(LifeSiteNews) — In his pre-conclave address to the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Joseph Zen spoke in dramatic terms about the Synod on Synodality:
The electors of the next pope must be aware that he will bear the responsibility of either continuing this synodal process or decisively halting it. This is a matter of life or death for the Church founded by Jesus.
Like Cardinals Burke, Sarah, and Müller, Cardinal Zen sees the Synod on Synodality as a dire threat to the Catholic Church. Evidently, their opposition to the Synod was not enough to prevent the election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as Leo XIV, who referred to the “Synodal Church” during his greetings to the world: “we want to be a synodal Church.” To better appreciate why Synodality poses such a threat, we can consider (a) the recent survey of U.S. Catholics from the Pew Research Center, and (b) the passages from the Final Document of the October 2024 Synodal session that allow nominal Catholics to shape the teachings of the Synodal Church (which is truly distinct from the Catholic Church).
Recent Pew survey of U.S. Catholics
The report by the Pew Research Center released on April 30, 2025 provided further evidence that many of those who identify as Catholic in the U.S. disagree with the Church’s teachings. Specifically, the survey reported that:
84% of U.S. Catholics say the church should allow Catholics to use birth control.
83% say the church should allow couples to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to get pregnant.
68% say the church should allow women to become deacons.
63% say the church should allow priests to get married.
59% say the church should ordain women as priests.
The survey results also pointed to a majority of self-identified Catholics wanting the Church to become more “inclusive” even if it requires “changing” teachings:
When asked to choose which of two contrasting statements comes closer to their view, 60% of U.S. Catholics say the church ‘should be more inclusive, even if that means changing some of its teachings,’ while 37% say the church ‘should stick to its traditional teachings, even if that means the church gets smaller.’
Although this desire for the Church to “change” its teachings is vague and could mean a number of different things, it is often the case that the changes contemplated related to immutable teachings of the Church that constitute heresy. As one example, allowing Communion for those in a state of mortal sin conflicts with the following infallible truth listed in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary.
Contradicting this teaching spreads heresy, encourages sacrilege, hardens souls in their sins, and offends God. It also happens to promote the inclusiveness so important to the Synodal Church.
Inclusiveness in the Synodal Church
As described in the First Vatican Council’s Pastor Aeternus, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is responsible for helping safeguard the Deposit of Faith rather than adapting it to fit modern (sinful) preferences:
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.
Within the Catholic Church, there is no possibility of changing doctrines to make the religion more inclusive. Non-Catholics should instead be taught that it is best for them — now and in eternity — to follow the Church’s teachings. They should change their beliefs, as necessary, to be included in the Mystical Body of Christ, so that they can serve God and save their souls.
In the Synodal Church, though, the beliefs can change to reflect, and therefore accommodate, the consensus of all baptized souls. The Final Document of the October 2024 session of the Synod explains the mechanism for this in terms of the “sensus fidei” of all Christians:
Through Baptism, ‘the holy People of God has a share, too, in the prophetic role of Christ, when it renders Him a living witness, especially through a life of faith and charity’ (LG 12). The anointing by the Holy Spirit received at Baptism (cf. 1 Jn 2:20.27) enables all believers to possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. We refer to this as the sensus fidei. This consists in a certain connaturality with divine realities based on the fact that, in the Holy Spirit, the Baptised become ‘sharers [participants] in the divine nature’ (DV 2). From this participation comes the aptitude to grasp intuitively what conforms to the truth of Revelation in the communion of the Church. This is the reason why the Church is certain that the holy People of God cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property when they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals (cf. LG 12). The exercise of the sensus fidei must not be confused with public opinion. It is always in conjunction with the discernment of pastors at the different levels of Church life, as the various interconnected phases of the synodal process demonstrated. The sensus fidei aims at reaching a consensus of the faithful (consensus fidelium), which constitutes ‘a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith’ (ITC, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church, 2014, 3). All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism.
Many people who have read the Final Document may tend to accept all of this because it cites Vatican II and a 2014 International Theological Commission (ITC) study. But it should be self-evidently wrong that all Christians — instead of faithful Catholics — participate in the sensus fidei, which would serve as “a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith.” A commentary on the Synod from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) helps us understand the fallacy:
And then, in no. 23 [of the Final Document], that ‘All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism. Therefore, as well as constituting the basis of synodality, Baptism is also the foundation of ecumenism.’ Which begs the question: how can the sensus fidei of the Orthodox keep them in schism? How can the sensus fidei of the Protestants keep them in heresy? This is a mystery that the text does not explain . . .
Surely the drafters of the Final Document understood that few people would object to their sophistry, so it stands largely uncontested. And its implications are remarkable in the context of the Synodal process of “listening”: the Synodal magicians can listen to a small sample size of Christians (much like the Pew Survey), selectively highlight the beliefs they want to promote, and tell us that the “sensus fidei” supports any of the changes necessary to make the Synodal Church more inclusive. In such way, we may soon find that the Synodal leaders have listened to the baptized and discerned that the “spirit” is calling for the Synodal Church to permit artificial contraception, IVF, and married priests.
Cardinal Zen emphasized that the question of Synodality is “a matter of life or death for the Church founded by Jesus,” and there is certainly much truth in that. But, in reality, the Synodal Church is distinct from the Catholic Church, and all it can really do is confuse souls and tempt them to doubt the true Faith it seeks to invert. For those of us who seek to keep the unadulterated Catholic Faith — and thereby serve God and save our souls — we must reject this Synodal on Synodality, regardless of if it is Francis or Leo XIV promoting it. The Synodal path is from hell, leads to hell, and must be rejected by all who seek to avoid hell. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
