By the time Bishop Graber published his book in 1974, he already saw signs that this Freemasonic prediction about the rise of local churches was being fulfilled:
“Are the local Churches not coming into being or already fully active when at synods they submit to the majority in democratic voting and thus to what is often an arbitrary number rather than the truth? . . . So, the Pope does not have the scaffolding awaiting him. How humane our age has become! It is merely the local Churches that are awaiting him, he just has to resign himself to them.” (p. 72)
This is almost a perfect description of Francis’s Synod on Synodality, with the exception of the painful reality that Francis is not merely resigned to the annihilation of the papacy — he has been doing everything in his power to absolutely bury the papacy. Indeed, most of us are so eager to see the cessation of Francis’s occupation of the papacy that the realization of the Freemasonic dream may not sound like a crushing blow to Catholicism in comparison to the prospect of Francis (or an even worse successor) retaining power in the Church.
The June 20, 2023 release of the Synod on Synodality’s Instrumentum Laboris further advances the Freemasonic dream of annihilating the papacy through the rise of “Local Churches.”
By now, most faithful Catholics have learned to effectively ignore the Synod on Synodality, but it is worth taking note of the way in which the June 20, 2023 release of the Synod on Synodality’s Instrumentum Laboris further advances the Freemasonic dream of annihilating the papacy through the rise of “Local Churches.”
To begin with, the Instrumentum Laboris confirms that the Local Churches have already played a dominant role in the Synodal process:
“The People of God have been on the move since Pope Francis convened the whole Church in Synod in October 2021. Beginning at their most vital and elementary level, the local Churches across the globe have initiated the consultation of the People of God . . . ” (Paragraph 1)
This “consultation of the People of God” has been even more disastrous than the Freemasons envisioned because it involves non-Catholics. Indeed, it seems very likely that there are far more people who reject the dogmas of the Church participating in the Synod than there are actual faithful Catholics.
From the perspective of non-Catholics (Freemasons or otherwise) seeking to subvert the Church, the real benefit of the Synodal framework is the ability to “listen” to those who dissent from Catholic teaching; and the Local Churches play a vital role in facilitating this:
“In the local Churches, conversation in the Spirit has been accepted and sometimes ‘discovered’ as providing the atmosphere that makes possible the sharing of life experiences and the space for discernment in a synodal Church. In the Final Documents of the Continental Assemblies, it is described as a Pentecostal moment, as an opportunity to experience being Church [sic] and to move from listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ to listening to the Spirit, who is the authentic protagonist, and being sent forth in mission by Him.” (Paragraph 34)
In the world of organized crime, “money-laundering” involves disguising the proceeds of illegal activities by running the ill-gotten funds through seemingly legitimate business enterprises. The Synodal process involves something similar: the Church’s enemies take heresies and run them through the listening sessions of the Local Churches. The Church’s enemies can then parade their heresies as being endorsed by “the spirit,” though it is evident to those with eyes to see that it is not the Holy Spirit. The Synod on Synodality is a massive “heresy laundering” operation.
There is something almost comical about this notion that Synod leaders would place “the growing cultural pluralism that now marks the entire planet” in the category of “urgent social realities.” After all, they literally champion all diversity that does not involve actual Catholicism.
What do the Church’s enemies attempt to hear from the Local Churches in these listening sessions? As we learn from the Instrumentum Laboris, they listen to discover the “urgent social realities”:
“The local Churches have spoken of their concern to be equipped to address urgent social realities, from the growing cultural pluralism that now marks the entire planet, to the experience of Christian communities that represent scattered minorities within the country in which they live, to the experience of coming to terms with an ever more advanced, and at times aggressive, secularisation that seems to consider religious experience irrelevant, but where there remains a thirst for the Good News of the Gospel.” (Paragraph 4)
There is something almost comical about this notion that Synod leaders would place “the growing cultural pluralism that now marks the entire planet” in the category of “urgent social realities.” After all, they literally champion all diversity that does not involve actual Catholicism, as the Instrumentum Laboris makes clear:
“Thus, we were able to touch with our own hands the catholicity of the Church, which, in the variety of ages, sexes and social conditions, manifests an extraordinary wealth of charisms and ecclesial vocations, and is the custodian of a treasure trove of differences in languages, cultures, liturgical expressions and theological traditions. In effect, this rich diversity is the gift of each local Church to all the others (cf. LG 13), and the synodal dynamic is a way to appreciate and enhance this rich diversity without flattening it into uniformity.” (Paragraph 6)
Again, all of this seems to go well beyond the wildest dreams of the Freemasons. As Bishop Graber noted (above) the entire synodal process is aimed at replacing objective truth with the whims of democratic majorities — but even the most determined pessimists surely would have imagined that the democratic process would have been limited to those who actually wanted to follow Church teaching, however tenuously. Strikingly, though, the desire to follow Church teaching — which Francis would deride as rigid uniformity — is the surest way to be excluded from the Synod’s democratic process.
The desire to follow Church teaching is the surest way to be excluded from the Synod’s democratic process. We now see that the Synod is the attempt to fulfill Lucifer’s plans — and it has almost succeeded.
Beyond all of this, the Instrumentum Laboris gives us direct hints at the way in which the papacy will be annihilated. For example, we have the evolving relationship of the Local Churches with Rome:
“The first phase enables us to understand the importance of taking the local Church as a privileged point of reference, as the theological place where the Baptised experience in practical terms ‘walking together.’ However, this does not lead to a retreat. No local Church can live outside the relationships that unite it with all others, including that particular relationship with the Church of Rome, which is entrusted with the service of unity through the ministry of its Pastor, who has summoned the whole Church in Synod.” (Paragraph 11)
Here, the pope is simply called the Pastor of the Church of Rome, which is perhaps fitting given the fact that this passage explicitly refers to “the Baptized” (rather than Catholics), most of whom openly reject the papacy. Nonetheless, the Local Churches must maintain “a relationship” with the Church of Rome and its Pastor!
Elsewhere in the Instrumentum Laboris, we find questions for future consideration:
“To what extent might the convergence of several groups of local Churches (Particular Councils, Episcopal Conferences, etc.) on the same issue commit the Bishop of Rome to address it at the level of the universal Church?”
“How is the service of unity entrusted to the Bishop of Rome to be exercised when local institutions may adopt different approaches? What room is there for a variety of approaches between different regions?”
“How should the role of the Bishop of Rome and the exercise of his primacy evolve in a synodal Church?”
Bishop Graber summed all of this up as well as possible in 1974:
“But at the end of the development the Pope is superfluous since the local Churches ‘live in complete autonomy of Rome.’ So there is a scaffold after all — in the form of annihilation. We are grateful for this frankness. We now know what we are up against. Lucifer’s plan is laid out clearly and openly before us.” (p. 72)
Yes, we now see that the Synod is the attempt to fulfill Lucifer’s plans — and it has almost succeeded. If nothing else, this should awaken bishops to the need to raise their voices in opposition, like Bishop Graber, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and St. Athanasius before them. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Releated from RTV — Pride Month & the Vatican’s World Meeting on Human Fraternity