to engage in a process that has already been widely recognized as destructive for the Catholic Church.
All else being equal, one would expect those bishops with some semblance of the Faith to limit any Synodal experimentation, while liberal bishops will seize the opportunity to pursue even more heterodox initiatives than they could in absence of the Synodal implementation phase.
As important as the Synodal team members are, though, it is ultimately the local bishop who will determine how far the experimentation can go. The new Synodal document recognizes this role of the bishops:
“Precisely because this is an ecclesial process in the fullest sense of the term, the first person responsible for the implementation phase in each local Church is the diocesan or eparchial Bishop: it is his responsibility to initiate it, officially indicate its duration, methods and objectives, accompany its progress and conclude it, validating its results.”
All else being equal, one would expect those bishops with some semblance of the Faith to limit any Synodal experimentation, while liberal bishops will seize the opportunity to pursue even more heterodox initiatives than they could in absence of the Synodal implementation phase. This should lead to increased diversity amongst dioceses, thereby fracturing Catholic identity to an ever greater extent.
Blasphemously, the new Synodal document suggests that the Holy Spirit will inspire the bishops and Synodal participants in this fracturing of Catholic identity:
“The Holy Spirit works freely, inspiring initiatives among the People of God where he sees fit: the task of authority is also to recognise these gifts, to welcome the invitation to broaden the vision that they always contain, to foster their fruitfulness and to promote diversity, so as to enrich the possibilities for the exchange of gifts that nourishes ecclesial communion.”
How could the Holy Spirit promote the theological diversity envisioned by the Synod? Perhaps one could legitimately speak of the Holy Spirit uniting diverse cultures within the bounds of the Catholic Church, but it is the unholy role of the Synodal process to do the opposite: to foster theological and disciplinary diversity where none had previously existed.
Elsewhere, the new Synodal Document sets forth some “tools” to help participants hear the “voice of the Spirit”:
“Within this framework, one of the primary tasks of the General Secretariat is to foster communion in the spirit of the exchange of gifts and with a view to the ‘conversion of bonds’ (FD, Part IV) among Churches. Important tools for this purpose include listening to the experiences carried out in different ecclesial contexts and promoting shared reflection on them, so that together we can recognise the voice of the Spirit and direct our steps in the direction He indicates.”
All of this amounts to the Synodal teams grooming Catholics to accept heterodoxy and then blaming the Holy Spirit for the resulting theological “diversity.” And as Sister Becquart opined to end her interview about the new Synodal document, the process of “Synodal conversion” must continue so that we can realize that the Holy Spirit leads us through “diversity of initiative and creativity”:
“So I just want to leave you with this diversity of initiative and creativity that's how the Holy Spirit is already working. And we share that on our Synod website, ‘Synod Resources,’ so that it can inspire others, but not just to do ‘copy and paste,’ but to discern in their own context how to continue this Synodal conversion and to implement the fruit of the Synod, taking up the final document of the Synod.”
Sister Becquart and her Synodal teams will be spreading this blasphemous nonsense throughout the Church unless Leo XIV stops them.
Going forward, the Synodal teams may not need Leo XIV to do anything more than tacitly permit them to carry out their destructive actions. Because the pope has an obligation to protect the Church from the Synod, especially when the blueprint for destruction is so clear, Leo XIV’s continued silence would be among the worst possible responses.
It should be obvious from everything about the Synod we have witnessed for the past three years that Leo XIV has a moral obligation to stop the Synod on Synodality. This is not to suggest that it would be easy or painless for him to take the necessary steps to do so, but every day in which he neglects to stop the blasphemous Synod adds to ongoing scandal.
Critically, though, Sister Becquart and the Synodal leaders likely have everything they need from Leo XIV already, based on what little support he has already given to the Synodal Church. Indeed, the opening paragraph of the new document includes the new pope’s endorsement for the Synodal path:
“We are living a time of great spiritual intensity. The passing of Pope Francis has touched us all deeply, and we still pray the Lord to welcome him into his peace and grant him the reward for his service to the Church. At the same time, we give thanks to God for the election of the Holy Father Leo XIV, who from the very beginning has spurred us on in our commitment to the synodal journey, reminding us that we are ‘a missionary Church, a Church that builds bridges and encourages dialogue, a Church ever open to welcoming, like this Square with its open arms, all those who are in need of our charity, our presence, our readiness to dialogue and our love.’”
Going forward, the Synodal teams may not need Leo XIV to do anything more than tacitly permit them to carry out their destructive actions. Because the pope has an obligation to protect the Church from the Synod, especially when the blueprint for destruction is so clear, Leo XIV’s continued silence would be among the worst possible responses. Moreover, this silence would reinforce one of Cardinal Bea’s objectives in fostering the ascendency of local churches: the less Leo XIV is involved, the more it signals to the world that the centralized authority of the papacy is no longer as important as it once was.
We can even see that a prolonged silence from Leo XIV on the evils of the Synodal process would be more scandalous owing to the fact that he sounds and looks much more Catholic than Francis. No matter what positive steps he might take — such as overturning Traditionis Custodes or reversing Fiducia Supplicans — his papacy would still be a grave scandal if he were to allow the Synodal process to hijack local churches to serve anti-Catholic agendas. Leo XIV was touted as a bridge-builder who could mend divisions in the Church, but no serious Catholic can accept the Synodal bridge to hell that he has thus far protected. Along with prayer, then, it seems that one of the most valuable services we could render to Leo XIV now is to adamantly reject the blasphemous and heretical Synodal Church. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
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. |
Ping
No. Nuf sed.
Perhaps they need a synodal decongestant.
How about if we just say our prayers in the churches?
And have our Sacraments?
Nobody cares about the sinnod nonsense.
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.