Dear brothers and sisters, may this Synod be a true season of the Spirit! For we need the Spirit, the ever new breath of God, who sets us free from every form of self-absorption, revives what is moribund, loosens shackles and spreads joy. The Holy Spirit guides us where God wants us to be, not to where our own ideas and personal tastes would lead us. Father Congar, of blessed memory, once said: ‘There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church’ (True and False Reform in the Church). That is the challenge. For a ‘different Church,’ a Church open to the newness that God wants to suggest, let us with greater fervour and frequency invoke the Holy Spirit and humbly listen to him, journeying together as he, the source of communion and mission, desires: with docility and courage.
Francis’s statement was remarkable not only for the blasphemous notion of “creating a different church” — as if God had made a mistake in establishing the Catholic Church to endure until the end of time — but also in citing Congar’s book as the inspiration. To get some sense of the significance of True and False Reform in the Church, we can consider words from the translator’s introduction to the 1968 edition of Congar’s book:
It is also a book that is, in my view, more potent today than at the time of its original publication in 1950, when it was badly misunderstood. Not long after its publication, the Holy Office forbade its reprinting or translation into other languages; yet less than twenty years later most of its insights had found their way into the major documents of Vatican II. Congar himself once remarked, ‘If there is a theology of Congar, that is where it is to be found.’ Following Vatican II, Congar released a second and revised edition of True and False Reform in 1968. It is that edition that has been translated here.
So by citing Congar’s book, Francis signaled his intent to have the innovative ideas that had been condemned under Pope Pius XII serve as the animating force for his Synod. Overall, we have the following timeline related to Congar’s role in inspiring the creation of a different church:
Congar’s True and False Reform in the Church was censured by the Holy Office in the 1950’s under Pius XII
Nonetheless, many of the ideas of True and False Reform in the Church found their way into Vatican II’s documents after John XXIII rehabilitated Congar, appointing him as a Council expert
On October 9, 2021, Francis cited True and False Reform in the Church as an inspiration for his desire to “create a different church” with the Synod on Synodality
On October 21, 2024, the pro-LGTBQ cardinal-designate Fr. Timothy Radcliffe led the Synodal participants in a meditation in preparation for the drafting of the Synod’s Final Document — in that meditation, Radcliffe spoke of Congar’s heroic witness to truth in the face of persecution under Pius XII
Although some Catholics have asserted that Vatican II produced a different church — the “Conciliar Church” — the majority of faithful Catholics do not consider the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church to be actual separate churches. However, Francis’s stated desire to follow Congar’s inspiration in creating a different church leads us to consider a vital question: did Francis’s Synod actually create a different church?
Did Francis’s synod actually create a different church?
We have several indications that Francis’s synod has in fact created a different church. First, we must of course consider that Francis told us that he intended to create a different church. While this of itself does not demonstrate that the synod produced a different church, it does make the question reasonable to ask.
Second, Francis and the Synodal participants generally refer to their church as the “Synodal Church” rather than the “Catholic Church.” Thus, for instance, Francis did not use the word “Catholic” in his homily at the October 27 Mass to conclude the Synod but he did refer to the Synodal Church:
This is the synodal Church: a community whose primacy lies in the gift of the Spirit, who makes us all brothers and sisters in Christ and raises us up to him.
Similarly, the Synod on Synodality’s official documents have consistently referred to the Synodal Church rather than the Catholic Church.
Third, the membership of the Synodal Church appears to differ from the membership of the Catholic Church. In his 1943 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII stated that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church and that the Church’s membership is defined as follows:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Thus, membership in the Catholic Church requires both baptism and profession of the true faith (i.e., Catholicism). Conversely, we find throughout the Synod on Synodality documents a definite sense that baptism is the sole criteria for membership in the Synodal Church. For example, the 2023 Instrumentum Laboris states that the Synodal Church is founded on the recognition of a common dignity based on baptism:
Within this integral understanding, an awareness emerges of certain characteristics or distinctive signs of a synodal Church. These are shared convictions on which to dwell and reflect together as we undertake a journey that will continue to clarify and refine them, starting from the work of the Synodal Assembly will undertake. This is what emerges with great force from all the continents: an awareness that a synodal Church is founded on the recognition of a common dignity deriving from Baptism, which makes all who receive it sons and daughters of God, members of the family of God, and therefore brothers and sisters in Christ, inhabited by the one Spirit and sent to fulfil a common mission.
While it may be theoretically possible to read passages such as this in a way that does not absolutely contradict the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, it is undeniable that the intention is to establish baptism as the paramount, if not only, criteria for membership in the Synodal Church.
Fourth, the difference in membership between the two churches naturally leads to a profoundly different perspective on missionary activity. The Catholic Church takes its mission from the words of Our Lord:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 18-20)
Catholics want to convert souls to the Catholic Faith to honor God and lead souls to heaven.
