Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of a two-part essay. Please read Part 1 here first.
(LifeSiteNews) — Part I of the Synod report on priestly formation, titled “Ecclesiological-Pastoral Preamble,” speaks of the need to restructure and broaden seminary formation to include not only education in theological studies and helping men live a celibate life, but also to become effective workers in a “synodal church” which strives for “flourishing interpersonal relationships,” a church that will be “more participatory and missionary so that it can walk with every man and woman” (quoting FD no. 28).[1]
Ordained ministry must be “redefined” and be viewed as “in and from” the People of God; and priests must “open themselves to a synodal style” and foster interpersonal relationships by being “welcoming and listening to all” (cf. FD no. 72).[2] This necessitates that the “structure of priestly formation” be “recalibrate[ed] … according to this relational identity,” because “fraternity with the People of God and with every brother and sister cannot be suspended or remain marginal during the time of initial formation.” Continuing, it condescendingly asserts:
Overcoming the temptation to place the priest in isolation and in a sacra aura ‘ahead of’ and ‘above’ the People of God, we must therefore realign the priestly ministry, precisely because of its special sacramental configuration to Christ the Head, Servant and Shepherd, at the feet of the brothers and sisters of the People of God.[3]
To this proposed “recalibration” of priestly formation I respond with a resounding “No!” Led by the Holy Spirit, the Church since the Council of Trent has seen great value in seminary training, where not only the minds of men are formed in the sacred science of theology (and its handmaid, philosophy), but their characters are formed by dedicated, orthodox priestly faculty to help them become other Christs – following the example of Jesus Himself who called His Apostles and disciples to separate themselves from their homes and families in order to be formed by Him for their priestly ministry: the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the salvation of souls (cf. Mt 10:5-15) – something, curiously, that is never mentioned in the report.
In these above-quoted words we also see an attack on the sublime dignity of the priesthood, and the love, respect, high honor and esteem generally accorded to priests by the faithful whom they serve – something very beautiful, and no doubt pleasing to Jesus, the Eternal High Priest, but obviously distasteful to the promoters of the “synodal church.”
The folks in the pews generally love and appreciate their priests because they recognize the sacrifices they make in serving them. But from the tone of these words, one can detect an envy for the esteem in which priests are held, and a desire to have them regarded as just another one of the faithful; nay, even to place priests “at the feet of” and subservient to the “People of God.” Those who penned these lines erroneously view priestly authority as merely an exercise of power rather than loving service.
Moreover, those who prepared this report appear to think that men who enter the seminary grow up in cocoons, in “isolation” from others, when in fact they have been raised in families and have experienced the dynamics – and “relationships” – not only entailed in family life (parents and siblings), but also in neighborhoods and in schools, all of which necessitates having to learn to relate with others: friends, acquaintances, difficult personalities – not to mention the dynamic of living with scores men in formation!
Synodal newspeak: ‘Differentiated co-responsibility’
The report goes on to speak of how the priest during Mass must “relate” to people, and says that
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’ (FD no. 26).
Note that here Holy Mass is defined only in terms of where people “gather and meet” and in which “differentiated co-responsibility of all for mission” (more synodal newspeak) is realized. There is no mention of its primary purpose: the worship and adoration of God; nor of the faithful participating in the re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary; nor of the priest in offering the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood acting in persona Christi.
Moreover, no mention is made of the desperate need for priests to preach the fullness of the truth and lead people into a deeper relationship with Jesus; no word about the culture war in which the Church is engaged and the attacks being waged by the forces of hell against the Bride of Christ and against the family, the first and primary society and fundamental cell of society at large.
Instead, we see concern about the laity being given a share in priestly authority – what the Final Document calls “differentiated co-responsibility in decision-making processes” and “ecclesial discernment” – the need in decision-making for “everyone to be heard” (cf. FD no. 82) and “as great participation of all the People of God as possible in decision-making processes” (FD no. 87) in “an atmosphere of openness to the Spirit and mutual trust in search of a consensus that could, possibly, be unanimous.” (FD no. 90)[4]
“Decision-making processes” in which “everyone is heard”? Unanimous consent? Are they kidding?
