Synodal “Reform” of Eastern Churches: Modernist Assault on Sacred Tradition
Vatican News reports that the General Secretariat of the Synod has established a new Eastern Canonical Commission, tasked with revising the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) “in light of the synodal journey.” This commission, led by Cardinal Mario Grech and Monsignor Arrieta, aims to develop normative texts to implement “juridical proposals” from the 2021-2024 synodal process. The initiative is framed as fostering “interdicasterial cooperation” and responding to requests from the 24 sui iuris Churches, while maintaining a “close connection” with Study Group no. 1 on relations between Eastern and Latin Churches.
At its core, this commission represents not a legitimate renewal but a systematic subversion of Catholic canonical tradition under the banner of “synodality.” The very premise—that divine law must be updated according to a human “journey”—is a repudiation of the immutable nature of the Church’s constitution. The synodal process, as condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu, is the modern expression of the “false striving for novelty” that “abandons all restraint” and leads to “grievous errors” in sacred sciences (Proposition I). The article’s language drips with naturalistic humanism: the Church is presented as a “community” subject to “evolution,” its laws as “proposals” to be “developed” based on “contributions” from interested parties. This is the precise heresy of Modernism, which Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned in Proposition 54: “Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness.”
Subversion of Divine Law by Human “Journey”
The commission’s mandate is explicitly to give effect to the “juridical proposals advanced during the 2021-2024 synodal journey.” This places the ephemeral conclusions of a human assembly above the divinely established canonical order. Pius XI in Quas Primas defined the Kingdom of Christ as requiring that “all relations in the state be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments and Christian principles.” The synodal “journey,” however, orders relations on the basis of “listening,” “dialogue,” and “discernment” of the “sense of the faithful”—a direct inversion of hierarchical authority. The Syllabus, in Proposition 20, anathematizes the error that “the ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.” The synodal model applies this error internally: the “authority” of the Eastern Churches is made contingent on the “assent” of a global consultative process orchestrated from Rome.
The article notes the commission will work “in close connection with Study Group no. 1 on Certain Aspects of Relations Between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church.” This is a calculated move to erode the legitimate autonomy of the Eastern Churches, which the Syllabus defended against the error of “national churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff” (Proposition 37). Here, the “national” (or particular) character of the Eastern Churches is to be dissolved into a homogenized, synodally-managed global structure. The true Catholic principle, taught by Pius XI, is that the Church’s “mission… to teach, govern, and lead all to eternal happiness… cannot depend on anyone’s will.” The synodal commission makes it depend on the will of a committee.
The Silence of Apostasy: Absence of the Supernatural
A symptomatic reading of the article reveals a complete silence on the supernatural foundations of canon law. There is no mention of the salvation of souls as the primary end of law (salus animarum lex suprema est), no reference to the sacraments as the source of juridical grace, no invocation of the final judgment as the ultimate sanction. This omission is the gravest accusation: it exposes a naturalistic, Masonic mindset where law is a tool for human organization, not a participation in the eternal law of God. St. Pius X, in Lamentabili, condemned the proposition that “the principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the first Christians as they do for contemporary Christians” (Proposition 62). The synodal “reform” operates on exactly this principle: that canon law must evolve to mean something different today, conforming to the “spirit of the times” rather than to the immutable faith.
The article’s vocabulary is a lexicon of Modernism: “synodal journey,” “developing ideas,” “proposals,” “contributions,” “fostering cooperation.” This is the language of a think-tank, not a divinely instituted hierarchical society. The true Catholic terminology, as seen in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1), is that law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the legitimate pastor.” The synodal commission replaces “ordinance of reason” with “discernment of experiences,” and “legitimate pastor” with a “commission” of experts answerable to a synodal secretariat.
Canonical Illegitimacy of the Perpetrators
The individuals named—Cardinal Grech and Monsignor Arrieta—hold positions within the post-conciliar structures. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, which recognizes that a manifest heretic loses all jurisdiction ipso facto (St. Robert Bellarmine, as quoted in the Defense of Sedevacantism file), their authority is null. Bellarmine states unequivocally: “a manifest heretic cannot be Pope… a manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” Those who promote the synodal heresy—which denies the hierarchical, monarchical nature of the Church instituted by Christ—are manifest heretics. Their acts, including the establishment of this commission, are therefore nulla et invalida (null and void). Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code confirms: “Every office becomes vacant by the mere fact… if the cleric: 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” The public promotion of synodality, with its implicit rejection of papal primacy and sacramental integrity, constitutes such public defection.
The commission’s claim to work on the CCEO is particularly insidious. The Eastern Churches, in full communion with the See of Peter, possess their own legitimate canonical traditions. To subject them to a “synodal journey” that originates in the Latin Church’s post-conciliar revolution is a form of juridical imperialism, violating the very principle of autonomy it pretends to respect. Pius IX’s Syllabus condemns the notion that “the Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect” (Proposition 24) and that “the immunity of the Church… derived its origin from civil law” (Proposition 30). The synodal commission treats the Eastern Churches’ canonical immunity as a provisional concession to be revised by a global consultative body—a direct echo of these condemned errors.
Historical Parallel: The Gallicanism of Our Age
The synodal model is not new. It is the resurrection of Gallicanism, which the Syllabus destroyed. Proposition 35 declares it false that “the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, [can] transfer the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.” The synodal “journey” effectively transfers authority from the Pope (or the Roman Curia acting in his name) to a diffuse, ongoing assembly. Proposition 34 rejects the teaching that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The entire synodal enterprise is precisely such a reconciliation, seeking to “update” canon law to the “spirit of modern civilization” as expressed in secular concepts of participation and governance.
The article’s invocation of “interdicasterial cooperation” is a smokescreen. The true Catholic principle is the hierarchical unity of the Church under the Roman Pontiff, not a horizontal cooperation of dicasteries answerable to a synodal secretariat. Quas Primas teaches that Christ’s kingdom encompasses all men and all societies, and that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church.” The synodal commission, by subjecting Eastern canonical legislation to a globalized, non-hierarchical process, violates this freedom and subordinates the Pastors to the “sense of the faithful” as discerned by a committee.
Conclusion: A Call to Rejection and Resistance
This commission is not a development but a deformation. It is a concrete manifestation of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). The revision of the CCEO “in light of the synodal journey” is an attempt to pour new wine—the acid of Modernism—into old skins—the ancient canonical traditions of the East. As Pius XI warned in Quas Primas, when God and Jesus Christ are removed from laws and states, “the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The synodal commission removes Christ from canon law, replacing His sovereign authority with the idol of “journey” and “discernment.”
The only Catholic response is total rejection. The faithful must recognize that the structures occupying the Vatican since John XXIII have no authority to bind or loose. The true Church endures in those who hold the integral faith, led by bishops in communion with the pre-1958 Magisterium. Bellarmine’s principle applies: a manifest heretic, such as the authors of this synodal reform, “by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head… and may be judged and punished by the Church.” Until the hierarchy of the true Church—free from the conciliar apostasy—reasserts itself, all such “reforms” are null. The Eastern Churches must resist this encroachment, recalling that their canonical traditions are a sacred patrimony, not a laboratory for modernist experimentation. The ultimate fate of this commission is already decided: it is a work of the spirit of Antichrist, and it will fail, for “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:18) against the Church built on the rock of Peter’s faith, not on the shifting sands of synodal “discernment.”
Source:
Synod establishes new Commission dedicated to Eastern Churches (vaticannews.va)
Date: 20.02.2026