Posted on 03/04/2026 7:09:15 PM PST by ebb tide
Under the direction of Leo XIV, the “General Secretariat of the Synod” published two reports of Synod on Synodality study groups on March 3rd, one related to “the digital environment” and another related to the formation of priests. The document on the formation of priests — “The revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis in a missionary synodal perspective” — deserves attention not only because it will potentially impact the formation of priests but also because it stands in such stark contrast with the approach of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which is today threatened with various censures if it consecrates bishops without Rome’s approval. The new Synodal document highlights the fact that the conflict between Rome and the SSPX is based much more on fundamental differences of religious belief than on questions of obedience.
Because the Synodal Church needs men to “preside over” the Christian community who are “outstanding in their synodal spirit,” a fundamental “recalibration” of the structure of priestly formation is essential.
The introduction of the new Synodal document begins with a claim that the Synodal path demands dramatic changes to the methods of priestly formation:
“The path of synodality is precisely the path that God expects from the Church of the third millennium.’ During the ongoing synodal process, there is a growing conviction that this path, indicated to the Church by Pope Francis and taken up by Pope Leo XIV from the very beginning of his Pontificate, would remain without the fruits of real communion and courageous mission if it did not also have an impact on the methods of formation for the ordained ministry. How, in fact, could a Christian community proceed in its missionary work and in a communion capable of synodality, if it were not accompanied, presided over, and instructed by men who are outstanding in their apostolic zeal and synodal spirit? . . . It should be borne in mind that this is not a matter of making minor adjustments or a simple reorganisation, but of a conversion of the heart, mind, relationships and processes, in line with the fundamental request of the Synod on synodality, a conversion that is first and foremost personal, but which must also be communal and structural.”
Because the Synodal Church needs men to “preside over” the Christian community who are “outstanding in their synodal spirit,” a fundamental “recalibration” of the structure of priestly formation is essential. The new Synodal document outlines the necessary transformation as follows:
“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis presents the figure of priests in a decidedly relational and communional key. If the reference to Christ as Head, Servant and Shepherd is essential to the identity of priests, the ecclesial reference is no less essential: (i) united with sincere charity and obedience to the Bishop, who finds in them not only collaborators and counsellors but ‘friends and brothers,’ (ii) priests are united among themselves by a sacramental fraternity that calls them to live in a fraternal spirit and to work in unity with the Bishop and among themselves, (iii) in the service of the lay faithful, recognising and promoting their dignity and their specific role in the mission of the Church, joining with them in their efforts. In light of this essential dual reference, the Synod calls for a strengthening of the ecclesiological dimension of ordained ministry, redefining it ‘in and from’ the People of God. It will therefore be necessary to recalibrate the structure of priestly formation according to this relational identity.”
The somewhat subtle message here is that Vatican II’s decree on the ministry and life of priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, sought to modify the identity of the priesthood to emphasize the role of priests in relation to the Church rather than primarily in relation to Christ. The Synod document therefore calls for a strengthening of this latter role (which it terms the “ecclesiological dimension”), which makes it “necessary to recalibrate the structure of priestly formation according to this relational identity.”
By attacking priestly formation, the revolutionaries drove away many good men from the seminaries, attracted many men who were not fit for the priesthood, and radically changed the program of formation.
The new document goes on to expand upon the special role of priests in the Synodal Church, including that of “presidency of the celebration of the Eucharist”:
“In a wholly synodal Church, animated by charisms and ministries for mission, priests therefore occupy their own specific and unmistakable place. . . . Deeply linked to the service of the Word, the presidency of the celebration of the Eucharist also takes on particular importance. It is ‘the first and fundamental way the holy People of God gather and meet,’ and in which ‘a differentiated co-responsibility of all for mission is fulfilled’ and made visible (FD, no. 26). This presidency must also be lived as a service, following the model of the Lord who made himself the servant of all (cf. Mk 10:45) and bent down to wash the feet of his disciples (cf. Jn 13:1-17).”
Almost all of this would apply more fittingly to a Protestant minister than to the traditional conception of the Catholic priest as an alter Christus (another Christ). Remarkably, the new Synodal document recognizes that the re-imagined vision of the priesthood diminishes priestly identity and prerogatives:
“In a synodal Church, priests are therefore called to live their service ‘in an attitude of closeness to people, of welcoming and listening to all’ and to open themselves to a synodal style (cf. FD, no. 72) that brings to full flowering the gifts and charisms present in lively and missionary communities. While this can sometimes give rise to the fear that the priestly ministry will lose something of its identity and prerogatives, it actually makes it more authentic and more evangelical and gives it fresh energy and renewed vitality, avoiding burdening priests with duties that do not concern the essential and specific aspects of their ministry and sparing them unnecessary stress.”