Other insidious ‘formation’ tactics
The last section of Part I of the report, which treats “shared and integral formation,” states that “a renewal and deepening of the formation of ordained ministers … that correspond to the image of a synodal missionary Church” requires, in addition to seminary formation, “other formative ‘places/times’ … for education in mission and synodality” so that the seminary “is not the sole place of formation.” The report then asserts: “This will avoid the condition of separation where irresponsibility, dissimulation and clerical infantilism are more easily bred”[5] – shamefully implying that formation of men in the seminary itself fosters disordered personalities among priests. In fact, the words in these lines fittingly describe the disordered behavior of men with inherently disordered attractions to other males (adults and teenagers).
Part I of the report concludes by stressing that the formation of future priests “in a synodal style” requires “in particular”:[6]
1) “a significant presence of female figures.” Again, why? To attempt to feminize priests and to undermine authentic masculinity lived in a Christ-like fashion – something that both radical feminists and those in the lavender mafia in particular vehemently detest?
2) “education in how to collaborate with everyone in the Church.” In other words, the priest’s primary duty is not to proclaim the fullness of the truth of the Gospel message (which everyone does not necessarily welcome), but to be “nice,” “relational,” to “get along with” and “be liked” by everyone.
3) “integration into the daily life of communities” – which will allow less time for theological study, prayer, and growth in the spiritual life. Practically speaking, men in priestly studies already have very little free time between their studies, prayer, and personal formation. To think that they can spend time with families, with “every brother and sister” among the laity, as the report recommends, is not only unrealistic; it’s ludicrous.
4) “the presence of the ecumenical dimension in all aspects of the formation programs.” Those who composed this report fail to see that ecumenism is, for all practical purposes, a failed attempt to bring together believers in Christ. What common ground have faithful Catholics with those in Protestant denominations who have rejected the moral law and embrace abortion, contraception, homosexual sodomy and same-sex “marriage”?
Part II of the report, titled “Guidelines (Operational Pathways),” repeats and elaborates the themes discussed in Part I. For example, it states: “The Synodal Path has called for the formation of future priests to be … carried out within the horizon of the formation of all the baptized (cf. FD no. 147),” i.e., “with lay people, consecrated persons, and ordained ministers from the propaedeutic [initial] stage onwards, so as to foster self-knowledge in relationship with others and an attitude of fraternal collaboration with all.”[7]
In addition to formation taking place within the seminary, it recommends “other modules that entail residence in parish communities and other ecclesial environments.” It urges that seminarians cultivate “a communal and synodal spirituality”[8] (whatever that means), and that from the beginning stage seminarians “study the Final Document of the Synod and lay the foundations for learning the skills that are indispensable for a missionary synodal Church, such as listening, dialogue, communal discernment”[9] – i.e., “synodal” groupthink and practice.
The report emphasizes: “It is essential” that formation of seminarians be a community effort, that the formation team and the formation process draw upon “the contribution of all the members of the People of God: priests, consecrated persons, lay people (men and women), and families.” It goes on to say: “In particular, it is necessary … to include well-prepared and competent women … at all levels of formation, also within the formation team.”[10]
It’s all about power and control
In sum, the “recalibration” or reconfiguration of seminary formation to require lay “participation” is all about the exercise of power and control. Among those likely to be involved in the “formation” of seminarians are man-hating radical feminists who yearn to be priestesses, married contracepting couples with 1.2 children, and active homosexuals (maybe even same-sex couples?) who prefer their own kind – all representing a “diversity” of the laity, who will ensure that good, orthodox men committed to the deposit of faith will not be permitted to either enter into or continue in formation, and will never be recommended for ordination to the priesthood, because they refuse to “walk with” and “listen to” dissenters like themselves – prima facie proof that these men are not “open to a synodal style.”
The report lends itself to this interpretation when it reiterates:
According to the principle of differentiated co-responsibility (cf. FD nos. 87-94), responsibility for the formation of future priests cannot remain limited to the Bishop and those directly given the task of formation, but requires the contribution of the entire People of God. It is therefore necessary:
– to involve the whole People of God – priests, consecrated persons and lay people – in the care and discernment of vocations…
– that periodic evaluations of the candidates’ progress be conducted not only by their formators but also by those who observe their behavior in the seminary, in the parish, etc.