On the other hand, the organizers of the Synodal Church seek to “accompany” others, accepting them as they are, even when they are hostile to the Catholic Faith. Indeed, the notion that we must convert non-Catholics to the Faith is completely antithetical to the false ecumenism at the heart of the Synodal Church.
Fifth, there is a profound difference in the development of doctrine within the two churches. For Catholics, revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and the Church is tasked with safeguarding the Deposit of Faith against the errors which have always sought to undermine it. Vatican I’s Pastor Aeturnus expresses this clearly in its discussion of the responsibility of the successors of St. Peter to zealously safeguard, and faithfully transmit, Catholic teaching:
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. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’
On the other hand, we have all seen how the Synodal Church approaches the question of doctrinal development, with essentially every Christian truth other than those explicitly contained in the Apostles Creed, as subject to debate. As one example among many, the Final Document says this about the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate:
There is no reason or impediment that should prevent women from carrying out leadership roles in the Church: what comes from the Holy Spirit cannot be stopped. Additionally, the question of women’s access to diaconal ministry remains open. (Paragraph 60)
In the Catholic Church the question is closed, but in the Synodal Church almost everything remains open for discussion.
Sixth, we can see that whereas the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ almost two-thousand years ago, the Synodal Church effectively began with Vatican II. The Synod’s Final Document expresses that reality as follows:
Rooted in the Tradition of the Church, the entire synodal journey took place in the light of the conciliar magisterium. The Second Vatican Council was indeed like a seed thrown onto the field of the world and the Church… The synodal journey is indeed putting into practice what the Council taught about the Church as Mystery and Church as People of God, called to holiness through continual conversion that comes from listening to the Gospel. In this sense, the synodal journey constitutes an authentic further act of reception of the Council, thus deepening its inspiration and reinvigorating its prophetic force for today’s world. (Paragraph 5)
The clear and consistent teachings of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II oppose several fundamental aspects of the Synodal Church — particularly with respect to ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, and morality — so Francis and the Synodal architects know that their new church’s continuity with the past extends back no further than Vatican II.
Finally, we can consider the antagonism that exists between the religions represented by the Catholic Church and the Synodal Church. The September 7, 2021 Preparatory Document for the Synod on Synodality describes how “Jesus, the crowd, and the Apostles” are the three actors involved in the Synodal Church. It then proceeds to describe the extra actor:
Then, there is the ‘extra’ actor, the antagonist, who brings to the scene the diabolical separation of the other three. Faced with the perturbing prospect of the cross, there are disciples who leave and mood-changing crowds. The insidiousness that divides—and, thus, thwarts a common path—manifests itself indifferently in the forms of religious rigor, of moral injunction that presents itself as more demanding than that of Jesus, and of the seduction of a worldly political wisdom that claims to be more effective than a discernment of spirits. In order to escape the deceptions of the ‘fourth actor,’ continuous conversion is necessary. Emblematic in this regard is the episode of the centurion Cornelius (cf. Acts 10), the antecedent of that ‘Council’ of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15) which constitutes a crucial reference point for a synodal Church.
As we can tell, this rigid “antagonist” corresponds with those who adhere to what the Catholic Church has always taught. In the name of toleration, the Synodal Church cannot tolerate those who follow Catholic teaching.
Likewise, the pre-Vatican II popes unambiguously condemned the heretical foundations of the Synodal Church, including false ecumenism, religious liberty, and Modernist doctrinal evolution. Moreover, we cannot imagine the saints taking part in Synodal sessions such as those we recently witnessed in Rome — surely they would have suffered martyrdom rather than participate in such blasphemous attacks on the Mystical Body of Christ.
Given these considerations, it appears virtually certain that Francis’s Synod has created a different church: the Synodal Church. This Synodal Church can be seen as a development of what some Catholics had termed the “Conciliar Church” — everything that faithful Catholics objected to in connection with the “Conciliar Church” has been a vital component in the creation of the Synodal Church.
God has permitted all of this for a reason, and we know that “to them that love God, all things work together unto good” (Romans 8:28). The reality of the Synodal Church requires us to consider certain weighty questions, such as whether a man can be head of both the Catholic Church and an anti-Catholic church. Also, can Catholics support the Synodal Church?
In addition to raising important questions, though, the existence of a Synodal Church provides an opportunity for faithful Catholics to clearly reject all of the innovations that differentiate the Synodal Church from what Pope Pius XII and his predecessors (and all the saints) knew as the Catholic Church. For decades Catholics have been conflicted, having to choose between immutable truth and loyalty to putative authorities in the Church leading us to accept ideas incompatible with immutable truth. With the Synodal Church, it appears that God is allowing for some separation and purification: our Catholic Faith calls us to reject the Synodal Church so we are left with the pure Catholic Faith that excludes the errors of the past sixty years that have laid the foundation for the Synodal Church. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!