Synodality’s Apostasy: A Bishop’s Feeble Critique Within Conciliar Collapse
The EWTN News portal (January 26, 2026) reports on Bishop José Ignacio Munilla’s critique of Marianist theologian Eduardo Arens’ errors regarding synodality. While Munilla correctly identifies Arens’ denial of eschatology and redemptive sacrifice as heresies, his defense of “synodality” remains imprisoned within the conciliar revolution’s ruinous framework. Neither figure acknowledges that the very concept of synodality constitutes a radical rupture with the Church’s divine constitution defined by Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and the Anti-Modernist Oath.
Factual Deconstruction: The Trojan Horse of Collegiality
Munilla’s claim that synodality represents “learning to walk together… forming the symphony of the mystical body” directly contradicts Pope Pius VI’s condemnation in Auctorem Fidei (1794) of the Jansenist synodal experiments. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 218) reserves doctrinal authority solely to the Roman Pontiff, rendering all “
so-called synodal assemblies
” (as Munilla inadvertently admits) canonically illegitimate. The bishop’s lament that these assemblies revive “old errors” ignores that Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (n.22) planted this poison tree by inventing the heresy of episcopal collegiality.
Theological Bankruptcy: Apostolicity Versus Revolutionary Praxis
When Munilla defines apostolicity as the mark identifying Christ’s Church, he omits Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis (1943) requirement of visible communion with the See of Peter – impossible under the antipopes since 1958. His criticism of Arens’ “
orthopraxis over orthodoxy
” fails to recognize this dichotomy stems from Paul VI’s 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (n.29), which prioritized “testimony of life” over doctrinal precision. The Spanish prelate’s supposed defense of hell’s reality rings hollow when his own conference permits Communion for public adulterers – a direct violation of Pius X’s Sacra Tridentina Synodus (1905).
Symptomatic Silence: The Unspoken Vatican II Foundation
Nowhere does Munilla confront the root cause: Arens’ errors flow logically from Vatican II’s Dei Verbum (n.8), which permits doctrinal “progress” condemned by Pius X as “the evolution of dogma” (Lamentabili, prop. 21, 64). The bishop’s outrage at Arens’ denial of Christ’s sacrifice ignores that the Novus Ordo Missae itself obscures the propitiatory sacrifice through its invalid English translation of “pro multis” and elimination of the Offertory prayers. As the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (Canon 1258) forbids any liturgical innovation, Munilla’s participation in the synodal process implicates him in sacrilege.
Eschatological Amnesia: The Missing Judge
Most damning is Munilla’s omission of the Dies Irae dimension in discussing salvation. While citing Gospel passages on damnation, he never references Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925) teaching that “Christ reigns in the wills of men” through obedience to His eternal laws. The bishop’s critique focuses on Arens’ horizontalism without confessing that the synodal process itself constitutes a practical denial of Christ the King’s social reign – a dogma solemnly defined by Pius XI and violated by the conciliar church’s embrace of religious liberty (contra Pius IX’s Syllabus, Error 15).
Conclusion: Complicit in Apostasy
Munilla’s critique remains fatally compromised by accepting the conciliar paradigm. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice (II.30), manifest heretics lose office automatically – a principle applying equally to Arens and the antipopes promoting synodality. Until bishops like Munilla recognize the Vatican II apostasy and return to the immutable Faith, their critiques amount to rearranging deck chairs on the conciliar Titanic as it steams toward modernist oblivion.
Source:
Spanish bishop warns of risks of misinterpreting synodality (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 26.01.2026