– that the People of God be truly listened to in view of the conferral of Holy Orders, consulting in particular the parish priest of the candidate’s parish of origin, those with whom the candidate has carried out pastoral service, as well as the members of the educational community, giving due importance also to the views and assessments of women.
Thus, members of the laity who represent a “diversity” of perspectives will be “empowered” to blackball good men, even (apparently) over the objection of the local bishop. Recall that the report by Study Group 4 early on stresses: “This document … has been given magisterial value by Pope Francis” (in truth, a false contra-magisterium).
So welcome to the new process of formation for men who discern a call to the priesthood in the synodal church! Their own discernment, as well as the judgment of the bishop of the diocese, will be subject to the “discernment” of the “people of God” – a “synodal process” that will likely turn away men who are truly zealous for the Catholic Faith from pursuing a call to follow Christ into His priesthood.
It seems that those from “Study Group 4” who collaborated on this report are blind to how the faithful, especially young Catholics – and in particular young men who are now in seminary training – are attracted to orthodoxy and are drawn to the beauty of more traditional liturgies. They are thirsting for the truth – found only in its fullness, in the Catholic Church, and in which alone is found the entire deposit of faith. Moreover, these young, faith-filled Catholics and those entering seminary formation are not attracted to the “synodal path” with all its empty talk of “walking together,” “listening to and dialoguing with one another,” and its push for democratizing the Church and championing the sodomite agenda.
It seems more likely that those pushing the synodal path are keenly aware of these facts, and that the hand-picked members of Study Group 4 – among whom is pro-homosexualist Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich – have written their report with the specific intention of gaining control of seminary formation in order to guarantee that young, solidly orthodox men who are likely to oppose the evils associated with the synodal agenda will never be ordained to the priesthood, and to make sure that the only men who will be permitted to continue through seminary formation and ultimately be approved for priestly ordination – which includes future bishops of the Church – are those who are fully committed to the evil agenda of the synodal church and its nefarious “process.”
The report of Study Group 4 is, in effect, the instruction manual to carry out these plans.
And here they are playing the proverbial long game. Once they have a sufficient number bishops and priests in place who are committed to the synodal agenda, they will proceed with their insidious plot to invert the hierarchical and sacramental structure of the Church, and to overturn and subvert the entire moral order as established and revealed by God, taught by the Bible and the Church, and made known by the natural law – so as even to permit, and celebrate, the active practice of homosexual sodomy and to normalize the entire homosexualist agenda. Thus, in their minds, they will pave the way for their goal of creating a democratized church to accommodate the godless New World Order, with a faux morality based on subjective conscience so as to permit any and every sexual perversion. The report of Study Group 9 supports such a view, for it reveals the arrogant boldness of those promoting the synodal process, and in particular the homosexualist agenda.
Who would have thought, who could have imagined twenty, even ten, years ago that cardinals of the Church (e.g., Robert McElroy, Reinhard Marx, Jean-Claude Hollerich) as well as bishops (like the majority in Germany) would publicly voice their support for the gay agenda and call for a “re-evaluation” of the Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts? And that a report coming from the Vatican would suggest that acts of homosexual sodomy be regarded as morally equivalent to the marital act, even though the latter is naturally ordered toward the awe-inspiring procreation of human life while the former is unnatural, lifeless, and thus intrinsically disordered?
Where and to whom will good men turn?
Given the sad state of the Church and the plans announced by those pushing the synodal agenda, the question arises: Where and to whom will good, holy men, faithful to the authentic and perennial Magisterium turn, who believe they are called to the priesthood? If the synodal process over seminary formation as outlined in the report of Study Group 4 ever becomes fully implemented (we must pray that the Holy Spirit intervene to prevent such a catastrophe), the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) may one day be the only safe refuge.