With this view of the priests of the Synodal Church, the new document continues by recommending the specific steps to form them, with a heavy focus on the role of women in nurturing and assessing the candidates for the priesthood. Such is the Synodal conception of the priesthood.
Seeing this, Archbishop Lefebvre felt compelled to do what he could to preserve the priesthood.
As many Traditional Catholics know, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre could have retired after Vatican II. But, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais described in his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, Divine Providence had other plans:
“Archbishop Lefebvre found himself at a crossroads. Retired at sixty-three, he could have contented himself with his salaried post as consulter for the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. He could have led the quiet life that Paul VI referred to in 1972 as his ‘calm retirement.’ However, the growing disintegration of the institution of the priesthood led him to form a plan to transmit the precious inheritance he had received at Rome . . . .” (p. 408)
Although the new Synodal document seeks to completely destroy the priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre and many good seminarians could already see the disastrous changes in the years immediately after the Council. By attacking priestly formation, the revolutionaries drove away many good men from the seminaries, attracted many men who were not fit for the priesthood, and radically changed the program of formation. Seeing this, Archbishop Lefebvre felt compelled to do what he could to preserve the priesthood.
As Archbishop Lefebvre described in his Spiritual Journey, he had a premonition of his future role while he was still in Africa:
“If the Holy Ghost permits me to put in writing the spiritual thoughts which follow, before entering — if it please God — into the bosom of the Holy Trinity, I will be allowed to realize the dream of which He have me a glimpse one day in the Cathedral of Dakar. The dream was to transmit, before the progressive degradation of the priestly ideal, in all of its doctrinal purity and in all of its missionary charity, the Catholic Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, just as He conferred it on His Apostles, just as the Roman Church had always transmitted it until the middle of the twentieth century.” (p. iii)
The competing visions represent fundamentally different religions, that of the Catholic Church and that of the Synodal Church.
If Archbishop Lefebvre had retired rather than pursue this mission, we would of course not be hearing news about the upcoming consecrations of SSPX bishops. And, almost certainly, we also would have no opportunity to attend the Traditional Latin Mass. His decision to form priests was therefore one of the most important and heroic decisions in recent Church history. He continued his narration of the dream at Dakar by describing the solution:
“How should I carry out that which appeared then to me as the sole solution to revive the Church and Christianity? It was still a dream, but there appeared to me already the need, not only to confer the authentic priesthood, to teach not only the sana doctrina approved by the Church, but also to transmit the profound and unchanging spirit of the Catholic priesthood and of the Christian spirit essentially bound to the great prayer of Our Lord which His Sacrifice on the Cross expresses eternally” (p. iii)
Nothing could be more opposed to the vision outlined in the new Synodal document. The competing visions represent fundamentally different religions, that of the Catholic Church and that of the Synodal Church.
And if we want to know why the question of bishops is so vital, we can consider what Archbishop Lefebvre identified as the one thing necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church:
“One single thing is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: fully Catholic bishops, who make no compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries, where young candidates for the priesthood can nourish themselves with the milk of true doctrine, placing Our Lord Jesus Christ at the center of their intellects, of their wills, of their hearts; who have a living faith, profound charity, a devotion without bounds, uniting them to Our Lord.” (p. ix)
This is what is at stake today. The Catholic Church needs the SSPX to consecrate bishops. May God grant Leo XIV the grace to open his eyes and see what he must do. 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
In the above Vatican document, the word, (or variation of), "synod" is used 137 times.
"Catholic" is only mentioned four times.
Thirty years ago my diocese wanted to be synodal.
I went to a parish meeting. They gave us a handout whic I read. Then a power point which read out the document in its entirety. Then a speaker who told us what we had read.
I went out to the car and screamed out loud - boredom wher you must pay respectful attention is painful indeed.
It was clear to me that some laity would be selected to give an appearance of input, and what mattered would be decided in back rooms by the inner circle.
Call me a cynic.
Listening is good. Organized meetings are a political tool, for good or bad.
There is a lot to be said for a small group Getting Things Done efficiently. There is nothing good about taking people’s time for a democratic gloss.
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.