The Relatio Synodalis does not state directly the liceity of adulterous or otherwise immoral sexual relations; it does not state directly the ordination of women; it does not state directly that celibacy must be abolished. But it is the most extensive and deep program of subversion of the Catholic Church ever written. It is a base imitation of the strategies of the “21st Century Socialism.” Perhaps one can feel the hand of Arturo Sosa Jr. in it?
The concerns raised by the document are infinite. But I will focus just on some of the central ones.
- “Synodality” means, really, rejection of “representative democracy” but in order to adopt “a way of being Church that articulates communion, mission and participation” (see 1g). So, it is nothing else but the way towards what Hugo Chávez called the “protagonic democracy.” According to the Relatio, some oppose it because it seems to go contrary to the “hierarchical nature of the Church,” but really, “perplexity and opposition are born from the fear of losing the power and the privileges” that derive from the constant movement of the so-called “living Tradition” (ibidem).
- Of course, in this new “democracy” all the non-controlled institutions are disarticulated by the sheer dissolution of the authority that rules in them, but (and this “but” is the key point) the tyrannical power of the central authority is stressed more than ever. This is the reason why the document states:
[…] synodality and the primacy [of the Pope] are realities correlative, complementary and inseparable. The clarification of this delicate point is reflected on the way one understands the Petrine ministry at the service of unity (7h).
It is self-evident: the power of the “Dear Leader” must always grow so that he can “translate” the commands of “the spirit”!
- The dissolution of the structure of the Church is perceived especially in the paragraphs dedicated to the bishops. In paragraph 12b the Relatio states:
The Bishop in his Church has the main responsibility in the preaching of the Gospel and regarding the liturgy. He is the guide of the Christian community and he promotes the care for the poor and the defense of the weakest. As a visible principle of unity, he has particularly the power to discern and coordinate the diverse charisms and ministries roused by the Spirit for the heralding of the Gospel and the common good. Such ministry is realized in a synodal way when his rule is used sharing his responsibility with others, when his preaching pays attention to the faithful People of God, when the sanctification and liturgical celebration is nourished by humility and conversion.
Pay close attention to this text. There is no mention of the essence of the bishop. That disappears. When Leo XIII researched the Apostolic succession of the Anglicans (Apostolicae Curae), he concluded that they had lost it. Why? Because for a whole century they did not believe in the most important character of the episcopate, its very essence: the bishop is the High Priest of the Sacrifice of the New Law, and the minister who has the power to ordain other ministers of the Sacrifice. Well, it is clear that our new heretics, the brigands who are ruling the Church of Christ, do not believe either in any of this and, therefore, it seems that—were they to hold this position as stated—they could not ordain successor bishops, even as the Anglicans of the 16th and 17th centuries could not do either.
This becomes obvious in the total inability of these heretics to state in the Relatio synodalis that the jurisdiction in the Church has its root in the episcopate. This is why they can write that “women adequately formed may be judges in all canonical processes” (9r). In general, they have no idea (or pretend they have no idea) about the connection between the sacrament of order and the power of rulership or jurisdiction in the Church, including judicial authority.