How so? Some reject the argument that the ordination of bishops by the SSPX planned for July 1 of this year is needed to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), saying that other groups, like the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), would assure its survival.[11] But it would be naïve to think that these other traditional priestly groups would be free from Vatican control over seminarian formation, as outlined in the Study Group 4 report. Recall, once again: This report emphasizes that its instructions for seminary formation have “magisterial value.”
And let’s be honest. We all know that many in the Church hierarchy have an intense dislike, even virulent hatred for the TLM, and want to eliminate it as an option for the celebration of Mass. All the synodal talk about “journeying together” and “listening” does not apply toward those who love the traditional liturgy.
This leads us to the consider the threatened excommunication announced on May 13 of this year by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, should the Society go through with its plans to ordain four new bishops on July 1 without the pontifical mandate. A close priest friend of mine, aware of the grave problems under the papacies of both Francis and Leo, and the evil agendas being plotted by those promoting the synodal church, suggested that they ordain five or ten bishops. I responded that it would be better if they ordain 40 or 50!
My reasons. First of all, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider asserts,[12] with their upcoming consecrations the SSPX bishops have no intention of separating the Society from the Church, and from the earthly head of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Successor to Peter. Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, insists that “the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision,” and “the Society is not primarily seeking its own survival. It primarily seeks the good of the Universal Church.”[13]
Second, never has the Church faced such dire circumstances as it does today. In the past bishops have fallen into heresy, e.g., those who followed the teachings of Arius and denied that Jesus was the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and they were rightly condemned for their errors. But never in the past have popes along with bishops led the faithful into error, or permitted the faithful to fall into it, resulting in widespread confusion and distress.
Let us focus on one issue, the central moral issue, in my opinion: the push to normalize or win acceptance for homosexual sodomy. In our time, scores of prominent cardinals, bishops and priests, as well as successive popes (Francis, now Leo), have furthered the homosexualist agenda by their words and actions, causing deep confusion and grave scandal among the faithful, and leading many into error. At the same time they are seriously undermining the institutions of marriage and the family, as well as the Church itself and its perennial teaching on this issue.[14]
Just consider the following examples:
1) The promulgation by Pope Francis, and subsequent support by Pope Leo, of Amoris Laetitia (AL) which places subjective conscience over the objective moral law, and Fiducia Supplicans, which permits blessings of same-sex “couples” – and by implication, their acts of sodomy. In fact, on March 19, 2026, Leo announced that in October 2026 he will convene the presidents of the episcopal conferences from around the world “in an effort to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Laetitia.”[15] This gathering of “mutual listening” and “synodal discernment” will proceed even though the dubia (questions) submitted by five cardinals back in 2016 expressing their grave concerns over AL have never been answered in their substance, either by Pope Francis or by Pope Leo.[16]
2) The statement by Pope Leo in response to a question about “the Church’s approach to the LGBTQ+ community,” in which he said (in neo-modernist mode), “I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question”[17] – thus leaving open the possibility of a change in the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts, marriage, etc.
3) Scores of churchmen – cardinals, bishops and priests – are on record promoting the heresy of changing the Church’s teaching to allow for the active practice of homosexual sodomy.[18]
4) Pope Leo permitted the promulgation of the synodal report of Study Group 4 which outlines (in synodal fashion) lay involvement in and control of seminary formation, and the report of Study Group 9, which suggests that homosexual sodomy should be placed on equal moral ground with the marital act between husbands and wives, and that those who engage in the former depraved acts should be allowed to adopt children.
The foregoing are, in essence, frontal attacks on marriage and the family and therefore constitute direct attacks on the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, and its infallible moral teachings.
If this ominous state of affairs in the Church, this ongoing crisis, does not constitute an emergency, what, pray tell, would? Can anyone imagine a worse scenario? I surely can’t. God rained down fire and brimstone on the pagans for engaging in sodomy. Yet for years now princes and prelates of the Church have been insisting, with arrogant impunity, that the Church should change its teaching so as to permit this sin that cries to heaven – and in doing so are leading souls down the “path of the wicked” (Prov 4:14), to hell.
Sadly, shockingly, there is nothing but silence from Pope Leo, who continues – full steam ahead – with the implementation of the Synod’s Final Document.
