This past week on social media, some of my colleagues here at Integrity Magazine were on the receiving end of criticism for arguing that the Synodal/Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
As has become par for the course, the term “sedevacantist” was thrown around liberally, much like how “antisemitism” is weaponized in the political world. Some seem to think it is the worst insult one can possibly make. It is worth reflecting on the arguments of those who have been using this label.
The Dispatch
In decades past, those who attended “conservative” Novus Ordo parishes and/or Ecclesia Dei and/or diocesan Latin Masses have argued, more or less, that concerns some Traditionalists have with the post-conciliar revolution are erroneous, exaggerated, emotional, or even schismatic. They assure us that the institution presently occupying the Vatican possesses the four marks of the Catholic Church, albeit with some “non-infallible” and “ambiguous” aspects needing to be clarified and corrected.
We are also told that Vatican II changed nothing essential, that the doctrines and dogmas of the faith have been left untouched, and that laity have not been “bound” to follow its “reforms.” We must therefore “remain in the Church.”
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is entirely correct.
Recent examples of the Vatican II religion
Earlier this week, the General Secretariat of the Synod announced that the Vatican is accelerating the implementation of the synodal process and that there will be a larger “Ecclesial Assembly” held in 2028.
With this announcement, Rome is declaring that synodality is not a temporary experiment but the permanent governing principle of the new ecclesial order. This would mean that the Church that once proclaimed eternal truths through councils, catechisms, and condemnations now proposes perpetual dialogue, perpetual listening, and perpetual “process.”
Naturally, mainstream influencers will argue that developments like this are organic and that they can help improve the hierarchy’s governance. Some who are of the more “traditional” outlook will likely sense the danger here.
Synodality, of course, must be condemned. But since when has the true Church presented herself as an endless consultative institution? Where do we find in Church history saints speaking of “walking together” as a “Pilgrim Church” as being the defining mark of Catholic identity? The pre-conciliar Church was a divine monarchy under Christ the King, whereas the church our critics say is the Catholic Church is nothing but an ecclesiastical parliament stuck in permanent open session.
On May 18, the head of the non-Catholic Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicos Aram I, reportedly said that Leo discussed with him the possibility of convoking a Third Vatican Council.
In a previous age, “separated Christians” would renounce their errors and professed the Catholic Faith whole and entire. Today, non-Catholics like Aram are openly discussing the future of Catholic councils with Rome itself.
This also occurred at Vatican II when Protestant “observers” met with, and influenced, high-ranking clergy, including Paul VI. Yet we are to believe this does not reflect an entirely new ecclesiology?
A new liturgy for a new faith
Unfortunately, many who attend the Latin Mass use terms invented by the Vatican II revolutionaries. In the 1980s, John Paul II spoke about Catholics who were “attached” to “some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms.” Benedict XVI would later come up with the term “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass.
But as Leo explicitly stated this past week, the Council Fathers sought not only to reform ceremonies but also to reshape the Church’s understanding of liturgy itself.
This admission is crucial because Traditionalists like us have long argued precisely this point: Vatican II ushered in not a mere change of language or ritual style, but a new religion. As the adage goes: Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Whereas the old Mass emphasizes sacrifice, transcendence, silence, the true understanding of the priesthood, propitiation, and the radical distinction between the sacred and the profane, the new liturgy — as officially implemented by the conciliar hierarchy for decades — emphasizes assembly, participation, dialogue, and communal experience. It strains credulity to say this is the product of true Catholic Church.
Yet more examples of the Conciliar religion
During a vigil against “homotransphobia,” Italian Bishop Vincenzo Viva recently called for the “full integration” of “LGBT” Catholics into the Church. Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco of Algeria rebuked traditional teaching on homosexuality in the preface to a heterodox book on the subject. Elsewhere, the dreaded Synodal Group 9 Report gathered testimony from figures closely associated with pro-LGBT Jesuit James Martin and the broader movement seeking the normalization of homosexual relationships within ecclesial life.
Are we to believe these men are true princes of the Church Christ established? Where is their intention to uphold the Catholic faith of all time? Where are the marks of holiness in this institution? The contradictions are impossible to ignore.
But wait, there is more. A Catholic university in the US recently allowed a lesbian Protestant pastor to teach “queer theology.” Further, Maltese priests have reportedly faced pressure not to criticize Islam publicly. Here again the contrast with historical Catholicism is stark. The Church once sent missionaries across the world prepared to suffer martyrdom preaching Christ as the sole Savior of mankind. Today, clergy are discouraged from criticizing false religions lest interreligious sensitivities be disturbed. Where is the note of Catholicity here?
Conclusion
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the inversion of priorities within the post-conciliar Church than the treatment of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Traditional priests who cling to the ancient Mass and catechism are threatened with declarations of schism and ecclesiastical penalties, while bishops and theologians openly undermining Catholic moral teaching continue operating comfortably within official structures. The explicit message being sent is that heterodoxy is orthodoxy.
A French canonist and former member of the SSPX, Fr. Albert Jacquemin, recently warned about the trajectory of the SSPX while Vatican officials have threatened severe consequences over the upcoming episcopal consecrations. Yet at the very same moment, German synodal radicals continue agitating for doctrinal and moral transformations fundamentally incompatible with prior Catholic teaching. Are we to seriously believe these German heretics are a part of the Catholic Church?
If the institution now promoting these novelties is simply a continuation of the pre-conciliar Catholic Church, then influencers must explain how the Church moved from condemning religious indifferentism to hosting inter-religious spectacles, from defending Thomistic clarity to celebrating ambiguity, from guarding moral absolutes to endlessly revisiting settled questions.
Traditional Catholics did not invent these events; they are publicly reported facts unfolding week after week. Synodality expands, ecumenism deepens, the liturgical revolution is celebrated, and LGBT language permeates ecclesial discourse in a hybrid religion many want us to believe emanates from the Bride of Christ. At best, this is the Whore of Babylon: an entity where reverence is hated, so-called Catholic institutions platform heresy, and priests are cautioned against criticizing false religions.
So let us indeed assume that this is the Catholic Church. If true, Catholics must admit that what now passes under the name “Catholicism” bears astonishingly little resemblance to the faith believed by the saints, defended by the martyrs, codified by the Council of Trent, and proclaimed by the great popes of the past. This is the dilemma it seems that many cannot escape, but which drives them to offer sarcasm, indirect insults, and worn-out arguments. If there is continuity here, it is our critics who must demonstrate it.
Of course, there is not continuity. Nothing but a new diabolical humanistic religion eager for the approval of the modern world, in full-blown apostasy, and hating the certainties that once defined Catholic civilization exists. If this truly is the Catholic Church, as they say, then Catholics are entitled to ask what exactly became of the old one?