It is sheer hypocrisy to threaten the SSPX bishops with excommunication and yet ignore these ongoing insidious attacks on marriage, the family and the Church’s moral doctrine. And yet Cardinal Fernández – no doubt on orders from his superior – has the audacity to threaten the Society’s bishops with this canonical penalty when sodomy-promoting prelates are permitted to continue to freely spew forth their malevolent heresy with no repercussions (ah, but have themselves already incurred the penalty of excommunication).[19] And (lest we forget), the chief priest-promoter of homosexualist agenda, Fr. James Martin, was rewarded for his efforts with a private audience with the pope, followed by a photo-op to use to promote his sordid apostolate.[20]
How long will Our Lord permit this hypocritical farce to continue?
And why do only a few courageous bishops speak up? I suppose because the vast majority have been schooled in episcopal etiquette, which dictates, “Let’s be nice to one another, and just get along.”
If Jesus whipped the money changers for merely buying and selling in the Temple and turning His Father’s house into a marketplace, what would He do, if He were here today, to professors of pontifical academies who corrupt the minds of students, like pro-homosexualist theologian Fr. Maurizio Chiodi (believed to have penned the report of Study Group 9), who argues in favor of contraception and sodomy,[21] and charlatans who pretend to be successors to the Apostles but who defend the “morality” of sodomy and are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, leading souls down the pathway to perdition? I believe Our Lord would horsewhip these excommunicated heretic prelates and run them out of the Church on a rail. Or better yet, He would turn them over to His Mother, Mary, in order that she crush their proud heads under the heel of her immaculate foot (cf. Gen 3:15; 3 [1] Kings 18:44).[22]
Conclusion
A final question to ponder, as we come to the end of this essay: Will the implementation the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality be one of the means to pave the way for the man of sin, the lawless one (cf. 2 Thess 2:3), the Antichrist (1 John 2:18-23), and his entrance onto the world stage? I ask this because it appears that with our last two popes, Francis and now Leo, the “restrainer” (katechon in the original Greek), the one whom St. Paul describes as holding back the arrival of the man of perdition, has for all practical purposes been rendered useless and ineffective,[23] given that both of these popes have not defended the Catholic Faith from recent attacks; nay, they have even permitted the propagation of heresy under the auspices of Vatican authority – the latest examples being the publication of the final reports from Study Groups 4 and 9 (the topic of this article) which, once again, we are told, were given “magisterial value” by Pope Francis.
I have heard some try to defend Pope Leo, saying that he is weak, that he is a new pope and we must give him time. As faithful Catholics who were taught to support the pope, and to love, respect and obey the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ and earthly head of the Church, we hesitate, even tremble, to acknowledge the sad truth that is looking us in the face: Pope Leo is all on board with the so-called “synodal process” and all that it entails as set forth in the Synod on Synodality’s Final Document and in the reports from the Synod’s various study groups.
As faithful disciples of Christ, we cannot, we must not be silent in the face of attacks on Holy Mother Church, of attempts to invert her hierarchical structure and to corrupt her moral doctrine. This is precisely why I wrote The Trojan Horse, and two follow-up essays (this being the second). We must make people aware of the insidious plans of those promoting the “synodal process” and of their attempt to replace the true Church of Christ with the faux “synodal church” that is beholden to the godless, secular New World Order.
Also, we must not allow our faith to be shaken in the least, knowing that God is in control and that He is permitting these events for a purpose, as part of His divine Providence. The Catechism reminds us:
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. (CCC 675)
The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only By God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. (CCC 677)
Let us pray for Pope Leo XIV, that he have recourse to Jesus for strength and support, knowing that Our Lord solemnly promised Peter, “I have prayed that your faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32).
Let us pray for our bishops, that the Holy Spirit strengthen them to stand up, boldly, in defense of Holy Mother Church, her hierarchical structure as instituted by Jesus and her infallible teachings on faith and morals; and to challenge, denounce and condemn the subtle heresies and false teachings associated with synodality and the entire synodal process.[24]
Finally, let us turn to Our Lady, and entrust ourselves to her Immaculate Heart, knowing that she promised at Fatima: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”